HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-12226J-02-221
3/29/02
X2226
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AMENDING CHAPTER 40, ARTICLE III, OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
ENTITLED "PERSONNEL/CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND
REGULATIONS", TO REQUIRE THAT CHANGES IN
RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN BE ESTABLISHED
AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION FOR ALL CLASSIFIED
POSITIONS; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING
SECTION 40-74; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Board, at its regular meeting of
January 22, 2002, unanimously voted to amend Rule 5, Section 5.2.
Application Forms, by adding a new paragraph to the existing
section as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary to amend Section 40-74 of, the
Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended to reflect the
Civil Service Board's action for said Rule; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of
this matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the
employees of the City of Miami to amend said Section;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Ordinance are adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. Chapter 40, Article III, Section 40-74 of the
Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, is further
amended in the following particulars: j/ .
ARTICLE III
"CHAPTER 40
PERSONNEL
CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS
Sec. 40-74. Application Forms.
Sec. 40-74. Application forms.
Applications shall be made on forms
prescribed by the director of the personnel
management department. Such forms, shall require
information covering training, experience,
references and other pertinent information. The
ii Words and/or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored
words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now
in effect and remain unchanged. Asterisks indicate omitted and
unchanged material.
Page 2 of 2
i24
t
•
categorization of persons on the basis of race,
color or national origin with respect to their
identification for certification for employment or
promotion under this Section must be established
at the time of application. The ethnic category
marked on the application form at the close of
recruitment must remain in force for the duration
of the register. Each application must be signed
by the person applying. Such forms shall comply
with federal requirements.
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances that
are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are repealed.
Section 4. If any section, part of section, paragraph,
clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the
remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty
(30) days after final reading and adoption thereof.21
PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this Alth day
of April , 2002.
zi This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed
by the Mayor within ten days from the date it was passed and adopted.
If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become effective
immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission or upon the
effective date stated herein, whichever is later.
Page 3 of 3
X21',0
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY
this 9th day of May , 2002.
ATTEST:
e A'j-
F�_
PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AN CORRECTNESS:
JANDRO VIL RELLO
Y ATTORNEY
1233:tr:LB
Page 4 of 4
ANUEL A. DIAZ, MAY
1. 2
, I.az MnM '4J1
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
O.V. FERBEYRE, who on oath says that she is the
SUPERVISOR, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business
Review f/k/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday
and Legal I- io,idays).ne%:•spaper, published at Miami in Miami -Dade
County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of
PO 10486
CITY OF MIAMI
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
in the XXXX Court,
was published in said newspaper in the issues of
04/29/2002
Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Miami -Dade
County, Florida and that the said newspaper has
heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade County,
Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays)
and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post
office in Miami in said Miami -Dade County, Florida, for a
period of one year next preceding the first publication of the
attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she
has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation
any discount, re com ono refund for the purpose
of securing t 6 advertijeent for pqblication in the said
Sw and subscribed befo a this
9 y f iL A.D. 2002
(SEAL)
MARIA i. MESA
O.V. FERBEYRE peril iti Grw ?emISSION # CC 885640
EXPIRES: PAarch 4,62004
Nirded Thru Notary Public Underwriters
� %&a i i yr mowmis r16%.MR W
OTICE OF PROPOSED ORAII V&NSS
Notice is, hereby given that the City Commission of I'S City of Miami,
Florida, will consider the following ordinance on second and final. reading
on May 9, 2002 commencing at 9:00 a.m., in the City Commission Cham-
bers. 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida:
W11 mj 121a2 Ze.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION -AMEND-
ING CHAPTER 40,,ARTICLE III, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
"PERSONNEUCIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS",
TO REQUIRE THAT CHANGES IN RACE, COLOR OR NA-
TIONAL ORIGIN BE ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF APPLI-
CATION FOR ALL CLASSIFIED POSITIONS: MORE PARTIC-
ULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 40-74; CONTAINING A RE-
PEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY-CLAUSE;.AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY -COMMISSION SUN -
SETTING THE CITY OF. MIAMI BUDGET AND FINANCES RE-
VIEW COMMITTEE; -MORE PARTICULARLY BY REPEALING
SECTION 18-5 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND AMENDING SECTION
2-892 OF THE CODE.OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
- ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMEND-
ING CHAPTER 54/ARTICLE VI OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "STREETS
AND SIDEWALKS/SIDEWALK CAFES," TO ADDRESS THE.
ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESSES DUE TO.
THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TRAGEDY BY (1) REDUCING THE
ANNUAL SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT FEE BY FIFTY PERCENT
(50%), (2) ESTABLISHING A ONE-TIME CREDIT OF FIFTY
PERCENT (50%), AND (3) PROVIDING, FOR A TWELVE
MONTH. PAYMENT PROGRAM - FOR DELINQUENT AC -
'COUNTS; MORE PARTICULARLY.BY AMENDING SECTION
'.54-223 OF SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI-
SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO.'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTAB-
LISHING TWO NEW SPECIAL- REVENUE FUNDS AND AP-
PROPRIATING FUNDS AS FOLLOWS: (1) -ECONOMIC DE-
VELOPMENT INITIATIVE GRANT FOR CERTAIN SPECIAL_
PROJECTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $340,000 AND (2) THE
NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE GRANT FOR CERTAIN SPE-
CIAL PROJECTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $700,000 FROM THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP-
EMNT IN SUPPORT OF THE MODEL CITY HOMEOWNER-
SHIP PILOT PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE -CITY MANAGER-
T.O ACCEPT SAID GRANTS AND TO EXECUTE ANY DOCU-
MENTS NECESSARY, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY, FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SAID GRANTS;
AND CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVER-
ABIILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE NO. 11286, ADOPTED MAY 24TH, 1995, AS
AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED INITIAL RESOURCES
AND INITIAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR A SPECIAL REVENUE
FUND ENTITLED -"TRAINING/ENTREPRENEURIAL FUND";
BY INCREASING SAID APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $150,000, CONSISTING OF REVENUES- GENERATED
FROM ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY IN THE AREA OF PO-
LICE TRAINING PROGRAMS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAN-
AGER TO ACCEPT AND DEPOSIT MONIES GENERATED
FROM POLICE TRAINING ACTIVITIES,INTO SAID SPECIAL
REVENUES FUND AND TO EXPEND THE MONIES FOR THE
PRODUCTION AND, DEVELOPMENT OF LAW ENFORCE-
MENT TRAINING SEMINARS, COURSES AND FOR RELATED
EQUIPMENT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION' AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Said proposed ordinance may be inspected by"the public at the
Office of the City Clerk, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Flori-
da, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
All inc9rested persons may appear at the ,meeting and may be heard
with respect to the proposed ordinance- Should any person desire to ap-
peal any decision of the City Commission with respect to•any matter to be
considered at this .meeting, that person shall -ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings, is made including all testimony and evidence
upon which any appeal may be based.
PRISCILLA. THOMPSON
CITY CLERK
IB 96
Q Q
FIA�`O
(#10486)
4/29 02-4-
'{y, T
C
SA
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
O.V. FERBEYRE, who on oath says that she is the
SUPERVISOR, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business
Review f/k/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday
and Legal I- io,idays).ne%:•spaper, published at Miami in Miami -Dade
County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of
PO 10486
CITY OF MIAMI
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
in the XXXX Court,
was published in said newspaper in the issues of
04/29/2002
Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Miami -Dade
County, Florida and that the said newspaper has
heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade County,
Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays)
and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post
office in Miami in said Miami -Dade County, Florida, for a
period of one year next preceding the first publication of the
attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she
has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation
any discount, re com ono refund for the purpose
of securing t 6 advertijeent for pqblication in the said
Sw and subscribed befo a this
9 y f iL A.D. 2002
(SEAL)
MARIA i. MESA
O.V. FERBEYRE peril iti Grw ?emISSION # CC 885640
EXPIRES: PAarch 4,62004
Nirded Thru Notary Public Underwriters
� %&a i i yr mowmis r16%.MR W
OTICE OF PROPOSED ORAII V&NSS
Notice is, hereby given that the City Commission of I'S City of Miami,
Florida, will consider the following ordinance on second and final. reading
on May 9, 2002 commencing at 9:00 a.m., in the City Commission Cham-
bers. 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida:
W11 mj 121a2 Ze.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION -AMEND-
ING CHAPTER 40,,ARTICLE III, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
"PERSONNEUCIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS",
TO REQUIRE THAT CHANGES IN RACE, COLOR OR NA-
TIONAL ORIGIN BE ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF APPLI-
CATION FOR ALL CLASSIFIED POSITIONS: MORE PARTIC-
ULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 40-74; CONTAINING A RE-
PEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY-CLAUSE;.AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY -COMMISSION SUN -
SETTING THE CITY OF. MIAMI BUDGET AND FINANCES RE-
VIEW COMMITTEE; -MORE PARTICULARLY BY REPEALING
SECTION 18-5 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND AMENDING SECTION
2-892 OF THE CODE.OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
- ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMEND-
ING CHAPTER 54/ARTICLE VI OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "STREETS
AND SIDEWALKS/SIDEWALK CAFES," TO ADDRESS THE.
ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESSES DUE TO.
THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TRAGEDY BY (1) REDUCING THE
ANNUAL SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT FEE BY FIFTY PERCENT
(50%), (2) ESTABLISHING A ONE-TIME CREDIT OF FIFTY
PERCENT (50%), AND (3) PROVIDING, FOR A TWELVE
MONTH. PAYMENT PROGRAM - FOR DELINQUENT AC -
'COUNTS; MORE PARTICULARLY.BY AMENDING SECTION
'.54-223 OF SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI-
SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO.'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTAB-
LISHING TWO NEW SPECIAL- REVENUE FUNDS AND AP-
PROPRIATING FUNDS AS FOLLOWS: (1) -ECONOMIC DE-
VELOPMENT INITIATIVE GRANT FOR CERTAIN SPECIAL_
PROJECTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $340,000 AND (2) THE
NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE GRANT FOR CERTAIN SPE-
CIAL PROJECTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $700,000 FROM THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP-
EMNT IN SUPPORT OF THE MODEL CITY HOMEOWNER-
SHIP PILOT PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE -CITY MANAGER-
T.O ACCEPT SAID GRANTS AND TO EXECUTE ANY DOCU-
MENTS NECESSARY, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY, FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SAID GRANTS;
AND CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVER-
ABIILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE NO. 11286, ADOPTED MAY 24TH, 1995, AS
AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED INITIAL RESOURCES
AND INITIAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR A SPECIAL REVENUE
FUND ENTITLED -"TRAINING/ENTREPRENEURIAL FUND";
BY INCREASING SAID APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $150,000, CONSISTING OF REVENUES- GENERATED
FROM ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY IN THE AREA OF PO-
LICE TRAINING PROGRAMS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAN-
AGER TO ACCEPT AND DEPOSIT MONIES GENERATED
FROM POLICE TRAINING ACTIVITIES,INTO SAID SPECIAL
REVENUES FUND AND TO EXPEND THE MONIES FOR THE
PRODUCTION AND, DEVELOPMENT OF LAW ENFORCE-
MENT TRAINING SEMINARS, COURSES AND FOR RELATED
EQUIPMENT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION' AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Said proposed ordinance may be inspected by"the public at the
Office of the City Clerk, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Flori-
da, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
All inc9rested persons may appear at the ,meeting and may be heard
with respect to the proposed ordinance- Should any person desire to ap-
peal any decision of the City Commission with respect to•any matter to be
considered at this .meeting, that person shall -ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings, is made including all testimony and evidence
upon which any appeal may be based.
PRISCILLA. THOMPSON
CITY CLERK
IB 96
Q Q
FIA�`O
(#10486)
4/29 02-4-
Second Reading Ordinance
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
FROM a
City Man agf,-
RECOMMENDATION
10
DATE : r' - - FILE
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to
Civil Service Rules and
Regulations
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES: (7)
It is respectfully recommended that an amendment to Rule 5, Section 5.2, of the Civil
Service Rules and Regulations, per the attached Ordinance, be approved that would
disallow any change in ethnic status after an application has been submitted.
BACKGROUND
During the Civil Service Board meeting of July 2,�, 2001, Office of Equal Opportunity/Diversity
Programs Administrator Maria Ferrer-Miralles advised the Board that since the amendment
to Civil Service Rule 8, Section 8.7. Additional Certification., in October 12, 1999, her office
has found some discrepancies with eligible registers. Ms. Ferrer—Miralles stated that she
noticed that on some registers established after the amendment, a number of applicants who
had previously applied for employment with the City of Miami were coded as one ethnic
categorization even if the same applicants filled out new applications and data sheets and
self -identified themselves as a different race/ethnicity. She further stated that when specific
language was included in Rule 8.7, she was able to use it as the basis for not allowing
people to change their ethnic identity after the establishment of an eligible register.
Following further meetings, memos and discussion on the subject, at the Civil Service Board
meeting of October 16, 2001, Chief Examiner Martin Garcia requested that the same
language be included in the Civil Service Rules as it had been prior to the October 12, 1999
amendment to Rule 8.7. The Board unanimously.(4-0) approved Chief Examiner Garcia's
motion to amend existing Civil Service Rule 8.
At the public hearing held on January 22, 2002, Chief Examiner Garcia informed those
present that the language that he was proposing for inclusion under Civil Service Rule 5,
APPLICATION FOR EXAMINATIONS, Section 5.2. Application Forms., originally existed
under Civil Service Rule 8; however, following a thorough review of the Rules and prior to the
public hearing on the matter, it was agreed that it was more appropriate to include the
proposed amendment under Rule 5. The proposed amendment would require that any
changes to an applicant's race,. color or national origin be established at the time of
application for all classified positions.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Page 2 2/21/02
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, Department of Law, appeared on behalf of the
City at the public hearing and informed the Board that the City was opposed to the proposed
rule change. Union representatives indicated no objection to the proposed rule change. The
Civil Service Board unanimously voted to amend Rule 5, Section 5.2 at the same hearing.
Therefore, it is recommended that an amendment to Rule 5, Section 5.2. Application Forms.,
of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, per the attached Ordinance, be approved which
would not allow applicants to change their ethnic identity after the establishment of an eligible
register.
I shall include on the City Commission agenda of Thursday. March 28, 2002, an Ordinance
concerning an amendment to Civil Service Rule 5, Section 5.2.
CAG/PAT
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: DATE : FILE .
Carlos A. Gimenez February 21, 2002
City Manager SUBJECT:
Proposed Amendment to
Civil Service Rules and
Regulations
FROM: Priscilla A. Thompson REFERENCES
Executive Secretary ENCLOSURES.
Civil service Board (7)
At the Civil Service Board meeting of October 16, 2001, Civil Service Board Chief Examiner Martin
Garcia proposed an amendment to Civil Service Rule 8 that would disallow any change in ethnic
status after an application has been submitted. He further requested that the same language be
included in the Civil Service Rules as it had been prior to the October 12, 1999 amendment to Rule
8.7.
