HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-27 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401
c.�sgji°3 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
,aifIt'En1ETrgI E,t� 1 Gh`f
February 6, 1989
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING
There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council on
Monday, February 27, 1989 from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M., in
Conference Room #1 (Room 103), City Clerk's Office, City
Hall, 7525 Northwest 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida 33321.
The purpose of this meeting is to continue a public
hearing requested by John F. Montalvo, Jr., pursuant to
Section 52.02 of the City of Tamarac Personnel Manual to
appeal a personnel decision of the City Manager relating to
the employment of John F. Montalvo, Jr.
Additional public hearings may be called if necessary.
All meetings are open to the public.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
thb testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based
CAE/gt
2,j e,—�—,e �- -6/, � 14 e -� �
CAROL A. EVANS
CITY CLERK
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
CALL TO
Monday,
Clerk's
PRESENT!
ORDER: Mayor
February 27,
office).
ALSO PRESENT:
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1989
Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on
1989 at 9:20 A.M. in Conference Room #1 (City
Mayor Norman Abramowitz
Vice Mayor Jack Stelzer
Councilman Dr. H. Larry Bender
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
Councilman Henry Rohr
John P. Kelly, City Manager
Richard Doody, City Attorney
Janet Lander, Consulting Attorney
Pauline Walaszek, Special Services
Secretary
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING requested by John F. Montalvo, Jr.,
Pursuant to Section 52.02 of the City of Tamarac's Personnel
Manual to appeal a personnel decision of the City Manager
relating to the employment of John F. Montalvo, Jr.
Mayor Abramowitz announced that the meeting began at 9:20
A.M. and was delayed because Charles Whitelock, Attorney
for John F. Montalvo, Jr., was held up in traffic.
Mayor Abramowitz asked that proper decorum be used during
this meeting and the Counselors keep the meeting
information. He said the meeting was called to
accumulate the facts.
Attorney Whitelock asked that C/M Rohr be excluded from
this meeting because he was not present at the first
Public Hearing.
Janet Lander, Consulting City Attorney, said she
concurred with Attorney Whitelock's philosophy. She said
she did not object to C/M Rohr's attendance at the
meeting; however, the record should indicate that C/M
Rohr could not participate in the deliberation of this
meeting.
City Attorney Doody said if there was a tie Vote, the
result would be a DENIAL of the Motion because there
would be four members of Council voting as opposed to
five.
Attorney Lander asked if John Montalvo, Sr., would be
testifying and Attorney Whitelock said John Montalvo,
Sr., would not be asked to testify and he was attending
the meeting as an observer.
WITNESSES
Attorney Lander called Glenda Christan as a Witness.
Page 1
2/27/89
Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Glenda Christan in as
a Witness.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan to state her full
name.
Ms. Christan stated her full name to be, Glenda Christan.
Attorney Lander asked where Ms. Christan was employed.
Ms. Christan replied, the City of Tamarac.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan to state her job
title.
Ms. Christan replied, Data Processing Manager.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan how long she held this
position.
Ms. Christan replied, approximately 6 years.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan was the Data
Processing Manager in 1987.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan who her Supervisor
was.
Ms. Christan replied, the Finance Director.
Attorney Lander asked who Ms. Christan's Supervisor was
in 1987.
Ms. Christan replied, the Finance Director.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan to name the Finance
Director in 1987.
Ms. Christan replied, Ken Burroughs.
Attorney Lander asked if Elena Logan was under Ms.
Christan's Supervision and control.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked what work Ms. Logan does under Ms.
Christan's Supervision.
Ms. Christan said Ms. Logan is the Computer Operator in
the Data Processing Department.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan ever worked with
Mr. Montalvo in 1987.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo worked for or with
Ms. Christan.
Ms. Christan said she worked with Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo did her personnel
review.
Page 2
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question because it
was leading the Witness.
Attorney Lander asked who performed her employee
evaluation.
Ms. Christan replied, Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo had the authority
to bypass Ms. Christan and go to the Finance Director
with any employment decisions regarding any employees in
the Data Processing Department.
Ms. Christan said Mr. Montalvo could do this; however,
actions would not be taken until she was consulted
because she was the direct Supervisor of the Department.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo could bypass Ms.
Christan.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question because it
was already answered.
City Attorney Doody said this meeting was an
Administrative Hearing and not a Court of Law. He
suggested the Counselors did not adhere to Smith's Rules
of Evidence and refrain from making objections that were
not relevant in an Administrative Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock said he disagreed with City Attorney
Doody's suggestion because it would be excluding him from
representing his client. He said it was obvious that he
would not be allowed to make comments; however, if City
Attorney Doody was being allowed to participate in the
Hearing, Mr. Montalvo's Representative should be able to
participate as well. He said he was going to participate
and when Counsel's questions were improper he would
object regardless of what City Attorney Doody and
Attorney Lander thought.
Attorney Whitelock said he disagreed with City Attorney
Doody's statement of the Law. He said this meeting was
an Administrative Hearing and his client had the right to
Due Process and had the right to prevent or exclude
evidence which was inculpatory.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan was aware of Mr.
Montalvo and Ms. Logan's dating relationship while they
were dating.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked when Ms. Christan became aware that
Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan had a relationship.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question because it
was leading and suggestive. He said since facts were not
in evidence, Ms. Christan already testified that she was
not aware of the relationship.
Mayor Abramowitz said the objection was noted and he
asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked how Ms. Christan became aware of
the relationship between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan.
Page 3
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question for the same
reason as previously stated.
Mayor Abramowitz said he heard Attorney Whitelock's
objection and he was overruling the objection.
Attorney Whitelock asked what evidence was produced
indicating that Ms. Christan was aware of a relationship
between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan. He said Attorney
Lander was suggesting that there was a relationship when
Ms. Christan indicated that she was not aware of any
relationship.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan to answer the
question.
Ms. Christan said she did not remember when she first
learned that there had been a relationship. She said Mr.
Montalvo informed her about the relationship after it was
over; however, she could not remember if she heard about
it first from Mr. Montalvo or Ms. Logan.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan recalled when Mr.
Montalvo informed her of the relationship.
Ms. Christan said it may have been the end of November or
December., 1987.
Attorney Lander asked if there was a time late in 1987
that Ms. Logan came to Ms. Christan and complained about
certain events that had taken place between Mr. Montalvo
and Ms. Logan in the work place.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan to explain what
occurred.
Ms. Christan said she did not remember exactly when the
matter occurred; however, Ms. Logan informed her that Mr.
Montalvo threatened her job. She said she informed Ms.
Logan that there was nothing that Mr. Montalvo could do
directly about the job. She said Ms. Logan mentioned at
one time that Mr. Montalvo was bothering her after
working hours.
Attorney Whitelock objected on the basis of hearsay. He.
said this testimony did not prove to be confrontational
and the form of the question had an absence of any date
and time.
Mayor Abramowitz noted the objection and asked Attorney
Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan what she instructed
Ms. Logan to do after the complaint was brought to her.
She asked if Ms. Christan reported this matter to anyone
about her.
Ms. Christan replied, no. She said she informed Ms.
Logan that there was nothing Mr. Montalvo could do about
her job without her (Ms. Christan's) recommendation.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan informed Ms. Logan
to handle the matter herself.
