[00:00:01]
MEETING TO ORDER.[PSPRS Board Meeting on October 3, 2024.]
WELCOME EVERYONE.TODAY IS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3RD.
THIS IS THE CITY OF SEDONA, PUBLIC CITY OF SED POLICE, LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY RETIREMENT BOARD, P-S-P-R-S.
WE'LL GET STARTED WITH THE, UH, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
JAY, WOULD YOU WANNA LEAD US, PLEASE? SURE.
I PLEDGE OF ALL TO THE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.
ALRIGHT, ROLL CALL BOARD CHAIR, PETE BERMAN, HERE, BOARD MEMBER CORY COOPERMAN.
BOARD MEMBER OFFICER J EVANGELISTA HERE.
THANKS EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
ITEM TWO ON OUR AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 20, 24 MINUTES.
AND THEN IN THE PACKET, LOOK THAT THROUGH.
IT'S A PRETTY SHORT MEETING THE LAST TIME.
ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE HIM.
I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE, UH, THE AUGUST 1ST, 2024 MINUTES.
SO THERE MOTION THEN SECOND IN.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION OF THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES? SAY AYE.
THEY ARE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM THREE IN OUR AGENDA IS OUR CALL TO THE PUBLIC.
LOOKING OUT WHAT A RAUCOUS CROWD SEEING.
NO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE IN ATTENDANCE.
I WON'T READ THE NOTICE ABOUT IT.
ITEM FOUR IS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REELECTED BOARD MEMBER OFFICER JAY EVANGELISTA, POLICE DEPARTMENT ELECTED APPOINTEE TO A FOUR YEAR TERM THROUGH AUGUST 9TH, 2028.
ITEM FIVE IS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OUR NEW BOARD MEMBER OFFICER MICHAEL LUCAS.
POLICE DEPARTMENT ELECTED APPOINTEE TO A TWO YEAR TURN THROUGH AUGUST 9TH, 2026.
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR ELECTION.
MAY I ASK WHY? IT'S A TWO YEAR TERM? THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SET UP IN THE, UM, PROCEDURES.
I SEE THERE'S A FOUR YEAR AND A TWO YEAR SEAT.
AH, VERY GOOD FOR THE ELECTED APPOINTEES FROM OKAY.
SO COUPLED WITH THAT, OF COURSE WE WOULD, I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE, UH, AND THANK SERGEANT PALER FOR HIS YEARS, A SERVICE ON WEST BOARD.
HE HAD SERVED FROM AUGUST, 2020 THROUGH AUGUST, 2024.
I KNOW THAT YOU'LL BE LISTENING TO THESE MEETINGS.
ITEM SIX ON OUR AGENDA IS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CITY OF SEDONA POLICE DEPARTMENT HIRING THE INTERIM CONTRACT DEPUTY CHIEF CHRISTOPHER DOWELL DC DOWELL IS RETIRED FROM ANOTHER P-S-P-R-S PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENT AND WILL NOT BE A CONTRIBUTING MEMBER TO OUR LOCAL P-S-P-R-S, BUT THE CITY WILL BE PAYING THE ALTERNATE CONTRIBUTION RATE INTO P-S-P-R-S ON HIS BEHALF DURING THE DURATION OF HIS INTERIM CONTRACT.
SO I BELIEVE THAT'S JUST AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? UM, QUESTION SINCE IF HE NO LONGER IS INTERIM AND HE BECOMES FULL, WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BASICALLY SAYING THE SAME THING OTHER THAT HE IS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE.
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A CHANGE IN STATUS.
HE WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE MORE THAN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AT THAT POINT.
'CAUSE HE WILL NOT BE A PARTICIPATING OR CONTRIBUTING MEMBER BECAUSE HE'S STILL ON.
SO THERE'S NOT TO REVIEW IS WHAT I'M NO, THERE'S NO MEDICAL STUFF TO REVIEW FOR, UM, HIS, BECAUSE HE'S NOT A CONTRIBUTING MEMBER.
IT'S JUST THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT, UM, HE IS AN EMPLOYEE AND THE CITY'S PAYING THAT A CR SO BASICALLY WOULD SAY THE SAME THING OTHER THAN IT WOULD BE THAT HE'S A EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT, NOT INTERIM CONTRACT.
SO THE MEAT OF THE DISCUSSION TODAY, ITEM SEVEN.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING, UH, ITEM D, PRE MEMBERSHIP, PHYSICAL OF
[00:05:01]
THE PROCEDURES OF THE, UH, POLICE DEPARTMENT, RETIREMENT BOARD ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2022 NOTES AND MEETING LOTS OF INFORMATION IN THE PACKET.THIS, I WILL NOTE THAT THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US BY JAY, WHO I THINK RIGHTLY ASKED A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION AND, UH, HAD A, AN OBSERVATION ABOUT OUR PROCEDURES.
AND SO WE SET, UH, OUR BOARD SECRETARY, WHO'S ALSO ALSO OUR STAFFER, TO ASK QUESTIONS AND GATHER AS MUCH INFORMATION AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION AND THE RESPONSE AND INTERFACE WITH OUR BOARD ATTORNEY.
LOTS OF INFORMATION IN THE PACKET BY JAY.
PERHAPS I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU SINCE IT WAS YOUR ITEM.
SO THE, THE REASON FOR BRINGING THIS ALL UP WAS THERE WAS A PREVIOUS APPLICANT WHO HAD INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION THAT THEY DID NOT WISH TO BE MADE PUBLIC.
AND AS SUCH, UM, THIS INFORMATION, WHETHER WE SAY IT'S CONFIDENTIAL OR NOT, IT CAN SLIP OUT.
AND WITH THE INTEREST OF, UM, PROTECTING ANY FUTURE APPLICANT, THE THOUGHT WAS TO REVISIT OUR CURRENT WAY OF DOING THINGS.
AND IF THE, UM, INFORMATION THAT WE ABSOLUTELY NEED IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION, OR FOR, IN ESSENCE A FUTURE INSTANCE WHERE SOMEONE APPLIES FOR A DISABILITY INSTANCE, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE MADE KNOWN.
THEN, HOWEVER, IF THE EXAMINING PHYSICIAN WHO DOES OUR PHYSICAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMINATION SAYS THAT AN ACCOMMODATION IS NOT NECESSARY, AND IT WAS MY THOUGHT AND, UH, THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION ITSELF SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE DOCTOR'S STATEMENT.
THAT NO, THAT, UH, A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION DOES NOT NEED TO BE MADE BASED ON PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.
NOW, WHERE I WANT TO FOCUS ON WAS THE, UM, DEFINITION OF A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL FUNCTION OF A POLICE OFFICER.
SO SOMEONE'S MEDICAL HISTORY TO SAY THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE CONTRACTED AN STD FROM WAY BACK IN THE DAY.