At the public hearing held on January 22, 2002, Chief Examiner Garcia informed those present that
the language that he was proposing for inclusion under Civil Service Rule 5, APPLICATION FOR
EXAMINATIONS, Section 5.2. Application Forms., originally existed under Civil Service Rule 8;
however, following a thorough review of the Rules and prior to the public hearing on the matter, it was
agreed that it was more appropriate to include the proposed amendment under Rule 5.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, Department of Law, appeared on behalf of the City at
the public hearing and informed the Board that the City was opposed to the proposed rule change.
Union representatives indicated no objection to the proposed rule change. The Civil Service Board
unanimously voted to amend Rule 5, Section 5.2 at the same hearing.
Therefore, it is recommended that an amendment to Rule 5, Section 5.2. Application Forms., of the
Civil Service Rules and Regulations, per the attached Ordinance, be approved which would not allow
applicants to change their ethnic identity after the establishment of an eligible register.
It is respectfully requested that the proposed amendment be included on the agenda of the City
Commission meeting of Thursday. March 28, 2002.
PAT:md
cc: Angela R. Bellamy, Director
Department of Human Resources
Maria Ferrer-Miralles, Administrator
Office of Equal Opportunity/Diversity Programs
Linda Rice -Chapman
Assistant City Attorney
Department of Law
12226
� f
i`
CITY OF MIA?a.. FLORID
INTER-IC151R�I�i �1�1
20311 XL - 9 Ph 4: 27
T_ Martin Garcia, Chief Examiner CA?= 9 July 2001 FILE
Civil Service Bo
1
spa. FF Certification Process
- Maria Ferrer-Miralles, EO/DP Administrator
Office of Equal Opportunity/Diversity Programs
I have discussed the issue of self -identification of race/ethnicity by applicants with the Executive
Secretary for the Civil Service Board. In reviewing the Firefighters' Certification List, the
Eligible Register and the Article 10 List according to the Firefighters union contract, I found
some discrepancies. There were a number of applicants who had previously applied for
employment with the City of Miami and their race/ethnic designation remained the same on this
new register even if the applicant filled out a new data sheet and self -identified as a different
race/ethnicity. Prior to taking Rule 8.7 out of the Civil Service Rules, race, color and national
origin identification was addressed in this rule. It stated, "The categorization of persons on the
basis of race, color or national origin with respect to their identification for certification for
employment or promotion under this Section must be established at the time of application. The
ethnicity category marked on the application form at the close of recruitment must remain in
force for the duration of the register."
I feel we need to revisit this issue in the rules, not just for the Firefighter Eligible Register, but
also for all Eligible Registers.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
'U/C: Priscilla Thompson, Executive Secretary
Civil Service Board
124'26
CI
SERVICE
BOARD
JULY 24, 2001
The Civil Service Board of the City of Miami met in regular session on
Tuesday, July 24, 2001, at 10:00 AM in the City Commission Chambers, City
Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key.
PRESENT: GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
MARTIN GARCIA, CHIEF EXAMINER
MARIANO CRUZ, BOARD MEMBER
FRANKIE ROLLE, BOARD MEMBER
WILLIAM SCAROLA, BOARD. MEMBER
NOT PRESENT: NONE
On a motion made by Member Cruz and seconded by Member Rolle, the
Board unanimously (5-0) approved the minutes of the regular Board meeting of
July 12, 2001.
The Board was presented with a request from Mayra Pau, Code
Enforcement Inspector, for a voluntary return to her former classification of
Engineering Technician II, pursuant to Rule 1.15.
The Executive Secretary informed the Board that Ms. Pau is not present at
today's .meeting; however, she did provide"a doctor's letter advising that she
needs to be relieved of any stressful situations. She went on to say that a check
of the computerized employee history revealed that Ms. Pau attained permanent
Civil Service status as an Engineering Technician 11 (ET II). The Executive
Secretary further stated that there is a vacant ET II position that Ms. Pau can
return to; therefore, there would be no problem with the Board approving her
request.
Following discussion, Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Garcia, to grant Ms. Mayra Pau's request for a voluntary return to her
PAGE 1 OF 17
JULY 24, 2001
former classification of Engineering Technician II, pursuant to Rule 1.15. The
motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
A copy of a letter from Alex Martinez, Acting Director, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, notifying Mark Valle, Heavy
Equipment Mechanic Helper, of a 1 -day suspension, effective July 3, 2001, was
noted by the Board. A hearing has been scheduled for August 21, 2001.
A copy of a letter from Chief Raul Martinez, Director, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, notifying Jesus Aguero, Police Officer, of his termination from
employment, effective July 10, 2001, was ordered filed pending possible appeal
of this action within the time prescribed under the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations.
A copy of a letter from Chief Raul Martinez, Director, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, notifying Daryl Burrows, Police Officer, of his termination from
employment, effective May 11, 2001, was ordered filed pending possible appeal
of this action within the time prescribed under the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations.
A copy of a letter from Chief Raul Martinez, Director, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, notifying Donald Lago, Police Officer, of a forfeiture of 10 hours of
earned overtime, effective May 31, 2001, was ordered filed pending possible
appeal of this action within the time prescribed under the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations.
A copy of a letter from Chief Raul Martinez, Director, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, notifying Fabio Sanchez, Police Officer, of a forfeiture of 10 hours of
earned overtime, effective May 14, 2001, was ordered filed pending possible
appeal of this action within the time prescribed under the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations.
A copy of a letter from Alex Martinez,�Acting Director, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, notifying Mark Valle, Heavy
Equipment Mechanic Helper, of his termination from employment, effective July
13, 2001, was noted by the Board. A hearing has been scheduled for August 21,
2001.
A copy of a letter from Chief Raul Martinez, Director, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, notifying Travis Lindsey, Police Officer, of a forfeiture of 10 hours of
earned overtime, effective June 20, 2001, was ordered filed pending possible
appeal of this action within the.time prescribed under the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations.
PAGE 2 OF 17
JULY 24, 2001
A copy of a memorandum from Mark Valle, Heavy Equipment Mechanic
Helper, requesting a hearing of appeal relative to his 1 -day suspension, effective
July 9, 2001 and his termination from employment, effective July 13, 2001, was
noted by the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a letter from Maria J. Chiaro,
Assistant City Attorney, requesting a continuance of the hearing of appeal on
behalf of Juan Gonzalez, Marinas Assistant, pursuant to Civil Service Rules 16.1
and 16.2, concerning an alleged violation of Civil Service Rule 17. The Board
noted that Teri Guttman -Valdes expressed no objection to the continuance. The
hearing is scheduled for today.
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Guttman -Valdes if he she objected to
the continuance.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law on behalf of Juan Gonzalez,
appeared before the Board and stated that given the fact that Assistant City
Attorney Rice -Chapman is in trial, she does not object to the City's continuance
request; however, she would, like her client's case rescheduled as soon as
possible. She went on to say that she reviewed the upcoming hearings, and it
appeared that beginning with the September 4, 2001 meeting, two hearings are
scheduled for each meeting thereafter. Attorney Guttman -Valdes further stated
that she did not see why her client's case could not be scheduled on September
4, 2001.
Chairman Silverman suggested that Attorney Guttman -Valdes meet with
the Executive Secretary to see what could be worked out as far as rescheduling
her client's case because Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman was not present.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that in the event the Board decides to hear
only two cases per meeting, she would ask that special meetings be set because,
if not, her client's case would not be heard until some time in November 2001.
Chairman Silverman advised Attorney Guttman -Valdes that the Board is in
favor of having special meetings, if necessary.
Steven Scott, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, appeared
before the Board and stated that although Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman
is not in the office during work hours, she has stopped in to check her messages.
He went on to say that he could always coordinate dates with her for scheduling
hearings.
PAGE 3 OF 17
JULY 24, 2001 ft
Following discussion, Member Rolle made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Cruz, to grant the City's request to continue Mr. Juan Gonzalez'
grievance hearing. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved ' by the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a memorandum from Maria J.
Chiaro, Assistant City Attorney, requesting a continuance of the hearing of appeal
on behalf of Claudia Claude, Police Officer, relative to her 40 -hour suspension,
effective June 25, 2001. The hearing is scheduled for today.
The Executive Secretary provided the Board with the scheduling history of
Officer Claude's case. She went on to say that this is the first time the hearing
was scheduled and this is the first continuance requested by the City.
Chairman Silverman asked the Executive Secretary if Officer Claude was
represented by legal counsel.
The Executive Secretary answered in the negative.
Chairman Silverman asked the Executive Secretary if Officer Claude
objected to the City's request for a continuance of her appeal hearing.
The Executive Secretary stated that Assistant City Attorney Chiaro was
supposed to contact Officer Claude to find out whether or not she objected to the
City's continuance request. She went on to say that a message was left: for
Officer Claude to return the call to the City Attorney's Office; however, the call
was never returned.
Following discussion, Member Rolle made a motion,, which was seconded
by Member Garcia; to grant the City's request to continue the appeal hearing of
Officer Claudia Claude. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the
Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a memorandum from Maria J.
Chiaro, Assistant City Attorney, requesting a continuance of the hearing of appeal
on behalf of Charles Maree, District Fire Chief, relative to his 20 -hour suspension,
effective June 19, 2001. The Board noted that Attorney Charles M. Baron
expressed no objection to the continuance. The hearing was scheduled for
today.
The Executive Secretary provided the Board with the scheduling history of
District Fire Chief Charles Maree's case. She went on to say that this is the first
time the hearing was scheduled and this is first continuance requested by the
-PAGE 4 OF 17
1222
JULY 24, 2001
City. The Executive Secretary further stated that District Fire Chief Maree's
attorney expressed no objection to the continuance request.
Member Cruz stated that many of the cases are being continued. He
proceeded to read into the record a portion of the Draft Manual of Procedures for
Conducting Hearings which states, in part, the following: " .. . Administrative
hearings should proceed with reasonable dispatch to attain substantial justice for
all parties...."
Chairman Silverman informed Member Cruz that he agrees with his
statement concerning the continuance of cases. He went on to say that this is
the first time that this case was scheduled and the policy allows both sides one
free continuance each.
Following discussion, Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Scarola, to grant the City's request for a continuance of District Fire
Chief Charles Maree's appeal hearing. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a memorandum from Maria J.
Chiaro, Assistant City Attorney, requesting a continuance of the hearing of appeal
on behalf of Carlos Mendez, Police Officer, relative to his forfeiture of 20 hours of
earned overtime, effective June 25, 2001. The Board noted that Officer Mendez
expressed no objection to the continuance. The hearing was scheduled for
today.
The Executive Secretary provided the Board with the scheduling history of
Officer Carlos Mendez' case. She went on to say that this is the first time the
hearing was scheduled and this is the first continuance requested by the City.
The Executive Secretary further stated that Officer Mendez was contacted by the
City Attorney's Office reference the continuance, and he expressed no objection
to the City's request. -
Following discussion, Member Scarola made a motion, which was
seconded by Member Cruz, to grant the City's request to continue the appeal
hearing of Officer Carlos Mendez. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved
by the Board.
The Board was presented with Notification of Pending Hearings as of July
24, 2001.
The Board was presented with Notification of Rescheduling of Pending
Hearings.
PAGE 5 OF 17
12PIG
JULY 24, 2001
The Board was presented with a copy of a letter from Teri Guttman -Valdes,
Attorney at Law, requesting that the matter of Identification Technician Rafael
Garcia's request for a grievance hearing and investigation be placed back on the
agenda.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law on behalf of Rafael Garcia,
appeared before the Board and stated that some time in March 2001, Mr. Garcia
filed a request for a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Rules 16.1 Investigation by
the Board and 16.2 Complaint by Employee. She went on to say that the basis
for her client's request was due to an incident he encountered with Lt.
Croughwell. Attorney Guttman -Valdes further stated that during this same time,
he also filed a complaint with the City of Miami's Office of Equal Opportunity and
Diversity Programs (EODP). She stated that Mr. Garcia's hearing. was deferred
until the completion of EODP's investigation. Attorney Guttman -Valdes went on
to say that the investigation has been concluded; therefore, she is asking that the
Board proceed with her client's hearing.
The Executive Secretary informed the Board that the information Attorney
Guttman -Valdes presented concerning her client's case is correct with the
exception of 'one other thing. She went on to say that at the May 1, 2001
meeting, the Board not only requested a report from EODP, but also from the
Office of Labor Reiations. The Executive Secretary further stated that she
received a report from EODP, and she requested, via memo, a status report from
the Labor Relations Officer; however, she has not received it as yet.
Chairman Silverman asked the Executive Secretary when she did request
a status report from the Labor Relations Officer.
The Executive Secretary stated that she requested a status report from.
Labor Relations Officer on July 5, 2001.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that it has been over 2 months since the
EODP Office and the Office of Labor Relations have been investigating her
client's matter. She went on to say that she understands that it is the EODP's
responsibility to handle discrimination complaints, but she did not know what the
Office of Labor Relations had to do with investigating such complaints. Attorney
Guttman -Valdes further stated that her client did not request that the Office of
Labor (Relations investigate his complaint, and at this point, she does not know
what is going on, if anything.
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Guttman -Valdes to provide the Board
with the basis for her client's request.
PAGE 6OF1i 12226
JULY 24, 2001
say that once the Office of Labor Relations received a copy of the complaint, he
had no other choice but to let the Labor Relations Officer review it. Member
Garcia further stated that the Board approved a motion to have the EODP
Administrator and.Labor Relations Office investigate the matter, which caused a
delay in the process. He stated that he does believe that the Board needs to
move on this matter; therefore, he would be agreeable to setting the matter for a
time certain at the next Board meeting, which would provide the Office of Labor
Relations ample time to respond.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that she does not think her client
forwarded a copy of his complaint to the Office of Labor Relations. She went on
to say that she believes that somehow the Labor Relations Officer received a
copy.
Member Garcia stated that subsequent to the initiation of Mr. Garcia's
complaint, the Office of Labor Relations contacted him. He went on to say that
he knows, for a fact, that the Office of Labor Relations did not receive a copy via
the Civil Service Board Office.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Rolle, to continue discussion of this matter to the August 21, 2001
meeting.
Member Cruz stated that this matter has been before the Board for a long
time.
Chairman Silverman advised Member Cruz that the Board would make a
decision if it does not receive a response from the Office of Labor Relations.
Following further discussion, the motion on the floor was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
A copy of the May 2001 Monthly Report from Angela R. Bellamy, Director,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, to the Board, on personnel matters,
was noted by the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a letter from Miguel M..de la O,
Attorney at Law, requesting an investigation on behalf of Frank Pichel, Police
Sergeant, pursuant to Rule 16.1 Investigation by the Board.
David E. Marko,, Law Firm of de la O & Marko, Attorney at Law on behalf of
Sgt. Frank Pichel, appeared before the Board and stated that Attorney de la O
could not be present at today's meeting because he was on vacation. He went
PACE 8 OF -17
12226
JULY 24, 2001
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that the underlined, factual basis for her
client's request is that a Police Lieutenant told Mr. Garcia that he was not to
speak in Spanish at work because it is an English-speaking department. She
went on to say that after Mr. Garcia complained, he was disciplined and received
derogatory memorandums from Lt. Croughwell in retaliation.
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Guttman -Valdes if Mr. Garcia had any
pending disciplinary actions.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes answered in the negative.
Steve Scott, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, appeared
before the Board and stated that the City does not agree with many of the
statements made by Attorney Guttman -Valdes because they were inconclusive.
