HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-11419J-96-1185
11/13/96
ORDINANCE NO. 11419
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 40, ENTITLED:
"PERSONNEL" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY SEPARATING THE SPECIFIC
VIOLATIONS AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 40-98(5)
ENTITLED, "GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL, SUSPENSION AND
DEMOTION" TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH AND
INDIVIDUALIZE EACH VIOLATION; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING
FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE.
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Board, at its regular meeting of
September 10, 1996, unanimously voted to amend Rule 14,
Section 14.2, Sub -section (e) of the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations by separating each provision so that each charge in
said sub -section is clearly distinguished and individualized; and
WHEREAS, said provisions are codified as Section 40-98(a)(5)
of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended; 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 hereby adopted by reference
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. Chapter 40, entitled "Personnel",
Section 40-98, entitled "Grounds for dismissal, suspension and
demotion", of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended,
is hereby amended in the following particulars:l/
"Sec. 40-98. Grounds for dismissal, suspension and
demotion.
(a) Generally. The following are declared to
constitute a breach of duty and to be grounds for
dismissal or suspension from the classified service or
grounds for demotion, though charges may be based upon
causes other than those enumerated; viz, that any
employee has been guilty of conduct unbecoming any
employee of the city who:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) Has violated any lawful and reasonable
official regulation or order, or failed to
obey any lawful or reasonable direction made
and given by his/her superior, where such
violation or failure to obey amounts to-L
iaL an act of insubordination or
1bl a serious breach of proper discipline.,- or
1cL resulted, or reasonably might be
expected to result, in loss or
injury to the City or to the public
or to the prisoners or wards of the
city;
i� 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.
-2 - 11419
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.
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.
PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 21st day of
November , 1996.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY
this 12thday of December 1996.
L O , MAYOR
ATTEST:
WALTER J.
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
J E A. F RNANDEZ
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
I
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Honorable Mayor and Members DATE FILE
of the City Commission
SUBJECT : Proposed Amendment to
\ (�, Civil Service Rules
Le.J (�' and Regulations
FROM : Edward Mar a REFERENCES:
City Manager
ENCLOSURES:
It is recommended that an amendment to Rule
14, Section 14.2, Subsection (e) of the Civil
Service Rules and Regulations, per the
attached Ordinance, be approved to provide
for the separation of each provision in
subsection (e) into clearly distinguished
charges.
During a Civil Service Hoard appeal hearing held on January 30,
1996, Board Members questioned whether or not an employee could
be found in violation of Civil Service Rule 14.2, Subsection (e),
even though the provisions cited in that Rule included items
which were unrelated to the Departmental Rules and Regulations
listed in the charging document issued to the employee. Some
Board Members felt Rule 14.2 (e) was too encompassing.
To provide for the separation of each provision of subsection
(e), the Civil Service Board, at its regular meeting of September
10, 1996, unanimously voted to amend Rule 14, Section 14.2,
Subsection (e).
Therefore, it is recommended that an amendment to Rule 14,
Section 14.2, Subsection (e) of the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations, per the attached Ordinance, be approved to provide
for the separation of each provision of subsection (e) so that
each charge is clearly distinguished.
I shall include on the City Commission agenda of Thursday,
November 14, 1996, an ordinance concerning an amendment to Civil
Service Rule 14, Section 14.2, subsection (e).
11419 1
PLEASE POST
PLEASE POST
CIVIL SERVICE INFORMATION BULLETIN #265
JULY 31, 1996
TO: ALL DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, DATE: JULY 31, 1996
DIVISION HEADS AND EMPLOYEES
FROM: PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF CIVIL SERVICE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD RULE 14, SEC. 14.2
SUBSECTION (e) AND
CORRECTION OF
SCRIVENER'S ERROR
An amendment to the City of Miami Civil Service Rules and
Regulations (Ordinance 8977, Amended) was proposed by the Civil Service
Board at its meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 1996. A public hearing is
scheduled for 10:00 A.M., Tuesday, September 10, 1996, to consider that
proposal. This item will be placed on the Civil Service Board agenda for
the regular meeting on the same date, to be held in the City Commission
Chambers, City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key.
During a Civil Service appeal hearing held on January 30, 1996,
Board Members questioned whether or not an employee could be found in
violation of Civil Service Rule 14.2, subsection (e), even though the
provisions cited in that Rule included items which were unrelated to the
Departmental Rules and Regulations listed in the charging document issued to
the employee. Some Board Members felt Rule 14.2 (e) was too encompassing.
Additionally, it has been noted that Rule 14, Sec. 14.2, subsection
(e), contains a scrivener's error which erroneously transposed the word "or"
to the incorrect word "of".
This proposed amendment would serve to separate each provision of
Rule 14.2 (e) and correct the scrivener's error.
