Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

First item on the agenda is approval of meeting minutes for April 6th and May 28th. I gave you a copy of those. If you could review them, give me, and then give me a motion for approval.

I'll make a motion to accept both days' minutes.

Do I have a second? Tina seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The minutes pass. Thank you. Discussion possible action on item to be considered for the 2027 meet and confer agreement is the next item on the agenda. I received the information on the physical fitness, Jeff, from you yesterday. So we'd like to request a caucus so we can review that. I know there's some things that we need to look at as well.

Yeah. I'm sorry for the delay. It was like the night before at like 445. So I'm sorry about that.

No worries. Are y'all good with the caucus? Yes, we are. Okay, then we'll go ahead and caucus at 9.04.

Thank you.

Yes. Okay, so we'll call the meeting back to order at 10.09. In terms of the physical fitness program and what was sent over, in theory, we're good with Really, a lot of that information, obviously, it would be a little bit different as far as what we currently offer and maybe what we develop that ties directly to PD fitness. So right now, our... We provide an annual wellness screening that includes a blood draw. So we'd like the opportunity to discuss how that ties into potentially this program and maybe some of the provisions for a I believe that the Abilene one has a counseling session built in. So see how that ties into the current EAP and the current provider that PD has available to them for those purposes. The thing that is still for our team, I guess an issue is the fact that it's voluntary. So what would something like this look like as far as the details of the program if you were all to consider a mandatory program? We're even fine with the wording that indicates that no discipline, no, there's some other wording in there.

Yeah, the fit for duty evaluation, it wouldn't be a basis for that.

Right. So what does that look like if that program were mandatory? And I'd like to understand better, I guess, what the hesitancy is as far as a mandatory program.

So the hesitancy to have a mandatory program is that the union, the officers, would be conceding on something outside of civil service and not receiving anything in return. There's no benefit to the union. to give the city and to give administration this authority. And that's just to be very direct. We don't get anything out of the deal. Especially if administration are going to set extreme standards before any incentives can be earned, then that really makes it difficult to show where there's a benefit to the union. I think that if the city has a strong stance on it being mandatory, that we would definitely like to see the city agree that whatever wellness check the city is going to take care of, we'll explicitly qualify officers for the presumptive heart attack and stroke law in the government code. That's the whole point of these wellness checks, is that if something tragic were to happen to one of these officers, that the steps have already been taken, that they would be covered by this presumptive heart attack and stroke bill. So that's really the big thing for us anyway.

Okay, no, that's good to know. And we're not saying that, you know, we're not looking at any sort of incentive, but again, that has to do with funding. So we'd have to further explore what that looks like. Okay. Any other questions on...

I mean, I guess to add to that, whatever the standard might be in the physical fitness, I mean, I like the idea of, I think it was Abilene's prior agreement where there was like an association panel, there was an admin panel, and that panel jointly came up with the standards, I guess, if you will. So, I mean, I would be for that.

And I have a question, too. Is that something that we can subcommittee on and discuss when it comes to terms? Or do you all have a recommendation requirement of how the steps and things would look like if there were finances or anything like that put into that?

No, we currently don't have anything developed that's been built. So I'm sorry, what was the first part of your question?

Is that something that we could subcommittee on as we progress through this, or is this something that we can?

No, yeah, we can subcommittee on it. I do like the idea of having an established committee, though. Only because, and maybe this would have to be worded in the agreement, but if something isn't working and we're not negotiating, you know, maybe that committee would have the ability to, you know, make changes or, I don't know. There's some flexibility in that versus us just subcommitting it. But, I mean, that is something that can be done in subcommittee. Maybe it can be established in subcommittee, and then a committee can be created for maintaining that throughout the contract year or years. Okay. Well, we're not going to have anything, I guess, to present in terms of that, but I think we could definitely take a look at that presumptive bill and see if that's something that can be built into this program. Anything else to add on that item? Okay. No. Okay. We do have one additional item to bring up. An amendment to the current agreement under Article 4, Section 2 and 3, which is the probationary period. It's my understanding that there are sometimes some requirements for remedial training that are lengthy and that bites into the probationary period timeframe. So we'd like to see if you all would consider potentially extending that probationary period. depending on how many weeks of remedial training are needed for a particular individual by that same amount of time. So if for some reason somebody needs six weeks of remedial training after they're sworn in, then extending the probationary period by that six weeks.

