The meeting was called to order at 11:16 a.m. In attendance were Chairman George Beasley, Commissioner Richard Ubl, Commissioner Samantha Dailey, Police Chief Don Thomas, Fire Chief Bill Riddle, and City Attorney Keith Foster.

A motion to approve the agenda was made by Commissioner Dailey and seconded by Commissioner Ubl.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

Chairman Beasley asked if the Commissioners had read the minutes from the September 23, 2004 meeting and if they had any additions or corrections. Commissioner Ubl pointed out that, on page 3 of the minutes, Chief Riddle was referred to as Chairman Riddle. Recording Secretary Tritle said that she would make the necessary correction.

A motion to approve the minutes from the open session of the September 23, 2004 meeting, with the aforementioned correction, was made by Commissioner Ubl and seconded by Commissioner Dailey.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

• Closed Session

A motion to approve the minutes from the closed session of the September 23, 2004 meeting was made by Commissioner Dailey and seconded by Commissioner Ubl.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

COMMUNICATIONS

 

An invoice for $500 was received from Marv Fogel for conducting the psychological examination of Firefighter candidate Brian Thompson. Recording Secretary Tritle stated Chairman Beasley had previously approved the bill and it was sent to Accounts Payable for processing.

• Budget

Chairman Beasley reported that the Commission has spent $3,795 of their $12,000 budget to date. Chief Thomas asked the Commissioners to set aside a portion of the remaining funds for expenses that the Police Department may be incurring, as he is hoping to be able to hire two new Police Officers within the next six months. Commissioner Ubl asked if the Council has approved the addition of these two new Officers. Chief Thomas said that they had not.

 

Chairman Beasley reported that all of the necessary steps had been completed to add this testing requirement to the Rules and Regulations, effective October 14, 2004. Chief Riddle reported that Firefighter candidate Brian Thompson had completed and passed the Physical Agility Test on October 29^th. Commissioner Ubl asked if, since the Rules and Regulations had been amended several times in the past few years, one clean copy of the Rules and Regulations could be typed up that contained all of these changes. City Attorney Foster answered that he had the Rules and Regulations on disk and that he would add the newest amendment to them and print an updated copy for the Commissioners.

• Status on the Purchase of Equipment to be used for Physical Agility Testing

Chief Riddle reported that the "Rescue Randy" dummy had been ordered and will be delivered in a few months. He said that they had borrowed the DeKalb Fire Department’s dummy when they tested Firefighter candidate Thompson. Recording Secretary Tritle asked what decision was made as to which budget would be used to pay for this equipment. Chairman Beasley reported that City Manager Nicklas said that the Commissioners should not pay for this equipment out of their budget and that he would apply the purchase to a different budget.

• Status on the Hiring of a New Firefighter

Chief Riddle reported that Firefighter candidate Brian Thompson had successfully completed all of his testing requirements and would begin his job as a Firefighter/Paramedic with the Sycamore Fire Department on November 2, 2004.

• Status on the Changes to the Fire Lieutenants’ Promotional Testing Process

Chief Riddle reported that this issue was still being negotiated. He said that management had sent a counter-proposal to the Union and they have not yet responded to it. Chief Riddle reported that he had applied a number of different formulas to the test scores from the last promotional test and that none of them would have altered the list. Commissioner Ubl asked if the Chief’s stance was that he wanted to retain his input in determining the scores of each candidate. Chief Riddle answered that he does not want any one event, such as the written test, to totally determine the outcome of the scores; there should be three or four factors used to determine each candidate’s score. For example, you could have a candidate who would make a good Lieutenant but is a poor test taker, and vice versa. Chief Riddle indicated that, while he is not sure at this point what will come out of negotiations, most of this process is covered by State statutes and the Commission agreed a long time ago to abide by those statutes.