Page 4
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock objected and asked that Attorney
Lander be instructed not to lead the Witness. He said it
was obvious that Attorney Lander was not getting a
response and tried to lead the Witness.
City Attorney Doody said his advice continued regarding
this being an Administrative Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock said City Attorney Doody could not
testify. He said City Attorney Doody was aware of this.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objections
were all a matter of record. He said he was
participating in the meeting to hear the facts in order
for the City Council to make a fair judgement, they had
to hear the facts. He said whether it was proper or
improper, he was going to allow the testimonies to occur.
He said he was not qualified to make legal judgements.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan remembered to the
best of her ability what she said to Ms. Logan when she
(Ms. Christan) was informed about the job threat.
Ms. Christan said if Ms. Logan would have asked to report
it to someone, she would have. She said she did not
remember telling Ms. Logan to handle the matter herself.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan informed Ms. Logan
about the City's policy on sexual harassment at the time
Ms. Logan made the complaint.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan informed Ms. Logan
of the City's policy on sexual harassment at any time.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan informed Ms. Logan,
approximately one month after the first complaint, about
something Ms. Christan found out regarding an incident
between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan involving Ms. Logan's
car.
Ms. Christan said she did not understand the question.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan ever spoke to Ms.
Logan regarding any knowledge Ms. Christan had concerning
any action Mr. Montalvo may have taken against Ms. Logan.
Ms. Christan said she only knew about things through Ms.
Logan.
Attorney Lander asked if anyone else spoke to Ms.
Christan about Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Christan said she did not think so.
Attorney Lander asked if Charlotte Bouchard spoke to Ms.
Christan.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question because Ms.
Christan had been asked and she answered on two
occasions. He said it seemed like Attorney Lander was
trying to beat Ms. Christan into submission if the
Page 5
2/27/89
desired response was not given. He said when a question
was asked and the answer was not given, it should not
continue.
Mayor Abramowitz said not everyone in the room was cool,
collected and intelligent regarding the Law. He said he
could understand that Ms. Christan was very nervous;
therefore, just in the quest of receiving information, he
asked that the Counselors be considerate so that the
information could be obtained.
Attorney Whitelock said fairness was indicated in the way
that the proceeding was conducted. He said the
proceeding should be conducted in a more appropriate
fashion and, if a response is not received, the Witness
should not be constantly asked.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noted and he asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Ms. Christan said she did not remember specifically
speaking with anyone in that Department. She said there
were people in the Department aware of the things
occurring.
Attorney Lander asked, such as.
Ms. Christan said the incident at Bay Street Restaurant.
Attorney Lander asked what incident at Bay Street.
Ms. Christan said the day after Mr. Montalvo put gum on
the car and whatever.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan to be more specific so
that Counsel could be aware of what Ms. Christan heard or
knew.
Ms. Christan said it was hard to remember when or what
was said. She said she thought that Ms. Logan informed
her the day after the Bay Street incident that gum had
been put on her (Ms. Logan's) car. She said Ms. Logan
thought that Mr. Montalvo had done this. She said she
understood that Mr. Montalvo had informed people at the
Utilities Department that he had done it.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan if there were any
unusual deliveries made to her work area in the month of
January.
Ms. Christan said there were a lot of flowers delivered.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Christan could approximate
how many flowers were delivered such as one dozen or
more.
Ms. Christan said at one time there were two dozen
flowers delivered; however, there were maybe two or three
deliveries made.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo ever commented to
Ms. Christan regarding the flowers on any of the
occasions.
Ms. Christan said one time Mr. Montalvo said something
like, Ms. Logan should open up a florist shop.
Page 6
2/27/89
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo ever commented to
Ms. Christan that he had sent the flowers.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Mayor Abramowitz asked who the flowers were delivered to.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan who the flowers were
delivered to.
Ms. Christan replied, Ms. Logan.
Attorney Lander asked where the flowers were delivered
to.
Ms. Christan replied, to City Hall.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan to explain the
physical size of Ms. Logan's work place.
. Ms. Christan replied, very small.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan to the best of her
knowledge how many occasions were the flowers delivered.
Ms. Christan said maybe three times, she did not know,
two, three or four. She did not remember how many times.
Attorney Lander asked if the flowers were signed and if
Ms. Christan knew who sent the flowers.
Ms. Christan replied, no. She said they came with notes.
Attorney Lander asked if the notes were from any
particular person.
Ms. Christan said there were no signed names.
Attorney Lander asked if there were any other deliveries
made to Ms. Logan at the work area while Ms. Christan was
Supervising.
Ms. Christan said she did not think so.
Attorney Lander asked what hours Ms. Logan worked.
Ms. Christan replied, 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
Attorney Lander asked what the hours worked by most of
the Personnel in the Department.
Ms. Christan replied, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
Attorney Lander asked if anyone worked with Ms. Logan
from 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan was alone during that
time.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander had no further questions.
Page 7
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Christan how long she worked
for the City of Tamarac.
Ms. Christan replied, almost 10 years.
Attorney Whitelock asked how long Ms. Christan worked
with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Christan said she did not remember when Mr. Montalvo
was fired.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Christan to approximate how
long she worked with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Christan replied, maybe a couple of years.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan ever had
difficulty with Mr. Montalvo during their working
experience.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew of any
other female who had problems with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Christan said not that she knew of.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Christan if she knew when
the City's sexual harassment policy was implemented.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew the context
of the policy.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Christan to state the
context of the policy.
Ms. Christan said nobody should harass any employee
whether it be sexual harassment or anything that would
offend a person.
Attorney Whitelock asked what this included.
Ms. Christan asked Attorney Whitelock what he meant.
Attorney Whitelock said what type of conduct.
Ms. Christan said anything that a person would not
approve of or did not want.
Attorney Whitelock said it was purely subjective on the
person that was the recipient of the conduct.
Ms. Christan said as far as she knew.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan advised anyone,
including Ms. Logan, what the policy was.
Attorney Lander said this question was already answered
by Ms. Christan. She said Attorney Whitelock could not
ask the same questions on cross examination that she
already asked.
Page 8
i-
I
2/27/89
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Lander's objection was
noted and he asked Attorney Whitelock to continue.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew when the
policy was implemented.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew if any
notice of the policy was given to any employee.
Ms. Christan said she did not remember when; however, she
knew that there have been notices posted on the bulletin
boards.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew when the
notices were posted.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan was aware that
Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan had a personal relationship.
Ms. Christan said she was not aware of the relationship
until it was over.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Ms. Christan found out that
the relationship was over.
Ms. Christan said she did not remember exactly when. She
said it may have been the end of November or December,
she was not sure.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was in 1987.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan was aware of how
long the relationship existed after she was notified of
it ending.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Ms. Logan informed Ms.
Christan about the job threat.
Ms. Christan said she did not know when.
Attorney Whitelock asked under what circumstances did Ms.
Logan inform Ms. Christan.
Ms. Christan said Ms. Logan came and informed her.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the purpose was in Ms.
Logan informing Ms. Christan.
