HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-11933J-00-461
5/16/00.
11.933
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", BY INCREASING THE ANNUAL
VACATION ACCRUAL RANGES FOR CLASSIFIED
MANAGERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FROM AN
ADDITIONAL EIGHT TO SIXTY HOURS; MORE
PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 40-105 (c);
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Board, at its regular meeting of
April 18, 2000, unanimously voted to amend Rule 15, Section 15.2,
subsections (d) through (f), by increasing the annual vacation
accrual ranges for classified managerial and confidential
employees; and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary to amend Section 40-105 (c) 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:
- 11933
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Ordinance are hereby adopted by reference
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. Chapter 40/Article III/Section 40-105 (c), of
the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, is hereby
amended in the following particulars:,
"Chapter 40
PERSONNEL
ARTICLE III. Civil Service Rules and Regulations
Sec. 40-105. Vacation with pay.
(c) Number of days available:
(3) Classified Employees who have been designated as
Managerial or Confidential by the Public Employees
Relations Commission will also be allowed vacation
with pay after completion of six months of actual
continuous service.
(4) Calculated on actual service in the previous
calendar year, the vacation with paw schedule is
as follows:
J 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.
1
Page 2 of 4
SUPPORT STAFF
YEARS OF SERVICE VACATION HOURS
C!
112
7 128
Each year thereafter, Support Staff employees will
be granted an additional 4 hours of vacation time.
No additional vacation time will be granted to
Support Staff employees after 31 years of service.
PROFESSIONAL
YEARS OF SERVICE VACATION HOURS
3 120
5 136
Each year thereafter, but ending with the 13th
year of service, Professional employees will be
granted an additional 8 hours of vacation.
After the 17th vear of service and the 22nd vear of
service, Professional employees will be granted 24
additional hours of vacation time respectively.
After the 27th year of service an additional 8
hours of vacation will be granted. No additional
vacation time will be granted to Professional
employees after 28 years of service.
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar
as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Page 3 of 4
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 25th day of
May 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY
this 8th day of June , 2000.
JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR
In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the Mayor did not ihd104t6 &'�, Pr6v�6 of
this legislation by signing it in the design
atedlace provided, Uld i� i� iOf !*
becomes effective with the elapse oft n (from the date of Cote; lM"irk',.:4�tstt
regarding same, without the Mayor errito. f
I / /,
ATTEST:
T.— r mr�ri T r-i�rinrtT az
City Clea
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 4 of 4
u
TO Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
FROM : Gime Z
City Manage
RECOMMENDATION
SECOND READING
ORDINANCE
IV
DATE: j 'y ,
SUBJECT
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
K
FILE
Proposed Amendment to
Civil Service Rules and
Regulations
(1)
It is respectfully recommended that an amendment to Rule 15, Section 15.2, subsections (d)
through (f), of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, per the attached Ordinance, be
approved which would insert two new subsections to the Rule thereby changing classified
managerial and confidential employees vacation accrual ranges from an additional eight
hours to sixty hours of vacation leave annually.
BACKGROUND
At the Civil Service Board meeting of March 21, 2000, Labor Relations Officer R. Sue Weller
proposed an amendment to Civil Service Rule 15, Section 15.2 which would change
classified managerial and confidential employees vacation accrual ranges from an additional
eight hours to sixty hours of vacation leave annually. During her presentation, Ms. Weller
stated that the City recently implemented an enhanced benefits package for its classified and
unclassified managerial and confidential employees. A part of the enhanced benefits include
an increase in vacation accrual. The new accruals are scheduled to begin this January with
actual crediting of the new accrual to occur in -January 2001.
Personnel and union representatives indicated no objection to the proposed rule change at
the Public Hearing held on April 18, 2000. The Civil Service Board unanimously voted to
amend Rule 15, Section 15.2, subsections (d) through (f) at the same hearing.
Therefore, it is recommended that an amendment to Rule 15, Section 15.2, subsections (d)
through (f), of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, per the attached Ordinance, be
approved to provide for an increase in the annual vacation accrual ranges for classified
managerial and confidential employees.
I shall include on the City Commission agenda of Thursday, May 25, 2000, an Ordinance
concerning an amendment to Civil Service Rule 15, Section 15.2, subsections (d) through (f).
DHW/PAT
oo"
V7
44
wti.e
The Civil Service Board of the City of Miami met in regular session on
Tuesday, April 18, 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
ROBERT FRAZIER, BOARD MEMBER
FRANKIE ROLLE, BOARD MEMBER
WILLIAM SCAROLA, BOARD MEMBER
NOT PRESENT: NONE
The Board entered into the scheduled Public Hearing concerning the
proposed amendment to Civil Service Rule 15, HOURS OF WORK, ATTENDANCE
AND LEAVE, Sec. 15.2. Vacation with Pav. .
R. Sue Weller, Labor Relations Officer, OFFICE OF LABOR RELATIONS
appeared before the Board and stated that the proposed change to Rule 15.2.
Vacation with Pay., will increase _the hours of vacation time for
managerial/confidential employees on an annual basis.
Chairman Silverman stated that the Board was familiar with this request
and asked if anyone wished to speak concerning the Rule change.
After noting that no one came forward to speak on this matter, Member
Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Member Scarola, to approve the
proposed amendment to Civil Service Rule 15, HOURS OF WORK, ATTENDANCE
AND LEAVE, Sec. 15.2. Vacation with Pay. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with a request from Major Noel Rojas, Commander,
Personnel Resource Management, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, to extend the
probationary period of Ralston Taylor, Clerk III, 8 months beyond April 13, 2000.
® APRIL 18, 2000
Chairman Silverman stated that he has a copy of the Police Department's
memorandum advising that Mr. Taylor would not be present at today's meeting
because of his physical condition. He went on to ask the Executive Secretary if it
would be improper for the Board to consider Mr. Taylor's request since he was not
present at the meeting.
The Executive Secretary answered in the negative. She went on to say that
she received a signed copy of Mr. Taylor's concurrence memo, which indicated that
he had no objection to the extension of his probationary period. The Executive
Secretary advised the Chairman that a representative from the Police Department
was present to answer any questions the Board may have.
Chairman Silverman asked Mr. Valladares if he wished to offer any input
concerning the Police Department's request to extend Mr. Taylor's probationary
period.
Jorge Valladares, Senior Staff Analyst, Personnel Unit, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, appeared before the Board and answered in the negative.
