 We'll call the meeting to order roll call Jerry Jones. Here. King Clioness. Here. Larry Samet. Here. And Andy Ock is excused. He's on the Phoenix. I pledge allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It's a pleasure on the minutes of November 17th. It goes through through. Is there any discussion? All in favor signify with saying aye. Aye. Those both can carry. First item 3.1 is a fire department to be approved by the motion. Chief. Yeah, thank you, President Latree. So as you know, with the recent retirement of Assistant Chief Client at the end of last year, we have an opening. We just recently did the process several months ago, but both Jeff Salisman and Mike Uber, battalion chiefs, put in for it. Mike was a very close candidate. And we'd like to get your permission to go ahead and your approval to promote him. We're looking at a date, if you approve, February 28th to his promotion to Assistant Chief. And he's done a phenomenal job. He's been stepping in to kind of fill Dean's responsibilities as many as he can. So he's been doing a phenomenal job with that. I look forward to working with him and continue to move the department in the direction forward, the direction that we're going right now. So he gets along great with Jeff. So it'll be a great addition to the team. Just for the rest of the commission. Mike, what does he do? Can you let him know what he's done now? So I apologize. Yeah, Mike currently oversees our medical division of the fire department. So he's our EMS director. He will continue that role, although once he gets settled, I'm going to meet with Jeff and Mike and we're going to kind of see, I have some thoughts about re-arranging some of the responsibilities that both of them have. So for now he is a battalion chief on Blackshift. And he does everything that we, you know, with EMS, all the responsibilities. He was a part of the ambulance committee, oversaw that for building and purchasing our new ambulance, all our supplies, the procedures we do. So he will continue on that role, but it might be at a lower amount when he gets settled in. I might, you know, put it on to the next battalion chief. So with your approval, we'll promote them and then I'll come back and I'll let you know we'll be moving into the battalion chief process as soon as the lieutenant and captain's process is over, which, you know, we're going through right now. So it's all about timing. So that's down the road. Thank you. I couldn't tell you how long he's been on the department. I think they're 15 years, almost 15 years. How long is a battalion chief? How long is he? He's been a battalion chief for a little over two years. So pretty close to three. Okay. Pat Nicholas would have been our other battalion chief. He was not interested. So I didn't want to go and we just did the process. So I wasn't going to open it up and do another process because Mike was just as qualified. And Jamie Engels, who was our other battalion chief, just got promoted recently. So he was not qualified just yet to go on. You guys will be happy with Mike in his position. He does a phenomenal job. You see him attending meetings like, like Chief Kline did? Yeah, for sure. Whatever the meeting, oh yeah, he's so dedicated. He comes in on his off days to all the meetings that I have right now. He remotes in, very, very, his schedule is so flexible. He's always willing. I don't know if I'm going to have him as involved to all the meetings that he was going to because I'm spreading some of the responsibilities. But yeah, that won't be a problem at all. Okay. Yeah. He'll be better than Dean. I would need a motion to move to approve. Second. Is there any discussion? I can tell you that the men were very, very happy with hearing that this was going to happen. They feel comfortable. They think that it's going to be a great addition. No discussion? All in favor signify, saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. 3.2, firefighter paramedic eligibility list extension. So, as you know, our current list expires. You were gracious and up to extended. It expires at the end of February. However, with the unanticipated retirement of our FEO Rodriguez Enriquez, and then the retirement of Captain Capitillo, which we knew, we'll be having three immediate spots. Two that we can hire. We got one going through the process right now, and then two more that we can get through the process. The third candidate number two is already in the process. So that's a non-issue, but candidate three had contacted Carly, reached out. Still interested, very qualified. Candidate number four would be, we would just have to reach out. But I didn't want to do anything because the list expires at the end of February. So what I'm asking is for your permission to extend the list to the end of March, which would allow me to hire these two individuals off of this list and then start, get them through the process and get them hired so we can fill those vacancies. The lieutenant promotion process won't be done until mid-March with your, I have to come to you with the final list. That should be done the first week of March or second week, mid-March. So that's why I'm asking to extend the list to the end of March. So once we make those promotions, we'll have two immediate lieutenant promotion. So then I'll create those two