Ms. Christan said she was Ms. Logan's Supervisor. She
said Ms. Logan wanted to find out if there was anything
that Mr. Montalvo could do about her (Ms. Logan's) job.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan assured Ms.
Logan that there was nothing Mr. Montalvo could do.
Ms. Christan said she informed Ms. Logan that to the best
of her knowledge nothing could be done unless she (Ms.
Christan) was consulted.
Page 9
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew when Ms.
Logan came to her regarding this matter.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan came to Ms.
Christan in November, 1987.
Ms. Christan replied, no. She said it had nothing to do
with when Mr. Montalvo talked to her.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan consulted with Ms.
Christan in the Summer, Spring, fall or Winter.
Ms. Christan said it was towards the end. She said it
all happened around the same time.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan informed Ms.
Christan exactly what was said to her (Ms. Logan) by Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Christan said just that Mr. Montalvo had threatened
Ms. Logan with her (Ms. Logan's) job.
Attorney Whitelock asked in what fashion.
Ms. Christan said that Mr. Montalvo could cause Ms. Logan
to lose the job.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was what Ms. Logan told
Ms. Christan.
Ms. Christan said as well as she could remember.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was a threat of any job
loss.
Ms. Christan asked other than this one?
Attorney Whitelock replied, yes.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo took any action
that threatened Ms. Logan's job.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan informed Ms.
Christan why the job threat occurred.
Ms. Christan asked Attorney Whitelock what he meant.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the consultation occurred at
work.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked how long the consultation
lasted.
Ms. Christan said just a few minutes.
Attorney Whitelock asked where the meeting took place.
Ms. Christan said in the computer room.
Page 10
I-
F,
1
2/27/89
1
1
1
Attorney Whitelock asked if it was just happen chance
that Ms. Logan consulted Ms. Christan.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan sought Ms. Christan
out.
Ms. Christan said she and Ms. Logan worked right next to
each other.
Attorney Whitelock asked what Ms. Logan discussed with
Ms. Christan during the few minutes of conversation. He
asked how Ms. Logan started the conversation.
Ms. Christan said she did not remember.
Attorney Whitelock asked how Ms. Logan appeared at that
time.
Ms. Christan said not happy about the situation.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Christan if she remembered
when the delivery of flowers took place.
Ms. Christan said not specific dates.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan recalled when
the deliveries took place in relationship with the
conversation between her and Ms. Logan.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan recalled when
the deliveries took place in relationship to the Bay
Street incident.
Ms. Christan said she could not remember any of this.
She said she was sorry.
Attorney Whitelock said it was okay. He asked if Ms.
Christan ever reported these matters to anyone.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan confronted Mr.
Montalvo with the matters.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked what Ms. Christan did with the
information.
Ms. Christan said she did not do anything. She said she
discussed the matter with Ms. Logan and that was where it
ended.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan was aware of
what Ms. Logan did with the information.
Ms. Christan said nothing that she knew of.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was anything available
to Ms. Logan to handle these types of problems.
Ms. Christan said steps could have been taken.
Attorney Whitelock asked, grievances?
Page 11
2/27/89
Ms. Christan replied, yes; however, the steps were not
taken.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any reason why Ms.
Logan did not file a grievance.
Ms. Christan said probably at that time it was not
necessary.
Attorney Lander objected to this question because it was
speculating.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected to Attorney Lander
telling the Witness what to testify to during cross
examination.
Attorney Lander said she moved to strike the answer of
speculation.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock how Ms.
Christan would know what was in Ms. Logan's thoughts.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the speculative nature of the
question was being ruled on.
Mayor Abramowitz replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock said he thought that the Hearing was
informal and the truth was being sought.
City Attorney Doody said the Hearing was informal and
Counsel could take the objection for what it was worth.
He said the question was speculative realistically. He
said the matter should not be argued; however, the record
should indicate that the question was speculative.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Lander's objection was
noted and he asked Attorney Whitelock to continue.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan discussed the
options available such as filing a grievance with Ms.
Logan.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew anything
about the flowers such as where they came from or who
sent them.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew about the
other two incidents which occurred off duty.
Ms. Christan, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the incidents had anything to
do with work performance.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan had any personal
knowledge of the two events.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Page 12
2/27/89
1
1
L
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan had knowledge of
only conversations with Ms. Logan and the fact that Mr.
Montalvo denied sending the flowers.
Ms. Christan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked where in the evidence Mr. Montalvo
denied sending the flowers. She said she objected to
this question.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the basis of the objection
was.
Attorney Lander asked Attorney Whitelock for the basis of
his question. she asked if there was anything in the
evidence that indicated that Mr. Montalvo denied sending
the flowers.
Attorney Whitelock replied, yes. He said Ms. Christan
testified to this.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan if she testified to
this.
Attorney Whitelock objected to Attorney Lander asking the
Witness a question during cross examination. He said he
realized that Ms. Christan was a City Witness; however,
he did not believe that Attorney Lander had the right to
coach the Witness on cross examination.
Mayor Abramowitz said he was not familiar with the legal
procedures; however, he did not remember the Witness
indicating that Mr. Montalvo denied sending the flowers.
Attorney Whitelock said Mayor Abramowitz has not been
listening because the Witness stated this.
The City Council said they did not hear this statement
being made and Attorney Whitelock said then no one was
listening because this was exactly what the Witness
stated. He said Attorney Lander asked Ms. Christan if
Mr. Montalvo ever admitted sending the flowers and Ms.
Christan replied, no.
Attorney Lander said this was not the same as stating Mr.
Montalvo denied sending the flowers.
Attorney Whitelock said this was not the point. He said
the point was that the Witness was under cross
examination.
Mayor Abramowitz said the question was out of order and
he asked Attorney Whitelock to rephrase the question.
Attorney Whitelock asked what question was out of order.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock`s remark that
Mr. Montalvo denied sending the flowers. He said this
statement was not entered into evidence. He asked
Attorney Whitelock to continue.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo denied sending
the flowers.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan confronted Mr.
Montalvo about sending the flowers.
Page 13
2/27/89
Ms. Christan replied, no. She said she never questioned
Mr. Montalvo about sending the flowers.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever admitted
sending the flowers.
Ms. Christan said she never discussed this matter with
Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Christan to answer either
yes or no regarding Mr. Montalvo admitting to sending the
flowers.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo's only comment
was that Ms. Logan should open up her own florist shop.
Ms. Christan said something to that effect.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan was present
during the times the flowers were delivered.
Ms. Christan said for some deliveries she was present.
Attorney Whitelock asked how many.
Ms. Christan said she did not recall.
Attorney Whitelock asked how the conversation concluded
when Ms. Logan confronted Ms. Christan about the job
threat.
Ms. Christan said by just what she responded to Ms.
Logan.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan was satisfied with
Ms. Christan's answer.
Ms. Christan said as far as she thought.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan ever asked anything
further.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any further
complaints made.
Ms. Christan said not until the notes and things. She
said she felt that it was out of her hands at that point.
Attorney Whitelock asked whose hands the matter was in.
Ms. Christan said the Police.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any grievance filed
by Ms. Logan.
Ms. Christan replied, no. She said she just reported it;
however, if it was called a grievance, Ms. Logan took it
to the Personnel Department.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Christan what the first step
is in filing a grievance.
