HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-06 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes7'lx:)SG�iil
rgM"N,
7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401
9
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
February 6, 1989
Rev. 3/2/89
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, March 6, 1989 from 2:00 P.M. to 5:00 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.
CAE/gt
i
z
CAROL A. EVANS
CITY CLERK
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
r
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1989
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on
Monday, March 6, 1989 at 9:10 A.M. in Conference Room #1 (City
Clerk's Office).
RESENT:
Mayor Norman Abramowitz
Vice Mayor Jack Stelzer
Councilman Dr. H. Larry Bender
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
ABSENT AND EXCUSED:
ALSO PRESENT:
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 22.02 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 asked the Attorney's to keep a good
decorum as done at the last meeting.
ThTT MMVCCVC
Janet Lander, Consulting City Attorney, called John
Kelly, City Manager, as a Witness.
Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mr. Kelly in as a
Witness.
Attorney Lander asked
Mr.
Kelly to state his full name.
Mr. Kelly stated his
full
name to be, John Patrick Kelly,
Jr.
Attorney Lander asked
Mr.
Kelly what his title was.
Mr. Kelly replied, City
Manager for the City of Tamarac.
Attorney Lander asked
how
long Mr. Kelly has been the
City Manager for the
City
of Tamarac.
Mr. Kelly replied, two years and 8 months.
Attorney Lander asked
Mr.
Kelly what his responsibility
as City Manager is in
regard to execution of City policy.
Mr. Kelly said he was
the
Administrator of the City's
Policies.
Page 1
3/6/89
Attorney Lander presented Composite Exhibit "City 3" to
Mr. Kelly and asked him if he ever saw the two page
Exhibit before.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if the documents accurately
reflected the City's policy on sexual harassment from the
time Mr. Kelly became City Manager through ea:Iy 1988.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he personally knew for
a fact that the two documents were posted in conspicuous
places in the City throughout the time Mr. Kelly became
City Manager until early January, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock, Attorney for John F. Montalvo, Jr.,
objected to the legal nature of the question.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noted and he asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander introduced Composite Exhibit "City 3"
into evidence.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected on the grounds of
relevancy, materiality and form. He said there has been
no first known date established in the policy and there
were no charges relating to either of the documents or
any factual basis for his client's termination emanating
as a result of the two documents. He said from a legal
stand -point, he did not think that there was a proper
predicate made for the introduction of the two documents
for whatever evidentiary purpose they were proposed to
be.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander if there would be
a purpose for the evidence.
Attorney Lander said the documents are the City's policy
on sexual harassment and she believed that the evidence
was relevant.
Mayor Abramowitz said he felt that the documents were
important in making a determination.
Attorney Whitelock asked for the nature of the
importance. He said there were no charges, no
specifications and no written document. He said the
first thing that predicate should be laid upon was the
foundation on which the charges are laid. He said after
this the documents, for whatever reason or purpose,
should be brought in. He said if the documents were
being brought in as a legal basis to substantiate the
termination process, there has been no proper foundation.
Attorney Whitelock said he appreciated the fact that
Mayor Abramowitz was not a lawyer and this has been a
problem in the case. He said this was one of the reasons
in the beginning that he was willing to submit the case
to an Arbitrator. He said there has been no charging
document submitted and his client has.not been placed on
Page 2
1
3/6/89
1
11
notice even through this portion of the Hearing as to the
nature or specifications of the charge for whatever
charges are alleged to exist.
Attorney Whitelock said if Attorney Lander was putting
the documents into evidence for the purpose of
effectuating some sort: legal basis, he most strenuously
objected.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objections were
noted and he asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly how he became aware of
the Elena Logan and John F. Montalvo, Jr., matter.
Mr. Kelly said on Friday, January 22, 1988, Police Chief,
Joseph McIntosh, came to his office and indicated that he
wanted to discuss a confidential matter which involved a
problem with Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan regarding sexual
harassment. He said Chief McIntosh indicated that the
matter was brought to him by Detective Barbara Chovan.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly what he did when he was
informed of this matter by Chief McIntosh.
Mr. Kelly said Larry Perretti, previous Personnel
Director, was not in his office; therefore, later in the
evening, he called Mr. Ferretti at home and informed him
of the matter. He said Mr. Perretti indicated that by
coincidence, the whole thing had surfaced and Ms. Logan
had come to him that day with the charges and the matter
should be discussed on Monday in detail with both Ms.
Logan and Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if the matter was
discussed with Ms. Logan and Mr. Montalvo on Monday.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he met with Ms. Logan
and Mr. Montalvo individually.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he discussed the
allegations with Mr. Montalvo concerning Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if the discussion was in
detail with Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly said in considerable detail.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he was specific as to
the nature of the charges against him by Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the leading nature of the
question. He said he would like his objection noted for
the record.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly to briefly summarize for
the City Council the substance of the discussion that he
had with Mr. Montalvo on January 25, 1988, regarding the
charges made against him by Ms. Logan.
Page 3
3/6/s9
Mr. Kelly said the concerns were that Mr. Montalvo's
actions were detrimental to the City and that he was
harassing Ms. Logan by his actions which included the
sending of flowers, poetry and persistence in trying to
pursue a relationship that, as far as Ms. Logan was
concerned, no longer existed and she wanted stopped.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he discussed Ms.
Logan's allegations with her later that day.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes. He said he discussed the matter
with Ms. Logan first and then discussed them with Mr.
Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he made any employment
decisions relating to Mr. Montalvo as a result of these
meetings.
Mr. Kelly said in the afternoon, he made a decision.
Attorney Lander presented Exhibit "City 4" and she asked
Mr. Kelly if he had seen the document before.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he directed Mr.
Perretti to compose the document.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if the document accurately
reflected his directions to Mr. Perretti for drafting the
letter.
Mr. Kelly replied that it did.
Attorney Whitelock said the document seemed to be altered
and he objected to this.
Attorney Lander said the record should reflect that the
address on the document has been changed.
Attorney Whitelock said he was not agreeing to anything.
He said he objected to the document being altered;
however, Attorney Lander indicated that this was done
under Mr. Kelly's direction and control.
Attorney Lander asked Attorney Whitelock for the basis of
his statement that the document has been altered other
than the scratch out on the address.
Attorney Whitelock said the document was scratched
through and hand written. He said the document has been
altered and there was a letter at the top. He asked if
this was the original document.
Attorney Lander said this was a copy of the document and
the original document was sent to Attorney Whitelock's
client.
Attorney Lander asked Attorney Whitelock if he objected
to the document being entered as evidence.
Attorney Whitelock said he already indicated his
objection. He said number one, the document was a copy
not the original.
Page 4
3/6/89
Attorney Lander said Attorney Whitelock's client had the
original document. She asked if there were any other
objections.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the original document was sent
to Mr. Montalvo and Attorney Lander replied, yes.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if this was the normal procedure.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Attorney Lander would be
testifying or had any knowledge regarding the matter. He
said he objected to Attorney Lander testifying and
offering testimony. He said Attorney Lander was the
attorney and if she was going to take the position of the
Witness, he would ask for disqualification and have
Attorney Lander removed and brought back in as a Witness.
Attorney Lander suggested that Mr. Kelly be asked the
question.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Mr. Kelly if this was the normal
procedure.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Mayor Abramowitz asked why the document was altered. He
asked if there was a change in address.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know the purpose of the
alteration.
Attorney Whitelock said if Mr. Kelly had no knowledge of
the alteration, he would move to strike the document from
evidence because it did not proport in accordance with
the directions Mr. Kelly gave to the third party.
Mayor Abramowitz said he would allow the document to be
entered into evidence and he asked Attorney Lander to
continue.
Attorney Lander, referring to the "City 4" document,
asked why the term, "sexual harassment", was not included
in the notification of suspension.
Mr. Kelly said the matter was discussed with Mr.
Montalvo, that to protect Mr. Montalvo....
Attorney Whitelock said he objected to any conversation
that Mr. Kelly had with his client outside of the charges
or anything that was discussed in terms of a settlement.
He said if the matters were discussed in terms of a
settlement, he would ask that the discussion not be
permitted.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noted.
Mr. Kelly said to protect Mr. Montalvo's reputation, he
directed that the wording be such that Mr. Montalvo had
violated the rules and regulations of the City of
Tamarac.
Attorney Lander said understanding the facts that the
term "sexual harassment" was not used in the written
notification of suspension, she asked if Mr. Kelly
personally informed Mr. Montalvo of the reason for the
suspension.
Page 5
3/6/89
Mr. Kelly replied, yes, he did.
Attorney Lander asked when this was.
Mr. Kelly said on the afternoon of January 25, 1988.
Attorney Lander asked if it was the same day as the
letter.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Referring to the "City 4" document, Attorney Lander said
the notice of suspension advised Mr. Montalvo that he had
10 days to notify Mr. Perretti in writing if Mr. Montalvo
wanted to contest the termination. She asked if Mr.
Kelly ever received any correspondence indicating that
Mr. Montalvo wanted to contest the termination.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander presented Exhibit, "City 5" to Mr. Kelly
and she asked if Mr. Kelly ever saw this document before.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he received the
document in the normal course of business in his capacity
as City Manager.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney
Lander asked if
the date on which Mr. Kelly
received
the document was
fixed in the upper right hand
corner of
the document.
Mr. Kelly
replied, yes.
Attorney
Lander entered
the document, "City 5", into
evidence.
She asked Mr.
