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