gaps. So if you guys wouldn't mind, I know number three is very interested. So he's available. I'm almost positive number four as he hasn't reached out. However, I know he expressed interest when we first applied and he was gonna want to go anywhere else. However, you know, it's a gamble now anyways, but at least we don't have to go through the process again. If we go through the process, we won't be able to have a list established till after August. Number four, the last on the list? No, it goes through seven. Seven. Eight, I think eight. Okay, so there is some depth there. Yeah, so even if number four got a job somewhere else, at least we can go through the sequence to get somebody on that list. So I'm asking for an extension to the end of March. We would need a motion. I move to extend the eligibility list till the end of March, 2022. We're gonna second the motion. All right. I did very second, yes. Is there any discussion? So there's gonna be three promotions. So we have Lieutenant Engel, or Battalion Chief Engel's position. Lieutenant Miller is gonna be promoted next week to captain, so his position, so that's another Lieutenant. And then we have AC Klein's position, but that will trickle down with the battalion chief and all that, so that's gonna be a delay. But yes, there will be three Lieutenant promotions off of this Lieutenant list, therefore requiring three firefighter positions to be hired. So we're already moving one with Enriquez, and then the two, I won't be ready to get that third one in because of the battalion chief process, which we have to do, which won't be done till the fall anyway. So we'll have to create a new list process. And we're gonna create another list. Yep. No one. Yeah, we'll have to go through the whole hiring process, yeah, testing process, all that stuff. So for sure off of this list, two firefighters, if you extend it through March, should be able to make it, provided everybody's available stuff. Any more discussion? All in favor, Senate Fire, Senate Aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed and carried. Thank you for your support. Next one is 4.1. Seating before the blue and blue, fire commission relates to the complaints filed by Patrick Gillette. Can I confirm, is the recording is going? It says recording up and up and right. It's okay. Right, this hearing in front of the void is for complaint filed by Patrick Gillette, against police chief Chris Domikowski, Captain Chris Zempel, police lieutenant Mike Seltter, police officer Kendra Zipper, those are the respondents. Does everybody have a copy of the hearing notice? The hearing notice, the guidelines. Yeah, okay. And his complaint, the complaint alleges 13 violations of law by the chain of command. The complaint makes only one specific allegation of law violations against, an individual officer, alleging that officer Zipper knowingly and maliciously prevented or dissuaded or attempted to so prevent or dissuade a witness from attending or giving testimony at any trial in violation of section 940.43 Wisconsin statute. All of the remaining violations are alleges more generally in the complaint. The complainant failed to file his complaint with the police department out of the citizen's complaint procedure, as provided in police and fire commission's policies and procedures. However, the police and fire commission directed the department to investigate the matter as if he had followed the procedure. That investigation is complete and resulted in no action being taken against the officers involved. This matter is now before the board of hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not the charges alleged are sustained against a particular responder. This proceeding is conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 62.13-5 Wisconsin statute and the policies of the board adopt a pursuant to the authority granted to the board by section 62.13-5, that's G, Wisconsin statute. The procedures outlined here and provided the board with information regarding the conduct of the hearing. The president of the board is in charge of the hearing and as presiding officers responsible for keeping order and ensuring the procedures used are fair and meet and accepted standard for due process. The presiding officers should adhere to the following procedures. To determine that all of the parties to the hearing are present and this includes respondents, Chief Tomakowski is here, Captain Zempel, Lieutenant Stelter, officer Zipper, his attorney, and complainant Pat Gillette and the complainant's attorney, if any. You don't have an attorney, but the hearing on the charges shall be public. Prior to taking testimony that the respondents have they received the copy of the charges and notice of the hearing, we have handing to the secretary a copy of the notice of the hearing and the complaint that's been filed. That should be marked as a civics, okay. Not all respondents, you have the following rights and respect to this hearing. The right to be represented by an attorney, the right to call witnesses on your behalf, the right to compel the attendance of witnesses by subpoena, the right to ask questions of any witnesses appearing on behalf of the other party and the right not to testify as to any manner which would implicate you in a criminal matter. You wanna ask if they understand