Just to clarify, because I don't have it pulled up in front of me, currently it's 12 months from the date of swearing, right?

That's correct.

So if somebody is doing a full PTO program with no remedial training, that's 17 weeks. So even if they had another 10 weeks, you're looking at, that's still six months and not... And then you still have six more months that they're on probation. So I'm not sure why. I mean, there's plenty of extra time already built into the probationary period. You're saying there's an additional... Because the PTO program is 17 weeks if you do the full probationary. Some laterals are doing less than that, you know, down to eight weeks or so. And so... You know, even if somebody gets pulled off and put on something else for, shoot, three months, you still have more than enough time to make that evaluation. Because they're not sworn until after they complete the PDO? No, they're sworn before, but that's only 17 weeks, so that's four months.

Right, so if we have a rookie that's sworn in from the police academy, it's 17 weeks of training. That usually starts within a week or two of being sworn in, give or take. So you're looking at, I mean, you have 52 weeks, right? of probation, and only 17 of those is in the training program. Like he said, even if they get six weeks of training extra, you're really pushing that now. So are you trying to go off? I don't think the training's the problem. Are you just trying to say maybe somebody's injured for six months? During that time frame?

No, I don't think injury was the issue. It was just extending the probationary period and allowing enough time aside from that remedial when somebody's on their own for the organization to determine, obviously, that they're fit and for the employee themselves to determine or to prove that I'm able to do this on my own.

I just, surely by then we would already know. I mean, our stance is that nobody gets put on their own until they've proven that they're capable of that. Right. And if we're putting people on their own that aren't capable of that, then what are we doing? That's not good at the training level. That's interesting.

I don't think a six-week difference, even a ten-week difference of remedial, which ten weeks of remedial is extreme. That's more than half the training program again.

I don't think I've... Like you were saying, if there is some issue because somebody gets injured during the program... And they have to pause. And they have to pause the program and they go to some other division or something for six months because they...

I could get behind something like that, but not just because somebody needs remedial. We have some very good officers that went through six weeks of remedial training, and they're amazing officers, and we have officers that made it all the way through the program with no remedial where it's like, yeah, they probably should have needed some.

Can we do a brief caucus on that?

Yeah, no problem. Can I ask you a quick question before we caucus, I guess? So essentially the PTO program... is three months-ish? Four months?

It's 17 weeks, so right at four months.

And so that leaves...

Eight months.

How many months? Or 12? In order for that assessment to happen, is what you're saying, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

And I have a clarifying question, too. And again, I don't know where the nexus of this was, but... And departmentally, if there's internal safeguards that can be reviewed, that's something that we can look at, too. But I would like to caucus just to go over a couple things with us before we continue that discussion.

Yeah, yeah, no problem. We will caucus at 1020. Yeah, ready to go? Yes. Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order at 1056.

So we caucused, we had some discussions, and I think we may be open to discussing and talking about that, but there's a lot of things that we need to evaluate before making that decision specifically. Exceeding probation, I would want to look at a couple things first. What the city's already established policy and precedent is already for something like that in the event, and I know that we're different because this is mean confer contract negotiations, but... I WOULD ALSO WANT TO LOOK AT ANY METRICS, ANY STANDARDS, THE BENEFIT TO THE MEMBERSHIP THAT WE HAD IF WE ADOPTED THIS, AND I WOULDN'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE A PUNISHMENT IN THE EVENT BECAUSE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS TYPE OF THING, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, I SAY THAT, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ROUTINELY, BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME EXTRA ANALYSIS BUILT INTO THAT. AND THEN, OF COURSE, CONSULTATION WITH THE CHIEF BECAUSE, AND THIS IS ANOTHER THING, TOO. I would also want to know where the line is for administrative decision making by the chief in our administration when it comes to an employment discussion and action in regards to what it would look like in a contract. But going to the base level of that, I think how that benefits the membership as well is a consideration for us. Okay.

Would it be appropriate for us to, at the next meeting, bring back proposed wording, and then we can discuss what sort of additional, I don't know, provisions, I guess, you're talking about?