The proposed changes are underlined. The word stricken through is
to be deleted.
Rule 14, Sec. 14.2, subsection (e) presently reads:
11419 3
"Has violated any lawful and reasonable -official regulation or
order, or failed to obey any lawful or reasonable direction
made and given by his/her superior, where such violation or
failure to obey amounts to an act of insubordination or a
serious breach of proper discipline, or resulted or reasonably
might be expected to result, in loss or injury to the City or
to the public or to the prisoners of wards of the City; or."
Rule 14, Sec. 14.2, subsection (e) as proposed would read as
follows:
"Has violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation or
order, or failed to obey any lawful or reasonable direction
made and given by his/her superior, where such violation or
failure to obey amounts to:
(1) an act of insubordination
or
(2) a serious breach of proper discipline,
MNJ
(3) resulted, or reasonably might be expected to result, in
loss or injury to the City or to the public or to the
prisoners e4- or wards of the City; or."
PAT:md
4 1 4 19
The Civil Service Board of the City of Miami met in regular session on
Tuesday, September 10, 1996, at 10:13 A.M. in the City Commission Chambers,
City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key.
PRESENT: I CHAIRMAN
ORLANDO LLAMAS, CHIEF EXAMINER
T. WIELLARD FAIR, :••'D MEMBER
MARTIN GARCIA, BOARD MEMBER
RITA SUAREZ, BOARD MEMBER
NOT PRESENT: NONE
The Board entered into the scheduled Public Hearing concerning the
proposed amendment to Civil Service Rule 14, DISMISSALS, SUSPENSIONS,
DEMOTIONS AND RESIGNATIONS, Sec. 14.2. Grounds for Dismissal.
Suspension and Demotion. subsection (e) and correction of a scrivener's error. The
Rule change was proposed by the Civil Service Board as a result of questions raised
during employee appeal hearings as to whether or not an employee could be found
in violation of Civil Service Rule 14.2, subsection (e), even though the provisions
cited in that Rule included items which were unrelated to the Departmental Rules
and Regulations listed in the charging document issued to the employee. Some
Board Members felt Rule 14.2 (e) was too encompassing. Additionally, it was
noted that Rule 14, Sec. 14.2, subsection (e), contains a scrivener's error which
transposed the word "or" to the incorrect word "of'. Special Counsel Valentine
was instructed to draft a proposed amendment to Rule 14.2 (e) for the Board's
review. The proposed amendment would serve to separate each provision of Rule
14.2 (e) and correct the scrivener's error.
Chairman Silverman informed all present that this is a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone wished to speak on this matter.
PAGE: 1 aF 6 4 1
Member Suarez asked the Executive Secretary if the proposed amendment is
approved by the Board today, what would be the next step for implementing it into
the Civil Service Rules.
The Executive Secretary advised Member Suarez that an Ordinance has to be
prepared for approval by the City Commission. She went on to say that office staff
will prepare a draft Ordinance and forward it to the Agenda Office for placement on
the City Commission agenda.
Following discussion, Member Llamas made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Suarez, to approve the proposed amendment to Civil Service Rule 14,
DISMISSALS, SUSPENSIONS, DEMOTIONS AND RESIGNATIONS, Sec.
14.2. Grounds for Dismissal_ Suspension and Demotion, subsection (e) and
correction of the scrivener's error contained therein. The motion was unanimously
(5-0) approved by the Board.
On a motion made by Member Garcia and seconded by Member Fair, the
Board unanimously (5-0) approved the minutes of the regular Board meeting of
August 27, 1996.
A copy of a letter from Chief Donald H. Warshaw, Director, Department of
Police, notifying Luis G. Longhi, Automotive Mechanic, of his termination from
employment, effective August 31, 1996, and a copy of a memorandum from Luis G.
Longhi requesting a hearing of appeal concerning his termination were noted by the
Board.
A copy of a letter from Chief Carlos Gimenez, Director, Department of Fire
and Rescue, notifying Ralph St. Germain, Communications Operator, of an eight
(8). hour suspension, effective September 8, 1996, was ordered filed pending
possible appeal of this action within the time provided under Civil Service Rules
and Regulations.
A copy of a Judgment from the City Manager concurring with the Board in
finding Fausto Barrionuevo, Police Officer, guilty of the Charges against him and
sustaining the Department Director's action to terminate Fausto Barrionuevo from
employment with the City of Miami, effective April 12, 1996, was noted by the
Board.
6
PAGE 2 OF 6
SEPTE14 - 10;19�96
A copy of a letter from Ron E. Williams, Assistant City Manager,
Department of General Services Administration and Solid Waste, notifying
Gabriel Mancriff, Waste Collector, of his termination from employment, effective
August 26, 1996, 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
September 10, 1996.