the rights? I want to ask them if they understand. Do you understand the rights? I do, Eddie. Okay. So I think what you can do is just to see what the court is going to do. All right, prior to the testimony, advise the parties that under the order the hearing will be as followed. The complainant or his attorney will present his evidence through witnesses and exhibits. The respondents on their attorney will have the right to cross examine each witness called to testify on behalf of the complainant. The respondents or their attorney will present evidence through witnesses and exhibits. The complainant or his attorney will have the right to cross examine each witness called to testify on behalf of the respondents both to complainant and the respondents or their representatives shall make a closing statement if desired and prior to testifying each witness will be sworn. All right, so what you can do is at the complaint present his case. Mr. President, before we proceed with respect to complainants, I'd like to raise before we begin that presentation several procedure matters for the police and fire commissioners consideration before we begin. And I want to start that with your permission which is basically going back to policies and procedures of disciplinary actions as they pertain in these proceedings. I've got multiple issues that I want to raise and I'm going to continue to raise them throughout and we'll raise them again at the close of any evidence today with respect to certain deadlines that are required under the police and fire commissioners rules. The first issue is that the complainant Mr. Gillette and or potential parties were to provide a listing of its witnesses to this body seven days before these proceedings are commenced or heard. There has been no such disclosure. So basically we are left with a situation where we do not know today who Mr. Gillette or anybody intends to present today. We don't know that. That is a courtesy not only provided to you but also provided to me as counselor for these officers. And that is pursuant to section nine of your own procedures. Section 13 of this body's procedures require Mr. Gillette and or potential parties to provide any and all documents, materials or other presentational digital or otherwise materials to me and to this body in advance of this hearing today. That was obviously that has not taken place. So I do not know or do you know what Mr. Gillette intends to produce today that will be another procedural matter that I'll bring up again and again as we proceed. Lastly, and that again is section 13. Before we begin the standard of proof today as preponderance of the evidence, I eat more likely than not, that is section 12. I'm going to raise section 18 of your own procedures. This addresses the rules of civil procedure. And I know that it is within a discretion of this body to determine how it may wish to proceed from an evidentiary standpoint. And of course, I'll be addressing any of those objections to you directly, Mr. President. You have counsel here to direct you on those if need be. But absent the presentation of any actual witness, absent the authentication of certain materials whether they be documentary or otherwise and absent any digital authentication. That is just where did any of these things come from. What Mr. Gillette himself would be engaged in is hearsay on multiple levels, both directly and as a second degree, meaning that there's a level between that or Mr. Gillette would have no actual personal knowledge of matters to which he may testify today. And I'm not entirely sure everyone whether he intends to do that today. I do want to raise that and protect our record as well as this is being recorded. And that's section 18 of your procedures stating that the rules of civil procedure will be followed in these hearings. So with that, I'd like the board to consider this body to consider whether A, it is even necessary to proceed today based on these procedural issues. And secondarily, perhaps at the close of any presentation whether this burden of preponderance has been met or even remotely approached. So with that, I'll conclude my comments and ask the police and fire commissioners to consider those procedural objections before we begin. Thank you. Yeah, Chris, come on. Yeah. Mr. Gillette, do you want to respond to that? He sure do. I really appreciate the presentation that Attorney Bill could present it. I think he's very competent on his part. Should the rules be legal? So the issue that I'm going to present right now is to dismiss this hearing on the following grounds and please hear me through before there's any question. I have submitted to the secretary of the board of the acting secretary of the board. It is a motion to dismiss the board of police and fire commission. The question is, was the police chief and fire chief even illegally appointed? Give them something to think about they're going to turn into. Deploy, I should like in police and fire commission and your legal counsel was afforded this information on Monday regarding Mr. Velker's complaint about the witnesses that was submitted by a paper that your legal counsel has and never submitted to the board. These are all issues being presented to circuit court right now, okay? Now the commission is not sanctioned by statute 