HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-85-077343
ABS/�l/50l
RESOLUTION NO.....` 5-773
'-,
A REScL[i'%ION AUTHOFIINd'F1E FINANC8 DIRECTOR
Y
,.
TO RAY W o O00. od TO ANTONIO H. MESA IN
Pg
SETTLEMENT Off` ALL FENbINO CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE GRANTING OF VETERAN'S PREFERENCE AS
REOUIRtb BY LAW, SAtb MONIES BEING ALLOCATED
FROM THE 8ELF-IN80RANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST
�a
WHEREAS, ANTONIO H, MESA, through his attorney, Irving
s
Weinsoff, Esq.► filed a claim against the City of Miami for back
n.
wages, damages# and other claims and demands resulting from the
A
alleged wrongful acts of the City of Miami in failing to award
Veteran's Preference Points, as required by Chapter 295 of the
Florida Statutes, to augment the score achieved by ANTONIO H.
MESA on the Civil Service Examination administered on Febru-
d
t
ary 17, 1982, for promotion to the rank of Sergeant of Police,
and in failing to promote ANTONIO H. MESA based on his augmented
y
score; and
=,
;r
b
WHEREAS, the above claims have been investigated by the
h
Labor Relations Office, the City Attorney's Office, and the
'
rc
Department of Human Resources, said offices and departments
w
G
having recommended that these claims be settled without the
fi
admission of liability for the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars
..
d(
($10,000.00) 3
yf
r
t
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
k
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA;
1. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to pay to
'n
ANTONIO H. MESA the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($101000.00),
si
without the admission of liability, in full and complete settle-
a4F F
ment of all claimsand demands against the City of Miami► upon
t
,
the execution of a release by ANTONIO H. MESA, releasing the City
of Miami from 411 claims and demands said monies being hereby
R�
allocated from the Self -Insurance and Insurance Trust Fund.
z
PASS&D AND ADOPTED thirp 2�, s ay of jul
a
Maurice A. Fo' ' � �l 'fit le�taT101
i
M ME A. . ERR 1140 of
MAYOR
r
�.sh a_¢c...�.z+ °.c c.<-�.. ..., .. .a -�'x ., .. _ •;Y K> . .. .r..``_ir„ 7, ..�.. .,d .,. �,? u,a —
L-PH as ONGIE
C ' Y ERR
PREPARED AND APPROVED SY:
AL•BERTINE B. SMITH
k
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
s
APPRO U S TO PORM AND CORK CTN558
LU'IA A. DOUCHE Y
,:.
CITY ATTORNEY
1
t
�~ r
k
dt
T f
S5
3 Iy
Al?j
yy
t
P4
a
4
f
t
t
t
3
<b
;r
h
,C
s :>%
`. '0
1
tf
6
` aE
jL
a
I°iA�
.f W
CITY OF MiA!11, FFLORfbA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Mtmbera July 5 r 1985 �,f
of the Clt-v- C6mttlission
Resolution of the CiaiM of
.P4 ANTONIO H, mask, police officers
for Veteran's Preference Points.
Lucia A. 6o"gherty =Er 4 t
City Attar ey
�(Resolution)
(Attachments)
Antonio 4, Mesa is a City of Miami Police Officer who was
employed in that capacity in 1970. In 1971, Officer Mesa was
drafted into the United States Army. In 1973, after an honorable
discharge from military service, Officer Mesa was reinstated as a
City of Miami Police Officer. On February 17, 1982, Officer Mesa
took a civil service examination for promotion to Sergeant of
Police.
Pursuant to Section 295.09 of the Florida Statutes (copy
attached), Officer Mesa was entitled to have 5 veteran's prefer-
ence points added to ` his score on the examination. ' The 'Statute
provides that preference points shall be given on the first
(successful) promotional examination to an employee (such as
Antonio Mesa) who interrupts his employment with the City for
military service and who, upon honorable discharge, is reinstated
to his former position. The law requires further that after a
Veteran's score is enhanced by preference points, such Veteran
shall be promoted ahead of all other examinees whose scores place
them in an equal or lesser position on a promotional register.