The Board was presented with Notification of Rescheduling of Pending
Hearings.
The Board was presented with a proposed amendment to PPM-1-88
"Request for Continuance of Hearings." It was noted that this item was tabled from
the meeting of August 27, 1996.
Ana Maria Pando, Assistant City Attorney, Department of Law, appeared
before the Board and stated that she met with Special Counsel Valentine and they
have reached an agreement as to the language to be incorporated into the
Amendment to the Board's "Request for Continuance of Hearings" policy.
Chairman Silverman asked Assistant City Attorney Pando if the new
language was the same as that reviewed by the Board at the August 27, 1996
meeting.
Assistant City Attorney Pando answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Silverman stated that he made it known at the last meeting that he
is opposed to the proposed amendment to PPM-1-88.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Suarez, to approve the proposed amendment to PPM-1-88 "Request for
Continuance of Hearings." The motion was approved (4-1) by the Board with
Chairman Silverman dissenting.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of Elaine
Navarro, Communications Operator, Department of Police, relative to her eight (8)
hour forfeiture of earned overtime, effective January 31, 1996.
Pi 5
_ �149
SEPTEMBER 10,1996;
Jose A. Fernandez, Assistant City Attorney, Department -of Law, represented
the City.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, represented the Respondent.
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 Cohen made a Motion to Dismiss the Charges brought against his
client on the grounds of double jeopardy and presented argument in support of his
motion.
Without objection from Board Members, Chairman Silverman denied
Attorney Cohen's Motion to Dismiss the Charges brought against his client.
The Rule of Witnesses was invoked and all witnesses were sworn in
individually.
Witnesses for the City appeared in the following order:
1. Alejandro Mendez, Police Officer, City of Miami, Department of Police.
Questions were posed by Members Garcia and Llamas during the testimony
of witness Alejandro Mendez.
2. Albert Osorio, Police Officer, City of West Miami, Department of Police.
The City rested its case.
Elaine Navarro, Communications Operator, City of Miami, Department of
Police, testified on her own behalf.
Questions were posed by Members Garcia and Suarez during the testimony
of witness Elaine Navarro.
The Respondent rested her case.
The City waived rebuttal.
8 PAGE 4 OY fi
SFIPTI MBER 109199 ;
Following final argument by both attorneys, Member Garcia stated that there
has to be some determining factor as to when a City employee should be treated as
an employee or a civilian when involved in off -duty incidents. He went on to say
that he agrees with Attorney Cohen's argument that the incident involving his client
should not have had any bearing on the City of Miami because it did not occur in
the City limits, and as a civilian, Ms. Navarro went to her ex-husband's residence in
an attempt to remedy a matter. Member Garcia further stated that he feels the
Police Department had already disciplined Ms. Navarro when it transferred her to
another unit and did not allow her to work overtime. He stated that according to the
testimony he heard, Ms. Navarro was not violent or belligerent while at her ex-
husband's residence, and she voluntarily left the premises when she was asked to
get inside the.Police vehicle.
Chairman Silverman stated that, in his opinion, Ms. Navarro did not
voluntarily leave the premises because she was handcuffed by a Police Officer and
taken away in his police vehicle.
Member Llamas stated that Ms. Navarro completed the mandated Advocate
Program which cost her $150. He went on to say that her salary increase was
withheld for a period of 90 days and she was transferred to another unit in the
Police Department. Member Llamas finther stated that he felt Ms. Navarro should
not have been reprimanded because she was already disciplined for the same
incident.
Chairman Silverman stated that he thinks the Board should consider this
matter in two parts. He went on to say that if Ms. Navarro is found guilty of any of
the Charges, the Board would then consider the penalty phase. Chairman
Silverman further stated that, in his opinion, all of the Charges are relatively the
same, and he suggested that the Board vote either guilty or not guilty on all of the
Charges at one time.
Following discussion, Member Llamas made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Garcia, to find the Respondent not guilty of all of the Charges. The
motion was approved (4-1) by the Board with Chairman Silverman dissenting.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of Zelideth
Irizarry -Sanchez, Accountant, relative to her thirty (30) day suspension, effective
May 18, 1995.
PAGE14 19 9
SEPT.E BER 10, f996
Chairman Silverman stated that it is his understanding -that this matter was
settled. He proceeded to ask both attorneys if this information is correct.
Attorney Cohen and Assistant City Attorney Fernandez appeared before the
Board and answered in the affirmative.
Assistant City Attorney Fernandez stated that this matter should be held in
abeyance since his Department is in the process of reaching a settlement.
No other discussion took place on this matter.
Breaks were taken between 10:46 - 10:56 A.M., and 11:03 - 11:05 A.M.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:14 A.M.