Yeah, that's totally fine. We will also prepare some language. And like I said, this may be a thing, but I would like to look at, analyze, and discuss what it would look like moving forward. So if you want to prepare something, we got it, and we'll look at something as well.

Okay. Yeah, no, great. Bring something. That'd be great.

I would like to, I guess, really just kind of make it public on the record. But why... Why does the chief feel like the current eight months of evaluation that he has for these officers is insufficient to make a determination on whether or not they should remain employed here? It's already a significant increase from what civil service grants, because civil service is 12 months from date of hire. So we've already increased that significantly. So what in the administration's evaluation process is lacking that they need this additional time?

I don't think I'm prepared to answer your question fully. I would have to get that information. But I think the consensus is that if they could have more time to assess, the better. And sometimes that amount of time is reduced by these remedial weeks. So allowing time for them to be fully trained and then allowing the most time for them to be assessed. Okay. I think that's all that we've got on that topic. Any questions from either side? Okay. In terms of a pay plan, I think we'll be prepared to present what that looks like based on the feedback that we received via email in this last month that we sent over to the class and comp. consultant, along with our request to provide us a one year implementation and a three year implementation, we'll be ready to provide those results in a July meeting. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WILL BE, WELL, I KNOW WE WON'T BE FULLY READY TO KNOW OR UNDERSTAND THE FUNDING OF ANY OF THAT, BUT I THINK THERE WILL BE A CLEARER PICTURE OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR A JULY MEETING AS WELL. Aside from that, really I think if we could just put something on the calendar for July, then we can expand on both that probationary extension, the physical fitness program, and the pay plan. So that will be a long meeting.

We have something we'd like to throw on the table for something different. This would be very minor financial impact, but we've identified an issue with our compensation when it comes to out-of-state lateral officers. And so currently this would affect one person that's starting July 1st, okay? So the chances of this costing the city a significant amount of money is not gonna happen. But what happens is so since they're, and this person was 20 plus years of experience coming in, so we're gaining a very experienced officer who by Texas standards would have a masterpiece officer license. However, T. Cole does not give that for out-of-state licenses. So he's coming in as a recruit. even though he has the experience of a 20 plus year officer. We would like to build something into the compensation side of our pay plan that would affect out of state lateral officers with that kind of experience to pay them appropriately where like the chief reviews the file Says that this person should qualify for master level pay and then it would have to be approved by the association president So that way there's two levels there to agree to that it like said this would affect currently one person but I mean it's he's getting paid the same as our guys going to the Academy because T Colt just fails when it comes to recognizing experience from out of state and

And I would like to point out that he actually goes through a course provided by TECL and takes a licensing exam for Texas. Yes. So that's why we're able to hire him. So there is a conversion, but there's not really one. They just give him a basic, here's some training. And then they certify him, but they don't recognize his credit that he's already established.

I was just going to ask, does that mean he has to go through all of the TECOL training from the beginning as well?

Not for the academy. So there's two options for an out-of-state officer to come in. And honestly, with some of them, if somebody was trying to apply with one year of experience from somewhere else, we would recommend they just go through our academy and start over. Because we would never try to say that they would qualify for a higher license level at that point. Somebody with 20-plus years experience... there's no need to go back to the police academy. So what happens first is they have to apply to T. Cole, and then T. Cole reviews their file, and then agrees or disagrees that they are eligible to take the supplemental peace officer course, which would then, once they complete that, then they can challenge the state test. So there's multiple levels of approval that this has to go through. If T. Cole says you're not eligible, the only option at that point is to go through an academy, which then we would argue would They would be paid recruit anyway. But in this certain situation, T. Cole agreed that his experience and training let him go ahead and take the supplemental peace officer course, challenge the state test, but they just fail the officer at that point by not giving them any type of license level, which... In the past, when we've had laterals, we paid them based off their experience, right? But with our current pay scale paying off the license level, that for the most part solves our problem, except in cases of an out-of-state lateral with 20 plus years experience.

So what happens in terms of his license? For this particular individual, does he, he has to start at the beginning to get?

So he's coming in with a peace officer license. And then after he completes field training and then has that for a year, then he'll go to basic. And then he basically starts over when it comes to TCOLE.

Okay.

And so we would like to pay them appropriately.

