HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-10163r ORDINANCE NO. 1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 404;.460, ENTITLED
"ELIGIBLE REGISTERS", SUB -SECTION (C) ENTITLED
"DURATION", OF THE CODE OF 'THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW SENTENCE
TO THE EXISTING SUB -SECTION (C) BY PROVIDING
FOR THE EXTENSION OF REGISTERS AFFECTED BY A
FREEZE ON PROMOTIONS AS ORDERED BY THE CITY
MANAGER; FURTHER CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR
WHICH HAD TRANSPOSED THE WORD "THAN" TO THE
INCORRECT WORD "THAT" ON LINE 4 IN CIVIL SERVICE;
RULE 7 "ELIGIBLE REGISTERS", SEC. 7.3, "DURATION
OF REGISTERS"; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION
AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Board, at its regular meeting of
August 12, 1986, unanimously voted to amend Rule 7, Section 7.3
by adding a new sentence to the existing section and correcting a
scrivener's error in the same section as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of this body to incorporate this
provision in the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City
of Miami; and
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City
are codified as Article III of Ch. 40, Sections 40-36 - 40-175,
of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 40-60, entitled "Eligible registers",
Sub -Section (c) entitled "Duration", of the Code of the City of
Miami, Florida, as amended, is hereby amended in the following
particulars:)
"Sec. 40-60. Eligible registers.
(a) Establishment.
(b) Order of Names.
(c) Duration. The term of eligibility of each
register and of the names appearing thereon shall be
fixed by the Director of the Human Resources Department
at not less #Alert than one year nor more than two years.
Whenever, for economic purposes, the City Manager by
memorandum delays the filling of a promotional vacancy,
the life of the sub3ect register and all other
promotional registers affected thereby shall be
extended for a periodof time equal to that time
occasioned by the delay. Any register that has been in
effect for more than one year may be abolished or
extended at any time by the Director of the Human
Resources Department, For the purpose of this rule the
life of an eligible register begins on the date the
eligible register is established.
Underscored words and/or figures shall be added, Word stricken
is to be deleted. Remaining provisions are now in effect and
remain uncb4nged. Asterisks indicate omitted and unchanged
material.
Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as
they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 3. 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.
PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this llth day of
September , 1986.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY
this 7th day of October , 1986.
AT T:
MATTY HIRAI
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
G�2y ' z
&Lzr
ROBERT F . CLARK
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
APPROV AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
LU IA A. DOUGHER Y
CITY ATTORNEY
I, Many Hirai, Clerk of the City of Nli:►mi. Fl,)ri�l:►.
hereby certify that on the-k°� clay of C''_c.�•:..^
A, 1).-19 Eke full, true and correct copy of the al) ►vc
and foregoing ordinance was posted at the Smith Door
of the lade County, Court l louse at The place provided
for notelces and publications by attaching said copy to
thy place provided therefor.
Wl'l'.NF.SS my hand and v offieiol seal of said
City this r ' C/ day of -"A. V. 19
�Arcitv Clerk
R L. SUARV2, MAYOR
1A1039
di" OP WAMI, PLOP15A
INTC14-01PPICE M CMIZAA1 DUD 39
te. Hohorable ,Mayor and Methbers 0Att: 8 F p 1 1988 04LE
of the City COMMiasion
tuts€cf proposed Amendment to
Civil Service Rules
and Regulations
PROM. �� �ItktilEFl�tffi:
Cesar H. Odio
City ManagerN��nsu�s.
It is recommended that an amendment to Rule
7, Section 7.5 of the Civil Service Rules
and Regulations per the attached ordinance,
be approved to provide for the extension of
registers affected by a freeze on promotions
ordered by the City Manager and to correct a
scrivener's-error.
At the public hearing of July 15, 1986 concerning the status of
the freeze in the City of Miami, the Civil Service Board noted
that current Rules do not contain any provision for the extension
of a register(s) during a freeze on promotions ordered by the
City Manager.
Additionally, it had been noted that Rule 7, Sec. 7.3 contained a
scrivener's error which currently transposed the word "than" to
the incorrect word "that".
To provide for the duration of promotional registers affected by
a freeze order and to correct the scrivener's error, the Civil
Service Hoard, at its regular meeting of August 12, 1986,
unanimously voted to amend Rule 7, Section 7.3.
I shall include on the City Commission agenda of September 11,
1986 an ordinance concerning an amendment to Civil Service Rule
erection 7.3.
•
i
AUGUST 12; 1086
The civil Servide 86ara of the City of Miatii mat in regular session e
Tuesday, August 12, 1985 at 9 08 A,M, in the City Cofnmigsion Rodm# City
Hall, 3900 pan Ameridan Driven* Dinner Key.
PRESENT: OERALD SILVERMAt#; CHAIRMAIS
A. O, 814ERMAN; CHIEF FX MINER
CEOROE H, ADAMS; BOARD MEMBER
RAY'MOND PENLANt ; BOARD MEMBER
MARISA V. PARtS, BOARD MEMBER ( 9: 20 A.M.)
NOT PRESENT: NONE
The Board entered into the scheduled public hearing concerning the
'+ proposed amendment to Civil Service Rule 7, Sec. 7,3 and correction of
scrivener's error.
Kenneth Nelson; President of Miami Fraternal Order of police Lodge »20
appeared before the Board and stated that he feels there is confusion in
t the wording of Civil Service Rule 7; Sec. 7.3 as proposed and reads as
follows: Duration•of'Registers. The term of eligibility.... Whenever,
for economic purposes, the City Manager by memorandum delays the filling of
a promotional vacancy, the life of the subject register and all other
promotional registers affected thereby shall be extended for a period of
time equal to that time occasioned by the delay. He posed the following
situation: a Captains list which had been frozen for one and a half years
and the freeze was lifted, thusly; the Captains list would be extended one
and a half years due to the freeze. He went on to state that in the
wording of Civil Service Rule 7; Sec. 7.3 one can be led to believe that
all other promotions, in this case lieutenants and sergeants would also be
extended by the same time frame. He stated that he is asking the Board for
further clarification.
Chairman Silverman asked Mr. Nelson what did he have in mind. He
further asked him if he wanted a deletion of the statement he feels is
causing confusion.
i
Mr. Nelson stated that the portion he wants to change deals with "and
all other promotional registers." He stated he feels the deletion of this
clause will clarify the statement.
Chairman Silverman asked if the rule change is approved with the
deletion as referenced by Mr. Nelson would there be a need to readvertise
or could the Board readily take action today on the matter.
The Executive Secretary stated that the wording used in the proposed
rule change is the exact wording used in the old Rules prior to its
deletion.
i Mr. Nelson stated that from his understanding of the proposed new ru ie
change; if the Captain's register has to be extended by one and half (1
3 1/2) year then all registers would have to be extended by that same time
s frame. He cited the City's current position as it relates to the Police
Sergeant's register. He stated that the Police Sergeant's register as it
stands now will be extended two (2) months and nineteen (19) days because
of the freeze. He further stated that the wording in the proposed change
is the problem. He stated that someone may state that since the highest
register was in affect; therefore, all registers would have to be extended
by that same time frame.
The Executive Secretary stated that the intent of the language of the
t proposed change is for all promotional registers affected by the freeze to
be extended for a period of time equal to that time occasioned by the
delay, The Executive Secretary stated that she is confused as to what
Mr. Nelson is desirous of and feels that the proposed language represents
the desires of all concerned individuals who left the meeting of July 15,
1986, as it relates to the duration of registers,
Member Sherman stated that when he made the motion during the Civil
Service Board meeting on July 15, 1956 his concerns were those individual,
PACE 1 OF 6
� F
,s
-° who had
studied And passed the oxatinati6h and would be
affected by the
freaid.
He further cited the following! if there were
ten (la) vacandies
in the Captain's
register and none in the Lieutenant's
or Sergeant's
register
and finally by the extension of the Captain's
registdr, you
promote
ten (lb) lieutenants which will in turn be filled
by sergeants,
i thusly;
all registers would have been affected.
} The
Executive Secretary indicated this is what is
being proposed
today.
Mr.
Nelson reiterated that it is not clear whether
the Captain's
register
is good for one and a half (1 1/2) year or is
the Sergeant's
register
good for two (2) months and nineteen (19) days
or are all the
registers
good for one and a half (1 1/2) years.
The
Executive Secretary asked Mr. Nelson if it was
his position that
the extension
of the affected registers be different.
Mr.
Nelson stated that it should be the time the eligible
register
would have
been in affect had it not been a freeze. He
further stated in
the case
of the Sergeant's register it would have been
two (2) months and
nineteen
(19) days.
I
Member Penland stated that he has a concern about the intent of Civil
Service Rule 7 Sec. 7.3. He stated if the freeze were lifted tomorrow at
the end of 1987; the 1984 register would still be in affect. Member
Penland asked if what was being said was that all positions which became
vacant during that three (3) year period would be promoted from the 1984
register. He further stated that he feels the intent should be those
positions that become vacant during the normal life of the register those
people should be promoted from that register. Member Penland stated that
the freeze could conceivably continue for five (5) years.
Member Sherman stated that he agrees with Member Penland. He stated
that if you have an existing register for two (2) years and during that
period of time there are (X) amount of vacancies and promotional vacancies
due to budgetary and or economic problems and the positions aren't filled,
he thinks Member Penland is stating that anyone who fell within this period
would come from the existing register before anyone is considered by virtue
of extending -of the register. He stated that every vacancy filled would
have to come from the existing register and at such time they were filled
they would then go into filling vacant positions from the new register.
The Executive Secretary stated that the proposed amendment to Civil
Service Rule 7; Sec. 7.3 only addresses the duration of promotional
registers affected by a freeze due to the economic reasons.
The Executive Secretary stated following the meeting of July 1.5, 1966,
it appeared all of those in attendance were comfortable with the previous
language used in the old Rules to address the extension of registers
affected by a promotional freeze ordered by the City Manager. She further
stated that Mr. Nelson seems to be raising an issue which may be contrary
to that which was understood at the July 15 meeting concerning the duration
of the affected promotional registers.
Chairman Silverman relinquished the Chair and made a motion, which was
seconded by Member Pares to approve the proposed amendment to Civil Service
Rule 7, Sec. 7.3. The motion was unanimously approved (5-0) by the Board,
Member Sherman stated that even though he voted yes to the motion he
felt the proposed amendment is still vague. He further stated that he too
feels everyone left the July 15, 1986 with the same intent; however, he
feels more time is needed to consider and think about the proposed
amendment change because he feels we will be right back at the drawing
board with the same problem.