Kelly to read aloud the first
two paragraphs
of the document.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this request because the
document stood for itself. He said there was no need for
the paragraphs to be read.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objections
were noted and he asked that the paragraphs be read.
Mr. Kelly said the document was from Jane Hendricks,
Attorney for Mr. Montalvo, and addressed to Mr. Perretti. "
He read from the document as follows:
"Please be advised that I represent Mr. Montalvo in regard to
the sexual harassment charges filed against him by Elena Logan.
We are contesting the charges and the termination." Let's meet
sometime within the next few days so I can share the information
that I have with you."
Attorney Lander asked if this document was submitted to
the City within the 10 day period that Mr. Montalvo had
to respond to the termination.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he met with Jane
Hendricks, the Attorney for Mr. Montalvo, subsequent to
receiving the letter.
Page 6
3/6/89
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he recalled the date
that this meeting took place.
Mr. Kelly said the first date was approximately February
1s, 1988.
Attorney Lander asked if anyone else was present at the
meeting.
Mr. Kelly said Mr. Montalvo and Mr., Perretti were
present.
Attorney Lander asked how many times Mr. Kelly met either
Jane Hendricks and Mr. Montalvo or either Jane Hendricks
or Mr. Montalvo since February 1, 1988.
Mr. Kelly said on at least four occasions.
Attorney Lander asked if all of the allegations regarding
the sexual harassment charge against Mr. Montalvo were
discussed fully with Mr. Montalvo and Jane Hendricks in
each of the meetings.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the form of the question.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly the substance of the
discussions with Mr. Montalvo and Jane Hendricks at the
meetings.
Mr. Kelly said the sexual harassment charges and a
settlement was discussed with Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this answer. He said
Counsel knew that this was highly improper. He said the
terms of settlement were not allowed to be discussed. He
said this was legally incorrect to do this.
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council was not to be
influenced in any manner by the discussions regarding the
terms of settlement.
Attorney Whitelock said the terms of settlement should
not be discussed because it was privileged information.
He said if this was the case, he would never discuss
anything with anyone in this City again.
City Attorney Doody said he advised the Mayor that the
fact regarding whether or not an offer was made was not
an issue and certainly should not be used as either an
omission of any guilt or innocence and should not have
any bearing on the proceedings of this Hearing.
Attorney Lander said she had no intention to pursue the
matter.
Attorney
Whitelock said
there were things he wanted to
bring up
himself if the
matter was allowed.
City Attorney Doody said
discussion of settlement would
not take
place. He said
he did not feel that a
settlement discussion was
proceeding; however, if it was,
it would
not be allowed.
Page 7
3/6/89
Attorney Lander said the question did not pertain to the
terms of settlement; therefore, the matter should not be
an issue.
Attorney Lander presented Exhibit, "City 6", to Mr. Kelly
and she asked Mr. Kelly if he ever saw the document
before.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he directed Ms. Logan
to draft this document.
Mr. Kelly said he did not personally direct Ms. Logan to
draft the letter. He said Mr. Perretti gave the
direction to Ms. Logan.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Kelly received the document
as a direction from the City to Ms. Logan to compose a
synopsis of the matter.
Mr. Kelly replied, this was correct.
Referring to Exhibit, "City 6", Attorney Lander said she
would not be introducing the document into evidence until
the next Witness because it was proper to have the author
of the document verify it; however, she would allow the
document to be reviewed.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he recalled
approximately when Ms. Logan was directed to draft the
document.
Mr. Kelly said February 25 or 26, 1988.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Montalvo, at any
time, admitted in Mr. Kelly's presence any of the
allegations lodged against him by Ms. Logan.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question because the
discussions pertained to the terms of settlement.
Attorney Lander said the discussions did not pertain to
the terms of settlement.
Attorney Whitelock said any comments, conversations or
correspondence that transpired during the settlement
negotiations were privileged. He said the reason they
were privileged and, in his opinion, once the
confidentiality was breached, the word was no longer
good.
Attorney Lander said perhaps the objection could be
obviated i.f a time frame was laid.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly
if Mr. Montalvo admitted
in his presence on
the meeting
of January 25, 1988, any
of the accusations
made against
Mr. Montalvo by Ms.
Logan.
Attorney Whitelock
objected to
the form of the question.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney
Lander to repeat the
question.
Page 8
3/6/89
1
F
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if,. in his meeting with
Mr. Montalvo of January 25, 1988, Mr. Montalvo admitted
in Mr. Kelly's presence any of the allegations made by
Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly what Mr. Montalvo
admitted to specifically.
Mr. Kelly said Mr. Montalvo admitted to sending flowers,
poetry, balloons, pursuing and wooing Ms. Logan and the
incident with the gum.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Kelly made an employment
decision regarding Mr. Montalvo on January 25, 1988.
Mr. Kelly said a decision was made when the termination
notice was sent.
Attorney Lander asked if this was the suspension notice.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he met with Jane
Hendricks at this point.
Mr. Kelly replied, no. He said Jane Hendricks was not in
the picture on January 25, 1988.
Attorney Lander asked if there was a discussion of a
settlement with Mr. Montalvo at the meeting of January
25, 1988.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo made any statements
to Mr. Kelly during the meeting of January 25, 1988,
regarding the City's involvement in the matter.
Mr. Kelly said Mr. Montalvo felt that it was not the
City's business.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question because it
constituted hearsay. He said this was privileged there
are certain administrative and Constitutional provisions
that include Due Process. He said at that point in time,
if there were statements made, he was entitled to the
statements or any notification, memorandums, etc.,
relating to these statements. He said this request was
made at the inception of the Hearing.
Mayor Abramowitz said he was not going to argue the point
of law because he would lose before he started. He said
if Attorney Whitelock did not want the Witness to discuss
anything factual, how was the City Council going to make
decisions just on the fact that they were official. He
said the City Council was trying to understand this
matter and they were asking Attorney Whitelock for his
understanding that they were trying to be as fair as they
possibly could. He said the City Attorney suggested that
he listen to everything that was said. He said this was
what he was trying to do.
Attorney Whitelock said this was hearsay.
Page 9
3/6/89
City Attorney Doody said this was hearsay; however, the
rules that were adopted indicated that hearsay may be
admitted but could not be the foundation of the City's
Case as hearsay; therefore, independent evidence was
needed.
Attorney Lander said with all due respect, she disagreed
with the configuration of the testimony being hearsay.
She said this constituted an exception to the hearsay
rule because they were admissions and statements against
interest at the time they were made. She said these
statements were not hearsay.
Attorney Whitelock said if the statements were hearsay,
there were certain procedures applicable within the City
that provided an employee with protection against this
very thing. He said anybody could come in and say, you
admitted to raping the girl, that is what you told me,
did you not tell me that".
Mayor Abramowitz asked if Attorney Whitelock's client
could state that he never did admit raping the girl. He
said there are three Attorneys and four different
decisions; therefore, he was going to allow the question.
Attorney Whitelock said this was the reason that hearsay
was not allowed. He said in Administrative proceedings
hearsay was allowed by way of explanation and was not to
be used as a factual basis for any finding that would
lead to dismissal.
Mayor Abramowitz said the objections were noted and he
asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Montalvo made any
statements to Mr. Kelly on January 25, 1988, regarding
the City's involvement in the matter.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly what Mr. Montalvo said to
him.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question because it
was repetitive. He said the question was asked and
answered.
Mayor Abramowitz said he did not hear the answer the
first time; therefore, he would like to hear the answer.
Mr. Kelly said it was Mr. Montalvo's contention that the
matter was not the City's business because it was a
personal matter and he could not understand why Mr. Kelly
was getting involved in it.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if he discussed the
City's policy on sexual harassment with Mr. Montalvo at
that meeting.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly what the result was.
Mr. Kelly said Mr. Montalvo was never able to accept it.
He said Mr. Montalvo did not see how it applied to the
matter. He said Mr. Montalvo felt that it was a personal
Page 10
3/6/89
matter between two people. He said Mr. Montalvo never
really comprehended what he (Mr. Kelly) was trying to
explain.
Attorney Lander asked Mr. Kelly if the position he just
described affected the employment decision regarding Mr.
Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly replied, considerably.
Attorney Lander had no further questions of the Witness.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if there was a
grievance procedure in the City in January, 1989.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if the grievance
procedure was effectuated by Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if a written gr-ievance was filed
by Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly said Ms. Logan filed a report with the City,
yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked who Ms. Logan filed a grievance
with.
Mr. Kelly said Ms. Logan first went to the Personnel
Director.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly when this matter first
came to his attention.
Mr. Kelly replied, January 22, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly who was Mr. Montalvo's
direct Supervisor on January 22, 1988.
Mr. Kelly replied, Ken Burroughs.
Attorney Whitelock said to correct him if he was wrong;
however, the grievance procedure at that time indicated
that if a subordinate or co -employee had a grievance
about the way that they were being treated ... he asked Mr.
Kelly to inform Council what the procedures were to be
followed.
Mr. Kelly said the procedures were to go to the
Supervisor.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this would have been Mr.
Burroughs.
Mr. Kelly replied, right.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was done.
Mr. Kelly said the Personnel Director suffices as the
Equal Opportunity Coordinator.
Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Kelly did not answer his
question. He asked if this occurred.
Page 11
3/6/89
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the Personnel Director, Larry
Perretti, made this decision himself.
Mr. Kelly said he did not say this either.
Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Kelly stated that Mr.
Perretti functioned as the Equal Opportunity Coordinator.
Mr. Kelly said he stated that Ms. Logan went to Mr.
