documents: 15
This data as json
| rowid | docid | page_count | pdf_db_path | pdf_db_id | pdf_db_content_hash | txt_db_path | txt_db_id | txt_db_content_hash | hrg_type | year | month | day | dt_source | hrg_no | accused | matched_uid | hrg_text | title | agency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 07f469a3 | 13 | /PPACT/meeting-minutes-extraction/export/pdf/07f469a3.pdf | id:8ceKnrnmgi0AAAAAAAA-bw | 830685f76311ddd345f0cc149a9277ef7e7bb25afdefcb20a896b54be603e2e2 | /PPACT/meeting-minutes-extraction/export/txt/07f469a3.txt | id:8ceKnrnmgi0AAAAAAAA-cA | 75c77db700eaa0f5bc3b1af08bde9021b52a00d3048658e712be4f325e092096 | unknown | 2018 | 12 | 12 | scraped | 2 | 5. LETTER FROM SGT. CHRIS ESTESS DATED OCTOBER 27, 2018, REQUESTING AN | 5. LETTER FROM SGT. CHRIS ESTESS DATED OCTOBER 27, 2018, REQUESTING AN APPEAL HEARING-TRANSFER FROM INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION TO PATROL DIVISION DOCKET #2018- 004 ON NOVEMBER 13, 2018, SGT. ESTESS WAS ADVISED BY CHIEF McWILLIAMS HE WAS BEING TRANSFERRED FROM INTERNAL AFFAIRS TO PATROL. SGT. ESTESS FELT CHIEF McWILLIAMS STATEMENTS REGARDING THE REASONS FOR THE TRANSFER SHOWED THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT BEING DONE IN GOOD FAITH AND CAUSE. ON NOVEMBER 27, 2018, THIS BOARD RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE FROM MS. PAM BREEDLOVE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, REQUESTING AN APPEAL HEARING FOR SGT. ESTESS. ALL PARTIES WERE NOTIFIED OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST FROM SGT. ESTESS, THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY MS. PAM BREEDLOVE ON DECEMBER 3, 2018, ALL PARTIES WERE ADVISED SGT. ESTESS LETTER OF REQUEST WOULD BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE DECEMBER 12, 2018, BOARD MEETING. BY SGT. BRIDGES MOTION MADE TO ACCEPT LETTER FROM SGT. CHRIS ESTESS DATED OCTOBER 27, 2018, REQUESTING AN APPEAL HEARING-TRANSFER FROM INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION TO PATROL DIVISION, DOCKET # 2018-004 SECOND BY CAPT. SHELTON VOTING IN FAVOR: ALL COMMENTS: MR.SCHWARTZ STATES IT IS THE SAME THING INFORMAL HEARING PAGE 8 DECEMBER 12, 2018 SGT. ESTESS AT THIS TIME ADDRESSES THE BOARD AND STATES HE WAS TRANSFERRED NOVEMBER 13,2018, BY CHIEF McWILLIAMS FROM THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION TO THE NIGHT SHIFT PATROL DIVISION. HE STATES, THIS TRANSFER WAS DISCIPLINE DELIBERATELY TO DISCRIMINATE ACCORDING TO L.R'S. 33:2489-REGARDING TRANSFERS. SGT. ESTESS REQUESTS THE BOARD GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE FACTS REGARDING THIS TRANSFER WHETHER IT WAS DISCIPLINE OR HANDLED PROPERLY. HE FURTHER STATES MS. BREEDLOVE, HIS LEGAL ADVISOR, WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY AS SHE HAD COMMITMENTS AT THE SHREVEPORT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SO HE IS REPRESENTING HIMSELF TODAY AND HE WOULD LIKE TO GET ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING. MR. LOWE STATES HE ISSUED A LETTER IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING AND WAS THAT DISTRIBUTED? SECRETARY MURRAY STATES IS WAS AND EVERYONE HERE TODAY HAS A COPY. MR. LOWE STATES HE THINKS THE BOARD HAS THE SAME ISSUES AS TO WHAT WAS JUST TALKED ABOUT, WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING HAS OCCURRED THAT GIVES A POLICE OFFICER THE RIGHT TO A FULL APPEAL HEARING AND REFERS TO HIS LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD. MR. LOWE FURTHER STATES SGT. ESTESS WAS NOT DEMOTED, NO LOSS OF RANK, NO LOSS OF SENIORITY, NO LOSS OF BENEFITS, NO LOSS OF PAY. HE WAS SIMPLY TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DIVISION TO ANOTHER. HE STILL HOLDS THE RANK OF SERGEANT, HE STILL HOLDS IN LINE FOR PROMOTION WHEN THAT OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF. THIS IS NOT CORRECTIVE ACTION OF APPEAL STATUTE 2501. MR.LOWE AT THIS TIME REFERES TO 2489. THE CHIEF OF POLICE WHO IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETE AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER MANPOWER WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT. MR.LOWE STATES SGT. ESTESS FEELS HE HAS BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BUT STATES THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW DOES NOT DEFINE DISCRIMINATION BUT THE LOUISIANA EMPLOYMENT LAW DOES DEFINE DISCRIMINATION AND IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT IS AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION BASED OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. HE CANNOT TRANSFER AN AFRICIAN AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER BECAUSE HE IS AN AFRICIAN AMERICAN NOR CAN HE TRANSFER A FEMALE OFFICER SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DOESN’T LIKE HAVING FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS IN CERTAIN POSITIONS. IF YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH FACTS SUCH AS THESE THAT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR AN APPEAL HEARING BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED WITH FACTS LIKE THAT IN THIS CASE. WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS AN OFFICER WHO LIKED HIS OLD POSITION BETTER THAN THE NEW POSITION AND DOESN’T FEEL IT IS FAIR IT GOT TAKEN AWAY. THAT MAY BE THE CASE BUT THAT IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. YOU WILL EXPERIENCE THAT EVERYDAY WHEN YOU ARE MANAGING A DEPARTMEN,T A POLICE OFFICER WHO GOT MOVED FROM ONE SPOT TO ANOTHER SPOT. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT WANT TO GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF REVIEWING EVERY CHANGE THAT IS MADE BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE. OTHERWISE I THINK THE PHRASE PANDORA’S BOX IS PRETTY APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. OTHER WISE YOU WILL GET IN THE BUSINESS OF MANAGING THE DEPARTMENT. SGT. ESTESS STATES, THE ONLY WAY FOR HIM TO PRESENT HIS FACTS IS, THE REASON HE FEELS THE TRANSFER WAS DISCIPLINE AND DISCRIMATORY WILL BE TO HAVE THE APPEAL HEARING TO WHERE WE CAN ARGUE THE EXAMPLES IN FRONT OF YOU. MR.LOWE, CHIEF McWILLIAMS AND THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WILL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO REBUTTAL STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD. HE FEELS IT WAS DISCIPLINE AND HE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS FACTS BEFORE THE BOARD. MR. DAVIS STATES IN THE PAST HE HAS SEEN THAT SGT. ESTESS IS AN EXCEPTIONAL OFFICER, HOWEVER IF I HAVE ONE DUMP TRUCK DRIVER AND I NEED HIM IN A DIFFERENT TRUCK HE IS JUST GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE. I RUN MY COMPANY. SGT. ESTESS STATES HE IS JUST ASKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE BOARD AND THE FACTS TO THE BOARD AND THE BOARD VOTE DURING AN APPEAL HEARING. PAGE 9 DECEMBER 12, 2018 MR. CHANDLER STATES HE IS IN THE SAME BOAT AS YOU ARE, YOU HAVE TO MOVE YOUR GUYS AROUND NO MATTER WHAT. MR.SCHWARTZ STATES HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE IN BATON ROUGE SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION WHAT THAT CONVERSATION CONCERNED. MR.SCHWARTZ STATES IN THE IT IS UP TO THE BOARD TO EITHER MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPEAL OR NOT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE APPEAL AND THAT WAS THE CONVERSATION WITH BATON ROUGE, TRYING TO GET AN EXPLAINATION OF WHAT IS THE PROPER WAY TO DO THIS AND WHAT IS NOT THE PROPER WAY TO DO THIS. SO IT COMES BACK TO THE BOARD TO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO VOTE ON TO MOVING THIS FORWARD WITH AN APPEAL HEARING OR NOT MOVING FORWARD TO AN APPEAL HEARING. MR. LOWE ASKS IF WHEN HE SAYS BATON ROUGE IS THAT THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER? MR.SCHWARTZ STATES YES. MR. SCHWARTZ CALLS FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND. BY MR. BRIDGES MOTION MADE TO VOTE ON WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN APPEAL HEARING FOR SGT. ESTESS MR.CHANDLER ASKS IF WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS NOW OR CAN WE PASS IT TO