Good afternoon.

I will call the City of Joliet Board of Fire and Police Commissioners special meeting to order.

Today is Tuesday, June 30th, 2026.

It is two PM.

Roll call, please.

Chairman Adamovsky.

Here.

Commissioner Coleman?

Here.

Commissioner Potts.

Here.

Commissioner Strocha?

Here.

And Commissioner Stefansky is present.

We have a quorum.

First up on the agenda is citizens to be heard on agenda items.

Would anyone like to speak to the board on an agenda item?

Yeah.

Hello, board.

I'm Eric Masson, president of Fire Officers Association.

Local 2369.

Every time I address this board, I say thank you to you guys.

I know it's not an easy job you have, but we certainly appreciate your civic duty while you're up here doing it.

And that's no BS.

Thank you guys.

As to how they attain to uh ascertain merit with military veterans.

Um we understand there is some discussion on it.

Uh particularly on the fire side, we have a list that's about to expire.

We would uh we would ask for your consideration in not establishing new rules while we're in the middle of a game.

Um if we get through this list, sign off on it, and then maybe have discussion on any changes that there are to be had later.

And uh we'll talk about it then if we could.

Any questions from me?

Thank you very much for the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment?

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll move on to next agenda item.

Um Joliet Police Department promotion.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh I'm Deputy Chief Sherry Blackburn.

I'm going to be filling in for uh acting chief uh Rob Brown.

Right now he's at a meeting.

Um we reviewed the history of work of Sergeant Candidate James Durham and found that throughout his career he has received numerous awards, including a Silver Life Saving Award.

He's a recipient of an Illinois Juvenile Officers Association Distinguished Service Award.

Uh he's been a nominated and received Officer of the Month.

Uh he's received numerous uh unit merit awards and letters of appreciation from citizens.

In addition, he's had no disciplinary record for the past five years.

As a result, we find no cause to prevent him from performing his duties if promoted to the rank of sergeant.

And on a personal note, Officer Jim Durham has worked for me.

I've worked with him.

He's an outstanding officer.

I think he's only going to be a better supervisor if promoted to the rank of sergeant.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you, Deputy Chief.

Is there a motion to approve the promotion of Master Patrol Officer James Durham to Sergeant James Durham?

Motion.

Second.

We have a first and a second.

Pull the board, please.

Chairman Adamovski.

Aye.

Commissioner Coleman.

Aye.

Commissioner Potts.

Aye.

Commissioner Strocha.

Aye.

And Commissioner Stefanski.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Congratulations, Sergeant Durham.

Okay, next up on the agenda for new or old business, not for final action or recommendation, is a discussion regarding promotional preference points.

So I on behalf just to start off the discussion point.

Um there was, and I know uh Gina is here from HR to kind of further explain.

I'll turn it over to her in a moment.

Um they're recently in preparing the next set of promotional lists.

As you all know, there's a whole process that goes along with it.

Uh there's a whole uh stack of different preference points that we have to calculate.

And the one, as was mentioned in open um public comment relates to the appropriate calculation of veterans points.

So just to be clear, uh my understanding and certainly the way that this is set up on the agenda today is that we're not looking to make any changes to the current board rules.

It's more a matter of how are we supposed to interpret our current board rules, which effectively point to what is the law require.

Um so with that I'll Gina, do you have anything that you would like to add in terms of background for this?

Um yes, I have a prepared statement.

So thank you all for being here today.

Um human resources department respectfully requests the board's formal guidance regarding the criteria that should be used to determine and award veteran preference points in promotional processes.

Unfortunately, the Illinois statute on point is not well worded in our opinion.

Our staff are new to the process, and our HR director has experience from a previous municipality.

And according to the information that the human resources department has reviewed and received, the determination and application of military preference points have not historically been calculated or utilized in a consistent manner across promotional processes.

And I will apologize, I I use veteran and military points interchangeably, but they are the same thing.

This inconsistency has resulted in varying interpretations of eligibility, documentation requirements, and point allocation from one promotional cycle to another.

To establish clear, uniform standards that will ensure fairness and transparency.

Our department is working to establish a standardized and clearly documented method for assessing military service and applying preference points.

