[00:00:01]
[PSPRS Board Meeting on November 21, 2022.]
THANK YOU.I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING OF THE CITY OF SEDONA, SEDONA PD, LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONAL RETIREMENT BOARD TO ORDER.
AND IF WE COULD START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, SEDONA, UH, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, THE RELEASE EXAMS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LITTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
AND IF WE COULD HAVE THE ROLE CALLED PLEASE, BOARD CHAIR KATHY ELLA.
PRESENT BOARD MEMBER PETE FURMAN.
PRESENT AND INQUIRY IS EXCUSED.
AND OUR CONSENT AGENDA HAS ONE ITEM, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2022 MINUTES, UH, THAT ARE IN OUR PACKETS.
SO I'M ASSUMING WE ALL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THEM OVER.
SO I WOULD LIKE A, UH, MOTION PLEASE.
FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? I'LL SECOND THAT.
UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UM, WE NOW HAVE A CALL TO THE PUBLIC, UH, SEEING NO ONE HERE AND NOT HAVING ANY INFORMATION NOPE.
WE ARE MOVING ON TO ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS A HAPPY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NEW BOARD MEMBER DETECTIVE J EVANGELISTA, WHO IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ELECTED APPOINTEE.
YEAH, CONGRATULATIONS AND WELCOME.
AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU KNOW WE CAN EVER DO TO HELP BRING IT TO SPEED, ANY INFORMATION YOU WANT, PLEASE JUST CONTACT ANYBODY.
ITEM FIVE IS THE DROP AND REHIRE LEGISLATION AND INFORMATION WITH A PRESENTATION BY OUR ATTORNEY, CYNTHIA KELLY.
UM, SO CYNTHIA, I'M TURNING IT OVER TO YOU.
UM, THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION, UM, UH, RECENTLY, UH, THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF.
AND YOU PROBABLY HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT 'EM.
ONE IN PARTICULAR IS THE EXTENSION OF DROP FROM FIVE YEARS TO SEVEN YEARS.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL, UM, 24 MONTHS, UH, TO BE IN DROP.
BUT IT'S ONLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN TIER ONE, TIER ONE EMPLOYEES.
AND IF THEY'RE, IF YOU'RE NOT ALREADY IN DROP AND YOU'RE TIER ONE, UM, IN ORDER TO, UH, APPLY FOR THE ADDITIONAL TIME, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 24 AND A HALF YEARS OF CREDITED SERVICE AND YOU HAVE TO BE 51 YEARS OF AGE.
UM, IF YOU'RE ALREADY IN DROP, THEN THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY.
SO IT, IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE AND I BELIEVE IT'S UP TO THE CITIES.
UH, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, UM, OPINIONS ON THIS.
SOME PEOPLE SAY IT'S UP TO THE CITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANNA PARTICIPATE IN ALLOWING THE EXTRA TIME IN DROP.
AND OTHERS SAY THAT IT'S NOT, UH, IF THEY APPLY FOR IT, IT'S UNDER THE, UM, PS P R S.
BRENDA, HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? NO, I HAVE NOT.
AND DO YOU HAVE EMPLOYEES INQUIRING ABOUT IT OR WANTING TO, TO, TO DO THE EXTRA TWO YEARS? NOTHING THAT I'VE HEARD OF.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO THAT POINT.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE, I'M SORRY.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO THAT POINT JUST YET.
UM, HAVE, YEAH, SERGEANT DOMINGUEZ IS THE CLOSEST.
HE'S GONNA BE RETIRING NEXT YEAR AT SOME POINT, BUT HE'S ONLY AT THE 20 YEARS, SO HE IS NOT EVEN AT THE END OF DROPS YET.
AND WHICH I'M ASSUMING WHEN YOU SAID TIER ONE, CAUSE I REMEMBER HEARING WITH THE PARKER HALL DECISION A FEW YEARS AGO, I THINK IT WAS, UM, THAT TIER ONE WAS ALSO BROKE UP INTO MULTIPLE TIERS.
SO WHEN YOU SAY TIER ONE, IS THAT JUST THE ENTIRE GROUP? THAT WAS PRE 2012? YES, PRE JULY.