UM, IS THERE GOING TO BE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION NEEDED FOR THEIR APPLICATION WHEN HAVING AN STD DOES NOT TYPICALLY MERIT THAT SORT OF INQUIRY TO PERFORM THE DAILY FUNCTIONS OF A POLICE OFFICER? OR IF THEY HAD, UM, A MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS, UH, THAT DOESN'T, UH, INTERFERE WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE AS A POLICE OFFICER AND DOES NOT REQUIRE, UH, AN ACCOMMODATION, IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR IT TO BE IN HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO, UH, SEEK AND APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP AND BE APPROVED.
UM, SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE CRUX OF MY ISSUE.
SO IF YOU WERE IN OUR POSITION AND WE HAD A COMPLETE COPY OF YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS AND THERE WAS SOMETHING ON THERE THAT YOU WISH TO KEEP PERSONAL THAT DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF YOUR JOB, I FELT THAT IT, IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD NOR THE PUBLIC.
UM, WE BE PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION.
SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THE PRIOR APPLICANT WASN'T SHORT EMBARRASSED THAT THEY HAD SOME OF THEIR INFORMATION ON THERE.
AND FOR THE RECORD, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AN STV
I'M JUST USING LIKE A WORST CASE SCENARIO.
UM, BUT THAT, THAT WAS MY CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THROWING ALL OF OUR INFORMATION OUT THERE FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FOR APPLICATION AS A MEMBER OR IN THE FUTURE.
UM, IF I WERE, YOU KNOW, IF I HAD A HISTORY OF, UH, KNEE ISSUES OR A SHOULDER REPLACEMENT, UM, AND I WANTED TO APPLY FOR A DISABILITY FOR GETTING HURT ON THE JOB, UH, THEN THAT SORT OF INFORMATION I BELIEVE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE, TO MAKE A SOUND DETERMINATION FOR AN ELIGIBILITY PURPOSE FOR WHETHER IT'S, UM, UH, GETTING THAT DISABILITY OR FOR FORMALITY PURPOSES OF DISCLOSING IT, UM, FOR MEMBERSHIP.
SO THAT, THAT IN CRUX IS A SHORT OF THE CONVERSATION.
SO, YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT, JAY.
AND, AND, UH, AS I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR A, A LOT OF TIME AND JUST THINKING ABOUT THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE TODAY, AND YOU USED THE TERM REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE USING THAT, BUT TO ME, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A, AN EMPLOYMENT, THAT'S A HIRING ACCOMMODATION.
AND THIS BOARD IS REALLY FOCUSED ON ANY FUTURE POTENTIAL CONVERSATION THAT WE NEED
[00:10:01]
TO HAVE ABOUT RETIREMENT AND DISCIPLINARY RETIREMENT.SO THOSE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS IN MY MIND THAT THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT MAYBE PREEXISTING THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO BE ACCOMMODATED FOR, BUT THAT NONETHELESS MIGHT PLAY, UH, INTO THE FUTURE.
AND SO, AND THEN I THINK THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO COMMENT ON WAS IT IS OUR OBLIGATION AS A BOARD TO, UH, NOT, UH, DISCLOSE PERSONAL THINGS AS, AS WE SEE 'EM AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO TALK ABOUT SENSITIVE TOPICS, UH, AS THEY COME UP.
SO I, I APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, AND THAT IS PART OF LOCAL BOARD MEMBERS' JOBS AS NOT TO DISCLOSE THINGS THAT OF COURSE.
AND IN NO WAY WAS IT AN INSINUATION THAT ANYBODY HERE WOULD DO SUCH A THING.
UM, BUT KNOWING THAT THE INFORMATION THAT WE NOW CARRY IS ELECTRONIC AND THINGS CAN BE LEFT OUT IN THE OPEN UNINTENTIONALLY YES.
OR ON SOMEONE'S DESK, WHETHER IT'S AT HOME OR AT WORK.
IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PROTECTING US AS WELL AS APPLICANTS MEMBERS AND BOARD MEMBERS.
THOSE ARE ALL FAIR, FAIR POINTS.
UH, I I AND YOU BRING UP A REALLY INTERESTING COMMENT.
GO BACK TO BRENDA ABOUT EMAILING OUR PACKETS.
DO WE GET E ELECTRONIC COPIES OF PACKETS? I'M JUST SO USED TO COMING IN HERE AND REALLY WE, I KNOW.
ESPECIALLY IF SOMEBODY IS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, THAT'S THE WAY TO GET THEM THE INFORMATION.
BUT WE ALL GET THEM, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT IS MARCH OF COURSE, CONFIDENTIAL IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, THAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
UM, BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, I RECEIVED THE INFORMATION FROM PD, THE MEDICAL HISTORY, UM, VIA ELECTRONIC.
SO THERE'S A PROCESS ISSUE ABOUT US PERHAPS REMINDING PEOPLE TO DELETE IT, BUT THAT'S STILL, IT'S OUT THERE.
AND I GUESS COULD PASSWORD PROTECT THEM IF WE KEEP IT IN? THAT'S ANOTHER, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
BECAUSE IF FOR SOME REASON SOMEBODY WAS AT AN OPEN COMPUTER, MORE LIKELY, YOU KNOW, IN THE WORK SETTING, UM, IT COULDN'T BE OPENED.
WELL, IT'S ON MY PHONE AS WELL, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE GET EMAILS, EMAILS ON THEIR PHONE, BUT YOU PROBABLY HAVE A PASSWORD PROTECTION ON YOUR PHONE.
AND WE DO FOR OUR WORK COMPUTERS.
WE HAVE A LOGIN THAT WE HAVE TO WELL, THAT'S TRUE.
I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT I JUST WANT TO PUT OUT THERE THOUGH, AFTER TRYING TO UNDERSTAND JAY'S QUESTION AND COMMENTS, AND THEN BRENDA'S DIALOGUE WITH OUR ATTORNEY, THAT WE, LIKE MANY OTHER SYSTEMS IN THE STATE, DO USE ONE PHYSICAL PROCESS, A PHYSICAL EVALUATION THAT SERVES TWO FUNCTIONS.
IT SERVES FOR PRE-HIRING PHYSICAL, AND IT IT IS ALSO SERVING AS THE, UH, UH, PRE-EXISTING CONDITION SCREENING FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.
AND SO ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE GENERATED IN THAT PROCESS ARE EQUALLY, UH, ACCESSIBLE BY BOTH OF THOSE FUNCTIONS.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ACCEPTABLE AND PRACTICED IN MANY OTHER DEPARTMENTS ACROSS, UH, DEPARTMENTS AND, AND BOARDS ACROSS THE STATE.
AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S UNDERSTOOD AS WELL THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING THAT'S WRONG.
I THINK THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE IS, IS THERE SENSITIVE THINGS THAT WE COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT KIND OF PROCESS? DO WE NEED TO SEE ALL OF THAT MEDICAL DISCLOSURE AS THE RETIREMENT BOARD, SINCE IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO SCREEN EMPLOYEES, WE'RE JUST ACCEPTING PEOPLE IN THE, INTO THE PROGRAM.