He went on to say that he thinks it is important that the Office of Labor Relations
be given an opportunity, to respond, and it is obvious that the Board also felt it
was important based upon its ruling to wait on a response from both entities.
Assistant City Attorney Scott further stated that the action taken subsequent to
the EODP Office finishing its investigation becomes the responsibility of the Labor
Relations Office. He stated that he believes that it would be reasonable to give
the Labor Relations Officer additional time to respond.
Chairman Silverman reminded Assistant City Attorney Scott that a couple
of weeks have already passed while waiting on' a reply from the Labor Relations
Officer.
Assistant City Attorney Scott stated that he has not spoken with Ms. Weller,
Labor Relations Officer, about this matter; however, he does know that she is in
the process of negotiating 3 labor contracts. He went on to say that if the Board
wishes to. set a deadline for the Labor Relations Officer to respond, he would be
agreeable to this action.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that the Offices of EODP and Labor
Relations have had almost 3 months to respond. She went on to say that her
client's matter needs to go forward. Attorney Guttman -Valdes further stated that
Lt. Croughwell continues to manifest a negative behavior towards Mr. Garcia;
therefore, the Board needs to use its power to look into the matter and try to
rectify it.
Member Garcia advised Attorney Guttman -Valdes that he agrees with her
about the matter taking too long to be investigated; however, it was her client who
initiated the complaint, in writing, and forwarded copies to others. He went on to
PAGE 7 0 17
12226
JULY 24, 2001
suggest that the letter be modified because Rule 16.1 hearings require that the
complainant cite a Civil Service Rule that was violated. Special Counsel
Valentine went on to say that he did not notice a Rule violation cited in Attorney
de la O's letter.
Assistant City Attorney Scott stated that he is in agreement with Special
Counsel Valentine's comments on this matter. He went on to say that the City
would ask, in the alternative, that the Board either decline to investigate the
matter or have the letter amended to include an alleged violation of a Rule.
Attorney Marko stated that it is his understanding that the Board does not
have substantive Rules, but procedural Rules. He went on to say that Attorney
de la O identified the procedural mechanism for which the Board is entitled to
review an abuse of power complaint. Attorney Marko further stated that Special
Counsel Valentine pointed out that there is an identification of issues involving
Fair Labor Standards and violations of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights laws. He
stated that as far as the Board is concerned, it is to determine whether or not the
actions identified in the letter are, in fact, an abuse of power. Attorney Marko
went on to say that they are clearly asking the Board to either review or decline
jurisdiction; however, either way they are entitled to proceed with a hearing based
upon the abuse of- power criteria.
Chairman Silverman stated that he needed clarification because it is his
understanding that hearings have to be scheduled within 30 days pursuant to
Rule 16.2.
The Executive Secretary stated that according to Attorney de la O's letter,
he requested an investigation pursuant to Rule 16.1. She went on to say that if
the Board decides to grant the request for a hearing, the hearing would have to
be scheduled within 30 days.
Member Garcia stated that some of the complaints listed in the letter are
contractual issues, and that another issue dealt with the State Attorney's Office
for which the Board has no jurisdiction. He went on to say that the matter
concerning the take-home vehicle is a contractual issue; therefore the Board has
no jurisdiction. Member Garcia further stated that even if the Board felt that the
issue of the take-home vehicle matter was wrong, if is still a contractual issue that
has to be handled by the Office of Labor Relations. He stated that while he might
side.with Sgt. Pichel's complaint, he thinks he is before the wrong forum.
Chairman Silverman asked if Sgt. Pichel has an pending investigation with
the State Attorney's Office.
PAGE 10 OF 17
JULY 24, 2001
on to say that Attorney de la O submitted a letter to the Civil Service Board on
July 16, 2001 requesting a hearing pursuant to Section 40-128 of the City Code.
Attorney Marko further stated that the Code specifically indicates that the Board is
empowered to investigate issues involving layoffs, demotions, suspensions or
removals without justification or the relevant phrase, in any other manner. He
stated that his client is before the Board to exhaust his administrative remedy if
the Board desires to take the matter up. Attorney Marko went on to say that his
client is also requesting a hearing within 30 days on the issues raised in Attorney
de la O's July 16, 2001 correspondence. -
Steve Scott, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, appeared
before the Board and stated that Mr. de la O's letter before the Board addresses
some serious topics and a matter that is currently under the investigative arm of
the Internal Affairs Office. He went on to say that the City Attorney's Office has
not had an opportunity to respond to Mr. de la O's letter. Assistant City Attorney
Scott further stated that given the very serious nature of what is involved, the City
would like an opportunity to confer with the Police Department to get more details
in order to respond with some factual bases. He stated that he heard enough to
know that there are representations included in the letter that are either not true
or exaggerated. Assistant City Attorney Scott went on to say that he would ask
that this matter be continued to the next meeting because Assistant City Attorney
Rice -Chapman, who could not be present at today's meeting, may be able to
respond to the letter.
Attorney Marko stated that it is his understanding, after speaking with his
partner this morning, that they are entitled to a hearing within 30 days if the Board
takes jurisdiction over the matter. He went on to say that the matter of the unfair
and abusive treatment that Sgt. Pichel has suffered, as articulated in the letter,
has been going on for many months. Attorney Marko further stated that while
Assistant City Attorney Scott presented to the Board, in vague fashion, that there
are untruths and inaccuracies included in Attorney de la O's letter that need to be
investigated, his client should have a hearing scheduled within the time
prescribed in the Rules.or be able to proceed -to the U.S. District Court. He stated
that whatever forum they enter, they would like to move with haste.
Mark A. Valentine, Special Counsel, appeared before the Board and stated
that Attorney de la O requested a hearing on behalf of Sgt. Pichel pursuant to
Rule 16.1. He went on to say that Attorney Marko mentioned about scheduling a
hearing within 30 days; however, it is his understanding that such hearings do not
have a time frame for scheduling. Special Counsel Valentine further stated that
he briefly perused .Attomey de la O's letter and he found that there are some
issues included in the letter that would not be applicable 'to the Civil Service
Board. He stated that if the Board is inclined to grant a hearing, he would
PAGE .9 OF 17
149,226
JULY 24, 2001
Luis Gonzalez, Police Sergeant, Internal Affairs, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, appeared before the Board and answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Silverman asked Sgt. Gonzalez if he knew how long Sgt.
Pichel's case has been pending.
Sgt. Gonzalez stated that the case has been pending for a while and the
Police Department cannot move on the case until the State Attorney makes a
decision on the case.
Chairman Silverman asked Sgt. Gonzalez if he knew whether the State
Attorney's decision would come sooner or later.
Sgt. Gonzalez stated that he is not the investigator in charge of Sgt.
Pichel's case; therefore, he does not know the time frame for which the State
Attorney would make a decision on the case.
Chairman Silverman informed Attorney Marko that the Board does not
normally hear cases when there is a pending criminal investigation because,
otherwise, it would be interfering with the State Attorney's case.
Member Scarola asked Sgt. Gonzalez if he had an opportunity to see the
letter that was .issued by Attorney de la O on behalf of Sgt. Pichel.
Sgt. Gonzalez answered in the negative.
Member Garcia asked Sgt. Gonzalez if the matters concerning the take-
home vehicle and being able to take 15/30 minutes breaks are covered in the
Departmental Orders.
Sgt. Gonzalez stated that it is policy that once an employee is relieved of
duty, they do not have the privilege of driving a City vehicle and they remain
home for 8 hours. He went on to say that the employee is allowed to leave their
home, but they must contact the Internal Affairs Office to utilize vacation, ill, or
earned overtime.
Member Cruz asked if the Board could ' initiate an investigation to separate
what pertains to Civil Service and the criminal investigation. He went on to say
that the investigation has been going on for over 15 months, and this is why he
mentioned the other day that, Justice delayed is justice denied." Member Cruz
further stated that employees who have expertise are staying home and being
paid a salary instead of having the expertise on the street where it is needed.
PAGE 11 OF 17
x.2226
JULY 24, 2001 A90L
low
Antonio Rodriguez, Police Captain, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, appeared
before the Board and stated that he had an opportunity to read Attorney de la O's
letter this morning. ,He went on to say that, more importantly, is whether or not
the Board has jurisdiction over this matter. Captain Rodriguez further stated that
after looking at the substantive matter before the Board, and assuming everything
in the letter is factual, there was not a violation of a Civil Service Rule. He stated
that he would ask the Board to deny Sgt. Pichel's request for a hearing because it
is not the jurisdiction of the Board. Captain Rodriguez went on to say that Sgt.
Pichel is exhausting his administrative remedy, which is his right to do so;
however, he does not think the Board should take the matter up so that Sgt.
Pichel and his attorney could move on to other avenues.
Member Scarola asked Attorney Marko if he was trying, to exhaust Sgt.
Pichel's administrative remedies.
Attorney Marko stated that if the Board chooses not to take jurisdiction on
this matter, Sgt. Pichel would have exhausted his administrative remedy, and
they would proceed to the next forum. He went on to say that he would like to
make sure that the Board has sufficient information reference the comments that
were previously made. Attorney Marko further stated that as he understands it,
the State Attorney's Office has already made its decision not to proceed with Sgt.
Pichel's case; therefore. he does not believe the Board has, before it, a clear
picture of this issue. He reiterated that if the Board declines jurisdiction on his
client's case, they would proceed to the next forum.
Following discussion, Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded
by Chairman Silverman, to postpone consideration of Sgt. Pichel's request to the
August 21, 2001 meeting.
Member Garcia asked Chairman Silverman for the Board's reason to
continue this matter to the next meeting.
Chairman Silverman stated that he would like to know whether or not the
State Attorney's Office has this matter underactive .consideration. He went on to
say that if the State Attorney has this matter under active consideration, he does
not think the Board should take any action while there is a pending criminal
charge. Chairman Silverman further stated that he thinks Attorney de la O needs
to amend the charges included in his letter because the Civil Service Board has
no jurisdiction over some of the charges. He stated that the charges have to be
limited to matters that the Civil Service Board can consider before he could vote
on whether or -not to grant Sgt. Pichel's request for an investigation.
PACE 12 SOF 17
12226
JULY 24, 2001
Following further discussion, the motion on the floor was approved (3-2) by
the Board as follows: AYES: Cruz, Rolle, Silverman. NOES: Garcia, Scarola.
Chairman Silverman reiterated to Attorney Marko that he needed to amend
the letter to include only those charges that the Board could consider. He went
on to say that he understands that Attorney Marko is before the Board on behalf
of his client to exhaust his administrative remedies so that he could go to court.
Chairman Silverman further stated that the Board would not investigate matters
that it does not have jurisdiction over.
Attorney Marko asked if the Board would receive a definitive answer from
the City and State Attorney's Offices by the next meeting date.
Chairman Silverman stated that he would certainly hope so. He went on to
say that if the State Attorney's Office has closed its file on this matter, it should
not be difficult for the City Attorney's Office to provide the Board with a response.
No other discussion took place on this matter.
A notification of acting assignment from the Executive Secretary was noted
by the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a memorandum from Maria
Ferrer-Miralles, Administrator, Office of Equal Opportunity/Diversity Programs,
concerning Fire Fighter certification.
Maria Ferrer-Miralles, Administrator, OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/
DIVERSITY PROGRAMS, appeared before the. Board and stated that the memo
she prepared concerning Fire Fighter certification does not only apply to Fire
Fighter certifications, but to certifications in general. She went on to say that prior
to the Rule change, Rule 8.7 stated, in part, the following: " . . . The
categorization of persons on the basis of race, color, or national origin with
respect to their idemcation for certification for employment or promotion
under this section must be established at the time of application. The ethic
category marked on the application form at the close of recruitment must
remain in force for the duration of the register." Ms. Ferrer-Miralles further
stated that when this language was removed from the Rules, everything was loss.
She stated that what happened with the last register was that some individuals
were coded as one ethnic categorization while on their application, they were
identified as another ethnic categorization. Ms. Ferrer-Miralles went on to say
that after a review of this matter, she learned that the Department of Human
Resources did not reflect the ethnic categorization change in its computerized
system. She further stated that she met with Department Director Angela R.
PAGE 13 OF 17
12226
JULY 24, 2001
Bellamy and her staff, and they have agreed to input into the system whatever
ethic categorization an individual has identified himself/herself -as of today. Ms.
Ferrer-Miralles stated that when the language was included in the Rule, she was
able to use this Rule as the basis for not allowing people to change their ethnic
identity after the register was established. She went on to say that her purpose
before the Board today is to find out if the language that was included in Rule 8.7
needs to be placed back in the Rules so that individuals would not be allowed to
change their ethnic identity once the register has been established.
Chairman Silverman stated that based on what he heard, Ms. Ferrer-
Miralles is proposing a Rule change. He went on to suggest that Ms. Ferrer-
Miralles meet with the Assistant City Attorney to prepare a proposed Rule change
for the Board's review.
Member Garcia stated that he asked that, Rule 8.3 be reviewed because
there was a big problem with not only Fire Fighter certifications, but all other
certifications. He went on to say that he would suggest that rather than create a
new Rule, to amend Rule 8.3 similar to that of Rule 14.2, to include subsections.
Member Garcia further stated that Special Counsel Valentine brought up this
matter when the Police Department requested additional certification lists. He
stated that Rule 8.7 provided language that was specific concerning ethnic
identity; however, this Rule was abolished. Member Garcia went on to say that at
this point, Rule 8.3 needs to revisited and amended.
Mark A. Valentine, Special Counsel, appeared before the Board and
suggested that the Board receive a proposed amendment from the Human
Resources Department so that whatever the Board enacts, it is consistent with
Human Resources procedures. He went on to say that he thinks the issue is how
the Department of Human Resources.tracks ethnicity of the applicant.
Chairman Silverman instructed Ms. Ferrer-Miralles to meet with the City
Attorney's Office reference preparing a proposal for a change to Rule 8.3. He
went on to say that Ms. Ferrer-Miralles can return to the Board after the proposal
is complete.
The Executive Secretary stated that she thinks the proposal should come
from the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Programs because the issue
directly affects Ms. Ferrer-Miralles' job and office, and also from the Department
of Human Resources since it is a two-step process.
Ms. Ferrer-Miralles stated that her office and the Department of Human
Resources would handle the proposal jointly. She went on to say that she has
already met with the Department of Human Resources, and they have talked
PAGE 14OF17 �����
JULY 24, 2001
about including the ethnicity issue _into the Personnel Manual; however, they felt it
would cant' more weight if it were placed in the Civil Service Rules. Ms. Ferrer-
Miralles further stated that the ethnicity issue would also be included in a policy
after it is included in the Rules. She stated that this issue affects the Fire Fighter
register more than any other register only because the tendency to change ethnic
identity is reflected more with Fire Fighters.
Chairman Silverman suggested that Ms. Ferrer-Miralles prepare a proposal
for review by the Board and the Unions.
No other discussion took place on this matter.