Ms. Christan said she would go to her Supervisor.
Page 14
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked who Ms. Christan's Supervisor
was.
Ms. Christan replied, the Finance Director.
Attorney Whitelock asked who the Finance Director would
go to.
Ms. Christan said either the City Manager or the
Personnel Director.
Attorney Whitelock said Ms. Logan skipped these steps and
went to the Personnel Director. He asked who the
Personnel Director was.
Ms. Christan said she thought that it was the employee's
prerogative who they went to.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the grievance procedure in
November, 1987, was that the steps could be bypassed and
taken directly to the Personnel Director.
Ms. Christan said she did not think that there was a
formal grievance. She said she did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked who the Personnel Director was
at this time.
Ms. Christan replied, Larry Perretti.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew of Larry
Perretti's relationship with Ms. Logan.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew if Larry
Perretti had any relationship with Ms. Logan.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Larry Perretti or Ms. Logan
ever went to lunch together.
Ms. Christan said she did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan ever saw Larry
Perretti in her work area.
Ms. Christan said Larry Perretti may have been in the
office because she and Ms. Logan worked together.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan knew of Larry
Perretti's relationship with Ms. Logan.
Ms. Christan said just employees, she did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan had any personal
knowledge of any relationship that Ms. Logan may have had
with Larry Perretti.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan was present
during any other conversations between Ms. Logan and
anyone else concerning this matter.
Ms. Christan replied, no.
Page 15
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Christan was present
while Ms. Logan was discussing the matter with anyone
else.
Ms. Christan said not usually and she replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked who set. Ms. Logan's work hours.
Ms. Christan replied, she did.
Attorney Whitelock asked why Ms. Logan was there from
9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
Ms. Christan said to finish the backup.
Attorney Whitelock had no further questions.
At 9:55 A.M., in the absence of the Mayor, V/M Stelzer
RECESSED this meeting and Mayor Abramowitz RECONVENED
this meeting at 10:00 A.M. with ALL PRESENT.
Attorney Lander called Marilyn Holbrook as a Witness.
Pauline Walaszek swore Marilyn Holbrook in as a Witness.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook to state her full
name.
Ms. Holbrook stated her full name to be, Marilyn
Holbrook.
Attorney Lander asked where Ms. Holbrook was employed.
Ms. Holbrook replied, the City Of Tamarac, Purchasing
Department.
Attorney Lander asked how long Ms. Holbrook was employed.
in the Purchasing Department.
Ms. Holbrook replied, 7-1/2 years.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook if she became
acquainted with John Montalvo, Jr., during this time.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook and Mr. Montalvo
worked together.
Ms. Holbrook said for a short time.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook was friends with
Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook and Mr. Montalvo
socialized outside of the work place.
Ms. Holbrook said they had on occasions.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook was ever aware of
the fact that Mr. Montalvo and Elena Logan were dating.
Page 16
2/27/89
L
E
Ms. Holbrook said she became aware of the matter when it
was probably almost over.
Attorney Lander asked how Ms. Holbrook found out that the
relationship was almost over.
Ms. Holbrook said through hearsay.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook ever discussed the
matter with Mr. Montalvo or Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook said she had conversations with Mr.
Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook ever, had
conversations with Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo spoke to Ms.
Holbrook after the breakup about the breakup.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook to describe Mr.
Montalvo's state of mind.
Attorney Whitelock objected because the question was
speculative.
Ms. Holbrook said she could not describe Mr. Montalvo's
state of mind.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook to explain the nature
of the conversations with Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock objected because the answer to the
question would be hearsay.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook to answer the
question.
Ms. Holbrook asked Attorney Lander to repeat the
question.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook to explain the nature
of the conversations with Mr. Montalvo after the breakup
with Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook said she really did not know how to answer
this question.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo ever made any
comments about Ms. Logan in Ms. Holbrook's presence.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the form of the question.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook to explain the
comments.
Ms. Holbrook said Mr. Montalvo was very upset over the
matter. She said there were several things said. She
said she did not remember word for word. She said it was
nothing that really concerned her; therefore, what was
Page 17
2/27/89
said went in one ear and out the other. She said Mr.
Montalvo was very upset about the breakup and there were
a lot of things said.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo ever threatened Ms.
Logan in Ms. Holbrook's presence.
Ms. Holbrook said "threatened" was a harsh word. She
said Mr. Montalvo was quite upset and he sounded mad at
times.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook was afraid of Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no, she was not afraid of him. She
said it has been a horrible situation and it was
uncomfortable.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook was uncomfortable
in testifying at this time.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook was having
difficulty in remembering the facts as a result of the
discomfort. She asked if Ms. Holbrook recalled the
conversation she had with Ms. Holbrook.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook recalled informing
her that Mr. Montalvo made some threats....
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question because it
was considered third party hearsay. He said Attorney
Lander was subjecting herself as a Witness in the case
and any notifications taken from the Witness would be
subject as evidence.
After consulting City Attorney Doody, Mayor Abramowitz
said he understood the nervousness and anxiety of the
Witnesses. He said the City Council was only interested
in getting the facts and the truth and there was nothing
that would be done to anyone. He asked that the
witnesses answer as truthfully as possible whether it be
against or for the City. He said in order for the truth
to be known, he asked that the Witnesses answer
truthfully and to the best of their knowledge.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook if Mr. Montalvo was
constantly discussing with her the breakup with Ms.
Logan.
Ms. Holbrook said Mr. Montalvo has talked to her;
however, she would not say constantly because they worked
in two different buildings. She said she did not see Mr.
Montalvo that often.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook discussed the
breakup on the instances that she did see Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Holbrook said there have been times when they talked.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo was obsessive about
the breakup.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Page 18
2/27/89
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo stated to Ms.
Holbrook that Ms. Logan did not deserve to walk the
earth.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook informed Mr.
Montalvo that he'needed to seek professional help.
,TAPE 2
Ms. Holbrook said she did not recall.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook if she knew what Bay
Street was.
Ms. Holbrook said Bay Street is a Restaurant.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook if she knew of what
the grand opening of Bay Street entailed.
Ms. Holbrook said Bay Street had an open house and the
City employees were invited.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook attended the grand
opening.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo attended.
Ms. Holbrook said she believed so.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo informed Ms.
Holbrook that he attended the grand opening.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo visited Ms.
Holbrook the day after the grand opening.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the leading nature of the
questions. He said Attorney Lander was trying to testify
for the Witness.
Attorney Lander said she was asking leading questions
because the Witness was very reluctant. She said for
whatever reason Ms. Holbrook may have she was being very
reluctant to testify on direct, unleading questions. She
said she was sure that Attorney Whitelock understood that
leading questions may be asked in these circumstances.
Attorney Lander said the Witness could be declared an
Adverse Witness if Attorney Whitelock felt more
comfortable.
Attorney Whitelock said there had to be grounds for an
Adverse Witness instead of unilaterally determining that
the Witness was adverse.
Mayor Abramowitz said in the quest of knowledge, he would
allow this type of questioning; however, he asked
Attorney Lander to rephrase the questions if possible.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo came to Ms.