Member Sherman made a
meeting of July 29, 1986,
►unanimously (5-0) approved
motion to approve the
Member Faxes seconded,
by the Board,
minutes of the regular
the motion which was
VAQ9 2 OF 6
IoI63
AUCtST 12; 106
The Board was presented with A request from dolohel. Billy Riggat
Comander Personnel gectioh, Pdlide D6PAft1herito to extend the probatiot!AtY
period of Vi6la Twine; Communications Assistant, ninety (k) days beyond
August 8, 1586,
Lieutenant tugend Tell6ti C61hMunida-tidris Section,' Police Department
appeared before the Board And stated that After reviewing t4ha evaluations
Of Viola Twine, Communications Assistant for the last Six (6) Months, it
was found that there is a lack of cooperation on Mt. Twine's part and lack
of job knowledge. He stated the extension it being requested to see if Ms.
Twine can perform duties of a Communications Assistant properly,
Ma, Twine appeared before the Board and stated that the did not feel
that her probationary period should be extended. She stated that At of
Decembtr*' 1986 she would be employed with the City of Miami for eight (8)
years. She further stated prior to being placed on 8 shift in the
Communications Section she had never received any bad evaluations nor
reprimands and feels that the action taken against 'her it personal.
member Sherman asked Ms. Twine was she on probation as a result of a
promotion.
Ms. Twine stated that she held a permanent position as a Clerk Typist
II prior to her promotion to the postion of Communications Assistant. She
stated that she was never informed of the reasons for the extension
request.
t
Member Sherman asked Ms. Twine if the department ever discussed with
her the problem areas.
Ms. Twine stated that the only indication she had of her performance
being a problem were two evaluations. She stated one evaluation was for
the period of June 1,* 1986 thru June 30, 1986 and the Lieutenant, changed
the rating to a lower one.
Chairman Silverman advised Ms. Twine of the consequences of the Board
denying the extension of probationary period. He stated that she could be
rolledback to her previous permanent position.
Member Sherman stated that he would suggest that the department
counsel Ms. Twine and let her know specifically the areas she is having
problems. He further stated that it would be in Ms. Twine's best interest
that the Board approve the extension of probationary period.
Charlyce Woods, Communications operator Supervisor appeared before the
Board and stated that Ms. Twine is a very verbal person. She cited one
outburst that Ms. Twine had on the job. She stated that Ms. Twine -has all
the abilities and capabilities of doing the job; however, she concerns
herself with other individuals work habits.
Ms. Twine stated that Ms. Woods has been her supervisor for
approximately two (2) months. She stated that Ms. Woods has no knowledge
of the outburst she has mentioned.
Member Sherman advised Ms. Twine that it is within her best interest
to have the Board approve the request from the department. Member Sherman
made a motion to approve the department's request to extend Ms. Twine's
probationary period ninety (90) days beyond August 8, 1986. Member Pares
seconded the motion. The motion was approved (3-2) as follows; AYES;
Silverman, Sherman, Pares. NOES; Adams, Penland.
Chairman Silverman advised Ms. Twine that in the long run she is
better off with the extension of ninety (90) days.
On a motion made by Member Sherman, which was seconded by Member
Penland, the Board unanimously (5-0) granted military training leave of
absence, with pay, for a period not to exceed seventeen (17) calendar days
to the following employees. The Board noted that a copy of their orders
had been attached with each request.
PACE 3 OF 6
T
t
a
AUGUST" 12; 1966
NAME EFFECTIVE DATt
6ila�les LReynolds, Police LleuteC�ant July 2 r 1986
Victor Mayes; Fire Safety Specialist August; 1986
Copies of letters from Chief Clarence Dickson► Director Department of
Police; notifying the following employee of forfeitures of earned overtime,
as noted; were ordered filed pending possible appeal of these actions
within the time provided under Civil. Service Rule and Regulations.
NAME .. omingues, ..... FOR tITU _ EVVEC" IVE t)ATr,
o ode i ours une ,
Clarence Washington; Police Off, 15.0 Hours June 25, 1986
Luis Franco; Police Officer 10.0 Hours June 25, 1986
Mark Johnston, Police Officer 15.0 Hours June 30; 1986
Juan Garcia; Police Officer 28.0 Hours July 141' 1986
William Golding; police Officer 8.0 Hours July 21, 1986
Aldo Suero; police Officer 20.0 Fours July 228 1986
A copy of a letter from Clarence Dickson; Director; Department of
Police; notifying Aldo Suero; Police Officer; of his dismissal from
employment; effective July 22, 1986 and a copy of a letter from Aldo Suero
requesting a hearing of appeal relative to his dismissal was noted by the
Board. A hearing has been scheduled for August 26, 1986.
A copy of a letter from Chief Clarence Dickson; Director, Department
of Police, notifying Robert Agras; Police Sergeant; of a forfeiture of 40.(
hours of earned overtime; effective July'23, 1986 was ordered filed pendinc
possible appeal.of this action within the time provided under Civil ServicE
Rules and Regulations.
A copy of a letter from Chief Clarence Dickson; Director, Department
of Police, notifying Celestine Barnes, Clerk I, of a one (1) working day
suspension, effective July 24, 1986 and a copy of a letter from H. T.
Smith; Attorney at Law, requesting a hearing of appeal in behalf of
Celestine Barnes relative to her suspension was noted by the Board. A
hearing had been scheduled for August 26; 1986.
A copy of a letter from Chief Clarence Dickson, Director, Department
of Police, notifying Alejandro Derenzis, Communications Assistant, of a
forfeiture of four (4) hours of earned overtime; effective July 30, 1986
was ordered filed pending possible appeal of the action within the time
provided under Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
A copy of a letter from Chief Clarence Dickson; Director, Department
of Police, notifying Ricardo Fernandez, Police Officer, of a forfeiture of
40.0 hours of earned overtime, effective July 31; 1986 and copy of a
memorandum from Ricardo Fernandez requesting a hearing of appeal relative
to his forfeiture of earned overtime was noted by the Board. A hearing ha.,
been scheduled for August 26, 1986.
A copy of a letter from Chief K.E. McCullough; Director, Department of
Fire; Rescue and Inspection Service rescinding the letter dated May 22,
1986 notifying Porter Thompkins, III, Fire Fighter, of a seventy-two (72)
hours suspension; and advising Mr. Thompkins, III of a forty-eight (48)
hours forfeiture of vacation time, effective July 30, 1986 was noted by the
Board.
A copy of a Judgment from the City Manager concurring with the Board
against him and substaining the department director's decision that Howard
Davis be suspended for a period of 24 hours, effective March 24, 1966 was
noted by the Board.
The Board entered into the discussion on the matter of Humberto Lopez;
Chairman Silverman summari4ed for the Board the issues surrounding t)
matter of Humberto Lopez. He stated that the Board on June 7, 1983
approved the action taken by the department to dismiss Mr. Lopez, He
further stated that Mr. Lopez went before the Third District Court of
Appeals and the Court sent the case back to the Civil Service Board for ti
PAOF 4 OF 6
f /63
purpose of makine findings of fact, He also Stated that the Board Membert
aM Steven. M, Weinger, attorney In behalf of HuMberto Lope2 received a cop
cf the proposed findings of fact from. the Boa d'a Special c6unsel; Mark A,
Valdhtine, He further stated that the Board has changed somewhat since tlli
hearing was held on June i; 1982 and a complete copy of the transcript was
giVen to each Board mefaber.
Mr. 'Valentine informed the Board that the recommended findings of fact
was prepared by the City Attorney's office and not him,
Mr, Steven Weinger appeared before the Board and stated that yr. Lope:
first appealed the decision of the Civil Service Board to the Circuit Court
and that Court reversed the decision of the Board, finding that there was
no competent substantial evidence to support the allegations. He further
stated that the City took the position that no findings of fact was
requited from the Civil Service Board because by 'voting (3-2) in favor of
Mr. Lopez' termination they had adopted the letter from Chief H. W. Brice,
Director; Fire; Rescue and Inspection Services Department; outlining the
charges of dismissal. He stated that the Court of Appeals decided that
there was no competent substantial evidence in the report of the findings
of fact. Mr. Weinger stated that there were no actual findings of fact
from the Board and the case should be remanded to the Board. He further
stated that the City of Miami should be able to provide record citations of
the transcript to support their findings of fact. He stated if the Board
looks at the findings of fact and the transcript, they will note none of
the findings of fact are supported by the testimony given during the
hearing.
Mr. Weinger further stated that one of the problems with the case
initially was the City having the Board decide that certain things happened
based on live testimony presented. He stated the Board was to believe
certain witnesses were being untruthful and assume the opposite was a
proven fact. Mr. Weinger stated that there were no facts presented by
competent testimony to support the allegations of improper conduct and the
case was surrounded by all kinds of controversies about Mr. Lopez which had
nothing to do with the case.
Mr. Weinger stated that it is their position that because of the
change in the composition of the Board and because the decision is suppose,:`
to be one of the Board he feels it would be improper to have the Board jus
read the transcript with two (2) new members and then sign an order. He
stated if the Board intends on doing that; he would request that the Board
have the City Attorney's office cite in the transcript specifics supportin-
the findings of fact. He further stated it will then be clear that the
findings of fact were not supported by the record.
Deputy City Attorney Jones stated that there are three (3) Board
members on the present Board who heard the case on June 7, 1983. He states?
( that he would suggest if Mr. Weinger isn't satisfied with the proposed
findings of fact, he should submit his own and the Board's Special Counsel
should submit his own findings of fact also. He further stated ,with both
parties completing findings of fact possibly they can come to some
resolution as to what they deem the proper findings of fact. He stated
that he doesn't feel that the burden 'should be placed on the City
Attorney's office to complete the findings of fact, furthermore; the City
Attorney's office has already submitted what they felt was applicable.
Deputy City Attorney Jones stated that ultimately it is up to the court, if
it goes that route again; to decide the outcome.
Mr. Weinger stated that he doesn't feel that it is right for the Board
to make a decision by simply reviewing the transcript. He stated that he
feels the Board as a whole needs to hear the case in it's entirety. He
further stated that since the City Attorney's office submitted the findings
he doesn't see any difficulty in asking the City to submit citations to
their findings. He stated that he could argue all day that the findings of.
fact isn't supported by evidence in the transcript.
Chairman Silverman stated that as he understands it the Third Distric
Cort of Appeals is not stating that a new triad. be conducted but is
requesting findings of facts He stated that he feels the Board 'bQ41d
submit findings of fact,
PADS 5 9F 6
i
.rt TTTI b
.1 WIN
12; 1996
Mr. tialentine stated that his recorttendation would be the dame as
Chairman gilVermaft-
Ch Airman Silverman relinquished the Chair and made a motion, which W&
seconded by Member Pared that the Board submit findings of fact rather tha
have a new hearing, The motion was approved (5-0) by the Board.