Following discussion, Member Rolle made a motion, which was seconded by
Member Garcia, to grant the Police Department's request to extend Mr. Ralston
Taylor's probationary period 8 additional months beyond April 13, 2000. The motion
was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
A copy of a letter from Chief William E. O'Brien, Director, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, notifying Shirley Harvard, Police Officer, of a forfeiture of 20 hours of
earned overtime, effective March 17, 2000, and a copy of a memorandum from
Shirley Harvard requesting a hearing of appeal were noted by the Board. A hearing
has been scheduled for today.
A copy of a letter from Chief Carlos A. Gimenez, Director, DEPARTMENT OF
FIRE -RESCUE, notifying Alex Stayton, Fire Fighter, of a 24-hour suspension,
effective April 3, 2000, was ordered filed pending possible appeal of this action
within the time provided under Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
The Board was presented with Notification of Pending Hearings as of April 18,
2000.
The Board was presented with Notification of Rescheduling of Pending
Hearings.
a"
11933
APRIL
The Board was presented with a copy of a memorandum from Jeffrey Locke,
Police Sergeant, requesting that the Board readdress his request for a waiver of
time -in -grade or postponement of the lieutenant's exam until time -in -grade is
achieved so that he can compete in the exam.
Jeffrey Locke, Police Sergeant, DEPARTMENT Of POLICE, appeared before
the Board and stated that he came before the Board on March 21, 2000 to request a
waiver of the time -in -grade or postponement of the April 25, 2000 Police Lieutenant
exam until November 2000. He went on to say that he asked that the exam be
postponed because the City entered into a settlement with 13 Police Officers who
were promoted to the rank of Police Sergeant without having to serve a
probationary period. Sgt. Locke further stated that those 13 Police Officers were
given seniority credit as Police Sergeants retroactive to 1994. He stated that the
court did not mandate the settlement; however, on the contrary, the City waived its
own rules and requirements that were signed off by a Judge. Sgt. Locke went on to
say that the City informed the 13 Police Officers, currently Police Sergeants, that
they were eligible to take the Police Lieutenant exam. He further stated that. the
settlement violated the Civil Service Rule concerning time -in -grade because the new
Police Sergeants have neither experience nor the knowledge, but they can now
become Police Lieutenants with as little as 1 -year experience and not having served
a probationary period. Sgt. Locke stated that the 13 Police Sergeants would not
have been promoted to the rank of Police Sergeant if the City had made promotions
according to the certification list. He went on to say that it appeared the City had
the authority to negotiate away any requirement at any time it deemed necessary.
Sgt. Locke reiterated that he is asking the Board to grant his request for a waiver of
the time -in -grade requirement or postponement of the scheduled Police Lieutenant
exam.
Sgt. Locke stated that it is important to note that from March 21, 2000 until
today, there has been a substantial change in circumstances, which merits the
Board's recommendation concerning his request. He stated that Assistant City
Attorney Joseph misrepresented the City when he stated that the City was under a
court order to give the Police Lieutenant exam before June 2000. Sgt. Locke further
stated that the court order indicated that when the City terminated its consent
decree, it entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice. He stated that
the Department of Justice decided that a new exam was needed; therefore, when
the City did provide a new exam, the Department of Justice informed the City that
the exam was not acceptable according to its standards. Sgt. Locke went on to say
that, in turn, the City appeared before Judge Highsmith to request more time to
prepare a new test, and the City's request was granted. He further stated that the
court order basically stated that it gave the City more time, until June 30, 2000, to
produce a new testing device. Sgt. Locke stated that any other interpretation of the
court order would be a misrepresentation to the Board by the City. He went on to
. PAGE ti3�0�;18
11933
APRIL 18, 2000
reiterate that he is asking that the Police Lieutenant exam be postponed until
November 2000 so that he and others could have the necessary time -in -grade and
to ensure that the City has Police Lieutenants with the necessary experience and
knowledge. Sgt. Locke further stated that the Board's ruling would legitimize the
Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Board and ensure that the City has
competent Police Lieutenants. He stated that based upon what was mentioned
earlier on this matter, he thinks the exam should be postponed.
Seth Z. Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, appeared
before the Board and stated that the consent order signed by the Judge mandated
that the City shall develop and implement selection procedures which meet the
requirements set forth in paragraph 18 by December 31, 1999 for the Police
Lieutenant exam. He went on to say that the court order extended the December
1999 exam date to June 30, 2000. Assistant City Attorney Joseph further stated
that the Board has already ruled against Sgt. Locke's request, and he does not think
this issue before the Board today was the crux of why his request was denied. He
asserted that no misrepresentation was made to the Board.
Sgt. Locke stated that based upon the Board's earlier discussion concerning
the Police Sergeants who are part of the Manning, et al. court case, it appeared that
they will be allowed to take the Police Lieutenant exam, but they would not be
promoted until they have met the required time -in -grade. He went on to say that if
this is the case, anyone should be allowed to take the exam. Sgt. Locke further
stated that he is asking that the exam be postponed so that other Police Sergeants
could have the time -in -grade. He stated that he feels what is fair for one group of
individuals should be fair for another group of individuals.
Member Garcia stated that what happened with the 13 Police Sergeants
mentioned by Sgt. Locke was as a result of a court settlement. He went on to say
that the way he understands the court order is the City must have an exam and a
selective register in place by June 30, 2000. Member Garcia further stated that if
this is the case, he could not vote in favor of Sgt. Locke's request for a waiver of
time -in -grade since all employees must follow the Rules.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that what is more fundamental about this
case is that Sgt. Locke was not a plaintiff in the Manning, et al. lawsuit, and the
court settlement was very specific as to those individuals who would benefit from
the settlement.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by
Member Scarola, to deny Sgt. Locke's request for a waiver of time -in -grade or
postponement of the lieutenant exam until time -in -grade is achieved so that he can
compete in the exam. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
®.-APRIL-1%.-
The
APRIL-18 .
The Board was presented with a copy of a memorandum from the Chief
Examiner to the Board concerning time -in -grade for the Lieutenant's promotional
exam.
Chief Examiner Martin Garcia stated that he prepared a memo to the Board
regarding the Manning, et al. court settlement. He went on to say that the
settlement indicated that the affected Police Sergeants would be allowed to sit for
the Police Lieutenant exam and that their date of rank to the position of Police
Sergeant would be retroactive to 1994. Chief Examiner Garcia further stated that
subsequent to his research on this matter, he found that some of the Police
Sergeants were made permanent, effective June 18, 1999. He stated that according
to Rule 8.7, the Police Sergeants have not met the 24 -month time -in -grade
requirement to compete in the Police Lieutenant exam. Chief Examiner Garcia went
on to say that what he has suggested, in line with the court settlement, is that the
Police Sergeants be permitted to sit for the Police Lieutenant exam, seniority points
would be calculated based upon the 1994 date; however, they would not be
promoted until they satisfy the 24 -month time -in -grade requirement that is
prescribed under Rule 8.7.