AS FAR AS, AS IT RELATES TO SENATE BILL SIX, UH, 1268 AND THE, UM, EXPANSION OF DROP, THEY DID THIS, I THINK AS THE SORT OF A, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IN SOME OF THE LARGER JURISDICTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE UP IN SEDONA FOR THE POLICE, BUT TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE ON THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE, UH, FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, UH, BECAUSE THE APPLICATIONS ARE DOWN AND, AND THAT SORT OF THING.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOSING MORE OFFICERS, UH, ALL THE TIME IN A LOT OF THESE JURISDICTIONS AND NOT BEING ABLE TO REPLACE THEM.
SO EVERYONE'S SHORT-STAFFED AND, AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT
[00:05:01]
PARTICULAR, UM, SENATE BILL.THE OTHER BILL IS A HOUSE BILL 2063 THAT HAS TO DO WITH RETURNING TO WORK AFTER A RETIRED MEMBER WANTS TO RETURN TO WORK.
AND THEY JUST CHANGE THE, UM, THE A PERIOD OF TIME THAT YOU HAVE TO BE SEPARATED FROM SERVICE FROM 12 MONTHS TO SIX MONTHS.
AND I BELIEVE THIS IS ALONG THE SAME LINES AS WANTING TO PEOPLE TO COME BACK AND DO SOMETHING.
UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THE CITY, THEY, UH, NOT NECESSARILY, OBVIOUSLY COULDN'T BE A POLICE OFFICER OR FIREFIGHTER AGAIN, BECAUSE THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE SAME DUTIES.
BUT I GUESS THE THINKING WAS THAT THEY COULD DO OTHER THINGS TO HELP THE CITIES OUT.
SO THEY DID CHANGE IT FROM 12 TO SIX MONTHS.
AND THEY ALSO TOOK OUT IN THE REQUIREMENTS IN, UM, 38, 8 49, IT USED TO BE IF THEY WERE COMING BACK TO WORK, UM, IT HAD TO BE A ENTRY LEVEL, NON-SUPERVISORY POSITION.
AND THEY STRUCK THAT, UH, FROM THE STATUTE SO THAT NO LONGER APPLIES.
UM, IT CAN BE GREATER THAN ENTRY LEVEL AND IT, AND IT CAN BE A SUPERVISORY POSITION.
UM, BUT ONE THING IS FOR SURE, IT CAN NOT BE PREARRANGED, UM, BEFORE THEY RETIRE TO SAY, HEY, AS SOON AS I RETIRE, YOU KNOW IT, ONCE I MEET THE TIME REQUIREMENTS, I'M, I'M GONNA APPLY FOR THIS JOB AND HAVE THE JOB LINED UP AHEAD OF TIME.
UH, THEY ARE STILL REQUESTING A, UH, SEPARATION, A LEGITIMATE SEPARATION FROM SERVICE FOR THAT.
AND THAT WAS, THAT'S IT AS FAR AS THE CHANGES GO.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UM, YES.
DO YOU, DO YOU NEED ANY ACTION FROM US ON THIS? NO.
THIS IS JUST INFORMATIONAL, BUT IS THAT WHAT YOU ASKED? BUT OKAY.
BUT YOU STARTED BY SAYING THAT IT'S UP TO THE CITY TO DETERMINE IF THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT.
SO THAT WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SAY, ADOPT A POLICY IF WE'RE GONNA PARTICIPATE OR NOT.
YOU DON'T NEED US TO DO THAT? NO, NOT THE BOARD.
IT WOULDN'T BE A BOARD DECISION.
I THINK IF THE CITY DETERMINED THAT THEY WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXTENSION OF DROP, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, TO DO THAT.
SO MY QUESTION THEN GOES TO, TO, TO BRENDA, SO HOW DO WE WELL, NO, BEFORE WE GET THERE, LET ME ASK OUR, OUR POLICE REPRESENTATIVES HERE.
UM, LET'S START WITH YOU SERGEANT.
WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON IMPACT HERE? UH, I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD THING TO LEAVE IT OPEN TO HAVING THAT.