Chair And made a b5tidft, which was
relinquished the
Chairman gilvdrman Cproposed findings of fact, as
seconded by Member Sherman to adopt the (6). The motidtl wag
submitted with the exception of itet number six
approved (5-0) by the Board.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 9!41 A. M.
ATTEST:''
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
.......... .....
GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
FACE 6 OF 6
4
itity 15 i�3i 6
The Civil Service Board of the City of Miami met in regular session
fiuesday, July 15, 19861 at 9:11. A-M, its the city Commission �oc�m, City
gall# 3500 Pan American Drive, Diviner key,
PRESENT,-. dEMLD S1LVERMAN, CHAIRMAN
A. d. SHERMAN, CHIEF EXAMINED
GEOROE H, ADAMS, tOARD MEMBER
RAYMOND PE=ND, BOARD MEMBER
MART SA V . PARES, 90ARD MEMBER ( 9 s 15 A, ,M • )
NOT PRE8ENTt
NONE
The Board entered into the scheduled public hearing concerning the
status of the freeze in the City of Miami,
Assistant City Attorney Albertine S. Smith appeared before the Board
and advised the Board that a memorandum from the City Manager was forwarded
to the Board in response to an inquiry dated May 20, 1986, She further
stated that Rene P. Larrieu, Assistant Director of Personnel Management and
Albert Ruder, Management Service Administrator were present to answer any _
questions from the Board members.
Member Sherman indicated that he feels the term "sworn" positions as
used by Cesar H. odio, City Manager in the memo dated July 2, 1986 needs tc
be more clearly defined.
Assistant City Attorney Smith stated that the City Manager made
reference to the term "sworn" positions in the implementation guidelines.
She further stated that the guidelines specify promotions and transfers
Rwithin a department. She stated that the departments which would be
?affected were the Police and Fire Departments; however, she stated
' technically the term "sworn" refers to police.
Chairman Silverman stated that from what he read and understood in the
memorandum from the City Manager, there is a freeze on promotional
;positions within the Police and Fire Departments. He further stated he
understood that once the City Manager approved of the reorganization in the
;two departments, the freeze would then be lifted. He concluded by stating
there are individuals who are concerned as to when they will be promoted
and the length of the freeze.
Rene P. Larrieu, Assistant Director of Personnel Management appeared
before the Board and stated that the City Manager explained in his memo to
the Board that when the Police and Fire Department Chiefs presented to him
jr a reorganization plans is acceptable to him, the freeze would then be
lifted.
Chairman Silverman asked Mr. Larrieu to be more specific as to a time
frame.
Mr. Larrieu stated that'this depends upon the Chiefs from the Police
and Fire Department completing their reorganization plan and submitting it
to the City Manager for approval.
Chairman Silverman asked Mr. Larrieu what is the department's position
on the promotional registers.
Mr. Larrieu stated that the Personnel Management Department will
continue to follow the Law Department's opinion in terms of the duration of
the register. He further stated that the registers that are affected by
the freeze are, indeed, frozen. Mr. Larrieu stated that when the freeze is
lifted the register will be extended for the period of time the freeze was
in affect, therefore, extending the eligibilty time of the affected
i
candidates.
Don Teems, President of Miami Association of Fire Fighters Local ;587
stated that this issue was brought to the Hoard's attention because the
nature of the freeze is a different one since the changes of the Civil
Service Board Rules, Mr. Teems stated that there is no policy in place
addressing how to handle the register, promotion and vacancies that are
FAG& 1 OF 11
/ t� / � 3
Pt
LY 15 1086
created during the freeze. 8e further stated that the reason the Fire"
Fighters came before the Board was to request that a policy be set to
address the aforementioned issues. 14e stated that the Fire bepartment
currently hat thirty-five (35) vacancies. Mr. Teelfts stated that he wanted
to Arnow when the free2a is lifted how will the thirty-five 05) vacant
positions be filled, He further stated that the Fire Fighters are
requesting a policy that is consistent and continuous. He stated that
previously there was a policy set in reference to this issue; however, in
the current Civil Service Rules there is no mention of this issue, He
stated his main concern is the vacancies that occurred during the freeze
and how they will be affected by the registers that are in affect at the
time they became vacant.
Chairman Silverman stated that he did not see a controversy in what
Mr. Teems was requesting and in what the Department of Personnel Management
is doing.
Kenneth Nelson, President of Miami Fraternal Order of Police Lodge =2C
appeared before the Board and stated the concerns of the Police Officers
are the police promotional registers in general and the recently expired
Police Sergeant's register. He also advised the Board of a new sergeant's
exam scheduled for August, 1986 and questioned what register will be
aaffected by the freeze.
1
Mr, Larrieu answered that the Police Sergeant's register previously
referred to expired on March 15 or March 16, 1986; however, the eligibility
of the people on that register has been calculated as two months and
several days. He stated that when the freeze order is lifted in the Police
Department, these individuals on the register would have their eligibility
extended for two (2) months and a determined number of days.
Chairman Silverman asked Mr. Larrieu why would the department
administer another Police Sergeant examination if they are extending the
+ register for two (2) months and several days.
! Member Sherman stated he wished to clarify what he had heard. He
j stated that he understood that a freeze was implemented on December 19,
1985 and then promotions were granted in March, 1986. He further statea
that he interprets Mr. Larrieu as saying from December, 1985 to March,'
1986, the freeze existed. He concluded by stating that he understands the
register, even though expired, will be extended for two (2) months and
several days and the freeze was lifted in March, 1986.
Mr. Larrieu stated that the register did expire on March 15, 1986. He
stated that the register did have a full two (2) year term. He further
stated the only difference here is the fact the City Manager imposed a
freeze in December, 1985. Mr. Larrieu reiterated the fact when the City
Manager lifts the freeze the registers will be extended an additional two
(2) months and several days. He stated that in accordance with Civil
Service Rule 7, the Department of Personnel Management will merge the
previous register with the new register.
Member Sherman asked Mr. Larrieu how is it possible to merge the two
registers. He also questioned the necessity of a new register in view of
the fact the previous register was not exhausted.
Chairman Silverman stated that it would appear that the new register
should be postponed until the previous register is used. He states that
merging the two registers will not make all individuals involved satisfied.
Member Penland posed a hypothetical situation and asked if the freeze
was not lifted until 1990 would the Sergeant candidates be eligible for
1989 promotions.
Assistant City Attorney Smith answered Member Penland by stating that
those individuals whose eligibility was affected by the freeze will have to
r' be given an equal length of time to be eligible for promotion.
Member Penland stated that he was Concerned with the response given b
Assistant City Attorney Smith. He further stated he understood that using
PAGE 2 OF 11
1P14-3
'his hypothetical stituaticn, the vacant positions would be filled by POOP1e
on the current eligible register.
Member Sherman atated that the old register should be expired to fill
the existing vacancies and once this is done the new register should be
established,
Assistant City Attorney Smith stated that this is a technical flatter
and will have to be worked out by the Department of personnel Management
the Board and others.
Member Penland asked Assistant City Attorney smith if the Board would
be abridging an individual's right to a promotion if this position was
` adopted.
Assistant City Attorney Smith answered in the negative.
a Member Sherman asked Assistant City Attorney Smith would this be a
technical issue if there was not a freeze.
1 She answered in the negative.
1 Member Sherman then asked why is it a technical problem during a
Miring freeze.
Assistant City Attorney Smith stated that she answered the questioned
based on the assumption Mr. Sherman was referring to two (2) registers
existing at the same time. She further stated she thought the question was
how to deal with the two registers, should they be merged.
jegisters.
Member Sherman answered that the Board is not in favor of merging
Mr. Teems stated that Member Penland clearly stated the position of
'the Miami Association of Fire Fighters. He further stated that they have a
I contractual problem if the people listed on the register now are not
t eligible for vacancies and if the vacancies are expanded to a future date,
that his interpretation of the Board's feelings is when a freeze is in
effect the vacancies which occurred during the normal span of the existing
register would be applied to that register and any new vacancies would be
applied to the new register just as if there is no freeze in effect. He
stated this will cause no contractual problems.
Member Sherman stated that he thinks the matter discussed by Mr. Teems
is covered in the Civil Service Board Rules under Rule 8 APPOINTMENTS,
PROMOTIONS & ADVANCEMENTS, Sec 8.18. Accordance with Collective Bargaining
Agreement. He further stated that he feels the old rules should be
incorporated with the current rules in reference to the extensions of
registers when economic conditions exist.
Chairman Silverman asked Mr. Larrieu what examinations had been
scheduled and the purpose.
Mr. Larrieu answered that the Police Sergeant examination has been
scheduled for August 27, 1986 and the Fire Lieutenant examination has been
scheduled for January 13, 1987.
Chairman Silverman stated that it appears the current registers will
not have been utilized by the dates given by Mr.' Larrieu.
Mr. Larrieu responded that the normal duration of the Police Sergeant,
examination reached the two (2) year duration on March 15, 1986, He
further stated that the Department of Personnel Management received a
request from the Police Chief Clarence Dixon to schedule a Police Sergeant
examination, He stated that the examination has been scheduled for August,
27, 1986,
1 Sara Powell, Administrative Assistant appeared before the Board and
t stated that approximately_ march 13 or March 14, 1986, the Police Departmen
received permission from the City Manager tQ fill the, vacant Police
PAQS 3 OF 11
Jp/4_3
JULY 15; 1W
Sergeant positions, She further stated that promotions were thade and the
Police Sergeant register expired on March 15, 19g6. She concluded by
stating when the register expired there were no vacancies, Ma, Powell
stated that it seems to her the issue is Moot,
ahairtnan Silvermar, asked Ms. Powell if she was stating that when the
register expired, there were no vacancies,
Ms. Powell answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Silverman stated that he needed to clear whether the
discussion dealt with Police Sergeants.
Mr. Larrieu answered in the affirmative.
y
Member Penland asked Mr. Larrieu if there were positions vacant at the
time for Police Lieutenants and Captains.
Mr. Larrieu answered in the affirmative. He further stated that the
,
City Manager only authorized promotions of Police Sergeants,
Member Penland asked Mr. Larrieu if the Police Lieutenants and
Captains had been promoted would that have created vacancies on the Police
Sergeant's register.
1 Mr. Larrieu answered that he felt the key point is the fact the City
Manager has the authority to make promotions when he deems it necessary;
:however, he did not deem it necessary for Police Lieutenants and Captains.
' Member Penland states that he feels there is a misrepresentation of
what occurred. He stated that the Board is being informed that there were
i no available positions open for the individuals eligible on the Police
Sergeant register; however, as of March 15, 1986 there were Police
Lieutenant and Captain positions vacant, thusly, there were Police Sergeant
positions not being filled.
Mr. Larrieu answered that the City Manager imposed a freeze on
December 19, 1985 for positions in the Police and Fire Departments thusly,
the freeze order stands.