Seth Z. Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, appeared
before the Board and stated that Chief Examiner Garcia brought to his attention that
the Police Department required the Police Sergeants to serve a probationary period.
He went on to say that he believes that is against the court order to require the
Police Sergeants to serve a probationary period. In support of his presentation,
Assistant City Attorney Joseph read into the record a portion of Section 3 of the
court settlement which reads, in part, the following:
"Those plaintiffs in Manning, et al. vs City of Miami, Case
#95045930427, who have not previously attained the rank of
Po/ice Sergeant shall be promoted to that rank retroactive to
May 16, 1994 for seniority purposes All other plaintiffs in this
action who have previously attained the rank of sergeant shall
also be promoted for seniority purposes retroactive to May 16,
1994 regardless of their respective dates of promotion. Current
rate of pay shall be calculated according to the senlorlty and the
seniority shall be counted as timein-rank for future promotional
calculations There will be no payment of back wages If
Assistant City Attorney Joseph further stated that he believes that this
language is totally inclusive and it contains the information that Chief Examiner
Garcia is concerned about. He stated that the court settlement indicated that the
affected Police Officers would be promoted to the rank of Police Sergeant, effective
11933
APRIL 18, 2000
May 16, 1994. Assistant City Attorney Joseph further stated that if the Police
Department required the Police Sergeants to serve a probationary period, he does
not understand how this action would be appropriate. He stated that according to
the court settlement, the affected individuals were promoted to the rank of Police
Sergeant, retroactive to May 16, 1994, which meant that they now have 6 years of
service as Police Sergeants. Assistant City Attorney Joseph went on to say that
according to the court settlement, not only are the Police Sergeants in the Manning,
et al. case permitted to sit for the Police Lieutenant exam, but they are also
permitted to be promoted as the case may be.
Mark A. Valentine, Special Counsel, appeared before the Board and stated
that Chief Examiner Garcia discussed this matter with him and Assistant City
Attorney Joseph. He went on to say that it would appear from the discussion that
some of the Police Sergeants would not have served a probationary period. Special
Counsel Valentine further stated that he believes what Chief Examiner Garcia has
proposed is correct; however, the problem is that a determination needs to be made
as to what impact this action would .have on the court order.
Chairman Silverman stated that based upon the discussion, it does not appear
that the Board can take any action on this item today.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph asked that Special Counsel Valentine be
instructed to review the court order and determine the legal ramifications of the
Chief Examiner's proposal.
Chairman Silverman asked Chief Examiner Garcia if he wished the Board to
reconsider this issue after the Special Counsel has had an opportunity to review the
legal ramifications concerning this matter.
Chief Examiner Garcia answered in the negative. He went on to say that he
would prefer that a motion be made today and if the decision needs to be reversed,
that could be done after receiving a legal opinion. Chief Examiner Garcia further
stated that the Police Lieutenant exam is scheduled for next week and the affected
Police Sergeants are under the impression that they would be eligible for promotion,
when in fact, they are probationary employees and they must comply with the
Rules. He stated that the Civil Service Rules are in place and the City cannot
negotiate these Rules away. Chief Examiner Garcia went on to say that Rule 8.7
requires that Police Sergeants have 24 months of actual time -in -grade service to be
eligible to take the Police Lieutenant exam.
Chairman Silverman stated that there is no question about the Police
Sergeants being allowed to sit for the Police Lieutenant exam. He went on to say
that the only question is when can the individuals be promoted if they are successful
-....... .........« ...v+`..... +.......,. .. .:.Wr_. _...,x .. �... _ .__..c . _ � . _,.. __.. _ ail:. _ ...r_m, � ... . _
® APRIL 1S 2000
in passing the exam. Chairman Silverman asked when would the Police Lieutenant
register be established.
Angela R. Bellamy, Director, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, appeared
before the Board and stated that the exam will end on May 5, 2000 and the register
would be established sometime in the latter part of June. She went on to say that
Mr. Valladares has just informed her that all of the Police Sergeants hold permanent
status in this rank, and that she thinks he should share this information with the
Board.
Jorge Valladares, Senior Staff Analyst, Personnel Unit, DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, appeared before the Board and stated that the last group of Police
Sergeants was promoted on June 18, 1999. He went on to say that they all served
a 6 -month probationary period and they have all attained permanent status as
Police Sergeants.
Chief Examiner Garcia stated that Rule 8.7 requires that Police Sergeants
have 24 months of actual service to become eligible to take the Police Lieutenant
exam, however, they have not served 24 months actual service as Police Sergeants.
Mr. Valladares stated that he informed the Board about the Police Sergeants'
probationary periods because he was asked to do so.
Chief Examiner Garcia asked Mr. .Valladares, according to the 6 -month
probationary period that the Police Sergeants served, how long have they held the
rank of Police Sergeant.
Mr. Valladares stated that the Police Sergeants held the rank of Police
Sergeant since December 1999 when they attained permanent status.
Chairman stated that he does not think the Board is ready to take action on
this item today.
Following discussion, Member Rolle made a motion, which was seconded by
Member Frazier, that any Police Sergeant named in the Manning, et.al case cannot
be promoted to. the rank of Police Lieutenant until the 2 -year actual, continuous
service as Police Sergeant is completed. The motion was approved (4-1) by the
Board with Chairman Silverman dissenting.
The Board was presented with a copy of a letter from Teri Guttman -Valdes,
Attorney at Law, requesting a grievance. hearing on behalf of Engineering Technician
IV Scott Pritchard, pursuant to Civil Service Rule 16.1 Investigation by the Board.,
a
3 3-
® APRIL 18, 2000.
concerning an alleged violation of Civil Service Rule 11.2., Assignment to Other
Work.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law on behalf of Engineering Technician IV
Scott Pritchard, appeared before the Board and stated that Civil Service Rule 11.2
provides that any employee in the classified service may be assigned to work other
than his/her assigned work for a period not to exceed more than 30 days within a
calendar year without the permission of the Board. She went on to say that Mr.
Pritchard is an Engineering Technician IV and he has been assigned Engineering
Technician III job duties in excess of 1 year.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that in November 1998, Mr. Pritchard was
assigned the duty of performing utility inspections. She went on to say that this
assignment is included in the job description for an Engineering Technician III.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes further stated that as an Engineering Technician IV, Mr.