The Board was presented with a copy of a letter from Teri Guttman -Valdes,
Attorney at Law, requesting to address the. Board at today's meeting, concerning
the rescheduling of Susan Cambridge's grievance hearing.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law on behalf of Susan Cambridge,
appeared before the Board and stated that this is a very old case. She went on
to say that it has been almost 2 years since the violations occurred. Attorney
Guttman -Valdes further stated that she would concede that she had two
continuances because of important witnesses who could not be present. She
stated that Ms. Cambridge's hearing was scheduled in June 2001; however, she
requested a continuance of the case. Attorney Guttman -Valdes went on to say
that she provided dates in July 2001, but no confirmation could be reached with
the Assistant City Attorney because she was in trial. She further stated that a
date of August 7, 2001 was confirmed for rescheduling the hearing; however, she
received an e-mail advising her that the August 7 meeting was cancelled.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that she thinks Ms. Cambridge should have
been allowed to appear before the Board prior to the meeting being cancelled.
She went on to say that she faxed a letter to Priscilla A. Thompson, Executive
Secretary, confirming a date of August 21, 2001 for rescheduling her client's
hearing, and then she received a letter in the mail from the Civil Service Board
Office asking that she confirm dates in October and November 2001 for
rescheduling the hearing.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that she believes there are four hearings
scheduled on August 21, 2001 and she noticed that two hearings per meeting are
scheduled for the remaining meetings. She went on to say that she would ask
that Ms. Cambridge's hearing be rescheduled to a meeting in September 2001 or
obtain confirmation dates from Assistant City Attomey Rice -Chapman for a
special meeting.
PAGE 15 OF 17
JULY 24, 2001
Chairman Silverman stated that he asked that the August 7, 2001 meeting
be cancelled because he will be on vacation. He went on to say that he would
suggest that Ms. Cambridge's hearing be set for a special meeting because it has
been. continued a number of times. Chairman Silverman instructed Attorney
Guttman -Valdes to meet with Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman when she
returns from vacation to confirm a date for rescheduling Ms. Cambridge's
hearing. He asked that Attorney Guttman -Valdes do not confirm dates in October
because he is not sure if he would be available.
No other discussion took place on this matter.
The Board entered into the scheduled grievance hearing on behalf of Juan
Gonzalez, Marinas Assistant, pursuant to Civil Service Rules 16.1 and 16.2,
concerning an alleged violation of Civil Service Rule 17.
The Board took no action on this case because a continuance was granted
at today's meeting.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of
Charles Maree, District Chief, relative to his 20 -hour suspension, effective June
19, 2001.
The Board took no action on this case because a continuance was granted
at today's meeting.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of
Claudia Claude, Police Officer, relative to her 40 -hour suspension, effective June
25, 2001.
The Board took no action on this case because a continuance was granted
at today's meeting.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of
Carlos Mendez, Police Officer, relative to his 20 -hour forfeiture of earned
overtime, effective June 25, 2001.
The Board took no action on this case because a continuance was granted
at,today's meeting.
PAGE 16OF17 1 q 40 2 b�,
JULY 24, 2001
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:35 AM.
ATTEST:
GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAGE 17.OF 17
TC Civil Service Board Members
_ T-� OF MIAM;. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DAT= 20 AtTt t,2001 FILE
S S. E C: T Civil Service Rules
'Maria Ferrer- ir�, Administrator
Office of Equal Opportunity/Diversity Programs
s
At the July 24, 2001 meeting of the Board, I discussed my concern regarding changes to the
race/ethnicity self -identification on the Affirmative Action Data form by applicants. When Civil
Service Rule 8.7 existed, it stated, "The ethnic category marked on the application form at the
close of recruitment must remain in force for the duration of the register." After meeting with
Angela R. Bellamy, Director, and Renee Jones, Assistant Director of the Department of Human
Services, we have agreed to have the issue dealt with in the application process. During the
application process, the applicant will receive information with the application explaining that
their designation of "race/ethnicity" must remain the same for the life of the eligible register.
Since this designation will have no effect on the certification of eligible names, we felt that there
was no need to amend the Civil Service Rule and Regulations at this time. It will be a part of
the Human Resources Manual.
Should you have any questions regarding this issue, I can be reached at (305) 416-1990.
N 0
o_ Q
C/3 r
P-1 Ln
"fl T'1
Jt �
O <
n
m n
O
W �
e v
HNTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Maria Ferrer-Miralles _ October 4, 2001 = _
Administrator
Office of Equal Opportunity/Diversity Program .. _ _ - Changes to Race/Ethnicity Self -
Identification on Affirmative
2 �. �^ • Data Form
riscil a A. Thompson -
Executive Secretary
Civil Service Board (1)
At its meeting of Tuesday, October 2, 2001, the Civil Service Board tabled discussion of the
matter concerning the manner in which your office and the Department of Human Resources
decided to handle the issue of persons changing their race/ethnicity self -identification on the
Affirmative Action Data form.
Please be advised that this matter has been placed on the agenda of the regular Board
meeting scheduled on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, for Board discussion. The meeting will be
held in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key,
beginning at 10:00 AM. You must be in attendance when this matter is discussed and be
prepared to answer any questions the Board may ask.
By copy of this memo, I am also notifying Department Director Angela R. Bellamy, Assistant
City Attorney Linda Rice -Chapman, and Attorney Ronald J. Cohen so that, or representatives
from their offices, can be present at the meeting.
PAT:del
C: Angela R. Bellamy, Director
Department of Human Resources
Linda Rice -Chapman
Assistant City Attorney
Department of Law
Ronald J. Cohen
Attorney at Law
Andrew Jackson Building
8100 Oak Lane, Suite 403
Miami Lakes, FL 33016
122-2
10
SERVICE
BOARD
October 16, 2001
The Civil Service Board of the City of Miami met in regular session on
Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 10:05 AM in the City Commission Chambers, City
Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key.
PRESENT: GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
MARTIN GARCIA, CHIEF EXAMINER
MARIANO CRUZ, BOARD MEMBER
WILLIAM SCAROLA, BOARD MEMBER
NOT PRESENT: FRANKIE ROLLE, BOARD MEMBER (Death-ln-Family)
On a motion made by Member Scarola and seconded by Member Cruz, the
Board. unanimously (4-0) approved the minutes of the regular Board meeting of
September 17, 2001.
Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded by Member Scarola, to
approve the minutes of the regular Board meeting of October 2, 2001. The
motion was unanimously (4-0) approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with Notification of Pending Hearings as of
October 16, 2001.
The Board was presented with Notification of Rescheduling of Pending
Hearings.
The Board was presented with a request from Mivema Copeland, Clerk II,
for an appearance before the Board, pursuant to Civil Service Rule 4.2.
Recommendatory, Specific. The Board noted that this matter was tabled from the
meeting of May 15, 2001.
PAGE 1 OF 9
12226
OCTOBER 16, 20011
Chairman Silverman informed Ms. Copeland that the Board reviewed her
request. He went on to ask Ms:0"opeland if anything happened with her request
since her recent letter.
Mivema Copeland, Personnel Services Representative, DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES, appeared before the Board and answered in the
negative.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
appeared before the Board and stated that when this matter was originally
presented to the Board, she advised Members that she and the Human
Resources Director were going to attempt to work out the situation. She went on
to say that at the same time, they wanted to preserve Ms. Copeland's right to
come before the Board .at a later time if the matter could not be resolved.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman further stated that at present, they have
not been able to work out the matter; therefore, the City would have no objection
to an investigation of this matter if this is what Ms. Copeland wishes to request at
this time. She stated that Civil Service Rule 5.4 indicates that the Department
Director of Human Resources is the person responsible for qualifying/
disqualifying applicants for positions. Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman
went on to say that she would like to ask Special Counsel Valentine for a legal
opinion on Rule 5.4 as it relates to the disqualification letter that Ms. Copeland
received from the Police Department.
Chairman Silverman asked the Executive Secretary what action did the
Board take on this matter.
The Executive Secretary informed the Board that it had not taken any
action on Ms. Copeland's request.
Chairman Silverman advised Ms. Copeland that it was apparent that the
City would not be able to settle her case at this time. He went on to ask Ms.
Copeland if she wished to proceed with the investigation.
Ms. Copeland answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Silverman asked Ms. Copeland if there was anything she wished
to share with the. Board on this matter.
Ms. Copeland stated that she would like for "the investigation to be
completed.
PAGE 2 OF 9
12 20 2 6
OCTOBER
Chairman Silverman asked Ms. Copeland to provide the Board with an
overview of her complaint.
Ms. Copeland stated that she applied for the Clerk Il position in the Police
Department. She went on to say that she took the polygraph test and failed it
because of one question. Ms. Copeland further stated that she was allowed to
take the polygraph exam a second time and she passed. She stated that
Background Investigator Trujillo contacted her on Friday, August 11, 2000 and
informed her that she passed the background investigation unless she did
something that would make him upset. Ms. Copeland went on to say that she
failed to include references on her questionnaire; therefore, Background
Investigator Trujillo asked her to stop by his office and provide him with the
names .of -three references. She further stated that she .went to Background
Investigator Trujillo's office on Monday, August 14, 2000. Ms. Copeland stated
that at that time, she was five months pregnant. She went on to say that when
Background Investigator Trujillo saw her, he asked her why did she not tell him
that she was pregnant. Ms. Copeland further stated that she did not do so
because she did not think her physical condition would hinder her from being
hired for the Clerk II position. She stated that from this point on everything went
down hill concerning the Clerk II position. Ms. Copeland went on to say that
within two days of this incident, she received a disqualification letter from the
Police Department indicating that she was disqualified due to her moral status.
Chairman Silverman asked Special Counsel Valentine for his comments on
this matter.
Mark A. Valentine, Special Counsel, appeared before the Board and stated
that he thinks the issue is whether or not the Department of Human Resources
needs to deal with the issue of disqualification as opposed to the Police Chief in
accordance with Rule 5.4. He went on to say that if the Board does conduct an
investigation, it would be pursuant to Rule 16.2 Complaint by Employee.
Member Garcia stated that Ms. Copeland is alleging that she was
disqualified due to her pregnancy. He went on to ask Special Counsel Valentine
if she could include a violation of Rule 17 in her complaint.
Special Counsel Valentine, stated that Ms. Copeland could incline Rule 17
into her complaint; however, the Board's jurisdiction would be primarily under
Rule 5.4. He went on to say that in accordance with Civil Service Rule 16.2, he
and the Chief Examiner could conduct a preliminary investigation in which they
could report their. information back to the Board. Special Counsel Valentine
further stated that the facts they gather from the preliminary investigation may
resolve this matter.
PAGE 3 OF 9
12226
OCTOBER6,-2001 �►
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Cruz, instructing Special Counsel Valentine and Chief Examiner
Martin Garcia to conduct a preliminary investigation pursuant to Civil Service Rule
16.2 Complaint by Employee. The motion was unanimously (4-0) approved by
the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a memorandum from Maria
Ferrer-Miralles, Administrator, Office of Equal Opportunity/Diversity Program,
concerning Civil Service Rules.
Chairman Silverman asked the Executive Secretary if there was any action
required by the Board on this matter.
The Executive Secretary stated that there was discussion at the last
meeting concerning this matter. She went on to say that the Board needs to
decide if it is going to accept the process that is outlined in Ms. Ferrer-Miralles'
memo or if it is going to entertain a Rule change wherein the information would
placed in the Civil Service Rules.
Chairman Silverman asked Ms. Ferrer-Miralles if she wished to say
anything regarding this mater.
Maria Ferrer-Miralles, Administrator, OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/
DIVERSITY PROGRAM, appeared before the Board and answered in the
negative.
For clarification purposes, Chairman Silverman asked the Executive
Secretary if the Board's choices on this matter is to accept the decision of Ms.
Ferrer-Miralles and Department Director Angela Bellamy to include the
information in a policy or the Board could adopt a Rule change.
The Executive Secretary answered in -the affirmative. She went on to say
that when Rule 8.7 was listed in the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, the
actual listing of a person's ethnicity was covered under this Rule. She went on to
say that because this provision was removed from the Rules, she needed to
know if the Board wished to have it placed back in the Rules.
Chairman Silverman stated that he preferred to leave the information in the
manual
Member Garcia stated that he would like to have the information included
in the Civil Service Rules.
PAGE 4 OF 9 b
11F OCTOBER 16, 2001
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Cruz, for a change to Rule 8.
Chairman Silverman stated that if the Board approves the motion, it would
have to instruct its staff to prepare the actual wording of the Rule and then have a
public hearing.
Following further discussion, the motion on the floor was unanimously (4-0)
approved by the Board.
A copy of the August, 2001 Monthly Report from Angela R. Bellamy,
Director, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, to the Board, on personnel
matters, was noted by the Board. .
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of
Racquel Hicks, Police Officer, relative to her forfeiture of 10 hours of earned
overtime, effective September 5, 2000.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, represented the City.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, represented the Respondent.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman informed the Board of a settlement
announcement in this case.
Attorney Cohen informed the Board that he and Assistant City Attorney
Rice -Chapman have been discussing the matter, but they have not completely
reached a settlement.. He went on to say that his client would like to have her
case heard before a full -Member Board; therefore, he would ask that Officer
Hicks' case be continued.
Without objection from other Board Members, Chairman Silverman granted
Officer Hicks' request for a continuance of her appeal hearing.
The Board entered into the hearing of appeal on behalf of Evelio Cobas,
Police Officer, relative to his 160 -hour suspension, effective April 1, 1999.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, represented the City.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, represented the Respondent.
PAGE 5 OF 9
12226
OCTOBER 16, :2001 1 ft
The Executive Secretary read the Charge letter into the record. The actual
Charges will be filed in the employee's personnel jacks, which is maintained in the
Department of Human Resources.
Attorney Cohen objected to Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman
announcing her appearance on behalf of the City instead of the Police Chief.
Chairman Silverman noted Attorney Cohen's objection.
All witnesses were sworn in individually.
Witnesses for the City appeared in the following order:
1. Ronny Coney, Private Citizen.
2. Cesar Garcia, Private Citizen.
3. Timmy Finkiea, Private Citizen.
4. Daniel Sementilli, Private Citizen
5. James Dixon, Private Citizen.
6. Broderick Hepburn, Private Citizen.
7. Deborah Payne, Police Officer, City of Miami, Department of Police.
Questions were posed by Member Sdarola during the testimony of witness
Deborah Payne.
The City rested its case.
Attorney Cohen moved for an order of dismissal of the charges. He went on
to say that there had been no one who could remotely testify that the other voice on
the radio was Officer Evelio Cobas' voice.
Chairman Silverman denied Attorney Cohen's motion.
Witnesses for the Respondent appeared in the following order.
1. Mario Roman, Police Sergeant, City of Miami, Department of Police..
Questions were posed by Member Garcia during the testimony of witness
Mario Roman.
PAGE 6 OF 9
x.224'
OCTOBER 16, 2001
2. Rafael Tapanes, Police Sergeant, City of Miami, Department of Police.
Questions were posed by Member Garcia during the testimony of witness
Rafael Tapanes.
3. Alexandro E. Guttierez, Police Officer, City of Miami, Department of Police.
4. Evelio Cobas, Police Officer, City of Miami, Department of Police, testified
on his own behalf.
The Respondent rested his case.
The City waived rebuttal.
Following final argument by both Attorneys, Member Cruz stated that it
surprises him sometimes as to how the Internal Affairs Unit could be so tough when
investigating cases; however, he felt that the Internal Affairs Unit did not prove
anything to him with reference to its investigation of Officer Cobas' case.