Holbrook's office in November after the Bay Street grand
opening.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Page 19
2/27/89
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook what Mr. Montalvo said
to the best of her recollection.
Attorney Whitelock objected because the question asked
for hearsay.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Ms. Holbrook said Mr. Montalvo said he was at Bay Street
and Ms. Logan attended with another man.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook could describe the
manner in which Mr. Montalvo related the information to
her.
Ms. Holbrook said Mr. Montalvo was quite agitated about
it.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo was livid.
Ms. Holbrook said she did not know. She said agitated
and livid were the same thing.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question because it
was suggestive.
Mayor Abramowitz ruled that the question was
inappropriate.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo said anything to
Ms. Holbrook that was in a threatening nature after the
Bay Street grand opening when he was in her office.
Ms. Holbrook said she did not recall the specifics.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook felt that Ms.
Logan's life was in danger.
Ms. Holbrook said she did not feel that Ms. Logan's life
was in danger.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo admitted sending
cards and flowers to Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook replied, admit to her, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook spoke to Mr.
Montalvo since he left the employment of the City.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question because
there was no relevance.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noted.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook when the last time was
that she spoke to Mr. Montalvo,
Ms. Holbrook said at the Funeral.
Attorney Lander asked the Funeral for whom and Ms.
Holbrook said Lillian's husband's Funeral.
Attorney Lander asked when this was.
Ms. Holbrook said a couple of weeks ago.
Page 20
I-
F1
2/27/89
Attorney Lander asked if the case was discussed.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked what was discussed.
Ms. Holbrook said she just said hello, how are you and
goodbye.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo came to talk to Ms.
Holbrook after his suspension from the City.
Ms. Holbrook said she supposed she spoke to Mr. Montalvo
since then.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo came and spoke to
Ms. Holbrook after the suspension.
Ms. Holbrook said she was sure they spoke.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo asked Ms. Holbrook
to be a Character Witness on his behalf.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook what she told Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Holbrook said she informed him that she preferred not
to be a Character Witness.
Attorney Lander asked why Ms. Holbrook said this.
Ms. Holbrook said because she did not feel that she could
be helpful.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Holbrook why.
Ms. Holbrook said because of some of things Mr. Montalvo
had said. She said she did not feel that it would be in
Mr. Montalvo's best interest.
Attorney Lander asked such as.
Ms. Holbrook said because of Mr. Montalvo's whole
attitude over the matter. She said Mr. Montalvo was
obsessive about the matter. She said she did not really
remember specifics.
Attorney Lander asked how Mr. Montalvo reacted when Ms.
Holbrook informed him that she would not be a Character
Witness.
Ms. Holbrook said Mr. Montalvo became angry.
Attorney Lander asked what Mr. Montalvo did.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question because it
had nothing to do involving this case. He said if Mr.
Montalvo did something else, he was not charged with it.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noted and he asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked what Mr. Montalvo did.
Page 21
2/27/89
Ms. Holbrook said Mr. Montalvo got angry. She said he
blew up a little bit and became angry.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo screamed at Ms.
Holbrook.
Ms. Holbrook said yes, he became angry. She said she was
not the only person in the room.
Attorney Lander asked who else was present.
Ms. Holbrook said she thought that Bill Land was present.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Holbrook was frightened by
the outbreak.
Ms. Holbrook said it was upsetting.
Attorney Lander had no further questions.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Ms. Holbrook spoke to
Attorney Lander.
Ms. Holbrook said she could not remember exactly when it
was; however, the date was noted somewhere.
Attorney Whitelock asked how long ago this was.
Ms. Holbrook said three months ago.
Attorney Whitelock asked the nature of the meeting.
Ms. Holbrook said the meeting was more or less like this
except she and Attorney Lander were the only ones in the
room.
Attorney Whitelock asked where the meeting took place.
Ms. Holbrook replied, upstairs.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the meeting was during
working hours.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Holbrook gave a
statement.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if a written statement was
given.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she was asked to
give a written statement.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were notes taken of the
statement.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked who took the notes.
Page 22
2/27/89
Ms. Holbrook said Attorney Lander.
Attorney Whitelock said he already asked for the
production of the documents and, under the Public Records
Act, he was entitled to the documents.
Attorney Lander said Attorney Whitelock was not entitled
to her work product. She said it was her impression that
Attorney Whitelock was not entitled to it; therefore,
this ended the objection.
Attorney Whitelock said the documents were not considered
a work product because they reflected a statement given
by a City employee during City time. He said these
circumstances no longer confined the information to be a
work product. He said he asked for the production of all
of these documents and he was not given a similar
opportunity to interview any of the Witnesses. He said
he has been precluded from interviewing some of Witnesses
especially during City time.
Attorney Lander objected because this was not true. She
said Attorney Whitelock has not made one request to
interview.
Mayor Abramowitz said the objections were in the record.
Attorney Whitelock said he would like to have a copy of
the document referred to by Attorney Lander. He
requested a ruling of the objection.
City Attorney Doody said he would look at the issue after
the meeting and, if there was justification in the
objection, the documents would be submitted to Attorney
Whitelock.
Attorney Lander said Attorney Whitelock could have her
notes and have them read into the record. She submitted
them to Mayor Abramowitz.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander to take her
document back until a ruling from the City Attorney was
made.
Attorney Lander said her notes would not assist Attorney
Whitelock's Witness; however, if he wanted them he could
have them.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook who her Supervisor
was.
Ms. Holbrook replied, John Cezard.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Holbrook's job has been
threatened.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone threatened to bring
insubordination charges about Ms. Holbrook.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook how many occasion
she socialized with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Holbrook said maybe a half of a dozen.
Page 23
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked what the nature of the contacts
were.
Ms. Holbrook said they went to lunch and Mr. Montalvo was
invited to her Halloween party.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she and Mr.
Montalvo had a working relationship.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the nature of the working
relationship was.
Ms. Holbrook said there were days that she had to report
to Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was Ms.
Holbrook's Supervisor.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes, at one point.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she ever had any
difficulty with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Holbrook replied, never.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if Mr. Montalvo
ever sexually harassed her.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if Mr. Montalvo
ever made any sexual come-ons.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked how Mr. Montalvo conducted
himself with Ms. Holbrook in the employee/employer
relationship.
Ms. Holbrook said Mr. Montalvo was always very willing to
help and easy to talk to.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever made any
threats to Ms. Holbrook.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if Mr. Montalvo
ever threatened her regarding her appearance at the
Hearing on contacts with the City.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever implied
that he would come and get her or do something to her if
she testified against him.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if her testimony
was because of anything that Mr. Montalvo had done or
said which she perceived to be threatening.
Ms. Holbrook said not to her.
Page 24
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she ever
received come-ons from Mr. Montalvo during the times that
they socialized.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever tried to
solicit a relationship with Ms. Holbrook.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Holbrook knew Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook how long she knew
Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook said she only knew Ms. Logan since moving
into this building, approximately 9 months.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she became aware
of the relationship between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan
after it was over.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she recalled
when this was.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she recalled a
specific incident that lead her to believe that the
relationship was over.
Ms. Holbrook said since she did not work in the same
building, everything that she heard was hearsay through
conversations with other people.