ANOTHER DATE? MR.SCHWARTZ STATES WE HAVE TO DECIDE TODAY. IF WE DON’T VOTE WE ARE ESTABLISHING A PRESIDENCE THAT WILL ESTABLISH ANOTHER DATE TO HEAR THIS WITH HIS ATTORNEY PRESENT THEN THAT WILL BE AN APPEAL HEARING THERE FOLLOWS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE BOARD SECRETARY AND SGT. ESTESS THAT HE AND HIS ATTORNEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT AN APPEAL DATE WOULD BE SET TODAY. SECRETARY MURRAY STATES MS. BREEDLOVE WAS SENT AN AGENDA AND THE AGENDA STATES LETTER OF REQUEST FROM SGT. ESTESS AND IT DOESN’T STATE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SET A DATE. SGT. ESTESS STATES THAT WAS NOT HIS IMPRESSION. SECRETARY MURRAY STATES SHE DID DISCUSS WITH MS. BREEDLOVE IF THERE WAS A DATE SET IT WOULD BE THE AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING JANUARY 167. SGT. ESTESS STATES IT WAS THEIR OPINION A HEARING DATE WOULD BE SET. CHIEF McWILLIAMS STATES SHE COULD HAVE ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE. MR. DAVIS STATES HE FEELS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY HIS OWN BOARD NOT LETTING HIM KNOW WHAT SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND WHAT HE MIGHT BE VOTING ON. HE WOULD LIKE TO BE A LITTLE BETTER INFORMED BY MY BOARD, BY THE SECRETARY OR WHATEVER TO KINDA TELL ME WHAT I AM COMING TO ATTEND TO SECRETARY MURRAY STATES HE HAS THE SAME LETTERS SHE HAS. CHIEF McWILIAMS STATES THE BIG QUESTION SEEMS TO BE SOME KIND OF INFORMATION THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER PROVIDED THAT THE MAJORITY IS NOT BEING PRIVY TO. MR.SCHWARTZ STATES IT IS VERY SELDOM THIS BOARD MEETS AND DUE TO THE FACT IT WAS VERY DETAILED HE WANTED TO GET THE INFORMATION SO THE BOARD HAD TO OPPORTUNITY TO ACT IN A MANNER THAT IS KEEPING WITH POLICY. PAGE 10 DECEMBER 12, 2018 MR. DAVIS STATES THAT IS THE INFORMATION WE ALL WOULD LIKE. MR.SCHWARTZ STATES HE JUST GOT THAT AND IT WAS NOT THAT YOU WERE LEFT OUT AND IF YOU WERE HE APOLIGIZES. I HAD THE SAME INFORMATION AS ALL THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. MR. LOWE STATES HER LETTER WAS REQUESTING AN APPEAL, SHE HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD BEFORE, SHE KNOWS HOW YOU WORK AND SHE KNOWS HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE TODAY. IT WAS PLACED ON THE AGENDA LIKE THEY ARE ALL PLACED ON YOUR AGENDA. WE SUBMITTED A LETTER IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING AND SHE GOT A COPY OF THAT SO SHE KNOWS WHAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITIES POSITION IS. MR.SCHWARTZ ASKS IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND. THE MOTION WILL BE TO GRANT THE APPEAL HEARING OR DENY THE APPEAL HEARING. SGT. BRIDGES STATES HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION MR. CHANDLER STATES NOW WE ARE BACK TO THE SAME THING, OKAY YOU JUST PUTINA DIFFERENT POSITION? CHIEF McWILLIAMS STATES YES MR. CHANDLER STATES OK SGT. ESTESS STATES THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING WOULD BE TO REFUTE WHAT CHIEF McWILLIAMS IS SAYING HERE BEFORE THE BOARD. HE WOULD LIKE FOR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE AND HE BE ABLE TO PRESENT HIS CASE AND THE BOARD CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER THIS TRANSFER WAS REASONABLE OR NOT. MR. CHANDLER STATES HE HAS MADE SERVERAL COMMENTS TO THE BOARD THAT HE IS NOT HERE TO RUN THE POLICE DEPAREMENT. BY SGT. BRIDGES MOTION MADE TO HEAR SGT. CHRIS ESTESS APPEAL TRANSFER DATED NOVEMBER 27 MR.SCHWARTZ STATES WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS HAVE A MOTION TO ALLOW HIM AN APPEAL OR NOT. BY SGT. BRIDGES MOTION MADE TO ALLOW AN APPEAL HEARING FOR SGT. CHRIS ESTESS SECOND BY CAPT. SHELTON COMMENTS: NONE VOTING IN FAVOR: SGT. BRIDGES, CAPT. SHELTON VOTING AGAINST: MR.SCHWARTZ, MR. DAVIS, MR. CHANDLER SGT. ESTESS IS DENIED HIS REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL HEARING. FIRE DEPARTMENT | Appeal hearing: 5. LETTER FROM SGT. CHRIS ESTESS DATED OCTOBER 27, 2018, REQUESTING AN on 2018-12-12 | bossier-city-pd |