Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Séance ouverte à 9h02. Le premier point à l'ordre du jour est l'approbation du procès verbal de la Réunion du 20 08 2026. Quelqu'un a-t-il ? Correction. Portée. Procès verbal.

I think the only corrections I've seen are what we asked for, 96.5%, but then we went back and the numbers we got are actually 96%, because they are a little different. With the changes suggested by Lieutenant Kennedy, I propose acceptance.

Car je vois bien le caucus de 16h14 où vous demandiez 96,5% pour tout le monde.

Exact. Et je crois que c'était pendant la réunion proprement dite. Jonathan faisait des calculs pendant que nous débattions.

Donc je pourrais probablement vous dire quand c'est... I can see that the numbers indicated in this 44000 caucus are different from those on which we finally agreed.

Exactly.

So we can make sure to insert here...

The numbers really agreed?

The numbers of the real agreement. We can make this change.

It was the only change. It was not a replacement, because we had asked for the 97.5%. That's true.

We wanted to document this, but let me make sure exactly where to insert it here. We will check.

Jeremy sent his final figures at 5.42 p.m. This would be, I think, in this last little section. Meanwhile, we have modified the final figures.

With these 500 dollars. So the numbers you have. Yes, the numbers you have.

We will add those.

I press the motion.

Who is for? Say yes. Those who are against, say no. And the verbal trial of the 20 August meeting is adopted. The next point in the agenda is the approval of... Oh, I'm sorry. Discussions and possible action points to be examined for the 2027 meeting agreement. So I made a list of points that we put in the agreement. Did you have the opportunity to examine Brandon's proposal? Is there anything you would like to highlight before we start, or would you prefer to deal point by point?

The only thing I saw, and I think we probably make the mistake every year, on page 3, the definition of police officer and officer, we should never have changed the date of the initial consultation agreement. I think we just updated it, because it was an annual figure. Because, as it was written, every person hired from the beginning of the agreement until October 1st of this year is not... The cover is not defined as... Instead of saying that Cam is hired from Hague, is that... Would it be clearer if we said to use the U? Yes, on this date. Or simply to hire, because it would concern everyone currently. Or to hire as part of the consultation agreement.

In both cases. To get some precision, if someone is employed on this date, leaves, then comes back. Because it happens.

Well, he would always be subject to the agreement Like when they came back. I think that's the case. Yes, I suppose that if you put employees at or after this date instead of hiring. For me, employees and hires are synonymous, I suppose. I think my idea is just that your date of employment, if your date of employment is prior, but that you are employed, you are covered. But rather than if you are hired at or after this date, that's where it's a problem.

could we add the words, oh now I forgot, I started talking too much. Concert agreement, if it had been, between if, hired, added the words, had been, would that suit you both? I don't know.

Can you think about that for a moment? Thank you. I'm afraid that if we restore the date at the time when we had a consultation agreement, it would create confusion for the officers who left and are no longer I mean, I think that anyone is an officer when we sign, this is covered. And after the signature, if they are hired, then I think they are still covered. Would it make more sense if we said, if employed or hired after? In this way, it's... Repetit cela. Accord de concertation, si employé, le ou embauché après le 1er octobre. Ça me conviendrait. Je pense que oui. That's fine with me.

All right. Would you like to review some of the points included in the agenda or in the contract?

We have had plenty of time to examine this. Is there anything you would like to clarify, discuss or review publicly?

I would just like to highlight a few points that we did not discuss, but which seem obvious to me after the examination. Regarding the remuneration, the agreement of the previous year provided for this indemnity because of its date of adoption. This obviously does not apply to this agreement. We therefore removed it. There was also the part concerning the municipal director. As we have now recruited a municipal director, this no longer applies. A clarification regarding what you asked for the promotions to the rank of sergeant from 4 years to 3 years. So I think one thing that we have thought about is that there is an exam to come. So how is this going to impact this exam? I mean, we probably have to plan for that.