6213. I will let the city attorney address that but he's going to have to prove beyond the preponderance or with the preponderance of evidence that it even exists according to statute and according to ordinance. This commission does not comply with state statute 1901 and the attorney Velker can check that out. That's Olson affirmations. It does not comply with state statute 227. We talk about courtesies and administration and filing and all this stuff. They can go to chapter 227 and they've violated that for that statute. The Shavuigan municipal court they violated oaths, filing and ethics. This commission is in total violation of the law and the motion to dismiss this hearing would be appropriate. If the proceedings of this commission continue it is done under color of law and is acting by implied consent that this commission can act with impunity to the law and a continuance of violations of the civil rights of the citizen. These PFC notes will be subject for court review. Do I have any questions? I'll listen for a motion to dismiss. Are you looking for a motion to dismiss the hearing? I will listen. I don't make the motion. City attorney. You're making a request. I will entertain. I have made a request that- Your motion says that it's a motion to dismiss the board not a motion to dismiss the hearing. Now you use the terminology motion to dismiss the hearing. A motion to dismiss the hearing would mean that you no longer wish to proceed with your complaint. That's not correct. I am making that motion. I can't make a motion in the first place city attorney. But I would entertain a motion because of the violations that I've stated that this hearing is not legal. And as you well know on the 24th we have another hearing in court that you have all the presentations. So I entertain that date. And I'm asking the board to consider whether or not they want to pursue and what I state are violations of the law of the ordinances. And furthermore for attorney Valker's concern the constitution of both the state and the US government. So to be clear, you're not withdrawing your complaint. I will restate it. My complaint was filed on October 4th. 57 days later the police department investigated it. My complaint was never addressed by the police and fire commission until after I filed a mandamus motion. And then it was only answered by the city attorney. My contest in court is whether the city attorney can intervene and run the police and fire commission. Whether you took your oaths of office whether you filed them with the city clerk and whether you're following the ordinance as it's published today and whether you filed the rules and regulations under state statute 227 of the Wisconsin statutes. There, that's my motion. Dismiss because I believe you're illegal. Dismiss the hearing because it's not illegal hearing. Not my complaint. That will be brought up under mandamus. So to the board, obviously it's difficult when you have someone who doesn't fully understand the process, but I think what you can do is sort of use your common sense and sort of try to avert what his meeting is. And I think it's pretty clear that he's not trying to dismiss the complaint. He wants his complaint to be heard. Maybe he doesn't want it to be heard by you but he wants it to be heard. So it is not a motion to dismiss the complaint. He is alleging that you don't have authority to hear the complaint because at a previous time you had not yet filed your oaths with the city clerk. Obviously now all four of you have done so. You are competent to hold the hearing if you wish to do so. So my suggestion would be to you to proceed on that. However, I don't think Mr. Gillette has answered the procedural matters that Attorney Valkner has raised. And those are certainly also issues for you to consider. And you can certainly ask Mr. Gillette if he wishes to address directly Attorney Valkner's procedural concerns. I think my witness statement was already included whether Attorney Valker got a copy of it from the city attorney, not as irrelevant. I have already addressed via email with Attorney Valker and conversation prior to this meeting that based on this meeting he will get more information from me. I am 100% disabled. I'm hearing impaired and visually impaired and physically I'm 100% disabled. I am pro se, I don't have any legal assistance and what the city attorney has me doing I got four inches of process for the court. I got to type all of that. I got to research all of that. Wait till the city gets my bill. I'm also suing the city. So if I'm forced to do this, I will take it to the end. Also, I understand that the city council a week after Attorney Valker sent me this letter with recommendations and commands is to prove him being the police officers representatives. That was a week later after I got the letter. So contest all the proceedings you want, contest them. I say that proceedings are not legal because they weren't filed under 227 in the Wisconsin statutes. Go ahead and proceed. Go ahead and make your ruling. The issues will go to circuit court. Yeah, but Mr. Gillette, what are you threatening? The board no. No, I'm telling the board that the board is acting on the city attorney nor Attorney Valker has even given a, you know, it's all this conjecture, okay? They've given all this conjecture that this