AND I THINK OUR FUNCTION REALLY IS, IS THE PROCESS FULLY FOLLOWED AND DISCLOSED AND DOCUMENTED SO THAT WE KNOW THERE ARE FILES IN THE SYSTEM THAT IN THE CASE OF A RETIREMENT DIS UH, UH, DISABILITY, UH, RETIREMENT CONVERSATION IN THE FUTURE, WE KNOW THAT THOSE EXIST OR, AND ARE IN THE FILE AND WE CAN, CAN GET THEM.
SO I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, YOUR OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE SIDE OF, WELL, COURTNEY.
SO IT'S TRUE, WE DON'T SCREAM, THAT'S NOT THE ROLE OF, UH, THIS BOARD, BUT IT IS THE ROLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PAPERS ARE IN ORDER.
AND TWICE NOW, UM, ONE IN IN FAVOR ACTUALLY HELPFUL TO AN OFFICER AND ONE THAT PERHAPS THE DOCTOR FORGOT TO, UM, OR WAS, DID NOT, DID NOT PUT IN THAT WAS A PREEXISTING CONDITION THAT WOULD MATTER IN A WORK RELATED
[00:15:01]
ISSUE, UH, BECAUSE IT WAS HAVING TO DO, YOU KNOW, THE, A BODY PART THAT'S USED ON THE JOB.UM, THE OTHER ONE WAS IN FAVOR OF, OF THE, UH, THE, THE OFFICER WHO, WHO TOO BROADLY, UM, CLAIMED A PROBLEM HE HAD AND COULD, COULD JEOPARDIZE, UH, IF, IF SOMETHING HAPPENED ON THE JOB, UH, COULD JEOPARDIZE, YOU KNOW, LOSING THE ABILITY TO GET WORK WORKMAN'S, UM, TO GET SUPPORT, PENSION SUPPORT AFTERWARDS.
SO I THINK IT'S A ROLE THAT WE CAN PLAY.
WE HAVE TWO NURSES ON THE BOARD WHO ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THAT ROLE.
OTHERWISE, I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING YOU ALL AREN'T EITHER BECAUSE YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE, UH, WHERE THE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ARE AND YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE WHERE, UM, OUR, OUR DOCTOR HAS, UH, LISTED THEM AND TO MAKE SURE THEY MATCH.
UM, I THINK THAT IS PART OF A ROLE OF MAKING SURE THE PAPERS ARE IN ORDER.
YEAH, I READ THIS WITH INTEREST AND IT WAS AN INTERESTING QUESTION FOR ME BECAUSE I'M SO USED TO BEING A NURSE REVIEWING THIS SORT OF INFORMATION.
AND I'VE WORKED IN THE DISABILITY AND WORK COMP TOO, SO IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME.
BUT YOU RAISED, I COULD SEE HOW A PERSON WOULD BE SENSITIVE.
THEY, THEY DON'T WANT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S CONFIDENTIAL, YOU DON'T WANT MORE PEOPLE PRIVY TO YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION, UH, THEN IS NECESSARY.
AND REALLY IT COMES DOWN TO, KIND OF GOES TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? WILL IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR US? HAVE WE EVER MADE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF IT? SO GOING BACK TO, I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF THIS.
I'VE BEEN ON THE FIRE P-S-P-R-S AND I CAN'T REMEMBER A TIME WHERE IT DID, HONESTLY, BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, WHEN THE CLAIM COMES IN, YOU'RE GONNA LOOK AT ALL THAT MEDICAL AND YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT EVEN MORE MM-HMM.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHEN IT'S KEY.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE HIRING PROCESS, IN THE ONE CASE WHERE THE BOARD ACTED AS AN ADVOCATE, I THOUGHT WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND.
HONESTLY, I THINK THAT IF THE EMPLOYEE HAD A QUIBBLE WITH IT, HE COULD HAVE RAISED IT AND IT COULD HAVE COME TO US.
SO I, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT IS ULTIMATELY, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T THINK THAT ONE WAS RELEVANT IN TERMS OF THE OTHER CASE, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN SO THAT THE DOCTOR DID NOT COMPLETE THE FORM CORRECTLY.
BUT IT WOULD BE IN THE RECORDS.
BUT IT WOULD BE IN THE RECORDS.
SO ALL THAT TO SAY, I WAS INITIALLY INCLINED TO SAY, WHY BOTHER AGAIN, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE OF ALL, I'VE SEEN THOUSANDS OF THESE, SO FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF SITUATIONS.
BUT THEN FROM THE POSITION OF THE EMPLOYEE, THE PERSON I, I DO KIND OF GET IT.
AND IF IT DIDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU RAISE AN INTERESTING POINT.
IF IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO WHAT WE DO.
I COULD ACTUALLY GO EITHER WAY WITH IT BECAUSE I, AGAIN, I COULDN'T COME UP WITH ANYTHING FROM THE FIRE OF WHICH I'VE BEEN ON AT LEAST FIVE YEARS.
UM, I NOW THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING A SITUATION FOR PENSION WHERE I THOUGHT WE NEED TO DO SOME RIGORS FOR SURE.
OFFICER LUCAS, ANY THOUGHTS, COMMENTS? NO, I THINK I KIND OF ECHO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING TO ME.
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU NEEDED TO START THE PROCESS.
UM, BECAUSE IT, FROM READING THIS, UNLESS I MISS SOMETHING, IT'S, IF THE DOCTOR SIGNS OFF AND SAYS THEY'RE GOOD TO GO, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE DENIED ACCESS TO THE THEIR PENSION.
THE ONLY TIME IT WILL BECOME AN ISSUE IS IF THEY SHOW UP AND THEY'RE LIKE, HEY, I KNOW I SAID I HAD A BUMMY WHEN I STARTED AND NOW I WANT MEDICAL RETIREMENT 'CAUSE MY KNEE'S BOTHERING ME.
THAT'S WHERE I FEEL LIKE WE WOULD NEED TO GET INTO IT.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY REASON TO GET INTO THIS STUFF UNTIL THE TIME THAT WE NEED TO ACTUALLY ACCESS IT AND USE IT.
I'M JUST GONNA TRY TO SYNC THIS ONE HOME AND BE AS, UH, ANATOMICALLY CORRECT ABOUT IT AS POSSIBLE.
[00:20:01]
TO THE POINT WHERE I'VE GRADUATED THE ACADEMY AND NOW I'M ELIGIBLE FOR P-S-P-R-S.UM, WHEN I WAS A YOUNG KID, I LOST A TESTICLE IN A ACCIDENT ON MY BICYCLE.
UM, AND NOW THAT I'M APPLYING THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION, WHERE I AM MISSING A TESTICLE IS ON THAT APPLICATION BOARD, ON THAT ACTUAL APPLICATION THAT IS PRIVY TO EVERYONE.
AND KNOWING THE TRAUMA OF FEELING LESS THAN, AND NOT FEELING WHOLE IN COMPARED TO MY MALE COUNTERPARTS, THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE ON THIS APPLICATION FOR THE ENTIRE BOARD TO REVIEW.