Perretti.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if there was a
complaint filed with any other agency.
Mr. Kelly said at that time, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked any other agency, Equal
Opportunity Commission?
Mr. Kelly said at that time, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was ever a complaint
filed with the Equal Opportunity Commission.
Attorney Lander objected to the question because it
absolutely had no relevance to the case.
Mayor Abramowitz said he did not understand the question.
He asked if the Police Department was another agency.
He asked Attorney Whitelock to repeat the question so it
could be understood.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any other State,
County or Federal Agency that ever received a complaint
from Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was a requirement that
they do so on a sexual harassment case.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know of this.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew of any
County Agencies existing to handle sexual harassment
charges.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked who that was.
Mr. Kelly said Broward County; however, this was not
done.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anybody filed a complaint
with the Humans Relation Commission.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked why.
Mr. Kelly said the matter was being handled here.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone filed a complaint with
the Equal Opportunity Commission.
Page 12
3/6/89
Attorney Lander objected to the form of the question.
She asked Attorney Whitelock what he meant by anyone.
She said the question was overly broad.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Mr. Kelly if there was a complaint
filed by Ms. Logan with the Police Department.
Mr. Kelly said Ms. Logan went to the Police Department
first.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the Police Department
constituted an agency.
Attorney Lander said the Police Department of the City of
Tamarac is within the general locale of the City of
Tamarac.
Attorney Whitelock asked if a complaint was filed with
any other agencies handling these types of matters.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if no contact was made either by
Mr. Kelly, through Mr. Perretti or the alleged
complainant to the other agencies.
Mr. Kelly replied, correct.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly when the matter first
came to his attention.
Mr. Kelly replied, January 22, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he wanted to make
sure not to disclose the nature of the termination in
concern for Mr. Montalvo in the letter of termination
dated January 25, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the nature of the termination
was disclosed on February 1, 1988.
Mr. Kelly asked what was disclosed.
Attorney Whitelock said the nature of the charges, sexual
harassment. He asked if they were disclosed.
Mr. Kelly asked why Attorney Whitelock said on February
1, 1988. He asked how they were disclosed.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he just read two
paragraphs of an Exhibit.
Mr. Kelly said not by the City.
Attorney Whitelock asked if he could see the evidence.
He read the following:
"Please be advised I represent Mr. Montalvo with regard to
sexual harassment charges filed against him by Elena Logan."
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he received the
letter.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes, he did.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the letter was part of the
Personnel File at this point in time.
Page 13
3/6/89
Mr. Kelly said at Mr. Montalvo's call.
Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Kelly advised Mr. Montalvo on
January 25, 1988, that Mr. Montalvo was suspended with
pay as a result of violating the rules and regulations of
the City of Tamarac. He asked Mr. Kelly what rules and
regulations Mr. Montalvo violated.
Mr. Kelly replied, we are talking about the sexual
harassment.
Attorney Whitelock asked what rules and regulations they
were governed by.
Mr. Kelly said it was just a broad generalization to
protect Mr. Montalvo. He said Mr. Montalvo and his
Attorney knew that it was a sexual harassment charge.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if there were any
rules and regulations on January 25, 1988, governing
whatever charges Mr. Kelly saw fit to bring against Mr.
Montalvo that led to the termination.
Mr. Kelly said yes, he considered this to include the
policies on sexual harassment.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the policies were embodied in
any rule or regulation.
Mr. Kelly said in the Personnel Manual of the City.
Attorney Whitelock said they were? He asked if Mr. Kelly
was sure of this. He said to correct him if he was
wrong; however, the policies were not embodied in the
Personnel Manual until February 24, 1988.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know the specific dates.
Attorney Whitelock said he could call the signers of the
policies to find out when they were authentic. He said
the policy was not in effect until February 24, 1988 and
he asked Mr. Kelly if this was correct.
Attorney Lander objected to the form of the question.
She asked Attorney Whitelock to specify which policy he
was referring to.
Attorney Whitelock said the sexual harassment policy.
Mr. Kelly said he did not recall. He said he did not
know this.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was a Personnel Manual
or rules and regulations in effect on January 25, 1988,
for sexual harassment.
Mr. Kelly said he could not tell Attorney Whitelock this.
Attorney Whitelock asked why.
Mr. Kelly said he was not the Personnel Director and he
did not know this off hand.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if -he discussed the
matter with Mr. Perretti. He asked if Mr. Perretti
advised Mr. Kelly of what charges should be brought
against a person to fire or terminate a person.
Page 14
3/6/89
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the charges were and what
rules and regulations were violated.
Mr. Kelly said sexual harassment.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any specific rules
or regulations.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Referring to Exhibit, "City 311, Attorney Whitelock said
Mr. Kelly stated that the documents were in existence
since he (Mr. Kelly) became City Manager. He asked Mr.
Kelly if this was correct.
Mr. Kelly said he believed so, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew the date
when the documents were initiated.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock said Exhibit, "City 3", indicated,
"that all employees had the right to be free from
intimidation and harassment because of their sex, race,
age and handicap and the City prohibited any physical,
verbal or visual harassment. Any employee shall report
immediately any complaints to the Personnel Director."
He asked Mr. Kelly if he knew when this policy went into
effect.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know off hand.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this policy was in effect in
November, 1987.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know the date. He said that
any dates could be determined, he did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the penalty provision was
in the policy for sexual harassment. He asked Mr. Kelly
to read the penalty provision from Exhibit, City 3".
Attorney Lander asked Attorney Whitelock to give Mr.
Kelly the second page of the Composite Exhibit.
Mr. Kelly said the penalty provision was not specified on
the page given to him.
Attorney Whitelock said the second page titled, "Sexual
Harassment", indicated a list of questions. He asked Mr.
Kelly if he knew when this went into effect.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the policies were ever
published to the City employees.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked when the policies were
published.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know.
Page 15
3/6/a9
Attorney Whitelock asked who published them.
Mr. Kelly said he thinks the Personnel Department did.
He said he believed it was published in the City's
newsletter, The Sundial.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Kelly was sure.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know; however, he knew they
were published.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he had any plan in
devising either one of the documents.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked who devised the two documents.
Mr. Kelly replied, Mr. Perretti.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he felt that Mr.
Montalvo treated people of both sex equally while
employed with the City.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he felt that Mr.
Montalvo cared whether or not he (Mr. Montalvo) offended
people.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he felt that Mr.
Montalvo ever used any negative behavior to gain
attention.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever knew Mr.
Montalvo to flirt for recreation.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever thought Mr.
Montalvo considered the affects of his (Mr. Montalvo's)
action on how others felt about him and his job.
Mr. Kelly asked Attorney Whitelock to repeat the
question.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he felt that Mr.
Montalvo considered the effect of his (Mr. Montalvo's)
actions on how he acted and how it affected his job.
Mr. Kelly replied, generally, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he felt that Mr.
Montalvo was the type of person that liked to get even
when someone put him on the spot.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was a good
employee while he was employed by the City.
Mr. Kelly said he thought so.
Page 16
3/6/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever had any
problems with Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly said he did not personally.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever had any
problems with Mr. Montalvo in any other situation other
than the matter with Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly said he did not.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he held Mr.
Montalvo in high regard.
Mr. Kelly replied, he did, quite obviously.
Attorney Whitelock said he knew. He asked Mr. Kelly if
he was very sincere when he did not want to make the
matter public.
Mr. Kelly replied that this was correct.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo came and said
that Mr. Kelly was wrong because he (Mr. Montalvo) did
not do this.
Mr. Kelly said this was not correct.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo did not contest
that he was sexually harassing Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes, that Mr. Montalvo was not
sexually harassing Ms. Logan, no, that Mr. Montalvo did
admit to all the incidents and specific allegations. He
said Mr. Montalvo never understood the allegations to be
part of sexual harassment.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was because Mr. Montalvo
was in love with Ms. Logan.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Montalvo
explained the relationship existing for several months.
Mr. Kelly said this was Mr. Montalvo's position, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he was aware of how
intimate the relationship was.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever discussed
this with Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly said he was afraid so.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Montalvo
indicated that he (Mr. Montalvo) and Ms. Logan had been
living together on occasions.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Montalvo
indicated that he (Mr. Montalvo) bought a car or helped
Ms. Logan finance a car.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Page 17
3/6/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Montalvo
indicated that he (Mr. Montalvo) babysat Ms. Logan's
child, bought the child clothing and gave money to the
child.
Mr. Kelly said this was what Mr. Montalvo said.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Montalvo
indicated that his (Mr. Montalvo's),parents, sister and
friends babysat for Ms. Logan and helped the child.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever felt a need
to ever verify these things or did Mr. Kelly feel that
Mr. Montalvo was telling the truth.
Mr. Kelly said he did not feel a need to verify these
things because he did not feel that it was relevant. He
said he accepted what Mr. Montalvo said.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he explained this
to Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock said if Mr. Montalvo misunderstood the
policy that was not in existence at this point in time...
Attorney Lander objected to Attorney Whitelock's
configuration of a policy that was not in existence at
that time. She said Attorney Whitelock was stating this
as he was pointing to Exhibit, "City 3".
Attorney Whitelock apologized and he said Exhibit, "City
3 and 411, which was not in legal existence at this time.
Attorney Lander said she still objected.
Mayor Abramowitz said if the Exhibits were not in
existence, how could they be part of the policy.