UM, I THINK IT'S GREAT CAUSE JUST LIKE SHE WAS SAYING, THE RETENTION SIDE OF IT HAS GOTTEN MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT.
AND JUST LIKE SHE SAID, THE APPLICATIONS HAVE COMPLETELY DROPPED.
THEY'VE, THEY'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT THEY USED TO BE.
UM, SO BEING ABLE TO HAVE THAT AS AN OPTION IS A GOOD IDEA.
CUZ WHO KNOWS? POLICING CHANGES, IT EBBS AND FLOWS.
SO MAYBE, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF LEAVING IT OPENED WHERE THE CITY HAS THAT OPTION TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH IT AS NEEDED.
AND THEN THAT, THAT THAT DECISION OF LEAVING THAT OPEN IS DONE AT THE HR LEVEL.
I WOULD HAVE TO COULD YOU COULD.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING FOR US TO DO AT THE MOMENT.
DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING? I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.
UM, I JUST WANNA GET IT CLARIFIED THAT THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE, SINCE IT'S A POLICY MATTER, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T NEED TO GO TO ANY ADOPTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF SOMETHING HAPPENS IN YOUR OFFICE, IN YOUR DEPARTMENT OR IF IT HAS TO GO TO THE CITY MANAGER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE EMPLOYEE'S REPORT TO MANAGER, NOT TO THE COUNCIL OR ANYTHING, AND CERTAINLY NOT TO THIS BOARD.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE DOTTED OUR I'S AND CROSSED OUR T'S WITH WHO IS THE RIGHT BODY TO BE MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION THAT AS WAS SUGGESTED, THAT WE KEEP THIS OPTION OPEN.
CUZ YOU KNOW, I I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
AND UM, SO THE, I THINK BRENDA'S THE RIGHT PERSON TO CLARIFY THAT FOR US, RIGHT? YOU DON'T FEEL YOU NEED TO HOP IN ON THAT? UM, THAT, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A FOLLOW UP AND I THINK, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD NEED A MEETING, UM, TO DISCUSS THAT.
IT COULD CERTAINLY GO AS A FOLLOW UP ON WHATEVER THE NEXT MEETING IS, BUT WHEN YOU DO HAVE THE ANSWER, UM, IF YOU COULD JUST SEND US A MEMO WITH THAT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS, I THINK THAT WOULD JUST CLARIFY IT AND, AND KEEP OUR DUCKS IN A ROW, SO TO SPEAK.
[00:10:01]
THAT SOUND? EVERYBODY GOOD? CYNTHIA, IS THAT A GOOD COURSE? YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD ON THIS ISSUE THEN? UH, ARE YOU TALKING TO ME? I, YES.
I, I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON IT.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION THAT SOME PEOPLE DON'T, DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A, AN OPTION FOR THE CITY, THAT IT'S MANDATORY, UH, AND THAT IF SOMEONE ASKS FOR IT, THEY HAVE TO, TO GRANT IT.
I, I'M NOT, IT'S STILL, I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ON THAT.
AND WE'VE ASKED, UM, AND I, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A STRAIGHT ANSWER ON THAT.
SO IF I FIND THAT OUT, BRENDA FOR SURE, I'LL EMAIL YOU.
MAYBE THAT COULD ALL GET INTO THE SAME SORT OF MEMO THAT COMES OUT TO US WITH THAT INFORMATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM DISCUSSION? NO.
THEN I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD PLEASE TO ITEM SIX IF THAT'S GOOD WITH EVERYBODY.
DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING LANGUAGE, UM, FORM FOR EXAMINING PHYSICIAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IMPORTANCE OF THE PRE-EMPLOYMENT PRE MEMBERSHIP PHYSICAL REQUIREMENT.
THIS IS, I, THIS ITEM IS IN YOUR PACKET AND I WANT TO, UM, I WANT TO THANK, UH, PETE FOR LOOKING UP THE INFORMATION ON THIS AND ACTUALLY DOING A DRAFT THAT WAS REVIEWED BY OUR COUNCIL, BY CYNTHIA AS WELL.
SO, UM, LET'S JUST START, PETE, JUST GIVE US YOUR BACKGROUND ON THIS A LITTLE BIT PLEASE.