Preference points were not added to Officer Mesa's score on
the 1982 examination. If the points had been added, Officer
Mesa's score would have been 93.96 and he would have been
promoted to'the 'rank of Sergeant on June 10,-1982. (See attached
eligible register.) He also would have received pay as a
e
Sergeant consistent with the 'promotion.-
On September 29, 1983, Officer Mesa filed a lawsuit against
t
:the City. in which he sought to have the Court order the City to
add the preference points to his examination score, to promote
him retroactive to June 10, 1982, to award him back pay, and to
pay his attorney's fees. Although Officer Mesa's claim clearly
had merit, his lawsuit was dismissed because he failed to exhaust
all non -judicial remedies before resorting to the courts.`
The dismissal was commensurate with the position taken by
the City in an earlier and similar case, City of Miami v. Si man,'
448 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), which was `essentially—-t at t e'
administrative officials of the City were capable of handling
r-
such claims appropriately without court intervention and would d4,
so if given the opportunity. (A copy of the si man opinion is
attached.)
_ 85%
t
To,. Aondtable Mayor and�Me�rtbera July 51 1985
< <
of the City Cotmisa ion page r
Re: ftttclutil6ft re ANTONtO Hs Mt9
p,ollowi+ng the dismissal of his lawsuit, Officet Mesa
exhausted his administrative romodies by presenting his claim to
the Civil Service board. The Board concluded correctly that
Officer Mesa was entitledto preference points On the 1982
eX&Mination.
At that point, Officer Mesa's attorney was in a position to
file a second lawsuit if 'there was no resolution of the Matter by
City offieials, An agreement was reached with Officer Mesa's
attorney in which Officer Mesa Mould accept $10#000.00 and a
retroactive promotion from June 10, 1082 to settle the claim.
The Labor Relations Office, the Human Resources Lepartmentt and
the City Attorney's Office participated in the settlement
discussions.
+
At the time the agreement was reached, it was understood
that the Labor Relations Office would handle the administrative
'>
and financial aspects of the agreement. However, since that
time, a`different procedure was announced wherein claims such as
Officer Mesa's will be treated as torts and will be administered
by the City's Risk Management Division. Officer Mesa has no
t
preference as to the source of the funding, he simply wants to be
3 t
paid the $10,000.00 without further delay.
Inasmuch as ANTONIO H. MESA was entitled by law to receive
Veteran's Preference Points on the 1982 Sergeant's examination,'
and to promotion to Sergeant of Police as of June 10P 1982, with
h'
a concurrent increase in pay, the City Attorneys office recom-
b
mends adoption of the attached Resolution whereby the City of
=r
Miami will pay $10,000.00 in full and complete settlement of this_
^ h
claim.
t
ABS/fl/505
= t:
ENCLS.
fc
(Resolution)
de
` G
jL
,.�1pp
z A
j
Few
85--773
i
i.
R
b
5
�gf{ittte
floc bf al-
• � a stet=
alitt ,
Y 9.T- . r
t it
..r ,., -
�Y�. 11�115�-., ,,.,. LA�i��.lil�ljA�'l�ii� 1V �����rl��: bG.�fL��� Y�V�����1•r�.._.._... .. :,l,il..o
p : � ReinY�kta,t¢�eariietll of templo ierit; btitiging a civil action rn afly eduf't of tuffs eterit A.
ptoritolion �ttetCte ICY= tisdictitih tat such legal of equitable haslet as *111 et=
(1)la► 1t hmn an ernpl(*•e'e of the state of afl1• of its fectuate the `purposes of this act of, in those base§
0,1itical subdivisions en plattil ifl a position subject pettairiing to s. 29o'.00, ffoti seeltitr9 telief thtaugh
of hot subject to a cafeet seat ice sytteto of othet trier- the Uafeet sett, ee C orri iiimidti. 401
it t�'pe 5ystedl, tvt_th t)ie "exct+pti(n of th(lere positions R)91 i1s� g 5,eh 24101. M tt 18.1$. ch s9.1ti6: t. 3. ch. ,, 4$2:i. A. eh.