Chairman Silverman stated that he disagreed with Member Cruz' comments
because he felt that the City proved its case. He went on to say that there were five
witnesses who testified before the Board, and their testimony was very clear as to
what they heard on the transmitter.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Chairman Silverman to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #1. The motion
failed in a tie (2-2) vote as follows: AYES: Garcia, Silverman. NOES: Cruz,
Scarola.
Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded by Member Scarola, to
find the Respondent not guilty of Charge #1. The motion failed in a tie (2-2) vote as
follows: AYES: Scarola, Cruz. NOES: Garcia Silverman.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Chairman Silverman,
to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #2. The motion was approved (3-1) by the
Board with Member Cruz dissenting.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Chairman Silverman,
to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #3. The motion was approved (3-1) by the
Board with Member Cruz dissenting.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Chairman Silverman,
to.find the Respondent guilty of Charge #4. The motion was approved (3-1) by the
Board with Member Cruz dissenting.
PAGE 7 OF 9 ql/ 2
OCTOBER 1:6,::2001
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Chairman Silverman,
to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #5. The motion was approved (3-1) by the
Board with Member Cruz dissenting.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Chairman Silverman,
to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #6. The motion failed in a tie (2-2) vote as
follows: AYES: Garcia, Silverman. NOES: Scarola, Cruz.
Member Scarola made a motion, which was seconded by Member Cruz, to
find the Respondent not guilty of Charge #6. The motion failed in a tie (2-2) vote as
follows: AYES: Scarola, Cruz. NOES: Garcia, Silverman.
Following the Board's voting on the Charges, Attorney Cohen informed the
Board that he wished to make two motions. He went on to say that the Board
reached what is known in law as an equipoise because it could not reach a
conclusion as to .whether or not Officer Cobas was guilty of two of the charges.
Attorney Cohen further stated that it is the City's burden to prove the employee
guilty; therefore, as a matter of law, the employee is entitled to be found not guilty.
Chairman Silverman stated that the Board's policy concerning charges
resulting in tie votes is that those charges would be heard by a full Board. He went
on to say that it is unfortunate that one of the Board Members could not be present
today.
Attorney Cohen stated that it would be inappropriate for the Board to move to
the penalty phase since there was not a full -Member Board. He went on to say that
the Board also has inconsistent verdicts.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman informed Attorney Cohen that the City
would dismiss the two charges so that the Board could move to the penalty phase of
-Officer Cobas' appeal hearing.
Attorney Cohen moved for a finding -of not guilty on all of the charges. He
went on to say that a dismissal of the charges is equivalent to a finding of not guilty.
Attorney Cohen further stated that the Board has inconsistent verdicts, which it
should not have.
Without objection from other Board Members, Chairman Silverman denied
Attorney Cohen's motion.
The Board reviewed the Respondent's personnel file.
The City gave no testimony relating to the penalty portion of Officer Evelio
Cobas' appeal hearing.
PAGE 8 OF 9
per Fr. G.r
i -OCTOBER 16, 2001
The Respondent gave no testimony relating to the penalty portion of his
appeal hearing.
Following final argument by both attorneys concerning the penalty portion of
Officer Cobas' hearing, Member Scarola stated that he would recommend reducing
the penalty to an 80 -hour suspension because Sgt. Tapanes had problems when
handed the responsibility of preparing the disciplinary package involving Officer
Cobas. He went on to say that Sgt. Tapanes' hand was somewhat forced to
prescribe a 120 -hour suspension as the recommended penalty for the incident.
Member Scarola further stated that the disciplinary package was forwarded to the
Police Chief for his decision; however, the package sat on his desk from July 15,
1998 until February 1, 1999. He stated that he thinks that an 80 -hour suspension
and the recommended sensitivity training would be a sufficient penalty. Member
Scarola proceeded to make a motion, which was seconded by Member Cruz, to
reduce the penalty from a 160 -hour suspension to an 80 -hour suspension.
Chairman Silverman stated that most of the times ' he agreed with Member
Scarola's motion; however, in this case, he could not. He went on to say that he did
not believe Officer Cobas testified truthfully before the Board today, which was
overwhelming in his concern as to the penalty. He went on to say that he was
opposed to the motion on the floor.
Following further discussion, the motion on the floor failed in a tie (2-2) vote
as follows: AYES: Cruz, Scarola. NOES: Garcia, Silverman.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Chairman Silverman,
to recommend to the City Manager that Officer Cobas serve a 120 -suspension in
lieu of a 160 -hour suspension. The motion was unanimously (4-0) approved by the
Board.
Breaks were taken between 10:14-10:18 AM and 11:11-11:19 AM.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 12:07 PM. ,,
GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAGE 9 OF 9
:26 6
PLEASE POST
PLEASE POST
CIVIL SERVICE INFORMATION BULLETIN #305
December 21, 2001
TO: ALL DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, DATE: December 21, 2001
. DIVISION HEADS AND EMPLOYEES
L
tS�CFROM: PILLA A. THOMP�80
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO CIVIL SERVICE RULE 5,
Section 5.2
Qw
i
At the Civil Service Board meeting of October 16, 2001, an amendment to the City of Miami
Civil Service Rules and Regulations (Ordinance No. 8977) was proposed by Civil Service Board Chief
Examiner Martin Garcia. A public hearing is scheduled for 10:00 A.M., on Tuesday, January 22, 2002,
to consider Chief Examiner Garcia's proposal. This item will be placed on the Civil Service Board
agenda for the regular meeting of the same date, to be held in the City Commission Chambers, City
Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key.
At the meeting, a follow up memo from Maria Ferrer-Miralles, Administrator, Office of Equal
Opportunity/Diversity Programs, was discussed relative to her initial concems regarding changes to
the race/ethnicity self -identification on the Affirmative Action Data form by applicants for employment
and/or promotion. Even though Ms. Ferrer-Miralles informed the Board that she and the Director of
Human Resources met and agreed to have the issue dealt with in the application process, Chief
Examiner Garcia requested that the information be included in the Civil Service Rules as it had been
prior to an October 12, 1999 amendment to the rules. He went on to say that, his request would
necessitate an amendment of Civil Service Rule 5, APPLICATIONS FOR EXAMINATIONS.
The proposed amendment would disallow any change in ethnic status after an application
has been submitted.
The proposed changes are underlined.
Rule 5, Section 5.2, presently reads:
12226
Application Forms. Applications shall be made on forms prescribed by the
Director of Human Resources Department. - Such forms shall require
information covering training, experience, references and other pertinent
information. Each application must be signed by the person applying.
Rule 5, Section 5.2, as proposed would read as follows:
Application Forms. Applications shall be made on forms prescribed by the
Director of Human Resources Department. Such forms shall require
information covering training, experience, references and other pertinent
information. Each application must be signed by the person applying.
The categorization of persons on the basis of race, color or national origin
close of recruitment must remain in force for the duration of the redister.
PAT: and
Z:CSBULLETIN305
12226
CIVTL SERVICE
BOARD
January 22, 2002
The Civil Service Board of the City of Miami met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 22; 2002, at 10:00 AM in the City Commission Chambers, City
Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key.
PRESENT: GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
MARTIN GARCIA, CHIEF EXAMINER
MARIANO CRUZ, BOARD MEMBER
FRANKIE ROLLE, BOARD MEMBER
WILLIAM SCAROLA, BOARD MEMBER
NOT PRESENT: NONE
The Board entered into the scheduled Public Hearing reference the
proposed amendment to Civil Service Rule 5, APPLICATIONS FOR
EXAMINATIONS, Section 5.2 Application Forms.
Member Garcia stated that this provision included in Rule 5 originally
existed under Civil Service Rule 8. He went on to say that after a thorough
review of Rule 8, it was agreed upon that it was more appropriate to place this
provision under Rule 5. _
c.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
appeared before the Board and stated that she thought the Board had previously
addressed this issue and decided that it would be taken care of by the
Department of Human Resources. She went on to say that she also thought that
this matter would not have included a Rule change, which the City would be
opposed to.
Chairman Silverman asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter
concerning the proposed amendment to Rule 5. After noting that no one came
forward, Chairman Silverman asked for a motion to either approve or deny the
proposed amendment to Rule 5.
PAGE 1 OF 28
12226
' JANUARY 22, 2002 '
Following discussion. Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Rolle, to approve the proposed amendment to Rule 5, Sec. 5.2. The
motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
On a .motion made -by Member Scarola and seconded by Member Garcia,
the Board unanimously (5=0) approved the minutes of the regular Board meeting
of January 8, 2002.
. A copy of a Judgment from the City Manager concurring with the Board in
finding Sabrina Murray, Police Officer, guilty of the charges against her and
upholding the Department Director's decision that Sabrina. Murray forfeit 10 hours
of earned overtime, effective March 19, 2001, was noted by the Board.
A copy of a Judgment from the City Manager concurring with the Board in
finding Wendell K. Harris, Identification Technician II, guilty of the charges
against him and ordering that Wendell K. Harris receive a 40 -hour suspension,
effective March 17, 2001v in lieu of -the 80 -hour suspension imposed by the
Department Director was noted by the Board. The Board had recommended a
forfeiture of 12 hours of earned overtime.
The Board was presented with Notification of Pending Hearings as of
January 22, 2002.
The Board was presented with Notification of Rescheduling of Pending
Hearings.
The Board was presented with a copy of a request from Orlando R.
Villaverde, Police Officer, for an investigation pursuant to Civil Service Rule 4.2.
Recommendatory, Specific. The Board noted that this matter was tabled from the
meeting of January 8, 2002.
Members Garcia and Scarola recused -'themselves from discussion of this
item because they were participants in the Police Sergeant exam that is in
question and left the Commission Chambers.
Orlando Villaverde, Police Officer, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, appeared
before the Board and stated he received aletter dated January 17, 2002 that he
requested from the Department of Human Resources; however, he has not had
an opportunity to review the letter with his attorney. He went on to say that he
would ask that this .matter be postponed to another meeting so that his attomey
could review the letter.
,r,,, F 6� a
PAGE 2 OF 28 12 2 2
JANUARY 22, 2002 - .-- Y;
Chairman Silverman asked if the City had any objection to Officer
ViIlaverde's request.
Eyran Kraus, Testing and Validations Specialist, DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES, appeared before the Board and answered in the
negative.
Chairman Silverman informed Officer Villaverde that he would have to start
from scratch with his case because there will be a new Board appointed when his
matter is revisited.
Without objection from other Board Members, Chairman Silverman
continued this matter to the next regular Board meeting.
The Board was presented with a copy of a Default Judgment concerning
the appeal hearing on behalf of Mary Thomas, Police Officer, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE.
Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded by Member Garcia, to
approve the Default Judgment concerning the appeal hearing on behalf of Mary
Thomas, Police Officer. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the
Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a Default Judgment concerning
the appeal hearing on behalf of Carrie Mathis, Police Officer, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law on behalf of Officer Came Mathis,
appeared before the Board and stated that the Rules provide for the Board to
enter a Default Judgment. He went on to say that the document is called a
Default Judgment, but it does not include any adjudicatory language at the end.
Attorney Cohen further stated that he thinks it is appropriate for the Default
Judgments to read and look like a Default Judgment.
Mark A. Valentine, Special Counsel, appeared before the Board and stated
that, in substance, he thinks the Default Judgment meets the requirements of the
Rules; however, Attorney Cohen was making particular reference to the format of
the Default Judgment, and he does not necessarily agree with him. He went on
to say that he thinks the document stands on it own; therefore, he would leave it
to the Board to decide what to do on this matter. _
PAGE 3 OF 28
12226'
JANUARY 22, 2002
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
appeared before the Board and stated that she had no problem with the Default
Judgment.
Attorney Cohen stated that the document is supposed to be a Default
Judgment; therefore, he thinks it should look like one.
Chairman Silverman stated that the Rules indicate that the Board could
enter a default judgment against the City in favor of the appellant.
Attorney Cohen stated that the Special Counsel signed the Default
Judgment.
Chairman Silverman informed Attorney Cohen that the Board would
approve the Default Judgment.
Attorney Cohen stated that he thinks the document should be set up like
a regular judgment.
Chairman Silverman stated that Special Counsel Valentine prepared the
document. He went on to ask Special Counsel Valentine if he wished to change
the document or was he satisfied with it.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that he was satisfied with the way the
Default Judgment was prepared.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Rolle, to approve the Default Judgment concerning the appeal
hearing on behalf of Came Mathis, Police .Officer.. The motion was unanimously
(5-0) approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a Default Judgment concerning
the appeal hearing on behalf of Aristides Paulino-Lajara, Police Officer,
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law on behalf of Officer Aristides Paulino-
Lajara, appeared before the Board and stated that his position was the same as
stated in the matter concerning Officer Came Mathis.
Following discussion, Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Garcia, to approve the Default Judgment concerning the appeal
hearing. on: behalf of Aristides Paulino-Lajara, Police Officer. The motion was
unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
PAGE 4 OF 28 c �d
JANUARY= 2002
The Board was presented with a copy of the Findings of Fact concerning
the appeal hearing on behalf of Claudia Claude, Police Officer, DEPARTMENT
OF POLICE.
Member Scarola,made a motion, which was seconded by Member Rolle, to
approve the Default Judgment concerning the appeal hearing on behalf of
Claudia Claude, Police Officer. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by
the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of the Findings of Fact concerning
the appeal hearing on behalf of Barbara Harris, Secretary II, DEPARTMENT OF
FIRE -RESCUE.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Member Scarola,
to approve the Findings of Fact concerning the appeal hearing on behalf of
Barbara Harris, Secretary 11. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the
Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of the Findings of Fact concerning
the investigation hearing on behalf of Susan Cambridge, Planner I,
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING.
Linda Rice -Chapman; Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
appeared before the Board and stated that she did not have a copy of this item.
The Executive Secretary asked that the record reflect that all of the
documents pertaining to today's agenda were forwarded to Assistant City
Attorney Rice -Chapman. She went on to say that she believes that Assistant City
Attorney :�e-Chapman has been out of her office; therefore, she may not have
opened :nail.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman stated that she checked all of her
mail and she does not have the copies.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law on behalf of Susan Cambridge,
appeared -before the Board and stated that she would like to reiterate that her
client believes that there was a violation of Civil Service Rules 6.3, 6.5, and 5.1.
She went on to say that her client also disagrees with the findings and
conclusions that there was not a violation of the Civil Service Rules. .
PAGE 5 OF 28
12 2 'N
JANUARY 22, 2002
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Scarola, to approve the Findings of Fact concerning the investigation
hearing on behalf of Susan Cambridge, Planner I. The motion was approved (3-
2) by the Board as follows: AYES: Scarola, Garcia, Silverman. NOES: Cruz,
Rolle.
The Board was presented with a request from the Civil Service Board's
Special Counsel, Mark A. Valentine, that the matter concerning the grievance
hearing of Mr. Rafael Garcia be placed on today's Board agenda for discussion.
Mark A. Valentine, Special Counsel, appeared before the Board and stated
that in the matter of Mr. Rafael Garcia's grievance hearing, the Board found that
Lt. Edmond Croughwell violated Rule 17.