Pritchard is supposed to be supervising the person who performs the duty of utility
inspections. She stated that it is clear that Mr. Pritchard .has been performing this
duty for nearly 18 months _despite the Department taking no action to fill the
Engineering Technician III position. Attorney Guttman -Valdes went on to say that
prior to Mr. Pritchard being assigned to handle utility inspections, an Engineering
Technician II handled this assignment. She further stated that Mr. Pritchard did not
bring this matter to the attention of the Board until now because he patiently waited
to see if the Department would fill the Engineering Technician III position. Attorney
Guttman -Valdes stated that it is time for Mr. Pritchard to move on without having to
perform duties below his job classification.
Seth Z. Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, appeared
before the Board and stated that Mr. Pritchard is a member of the American,
Federal, State, County, & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Union. He went on to say
that as a member of this union, he has to adhere to the provisions in the labor
contract. Assistant City Attorney Joseph further stated that the labor contract allow
departments to assign its employees to perform work in a lower classification,
provided the employee's base salary is not affected. He stated that Attorney
Guttman -Valdes did not mention in her presentation that Mr. Pritchard's salary was
affected. Assistant City Attorney Joseph went on to say that he would ask that this
matter be deferred so that he can share with the Board the information that is
included in the labor contract concerning the working out of class issue.
Member Garcia stated that he agrees with the City that the Board needs to
review the provision in the contract that deals with employees working out of their -
classification. He went on to ask Assistant City Attorney Joseph if he requested that
this matter be deferred.
s
APRIL 18, 2000 1
Assistant City Attorney Joseph answered in the affirmative. He went on to
say that he wants to provide the Board with a copy of the labor contract on the
matter of working out of classification.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that she did not think it would be proper at
this juncture to defer the request because the City should have brought a copy of
the union contract to the meeting if this was its defense, and also because her client
has alleged a clear violation of the Civil Service Rules.
Member Garcia informed Attorney Guttman -Valdes that it is not the Board's
function to discuss the labor contract. He went on to say that he feels the Board
has a right to know what provision of the contract Assistant City Attorney Joseph
made reference to since Mr. Pritchard is a union member, and the department asked
him to perform duties of a lower classification even though his salary was not
affected.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by
Member Scarola, to defer _Board action on Engineering Technician IV Richard
Pritchard's request for a Rule 16.1. Investigation by the Board. The motion was
approved (4-1) with Member Frazier dissenting.
A copy of the February, 2000 Monthly Report from Angela R. Bellamy,
Director, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, to the. Board, on personnel
matters, was noted by the Board.
Prior to entering into the scheduled hearings, Chairman Silverman stated that
7 cases are scheduled for today and it is obvious that all 7 cases would not be heard
today. He went on to say that he has to take a break frorr 12:30-2:00 PM., and
suggested that the cases of Oscar Romero and Emily Perez be heard this morning
while the cases of Jose Rodriguez and John Marken be heard in the afternoon.
Chairman Silverman asked if there was a chance of any of the cases being settled.
Neither attorney agreed to a settlement; therefore, the Board entered into
the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of Oscar Romero, Waste Collector
Operator I, relative to his 3 -day suspension, effective December 8, 1999.
Seth Z. Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, represented
the City.
Judith Gersten, Attorney at Law, represented the Respondent.
-1933
APRIL 18, 2000
The Executive Secretary read the Charge letter into the record. The actual
Charges will be filed in the employee's personnel jacket which is maintained in the
Department of Human Resources.
Attorney Gersten apprised the Board that Mr. Oscar Romero's son, Ashley
Romero, would be testifying and translating for his father. She went on to say that
she does not think Assistant City Attorney Joseph has an objection concerning this
matter.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph stated that he is not sure if Mr. Romero's son
translated the Charging document that was just read by the Executive Secretary.
Attorney Gersten stated that Mr. Romero has read and understands what is
written in the disciplinary letter. She suggested that Assistant City Attorney Joseph
proceed slowly with his presentation because her witness, Ashley Romero, is not a
certified translator.
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Gersten if she wished to get a certified
translator or did she wish to proceed. He went on to advise Attorney Gersten that
the Board is willing to postpone Mr. Romero's appeal hearing until she can get a
certified translator or she can proceed. Chairman Silverman further advised
Attorney Gersten that she would be waiving any rights to get a certified translator if
she proceeds with Mr. Romero's son as a translator.
Attorney Gersten stated that she understood.
All witnesses were sworn in individually.
Witnesses for the City appeared in the following order:
1. Fred Hobson, Assistant Director, City of Miami, Department of Solid Waste.
Questions were posed by Members Garcia, Scarola, and Frazier during the
testimony of witness Fred Hobson.
The City rested its case.
Witnesses for the Respondent appeared in the following order:
1. Jim Kindl, Safety Officer, City of Miami, Department of Solid Waste.
2. Beatrice E. Cera, Attorney, Family Law, Private Citizen.
'APRIL 18, 2000.
3. Ashley Romero, Private Citizen.
4. Oscar Romero-Lumus, Waste Collector Operator I, City of Miami,
Department of Solid Waste, testified on his own behalf.
The Respondent rested his case.
Fred Hobson, Assistant Director, Department of Solid Waste, was recalled as a
rebuttal witness on behalf of the City.
The City rested on rebuttal.
The Respondent waived rebuttal.
Following final argument by both attorneys, Member Garcia made a motion,
which was seconded by Member Scarola, to find the Respondent guilty of Charge
#1. The motion was unanimously approved (5-0) by the Board.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Member Scarola, to
find the Respondent guilty of Charge #2.. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
Member Rolle made a motion, which was seconded by Member Garcia, to find
the Respondent not guilty of Charge #3. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
The Board reviewed the Respondent's personnel file.
Fred Hobson, Assistant Director, City of Miami, Department of Solid Waste,
gave testimony on behalf of the City relating to the penalty portion of Mr. Oscar
Romero's appeal hearing.
The City rested its case.
The Respondent gave no testimony relating to the penalty portion of his
appeal hearing.
Following final argument by both attorneys on the penalty portion of Mr.
Romero's appeal hearing, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by
Member Scarola, to uphold the Department Director's decision that Mr. Romero be
suspended for 3 working days. The motion was approved (4-1) by the Board with
Member Rolle dissenting.
APRIL 18, 2000
The Board entered into the scheduled appeal hearing on behalf of Emily
Perez, Typist Clerk II, relative to her dismissal from employment, effective March
13, 2000.
Seth Z. Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, Department of Law, represented the
City.
Emily Perez, Typist Clerk II, . City of Miami, Department of Fire -Rescue,
represented herself.
Chairman Silverman reviewed the procedures followed by the Board during
appeal hearings for Ms. Perez' benefit. He went on to say that he is aware that Ms.
Perez is not represented by legal counsel. Chairman Silverman asked Ms. Perez if
she wished to proceed with her appeal hearing today.