BUT ME MISSING AN ANATOMICAL PART OF MYSELF DOES NOT LIMIT MY ABILITY TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS AS A POLICE OFFICER.
SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IF THIS IN CASE HAP UH, IN FACT HAPPENS TO ME, I WOULD NOT WANT THAT INFORMATION DISCLOSED.
IT WOULD STILL BE ON THE MEDICAL REPORT.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING FOR ME TO SEEK A DISABILITY FROM IF I WERE HURT ON THE JOB.
UM, BUT AT THE SAME POINT, IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE, I, I SEE IT AS A SENSITIVE ISSUE.
IF WE CHANGE IT TO, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE, UM, AFFIRMING THEIR GENDER AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, GENDER AFFIRMING SURGERY AND ALL THAT STUFF, AND THEY TRULY IDENTIFY AS WHATEVER IT IS THEY WISH TO IDENTIFY AS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT BASED ON WHAT'S ON THE PAPER.
UM, AGAIN, THAT SORT OF MEDICAL INFORMATION, I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD BE PRIVY OR PERTINENT TO SOMEONE'S ACTUAL APPLICATION OR AN APPLICATION FOR, UH, DISABILITY.
SO, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S ON PRIME TO PAINT THE PICTURE PICTURE.
I MEAN, I TRIED BEING NICE WITH LIKE AN STV, BUT I'M TRYING TO BE MORE, UM, AND I THINK MY, MY THING IS I, YES, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW AND AS YOU KNOW, ALL LAWS CAN CHANGE OR THEY CAN BE AMENDED OR THEY CAN ACTUALLY WORK BETTER FOR APPLICANTS, OR IN THIS CASE, THE PEOPLE WHO DO APPLY.
I, I THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE OUR STANDARD OF WHAT IT IS WE REVIEW.
WHILE WE STILL DO HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE MEDICAL RECORDS AS OUTLINED IN THE A RS STATUTE.
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION THAT IS NOT PERTINENT TO AN APPROVAL OR A DENIAL SHOULD BE REDACTED, BUT STILL REMAINS AVAILABLE.
AND IF A MEMBER WISHES TO SEE THAT, THEN THEY SHOULD ASK FOR IT IN SESSION.
UM, AND THEN IT'LL BE DISCLOSED WITH THEM WITH A, YOU KNOW, WITH A HARD HANDWRITTEN COPY, HARD COPY HERE.
AND LIKE, HERE IT IS, UM, BOARD MEMBER OFFICER ANGELIA REQUESTED TO SEE THE UNREDACTED VERSION.
SO, SO ARE YOU, UM, THAT WAS GOOD EXAMPLES.
AND, YOU KNOW, GAVE ME SECOND THOUGHT TOO.
UM, 'CAUSE THOSE ARE VERY PERSONAL PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT, UH, NOT THAT I, I THINK WE'RE PRETTY TIGHT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY HERE, BUT IT'S STILL VERY PERSONAL, UM, PIECES.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IS THE ABILITY FOR THE APPLYING MEMBER TO REDACT AND THEN WE SEE WHAT'S LEFT ON THE FORM? SO MY THOUGHT PROCESS WAS IF THE EXAMINING PHYSICIAN STATES THAT NO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS ARE MADE, BUT HERE ARE THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, THEN THAT SHOULD BE MADE VISIBLE TO US.
BUT ANYTHING PER UM, NOT PERTINENT SHOULD BE REDACTED.
AND THEN AGAIN, IF A BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEE IT FOR WHATEVER REASON, BECAUSE IT IS OUR RIGHT TO SEE IT, UM, THAT THEY CAN REQUEST TO SEE THE UNREDACTED VERSION OF THAT WHILE IN SESSION.
SO SO YOU'RE SAYING SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DO IT, SO, OH, I'M SORRY.
WOULD A KNEE SURGERY SHOW OR WE NEED TO SEE THAT.
SO A KNEE SURGERY WOULD SHOW, BECAUSE WE USE OUR LENS, WE USE OUR, UM, ARMS, JOINTS AND ALL THAT FUN STUFF.
AND IT WOULD BE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE NOTED AS A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.
UM, CAN WE GO TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION REAL QUICK? IT WOULD HOLD A SECOND.
IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED BY THE DOCTOR.
BUT I THINK PART OF THEIR QUESTIONS IS ON SOME OF THE FORMS IT HASN'T MATCHED.
IT'LL BE ON ONE FORM AND NOT ANOTHER.
AND WE AS A BOARD HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS IS CORRECT.
AND, AND WE HAVE, AND YOU KNOW, I WILL ADMIT SIX YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST GOT ON THIS BOARD, THE PACKETS THAT WE WERE PUTTING IN FOR EMPLOYEES WERE, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THERE.
[00:25:01]
DISCLOSED.AND IT WAS ALWAYS A QUESTION IN MY MIND ABOUT, HERE'S A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKE ME.
THEY'RE ACTIVE FIT PEOPLE WHO WANNA BE A POLICE OFFICER.
AND SURELY THEY PLAYED SPORTS AND NOBODY EVER HURT THEMSELVES AS A YOUTH.
AND THAT ALWAYS SEEMED KIND OF STRANGE THAT NOTHING WAS DISCLOSED.
SO OVER TIME, THIS BOARD HAS, HAS GOTTEN A, A, A MORE, UH, COMPLETE PACKET AND A BETTER DISCLOSURE PROCESS.
AND, AND THE, THERE'S NEW RULES TOO.
AND I THINK THAT WAS PART OF WHY THE PACKET HAS, IS NOW HAS MORE INFORMATION.
AND SO JAY, I I, I WOULD WONDER IF THERE'S ISN'T A PROCESS HERE THAT YEAH.
MAILING OUT THE WHOLE PACKET, MAYBE TO US ISN'T QUITE RIGHT.
'CAUSE THERE IS ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURE ISSUES AND IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT LONG TO GO THROUGH A PACKET AND, BUT THERE IS AN OBLIGATION FOR THIS BOARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER PROCESS THAT WE'VE GOT IS WORKING.
I SAID I I AGREE WITH, UH, THE CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT THEY HAVE TO BE THERE.
SO MAYBE IT'S, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE IF IT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, UM, LIKE THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE, UM, WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE SMALL KID WHO THEN HAD THE ACCIDENT AND LOST THE TESTICLE AND THAT'S ON THERE.
YOU'RE AN EXAMPLE YOU GAVE COMPARED TO LIKE A KNEE SURGERY.
AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE HAVING TO BE THE PERSON TO REDACT SOME INFORMATION AND SOME NOT.
UM, CAN WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION REAL QUICK? NO, I, 'CAUSE I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY GONNA USE A, A DIFFERENT EXAMPLE NOW WITH AND USING SOMEONE'S NAME AND SOMEONE'S APPLICATION THAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE.
I WOULD, I WOULD PREFER THAT WE TRY NOT TO GO INTO, OKAY.
