 I said, well, no one. Samet, Andy Norrhoff, here, Jane Coyote, Jerry Jones, Boba Tree, here. We'll call the meeting to order. Start with the Pledge of Allegiance. The students are divided of the United States of America and to be a model of which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. What's your pleasure in the minutes of April 7th? I would need a motion to move to approve as presented. Second. We'll get a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify with saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Next item on the agenda is election of offices that will open up for the office of president for the nominations. Andy? I'd like to nominate Boba Tree for the office of president of police and fire commission. Second. We have a nomination and a second. Is there any other nominations? Is there any other nominations? Is there any other nominations? Seeing none, nominations are closed. We'll open up. In favor of that nomination? Yeah. All in favor signify with saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. We'll now open up the position of secretary. That nominate Andy Hap for treasurer. Andy Hap has been nominated. We have a second. Is there any other nominations? Is there any other nominations? Is there any other nominations? Seeing none, nominations are closed. Andy, will you accept the nomination? All in favor of Andy Hap as secretary. Signify with saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, Andy. And now move to 3.2 discussion of current police department hiring process, future needs, and next interview dates. We're scheduled for next week, next Thursday and Friday. Right now I have 26 candidates. I'll be interviewing over two days. We have an assessment panel put together, and we'll also be administering the standardized test and going through some of those other functions that we do at that assessment center. I would anticipate that after that we're going to have a need for a candidacy pool, a hiring pool. So I would be asking that the Police and Fire Commission be ready to interview applicants, probably the first week of June. That would give us enough time to go through and check and double check the assessment scores and select the candidates that we would like to send on to the Police and Fire Commission. Any questions? Now you said right now you've got 26. Right now we have 26 candidates, yes. Well, we have 26 candidates that we're going to interview. We had 134 applications. So we had a good applicant pool this time. So with that 26, I mean you're going to narrow it down and then we'll get the list. Yes, I'll bring the list on the day of the interviews. I'll bring the list of the 26 people that we assessed with me so you can see that. I would expect that we're going to ask you to interview probably, I say six, it could go one or two either way of that, remember we haven't seen these candidates in person yet. Most of them I'm basing that off what I'm seeing on applications. I believe we have some very, very good candidates in there. But again, until we have a chance to see them in person, we really just don't know. Yeah, list 26, is that going to be sufficient to what you had asked for? As will we see the list of 26 before the decision is made as to which ones we will interview? That's not the way we've done it in the past. I've made this list of all the assessed applicants available to you. But really we're screening the applicants that we want to send for you to interview and either approve or deny. And really that's based upon trying to identify the characteristics and attributes that we're trying to build in the police department. And so I would be hesitant if we put someone through that assessment. And we're aware that they did not have those attributes or characteristics to bring the list in and create a conflict or require certain information as to why that person wasn't moving on. I just, in the past, we have looked at all of the candidates that have been assessed. And then it was the commission's decision as to where to do the cutoff. Again, in association with staff, completely understanding that. We can send you all 26 if you want to see all 26. We don't have an issue with that. We just need to know a number. And every time we have this discussion, we're told we don't want to see all those people. And so we're running a process to whittle the number down and try to get to a manageable number. So if you want to see 10 or 15, we're just looking for that guidance. Right. And I think we're just, oftentimes we would like to see all 26. I'm just saying, personally, I don't want to see, let me rephrase that. I would like to see the evaluation of all 26 and then hopefully be in agreement with you as to which are the ones we should actually interview. Does that make sense? So my suggestion then would be, maybe we can have you schedule a meeting between the 20th and the 21st. And yeah, on the 20th and 21st. So the Monday or Tuesday after that, and we can present you with the information and you can decide who you want to interview. But we have two vacancies. We want to fill them. We've designed a process with you and I'm just again confused about why every time we meet to discuss this, the same issue comes up. Well, I think you got to go back quite a few years ago but I know there was a couple of times where we get the list and by scores where you cut it off. Like you'll tell us, you want to interview six or seven and by your scores, we'll cut it off. But if there's somebody and it has