Ms. Perez answered in the affirmative.
The Executive Secretary read the Charge letter into the record. The actual
Charges will be filed in the employee's personnel jacket which is maintained in the
Department of Human Resources.
All witnesses were sworn in individually.
Witnesses for the City appeared in the following order:
1. Freddy Hernandez, Assistant Fire Chief, Support Services, City of Miami,
Department of Fire -Rescue.
2. Tomas Flores, Assistant Fire Chief, Technical Services, City of Miami,
Department of Fire -Rescue.
3. Virgil Fernandez, Assistant Fire Chief -Fire Marshal, City of Miami,
Department of Fire -Rescue.
4. Gail Nedelman, Fire Fighter -Assistant Fire Marshal, City of Miami,
Department of Fire -Rescue.
5. Cathy Pastor, Administrative Assistant I, City of Miami, Department of Fire -
Rescue.
6. Veldora Arthur, Executive Assistant to the Fire Chief, City of Miami,
Department of Fire -Rescue.
...... ..w ....S
..... . `...x .. . �,..�. .4M ......
� ..�.Lr:..I.u. .._..,...�T..L'�.�. i, rtw_✓J1 ..
.nom. .., _ ...Lv ...
'��9
® APRIL 18, 2000
7. Witness Freddy Hernandez was recalled.
8. Witness Tomas Flores was recalled.
9. Maria Ferrer-Miralies, Administrator, City of Miami, Office of Equal
Opportunity and Diversity Programs.
The City rested its case.
Witnesses for the Respondent appeared in the following order:
1. Emily Perez, Typist Clerk II, City of Miami, Department of Police, testified
on her own behalf.
2. Magdalena Tricoche, Private citizen.
The Respondent rested her case.
Freddy Hernandez, Assistant Fire Chief, Support Services, City of Miami,
Department of Fire -Rescue, was recalled as a rebuttal witness on behalf of the City.
Tomas Flores, Assistant Fire Chief, Technical Services, City of Miami,
Department of Fre-Rescue, was recalled as a rebuttal witness on behalf of the City.
The City rested on rebuttal.
The Respondent waived rebuttal.
Following final argument by both sides, Member Garcia made a motion, which
was seconded by Member Scarola, to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #1. The
motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Chairman Silverman,
to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #2. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
Member Scarola made a motion, which was seconded by Member Garcia, to
find the Respondent guilty of Charge #3. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Member Scarola, to
find the Respondent guilty of Charge #4. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
X1933
APRIL 18, 2000
Member Scarola ' made a motion, which was seconded by Member Rolle, to
find the Respondent guilty of Charge #5. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
Member Rolle made a motion, which was seconded by Member Garcia, to find
the Respondent guilty of Charge #6. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved
by the Board.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Member Rolle, to find
the Respondent guilty of Charge #7. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved
by the Board.
Member Scarola made a motion, which was seconded by Member Frazier, to
find the Respondent guilty of Charge #8. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
The Board reviewed the Respondent's personnel file.
No testimony was presented relative to the penalty portion of Ms. Emily Perez'
appeal hearing.
Following final argument by both sides on the penalty portion of Ms. Perez'
appeal hearing, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Member
Scarola, to uphold the Department Director's decision to terminate Ms. Emily Perez
from her position of Typist Clerk II. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by .
the Board.
The Board entered into the scheduled appeal hearing on behalf of John
Marken, Police Officer, relative to his 10 -hour forfeiture of earned overtime, effective
April 17, 1999.
Seth I Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, represented
the City.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law, represented the Respondent.
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Guttman -Valdes if she was prepared to
proceed with her client's case.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law on behalf of Police Officer John
Marken, appeared before the Board and stated that her presentation of Officer
Marken's case will take approximately 2 hours. She went on to say that she spoke
:. ya
SAG
4
-
11933
APRIL 18, 2000
with Assistant City Attorney Joseph during the break concerning the case that will be
held prior to Officer Marken's case. Attorney Guttman -Valdes further stated that
considering the number of witnesses in the Emily Perez case, she would suggest
that her client's case be continued.
Chairman Silverman asked Ms. Perez how long did she think her case would
take.
Emily Perez, Typist Clerk II, DEPARTMEIVTOFHRE-RESCUE, appeared before
the Board and stated that her case may take approximately 30 minutes.
Without objection from Board Members, Chairman Silverman continued the
appeal hearing of Officer John Marken.
The Board entered into the scheduled grievance hearing on behalf of
Susan Cambridge, Planner I, pursuant to Civil Service Rules 16.1 Investigation by
the Board., and 16.2. Complaint by Employee.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law, represented the Complainant.
Seth Z. Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, represented
the City.
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Guttman -Valdes if she would be
proceeding with Ms. Cambridge's grievance hearing today.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes answered in the negative. She went on to say that
there is an issue that she needs to address with the Board concerning Ms.
Cambridge's hearing. Attorney Guttman -Valdes further stated that the witnesses
who are present for Ms. Cambridge's hearing could be dismissed if she is able to
discuss before the Board today the issue that is included in a letter she forwarded to
Special Counsel Valentine.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that Special Counsel Valentine submitted a
letter dated March 41 2000 to her and he copied Ms. Priscilla A. Thompson on the
letter. She went on to say that she requested a production of documents pursuant
to Section 36 (i) of the City Charter. Attorney Guttman -Valdes further stated that
they wanted documents that they have not otherwise been able to obtain through
public records requests that relate to testing materials which are arguably exempt
under the Public Records Act. She stated that Special Counsel Valentine has given
the Executive Secretary a legal opinion advising her that she can issue a subpoena
for production of the requested documents; however, such a request is subject to
limitations under the Public Records Act or other pertinent State and Federal laws.
- -APRIL 181: 2000
Attorney Guttman -Valdes went on to say that there is a First District Court of
Appeals opinion dealing with the Public Records Act versus discovery specifically in
an administrative hearing and dealing with testing documents. She. further stated
that in that case, the issue was succinctly whether the exemption of documents
from disclosure pursuant to Florida Chapter 119 renders a document privileged and
consequently excluded from discovery in an administrative hearing. Attorney
Guttman -Valdes stated that the First District of Appeals answered the question in
the negative and indicated that the documents had to be released. She went on to
say that based on the First District Court of Appeals' decision, she does not think the
public records exemption should apply in this case.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph stated that he has not had an opportunity to
research the issue at hand, and that he should be given time to research other case
law on this subject.