Attorney Whitelock said he agreed with Mayor Abramowitz
and this was exactly his point. He said this has been
his argument since the first day of the Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock said assuming that the Exhibits were
in existence at the time and Mr. Montalvo misinterpreted
a personal relationship with a co -employee or
subordinate, he asked Mr. Kelly if there were other
Administrative avenues that could have been taken in lieu
of terminating Mr. Montalvo's job, ruining his career.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes. He said he objected to the idea
of taking the action and ruining Mr. Montalvo's career
because he tried specifically to protect Mr. Montalvo
from that. He said had Mr. Montalvo understood and been
able to accept that he (Mr. Montalvo) made a mistake and
did not realize what he was doing, he (Mr. Kelly) could
have easily suspended Mr. Montalvo and have asked Mr.
Montalvo to return to work in a few days providing he
(Mr. Montalvo) did not continue pursuing the matter with
Ms. Logan. He said Mr. Montalvo was so obsessed with the
relationship with Ms. Logan, he (Mr. Montalvo) never
accepted this. He said this was his problem.
1
1
i
Page 18
3/6/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if any other type of
Administrative penalty was out of question because of Mr.
Montalvo's refusal to accept this.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked how Mr. Montalvo got along with
the rest of the females in the City of Tamarac.
Mr. Kelly said he never tried to break down Mr.
Montalvo's relationship with other people; however, Mr.
Montalvo seemed to get along with most everybody quite
well.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he saw the list of
females that would testify on behalf of Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock said he did not want to read the list
to Mr. Kelly; however, there were enumerable females,
co -employees and subordinates that would be testifying on
Mr. Montalvo's behalf.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew whether or
not Mr. Montalvo has had a complaint from anyone else of
this particular nature.
Mr. Kelly said no, he did not. He said this was
irrelevant.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this matter was first brought
to Mr. Kelly's attention by the Chief of Police.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anything happened as a result
of the Police investigation.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked why the matter was reported to
the Chief of Police before it was directed to the
Personnel Director.
Mr. Kelly said apparently Ms. Logan felt more comfortable
going to a female Police officer to discuss the matter
than with anyone from the City.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was no one in the City
that Ms. Logan felt she could discuss the matter with.
Mr. Kelly said at that time.
Attorney Lander objected because this was contrary to
what was presently in evidence.
Attorney Whitelock objected to Attorney Lander's
objection because Mr. Kelly made a contradictory
statement.
City Attorney Doody said Ms. Logan was on the Witness
list and perhaps this matter could be addressed during
the testimony so counsel could explain her thoughts on
the matter. .
Page 19
3/5/89
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander what her objection
was.
Attorney Lander said the basis of her objection was that
Attorney Whitelock stated that Ms. Logan did not go...
Attorney Whitelock said he objected to Attorney Lander
leading the Witness in any form of testimony.
Attorney Lander said Attorney Whitelock's question
contradicted what was already in evidence which was that
Ms. Logan did in fact go and speak with her Supervisor,
Glenda Christian. She said this was why she was
objecting to Attorney Whitelock's form of questioning.
Attorney Whitelock asked Attorney Lander to indicate
where this Witness ever testified to that. He said he
was entitled to do this and Attorney Lander knew she was
wrong.
Attorney Lander said Attorney Whitelock's question was
contradictory to what was already in evidence.
Attorney Whitelock said the question was contradictory to
Attorney Lander's evidence and case, not to the Witnesses
testimony. He said Mr. Kelly never testified about
Glenda Christian.
Attorney Lander said Attorney Whitelock already had the
opportunity to cross --examine Glenda Christian.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever spoke to
Glenda Christian regarding this case.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Christian brought the
matter to Mr. Kelly's attention.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the Chief of Police brought
the matter to Mr. Kelly's attention.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked where Attorney Lander got the
information that Mrs. Christian brought the information
to Mr. Kelly's attention.
Attorney Lander said she did not say this and she
suggested that the matter be detoured elsewhere. She
said she was objecting to the form of Attorney
Whitelock's question. She asked Attorney Whitelock to
restate the question.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock to continue.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly who else was present
at the meeting on January 22, 1988 with the Chief of
Police and himself.
Mr. Kelly said the meeting involved he and Police Chief
Joseph McIntosh at this time.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he called Mr.
Perretti at home that day.
Page 20
3/6/89
Mr. Kelly said that evening.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Chief McIntosh came to Mr.
Kelly.
Mr. Kelly said in mid or later afternoon, he believed it
was.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Ferretti
informed him that evening that Ms. Logan already
discussed the matter with him (Mr. Perretti).
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Ms. Logan went to Mr.
Ferretti.
Mr. Kelly said that day is what he gathered from Mr.
Perretti. He said Ms. Logan gave him something.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly what Ms. Logan gave
Mr. Perretti.
Mr. Kelly said he was just guessing, he did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was the first time that
Ms. Logan ever came and discussed the matter with Mr.
Perretti.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know. He said this was the
first time that Mr. Perretti brought the matter to his
attention.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Perretti was ever in
contact with Ms. Logan prior to this date in either an
official or unofficial capacity.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked what it was that Ms. Logan told
Mr. Perretti that day.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know.
TAPE 2
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew when the
meeting took place.
Mr. Kelly asked which meeting.
Attorney Whitelock said with Ms. Logan and Mr. Perretti.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock said
he understood that
Mr. Kelly met
with Mr. Montalvo after
he (Mr. Kelly) met
with Chief
McIntosh. He asked who
was present at the
meeting.
Mr. Kelly said himself,
Chief McIntosh, Mr.
Perretti and
Mr. Montalvo. He said
City Attorney Doody
was not at
that meeting.
Attorney Whitelock asked
if Mr. Montalvo was represented
by an Attorney.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Page 21
3/6/89
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he or anybody on
Mr. Montalvo's behalf every inform Mr. Montalvo that he
should have representation.
Attorney Lander objected to the use of the word,
"should".
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he informed Mr.
Montalvo that the matters being discussed may lead to his
(Mr. Montalvo's) termination.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Referring to the termination letter of January 25, 1988,
Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Kelly stated that the letter
was drafted under Mr. Kelly's direction and sent by Mr.
Perretti. He asked if Mr. Perretti was at the meeting.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he informed Mr.
Montalvo what the result of the meeting was.
Mr. Kelly replied, of course.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly what he told Mr.
Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly asked late in the afternoon?
Attorney Whitelock replied, yes.
Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Montalvo was being terminated and
the proper notice would be provided to Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock said obviously, the letter was mailed
later.
Mr. Kelly replied, right.
Attorney Whitelock said the letter may not have actually
been mailed on January 25, 1988.
Mr. Kelly said we made sure that the letter was sent that
day.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if the purpose in
meeting with Mr. Montalvo that day was to discuss the
allegations so Mr. Kelly could determine what
disciplinary actions should be taken.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he had already
known that Chief McIntosh and Mr. Perretti gained
information and Mr. Kelly was in the process of making
his own factual determination as to the basis of Mr.
Montalvo's disciplinary action.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he had any other
considerations at that time.
Mr. Kelly asked at which time?
Page 22
3/6/89
Attorney Whitelock said at the time of January 25, 1988,
prior to the time Mr. Kelly called Mr. Montalvo into the
office.
Mr. Kelly replied, sure.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he discussed this
with Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly said he went through the entire thing with Mr.
Montalvo and, at the end, made the determination that
there was no other lesser course of action to take.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Kelly ever said, "look
John, not withstanding your personal relationship with
this girl, you know, you lived with her, whatever the
case is, whatever happens off work you can not bring it
to the work place and I am going to have to direct you
not to do this."
Mr. Kelly said Mr. Montalvo was never able to accept this
and they were not going anywhere in that direction. He
said this was why he had to take more drastic action.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever discussed
this matter with Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly asked, discussed which?
Attorney Whitelock said the fact that the City had a
policy and Mr. Montalvo's actions may have constituted a
violation of the policy notwithstanding Mr. Montalvo's
personal feelings and Mr. Montalvo would have to, in the
future, forego having any contact of this nature.
Mr. Kelly said just scratch the, "may have", and that Mr.
Montalvo did violate the policy.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo indicated that
in the future he would not do this and continued to send
flowers and poetry.
Mr. Kelly said it never got that far.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever issued a
direction to Mr. Montalvo indicating that Mr. Montalvo
must desist from this type of conduct otherwise be
subjected to termination.
Mr. Kelly said no, not that way.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he ever discussed
with Mr. Montalvo what penalties were available during
that time.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock said what was done was that the three
of them brought Mr. Montalvo in and questioned Mr.
Montalvo to get a factual basis in order to substantiate
the termination.
Mr. Kelly said this was not true at all.
Page 23
0
3/6/89
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were Minutes taken of
the meeting or documents, memorandums or directive other
than the January 25, 1988, correspondence sent by Mr.
Perretti.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock said there were no documents
memorializing whatever contact Mr. Kelly had with Mr.
Montalvo that day.
Mr. Kelly agreed.
Attorney Whitelock asked why no charges were ever drafted
specifically alleging the rules and regulations that Mr.
Montalvo was supposed to have violated after the City
received a notice from Mr. Montalvo's Attorney of
February 1, 1988, in which the sexual harassment charges
were mentioned.
Mr. Kelly said Attorney Whitelock precluded discussion of
this matter.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly what he meant.
Mr. Kelly said in Attorney Whitelock's earlier argument,
Attorney Whitelock precluded discussion of this matter.
He asked how he pursued discussing the matter when
Attorney Whitelock preempted discussion.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly what he meant.