This standardized approach will support uniformity across all future promotional processes and help ensure that all eligible candidates are treated equitably.

We would also suggest revising the board's rules at some point in the near future to reflect the determination.

HR seeks direction on the following eligibility requirements.

What qualifying military service should be recognized?

The options as we see them are to one award veterans' points for every 365 days of active military service up to the maximum points allowed for active military service only, whether it's achieved on active duty or reservist duty.

Or two, award veterans' points only if the veteran has served in both active and reserve or inactive status.

Additionally, the HR director contacted several other municipalities and they calculate military promotional points using the first interpretation or option.

Also, for full disclosure, we consulted outside council and the Illinois Attorney General's Military and Veterans Rights Bureau for input, and they agree with using option two based on the wording of the applicable statute and case law.

The second request is regarding documentation standards.

One, should HR rely exclusively on DD 214s, which are referenced in the board rules, or two, should HR also accept other service verification documentation, such as point credit summaries, which is an official record that tracks the retirement points of service members and leave and earnings statements.

And those aren't the only documents that can be used to prove military service.

Those are just two of the best examples.

Choosing one option over the other can exclude the inclusion of the veteran points for certain employees.

As you likely know, veteran preference points may only be applied once towards a promotional appointment.

After an eligible candidate uses military points to secure a promotion, those points cannot be applied again for any subsequent promotional processes per the Illinois Municipal Code.

Going forward, our department intends to issue a formal certification for each applicant participating in the promotional process.

This certification will verify the applicant's submitted documentation, including any preference point eligibility, and will serve as a standardized record of the applicant's status at the time of review.

A copy of each certification will be filed in the applicant's personnel file to ensure consistent auditable and readily accessible documentation for future reference.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So realistically today, the question is just what are we supposed to do?

I mean, quite literally.

You are, as we've discussed before, kind of beholden to a couple of different things.

Obviously, the state law, your own rules, any collective bargaining agreements that may speak to what's going on here, and again, specifically with reference to veterans' points.

Now, all of the there's four CBAs that are potentially at issue here.

We have two for police, two with fire.

Um my view of both of or all four of those collective bargaining agreements, nothing specifically specifies veterans' points.

There are references to the promotional process in each one of the collective bargaining agreements.

Um generally speaking, in my opinion, they all effectively say that we are supposed to follow the rules unless there's something specific in the collective bargaining agreement that says otherwise, as I said, there's nothing specific to veterans' points in any of the CBAs.

So really it comes down to what do our own rules require.

And our rules effectively say, which is super helpful for all involved, uh prep preference points, candidates who are otherwise qualified and have properly requested credit for prior military service shall be granted up to three and one half or three point five veterans' preference points as set forth in 65 ILCS 5 10-2.11 within 10 business days after the date of the written test or such claims shall be deemed waived.

Such preference veterans' preference points shall only be used once for one promotional rank, e.g.

shall not be utilized more than one time for multiple promotional ranks.

So all it effectively says is that we follow the law.

And this is borne out also by existing case law.

Now, albeit this case law is from the 80s, but you know, that it's still in good standing.

But what the effectively what the question is is this and what the what the back and forth analysis has been is this whether it's and or as far as the requirements for receiving the veterans preference points.

So the statute uh is not a be it, I know this is going to come as a huge surprise to most involved.

The Illinois on general legislature did not do the most clear and concise job of drafting this particular statutory language.

So it is a little bit confusing.

Um but the case law in in my interpretation as well as uh speaking with with multiple other individuals in my um in my firm kind of confirmed uh what my original opinion was, which is that the first is that you have to uh be a member of the classified uh service of fire and police.

That's a no-brainer.

They're obviously all going to be part uh meet that requirement.

The individual must have engaged in military and naval service of the United States for at any time for a period of at least one year.

Um that can sometimes come into question of whether or not they were in active service or not, but that's not really the issue that's before us today.

And then the the last two points, which are really around issue, is that the ill the individual must have been honorably discharged from that service, and the individual must be currently on inactive or reserved duty in such military or naval service.

And that's the and between those last two points that's critical.

So there is a distinction between initial hire and promotional.