Chairman Silverman stated that from what he understands when the
Police Sergeant promotions were made that would have opened up Police
Lieutenant and Captain promotions and those individuals would have come
from the existing register. Chairman Silverman stated; however, the
department is stating that the register is finished because there are no
1 existing vacancies.
' Mr. Larrieu stated that this is not what he was saying.
Chairman Silverman asked Mr. Larrieu if the current Police Sergeant
register had been completed or will it be used.
Mr. Larrieu answered that the Police Sergeant register was extended
for a two (2) year period. He stated the individuals on that register
would have the eligibility extended for a period of two (2) months and
fseveral days once the City Manager lifted the freeze.
Chairman Silverman indicated that since there were no vacancies,
extending the register would be useless.
Mr. Larrieu answered that the register was not extended. He stated it
terminated March 15, 1986,
Chairman Silverman asked will the register be extended the length of
1 the freeze.
l 14r, Larrieu reiterated his previous point about the length of time th
individuals eligibility would be extended once the freeze is :lifted.
♦y
PAGE 4 QF 11
j�p�63
Juty i5:'
j City Manager Cesar R. cad o appeared before the Board to clarify the
issues being discussed.
Chairman Silverman.summarited the discussion of the matter for the
City Manager. He advised him that the Board was concerned about the
following: when appointments are made will the individuals be taken frost
the March 15, 1986 register or will the register derive from the August,
1986 examination be used and finally will there be a merger of both
registers
The City Manager responded that the new register would be used to
promote the Police Sergeant.
Chairman Silverman asked which list will the police Sergeants come
from.
The City Manager answered the police Sergeants will come from the new
list.
Chairman Silverman stated that from what he is hearing the register
expired March 15, 1586; however, since there are no vacancies there is no
need to extend the register for the additional time.
Kenneth Nelson appeared before the Board and stated that three
contrasting views had been given on this matter.
City Manager Odio stated that his explanation supersedes all of the
j previous explanations.
j Mr. Larrieu stated that the eligibility time in the old register was.
t interpreted by the Law Department's legal opinion and that is what the
Department of Personnel Management would abide by.
;} The City Manager states that he agrees if individuals have taken the
time to study and prepare for a test, then the register should be extended
for the length of the time of the freeze and those individuals should be
given the opportunity for advancement.
+. Member Sherman stated that from what he has heard there a three (3)
Police Captain vacancies, three (3) Police Lieutenant vacancies, one (1)
Police Chief, Assistant and one (1) Police Major vacancy. He asked why dic
the Chief of Police feel it a priority to fill these vacancies; therefore,
creating vacancies of Police Sergeants.
City Manager Odio stated that the Chief understood the importance of
reorganization, thusly, organizing from the top level down was the
priority. He further stated that the Police Department hasn't completed
reorganization.
He further stated that the Chief of the Fire Department came to him
with a list for promotions and he denied it because the reorganization plat
is not yet completed to his satisfaction.
City Manager Odio stated that he felt it was more important to fill
the vacant Sergeant positions than Captains and Majors because of the
critical need to have the Sergeants on the patrol area. He further stated
he feels the register should be extended so that those individuals who
previously took the examination and passed will not have taken it in vain,
Kenneth Nelson appeared before the Board and stated that the Fratern.a
Organization of Police was not aware of a promotional freeze.
To clarify the matter, City Manager Odio brought to Mr. Nelson's
attention the Hiring Freeze Implementation Guidelines issued by him in
December, 1985,
Mr. Teems stated that the original request to the Board was to set a
policy on how registers are affected in the event of a promotional freeze.
He stated the previous Civil Service Rules did specify that the register
would be extended the length of the freeze, Fie further stated that if a
vacancy occurs during the freeze the vacancy should be filled from the
affected register,
PAC& 5 Of 11
JULY 15#' 1996
AW Robert D6 Klausner, attorney at law appeared before the Board and
Mated that there is a need for some revision of tnd civil service Rules
He stated there has been a continual problem when it domes to promotional
examinations. Be further stated the problem is the runes don't give clear
enough guidance on this issue, Mr. Klausner stated that it would be
incudbent updri the Board to recommend a rule change specifically because o.
a freeze. He urged the Beard to schedule a wbrkshop to draft atltend�nents
Civil Service mule, Rule 7 BLtCiSLK RE018 ERS so that all interested
parties can participate.
City Manager odio stated that he agrees with Mr. Klausner.
Member Sherman stated that this problem has existed from previous City
administrations to the current one. He further stated that prior Civil
Service Rules addressed this issue.
Chairman Silverman stated that there is no dispute that all existing
registers for sworn personnel will be extended for the period of time the
freeze was in affect.
Attorney Klausner stated that he would ask the Chairman of the Board
to appoint a member of the Board to participate in the formation committee
to remedy the problems discussed.
Chairman Silverman stated that he personally would not want to appoint
a member to such a committee as Mr. Klausner has suggested.
Chairman Silverman relinquished the chair and made a motion that the
existing register for "sworn" personnel (Fire and Police) shall be extended
for the period of the time the freeze was in affect.
Member Penland stated that he didn't feel that the motion on the floor
would resolve the problem. He stated he would offer a substitute motion if
• the motion was defeated.
Chairman Silverman rescinded the motion.
Member Penland made a motion that the Board recommend to the City
Commission the Civil Service Rules be amended to read: In the event of a
freeze declared by the City Manager all individuals who would have been
promoted during the normal eligibility period register be promoted during
the time the freeze is lifted and that the Department of Personnel
Management provide examinations to maintain current eligible registers so
that vacancies that occur subsequent to the time a register would normally
expire can be filled.
Member Sherman stated that if Member Penland is suggesting a rule
change the process is very lengthy and several registers would have expired
by that time.
Member Penland's motion failed due to a lack of a second.
Chairman Silverman relinquished the chair and made a motion that the
existing register for sworn personnel be extended for the period of time
that the freeze was in affect. Member Adams seconded the motion.
Member Sherman stated he does not know if this will address the
problems. He asked that the City Manager set up as soon as possible a
committee consisting of all concerned individuals to address the problem at
hand which will meet and come up with a resolution that can be presented tc
the City Commission.
City Manager Odio asked Member Sherman what type resolution was he
referring to,
Member Sherman answered that the Board is seeking an amendment to the
existing rule that would extend a register for economic budgetary problems
{ which would be by memorandum issued by the City h4anager, that the current
t. registers in affect would be extended for the period of time the freeze is
in effect. Member Sherman specified he was speaking of promotional.
registers,
PADS S OF 11
o 3
JULY is)' 1906
F
City Manager odic stated that he is not mandated by anyone to prottot,
individuals, He further stated if he does not have a promotional freeze
does not have to promote people. city Manager Odic stated that he does nc
see the need for a committee since he has stated he is willing to extend
the register, He further stated he could have let the register expire and
have not promoted anyone,
Member Penland advised the City Manager that the Miami Association of
Fire fighters contract specifies that vacancies have to be filled within a
Specific reasonable time frame.
City Manager odio stated that he stands corrected. He stated that tht
register would be extended as he stated previously.
The previous motion trade by Chairman Silverman to extend the register
was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
City Manager Odio stated whenever there is a promotional freeze and
individuals are remaining on the register he will extend the freeze. He
stated there is no need for a committee to do studies on this matter.
Member Sherman made a motion to have the Board make a recommendation
to the City Commission for amendment of the rule and the ordinance stating
that an extension will be made during budgetary problems as it existed in
previous Civil Service Rule 7, Ordinance No. 6945 stating that for whateve
period that there is a freeze implemented by the City Manager by memorandu.
that the eligible registers be extended for that period of time.
Chairman Silverman stated that if Member Sherman is specifying a rule
change that has to go to a public hearing. He instructed the Executive
.Secretary to prepare a proposal and bring it back to the Board.
The Executive Secretary referred the Board to that provision in the
'told rules (Ordinance No. 6945) which Member Sherman mentioned and read it
!as follows: "Whenever, for economic purposes the City Manager by
;memorandum delays the filling of a promotional vacancy, the life of the
'subject register and all other promotional registers affected thereby shad
�be extended for a period of time equal to that time occasioned by the
tdelay." She indicated that it was her understanding Member Sherman was
,requesting that the old language dealing with promotional freeze be
:incorporated in the new rules. She further stated that she will follow the
normal procedures to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
t� Member Sherman answered in the affirmative and made a motion'that the
Executive Secretary prepare the proposal and submit it to the Board in
accordance with proceedings of scheduling a public hearing. The motion wa,
seconded by Member Pares. The motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by th
Board.
Member Sherman made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of July 1,1986. Member Adams seconded the motion which was
unanimously (4-0) approved by the Board.
The Board was presented with a request from Hattie Daniels, Assistant
Director, Internal Audits and Reviews, for re-employment of Marta Cabrera,
Typist Clerk II under Civil Service Rule 12 LAYOFF, RESIGNATION AND
REINSTATEMENT, Section 12.4, Resignations.
Member Sherman made a motion, which was seconded by Member Adams, to
approve Ms. Daniels, request with further endorsement by Angela R. Bellamy
the employing department director to place Marta Cabrera's name on the re-
employment list for Typist Clerk II. The motion was unanimously (4-0)
approved by the Board.
The .Board was presented with a request from Floyd Jordan, Acting
Director, Fire, Rescue and Inspection Service Department, for re-employme
of Communications Operator Eunice D. Mays under Civil Service Rule 12
LAYOFF, RESIGNATION AND R-;INSTATEMENT, Section 12.4 Resignations,
FACE 7 OF 11
jD 14 3
JULY is; 1986
Member Sherman made a motion, which was seconded by Member Adams► to
approve Floyd Jordan's request to place the name of Eunice D, Mays on the
re-employment list for Communications Operator. The motion was unanimousl
(4-0) approved by the Board,
On a motion made by Member Sherman, which was seconded by Member
Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0) granted military training leave of
absence, with pay, for a period not to exceed seventeen (17) calendar days,
to the following employees. The Board noted that a copy of their orders
had been attached with each request
VE DATt
Richard Fraker, Police Officer July 10, 1986
Leonard Kirkendall, Police Officer July 161 1986
Copies of letters from Chief Clarence Dickson, Director Department of
Police, notifying the following employees of forfeitures of earned
overtime, as noted, were ordered filed pending possible appeal of these
actions within the time provided under Civil Service Mules and Regulations.
NAME
FORFEITURE
EFFECTIVE DATE
William Golding, Police 0 icer
14.9
Hours
March 25,
1996
Daniel Watkins, Police Officer
5.0
Hours
May
16,
1986
Dennis Williams, Police Officer
11.0
Hours
May
30,
1986
Larry Jackson, Police Officer
13.0
Hours
May
30,
1986
Fortune Bell, Police Officer
8.0
Hours
May
31,
1986
Carlos Avila, Police Officer
15.0
Hours
June
6,
1986
Fernando Quintana, Police Off.
