Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-24 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 9 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321.2401 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 August 18, 1989 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council held on Thursday, August 24, 1989 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Conference Room #1 (Room 103), City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida 33321. The purpose of this meeting is to continue a public hearing requested by John F. Montalvo, Jr., pursuant to Section 52.02 of the City of Tamarac Personnel Manual to appeal a personnel decision of the City Manager relating to the employment of John F. Montalvo, Jr. Additional public hearings may be called if necessary. All meetings are open to the public. Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city Ccur;cil with respect to any matter considered at such meeting r„ hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for sLrc.I1 pure he may 1100d to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based CAE/nr 10 Carol A. Evans City Clerk AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on T^ u sday, August 24, 1989 at 9:00 A.M. in Conference Room #1 (City Clerk's Office) . PRESENT: Mayor Norman Abramowitz Vice Mayor Dr. H. Larry Bender Councilman Bruce Hoffman Councilman Jack Stelzer ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Councilman Henry Rohr ALSO PRESENT: John P. Kelly, City Manager Richard Rednor, Consulting City Attorney Alan F. Ruf, Consulting City Attorney Pauline Walaszek, Special Services Secretary The purpose of this meeting was to continue a Public Hearing requested by John F. Montalvo, Jr. Pursuant to Section 52-02 of the City of Tamarac Personnel Code. Charles Whitelock, Attorney for John F. Montalvo, Jr., said on July 3, 1989, he filed a Motion to Dismiss. He said the basis of the Motion was that Mr. Montalvo has been suspended for approximately 20 months. He said during this time, a procedure was finalized to obtain a Hearing process; however, he was asked on four different occasions to martial his Witnesses to be present. He said there were several Hearings cancelled, the last being on June 29, 1989. Attorney Whitelock said City Attorney Doody indicated at this time that the City Council would not be available for the Hearing because of a scheduled Swearing in of the Police Officers to the Broward Sheriff's Office. He said that he felt this was secondary to the necessity of holding the Hearing. Attorney Whitelock said he was willing to undertake an Arbitration type procedure, which would allow an Arbitrator to be appointed to provide a speedy resolution to this case. He said justice delayed was justice denied and this was true in this Case. Attorney Whitelock said through his efforts and on four different occasions, his client has had to have his Witnesses present. He said the first day of the Hearing there were several Witnesses available on behalf of his client; however, he agreed to have the employees attend when needed because they were City employees. He said he sent the employees back to work to avoid the expenditure of City funds. Page 1 Attorney Whitelock said these Witnesses were brought back several times. He said the City Council's subpoena powers were strictly limited and, if someone chose to disregard the subpoena, a recess would be called to allow a Writ to be filed in the Circuit Court asking a Judge to command the appearance of the person. He said several Witnesses have taken the position of not attending the Hearings as opposed to leaving work because they would not be called and would lose wages and time. Attorney Whitelock said the last time his client was unable to present his side of the Case was on June 29, 1989. He said he was called regarding the Hearings being held for approximately 2 hours because there was an emergency conflict, which happened to be the Broward Sheriff's Office Swearing -In Ceremony. He said he marshalled all of the Witnesses for that Hearing and it took time to call the Witnesses and coordinate time frames. Attorney Whitelock said the City contacted him regarding a continuing Hearing date. He said he would like a copy of the letter placed into evidence. He said he understood that the City Council had better things to do than sit and hear the Case; however, the City Council has precluded him from presenting his client's Case. He said Witnesses were refusing to attend the Hearing and he was not able to compel people to attend the Hearing. He said there was nothing that the City Council could do to make the Witnesses attend the Hearings. Attorney Whitelock said it was not his nor his client's fault in being precluded to present the Case. He said he filed a Motion to Dismiss and he asked the City Council to consider this Motion. He said under the Florida Arbitration Code, the City was required to timely file and hear a grievance or Arbitration. He said if the City Management could not timely hear the grievance, it was the City's problem. Attorney Whitelock said he felt that the delays were the fault of the City. He said he had several Witnesses that refused to attend the Hearings and there was one Witness who was out of State. He said after pleading with the Witness, the Witness attended a deposition on Saturday. He said even though he would be presenting the black and white testimony of the Witness, the City Council would not be able to consider the credibility of the Witness. He asked the City Council to consider his Motion to Dismiss because of these complications. Attorney Whitelock said had there been an emergency of the City, he would have gladly rescheduled the Hearing even though the Hearing was set several months in advance. He said there was a Witness who attended the Hearings three times and the woman was pregnant and due to deliver at any time. He said the woman's employer has threatened to fire her because of her attendance at the Hearings; however, she attended anyway. Mayor Abramowitz asked Alan Ruf, Consulting City Attorney, if he wanted to address this matter. Attorney Ruf said the proceedings were held pursuant to procedures set by the City. He said the City was not governed by the Florida or Federal Arbitration Rules; Pag e 2 8/24/89 therefore, the observations taken by Attorney Whitelock were not binding upon the City Council to consider this matter. Attorney Ruf said he worked for several Employee Boards in other Cities and he knew it was extremely difficult to schedule meetings because of obligations and duties of the individuals. He said it was unusual for City Councilmembers to be full-time workers on City projects; however, the City Councilmembers of Tamarac worked in a capacity of full-time. He said the City Council took their vacations in July, 1989, and, Janet Lander, an Attorney who previously worked for his Firm, handled this Case on behalf of the City. He said he instructed Attorney Lander to work with Attorney Whitelock's Office in an attempt to get the matter resolved, finalized and decided before she withdrew from the Firm in March, 1989. He said on several occasions, Attorney Whitelock was not able to schedule meetings because of his busy calendar. Attorney Ruf said he did not want this matter to proceed past March, 1989; however, there were several conflicts in scheduling that limited the times when the Hearings could be held. He said he did not receive contact from Attorney Whitelock's Office since May 3, 1989 until August 17, 1989, regarding the Witnesses that should be available to attend this Hearing. Attorney Ruf said on the morning of August 17, 1989, his Office was contacted by Attorney Whitelock's Office regarding a Deposition being held on Saturday morning and the need for his firm to have someone present at that Deposition. He said he had an Attorney attend the Deposition and he felt that it was appropriate to deny the Motion to Dismiss. He suggested that this Case be finalized and the City Council proceed with their deliberations. Mayor Abramowitz asked Rick Rednor, Consulting City Attorney, if he was correct in assuming that the City would be stating that Mr. Montalvo was correct by granting Attorney Whitelock's Motion for Dismissal. Attorney Rednor said Attorney Whitelock phrased the Motion by requesting in the last clause, "That the employee respectfully requests the City Commission to enter an Order of Dismiss for these unknown and unspecified charges which have led to the employee's suspension and termination and reinstate the employee with all back benefits and emoluments of his position." Mayor Abramowitz said if the Motion was Dismissed, the City Council would be finding Mr. Montalvo innocent, if this was the appropriate phrase, and he would be reinstated. Attorney Rednor agreed. C/M Hoffman asked if it was proper for the City Council to Vote on the Motion and Attorney Rednor replied, yes. Attorney Rednor asked Attorney Whitelock if he had any Cases that supported his position. He said Attorney Whitelock cited reference to the Florida Arbitration Code, etc., as well as contracts stating the time frames involved. He asked if there was a Case or Rule that was applicable to this Case. Page 3 8/24/89 Attorney Whitelock said there were no Rules set and a time frame was not set in the City's Code. He said the Code Rules were created or amended subsequent to the termination of his client. He said the existing Rules and requations providing for the grievance procedure were ignored and the Case was brought to the City Council because of an amendment to the Code. He said he felt that this was a political decision to make sure that the Case came before the Council as opposed to going through a grievance or arbitration procedure. Attorney Whitelock said more importantly, he knew of no situation in which a contract, civil service rule or Statute did not provide a time frame. Attorney Rednor asked which Rule was applicable to this Case and Attorney Whitelock said he knew of no contract or civil service rule. Attorney Whitelock asked Attorney Rednor if he knew of the Civil Service System and Attorney Rednor said he completely understood the System. Attorney Whitelock said if Attorney Rednor understood this, he was aware that the Rule was incumbent upon everyone, including the City of Tamarac, to have a Civil Service System as established by the Legislature. He said in the Model Civil Service Rules it provided for a specific time frame to hear and determine the Case. He said if the Case was not heard or decided within that time frame, the Case was dismissed. He said there was no factual determination required and he did not know where this was stated in the Motion. Attorney Rednor asked Attorney Whitelock if he would like the Motion read again and Attorney Whitelock asked Attorney Rednor to read the section of the Motion where he stated he wanted to determine Mr. Montalvo's guilt or innocence. Attorney Rednor said the statement was in the "Wherefore" clause, last paragraph, "Wherefore, the employee respectfully requests the City Commission to enter an order of Dismiss these unknown and unspecified charges which have led to the employee's suspension and termination and reinstate the employee with all back benefits and emoluments of his position." Attorney Rednor asked Attorney Whitelock if this was his language and Attorney Whitelock said if this was what Attorney Rednor was reading from. Attorney Whitelock asked where it stated to determine guilt or innocence. Attorney Whitelock asked where it stated that he requested a factual finding and Mayor Abramowitz said he did not want a debate of this matter. Attorney Whitelock said he could state from the Motion he prepared because he was very familiar with the Motion. Mayor Abramowitz said he understood Attorney Whitelock's position and he asked if Attorney Whitelock wanted to respond to Attorney Ruf's statements. Attorney Whitelock said there was never any delay on his part and, to the contrary, the Witnesses were provided to Attorney Lander in a timely fashion. He said both Counsels exchanged their list of Witnesses and a request was made under the Public Records Act for a production of all of the documentation, which was supplied. He said 1 1 Page 4 8/24/89 his Motion spoke specifically to Attorney Ruf's statement regarding no indication of the Witnesses. He said the last time, the City Witnesses were advised that they were released from his subpoena prior to the time that he contacted them. He said neither the City Attorney nor Attorney Ruf had any authority to release his Witnesses from subpoena. He said only he had authority to release his subpoenaed Witnesses but he had no authority to release the City's subpoenaed Witnesses. Attorney Whitelock said the Hearings were scheduled and his client was not given the opportunity to present his Case. He said the City's actions precluded his client from presenting a major portion of his Case because he would not be able to produce the Witnesses. Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objections were made very clear. C/M Hoffman asked if it was proper to make a Motion and Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City Council had any questions before a Motion was made or voted on. Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council would be voting on Attorney Whitelock's Motion for Dismissal and to have Mr. Montalvo reinstated. C/M Hoffman asked if a Motion should be made to accept Attorney Whitelock's Motion for Dismissal. Attorney Rednor said if the City Council desired to Deny the Motion, the Motion should be made to Deny the Motion to Dismiss. Mayor Abramowitz asked if anyone objected to stating that the Vote would be individually called the record to Deny or Grant Attorney Whitelock's Motion to Dismiss. VOTE: Mayor Abramowitz - DENY V/M Bender - DENY C/M Hoffman - DENY C/M Stelzer - DENY ** MOTION to DISMISS was DENIED. Attorney Whitelock called Charlotte Bouchard as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Charlotte Bouchard in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked the Witness to state her name. The Witness stated her name to be- Charlotte Bouchard. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard by whom and what capacity she was employed. Mrs. Bouchard said she worked for Paging Network of Florida as an Accounting Manager. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard was formerly employed by the City of Tamarac. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Page 5 8/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard what her position was with the City of Tamarac. Mrs. Bouchard said she was an Accounting Supervisor for the Utilities Department. Attorney Whitelock asked when Mrs. Bouchard left the City of Tamarac. Mrs. Bouchard replied, June 15, 1988. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she was employed with the City at the time John Montalvo was employed with the City. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard what her relationship was with Mr. Montalvo if any. Mrs. Bouchard said Mr. Montalvo worked at City Hall as an Accounting Supervisor and she was the Accounting Supervisor of the Utilities Department. She said they worked very closely together, especially during the time that the City did not have a Finance Director. She said they were also friends at work. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she had an opinion of Mr. Montalvo's truth and veracity. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked what it was. Mrs. Bouchard said she thought Mr. Montalvo was a very truthful person. She said she has never known of any lies he was involved in and she considered him a very loyal, close friend. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard what she knew of Mr. Montalvo's involvement with other employees, including subordinates, in the City of Tamarac during his tenure with the City. Mrs. Bouchard said Mr. Montalvo was very well liked and a very nice guy. She said she never heard of any problems that he has had with anyone or anybody saying anything derogatory about him. She said his staff liked working for him and was very loyal to him. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard was required to keep abreast of the policies and procedures of the City as a Supervisor. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard was aware of a sexual harassment policy in effect during her tenure with the City. Mrs. Bouchard said she was not aware of any specific sexual harassment policy that the City of Tamarac had. She said she knew there were Federal Laws to protect people; however, she had no knowledge of anything the City had. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard ever saw a policy in the City of Tamarac. 1 n 1 Page 6 8/24/89 Mrs. Bouchard said she never saw or heard of one. She said she had a staff of 15 people; however, during the time she resigned, she had a staff of 10 people because the City switched meter readers over. She said she had many dealings of this type; however, not to this extreme. Attorney Whitelock asked if it would have been Mrs. Bouchard's responsibility as a Supervisor to have published any policy inaugurated or passed by the City. Mrs. Bouchard said there were bulletin boards in the Office and they would send flyers down requesting that they be posted. She said the flyers were standard type policies that were posted on bulletin boards. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she knew Elena Logan. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard how she knew Ms. Logan. Mrs. Bouchard said Ms. Logan worked in the Data Processing Department. She said in the beginning, most of her contact was over the telephone. She said all of the Utility Billing System, for which she was responsible was computerized and the majority of what Data Processing did was for Utilities. She said she had daily contact with Ms. Logan and the rest of the Data Processing staff. She said there was a point where they were going to take the meter reading system and make it a Utility function because it was very costly for the Computer Department. She said since she was in charge during that time, she would come to City Hall after 5:00 P.M. and work in Data Processing until 7:00 P.M. or 7:30 P.M. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard was referring to Data Processing when she stated Data Processing Mrs. Bouchard replied, right. Mrs. Bouchard said she would go to the Department after work because that was when they loaded the system. She said at this point, Ms. Logan was the one working on it. She said there were many nights, besides the telephone contacts and knowing Ms. Logan through the Department, that she and Ms. Logan would be together. She said sometimes Mr. Montalvo would be working late; however, mostly, it would be her and Ms. Logan. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard what, if any, relationship existed between Mrs. Bouchard and Ms. Logan and their work performance. Mrs. Bouchard said she was not impressed at all with Ms. Logan's work performance. Attorney Whitelock asked why. Mrs. Bouchard said she had, at points, complained. She said her staff was constantly complaining to her because they would call for Reports to be printed which were not being submitted. She said she would contact Ms. Logan who would state, "Oh, I forgot" or "Oh, I got busy". She said it got to the point that the majority of her staff needed the Reports. She said they used to come to her Page 7 8/24/89 stating that when they called Data Processing they asked for the other employees as opposed to Ms. Logan because they wanted to receive the Reports. She said when Ms. Logan would submit the Reports it was too late to process the Reports because they were wrong. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she had any conversations with Ms. Logan regarding her (Ms. Logan's) personal life. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes, mostly when she sat there. She said Ms. Logan spent more of the time discussing everything under the sun besides what they were actually doing. She said a lot of the work had to be run into the computer, which would take half an hour before the next step. She said the majority of the time Ms. Logan sat there and discussed all kinds of things. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard what, if anything, Ms. Logan told her about Ms. Logan's personal relationship. Mrs. Bouchard said at the time, Ms. Logan stated that she was living with someone. She said she believed it was an airline pilot, she was not sure; however, she remembered his name was Michael. She said Ms. Logan was informing her that they were breaking up and she (Ms. Logan) was not taking it well and that she (Ms. Logan) somehow thought it was because she was fat. She said Ms. Logan stated that she has gone on a 15 day orange diet and was only eating oranges. She said Ms. Logan stated there was this other guy, and she believed his name was John too, that was following her (Ms. Logan) around and she was afraid to leave at night because she knew she was being followed and that she knew he was madly in love with her. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard knew who this other man named John was that Ms. Logan was referring to. Mrs. Bouchard said she never met him and did not actually know who he was; however, she was aware that it was a man named John Ms. Logan used to work with or something and she (Ms. Logan) had left work there and said that he was constantly pursuing her and she was afraid of him. C/M Hoffman asked Attorney Rednor if all of this was relevant and Attorney Rednor indicated that it was not; however, he suggested the City Council allow Attorney Whitelock as much latitude as possible. Attorney Whitelock asked how Attorney Rednor would know if this information was relevant or not. He said the City Council was not even listening. Mayor Abramowitz said the remark was uncalled for because he was listening very carefully. Attorney Whitelock said he would like the record to reflect...he asked Mrs. Bouchard how many months pregnant she was. Mrs. Bouchard replied, 7 months. Attorney Whitelock asked how many times Mrs. Bouchard was waiting outside to testify. C/M Hoffman asked if this was relevant. Page 8 8/24/89 Attorney Whitelock replied, yes, but he thought the City Council should show her (Mrs. Bouchard) enough courtesy... C/M Hoffman said he was; however, he wanted to know what this had to do with... Attorney Whitelock said if C/M Hoffman would listen for five minutes, maybe he would find out. Mayor Abramowitz asked C/M Hoffman and Attorney Whitelock to refrain from arguing. He said he resented the fact that Attorney Whitelock stated that they were not listening. He said he was taking notes very carefully. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mayor Abramowitz took notes concerning conversations regarding "John". Mayor Abramowitz replied, absolutely, he heard everything she said including the oranges. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if Ms. Logan had conversation concerning a former employee that she had been living with. Mrs. Bouchard said Ms. Logan said she had dated someone, the man she believed was Michael. She said Ms. Logan informed her that she was afraid of him and that he was following her. She said Ms. Logan stated that she had worked with him and he was in a management position at her previous job. Attorney Whitelock asked what, if any, action was taken as a result of this. Mrs. Bouchard said Ms. Logan never said. She said Ms. Logan stated that she left and she was afraid of him. Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan ever reported the things she perceived as threats to anyone in the City of Tamarac. Mrs. Bouchard said not to her knowledge. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard was ever aware of Ms. Logan's relationship with Mr. Montalvo during this time frame. Mrs. Bouchard said at this point... Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard was aware that Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan had a relationship. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked when Mrs. Bouchard first learned of the relationship. Mrs. Bouchard said she asked Mr. Montalvo when she was in Data Processing those nights because Ms. Logan was extremely friendly towards him. She said she asked Mr. Montalvo if there was something going on because Ms. Logan would flirt him. She said Mr. Montalvo said no and, at that time, she was in graduate school for Business Law. She said the teacher requested that she do a paper on the ESM matter since she was an employee of Tamarac. She said Mr. Montalvo was aware of the matter and she collected the newspaper clippings from the City Page 9 8/24/89 and she went to Mr. Montalvo's apartment a couple of times at night because he was helping her get the information organized so she could write the paper. She said Ms. Logan would call Mr. Montalvo at night and ask him to come over. She said she did not hear Ms. Logan's side of the conversation; however, Mr. Montalvo said no, he was busy helping her (Mrs. Bouchard) with the paper. She said one night, Ms. Logan must have called two or three times and Mr. Montalvo informed her (Ms. Logan) that he had a lot of bills to catch up with and he could not really go over. She said Mr. Montalvo informed her after he hung up the telephone that Ms. Logan was always calling him and asking if they could go to lunch sometime. Attorney Whitelock asked when these conversations took place. Mrs. Bouchard said she was not exactly sure; however, the records could be reviewed to determine when she took the course. She said this was at the beginning of the relationship and she did not think that they were in a full relationship at this point. Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any other times that Mrs. Bouchard saw Ms. Logan having contact with Mr. Montalvo either off or at work. Mrs. Bouchard said at work. She said Ms. Logan would be in Mr. Montalvo's Office and she (Ms. Logan) would call when she was there. She said most of it she heard from Mr. Montalvo. She said John Cezard, who was very close to her and Mr. Montalvo, was very sick at the time. She said Mr. Montalvo would stop and pick up lunch during lunch time and bring it over and they would eat their lunch in the Purchasing Department with John Cezard and discuss what was going on in everyone's lives. Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any other time after working hours that Ms. Logan contacted Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Bouchard said when Mr. Montalvo was officially done for the day; however, everyone was still at work. She said she would be sitting in the computer room and Ms. Logan would go back to Mr. Montalvo's Office. Attorney Whitelock asked how often this occurred. Mrs. Bouchard said it happened quite a few times when she was there and she was there for a few weeks. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she was aware of the relationship between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan up until the time Mr. Montalvo was terminated. Mrs. Bouchard replied, sure, pretty much everything. Attorney Whitelock asked what Mrs. Bouchard knew of the relationship. Mrs. Bouchard said she knew that Mr. Montalvo was very serious, they (Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan) had gone away a lot. She said he helped Ms. Logan purchase a car and they were looking at a home because Ms. Logan did not like where she was living. She said Mr. Montalvo felt Page 10 8/24/89 that they needed a house to raise her (Ms. Logan's) son and he was going to sell his condominium to purchase the home. She said Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan were planning on becoming engaged. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she was aware of Mr. Montalvo sending Ms. Logan flowers prior to his suspension in January, 1988. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone else was aware of this. Mrs. Bouchard said most her staff may have known this and most of the Purchasing Department staff may have been aware. She said when everyone was around it was not a private conversation and they would be teasing Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Whitelock asked who teased Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Bouchard said she, John Cezard, Marilyn Holbrook, Bill Land, Shirley Kruger and some of her staff. She said Shirley Kruger called the Data Processing Department and she asked Ms. Logan if she received flowers. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo made any attempt to conceal the fact that he was sending Ms. Logan flowers. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard was aware that Mr. Montalvo was sending Ms. Logan any poetry. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes, Mr. Montalvo would write Ms. Logan letters. She said at one time, Mr. Montalvo informed her of what the letters said. She said Mr. Montalvo informed her that he did not sign the letters and she replied by stating, "John, you do not have to sign the letters, everybody knew it was you". Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard knew why Mr. Montalvo was doing this or did Mr. Montalvo ever explain it to her. Mrs. Bouchard said she believed that Mr. Montalvo really felt that he was in love with Ms. Logan and he did not understand why Ms. Logan suddenly ended the relationship; therefore, he was trying to win her back. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard ever explained to anyone in the City that Ms. Logan was pursuing Mr. Montalvo for a relationship and the incident with the flowers. Mrs. Bouchard said an Attorney came to her present work place and she explained all that to her. She said right after Mr. Montalvo was suspended, Larry Perretti came to the Office and spoke with John Cezard and then, into her Office when the subject of Mr. Montalvo came up. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard what, if any, conversation took place with the Attorney. Mrs. Bouchard asked, the City's Attorney? Page 11 8/24/89 Attorney Whitelock replied, yes. Mrs. Bouchard said the Attorney came to her Office because she heard that she (Mrs. Bouchard) was on the Witness list. She said during the entire conversation the Attorney kept stating how the women had to stick together. She said her opinion was that Mr. Montalvo did not do anything wrong, Ms. Logan was pretty flaky and the City did not act appropriately in firing Mr. Montalvo. She said the Attorney kept stating how the women had to stick together even though this was not as significant as other things that had occurred and been by-passed. Mrs. Bouchard said the Attorney kept stating that as women they had to band together and not allow helpless females in the office to be victims to men. She said the Attorney was very sexist. She informed that Attorney that as a professional woman, she did not feel that any of this was sexual harassment. She said the Attorney asked if she ever had flowers and poetry sent to her anonymously. She said she replied, yes, quite often because there was a Foreman from the Utilities Department that used to leave flowers in her office every day and she never took it that way. She said the Attorney stated that she (Mrs. Bouchard) was probably out in the world more and was a lot thicker skinned and that poor little Elena was helpless and a victim. She said she explained that, in her opinion, she did not think that Ms. Logan was this helpless little victim because she sure knew how to get Mr. Montalvo to buy a house and car for her as well as jump in bed with him to get what she wanted. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if anyone directly or indirectly conveyed that Mr. Montalvo had sexually harassed them. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no, not at all. She said she thought everyone protected Mr. Montalvo, especially his staff and the older women, like he was their son. She said she would say that Mr. Montalvo was probably one of the most reserved, conservative of the group. She said a lot of the group were more kidders and jokers and Mr. Montalvo was more proper. She said if anything, the group teased him about being conservative and proper as opposed to being more forward. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard ever knew Mr. Montalvo to treat both sexes equally. Mrs. Bouchard said Mr. Montalvo would open the door for her; however, he may not have opened the door for Attorney Whitelock. She said Mr. Montalvo was a gentleman to women. She said they would go to seminars and Mr. Montalvo would jump out and open the door for her. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard knew Mr. Montalvo to offend anyone. Mrs. Bouchard said not to her knowledge. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever conducted himself in such a fashion to use negative behavior as to gain attention to himself. Mrs. Bouchard replied, never. Page 12 8/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo would do things outlandish to draw or attract attention to himself. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever used his Supervisory position to make others feel uncomfortable in his presence. Mrs. Bouchard said not to her knowledge. Attorney Whitelock asked how Mr. Montalvo acted in that fashion. Mrs. Bouchard said Mr. Montalvo was very professional and serious about his job. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she ever saw Mr. Montalvo flirt for recreational purposes with anyone. Mrs. Bouchard said no, not in the City. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Bouchard felt that Mr. Montalvo would try to get even with someone if they tried to put him on the spot. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no, Mr. Montalvo was more your best friend, probably too good of a friend, in her opinion. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was the type of person that listened rather than stating his opinion. Mrs. Bouchard replied, sure. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever made any off colored comments, remarks or jokes in the presence of a male or female. Mrs. Bouchard said not that she was aware of. She said Mr. Montalvo never did in front of her. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she ever knew of Mr. Montalvo using profane language. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever made any jokes in the presence of anyone.. Mrs. Bouchard said sometimes it seemed that Mr. Montalvo did not even want to laugh when someone else told jokes. Tape 2 Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was the type of individual that went around making crude or off colored jokes. Mrs. Bouchard said not at all. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she said that Mr. Montalvo was a very loyal close friend. Page 13 8/24/89 Mrs. Bouchard said if she was stuck in Miami in the middle of the night and she called Mr. Montalvo, he would probably come and get her. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard how long she knew Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Bouchard said she started with the City in January, 1985, and she originally worked in City Hall with Mr. Montalvo. She said Mr. Montalvo worked in the Payroll Department and her desk was right outside. She said she was originally over there approximately 2 months. Attorney ;Ruf 77 asked Mrs. Bouchard if her contacts since January, 1985, with Mr. Montalvo were solely business contacts. Mrs. Bouchard said she and Mr. Montalvo used to go to a lot of seminars together. She said they were both going to graduate school together and there were various functions, such as picnics, that she attended and Mr. Montalvo was present. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she saw or talked with Mr. Montalvo since he left the City in January, 1988. Mrs. Bouchard replied, sure, they have had lunch. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if they had contact once per month, once per week... Mrs. Bouchard said she guessed once per month. She said she did not get along too much anymore. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard when she saw Mr. Montalvo last before today. Mrs. Bouchard said during this week, someone from A.-L. Williams was down from Virginia and they were looking for people to get into an investment brokerage. She said Mr. Montalvo contacted her and brought a woman down to her office to discuss some things with her. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she saw Mr. Montalvo this week. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she met with Attorney Whitelock to discuss her testimony today. Mrs. Bouchard replied, this morning. Attorney Ruf asked how long Mrs. Bouchard met with Attorney Whitelock. Mrs. Bouchard said she arrived at 8:00 A.M. and Attorney Whitelock arrived at approximately 8:20 A.M. She said maybe 20 minutes. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard what position she started with in the City in January, 1985. Mrs. Bouchard said when she became employed with the City, one of the Fiscal Assistants was out on disability. She said she applied for the Paymaster position and a few days later the Personnel Director contacted her Page 14 O 8/24/89 regarding a temporary position being available. She said the City wanted to bring an Accountant in and she was asked if she was interested in taking the position until an Accounting position was available. She said the Fiscal Assistant had problems because he punched someone up against a water cooler and the City had to get him out of there quickly. She said Dan Salle, who was the Deputy Finance Director, called her into his Office and asked if she would go over to the Department. Attorney Ruf asked when this occurred. Mrs. Bouchard said this must have been by March. She said all of this occurred within one or two months. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she was a Supervisor when she went over to the Utilities Department in March, 1985. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard who she Supervised. Mrs. Bouchard said she Supervised the Billing staff and a field crew. Attorney Ruf said Mrs. Bouchard became a Supervisor after two months of employment with the City and he asked how many people she Supervised. Mrs. Bouchard said approximately 14. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she continued Supervising these people until she withdrew from the City's employment. Mrs. Bouchard said at one point, in October, they were having a hard time with the meter readers and she went to the City Manager regarding the difficulty in keeping track of the field operation when she was in an Office Management position. She said it was decided at that time that the crew would be switched to the Utilities Department where they would have a Foreman in the field. She said she Supervised only the Office staff. Attorney Ruf asked how many people this was. Mrs. Bouchard replied, approximately 9. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she was located in City Hall when she was a Supervisor. Mrs. Bouchard said she was located at the Utilities Department. Attorney Ruf said Mrs. Bouchard mentioned that policies and procedures were sent to the Utilities Department from City Hall and they were placed on the bulletin board. Mrs. Bouchard said James O'Brien used to post different signs and posters on a big bulletin board in the Utilities Department. Attorney Ruf asked if Mr. O'Brien would post Personnel Policies on the bulletin board. Mrs. Bouchard said all kinds of things. Page 15 8/24/89 Attorney Ruf said Mrs. Bouchard seemed to state that policies were posted on the bulletin boards. Mrs. Bouchard said different safety things, all kinds of things. She said it was not real neat. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she was responsible as the Supervisor to interpret the Personnel Policies of the City. Mrs. Bouchard said no one said, "Give these to Charlotte and she is to read them and convey them to her staff and post them She said they would appear on the bulletin board and she never questioned Mr. O'Brien. Attorney Ruf asked if Mrs. Bouchard ever discussed Personnel Policies with her staff. Mrs. Bouchard said in a Supervisory position for several years, she had one on one incidents and problems. She said she went to Larry Perretti's Office to discuss things. She said at one point, when she first started, one of the meter readers, who she thought may have been South American, went to the Personnel Department and stated that she (Mrs. Bouchard) was prejudiced against her because she was a foreigner. She said she was called in for harassing the person because she did not speak English. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if, as a Supervisor, did she did spend time discussing Personnel Policies with her staff. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no, basically she did not get too involved in anything. She said her entire staff was in the Union and, for any dealings they had, they would meet with the Personnel Director. She said it was not a routine thing to sit down and go over anything with them. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she knew specifically what Personnel Policies may have been posted on the bulletin board. Mrs. Bouchard said she would say that the Policies were general. She said she had Policies posted in her existing Office, such as Workers' Compensation posters and Equal Employment Opportunity Posters. She said most businesses had standard posters posted. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she knew for certain that were no posted Policies on sexual harassment. Mrs. Bouchard said there was a Policy that came out afterward. She said after the incident with Mr. Montalvo, there were Policies hung on the bulletin board. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she knew if there were any Policies on the Board before. Mrs. Bouchard said she could pretty much ... she said she could say that they were not there before. She said the bulletin board could be used for everything and they would clean it up and throw it out. She said she knew that after that incident, she had all kind of Policies posted on the bulletin board. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she was sure there was nothing posted on the board. Page 16 1 8/24/89 Attorney Whitelock objected to the question being repetitive. Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Ruf to continue. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she was sure that there were no sexual harassment Policies posted on the board before Mr. Montalvo's incident. Mrs. Bouchard replied, pretty sure. She said she would not bet her baby on it; however, she was pretty sure they were not. Attorney Ruf said Mrs. Bouchard discussed a relationship between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan and he asked if Mrs. Bouchard knew when this occurred. Mrs. Bouchard said it was through the summer and they had gone away for a couple of weeks. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard what summer this was. Mrs. Bouchard said it had to be two years ago. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard if she knew when it began. He asked Mrs. Bouchard when she was in the computer room at 7:30 F.M. Mrs. Bouchard said she could check the exact dates; however, she did not have them on her. She said the City of Tamarac did pay for her course; therefore, she could walk over to the Accounting Department and get the information. Attorney Ruf said he did not want anyone to walk anywhere; however, he wondered what Mrs. Bouchard could recall. Mrs. Bouchard said she knew she was taking Business Law in Graduate School at the time and it was over the summer. Attorney Ruf asked, Summer of 1987? Mrs. Bouchard said she could check when she took the course if Attorney Ruf would like. Attorney Ruf said it was around the summer of 1987 and he asked if Mrs. Bouchard knew when the relationship terminated. Mrs. Bouchard said she knew it was before Christmas because Mr. Montalvo had sent a teddy bear at Christmas. Attorney Ruf said Mrs. Bouchard indicated that a Foreman sent her flowers and he asked if this Foreman was Mrs. Bouchard's Supervisor. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Ruf asked if Mrs. Bouchard was the Foreman's Supervisor. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Ruf asked if it was a lateral relationship. Page 17 0 Wm :• Mrs. Bouchard said she would say that she was higher up than the Foreman. Attorney Ruf said Mrs. Bouchard was not the Foreman's Supervisor nor was the Foreman her Supervisor. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Ruf said that Mrs. Bouchard stated that Mr. Montalvo bought a Mrs. Bouchard said car Mr. and a house for Ms. Logan. Montalvo was buying a house. She said Mr. Montalvo had co -signed for a car because Ms. Logan could not get a car. She said they were looking for houses and Mr. Montalvo was in the process of putting his condominium up for sale. Attorney Ruf asked if Mr. Montalvo bought a car for Ms. Logan. Mrs. Bouchard said Mr. Montalvo co -signed for the car, he did not buy the car. Attorney Ruf asked if Mr. Montalvo bought a house for Ms. Logan. Mrs. Bouchard said they never got to that point. She said they were in the process of becoming engaged and they were looking at houses. She said Mr. Montalvo was going to put his condominium up for sale. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Bouchard what her opinion was of Ms. Logan. Mrs. Bouchard said she used to describe her as kind of in the ozones. C/M Hoffman asked what this was. Mrs. Bouchard said in the ozones. She said kind of flighty or flaky. Mayor Abramowitz said he did not understand what ozones meant. Mrs. Bouchard asked, the ozones? Mayor Abramowitz replied, yes, maybe it was the age difference. Mrs. Bouchard said very flaky, not stable. She asked if Mayor Abramowitz knew what flaky meant. Mayor Abramowitz replied, yes, he understood flaky and stable. Attorney Ruf asked if Ms. Logan was anyone that Mrs. Bouchard would seek out as a friend. Mrs. Bouchard replied, not at all. Attorney Ruf had no further questions. At 10:00 A.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED the meeting and RECONVENED at 10:10 A.M. with ALL PRESENT. Attorney Whitelock redirected questions to Mrs. Bouchard. Page 18 8/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard for her marital status. Mrs. Bouchard said she was married. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard how long she has been married. Mrs. Bouchard replied, three years in December. Attorney Whitelock said Mrs. Bouchard indicated that her relationship with Mr. Montalvo was loyal and close. He asked Mrs. Bouchard if she ever had any romantic involvement with Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. She said Mr. Montalvo has been to her house for Christmas dinner which included her husband and her family. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if Mr. Montalvo made any advances towards her during their working or personal relationship. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she knew anyone, including females outside of Ms. Logan, that disliked Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone made any unfavorable comments about Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she knew of any females that made any comments, connected with the City or otherwise. He asked if anyone made a comment that Mr. Montalvo has acted in any inappropriate fashion. Mrs. Bouchard replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if Mr. Montalvo was doing something at the time the initial contact took place. Attorney Ruf objected for clarification of whose initial contact. Attorney Whitelock said with Ms. Logan. He said during the cross examination, Mrs. Bouchard testified to the time frame of the initial contact when Ms. Logan made the telephone calls to Mr. Montalvo. He said Mrs. Bouchard was working on a paper. Mrs. Bouchard agreed. Attorney Whitelock asked if there was anything else going on in the City at this time. He asked Mrs. Bouchard if she could relate anything else in terms of the time. Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock to be more specific. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was involved in any particular project with the City. Page 19 8/24/89 Mrs. Bouchard said Mr. Montalvo worked on several projects for the City. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she recalled Mr. Montalvo working on any particular project with the City. Mrs. Bouchard said they were probably preparing for the Budget and Audit around that time of the year. Attorney Whitelock asked if this would have been in January or February, 1987. Mrs. Bouchard said the City prepared for the Budget over the summer. Attorney Whitelock said he was referring to the time that the relationship first commenced with the telephone calls from Ms. Logan. He asked Mrs. Bouchard if she recalled when this took place. Mrs. Bouchard said she did not understand. Attorney Whitelock asked if there was a time when Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan were living together. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes, kind of. Attorney Whitelock asked if this was over the summer of 1987. Mrs. Bouchard replied, right. Attorney Ruf objected to Attorney Whitelock testifying when this occurred. He said he asked Mrs. Bouchard when this was and she said the summer of 1987. Mayor Abramowitz said he was confused and he asked Attorney Whitelock to rephrase the question. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she knew when Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan were going together and living together. Mrs. Bouchard said over the summer they had gone away a few times like the Fourth of July weekend. Attorney Whitelock said the initial telephone calls when Ms. Logan... Mrs. Bouchard said this was before that. Attorney Whitelock asked how much time prior to this did the telephone calls and after work contacts occur. Mrs. Bouchard said it had to be over a month or so. She said they were not, to her knowledge, going out at the time Ms. Logan was calling there. Attorney Whitelock replied, exactly. Mrs. Bouchard asked if this was what Attorney Whitelock was asking her. Attorney Whitelock replied, yes. Mrs. Bouchard said by the summer, they were going away and doing things together. Page 20 8/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked at the time of the initial contacts, when she was present and Mr. Montalvo was helping her with the paper, if Mrs. Bouchard had any comments to Mr. Montalvo concerning his potential relationship with Ms. Logan. Mrs. Bouchard replied, sure, she always had comments. She said she asked Mr. Montalvo what was going on and Mr. Montalvo indicated that Ms. Logan had asked if he wanted to have lunch. She said from the conversation that she and Mr. Montalvo had, Ms. Logan informed Mr. Montalvo of this guy following her. She said Mr. Montalvo informed her that Ms. Logan did not know what to do and she was afraid and she had been calling him. She said at that point, to her knowledge, Mr. Montalvo was not interested in getting involved. Attorney Whitelock asked if they were dating at this time. Mrs. Bouchard said not to her knowledge. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Bouchard if she had any advice for Mr. Montalvo concerning his potential relationship with Ms. Logan. Mrs. Bouchard replied, yes, she told him to stay away from her. Attorney Whitelock asked, why? Mrs. Bouchard said because she thought Ms. Logan was flaky. Attorney Whitelock and Attorney Ruf had no further questions of Mrs. Bouchard. Attorney Whitelock called Lydia Montalvo as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mrs. Montalvo in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked the Witness to state her name. Mrs. Montalvo replied, Lydia Montalvo. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Montalvo what her relationship was to John Montalvo, if any. Mrs. Montalvo replied that she was his mother. Attorney Whitelock said he would be directing Mrs. Montalvo's attention back to 1987, during the approximate time when Mr. Montalvo was suspended from his employment with the City. He asked Mrs. Montalvo if she was aware of Mr. Montalvo's relationship with Elena Logan. Mrs. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Montalvo how she became aware of the relationship. Mrs. Montalvo said Ms. Logan came to her house and she babysat for Ms. Logan's son because they were very close. She said Ms. Logan would come on Fridays and they wanted Page 21 8/24/89 to go away and she babysat for them. She said she placed a roll -a -bed next to her bed and the boy slept there because she did not want him to sleep with her and her husband. She said she was very close to him and she spent a lot of weekends with the boy. She said she loved him very much and she used to buy clothes and shoes for him. Attorney Whitelock asked how long this relationship existed. Mrs. Montalvo said for a long time. She said they were practically living together at the time. Attorney Whitelock said during the time, Mrs. Montalvo stated that the boy would come and stay with her. Mrs. Montalvo replied, yes. She said she bought special ice cream and cookies for him. She said he called her grandma. Attorney Whitelock asked how he referred to Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Montalvo said he called him (Mr. Montalvo) daddy and he was very close and attached to him. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Montalvo if she ever had conversation with Ms. Logan concerning the relationship with Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Montalvo replied, yes, they were making plans, that She wanted to get married and she wanted him to sell the condominium so they could buy a house together. She said Ms. Logan told her that when they got married she (Ms. Logan) would like to have more kids. She said Ms. Logan indicated that she did not want to work when she had the kids so she could be home with them. She said Ms. Logan was part of the family and she treated Ms. Logan like she was her daughter. She said Ms. Logan was very happy that she was treating her and her son so good. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Montalvo if Ms. Logan ever informed her about her (Ms. Logan's) personal background. Mrs. Montalvo replied, no; however, Ms. Logan indicated that she was lonely and she was very happy she met Mr. Montalvo. She said Ms. Logan was happy to be like the family now because even her daughters treated Ms. Logan like another sister. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Montalvo if she was ever aware during this time frame of Ms. Logan making any complaints about Mr. Montalvo to the affect that Mr. Montalvo had mistreated her or done anything to her. Mrs. Montalvo replied, never. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Montalvo if she recalled the period of time that this occurred, how long it continued, when Mrs. Montalvo began taking care of Ms. Logan's son and when Mrs. Montalvo no longer took care of Ms. Logan's son. Page 22 3/24/89 Mrs. Montalvo said she was taking care of the boy practically all summer. She said Ms. Logan used to come on Fridays with the excuse that the boy wanted to stay with her and she wanted to go out with Mr. Montalvo. She said she would take care of the boy. She said she loved the boy. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Montalvo if she was referring to two or three months by stating "all summer". Mrs. Montalvo said they went away for a long weekend. Attorney Ruf asked what weekend this was. Mrs. Montalvo said this was around May. Attorney Ruf asked if it was the Memorial Day weekend. Mrs. Montalvo replied, yes. She said they went away and every Friday Ms. Logan used to come to her house and during the week Ms. Logan used to have dinner with the family. Attorney Ruf asked if this started on Memorial Day. Mrs. Montalvo said she did not recall if it was on Memorial Day. She said she never thought that they would finish this way. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Montalvo if she was aware of when Ms. Logan stopped bringing her son on weekends. Mrs. Montalvo said Ms. Logan stopped coming to her house and she was not aware that they had any disagreements because she came with the boy to her (Mrs. Montalvo's) house. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Montalvo if she knew when Ms. Logan stopped bringing her son to stay weekends at Mrs. Montalvo's house. Mrs. Montalvo said she can not remember when this occurred. Attorney Ruf asked if this was at the end of the summer, Labor Day weekend. Mrs. Montalvo said she did not remember, exactly; however, Ms. Logan used to come every weekend, every Friday. She said one Friday she informed Ms. Logan that she was going away so she did not bring the boy to the house. She said every Friday she had to take care of the boy and, sometimes, Ms. Logan would come on Sundays. Attorney Ruf asked if it lasted until Christmas. He asked if it went from Memorial Day until Christmas, the end of the ye at . Mrs. Montalvo replied, yes, about to the end of the year. She said Ms. Logan informed her that she had no one else to leave her son with. She said she was glad to take care of him. Attorney Ruf asked if Ms. Logan spent Christmas with her that year. Page 23 8/24/89 Mrs. Montalvo replied, no, Ms. Logan did not spend Christmas with her. Attorney Ruf asked if Ms. Logan spent Thanksgiving with the her that year. Mrs. Montalvo replied, no. She said Ms. Logan and the boy called her during that time. She said a lot of times the boy called her on the telephone and said, "Grandma". She said he needed a lot of love and attention and he got that with her. She said she was very sorry that it happened. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Montalvo when she last spoke with Ms. Logan. Mrs. Montalvo said she could not remember exactly. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. Montalvo if she remembered when she last spoke to the little boy. Mrs. Montalvo said time went so fast she has forgotten. She said she was so used to seeing him at her house and he was part of the family. Attorney Ruf had no further questions of Mrs. Montalvo. ------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Whitelock said he would like to read into the record a Deposition of John Patrick Ceraolo, who was a Witness to appear on Mr. Montalvo's behalf. Mayor Abramowitz asked if copies could be made of the Deposition and Attorney Whitelock submitted the Deposition for copy. Attorney Whitelock called John P. Kelly, City Manger, as a Witness. Mr. Kelly was previously sworn in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Kelly to state his name and title for the record. Mr. Kelly stated his name to be John P. Kelly, City Manager of the City of Tamarac. Attorney Whitelock exhibited a document dated January 25, 1988, and he asked if this was the notice sent to John Montalvo regarding his suspension and ultimate dismissal. City Manager Kelly replied that it was. Attorney Whitelock exhibited evaluation reports for Mr. Montalvo that commenced in January, 1984, through his last evaluation. Attorney Whitelock offered these documents into evidence as a Composite Exhibit which were marked as "Montalvo 6". Attorney Whitelock asked if these documents were photo documents for Mr. Montalvo's work performance in the City of Tamarac. Page 24 J/24/89 City Manager Kelly said he would have to accept that they were. He said he did not know otherwise, there may be more or less. He did not know. Attorney Ruf suggested City Manager Kelly take time to look at the documents. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the documents could be substantiated as factual evidence. Attorney Whitelock said he requested these records from the City. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the documents could be reviewed by the City Council. Attorney Whitelock replied, yes. City Manager Kelly said the documents were copies of employee evaluation forms signed by Mr. Montalvo and the appropriate City officials. He asked who the City Manager was at that time. Attorney Ruf replied, Laura Stuurmans. City Manager Kelly asked who the Department Head was at that time. Attorney Whitelock replied, John Cezard. City Manager Kelly said the documents were dated from April, 1984, through May, 1986. Attorney Whitelock replied, correct, these were the documents supplied to him with City Manager Kelly's correspondence of June, 1988. City Manager Kelly asked, which request? Attorney Whitelock said pursuant to the Public Records request which was made. City Manager Kelly said he was going to accept this; however, he did not know that. Attorney Ruf objected to the documents form of relevancy. Mayor Abramowitz asked what the objection was for. Attorney Ruf said he was holding in his hand the employee probation reports dated April, 1984, June, 1984, employee performance rating from February, 1984 to August, 1984. C/M Stelzer asked who they were on. Attorney Ruf replied, Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Ruf said the documents also contained the employee performance ratings from March, 1984, to September, 1984, a Supervisor performance appraisal and Development Plan dated January, 1985, another City of Tamarac Development Plan dated January, 1984, a Supervisory performance appraisal and Development Plan dated April, 1985, a Supervisory performance appraisal and Development Plan dated March, 1985, a Supervisory performance appraisal and Development Plan dated April, 1986. Page 25 ,'/24/89 Attorney Ruf said he was objecting to relevancy to the incidents which occurred in the summer of 1987. He said there were no performance reports for that period of time. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Attorney Ruf felt that the documents had nothing to do with what happened in 1987. Attorney Ruf said the last evaluation for Mr. Montalvo was dated April, 1986. He said this was approximately 17 months prior to the incidents which were the subject of the Hearing. He said he did not believe they were relevant and he was sure Attorney Whitelock would have a retort or response. Attorney Whitelock said he felt it was relevant because any factor in mitigation as well as the reports themselves were to be considered at the time of the imposition of any penalty. He said the framework the discipline was meted out pursuant to the Rules which ran in a range of nothing to an oral reprimand to discharge. He said in consideration, the determination was as to whether or not the charges have been sustained and, if they had been sustained, whether or not the discipline was proper. Mayor Abramowitz asked why the reports ended in April, 1986. Attorney Whitelock said these were the only documents supplied to him because there were not other documents after 1986. Mayor Abramowitz allowed the documents to be entered into the record as evidence. Attorney Whitelock said if there were other documents available, he would be glad to receive them. He said he made a request and these documents were supplied to him. Attorney Whitelock exhibited a composite exhibit which was marked "Montalvo 8". He said this evidence was part of the Personnel file supplied to him as part of the request. Mayor Abramowitz asked if all of the Personnel reviews were done by John Cezard. Attorney Whitelock replied, no. Mr. Montalvo said some of the reviews were done by Steve Wood and Dan Salle. Attorney Ruf said Attorney Whitelock was submitting a group of documents into evidence. He said the documents were a composite of information dated from March, April, May and June, 1986, the latest being February 4, 1987. He said the documents indicated from various persons appreciation of Mr. Montalvo's work efforts on behalf of the City of Tamarac. He said he did not believe the documents were relevant to the Case. Mayor Abramowitz asked who created these documents. Attorney Ruf said one was a certificate dated June, 1986, indicating that Mr. Montalvo completed a 6 hour training course in stress management. He said there was a letter from Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, thanking the Finance Director and, particularly Sylvia Ilgovsky and John Montalvo, for their quick and diligent assistance over Page 26 V'"/24/89 d TAPE 3 the past ten days, dated April, 1986. He said this may have pertained to the ESM matter. He said there were memorandums, dated March and May, 1986, indicating that Mr. Montalvo was to receive a raise, special merit increase and a letter from Larry Ferretti to Mr. Montalvo congratulating him for getting a new telephone system into the City. He said he did not know how these documents were relevant to this case. Mayor Abramowitz allowed this information to be entered into evidence. Attorney Whitelock exhibited a document dated June 29, 1988, submitted to City Manager Kelly by Attorney Whitelock. He asked City Manager Kelly if he recalled receiving the documentation. This document was marked "Montalvo 9". City Manager Kelly reviewed the documents. Attorney Whitelock asked if City Manager Kelly recalled receiving the correspondence. City Manager Kelly replied, yes. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the letters were submitted to City Manager Kelly by Attorney Whitelock. Attorney Whitelock said there were two letters submitted, the first one was a request for documents and the other was the acknowledgement of the receipt of the documents. The second letter was marked as "Montalvo 10". Attorney Whitelock asked if, as City Manager and pursuant to Section 42 of the Personnel Manual, City Manager Kelly had the authority to issue an oral reprimand or a dismissal for any alleged infraction. City Manager Kelly said this was his understanding. Attorney Whitelock asked if there was not a progressive disciplinary code existing in the City of Tamarac at the time of Mr. Montalvo's suspension and/or termination. City Manager Kelly asked, no progressive code? Attorney Whitelock said a progressive disciplinary code provided steps for reprimand before suspension or termination. City Manager Kelly said there were no formal steps. Attorney Whitelock exhibited Sections of the Personnel Manual. He said Section 42, Dismissal, can only be predicated on one or more of the listed offenses. He submitted the list for City Manager Kelly to review. He said at the time of Mr. Montalvo's suspension and/or termination from the City, these were the only causes that were existing for reasons of dismissal. City Manager Kelly said the Section provided for the causes for dismissal allowing the City Manager, on a recommendation of the Department Head or on his own initiative, to provide for dismissal based on the following. He said it began with, "Although a dismissal Page 27 9/24/89 may be based on other causes, any one or more of the following shall be sufficient." He said the list included a variety of charges. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the list was the only criteria for dismissal. Attorney Whitelock replied, no. He said he was asking City Manager Kelly if the items in the Personnel Manual were the only items that dismissal could be based on. City Manager Kelly replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if there was another Section that referred to dismissal. City Manager Kelly said the Section referred to the general term in the beginning. He said the provision in the beginning stated, "Although dismissal may be based on other causes, the following shall be...". Attorney Whitelock submitted Sections 42 and 43 as a composite Exhibit. Attorney Ruf said he did not see the Page numbers on these documents. Attorney Whitelock submitted the entire Personnel Manual into evidence which was marked "Montalvo 11". He said this Personnel Manual existed at the time of Mr. Montalvo's dismissal; however, there was a revised Personnel Manual implemented shortly after Mr. Montalvo's dismissal. He said the amended Personnel Manual was presently in evidence. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Attorney Ruf would review the documents to see that they were, in fact, the Pages in the Personnel Manual. Attorney Ruf said the date of issue was July 22, 1981. He said he did not know if there were any changes in the Personnel Manual during 1981 and 1988. Attorney Whitelock said there was previous testimony to this matter; however, he would place the entire Personnel Manual into evidence. He said if Attorney Ruf found another Manual that was different, it should have been submitted to him. He said this Manual was supplied to him pursuant to his request. Attorney Ruf said the documents were in the Personnel Manual dated July 22, 1981. Mayor Abramowitz asked if there was anything changed in the Personnel Manuals. Attorney Whitelock replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked City Manager Kelly if there were any other enunciated rules and regulations, other than the amendment of the Personnel Manual in February, 1988, subsequent to Mr. Montalvo's termination. City Manager Kelly replied, no. He said this did not mean that there were none; however, he was not aware of any. Page 28 9/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked City Manager Kelly if he was aware of any other evaluation reports on Mr. Montalvo besides the ones presently in evidence. City Manager Kelly replied, no, there were no written evaluations. Attorney Whitelock asked City Manager Kelly to review the evaluations for Mr. Montalvo and note if there was anything indicating that Mr. Montalvo was given anything other than an outstanding or above average evaluation for his courtesy towards other employees. City Manager Kelly said the documents were predated before his employment with the City. He said this was the first time he saw the documents; therefore, he did not know this. Attorney Whitelock said the documents spoke for themselves and he asked City Manager Kelly if he was aware of anything other than what was contained in the documents indicating Mr. Montalvo18 outstanding performance. He asked City Manager Kelly if he was aware of any negative comments or less than outstanding comments. City Manager Kelly said negative comment, yes, but not in a formal evaluation form. Attorney Whitelock asked City Manager Kelly what Mr. Montalvo's position was prior to his termination. City Manager Kelly said he was not sure. He said Mr. Montalvo was in a Supervisory capacity in the Finance Department. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was given or considered for any other position during City Manager Kelly's tenure. City Manager Kelly said he was personally looking for more advancement from Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was ever considered for any other Supervisory position. City Manager Kelly said he did not think so. Attorney Whitelock asked if there was ever a Finance Director position available during City Manager Kelly's tenure. City Manager Kelly replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was considered for this position. City Manager Kelly said as an In -House courtesy, there was some consideration; however, realistically, he was looking outside of the City to fill this position. Attorney Whitelock said he understood City Manager Kelly's ultimate decision and he asked if Mr. Montalvo ever acted as the Finance Director during this time. City Manager Kelly said he did not know if Mr. Montalvo was formally charged; however, he helped carry the ball. He said Bob Hoyt, Deputy Finance Director, and Mr. Page 29 8/24/89 Montalvo were working together. He said Mr. Hoyt was not interested in the Finance Director position; however, he volunteered to assist Mr. Montalvo in a Supervisory capacity until the City found,a Finance Director to fill the position. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo's primary drawback was that he was too young for the position. He asked if City Manager Kelly was looking for somebody more mature and experienced. City Manager Kelly replied, exactly. Attorney Whitelock said the consideration of Mr. Montalvo filling the Finance Director had nothing to do with his abilities but his lack of experience and age. City Manager Kelly said experience was a reflection on ability too, it came with it. He said Mr. Montalvo was too green at this point to be able to be considered seriously for the position. He said he was trying to groom Mr. Montalvo to be in a better position for the coming years. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions of City Manager Kelly. Attorney Ruf had no questions. Attorney Whitelock offered into the record the Deposition of John Patrick Ceraolo. This document was marked "Montalvo 7". Attorney Whitelock said everyone was given a copy and he would prefer to offer the document into evidence as opposed to reading it. Attorney Ruf objected to the relevancy of Mr. Ceraolo's testimony. He said the only way this could be ruled was to read the Deposition into the record. He said either Attorney Whitelock could read the Deposition into the record and he would object to each question asked or, Attorney Whitelock could read the Deposition and he would make a blanket objection which Mayor Abramowitz could rule on. He said it would not take more than 10 minutes to read. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Attorney Ruf could object to the Deposition after the City Council read it. Attorney Ruf said if the City Council took the time to read the Deposition, he would make an objection as to relevancy. Mayor Abramowitz asked why Attorney Ruf objected. Attorney Ruf said Mr. Ceraolo testified primarily about having a personal relationship with Ms. Logan prior to Mr. Montalvo's relationship with Ms. Logan. He said Mr. Ceraolo testified that he saw Ms. Logan only once during Mr. Montalvo's relationship with her and he (Mr. Ceraolo) never saw her again after Labor Day, 1987. He said this had nothing to do with the incidents of the Case. Mayor Abramowitz said he would like the City Council to read the documents. 