included utidet the pttit 1si(ins rsf § 110,2d5(21 Arid .b �..: t 3 s, eh ,n tgr,, a �• �h WIT o.
with the exceptiofl of rotnpatable positions in 'the ;l;�l Law floc applieblp ttis—lrlothiflg coflY
state s political subdivisions, }ias served ih the Armed
l (stets of the United States and is discharged tit sop- twined in ss. 295.0 '495.12 is intended_to apply to any
$1� greats; atated thetefirotn with an honotable dischatge, the position that is exefllpt ufidet s. 110:205(2):
seiefltli?it: �. ItitiiifS•.—a 8• ch �{2ni.lso,. t. I.rh. , ;•122. a. M. tt,.'9•i9Mi
state Ptcuch Person to thelsatne position that i e MIA a0 exatrri- p
orii; tof 1!fl= i 1'. p '2i)�.i;t8 Deserters and otltets;lflilpplicabillr
its political prior to such setyice in the armed forces, of to an q. of ehaplet,—The provisions of this chapter shall
tt political equivalent position, provided such person returns to not apply to any person who has beer} classified by
;. 29h 0�11) the position within I veal of his date of separation or, any branch of the Artned Forces of the United Mates
fed to the in rases of extended active duty, within I year of the as a deserter of who received less than an honorable
d d to a date of discharge or separation subsequent to the tx= discharge upon separation of discharge from the
soft has ob+ tension. Such person shall also be awarded ptefet- g p B
once in ptotnotion and shall be promoted ahead of all Armed Forces.
tial tot the others who as well qualified of less qualified for Hiblot •.=a S. ch r;a22.
(preference the positio 1'. b.�n.ticarnination for_pforhotloh is.
et of list in utilized, suc person shall be awarded preference 20,194 uc State approving agrnr�ies for valet•
Etea ratings. � _ � ans education ttrtinin�.—The Division of �etet=
Points, as provided in s. 290.08 and shell be promot�
tith l"ederal ed ahead of all those who,appeat in an equal of lessee ans Affairs and the designated administrative unit of
11 of techni• 'position on the promotional register, provided he the Department of Education under the authority of
110ity is over first successfully asses the examination for the pro- the respective departments, shall act as the state ap•
tns qualified lChotional position proving agencies for purposes of veterans education
Whose set, (bt The ptoii ions of paragraph (a) shall also ap- and training, in accordance with 38 U.S.C. s. 1771
and the applicable annual contracts between the,r
Visited by the ply to a person who was a veteran when employed by state and he Federal Government.
Pent of more the state or its political subdivision and, who waLuo history.—s 1, ch 80-140.
tl•iate tegi§ter called to extended active duty in the ArmeMtces of
their tespecr the ltnited States and was dischatged or separated
'— int prefer- therefrom with an honorable discharge: �95.121i Preference for admission to voca-
ats from the _ tional training.
(c) ''t�he pto�tisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) shall
ion from the apple only to a v'el:eran's first promotion after Lein- (1) It is the intent of the Legislature through en.
• actnient of this section to assist returning veterans of
1, later; how, statement or reemployment, without exception, the Southeast Asian conflict to train themselves for a
bled veteran (2) For the purposes of this section:
t�Ited rating is (a) "Extended active duty" means active duty, civilian future. Although the provisions of this sec-
tl•Ye in addition other than for training, beyond the date of honorable lion apply only to state -supported vocation-
joints. discharge or separation, due to military require- al•technical facilities and programs, it is the further
meats. intent of the Legislature to encourage privately sup-
r (b1 "Comparable positions" means officers elect -
join
vocational technical schools and centers to
'Q prefer, ed by popular vote or persons appointed to fill vacant join with the state in assisting our returning veterans
one-, b providing references for them in admission pro.