Mayor Abramowitz said he understood.
Mr. Kelly said Attorney Whitelock indicated that there
could be no discussion on settlements.
Attorney Whitelock said he was not talking about
settlements, he was talking about charges.
Mr. Kelly said this was why.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he was suggesting
that there was a settlement in which no charges would be
mentioned.
Mr. Kelly asked if he could do this.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he (Attorney
Whitelock) on Mr. Montalvo's behalf ever did this.
Attorney Whitelock presented correspondence dated June
29, 1988, and he asked Mr. Kelly if he received this
correspondence.
Mr. Kelly replied that he did not recall specifically
receiving the correspondence.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he was indicating
that he never received the correspondence that was sent
to Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly said he did not say this. He said the
correspondence was not sent to him. He said if it was
sent to him, he did not recall seeing it. He said he was
not arguing with anything in the correspondence; however,
he did not recall seeing it.
Page 24
1
3/6/89
C/M Sender asked who the correspondence was addressed to.
Mr. Kelly said the correspondence was addressed to Jane
Hendricks from Attorney Whitelock.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he remembered
receiving correspondence dated June 29, 1988.
Mr. Kelly replied that he would not swear to every word
in the correspondence; however, he remembered receiving
something like this.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he responded to the
correspondence.
Mr. Kelly said he referred the correspondence to Mr.
Perretti for response.
Attorney Whitelock said item 1 was the Notice of
Termination which cited rules, regulations and
specification of charges. He asked if this was correct.
Mr. Kelly replied, correct.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if the answer was that
there were none and the only preliminary notice was given
by Mr. Perretti.
Mr. Kelly replied, correct.
Attorney Whitelock said there never has been a Notice of
Termination wherein any rules, regulations and
specifications of charges were provided to Mr. Montalvo.
He asked if this was correct.
Mr. Kelly replied, correct.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was notwithstanding as
requested by him on Mr. Montalvo's behalf on June 29,
1988.
Mr. Kelly said at this time, he was still trying to
protect Mr. Montalvo's reputation.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he was trying to
protect Mr. Montalvo's reputation.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly why he was doing this.
Mr. Kelly said he liked Mr. Montalvo and he was a good
worker. He said he did not want to ruin Mr. Montalvo by
pursuing the matter publicly.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if this was the reason
that Mr. Kelly did not do this.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if it was correct that
there were not charges that were available to Mr. Kelly
at that time.
Mr. Kelly asked Attorney Whitelock what he was talking
about.
Attorney Whitelock said the Personnel Manual as adopted
on February 24, 1988, did not include prior to this date
Page 25
16/89
any grounds for dismissal relevant to sexual harassment.
He asked if this was correct.
Mr. Kelly said he did not know this. He said Attorney
Whitelock was saying this.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly to look at the
Personnel Manual and indicate where the policy was.
Mr. Kelly said he did not want to do this by just
glancing through the manual.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Kelly was aware of this.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Kelly was aware that any
grounds ever existed on or prior to February 24, 1988 in
which termination as a disciplinary action was
incorporated in the Personnel Manual.
Mr. Kelly said he could not say this.
Attorney Whitelock asked if any existed.
Mr. Kelly asked none existed particularly referenced to
the Personnel Manual?
Attorney Whitelock agreed.
Mr. Kelly said he could not tell Attorney Whitelock this.
Referring to the altered Personnel Manual of February 24,
1988, Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly to correct him
if he was wrong. He said this was the first time that
Section 4.03 was ever placed into action and he asked if
this was correct. He said this was bad terminology, he
said legally placed into effect.
Attorney Lander objected to Attorney Whitelock's
configuration of, "legally placed into effect".
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the Section was included after
the Personnel Manual was written.
Mr. Kelly said Attorney Whitelock indicated that it was;
he (Mr. Kelly) did not know this.
Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Kelly had to testify to this
because he (Attorney Whitelock) could not testify to
this.
Attorney Lander said Mr. Kelly answered the question and
Mr. Kelly agreed.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were such terms of
sexual harassment that preexisted the Notice of
Termination of January 25, 1988.
Mr. Kelly said he could not answer because he did not
know the answer.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew of existing
grounds when Mr. Montalvo was terminated on January 25,
1988.
Page 26
C
7
r
3/6/89
Mr. Kelly said he worked with the recommendation of the
Attorney and the Personnel Director in particular.
Attorney Whitelock asked which Attorney.
Mr. Kelly said City Attorney Doody was not yet employed
with the City; therefore, he worked at the recommendation
of the Personnel Director.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew then what
the charges were.
Mr. Kelly said sexual harassment.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were cited provisions
at that time.
Mr. Kelly said this was what Attorney Whitelock was
saying.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Kelly know what
provisions he was using on January 25, 1988, when he
directed Mr. Perretti to terminate Mr. Montalvo.
Mr. Kelly said he was not referencing specific
provisions.
Attorney Whitelock said because none existed on that
date.
Attorney Lander objected to this comment.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew that any
existed on this date.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he was aware of any
,relationship existing between Ms. Logan and Mr. Perretti
on or before January 25, 1988.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew of any
reason why Ms. Logan would threaten Mr. Montalvo with his
job per Mr. Perretti.
Mr. Kelly replied, what?
Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly if he knew any reason
why Ms. Logan would have threatened Mr. Montalvo with his
job per Mr. Perretti.
Mr. Kelly asked what "per" meant.
Attorney Whitelock said according to Mr. Perretti. He
asked Mr. Kelly if he was aware of this.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Perretti was terminated
from the City.
Mr. Kelly replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked why Mr. Perretti was terminated.
Attorney Lander objected on the grounds of relevancy.
Page 27
/6/89
Mayor Abramowitz said Mr. Kelly did not have to answer
this question.
Attorney Whitelock asked, why?
Mayor Abramowitz said because he said Mr. Kelly did not
have to answer it.
Attorney Whitelock asked, why?
Attorney Lander said she objected on the basis of
relevancy.
Attorney Whitelock said he should be asked why he felt it
was relevant.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock why he felt it
was relevant.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected to the obvious
predetermination and the matter in which it was handed.
Attorney Whitelock said Ms. Logan and Mr. Perretti had an
on -going relationship.
Attorney Lander objected.
Attorney Whitelock said he was asked a question.
Attorney Lander said Attorney Whitelock could
not testify
and Attorney Whitelock objected previously
that
she could
not testify. She said it was a good
thing that
Attorney
Whitelock was not under oath.
Mayor Abramowitz objected because he
thought
the reason
Mr. Perretti was terminated was not
relevant
at this
time. He said he made the decision,
right or
wrong, to
allow the objection.
Attorney Lander said the basis for Mr. Perretti's
termination was public record and, if Attorney Whitelock
was interested in the basis of Mr. Perretti's
termination, she suggested that Attorney Whitelock
request the personnel records, pursuant to 119 of the
Public Records Act and continue with the task at hand.
Attorney Whitelock asked if he would be precluded from
presenting the evidence.
Mayor Abramowitz said he did not say this. He said he
did not hear the evidence that Attorney Whitelock was
trying to bring out. He said Attorney Whitelock asked a
question and he felt that the question was out of order.
Attorney Whitelock said he tried to provide an
explanation before he got cut off and Mayor Abramowitz
already made a ruling again after his explanation. He
said it was relevant if his client was terminated at the
behest of Mr. Perretti because of Mr. Perretti's
relationship with Ms. Logan. He said he thought that he
would be able to substantiate this.
Mayor Abramowitz said when it was substantiated, it would
be allowed.
Page 28
3/6/89
Attorney Whitelock said it could not be substantiated
unless questions were asked. He said only the Witnesses
could testify to the questions, he could not.
Mayor Abramowitz said the reason for Mr. Perretti's
termination, as far as he was concerned, had no bearing
on the statement ,just made by Attorney Whitelock. He
said Attorney Whitelock could say whatever he wanted;
however, the question did not have to be answered. He
asked Attorney Whitelock to continue.
Attorney Whitelock asked if charges were brought against
Mr. Perretti on sexual harassment.
Mr. Kelly replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was an investigation
done.
Attorney Lander objected to this whole line of
questioning.
Mayor Abramowitz interrupted and, after consulting with
City Attorney Doody, Mayor Abramowitz said the evidence
brought out that Mr. Kelly did fire Mr. Montalvo. He
said there was no reason to bring Mr. Perretti into the
Hearings. He said Mr. Kelly admitted that he was
responsible for firing Mr. Montalvo, not Mr. Perretti.
He asked Attorney Whitelock to discontinue the line of
questioning.
Attorney Whitelock said he posed an objection and
certainly he had a right to show the selective
enforcement especially where the actions were so open,
notorious and numerable from the number of complainants
that were brought as opposed to this particular one. He
said also, Mr. Perretti certainly had a personal interest
in seeing Mr. Montalvo terminated in the manner in which
it was handled. He said he thought that this was
certainly relevant to the consideration of whether or not
there was sufficiency of charges to be brought and what,
if any, relationship Ms. Logan had with Mr. Perretti
because, not withstanding Mayor Abramowitz's statement
that Mr. Kelly fired Mr. Montalvo, he did not see any
document indicating that Mr. Kelly ever did anything.
Attorney Whitelock said there was no documentation or
letter from Mr. Kelly indicating that Mr. Montalvo was
noticed of anything.
Mayor Abramowitz said Mr. Kelly admitted that it was his
responsibility and Mr. Kelly stated the fact that he was
the one who did terminate Attorney Whitelock's client.
