Loading...
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