Chairman Silverman apprised those in attendance that this case involved a
matter wherein Identification Technician Rafael Garcia was told to speak English
only and he filed a discrimination complaint against Lt. Edmond Croughwell.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that subsequent to Mr. Garcia's
grievance hearing, he received a call from Lt. Croughwell. He went on to say that
Lt. Croughwell was not apprised of the hearing because the nature of the
complaint did not specify which Police Department employee violated Rule 17.
Special Counsel Valentine further stated that as a matter of procedure, the Civil
Service Board Office only sent notice to the Department concerning the hearing.
He stated that at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board found Lt. Croughwell in
violation of Rule 17. Special Counsel Valentine went on to say that his concern is
that Lt. Croughwell never received proper notice to come before the Board and
defend his actions. He further stated that Rule 17 does not allow for any post -
hearing procedures for the guilty party in this case to put forth a defense. Special
Counsel Valentine stated that his suggestion to the Board would be not to change
the Board's findings in this case, but to send a letter to Lt. Croughwell asking him
to come forward to show cause why he should not be held in violation of Rule 17.
He went on to say that by handling the situation in this manner, it would give Lt.
Croughwell an opportunity to refute the findings as to why he should not have
been found guilty of the charges. Special Counsel Valentine . further stated that
what has happened in this case is that the Board found Lt. Croughwell guilty of
charges without allowing him to have his day in court.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
appeared before the Board and stated that she agrees in principle with Special
Counsel Valentine: She went on to say that she and Special Counsel Valentine
have spoken about this matter, and she thinks that Lt. Croughwell should be
asked, to come before the Board to answer the charges brought against him.
PAGE 6 OF 2E
122C)e
•
JANUARY` 22 2002
Chairman Silverman asked if Lt. Croughwell was present at the meeting.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman answered in the negative.
Chairman Silverman asked if Lt. Croughwell received notice of thin . matter
on today's agenda. - A�..
The Executive Secretary answered in the affirmative. She went on to say
that she has a record of notice that was sent to Lt. Croughwell on January 18,
2002. The Executive Secretary further stated that Lt. Croughwell works the "C"
Shift; therefore, the notice was faxed to his office and placed in his mailbox.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law on behalf of Rafael Garcia,
appeared before the Board and stated that the March 14, 2001 letter that was
prepared by Mr. Rafael Garcia and submitted to Priscilla A. Thompson
specifically stated the following: "l feel that my Commanding Officer, Lt.
Edmond Croughwell, abused his power by giving me a verbal directive not
to speak in Spanish." She went on to say that from this statement, everyone
knew who Mr. Garcia was complaining about from the outset. Attorney Guttman -
Valdes further stated that the fact of the matter is a full-blown hearing was
conducted and the Board made a determination that Lt. Croughwell violated Rule
17. She stated that Rule 17 specifically indicates that if the Board finds any
classified City employee guilty of violating this Rule, that employee may be
dismissed, suspended, or demoted as the Board may determine. Attorney
Guttman -Valdes went on to say that the hearing was not done in secret;
therefore, if Lt. Croughwell chose not to attend the hearing then that was his
prerogative. She further stated that the Board needs to bring closure to this case.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that notice of the scheduled hearing
was given to the Department, but he was not sure if direct notice was given to Lt.
Croughwell. He went on to say that the Board did not impose an 80 -hour
suspension against the Department, but against Lt. Croughwell. Special Counsel
Valentine further stated that Rule 17 does not speak to a response on the part of
the employee who has been found in violation. He stated that he is not sure what
the proper solution would be in this case; however, he would suggest that Lt.
Croughwell be, given an opportunity to come before the Board.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that she could appreciate the dilemma the
Board is faced with; however, this is the Board that heard the case. She went on
to say. that this Board is aware of the evidence presented in this case, and
because a new Board, which did not hear the evidence, would have to rehear the
case, procedurally, she did not know how this would be fair to her client.
PAGE 7 OF -28
12226
JANUARY -22,2002 0
Chairman Silverman stated that the Board imposed an 80 -suspension on
Lt. Croughwell, and at that time, he expressed that he felt it was a violation of Lt.
Croughwell's right to due process. He went on to say that Lt. Croughwell was not
present at the meeting to defend himself; however, he still thinks Lt. Croughwell is
entitled to his day in court. Chairman Silverman further stated that as far as the
Board's finding in this case, he did not think there was a problem because
everyone agreed that what Lt. Croughwell did was improper. He stated that if Lt.
Croughwellwere to go to court on this matter, the decision would be reversed
because he was given an 80 -suspension without allowing him an opportunity to
defend himself. Chairman Silverman went on to say that he thinks the Board
should give Lt. Croughwell an opportunity to speak so that a decision could be
made on this matter. He further stated that if Lt. Croughwell is not satisfied with
the outcome of the hearing, he could then go to court. Chairman Silverman
stated that he did not think it would be proper to impose an 80 -hour suspension
on Lt. Croughwell and not give him an opportunity to speak; therefore, he would
approve what Special Counsel Valentine suggested on this matter.
Member Garcia asked Special Counsel Valentine if Lt. Croughwell were
allowed to defend himself, would his hearing be based on the Findings of Fact.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that what he had in mind was to send a
letter to Lt. Croughwell inviting him to come before the Board to show cause why
the.80-hour suspension should not be imposed upon him. He went on to say that
his aim would not be for a rehearing of the case, but an opportunity for Lt.
Croughwell to come before the Board to explain why the 80 -hour suspension
should not be imposed.
Member Scarola asked Special Counsel Valentine if Lt.. Croughwell would
only be arguing the penalty in this case.
Special Counsel Valentine answered in the affirmative. He went on to say
that he thinks that it would be unfair to Mr." Rafael Garcia to rehear the case.
Member Cruz, stated that 'Mr. Rafael Garcia appeared before the Board to
request an investigation and subsequently the Board granted him an
investigation. He went on to say that he does not understand why Lt. Croughwell
was not present at the hearing.
Chairman Silverman stated that there is a question as to whether or not Lt.
Croughwell received proper notice and whether or not the notice indicated that Lt.
Croughwell would be disciplined. He went on to say that Mr. Garcia's complaint
seemed to be asking the Board to investigate for the purpose of finding out
PAGE 8 OF 28
12 2! 2
JANUARY22; 2002
a
whether or not his rights were violated; however, he does thick the notice, if there
was a notice given, instructed Lt. Croughwell to show up at the meeting because
he could be disciplined. Chairman Silverman further stated that he does not think
Lt. Croughwell had his day in court, and if the Board does not give it to him,
someone else will.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Rolle, to grant a Show Cause hearing as it relates to the charge
brought against Police Lt. Edmond Croughwell. The motion was unanimously (5-
0) approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with a review of the Final Draft of Changes to the
Manual of Procedures for Conducting Hearings.
Mark A. Valentine, Special Counsel, appeared before the Board and stated
that he, along with Assistant City Attorney Linda Rice -Chapman and Attorney
Ronald J. Cohen, had the opportunity to review, per the Board's instructions, the
proposed Manual of Procedures for Conducting Hearings. He went on to say that
they reached a concensus as to some changes that needed to be made and he
reviewed these changes with the Board. Special Counsel Valentine further stated
that he would ask that the Board approve the proposed changes.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
appeared before the Board and stated that on page 11, second paragraph under
the subheading, Concluding a Hearing, it states, "if the employee is found not
guilty by the Board, the result cannot be overturned by the City Manager."
She went on to say that the City believes that this sentence should be removed
from the manual because the Charter and the Code set out the authority for the
City Manager to hire and fire and it gives authority to the Board to make
recommendations to the City Manager on issues. Assistant City Attorney Rice -
Chapman further stated that case law states that when the Board feels that an
employee is not guilty, the City {Manager should follow the Board's
recommendation unless the recommendation is not based on substantial and
competent evidence. She stated that the City Manager usually agrees with the
Board's recommendations; however, on those few occasions when does not, the
law allows the City Manager to disagree and do otherwise. Assistant City
Attorney Rice -Chapman went on to say that after the Board makes it
recommendation to the City Manager, it loses jurisdiction of the matter. She
further stated that she is sure the Board's Special Counsel would agree that if the
employee were unhappy with the City Manager's decision, the remedy would be
for the employee to go to court. She further stated that she is sure the Board
wants a Procedural Manual that correctly follows the law; therefore, the sentence
PAGE ,9 OF 28 2 63 2 6
JANUARY 22, 2002
on page 11 that dictates what the City Manager should do -in cases where the
Board finds an employee not guilty should be removed.
Chairman Silverman asked Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman if there
were any other changes she wished to be made to the manual.
Assistant City Attomey Rice -Chapman answered in the negat�v_: She
went on to say that she was in concurrence with the other changes that Special
Counsel Valentine made reference to during his presentation to the Board.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, appeared before the Board and stated
that Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman made mention of a case law that
gives the City Manager the authority to overturn the Board in cases where the
employee is found not guilty; however, he would be curious to know which case
law she was referring to. He went on to say that his view of the case law shows
that for approximately 54 years, the Third District Court of Appeals has held that
the City Manager is bound by the Findings of Fact approved by. the Civil Service
Board. Attorney Cohen further stated that in a recent case called Higgonbotham
v. City of Surfside, the Third District Court of Appeal, in a unanimous embank
decision, ruled that Miami -Dade County has to now function the same Way that
the City does in such cases. He stated that the City is pressing forward with false
statements that there is other case law; therefore, he would ask that the Board to
require Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman to name the case law she is
referencing. Attorney Cohen went on to say that he plans to seek sanctions from
the City in court for taking a frivolous position.
Attorney Cohen stated that on page 5, first sentence, which states in part,
the following: "it is understood ... the Waiver of Pay and Emoluments Form
for the duration of the continuance." Should be changed to read, for the
continuance of that continuance.
Attorney Cohen stated that he does not think the manual should speak to
the City as going against the employee in cases before the Board because this is
not what the Rule provides on this matter. He went on to say that any disciplinary
case before the Civil Service Board not be represented as the City versus an
employee, but the Department Director, versus an employee. Attorney Cohen
further stated that he does not know when the Board got away from presenting
the cases in the correct fashion, and nor does he understand its insistence on
doing it in a manner that is in clear contravention of the Rules. He stated that he
would ask that the manual be changed to set forth that the Assistant City Attorney
could represent the Department Director.
PAGE 10 OF 28 12226
JANUARY 22; 2002
Attorney Cohen stated that the Findings of Fact provision purports to need
work. He went on to say that he does not think anyone was in agreement as to
what the Findings of Fact should say; however, the Findings of Fact that he
receive include the violations that the employee was charged with and the
Board's finding in the case. Attorney Cohen further stated that he thinks the
proper way to prepare Findings of Fact is to properly charge a person because
the person reading the- Findings of Fact needs to know which charges the Board
voted on. He stated that the manual indicates, with respect to the Findings of
Fact, that a conclusion by itself is insufficient; however, this is what he receives
when he receives a copy of the Findings of Fact for review. Attorney Cohen went
on to say that he challenges anyone to show him one Findings of Fact that does
not include just a conclusion.
Attorney Cohen stated that with respect to grievances and investigations
that appear on page 13 of the manual, he thinks these sections are inadequate.
He went on to say that he understands that the Board wants to get the manual
completed before there is a new Board; however, he is sure all will agree that
these sections need to be worked on.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that he would ask that the Board
approve the proposed changes to the manual because this would be the Board's
final vote on this issue.
Member Garcia stated that in order to avoid what the Board experienced
with the Rafael Garcia's Rule 17 hearing, he would like to know if his suggestion
of notifying the accused party to be present at a hearing should be included in the
Manual of Procedures for conducting Hearings.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that the manual is only a document that
is consistent with the current Rules; therefore, the matter concerning Rafael
Garcia w �Id require a change to Rule 17.
ME .oer Garcia stated that because the manual is to show how the Board
operates, should not the new Board have this information so that it would know
that the accused party should be present when the hearing is scheduled.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that this could be taken care of with a
Rule change.
Member Garcia stated that he understood that a Rule change should be in
place; however, he feels that the new Board needs to be given an opportunity to
review Rule 17 and prepare a draft for the Board's approval. He went on to say
PAGE 11 OF 28
JANUARY 22, 2002
that he thinks the Board needs to take into consideration -that should it have
another Rule 17 hearing, it would be faced with the same situation.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that he did not think that the information
should be included in the manual because the purpose of the manual is to mirror
the Rules. He went on to say that as a matter of practice; however, based upon
what happened in the Rafael Garcia case, he thinks a notice should be sent to
the accused employee.
The Executive Secretary stated that the manual is based upon the current
Civil Service Rules. She went on to say that as the Civil Service Rules are
amended, the manual would have to be updated. The Executive Secretary
further stated that the manual is not a stagnant document because it would
change as the Rules change.
Member Cruz stated that if the Board finds an employee not guilty of the
charges, such as in the cases of Police Officers Barbara Shaffner, Carrie Mathis,
etc., he does not think the City Manager should be able to overturn the Board's
decision. He went on to say that if the Board found the employee guilty of any of
the charges, the City Manager could then.modify the charges.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, appeared before the Board and stated
that he feels that if the Board is going to have a manual, he thinks it should
address all aspects of the procedures or it should be called a Manual on
Disciplinary Proceedings because 90% of the information included in the manual
deals with disciplinary hearings and the other 10% deals with Rules 16, 17, and
Unsatisfactory Service Rating Hearings. He went on to say that he does not
understand why the Civil Service Board would have a Manual for Rule 14
hearings and not for Rules 16, 17, and Unsatisfactory 'Service Rating Hearings.
Attorney Cohen further stated that the information on Rules 16, 17, and
Unsatisfactory Service Rating Hearings might be incomplete at this time;
however, he still thinks the information should be included in the manual. He
stated that the customers of the Civil Service Board were asked to give
comments concerning the manual and his law firm did that. Attorney Cohen went
on to say that in no way can the manual be considered a waiver of anybody's
rights that come before the Board. He further stated that the Board could have a
Policy Manual if it chooses to do so; however, it is the Civil Service Rules and not
the manual that governs the hearings.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman stated that she concurred with most
of the things that Attorney Cohen mentioned about the procedures manual. She
went on to say that she also feels that the final few pages of the manual should
be flushed out; however, she does not think this should hold up the process.
PAGE 12 OF 28. s� ��
JANUARY 22,2002'
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman furth&'stated that she would be happy to
work with Attorney Cohen and Special Counsel Valentine to augment the
changes so that when the manual is updated, these changes could be included.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Cruz, to adopt the proposed manual with the amended changes
made by Special Counsel Mark A. Valentine.
For clarification purposes, the Executive Secretary asked Chairman
Silverman if the Board was adopting exactly what Special Counsel Valentine
submitted, and that the Board was not taking into consideration the other
discussions on this matter.
Chairman Silverman stated that the Board took into consideration all of the
discussions on this matter; however, it is voting on the changes submitted by
Special Counsel Valentine..
Following further discussion, the motion on the floor was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
A copy of the November, 2001 Monthly Report from Angela R. Bellamy,
Director, DEPARTMENT OF -HUMAN RESOURCES, to the Board, on personnel
matters, was noted by the Board.
The Board was presented with a request from Lewis Sparks for an
appearance before the Civil Service Board concerning his desire to be re-
employed as a Waste Equipment Operator with the Department of Solid Waste.