Chairman Silverman stated that Assistant City Attorney Joseph has not had an
opportunity to review other case law, which he feels he is entitled to. He went on
to ask if Ms. Cambridge's hearing is scheduled for today.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes answered in the affirmative. She went on to say
that the case would not go forward because they have not received the requested
documents. Attorney Guttman -Valdes further stated that she feels that the
continuance of this case should not be charged to Ms. Cambridge.
Chairman Silverman stated that Ms. Cambridge's case would be continued
until the next meeting to make a decision on the discovery issue. He went on to
suggest that Attorney Guttman -Valdes submit her documents to Special Counsel
Valentine so that he can review them and make a recommendation to the Board at
its next meeting.
No other discussion took place on this matter.
The Board entered into the scheduled grievance hearing on behalf of Jose
Rodriguez, Fiscal Assistant, pursuant to Civil Service Rule .16.2. Complaint by
Employee.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law, represented the Complainant.
Seth Z. Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, represented
the City.
Chairman Silverman asked Ms. Guttman -Valdes if she was prepared to
proceed with Mr. Jose Rodriguez' case today.
APRIL 18, 2000 —
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that she and Assistant City Attorney Joseph
met during the break and a settlement was reached concerning Mr. Rodriguez' case.
She went on to say that Mr. Rodriguez' name will be added to the Administrative
Assistant I eligible register.
Chairman Silverman asked Assistant City Attorney Joseph if he concurred with
the settlement.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph answered in the affirmative.
The Executive Secretary stated that the Civil Service policy require that a
written confirmation of the settlement be provided to the Civil Service Board Office
as well as a written document withdrawing Mr. Rodriguez' request for a grievance
hearing.
No other discussion took place on this item. .
The Board entered into the scheduled grievance hearing on behalf of Juan
Gonzalez, Marinas Assistant, pursuant to Civil Service Rules 16.1 Investigation by
the Board., and 16.2. Complaint by Employee.
Teri Guttman -Valdes, Attorney at Law, represented the Complainant.
Seth Z. Joseph, Assistant City Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, represented
the City.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph stated that he was under the impression that
the Chief Examiner needed additional time -to review Mr. Gonzalez' concern prior to
it being heard by the Board.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes asked why was she not notified that the Chief
Examiner requested to review her client's case prior to it being heard by the Board.
Chairman Silverman asked Member Garcia if he needed additional time to
review Mr. Rodriguez' concern.
Member Garcia answered in the affirmative.
Attorney Guttman -Valdes stated that she also would like to be notified of such
decisions concerning her client if the Assistant City Attorney was notified.
PAGE,.i7 Vfyi8r:'.r°. _r
_.� 1 3
• APRIL 18, 2000 0
Member Garcia stated that he requested a continuance of Mr. Juan Gonzalez'
case so that he could review the matter.
Without objection from Board Members, Chairman Silverman continued the
grievance hearing of Marinas Assistant Juan Gonzalez.
The Board entered into the scheduled appeal hearing on behalf of Shirley
Harvard, Police Officer, relative to her 20 -hour forfeiture of earned overtime,
effective March 17, 2000.
Chairman Silverman asked if anyone was present concerning the appeal
hearing of Officer Shirley Harvard.
The Executive Secretary informed the Chairman that Officer Harvard was sent
notification of her appeal hearing that is scheduled for today; however she cannot
confirm whether or not Officer Harvard received. She went on to say that Officer
Harvard would be representing herself; however, she has not seen her at today's
meeting.
Chairman Silverman asked the Executive Secretary if Ms. Harvard's case 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.
Chairman Silverman instructed the Executive Secretary to make sure that
Officer Harvard receives notice. He went on to say that if Officer Harvard is not
present the next time her hearing is scheduled, the Board would proceed with her
case.
No other discussion took place on this item.
Breaks were taken between 10:29-10:37 AM and 12:25-2:15 PM.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:07 PM.
ATTEST:
GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAGE `f18 :®F A ,
a
PLEASE POST
PLEASE POST
CIVIL SERVICE INFORMATION BULLETIN #291
MARCH 27, 2000
TO: ALL DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, DATE: MARCH 27, 2000
DIVISION HEADS AND EMPLOYEES
FROM: A. THOMPSON SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO CIVIL SERVICE RULE 15,
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SEC. 15.2
At the Civil Service Board meeting of March 21, 2000, an amendment to the City of Miami
Civil Service. Rules and Regulations (Ordinance -Ido. 8977) was proposed by Labor Relations Officer
R. Sue Weller. A public hearing is scheduled for 10:00 A.M. on Tuesday, April 18, 2000, to
consider Ms. Weller'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.
During her presentation, Ms. Weller stated that the City recently implemented an enhanced
benefits package for its classified and unclassified managerial and confidential employees. A part of
the enhanced benefits include an increase in vacation accrual. In order to effectuate the Increase In
vacation accrual for classified managerial/confidential employees, 2 new subsections will have to be
added to Rule IS, HOURS OF WORD ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE, Section 15.2. Vacation with
Pay., beginning at subsection (d).
. The proposed amendment would change classified manageriaVconfidentlai employees
vacation accrual ranges from an additional eight hours to sixty hours of leave annually.
The proposed changes are underlined.
Rule IS, Section 15.2, subsections (d) through (f) presently reads:
(d) If the only break In an employee's service has been a layoff, the
extra vacation time shall cover the period worked during the years
of service. If a person enters the employ of the City prior to the
1 Sth of the month, it shall be considered as a full month of service.
11933
(e) If the only break in an employee's service occurred due to an
employee being required to resign in order to accept employment -in
the Police or Fire Department, as reflected by the employee's
personnel file, then both periods of service shall be counted in
computing vacation time.
(f) Schedule of Vacations with Pay: Vacation with pay shall be taken at
the convenience of the Department Director. It is generally
intended that vacations will be taken within the calendar year in
which they are due. Employees may, however, accumulate a total of
not more than 10 days of vacation or sic tours of duty, to be
carried over for future use. Vacation carryovers in excess of ten
days or six tours of duty must have the prior approval of the
Department Director, the City Manager, and the Executive
Secretary.
Rule 15, Section 1 S.2, subsections (d) through (h) as proposed would read as follows:
(d) Classified Employees who have been desirmued as Managerial
and/or Confidential by the Public Employees Relations Commission
will also be allowed vacation with Day after completion of six
months of actual continuous service.
(e) Calculated on actual service in the previous calendar year, the
vacation with pay schedule is as follows:
SUPPORT STAFF
YEARS OF SERVICE VACATION HOURS
1
88
2
96
3
96
4
104
S
112
6
120
7
128
8
136
Each year thereafter. Support Staff employees will begranted an
additional 4 hours of vacation time. No additional vacation time
will be granted to Support Staff employees after 31 Years of
service.