is even illegal meeting. Where is a substantive proof? And I've given the city attorney that information on Monday. Besides, I've been in court battles with him since November in circuit court. So where is this evidence attorney Valker that you even have a right to complain about the procedural issues? Where is Mr. city attorney, the right that you have even to complain about the procedural issues when you have not substantiated that the procedures are adopted by law? This commission, this commission is regulated under chapter 62, 13 of the Wisconsin statute. And it best be done appropriately. It has not been. You make the determination. I can get all the smiles and the conjecture from the two attorneys here. If you're gonna rely on them being your counsel, that's okay with me. I'm not gonna dismiss my complaint. I'm saying my complaint was not handled correctly, was handled in violation of the law and it's still in continuance in contested circuit court. So what I'm gonna say right now because I'm not getting anywhere and I'm not gonna say you're getting accusations and get into a big discussion about this is I'm done. My summons is over. I declare this meeting illegal and I've given your secretary and this wagon press a copy of whatever they've submitted also to the city attorney on Monday and to the court. I'm done. And let's ask questions for me. Well, so there's a couple of things that you should probably consider. First of all, there were the procedural motions that were made by attorney Valkar as to his concern that the complainant has not provided a list of witnesses to attorney Valkar and to the respondents that appears to be true. You don't have to dismiss the matter based solely on that. Oftentimes what we do with prosa, defendants or complainants who don't fully understand procedure is we sort of consider the bigger picture and determine whether it's their everybody to proceed and depending on who he calls as a witness you may choose to make certain decisions. If attorney Valkar raises the issue that a particular witness was a surprise and he didn't have the opportunity to properly prepare he could either request that you totally dismiss another way to handle it would be to adjourn that portion of the hearing to allow preparation time. We've often typically given prosa complainants sort of the benefit of the doubt in that regard. The same would go for the question as far as the documents and materials in advance. Now, I don't know, maybe there are no documents and materials in advance and maybe there are no witnesses other than Mr. Gillette himself but that is something for you to consider. You may choose to dismiss based on that but you may also choose to allow the process to proceed. As far as the rules of evidence issues I think that that really kind of depends on what happens during the course of the hearing. I don't think that's really an issue before you until an issue arises. And so I think you can just simply take note of that. Given that I think your options are either to dismiss based on attorney Valkar's complaint that Mr. Gillette hasn't followed the procedure or to continue and to ask Mr. Gillette if he wishes to provide any witnesses or testimony. Mr. President. Yes. I'll entertain Mr. Valkarner's accusations in certiorari. Okay, I don't have a problem with that. I don't. What I'm trying to explain here is that all city attorney sings a great song. He gets the words wrong. He is not, if you took your old snout that's Jim Dandy. You didn't take him when you were appointed. That's a violation of law. That is a violation of law. Go ahead, keep doing it. The city attorney's gonna dig a hole for you. I'll be there to fill it. You didn't take your old sub offices as not a legal police and fire commission. You did not file. Attorney Valkar tries to refer to the rules of the police and fire commission. They were not filed in accordance to both the ordinance or the state statute. That I also will take up in certiorari. And if he thinks I can't file certiorari, the complainant can. I might be prosaid, but I've been in circuit court before. I've been in United States district court before. I've been in many administrative courts before. So treat the prosaid, where you wanna treat the prosaid. Listen to your attorneys. I don't care. There are other avenues of re-address for me. So everybody can smile. You took your oaths recently, I would assume, since he got his notice on Monday. Everybody took their oaths when? Monday or Tuesday? No. I took it in 2015. You did? Did you file it? I took it with the clerk. You didn't file it with the clerk. I got a letter from her that says you didn't. I have a. Okay, you did. How many commissioners here took their oaths and filed it with the commission before my complaint was filed with this commission? Can I have a show of hands? One, Jean. Commissioner Clayman, this is yours. No, either way. She doesn't have it. She doesn't even have jeans. Commissioner Clayman says she doesn't even have a copy of yours. I'm ecstatic about taking this into court. I don't know so much as it's against the police officers here. I don't know what it is to help her, but the issue is now against the city attorney, the city issue boy and the police fire commission. And the whole thing got started with the police department because somebody