We have already published the reference material for this exam. We simply want to make sure that we have taken all the precautions, because you now have eligible agents for the exam that were not during the publication of the material. Par conséquent, il pourrait invoquer un avantage injuste certains agents ayant eu plus de temps pour étudier le matériel que ces nouveaux éligibles. Il y a donc deux options possibles. Soit nous disons que ce changement n'entre en vigueur qu'après cet examen. Ainsi, personne n'est avantagé par un temps d'étude plus long sur le matériel par rapport aux nouveaux éligibles. Where we can add a clause to the stipulating contract, we understand that you have had less time to study, but the fact of being eligible remains an advantage for you. I don't think we have a clear opinion on one or the other option. We just want to make sure that the contract covers all aspects so that no one can contest the exam.

I think that Clit's opinion, for what it is worth, is that given that there was no date for the exam, but only the material, no one would be advantaged because everyone will know the date at the same time.

Yes, a date was set for the exam. Or is it simply the publication of the material?

Just the publication of the material.

I think that each new eligible person would be informed of the date of the exam at the same time as those who were eligible before. So, in my opinion, this would eliminate all irregularities.

I mean, would you be opposed to a simple precision so that we cannot deny it?

No, we have no problem with that. I'm going to try to write something about it.

I'll send it to you on Teams. Well, the next point I had, or Brenda, do you want to continue? The next point I have concerning the kindergarten exams. I'm waiting for you to be there.

Yes, just one last thing. We have reintegrated the clause. There are two agreements, I believe, concerning the six frozen posts. It's exactly the same formulation as the one we had there. And I think that's all I have.

The only point that did not appear in the contract that was sent to you was the final amount for the heart tests. Jonathan was able to gather 20,000 dollars to cover the heart tests. We will cover as many agents as possible with this money. If we can't cover everyone with the next 20,000 dollars, they will have to wait for the next year during the next agreement to be tested. Our office will work on I think that coordination and the management of the cranes will be managed by the police administration. Very well, if there are no other modifications or concerns concerning the agreement, I think this is the last point of our agenda and we just need a motion to approve.

The formulation, and you send it once we agree on all this, then maybe make the motion, if that suits you.

Very well, we suspend the session at 9.38. Reunion reprise à 10h22. Donc, pendant la suspension, Brannon a fourni une nouvelle formulation. Avez-vous eu des modifications ?

Oui, je voulais aussi souligner que juste avant de venir à cette réunion, j'ai demandé à Oli, dans mon bureau, de vérifier les fautes de frappe et de grammaire, et on a trouvé quelques-unes, donc j'ai inclus les corrections dans ce que je viens de vous envoyer. Je ne pense pas que ce soit très important. Mais je ne voulais pas que vous pensiez que je modifiais quelque chose que vous n'aviez pas vu. C'est très bien. Nous sommes... Pendant notre suspension, nous discutions aussi d'autres choses en lien avec ce que nous avions abordé avec les lieutenants. Nous demandons également, encore une fois, à modifier quelques points avec une requête. Plus précisément, puisque nous changeons le délai pour les lieutenants à 3 ans, nous aimerions changer l'éligibilité à la promotion au grade de sergent à 5 ans. to also open this space.

And we would have the same reservation on this subject since the reference documents are published. Okay, I would feel more comfortable if I presented this to the boss before accepting. Do you have any other questions? Do you want to review all the points first so that we can...

Yes. We also have a recommendation to modify the recruitment jury for the side officers. I will let Kelsey deepen this point.

Currently, for the recruitment jury, there are seven members for the new recruits. Our request would be to move from 7 to 4 members for a side jury, but also to define those who have followed a training program on the field. It would therefore be a question of removing the two officers and a supervisor of this jury. The jury would consist of the head or its representative, the training supervisor, the representative of the director of the public function and a representative of the association for the side jury.

What is it? To clarify, can you tell me which section of the agreement you are referring to? Article 3, recruitment process.

For now, it is defined as an oral jury for all members. So it would be a section for the sides. The main change is that with the number of side members we recruit, it is difficult to gather 7 people, which slows down the recruitment process. The interest of hiring a side member is to accelerate this process. It would therefore be much easier to gather 4 people to make a decision and move forward.

I also emphasize that these are generally individual or by two recruitments, so gather 7 people. to interview only one person is excessive compared to the recruitment of new recruits.

Very well, Kelsey, if you can repeat what you want to change, I will note it down.

It is therefore specific to side hires, we add a separate section, as an example, because currently it is defined as a global oral jury process under which everyone is submitted.