ATTEST:
GERALD SMVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
10 „ PA f EST- 6
_ 41c9
CIVILSERVICE
BOARD
JANUARY 30,1"6
The Civil Service Board of the City of Miami met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 30, 1996, at 10:02 AM in the City Commission Chambers, City
Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key.
PRESENT:1 1�
ORLANDO LLAMAS, CHIEFfl
T. WILLARD FAIR, :••'DMEMBER
MARTINBOARD M1:
NOT PRESENT: NONE
The Executive Secretary informed the Board that in Accordance with Civil
Service Rule 2.1, immediately after appointment of the new Board, its members
shall elect aChairman, a Chief Examiner, and an Executive Secretary for the Civil
Service Board.
As is customary practice for the election of officers, the Executive Secretary
served as temporary Chairman of the Board. Ms. Thompson called for nominations
for Chairman of the Civil Service Board.
Member Llamas nominated Gerald Silverman for the position of Chairman of
the Board. The nomination was seconded by Member Suarez. Upon noting no other
nominations, Ms. Thompson called the roll and Member Silverman's nomination
was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
Ms. Thompson announced that the Chairman of the Civil Service Board is
Gerald Silverman and turned the Chair over to him.
PAGE 1 OF 13-
JANUARY 30, 1996
Chairman Silverman called for nominations for the position of Chief
Examiner.
Member Garcia nominated Orlando Llamas for the position. The nomination
was seconded by Member Suarez. Chairman Silverman, upon noting no other
nominations, accepted the election of Orlando Llamas for the position of Chief
Examiner on a unanimous (5-0) vote approved by the Board.
Chairman Silverman called for nominations for the position of Executive
Secretary to the Civil Service Board.
Member Suarez nominated Priscilla A. Thompson for the position. The
nomination was seconded by Member Llamas. There being no other nominations,
Ms. Thompson was unanimously (5-0) elected Executive Secretary of the Board.
On a motion made by Member Llamas and seconded by Member Suarez, the
Board unanimously (5-0) adopted the existing Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
Member Fair made a motion, which was seconded by Member Suarez, to
approve the minutes of the regular Board meeting of January 2, 1996. The motion
was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with a request from Major Paul M. Shepard,
Commander, Personnel Resource Management, Department of Police, to extend
the probationary period of Roma Louis, Police Officer, three (3) months beyond
January 30, 1996.
Chairman Silverman asked Officer Louis if she objected to the Police
Department's request to extend her probationary period.
Police Officer Roma Louis appeared before the Board and answered in the
negative.
Member Garcia asked if the Police Department was requesting an extension
of Police Officer Louis' probationary period because she has not completed the
Field Training Officer Program.
Jorge Valladares, Senior Staff Analyst, Personnel Resource Management,
Department of Police, appeared before the Board and answered in the affirmative.
12 - PAGE 2 OF 13
JANUARY 30, 1"6
He went on to say that one segment of the program requires probationary officers to
ride solo in their police vehicle and this is the portion that Officer Louis needs to
complete. Member Garcia asked if Officer Louis is completing her last month of
the program.
Mr. Valladares answered in the affirmative.
Member Garcia asked if Officer Louis is currently riding solo.
Police Officer Louis answered in the affirmative.
Following discussion, Member Fair made a motion, which was seconded by
Member Llamas, to approve the Police Department's request to extend Officer
Louis' probationary period three (3) months beyond January 30, 1996. The motion
was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with a request from Major Paul M. Shepard,
Commander, Personnel Resource Management, Department of Police, to extend
the probationary period of Pamela Braga, Police Officer, three (3) months beyond
February 1, 1996.
Chairman Silverman asked Officer Braga if she objected to the Police
Department's request -to extend her probationary period.
Police Officer Pamela Braga appeared before the Board and answered in the
negative.
Member Llamas asked if this is the Police Department's first request to
extend Officer Braga's probationary period.
The Executive Secretary answered in the affirmative.
Following discussion, Member Llamas made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Suarez, to approve the Police Department's request to extend Officer
Braga's probationary period three (3) months beyond February 1, 1996. The motion
was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with a request from Major Paul M. Shepard,
Commander, Personnel Resource Management, Department of Police, to extend
PAGE 3 OF 13
11 419 13
JANUARY 30, 1996
the probationary period of Francisco Fondeur, Police Officer, four (4) months
beyond February 1, 1996.
Chairman Silverman asked Officer Fondeur if he objected to the Police
Department's request to extend his probationary period.
Police Officer Francisco Fondeur appeared before the Board and answered in
the negative.
Member Llamas asked if this is the Police Department's first request to
extend Officer Fondeur's probationary period.
The Executive Secretary answered in the affirmative.
Following discussion, Member Llamas made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Fair, to approve the Police Department's request to extend Officer
Fondeur's probationary period four (4) months beyond February 1, 1996. The
motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
Member Suarez asked Mr. Valladares if the Police Department has a limit to
the number of times it can extend an employee's probationary period.