BECAUSE EES IS GENERALLY WITH OUR ATTORNEY ASKING FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND WE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
AND PERHAPS JAY, JUST THINK ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S A WAY TO DO IT WITHOUT PUTTING A PERSONAL YEAH.
SO THE, IF IT, IF THE PHYSICIAN EXAMINING PHYSICIAN SAYS THAT THERE ARE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, THEN THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT SHOULD NOT BE REDACTED.
BUT WHAT, WHAT WHERE, LIKE SHE CAME UP WITH EARLIER, OH, I SEE.
ON THE ONE FORM IT HAD SOMETHING.
AND ON THE, THE LOOKING AT THE PAPERS THAT ARE IN THE PACKET THIS FORM, IT DID, IT DIDN'T MATCH.
THERE WAS INFORMATION ON, ON THIS, THE YES OR NO QUESTION FORM MM-HMM.
SO WHAT, IN THAT CASE, HOW WOULD, HOW WOULD YOU WANT THAT HANDLED? WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE? BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT.
FOR EXAMPLE, A KNEE INJURY WAS ON ONE FORM AND NOT THE OTHER.
AND THAT COULD BE RELEVANT TO A RETIREMENT CLAIM.
SO I, I I, IF I MIGHT SUGGEST AT THIS POINT, IT'S KIND OF MY THINKING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T MEET ALL THE TIME.
WE, WE MEET A HANDFUL OF TIMES A YEAR.
AND I THINK THAT ONE, TWO THINGS CAN HAPPEN, BRENDA, YOU'RE MORE SENSITIZED TO THIS ISSUE.
YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE THE ENTIRE PACKET AND YOU COULD BE DOING SOME PROCESS MONITORING.
BUT WE CAN AS WELL, WE CAN COME IN, WE CAN ASK BRENDA BEFORE A MEETING STARTS TO SEE THE WHOLE PACKET.
WE CAN COME IN, WHETHER IT'S 15 MINUTES BEFORE AND LOOK AT A PAPER COPY THAT'S HERE AVAILABLE TO US, OR CONTACT BRENDA A. DAY OR TWO DAYS BEFORE, WHENEVER SHE'S GOT THE PACKET ON.
IF WE ARE INTERESTED IN DOING THE PROCESS MONITORING, JUST LOOKING THROUGH THERE TO SEE WHAT THE DOCTOR'S DISCLOSING.
UH, THERE IS SOME KIND OF ACTION THIS BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE TO SOMEHOW COMMUNICATE THE DOCTOR THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE QUITE DO THAT YET.
UM, BUT THERE'S A PROCESS MONITORING FUNCTION THAT WE ALL COULD DO OCCASIONALLY.
DO WE HAVE TO DO IT EVERY TIME? NO.
YOU KNOW, DO IT WHEN YOU THINK THAT IT SPIRIT MOVES YOU, BRENDA WOULD SAY YOU'RE, YOU WOULD BE POINT ON THAT.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO PREVENT ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER FROM MONITORING THE PROCESSES.
AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP ALSO, NOT TO CUT ANYBODY OFF, BUT LIKE, I'VE WORKED IN A MEDICAL OFFICE BEFORE I'VE WORKED AT A HOSPITAL.
SO LIKE I KNOW WHAT IT IS I'M LOOKING FOR.
UM, AND NO, I DON'T HAVE A MEDICAL DEGREE.
LIKE DAD'S A DOCTOR, MOM'S NURSE, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE ME A PROFESSIONAL.
UM, I WORKED IN THEIR DOCTOR'S OFFICE, SO LIKE I'VE HANDLED PATIENT CHARTS AND YOU KNOW, I'M AWARE OF IT HOW ALL THAT STUFF WORKS.
I THINK IF, IF THAT WOULD NOT BE A VIABLE OPTION TO HAVE, UM, A MID CHECK PRIOR TO A MEETING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PAPERWORK IS THOROUGH IN THAT SENSE, THEN WE COULD ALSO LEAVE IT UP TO THE BOARD MEMBER TO SIGN, UM, OR TO SAY LIKE, I, THESE ARE THE ITEMS I WISH TO BE REDACTED OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.
UM, LIKE A DISCLOSURE, UH, A DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.
IT NEEDS TO BE THAT COMPLICATED.
I WOULD JUST SAY, I THINK I'M PUTTING OUT THERE THAT PERHAPS WHEN WE EMAIL THE PACKETS OUT THAT BRENDA DOESN'T GIVE US ALL THE PACKET.
AND THEN ON OCCASION, WHENEVER ANYONE IS SO MOVED,
[00:30:01]
THEY CAN ASK BRENDA TO SIT DOWN AND REVIEW THAT PACKET, INCLUDING 15 MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING.WE CAN HAVE A PAPER COPY IN HERE AND WE DON'T MAKE IT A BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS OF YEAH.
IT'S JUST HERE AND WE CAN DO IT AND WE MONITOR THE PROCESS, DO THAT PROCESS CHECK WHENEVER WE'RE SO MOVED.
SO WHAT I HEAR IS THAT, UH, A NEW WAY OF GOING ABOUT THIS WOULD BE TO LEAVE OUT THE, UM, APPLICANT'S, THE OFFICER'S APP APPLICATION TO BE THE HEALTH, THE HEALTH HISTORY, UM, AND TO LEAVE THAT OUT, LEAVE IT IN BRENDA'S HANDS.
IT COULD BE AVAILABLE BEFOREHAND IF WE CAME 15 MINUTES EARLY TO WANNA CHECK AND JUST MAKE SURE THE DOCTOR'S, UH, LIST, UH, IS MATCHES.
UM, I'D, I'D BE VERY CONTENT WITH THAT AS A PROCEDURE.
THAT WAY THERE'D BE NO ELECTRONIC COPY GOING OUT.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE AS A BOARD TO BE IN THE PACKET? GOOD QUESTION.
SO IT'S LIKE THE, JUST THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT.
THERE'S THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM THAT THE BOARD CREATED.
BUT THOSE TWO THINGS IN MY MIND ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WANNA DO.
WHAT IS THAT CALLED? THERE'S, THERE'S TWO, WELL THERE'S THE MEDICAL HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE AND THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT FILLS OUT.
AND THAT'S ALSO USED FOR THE HIRING PROCESS WHEN THEY GO IN FOR THEIR PRE MEMBERSHIP.
PRE-EMPLOYMENT, PHYSICAL, MM-HMM.
AND THEN THE INFORMATION FROM THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN PULLING INTO THIS HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MEMO AND FILLING OUT THE ANSWERS TO THEIR QUESTIONS.
SO IF I CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND GIVE YES OR NO, JUST GENERAL.
AND THEN IF YOU WANTED FURTHER INFORMATION CONT YOU KNOW, LIKE IF THERE WAS FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE MEDICAL QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, SEE A COPY OF THAT AT THE MEETING.
UM, I JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ADDRESSES WHAT JAY BROUGHT UP BECAUSE IF I'M JUST SAYING I LIKE IT THE FIRST PART, BUT IF YOU'RE THEN BRINGING IT TO THE MEETING, DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN? CERTAINLY BETTER.
