We have been dealing with issues concerning the promotional exams that were posted and discrepancies on the verbiage of our contract. This obviously has brought controversy amongst the entire membership to which we are attempting to resolve. It should be noted that the board's intent was to never exclude any one of us from the promotional process. We know that this will be met with criticism (which we are used to by now), but our ultimate goal once this problem came to light was to get everyone eligible ready to test and the opportunity. We are learning from this just as you all are. Here is the run down
In short, we had contacted our lawyer initially concerning the eligibility of candidates for ALL the promotional exams. Our main issue was the time frame of issuing these new “fire officer task books” and the requirements. The eboard was tracking that task books were being issued after the posted exam dates with changing of requirements. We had Mr. De Lord review our concern, send us what the contract should say to include all cleared individuals from years and years ago, and send it directly to Sullivan to have ,along with the city manager’s signature.
*Very important note* For those of you who were questioning the changes to the contract and needing a vote. In this situation, we were directed by our lawyer that this erroneous verbiage error is covered in our MOU (memorandum of understanding). This doesn’t allow us to do anything else, but allows us to fix discrepancies and allow for more members to take the promotional exam. This is our main goal.. to fix what needs to be fixed to allow fairness (please also see the original 143 code).
We have been working diligently to find the proper wording to allow everyone to test. As soon as the final document is filled out, we will be sending it to our lawyer for review and report back to the membership as soon as we know something.
This is from a personal perspective. I know what is right and wrong about this contract. I know that everyone will be giving their “I told you so” about this issue and you’re right…. There are things that were missed. Not one of us is to blame for that. This is the second ever contract that GFD has ever had. We are fixing it. We are getting the fairest way possible after thinking that this was us working in good faith. We now know better about how to approach things such as verbiage like “fire officer task books” and the implementation of those. This is a problem that we are trying to fix. Let’s not get into a back stabbing contest amongst each other. Let’s not try and have individuals screw individuals out of a promotional opportunity because of a verbiage technicality. C'mon now. This may not phase anyone at all, but true colors are coming out. Our intent is to not blend in with the establishment and cause angst amongst our members. Our job is to come up with solutions to problems and make things fair.
With this next contract we will be smarter, constructive of words, utilize paid professionals to review, and formulate plans to not have us going against one another in the future (please note CSC 143).
Stay tuned and study up.