He asked Attorney Whitelock to cease with this line of
questioning because it was not relevant. He said the
record certainly indicated Attorney Whitelock's objection
and reasons for the future; however, right now, Attorney
Whitelock should discontinue this line of questioning.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected from the stand point
that he felt that obviously he was being precluded from
presenting his case in a fashion that he should be able
to do so. He said the City certainly was able to
stream --line his case for presentation and he felt that
this constituted no more than a direct violation of the
Public Records Act. He said he made a request and
Attorney Lander already indicated that he make a request
Page 29
3/6/89
for the documentations and he was told that none existed.
He said he felt he had a right to go into this to insure
that they certainly did exist and there was a
predetermination made on Mr. Perretti's behalf.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objections
were well noted in two cases and he asked Attorney
Whitelock to continue.
C/M Hoffman asked Attorney Whitelock if he planned to
call Mr. Perretti as a Witness.
Attorney Whitelock said he was not sure.
C/M Hoffman said if Attorney Whitelock did, Mr. Perretti
could be asked these questions regarding his relationship
with Ms. Logan. He asked why Mr. Kelly should be asked.
Attorney Whitelock said one person was not called and
questioned. He said in the practice of law, whatever
Witnesses are available are called and testimony was
presented in whatever fashion was deemed necessary. He
said if there was conflicting evidence, Mr. Perretti
could claim that he signed the Declaration of
Independence; however, everyone in the room would not
tend to believe it. He said if Mr. Perretti came in and
testified to it, he would like to bring in evidence from
someone else to say that Mr. Perretti did not sign the
Declaration of Independence. He said if Mr. Perretti
came and denied all of it, there would be a right to
bring in evidence that indicated it was not the case.
C/M Hoffman asked why Attorney Whitelock did not wait for
Mr. Perretti to deny it before evidence was brought in.
Attorney Whitelock said it was the City's case and he was
in cross-examination. He said he did not have to put on
a case because he was not required to prove anything
here.
C/M Hoffman said he was just asking because he wanted to
know.
Attorney Whitelock said he understood. He said it was
the City's position to put on a case, not his.
C/M Hoffman asked if Attorney Whitelock should stick to
the facts brought out in the direct examination during
cross-examination. He said he did not hear anything
about Mr. Perretti being discharged for any specific
purpose.
Attorney Whitelock said he heard of two contacts between
the relationship of Ms. Logan and Mr. Perretti and he
found it odd that Mr. Kelly was not able to locate Mr.
Perretti in his office that day; however, Ms. Logan was.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock to continue.
Attorney Whitelock asked that the Personnel Manual dated
February 24, 1988, be placed in as Response Exhibit #1.
Attorney Lander asked Attorney Whitelock to wait until
his case was put on. She said Attorney Whitelock was on
cross-examination.
Page 30
3/6/89
Attorney Whitelock said he understood; however, he would
like to have it marked and identified as Response Exhibit
#1.
Attorney Lander said it could certainly be marked and
identified.
Attorney Whitelock agreed and he said he could call Mr.
Kelly back as a Witness. He thought that Attorney Lander
would like to save time.
Attorney Whitelock had no further questions of Mr. Kelly.
At 3:20 P.M.., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED the meeting and
RECONVENED at 3:35 P.M. with ALL PRESENT.
Attorney Lander called Elena Logan as a Witness.
Pauline Walaszek swore Ms. Logan in as a Witness.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan to state her full name
for the record.
Ms. Logan stated her full name to be, Elena Logan.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan where she was employed.
Ms. Logan said with the City of Tamarac.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan how long she was employed
by the City.
Ms. Logan replied, a little over two years. She said
since November, 1986.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what her job title was
since then.
Ms. Logan replied, Computer Operator.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan who her Supervisors were
since she started in,November, 1986.
Ms. Logan replied, Glenda Christian and John Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan when she first met Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Logan said about the first week, probably her second
day at work.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she ever dated Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked how long they went out together.
Ms. Logan said a couple of months, from mid May, 1987,
until the end of August, 1987.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan when Mr. Montalvo first
asked her out.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Montalvo first asked her out probably
around December, 1986, to a boat show.
Page 31
3/6/89
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she accepted Mr.
Montalvo's invitation.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan when Mr. Montalvo asked
her out again.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Montalvo invited her to a New Year's
Eve party.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan accepted his
invitation.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Montalvo cancelled the party and she
did not go.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan when Mr. Montalvo asked
her out again.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Montalvo asked her out to lunch
several times in January, 1987; however, there was no
luncheon.
Attorney Lander asked why Ms. Logan declined all of Mr.
Montalvo's invitations.
Ms. Logan said she had other plans at those times.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan when she first had an
actual date with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan said in February, 1987.
Attorney Lander asked where they went.
Ms. Logan said they went to a Freddy Jackson Concert at
Sunrise Musical Theater.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan when she went out with
Mr. Montalvo again.
Ms. Logan said a few weeks later to a Mets game.
Attorney Lander asked, after that, when Ms. Logan saw Mr.
Montalvo next.
Ms. Logan said sometime in June, 1987.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan how often she saw Mr.
Montalvo socially during the month of June, 1987.
Ms. Logan said they had a date in June, 1987 and they
went to Chevy's and then they started seeing each other
after that.
Attorney Lander asked if they dated pretty steadily.
Ms. Logan said fairly steadily, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she ever lived with
Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she shared an intimate
relationship with Mr. Montalvo.
Page 32
3/6/89
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked beginning in what month.
Ms. Logan said that would have been May or June, 1987.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan how often she saw Mr.
Montalvo while they were dating steadily.
Ms. Logan said it started out a couple times a week and
then progressed from there to probably three or four
times a week.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo ever stayed
overnight at Ms. Logan's apartment.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan ever spent the night
over Mr. Montalvo's apartment.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if they ever lived together.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she ever borrowed
money from Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes, on three separate occasions she
borrowed small amounts of money from him.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she repaid the loan.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo ever assisted Ms.
Logan in securing a loan on her own behalf.
Ms. Logan replied, yes, a car loan.
Attorney Lander asked what Mr. Montalvo did.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Montalvo co -signed a loan.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Montalvo ever had to make a
payment as a result of co-signing the loan.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
At this time, Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo's
mother to wait outside because she would be a Witness in
the case.
Attorney Lander asked if Mrs. Montalvo has been present
since the meeting started.
V/M Stelzer said Mrs. Montalvo has been present from the
beginning of the meeting.
Attorney Lander said she would reserve her right to
object when the time came.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if there was a point in
the relationship with Mr. Montalvo when Ms. Logan made a
decision about continuing the relationship.
Page 33
3/6/89
Ms. Logan said the relationship actually continued from
the date the night at Chevy's.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if there came a point
when she wanted to discontinue the relationship with Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked when this was.
Ms. Logan said around the end of July, 1987, before Mr.
Montalvo went to a lobster hunt. She said she informed
Mr. Montalvo to slow down. She said she started out by
telling Mr. Montalvo to slow down because he was coming
on very strong, very possessive.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she discussed this
with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what Mr. Montalvo's
reaction was.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Montalvo could not understand. She
said Mr. Montalvo felt that things were going very well
and did not understand why she wanted the relationship to
slow down.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if Mr. Montalvo accepted
the decision.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she continued dating
Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan said she was still seeing Mr. Montalvo in
August, 1987. She said Mr. Montalvo actually attempted
to have another get together with her right after Mr.
Montalvo's vacation. She said they both took a separate
vacation and, at this point, she was trying to let Mr.
Montalvo know that she wanted a normal working
relationship and no longer wanted to have a personal
relationship.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she wanted to date
others at this time.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she had an exclusive
relationship with Mr. Montalvo up to this point.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if there came a time when
she wanted to break off the relationship with Mr.
Montalvo completely.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked when this was.
Page 34
3/6/89
Ms. Logan said she was really trying to hint this in
August, 1987, when she informed Mr. Montalvo that she
wanted to see other people. She said she was trying to
be careful not to hurt Mr. Montalvo's feelings at the
same time. She said this was when she really wanted to
terminate the relationship.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she told Mr. Montalvo
this.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan how Mr. Montalvo reacted.
Ms. Logan said very bad. She said Mr. Montalvo would
cry, beg and plead with her. She said she tried to
handle it as best she could by informing Mr. Montalvo
that she wanted to continue a friendship. She said she
felt it was very important that they continued a normal
working relationship.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she ever saw Mr.
Montalvo again after she attempted to break up.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked when this was.
Ms. Logan said during work.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she saw Mr. Montalvo
socially.
Ms. Logan replied, yes. She said Mr. Montalvo would call
her at times and say that he desperately had to see her.
She said she remembered during hurricane Floyd, Mr.
Montalvo called her and informed her that he desperately
had to see her. She said Mr. Montalvo was very upset and
she was home that day. She said Mr. Montalvo was
practically crying on the telephone and she told Mr.
Montalvo to come over.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what month she broke up
with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan said effectively, the end of August, 1987.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she dated Mr. Montalvo
at the end of August, 1987.
Ms. Logan said they went to Six Flags Atlantis because
Mr. Montalvo informed her that he wanted to get together
one last time after their vacations which, were spent
separately. She asked if she should continue because it
was a long story.
Attorney Lander asked if anything unusual occurred during
the last date with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes. She said Mr. Montalvo's car was
in the garage and he left a note on her door.