5.0
Hours
June
11,
1966
Robyn Jolly, Police Officer
5.0
Hours
June
11,
1986
Ann Marie Childress, Police Off.
5.0
Hours
June
11,
1986
Gregory Bavonese, Police Officer
10.0
Hours
June
18,
1986
Bradford Beaver, Police Officer
10.0
Hours
June
30,
1986
Freddy D'Agostino, Police Off.
80.0
Hours
July
1,
1966
A copy of a letter from Joseph A. Ingraham, Director, Department of
Solid Waste, notifying James Shiggs, Waste Collector, of his termination
from employment, effective July 7, 1986 and a copy of a letter from Lionel
Barnet, Attorney at Law, requesting a hearing in behalf of Mr. Shiggs
relative to his termination was noted by the Board. A hearing has been
scheduled for July 29, 1986.
The Board entered into discussion of a memo from Juan Santas, Police
Officer, requesting a grievance hearing concerning an alleged promotional
by-passing of his name on the Police Sergeant's register.
Joel Brown, attorney in behalf of Juan Santos appeared before the
Board and stated that Mr. Santos was passed over for promotion in favor of
other individuals in the same affected class. He further stated that the
action taken was unfair and unjustifiable. Mr. Brown stated that he is
willing to discuss Officer Santos' record and the two officers that were
promoted ahead of him if that was the reason he was not promoted. He
stated that Officer Santos did change his classification and they speculate
this may have been the reason he was passed over. He finally stated that
they can find no reason why. Officer Santos was not selected.
Hattie Daniels, Assistant Director Internal Audits and Reviews
appeared before the Board and stated that it is the Affirmative Action's
position that a pass over did not exist. She further stated that Officer
Santos brought to their attention this matter as a form of discrimination
based on national origin. Ms. Daniels stated that once the eligible
register has been established and those names are presented to the Police
Chief, he is free to promote anyone from that certification list. She
further stated that Officer Santos' name was certified to the Chief;
however, he was not promoted. Ms. Daniels states that an individual being
passed over would not be included on the certification list, She finally
stated that there was no violation of the Civil Serivice Rules.
Attorney Brown stated that he wanted to ask Police Chief Clarence
Dickson personally if he could specify why Officer Santos was not promoted
He further stated on a previous register Officer Santos was passed over an
PACE 8 OF .1.1
j P14
JUtY 131 1986
the reaeon given was Rule d. He stated that he understood that there was
resolution before the Commission specifying you could not pass over an
individual in an affected class unless there was good reason shown, He
further stated he would be willing to discuss the records of the officers
that wore promoted. He stated Mr. Santos scored higher on the axataination
and his record is better and one of the officers has been placed in the
early warning system.
Ms. Daniels explained to the Board what the early warning system is
and stated that she could not speak for Chief Dickson but --assumed a job -
related reason was the basis for his selection of individuals over Officer
Santos,
Attorney Brown ask if this matter could be reconvened and placed on
another hearing date and if it becomes necessary subpoena Chief Dickson.
Chairman Silverman explained to Attorney Brown that he is presently
requesting that the Board approve his request to have a hearing of this
matter. He further stated if the Board grants the hearing he may subpoena
the Police Chief if he so desires. Chairman Silverman stated that he feels
it is not the Board's authority to go into the reasoning the Police Chief
selected a certain person.
Attorney Brown stated that he feels the Police Chief was given
incorrect information when he made his selection in promoting the officers.
He stated that normally the Police Chief would promote under the Rule of 8
which states the person with the highest score in that affected class.
Attorney Brown stated that Officer Santos received a change of
classification from Latin Male to Black Male. He further stated that from
his understanding Chief Dickson thought that since Officer Santos
classification came after he took the test he was not eligible to be
promoted as a Black Male and that was the reason he passed over him. He
stated that there have been other instances where individuals changed their
classification after taking a test and have since that time been promoted.
Attorney Brown stated that if Chief Dickson were present he could
substantiate if this is indeed what occurred and if this was done it can be
corrected by the Board and Officer Santos be promoted.
Officer Santos stated that it is obvious if Chief Dickson compared his
record with the two officers that were promoted he would be the better
candidate.
Chairman Silverman informed Officer Santos that it is not the Board's
responsibility to weigh one individual against the other.
Officer Santos stated that previous Police Chiefs have followed the
Rule of 8. He further stated all people in his affected class have been
promoted on that basis.
Ms. Daniels stated that the Rule of 8 is being misinterpreted. She
stated that the rule is applied at the time the examination is,given. She
further stated you use the Rule of 8 to establish your certification list
and once the certification list is established the Rule of 8 no longer
applies. The Police Chief is free to promote from any where on the
certified list.
Member Sherman stated that he felt very much the same as Chairman
Silverman. He stated that he would suggest to Officer Santos that he file
an appeal with the Dade County Fair Housing and Employment Board or EEOC
who may come up with a solution which may be beneficial to him.
Attorney Brown asked Member Sherman what if the Chief Dickson was
questioned and he stated that he made a decision under a mistaken belief
that Officer Santos was not eligible because of the reclassification.
Member Sherman stated that he feels it would be incumbent Upon the
Police Chief to correct this if, indeed, this was the principal reason h4
decision was made.
Attorney Brown stated that he feels Officer Santos is entitled to knc
the reason for his not being selected.
PAGE g OF 11
/,*/63
Y is; 190
Sara Powell, Administrative Assistant stated that if the aoard grant:
a hearing to officer Santos the board would find that everyone who was on
certification list would come before the board. She further stated that
Chief bickson is generally knowledgeable about what is happening in the
Police Department when he makea decisions.
Chairman Silverman atated that Officer Santos point is that the Polict
Chief did not promote on the basis of merit but a misunderstanding of
Officer Santos' classification. He further stated he does not feel that if
is the boards responsibility to determine whether one candidate is better
than the other.
Ms. Powell stated that from what Ms. Daniels has presented the Police
Chief was able to make a choice irregardless of the race.
Ms. Daniels stated that Chief Dickson consulted the Law Department an, -
Affirmative Action and was 'informed that he was within his right to select
either of the candidates he so desired. She further stated this was done
prior to the appointment and there were no violations of Civil Service
Rules nor Affirmative Action.
Following discussion of the matter, Member Adams made a motion to den:
the request for a hearing. The motion was seconded by Member Sherman. Thf
motion was unanimously (5-0) approved by the Board.
The Board considered a request from Rose Martin, Typist Clerk II,
Department of Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services, requesting extension o:
employment beyond seventy-two (72) years of age. Chief K.E. McCullough,
Director, Department of Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services, recommends
the extension and Dr. -Juan A. Milera, City Physician, finds Ms. Martin
physically qualified to work the additional two (2) years from July lo,
1986 to July 15, 1988.
Member Penland made a motion, which was seconded by Member Sherman, t(
approve the request with the provision that in the event of a rollback or
layoff, Ms. Martin's physical condition shall be re-evaluated to determine
if her condition is satisfactory for continued employment, noting this is
in accordance with past policy. The Board unanimously (4-0) approved the
motion.
The Board entered into the scheduled hearing of appeal in behalf of
Blair Clark, Waste Collector, relative to h'is sixteen (16) working days
suspension, effective June 16, 1986.
Albertine B. Smith, Assistant City Attorney, represented the City.
Lionel Barnet, Attorney at Law, represented the Respondent.
The Executive Secretary read the Charge letter into the record. The
actual charge will be filed in the employee's personnel jacket which is
maintained in the Department of Personnel Management.
The Rule of Witnesses was invoked and all witnesses were sworn in.
Witnesses for the City appeared in the following order:
1, 8enjamin Griffin, Waste Collector, Department of Solid Waste.
2. James Wellman, Waste Collector Operator II, Department of Solid
Waste,
3, Jimmy Washington, Waste Collector, Department of Solid Waste,
4, Darryl Whisby, Waste Collector, Department of Solid Waste.
The City rested it case. 4ttorney Barnet made a motion that, based c
the testimony presented, the charge be dismissed. Chairman Silverman
denied the motion, Witnesses for the Respondent appeared in the fo.lowin
order:
PAQ9 10 4F 11
04k
I JULY is; IN6
Blair Clark, Waste Collector; D*p&rtfAgr1t of S(,51id waste testified in
his own behalf.
The Respondent tested his case.
Witnesses Washington and Whisby were recalled as rebuttal witnesses
for the City,
The City rested on rebuttal,
following final arguments by both attorneys, Member Sherman made a
motion to fin the Respondent guilty of the charge. The motion was
seconded by Member Adams, The motion was approved (4-1) by the Board with
Chairman Silverman dissenting.
Joseph A. Ingraham, Director, Department of Solid Waste appeared
before the Board and emphasized that his administration will not tolerate
the behavior of Mr. Clark and others as they perform their respective work
assignments in the community. He further stated Messrs Clark and Griffin
were both disciplined in an equitabld manner.
The Board reviewed the Respondent's personnel file.
Member Adams made a motion to recommend to the City Manager that Mr.
Clarks' suspension be reduced from sixteen (16) to eight (8) working days.
Member Sherman seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously (5-0)
approved by the Board.
b
A break was taken from 10:25 to 10t28 A.M.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 11t25 A.M.
ATTEST:
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAGE 11 OF I I
GERALD SILVERMAN, CHAIF-4.PUN
dIt`f' Off' MIAMI. PL60iIDA
198 IdAY 13 All 10 23
a Civil 8e co Eoar xd dAtIt: may 8 r 1986 flLE MIA-8t
§ueject: Duration of Eligible
Registers
kl�o►� Lucia A. b gherty
City Attorti y
REiEpENEES:
ENGLOSiRES:
This is in response to your request for a legal opinion on
substantially the following questions:
1. WHETHER AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
FREEZING ALL PROMOTIONS OPERATES TO SUSPEND
THE DURATION OF AN EXTANT PROMOTIONAL
REGISTER?
2. WHETHER AN ELIGIBLE REGISTER CAN BE EXTENDED
BEYOND THE MAXIMUM TWO-YEAR PERIOD PRESCRIBED
BY THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES?
Unlike its counterpart in Ordinance No. 6945, Rule 7,
Section 7.3 of the present Civil Service Rules is silent as to
the questions you have asked. However, the opinion of the Third
District Court of Appeal in City of Miami v. Perkins, 139 So.2d
178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) is determinative.
In that case, the plaintiffs were City of Miami police
officers whose names were listed on a promotional eligibility
register which was to expire on May 26, 1960. While the register
was in existence, the City Manager, as an economic measure,
issued a freeze order which was in effect from December 9, 1959
to September 9, 1960.