And it would be the circumstance in which for out-of-state lateral peace officers only, because we recognize that there is no reciprocity at the state level. But as police officers and as president, I recognize that the value that we're getting from him is exceptional probably.

Okay.

Sorry. I was just going to ask, what level then would you say the pay is appropriate? Like how do you determine?

So if the chief comes, if the chief and I meet and he placed a recommendation because he's had a thorough analysis that he's taken every class that TECOL requires to be master and he's got over whatever metric we set up of hours because it varies, and he agrees that he should be paid as master and I look at it and I've reviewed it And I think we would recommend that he be paid at master because we can prove that he's got exceptional work history, training record, and things like that.

Would you all be able to provide some verbiage for the agreement that includes what that looks like?

Yes, we can have that drafted. And also, I can just offer, if this does pass, we have the ability to make a... comparative list of NYPD or New York training versus Texas. And I could provide that to the chief of what is kind of a, you know, similar training. That way it's an easier little checklist for them. If something like this was to pass our training software.

So it's comparable?

Yeah, it can show comparable training. That makes it a little easier for everybody.

We don't want to pay anybody wrongly when it comes to like if they, but at 20 years NYPD training, He should be, he's fairly qualified.

And this would also be a good recruiting tool for the PD. Because now we can cross the Red River and say, hey, we know, because ironically enough, the T-Col of Oklahoma is called Cleet. You don't know how many phone calls I get asking to be a cop, and I'm like, that's not, wrong Cleet, guys. But they, we can, y'all could recruit I don't know why anybody wants somebody from Oklahoma, but you can recruit in Oklahoma and get them to come down and now we can say, hey, we pay based on your experience and you don't have to start over as a rookie like you do almost everywhere else in the state.

Okay, so the checklist that you mentioned would cover, like, because I was going to ask, like, what if you only had 10 years or five years or whatever, that would kind of give some guidelines on what level would equate.

TECO also provides that right now, and we have our proficiency charts that we have to match to move forward in our licenses. And so, like, if somebody came in with 10 years experience, they would only be eligible for a... intermediate or advanced, depending on what they have.

It would all depend on whether they have military or college.

There's required classes that TECL has. You have to take these classes to qualify for this, and there may be a comparable out-of-state test or a class that that individual has already taken, but TECL doesn't acknowledge it because Texas is special. And we could, that's the list that I was talking about, that we could show, hey, they have these comparable classes, you know, it's not exactly what TCOL has mandated, and in order for them to get their actual certificate, you know, intermediate, advanced, or master, they would have to take those classes to appease TCOL. But for San Angelo's usage, we know that this officer is trained and does have that experience and that they could be compensated accordingly.

And to evaluate that overall process, and Kelsey's here, she can answer the question if you have any. If there's any disciplinary concerns or if there's any issues that may have come up during the background process, that would come up way before we would actually have the evaluation for the pay anyway. So... If you have any questions for Kelsey, she can probably answer those with that. But that would be just the beginning portion of that. We're wanting fully certified, hired, ready to go. Then we're asking that we make that conversion.

And I guess I should caveat that with it. It should not affect us financially in any way unless we somehow started recruiting a ton of people from out of state. But it would be no different than hiring an in-state lateral. You know what I mean? But currently, it's one person.

Okay. So at the next meeting, if y'all don't mind just providing some verbiage, then... We can talk about it. Okay, so looking at July calendar, I'm looking at the week of the 20th.

I'll be gone that whole week.

Oh, okay.

Just as a reminder, according to our agreement that anything with a financial impact can't be brought to the table after July 15th. Anything new?

Right.

Are you all thinking that you'd want to meet before that deadline? Is that when you brought it up?

I was looking at 6th through the 10th of July.

That only gives us

What about the 14th? Yeah, somewhere in there. He also works Monday night. That's fine. I can apply to my school.

If I talk to my lieutenant...

Yeah, it's just the week of the 20th. I'll be in Dallas for Fort Worth.

Is the 14th available for y'all?

That would be better, I think, for us and for a better, I think, financial picture. So is the 14th morning?

I'm sorry?

The morning of the 14th?

Yes, 9 a.m. Brandon, you good?

Yep. 9 a.m. sounds good. Okay. Okay. I think that's all we had. So with that, we will adjourn. Anybody have a motion?

Motion.

Second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Meeting adjourned at 11.13.