had a bad day. I don't have power of attorney. I do have power of attorney. So you can criticize that all you want, city attorney and your complaint. I've had power of attorney in many situations. I've been a district court with power of attorney. Play with me on power of attorney. I welcome the opportunity. But I'm telling you right now, you can dismiss this hearing and stop because the police chiefs and the fire chief's appointments are in question. That's a serious matter. They should get an attorney. Well, police chief does. Maybe the fire chief should. Maybe attorney Valkner wants to represent the fire chief though. This is a serious matter. This is not something to be shunned off by opinions and some police department reports. Well, you do have the authority to proceed so that it'll be, you can express to the chair what you want to do and make motions. My complaint is an active complaint. I will keep it active. We'll see if the mandamus, if the mandamus is issued, it starts all over again. Now the question with the mandamus is, are you familiar with, do you get any, does the commission get any copies of what I send to the city attorney? Yeah. All of the court hearings or court proceedings? Yeah. Okay. Then let me back up. Because in those proceedings, I requested a motion for sequestration, which wasn't followed. Talk about procedures, Mr. Valkner, attorney Valkner. Talk about procedures. I receive no respect on my motion for discovery or my motion for sequestration. So let's get into the argument on procedures. I'm telling you, you're taking a deep hole and let the, I don't care. The city attorney keeps whispering in your ear, so does Satan on one side and the angel on the other. So. Well, no, I guess we weren't involved at all with court. I believe you went to court on the 11th or whatever and you got another date set for the 24th, whatever. On the 10th, we had a phone hearing. I have issues that I declared to city attorney with the court and that will be taken up at personal hearing on the 24th. That didn't come. 24th is next. Yeah, that didn't come to us. To be clear, what we're here on is this particular hearing. You did authorize me at a prior meeting to proceed on a mandamus matter and so I'm representing you on that. But what's in front of you here today and what you're able to discuss because of open readings laws is this particular complaint and the hearing on this one. So you probably should decide whether you want to proceed on that given sort of the statements that have been made. The city attorney keeps singing a song again and he keeps repeating the same stanza and doesn't get to the chorus. The chorus is, yes, my complaint is open. Yes, I want it to. But I'm cautioning the commission with right now is continuance of hearing it today. I got the meeting on the 24th. That's gonna have a big bearing on this. The court hearing's on the 24th. Are you requesting a continuance? Yes, I am. And the basis of your continuance is? Procedures were not followed for me on request as Mr. Weltner has made clear and I did send Mr. Weltner an answer and he never responded to it. So again, it's all on your side, all the contests you want. I have been denied due process and equal protection under the law, whether it's administrative law, state law, or constitutional law. And that will be an issue later on. So smile, it's gonna cost the city a ton of money. So what I would advise you is this. He's raised one procedural issue which is that you have not at the time of his complaint filed your oaths. My opinion in fact, you do not file your oaths does not prevent you from acting and you have now filed your oaths in any case. It was a legal requirement. It was a technical legal requirement but it was a legal requirement that you were in violation of until you took care of it. You've now filed those oaths with the clerk. Regardless, it doesn't mean that other items that have happened before in this commission were illegal, it is a technical requirement. So on the basis that a motion for continuance on the basis that you're not able to proceed today, I would advise you that that's not a valid reason to grant the continuance and you can continue with that hearing on that basis. Mr. President, if I may, since I've no one on the agenda here, the city attorney again has not explained one of the clauses in the complaint that I sent to circuit court. Number one, your rule for superventing or circumventing the police and fire commission and going through the complaint to the police department are based on two issues. Number one, that's rule only allowed first-class cities. Mr. Reltperk, check that out, please. That's only allowed first-class cities, not second and third-class cities. Okay. Number two, everybody refers to the rules and regulations. No one's proven they're legal. Have your hearing. I can't control what you do either here at home. Bob, you've known me for a long time. I let you do what you're gonna do. I did years ago. I'm not gonna change. That's not a threat, that's a problem. I understand that. This is gonna proceed. So you make your decision, but since we're keep arguing about the same issues, I'm done, I'll let you get on with your business. You can have your clothes here and you can have whatever you want to do. Have all the fun that you want. I have a