Mr. Valladares answered in the negative.
Chairman Silverman stated that any requests for extension of probationary
periods approved by the Board is considered the limit.
No further discussion took place relating to extension of probationary
requests.
A copy of a letter from Chief Carlos Gimenez, Department of Fire and
Rescue, notifying Ismael Casanas, Fire Fighter, of a forty-eight (48) hour
suspension, effective October 16, 1995, was ordered filed pending possible appeal
of this action within the time provided under Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
A copy of a letter from Chief Donald H. Warshaw, Director, Department of
Police, notifying Altarr Williams, Police Officer, of a forfeiture of twenty (20) hours
of earned overtime, effective December 28, 1995, and a copy of a memorandum
from Altarr Williams requesting a hearing of appeal relative to his forfeiture of
PAGE 4 OF 13
14 �i141
JANUARY 30,1996
earned overtime were noted by the Board. A hearing will be scheduled in
accordance with Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
A copy of a letter from Chief Donald H. Warshaw, Director, Department of
Police, notifying Perschell Johnson, Police Officer, of a forfeiture of twenty (20)
hours of earned overtime, effective December 22, 1995, and a copy of a
memorandum from Perschell Johnson requesting a hearing of appeal relative to her
forfeiture of earned overtime were noted by the Board. A hearing will be scheduled
in accordance with Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
The Board was presented with Notification of Pending Hearings as of January
30, 1996.
The Board was presented with Notification of Rescheduling of Pending
Hearings.
A copy of the December, 1995 Monthly report from Angela R. Bellamy,
Assistant City Manager, Department of Human Resources, addressed to Board
members concerning personnel matters was noted by the Board.
Although the following item was not included on today's meeting agenda, the
Board considered the issue as a "New Business" item.
Chairman Silverman stated that he received a letter dated January 29, 1996,
from Attorney Cynthia A. Everett on behalf of her client, Ivey Kearson, Jr.,
requesting that the location of his 2-day meeting be changed. He went on to say that
she is also requesting to be provided with the number .of witnesses the City intends
to call during its case. Chairman Silverman asked the Executive Secretary to
provide the Board with information regarding the meeting location for Mr. Ivey
Kearson's 2-day appeal hearing.
The Executive Secretary stated that the meeting location for Mr. Kearson's
appeal hearing has been finalized. She went on to say that she advised Attorneys
Everett and Guedes, in writing of same, and Attorney Everett expressed no
objection to the new meeting location. The Executive Secretary finther stated that
the meeting will be held in the Athletic Club at the City of Miami Orange Bowl.
She stated that the Board can use this facility both days, without interruption, and
there is ample, free parking for everyone who plans to attend. .
_ PAGE 50F.13
114 1915
JANUARY 30, 1996
Chairman Silverman asked Attorney Everett if Attorney Guedes, Special
Counsel for the City, received a copy of her request.
Cynthia A. Everett, Attorney at Law on behalf of Ivey Kearson, Jr., appeared
before the Board and answered in the negative.
Chairman Silverman recommended that this item be placed on the February
13, 1996 Board agenda for discussion because Attorney Guedes was not present at
today's meeting.
Attorney Everett stated that she will contact Attorney Guedes and ask him to
provide her.with the number of witnesses he intends to call and an estimate of the
length of his case; however, if he is unable to provide her with this information, she
will request that this matter be placed on the February 13, 1996 Board meeting
agenda.
The Executive Secretary advised Board Members that Officer Clifford
Gibson was not yet present at the meeting. She proceeded to ask Chairman
Silverman if his case could be placed at the end of the agenda since he had not yet
arrived at today's meeting.
Chairman Silverman answered in the affirmative.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of Conyone
Roberts, Police Officer, Department of Police, relative to her twenty (20) hour
forfeiture of earned overtime, effective April 4, 1995.
Jose A. Fernandez, Assistant City Attorney, Department of Law, represented
the City.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, represented the Respondent.
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.
The Rule of Witnesses was invoked and all witnesses were sworn in
individually.
16 PAGE 6 OF 13
JANUARY 309 1996
Rafael Suarez, Police Sergeant, City of Miami, Department of Police,
testified on behalf of the City.
The City rested its case.
Conyone Roberts, Police Officer, City of Miami, Department of Police,
testified on her own behalf.
Questions were posed by Member Garcia during the testimony of witness
Conyone Roberts.
The Respondent rested her case.
Sgt. Rafael Suarez 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 Suarez stated that this
case is not about Sgt. Suarez; therefore, the Board should not take into
consideration the action he took in this case. She went on to say that she felt this
case not only concerned making a false statement, but also not properly responding
to calls.