I THINK MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT.
THE SINGLE PAGE REPORT AND ANY SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENT THAT LISTS THE PREEXISTING CONDITION DATE FIRST DIAGNOSED THE, UH, DISCLOSURE AND THE TREATMENT RECEIVED OR ONGOING TREATMENT.
UM, STILL CONTINUING BECAUSE I'M OKAY WITH WHAT JAY'S PROPOSING.
AND THEN IN THIS IS REALLY FOR THE ELECTRONIC PACKET.
SO AGAIN, IT WOULD JUST BE THIS FORM HERE, THE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT AND THEN SAY IF THERE'S LIKE, UM, AN APPLICANT WITH UH, BACK TO THE, LIKE THE KNEE, WE'VE BEEN USING THE KNEE, RIGHT.
THE WE'LL USE A KNEE THEN WHATEVER MENTION OF A KNEE WAS DISCLOSED ON THE PREVIOUS MEDICAL PAPERWORK QUESTIONNAIRE, THAT WOULD BE WHAT'S UNREDACTED AND AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD.
SO LET'S BRING UP A CASE OF MENTAL HEALTH.
MENTAL HEALTH COMES UP A LOT IN DISABILITY AND WORKERS' COMP.
SO I WOULD SAY IF THAT'S A PREEXISTING CONDITION, OF COURSE DEPRESSION, I'LL GIVE AS AN EXAMPLE, IS INCREDIBLY COMMON.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE AND POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE THOSE CONDITIONS AND THEY'RE TREATED AND THEY'RE PERFECTLY ABLE TO WORK.
BUT THAT WOULD BE A RELEVANT PIECE OF PREEXISTING.
SO WOULD THAT BE ON THE FORM? I FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE BECAUSE GOOD.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT A, UM, PHYSICIAN HAS DIAGNOSED AND SAYS HAS BEEN TREATED, REMEDIED OR MANAGED VERY GOOD.
THAT'S WHY I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
'CAUSE THAT'S ONE, IT'S NOT A MUSCULOSKELETAL.
BUT THEN IN TERMS OF THE PERSONAL HEALTH HISTORY, I ACTUALLY, JAY HAS SWAYED ME AND FROM THE OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT.
AND THEN THERE'S JUST THE PROCESS PIECE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
CAN THAT PROCESS PIECE, CAN WE TRUST THAT PROCESS PIECE FOR, UM, TO BE WITH BRENDA OR WITH THE CHAIR, MAYBE ONE PERSON JUST OR TWO PEOPLE THAT HAVE THAT.
'CAUSE THE OTHER SENSITIVITY THAT I CAN APPRECIATE FROM WHAT JAY'S SAYING, AND AGAIN I KNOW WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL, IS IT'S NOT IDEAL HAVING PEERS HAVING THAT INFORMATION.
HONESTLY, I MEAN IF IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, US TWO NURSES, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD BE RAISED, BUT YOU DO HAVE PEERS IN THE GROUP.
AND WHERE I SUFFER, UH, ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE WAS I WAS IN BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION.
SO I AM PRIVY TO A LOT MORE THAN I SHOULD BE.
WELL, I'M SUPPOSED TO BE PRIVY TO IT, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
UM, BUT SOMEONE IN OFFICER LUCAS'S POSITION, LIKE WHAT I KNOW HE DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
[00:35:01]
SO I, MY VOTE WOULD BE TO GO WITH WHAT JAY'S SAYING AND THEN JUST HAVE A LITTLE PIECE IN THERE TO MAKE SURE ON THE PROCESS.
I, YOU KNOW, JAY, I WOULD ADD, SO WE'VE GOT THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT THAT COMES FROM THE DOCTOR, SIGNED BY THE DOCTOR.
YOU ADDED PERHAPS ANYTHING THAT'S DIAGNOSED THEN THAT BRENDA PULL THINGS FROM THE RECORD TO DISCLOSE THAT IN THE PACKET TO US AND ATTACH IT AS JUST THE UNREDACTED PART THAT HAS TO APPLY WITH WHATEVER'S LISTED ON THIS FORM.
AND THEN WE STILL HAVE THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM THAT I THINK SHOULD STILL BE PART OF THE PACKET.
AND THEN, SO THAT'S WHAT WE CAN SHARE ELECTRONICALLY AS OUR PACKET.
I APPRECIATE WHERE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING LYNN, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.
AND I DON'T THINK WE ALL WOULD BE MOTIVATED TO SORT OF MONITOR THE PROCESS ALL THE TIME.
ESPECIALLY IF WE KNOW THAT BRENDA'S ACTUALLY MONITORING THE PROCESS AS THE BOARD'S SECRETARY.
I'M REQUIRED TO KEEP A PERMANENT RECORD OF ALL OF THESE MEDICAL FORMS IN THEIR UNREDACTED FORM.
BUT I ALSO DON'T WANNA RESTRICT ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS FROM EXERCISING THEIR ABILITY TO LOOK INTO A PROCESS CHECK AS WELL.
I WOULDN'T ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DO IT ON A WEEKLY BASIS, BUT IF THEY, UH, BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT NO, I THINK THAT'S FAIR.
IF FOR SOME REASON THE PERSON NEEDS TO GET MORE, BUT AT LEAST IT TIGHTENS IT DOWN A YEAH, I THINK WE COULD TIGHTEN IT A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE IT SO IN THE FUTURE THEN A PACKET WILL JUST HAVE THE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT.
AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING MENTIONED THERE AND IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE OTHER MEDICAL FORMS ATTACHED, JUST THAT INFORMATION.
AND THEN THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL FORM.
AND AT THE MEETING THEN THERE WILL BE A FULL PACKET AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING BEFORE OR EVEN DURING A MEETING IF THE PAPER PACKET NEEDED TO BE PASSED AROUND FOR VIEWING AND THEN IT WOULD BE THE PAPER PACKET WOULD BE SHREDDED AFTER THE FACT.
AND THE ELECTRONIC RECORD IS KEPT PERMANENT RECORD WITH THE, UM, P-S-P-R-S HR RELATED STUFF AS, UH, AS, AS LONG.
JUST MAKE SURE BRENDA, I KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID, BUT IN MY EAR I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR IT.
THE INFORMATION THAT YOU RETAINED IN THE END, IN THE FILE FOR AVAILABLE FOR P-S-P-R-S BOARD, LOCAL BOARD TO USE IN THE FUTURE ON A DISCIPLINARY TRIAL IS EVERYTHING, IS EVERYTHING THAT I RECEIVED.
ALL, LIKE, IT WON'T HAVE LIKE, JUST IN THE, IN THE PACKET HERE, IT WON'T HAVE THE YES OR NO MEMO FORM THAT FROM, YOU KNOW, THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FORM.
BUT IT WILL HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S PROVIDED TO ME, UM, FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS THE, UM, THE POST FORMS ARIZONA PEACE OFFICER STANDARD AND TRAINING BOARD MEDICAL HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH HAS THE 48 QUESTIONS.