The change would be to remove the supervisor and two officers for the side. The majority of the side would be defined as composed of people who have followed a training program on the field. The reason is that we have hired via the SEAUG and these officers just left the academy. They did not follow training on the field. Who followed? You can repeat. Excuse me. The training program on the field.

So do we remove the training supervisor or just the general supervisor?

No, just the classic supervisor. We would always have someone from training in this jury. So remove the last two from this subgroup or from this section E. Remove the supervisor and two agents.

Do you have other objectives?

Non, je crois que c'est tout pour nous.

Très bien. Si nous pouvons faire une pause à 10h27. Très bien, nous reprendrons la réunion à 11h28. Très bien, nous avons rencontré ou appelé les chefs. Ils étaient d'accord avec le changement. They agreed with the passage at 5 years. And for the oral jury, they agreed that this would help bring some flexibility for them. There were some additional points, I think Brandon can probably talk about it better, when we made these changes that required us to provide additional precision in the contract. So I will let them address them.

So Blue, I sent you the modified versions. I think our only point is that we have registered the composition of the oral jury for the side agents, having a basic certification of police agent and then we added these agents as you asked. And so I know we talked about training on the field, but our understanding, and Christine may have to help me, is that if they have the basic certification of police agent, they will also have followed the training on the field. Yes, so the way the take-all works is that it is a requirement to achieve it. So yes, by this time, they should be certified and have it in their personal service file. But the side agents from other states will not have it because they must essentially ask the state to grant it and then they will enter this calendar and this scale of license time when they become agents of peace in Texas. Okay, so this change, does it also aim to include side agents from other states?

Yes? Christine, do you have something to add?

Can we put some order in it?

Are we simply preoccupied by the 18 weeks of training on the ground, in a training program on the ground? or do we want at least a whole year apart from obtaining their basic certificate?

I think we're just trying to qualify someone who just graduated from the academy must have a complete jury compared to someone who has a certain level of experience. And so if they have finished a training program on the field, they will have at least a certain level of experience. Even if it's six months, nine months, whatever, but they may not have obtained a basic certificate.

Yes, because in reality, it takes about a year to obtain the basic certificate with the training on the field.

Do you think that for someone who has only six months of experience, we should offer them an abridged commission?

Would he have enough experience at this stage?

Maybe we could change that for them. This base of four people, if they already have a field training, at their own time. Because the questions of the jury concern someone who has already intervened on service calls. At this stage, after six months in post, you have at least managed cases of violence, marital violence, which corresponds to the questions of the jury. So I think we should clarify this too for the interviews and our rating system. Adapt this jury for someone who already has a certain experience as a police officer,

Do you know how field training is done in other states? Will it be comparable to our 18 weeks? And in front of us, I will set a precise number, beyond the simple field training.

Yes, that's why we have training in this jury, because it will determine then, according to their course and experience, what their training will consist of. This is what Sergeant Lejoy has done for our current recruitment. Lateral out of state. And I don't expect either that we will have an abundance of out-of-state lateral recruitment. I think it would help, but I don't think either that we will hire a dozen in the next ten years.

So, to say a year after the academy, you suggest that it may be too long. We want to put something shorter, like six months.

Exactly, because we were about to make a full jury for someone who was in the Habilen police for six months. We will then have to bring an amendment to this text.

Can we add something else? Okay, your other point is here. We've already talked about it before. This is the salary classification for officers from other states. We hesitated between intermediary and master because we had initially asked for a form of supervision, the possibility of putting a veto on the decision of the chief saying, oh, this person obtains the rank of master, unilaterally, whether it is this chief or another. We would propose a return to the master level, but with a sub-assembly of qualifications. Basically, for their years of service outside of the state, in order to obtain a certification based on their military experience or their level of study combined with their years of service, they should qualify as if they had qualified in Texas with these years of service. If you have a license, you still have to have nine years of service before you can get a master's degree. It's just to prevent it from becoming a kind of recruitment tool of the kind. And you have four years of experience, come to San Angelo and you can earn, you know, ninety-five thousand dollars. But in this way, there is a certain... You can simply base yourself on the skills tables where they must have this number of hours of service or hours of training. Because there are three means. There is military time, training hours or studies. Depending on that, you are placed in a table indicating the number of years of service necessary to reach the minimum number of years required to obtain this or that certification. And as long as they have fulfilled these conditions, we have no problem with the boss saying, hey, I think you are the training coordinator. Obviously, by saying, hey, we think that this person should be placed at the master level. This person should be placed at the advanced level. So you may have to help me write this, but we had established that the boss was limited to the intermediate level. You say that if they have these other things, like a military service, then they should be able to consider the Master level. Or simply because if you don't have military time or no diploma. So to get your Master, I think you need to have 15 years of experience. And so, if someone is 15 years old, they should be able to take this into consideration. If you have a license, you only need 9 years plus all the required courses. Essentially, what we propose is that the boss... Excuse me. The boss would have the ability to...

