The Evansville Fire Merit Commission held a special meeting on May 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in room 307 of the Civic Center to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the termination of Lieutenant Wes Alexander. The meeting began with the acceptance of the prehearing conference report, a disclosure by Commissioner Dixon Dickinson regarding a conversation with the employee's father, and opening statements from the department's counsel. The hearing then moved into executive session to hear evidence.
Good morning. It is May the 26th, 2006, 9 a.m. meeting in room 307 of the Civic Center. This is a special meeting of the Evansville Fire America Commission to discuss the employment of Lieutenant Wes Alexander. Secretary, do we have a quorum? Mr. President, all members are here. We do have a quorum. Okay. Before we start, have all the commissioners had a chance to read the pre-hearing conference report. Yes. Okay. With one exception, on number five, they have vice president listed Salmage Vic. Kenneth Jackson was elected vice president in January. Other than that, I have seen no problems with that. I would accept a motion to accept the prehearing conference report. We'll move in a second. Second. Any discussion? Seeing hearing, and all those in favor signify by saying aye. I will disclose too, it's already been disclosed to both parties. As soon as the chief made his recommendation and had his meeting with Wes Alexander, his father Bob did call me. We talked briefly. I told him then that we probably shouldn't talk anymore because that would probably be inappropriate and mighty the waters on the meeting. So I just wanted to make that public disclosure. And that has been disclosed, and I just want to make sure. Does either party have any objection to Mr. Dixon Dickinson serving on the commission today? Thank you. Okay. Well, we will start with the evidentiary hearing. The chief will present his evidence first. And I think we agreed that opening statements they'll be sworn in for this. Yeah, if the Corey Poor could go ahead and swear on both parties at this time, that'd be appropriate. Do you have square from the testimony to go about the gate would be the truth, the whole truth? It might be at the truth. I do. Thank you. Commission members. This case is not about politics. It's not about personal beliefs. It's not about whether someone is entitled to hold opinions that others may disagree with. This case is about conduct. Every member of this department voluntarily accepted a position of public trust. With that trust comes clear expectations, established policies, professional standards, and a sworn obligation to provide service impartially to every member of our community. Those standards are not optional. They exist to protect the citizens we serve, to protect the integrity of our organization, and to protect the confidence of the public that they place upon us. The evidence before you demonstrates that Lieutenant Alexander repeatedly made statements directed at individuals based upon protected status, made comments involving immigration enforcement in the context of citizens receiving services, and published social media content that reasonably recalls into question his ability to be impartial as a public safety professional. These actions were witnessed by co-workers. They were publicly posted on social media.