ton of talk about law as if I didn't go to the police academy. I've done it three times. I was the police chief. I was a deputy sheriff. I was a police officer. It's not that I don't know the law, but it was misforded net. That issue will be taken up at a later point, but it was so misquoted in that report by Lieutenant Adams, was it? So misquoted statutes. I'd love to argue statutes. But no, it's not the time and I'm not gonna take this commission's time till seven o'clock tonight. And believe me, I could because the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The plaintiff is the prosecutor in his case, not the city attorney, not attorney development. I'm the prosecutor in this case. And if I tell you there's not a case to prosecute that it's totally a sham, and I can test probably 60% anyway of the police report, you go do what you're gonna do. But I as the plaintiff, I would wish the board to do a continuance based on the fact that I have not had time to answer all this. I have not had time to answer it. And city attorney, you can advise them of, I don't care. I don't care. I gotta drag myself all over the place to get something done. That's okay, that's my problem. But don't expect, and Mr. Attorney, talk about timeline. Thursday serves a paper on me that I have to answer on Monday with a five day requirement, Saturday, Sunday, right? I didn't get it till Friday. Talk about timelines and courtesies. I've gotten none from either the commission or the city attorney. And had I been treated with a little bit more courtesy, the onset of this complaint never would have got this far. But now it's gotten to the point where I'm gonna try to validate the police and fire commission. I understand that, Pat. But what you just said is not true. I even went to your home to give you the information you asked for. So I've been to a backward school. Bob, this is nothing personal. I have nothing personal against any attorney, any commissioner, any of the officers here. I sat in their seats. Okay, I know what a police officer goes through, both in court and in the public. And I support them for what they do. And you and I, we've had a good friendship. And yes, I talked to you, not about the case, but I went and got some paperwork from you, and you came over to my house and gave me additional things. That's not the issue here. The issue is what I received was at legal. It's nothing personal. What you're saying though is that you don't have to go to the chief first. And that's- That's the class one rule, not the class two. That's something we did years ago with a different city attorney. Matter of fact, we went to the state and changed stuff. We've been operating under that forever. You know, I mean, it just makes no sense. The reason we did that, was because when somebody files a complaint, why would we not want the department to investigate it and then come back and tell us what's going on? And if the complainant is not satisfied at that point, then we'll set a hearing up. But if the chief and the police department want to take care of it, it just seemed the right way to go. I would like to address not a implicating question, but a procedural statutory question to the police chief. Chief, if you were in court. Do not answer that. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. All right, I'll ask you, Mr. President. Should I, as the prosecuting attorney, come to you who I allege committee crime and ask you yourself to investigate it? Would this, any commissioner here, please raise your hand, would any commissioner here? At this point, you should probably just make a decision as to whether you're going to hear the case. No, I have the right to say, city attorney, I'm the plaintiff here. I have the right to say I could not file that complaint through the police department because he was listed as a defendant no matter. That is a statutory situation. That's not a rule-making situation. He was listed on that complaint as a person of interest or as a defendant in the complaint. I cannot go to the police chief and have him investigate or his department investigate something through the chain of command. You'll notice that in the statute as well, there's actually no provision in the statute for someone to make a complaint against the police chief. That's something that we've added ourselves. So you wouldn't even be able to make that complaint against the police chief. Well, in 62-13, I guess I can. Again, I would, you control the hearing, Mr. Chair. I'll make it easy. I'll make it easy. Commission can do it. I'll deal with the decision of the commission. I would, the problem is if you go into closed session now, you can't come back. No, no, no, I'm not going into closed session. I want to talk to them a couple of times a day and make a decision on what we're going to proceed. Right, go ahead. What do you want to do? We have two questions. One question from the police officers and the chief's attorney whether we've won honor his request. And the second thing is Mr. Gillette's issue if we want to proceed today or not. And so my opinion is with all due respect to your request, I would prefer to move forward with the hearing today. Yeah, my thing is according to Mr. Gillette, we're not even allowed to do anything. We're just, you know, I don't, would you respect our decisions