Lewis Sparks, 17210 N.W. 43 Avenue, appeared before the Board and
stated that he is requesting to be re-employed as a Crane Operator for the City of
Miami.
Chairman Silverman informed Mr. .Sparks that his understanding of
requests for re-employment is that an employee could be re-employed if the
Department Director endorses the employee's request; however, in Mr. Sparks'
case, the Department Director did not endorse his request.
Jim- Kindl, Personnel Safety Officer, DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE,
appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Sparks was employed with the
Solid Waste Department for 10 years and that he left the City on his -own accord.
He went on to say that Mr. Sparks had a satisfactory work record; therefore, the
Department has no objection to Mr. Sparks' name being placed on a re-
employment list.
PAGE 13 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002
Chairman Silverman stated that he thinks that the comments made by Mr.
Kindl solves the matter concerning Mr. Sparks.
The Executive Secretary informed the Board that the re-employment
process require that she have something in writing forwarded to the Civil Service
Board Office from the Department supporting Mr. Sparks' request for re-
employment. She went on to say that Mr. Sparks needs to resubmit his letter to
the Department Director of Solid Waste, and then the Department Director would
send the endorsement to the Civil Service Board Office.
No other discussion took place on this matter.
A copy of a letter from Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney,
notifying the Board of her inability to stay beyond 2:00 PM at today's meeting was
noted by the Board.
The Board was presented wir. a copy of a letter from Linda Rice -
Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, requesting a continuance of the investigation
Hearing on behalf of Jose Romano, Principal Staff Auditor.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
appeared before the Board and stated that she notified the Board of labor
negotiations that are scheduled for this afternoon; therefore, she requested a
continuance of Mr. Jose Romano's investigation hearing because she is not
prepared to proceed with this matter today.
Chairman Silverman asked the Executive Secretary if Mr. Romano's
hearing had been continued before.
The Executive Secretary answered in the negative. She went on to say
that this is the first time the hearing was scheduled and this isthe first
continuance requested by the City.
Jose Arrojo, Attorney at Law on behalf of Principal Staff Auditor Jose
Romano, appeared before the Board and stated that he objected to the City's
request for a continuance. He went on to say that the misconduct that is
complained about in the case that is before the Board began in April 1999 and is
ongoing. Attorney Arrojo further stated that the notice for today's hearing was
sent out in November 2001; therefore, the City had at least two months notice.
He stated that there are also a number of witnesses present for today's hearing.
Attorney Arrojo went on to say that even though it is true that Assistant City
Attorney Rice -Chapman notified him that she would be requesting a continuance,
PAGE 14 OF 28
JANUARY 22, 2002 -
his client objects to the continuance because they are prepared to go forward
with his case today.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman stated that she was under the
impression that Attorney Arrojo had no objection to her continuance request. She
went on to say -that she provided Attorney Arrojo with her home telephone
number because she was off work for several days; however, he did not call to let
her know that he changed his mind about her continuance request. Assistant
City Attorney Rice -Chapman further stated that she was not prepared to go
forward with her case today.
Attorney Arrojo stated that he did see the correspondence that was
submitted by Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman. He went on to say that
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman indicated in her letter that she was not
able to secure his acquiesce to the continuance; however, he believes that this is
an inaccurate statement. Attorney Arrojo further stated that he spoke to his client
about the matter and he c-iected to the continuance.
Member Cruz stated that on one hand, one attorney has all of his
witnesses present and ready to proceed with his case whereas on the other
hand, the other attorney is not ready and has requested a continuance. He went
on to say that he did not know if the reason for the continuance request was to
have 'a new and more receptive Board. Member Cruz further stated that if the
Board wished to approve the City's request for a continuance, he could not,
because the witnesses are present and the City had at least a 2 -month notice of
this scheduled hearing.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman stated that the Board knows that
she rarely asks for a continuance and that it also knows that she rarely objects
when the opposite side requests a continuance. She went on to say that she
would ask that the Board grant her request for a continuance because she is not
available for a long hearing due to the negotiations matter she has scheduled this
afternoon.
Chairman Silverman stated that it has been the Board's policy to grant
each side one free continuance. He went on to say that such continuances
normally apply in appeal cases; however, he thinks it would apply in this case
also.
Following discussion, Member Cruz made a motion to deny the City's
request for a continuance of Mr. Jose Romano's investigation hearing. The
motion died for lack of a second.
PAGE 15 OF 28
JANUARY 22, 2002
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded -by Member Scaroia,
to grant the City's request for a continuance of Mr. Jose Romano's investigation
hearing.
Member Scarola stated that he is aware that the talk of contract
negotiations did not come up until last week, and it was at that time that dates
were confirmed for meeting on this matter; therefore_, he was in favor of granting
the City's request for a continuance.
Following further discussion, the motion on the floor was approved (4-1) by
the Board with Member Cruz dissenting.
The Board was presented with copies of letters from Steven R. Brownstein,
Attorney at Law, requesting a continuance of the Investigation Hearing on behalf
of Hattie Willis. The Board noted that Jim Montalvo, Attorney at Law, expressed
no objection to the continuance. The hearing was scheduled for today.
The Executive Secretary stated that Ms. Willis' hearing was scheduled
before and a request for a continuance was granted to Ms. Willis. She went on to
say that she has in her possession copies of letters from a number of attorneys
concerning the matter of Ms. Hattie Willis' case. The Executive Secretary further
stated that Attorney Brownstein had asked that Ms. Willis' investigation hearing
be continued so that Attorney Phillips could argue the jurisdictional matter on
behalf of the IAFF. She stated that Attorney Phillips could not be at the meeting
today, and Attorney Brownstein did not want to go forth with the hearing until the
jurisdictional portion was settled. The Executive Secretary went on to say that it
is her understanding that outside counsel for the City has also agreed to a
continuance of the investigation hearing on behalf of Ms. Hattie Willis.
Chairman Silverman stated that based upon what he heard, the proposal
would be to handle this matter in two parts. He went on to say that the first part
would be to determine if the Board has jurisdiction to hold an investigation in the
matter concerning Ms. Willis, and secondly, iMt is determined that the Board does
have jurisdiction, the investigation hearing would take place.
Following discussion, Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Rolle, to grant Attorney Brownstein's request for a continuance of Ms.
Hattie Wiflis' investigation hearing. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved
by the Board.
The Board was presented with a copy of a memo from Albert Pacheco,
'Police Officer, requesting an investigation pursuant to Civil Service Rule 16..2.
Complaint by Employee, on behalf of himself and a group of Police Officers,
PAGE 16 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002
concerning an alleged violation of Civil Service Rules 6.3 Contents of
Examination and 6.5 Method of Rating.
Members Scarola and Garcia recused themselves from discussion of this
item because they were participants in the Police Sergeant exam that is in
question and left the Commission Chambers.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law, appeared before the Board and
stated that she was making a limited appearance on behalf of Officer Albert
Pacheco and a group of other Police Officers. She went on to say that she would
ask that this request be continued because she would prefer to have this request
heard before the new Board.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF. LAW,
appeared before the Board and stated that she had no objection to the
continuance request.
Following discussion, Member Cruz made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Rolle, to grant Officer Pacheco's request for a continuance. The
motion was unanimously (3-0) approved by the Board.
The Board entered into the scheduled appeal hearing on behalf of Jose
Romano, Principal Staff Auditor, pursuant to Rule 16.1 Investigation by the
Board., concerning an alleged violation of Rule 14.2(k).
The Board took no action on this case because a continuance was granted
at today's meeting.
The Board entered into the scheduled investigation hearing on behalf of
Hattie Willis pursuant to Civil Service Rule 16.1, Investigation by the Board,
concerning a complaint against the Fire -Rescue Department due to an alleged
violation of Civil Service Rules 14.2 (h), (i), and (k).
The Board took no action on this case because a continuance was granted
at today's meeting.
The .Board entered into the scheduled hearing portion for a final remedy on
behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police and Police Lieutenants, pursuant to Rule
16.2. Complaint by Employee, concerning the manner in which the 1998 Police
Captain's promotional examination was administered.
Chairman Silverman stated that he had two letters from' two Police
Lieutenants who could not be present at the meeting. He went on to ask the
PAGE 17 OF 28
JANUARY 22, 2002 ft
Executive Secretary to read into the record the letters received from Police
Lieutenant Kenneth Nelson who is on military leave and Police Lieutenant
Andrew Vera. Chairman Silverman asked if Lt. Vera was present.
The Executive Secretary answered in the negative. She went on to say
that Lt. Vera made his statement before the Board at the last meeting indicating
that he would follow any decisions made by the Board on this case.
Chairman Silverman instructed the Executive Secretary to read the letters,
with the exclusion of the attachments, into the record.
The Executive Secretary stated that the first letter she would read into the
record would be from Lt. Kenneth H. Nelson with reference to the 1998 Police
Captain's Examination, Fraternal Order of Police, et.al, Civil Service Board Case
No. 99-34G.
Dear Ms. Thompson:
I am currently on active duty at the Pentagon in support of Operations
Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom. - While I would like to personally appear
before the Civil Service Board to discuss the facts and impact of the 1998
Captain's examination, mission requirements and the fact that I am out-of-
town
utoftown preclude my appearance. I respectfully request that my attached
letter be read into the record and considered by the Civil Service Board
when making their decision on final remedy of the 1998 Captain's
examination.
I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration and look
forward to my return and service to the City of Miami Police Department -
Respectfully,
Kenneth d 1. Nelson
Police Lieutenant'
The Executive Secretary stated that Lt. Nelson's letter is dated January 15,
2002 and proceeded to read it into the record:
"Dear Civil Service Board Members:
PAGE '18 OF 28
22fo
JANUARY 22, 2002
On Tuesday, 01/22102, the Civil Service Board (CSB) will decide the
final remedy reference the 1998 Captain's exam.. In a prior hearing the CSB
ruled that the City of Miami erred in allowing exam candidates extra time to
take the Captain's test based upon ADA guidelines. During the deliberation
phase the CSB, without allowing any witness testimony as to who was
affected: decided that 3 candidates were adversely impacted and should be
entitled to some type of compensation. The compensation was to be
determined i believe at a later CSB hearing.
In deciding only that 3 candidates were adversely impacted the CSB
took a very narrow -and limited view. If the CSB were to base a decision
solely on the exam process itself, the CSB decision would have been
appropriate. However in reaching the decision the CSB did not consider
the following important and relevant facts:
fine were given an
advantage. If all other candidates were 'given the same additional time `it is
more than reasonable to assume that all candidates scores would have
improved significantly thus altering the final scores and rankings among
candidates. There is a very good possibility that:
C, Some candidates who got promoted would not have been
promoted had additional time been given.
o Some candidates who did not get promoted would have
significantly improved their scores and gotten promoted had
they been given additional time.
assignments, promotions, vacations and seniority. Vacation priority is
based on seniority and seniority can be a determining factor when the
Department decides future assignments and promotions. It is very
probable that the Chidf of Police in selecting staff assignments may give
favorable consideration to someone who has 5 years seniority as a Captain
over someone who has 2 years seniority.
yro�noted. Thus, these promotees will be given unfair increased)
compensation at the expense and .detriment to all others in the City of
Miami Police and Fire Pension system.
PAGE 19 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002 %.
Since 9982, Miami -Dade County has been sued once over Promotional
exams. On the contrary, the City of Miami is inundated with countless
lawsuits each and every time they have given an exam. Police promotional
exams are designed to assess an employee's potential for increased
responsibilities and job assignments within the police department Federal
labor law mandates that a promotion exam be free from biases and unfair
advantages to individual employees.
The Civil Service Board is charged to ensure that the City of Miami
provides a reasonable and fair promotional exam to all employees of the
classified service. i trust that you will consider the above facts and put the
City of Miami on notice (and at the same time hold them accountable) so
that all affected parties are made whole as well as direct(mandate that all
future promotional exams are fair, equitable and free from manipulation and
faulty design.
Respectfully,
Kenneth H. Nelson
Police Lieutenant
C: Ronald J. Cohen, P.A.
Linda Rice -Chapman
Assistant City Attomey
-Department of Law"
Tre Executive Secretary stated that the second memo comes from Lt.
Andrew A. Vera, dated January 16, 2002, with reference to the subject,
Statement of Position for the 1998 Captain's Exam.
"This memorandum serves as -my statement regarding the Civil
Service hearing scheduled for January 22, 2002 reference remedy for the
1998 Captain's Exam. Unfortunately, I cannot attend this hearing in person
to offer this statement because I will be out of town on a trip (cannot be
canceled or changed) and I strongly wish that the matter is NOT continued
any further. I want the Civil Service Board members to make 'a final
determination, so I may continue with my aloe Drocess.
In point of reference and given the length of time that has elapsed
since the first hearing on March 6, 20011 would like to refresh the Board'
memory of what has transpired to date:
_ PAGE 20 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002
On March 6, 2001 the FOP presented an argument seeking a remedy
for a group of Captain candidates that were affected by the 1998 Captain's
exam. In their discussion they presented evidence that several candidates
erroneously received extra time on a time competitive examination that
resulted in two candidates being promoted to the rank of captain. A third
candidate, also receiving extra time, did not score sufficiently for
promotion. He was nevertheless, given extra time improperly. The Board,
in reviewing all the testimony - and evidence, concluded that not all
complainants were aggrieved. Chairman Silverman made a motion to
dismiss all the complainants with the exception of Thomas Roell, Andrew
Vera, and William Schwartz and consider a remedy for three aggrieved
individuals (Please refer to the copy of the March 6 minutes). The motion
was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board. A second hearing to
determine remedy was to be scheduled..
I scheduled a hearing on my behalf for September 4, 2001 because
the FOP no longer represented me. As per the instructions of the Board
from the March 6 hearing, on August 13, 2001, 1 submitted an offer for
remedy to the City Attorney, Alejandro Vilarello (see copy of memorandum).
As of the date of this memorandum, I have not been given a reply to my
request. On the September 4h hearing, the City asked for a continuance
because they were not ready (they never met with me). 1 told the Board that
I made an attempt for remedy and that the City did not respond. The FOP
stated they were not prepared nor have they discussed any remedy with the
City. The Board granted the continuance, but again instructed all parties
meet and to determine a remedy. Linda Chapman, attorney for the City,
said that she would do so.
On October 2, 2001 we returned before the Board to what was thought
to be the final hearing on this matter. At that time, the City announced that
they would agree (their remedy) to one position, while admitting no fault of
their own. This announcement was not made in any deliberations or
negotiation with me, Thomas Roell or William Schwartz. Clearly, the City
did not follow the instructions of the Board when they were told twice to
meet with the complainants and negotiate a remedy. As a result of the
announcement the Board motioned for another continuance because the
offer from the City did not address the three complainants.
It is to my knowledge that the "dismissed" members from the March 6
complaint have. asked for the FOP -s attorney (Note: the FOP is not
representing this group, the group hired the FOP attorney separately on
their own) to argue before the Board that all of the original complainants
PAGE 21 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002
are aggrieved and should receive remedy. I DO NOT ENDORSE this view
and take a position contrary to the FOP. The Board properly ruled on
March 6, that the next three candidates on the promotional register were
eligible for remedy. The FOP has no grounds or standing to have the Board
reverse its original position on this matter. The January 22 hearing for
remedy resolution only, it is not to readdress the merits of the *' arch 6
ruling. I strongly urge you NOT to consider this argument. On Jarruary 22,
2002, l request that the Board makes a final determination of remedy on this
matter on by behalf.