happened, you've got a couple of people on the police department right now highly regarded that would not have been there unless somebody- Not in the last 12 years. I would vehemently disagree with you on that. It's probably not. I'm not sure. Okay, so if we could deal with the present rather than the past, I would appreciate that greatly. But the issue is trying to be as transparent as I can be. We have two vacancies we want to fill. We have 134 applicants. We've narrowed it down to who we believe at this point are the best 26. We're going to do an assessment on them. We will rank them based off of that assessment. However many you want to see, we're happy to provide you with. I think we want to see the list of 26 and where you cut it off as long as we see who was on the 26. I believe that's what Andy is asking for. Okay, and then I'm going to say this cautiously, but again, the assessment is not based on somebody's name or anything like that. And so if that is really what we're using to determine who we're interviewing, then that really undercuts the whole process that we're doing. Chief, Captain Cobb, I'm sorry. The group down from whatever the large original number of applicants you have, in this case 134, to get to 26, you must use some set of criteria that makes all of those 26 people eligible to move on to the next round. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay, so that said, if you gave us that list of people and I appreciate it and I understand your time restraints. So if we're asking something of you, we need to be willing to do the work to not clog up the system. So if that means we have to have an extra meeting before the interview to review that list, then that's something we have to do in order to keep the process running smoothly. But moving a little beyond that, let's say from this 26, you narrow it down to six. Of that 26, we may, as a commission, feel there might be one or two other people that we'd like to interview. That's not saying that your criteria are bad or anything else. We're the people that have to do the hiring and we look at these 26 people knowing that all 26 have met the initial criteria. And when it comes to the final interview process, if we want more than hypothetically the six or eight you recommend, but another one or two or whatever, I believe that would be our prerogative to do as a commission and would also ensure for the independence of this commission, not just being, and since I've been on it and knock on wood, I'm glad I get another five-year term, I have not experienced that I feel that you're putting forward, you're always putting forward the best candidate. But I think just in the spirit of independence or whatever and knowing that we're doing the hiring, if we see somebody we'd like to add to the interview, I think we should have that ability to do that. I would say that when we screen from that original applicant pool down to a group of candidates that are going to be assessed, yes, that's an objective measure where there are more points of different stages for information that's on their application. Now it's not a bright line because sometimes there are candidates who score a lower score on their application, but they have attributes or things on the resume that aren't necessarily scored, but they're reflective of the types of people and the types of things that we're trying to bring into the organization. Conversely, there are some people who score more points. They're not always invited in because of the nature of how they have scored their points, but they just don't have anything in their application that is indicative of them being a successful resource. So there's a small number on either end of that spectrum where it goes both ways. When it comes to the assessed candidates, we went to a tremendous amount of effort to write interview questions that are trying to evaluate and apply a score to a set of principles and characteristics that we worked out with Dr. Pico that demonstrate people that are likely to be good police officers for the city of Sheboygan. No other city, every police department has different value systems, different strategies on how they're going to reduce crime and address crime. So we developed our system around that model, the model that we're using. So that brings me to my question. I would be curious to know what criteria you would be using to look at a list of people who were not chosen to move on from that assessment and then decide to bring one in. That's where I think there would be the most concerns. So I just want to clarify, you want to see the 26 or you want to see all of them? No, 26. So I'm fine with that. I would just ask that you keep in mind what I requested and that if we could set a meeting then as early in that week of the 24th as possible so that we can get the candidates that we're going to invite enough lead time that they can fit it into their schedules to meet with you during that first week at June. Okay. Chief, did you say the 24th? The week of. The week of the 24th. Okay, I only have the 24th that day. So, okay. But then week. I'm on grandparent duty. Well, I'll let Carly send something out and we'll set something up. Any other discussion? Jean? I guess I'm still a little confused. I guess my request was not to, are we talking about physically seeing the individuals or are we talking about physically seeing them? We can see who the 26 people are. On paper. Correct. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah, that's what I understood. Yeah. Jane? I don't know what they ask here. I don't know on the paper what's gonna change. It's gonna be all numbers and ratings and things like that. And it's always been, you know, the best ratings, you know, and then bingo, that's it. I don't know what else we're gonna use besides the numbers that are on the paper. I don't know what other criteria we're gonna use. That's my question. Well, usually we used to go by ranks. We'd see hundreds and then it would be just a certain number they cut it off. Yeah. And then if there was a question, like Carly wasn't there then, but he'd answer the questions on why this and this questions we had. And, you know, we worked it out pretty well. Never had a problem. I guess that's before my time. I don't know. Any other comments or questions? Okay. So we'll have Carly send something out. We'll schedule something on the week of 24th for a brief meeting to just to go through the list of 26 and give us a cut off. I just would respect for a request that we could do it in the afternoon on the 24th only because I'll be gone the rest of that week. And I don't know if that works for the rest of you, but looking at it, I'm sorry, Jim. After a four o'clock, I am busy the rest of the day. So it had to be before four o'clock on the 24th. Could I put out two o'clock? Four. I understand, but I'm putting out the time two o'clock. Would that work for everyone on the 24th? Okay. Yeah, I'll find a way to make it work. Is that okay for you? I'm still Carly sending something out so everybody responds so we know what's going on. I don't want to argue or not argue was the wrong word. I just comfortable taking a position on something and then not being there to be able, you know, it's kind of weak. Okay. Now the next one is the confidentiality of police and fire applicants. I think we had talked briefly on that. And you wanted to. Yeah, we had talked briefly on it. And I just wanted to have just a little discussion about the confidentiality of applicants. And so prior to their appearance before the police and fire commission and approval, there's no real question about that. Their identity of an applicant is confidential. It can't be released and it can't be shared and we can't share who has applied and who's in a process. At the point after they've appeared before you, though, depending on the process and what we're doing at the time background investigations may or may not be done. So even though their name has been made publicly available, it's really important that as a group, we only have one background investigator. And I think at different times in different processes there's been comments made about somebody asked about somebody or somebody knew about somebody. It's really important that we not go out and conduct questions that could be construed as background investigation questions. And the real risk of that is as the hiring authority, if you develop information that's not in our background and it's not shared with us or if we develop information as contrary to something you may have heard or you may know, it creates real risk for the city. We have to make sure that we have one stream of information where we're conducting a background investigation and making sure people have met requirements and they exhibit the moral character necessary for police. And so with that I would just ask that even after identities are known that we're all very careful not to ask probing questions about candidates and if you were to learn something to make sure and get that information to us so we can include it in the official background. I think just to explain a little bit, I think what Kevin Cobb is saying is if we have a list of people and you know anything about them or whatever that we're not supposed to make any phone calls or talk to anybody about the candidate, is that correct? That's correct. There's certainly their name as a matter of public record at that point once they're approved for hire, they're not hiring pool. Their name is a matter of public record. It's making inquiries about them at that point that it could really cause conflict. Now, did you check with Chuck on that? Yes, I did. Okay, and that's just what he said? Yes. All right. And so fire, I don't believe you do background investigations the same rules apply to fire about confidentiality. Yeah, yeah. So what if you did a background on six or seven candidates and we're interviewing them and something comes up that we hear or we know definitely this person should not be hired. What, we just don't say anything or do we come to you or what? No, you would, yeah, you would have a responsibility to bring that to us and we can include it in the official background investigation. All right, well, any questions or discussion on this? All right, understood. Thanks. I would now need a motion to go in the closed session. I'm gonna motion a second to go in closed session. Roll call. Larry, Samet. Aye. Andy Hop. Aye. Jean Clayunas. Aye. Jerry Jones. Aye. Bob, reconvening an open session. I would need a motion for the approval of a promotion to the rank of Sheboygan Fire Department Assistant Chief Jeff Salsman. Jeff Salsman. Jean. I move to approve Battalion Chief Jeff Salsman to the office rank of Assistant Chief. Second. Effective May 24th. I'll second that. Andy with a second. There are any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations to Jeff Salsman. I'm gonna have a motion and a second to adjourn any discussion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you, commissioners.