•
PROFESSIONAL
11
YEARS OF SERVICE VACATION HOURS
1 104
2 112
3 120
4 128
S 136
Each year thereafter. but ending with the 13th year of service.
Professional employees will be granted an additional 8 hours of
vacation.
After the i 7th year of service and the 22nd year of service.
additional 8 hours of vacation will be granted. No additional
vacation time will be granted to Professional employees after 28
Years of service. -
(f) If the only break in an employee's service has been a layoff, the
extra vacation time shag cover the period worked during the years
of service. If a person enters the employ of the City prior to the
1 Sth of the month, it shall be considered as a full month of service.
(g) If the only break In an employee's service occurred due to an
employee being required to resign in order to accept employment in
the Police or r1re Department, as reflected. by the employee's
personnel file, then both periods of service shall be counted in
computing vacation time.
(h) Schedule of Vacations with Pay. Vacation with pay shall be taken at
the convenience of the Department Director. It is generally
Intended that vacations will be taken within the calendar year in
which they are due. Employees may, however, accumulate a total of
not more than 10 days of vacation or sic tours of duty, to be
carried over for future use. Vacation carryovers in excess of ten
days or six tours of duty. must have the prior approval of the
Department Director, the City Manager, and the Executive
Secretary.
PAT:md
Z:CSBIlLLETIN291
® CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA 0
INTER -OFFICE ME46RANDUM
CIVIL SER VIC" ARD
Priscilla A. Thompson
Executive Secretary
Civil Service Board
FROM: R. Sue Weller
Labor Relations Officer
2000 MAR - 2 r'PM g, p.. I
SUBJECT
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
March 2, 2000 FILE:
Request for Rule Change
The City recently implemented an enhanced benefits package for its classified
and unclassified managerial and confidential employees. A part of the enhanced
benefits include an increase in vacation accrual. The new accruals are
scheduled to begin this January with actual crediting of the new accrual to occur
in January 2001.
Due to administrative oversight, the City administration did not request the
appropriate rule change to reflect the change in vacation accrual. The change to
vacation accruals range from an additional eight hours to sixty hours of vacation
leave annually. In. order to effectuate the increase in vacation accrual for the
classified managerial/confidential employees, it is requested that Civil Service
Rule 15.2 be changed to reflect the following vacation schedule:
Sec. 15.2 Vacation with Pay.
(d) Classified Employees who have been designated as Managerial and/or
Confidential by the Public Employees Relations Commission will also be
allowed vacation with pay after completion of six months of actual
continuous service.
(e) Calculated on actual service in the previous calendar year, the vacation
with pay schedule is as follows:
SUPPORT STAFF:
YEARS OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VACATION HOURS
88 hours
96 hours
96 hours
104 hours
112 hours
120 hours
128 hours
136 hours
11'9.99
n
•
Each year thereafter, Support Staff employees will be granted an
additional 4 hours of vacation time. No additional vacation time will be
granted to Support Staff employees after 31 years of service.
YEARS OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
Each year thereafter,
Professional employees
vacation time.
PROFESSIONAL:
VACATION HOURS
104 hours
112 hours
120 hours
128 hours
136 hours
but ending with the 13th year of service,
will be granted an additional 8 hours of
After the 17th ,year of service and the 22"d year of service, Professional
employees will be -granted 24 additional hours of vacation time
respectively.. After the 27th year of service an additional 8 hours of
vacation will be granted. No additional vacation time will be granted to
Support Staff employees after 28 years of service.
Please advise when the proposed rule change will be placed before the Civil
Service Board. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
RSW/rsw
11933
r/
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
Sookie Williams, who on oath says that she is the Vice
President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Daily Business
Review f/k/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday
and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami -
Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertise-
ment, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of
CITY OF MIAMI
ORDINANCE NO. 11933
XXXXX „ .................... Court,
wJ published in s i 0 newspaper
0 paper in the issues of
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
Count da, for a period of one year next preceding the
tirst ubiicat n of the attached copy of advertisement; and
affi nt furth r says that she has neither paid nor promised
an perso firm or corporation any discount, rebate, com-
Il n refund for the
purpose of securing this advertise -
said new aper
Sworn o a sub ribe efore me this
J1 2000
J. ... A.D.........
................................ ...................
(SEAL)
Sookie Williams ffyf{cnown to ilA I. MESA
COMMISSION 0 CC 885640
o EXPIRES: March 4, 2004
'•.? �� $`` nonded ihru Notary Public Underwriters
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES
All interested persons will take"notice that on the 8th of June,2000, the
City Commission of Miami, Florida adopted the following titled ordinanc-
es;
ORDINANCE NO. .11932
'AN'EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COM_ -:
MISSION ESTABLISHING`A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
ENTITLED: "PROGRAMS FOR THE-DEVELOPMENTA_ LL•Y
DISABLED, FY'2000-2001';, APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR;
ITS OPERATION IN,THE ESTIMATED,TOTAL•-AMOUNT
$372,792, CONSISTING OF A GRANT ESTIMATED AT
$10,138 FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF..
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND A GRANT ESTIMATED AT.
$362,654 FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR
HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION MEDICAID PROGRAM DE-
VELOPMENT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE:
ORDINANCE NO. 1933
AN:ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMEND-
ING CHAPTER 40/ARTICLE Ill. OF THE CODE. OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS' ,AMENDED, .:ENTITLED:
"PERSONNEL7CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS,".
BY INCREASING THE ANNUALVACAT.ION ACCRUAL RANG-•.
ES FOR CLASSIFIED MANAGERIAL- AND CONFIDENTIAL -
e -EMPLOYEES FROM AN, ADDITIONAL EIGHT .TO SIXTY.