Attorney Whitelock objected because the question had
nothing to do with any basis of any charges, whatever
charges existed. He said these matters were not germane
to Mr. Montalvo's performance as a City employee or
during Mr. Montalvo's official capacity as an employee.
Page 35
3/6/89
Mayor Abramowitz said he would like to see where the
questioning would lead.
Attorney Whitelock said if Mayor Abramowitz would permit
the matters to be entered into on an outside basis, it
would open the doors to several other matters that would
come in also.
Mayor Abramowitz said if there was reason for the actions
taken, he would like to hear the reasons from the party
directly involved. He said Attorney Whitelock's client
would give his side of the case and story. He said he
would allow the questioning to continue.
Attorney Whitelock said the only reason the questions
were being brought out, and this was the first time he
has heard of them, was to either inflame or prejudice the
City Council against his client.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock if he saw
anyone inflamed. He said he did not see anyone inflamed.
Attorney Whitelock said he disagreed with Mayor
Abramowitz and he felt that the questions did inflame the
City Council against his client.
Mayor Abramowitz said he would like to see where the
questioning would lead and he asked Attorney Lander to
continue.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if anything unusual
occurred during the last date with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes. She said Mr. Montalvo's car was
in the garage and he asked if he could spend one last
time together with her. She said she decided that this
would be a good opportunity to get together and explain
to him the importance of keeping a normal friendship.
She said she drove to Mr. Montalvo's apartment with her
son and a friend of her son's and the plans were to go to
Six Flag's Atlantis that day. She said Mr. Montalvo had
a friend present who excused the children from the
apartment indicating that they would like to talk to her
alone. She said her son and friend went outdoors and Mr.
Montalvo went into the bedroom and got a bag and came
back out, sat down and informed her that he had something
for her. She said Mr. Montalvo asked her to sit down and
she did. She said Mr. Montalvo asked her to close her
eyes and she reluctantly closed her eyes. She said Mr.
Montalvo took her left hand'and slipped something on her
hand and when she opened her eyes it appeared to be a
diamond solitaire. She said she did not allow Mr.
Montalvo to put the ring on her finger. She said she
asked Mr. Montalvo to stop and she informed him that she
could not believe Mr. Montalvo was doing this. She said
she informed Mr. Montalvo that she did not have these
feelings for him. She said she thanked Mr. Montalvo and
informed him that she could not accept the ring. She
said Mr. Montalvo started crying and his friend looked at
her and asked her what was the matter and if she believed
in long engagements.
Attorney Whitelock objected because it was compound
hearsay and it was what someone said through Ms. Logan.
Attorney Lander asked if this was the occasion of Ms.
Logan's last date with Mr. Montalvo.
Page 36
3/6/89
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she continued to see
Mr. Montalvo at work during September, 1987.
Ms. Logan said she worked in the same office with Mr.
Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan how often she had to see
Mr. Montalvo in the normal course of a work day.
Ms. Logan said if she or Mr. Montalvo were passing
through.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if Mr. Montalvo seemingly
accepted the breakup in September, 1987.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what Mr. Montalvo did to
indicate this to her.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Montalvo would come into the computer
room at night when he thought that no one was there and
he would inform her that she ripped his heart out and she
was ruining his life. She said Mr. Montalvo informed her
that she did not care about anyone except herself. She
said Mr. Montalvo would ask her what the problem was and
why she would not go back with him.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she did anything
during this time that indicated that she was willing to
reconcile with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, no. She said she would ask Mr.
Montalvo to leave the computer room.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if Mr. Montalvo would
leave.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander presented Composite Exhibit, "Montalvo 1"
to Ms. Logan and she asked if Ms. Logan ever saw the
documents before.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she received the poems
from Mr. Montalvo in September, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock objected that the question was
leading.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked when Ms. Logan saw the documents.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Montalvo showed her the poems which
were written to an ex -fiance, during their relationship.
She said she did not receive the poems from Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the document could be
identified for the record.
Page 37
3/6/89
Attorney Lander said the document was introduced by
Attorney Whitelock during the first Hearing and was
labelled as "Montalvo l".
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if Mr. Montalvo did
anything during October, 1987, indicating that Mr.
Montalvo was still not willing to accept the breakup of
the relationship.
Ms. Logan said during October, 1987, she began receiving
poems through the office mail that were published from
magazines. She said she also received these at her
residence and Mr. Montalvo would call her; however, she
would not speak to him. She said Mr. Montalvo would put
flowers on her car.
Attorney Lander presented two hand written poems dated
October 9, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock objected because the Witness already
testified.
Attorney Lander said the Witness testified regarding the
poems dated September, 1987. She said she was asking the
Witness about the poems of October, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock said Attorney Lander asked the Witness
to identify the Composite Exhibit.
Attorney Lander said Ms. Logan indicated that she did not
receive the poems dated September, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock said Ms. Logan indicated that she did
not receive the poems dated September 15, 1987, and
September 24, 1987.
Attorney Lander said this was correct and Attorney
Whitelock said, okay.
Attorney Lander presented a portion of Composite Exhibit,
"Montalvo 1", dated October 9, 1987, and October 10,
1987, and she asked if Ms. Logan ever received the poems
from Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan said she saw these poems.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan when she saw the poems.
Ms. Logan said she saw the poems when Mr. Montalvo showed
her the poems he wrote to his -ex -fiance.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if anything else occurred
during October, 1987, indicating Mr. Montalvo's
reluctance to accept the breakup of the relationship.
Ms. Logan said only that Mr. Montalvo would, on
occasions, stop during the day and peer in the computer
room. She said Mr. Montalvo would ask her what she was
up to or why she still did not want to be with him.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she did anything that
may have indicated that she wanted to go back with Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Logan said there was a point when Mr. Montalvo came
to her and kept mentioning her son indicating that her
son would have a lot of problems because they were in the
relationship. She said Mr. Montalvo informed her that
Page 38
3/6/89
1
1
TAPE 3
1
his friend, David, would be going to some haunted house
for Halloween and he really wanted to take Brian (Ms.
Logan's son). She said when Mr. Montalvo came to her,
she was working at the computer and she was busy;
therefore, she said yes, it just to get Mr. Montalvo out
of there so he would leave her alone.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she allowed her son to
go with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if anything occurred
during the first week of November, 1987, with Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan to indicate what
happened.
Ms. Logan said she was taking a guest to the Baystreet
Restaurant opening. She said she and her guest had
dinner there and, the next day it was raining most of
day, and when she left work that night there was gum
stuck on the handle of her car. She said she was very
upset and she felt that Mr. Montalvo had put the gum on
the door handles of the car.
Attorney Lander asked if it was dark when Ms. Logan left
work.
Ms. Logan replied, yes. She said it was dark and
raining.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan knew what putting gum
on the door handles would do to the car.
Ms. Logan said just stickiness, she did not know.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan spoke with Mr.
Montalvo regarding the gum on the door handles.
Ms. Logan said the following day she went into Mr.
Montalvo's office in the morning and asked him why he put
the gum on the car. She said Mr. Montalvo became very
irate and upset and he asked how she dared accuse him of
putting gum on the car and she had no right to come into
his office. She said she asked Mr. Montalvo why he put
the gum on her car and Mr. Montalvo asked her why she
brought the guest to Baystreet. She said she felt at
this time that the reason Mr. Montalvo put the gum on her
car was because she brought a guest to Baystreet the
previous night. She said Mr. Montalvo then informed her
to get out of the City and she informed Mr. Montalvo that
she would not leave the City and Mr. Montalvo said he
would see to it that she would leave the City. She said
she informed Mr. Montalvo that she would tell John Kelly,
City Manager, and she then left Mr. Montalvo's office.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she spoke to anyone
regarding the conversation.
Ms. Logan said she went straight to her Supervisor and
informed her that Mr. Montalvo just threatened to fire
her. She said her Supervisor informed her to handle the
situation and Mr. Montalvo could not fire her.
Page 39
3/6/89
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she knew how to file a
grievance at that time.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan's Supervisor discussed
with her at that time about the City's policy on sexual
harassment.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan was aware of the
City's policy on sexual harassment at that time.
Ms. Logan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan became aware of the
City's policy on sexual harassment at some point.
Ms. Logan replied, yes, later.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan spoke with Mr.
Montalvo at any other time on that day following the gum
incident.
Ms. Logan replied, yes. She said that same day, Mr.
Montalvo called her into the office of Ken Burroughs,
Finance Director. She said she thought Mr. Burroughs was
present; however, when she walked in the door, Mr.
Montalvo closed the door, walked over and sat down at the
desk and told her to sit down. She said she sat down and
Mr. Montalvo's first words were, "why all the anger?"
She said she informed Mr. Montalvo that he threatened to
fire her, stuck gum on her car, would not leave her alone
and would come into the computer room. She said Mr.
Montalvo asked her about their love affair and she
informed him that they had no love affair. She said Mr.
Montalvo became very upset and he informed her that he
was having a very difficult time accepting this. She
said she asked Mr. Montalvo not to call her, send her
poems and stay out of her life. She said Mr. Montalvo
agreed to leave her alone.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if Mr. Montalvo stopped
sending her poems and contacting her in the computer room
after hours.
Ms. Logan replied, no. ,
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan how long Mr. Montalvo
left her alone after promising to do so.
Ms. Logan said the poems or letters did not begin until
January, 1988.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if Mr. Montalvo attempted
to see her in December, 1987.
Ms. Logan said there was an attempt in December, 1987.