So with initial hire, it is this or scenario of that it honorably discharged or serving in inactive status, whereas for promotional purposes, they have to they have to under the existing case law meet both requirements.

So they have to be both honorably discharged and currently in inactive or reserve duty in order to qualify for the veterans' points under the way the statute is written.

Now the other thing I would say is that's that's in my opinion, what the current case law and the statute legally requires us to do.

I will say though, as there were a couple of comments about potentially changing the rules.

In theory, because there this is a home rule community, as well as uh collective bargaining agreements also apply the parties, the city and the unions could bargain something else, which we would be obligated to follow in terms of how these points are calculated and applied, and in theory, the board could follow could uh amend its rules, which we'd have different legal uh uh implications, which would also potentially uh have collective bargaining implications as well.

Um so I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has, uh, but just to be summarized and be quite straightforward with what I'm articulating.

In my opinion, we're obligated under our current rules and the guidelines that we're supposed to follow to follow the statute, and in my opinion, reading the statute and the existing case law, the existing case law requires both that the person be honorably discharged and currently an inactive or reserve duty.

So my advice to the board would be that um to give the directions to human resources when calculating those points that they follow that uh that guideline um of what the statute requires when calculating those points.

Does anybody have any questions or if there's anything I can further add?

I have a question.

You said inconsistent.

Are you talking for the city of Joliet or several different cities?

Because Joliet has been pretty consistent, I think, for the last 35, 40 years.

I mean, you've got the unions here.

We've been consistently getting the points that they get for being having service, correct?

So there's never been a change.

There's how many promotion lists we've been on, you've been on for 30-something years.

It's been consistent.

So you said it was inconsistent.

Are you talking about other cities or our city?

Well, both.

As far as other municipalities, there are other municipalities that that aren't following what Kelly just described, so as far as inconsistent, there's that.

And then internally, um our understanding is that the determination whether uh one particular veteran qualified for the points or not, that was the inconsistent part.

Well, as I happen to be on for 31 years, we were very consistent.

Everyone who took that test knew exactly they could only use them points once.

And they planned out when they used them.

But if we are going to discuss us maybe changing them and doing that, I think it should be done next list because these guys all prepared with the way we had it.

So every guy did it's not a two-week cycle.

These guys study for six months.

So they're gonna save that points.

Either they're gonna go from lieutenant to captain or captain to BC, they plan that out.

You know, they make sure with seniority and all that stuff.

Is this something that we could discuss?

I'm not saying who's right or who's wrong, but these lists I think should be certified, the rules that they had before they took out the application, and then what you guys found that's something we could discuss with us, with the unions and all that stuff.

But I I recommend that we certify these lists with our home rule that we've always had, just to make it fair to the people that studied for these lists.

And just to make sure that we're clear for everybody, that would be option one that you're saying in terms of the requirements.

I'm not saying either or, but I'm just saying for this list, that's what they were expecting.

So I don't think we should pull the rug underneath them.

You know, they this is how they were studying, this is how they planned out this list.

My own personal opinion.

I also agree, anything that started should be finished the way it started.

So in regards to this list, there's no question in my mind, we leave it as is.

I also interpret I interpret that statute a little differently that you read.

Um I see it divided.

I see having served divided by a period or a comma, and then it brings in another subsection of those that are serving right now.

So they get that benefit too.

So I think it includes the now serving, now reservists, as well as the ones who have served.

Right.

Well, the the case law confirms, and this is also something that was confirmed by the attorney general's office that the way the points are supposed to be, again, this is just what the statute requires.

Ultimately, what the board decides to do is is ultimately the board's decision.

The statute requires it to be both served and currently in a reserve or inactive status.

It's that.

Yes, it does.

I I'm reading uh the Illinois statute.

Yeah, the individual must be a member of the classified service of the fire police department of a municipality coming under Division 2.1.

Semicolon, the individual must have been engaged in the military or naval service of the United States at any time for a period of at least one year.

Semicolon, the individual must have uh been honorably discharged from that service, semicolon, and the individual I don't have an hand.

I'm not sure what you're looking at then.

But the I don't know, I printed it up and there wasn't an answer.

Okay.