On May 25, 1960, the day before the established expiration
date of the register, plaintiffs filed their lawsuit alleging
that they would be deprived of their right to promotion if the
register was allowed to expire May 26, 1960.
The Court in Perkins, citing City of Miami v. Elmore, 131
So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), held that while plaintiffs were not
entitled to a promotion as a matter of right, they were entitled
to remain eligible for promotion for a period of time equal to
the previously determined duration of the register.. In
explaining the rationale for its opinion, the Court said:
/ 1) J 43
13
Civil Service Board may 80 1955
Page 2
(11f an employee's time on an eligibility ist
was to expire on May 26, 1'960, and a freeze
order was made on December 9, 1959, and
allowed to remain in effect for nine months,
such freeze order would operate to cut off
approximately five and ohe-half months of the
time that employee was entitled to on the
eligibility list. 'Therefore, in all fairness
and justice, that employee should have a
continuation of such eligibility for an
additional period of five and one-half months
after the freeze is ended.
In 1959, when the promotional register in question in the
Perkins case was established, the duration of such registers was
controlled by Civil Service Rule VII, Part II, Section 2
(ordinance No. 4929) which provided:
Section 2. Duration of Register: The term
of eligibility of each register and of the
names appearing thereon shall befixed by the
Board at no less than one (1) year nor snore
than two (2) years. Any register that has
been in effect for more than one (1) year may
be abolished at any time by the Board.
Eligibles on the register at the time shall
be notified of such action. For the purpose
of this rule, the life of an eligible
register begins on the date the register is
approved by the Civil Service Board.
Since that rule did not contain any provision for the
extension of a register during a freeze on promotions ordered by
the City Manager, it logically follows that the Perkins opinion
was not simply, the Court's interpretation of the Civil Service
Rules in effect at that time. Rather, the "fairness and justice"
language used in Perkins indicates a general application of the
decision.
Thus, assuming that a freeze order has been imposed, wnen
the order is lifted, any affected register must remain in
existence for a length of time measured from the date the order
was issued to the register's expiration date as determined by the
Director of the Department of Personnel Management.
IPJ4
1986
civil SetviC4 BoaYd page I
ht Civil Service Rules, the Director of the
d
under the Pre96 Management it the only person allthoti2e
of personnel MaftA( an eligible register#
Department adjust the duration Of for the
to establish or adju The rules do hot provide
(See Rule 7t Section 7-1-) tet beyond a term Of two is
extension of an eligible te tegi8ter (whether It is one
Rowevtr, the period of existence of one and two years)
year,
two ytargt or anyen
O� time betwee in the
yea omotiohal freete as described
would be tolled during a Pr
..
,,,king decision, has been attached.
A COPY of each case cited in_this opinion
PREPARED BY:
ALBERTINE B. SMITH
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
ALD/ABS/wpc/ab/P015
cc* Cesar H. odio, City Manager
Dean Mielke, Labor Relations
Angela Bellamy, Directort Dept. of Personnel Management
Clarence Dickson, Chief of police
.t
1,;8 Fla, 139 80 " grip"It fttpt')ptTtL". 2d 5"M. ltS
The CItY 6F MIAMI, a muntelpai aarode6t•
tl6h, state of ploridet W31ter P, Headley.
is Chief of Pollee, Mlathl, Flbrlde: M. L,
Reese, City Manager and bireator of Pu;i•
Ile Safety, Ctty of MIAMI, Plorida; and
Henry W. framer, executive secretary,
Civil service 1361ra, Clty of MiAMI, Flori-
da, Appellants,
V.
Leslie W. PtAIONS, Appellee.
The CITY OF MIAMI, a mufilelpal corpora•
lion, slate of i=lories., Welter E, Headley,
as Chief of Pollee. MIAMI, P!Wdat M. L.
Reese. City Manager and Dircet6r of Pub,
Ile Safety. City of Miami, Ielorida; and
Henry W. Korner, Bxecut(ve Secretary,
Civil Service Board, City of Miami, Florl•
do, Appellants,
v,
John J. MALLACK, Appellee.
Nos. 61-275, 61-27G.
District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Third District
March 27, 1002.
Suit by city policemen on promotional
cis,:inility register for dec!aratory relief
a•ia• rc;-�cct to rights to promotion. From
nil decree of the Circuit Court,
C.unt•: Grady L. Crawford, J., the
c.r% and ethers appealed. The District
C-+tirt of Appeal held that where expiration
d tte of promotional eligibility register was
:.:ay 26, 1960, city manager's order of
December 9, 19:9, which froze all promo-
tions and was nct lifted until September
9. 1960, had effect of extending promotional
clibibaity register for 5V2 months after the
freeze crided, but court could not require
city manager to fill the vacancies which
occurred.
Reverse with directions.
Horton, J., dissented. in part.
Municipal Corporations Cr 184(2)
Where expiration date of police promo-
tional eligibility register was \lay 26, 1960,
finnaser's order of D:c.rnher
ahictt froze all promotions and WAS hot
lifted until Septett,ber 9, 1960, had e6tct
of eXte!td'!1 pror otio-al a":gibilit}, register
for yr rnonths after the ±Faze ended, but
count could riot require city malinger to
fill the vacancies xvhich occurred.
Robert D. Zahner, City Att)%, and Charles
k. Alicii, Asst. City Atty., and 1liiton 1I.
Ferrell, Special Counsel for City of lliami,
for appellants.
Joseph j, Gersten and Alex S. Gordon,
lliar..i, for appellees.
Aronovitz, Aronovitz S Haverfield,
Miami, for amicus curia.
Before PEARSON, TILL.NIAN, C.
and HORTO\ and CAR :OLL, jj.
PER CURIA11.
These cases were consolidated for trial
and for appeal, and this opinion shall be
determinative of both cases.
The appcllees,,xe policemen •oi+the City
of 1liami who were placed on the promo-
tional eligibility register, Trhicfiwas to a<-
pire on Nfav 26, 19-49. By order of the
evil service board; this expiration date was
extended one ycar to '.\Iay 26, 1960. On
December 9, 1959. the city manager issued
an order ircezing all promotions as an
economy measure. This Order was lifted
on September 9, 1960. On May 25, 1960.
appellees brought suits seeking declaratory
decree and such other relief as the court
might deem proper. Their basic contention
was that if the register was allowed to
expire on Nlay 26, 1900, they would be
deprived of their right to promotion. :after
hearing, the chancellor, on JIarch 20, 1961,
entered the final decrees appealed which,
inter alia, extended the expiration date of
the register for nine months and ordered
appellants to promote appellees to vacancies
which occurred on august 29 and Novena
ber 12, 1960,
•
The appellants
erred in that the et:
to ithpose upon the
it not lepll}• bouhd
this ctntetttion to V�
In City of lliar-
1t61, 131 5o.7d =l%,
municipal et`plo�'ce
promotion as a•
;19)
are u ,aa
charter po"vers g`
agar with the t�
pellets that the
quired to nil a vac:
To adopt the appe
render impctent C.
that grants to the
cr ction to dete"
police o�cers as
ordinance to abo'.
interests Oi e...
ministration. To
another way woul
city manager.
red, had no disc:
vacancy regardits.,
he, as the chief ex
city, deemed it be:
nomic or eirc:enc
so.
See also City of
App.:561, 129 'So.=d
;e c�-ivice!lor
the pericd of eii?ibi..
eligibility list for th,
order. T a_. if an
eligibility list 'X ! s t
1963. and a f rcczc of
cc;bcr 9, 1n:9, a::..
er,-ect for n ., -t r.t
wou!d operate to ca:
and one-half men
ployee was cnt:::cs. t.
Therefore, m a!: .
cmployce should Ina
such lor ai
five and one-half m
; ended. In these
t
leemher p. 100,
iifNs Mid tt'a4 trot
t 1W. , had d6tct
tri;stibility rd�stet
itecte ended, but
city Maliaget t6
oce�trtd.
art}•., attd C:tarics
tv., and, Milton M.
'or city of Miami,
1 .'�tcx S. Gordon,
tz 3t f#arerticltl.
e.
TILLMAN, C.
R.^.oI�L, J7•
lttso:idated for trial
cis opinion shall be
.lies.
liicemen of the City
!. eed on the prorno-
2r which was to ex -
By order of the
expiration date tt•as
\:ay 36, 1060. On
city manager issued
1 promotions as an
ais order %vas lifted
or 'Ma; 231 1960.
s seeping declaratory
r relief as the court
heir basic contentiotl
;ter was allowed to
t9W, they wotild be
to promotion. :after
r, on March 20, 1961,
roes appea!ed which.
le expiration date of
months and ordered
ar^ellees to vaelilCCs
.igtsst �9 and \orem
0
``� jolt �,aa
i�WtilLx� i, �{ r1TAM
dlif H, VIA., 126 96.9d if$
Tf a ippdilan a ddfitcfid the thantellat
erred ill that the effect of these dedttes is
to impose upon the City ihafid9of a duty he
is not legal!y bound to pttforttl. t1'c find
Ns tolitentioin to have Metit.
Itt City of %Nkf ti v. tittiotc, PIA.App.
1561, dt 40.2d 517, this pour.. held that a
tnutticipal ethployde Was not entitled to
prottiotidn as a.thatter of tight, saying (p.
y «rpl"t�'e are unable to reconcile the
charter powers granted the city tt.an.
&get witti the tontentions of the ap-
pellees that the city manager is re-
quited to fill A vacancy tt•hen one gists.
To adopt the appellees' position would
tender impotent the charter provision
that grants to the city manager the dis-
cretion to determine the nutttber of
polite ofcers as well as his right by
ordinance to abolish positions in the
interests of ti~.lcicnt and economic ad-
ministration. To state the proposition
another way would be to say that the
city manager, when a vacancy occur-
red, had no discretion but to fill the
vacancy regardless of whether or not
he, as the chief executive oAcer of the
city, deemed it bencticial from an cco-
nomie or efficiency standpoint to do
so."
Scc also City of Miami v. Rezeau, ria.
App.!961, 129 So.2d 433.
The chancellor was correct in extending
the period of eligibility of those then on an
eligibility list for the period of the freeze
order. Thus, if an employee's time on an
eligibility list was to expire on Slay 26,
196Q and a freeze order was made on De-
cember 9, 1959, and allowed to remain in
effect —for nine, months, such freeze order
would operate to cut off approximately five
and one-half months of the time that em-
ployee was entit,ed to on the eligibility list.
