Police Civil Service Commission Meeting - May 22, 2026
Police Civil Service Commission Meeting - May 22, 2026
The Police Civil Service Commission met on May 22, 2026 (per provided metadata; the transcript indicates May 21, 2026) via hybrid format at the Rochester Police Department North Station and MS Teams. Commissioners Brad Trahan and Dugsted were present. The meeting addressed an agenda amendment, approval of prior minutes, and approval of background checks for seven police officer candidates.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the minutes from the April 1, 2026 meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public offered comments.
Discussion Items
- Agenda Amendment and Eligibility List: Commissioner Dugsted moved to amend the agenda to add an additional person to the eligibility list. The motion was seconded and approved. Following the amendment, the commission approved the newly amended eligibility list.
- Police Officer Backgrounds (Item 5A): The commission reviewed background investigations for seven candidates (identified as Candidates A–G). Commissioner Dugsted expressed concern about Candidate G, noting 29 discrepancies between the personal history questionnaire and the investigator's findings after the candidate was asked to make corrections. Despite the concerns, the background investigator concluded there was no reason to disqualify Candidate G. The commission acknowledged the need to review questionnaire clarity to reduce future discrepancies. The eligibility list for these seven candidates was subsequently approved.
Key Outcomes
- Agenda approved as amended (motion carried).
- Minutes from April 1, 2026 approved.
- Eligibility list for police officer backgrounds (seven candidates) approved.
- Meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. Today is Thursday, May 21st, 3 p.m. It's the police civil service commission meeting. Present is myself Brad Trahan and Commissioner Dugstead. We're gonna start the uh start that by the roll call. Um we're gonna go next to the approval of the agenda. It's my understanding we're gonna have an amendment to the agenda, the Commissioner Dugstead. Yeah, I'm a motion to approve the agenda amendment. And what that was is we're just gonna add another person to the eligibility list uh with this point. So uh with her motion, I second. So we have approved the agenda with the amendment of the uh to the eligibility list. With that said, um now as far as the eligibility list at this point, can I get a motion to approve the new newly amended eligibility list? Yeah, motion to approve. And it's second. So that is now approved. Public comment session seeing notice no one in the audience. Uh we will bypass that. Um we're gonna move on to number four, the consent. Um, can I get a motion to uh as far as the meeting minutes on 4A? Did you get a chance, Commissioner Dugsted, to reprove review the meeting minutes on uh item number four a? I did motion to approve the minutes and second minutes have been approved from the April 1st meeting 2026. Moving uh further discussion to item number five A, police officer backgrounds. We're being asked to approve seven candidates in this form. We introduce candidates as letters A through G. Um, do you want to have any discussion about the uh eligibility list for 5A on the police officers and its back? And then have we had a chance to review the backgrounds with any comments? I did. Um, the only thing I wanted to um bring forward is in candidate G's background. There was quite a few discrepancies between his personal history questionnaire and responses. I just wanted to acknowledge um there was a bit of concern on my part that there wasn't greater diligence on the front end and that the investigator had to uncover some of these discrepancies. It looks like after he was asked to go back and make updates, he made 29 changes. Um the personal history questionnaire questions seem to be pretty straightforward to me. So if they are confusing enough to need so many updates, it might be worth looking at to avoid in the future. Um, but I just wanted to bring that forward as a bit concerning to me around some of the discrepancies on that background check. I'm not sure if 23 updates is normal for amount of the discrepancies, but I haven't seen it in the past. So I wanted to acknowledge that. Respectfully noted and uh constructively noted. So thank you for doing that. Should also mention in the closure of that through those updates, the um background investigator who did that did also then afterwards find that uh there is no reason not to submit this candidate going forward. So therefore he stays uh that can stays on the eligibility list. But thank you for bringing that forward. So can we can I get in motion to approve the um eligible eligibility list for the backgrounds on item number five A? Motion to approve and second that approved uh that motion carries uh other business. Commissioner Dugsted, any other business you'd like to bring up at this time? No. Okay. With seeing none, can I get a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn is second at around 3 04 p.m. Thank you.
openpublica.com