So the all I can tell you is that what my advice is ultimately what you decide to do.

If you there can't be any clearer from what I'm hearing today of what has been going on and what should have been going on are two different things.

The question before the board is hold on one second, I can let me finish.

Um, is do you want to follow what has been done, or do you want to follow what the statute requires, which was my recommendation?

Again, ultimately it's a completely up to the board to determine which what how you're going to direct HR to calculate those points.

Um I believe there was a hand from the audience that looks like they would like to weigh in.

Well, I I think we're getting confused under two laws.

You're I think you're quoting ISERO, right?

No, this is under the 65 ideas.

I'm not gonna I I'll be honest, there's no need to debate what the statute says.

They the question here is really about does the in my given my opinion, I don't want and I and again I don't want to cut anybody off.

This is more of the for everyone's time and interest.

It's just more of the for everyone's time and interest, I don't think we need to have a circular argument in terms of what I'm my reading of the law is what the attorney general is reading of the law is and what other individuals' interpretation of the law is.

I think the question here is just what do you want to do?

Now, I I sense from the uh the response is that your vote is for option one.

I I don't I don't I really don't get a vote, but um I I just want to make clarification on the ISERA or or we're quoting this is not ISER, this is the this is the language under the BMPC municipal code under Division 2.1.

And we find HR is bringing a lot to the board, right?

It's all brand new.

I'm sure if Todd Lindsey was here, he's voted on this in the past for the past list.

He's corporation counsel, he's already done this, vetted it, it's been asked and answered before.

Now we see something new coming in.

Blindly.

We there's no part of negotiation, nope, no part of any interpretation, what's going on.

There's something new that's presented, right in the middle of a test.

We we have people, and I'm not not to buck the law or anything here.

There are we had people that have taken the test that had 10 years on who are no longer in the reserve.

Started out in the reserve, got called up, went to active duty in the Marine Corps, they were over in the middle of it in the sand and the fleas and everything else.

They came back here, they took a test, they've been out of the reserve for how many years?

Yet they they've had this premonition in their head.

I'm gonna get those points.

And now, out of nowhere, we're saying, no, you don't.

Those aren't our rules.

We have current rules or home rule.

If we get through this, let's stamp our list now, and then we can negotiate over this.

I think that's the right call.

So, you know.

Yeah.

I think the list that has been created with the previous rules should stand because all these references like pulling the rug and changing the rules in the middle of the game doesn't make sense.

And so I wanted to ask again, and I think um Eric made it clear that you did not have to be in the reserves to get the points previously.

But the statute and what your opinion is is that they should either be because I'm I'm confused, inactive or in the reserves.

So that's two different things from my knowledge.

Correct.

So you can be inactive and in an active status or in the reserves, so one or the other will satisfy that last prompt.

And just to be clear, there there is, I I apologize.

I was reading from the court case.

There is no specific and that is listed in there.

It is the who is now or whoever may hereafter be in an active or reserve duty in such military or naval service comment, not including uh however persons who are convicted by court.

Actually, I should read earlier.

Every member of the classified service of the fire and police of any municipality coming under the uh provisions of this division 2.1 who is engaged in military or naval service of the United States at any time for a period of one year, so that's where the one year comes in, who's honest honorably discharged therefrom, who is now or who may hereafter be on inactive or reserve duty in such military or naval service.

So the the question, you know, we can get into again, we can continue the debate on what whether that's an and or or type of requirement.

Um I think from what I'm hearing from the board that there seems to be, and again, I'm more than happy to continue answering any questions that you have.

Um it also seems that everyone is on the same page in terms of how things have been done versus what my interpretation of what the law requires.

Again, at the end of the day, it's up to the board to make the determination or at least to give in this particular instance guidance to HR in terms of how you'd like these things to be applied.

Um that that's really the question before you today.

Can I give a scenario so I can just understand it better?

So I was in the guard for 13 years.

I served in a war for 15 months, came home, did like three years, but I've been out for like 10 years.

More than that.

So if I were to apply to be a firefighter or a police officer, I would not get the points.

That so there's different rules that apply to initial application than for promotional service.

So let's talk about less promotion.