Therefore, in all fairness and justice, that
employee should have a continuation of
such eligibility for an additional period of
five and one-half months after the freeze
is ended. In these cases it was not shown
that any pt6t' atidital V3elfteies deewred
and were acted upon during the period of
five and ont-half thbhths after the termini.
tiotl of the feeete order. 1=or thAt reason,
the point Rude hete nra;r trot be of any
peattical value of efhtt in the prescnt cases,
but it could be ifrsptrtatlt on the occasiofis
of other such frecte orders, ,
The decrees appealed are revttscd with
directions to distniss the cottpiaints.
Reversed wit;t directions,
HORTO t, judge (concurring in part,
dissenting in part).
I concur ins the conch:ainh teached that
the complaints should be distnisscd, but I
ciisstnt from that portion of the opinion
ichich holds that the promotional ireeze
order worked an =tension of the period
of eligibility of thou thert-on tht eligibility
lint.
r
p i ifs •Y«Hf lttlTr
Joseph AOJMI, Charles Adiml. Ensile Hal-
fon, also known as John McGuerney, and
Albert George, also known as Father Leon,
Appellants,
V.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 60-581.
District Court of Aprenl of Florida.
Third District.
Feb..^, 10V_.
On Rcitearin; April 0, 12+3)=.
Convicted, of grand larceny, in the
Criminal Court of Record. Dadc
George E. Schulz, J., the deiendant appeal-
ed. The District Court of :appeal, Pearson,
Tillman, C. J., held, inter alit, that wic.-e
evitlencc revealed eomplic: red plan :v:thuut
t
1
'5 t5 liive
be �uilit=ied
!d sti obits=
I there took
i'49.0s, Fla.
thihation is
in ertor, its
Ales tnana-
Appellant
;sible under
er of prop-
though not
as applied
rty is based
with the
knowledge
d purposes,
L Atlantic
'S Fla. S39,
vidence, §
:e in a cor-
't of itself
of having
and uses of
i individual
p of prop-
=omatically
ition to tes-
'er must be
;arding the
to qualify
-Wisconsin
. W 2d 327
:.S.D.N.Y.,
3 Products
1, 117 N.E.
_.R 2d 967,
zee, § 893.
tempted to
trepared to
he plaintiff
questioned
nentiy cor.
Y
of" or InAm V, =612 M 517
Wo u. t%4 i.Y16a1d Sit
I
ugand t. OCARCC. Jr., slid AAR& W06116q
aslant, his tens, Appalliilts,
HOWAA10 JOHNSON INCORPOAA1'EC OF
FLORIpJA, a Flerlda eai•porstlbn,
Appailse.
N6, 2001.
District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Second District.
June 98, 1001.
ttebearing Denied July 23, 1961.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas
County; Orvil L. Dayton, Jr., Judge.
Thomas Alexander, Macfarlane, Fergu-
son, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellants.
11. Masterson, T. Frank Hobson, Jr..
St. Petersburg, and Hall & Hedrick, Miami,
for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed on the authority of Janet Realty
Corporation v. Hoffman's, Inc., 154 Fla.
144, 17 Sold 114.
ALLEN, C. J., KAN tER, J., and
GM-kLD, LYNN6 , A. J., concur.
p � to ��rMt tifilM
2
George ABRAMS, Appellant,
V.
William SCHULMAN, Appellee.
No. 60451.
District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Third District.
June 26, 1961.
Rehearing Denied July 18, 1961.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Dade County; Robert H. Anderson, Judge.
Kelner & Lewis and Fred Patrox, Mi-
ami, for appellant.
Wicket, SfAith, tlottigvist, I#ih6ley At
Davarit, Miami, 16t appellee.
tefot'e HORTON. C J., And PEARSON
and CAAROLLy CHA.S., jJ.
PER MIRIAM.
Mimed. See Kt•arner v. I Andau, PlA.
App.1959, 10 So2d i56.
6 � ter tw.�tt mrw
T
3
CITY OF MIAMI. a munlelpal eorporatlon,
st al., Appallants,
V.
Jack S. ELMORE, Lochard F. Gracy and
Malcolm Gracy, Appellaos.
No. 60-383.
District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Third District
May 4, 1961.
Rehearing Denied July 14, 1961.
Proceeding for declaratory relief by
detectives who contended they had a right
to fill by promotion the vacancies in the
position of detective sergeant The Circuit
Court, Dade County, George E. Holt, J.,
rendered a judgment for the plaintiffs, and
the defendants appealed. The District
Court of Appeal held that the refusal of
the city manager to promote the detectives
because of economic conditions was discre-
tionary.
Reversed
Municipal Corporations C=184(5)
Refusal of Miami city manager to pro-
mote two detectives, who were on roster
for promotion to detective sergeant, be.
A
I
$18 T1& 131 sigrMAL14 smolt= 2d sus
elate of etoaofic conditions, wis disc:•_= ceftbet 9, 1919; deprived that! of Stich
tiotiary, rights and the etholutnents of the offices.
Miltatt 1t. Nt-tell, Miami, to. Counsel
far City of Miami, for appellant.
Joseph J. Gersten and Alct S. Gordon,
Miami, tot Appellees.
before HORTON, C. J., CARROLI,,
CHAS., J., and SMITH, D. R., Associate
fudge.
PEP CURIAM,
The appellees are detectives in the divi-
sion of police of the City of Miami, and
were, on May 13, 19:9, certified by the civil
service board as having passed promotion -
Al examinations for the rank of detective
sergeant; thereafter, they were placed on
the eligible roster as qualified for promo-
tion to such position. The eligible list upon
which the appellees were prate would
have expired on May 13, 1959, but by order
of the civil service board was extended an
additional year to May 13, 1960. From the
time -they— arned—iheir`positions on the
eligibility roster until the time of the filing
of this action, several vacancies in the rank
of detective sergeant occurred in the divi-
sion of police. However, on December 9,
1939, the city manager issued an order
freezing all promotions as an economy
measure. As a result of the city manager's
action, the appellees did not receive promo-
tions, nor has the city manager filled these
positions which the appellees claimed they
would have been entitled to fill under the
prevailing civil service rules and regula-
tions.
As a result of the aforementioned facts,
the appellees instituted a proceeding for
declaratory relief in which they contended
they had a right to fill by promotion the
alleged vacancies in the position of detec-
tive sergeant, and that the actions of the
city manager in failing to promote them to
such positions and his freeze order of De -
The appellants answeted and contended
in substance that the city manager, ttndet
the charter, was granted the sole discte,
tion in detetmining the nurnber of police
oMcers and, by ordinance was granted the
authority to abolish positions in the inter-
ests of efficient and economic adrninistra-
tion, and further, that no rights vested in
the appellees to the promotion notwith-
standing the admitted fact that they occu,
pied positions on the eligibility roster that
would have permitted their promotion in
the event vacancies were filled. Upon a
trial of the issues, the chancellor granted
the relief prayed by the appellees and pro-
moted each of the appetites to the posi-
tion of detective sergeant, retroactive to
the day on which the court determined that
the promotions should have been made and
the vacancies filled, and further directed
the appellants to do all things necessary to
effect such promotions. It is from this de-
cree that the appellants appeal.
On appeal the appellants contend that as
a matter of law the city manager is not re-
quired to promote when vacancies occar
which could be filled by promotion. This
contention is well taken.
The Supreme Court of Florida, in State
ex rel. Norris v. Chancey, 129 Fla. 194, 176
So. 73, Si, 113 A.L.R. 376, %vas confronted
by an appeal in a mandamus procceding
brou;ht by the civil service board of Tampa
in an eiiort to restore former city em.
ployees to their positions from which they
had previously been suspended for ecenc:n-
ie reasons. It was contended that the ern -
ploy ees could not be legally removed unless
the position %vas, in good faith, abolished or
unless the removal was for cause after
hearing before the civil service board. In
disposing of this contention, the court said:
"Our conclusion, from these sections
of the City Charter and of the Civil
Service Rule set forth in the alterna-
tive writ, is that whenever it becomes
be stich
>E tft+t oitees.
;hi eonteitdcd
roger, under
-ate distte-
,et of police
granted the
tft the inter.
administra=
its vested in
on note ith-
t they occu-
•roster that
romotion ill
d. Upon a
llor granted
:es and pro -
to the posi-
troactiye to
_rmined that
:n made and
ter dircc:cd
necessary to
rom this dc-
i.
:end that as
er is not re-
.ncies occur
otion. This
ida, in State
Fla. 194, 176
s col:fronted
Proceeding
-d of Tampa
:r c:ty em-
whie4 they
for eeoncm-
hat the em-
:oved unless
abolished or
cause after
board. In
court said:
e sections
the Civil
e alterna-
t becomes
dice is, f L. i1i Wd sill
necessary to reduce the number of etn-
ployees in the tlassi6td service in any
department of the city of Tampa,
whether dethanded by necessary econ-
omy or by it becoming apparent that
an unnecessary number are employed
in the work of such department, such
reduction in the number of employees
may be 'tirade, without resorting to the
preferment of charges by the mayor
and filing with the board, and securing
a majority vote of the board, as trust
be done in all other cases; but where
such removals are necessary to _be
made for purposes of econotny, or
where an unnecessary number are em-
ployed in the work of a department,
and it shall thereafter become ncces-
sary to obtain additional employees for
a like service in any such department
or departments in the classified service,
employees previously thus removed or
suspended, shall be, to the number re-
quired, reinstated without examina-
tion, and in case any such employees
shall refuse reinstatement, a new em-
ployee to fill his place should be ob-
tained from the eligible register of the
civil service, as provided in rule 10
above quota!, unless this rule be
waived by the board for the reason set
forth in said rule."
VThe appellees have not directed our at-
tention to any legal precedent, and our re-
search has failed to uncover any, that es-
tablishes any rights in a municipal em-
ployee to a promotion ; therefore, the ac-
tions of the city manager in failing or
refusing to fill vacancies because of eco-
nomic conditions is a matter which we con-
clude vtai-4ithin his discretion.
i'e are unable to reconc l e charter
veers granted the city manager with the
contentions of the appellees that the city
manager is required to fill a vacancy when
one exists. To adopt the appellees' posi-
tion would render impotent the charter pro-
vision that grants to the city manager the
discretion to determine the number of po-
liee officers as well as his right by ordi<
by a to aush `po3ifons in the interests
at!—tfiCient afitt economic sdrdinistrat►on,
To state the proposition atiothef way would
be to say that the city manager, when a
vacancy otcurred, had no discretion but to
611 the vacancy regardless of whether or
not he, as the chief executive officer of the
city, deemed it ben8cfal from an econo-��
is or ef`nciency stand oint to do sow,
1n view+ of chi opinions expressed, it fol-
lows that the decree appealed should be
and it is hereby reversed,
Reversed.
a m aw.m %Mr0,
MIAMI LAUNDRY COMPANY, a Florida
corporation, Miami Laundry Linen Supply,
Inc., a Florida corporation, W. Bruce Mac-
Intosh, Norman H. Houseknecht, M. D.