• Status in the Determination of Officer Richter’s Remaining Probationary Period

Chief Thomas reported that Officer Richter is currently back in the training program. He said that Officer Richter’s probation period is still in effect and that they have calculated that it will end during the first week of December. Recording Secretary Tritle said that she figured the ending date as November 29^th, 2004. Chairman Beasley asked if Officer Richter was ever sent overseas. Chief Thomas answered that Officer Richter remained stateside the entire time he performed his military service. Chairman Beasley said that he recollected that Officer Richter had not completed his probation when he left for military duty and it was determined that he would pick up where he left off once he returned. He said that he also remembered that there were some concerns about Officer Richter’s performance prior to his enlistment in the military. Chief Thomas asked that this be addressed in closed session.

No new business

• Police Chief

Chief Thomas introduced Officer Jeff Wig to the Commissioners and explained that he had a question for the Commissioners pertaining to the use of educational preference points in the entry-level and promotional testing processes. Officer Wig explained that he asked to address the Commissioners as there is a lot of confusion among the FOP union membership concerning the use of educational preference points - specifically in the promotional testing process. He asked the Commissioners to clarify the current status of their use, how they are applied, and if they will be used in future testing. He said many of the union members are confused as to whether or not educational preference points can be used when they take the Sergeants’ promotional exam in 2005. Commissioner Ubl asked City Attorney Foster to address this issue, specifically as to how they apply to promotional testing. Chairman Beasley wondered if the educational preference points were similar to those given for military service and may only be applied once by a candidate in promotional testing. City Attorney Foster thought that this assumption was correct, but answered that he did not want to give a definitive answer until he had researched the question.

Chief Thomas said that he has told the FOP union it is his understanding that the Sycamore Rules and Regulations identically mirrored State law; candidates can use military or educational points at the time of hire and can use them only one more time during promotional testing. So, a candidate who is eligible for both military and educational preference points may use one of them at hire and then may apply the other to his or her promotional testing score. The definition of "use" is that candidates apply the five points allowed for military, education, or prior service and then they are ranked and later promoted. Therefore, if the candidate is never promoted, he or she has not actually used his or her points and may apply them to another promotional exam score. He said that, in explaining how the process works to the union membership, he has added the word education to be included in the definition of military preference points. He said that this has how the military points have always been handled and that now the points for education will be handled in the same manner. He added that candidates are eligible for educational points if they have a two-year degree in criminal justice or a four-year degree in any course of study. City Attorney Foster answered that this was his understanding as well, except that the military points always trump or override the educational points in determining rank. Chairman Beasley reiterated that it would be best if City Attorney Foster researched the issue before the Commissioners answer the union membership’s request for clarification. Commissioner Ubl said that he was not sure that you can use the five points both times and would like to have that question clarified. Chief Riddle also explained that candidates do not automatically receive five points for military service; the amount of the points awarded, up to a maximum of five, is based upon the amount of time spent in the military.

Chairman Beasley asked Officer Wig to explain his understanding of how preference points are used and awarded. Officer Wig answered that his understanding of how the process works was the same as that of Chief Thomas. He stated that has a letter from the Commission that was in place at the time he tested that outlined the process; a candidate can use the points to increase his or her score on the entry-level list. Chairman Beasley asked Officer Wig if he applied any preference points to his entry-level score at the time he tested. Officer Wig said that he did; however, he was told at that time that that his service in the National Guard would not count for military preference points, even though he did serve a period of active duty for other than training purposes. At that time, the Commissioners told him that this did not matter, since he received five points for having a Bachelor’s Degree in criminal justice. Commissioner Ubl asked Officer Wig when he took the entry-level test. Officer Wig answered that he tested four years ago. Commissioner Ubl said that he did not think that educational points were given back then. Officer Wig said that, when he tested, there were other candidates who did receive points for their military service, while others received educational points. Commissioner Ubl asked Chairman Beasley if he remembers that this was done. Chairman Beasley answered that he could not recollect. Commissioner Ubl said that it must have been done if Officer Wig has a copy of a letter from the Commission that states that educational preference points would be given to those candidates who were eligible for them.

