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.

They were available for all public to read.

He identifies himself as an EFD employee upon his social media.

They were documented through investigation and acknowledged by Lieutenant Alexander himself.

Equally important, this was not an isolated incident.

Lieutenant Alexander had previously been disciplined for social media conduct and was clearly on notice regarding the department's expectations.

Rather than correcting the behavior, the behavior escalated.

Progressive discipline was attempted.

It failed to achieve its purpose.

The Evansville Fire Department was has adopted policies governing conduct, professionalism, social media use, workplace behavior, and disciplinary authority.

Those policies were lawfully implemented, made available to all employees, acknowledged by Lieutenant Alexander, and reinforced through departmental training.

The question before this commission is not whether he knew the rules.

The law does not require the department to wait until discrimination occurs.

The law requires the department to take reasonable steps to prevent it from ever occurring.

You may hear arguments regarding the First Amendment.

The courts have consistently held that public employees, particularly public safety employees, may be disciplined when their speech undermines the operational effectiveness of their agency, erodes public confidence, damages workplace cohesion, or calls into question their ability to serve all citizens fairly.

Courts across multiple jurisdictions have repeatedly upheld termination under circumstances remarkably similar to those before this commission today.

At its core, this case comes down to one fundamental question.

Can this department competently assure every citizen, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or any other protected status, that they will receive unbiased emergency services from this employee?

If there is reasonable doubt, then the department has both a legal obligation and an ethical obligation to act.

The citizens of this community do not choose which firefighter arrives at their home during an emergency.

They must trust that whoever it is that responds will treat them equally, professionally, and without prejudice.

That trust is one of the most valuable assets this department possesses.

Once lost, it's extraordinarily difficult to ever get it back.

The department's responsibility is not to protect an employee from the consequences of repeated misconduct.

Our responsibility is to protect the public, preserve confidence in emergency services, and ensure compliance with the laws and standards that govern this profession.

Based upon the evidence, the prior disciplinary history, the acknowledged policy violations, the operational impact, the legal risks, and the well-established legal precedent supporting disciplinary action in this case of this nature.

Termination is justified.

Termination is reasonable, and termination is necessary.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Merit Commission to uphold the termination of Lieutenant Alexander.

Thank you.

Yeah, counsel.

Are you going to make an opening statement as well?

Um, I think I'll wait for right now on the certain closing.

Okay.

All right.

So you are finished, Chief.

And you are not going to make an opening statement.

Or is it going to make it a statement on the stipulation as the Chiefs who did this now or how to case the chief over there?

We were going to go.

I was under the impression you guys were going to make a statement, but you know, similar to Chiefs.

If you're not, then I think, yeah, now we would move, we would close the public hearing and move into executive session, start with the statement.

Yeah, I agree.

Okay.

So it does Lieutenant Alexander wish to make a statement at this time.

That's different, then from the this one's going to be in the public session, so if we can make it another one, but then at this time, we will be going into executive session, um, which will be pursuant to IC five-14-1.5-2.

We will be hearing evidence at that point from both sides.

Uh it'll be a closed hearing, so the public will be asked to leave, and then we will return to an open session after that.

Did you have a question from the union?

Uh we know we need to be allowed to say a executive session sector.

No.

Okay.

So let's not be live.

No, no, no.

She'll record it, but I think that's a good question.