1 1 1 Page 30 0`/24/89 At 11:00 A.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and RECONVENED at 11:10.A.M. with ALL PRESENT. Attorney Ruf said Attorney Whitelock was attempting to introduce the Deposition into evidence so that it would become a part of those things which the City Council would review in making their final determination. He said presumably, Mr. Ceraolo could not attend the meeting because he planned an out -of -State trip to Colorado. He said the thrust of the direct --examination by Attorney Whitelock was a discussion of what Mr. Ceraolo knew about Ms. Logan's history, where she came from and about her family. He said the Deposition indicated the fact that Mr. Ceraolo and Ms. Logan had a romance/relationship which started in December, 1986 and continued until Memorial Day, 1987. He said things became rocky in March, 1987, and, at the time of their relationship, Ms. Logan was living with another man, Michael Samone. He said he did not see what relevance this had to any of the incidents being discussed at this Hearing. Attorney Whitelock said pursuant to the Civil Rules and trial procedures, where a Witness was unavailable for a trial or hearing, testimony could be perpetuated through the use of Deposition. He said in this Case, Attorney Ruf's Office was notified that this Witness would be unavailable and the only time he would agree to testify was on a Saturday through a Deposition. He said Mr. Ceraolo's Deposition was scheduled on Saturday morning and the Deposition indicated that Mr. Ceraolo would not be available for the Hearing. He said he established the fact that Mr. Ceraolo would be in the State of Colorado which was more than 100 miles beyond the geographical limits of Fort Lauderdale. He said no where during the Deposition, except one place, was an objection made. He said if an objection was to be preserved, it should have been during the Deposition. He said if there is an objection as to form, etc., it would have given him an opportunity to evaluate the objection as to whether it was noteworthy and could phrase and elicit testimony in another fashion. He said no objection was ever made, expect one, concerning Ms. Logan's past. He said his argument would be that it was relevant and he disagreed with Attorney Ruf's contention. He said it goes to the character and credibility of Ms. Logan and also acted as impeachment. He said it provided for the City Council to see Ms. Logan in another light ;regarding her relationship with another man during the same time that she was coexisting with him, another man and Mr. Montalvo. He said there was testimony that the relationship terminated in May, 1987, which may be true; however, it erupted once again as soon as Mr. Montalvo went on vacation. He said Ms. Logan had Mr. Ceraolo come over and spend the night with her. He said there would be further testimony regarding Ms. Logan's habits during this time. He said this was one piece of the pie, so to speak. He said this was extremely relevant to Mr. Montalvo's Case; however, it may not be relevant to the City's Case. He said it also went to Ms. Logan's character and questioned whether or not it constituted impeachable material. Mayor Abramowitz said at the beginning of the proceedings he stated for the record that he was not an Attorney or Judge. He said he went by his common sense and he read the Deposition. He said he felt he was hearing the Case to judge the relevancy of the dismissal of Mr. Montalvo by the City being done properly. He said there had been Page 31 g/24/89 testimony on both sides regarding the character of Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan and he would not have stopped Mr. Ceraolo from testifying. He said there were certain things in the Deposition that he felt were prejudicial and had no bearing on this Case. He ruled that the Deposition not be placed into evidence. Attorney Whitelock asked if all of the testimony would not be allowed. After conferring with Attorney Rednor, Mayor Abramowitz said he would be discarding the Deposition in its entirety. Attorney Whitelock said he would like the Deposition marked for the record and he asked if Mayor Abramowitz was saying that none of the Deposition was relevant to the issue, credibility or impeachment. Mayor Abramowitz said he ruled that the Deposition would not be allowed to be introduced as evidence. Attorney Ruf said the Deposition could not be marked as evidence. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mayor Abramowitz was indicating that the testimony or the document could not be presented. Mayor Abramowitz said as it was presented to him, the entire testimony was being rejected. Attorney Whitelock said the testimony was being rejected and riot the use of the Exhibit. Mayor Abramowitz said he was objecting to the form and content. Attorney Ruf asked if Mayor Abramowitz was instructing the Clerk not to include the Deposition among the Exhibits. Mayor Abramowitz said he did not object to the Deposition being marked for identification purposes only. Attorney Whitelock said he would have the Deposition read into the record as a proffer of testimony so it could be considered. Attorney Rednor asked how long the reading would take and if there was any advantage to reading the information as opposed to submitting it. Attorney Whitelock said because the Deposition was being identified, it did not come into evidence. He said it would not be an M7identikl' Exhibit. Attorney Ruf said he presumed that Mayor Abramowitz would allow a proffer. He said Attorney Whitelock would read the Deposition and he would object and Mayor Abramowitz may agree with his objection. He said Attorney Whitelock wanted to make the Deposition part of the Evidential record and Mayor Abramowitz would have to decide whether or not it was to be part of the Evidential record. Attorney Whitelock said he understood that the Deposition was being excluded as evidence. He said he wanted it placed in the record in case there was an adverse affect Page 32 9/24/89 TAPE 4 to his client because of its exclusion as evidence and they could not argue Ms. Logan's impeachment. He said a Judge would not be able to make an evaluation as to the Proper action of the document being excluded unless he was aware of what the evidence was. At 11:20 A.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and RECONVENED at 11:25 A.M. with ALL PRESENT. Attorney Whitelock suggested that "Montalvo 7" Exhibit be attached to the Minutes as a proffer of testimony which would not be considered for evidential purpose but only for the purpose of appellate review in the event that an adverse decision was made. Attorney Ruf had no objections. Mayor Abramowitz ruled that this be done. (SEE ATTACHMENT) Attorney Whitelock asked that this Hearing be RECESSED for lunch because his Witnesses would not be available until after 1:00 P.M. Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting at 11:30 A.M. and RECONVENED at 1:35 P.M. with ALL PRESENT. Attorney Whitelock called Vanity DiStefano as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mrs. DiStefano in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano to state her name for the record. Mrs. DiStefano stated her name to be Vanity DiStefano. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano what her occupation was. Mrs. DiStefano said she was a paralegal. Attorney Whitelock asked for who? Mrs. DiStefano said Proscower, Rose, Ghetts and Medelson. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if she knew John Montalvo. Mrs. DiStefano replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked how Mrs. DiStefano knew Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. DiStefano said they have been friends for over 6 years. She said she knew Mr. Montalvo through her husband. She said Mr. Montalvo was a good friend of her husband. Attorney Whitelock asked if in 1986 and 1987,.Mrs. DiStefano had an occasion to come in contact with an individual known as Elena Logan. Mrs. DiStefano replied, yes. Page 33 F/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked under what circumstances. Mrs. DiStefano said the first time she came in contact with Ms. Logan, Mr. Montalvo brought her to their house. She said several times they went out to dinner, movies and took a short vacation together. Attorney Whitelock asked when the vacation took place. Mrs. DiStefano said Memorial Day weekend, 1987. Attorney Whitelock asked when Mrs. DiStefano met Ms. Logan prior to that date. Mrs. DiStefano said a month or two before that, Mr. Montalvo brought Ms. Logan to the house. Attorney Whitelock asked if this was under a circumstance when Mr. Montalvo was having a date with Ms. Logan. Mrs. DiStefano replied, yes, and he ' introduc;�d her to them. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano what, if any, conversation she had with Ms. Logan at that time. Mrs. DiStefano asked, when Ms. Logan came to the house? Attorney Whitelock replied, yes. Mrs. DiStefano said social, hi, how are you, what do you do. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano where they went with Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan. Mrs. DiStefano replied, to the Keys. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. DiStefano during that time had any conversation with Ms. Logan. Mrs. DiStefano said yes, they spent the whole weekend together. She said they went out diving together and dinner. She said they rode to and back from the Keys with them in their car. She said on the way back, they were stuck in the Memorial Day traffic and they spent about 5 hours in the car together. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if she had a discussion with Ms. Logan regarding her relationship with Mr. Montalvo during this time. Mrs. DiStefano said yes, they had several conversations regarding their relationship. Attorney Whitelock asked what the conversation entailed. Mrs. DiStefano said they had a conversation regarding pregnancy. Attorney Whitelock asked how this conversation started. Mrs. DiStefano said she thought she was pregnant. She said they started talking about it and Ms. Logan said if she (Ms. Logan) became pregnant by Mr. Montalvo she would definitely keep it. She said this was the first sign she Page 34 <a/24/89 got of a very serious relationship. She said Ms. Logan wanted a baby and she already had a son. She said they talked about Ms. Logan's consideration in changing jobs. Attorney Whitelock asked how Mrs. DiStefano reacted when the comment regarding having Mr. Montalvo's baby came up. Mrs. DiStefano said she did not understand the relationship from the beginning, not to say anything mean against her friend. She said Ms. Logan informed her of several different people she dated such as an Airline Pilot, etc. She said she wondered from the beginning why Ms. Logan was dating Mr. Montalvo. She said Mr. Montalvo was not as substantial as other people Ms. Logan had dated before. She said in the back of her mind she wondered why Ms. Logan was dating him. She said she thought Ms. Logan to be a nice person; however, she wondered why Ms. Logan was dating Mr. Montalvo. She said when the conversation took place regarding pregnancy, she wondered what Ms. Logan's intentions were. She said she did not understand and she was unclear of the relationship. She said she thought the relationship to be very serious. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. DiStefano thought of the people in Ms. Logan's past relationships having substantial means. Mrs. DiStefano replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan ever gave any indication of the type of people she associated with as opposed to Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. DiStefano said Ms. Logan informed her of vacations to Europe, Jamaica, etc., with her boyfriends at the time. She said this led her to believe that the boyfriends had substantial means. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was a person of substantial means at this time. Mrs. DiStefano replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. DiStefano felt it odd that Ms. Logan would associate herself with Mr. Montalvo after having had previous boyfriends. Mrs. DiStefano said she knew that Mr. Montalvo was good deep inside; however, on the surface, she wondered what attracted Ms. Logan to Mr. Montalvo. She said she wondered why Ms. Logan was not out getting herself another Airline Pilot. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if she ever saw Mr. Montalvo mistreat Ms. Logan during the relationship. Mrs. DiStefano replied, no, she thought he was too good to her and her son. Attorney Whitelock asked, in what way? Mrs. DiStefano said Mr. Montalvo took over as a father figure. She said he was always watching the boy while she was gone on weekends or whatever. She said Mr. Montalvo always took real good care of Ms. Logan. She Page 35 19/24/89 said she did not know if this was going anywhere and in the back of her mind she kept asking herself why they were dating. She said she thought Mr. Montalvo was very good. Attorney Whitelock asked how often Mrs. DiStefano came in contact with Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan during this time frame . Mrs. DiStefano said there were several other occasions. She said they used to go to the movies and out to eat together. She said every other weekend she saw them. Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan ever made any negative comments regarding Mr. Montalvo or their relationship. Mrs. DiStefano replied, never. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. DiStefano subsequently learned of Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan's relationship breaking up. Mrs. DiStefano said they probably heard right after it happened. She said Mr. Montalvo was very upset and it was a big shock. Attorney Whitelock asked how Mrs. DiStefano reacted to the news. Mrs. DiStefano said she thought it would happen eventually. Attorney Whitelock asked, why? Mrs. DiStefano said in the back of her mind she was still wondering what Ms. Logan's reason was for dating Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if she ever found out what Ms. Logan's motive was. Mrs. DiStefano asked, from her? Attorney Whitelock said from anyone. He asked Mrs. DiStefano if she ever found out what Ms. Logan's motivation was in seeing Mr. Montalvo during this time period. Mrs. DiStefano said no one ever told her the motivation; however, she had her thoughts on it. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano what her opinion was., Mrs. DiStefano.said Ms. Logan needed Mr. Montalvo to get the car and support. She said she did not know if Ms. Logan needed Mr. Montalvo for her job. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if she had an opinion as to Mr. Montalvo's truth and veracity. Mrs. DiStefano said she found Mr. Montalvo to be a very honest individual. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano how Mr. Montalvo reacted toward women in general. Page 36 9,/24/89 Mrs. Distefano said Mr. Montalvo was very kind. She said Mr. Montalvo was one of those guys that would treat a woman really good and was able to show his feelings. She said Mr. Montalvo showed his feelings to people. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Distefano if she ever known Mr. Montalvo to act in any negative manner with anyone. Mrs. DiStefano replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked, including females? Mrs. DiStefano replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if she knew of other girls or women that Mr. Montalvo has dated. Mrs. DiStefano replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked if this was subsequent to Ms. Logan. Mrs. DiStefano replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if she ever knew Mr. Montalvo to mistreat any girl he ever dated. Mrs. DiStefano replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if Ms. Logan ever verbalized any complaints about Mr. Montalvo's treatment. Mrs. DiStefano replied, no. She said at one time, Ms. Logan stated that she wanted to move in with Mr. Montalvo. She said this led her to believe it was serious. Attorney Whitelock asked when Ms. Logan wanted this. Mrs. DiStefano said it was during that summer, right after they went away. She said it was a month before they broke up, maybe August of that summer. She said the whole thing was a shock, like Ms. Logan was here and gone. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. DiStefano if she ever knew Mr. Montalvo to be profane in the presence of women. Mrs. DiStefano replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo would tell off colored jokes. Mrs. DiStefano replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was the type of guy to make sexual references to woman. Mrs. DiStefano said he was the kind of guy that you do not say stuff in front of. Attorney Whitelock asked, why? Mrs. DiStefano said she would feel funny telling dirty jokes in front of Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Whitelock asked, why? Page 37 9/24/89 Mrs. DiStefano said because he was a nice guy. He was that way. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions. Attorney Ruf said Mrs. DiStefano indicated that Mr. Montalvo was very upset when they broke up. He asked Mrs. DiStefano how she knew Mr. Montalvo was upset. Mrs. DiStefano said by conversations with her husband and herself. She said Mr. Montalvo cried. Attorney Ruf asked how long this went on. Mrs. DiStefano asked, crying or the upset? Attorney Ruf said the upset. Mrs. DiStefano said approximately 1 month. Attorney Ruf asked Mrs. DiStefano if she knew Mr. Montalvo very well. Mrs. DiStefano replied, yes. Attorney Ruf asked when Mr. Montalvo began bringing other dates to her house since they double dated regularly. Mrs. DiStefano said she could be wrong; however, it was the girl he was seeing now. She said Mr. Montalvo has been dating this girl for 6 months. Attorney Ruf asked if this would be the beginning of 1989. Mrs. DiStefano said it may have been in April or May, 1989. Attorney Ruf said there would have been a period from the summer of 1987, until the spring of 1989... Mrs. DiStefano said he brought someone to her house. Attorney Ruf asked about double dating. Mrs. DiStefano said they double dated since then. Attorney Ruf asked if this occurred during the summer of 1987 to the spring of 1989. Mrs. DiStefano said not that she could remember. She said it was a long time. Attorney Ruf had no further questions of Mrs. DiStefano. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was the type of individual that went from girl to girl. Mrs. DiStefano replied, no, Mr. Montalvo had a big heart and he became serious. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions Mrs. DiStefano, Page 38 S/24/89 Attorney Whitelock called Janet Montalvo as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Ms. Montalvo in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo to state her name for the record. Ms. Montalvo stated her name to be Janet Montalvo. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo what her relationship was to John Montalvo. Ms. Montalvo said she was Mr. Montalvo's sister. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo if she knew Elena Logan. Ms. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo when she first met Ms. Logan. Ms. Montalvo said she met her in June or July, 1987. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo under what circumstances. Ms. Montalvo said Ms. Logan was dating her brother. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo what, if any, conversations she had with Ms. Logan. Ms. Montalvo said she had a conversation with Ms. Logan the first time Mr. Montalvo brought her to the house. She said she was lying out by the pool and Ms. Logan came out with Mr. Montalvo and introduced herself. She said they sat there talking and Ms. Logan informed her that she (Ms. Logan) started dating her brother. She said Ms. Logan informed her that her brother sent her (Ms. Logan) flowers and he was very romantic. She said this is true, her brother was very romantic. She said Ms. Logan informed her that she really enjoyed being with him and dating him. She said Ms. Logan went into detail about her (Ms. Logan's) son and herself. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo what the relationship was during this time frame between Ms. Logan and her (Ms. Montalvo's) family. Ms. Montalvo said everyone was very close to her. Attorney Ruf objected because he did not know what Ms. Logan's relationship was to Ms. Montalvo's family. He said Mr. Montalvo's mother testified. Attorney Whitelock withdrew this question. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo what, if any, relationship she had with Ms. Logan and her son during this time period. Ms. Montalvo said Ms. Logan was at their house several times and Ms. Logan's son stayed over several times on a Friday night. She said she was with her son when he was there on the weekends because she lived at home with her Page 39 ,9/24/89 parents. She said Ms. Logan used to come over constantly with her brother and Ms. Logan's little boy. She said her family welcomed them and she felt that Ms. Logan and her brother were going to get married. Attorney Whitelock asked what led Ms. Montalvo to believe this. Ms. Montalvo said Ms. Logan was basically living with Mr. Montalvo. She said Ms. Logan spent more time at his apartment and Ms. Logan was at their house constantly. She said the relationship seemed very solid, close and even intimate. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo if she would characterize the relationship as a casual relationship. Ms. Montalvo replied, no, not at all. She said it was not a casual relationship. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo if she thought the relationship to be hot and heavy. Ms. Montalvo replied, yes, basically. Attorney Whitelock asked Ms. Montalvo if she had an opinion of her brother's truth and veracity. Ms. Montalvo said her brother was very sweet, honest and romantic. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions Ms. Montalvo. Attorney Ruf had no questions of Ms. Montalvo. At 1:55 P.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and RECONVENED at 2:05 P.M., with ALL PRESENT Attorney Whitelock called Paul Lewis DiStefano as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mr. DiStefano in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano to state his name for the record. Mr. DiStefano stated his name to be Paul Lewis DiStefano. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano what his occupation was. Mr. DiStefano said he was a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano if he knew John Montalvo. Mr. DiStefano replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano how long he has known Mr. Montalvo. Mr. DiStefano said better than 9 or 10 years. Page 40 F/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano if he has formed an opinion as to Mr. Montalvo's truth and veracity. Mr. DiStefano said Mr. Montalvo had the highest truth and veracity. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano if he met a person named Elena Logan. Mr. DiStefano replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano under what circumstance. Mr. DiStefano said he met Ms. Logan at his home when Mr. Montalvo introduced her as a girl he was dating. He said subsequent to this, they went away for a weekend together as a group of four. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. DiStefano had an occasion to speak to Ms. Logan during this time. Mr. DiStefano replied, yes, he said they traveled to the Keys together. He said the four of them drove down in his car. He said they spent four hours up and back as well as the weekend together. Attorney Whitelock asked how Mr. DiStefano would characterize the relationship which existed between Ms. Logan and Mr. Montalvo during that time. Mr. DiStefano said he thought the relationship was rather serious. He said Mr. Montalvo had spoken to him regarding the contemplation of getting married. He said it was very serious. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano if he at any time had direct conversation with Ms. Logan concerning the relationship with Mr. Montalvo or in her presence during any conversation regarding the relationship. Mr. DiStefano said he remembered particularly during a Fourth of July party he overheard a telephone conversation between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan when they were reassuring each other of their love. He said Ms. Logan was unable to attend and Mr. Montalvo was going to babysit her son that day. Attorney Whitelock asked how the relationship was between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan's son. Mr. DiStefano said almost as if Mr. Montalvo was an adoptive parent. Attorney Whitelock asked, in what way? Mr. DiStefano Said Mr. Montalvo would babysit him, take care of him and treat him as his (Mr. Montalvo's) own. He said Mr. Montalvo would take him out and do whatever they needed to do together. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. DiStefano has ever known Mr. Montalvo to be profane in the presence of women. Mr. DiStefano replied, no. He said he did not think it was part of Mr. Montalvo's upbringing. Page 41 Q,'24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. DiStefano if he ever known Mr. Montalvo to make any off color, sexual comments, references or innuendos. Mr. DiStefano replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was the type of individual that used profanity or those type of comments in mixed company. Mr. DiStefano replied, no. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions Mr. DiStefano. Attorney Ruf asked how long Mr. Montalvo dated Ms. Logan. Mr. DiStefano said approximately 6 months to 1 year. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. DiStefano if he knew when they started dating. Mr. DiStefano said he could not recall. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. DiStefano if he knew when the relationship was over. Mr. DiStefano said he assumed it finished when this occurred. Attorney Ruf asked when that was. Mr. DiStefano said February, 1988. He asked if his years were right. Attorney Ruf said he thought so. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. DiStefano if he observed Mr. Montalvo's behavior after the relationship ended. Mr. DiStefano replied, yes. He asked if Attorney Ruf meant Mr. Montalvo's relationship with Ms. Logan. Attorney Ruf replied, yes. Mr. DiStefano said he was not there personally. Attorney Ruf asked if Mr. DiStefano saw Mr. Montalvo after the breakup. Mr. DiStefano replied, yes, continually until this day. Attorney Ruf asked if Mr. Montalvo was upset. Mr. DiStefano said he thought he was upset, yes. Attorney Ruf asked if Mr. Montalvo was very upset. Mr. DiStefano said he thought Mr. Montalvo was upset about the way he was treated by the City. He said he did not think Mr. Montalvo was upset in any other way. Attorney Ruf asked if Mr. Montalvo was upset about his treatment by Ms. Logan. Page 42 9/24/89 Mr. DiStefano said as a natural breakup Mr. Montalvo was upset; however, he did not think Mr. Montalvo was obsessive. Attorney Ruf asked how Mr. DiStefano characterized his relationship with Mr. Montalvo. Mr. DiStefano said he would say very close friends. Attorney Ruf had no further questions of Mr. DiStefano. Attorney Whitelock called Phyllis Carroll as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mrs. Carroll in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll to state her name. Mrs. Carroll stated her name to be Phyllis Carroll. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if she was an employee of the City of Tamarac. Mrs. Carroll replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll how long she has been employed. Mrs. Carroll replied, 8 years. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll what her present capacity was. Mrs. Carroll said she was an Accounting Clerk. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if she knew John Montalvo. Mrs. Carroll replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll what her relationship was with Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Carroll said Mr. Montalvo was her Supervisor. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever sexually mistreated her in any fashion. Mrs. Carroll replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever made any profane or off colored remarks. Mrs. Carroll replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if she ever knew Mr. Montalvo to do this to any female employee during the tenure of his employment. Mrs. Carroll replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if she knew Elena Logan. Mrs. Carroll replied, yes. Page 43 9/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll what, if anything, she knew about their relationship. Mrs. Carroll said nothing until it was over. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Carroll ever knew of Ms. Logan having any contact with Sylvia Ilgovsky. Mrs. Carroll replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll what, if anything, did she know. Mrs. Carroll said she walked in on the tail end. Attorney Whitelock asked what it was that Mrs. Carroll witnessed. Mrs. Carroll said Ms. Logan informed Mrs. Ilgovsky that she would have her job also. Attorney Whitelock asked why this was. Mrs. Carroll said she walked by and heard this. Attorney Whitelock asked when this occurred. Mrs. Carroll said the morning City Manager Kelly called Mr. Montalvo into his office. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if she knew what Ms. Logan was referring to when she informed Mrs. Ilgovsky that she would have her job too. Mrs. Carroll replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Carroll ever subsequently learned about it. Mrs. Carroll said afterwards. Attorney Whitelock asked what this was. Mrs. Carroll said that Ms. Logan would try to do something to threaten Mrs. Ilgovsky. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if she had an opinion regarding Mr. Montalvo's truth and veracity. Mrs. Carroll said she thought Mr. Montalvo was a nice person. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if she thought Mr. Montalvo would lie. Mrs. Carroll replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked, how about Ms. Logan? Mrs. Carroll said she did not know. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll how long Mr. Montalvo was her Supervisor. Mrs. Carroll said it had to be 2 years. Page 44 (9/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll what Mr. Montalvo's relationship was towards his other employees. Mrs. Carroll said good. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if Mr. Montalvo had any problems with any of the females by making any off color comments, profane remarks, sexual innuendos or any comments along that line. Mrs. Carroll said not that she heard. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Carroll if she ever heard anybody complain about anything. Mrs. Carroll replied, no. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions of Mrs. Carroll Attorney Ruf had no questions of Mrs. Carroll. At 3:15 P.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and RECONVENED at 3:20 P.M. with ALL PRESENT. Attorney Whitelock called Shirley Kruger as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mrs. Kruger in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Kruger to state her name. Mrs. Kruger stated her name to be Shirley Kruger. Attorney Whitelock asked where Mrs. Kruger was employed. Mrs. Kruger said with the City of Tamarac. Attorney Whitelock asked, in what capacity? Mrs. Kruger said as Senior Accountant in the Finance Department/Utilities Customer Service. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Kruger what her position was in the City during January, 1987, through January, 1988. Mrs. Kruger said she was in the same capacity, more or less. Attorney Whitelock asked if John Montalvo was in a Supervisory capacity at that time. Mrs. Kruger replied, yes, with the Finance Department. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Kruger if her immediate Supervisor was Charlotte Bouchard. Mrs. Kruger replied, that was correct. Attorney Whitelock asked how long Mrs. Kruger was employed with the City. Mrs. Kruger said 5 years, April, 1990. Page 45 '/24/s9 Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Kruger had a chance to come in contact with Mr. Montalvo in a professional relationship as a co -employee or Supervisor co --employee. Mrs. Kruger said they were not under the Finance Department during this time. She said they were under the Utilities Department. Attorney Whitelock said he understood this. Mrs. Kruger said the contacts that she had with Mr. Montalvo were when he came in to have a professional conferences with Charlotte Bouchard. She said during this time it was friendly but nothing in terms of business. Attorney Whitelock asked during this contact if Mrs. Kruger knew of Mr. Montalvo making any sexual comments, innuendos or references. Mrs. Kruger said none whatsoever. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Kruger if she ever heard of anybody connected with the City making any complaints concerning Mr. Montalvo making any type of comments. Mrs. Kruger replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Kruger knew Elena Logan. Mrs. Kruger said she knew of her more since she came to work at City Hall, since they moved because Ms. Logan was right next door. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Kruger knew of the relationship that existed between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan during Mr. Montalvo's employment with the City. Mrs. Kruger said only what she heard as gossip. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Kruger ever had any contact with Ms. Logan regarding her relationship with Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Kruger replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Kruger ever received any telephone calls from Ms. Logan. Mrs. Kruger said she was never on this type of basis with Ms. Logan. Attorney Whitelock 'asked if Mrs. Kruger ever had any telephone conversations with Ms. Logan regarding her relationship with Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Kruger replied, no. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions of Mrs. Kruger. Attorney Ruf had no questions Mrs. Kruger. At 2:20 P.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and RECQNWINED at 2:30 P.M. with ALL PRESENT. 1 1 1 Page 46 9/24/89 Attorney Whitelock called Sally Spizer as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mrs. Spizer in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer to state her name. Mrs. Spizer stated her name to be Sally Spizer. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if she was employed. Mrs. Spizer replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked, where? Mrs. Spizer said at FAST on 31st and 62 Avenue. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if she was ever employed by the City of Tamarac. Mrs. Spizer said for 10-1/2 years. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if she knew John Montalvo. Mrs. Spizer replied, very well. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if she had an opinion as to Mr. Montalvo's truth and veracity. Mrs. Spizer said absolutely, Mr. Montalvo was very honorable as far as she was concerned. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Spizer came in contact with an individual by the name of Elena Logan during her tenure with the City. Mrs. Spizer replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Spizer ever had any contact with an individual by the name of Sylvia Ilgovsky. Mrs. Spizer said absolutely, she was her best friend. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if she was aware of the relationship that existed between Mr. Montalvo and Ms. Logan. Mrs. Spizer replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer how she knew this. Mrs. Spizer said through Mrs. Ilgovsky. Attorney Whitelock asked how Mrs. Ilgovsky knew about this. Mrs. Spizer said Mrs. Ilgovsky was in the office and close to everyone besides Mr. Montalvo. She said Mrs. Ilgovsky was very close with Ms. Logan and this was how she received all of the information. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if she knew of any problems that Ms. Logan had with Mrs. Ilgovsky concerning Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Spizer replied, yes. Page 47 ,7/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked what this was. Mrs. Spizer said Ms. Logan threatened Mrs. Ilgovsky with her job. She said Ms. Logan told Mrs. Iglovsky that she (Ms. Logan) had gone to the Police Department and she said that if Mrs. Ilcj.ovsky did not stop being friendly with Mr. Montalvo she (Mrs. I13'ovsky) would lose her job. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if Mrs. Ilgovsky told her how she (Mrs. 115 ovsky) would lose her job. Mrs. Spizer said Ms. Logan did not want Mrs. Ilgovsky to be friendly with Mr. Montalvo. She said Mrs. Ilgovsky was the type of person that was friendly with everyone not just Mr. Montalvo alone. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if she ever knew Mr. Montalvo to ever act in any offensive manner toward any female. Mrs. Spizer replied, never. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever made any off color comments. Mrs. Spizer replied, never. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever made any sexual innuendos and references. Mrs. Spizer replied, never. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo ever used any profanity. Mrs. Spizer replied, never. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Spizer ever heard anything like this. Mrs. Spizer replied, never. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions. Attorney Ruf had no questions. Mayor Abramowitz said Mrs. Spizer just stated that Ms. Logan went to the Police Department and threatened Mrs. I'lgovsky with her job. He asked what job Mrs. I -Ur ovsky had with the City. Mrs. Spizer said Mrs. Ilgovsky was Secretary to the Finance Director. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Ms. Logan went to the Police Department to threaten Mrs. I14,.ovsky's job. Mrs. Spizer said Ms. Logan had a conversation at the Police Department and she came back and told Mrs. 111govsky that if she did not stop being friendly with Mr. Montalvo, she would lose her job. She said Mrs. IJCgovsky was as friendly to Mr. Montalvo as anybody else in the office. She said this upset Mrs. IRovsky to no end. Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any special relationship that existed between Mr. Montalvo and Mrs. I19,ovsky, other than Mrs. Ilg-ovsky had with anyone else. Page 48 7/24/89 Mrs. Spizer replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any romantic involvement. Mrs. Spizer replied, oh, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mrs. Spizer if they (Mr. Montalvo and Mrs. I.1-4ovsky) socialized off of work. Mrs. Spizer replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if the threat by Ms. Logan was solely because of what she (Ms. Logan) perceived to be a friendly relationship between Mrs. Ilq.ovsky and Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Spizer said the frioridliness was merely in the office and Mrs. Ilgovsky was friendly with everyone else. She said Ms. Logan resented the fact that Mrs. Ilq.ovsky and Mr. Montalvo were friends. She said she guessed Ms. Logan wanted Mrs. Ilqovsky to be on her side. She said Mrs. Ilq.ovsky would not be on anyone's side because she was a fair person. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mrs. Spizer was aware if Ms. Logan in fact tried to get Mrs. I]govsky's job because of her (Mrs. ilq.ovsky's) relationship with Mr. Montalvo. Mrs. Spizer said Ms. Logan could not do this. Attorney Whitelock asked, why? Mrs. Spizer said because Ms. Logan was not a Secretary. Attorney Whitelock asked who Mrs. 119,ovsky worked for. Mrs. Spizer said Finance Director, Ken Burroughs. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Burroughs would have been Mr. Montalvo's direct boss. Mrs. Spizer replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions of Mrs. Spizer. Attorney Ruf had no questions of Mrs. Spizer. At 2:35 P.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and RECONVENED at 2:45 P.M. with ALL PRESENT. Attorney Whitelock called John Montalvo as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mr. Montalvo in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo to state his name. Mr. Montalvo stated his name to be John Franklin Montalvo, Jr. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he was formerly employed by the City. Page 49 457//24/89 Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked how long Mr. Montalvo was employed by the City. Mr. Montalvo said approximately 4 years. He said he started in February, 1984. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was ever subjected to any disciplinary action during his tenure with the City other than the present termination. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever received any reprimands. Mr. Montalvo said he always received commendations and promotions. He said he was never called in for any reason. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo to briefly give a history of his employment with the City from the time he was hired until his final days. Mr. Montalvo said he started in February, 1984, in the Purchasing Department. He said he was hired as a Purchasing Assistant/Accountant. He said basically his expertise was to establish a fixed asset system for the City. He said given his background, Tarry Perretti had contacted him to work. He said the City was having problems with their fixed assets. He said he came to the City for an interview and was hired on the spot. He said at this point, he was not looking for a job. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what, if anything, he did in terms of furthering his position. Mr. Montalvo said it took him approximately six months to establish a fixed asset system which the City currently used; however, it has been modified. He said he worked on several projects and installed a new payroll system, established some procedures for the City in terms of the benefit option packages. He said he worked on Budgets and various financial projects for the City, which he was commended for, and he was given promotions and merit increases. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever obtained a Supervisory position during the time he was employed by the City. Mr. Montalvo said this occurred shortly after he was hired. He said he was temporarily placed in an Acting Supervisory position around May or July, 1984. He said it was approximately 6 months after he started and he was then given the position permanently in September of that year. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what this position was. Mr. Montalvo said it was Supervising Accountant. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what his job duties entailed. Page 50 9/24/89 Mr. Montalvo said he was under the direction of the Deputy Finance Director, Dan Salle and Steve Wood was the Finance Director. He said he was handling the new payroll system and there was consideration of taking on insurance responsibilities presently handled by the Personnel Department. He said he was handling any problem: with the Utility Account and the preparation of the Audits for the external. Audits. He said he handled the preparation of monthly closing entries, staff and accounts payable and receivable. Attorney Whitelock asked how long Mr. Montalvo maintained this position. Mr. Montalvo said until July, 1985. He said during this time, Dan Salle and Steve Wood left after the ESM scandal. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what happened, if anything, to his position. Mr. Montalvo said at that time he was in a Quasi -position. He said there was no Finance Director at the time; therefore, he was interim until Frank Sthelrldge was hired. Attorney Whitelock asked how long this was. Mr. Montalvo said it may have been a month or two after Dan Salle left. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what he did after the Finance Director was hired. Mr. Montalvo said he was reassigned his Supervisory Accounting position with greater responsibilities. He said it was just him as opposed to another level above him. He said he was directly under the Finance Director. He said he received somewhat of a promotion and merit increase shortly thereafter to Accounting Manager. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what his functions were as an Accounting Manager. Mr. Montalvo said it was the same. He said his job functions did not change except that he was more involved in the Budget process and he also became directly involved with the City Manager and Personnel Director in certain policy procedures. He said he assisted with some of the number generations with negotiations with the Unions. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo served in this capacity until he was terminated. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo how many employees he was responsible to supervise during that period. Mr. Montalvo said approximately 16 directly. Attorney Whitelock asked how many of these employees were female. Mr. Montalvo said all of them, maybe except one; however, he would say 90% were. Page 51 9/24/89 TAPE 5 Attorney Whitelock asked if any of the employees ever filed a complaint or made a complaint about him concerning any comments. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked, profane comments, sexual innuendos, off colored jokes? Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Referring to Composite Exhibit "Montalvo 3", Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he was ever aware of this policy. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, he was not. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he was aware of the undated correspondence entitled, "Sexual Harassment". He said this was part of the Composite Exhibit. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, he was not. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he was made aware of the existence of the policy during his time as interim Finance Director. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, he was not. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo when he learned that the City had a policy concerning sexual harassment. Mr. Montalvo said after he was suspended. He said as a Supervisor, he read most of the Personnel Manual, actually, all of it and there was never any mention of the sexual harassment policy in the Personnel Manual. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he met Elena Logan during his tenure with the City. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, he did. Attorney Whitelock asked when this occurred. Mr. Montalvo said it must have been a week or so before Thanksgiving of November, 1986. He said Ms. Logan introduced herself to him. He said during this time, he knew that Glenda (Christian) was in the process of hiring a new computer operator. He said Mrs. Christian asked that he sit in on some of the interviews, unfortunately, it was o'ne of his busiest times and City Manager Kelly assigned the project of installing the new telephone system to him. He said his time was limited and Ms. Logan presented herself a day or two after she started working. Mr. Montalvo said he had been working late at night because during the day he was working with the telephone installers concerning the software and operation of the telephones. He said during the evening he was working with the external Auditors. He said he was working approximately 80 hours per week. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo how his first contact with Ms. Logan took place. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan seemed like an overly friendly girl at the time. He said Ms. Logan did not know him except that he was the Supervisor. He said Ms. Page 52 0/24/89 Logan used to joke with him and said some really off the wall remarks that he was taken back from since it was their first meeting. He said he remembered a few days after this. He said he was an easy going individual and people kid him about certain things and Ms. Logan came to him and asked, "Do you do my review?" He said he informed tier that Glenda Christian did her review which was approved by the Finance Director and he had nothing to say in terms of the review. He said at that time he assured Ms. Logan that he could not do anything to her and Ms. Logan laughed and went away. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever made any off color comments to Ms. Logan during the time he met Ms. Logan up until the time he was terminated. Mr. Montalvo said no, on the contrary, Ms. Logan made comments to him. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever made any profane remarks in Ms. Logan's presence. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he made any sexual innuendos, references, inferences. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever required Ms. Logan to have sexual contact with him as a result of her employment. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. He said this was not his style, it never has been. He said he was not brought up like this. He said his parents taught him to respect people and, especially his mother has taught him to respect women. He said he always held women in high regard, he always treated them as an equal. He said anybody in the City that he came in contact with would state the same and there were Witnesses who testified to this. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if anyone from the City explained to him what sexual harassment was while he was employed with the City. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any seminars, classes or training for the Supervisors on what did or did not constitute sexual harassment. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if anyone ever explained to him, outside of a formalized training procedure, what pattern of sexual harassment constitutes. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if anyone ever informed him what he should look for as a Supervisor in the employees' actions to dissuade anyone from being engaged in sexual harassment. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, this was never explained to him, there were no seminars given of any kind. Page 53 g/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever received any type of training or information on what constituted sexual harassment. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if anyone ever bothered to inform him that there were things that had to be looked away from because there could be potential liability problems. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what happened after his initial contact with Ms. Logan. He said they obviously developed a relationship. Mr. Montalvo said they became very friendly. He said it was a very busy time of the year for him; therefore, he would be working late. Attorney Whitelock asked what time of the year this was. Mr. Montalvo said November and December, 1986, through about February, 1987. He said this was usually his busiest time. He said Ms. Logan would come into his office from time to time. He said it was not always business and Ms. Logan would tell him personal things such as, how she was, where she came from, the problems she was having with her boyfriend. He said as the conversation went further, Ms. Logan discussed the two of them going out to lunch together. He said he was planning on throwing a New Year's Eve party around December of that year and he invited her along with some of his staff to come over and, due to circumstances, the party was cancelled. He said Ms. Logan came to him and stated, "It was too bad that party was cancelled because she was coming by herself and she felt that it would have been a good opportunity for them to get to know each other". Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what he took this to mean. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan was very sly and almost sensual in the way she said it. He said he was taken back a little bit because he was seeing someone else at the time and Ms. Logan knew it. Attorney Whitelock asked what happened following this. He asked Mr. Montalvo if he had any further contact with Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo said sure, Ms. Logan would constantly come into his office in the late evening hours. He said during the morning Ms. Logan would come in and say hello, what was going on. He said Ms. Logan had several problems with her boyfriend at the time and, during the evening hours, Ms. Logan would come in and kind of cry on his shoulder. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what Ms. Logan told him about her boyfriend. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan stated that she moved with this guy and they were breaking up so, she had to move out and she did not have that much money. He said Ms. Logan stated that her son was real close to this guy and Page 54 9/24/89 she did not know how she was going to break it to Ryan because they had a relationship for 5 years. He said he guessed Ryan grew up with this gentleman. He said Ms. Logan would be crying and moaning about her situation because the guy did not want a commitment. He said the general stuff that came with a rough relationship. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if Ms. Logan informed him of the guy's name. Mr. Montalvo said at that time, the guy was an Airline Pilot named Michael Samone. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if Ms. Logan subsequently informed him of any other relationship problems with anyone else. Mr. Montalvo said later on Ms. Logan started talking about this guy who was constantly sending her flowers. He said it was funny because Ms. Logan used to get flowers constantly from the guy and he asked her if she was opening up a florist. He said Ms. Logan stated that she was having a problem with this guy. He said he thought his name was John Ceraolo. He said he was a former Supervisor of Ms. Logan's that worked at her previous employment, Birch Research. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what Ms. Logan told him about her relationship with this fellow. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan stated that this guy was serious and she was not even though she was seeing him. He said Ms. Logan stated that she was seeing him in between Michael and he was sending her flowers, love letters, following her and calling her up. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if Ms. Logan made any requests of him to do anything. Mr. Montalvo said at the time, Ms. Logan seemed kind of scared and concerned; therefore, he went to a friend of his in the Police Department, Larry Lieman, and he asked what could be done to have this gentleman stop bothering her. He said Officer Lieman indicated that Ms. Logan would have to file a report in the City that she lived in and, if it continued, a restraining order could be filed. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo how his relationship with Ms. Logan developed after November and December. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan was constantly making innuendos about going out dancing together and to lunch. He said through her problems, he gave her his telephone number and informed her to call him if she ever needed someone to talk to. He said Ms. Logan did call him on several occasions and he was home but he was constantly doing something such as bringing work home. He said Ms. Logan called him on a number of occasions to come over to have wine, etc. He said he informed her that it was not appropriate at the time and he was very busy and could not come over. Attorney Whitelock asked if there came a time when Mr. Montalvo finally went out with Ms. Logan. Page 55 9/24/89 Mr. Montalvo said they discussed going out and Ms. Logan was unhappy and depressed. He said it was a week before his birthday and he informed her that he had Freddy Jackson tickets and she informed him that she wanted to go. He said he took Ms. Logan to the concert in March, 1987. He said subsequently they went to a baseball game in that month and Ms. Logan met his parents. Attorney Whitelock asked what occurred after this. He asked how the relationship developed. Mr. Montalvo said it cooled off a little bit and Ms. Logan did not want to go out with him. He said this was during March or April, 1987, and all of a sudden Ms. Logan came to his office one day and said they needed to talk and go out to lunch. He said they went out to lunch and Ms. Logan was talking about leaving the City and returning to Arizona. He said Ms. Logan stated that she was really unhappy and Michael really hurt her. He said Michael came back into the picture between the time she left and this period and she finally kicked him out. He said supposedly, Michael was having a relationship with another girl and Ms. Logan was really angry with him. He said Ms. Logan stated that she was going back to Arizona and she was crying. He said Ms. Logan told him about her past such as, her father committing suicide and her brother. Attorney Ruf objected to the relevancy of the testimony. Mayor Abramowitz sustained the objection. Attorney Whitelock said it pertained to Ms. Logan's pattern of behavior and what led Mr. Montalvo into a relationship. He said he felt it was extremely relevant. Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock to proceed with the questioning. Attorney Whitelock objected because he intended to introduce Ms. Logan's testimony and he knew that Mayor Abramowitz already precluded one piece of testimony; however, he intended to introduce Ms. Logan's application for employment to show her reason for leaving her previous employment. He said he intended to introduce Ms. Logan's testimony to others regarding her reasons for doing things. He said these were not the reasons that she prepared in a written form through the application process of the City. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the application stipulated that Ms. Logan left her job because her father committed suicide. Attorney Whitelock replied, no. Mayor Abramowitz said everything was fine up until the conversation regarding the suicide. He said he did not believe that the suicide belonged in this conversation. Attorney Whitelock said this never happened. He said Ms. Logan told different stories to different people on different occasions. He said there were purposes to show Ms. Logan's manipulative personality. He said this was what all the testimony was about just like Ms. Logan was able to manipulate this process. 1 1 1 Page 56 9'/24/89 Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock to ask the question again. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what conversations Ms. Logan and he (Mr. Montalvo) had regarding her personal life problems and why she was in this particular case. He said the testimony was going to be leading to the point where Ms. Logan requested Mr. Montalvo to do certain things. He said the reason Ms. Logan told Mr. Montalvo these things was because she wanted him to feel sorry for her. Mayor Abramowitz said based on this, he would allow it. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo to state briefly what Ms. Logan informed him. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan stressed her family problems, where she came from and her educational background. He said Ms. Logan stated that she was considering leaving. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if Ms. Logan informed him about her dad and brother, etc. Mr. Montalvo said about her brother being in jail for drugs, her mother did not really want to talk to her and she (Ms. Logan) was kicked out when she was 16. Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan was indicating that she had no one else she could rely on. Mr. Montalvo said basically, yes. He said Ms. Logan was kind of putting it like she was alone in the world. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo why Ms. Logan wanted to rely on him. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan wanted a friend, someone to talk to. Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan needed any financial assistance. Mr. Montalvo said at this point, Ms. Logan was kind of crying about the fact that she was having difficulties in maintaining her rent at her place. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he lent Ms. Logan some money. Mr. Montalvo said at this point, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he lent Ms. Logan money subsequent to this time. Mr. Montalvo said later on he did. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he co --signed for a loan so that Ms. Logan could get a car. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, basically Ms. Logan was having problems with Michael Samone. He said Ms. Logan had a 1984 Prelude and Mr. Samone had his name on the car loan. He said Mr. Samone wanted his name off of the loan Page 57 9/24/89 because he did not want to have anything to do with her. He said Mr. Samone wanted to free -up his credit so he could purchase some land. He said this was what Ms. Logan told him. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever spoke to Mr. Samone to verify this. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, he was not able to because Ms. Logan would not give him Mr. Samone's telephone number. He said at this point, they tried to work out a deal and Ms. Logan indicated that Mr. Samone would allow her to trade in the car; however, she could not get a car herself and she asked him (Mr. Montalvo) to co-sign the loan. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he agreed to do this. Mr. Montalvo replied, sure, at this time it was July and they were serious about each other. He said Ms. Logan had talked about getting married, about him selling his condominium. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if Ms. Logan indicated during March that she was looking for a place to live because of financial problems. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan was contemplating going back to Arizona. Attorney Whitelock asked if this was because Ms. Logan had no other place to live. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. He said Ms. Logan felt that in Arizona she could get a better job or she was offered a job there. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he knew who Ms. Logan was living with during this time. Mr. Montalvo said he did not at this time. He said he thought Ms. Logan was living by herself with Ryan, her son. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he knew who she was living with then. Mr. Montalvo said later he found out that Mr. Samone was coming back into the picture along with John Ceraolo. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he started a serious relationship with Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo said it was not his intention to begin with. He said he saw someone that was unhappy and he asked Ms. Logan to go out to dinner and dancing on a Friday night. He said it was no big deal and he almost cancelled the date because he had a friend coming in from New York. He said they went out any way. He said Ms. Logan had a good time and they went dancing along with Mr. and Mrs. Distefano. Attorney Whitelock asked what happened then? Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan started kissing him on the dance floor. He said he thought this strange because he was not that forward. He said they were just going out Page 58 $/24/89 to have a good time. He said not to get him wrong, Ms. Logan was a very attractive woman; however, at that stage of the ballgame, he thought it was strictly a friendship. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if there came a time where his feelings towards Ms. Logan changed. Mr. Montalvo said later on in the evening, Ms. Logan really came on to him. Attorney Whitelock said he meant in the relationship. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, definitely. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo to inform him of the seriousness and the consideration he (Mr. Montalvo) had about Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo said later on that evening Ms. Logan drove the point home that she really cared about him, she wanted to have a relationship with him, she felt they were good for each other and subsequently, Ms. Logan came with him that evening to his apartment and spent the night. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo how the relationship developed following that evening. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan was calling him constantly after work to come over and spend the night with her. He said Ms. Logan used to call him up after Ryan was in bed. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo for what period this relationship continued. Mr. Montalvo said they kind of ended the relationship on approximately Labor Day or shortly thereafter. He said they were both on vacation at that time. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what the extent of the relationship was during that time. Mr. Montalvo said it became very serious. He said Ms. Logan talked about she and her son moving in with him. He said this was impossible at the time because he lived in an Adult Community and Ryan was approximately 7 years old and this would not have been allowed. He said Ms. Logan talked about the possibility of him selling his condominium and purchasing a small house so they could move in together. Attorney Whitelock asked if they discussed getting married. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, on more than one occasion. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if they ever discussed purchasing a house. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, they did. Attorney Whitelock asked if they ever went looking for a house. Mr. Montalvo said they started looking through the classifieds. He said he was looking at the possibility of placing his condominium up for sale. Page 59 F/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo how he would describe the relationship during this period up to the Post Labor Day period. Mr. Montalvo said he was very serious about her, he felt that they r_ould have a long, lasting relationship and he would like to marry her. He said he was very serious about her. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he felt that these feelings were reciprocated by Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what his relationship was with Ms. Logan's son during this time. Mr. Montalvo said Ryan became his adopted son at that time. Attorney Ruf objected because Ryan did not become an adopted son as an adopted child was understood. He said he would stipulate that Mr. Montalvo had a very intense relationship for a short period of time with Ms. Logan and her son. Attorney Whitelock agreed. He said it was Mr. Montalvo's opportunity to inform what the development was of the relationship. Mayor Abramowitz said no one was trying to stifle Attorney Whitelock. Attorney Whitelock said he knew this. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever adopted Ryan. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, he said he was figuratively speaking. He said the boy started calling him dad. He said this could be verified by anybody. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what caused the cooling off of the relationship after September. Mr. Montalvo said he remembered the mere fact that he was preparing to go out of town and Ms. Logan said she felt that it would be best if they started seeing other people. He said this was strange because the week before, Ms. Logan was talking about getting a house, she really cared about him, she loved him and wished she could go on vacation with him. He said just before he left, Ms. Logan stated that she felt it would be best if they started seeing other people and she still wanted to have a relationship with him. He said he guessed Ms. Logan wanted to have relations with others. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he knew who Ms. Logan saw during the time he was on vacation. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Montalvo did not know at that time. Mr. Montalvo said no. Page 60 '9/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he knew who it was now. Mr. Montalvo said yes, John Ceraolo and Michael Samone may have came back into the picture. Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan ever subsequently informed him of this. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he continued the relationship with Ms. Logan until sometime past Labor Day. Mr. Montalvo said yes, he came back and Ms. Logan informed him that she was dating someone. He said he kind of flew off the handle and he asked her how she could do this to him. He said he thought they were going to sit down and discuss what was going on. He said after about a week Ms. Logan called him up, actually, the next day she asked him to come over. He said they began discussing the situation and Ms. Logan thought it was best that they cooled it a little bit. He said she really cared about him and she still wanted to see him. He said Ms. Logan indicated that it would be fine if he came over that Sunday to have dinner, spend time with Ryan and stay the night. He said he was kind of in shock so he agreed to the situation. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he not only co -signed for a car for Ms. Logan during the intensity of the relationship but loaned her money as well. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he purchased other things for Ms. Logan and her child. Mr. Montalvo said he bought Ryan clothes, gave her things, bought her flowers, bought little-kriicks-knacks the apartment, gave her a couple of signed photos because he was a photographer. He said he placed the pictures on the walls because she had none. Attorney Whitelock said the relationship began to cool off after September 1 and he asked what happened then. Mr. Montalvo said he confronted Ms. Logan again about the situation and he asked her what was really going on. He said Ms. Logan informed him that they should see other people as opposed to being exclusive. He said at that point he informed her that if this was the case, he could not stand for the situation and he would have to end the relation -ship. He said Ms. Logan really became upset with this and she reacted really strangely. He said Ms. Logan stated that she could not believe he was going to leave her like this, she cared about him, he could not leave her like this because she was going through problems and he had to help her through it. He said at this point, he left; however, he informed her that if she or Ryan ever needed him not to hesitate to call. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he considered the relationship over during September, 1987. Mr. Montalvo said basically, yes. Page 61 g/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked when Mr. Montalvo had contact with Ms. Logan after this concerning their relationship outside of work. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan called him a few times at his house to see how he was doing, came after hours at work, wanted to know how he was doing and inform him that Ryan was asking about him. He said Ms. Logan indicated that she still. kind of cared about what was going on. He said at this point, he just said yes, no, and carried on a mild conversation with her. He said he asked her to leave because he was busy. He said in October, Ms. Logan arranged with Sylvia Ilgoski to have lunch with him to discuss their relationship because they had a riff for whatever odd reason. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he remembered the date of the lunch. Mr. Montalvo said it was approximately 2 weeks before Halloween, October 22 or 24. He said he remembered the conversation was that she discussed the possibility of him taking Ryan to soccer practice and summer games because she was busy working, which conflicted with the soccer schedules. He said he asked Ms. Logan if he could take Ryan to a Halloween party with a friend of his. He said at this time, Ms. Logan agreed. He said they discussed the possibility of rekindling the relationship. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo where this luncheon took place. Mr. Montalvo said the Bombay Bicycle Club. Attorney Whitelock said Ms. Logan testified that this luncheon occurred sometime in December, 1987. He asked Mr. Montalvo if this occurred in October, 1987. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, definitely in October. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo how he knew this. Mr. Montalvo said he kept all of his American Express receipts and he charged the luncheon. He said he informed several other people that Ms. Logan requested to have lunch with him. Attorney Whitelock exhibited a document dated October 22, 1987. He asked Mr. Montalvo if he could identify the document. Mr. Montalvo said it was the charge receipt on his American Express card for the lunch that day. Attorney Whitelock offered this document into evidence which was marked, "Montalvo 12". Attorney Ruf had no objections. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if Ms. Logan discussed the future of their relationship during the luncheon. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan indicated that she wanted to maintain a friendship with him and they may be able to get back together. He said by way of her son, he thought Page 62 T/24/89 Ms. Logan was looking to do this because she did ask him to take care of Ryan by taking him to soccer practice and games when she could not make it. At this time, Attorney Whitelock exhibited evidence marked "Montalvo 3", and he said the letter was dated November 10, 1987, to Roberta Maraz, Vice President of Citizens and Southern National Bank, asking her to remove his name. He asked Mr. Montalvo why he did this. Mr. Montalvo said shortly after the luncheon, there was a Grand opening of the Bay Street Restaurant and the City employees and local officials were invited. He said he and Ms. Logan discussed the opening and she asked him if he intended to go and he replied, "no". He said Ms. Logan discussed getting back together and that she was not dating anyone. He said Ms. Logan showed up at the Opening with another guy. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if Ms. Logan knew he was going to be at the Opening. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked what, if anything, did Mr. Montalvo say, do or react to the situation. Mr. Montalvo said obviously, he was not pleased. He said he expressed some concern with some of the people with him. He said he stated that he was annoyed. Attorney Whitelock asked who was with Mr. Montalvo. Mr. Montalvo said Glenda Christian, maybe Charlotte Bouchard, there were several people from the City that he was with. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if this prompted him to write the letter. Mr. Montalvo said yes, but he was mad because Ms. Logan informed him that she was not seeing anyone and he found out the next day that Ms. Logan was passing the guy's picture around, which included his children, stating that she was looking to marry this guy and move in with him. He said it was strange because supposedly, Ms. Logan had only been dating this guy for two weeks. Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan received a copy of the letter regarding Mr. Montalvo's request to be taken off the car loan. Mr. Montalvo said as far as he knew, Ms. Logan probably did because the bank wanted her to be aware. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he had any conversation with Ms. Logan following this indicating that she knew about it. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan came into his office one evening really upset. Attorney Whitelock asked when this was. Mr. Montalvo said it, was about a week after he had sent the letter. Page 63 9/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo what, if any, conversation he had with Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan was angry and threatened him. Attorney Whitelock asked what happened at that meeting. Mr. Montalvo said he asked Ms. Logan to leave his office. He said he informed her that he did not want anything to do with her because she lied to him and to please leave him alone. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he felt that Ms. Logan made a fool of him during that time. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, definitely. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he any contact with Ms. Logan through the Thanksgiving Holidays. Mr. Montalvo said before the Thanksgiving Holidays. He said Ms. Logan came to him one night and apologized for the way she was and she hoped that their friendship would continue. He said Ms. Logan was supposedly leaving for Arizona because her friend paid for tickets for her and her son to go to Arizona. Attorney Whitelock asked if Ms. Logan told Mr. Montalvo who the friend was. Mr. Montalvo said supposedly the friend was a friend of her ex-husband who sent the tickets for a birthday. He said her friends were having a birthday and the husband of this friend wanted to surprise his wife with Ms. Logan and Ryan being brought in for the birthday. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he found out who Ms. Logan really went to meet. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, not at that time. Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo subsequently learned who Ms. Logan went to see. Mr. Montalvo said he was not sure; however, he thought it was Michael Samone. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he had conversation with Ms. Logan following Thanksgiving regarding their relationship. Mr. Montalvo said after Ms. Logan came back from Thanksgiving, she was quite happy about the whole thing, she was coming back into his office. He said it was almost like Ms. Logan was trying to court him again. He said Ms. Logan informed him that he was a sweet guy and she still cared about him. He said Ms. Logan asked him why he was reciprocating the fact. Attorney Whitelock asked Mx. Montalvo if Ms. Logan made any suggestions as to how he could win back her attention. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan stated that he did not send her flowers and write her any more poetry. Mr. Montalvo said obviously, he was taken back because he really cared about her. Page 64 0/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked what happened after this. Mr. Montalvo said he sent Ms. Logan's son a teddy bear for Christmas and Ms. Logan silk flowers for Christmas. He said Ms. Logan came to him a few days after, she thanked him for them and stated that it was sweet of him. Referring to Exhibit marked "Montalvo 1", dated June or July, 1987, Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo received this letter from Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo said Ms. Logan spent the night, which was a late night, and she had to go to work the next day. He said he was staying at Ms. Logan's house at this time and she left him the letter asking him to take care of Ryan. Attorney Whitelock said there were several items dated and signed and he asked Mr. Montalvo if the signatures were his. Mr. Montalvo said they were his initials and it was his poetry. Attorney Whitelock asked what the dates of the poetry were. Mr. Montalvo said the end of September through October, roughly. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he continued this through January. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. He said Ms. Logan never posed any objection and he sent her flowers and love notes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo how many times he sent Ms. Logan flowers. Mr. Montalvo replied, twice. Attorl-ley Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo how many times he sent Ms. Logan flowers. Mr. Montalvo replied, three or four. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if ever during his employment he suggested to Ms. Logan that she was required to have any sexual contact with him. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever made any obscene or off colored remarks to Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. He said Ms. Logan made one towards him. He said he remembered one night she came into his office and he did not know how the subject came up; however, Ms. Logan indicated that she did not have sex for over a month and she asked him to go to bed with her. Attorney Whitelock asked when this occurred. Mr. Montalvo said it was just before the luncheon, October or November. Page 65 5;1z4/89 Attorney Whitelock asked if this occurred during the cooling off period. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo why he sent the notes and flowers. Mr. Montalvo said he felt the way Nis. Logan came back to him, she wanted him to court her back. He said the notes and letters indicated that there was no sexual innuendos, obscene gestures or anything of that kind. He said he was still in love with her and he thought she knew it and wanted him to court her back. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if this was what he believed. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. He said this was what Ms. Logan led him to believe. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he believed this today. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. He said he believed that he was set up. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions of Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Ruf said Mr. Montalvo indicated that by duly, 1985, he was supervising as many as 15 female employees. Mr. Montalvo said approximately. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever dated any of the 15 female employees. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, he went out with some of his staff for lunch. Attorney Ruf asked if it was a serious or semi -serious date. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Attorney Ruf asked if Ms. Logan was the first female employee of the City of Tamarac that he seriously dated. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, serious dating. Attorney Ruf said Mr. Montalvo testified that almost immediately he was placed in a supervisory position and, for a period of .time, he was the highest level employee in the department. Mr. Montalvo said for a short period of time during a crisis when Finance Directors were moving in and out. Attorney Ruf said Mr. Montalvo testified that he worked closely with the Personnel Department and he read everything that the personnel manual ever put out on employee relationships. Page 66 J 1 1 9/24/89 Mr. Montalvo said just about, yes. He said when he was placed in the capacity of a supervisor, he pulled out the personnel manual so lie could become familiar on what policies were involved in the City. He said it was his duty as a supervisor. Attorney Rut asked Mr. Montalvo if he knew of any policies that may not have been included in the personnel manual. Mr. Montalvo said not that he knew of. He said he kind of used the personnel manual as a bible. He said he thought it contained just about any situation that could arise. Attorney Rut asked if there was a bulletin board in City Hall where various personnel policies were displayed. Mr. Montalvo said occasionally there were personnel policies displayed outside of the Personnel Department. Mr. Montalvo asked about the bulletin board on the first floor across from the receptionist. Mr. Montalvo said from what he understood, they used to post jobs and things like this on there. He said he did not recall any policies being posted on it. Attorney Rut asked if there were at least two places in City Hall where they may have been personnel policies displayed. Mr. Montalvo replied, possibly. Attorney Rut asked if Mr. Montalvo thought it was possible that the personnel policy regarding sexual harassment was posted on one of the bulletin board and Mr. Montalvo, perhaps, missed it. Mr. Montalvo said he did not recall them being there. He said he used to breeze by the boards every once in a while and he did not recall them being there. Attorney Rut asked if it was possible that Mr. Montalvo missed it as he breezed by the boards. Mr. Montalvo said there was always a possibility. Referring to Exhibit marked "Montalvo 12", Attorney Rut asked Mr. Montalvo if he had any receipts from his Mastercard or American Express Card for December or January. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. Attorney Whitelock submitted these documents to Attorney Ruf for review. Attorney Rut said there was earlier testimony that after the disappointment Mr. Montalvo suffered at the Bay Street Restaurant Grand opening, Mr. Montalvo placed gum on the door handle of Ms. Logan's car. He asked if Mr. Montalvo recalled this testimony. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. Mr. Montalvo asked Mr. Montalvo if he put gum on the door handle of Ms. Logan's car. Page 67 3/24/89 TAPE 6 Mr. Montalvo said yes, it was a stupid, high schoolish, dumb thing. He said it was the day after, he was still upset and he had gum in his mouth, which he usually did not. He said he stated, "you bitch", and he stuck the gum underneath the door handle. He said after this he regretted it because it was childish, high schoolish stuff. Attorney Ruf said Mr. Montalvo indicated that he sent flowers and love notes to Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo replied, he did. Attorney Ruf said there had been earlier testimony that the love notes were typed on a typewriter in City Hall in the Finance Department. Mr. Montalvo replied, they were. Attorney Ruf asked how the notes were delivered to Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo said he placed them in the mail. Attorney Ruf asked if they were mailed to Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, they were mailed. Attorney Ruf asked where the notes were mailed. Mr. Montalvo said they were mailed to the City because he did not have Ms. Logan's new address. He said Ms. Logan had moved; however, Ms. Logan did give him the telephone number and he misplaced it. Attorney Ruf said the love notes typed on the Finance typewriter were taken to the Post Office and mailed back to the City. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes. He said the notes were not typed during working hours, obviously. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo if the notes would have been delivered during working hours. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, probably. Attorney Ruf asked where the flowers were sent. Mr. Montalvo said they were sent to the City. Attorney Ruf said he recalled that on one occasion there were four dozen roses. Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, there were. He said he was in love with her and he made no bones about it. He said he was not trying to harass her or mistreat her, if anything, he was doing what she requested. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo if he sent a letter to Ms. Logan indicating that he was sorry for having made 1987 a difficult year for her. Mr. Montalvo said he sent a letter to Ms. Logan stating that he was sorry that 1987 was a difficult year for her, not that he particularly made it difficult. Page 68 f/24/89 Referring to Exhibit marked "City 7", Attorney Ruf ask,2d Mr. Montalvo to review the first paragraph of this Exhibit. Mr. Montalvo said it was his handwriting and he asked Attorney Ruf if he wanted it read out loud. Attorney Ruf said Mr. Montalvo did not have to read it out loud and he asked if Mr. Montalvo wrote this letter which apologized to Ms. Logan for making 1987 a difficult year for her. He said Mr. Montalvo responded that he did not recall stating this; however, he thought that he stated he was sorry for 1987 being a difficult year. He ask-�d Mr. Montalvo what he really said. Mr. Montalvo said the letter stated that he knew he had not made her 1987 that great and he wanted to apologize for it. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo what he meant by this. He asked Mr. Montalvo what he did in 1987 that was not so great. Mr. Montalvo said he did not know. He said he was trying to make up for the situation that they put themselves in. He said they had an on again, off again relationship and he thought that by giving Ms. Logan this letter it would reaffirm their friendship. He said Ms. Logan had a difficult 1987 to begin with before he was in the picture. He said he was in love with her and he cared about her. He said he cared about her son more than anything else. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo if it affected his work. Mr. Montalvo said somewhat because he had a lot of things occurring at the time and besides Ms. Logan, there were several personal things occurring outside of the office. He said he would not attribute just the problems with Ms. Logan to his work performance because there were some difficult Personal problems occurring. He said he had a very sick aunt dying of cancer and he was very close to her. He said it was a difficult year end for him and there was a new Finance Director who upset the apple cart. He said the Finance Director decided to change the past procedures in one swoop which created a lot of pressure on him. He said all of the systems were changed and, until this point, he did not know why because all of the systems were still good; however, the Finance Director may not have understood what was going on. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo if he spoke or visited Ms. Logan at her work place during the time he was trying to rejuvenate the relationship. Mr. Montalvo said no, more like Ms. Logan came to him. He said Ms. Logan was more in his office than he was in hers. He said Attorney Ruf had to understand that he had to deal with Ms. Logan on a work basis as well to get reports out of the Data Processing Department in order to perform his job duties. Attorney Ruf asked if it was difficult for Mr. Montalvo to work with Ms. Logan. Page 69 9/24/89 Mr. Montalvo replied, yes, at times. He said sometimes at night Ms. Logan would make it difficult by coming to him. He said he tried to tell her to back off and cool it for awhile. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo if he told Ms. Logan to chill out; however, there were love notes and flowers which seemed to convey a different impression. Attorney Whitelock objected to the form of the question. He said Attorney Ruf- was taking Mr. Montalvo's statement out of context. Attorney Ruf withdrew his question. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo if there was a conflict from his oral testimony stating that he told Ms. Logan to chill out and his admission to attempting to regenerate the relationship. Attorney Whitelock objected as being argumentative. Mayor Abramowitz overruled the objection. Attorney Ruf asked Mr. Montalvo to answer the question. Mr. Montalvo said one would think that there would be some kind of conflict; however, it had to be understood that there were certain periods in time where he had a lot of work and Ms. Logan was trying to bring on the relationship. He said he was informing Ms. Logan that he was in the middle of something and they should discuss the matter later. He said Ms. Logan would come back again or the next day. He said it was a confusing time and it was not easy going through what he was going through. Attorney Ruf had no further questions of Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Montalvo testified that he had 15 female employees working for him and he went out with them on several occasions. He asked Mr. Montalvo how many of the employees he had been out with. Mr. Montalvo said most of them, even some females from another department. He said they used to socialize. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever dated any of the girls on a regular basis. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. Referring to Exhibit marked "City 7", Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he signed this document. Mr. Montalvo replied, sure. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. effort to hide his identity. Mr. Montalvo replied, no. He need at this time. Montalvo if he made any said he felt there was no Page 70 1 1 I g)/24/89 Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he made any attempt not to disclose his identity during this time frame. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, not at that time. Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Montalvo testified that there were times when Ms. Logan came to him to discuss personal matters and he (Mr. Montalvo) informed her that he had work to do. He asked Mr. Montalvo if he ever allowed this to interfere with his work performance. Mr. Montalvo replied, no, not directly. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if anyone ever came to him and asked him to stop contacting Ms. Logan before he was terminated or suspended by the City. Mr. Montalvo replied, no way. He said he was never warned. He said he was never told that he was doing anything out of the ordinary. He said he was never warned and he was brought in and informed that he had a choice to either resign or be fired. He said this was what he was told. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Montalvo if he was warned not to have contact in any form, other than an employment nature, with Ms. Logan. Mr. Montalvo replied, no way. Attorney Ruf objected to the question being self-serving. Mayor Abramowitz overruled the objection and he asked Mr. Montalvo to answer the question. Mr. Montalvo replied, no way. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions of Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Ruf had no further questions of Mr. Montalvo. Attorney Whitelock called James Robinson as a Witness. Pauline Walaszek, Secretary, swore Mr. Robinson in as a Witness. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Robinson to state his name for the record. Mr. Robinson stated his name to be, James Robinson. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Robinson who he was employed with. Mr. Robinson replied, City of Tamarac. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Robinson in what capacity he worked. Mr. Robinson replied, Utilities. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Robinson if he knew Charlotte Bouchard. Page 71 ,?/24/89 Mr. Robinson said on a friendship basis, yes. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Robinson if he ever informed Mrs. Bouchard that he had a conversation with Elena Logan concerning the fact that only men were good for sex. Mr. Robinson said he did not recall this. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Robinson if he recalled telling Mrs. Bouchard this. Mr. Robinson replied, no, he did not. Attorney Whitelock asked Mr. Robinson if he recalled having a conversation with Ms. Logan to this effect. Mr. Robinson said he did not recall this either. Attorney Whitelock had no further questions of Mr. Robinson. Attorney Ruf had no questions of Mr. Robinson. Attorney Whitelock called John P. Kelly, City Manager as a Witness. He said he forgot to place Ms. Logan's employment application into evidence. After reviewing the application, Attorney Ruf had no objections to the application being placed into evidence. This document was marked a "Montalvo 13". C/M Hoffman asked what the purpose of the application was. Attorney Whitelock said for the City Council to reconsider the testimony of John Ceraolo in overcoming the objection of relevancy. He said Mr. Ceraolo's testimony was extremely relevant in cottaborating the testimony of Mr. Montalvo and impugning the credibility and the explanation by Ms. Logan during her direct cross examination concerning her recollection of the events. He said Mr. Ceraolo's testimony clearly indicated that Ms. Logan had been carrying on a relationship, manipulated that relationship with Mr. Ceraolo in an identical fashion as with Mr. Montalvo and informed him of the same exact problems that she was having with Mr. Ceraolo when, in effect, Mr. Ceraolo was being manipulated by Ms. Logan because she was looking for a place to live. He said in March, 1987, when she came on to Mr. Montalvo and initiated a relationship, Mr. Ceraolo explained that Ms. Logan had no place to live because she and Michael Samone were about to breakup. Attorney Whitelock said the other portion of the testimony indicated that with the relationship which existed between, Ms. Logan and Mr. Montalvo, he found that Ms. Logan went away with Mr. Montalvo during the Memorial Weekend when she was having a relationship with Mr. Ceraolo. He said Ms. Logan informed Mr. Ceraolo that her relationship with Mr. Montalvo was over while Mr. Montalvo was away on vacation. He said this not only pertained to Ms. Logan's credibility but also; her character and her recollection of the events. He said the reason for the application was; Mr. Ceraolo's testimony indicated one story that Ms. Logan provided concerning her family members and tried to manipulate Mr. Page 72 cq/24/89 5amone to buy her a car and provide housing for her and loans to her. He said her brother was still in jail but something about the father committing suicide as opposed to the father throwing her out of the house, virtually made her homeless. Attorney Whitelock said Ms. Logan's application indicated a different reason at the time she applied for employment in October, 1986, noting that Ms. Logan was in fact applying where Mr. Ceraolo worked at the same time. He said the application indicated that the reason Ms. Logan left her job was not because of any relationship she had by her father dying or her mother having cancer, but for the reason that she was attending a gravely ill family member. He said Mr. Ceraolo's testimony was pertinent to the extent that the financial remunerations of his relationship with Ms. Logan were parallel to that of Mr. Montalvo and also the fact that Mr. Ceraolo had the same relationship with Ms. Logan during their employment, that being a supervisor/employee, that Mr. Montalvo had with Ms. Logan at the same time. He said Mr. Ceraolo testified that Ms. Logan came on to him and pursued the relationship in the same fashion that Mr. Montalvo was pursued. He said for those points, he felt that the testimony was extremely relevant to the matter and the behavior and whether the pattern was inconsistent with the testimony she (Ms. Logan) has given. He said he felt it was extremely relevant not only for the impeachment of characters that testified. He said he understood that the City Council were not lawyers; however, that was why they had legal counsel. Mayor Abramowitz said he found it very hard to understand Attorney Whitelock. Attorney Whitelock said Mr. Ceraolo was an extremely essential. Witness because his testimony indicated that during the same time frame there was the same existing conditions with Ms. Logan and her manipulative personality in which Ms. Logan manipulated Mr. Ceraolo and the other individuals involved. Attorney Ruf readopted all of the objection he had previously. He said the matter was previously ruled on. Mayor Abramowitz said he ruled on this matter before and he asked Attorney Whitelock to continue. Attorney Whitelock said the Petitioner rested at this time. Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock if he agreed to waive the 5 day reply and would reply by written brief. Attorney Whitelock agreed. Attorney Rednor said Section 52.02 of the personnel handbook required that the decisions of the City Council be made public within 5 working days of the conclusion of the public hearing. He asked Attorney Whitelock and Attorney Ruf if they understood that this would not occur as a result of the waiver. Attorney Whitelock replied, yes. He suggested that they decide on a date to submit written briefs. Page 73 9'/24/89 Attorney Ruf said he did not plan to present any legal evidence such as case law, etc. He said if Attorney Whitelock planned to do this, he suggested that Attorney Whitelock's brief come first and he be given 10 days to respond. He said if all Attorney Whitelock was going to provide the City Council with was an oral closing argument, he would be willing to submit his brief on the same day as Attorney Whitelock's. Attorney Whitelock said this was the City's burden to prove. He said it was Attorney Ruf's duty to carry the burden and, if anyone should respond, it would be him. Attorney Ruf said he was prepared to do closing arguments at this time. He said his closing argument was prepared and he was ready to give it now. He said he would be happy to work with Attorney Whitelock if he was not prepared or willing to go forward with his closing argument. Attorney Whitelock said he was prepared and he would submit a legal brief of the opinions. He said if the City Council could memorize them and wanted to look them up, he wished them luck. He said he did not think that the City Council was trained in the law and it would be best if they had the cases before them. He said any arbitration matter he was involved in was done this way. He said it served to educate to allow an informed decision as opposed to something from the hip. Mayor Abramowitz said he understood that once the witnesses were called both counsels would present a closing argument and a date that was mutually convenient to the Councilmembers would be set for 5 working days after the closing arguments. He said he did not object to what was being suggested. He said the consulting Attorney did not object to this procedure providing it was stipulated for the record. He said if the prosecuting Attorney did not agree, he could not approve. Attorney Ruf said if Attorney Whitelock was going to submit a legal brief, he would like 10 days to respond and Attorney Whitelock could do a brief if he wanted to within 5 days. He said hewas ready to proceed at this time and the City Council could meet in five days to deliver their decision. Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock if he agreed with Attorney Ruf. Attorney Whitelock said he did not see why he should be placed in a disadvantage. He said he did not object to submitting simultaneous briefs; however, if the closing arguments were given at this time, the City Council would hear the same argument. He said the City Council would be getting the benefits of the cases; however, if they did not have them, they would be making a uniform decision. Attorney Whitelock said sometimes:, -counsel could mail their briefs to a third party simultaneously with copies of the opposite sides so that there was nothing sneaky pulled. He said Attorney Ruf would have the advantage because he would be closing first. Page 74 ,9/24/89 1-1 Attorney Rednor suggested that both Attorney Whitelock and Attorney Ruf submit an initial brief with an opportunity to submit replies to the initial briefs within a set period of time. Mayor Abramowitz said he did not want a set period of time because he wanted to give everyone the opportunity to digest, read and reply again. Attorney Whitelock suggested they file initial briefs within in 10 days and reply within 5 days after. After further discussion, Attorney Whitelock and Attorney Ruf agreed to file their initial briefs on September 8, 1989, and their reply briefs on September 18, 1989. Attorney Rednor suggested that the Attorneys submit copies of the cases they cited in their briefs. Attorney Whitelock and Attorney Ruf agreed. Mayor Abramowitz commended the Attorneys for their good behavior during the hearing. With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this meeting at 4:10 P.M. ./� /I _ A. NU�2f,'lA[d ABRAbSOWITZ, MAYOR ARDL A. VAN �,,l TY CLERK "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $306.80 or $38.35 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." Page 75 CITY OF TAMARAC / APPROVED AT MEETING OF City Clerk 1 1 M010719 L �/O ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING JOHN MONTALVO, JR., ) Petitioner, ) and ) CITY OF TAMARAC, ) Respondent. ) ---------------------------x 1311 S.E. Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida August 19, 1989 9:00 O'clock a.m. APPEARANCES: WHITELOCK & MOLDOF, By: CHARLES WHITELOCK, ESQUIRE, Appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. RUF & CARSKY, By: BRADLEY WINSTON, ESQUIRE, Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. -------------- STATEMENT OF JOHN PATRICK CERAOLO --------------- LAWYER'S NOTES C� 1 I N D E X WITNESS EXAMINATION JOHN PATRICK CERAOLO FOR IDENTIFICATION NONE Direct by Mr. Whitelock: Cross by Mr. Winston: Redirect by Mr. Whitelock: EXHIBITS PAGE 3 15 20 PAGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 M1 3 Statement of JOHN PATRICK CERAOLO, a witness herein, taken on behalf of the Petitioner herein, for the purpose of discovery and for use as evidence in the above -entitled cause, wherein JOHN I MONTALVO, JR. is the Petitioner and CITY OF TAMARAC is the Respondent, for the Administrative Hearing in and i for Broward County, Florida, before TERRI TAYLOR, Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, at 1311 Southeast Second Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, County of Broward, State of Florida, on the 19th day of August, 1989, commencing at or about 9:00 o'clock a.m. THEREUPON: JOHN PATRICK CERAOLO a witness herein, being of lawful age and being first duly sworn in the above -entitled cause, testified on his oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WHITELOCK: Q. State your name, please. A. John Patrick Ceraolo. Q. You're a resident of Broward County; is that correct? A. Yes. �I #6MAI/ �t�z. . �� 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 Q. You will not be present for a hearing, physically present within the State of Florida for a hearing scheduled this Thursday; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Where do you intend to be? A. In Colorado. Q. That's more than a hundred miles from Fort i Lauderdale, or Tamarac, I should say? A. About 3,000 miles. Q. And you will not be available for the hearing then? A. No, I will not. I was originally - until it was changed I was set to go. Q. You could have attended the original hearing but when it got changed --- A. Yeah, it fell into my other plans. Q. The reason I've called you as a witness is i I to ask you about what, if any, knowledge you have pertaining to a relationship you had with an individual by the name of Elaina Logan. Did you know her? A. Yes, I did. Q. How did you know her? A. We used to work together. Q. Where was that at? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Birch Scarborough Research. Q. What was your capacity there? A. At that time, syndicator manager, data processing. Q. What was Elaina's position? A. She was a micro -computer operator. Q. she would have been in a subordinate position as to yours; you were in a management position? A. Right. She worked under another manager. Q. Did you engage in a personal relationship with Flaina? A. Yes, I did. Q. How did that occur? A. Occurred in the sense of when did we get started? Q. Yeah. How did it commence? A. We were seeing each other while she was at work, it was not a full blown relationship. We had dated twice before she left work. Q. How was it that she came to meet you? What caused or sparked the relationship? A. The company had gone to -- most of the people had gone to a bar after work for a happy hour or something, and most everyone left and she stuck around I 1 P 1 1 L 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and so did I. She let me know about her feelings about me. I was surprised. Q. Why were you surprised? A. I didn't expect it. It was out of the blue. Q. Had you had any contact with her previous to that evening? A. Any personal contact? Q. None working contact? A. No. Q. Never had any personal contact with her where you would have indicated any feelings other than as a co-worker? A. No, not at all. Q. What happened as a result of that evening, did you begin a relationship? A. Yes. Q. How long did that relationship last? A. Say about five or six months. Q. And when did it terminate? A. Terminated in -- about Memorial Day weekend of 1987, officially terminated. It was real rocky from the middle of March on. It was up in the air, up and down a lot between then and May. Q. How long did Elaina continue to work at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your pace of business after the relationship had began? A. Not anymore than a month. Q. Where did she go? A. City of Tamarac. Q. Did you ever hear from her when she was at Tamarac? A. Yes, we dated for the five months. Q. How would you hear from her? A. She would call me mostly. Q. During work? A. She would call me later when she was at work. She had a later shift. i was always home around 5:30, quarter to six, she'd call me at six. Q. While she was at work she'd call you at home? A. Yes. Q. Was it a personal nature? A. Yeah. Q. Nothing to do with any work? A. Telling me stuff about her job in terms of being an operator, people she worked with. Q. Did she ever mention John Montalvo? A. Yes, she did. Q. Under what circumstances? 7 1 1 1 1 2 I J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. She said that she thought he was gay, I think was one thing she said. I asked her why, and she said because he was wearing jewelry. And I blew it off at that. Q. In your initial relationship with Rlaina how would you describe her actions towards you? A. In the initial phase? Q. Yes. A. Real friendly, real personal relationship, but it was certainly physical. It was almost deeper than that. Q. Did she pursue you rather than you pursuing her? A. Yes. Q. Other than this initial contact how would she do that? A. The initial contact was her, and then it became a mutual thing. Q. What caused the break up? A. A few things. Mainly that when she moved out - she was living with another man when she moved out, right around March or so, she had complained about the guy she lived with and didn't like him. When she moved out I thought our relationship was going to take off at that point, and it turns out two weeks later she ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had to stay over one night with that guy and got things very rocky for me. And eventually we were up in the air back and forth. And then I wanted to go out of town with her Memorial Day weekend, and she said she had plans to go to Key West with people she worked with. Q. Did she tell you who with? A. No. I pieced it together. Q. Who was that? A. John Montalvo and a few other people from work. Q. Did you ever ask anything about this guy supposedly that was gay that she was going away with for the weekend? A. A few months later -- after Memorial Day weekend we didn't talk. I never contacted her, she never contacted me. Maybe a week afterwards, to give her my new address because I moved. About two months later she called me and she wanted me to give her money for a Pyramid Plan so we could make thousands of dollars. I was so offended that she wanted my money to start a Pyramid Plan. it was really wierd. Q. Do you have an opinion as to her truth and veracity? . e5X�rwitr I rj 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 A. She's a very confused individual. Q. In what way? i A. She just -- her career paths would change I day-to-day, what she wanted. One day she never wanted I to be in data processing - it's a more personal thing. j I She had no direction. Q. Did you know anything about her past? A. Yes. Q. What did you know about it? A. About her past, that she was from Arizona or had been in Arizona. I knew of her tragedies in her I family's life when she lived in Tampa, because her father killed himself and she was all upset about that still, even to this day. Her brother was always in constant trouble with the law. And just that she came from Phoenix with this guy, the guy she was living with. MR. WINSTON: Object to the form of all of this stuff as irrelevant. Just, you know, no personal knowledge. Q. Go ahead. For the record, hearsay is permitted in an administrative hearing. You're testifying what she told you obviously other than what you knew? A. Yeah. I didn't know where she was from, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 she told me she was from Arizona but had moved from i there to where she was living in Coral Springs. Q. She told you her father committed suicide? i A. Yes. i Q. And her brother had been arrested or incarcerated for drug use? A. No, it wasn't that. I don't know what it was, but he was in -- he had been in jail she believed for a while. She wasn't sure herself. Q. How would you describe her as a person? Would you describe her as a person that had any I substance to her or A. Initially she started out to be a very sweet person, seemed sincere and she loves her son very dearly. Q. How did you get along with her son? A. Great. Q. After your conversation with her when she called you some two months later did you mention or have any comments concerning John Montalvo? A. Yes, because I spent the night with her that night'or the next night. Q. Two months later? A. Yeah. Q. Sometime in July?' 1 1 C L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Um-hmm, right. She said he was out of town. 12 Q. She said he was out of town? A. Um -hum. i Q. Where did you stay, at her place? A. Yes. Q. What, if anything, did she say about John? A. She had pictures, photographs on the wall and I had known, from what she told me, he was a photographer and did it on the side. And I noticed these photographs, and I don't know where the conversation lead, but I put it together she was seeing him. And she mentioned she was seeing someone else and i she didn't want to pursue me staying over as a i rebe innin to our relationship. g 9 p• And then I put it together and I mentioned his name. She said, how did you know? I said, I'm not stupid. And that was it. Q. Did she indicate to you at that time that her and Montalvo were then having a relationship this time when you stayed over? A. Yes, it was pretty solid. Q. During this time that you were dating her from, I think you said December of 186 would have been about five or six months prior to Memorial, 1987; L.Ztarrer, 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Um-hmm, right. She said he was out of town. 12 Q. She said he was out of town? A. Um -hum. I Q. Where did you stay, at her place? A. Yes. Q. What, if anything, did she say about John? A. She had pictures, photographs on the wall and I had known, from what she told me, he was a I photographer and did it on the side. And I noticed these photographs, and I don't know where the conversation lead, but I put it together she was seeing him. And she mentioned she was seeing someone else and i she didn't want to pursue me staying over as a rebeginning to our relationship. And then I put it'together and I mentioned his name. She said, how did you know? I said, I'm not stupid. And that was it. Q. Did she indicate to you at that time that her and Montalvo were then having a relationship this time when you stayed over? A. Yes, it was pretty solid. Q. During this time that you were dating her from, I think you said December of 186 would have been about five or six months prior to Memorial, 1987; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 A. He never paid enough attention to her, something like that. Q. Is she an individual that demands a lot of attention? A. Yes. Q. You have to constantly chase her and follow her? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever send her any flowers? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did she ever ask you to send her flowers? A. No. Q. How about anything else? Did you ever do anything else in a romantic mode; send her letters? A. No, I never sent her a letter. I had, on occasion, gone to her work at Tamarac and put flowers under her windshield wiper blades. She'd call me up and know it was me. Q. How was her relationship with this Michael Samone when they broke up? A. It was pretty open, pretty -- it wasn't dirty, nasty or bloody or anything. He helped her move out. you? Q. Did she at that time want to move in with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 A. No. I was living with my parents. That was impossible anyway. Q. So, at that time period around Memorial, 1987 she was looking for another place to live then? A. She didn't like where she was living in the apartment she was at. She moved out from Samone to a new apartment around March or so and she didn't like where she was living. Q. She was looking for a new place to live or wanted to find a new place to live? A. Yes. Q. Do you know if she moved in with somebody else? A. Not to my knowledge. I thought she lived at that apartment. Q. Now, I've never met you before today; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. The only time we spoke was on the phone? A. Yes, that's correct. MR. WHITELOCK: I don't have anything further. CROSS EXAMINATION BY WINSTON: Q. What would you say the date would be when 1 1 1 1 L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 she first approached you? A. Date, I have no idea about the exact date. Q. Within a month? A. Somewhere probably in October. Q. Of '86? A. Yeah. Q. When did you start seeing each other after that? A. Probably really towards the middle to end of November, whenever he was out of town or whatever we'd get together. Q. That's when Samone was out of town? A. Um-hmm. Q. And she moved out of there about March? i i A. Right. i Q. Okay. A. Same month as my birthday, that's why it's easy for me to remember. Q. During the time between -- during the time you were seeing Elaina were you seeing anyone else? A. No, I was not. Q. You knew that she was seeing other people besides you at the time? A. Just him, just Samone. That's the only one I figured. 17 1 Q. When she move out of Samone's she told you 2 about Montalvo? 3 A. No, when we got together a couple months 4 after we broke up. I wasn't aware of her dating anyone 5 else. 6 Q. And you broke up the first time around 7 Labor Day or Memorial Day weekend? 8 A. Memorial Day weekend. 9 Q. That was the first time you had spoken 10 with her in about two months? 11 A. July. 12 Q. I'm sorry. I'm trying to get the 13 chronology? 14 A. Memorial weekend we officially broke up 15 and two months later is when she officially admitted 16 she was seeing John Montalvo. 17 Q. That was in July? 18 A. Right. I think that's when it was. 19 Q. That's when she called you? 20 A. Yes, that's correct. I did not attempt to 21 contact her. 22 Q. And you stayed the night that night? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And was that in the same apartment she had 25 moved into from Samone's house? I 1 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That's correct. Q. Did you see her again after July of 187? A No. I passed her ones in the frozen food section in Albertsons, that was it, but otherwise no. Q. You said you were offended by the way she contacted you to get into this investment scheme? A. Um-hmm. Because that was the first thing she asked me, not how are you or anything, like a cold sales call. Q. Are you under subpoena here? A. Yes. Q. Have you been served with a subpoena to appear here today? A. Not to appear here but at the counsel meeting, yes, I am. Summons and subpoena are the same thing; right? 18 Q. No. Subpoena is a document which commands you to appear in front of a judicial tribunal or a proceeding like a deposition. A. I'm not sure exactly what I was given. I thought it was a subpoena. I have it in the car. Q. Do you know what the date of the appearance you're supposed to appear in the subpoena says? 19 I 1 A. Yes. I don't remember offhand, but it was 2 during the time -- it was a Thursday and I had taken a f 3 half day off of work. I don't offhand remember the 4 exact date. It was a few weeks ago. I 5 Q. And was it served on you? 6 A. Yes, it was. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. My first ever. I 9 Q. So, that date's been passed? i 10 A. Yes, it has. 11 MR. WHITELOCK: Object to the form of the i 12 question. The date hasn't passed. It was 13 cancelled out unilaterally by the City and was 14 rescheduled. We had a Motion to Dismiss for the 15 lack of prosecution and also for the delay i I 16 that's been caused several times by the City 17 through their - for whatever reasons. Every 18 time we get ready to put on our case we've been 19 delayed. 20 We subpoenaed Mr. Ceraolo last time to 21 appear and the morning proceeding we were called 22 and'told it was first going to be delayed, then 23 they tried to say we were asking for a 24 continuance, when we never asked for one. And 25 it was demanded to have a hearing to put on our 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 case. Object to the form of the question. Move to strike any response. MR. WINSTON: The answer to the question is -- you can answer, if you know. Has the date that you've been subpoenaed for past? MR. WHITELOCK: Object to the form of the question. Q. (By Mr. Winston) You can answer. j i I A. Yes, it has. MR. WINSTON: That's all. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WHITELOCK: Q. I want to clarify one thing. The first time you started seeing Elaina you said you were seeing I her when someone was out of town. That was the fellow she was living with at that time? A. That's correct. Q. The time she contacted you a couple months after your break up on Memorial, 187 you said that you stayed the night and that someone was out of town. Was that Montalvo that was out of town at that time? A. Um-hmm. Q. Yes? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 A. Yes. MR. WHITELOCK: I have nothing further. THE WITNESS: I want to say, for the record, I'm not proud of having this relationship at all. Q. (By Mr. Whitelock) Why is that? A. It's morally all messed up. I'm not proud of it at all. MR. WHITELOCK: Thank you. I appreciate you coming in. I know you didn't want to. I appreciate you coming. Thank you. MR. WINSTON: Move to strike Counsel's last comments. Object to the form of that as not being a question and as being testimony on the record. MR. WHITELOCK: I still thank him for coming. MR. WINSTON: I thank you for coming, too. (Whereupon, the taking of the statement was concluded at or about 9:30 o'clock a.m.) Cl 1 1 I CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUNTY OF BROWARD) I, TERRI TAYLOR, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1 to and including 21, is a true and correct transcription of my stenographic notes of the proceedings of the statement of JOHN CERAOLO at 1311 Southeast Second Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, County of Broward, State of Florida, on the 19th day of August, 1989. 22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto affixed my hand this 21st day of August, 1989. TERRI TAYLOR Shorthand Reporter