assign this rate of remuneration according to the requirements already established by the TECOL, with the exception of the specific courses that the TECOL requires. The other requirements that the TECOL has for this license would remain in force, then at the administrative discretion of the boss. So the TECOL has already defined the norm. We would simply remove the requirement of the specific courses so that the boss can decide at his discretion that this person meets the conditions of duration. We want to remunerate them as agents of this level of certification. Do you think this is consistent?

I think so, but once again, can you work on this formulation and send it to us? And then we can deliberate on it. The other point concerns the passage of 6 to 5 years for promotion. I think we agree on that, but we have added the same label as for the bill on lieutenants.

Brandon, do you want to present the change for lateral recruitment?

For the committee's rating system, normally we have seven members, we eliminate the highest and lowest grade, then we do the average. We thought that if we go down to four members, it's really two people who become the decisive factor. So we thought we would have to rely solely on the four, without eliminating the highest and lowest grade.

Yes, I think that as long as the four agree to the hiring, that would suit me.

While you are deliberating, would you like us to write this libellum? Yes, and I sent you the last version we're talking about here, so...

Very well, we will be deliberating at 11h38.

We will resume the session at 13h44.

Christine, don't you have that under your eyes? I think we have... Come and sit down here, Christine. Yes, I think we have accepted all your changes. We had a few minor adjustments concerning... concerning... What?

You said we have accepted all your changes. Well, let's not stop here.

I mean, just the terminology and... Let me get there. Okay, so the composition of the oral committee. We have modified the composition of the oral committee for the agents who have completed a training program on the field and certified as a peace agent for at least six months, as follows, and then the rest is identical. And we have added 1.3, which stipulates that the composition of the oral committee for certified agents as peace agents for less than six months will follow the structure of the committee for non-certified candidates. Yes.

There was something else.

Out of the state.

One day.

By step.

So for the out-of-state, you had set the date, it was before 01.01.26. And we think that this concerns only one officer for the moment, right? So to avoid going back to the night time, we have put since 01.01.26. Let me read that. So for the OR, it's this subparagraph G, for certified officers, state or lateral hired from 01-01-06-26, the licensing by virtue of this subparagraph will be carried out at 01-01-10-26 and these employees will be eligible to be placed at the appropriate level of remuneration as if they had been hired at 01-01-10-26-26. Do you think there is something else in this subparagraph? And you have noted the part on the other changes under E of intermediate to be put. And then... Yes, so this very last sentence which said everything that exceeds the intermediate. And you have changed for level of initial certificate. We have put all progress beyond the level of initial certificate. And here I send you this. But I think we should just print a totally clean copy to do the...

Yes, we wanted to make sure, regarding this progress, that it was good not to promote at a higher level. We weren't 100% sure that it was what you had planned. Okay, perfect.

We just had one more thing. I'm leaving.

I'm leaving.

I'm leaving. I would like to congratulate Kimberly for her nomination to enter Forty Terminale as long as we're here. Here. It's my last thing. Here's one. I just sent it to you by e-mail, Jérémy.

I'll tell you something else, maybe I'm on the point of... And really, this is going to be the first round of...

I'm too low.

The agreement she meets with you on a monthly basis. So...

Surprise.

I make a motion. I second.

All those in favour of the agreement, please say yes.

Yes.

Are there any oppositions? The yes wins and we have concluded an agreement at 13h50 on 27.08.2026. Does anyone want to propose to update? I propose to update. May I second that? All those in favour, say yes. And this meeting is held at 13h50.