SO IT WAS ONE THING I'D ALWAYS BEEN TRACKING IN THE BYLAWS AND THEN THE MODEL BYLAWS THAT ALWAYS SAID THAT THE BOARD SHALL HIRE THE LOCAL PHYSICIAN TO DO THE, UH, PRE-EXISTING CONDITION SCREENING.
AND THIS BOARD NEVER HIRED ANYONE TO DO THAT.
UM, BUT AFTER ASKING LOTS OF QUESTIONS AROUND ABOUT WHAT OUR PROCESS WAS AND THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A CONTRACT, I THOUGHT THE BEST PLACE TO PUT THIS TYPE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WOULD BE IN THE CONTRACT WITH THE PHYSICIAN.
BUT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A CONTRACT CUZ WE HIRE SO INFREQUENTLY OR INFREQUENTLY ENOUGH THAT IT'S JUST KIND OF AN INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT.
SO THE NEXT BEST OPTION WAS TO CREATE A FORM THAT WILL GO OUT WITH ALL THE REST OF THE PAPERWORK THAT THE APPLICANT BRINGS TO THE SCREENING PHYSICIAN THAT JUST LAYS IT OUT MORE CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AND HAS THE PHYSICIAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY'VE DONE THAT.
SO I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, OUR BEST ALTERNATIVE AT THIS POINT.
AND I THINK IT, IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD.
I'M VERY HAPPY WITH, UH, THE RESULT OF THAT.
AND CYNTHIA, COULD YOU JUST GIVE US A QUICK, UM, RUNDOWN OF YOUR REVIEW OF THIS AND IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD ADOPT? YES.
UM, BRENDA HAD SENT THIS TO ME.
TYPICALLY BOARDS WILL, UM, CONTRACT THROUGH A PROVIDER OF IME DOCTORS.
SO THEY HAVE A WHOLE SLEW, IF YOU WILL, OF IME DOCTORS THAT ARE ALREADY CONTRACTED THROUGH WITH THE BOARD.
UM, I, I DON'T, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE SEDONA HAS AN MCN OR SOMEBODY LIKE THAT.
SO THIS, THIS IS APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO SEND THIS OUT TO THE EXAMINING PHYSICIAN.
AND SOMETIMES WITH PARTICULAR DISABILITIES THEY MIGHT NOT, THAT TYPE OF DOCTOR MIGHT NOT BE FOUND ON SOME OF THESE LISTS WE'RE HAVING, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESUMPTIVE CANCERS WITH FIREFIGHTERS.
WE, WE'VE HAD SOME DIFFICULTY FIND FINDING PHYSICIANS THAT WILL DO IMES ON THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
SO, UM, NO I THINK THIS IS GREAT.
THIS IS FINE TO GO AND THIS IS A, GOES ALONG WITH THE PACKAGE THAT YOU'RE SENDING TO THE IME DOCTOR, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH.
AND I'D LIKE TO ASK THE POLICE REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS AND IS THIS SOMETHING, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO IT? ANY OBJECTION? I MEAN WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS I THINK THE LAST THREE MEETINGS SO, YOU KNOW, WE KNEW THIS WAS COMING AND WHERE WE WERE LEADING TOWARD HAVING THIS SORT OF LOOSE END RESOLVED.
UM, IF YOU FEEL THAT THIS DOES IT AND THAT THIS ISN'T PUTTING ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WAY OF, UM, YOUR, WHO YOU REPRESENT, I MEAN I THINK THIS IS A GOOD FORM OF THE LANGUAGE I THINK WAS STRONG, UH, REQUEST THAT THE PHYSICIAN PERFORMING IT PUTS ALL THE ONUS ON THE PHYSICIAN PERFORMING THE PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING, THOROUGHLY INQUIRE ABOUT OBSERVANT DOCUMENT PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS OF THE PS P S SYSTEM AND THE LOCAL BOARD.
UM, I THINK THAT LANGUAGE GOOD.
I LIKE THAT THERE IS A, THE DISCLAIMER DOWN AT THE BOTTOM ABOUT RETURNING THIS TO THE CITY, UH, TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH, ALONG WITH THE COMPLETED MEDICAL HISTORY.