Attorney Whitelock asked if other people informed Ms.
Holbrook that Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan`s relationship
was over.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo or Ms. Logan
informed Ms. Holbrook that the relationship was over.
Ms. Holbrook said to the best of her knowledge, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she recalled
when the conversations took place that Mr. Montalvo was
upset and mad.
Ms. Holbrook said she was terrible in remembering dates.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this occurred in 1988.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this occurred after the New
Year of 1988.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she knew why Mr.
Montalvo was upset and angry.
Page 25
2/27/89
Ms. Holbrook said because the relationship was apparently
over.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she recalled
when this took place, specifically.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she recalled
anything said or actions by Mr. Montalvo when he was
upset.
Ms. Holbrook said Mr. Montalvo was an emotional person
and he was very boisterous about the matter. She said
Mr. Montalvo had a lot of things to say.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she would
characterize Mr. Montalvo's conduct as a jilted lover.
Ms. Holbrook replied, most definitely.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she ever
discussed this matter with Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook how so got along
with Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook said Ms. Logan worked in one Department and
she worked in another Department and they do not really
socialize.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she had anything
against Ms. Logan.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she and Ms.
Logan were vying for Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo approached. Ms.
Holbrook at the Funeral regarding testifying for him.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no, they were just passing.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the meeting was cordial.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked why Ms. Holbrook was upset when
Mr. Montalvo asked her to be a Character Witness.
Ms. Holbrook said she was very neutral and she did not
want to be involved in things such as this.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she was
reluctant to become involved rather than anything that
Mr. Montalvo had done,
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Page 26
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she recalled
when Mr. Montalvo was'to have said that Ms. Logan did not
deserve to walk the earth.
Ms. Holbrook said this was said in her office.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she recalled
when.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this occurred in 1987 or
1988.
Ms. Holbrook said after the breakup whenever that was.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she knew when
the breakup was.
Ms. Holbrook said no, she really did not.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she made any
notes or memos of any conversations she had with anyone.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she ever offered
Ms. Logan any advice concerning her relationship or
problems with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she recalled the
context in which the statement made by Mr. Montalvo was
said.
Ms. Holbrook said she did not recall.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was upset at
this time.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was during the time Mr.
Montalvo was upset and angry as previously discussed.
Ms. Holbrook replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she was aware
whether Mr. Montalvo ever communicated this to anyone
else.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Holbrook if she knew what
Mr. Montalvo meant by this.
Ms. Holbrook replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock had no further questions.
At 10:20 A.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and
RECONVENED at 10:32 A.M. with ALL PRESENT.
Attorney Lander called William Land as a Witness.
Page 27
2/27/89
Pauline Walaszek swore William Land in as a Witness.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land to state his full name.
Mr. Land stated his full name to be, William R. Land.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land where he worked.
Mr. Land replied, the City of Tamarac, Purchasing
Department.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land what his job title was.
Mr. Land replied, Purchasing/Buyer Storekeeper.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land how long he held this
position.
Mr. Land replied, 6-1/2 years.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he ever worked with
John Montalvo, Jr.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land how long they worked
together.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo began employment in the
Purchasing Department. He said somewhere around 6 months
to one year.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he socialized with Mr.
Montalvo after he stopped working in the Purchasing
Department.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he and Mr. Montalvo
were friends.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he saw Mr. Montalvo
since he (Mr. Montalvo) left the City.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he saw Mr. Montalvo
socially since then.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he was uncomfortable in
testifying today.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he was aware that Mr.
Montalvo and Elena Logan were dating.
Mr. Land said he was not aware of Mr. Montalvo and Ms.
Logan dating until it was over.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land how he learned that the
relationship was over.
Page 28
2/27/89
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo came over to the Purchasing
Department and informed him that it was over.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo was upset.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo was bitter.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question because it
was speculative.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he could describe Mr.
Montalvo's demeanor during the conversation.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo was upset and could not
understand why. He said Mr. Montalvo was mad about it.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo discussed
his distress of the breakup on any other occasions
besides this one.
Mr. Land said he was not sure when the breakup was,
around November, or something like that.
Attorney Lander said if Mr. Land was not sure she would
prefer that he did not guess.
Mr. Land said there were other times and several times
Mr. Montalvo came to the Purchasing Department.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo became more bitter
and upset as time went on.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he tried, as a friend,
to counsel Mr. Montalvo against this type of attitude.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land what he told Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Land said basically that Mr. Montalvo should not put
himself through this turmoil. He said he informed Mr.
Montalvo that there were other available girls and he
(Mr. Montalvo) should let this matter go and continue
with his life.
Attorney Lander asked if the advice seemed to have any
affect.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo seemed to agree; however, it
did not seem to help.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo discussed
the Bay Street grand opening with him.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo discussed this matter in the
Purchasing Department and there were several people
present.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he recalled who was
present.
Page 29
2/27/89
Mr. Land said the only person he could be sure about was
John Cezard.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land what Mr. Montalvo said
after the Bay Street grand opening.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo indicated that he attended and
saw Ms. Logan with another man. He said it had obviously
upset Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo ever
discussed an incident involving the door handle of Ms.
Logan's car.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo said he put gum in the door
handles.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land what Mr. Montalvo's
demeanor was when he discussed this.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo sort of laughed about it.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he again counseled Mr.
Montalvo as a friend.
Mr. Land said he informed Mr. Montalvo that this action
was pretty juvenal.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo ever
admitted sending flowers to Ms. Logan.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked on how many occasions.
Mr. Land said he did not know.
Attorney Lander asked if it was more than once.
Mr. Land said he really did not know.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo ever made
any verbal threats about Ms. Logan in his (Mr. Lands)
presence.
Mr. Land asked if Attorney Lander meant any actual direct
threats.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo ever said
anything that could be interpreted by him (Mr. Land) as
being a threat directed to Ms. Logan.
Mr. Land said just from Mr. Montalvo's attitude from
being mad and upset, he would want to still make up with
Ms. Logan; however, Mr. Montalvo did not know how to go
about it.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo stated
that he would get Ms. Logan back and she would pay for
it.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question because it
was leading and suggestive. He said the question was
asked and answered.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noticed and he asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Page 30
2/27/89
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo said this.
Mr. Land replied, yes. He said Mr. Montalvo said this
after his suspension with the City.
Attorney Lander asked what Mr. Montalvo said.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question because the
incident occurred after action was taken on the alleged
charge.
Mayor Abramowitz said the professionals did not appear to
take into account that the Witnesses were very nervous.
He said he would like the quest to get information
considered and he gave Mr. Land some water and asked
Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo ever
cursed Ms. Logan out in his (Mr. Land's) presence.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo never cursed.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo ever
called Ms. Logan any profane names or used profanity that
would not ordinarily be used.
Attorney Whitelock objected because the questioning was
trying to place his client in a bad light only. He said
the questioning had nothing to do with the contact
between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan. He said what Mr.
Montalvo may have conveyed to a third, fourth or fifth
party had nothing to do with Ms. Logan and this
particular charge.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noted and he asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected because the
questioning was getting far afield. He said there were
no specifications and there are no charges; therefore,
there was no parameter in going into Mr. Montalvo's life
beyond suspension because it had nothing to do with the
City.