-HOURS;'.MORE PARTICULARLY.BY AMENDING,SECTION
40=105(C); CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A'
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC-
TIVE DATE: '
ORDINANCE NO. 11934
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTAB
LISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED. "CITY OF
f MIAMI PROGRAMS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES MIA-
MI-DADE 'COUNTY ADA GRANT" AND' APPROPRIATING
FUNDS;.FOh ITS 'OPERATION IN THE AMOUNT -OF
$46,453.41 FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, OFFICE OF'AMER-
1CANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ('APA'.)COORDINATION
1999-2000 GRANT FUND; • AUTHORIZING -THE CITY.MANAG-
ER TO ACCEPT -SAID GRANT AWARD ANDtTO EXECUTE
THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.IN..':A',F.ORM ACCEPTABLE
TO•THE CITY ATTORNEY; FOR SAID PURPOSE; CONTAIN-
iNG. A REPEALER PROVISION 'AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 11935
AN ORDINANCE OF`THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMEND
ING SECTION $'OF ORDINANCE NO' 11705, AS AMENDED,
AND ORDINANCE NO 11839JO•CORRECT AN ERRQR'IN A
PR
"EVIOUSLY APPROVED'CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT.'- i
PRO-
JECT AND TO ADD NEW' CAPITAL• IMPROVEMENT `FRO
JECTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREA-
'TION, TO BEGIN DURING FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000; CON,
'TAINING�A`REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 11936 ;'� t 3't�_'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI'CITY COMMISSION'AMEND
ING THE "CODE OF THE CITY OF. MIAMI; FLORIDA" BY RE-
'.PEALING APPENDIX AAND'REPEALINGAND RE-ENACTING
CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED, "CABLE' TELEVISION" PROVIDING
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE O_ PERATION OF
CABLE SYSTEMS AND THE APPLICATION; PROCEDURES
AND REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE GRANT OF LI-
CENSES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPER-
ATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CABLE SYSTEMS, EQUIP-
MENT AND FACILITIES IN, ON, ACROSS, ABOVE OR THAT
IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER USE THE-CITY'S PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND TO ENSURE THAT' USE OF THE
CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IS IN THE,PUBLICINTER-
EST AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW, PRO-
VIDING FOR CONFLICTS;',PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE;'
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN-EF-
FECTIVE DATE. '
Said ordinances may be inspected by the public at the Office of
the City Clerk, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays, between the hours of 8 a.m. '
and 5 p.m.
All-int ' erested persons may appear at the meeting and may be heard
with rect to the proposed ordinances. 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.
ap
WALTER J. FOEMAN.
u _`I CIT.Y.:CLERK..
qOc t -
(#8283)
&11,3 - 00.4 48L62812M�
C
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
Octelma 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 Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami.
Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertise-
ment, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of
CITY OF MIAMI
ORDINANCE ''PERSONNEL/CIVIL
SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS"
in the XXXXX ..................... Court,
wasp blishefl in said(y paper in the issues of
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 sa hat she h then paid nor promised
any personFica
or corp on any iscount, rebate, com-
mission or f rpose of curing this advertise-
ment for p said new per.
... t .... / ,�,r..t%W'_W c.:.r..:-..-.Z. ..,,.n:./....
26
to and
emethis
000
A.D........ _
(SEAL) `AAY'UA OPFICIAL NOTARY S AL
JANETT LLOtWNA
Octelma V. Ferbeyre person 119 ON WNSER
Q CC566004
� My 0OMM481ON EXPIRES
ene %0� _I11NF 9190015
CITY OF 1,' FLORIDA
It1OTICE OF PRO�SED ORDII"NCES
Notice is hereby'given.that the City Commission of the City of Miami,
Florida, will consider the following ordinances on and final reading
on June 8, 2000 commencing at.10:00 a.m:, in the'City Commission
Chambers, 3500'P6n:American Drive, Miami, Florida:
ORDINANCE NO. `
,AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMEND- s
ING H R 40/ARTICLEIIF THE. CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENDED, _ ENTITLED: "PER-
.SONNEUCIVIL SERVICE RULES ;AND REGULATIONS,"' BY
INCREASING THE ANNUAL VACATION ACCRUAL RANGES -
FOR CLASSIFIED MANAGERIAL•-AND,CONFIDENTIAL EM-
PLOYEES FROM AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT TO SIXTY HOURS;
MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING -SECTION 40-105(C);
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION ANDA SEVERABILI-
..TY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
hh ORDINANCE NO..
-- AN'ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMEND
ING SECTIbN'6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 11705, AS AMENDED,,
} AND ORDINANCE N0. 11839,TO CORRECT -AN ERROR'IN A •:
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO=
JECT AND, TO. ADD NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO-
JECTS, FOR THE.DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREA-
TION;; TO BEGIN DURING -FISCAL -YEAR 1999-2000; CON--.;)!
"TAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY 3!
CLAUSE.
'ORDINANCE NO. -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION•ESTAB-
-
LISHING'A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED "CITY OF-_'."
MIAMI PROGRAMS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES,MIA-
MI-DADECOUNTY ADA GRANT" AND -APPROPRIATING:
FUNDS FOR ITS OPERATION- IN THE" AMOUNT OF'
$46,453.41 FROM MIAMI DADE COUNTY, OFFICE OF AMER
ICANS _WITH DISABILITIES 'ACT ("ADA") COORDINATION
1999-2000 GRANT'FUND; AUTHORIZING. THE CITY'MANAG-
ER TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT AWARD AND TO EXECUTE`:.'`
:THE NECESSARY:D000MENTS IWA FORM ACCEPTABLE J, `
TO THE CITY-ATTORNEY,�FOR SAID PURPOSE;. CONTAIN:. `
ING A 'REPEALER- PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
:CLAUSE..
'ORDINANCE NO.:},
i AN ORDINANCE•OF THE�MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMEND
} ING THE,"CODE OF.THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA" BY RE
PEALING APPENDIX RAND REPEALING ANDRE ENACTING 1
L CHAPTER.1'1 ENTITLED CABLE TELEVISION 'PROVIDING '�
!.' ".YHE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE OPERATION,OF I
CABLE TELEVISION, SYStEMS AND THE APPLICATION
(PROCEDURES ArND°REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO�`THE�
f 'GRANT OF LICENSES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INSTAL
.CATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF CABLE TELE
VISION SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT SAND FACILITIES IN, ON,e'_ '.
ACROSS, ABOVE OR THAT IN ANY, MANNER WHATSOEVER
USE THE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND TO ENSURE
THAT USE OF THE CITY'S PUBLICRIGHTS-OF-OFIN
p THE PUBLIC INTEREST,AND IN CONFORMANCE`WITH AP-
za' PLICABLE'LAW,.,PROVIDING FOR`CONFLICTS;;PROVIDING
`A SAVING CLAUSE PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PRO-
VIDING -FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Said'propos6d ordinances may be inspected by the public aI-the
Office of the City Clerk; 3500 Pan American Drive,' Miami, Flori-
}� -da, Monday through Friday; excluding holidays, between the
i - hours of'8 a.m. and 5.p.m.
All interested persons"may appear atthe meeting and may be heard
with respect to the proposed ordinances. Should any person desire to ap-
I"peaLany decision of the City Commission with•eespect to any matter to be.
considered .at'this meeting that person - shall ensure :that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made including.Ml testimony and evidence
upon which any appeal_ may be based: - - -
{ L,jY O/c� WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK-..
o •
(#8279) gOEcaFta��o?,
5/26 064-1458058M