. Conclusion: I will agree to whatever the Board concludes. My
primary desire is to get past this stage of the process so I may continue
with whatever legal avenues are available. Three continuances is more
than enough and the City has demonstrated a total reluctance to negotiate
a remedy with the three complainants. In his history of the Civil Service
Board, I found the members to be honest and fair in their decisions. i
anticipate receiving no less.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Andrew A. Vera"
Jena Mendez, Attorney at Law on behalf of Police Captains David Rivero,
Thomas Cannon, and Sebastian Aguirre and Police Lieutenants Thomas Roell,
William Schwartz, Michael Colombo, Craig McQueen, Brenda Williams, Albert
Vila, Comelious Drane, and Richard Walterman, appeared before the Board and
stated that she is asking the Board to reconsider its previous motion which denied.
her clients having a remedy in this case.
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Mendez if she mentioned that she was
representing Lt. William Schwartz.
Attorney Mendez answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Silverman informed Attorney Mendez that Lt. Schwartz was one
of the three individuals that the Board said would be entitled to a remedy. He
went on to ask Attorney Mendez if she felt this would be a conflict.
. Attorney Mendez answered in the negative. She went on to say that she is
arguing that Lt. Schwartz as well as her other clients are entitled to a remedy.
PAGE 22 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002
Attorney Mendez further stated that she disagrees with the Board's previous
finding that her clients should not be remedied and that she would like to explain
to the Board why she does not agree. She stated that her first question is who
should be remedied. Attorney Mendez went on to say that everybody on the
certified list should receive a remedy and that she is basing her position on case
law, United States of America v. City of Miami, 195 F.3d 1292. She further stated
that this court case dealt with the 1992 Police Sergeant exam in which some
candidates received an unfair advantage. Attorney Mendez stated that the court
held that only those who were on the certified list should receive a remedy and
that it was not to be stopped at the next two or three people on the list; however,
the Board has suggested that this be done. She went on to say that it is
impossible for the Board to engage in a hypothetical argument of who would have
been the next person to be promoted. Attorney Mendez further stated that if the
Board is going to provide a remedy, it has to be done based on the actual harm to
the person and not on "what ifs". She stated that the only person eligible for
promotion would be those names appearing on the certification list, which is
forwarded to the Police Chief. Attorney Mendez went on to say that she believes
that the Board erred when it denied the complaint of several of her clients by
saying that they would not have been promoted.
Attorney Mendez stated that her second question, is what remedy should
those on the certification list receive. She went on to say that the court did not
say that everyone on the certification list should be promoted, receive back pay,
or pension because this would cause an undue hardship on 'the City. Attorney
Mendez further stated that the court's remedy was to find out how many
promotions were being made and take the value (pension, back pay, pay
increase, etc.) of the number of promotions and add them together. She stated
that once a total was obtained, the total was to be divided between everyone on
the certification list who either was promoted or their promotion was -delayed.
Attorney Mendez went on to say that this is the remedy she is proposing on
behalf of clients.
r -
C; h:.Iman Silverman asked Attorney Mendez if it is Lt. Schwartz' position
that he should be promoted to Police Captain.
Attorney Mendez answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Mendez if she felt it would be a
conflict since she is now asking that the benefits be totaled and divided between
everyone on, the certification list as opposed to being promoted.
Attorney Mendez stated that she would have to find out where Lt. Schwartz
was placed on the certification list.
PAGE 23 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002
Chairman Silverman stated that Lt. Schwartz was one of the top three
persons that the Board recommended a remedy.
Attorney Mendez stated that she represents Lt. Schwartz because he
agreed to the same remedy that her other clients agreed to.
John Burhmaster, Police Lieutenant, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE,
appeared before the Board .and stated that it has already been determined that
individuals received an unfair advantage in the manner for which the exam was
administered. He went on to say that if those individuals are removed from the
certification list, he would be the next person added to the certified list; therefore,
he feels that he should have an equal share by having his name added to the
certification list so that he could have a share in the remedy.
Donna Baldwin, Attorney at Law on behalf of Police Lieutenant Kevin
McKinnon, appeared before the Board and stated that Lt. McKinnon's name was
on the eligible register, but not on the certification list. She went on to say that
her client agrees, in principle, as to what Attorney Mendez had to say on this
matter; however, her client disagrees with her statement that only persons'
names appearing on the certification list should be included in the remedy.
Attorney Baldwin further stated that the Board heard Lt. Buhrmaster's argument
that his name is on the eligible register, but it should be added to the certification
list. She stated that rather than have the Board get into that type of decision, her
client believes that everyone on the eligible register should be included. Attorney
Baldwin went on to say that the case law that Attorney Mendez has relied upon
had to do with the Rule of 8; however, this Rule no longer applies. She further
stated that they also believe that only attributing a remedy to those on the
certification list would not apply. Attorney Baldwin stated that she believes that
the remedy discussed in the court case is correct because one would be
considering an entire list from which 23 candidates were not selected for
promotion. She went on to say that the court's remedy would be that each
candidate receive a 1/23 share of the value of the promotion that was denied.
Attorney Baldwin stated that she believes that Lt. McKinnon and the other
candidates on the eligible register should be included in the remedy.
Attorney Baldwin stated that another reason she believes that everyone on
the eligible register should be included in the remedy is had extra time been
given, there would be no way to determine which ones on the eligible register
would have gotten a higher score. She went on to say that she believes that they
are dealing; with a matter of fundamental fairness and justice and that the Board
has an opportunity to do justice in this case. Attomey Baldwin further stated that
Lt. McKinnon has been in this fight from the beginning and that he testified at the
PACE 24 OF 28
22
i JANUARY 22, 2002
hearing where. the liability was found that the three candidates should not have
been given extra time. She stated that to exclude Lt. McKinnon.at the final hour
when a remedy is being given is not just or fair; therefore, she would ask that the
Board do justice and not just apply a court case that they believe no longer
applies.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, appeared before the Board and stated
that he has previously told Executive Secretary Priscilla A. Thompson that his
firm no longer represents anybody in this case.
Linda Rice -Chapman, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
appeared before the Board and stated that she would like to remind the Board
that it has already dismissed all but three of the complainants in this case and
that the other complainants have no jurisdiction to participate in the remedy
portion of this hearing. She went on to say that Lt. Vera was not a part of the
original group, but joined this matter in the middle of the hearing. Assistant City
Attorney Rice -Chapman further stated that contrary to what has been said on this
matter, she does not bei,eve that the Board ruled that three persons were
affected, but perhaps, maybe one or two positions were affected. She stated that
the City previously announced that it was willing to make one promotion.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman went on to say that the extra time that was
given Police Captain Childress amounted to two minutes, which was minimal;
therefore, this should not trigger an automatic promotion. She further stated that
it is interesting to note that the employees are now saying that they want the
Board to use the Rule of 1. Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman stated that the
Police Chief and the Department Director of Human Resources have agreed with
the conWpt of making one promotion to remedy this matter. She went on to say
that she awaits the Board's recommendation to advise the City Manager as to
what it wishes the City to do in this case.
Chairman Silverman asked Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman if any of
the three individuals (Police Lieutenants Thomas Roell, Andrew Vera, and
William Schwartz) were promoted to Police Captain.
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman answered in the negative. She went
on to say that Lt. Vera should not be considered in the remedy because he was
added in the middle of the case.
Chairman Silverman asked Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman if it is
the City's position to promote one individual to Police Captain.
PAGE 25 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002
Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman answered in the affirmative. She
went on to say that the Police Chief has agreed to wait to hear what the Board
recommends in this case.
Chairman Silverman reminded Assistant City Attorney Rice -Chapman that
the Board asked her, Attorney Cohen, and Lt. Vera to meet and come up with a
recommendation for a remedy. He went on to say that the City's position now is
that it is'willing to promote one individual.
Attorney Mendez stated that the case law she presented to the Board is
still good case law and is applicable to the Board's consideration. She went on to
say that although the City uses the Rule of 1 today to promote candidates in rank
order, that Rule was not in effect when the certification, list was given to the Police
Chief with respect to the Police Lieutenant exam. Attorney Mendez further stated
that if there is a future litigation in this case, the courts would rely on and follow
the same rationale as to what questions should be asked and what the answers
should be that she explained to the Board. Attorney Mendez. went on to say that
it is her opinion that if the Board were to rule that only one person should be
promoted, there would be future litigation, the Board's decision would be
overruled, and the court would based the remedy on case law.
Mark A. Valentine, Special Counsel, appeared before the Board and stated
that he knows that there was discussion about how many of the complainants
would receive a remedy, but he could not remember the exact number.
Chairman Silverman stated that he believes the approved motion included
three individuals to receive a remedy in this case. He went on to say that he
wants everyone to understand that this is not the end of this matter because
these cases usually end up in court. Chairman Silverman further stated that
whatever the Board recommends in this case is not the end, but the next step in
the proc- ire. He stated that it seems to him that there are two matters to be
concern. -vith in this case. Chairman Silverman went on to say that the two
matters c, concern are: (1) a remedy for the.three individuals (Police Lieutenants
Thomas Roell, Andrew Vera, and William Schwartz) or (2) to decide whether or
not to approve a motion for a rehearing to include everyone on the eligible
register or everyone on the certification list.
Member Cruz stated that last month there were a lot of promotions in the
Police Department, but none of the promotions included the rank of Police
Captain.
Member Garcia stated that he had a concern with Attorney Mendez'
argument. He went on to say that he was aware of the 1992 case law; however,
PAGE 26'®F 28
X2226
F JANUARY 22, 2002
in his opinion, that case law conflicts with Judge Highsmith's ruling of 1995 that
dealt with affirmative action. Member Garcia further stated that his biggest
concern is a verbal agreement between the City and the Fraternal Order of Police
as to how promotions would be handled after the certification list has been given
to the Police Chief. He stated that the Police Chief is mandated to promote in
rank order. Member Garcia went on. to say that the Rule of 8 no longer applies;
therefore based upon Judge Highsmith's ruling, this is how the Board came up
with the names of the three individuals.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Chairman Silverman, to deny the requests for a rehearing. The motion was
approved (3-2) by the Board as follows: AYES: Rolle, Garcia, Silverman. NOES:
Cruz, Scarola.
Chairman Silverman called for a motion in the remedy portion concerning
the three Police Lieutenants
Chairman Silverman relinquished the Chair and made a motion, which was
seconded by Member Garcia, to recommend to the City Manager that Police
Lieutenants Thomas Roell, Andrew Vera, and William Schwartz be promoted to
the rank of Police Captain. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the
Board.
Sebastian Aguirre, Police Captain, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, appeared
before the Board and asked if, based on the Board's ruling in this matter, the
complainants exhausted their administrative remedies.
Chairman Silverman answered in the affirmative. He went on to say that
the complainants could move on to the next step in the process.
No other. discussion took place on this matter.
The following items for discussion were not included on today's printed
agenda:
Member 'Scarola stated that this is his last meeting; therefore, he would like
to say that for the past two years, Special Counsel Mark A. Valentine, Executive
Secretary- Priscilla A. Thompson and her staff have been very attentive to his
requests. He went on to say that if the City operated as efficiently as these two
offices, it would be good shape.
PAGE 27 OF 28
12226
JANUARY 22, 2002
Chairman Silverman stated that the office staff has been terrific. He went
on to say. to Board Members Garcia, Scaroia, Cruz, and Rolle that he enjoyed
working with them and that they did a terrific job while serving on the Board.
Member Rolle stated that she enjoyed serving on the Civil Service Board
and she is not sure whether or not she would be -returning for the next terry. She
went on to say that if she does not return for the next term, she would as+,"Miat all
continue produce good work, love each other, work together, and abide by the
Civil Service Rules.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:23 AM.
GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAGE 28 OF 28
.x.2226
Second Reading Ordinance
TO
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
FROM:
nez
City Manager
I I
DATE - March 26, 2002 FILE:
SUBJECT:
Sunsetting of the City of Miami
Budget and Finances Review
REFERENCEPmmlttee
ENCLOSURES
The City of Miami Budget and Finances Review Committee duplicates the purpose and duties
of the Finance Committee and the Estimating Conference. Therefore, it is respectfully
requested that the City Commission approve sunsetting the City of Miami Budget and
Finances Review Committee and repealing its corresponding section in the Code of the City
of Miami.
Attachment
CAG'MP:ps
. (-� I -W f,d a
Second Reading Ordinance
TO: DATE:
The Honorable Mayor and -
Members of the City Commission SUBJECT:
i
Lai • r - -
•a
RECOMMENDATION
12
FILE :
ORDINANCE Amending Chapter 54/
Article VI of the Code of the City of
REFERENCES: Miami entitled "Streets and Sidewalks"
and "Sidewalk Cafes"
ENCLOSURES:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Ordinance
amending Chapter 54%Article VI of the Code of the City of Miami entitled "Streets and
Sidewalks" and "Sidewalk Cafes".
BACKGROUND
In order to alleviate the adverse economic effect on business resulting from the
September l l u, tragedy, it is appropriate to 1) reduce the annual permit fee from
$20.00/SF to $10.00/SF; 2) afford a one-time credit of 50% of the permit fee paid or
billed on existing Sidewalk Permit Fee accounts for the fourth quarter of 2001, and 3)
provide for a one-time 12 -month payment plan to allow existing delinquent sidewalk
permit fee accounts to become current.
During FY01, the dollar amount of sidewalk cafe fees billed was $85,604. During the
same period, we issued fourteen (14) sidewalk cafe permits.
J/
CAG/FKR/Ymm
3��oz .:
W 1219Sidewalk Cafe ORDINANCE- MEMO
x.24,40
Second Reading Ordinanc
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members DATE: APR 1 G
of the City Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
13
FILE :
SUBJECT: Ordinance to Establish two (2)
Special Revenue Funds for Model
City Homeownership Pilot Project
REFERENCES. City Commission Agenda
ENCLOSURES. April 25, 2002
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached ordinance
establishing two (2) Special Revenue Funds to appropriate grant funds from two (2) special
project federal grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
the Model City Homeownership Pilot Project in the amounts of $700,000 and $340,000
respectively.
BACKGROUND:
As a result of staff's working meetings last year with Congresswoman Carrie Meek and her
Congressional staff and Senator Bill Nelson's senatorial staff in Washington, D.C., the
Department of Community Development was successful in receiving two (2) special project
federal grants for the Model City Homeownership Pilot Project.
The City of Miami was awarded $700,000 from the Neighborhood Initiative account for certain
earmarked projects and $340,000 from the Economic Development Initiative account for certain
special projects in support of the Model City Homeownership Pilot Project.
It is recommended that the City Commission adopted the proposed ordinance to establish the two
(2) Special Revenue Funds relating to the award of the aforementioned special grants.
1-6v 1
I)8/G/DF
BUDGET IMPACT ANALYSIS
The financial impact on the City is the award of funding in the amount of
$700,000 from the Neighborhood Initiative account and $340,000 from the Economic
Development Initiative account for certain projects in support of the Model
City Homeownership Pilot Project and will not impact the General Fund.
12229