Attorney Lander said she agreed with Attorney Whitelock
regarding after suspension; however, Mr. Montalvo's state
of mind prior to suspension regarding Ms. Logan was fair
grounds for the testimony.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo ever used
profane language directed toward Ms. Logan in his (Mr.
Land's) presence.
Mr. Land asked if Attorney Lander meant before the
suspension.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo was angry
during the times that the matter was discussed.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if it was fair to say that
Mr. Montalvo as enraged.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question.
Page 31
2/27/89
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Mr. Land said maybe more obsessed.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he ever told Mr.
Montalvo to stop harassing Ms. Logan.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo asked him
to be a Character Witness on his (Mr. Montalvo's) behalf.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Land if he agreed to be a
Character Witness on Mr. Montalvo's behalf.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked why.
Attorney Whitelock objected because it did not have
relevance to the case.
Mayor Abramowitz said he was consulting the City Attorney
and he did not hear the question; therefore, he asked
Attorney Lander to repeat the question.
Attorney Lander said she asked Mr. Land why he refused to
be a Character Witness on the behalf of Mr. Montalvo.
Mayor Abramowitz said he would allow this question
because he was interested in the answer.
Mr. Land said because of the feelings that Mr. Montalvo
had and the obsession and rage. He said he informed Mr.
Montalvo that he (Mr. Land) would purge himself. He said
he would give Mr. Montalvo the good qualities; however,
the things that occurred would be mentioned if he was
asked.
Attorney Lander asked how Mr. Montalvo reacted to Mr.
Land's refusal in being a Character Witness.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question because it
was not relevant to the charges.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whi.telock's objections
were noted; however, he would like an answer to the
question.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo said he (Mr. Land) could do
whatever he wanted.
Attorney Lander had no further questions for the Witness.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land how long he knew Mr.
Montalvo.
Mr. Land said he did not recall when Mr. Montalvo began
employment; however, it has been approximately 5 years.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he worked with Mr.
Montalvo for approximately one year.
Mr. Land said he believed so.
Page 32
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land how he characterized
Mr. Montalvo as a person.
Mr. Land said he thought Mr. Montalvo was a good person.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land how Mr. Montalvo got
along with his fellow employees.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo got along well with the other
employees.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo had a
good relationship with everyone, including Managers and
Supervisors.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo had a good relationship with
everyone.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any problems.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land when he first learned
that Mr. Montalvo was dating Ms. Logan.
Mr. Land said he found out about the relationship when
they broke up.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he knew about the
relationship before this time.
Mr. Land said he had no idea.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he recalled the
breakup being in November, 1987.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo informed everyone that he did
not know why Ms. Logan broke up with him and he believed
it was in November, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he knew when the Bay
Street grand opening took place.
Mr. Land said he thought the grand opening was in
November as well; however, he was not sure.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the statements made by Mr.
Montalvo were at the time of the Bay Street grand
opening.
Mr. Land said he did not remember the entire time
sequence. He said he thought that the Bay Street
incident was after the breakup.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he was aware of the
time difference.
Mr. Land replied that he did not remember.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. -Land if Mr. Montalvo
informed him of the breakup during the time the Bay
Street incident occurred.
Mr. Land said he believed the breakup was before the Bay
Street incident.
Page 33
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land when he first found out
about the breakup.
Mr. Land said he found out about the breakup before the
Bay Street incident.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land where Mr. Montalvo
informed him of this matter.
Mr. Land said in Purchasing Office.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he ever discussed
Mr. Montalvo's relationship with Ms. Logan before this
time.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he ever socialized
with Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land what extent he
socialized with Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Land said he and Mr. Montalvo were on the same
bowling team.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land how often he saw Mr.
Montalvo.
Mr. Land said once a week.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any other times
Mr. Land saw Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Land said at various functions.
Attorney Whitelock asked such as.
Mr. Land said at Christmas parties. He said it was
basically at City related functions.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever took any
photographs for Mr. Land.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land for the circumstances
of the occasion.
Mr. Land said the pictures were of his little girl.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo came to
his home to take the photographs.
Mr. Land said the photographs were taken at the photo
center.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land how many times he
discussed the relationship with Mr. Montalvo after the
breakup.
Mr. Land said approximately 5 times.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if these times occurred
in the Purchasing Office.
Page 34
2/27/89
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he could separate
these times with specific matters.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land why he tried to consult
Mr. Montalvo.'
Mr. Land said every time Mr. Montalvo came over he was
upset. He said Mr. Montalvo made attempts to smooth
things over with Ms. Logan which did not work out.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo
professed his love for Ms. Logan.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo
informed him of the extent of the relationship.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo expressed his
awe for Ms. Logan breaking up with him after all he had
done for her.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo appeared to have
a broken heart as opposed to some lecher. He asked if
Mr. Montalvo indicated that the relationship was more
than having a sexual relationship.
Mr. Land said this was the way Mr. Montalvo explained it.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo
indicated the type of flowers he (Mr. Montalvo) sent to
Ms. Logan.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo
indicated when the flowers were sent.
Mr. Land said it was during one of the consulting times.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo
indicated where the flowers were sent.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo indicated the
purpose for sending the flowers.
Mr. Land said to make an attempt to bring the
relationship back.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo wanted to win
his girl back.
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he perceived Mr.
Montalvo's actions as a jilted lover rather than someone
out to get somebody.
Page 35
W
2/27/89
TAPE 3
Mr. Land replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land why he suggested that
Mr. Montalvo seek counseling.
Mr. Land said he did not remember telling Mr. Montalvo
that specifically.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he ever offered Mr.
Montalvo advice about the dilemma.
Mr. Land said it was obvious to him that the relationship
was over. He said Mr. Montalvo made several attempts to
bring the relationship back until January, 1988, and was
unsuccessful. He said he advised Mr. Montalvo to go
elsewhere.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he knew what
attempts were made by Mr. Montalvo during the Christmas
Season.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo informed Mr.
Land of anything that was done.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he was aware of Mr.
Montalvo sending Ms. Logan's child Christmas gifts.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if Mr. Montalvo
informed him of any telephone conversations with Ms.
Logan over the Christmas Season.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Land if he remembers Mr.
Montalvo indicating anything disturbing to him (Mr.
Montalvo) regarding the Bay Street incident when Ms.
Logan attended with another man.
Mr. Land said Mr. Montalvo was very upset about the
incident.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo indicated why he
was upset.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo indicated that
he thought the problems with the relationship may be
resolved.
Mr. Land replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock had no further questions.
At this time, Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED the meeting at
10:55 A.M. and RECONVENED at 11:03 A.M. with ALL PRESENT
Attorney Lander called Ken Burroughs as a Witness.
Page 36
2/27/89
1
1
Pauline Walaszek swore Ken Burroughs in as a Witness.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs to state his full
name.
Mr. Burroughs stated his full name to be, Kenneth J.
Burroughs.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs where he was
employed.
Mr. Burroughs replied, the City of Tamarac.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs what his title was.
Mr. Burroughs replied, Finance Director.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs how long he has been
the Finance Director.