Member Llamas stated that he felt Officer Roberts should have responded to
the call for back-up assistance because many Police Officers have lost their lives in
the line of duty. He went on to say that it is important to a Police Officer who is
requesting back-up assistance to know that fellow Police Officers are on their way
to the scene. Member Llamas proceeded to request that Special Counsel Valentine
advise the Board on whether it could find an employee in violation of Civil Service
Rule 14.2 (e) even though the provisions cited in that Rule may include more items
which are unrelated to Departmental Rules and Regulations listed in the Charging
document.
Special Counsel Valentine appeared before the Board and answered in the
affirmative. He proceeded to remind the Board of his past opinions on this matter as
it related to employees found in violation of Civil Service Rule 14.2 (e).
PAGE '7OF13'
JAPIUARY 30,1996
Following discussion, Member Suarez made a motion, -which was seconded
by Member Garcia, to find the Respondent guilty of Charge 91 as it relates to
inattention to duty. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
Member Llamas made a motion, which was seconded by Member Suarez, to
find the Respondent not guilty of Charge 92. The motion failed (2-3) as follows:
AYES: Suarez, Llamas. NOES: Garcia, Fair, Silverman.
Chairman Silverman relinquished the Chair and made a motion, which was
seconded by Member Fair, to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #2. The motion
failed (2-3) as follows: AYES: Fair, Silverman. NOES: Llamas, Suarez, Garcia.
Member Suarez made a motion, which seconded by Member Llamas, to find
the Respondent guilty of Charge #3. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved
by the Board.
Member Suarez made a motion, which was seconded by Chairman
Silverman, to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #4. The motion was
unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
Member Llamas made a motion, which was seconded by Member Fair to find
the Respondent not guilty of Charge #5.
Member Suarez stated that at the January 26, 1996 Civil Service Board
Member Workshop, Special Counsel Valentine informed all present that in lieu of
finding an employee guilty of all the provisions included in Civil Service Rule 14.2
(e) which may not completely apply to a violation of a Departmental Rule, the
Board may specify a portion of the Rule that relates to the cited Charge.
Member Llamas stated that Civil Service Rule 14.2 (e) reads in part, "Has
violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation or order, . .. where such
violation or failure to obey amounts to an act of insubordination. He went on
to say that he did not feel Officer Roberts was insubordinate towards her superior;
therefore, he did not feel that she was guilty of that Charge.
Member Suarez stated that it is her understanding that the Board can make a
finding on a provision of Civil Service Rule 14.2 (e) and it does not have to
encompass the entire Rule. She went on to say that this is why she felt a specific
PAGE S OF 13
JANUARY 30.)1996
finding of guilt, as it relates to having violated a lawful and reasonable official
regulation, was appropriate.
Member Llamas stated that that was his reason for asking Special Counsel
Valentine to provide the Board with an opinion on the matter concerning Civil
Service Rule 14.2 (e) prior to voting on the Charges. He proceeded to request that
Special Counsel Valentine direct the Board as to whether or not it can specify a
portion of Rule 14.2 (e) for a guilty finding on that Charge.
Special Counsel Valentine stated that in order to be consistent with the
foregoing findings of guilt, the Board has to find the Respondent guilty of Rule 14.2
(e) because the first portion of the Rule states, "Has violated any lawful and
reasonable official regulation ...." He*went on to say that the Board may specify a
portion of the Rule that relates to the Charge and exclude the remaining provisions
of Rule 14.2 (e). Special Counsel Valentine suggested that Member Llamas
withdraw his motion to be consistent with the foregoing Charges.
Following further discussion, Member Llamas withdrew his original motion,
and proceeded to make a motion to find the Respondent guilty of Charge #5 as it
relates to having violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation. The motion -
was seconded by Member Suarez, and approved (4-1) by the Board with Member
Fair dissenting.
Member Suarez made a motion, which was seconded by Member Garcia, to
find the Respondent guilty of Charge #6 as it relates to being inefficient in the
performance of the duties of the position held.
Chairman Silverman stated that an employee is either guilty or not guilty of a
Charge. He went on to say that he does not think it .is a good idea for the Board to
specify a portion of the Rule when voting whether or not an employee is in violation
of a Rule.
Following further discussion, the motion on the floor was approved (4-1) by
the Board with Member Fair dissenting.
The Executive Secretary reminded Chairman Silverman that the Board did not
reach a finding of guilty or not guilty on Charge #2.
PAGE 9 OF 13:
JANUARY 301,19%
Without objection from Board Members, Chairman Silverman stated that the
vote would remain as it was since the Board could not agree on that Charge.
The Board reviewed the Respondent's personnel file.
No testimony or final argument was presented by the City or the Respondent
relating to the penalty portion of Ms. Roberts' appeal hearing.
Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded by Member Llamas, to
recommend to the City Manager that Officer Roberts receive a written reprimand in
lieu of a ten (10) hour forfeiture of earned overtime.. The motion was approved (3-
2) by the Board as follows: AYES: Fair, Llamas, Garcia. NOES: Suarez,
Silverman.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of Conyone
Roberts, Police Officer, Department of Police, relative to her eighty (80) hour
suspension, effective May 31., 1995.
Jose A. Fernandez, Assistant City Attorney, Department of Law, represented
the City.
Ronald J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, represented the Respondent.
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.
William Janzen, Police Officer, Evanston, Illinois Police Department and
former Police Sergeant, City of Miami, Department of Police, telephonically
testified on behalf of the City.
The City rested its case.
Attorney Cohen made a motion to alternatively dismiss the City's case or
strike all the testimony pertaining to the tape. He proceeded to present argument in
support of his motion.
PAGE 10 OF 13
20
JANUARY 30, 1"6
Without objection from Board Members, Chairman Silverman denied
Attorney Cohen's motion to dismiss the City's case and to strike all the testimony
pertaining to the tape.
Witnesses for the Respondent appeared in the following order:
1. Eduardo Roque, Police Officer, City of Miami, Department of Police.
2. Conyone Roberts, Police Officer, City of Miami, Department of Police,
testified on her own behalf.
The Respondent rested her case.
The City waived rebuttal.
Following final argument by both attorneys, Chairman Silverman stated that
the City had the burden to prove its case, and he did not feel that the City proved its
case.
Following discussion, Member Garcia made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Fair, to find the Respondent not guilty of all of the Charges. The
motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
Prior to entering into the scheduled appeal hearing of Police Officer Clifford
Gibson's case, Chairman Silverman noted that he still was not present at the
meeting and asked the Executive Secretary if she was able to contact him.
The Executive Secretary stated that she telephoned Mr. Gibson's home and
spoke with him regarding his scheduled appeal hearing. She went on to say that he
advised her that he forgot about his scheduled hearing, that he had just returned
home from Court, and that he had a test to take in school that evening. The
Executive Secretary further stated that she. advised him that two other hearings were
scheduled before the Board today, which would allow him time to be present for his
case; however, he ,requested a continuance of his hearing. She stated that she
explained to him that he already had two continuances of his hearing granted by the
Board, and in order for his current request to be approved by the Board, the City has
to express no objection to his request. The Executive Secretary went on to say that
Officer Gibson advised her that if the City objected to his request for a continuance,
PAS11 Off' 13
11419 2�
JANUARY 3091996
the Board could proceed with his hearing and he asked that the Executive Secretary
notify him of the outcome of his hearing.
Chairman Silverman asked Assistant City Attorney Fernandez if he objected
to Mr. Gibson's request for a continuance of his appeal hearing.
Assistant City Attorney Fernandez answered in the affirmative. He went on
to say that Mr. Gibson's hearing was continued twice and he is ready to proceed.
Following discussion, Member Suarez made a motion, which was seconded
by Member Fair, to deny Mr. Gibson's request for a continuance. The motion was
unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal on behalf of Clifford
Gibson, Police Officer, Department of Police, relative to his ten (10) hour
forfeiture, effective July 3, 1992.
The Executive Secretary asked Chairman Silverman if the Board was
proceeding under Civil Service Rule 14.7. Failure of Parties to Appear.
Chairman Silverman answered in the negative. He went on to say that the
City has the burden of proof, therefore, if the employee is not present, the City still
can proceed with its case.
Jose A. Fernandez, Assistant City Attorney, Department of Law, represented
the City.
Chairman Silverman noted that Police Officer Clifford Gibson still was not
present at today's meeting.
Chairman Silverman waived reading of 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:
22 -PAGE 12 OF 13
JANUARY 301,1996
1. Michael Dannelly, Police Off cer/Expert Witness in Accident
Reconstruction, City of Miami, Department of Police.
2. Israel Castellanos, Auto Body Shop Mechanic, City of Miami, Department
of General Services Administration and Solid Waste.
The City rested its case.
No testimony was presented on behalf of the Respondent due to his absence
from the meeting.
Following final argument by Assistant City Attorney Fernandez, Member
Suarez made a motion to find the Respondent guilty of all of the Charges. The
motion was seconded by Member Fair and unanimously (5-0) approved by the
Board.
The Board reviewed the Respondent's personnel file.
No testimony was presented by the City or the Respondent relating to the
penalty portion of Mr. Gibson's appeal hearing.
Following final argument by Assistant City Attorney Fernandez on the
penalty portion of Officer Clifford Gibson's appeal hearing, Member Garcia made a
motion, which was seconded by Member Llamas, to uphold the Department
Director's decision to impose a ten (10) hour forfeiture of earned overtime. The
motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
Breaks were taken between 10:35-10:45 AM; 11:05-11:09 AM; and 11:49-
11:57 AM.
