The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCRA-R-22-0006 Submittal-Cornelius Shiver-Affidavit" fD 3 o a' - a SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARKWEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOMENT AGENCY al�s' m n co c a FEBRUARY 7, 2022, BAORD MEETING N ; 8 CRA Agenda Item -Resolution #6 (11419) coNf Q p • N " AFFIDAVIT OF CORNELIUS SHIVER IN OPPOSITION TO CRA AGENDA ITEM a 11419, WHICH SEEKS TO RESCIND CRA RESOLUTION NO. CRA-R-21-0095 THAT ACCEPTED A NEGOTIATED SEPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SEOPW CRA AND CORNELIUS SHIVER STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) CITY OF MIAMI ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this 6th day of February 2022, personally appeared, Respondent, CORNELIUS SHIVER, who is personally known to me, and who was first duly sworn, deposes and says that he has personal knowledge of all relevant matters set forth below, that after making a public requests to the City Clerk, he is partly relying on the Approved Separation Agreement attached to the CRA-Resolution CRA-R-21-0050 as Exhibit A and the Written Minutes to the November 18, 2018 SEOPW CRA Board meeting, all in support of his opposition to the drastic and unfair remedy asserted under agenda item #6. Respondent further states the following: 1. Respondent is a property tax paying resident of the City of Miami, who resides at 3095 Plaza St., Miami, Florida, 33133, and at all times relevant, was the Executive Director of the Southeast Overtown/Parkwest Community Development Agency (SEOPW CRA). A. THE PREPERATION OF THE SEPERATION AGREEMENT WAS INITIATED BY THE CHAIRPERSON WITH A 50% UNUSED SICK TIME PROVISION 2. On November 18, 2021, about thirty minutes before the public noticed SEOPW CRA board meeting, the Respondent for the first time was presented with a typed separation agreement apparently prepared the City Attorney's Office. The Respondent had absolutely no input into the drafting of the typed separation agreement and no prior knowledge that he would be presented with a typed separation agreement. 3. The typed separation agreement prepared and presented to the Respondent included a provision for ninety (90) days severance pay and fifty percent (50%) unused sick time as of Page I 1 140 5ubriifttI-(orne!ius S'hiVeic-- A dQVi T Submitted into the public record in connection with Item CQ on 2// f 2'02Z Todd B. Hannon Clerk of the Board November 18, 2021. 4. The Respondent countered and asked for his two and half weeks (2.5 weeks) of unused vacation time. The Respondent was informed that the Chairperson of the SEOPW CRA had denied his request for the two and half weeks (2.5 weeks) of his unused vacation time. 5. The Respondent then requested that the previously offered fifty percent (50%) unused sick time be increased to one hundred percent (100%). 6. The Chairperson apparently agreed to the 100% counteroffer because the City of Miami Attorney Office was directed to amend the typed separation agreement to reflect one hundred percent (100%) unused sick time. 7. At no times during negotiations was there any discussion about the total hours, days and, or weeks of the unused sick time. 8. The City of Miami Attorney Office amended the separation agreement exactly how the provision was agreed upon, to wit: one hundred percent (100%) unused sick time. 9. Accordingly, the SEOPW CRA Board approved the separation agreement exactly how the unused sick time provision was negotiated and agreed upon, to wit: one hundred percent (100%) unused sick time. 10. There is no ambiguity, dispute or mistake as to the one hundred percent (100%) unused sick time provision inserted in the separation agreement. B. THE PRESENTATION OF THE SEPERATION AGREEMENT TO THE BOARD 11. The Chairperson added the non -published separation agreement to the meeting agenda and in presenting the item to the Board and the public, the Chairperson announced that the negotiated unused sick time was two and one-half weeks. 12. At no time did Respondent mention, say or even misrepresent to the Board as to what was to the actual hours, weeks or days of the unused sick time, because the negotiations and agreement were always based on percentages. C. CLEARLY THE BOARD WAS 1\ISLEAD THAT THE UNUSED SICK TIME WAS TWO AND ONE-HALF WEEKS 13. As passed by this Board on November 18, 2021, the Approved Separation Agreement Page 2 Submitted into the public record in connection with Item _i on 2 1i22- Todd B. Hannon Clerk of the Board provides for three (3) months' severance pay and approximately three (3) months earned, but unused sick time, for a total severance pay out of approximately a total of six (6) months. 