UM, AND THEN IT'S A FOUR PAGE FORM.
THE BACK OF IT HAS THE, WHERE THE PHYSICIAN CONSULTED ON ITEMS. UM, AND THEN THE CONTINUATION PAGE, IT HAS THE, UM, MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT THAT THE DOCTOR FILLS OUT, WHICH IS A THREE PAGE FORM.
THE THIRD PAGE IS WHERE THE DOCTOR DOES MARK, IF THERE IS, UM, THAT THE DUTIES CAN BE PERFORMED WITH OR WITHOUT A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.
UM, PREEXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT.
AND THEN THE PROFESSIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM THAT IS WHAT I KEEP AS PERMANENT RECORD UNDER EACH APPLICANT'S NAME IN THEIR OWN FOLDER THAT, UM, IS RETAINED IN THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT UNDER A-P-S-P-R-S BLANKET OF INFORMATION.
SO I THINK, AND JAY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK PERHAPS YOUR SUGGESTION COULD BE EXECUTED BY YOU, BRENDA, AS YOU MENTIONED, YOUR YES NO FORM.
YOU NO LONGER HAVE TO DO A YES, COMPLETELY FILL OUT THE YES NO FORM.
BUT WHEREVER THE DOCTOR HAD SAID SOMETHING, YOU GO BACK AND DISCLOSE.
I STILL THINK IT'S YOUR, IT'S THE SUMMARY THAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING.
'CAUSE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE GENERIC, I THINK GIVES US ENOUGH OF A PIECE OF INFORMATION.
WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE THE WORDS THAT THE EMPLOYEE USED AT THE MEETING.
SO YOU'LL STILL HAVE THAT YES.
NO FORM BRENDA, BUT IT'LL JUST BE EITHER NOTHING ON THERE OR YOU KNOW, THE ONE OR TWO THINGS THAT THE DOCTOR HAD HAD RECOMMENDED.
SO THAT WOULD STILL BE THEN PART OF THE PACKET IS YOUR YES NO FORM BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU DID SOME WORK.
BUT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD VENUE FOR TRANSMITTING THAT INFORMATION.
I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT WE NEED TO ADD INTO THIS PROCESS, NOT THE PROCESS, BUT IT'S ANSWERING THIS OTHER QUESTION, WE NEED TO SOMEHOW, BRENDA MESSAGE THE DOCTOR THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS AND THEY NEED TO, THEY NEED TO BE MORE THOROUGH IN DISCLOSING THINGS THAT PERHAPS NEED TO BE DISCLOSED.
SO JUST SOME FEEDBACK TO OUR DOCTOR THAT THE PROCESS NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED UP A LITTLE BIT.
I DON'T KNOW THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT.
[00:40:02]
BRENDA, YOU AS THE BOARD SECRETARY OR YOU WANT ME AS THE BOARD CHAIR OR WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.BUT THAT MESSAGE NEEDS TO BE COMMUNICATED ONE WAY.
SO SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AND, AND, AND FIGURE OUT.
WHAT TYPE OF COMMUNICATION? UM, BECAUSE THE EXAMINATION THAT IS DONE IS DONE IN THE HIRING PROCESS AND WE JUST USE THAT SAME, RIGHT.
UM, IT COULD BE MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD BEFORE.
UM, AND IT COULD BE MULTIPLE DOCTORS.
IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE SAME DOCTOR.
IT IT'S DOCTOR, IT'S WHAT PROCESS THAT THE BOARD WANTS DONE FOR NOTIFYING THE DOCTOR THAT THIS HAS HAS BEEN OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THE INTERNAL MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM? NO, NO.
I LIKE THE FORM THE WAY IT IS.
I JUST THINK THE DOCTOR'S BEING A LITTLE CASUAL ABOUT
I MEAN THERE THEY'RE FROM THE AS POST STANDARD, IT, UM, A LOT OF CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED.
SO IT NO LONGER SAYS MEDICAL PHYSICIAN FOR ONE IT SAYS MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
SO IT DOESN'T, THE FORM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FILLED OUT BY A DOCTOR, A DOCTOR PER SE.
UM, IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER LOOKING AT OTHER, UM, MEDICAL ORGANIZATIONS TO DO OUR SCREENINGS FOR US AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS, THE ONLY THING WE'D HAVE TO ENSURE IS THAT THEY MUST BE AS POST CERTIFIED TO DO DO THIS EXAM.
SO, AND I'M FINE WITH LIKE OPENING IT UP TO OTHER, UH, MEDICAL PRACTICES.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG HELIOS HAS BEEN DOING OURS FOR.
I DIDN'T DO MINE THROUGH HELIOS.
I DID MINE UP IN FLAG STUFF WHEN I GOT HIRED ON.
UM, SO I MEAN THAT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.
IF WE'RE LOOKING TO BROADEN OUR HORIZONS WITH THE OTHER MEDICAL PRACTICES, WELL SAY WE USE THE SAME FORM THAT THAT PD DOES FOR HIRING.
SO IT'S REALLY, IT'S IF PD CHANGES DOCTORS, THEN THEY'RE GONNA GET THESE SAME FORMS AND IT SHOULD SAY ASSIGN THE SAME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM, WHOEVER'S DOING THAT.
UM, BECAUSE THE BOARD DOES NOT ORDER THEIR OWN PHYSICAL.
WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT THE, I THINK, UM, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE, WE'RE TAKING BOTH SIDES OF, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PRIVACY AND PROTECTION, UM, OF THE APPLYING OFFICER AND WEIGHING THAT AGAINST, UM, HAVING SOME OVERSIGHT TO, TO BE ABLE TO CATCH SOMETHING THAT THE, THE DOCTOR IS EITHER OMITTED OR PUT ON THERE THAT SHOULD BE ON THERE.
AND SO THE CITIZENS, 'CAUSE THAT'S WHO WE REPRESENT, YOU KNOW, LOSE A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, THE POSSIBILITY OF, OF HAVING SOMEBODY, UM, HAVING IT COST, BUT YOU'RE NOT LOSING ANYTHING.
YOU JUST CAN'T SEE IT ELECT, WE'RE PREVENTING ELECTRONIC MIS.
I DON'T, YOU KNOW, ONCE IT'S TAKEN OUT OF THE PACKET, I SUSPECT THERE WON'T BE TOO MANY PEOPLE COMING IN TO REVIEW IT IN ADVANCE.
SO I DO BELIEVE WE ARE LOSING IT.
I DID, BUT I DON'T THINK, AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
AND THAT WAS INITIALLY MY RESPONSE BECAUSE WE HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT THEN I THOUGHT AT THE HIGHER PROCESS, ARE WE REALLY DOING ANYTHING WITH THAT INFORMATION? AND THAT'S WHERE I BACKTRACKED TO JAY'S POSITION, WHICH WAS, IT'S AT THE, THERE WAS SOMETHING I READ IN THE PACKET THAT I'D BE SAY, WELL WE'RE DOING THAT AT THE POINT OF REVIEW FOR UM, A CLAIM.