I hpointment or Gies in such offices and the personal secretary of each Y P B P
hE to the career such officer, members of boards and commissions, cedures and standards.
teems, with the persons paid from other•personal•services appropria- (2) In determining order of admission or accep-
dad under s. tions, city managers and county managers, and the ranee for students, every vocational training center,
_r bmparable po- heads of departments. vocational -technical school, or vocational program
heins, preference History. -a. 3. ch. 24201. 194;; a. i, ch. 77-+22: s. 2, ch. ?8.3�2; a 2, ch. which receives state funding Or support shall give
arts be given by 80.370. preference as provided in subsection (3) to a person
Ica+ rust to those - who served in the Armed Forces of the United States
lea (2), and sec- 295.11 Investigation of reason for not em- at any time during the period August 4,1964, to Jan
295.07(3) and ploying preferred applicant. -The Division of uary 27,1973, and who has been separated therefrom
tatlly 1, 1982, or Veterans' Affairs shall, upon the written request of under honorable conditions, if such person's enroll-
firi honorable dip• any person specified in s. 295.07, investigate any menu is directly related to his present employment or
r, and to those complaint filed by such person when the person has to his securing employment.
+'af made application with an state agency or any agen-
vho have made Y B Y (3) The name of each person qualified for prefer-
TS 5 years of the cy of a political subdivision of the state for a position ence under the provisions of subsection (2) shall be
which was awarded to a nonveteran and the person laced on the waiting list for acceptance or admit•
deter is later, pro- p B P
f feels himself aggrieved under the provisions of this pion, if any, in a position which would reflect the
panum quali Ica- Y
to the duties in -
of
The division shall use all of its powers on behalf same order of preference as if he had been placed on
of a complainant and shall assist the complainant in the waiting list 36 months previously or on the day he
juts 1&372;.. s, ch. all ways, other than legal assistance. Nothing in this entered the Armed Services of the United States,
section, however, shall be construed as prohibiting a' whichever is later,
veteran aggrieved by a violation of this act from History. -a: i, ch. 74.210; a.1, ch. 77.174; a 1, eh. 77.211•
an
1733
85-7 73
TWA
f
A
CITY DP MIAMI v. 916MAN Fla. son
tht it"AMId IJA W&.App. A bill.. 10M)
,jrest in such deter=
c V.�ticthcasl, g96
hail Louise APPI�LN(11�, now known as
CITY 0 INIIAMI; Appellant,
suprelue court held
flali Louise 1ledllar, Appellant,
va
kl had standing to
v,
James P. 910MAN, Appellee,
!neat under Chapter
tea that he was the
,lbhlr A. APPI�llt1, Jr., Appellee.
No,
hildren both out of
No. 83-967.
District Court of Appeal of Flolnd,
Third District.
Ind that while Chap=
s the natural ninth=
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
March 19, '984.
iedy to establish pa,
Second District.
Rehearing Denied April 90, 1984.
+
pport rights of the
March 9, 1984.
?
not purport to pre:
,
anent action by the
Rehearing Denied April 10, 1984,
City appealed from order of the Circuit
+
djudicate paternity
Court, Dade County, Sam I. Silver, J., di=
t
n was necessary to
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas
resting that police officer, who was denied
existing rights or
County; Charles M. Phillips, Jr,, Judge,
veterans' preference points after success=
to an actual contra
fully completing promotional examination,
'
•they reasoned that
N. David Korones, Clearwater, for appel•
be promoted to rank of sergeant with retro-
on of Chapter 742
lant.
active wages and other benefits. The Dis=
ther to negate the
Joseph R. park of Park 6 Smith, Clear-
triet Court of Appeal held that Circuit
of her failure, for
water, for appellee.
Court lacked jurisdiction because officer
r
Main an adjudication
failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
LEHAI\' Judge.