SO IT'S GOOD IF THIS PUTS THE, THE PHYSICIAN ON NOTICE THAT WE NEED THEM TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION AND THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING TO THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, TO SUPPLY IT IN THERE.
SHOULD WE HAVE ANY CLAIMS GOING FORWARD, WE'LL BE LOOKING BACK TO THIS.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WHAT OTHER DISCUSSION ANYBODY WANTS TO HAVE PE LOOK LIKE
[00:15:01]
YOU'RE ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING.NO, I WASN'T, I I DID NOTICE IN THE NEXT ITEM WHEN WE HAVE UH, AARON BERGS APPLICATION STUFF, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS PREEXISTING CONDITION BEFORE WHICH, AND THAT GOES WITH THEM EACH TIME.
YEAH, I'D NEVER, WE'D NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE AT THE BOARD LEVEL.
SO IT'S A LITTLE DUPLICATIVE BUT I STILL THINK THAT, AND THAT'S WHERE FOR ME, I DON'T THINK IT HURTS ANYTHING FOR THIS FORM TO HAVE IT, IT WAS JUST BASED ON WE ONLY CONTRACT WITH PEOPLE, WELL WE DON'T CONTRACT, I'M USING A BAD TERM THERE.
WE ONLY USE PHYSICIANS THAT HAVE BEEN ARIZONA POST CERTIFIED TO BE ABLE TO DO THOSE LEVEL OF EXAMINATIONS FOR UM MM-HMM.
SO I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY HURTS ANYTHING.
IT WAS JUST LIKE WHAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING, KIND OF LIKE A DUPLICATE TO IT.
BUT I DON'T THINK IT HURTS ANYTHING TO HAVE THAT FOR THEM TO ADD TO THE PACKET.
I THINK IT'S, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SO I KNOW AZ POST STANDARDS ARE GONNA BE CHANGING IN 2023 WAS LESS DISCUSSED AT OUR BACKGROUND INVESTIGATORS MEETING.
UM, SOME OF THE VERBIAGE IS GONNA CHANGE FOR THEIR MEDICAL FORMS OR IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GONNA SAY PHYSICIAN ON IT, IT COULD BE NURSE PRACTITIONER OR, UM, PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT WHO'S DOING THE EXAMINATION.
CAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU DO GO TO LIKE URGENT CARE, IT'S NOT EXACTLY A PHYSICIAN WHO'S TREATING OR CARING FOR YOU.
UM, MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THE, THE VERBIAGE ON HERE WHERE IT SAYS EXAMINING PHYSICIAN, THAT WOULD MEAN THEN A PHYSICIAN WOULD HAVE TO DO THE UM, ACTUAL EXAMINATION ITSELF.
WHAT WE COULD DO IS IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE MIRROR AZ POSTS FORM OR THEIR VERBIAGE THAT MIGHT HELP US OUT.
SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, OUR STANDARD AND THEIR STANDARD MIRROR EACH OTHER AND THERE'S NO CONFUSION WHEN IT COMES TO THE PROCESS.
APRIL TO, THEY SAID APRIL, 2023.
BUT WE COULD CHANGE LANGUAGE NOW THAT WOULD THEN HAVE OUR CURRENT UM, SITUATION AND THE FUTURE SITUATION.
WHAT IF WE CHANGED IT FROM EXAMINING PHYSICIAN TO EXAMINING MEDICAL OFFICIAL? THEY ALSO TOOK OUT THE WORD BOARD CERTIFIED TOO.
CAUSE BOARD CERTIFIED USED TO BE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN NO IT'S NOT IN HERE.
SO YOU TOOK OUT THE WORD BOARD, THE PRAISE BOARD CERTIFIED IN THEIR PROCESS.
SO, SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN YES WE SHOULD BE HAVING THIS DOCUMENT.
YEAH, YEAH BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY CUZ IF THEY'RE NOT ALREADY BOARD CERTIFIED, IF THAT'S A REQUIREMENT BEING REMOVED MM-HMM
AND WHAT DO YOU FEEL ABOUT CHANGING INTO EXAMINING MEDICAL OFFICIAL? I THINK THAT SOUNDS OFFICIAL OR PROFESSIONAL OR PHYSICIAN.