14. The Board was led to believe that the unused sick time was two and one-half weeks. solely on the presentation and comments made by the Chairperson and not by the Respondent. 15. The Chairperson, her staff or the City Attorney's Office knew or should have known exactly how many hours, days or weeks the Chairperson had offered the Respondent, notwithstanding that the offer was initiated and discussed in terms of percentages of earned but unused sick time. 16. The fact that the City Attorney inserted 100°% sick time in the Approved Settlement Agreement is compelling proof that during negotiations on unused sick time, the discussion was based solely on percentages and not hours, days or weeks, and that is the exact and precise language the Chairperson directed the City Attorney to insert into the Approved Separation Agreement. 17. The Respondent would admit that when Commissioner Carollo questioned him on how many years had he been the Executive Director, his "four years" response while truthful was not complete. 18. The Respondent should have supplemented his answer to Commissioner Carollo's question by stating that he has over eleven years of service to the City of Miami, the SEOPW CRA and the Overtown community, consisting of over three years as a City of Miami employee working with two District 5 City Commissioners and SEOPW CRA Chairmen and eight continuous years with the SEOPW CRA, four as Assistant Executive Director and four years as the Executive Director. D. THE APPROVED SEPERATION AGREEMENT ENDS IN NINE (9) DAYS 19. Unless there is a will by this Board to give the Respondent a fairer offer of an additional two months of severance, there should be no action on this agenda item. The Approved Separation Agreement ends within nine (9) days from the date of this board meeting.. In other words, the SEOPW CRA has performed for 81 days of the 90-day term prescribed in the Approved Separation Agreement. E. RESCINDING THE APPROVED SEPERATION AGREEMENT IS A DRASTIC REMEDY, UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, AND IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ANY PARTY Page 3 Submitted into the public record in connection with Item G on ZJ1/2O22 Todd B. Hannon Clerk of the Board 20. As passed by this Board, the Approved Separation Agreement provides for 90 days severance pay and approximately three months earned, but unused sick time to the Respondent. 21. To rescind the Approved Separation Agreement under the totality of the facts and at this time, is unfair, unwarranted, and inconsistent with the years of service and critical role the Respondent has played in the transformation of the emerging community of Overtown. 22. To seek to rescind the Approved Separation Agreement is not in the best interest of the City or SEOPW CRA where there are clauses in the Approved Separation Agreement that are clearly beneficial to the City and the SEOPW CRA, some of which are: a. "the intent of this agreement is to mutually and finally resolve all matters...". b. there is a general release that favors the City and the SEOPW CRA; c. there is a very specific release expressly waiving all civil claims by the Respondent; and d. more significant as prescribed under provision 12 "this agreement may not be modified, altered, or changed except upon written consent of both parties..." CONCLUSION The Approved Separation Agreement accurately reflects the negotiated and agreed to terms. There is no conduct on behalf of the Respondent that shocks the conscience of the board or the public to justify rescinding the Approved Separation Agreement. The drastic remedy sought is not supported by the record, is another attempt to demean the Respondent and as such, the CRA should be directed to pay the Respondent in full, as approved by the Board on November 18, 2021, henceforth and immediately. FURTHER YOUR AFFINT SAYTH NOT. ant, COUS SHIVER Sworn to and subscribedbefore me this 6th day of February 2022. i KETSIA MARCELLUS S/ kr : State of Florida -Notary Public `•�� •= Commission # GG 277915 ° My Commission Expires November 19, 2022 Page 14 NOTARY -PUBLIC