So for promotion, you would have to have you would meet the active, you were in active service for more than one year.

The question is, are you currently in an active or reserve duty?

If the answer is no, then you would not be entitled.

That's ridiculous.

Well, and again, the board can make whatever decision it ultimately wants.

All I can tell you is, and many times, unfortunately, what the lawyer tells you the law should say is not necessarily what you want the law to say.

Now, you are in the uh cat bird seat in determining how you want to apply your own rules.

That's entirely up to you.

Um you will not get me to say otherwise what the law specifically requires.

I do acknowledge, however, that there is and has been a vocal interest in doing something other than that, which is entirely within your purview to do so.

I'm not sure who thought that was a good idea, but anyone who served this nation, especially if they served in a war and spent time overseas deserves every veteran point they can receive.

So I'm I don't I don't know, I don't know how this change came about because the state law came out.

Well, so there was no, so they really realistically there was no change.

The law has been in existence in this current format for longer than I've been alive, which is not for an insignificant period of time.

Um the issue is as many things happen, is that they weren't people weren't following the law correctly, um, which is not in my experience working with a number of different BFPCs, and given the kind of um Byzantine way the law is written, is not uncommon for these things to be misinterpreted, and then like most things happen, and this is I'm sure not news to anybody in this room, we just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over again, um, not thinking anything of it because what ain't broke, why fix it until sometimes what happens is you get a change in leadership, you get change in personnel that then go back and look why are we doing it this way and discover that we may not necessarily be doing things correctly.

So I I don't I can't speak to what inconsistencies there may or may not have been from one person to the other.

Um what I can tell you from what my understanding is is that it appears that it has been it for generally speaking that it's been applied in the or or the first scenario rather than the and is what it appears that it has been.

Again, we can continue the debate about whether that should have been the case or what you guys should do going forward.

Again, I I will tell you until the cows come home what my analysis of the law is, but at the end of the day, you get to decide how you want to apply your rules and whether or not you want to continue to do things as they have been done for now, or if you want to apply the law as currently drafted.

I have some questions, Gina.

So just well, to be clear, the way that the city of Juliet currently operates, whether it's for hire or promotion, veteran points are distributed exactly the same way.

True or false.

Currently?

Yes.

The same way.

Yes.

Okay.

Do all four, whether they be blue shirt, white shirt, same for fire.

Is it consistent across the board for hiring and promotion in terms of how these points are distributed?

Well, no, but that's because they're different in the board rules.

Okay, but as far as this goes, right?

Like there's no really inconsistent approach in what we're doing internally, it's really that we're inconsistent with state law.

So I can only speak to our our current staff in the HR office.

Um we're all new that are involved with the board.

Um Pauline, myself, the HR director.

So as far as our time uh working with you and and with these matters, yes.

So as a home rule community, we we oftentimes don't follow a lot of state statutes.

Um I feel like this is an instance where that's a good thing.

And to Natalie's point, I think that we should be fully inclusive of anyone and everyone who's ever served.

And if we're already doing that, I don't see a need to change what's happening unless there's some kind of inconsistent distribution.

If there's a fix for inconsistent distribution, I'm all yours.

But I don't know why we would mess with something that has worked, continues to work, and is fairly and equitably applied to anyone and everyone who's ever served.

If I may, um as the rules state, they they refer back to the statute, and as an attorney and working in the HR office, I'm trying to follow the rules in the law.

Um, and that's why I reached out to outside counsel um and had staff uh reach out to the Illinois Attorney General's office.

Um that's my obligation is to do the right thing under under the law, under the rules.

Now, I will say to your point about fairness and giving providing another example of a veteran that could be excluded, and that's one where uh you know someone served on active duty, so board member Coleman gave the example of being reserves, right?

So board member Coleman gave the example of being reserves, right?

Okay, so if you have an uh active service member who is honorably discharged but receive a medical discharge, they most often, I I don't know of any exceptions, do not have to serve in active service or any reservist time after they get out.

Um veterans under a standard contract serve in active service after their active service is over.

So they would meet those those two prongs, right?

But a veteran who serves for 15 years of active service and receives a medical discharge would not qualify under the state statute and case law interpretation because they wouldn't have to do that in active service.