She said Mr. Montalvo's Secretary came to her and
informed her that Mr. Montalvo was extremely upset and
embarrassed about threatening to fire her (Ms. Logan) and
Mr. Montalvo was desperately wanting to have a normal
working relationship. She said it was difficult for her
at this time and Mr. Montalvo's Secretary informed her
that Mr. Montalvo wanted to have a luncheon with her (Ms.
Logan) to bury the hatchet, so to speak.
Page 40
n
1
3/6/89
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan agreed to have lunch
with Mr. Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan had lunch with Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if anything unusual
occurred during the luncheon.
Ms. Logan said the luncheon was very friendly and polite.
She said there were no problems at the luncheon. She
said as they were leaving in the car, what Mr. Montalvo
said to her startled her in a way. She said Mr. Montalvo
was not angry when it was said; however, Mr. Montalvo
looked at her and said, "Elena, I thought about killing
you but I have decided not to make your son an orphan".
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if Mr. Montalvo continued
his attentions toward her after the incident.
Ms. Logan said after the incident, there were no problems
for a while.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what she did to avoid Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Logan said she stayed away from Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan continued to receive
poems or notes at the end of December, 1987, from Mr.
Montalvo.
Ms. Logan said not until after Christmas. She said she
returned to work from Christmas vacation and found a hand
written note from Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Lander presented Exhibit "City 7" to Ms. Logan
and Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if this was the note
received when Ms. Logan returned from Christmas vacation.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if this was Mr.
Montalvo's handwriting.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she recognized Mr.
Montalvo's handwriting.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander introduced Exhibit "City 7" into
evidence.
V/M Stelzer asked Ms. Logan if the gum was placed on the
handle or the lock.
Ms. Logan said on the handle. She said the gum was put
under and on top, both.
v/M Stelzer asked, not on the lock?
page 41
3/6/89
Ms. Logan said not on the lock. She said only on the
outside of the car on the handle, so that as it was
grabbed, it would get on the thumb as well as the
forefinger.
Attorney Whitelock had no objection to the evidence.
Referring to Exhibit, "City 711, Attorney Lander asked how
Ms. Logan interpreted the letter when she received it.
Ms. Logan said parts of the letter, she felt that Mr.
Montalvo had probably decided that it would be better to
try and have only a friendship. She said the only thing
that bothered her about the letter was that Mr. Montalvo
indicated that he wanted to let her know that, God Forbid
anything should happen to her, she could count on him to
take care of Brian (Ms. Logan's son) because he loved him
dearly. She said she did not understand this, especially
after Mr. Montalvo told her that he had thought about
killing her and then turned around and wrote this. She
said she felt threatened by the letter.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she was in fear for
her safety at this time.
Ms. Logan replied, yes. She said she did not know how
far to trust Mr. Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan did anything after she
received the letter, go anywhere or speak to anyone.
Ms. Logan replied, no. She said she kept these thoughts
to herself because from the luncheon, when Mr. Montalvo
indicated that he thought about killing her, she tried to
overlook this as though it was just something that Mr.
Montalvo was saying in passing and that it was something
that Mr. Montalvo did not really mean; however, upon
receiving the Letter, she questioned it.
Attorney Lander asked what, if anything, happened after
Ms. Logan received the Letter.
Ms. Logan said she received 4 dozen roses one morning.
Attorney Lander asked where Ms. Logan received the roses.
Ms. Logan said in the office.
Attorney Lander asked if the sender was acknowledged with
the flowers. She asked if Ms. Logan knew who sent the
flowers.
Ms. Logan replied, no. She said she did not know who
sent the flowers initially. She said when she received
the 4 dozen roses she thought it was possible that
someone else she was seeing sent them and, as it turned
out that person did not send them.
Attorney Lander presented Exhibit, "City 8", and she
asked Ms. Logan if either of the cards came with the 4
dozen roses.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked, which one?
Ms. Logan replied, the bottom one.
Page 42
3/6/89
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what the card said.
Ms. Logan read, "To the woman I want to spend the New
Year with and each year thereafter, Desperately wanting
YOU."
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan when the other card
arrived and what was with it.
Ms. Logan said the card arrived at the end of January,
1988, with carnations.
Attorney Whitelock asked if any of the originals were
available.
Attorney Lander said she did not have the originals.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the use of the copies
providing there were no originals.
Attorney Lander said the originals were given to the
Tamarac Police Department.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan spoke with Mr.
Montalvo after the first delivery of flowers.
Ms. Logan said when she received the first delivery, Mr.
Montalvo came to the computer room and acted very
disgusted. She said Mr. Montalvo said, "what is this, a
flower shop?" and he walked out. She said after she
called the fellow she was seeing and asked him if he had
sent them, he said no, then she believed it to be Mr.
Montalvo. She said she asked Mr. Montalvo if he sent the
flowers and Mr. Montalvo became angry and informed that
he did not and he could not believe that she asking him
this. She said Mr. Montalvo denied it.
Referring to Composite Exhibit, "City 1", Attorney Lander
asked Ms. Logan to look at the three letters in the last
three pages of the Exhibit. She asked if Ms. Logan
received the letters and what the circumstances were.
Ms. Logan replied, yes. She said she received these,
probably one per week, sent to the City indicating,
"Confidential, Elena Logan".
Attorney Lander asked when Ms. Logan sought counselling
from Sergeant Chovan.
Ms. Logan said somewhere after the first letter. She
said right after the first letter.
Attorney Lander asked what Ms. Logan did.
Ms. Logan said she went to Sergeant Chovan and asked her
for advice on what to do because she was concerned with
the turn of events. She said she believed Mr. Montalvo
was sending these to her and Mr. Montalvo already agreed
not to bother her any longer. She said she was concerned
with Mr. Montalvo's obsessive tendencies.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if this was effecting her
performance on the job.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked, in what way?
Page 43
3/6/89
Ms. Logan said she dial not know what to expect. She said
Mr. Montalvo would not leave her alone.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan's Supervisor spoke to
her regarding her job performance.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked what was said.
Ms. Logan said her Supervisor informed her that she (Ms.
Logan) was not concentrating on her work and she was not
effective in what she was doing. She said she informed
her Supervisor that there was too much interference in
the work place.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if the Police were able
to identify the sender of the letters.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked who the Police identified as the
sender.
Attorney Whitelock objected to hearsay and the Witness
was not qualified to answer the question. He said the
Witness was testifying to expert testimony.
Attorney Lander rephrased the question and she asked if
Ms. Logan was ever informed by the Police who sent the
letters.
Attorney Whitelock objected for the same reason as
previously stated.
Mayor Abramowitz said the Resolution permitted hearsay;
therefore, he would permit this question.
Attorney Whitelock said it denied the right to
confrontation on a point involving expert testimony. He
said a lay -Witness was being asked to indicate the
verification of expert testimony.
Attorney Lander said she was asking Ms. Logan if anyone
informed her (Ms. Logan) who sent the flowers.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if anyone ever informed
her who sent the flowers.
Mayor Abramowitz said at the advice from Counsel, this
question was hearsay; therefore, he would permit the
question. He asked Ms. Logan to answer the question.
Ms. Logan said she was informed who sent the letters.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan who told her.
Ms. Logan replied, Sergeant Barbara Chovan.
Attorney Lander asked who Sergeant Chovan said sent the
letters.
Ms. Logan replied, John Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what she did when she
learned that Mr. Montalvo sent the letters.
Page 44
3/6/89
Ms. Logan said she went to Larry Perretti, previous
Personnel Director.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what she told Mr.
Perretti.
Ms. Logan said she informed Mr. Ferretti that Mr.
Montalvo had been sending her letters, unwelcome and
unwanted, threatened to fire her and continued to visit
her in the computer room at night harassing her.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan what Mr. Perretti told
her to do at that time.
Ms. Logan said Mr. Perretti said to write him a paragraph
so he could take care of the matter.
Attorney Lander presented Exhibit, "City 9", and she
asked Ms. Logan if this was her (Ms. Logan's) handwriting
and signature at the bottom.
x .-Logan replied, yes.
Ar_�tBerney Lander asked Ms. Logan if this was the note she
aoret:e in response to the direction of the Personnel
Director.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander introduced Exhibit, "City 9", into
evidence and Attorney Whitelock did not object.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she spoke to Mr.
Perretti or anyone else on January 25, 1988 regarding the
matters in the memorandum.
Ms. Logan replied, her Supervisor and Mr. Perretti.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan ever met with John
Kelly regarding her allegations.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked when Ms. Logan met with Mr. Kelly.
Ms. Logan said she believed this was the same day.
Attorney Lander asked Ms. Logan if she informed Mr. Kelly
about the facts in support of her allegations.
Ms. Logan replied, absolutely.
Attorney Lander asked if Mr. Kelly directed Ms. Logan to
write a more detailed account of the harassment.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander presented Exhibit, "City 6" and she asked
Ms. Logan if this was her handwriting.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if Ms. Logan did this at the
direction of the City Manager.
Ms. Logan replied, yes.
Page 45
WM:.
Attorney Lander had no further questions of the Witness.
Attorney Whitelock had no quest -ions of the Witness. He
said the Witness was still subject to recall as per the
Subpoena.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander if she had any
further Witnesses to present.
Attorney Lander said the City rests.
With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this
meeting at 4:15 P.M.
JW044--,1
'9brMAN ABRAMOWITZ, MAYOR
CAROL A. EV NS, CITY CLERK
"This public document was promulgated at a cost of $169.50 or $18.83 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.
APPRO ED AT MEETING OF Z1116,Ll S
City Clerk
Page 46
I
1
I