There being no fiuther business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:30 PM.
ATTEST:
GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAGE 13 OF 13
1 1 4 t 9 21
RED. t ,
'97 JAN 24 110 .D,
WATER 1ra�
CIT `(r R
CIT Y (
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Dade County, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF 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 Dade
County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of
CITY OF MIAMI
ORDINANCE NO. 11419
Inthe.......................XXXX3f...................................... Court,
was published In said newspaper In the Issues of
Jan 23, 1997
Attlant further says that the said Miami Daily Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade
County, Florida, and that the sold newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In sold 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 Dade County, Florida, for a period of
one year next preceding the first publication of the attached
copy of advertisement; and afflant further says that she has
neither paid r promised Wpeg,or corporation
any disco , rebate, commor the purpose
of secu g/g,tlfji�advertiseon In the said
new3 p
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
23January 97
�yof .... ..................................... ... yIIGD.19......
(SEAL) pvFlC� NOTARY SEAL
Octelms V. Ferbey ronall".., K wnMAirLTT LLERENA
{ O COMMISSION NUMBER
-C CC566004
��' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
`�OF F,O� JUNE 23.2000
CITY OF 6I11AM19 FLOMDA
LE .L NOTICE
AN interested persons will take notioe.thgt on the 121b day of December,
1996, thei City Commission of Miami, F orW,-s#dopted the following titled
ordinances: -
ORDINANCE N0.11416 ,
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING WON 6 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 6145, ADOPTED fAARCN'1t; f9> AS AIliIEWED,
WHICH. ESTABLISHED FEES FOR BUILDINti `PL�1MBifild EL.EC-
TRICAL, MECHANICAL, (INCLUDING Bp �D Et t►ATOR)
INSPECTION, PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE; x ADDING
AND INCREASING REQUIRED FEES. SR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SOUTH, .;�I,c# 0A JIIbIND CODE;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISI*;-*VEAABjJTk. CLAUSE, -
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DAT. s
ORDINANCE NO,11417
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDNANCE NO. , M3,
j .'.'OPTED JULY 25TH, 1996, WHICH ESTABLISHED INITIAL RE-
hSrAiRCES AND INITIAL APPROPRIATIONSFOR A SPECIAL REVENUE
1ND ENTITLED: 'OPERATION C.A:R.414,_ SY ASIhjG, SAID 1,
rUND. N AN:AMOUN"( NOT TO fiXCEMCI� ;AO;'AU'riIwFtONG+•'I
THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT'A` GRAdVT 119 AN A�TO ' 1
EXCEED $40,000.00 FROM THE FLORIDA MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
PREVENTION AUTHORITY AND TO' EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS TO ACCEPT SAID GRXW-,'CONTAINING A iEPEALER
PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO.11418
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
ENTITLED: 'PARTNERSHIP FUND' AND APPROPRIATINQ FUNDS, IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED S25,WO.00, TO SAID, FUND; AUTHO-
RIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF FbLICE TO ACCEPT: MONETARY
DONATIONS FROM VARIOUS PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS TO BE
DEPOSITED IN SAID FUND; AND. TO EXPEND SAID FUNDS ON
COMMUNITY EVENTS SPONSORED BY THE ..(4E0ARTIT OF
POLICE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND S0iwiury
CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE 1141
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING C R 40, ENTITLED: 'PER-
SONNEL" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED, BY SEPARATING THE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS AS SET
FORTH IN SECTION 40-98(5) ENTITLED: "GROUNDS FQR.DiSMISSAL,
SUSPENSION. -AND DEMOTION" TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH AND
INDIVIDUALIZE EACH VIOLATION; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION ,LAND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;. PROVIDING FOR -AN
EFFECTIVE' DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY
CODE.
ORDINANCE NO.11420 -
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 62--53'OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED. ENTITLED:
'APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE
PF;ANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ZONING "BOARD,' TO 'REDUCE
COMPENSATION TO ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR; CONTAINING A
,REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY'CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO.11421
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 62-61 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED:
"SCHEDULE OF FEES% TO INCREASE THIE, FEES APPLICABLE TO
CLASS 11 SPECIAL PERMITS, AND TO INTRODUCE A .PACKAGE
MAILING FEE TO BE CHARGED .FOR ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO.11422
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-W QF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
'AUTHORITY TO SELL' BY DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
CITY MUST FIRST OFFER A SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR SALE AT ITS
APPRAISED VALUE TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY AND THE
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL, BOARD; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO.11423
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE, AMENDING SECTION '42-8.1 OF
THE CODE OF . THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
ENTITLED: 'SPECIAL OFF -DUTY POLICE SERVICES', THEREBY IN-