So we're like I I said in our statement, we were very sensitive to this, and um someone is statute of we're not being inconsistent, except for with state law.

We're a home rule community, so we can discard disregard state law.

Our rules are inconsistent with state statute, therefore, can we just modify our rules so that they're dismissive of state statute vis-a-d home rule?

So what I would suggest, given what I'm hearing today, is that in order to be consistent with what you want to apply, you would need to amend your rules.

Now there are certain in certain instances, there's certain bargaining implications that relate to changing rules and processes, but given that everybody is on the same mindset that that's how they want this to be applied, it doesn't seem like that's going to be much of a an issue that we need to do.

So what I would suggest is that going forward, um, that at some point in the future, which I think was mentioned by a number of different people that you amend your rules to be consistent with how you want it to be applied so that it is clear going forward, because it the the upside and downside of referencing that we will follow whatever the statute is, that you will then be wholen to however that statute could be interpreted, and you've got multiple lawyers interpreting it differently.

So if there is specific ways that you would like this to be applied, you're a home rule authority, you can absolutely change it to be that way.

And certainly I would always recommend that so that um as Pauline has unfortunately discovered, sometimes you walk in and you're not really sure how people have done things in the past or how things should be done.

So it's a lot it's it will it would be significantly more transparent for all involved going forward if you were to amend your rules to specify that.

Um I don't know if you guys are currently in the process of looking to amend your rules or not, but that would certainly be something that I would add to the to-do list if you guys were going to do that.

What amendment would amending the rules fix the problem?

Uh certainly amending the rules could fix the problem, yeah.

Okay.

As long as the unions aren't going to demand to bargain over making things consistent with how you guys have it applying them, there shouldn't be any legal issue with doing that.

Now, I would say you cannot do that today.

No.

Um anyone else have questions?

Two more questions.

Okay.

When you say they've been in for a year, that's either active or reserve, or they've served a year.

Like they have to be an active U.S.

military service for one year.

Okay.

And then, and I'm not knocking it because I've taught and I was still in the guard.

I was a teacher, so I could have been called, I was called up for a deployment.

Do we pay, do we still pay the salary of firefighters and police officers if they're currently in the guard or reserve and they get deployed?

So if they there is under Illinois law, there is something called which was referenced to earlier, ISERA does require a certain pay on depending on the type of deployment.

So usually for involuntary deployment, there's uh full pay, differential pay, I can't remember which one off the top of my head.

But there they are paid and receive certain benefits for in while they are deployed.

Okay.

Other questions?

No, I mean we could make a motion that we keep it as is and then discuss and we don't need a lot of.

So it's not in motion.

What we just need today is, and I'll just say it this way, and you guys can correct me if I'm inaccurate, is that the direction to the human resources department is to calculate the veterans' preference points consistent with option one, which was the not requiring and just requiring or.

I know there was another question in terms of the level of documentation required.

Um that's really uh a you call in terms of I it was a recommendation in terms of what documentation to require.

So I think it's in the appendix where it it's about the um initial points.

And I know I saw the same thing in terms of in the only reference I saw and albeit I did not memorize your rules but it that that was was the only reference was in the initial hire which is obviously not what we're talking about.

So did you have a specific recommendation in terms of what you would suggest being allowed to to be submitted to prove for purposes of veterans.

If if the board has no issue with us uh utilizing other um documentation to prove military service if we can keep it broad that would be best if it needs to be specific the uh lead and earnings statements and uh the point credit summaries would be the the best two examples in addition to do you two fourteens.

So there's nothing specifically in your rules that say one way or the other just says they have to apply in writing and that's all that is so if you would like to accept the I personally say no issue with accepting the recommendation of human resources that basically what it would be is that human resources can then decide if there if whatever written submission is sufficient to uh demonstrate you know do we have a problem with what was going on in the past did we have somebody falsely applying?

It wasn't about falsely it was not turning in enough information to prove their service.

Okay how about the long form D D 14?

Does that not do it for you?

The long form, not just the uh photocopy of you know no actually it doesn't I think it gets it more complicated with reservists and um and their service so they have other documentation and accumulating all their D D214s because they have multiple D D214s from the periods of time that they were activated.