IT MIGHT BE PROFESSIONAL CAUSE I THINK THEY ARE, AREN'T THEY CALLED LIKE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS? NOT OFFICIALS.
SO EXAMINING MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AND CYNTHIA, DOES THAT FLY BY YOU? YEAH, I, I I THINK SO.
YOU KNOW, UNDER THE STATUTE, UM, IT TALKS ABOUT THE PURPOSES OF A, OF THE MEDICAL BOARD.
AND THE MEDICAL BOARD MEANS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED BY THIS BOARD TO EXAMINE IT SAYS TO IDENTIFY A PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITION ORRY THAT EXISTED OR OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE MEMBER'S DATED MEMBERSHIP IN THE SYSTEM.
IF IT'S A, A NURSE PRACTITIONER OR A PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT, THEY'RE TYPICALLY WORKING UNDER A MEDICAL DOCTOR.
AS LONG AS THEY'RE WORKING UNDER A MEDICAL DOCTOR, YOU'RE OKAY.
UM, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, I, I WORRY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOMEONE WHO'S NOT AN ACTUAL MD UM, ADVISING THE BOARD ON THINGS.
BUT IF IT'S, IF IT'S A NURSE PRACTITIONER OR A PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT THEY'RE WORK WORKING UNDER OR IN A CLINIC WITH AN MD, THEN I THINK WE'RE OKAY.
SO NO CHANGES TO IT? NO, I THINK WE'RE OKAY.
SO YOU WANT, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU WANNA LEAVE IT AS EXAMINING PHYSICIAN AS OPPOSED TO EXAMINING PROFESSIONAL? WELL CAUSE A PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT OR A NURSE PRACTITIONER IS WORKING UNDER A PHYSICIAN, THEY HAVE TO WORK UNDER A PHYSICIAN.
BUT THEN THE PHYSICIAN HAS TO ACTUALLY SIGN IT.
THIS NOT THE, NOT THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY CONDUCTED THE, I DON'T KNOW THAT NECESSARILY.
WELL IF I, I WOULDN'T, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
I'VE NEVER REALLY EXAMIN PHYSICIAN AND I'M NOT A PH PHYSICIAN, BUT I'M THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY CONDUCTED IT.
I WOULD HAVE PAUSED SIGNING THIS IF IT SAYS EXAMINING PHYSICIAN, YOU KNOW, NOW IF YOU ARE GONNA HAVE THE EXAMINING THE PHYSICIAN SIGN IT BUT NEVER CONDUCTED BECAUSE THE PERSON ANSWERS TO THEM.
UM, AGAIN, I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S NOT AS CLEAR.
I MEAN FOR ME, I, I THINK THAT THE CHANGING THE LANGUAGE WOULD MAKE IT ALL LINE UP CORRECTLY.
[00:20:01]
BUT I'M ONE VOICE ON THIS SO I COULD ADD A LINE ABOUT LIKE THE UM, IF YOU WANTED, IF IT ABOUT LIKE THE PRACTICE, THE NAME OF THE PRACTICE OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER LINE THAT HAS TO BE FILLED IN ABOUT THE PHYSICIAN'S NAME OR THE, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER YOU WANT ME TO WORD IT.SO, SO WOULD STILL SAY EXAMINING MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE UH, THE PRACTICE NAME, THE PRACTICE.
VIEWING POSITIONS BECAUSE IF YOU KNOW THE MEDICAL YEAH.
UM, PROFESSIONAL CONDUCTING THE EXAMINATION.
REVIEWED BY THE ORIGINAL PHYSICIAN.
I HATE ADDING LINES BUT IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
WELL YEAH, I THINK IT'S MINOR.
SO, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, JUST SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, IT'S NOW GONNA SAY SIGNED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY EXAMINING MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AND THEN NAME CUZ IT'S THAT PERSON'S NAME AND THEN THE PRACTICE NAME AND ADDRESS AND PHONE.
CYNTHIA, THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? YEAH, I THINK THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
SO THEN THE OTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT THERE, KATHY IS IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ABOVE IT WE HAVE THE WORD PHYSICIAN APPEARS TWICE AND THAT ALSO COULD BE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
YEAH, IT'D BE JUST CHANGING ALL THE PHYSICIANS.
AND I GUESS ON THE TOP TWO CUZ AS PHYSICIAN'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
IS THERE FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THIS? ARE THERE FURTHER COMMENTS TO THIS? I THINK THAT COVERS IT.
SO WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WOULD SAY THEY MOVE TO ADOPT THE PHYSICIAN'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
THE THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE MEDICAL HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE AND PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.
REPORT FORMS TAKEN TO A PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP, PHYSICAL BY ALL NEWLY HIRED POLICE DEPARTMENTS, ONE PERSONNEL AS AMENDED IN DISCUSSION.
RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE ON THE FORM.
SOMEBODY WANNA SAY, DID YOU SAY MOTION? SOME MOVED.
UM, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
SEE NONE THAT PASSES AND THAT TIES UP OUR RULES REVIEW.
THAT WAS AN ONGOING SEVERAL MONTHS BUT THAT WAS, BUT IT WAS VERY THOROUGH A YEAR.
I THINK WE SET THE MODEL FOR ANY OTHER CITY, I HOPE.
UM, OKAY, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM SEVEN, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF OFFICER DARREN BERG'S MEMBERSHIP INTO THE SEDONA POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR DECEMBER 27TH, 2022.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS WE MADE THE, UM, INFORMATION AGAIN IS IN YOUR PACKET WITH THE PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION SUMMARY.
AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE WANTED LONG BE WITH LAPD I THINK 26.
BUT HE DIDN'T RETIRE? NO, HE RETIRED THERE.
BUT HE STILL WANTED A FEW MORE YEARS AND NOT ON A DISABILITY PENSION.
NO, HE ACTUALLY RETIRED NORMAL, JUST REGULAR TIMED OUT.
HE DECIDED HE WANTED TO CHANGE A PACE SO HE CAME HERE AND SAID HE STILL HAD QUITE A FEW YEARS LEFT IN HIM THAT HE WANTED TO KEEP WORKING.
SO ANYBODY HAVE ANY, UM, QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITION REPORT OR ANYTHING WE WANT NOTED PRIOR TO MOVING ON THE ACCEPTANCE? NO.
ANY COMMENTS? I THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION FOR THE STUFF HE WROTE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, IT EXPLAINS WELL WHAT HAPPENED.
THAT'S WHY I ATTACHED THAT PAGE BECAUSE IT KINDA GAVE HIM YEAH, THE AZ POST, UM, THE MH FORM WHEN HE MM-HMM.
AND THIS ALL STAYS PART, THAT'S ALL PART OF THE PERMANENT RECORDS? YES.
[00:25:01]
OKAY THEN IS THERE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT.THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AND THEN WE'RE UP TO ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS THE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE IDEAS FOR FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA ITEMS. BRENDA, DO WE KNOW OF ANYTHING COMING DOWN THE PIKE? UM, I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE ONE FOR SURE, IF NOT TWO NEW MEMBER, UM, MEMBERSHIPS TO APPROVE IN THE NEXT MEETING.
ONE BEING THE RECRUIT THAT GRADUATES NEXT MONTH FROM THE ACADEMY.
AND THEN, UM, WHEN THE, UM, DEPUTY CHIEF DECISION IS MADE, THAT WOULD BE THE SECOND THAT I'M AWARE OF AT THIS POINT.
DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE ON THAT ROUGHLY? NO, I DON'T.
AND WHAT IS THE PROPOSED DATE? I DO NOT HAVE ONE AT ALL.
IT'LL BE AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR.
SO WE'RE GOING TO, WE KNOW THOSE ITEMS ARE COMING.
WE DO NOT HAVE A DATE, BUT IT'LL BE SET AFTER, UH, THE ITEMS COME FORWARD TO THE HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT AND, UM, THAT'S IT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM OR ANYTHING YOU WANT DISCUSSED FOR ON A FUTURE AGENDA? NOPE.
THEN WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER WE CAN ADJOURN 2 56.
SO THE TIME IS 2:57 PM AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.