Reversed and remanded with di-
reasons expressed
that the child, upon
The trial court denied the motion of a
rections to dismiss.
the
e right W bring an
honcustodial ex-wife for a temporary re -
figment to deter -
order to prevent the custodial ex•
Municipal Corporations �186(6)
right was at least
husband from removing children of the
husband
Because of police officer's failure to
u
:arf is v. Cruce, 404
marriage from Florida to the ex-husband's
exhaust administrative remedies, Circuit
1981), although the
new residence in another state. Under the
Court lacked jurisdiction to entertait► his
he statute of limits•
facts of this case we do not find an abuse
action against city challenging denial of
a>
because the plaintiff
of discretion b the trial court. See Cana-
y'
veterans' 'preference points after success -
r years after attain•
karis v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.
fully completing promotional examination.
he action. We need
1980).
atute of limitations
AFFIRMED.
Jose R. Garcia -Pedrosa, City-Atty. and
cause it is clear that
Ronald J. Cohen, and Gisela Cardone, Asst.`
-ought less than two
Gained her majority.
OTT, CJ., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.;.
City Attys., for appellant
Irving Weinsoff, Miami, for appellee.
firmed insofar as it
yard, but is reversed
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGU-
Tammie from main -
SON, JJ.�
determine paternity.
04E�
permit Tammie to
PER CURIAM.
to bring her claim
Appellant, City of Miami, appeals from
i.
judgment statute, if
an order directing that a police officer, who
n
was denied veterans' preference points af-
and REVERSED in
ter successfully completing the 1979 pro-
motional examination, be promoted to the
;#
rank of Police Sergeant with retroactive
+WART, JJ., concur.
wages and other benefits.
195-773
448 SOUTHERN 11RPIOR'CRR4 2d SEflIgg
i
The City`s civil Service Rul% set forth
Jim Smith, Atty.
in Ordjnanee No. 8971, Section 2, provide
Patriek 'Thomas LOOM, Appellant,
ere; Lai►dry, Asst
that veterans, preferencei
po)nts shall be
iv,
appe11et3.
given in accordance 'With Florida Statute3.,
The ordinance also provides it Method for
STATE of Florida, Appellee,
LERAN, Judge,
employees to seek redress for any violation
N0 83-1471
of the rules � The question of entitlement
$efefidaflt was �
to the points teas never presented to city
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
806,01(1), Florida B
otheiels or the Civil Service board.
Second Lis"trio:
in the first degree.
=
The controlling statutes, found in Chap:
March 14, 1984.
that the trial court
press his confessic
ter 298, Florida Statutes (1989), have been
construed by this court in several cases.
Rehearing Denied April i2, 1984.
fendatit slid revers+
In even case the question of entitlement to
the confession was
the statutory preference points was first
p
i
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit
stances inconsisten
Miranda tf rl�i#art
it
presented to the Civil Service board pursu,
Court, Pinellas County, Gerard O'Brien, 3,
802, 18 ss
1 L.Fd.2
ant ti) its rules, L�$., Yatt#s tt l?eteau, 62
of arson in first degree, and he appealed.
j
So,2d 796 (F1a,1982); City of Miami tf.
The District Court of Appeal, Lehati, J.,
; P()IIOW!hg the fir
Pafrrrin#ton, 408 So.2d 104.3 (Fla, 3d DCA),
held that defendant's confession was ad -
in custody pursui�
rev, dismissed. 411 So.2d 381 (F1a.1981).
duced in violation of his Miranda rights
Statutes
Florida State W
Appellant challenges the jurisdiction of
after he had stated that he wished to re
lice custody into
the court to entertain the action on grounds
main silent, and thus, confession should
dof
incapacitatepersc
that the employee failed to exhaust admin•
have been suppressed,
tion, after having ,
istrative remedies, citing this court's opine
Reversed and remanded.
warning, defendan
ion in Pushkin V. Lombard, 279 80.2d 79
two olive officers
p
(Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 284 So.2d 396
wished to remain
(1973). We agree that the filing of a law-
Criminal Law 517,1(3)
officers told defen�
suit in the circuit court was premature.