So having a statement that has all that information on it is more helpful.

And what is that called the point credit summaries are for uh points for retirement and the leave in earnings statements are um they show like how much they were paid and and how much they they served is my my understanding I I understand it could be multiple D214s because I have two.

I have three because they give you one when you go to officer school as well.

But I think that I don't know we could we if if I'm the only one out here that's saying stick to the D D214 and I'll be outvoted but I think if you want the service credit, I mean if you want the points then you'll I don't know why you wouldn't have your D D 214 and you can go online and get it.

You would get all free right you you can do that they have improved the system for getting documents trust me.

I think that if I'm understanding Gina's point correctly I I don't think getting the 214 is the issue.

I think it's more of that it doesn't contain the necessary information that we're looking for was that it has everything on there.

It has the years you serve where you served and I have all three of my home and I'm not saying it it's a easy not my area of expertise.

It's understanding military paperwork so I will defer to other I used to think it was just one but I you literally get one for officer school or training active duty and then the whole time you were in the guard.

So I think people could should be able to do their own due diligence and have those documents in their possession.

I'm not trying to not give points I think like I've said in my previous statement but when we start allowing different documents there's chances of forgery and some other things that could happen.

I just where do we stop you know is it going to be three different documents we accept or is is I know you name two others but if it's just those three and we could I don't want it to be just open is what I'm getting at.

If we could limit it to those three I think that would be very helpful.

Then if you if you'd like to give the again there's no voting as we're not making any formal decisions but it's with with the board is just with the kind of verbal yes or not is giving direction the two HR to continue to calculate the points under option one which is the OR scenario is that correct?

Yes.

With then with respect to the uh the documents required um you were giving the it sounded like you would willing to provide the direction that the three specific documents which I will not attempt to regurgitate off the top of my head um that Gina mentioned are acceptable forms of proof.

In a minute but who are we eliminating who are we eliminating by adding those two well I can tell you that we had a recent applicant who did not prove enough service with the D D214 that they submitted.

Okay.

Okay.

He's out.

He doesn't get the point.

I'm wondering if we open this up to more documents, do we exclude a fine uh uh uh someone who served our nation and doesn't have that one document or I don't know.

Oh no, we wouldn't be excluding them.

They don't have to turn in all three.

I'm gonna do that.

It's just to one uh yeah.

Right, one or the other.

And and also um you know I actually worked in personnel in in the military and the DD214s are filled out by you know, 19-year-old admin clerks that are are not always um completely accurate.

I don't know if board member uh Coleman has experienced this.

So mistakes do happen um on the DD 214s, and the the reservist ones can be quite complicated.

There's there's a lot of information on there as far as all the dates and the time.

Um I know and working with Pauline, it's it is uh a little bit complicated.

So if we have those other statements that are more cumulative that would be easier for everyone involved, both the the employee, the veteran, and the HR staff to say here's all the active service, they qualify.

It's it's easy, it's all right there.

DD214s, the long versions, as you mentioned, um, are ideal because they show the type of service.

The short DD214s do not show if they're honorable or not, for instance.

So, yes, we we do want those, but um honorable service will be calculated in the retirement credits and the LES statements.

So it's in they're inherently built in.

So the the type of discharge is the type of discharge is on the other two documents you made.

No.

Uh that's not my understanding.

They're it the there that's only on the long form of the DD214.

But if you have a dishonorable or other than honorable or bad conduct discharge, those that time should not be counted toward retirement time, which would show the act of service.

That we can take another look at that if there's concern over that.

There is.

A little bit because I don't think we will want someone that was dishonorably discharged, and if we if we don't have a document that shows that well, I can tell you that uh I I do think that those types of discharges would come up in the background checks of our employees, the initial background checks.

Okay.

But if you say you believe, I would like to see where it comes up.

Like if we know for sure.

Because if they turn in and learn uh earnings statements or the other one and it's not on there, how do we factually know?

Like I want a tangible place in the application or wherever this says, you know, they served in the military and this was their type of discharge.

If we're going to accept those other documents.

Gina, why do those other documents make it easier for you guys?

They're simple.

Let's see.

