Gentleman, The PBA and I agree that this grievance should be withdrawn.

Below read the facts that we have uncovered and found answers too. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to reply to this email. I appreciate all the input some of you gave, however, due to cases from other towns and current laws the PBA and I do not feel this grievance can be won. 1. The facts show that the Chief did in fact review the original promotional list as a result of the PBA's possible grievance at that time. He unilaterally extended the promotion list in January of 2013 which raised a question and postponed the promotions so as to allow him time to review the PBA's issues. When the initial list was compiled two years ago, questions arose as to its scoring procedures. He reviewed the scoring that was used to place the officers in the ranking order and then utilized another scoring method that produced a second unofficial list which was not published. This second unofficial list was reviewed with me by the Chief and showed that while some changes in ranks did occur under the revised scoring method, the outcome was not affected with the same officer still ranking #1. 2. In January of 2013, a question again arose when the Chief unilaterally extended the promotional list past its expiration date. As those changes would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the test, the Chief then moved ahead with the promotions. The actual promotions took place after the original expiration date of the promotional list which was based on the original date of the test in 2011. The Chief's position is that as he delayed the list by a few weeks during which he re-scored and reviewed the results, using the later date when that issue was resolved and moved forward, would in effect make the promotions in 2013 within the 2 year time period of the test. 3. Members of the PBA raised the question of the legitimacy of the Chief's actions in 2013. Discussions were held with the Chief and myself and representatives of the PBA to review the issue. A grievance which was to be filed by the PBA was put on hold until further investigations were completed. As no resolution was reached a grievance was formally filed by the PBA. It has been denied by the Chief. The Township Administrator told the Chief to inform the PBA that we could skip his Step and move the matter to arbitration if we wanted to. 4. Subsequent to the filing of the grievance, another question arose regarding whether or not Council had taken formal action at a Council meeting to approve the 2013 promotions. Claims were made that no such formal action took place and that the approvals for the promotions were garnered through e-mails and/or phone calls and as such violated the Open Public Meetings Act. Answers to questions: The first of issue of whether or not the promotions were within the time frame or after the expiration of the promotion list can be argued by both sides. The fact is that even though a second working list was done by the Chief after using a different scoring method, the outcome did not change. More importantly however is the fact realized by not only by the PBA but by the Chief, that he could very easily just determine these promotions to be null and void, rescind the promotion and establish a new procedure by which he would just appoint Corporals thus making this entire matter moot. In an arbitration, the decision would be dependent upon whether or not the arbitrator believed the Chief's version of the time lines and dates. As we all know, arbitration is not a quick process and we would probably not have an award issued for many months or most likely close to a year. And then, even if we were successful, the Chief would nullify the promotions, issue a new procedure for promotions of Corporals which would allow him tho make the decision unilaterally and then promote the same individual and that would be that. The outcome would be the same. As to the question of the Council not formally approving the promotions at a Council meeting. Taking the scenario that the Council did not properly approve the promotions, the PBA would have had to file a claim in Court within 45 days of the action claiming w violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. If we were successful, the Courts in the past have told management to "do it again the right way" so as a result the Council could just do it over or more likely, to avoid additional litigation, just negate the promotions and let the Chief do a new policy to allow him to promote Corporals. Again - no change in the outcome. While I understand some of your frustrations regarding the promotions and the promotional procedures followed, no matter which scenario is followed,in my opinion and the opinion of the PBA, the outcome will be the same. While it is understood the Chief carries enough points on the test to control the outcome, at least using the current procedure and test, there are other factors taken into consideration. The question is do you really want the Chief to have an outright carte blanche to pick who he wants? And for the record, the Chief is aware of his authority to do just that. So with that said we will be withdrawing the grievance. I hope this answers all of your questions. Fraternally, Kevin Welsh R&F Shop Steward