Cauthen, George E. Morgan, Gralynn Laun-
dry & Dry Cleaning Company, a Florida
corporation, and General Laundries, Inc., a
Florida corporation, Appellants,
V.
SANITARY LINEN SERVICE CO., a
Florida corporation, Appellee.
No. 60-723.
District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Third District.
June 22, 1901.
Rehearing Denied July 1S, 1961.
Action to enjoin interference with
contract rights and to recover damages for
such interference. The Circuit Court for
Dade County, Pat Cannon, I., denied de-
fendants' motion to dismiss complaint, and
defendants took n interlocutory appeal.
The District Court�of Appeal held that com-
plaint stated cause of action to enjoin com-
petitors from inducing customers to breach
LVIAL NOTICE
All Ihterested persons will take h6t106 that do the Ith day 61
October, 1986, the City C6triitii89I0h of Miarlli, (-idtidfi, adapted the
following titled di'dinafteS:
MIAMI 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
Sonia Halligan, who on oath says that she Is the Assistant
Supervisor of Legal Advertising of the 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 MIAIN3I
Re: Ordinance 10163
In the ......... X.. X ..X ...................... Court,
was published in said newspaper In the issues of
October 10, 1936
Afflant further says that the said Miami Review is a
newspaper published at Miami in said Dade County, Florida,
and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously
published In said 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 flrat publication of the attached copy of advertisement* and
afflant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any
person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission
or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for
publication in the said newspaper.
SwotnAoAnd subscribed before me this
• • iNi1 ty
w
1.0... day of �. �'1�ulol
• R.D. 8 6
+j. Notary Public Vol Florida at Large
(SEAL) '���i�4r .. • Qp.�`��' i
My ZommissionWIR, A 1�1 iQL-,)'88.
6ADINANGE NO.'1OibS
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABL15HINU A rvcvr
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES MODEL PROJECT", APPFIOPRIATING FUNDS
FOR ITS OPERATION IN THE AMOUNT OF� $33,00d COM-
POSED OF $30,000 FROM THE UNITED gtATES DEPART,
MENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND $3,006
PROM FISCAL YEAR i9B6•87 SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND
ACCOUNTS; MATCHING FUNDS. FOR GRANTS; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE
$30,000 GRANT AWARD FROM THE UNITED, STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND
TO ENTER INTO THE NECESSARY CONTRACTS) ANDIOR
AGREEMENT(S) FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABIL-
ITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 1015$
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "EXPLORE",
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ITS OPERATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $110,000 COMPOSED OF $75,000 FROM THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
$35,000 FROM FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 SPECIAL PROGRAMS
AND ACCOUNTS: MATCHING FUNDS FOR GRANTS;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE
$75,000 GRANT AWARD FROM THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE NECESSARY CON-
TRACT(S) AND/OR AGREEMENT(S) FOR ACCEPTANCE OF
THE GRANT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 10157
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 6145, ADOPTED MARCH 19, 1958.t AS
AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED FEES FOR BUILDING
PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL (INCLUDING
BOILER AND ELEVATOR) INSPECTION, PERMIT AND CER-
TIFICATE FEES, BY ADDING AND INCREASING SOME,
FEES AND CLARIFYING CERTAIN ITEMS' IN ;SAID SEC-
TION 5,T0 COVER THE INCREASE•IN OPERATIONAL COST
PRIMARILY FOR THE,ENFORCEMENT OF THE SOUTH
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO. 10158,
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.75
AND 2-76 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FLORIDA
AS AMENDED, WHICH SET FEES FOR EXAMINATION OF
PLANS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDI.
NANCE,AND, FOR .ZONING CERTIFICATES OF USE: BY
INCREASING AND REDEFINING REQUIRED FEES TO
COVER THE COST FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE,
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SOUTH .FLORIDA BUILD-
ING CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO.10159
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35, ARTICLE VII,
ENTITLED,"LIGHTING OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKING
LOTS" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AS AMENDED,BY .MAKING . NECESSARY WORDAGE, ,
CHANGES AND REPEALING CITY CODE SECTION 35-132
ENTITLED "PARKING LOT REVIEW BOARD" IN ITS
ENTIRETY; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A'
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO.10160
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-279(C) OF THE:•
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, DEALING WITH THE QUO
RUM REQUIREMENT FOR.,MEETINGS OF THE :CITY.OF
MIAMI AFFIRMATIVEACTION ADVISORY BOARD; BY PRO.:'
VIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF:.THE QUORUM REQUIRE- `
MENT FROM EIGHT MEMBERS TO GIX MEMBERS,
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEWERABII_: ,,x
ITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NQ,19161
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THF. CO OF THE CITY 6174..
MIAMI, FLORIDA, A$ AMENDED, REPEALING .BECTION6 1
5.47 THROUGH -5.01. INCLUSIVELY, IN THEIR ,ENTIRETY,,
SAID SECTIONS PERTAINING FOR THE "CITY OF MIAMI,`
PROFES$IONAI WRESTLING BOARD;" EKABI•ISHING AN;
Af]OITInNAL SF111TION CONCFRNINt; AAARRfCfClnAtet
CONTAINING A R9PEA1ER PROVIPON AND A, 6EVEF ABI ` +
ITY C,�AUSE-
ORRINANCE NQ,1010;
AN ORDINANCE AMMING -ORDINANCE IiICI, 9DAB6
ARQPTECMARCH, 1$,.90a ,QY,AIJT#1AIdlLINOTI1E .1l�#fs
f`^ULI1QQ11%N Akin t±ti'V AAALJAt=0 1117n1 OCG►AIT IriAc cAN'
ING •OF
(1) Apt
c, F y C) E' ;%I T I F
__"-"^"rrTc'an►rrrrpv err .. .---_-__.._---.-----
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. tt)t5l
in the :% Court,
was published in said newspaper in the issues of
Afflant further says that the said Aliamt Review is a
newspaper published at Miami In said Dade County, Florida.
and that the said newspaper has heretofore been rontinuousfv
published m said Oade County. Florida. each day :except
Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as
second class marl matter A the post office n Miami in said
Dade County. Florida. lot a period of one near next preceding
the Ilrst publication of the atfached coov of advertisement• ano
aff(ant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any
person, lirm or corporation any discount, rebate. commission
of refund for the purpose of ,eCuring ;his advertisement !or
aubkilltlon in the said newspaper
SWOM 10 and subscribed before .'no this
day of
uiot
otarY Public late' o1 Fonda it .;rige
(SEAL) . "
M Commission Vxp) Y p,+►eS!,Auc�.. 16: 1988,
MR 145
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5 OF
ORDINANCE NO, 6145, ADOPTED MARCH 19. 1958, AS
AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED FEES FOR BUILDING,
PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL (INCLUDING
BOILER AND ELEVATOR) INSPECTION, PERMIT AND CER-
TIFICATE FEES, BY ADDING AND INCREASING SOME
FEES AND CLARIFYING CERTAIN ITEMS IN SAID SEC-
TION 5, TO COVER THE INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL COST
PRIMARILY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SOUTH
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION, A SEVERASILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO. 10158
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.75
AND 2.76 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FLORIDA
AS AMENDED, WHICH SET FEES FOR EXAMINATION OF
PLANS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDI-
NANCE AND FOR ZONING CERTIFICATES OF USE BY
INCREASING AND REDEFINING REQUIRED FEES TO
COVER THE COST FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SOUTH FLORIDA BUILD-
ING CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 10159
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35, ARTICLE VII,
ENTITLED "LIGHTING OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKING
LOTS" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AS AMENDED, BY MAKING NECESSARY WORDAGE
CHANGES AND REPEALING CITY CODE SECTION 35-132
ENTITLED "PARKING LOT REVIEW BOARD" IN ITS
ENTIRETY; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 10160
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-279(C) OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, DEALING WITH THE QUO-
RUM REQUIREMENT FOR MEETINGS OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADVISORY BOARD; BY PRO.
VIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF THE QUORUM REQUIRE-
MENT FROM EIGHT MEMBERS TO SIX MEMBERS:
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABIL-
ITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 10161
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, REPEALING SECTIONS
5-47 THROUGH 5-61, INCLUSIVELY, IN THEIR ENTIRETY,
SAID SECTIONS PERTAINING FOR THE ",ITY OF MIAMI
PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING BOARD;" ESTABLISHING AN
ADDITIONAL SECTION CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL
WRESTLING ACTIVITY IN THE CITY OF MIAMI,
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABIL-
ITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 10162
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 10085
ADOPTED MARCH 18, 1986. BY AUTHORIZING THE CITY
COMMISSION AND CITY MANAGER TO PERMIT THE SALE
OR DISPENSING OF WINE OR BEER IN SOFT CONTAIN-
ERS IN ONE (1) ADDITIONAL CITY PARK, NAMELY, VIR-
GINIA KEY PARK, ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS AND FOR
SPECIAL EVENTS OR PROGRAMS; FURTHER AUTHORIZ•
ING THE CITY COMMISSION TO APPROVE SUCH PER-
MITS IN CONNECTION WITH "ROCK CONCERTS
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABIL-
ITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 10163
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4060, ENTITLED
"ELIGIBLE REGISTERS' SUES SECTION (C) ENTITLED
"DURATION". OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI.
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW SENTENCE
TO THE EXISTING SUBSECTION iC1 BY PROVIDING FOR
THE EXTENSION OF REGISTERS AFFECTED BY A FREEZE
ON PROMOTIONS A�, ORDERED BY TOE; CITY MANAGER
FURTHER CORRECTING A SCRIVLNLR") LRROR WHICH
HAD TRANSPOSED THE VVORD - THAN TO THE INCUR
RECT WORD "THA1" ON LINE 4 IN CIVIL SERVICE RULE 7
'-ELIGIBLE REGISTERS", SEC 7,3, "DURATION OF R[.G
ISTERS", CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
ORDINANCE NO. 10164
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE: NO 9939,
ADOPTED DECEMBER 20, 1984, AS AMENDED. THE CAPI-
TAL IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, BY
INCREASING THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR TWO PROJECTS
ENTITLED' "MIAMI STADIUM —ROOF REPAIRS" AND
"MIAMI STADIUM— PRESS BOX REPAIRS" IN THE
AMOUNTS OF $100,000 AND $300,000 RESPECTIVELY,
FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS --FUND BALANCE;.
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABIL
ITY CLAUSE
Sai,j r,r;lmancets) marbe lfisl)eir,tet) W the (AJbh4 of tilt; 011u;e (it
Ine (,it,, Cleit, 3500 Pan American Drirr Miami Fltgnda. Monday
ittruu(;ri Fnda; 141 600 A M
- and `� 0f! P %4