because you don't think we're valid? I don't know. You know, it seems as if that another question is, are we valid or not to make the decision? No disrespect to Mr. Gillette. It's his opinion in my case. I don't agree with his opinion. Okay. To Commissioner Sammott's and to Commissioner Claimness, consider the things I said and consider if you pursue and you're not. Do you comply with the law or don't you? Are you complicit? Are you all complicit for a continuous violation or is it worth your while to continue until you find out what the court rules are? With that, I'm not going to sit here and discuss it. So I'm out of here, Mr. President. Thank you for the commission for allowing me to time it through this, but I'm not here to take it through the time regular. So if we decide to proceed, you're not going to be here? I'm not going to sit for a closed session. I object to it. I'm not a, we're not closed session yet. Haven't gone in closed session. Well, there's questions, I'll answer it, but to sit here and not go anywhere, you've got the next step on the agenda in this closed session. And it seems like attorneys here are interjecting what the plaintiff has the right to say and do. If this is- We're not done with 4.1 yet. I'm still in 4.1 with this. We haven't moved out of there. Complaint? I'll answer to your question, Mr. President. I think what you do is control it, Mr. Chair. So I think what you need to do is just get their decision. That's why we're going to- And then ask him to put this. Jean and Larry. I didn't hear Jean's answer. I just came back. You can't hear you. I did not hear Jean's answer. I interrupted her. I'm the only one so far that said we should proceed. Well, I said, if we proceed, it would be illegal in his eyes. If we proceed, because we're not valid in his eyes. I think we can proceed based on the fact that we are, we have been functioning and we have been, you know, approved through council actions and through mayor's decisions. So I feel as if we can proceed, legally. Legally. I concur with that. Gary. Yeah, I believe we have standing. I do have questions about some of the procedural issues because I think it's something that we can't ignore. It's staring us right in the face. However, to bring us to some sort of resolution, I think we have to do our job, which is to proceed today, according to the reasons we were brought here. Oh, they're not to proceed. So then you just asked Mr. Gillette to proceed with this case. Okay. I close my case. I'm gone. Thank you, commission. Thank you, Mr. President. So basically what happened is you asked him to proceed with his case. He has, he had basically closed his case without any evidence. When you close the case without any evidence, he has not his burden of proof. And your only choice is to dismiss the complaint and find that it's not, so that would be an appropriate motion for you to make at this point. Well, I concur. I would like to add to that. I would like to add it's a final order subject to dismissal with prejudice, meaning it will not be brought back before the sport. I don't believe there's anything in the rules that you could do that unless you rule on, if you dismiss the case, it can't be with prejudice. You have to make a final ruling, not just dismissal. This would be a final ruling. It's just it. Fine. Well, thank you. So you should make, you should. It's missed the case based on a lack of evidence. And the complaint closed the case. Second. All right. Explain that again, G. I moved to close the case because there was no proof of evidence. And the complainant left and said he closed the case. It's a dismissal. He dismissed it. Yeah. It's a dismissal. Yeah, I should say dismiss it, not close it. Because he closed it. Yeah. It's a voluntary dismissal subject. Okay, we're under discussion. I wouldn't call it a voluntary dismissal because he just kind of presented his case. And I think that's, we don't want to avoid the issues with final order, but you're going to make the decision to dismiss as a final order. So I interpret that's the motion. So that's the motion to dismiss. So I moved to dismiss the case. Okay. Because the complainant closed the case. Without presenting it. Without presenting evidence. Without presenting evidence to hear the case. And we got a second. I don't know if you want to. Yeah, I'll draw my previous second and I'll stop. Thank you. No, we're in discussion. Everything legal? Yep. That's what you needed to have. Okay. You vote on it? And you don't have to go into contact? Yeah. No, it would be great. I understand. Any discussion at all? All in favor signify with saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. So what I will do is under our rules of procedure and under the statutes, we do have to issue a final order. I will issue a final order for Bob's signature based on that motion. You know, I don't know what to do with him. I tried everything. Then told the backwood for my ear. I understand. You have to go through the process. That's why we're doing it. Yeah, so it's a volunteer. Yeah. Thank you for your second motion to adjourn. You got a second? You got a second. To adjourn. To adjourn. Yeah. Any discussion? All in favor signify with saying aye. Aye. Opposed? I want to adjourn. Thank you everybody. I'd like you to say no, I don't want to adjourn.