Chairman Beasley asked Officer Wig to give City Attorney Foster the chance to research this issue. He added that Chief Thomas’s explanation of how the process works sounds reasonable, but that he did believe that military points do take preference over educational points. Chief Thomas said that he thought this only occurs in the case of a tie between two candidates. City Attorney Foster said that it is his understanding that educational preference points cannot put a candidate above someone who is eligible for military preference points. Chief Thomas said the way he understood it was that, if two candidates both get five points added to their score which results in a tie, then the military points trump the educational points when it comes to the question of which candidate would be hired first. He added that this happens very infrequently. Chairman Beasley said that it would be good to have the City Attorney research this issue and come up with definite language as to how the process actually is supposed to work. This will help all parties to be on the same page. He added the fact that Officer Wig received the educational points four years ago does not necessarily mean that this was the correct application of the statute at that time.

Commissioner Dailey asked whom Officer Wig was referring to when he said that the other members want clarification on this issue. He answered that he was referring to his fellow Police Officers. He added that there are a number of them who plan on taking the Sergeant’s exam next year who have military service, while others have degrees that would qualify for educational points if they are allowed. He would also like to clarify whether or not his National Guard duty should count for military preference points. City Attorney Foster asked Officer Wig if he only wanted clarification on the promotional process, or if this inquiry applied to entry-level testing process as well. Officer Wig answered that the members were only interested in the promotional testing process. Chairman Beasley answered that he thought it would be a good idea to look at both. Commissioner Ubl stated that he thought that the Rules and Regulations were recently amended to address this issue as it pertains to entry-level candidates. Chief Thomas stated that issue was brought up due to the fact that the prior promotional testing announcement stated that candidates were eligible for military points but said nothing about educational preference points. Commissioner Ubl stated again that he thought that the educational points only recently came into play when the Rules and Regulations were amended earlier this year. City Attorney Foster said that was correct, but asked if the letter that Officer Wig was referring to pertained to entry-level testing or promotional testing. Officer Wig answered that it concerned entry-level testing. City Attorney Foster answered that he thought educational preference points were granted at the entry-level four years ago. He reiterated that he would research the issue, including the issue of whether or not National Guard duty counts as military time for preference points, and get back to the Commissioners. Officer Wig said that this was of special importance to him now, explaining that the definition of military service four years ago stated that six years in the National Guard was equal to one year of active duty service for military preference points. Officer Wig explained his period in the National Guard ended six months early due to the fact that he moved out of state and his new location did not have a unit that need his particular job skill. However, Officer Wig explained that the question that is now asked of candidates is whether or not they served a period of active duty for other than training purposes, such as for Desert Storm. He said that, by definition, he does meet that clause because he was activated by the State in 1993 when the Mississippi River overflowed. Commissioner Ubl said that he was not aware that National Guard service was not counted as time served for military preference points, so he will be interested in seeing what City Attorney Foster finds on this issue as well.

Commissioner Dailey asked when the next promotional examination would be give. Officer Wig answered that it would be sometime next year, since the current list expires in November 2005. Chairman Beasley asked Officer Wig to let his fellow officers know that City Attorney Foster will be looking into this and that the Commissioners will get an answer back to them as soon as possible. He said that they would convey their response to Chief Thomas, who can then share it with the membership. Officer Wig answered that this would be fine.

Chairman Beasley thanked Officer Wig for coming and asked him to let his fellow officers, as well as Fire personnel, know that they are welcome to come and sit in on the meetings of the Fire and Police Commission whenever they desired.

CLOSED SESSION

A motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues was made by Commissioner Dailey and seconded by Commissioner Ubl.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

Closed Session began at 11:37 a.m.

Motion

A motion to return to open session was made by Commissioner Ubl and was seconded by Commissioner Dailey.

Vote

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

Open session reconvened at 12:05 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

 

Motion

A motion to return to adjourn the meeting was made by Commissioner Ubl and was seconded by Commissioner Dailey.

Vote

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

The meeting adjourned at 12:06 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Minutes accepted by:

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________

Chairman Date

 

Attest:

 

 

 

____________________________________________

Jean Tritle, Recording Secretary Date