Mr. Burroughs said since April 20, 1987.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs if he had an employee
name John Montalvo, Jr.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs what Mr. Montalvo's
job title was during the time that he (Mr. Burroughs)
became the Finance Director until January, 1988.
Mr. Burroughs replied, Accounting Manager.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs to describe Mr.
Montalvo`s job performance when he (Mr. Burroughs) first
became the Finance Director.
Mr. Burroughs said he was new on the job and it was too
early in the game to classify the performance. He said
he did not have any problems with the production coming
out of the Accounting Department at that time.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs if he could qualify
Mr. Montalvo's work performance in December, 1987.
Mr. Burroughs said he felt that the work performance and
output deteriorated in the past several months prior to
December, 1987. He said Mr. Montalvo informed him that
he (Mr. Montalvo) was having personal problems. He said
he attributed the problems to the decline in performance.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs if Mr. Montalvo's
work performance improved after December, 1987.
Mr. Burroughs said he would have to say no.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Burroughs how he would rate Mr.
Montalvo's job performance by January, 1988.
Mr. Burroughs said unacceptable.
Attorney Lander asked why Mr. Montalvo's job performance
was unacceptable.
Mr. Burroughs said he gave Mr. Montalvo deadlines to meet
that were not met. He said he was left in the dark
regarding several aspects of the annual report being
Page 37
2/27/89
prepared for that year. He said he continued requesting
expeditious handling of the report which did not improve.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo was entitled to a
merit increase in January, 1988.
Mr. Burroughs replied, no.
Attorney Lander had no further questions.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Burroughs was the
Department Head.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he was aware of
the grievance procedure effective in November or December
of 1987 and January, 1988.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was ever a grievance
filed by Elena Logan.
Mr. Burroughs said not to his knowledge.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he knew why.
Mr. Burroughs replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the grievance procedure was
that an employee who had a grievance must file it with
their immediate Supervisor.
Mr. Burroughs said he did not know the specific details.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he knew what
the grievance procedure was.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes; however, the word, "must" he
was not sure of.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs to use the word,
"shall". He asked if this was a requirement.
Mr. Burroughs said he believed so.
Attorney Whitelock asked if a grievance had to be filed
within five days of the occurrence.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was done.
Mr. Burroughs said not to his knowledge.
Attorney Whitelock asked if a grievance must be filed
with the Department Head after it is filed with the
immediate Supervisor within three working days after the
immediate Supervisor made a decision.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he knew of this
occurring.
Page 38
1
1
1
2/27/89
Mr. Burroughs said not to his knowledge.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs when he first
noted that Mr. Montalvo's job performance was
deteriorating.
Mr. Burroughs said in early December, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he became the
Finance Director in April, 1987.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Burroughs made any
written notations, memorandums or documentations
concerning the decline in performance.
Mr. Burroughs replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if evaluations were done.
Mr. Burroughs said he made personal observations.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he ever sent a
memorandum to Mr. Montalvo,
Mr. Burroughs replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he reviewed Mr.
Montalvo's Personnel File.
Mr. Burroughs replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs what he did when
he noticed that Mr. Montalvo's job performance was
declining.
Mr. Burroughs said Mr. Montalvo related a personal
problem and he (Mr. Burroughs) was giving Mr. Montalvo
the benefit of the doubt and hoping that the job
performance improved.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs what he did about
it.
Mr. Burroughs said the next thing he knew he was out sick
and Mr. Montalvo was terminated.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs when he went out
sick.
Mr. Burroughs said the day that Mr. Montalvo was asked to
leave.
Attorney Whitelock asked what day this was.
Mr. Burroughs said he was not sure of the exact date,
however, it was in the middle of January, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he recalled the
conversation with Mr. Montalvo in December, 1987,
regarding his (Mr. Montalvo's) job performance.
Mr. Burroughs said he did not. He said he continued
asking Mr. Montalvo for productivity on the annual
report.
Page 39
2/27/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if Mr. Montalvo
indicated what his personal problem was.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the personal problem was.
Mr. Burroughs said Mr. Montalvo came to him one morning
in tears and indicated that there was a personal problem
at home with his (Mr. Montalvo's) mother and father.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was the extent of the
conversation.
Mr. Burroughs said Mr. Montalvo stated that he had
problems at home with his mother and father. He said Mr.
Montalvo was in tears and he took Mr. Montalvo for his
word.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo requested time
off during this period.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes. He said Mr. Montalvo
indicated that 3 or 4 days were needed.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he approved the
time off.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if Mr. Montalvo
indicated the nature of the problem with his mother and
father.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he was aware of
what the problem was.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if it was domestic problems.
Mr. Burroughs replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was upset that
his mother and father may be splitting up.
Mr. Burroughs said he did not know if splitting up was
discussed. He said Mr. Montalvo informed him that his
father had beaten his mother and he needed time off to
get his father out of the house and take care of his
sisters.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he was aware
that this actually existed.
Mr. Burroughs replied, no. He said he took Mr.
Montalvo's word.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone attempted to verify
this.
Mr. Burroughs replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he disputed
this today.
Page 40
2/27/89
Mr. Burroughs replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he discussed
the matter with Mr. Montalvo when he returned to work.
Mr. Burroughs said he did not recall if he did or not.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs if he ever
discussed the matter with Mr. Montalvo after this date.
Mr. Burroughs replied, no.
Att',d r4ey Whitelock asked if there was an evaluation done
on during the period of December, 1987, and
January,,, 1988, in which Mr. Montalvo's job performance
declined:
Mr. Bu.rtoughs replied, no. He said it was just his
professional judgement.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs what Mr.
Montalvo's duties were.
Mr. Burroughs said Mr. Montalvo was the Accounting
Manager and managed the Accounting Department's day to
day operations of accounts receivables/payables, payroll,
etc.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the original deadline was for
the work discussed previously.
Mr. Burroughs said he asked Mr. Montalvo to test a new
software package and put it in effect with the annual
statements. He said he kept receiving excuses that it
would not be available and this should have been done by
the end of December, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock asked when it was done.
Mr. Burroughs said it was never done.
Attorney Whitelock asked why.
Mr. Burroughs said he did not know because Mr. Montalvo
never reported on the matter.
Attorney Whitelock asked who took the job over.
Mr. Burroughs said he eventually took the job over in
April, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Burroughs when he gave Mr.
Montalvo the deadline for the job.
Mr. Burroughs said in September, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the nature of the
assignment was.
Mr. Burroughs said to implement the program and pull up a
fund for testing.
Attorney Whitelock had no further questions.
Page 41
2/27/89
Mayor Abramowitz announced that a continued Public
Hearing would be held on Monday, March 6, 1989 at 1:00
P.M.
** EDITOR'S NOTE: The Public Hearing will be held on March 6, 1989
at 2:00 P.M. to 5:00 F.M. in Conference Room #1.
With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED the
meeting at 11:15 A.M.
NOfMAN ABRAMOWITZ, MAYOR
CAROL A. EV NS, CITY CLERK
"This public document was promulgated at a cost of $149.00:0r $14.90 per
copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of
recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of
Tamarac.
CITY OF TAMARAC
APPROVED AT MEETING OF ---:3 8
City Clerk
Page 42
LJ
u