There is more cumulative information on the documents.

Um I also know that we have we've had candidates um who have not been able to supply the DD 214s but had the service.

So I I can't speak to why they weren't able to supply the D D214.

Um I don't know if it was just not doing their due diligence or or what I really don't know the circumstances.

I I do know that sometimes getting a D D 214 can be challenging.

I'm not going to do that.

Do we know of anyone for sure who served, couldn't get a DD 214, didn't get preference points?

Yes.

However, I I do not know if the person still would have qualified and just didn't turn in enough uh proof.

Can I can I interject really quick?

Sure.

Is there a current applicant for promotional points where you're having difficulty with the paperwork, or is this more of a future issue that we're addressing?

Um I I don't know if it's a current or recent.

Pauline.

It's current, right?

Yeah.

This is current.

So we do need this for current purposes.

Okay.

Or at least we need the clarification for the current calculation.

So what's the board's pleasure?

What is the problem with this applicant?

You can't get a DD.

I have no idea.

I'm just asking if this is a uh if I what I was trying to get at is is this a conversation that we need to resolve now, or is this a conversation that we can loop into amending our rules going forward?

It sounds like from what I'm hearing that this is an active issue that the that they need clarification on now.

Um what the specific issue is, I don't know.

It's I mean I I I'm loath to go into more specifics on what the current issue is because I think at the end of the day it shouldn't matter.

It's more of j I think you need to think my recommendation is usually to t take those things in a vacuum and to say what's your preference to keep things with just the straightforward current existing paperwork that you that you allow um your initial applicants to provide, or do you want to take their recommendation from HR to broaden that to allow for those those other documents that were referenced?

I mean, I if it's work for this long, I'd say keep it.

I'm open to adding, but I don't even know what these documents we're talking about look like.

I don't know what they contain.

I know what a DD214 is.

I know the information on that, so I feel comfortable using that as a document to show service.

Again, I'm open to it at least exploring other documentation, but I just I've never seen it.

I'd like to see what it looks like and have more conversation around that.

Sorry, Gene, have we accepted other documents in the past?

I I think it's hard to tell because of the I mean I will say with Pauline and Gina, they're uh kind of thrown into the deep end of the pool because they're unfortunately as many bureaucratic things are they usually the person that you're taking over for doesn't leave detailed notes of exactly how we did this and where stuff is.

So I think they're trying to just kind of piece together uh history as best they can.

Um I think if I'm hearing the it's it sounds like the consensus from the board, and I don't want to cut off this discussion if you think it's worth continuing, but to continue with the uh the uh existing uh 214s and then potentially revisiting expanding that when you can have more information at a later date.

Yeah, I agree.

Like if you can show that there's somewhere else in the application process the type of discharge if they are submitting something other than a DD 214.

Um I'm for allowing the document.

Yeah.

So does that give you the clarification?

And I was there an issue with the actual calculation of points that we needed to discuss.

Uh I don't think so.

Okay.

I'm getting Pauline grimacing at me.

And I understand you're saying we would probably catch them ahead of time during the application process, but it could be a possibility that we don't if we don't have a place to see that type of discharge and they submit something else.

Okay.

We'll look into that and verify.

Give us one second.

I don't know.

I think that's what I try to use when it kind of understands.

And in it of this.

I mean, I haven't years now.

We don't want other documents.

That's what I'm looking for.

So it's 2000 there.

Okay, so there was also um a question in terms of calculating how to calculate the preference points.

Um I'm assuming the direction based on the uh in Pauline just wanted to make sure because uh as I mentioned there are no uh real detailed notes or SOPs in terms of this.

My understanding or at least the direction I'm hearing on everything else is to keep the cal whatever calculation that we've been doing historically consistent going forward until any other changes further are made.

Is that accurate?

Yes, yes.

As long as it's consistent.

You want consistency of what we've been doing.

Understood.

I think that was it as far as all of the outstanding issues.

Um I were there any other questions from me at this point or any other items that we need to discuss with that with that agenda item.

Then I think we are good on that one.

Okay.

Thank you guys so much.

Um next up on the agenda is any public comment.

Okay.

Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed to the motion motion carries.