See also Miami
Where defendant held on suspicion of
charged with arson
between
City o v.`raternal Or-
arson, had stated during interrogation that
versation
der of Police, 378 So.2d 20, 25 (Fla. 3d
he wished to remain silent, but officers
the officers. In tF
DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1113
conducted further conversation with de-
the officer surmise
(F1a.1980) (employee is not relieved of obli•
fendant in which one officer surmised and
fendant as to the
gation to engage the administrative pre.
commented to defendant as to reasons why
started the fire.
cess in redressing a grievance by simply
defendant started fire, defendant's subse-
confessed.u'
accepting as unchallengeable an adverse
decision of the employer).
gnent confession was elicited in violation of
Miranda require
his Miranda rights and should have been
;n police custody in
p y
Reversed and remanded with directions
suppressed. West s F.S.A. § 806.0111);
f remain silent, furtl
to dismiss.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. b.
time must cease.
S0.2d 639, 640 (Fla.
da also is critical
o «EI NUNIER SrsrEM
Joseph P. McNulty of McNulty, Moritz,
tion technique, use
F'
y,
Pecarek, Dickey & Herman, Largo, for ap-
case, of suggesting
pellant.
to the defendant.
m
1. Section 40-58. Code of the City of Miami
(b) Complaint by employee.
451, 455, 86 S.Ct. a
at 711, 712. AS tl
'
(1980), which codifies Ordinance No. 8977, Sea
lion 2, provides:
Any employee who is aggrieved by reason
of what he/she. considers a violation of this
i
� Bowen v. State, 40
;
fterences in ranking candidates —Veterans'
article [Civil Service Rules) to his/her detri•
DCA 1981),
P reference.
[11n promotion, preference shall be given
ment, or who has a grievance concerning
his/her employment under this article, and
Once a person
[to veterans) in accordance with the state stet-
who desires redress, shall notify the executive
the right to re
utes, as amended.
_secretary in writing, stating the nature of
ments obtained f
'
t Section 40-103(b), Code of the City of Miami
(1980) provides In pertinent part:
his/her grievance and requesting a hearing by
the board [Civil Service Board).
11 The testimony 01
Grievances and abuses generally.
established that the
the floor of the b„
_
i
85-7 73
s
a.
Ys.'•
i
i
.
yea
lot
1"it6!Seto t
_ x
Type, pen
supplemert1
1
Peba o, 198 r@bruagy 17p ►1982
e dst6 tn Date
N6. Competing 1 N0. Passed _ 113 No, Faith 4 DNA: _
1NFU 6
Approves; - : _..- bate Approvt d:
Dir t8r 0i Num n Resourcesr
i.�. Name, Aar 8 Sex Vets i=�inei Actions
Na.. •, Pre1. Grade
--0- 90.52- T
176 .
�_�:►
ly21S -N?.
•-16 9 Praltl;-`ah_. -0- �-*-,
. 114 i _ eauarae Or-b - a-. 97,
3. 6471 Jar -._ins F A - R .. =7
.yi65
g >.�...., i 33 1 5-1 a a ny
•�175 Misr-� ,S f AM. -9-6.
25 $ Q. 96. 7, . ,i - a 0 - �. 74
163 Goodman, Rare-Ula h. AM
,i 216
•
s:: .._.., v�_..r.. � 0 .95. 7 . S Flo 6241 R6
'': ✓ 141 M"kf n• Ad-JamP. 0 95. 6
i
130 0 94. 5
103 , 0 94.. 8
�. 221 A -VQnet-H.401� 0 -94. 1 S =�co �S
*-�a,
V 118 Has�r�r- s
t -- - =013 0 9 4 . 4. y tE
109 n"•+i.:'.:•h. I chael D. 0 94. 5 3 3,
272 c
134 Bodden, Ashby A. AM go 0 94. 9
106 Sam�lewcz Richard 'AM If 0 94. 4 ..
• 2V
217 Martin, Wm. S. AM 3i -0 93. 2
' ' ! [ Smith, Wm. J. AM �t ' 0 93. 1
Reed, Robert W. AM ; t 0 93. 0
gf :"" s Morris, Fred AM 1 0 93. 5
263 ilhardt, Rdhald IF. AM 0 93' 6
242 _ +fit;- 0
.. 145 RQschel, George A. A AM, b 93. 7
13573
i
ar
ee
ELIGIBLE adONSTER
TOM
supplement"
,.