I JUST CAN'T THINK OF A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE SAID, OH, THIS PERSON HAD A HISTORY OF X, Y, Z IN THE PAST AND WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.
I MEAN REALLY WE'RE GOING ON WHAT THE DOCTOR SAYS FOR FITNESS FOR DUTY, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ACCOMMODATION.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE WE'RE LEAVING MUCH ON THE TABLE.
IF YOU WERE SAYING IT AT THE POINT OF CLAIM, I'D ARGUE.
AND AT THE POINT OF CLAIM, ANYTHING THAT WAS PROVIDED DURING THIS PREEM MEMBERSHIP PHYSICAL WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD.
AND THAT WAS A CLARIFICATION WITH THE ATTORNEY.
IF THE BOARD DOESN'T SEE IT IN THE BEGINNING DEAL, THEY CAN SEE IT IF THERE IS A CLAIM.
AND THAT IS WHAT TURNED ME ON, THAT WHEN I READ THAT, I THOUGHT, OKAY, THAT'S WHERE WE REALLY, SO ITS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE IF IT IS NEEDED TO BE REVIEWED FOR A CLAIM PROCESS.
DOES THAT HELP SATISFY SOME OF YOUR OH, QUESTIONS? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
IF IT'S CLAIM RELATED, THEN LIKE I WANT TO, I WOULD WANT TO SEE EVERYTHING.
UM, YEAH, I MEAN, YEAH, THERE'S JUST A NUMBER
[00:45:01]
OF THINGS I COULD COME UP WITH THAT I WOULDN'T BE COMFORTABLE WITH A PEER KNOWING.SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? NO, I JUST THANK EVERYBODY FOR HEARING ME OUT.
ANYONE WANT TO TRY AND TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? BRENDA? I DON'T KNOW.
DUNNO IF WE REALLY NEED A MOTION AS MORE YOU AS THE BOARD ARE GIVING ME THE SECRETARY INSTRUCTION AND DIRECTION FOR FUTURE.
I, FOR FUTURE MEETING PACKETS AND THEN ALSO IN THAT DIRECTION IS JUST FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO COMMUNICATE TO THE DOCTOR THAT WE'VE, WE'VE NOTICED SOME INCOMPLETENESS AND, AND WE'D LIKE THEM TO PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ATTENTION TO THE NEEDS OF THE P-S-P-R-S DISCLOSURE.
SO, AND MAYBE THERE'S A, A LETTER THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO SURE.
TO DRAFT THAT IF WE DO NOTICE SOMETHING, THEN IT CAN BE SENT AT THAT TIME WITH OR WITHOUT REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC PERSON I GUESS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, FIGURE THAT OUT.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, YEAH, WE CAN WORK ON THAT.
EVERYONE GOOD WITH THAT? IT'S A GOOD DISCUSSION.
THANKS FOR BRINGING IT UP JAY.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A, YEAH, LIKE YOU LYNN, I ALSO SAW THE MERITS IN JAY'S REQUEST RIGHT AWAY AND WAS WORRIED INITIALLY THAT, UH, YOU, WE WERE TRYING TO GET INFORMATION OUT OF THE FUTURE DISABILITY PROCESS, BUT THAT WASN'T YOUR INTENTION.
AND SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.
BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE PROCESS AND I THINK ANY ONE OF US IS, AS A BOARD MEMBER, ARE RIGHTLY CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING SURE OUR PROCESS IS WORKING RIGHT.
AND WE SHOULD ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHECK IN ON THAT.
THAT, UH, BRINGS US NOW TO ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE IDEAS FOR FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS, BRENDA? UM, NEXT PRE-SCHEDULED MEETING WOULD BE DECEMBER 5TH IF IT'S NEEDED.
UM, AT THIS POINT I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE NEEDED, BUT OF COURSE AS SOON AS I KNOW, I WILL LET YOU KNOW.
UM, BUT YOU CAN ANTICIPATE THERE BEING THE MEETING IN FEBRUARY.
UM, AT THAT TIME WE WILL HAVE THREE RECRUITS THAT HAVE GRADUATED FROM ACADEMY.
AND, UM, THEY WOULD BE ON THEIR SCHEDULED MEMBERSHIP ENROLLMENT, UM, PROCESS WOULD HAPPEN FOR THAT FEBRUARY MEETING.
I ALSO HOPE AT THAT FEBRUARY MEETING THAT WE CAN HAVE THE ACTUARIAL PRESENTATION.
I'M HOPING THAT FINANCE IS READY THEN.
UM, SINCE I KNEW THERE HAS TO BE A MEETING IN FEBRUARY, UM, I'M KIND OF HOPING, HOPING AND LEANING TOWARDS, UM, THEM BEING READY FOR THAT.
UM, NOW THAT THERE'S A NEW FINANCE DIRECTOR IN PLACE, I'M HOPING THAT THEY WILL BE READY TO, UM, PRESENT AT THAT MEETING SO THAT WE CAN HOPEFULLY TAKE CARE OF THAT ALL IN ONE.
UM, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE, UM, AS FAR AS WHAT I KNOW IS UPCOMING.
ANYBODY ELSE? I I JUST WANNA COMMENT THAT I THINK THIS SCHEDULING THE MEETINGS AHEAD HAS WORKED UP REALLY WELL.
'CAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS TAKE IT OFF.
AND OBVIOUSLY IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY YEAH.
IF, IF SOMETHING WERE TO PRESENT WHERE WE DO HAVE MORE TIME, YOU KNOW, SENSITIVE TIMEFRAMES, THEN OF COURSE WE'LL ADDRESS THAT, UM, IF AND WHEN THAT EVER HAPPENS.
SO I ALWAYS TELL YOU I'M NOT AVAILABLE, BUT I STILL CHECK YES.
AND COREY, YOU HAD MADE A, A COMMENT THAT YOU LOVED OUR MEETING START TIME TODAY, BUT I JUST WANNA, BRENDA REMINDED ME OF THE, THE HANDICAPS WE HAVE ON SCHEDULING THIS ROOM, WHICH IS THE SECOND BEST ROOM FOR HAVING A PUBLIC MEETING.
AND WE HAVE A CONFLICT WITH A GENERALLY STANDING SENIOR LEADERSHIP MEETING IN THE CITY.
SO IT'LL BE PROBABLY 11 NEXT TIME.
AND IF, IF BY CHANCE THEY MOVE THOSE LEADERSHIP MEETINGS, OF COURSE I WILL MOVE THESE UP TO 10 O'CLOCK BECAUSE THAT WORKS BETTER FOR ME ALSO.
I'M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THIS EARLY DECEMBER YET FOR MYSELF.
THERE MAY BE SOME TRAVEL PLANS, BUT JUST DON'T KNOW YET.
AND YES, LIKE I SAID, AT THIS POINT I DON'T ANTICIPATE THERE BEING A MEETING, BUT, UM, THERE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT POPS UP.