Closing Date _" Pe
1905
aifi Date —oril� 17, 1962
4
s
i -
No, pet'ng 1 3 No, I S
-
No, Failed _ .. 8
:�. [DNA: 23
ML
E
-
_
i,
6A
Approved;
Date Approved. ...,. _
R y�q
�ycyy
ID,
Name. Race a 5e
Vets
Final Actions
NO.
Prel.
trade
A59ED:
206
Eoh�elberry, Norman
AM
0.
93.1
1-42S
�r+e
Room—,
Lange, Daniel
L.
MI
0
9 3.l �.
q
• ,��,;,
beoeroe ` Raymond
AM
0
93.1 '.
92.
107
Holland, Kevin C..
AM
0
92.6
n.
229
Riggs, David Gray
''AM
0
92.4
201
Racine, Xenneth J.
AM
0
92.3
211
Collis, David P.
AM
264
dBrenj James:
AM
0
92.1
s .
219
Gi.bbs�- A*hold .
°'
91. g - -���' ��10 -
-
i
y
.254
,
J.•
1 I: a.
251
.__ ..
129
Durso, Albert M.
AM
0
91. 6
167
143
, r
Zirk,' Martin Lee
AM
0
/1-9y .
91. 6
h;
207
Kitkendall, Leonard• AM
0
91. 6
265
Lincoln, Charles
AM
0
91. 2
268
Griffin', John C.
AM
0
90. 5
`
146
Liotti, Michael C.
AM
0
90.131
135-7743
i
N
crop ,
'..
d
Police Sorg
�flt
'
Clos ing Dad February
'
WM mate Februar 17 ,
{
No. Competing .� � � �_ �_ - No, Pmsed
INEU 6
Y
-
Approved::
Date
Approved: . _._ ._.
rotor o H� in
Reg . ce9
1.6.
Neete, Rate 3► Sex
Vets
Fines
Actions
No.
_-
Prcl:
Otade
-
PASSED:
224
Poto ck1, Joseph W •
AM
0
90.6
`
223
119
ONei1, Jahn
AM
.,�
0
90.6
234
90.5
„�
274
120
Hinson, Stenett L'
pp
Stewari, Milte
AM
AM
0
90,
90,4
116
Shepherd, Joseph
M AM
0
90.3
LjLL
230
101
Sigman, James P_
AM -
0
90 2
�-
133
Taylor, Ricky LW
3
0
90.2
90.1
231
Swink Bradford A
AM
0
89.9'
153
245
Steglich, David R
AM
0
89.9
,.:
260,$
Braun, Bruce W
AM
0
89.9
225
7.�q.
u
232
Rack,.3ohn -
. CAM
0
89.7
142
151
Wa ner, Richard B
Fr edrichs', Rita
AM
0
0
89.5
89.4
�• 1,3- $ �
T°
273
255
Moyyers, Michael E.
Ochoa, Diego B
AK I
0
0 -
89.4
89.4
-�
-W-- -
B'
.
t_
277
108
Best Robert W.
y
Tremble John E
AM
AM
0
0
89.3
89.2
n_
� .
276
Mitchel , Joseph W
AM
0
89.1
228
257
Wisner, Mark, W _
Galvez, Angel Luis
AM
U
0
0
89. 1:
89:0
2� -11 • �%
144
Mesa, Antonio
dr
0
88.9
r=
_.
85-773
L
?i: :{
f t
H`
t
K
1: