HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-04 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesE
„ry�,+•��gr,�w�wq.. .... ... K7��j � r r�: x .��; r �r,..ara�r *c im+ ...-: ;wa;7r"^.-,H aq��•.,�
MAIL REPLY TO:
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320
5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 6 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
December 2, 1985
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
PUBLIC HEARING
There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council on Wednesday,
December 4, 1985, at approximately 10:00 A.M. (or immediately
following the City Council Pre -Agenda Workshop Meeting scheduled
for 9:00 A.M.).
The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a public hearing
requested by Thomas S. Watkins pursuant to Section 44.02
of the Personnel Manual to appeal his grievance due to his
layoff from City employment.
The public is invited to attend.
Carol E. Barbuto
Assistant City Clerk
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
w'
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING
December 4, 1985
Tape 1 CALF TO QRPER: Mayor Kravitz called the meeting to order on
Wednesday, December 4, 1985 at 10:00 A.M. in the West Conference
Room of City Hall.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT:
Mayor Philip B. Kravitz
Vice Mayor Helen Massaro
Councilman Arthur H. Gottesman
Councilman Raymond J. Munitz
Councilman Sydney M. Stein
ALSO PRESENT:
Larry Perretti, Acting City Manager
Jon M. Henning, City Attorney
Thomas S. Watkins
Roger D. Haagenson, Esq.
Patricia Marcurio, Secretary
Mayor Kravitz read the Notice of the Meeting into the record.
Mr. Henning said Council is being asked to sit as the hearing
board and final appeal in a grievance procedure. He said
Mr. Roger Haagenson is present as the Attorney for Mr. Watkins,
who was formerly employed by the City as a Captain with the City's
Fire Department. He said Mr. Haagenson requested that if anyone
is to be called as a witness, they be sworn in and the City Clerk
was present to administer the oath.
Mr. Henning said he will try to answer any questions of procedure
and Mr. Perretti will present the City's side. He said Fire
Captains are considered Management employees and are not in the
bargaining unit under which the Firefighters are covered. He said
since this is not covered under the bargaining unit, it is covered
under the Personnel Manual.
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Haagenson to stipulate that he is agreeing`
to the notice that he received for this hearing as being called at
the employee's request. He said this was not advertised in the
newspaper but was written notice to the employee and his attorney.
Mr. Haagenson said he did agree, on behalf of Mr. Watkins, to the
hearing today although he was only notified two days ago. He said
he would prefer to have had more notice but there are no
objections to the proceedings at this time.
Mr. Henning asked to have those planned to testify sworn in by the
City Clerk. Mr. Perretti noted that he did not plan on having
anyone testify. Thomas Watkins, the former employee, and
Mark Tillinghast, a witness for Mr. Watkins, were sworn in by the
City Clerk.
Mr. Perretti said the definitions of "layoff" vs. "termination"
should be defined and it should be made clear what the City's
intent was. He said as far as he is concerned, Mr. Watkins is
still a City employee on layoff. He said if there is a need for
an individual in his particular classification to return to work,
he would be the first one to return without the need of the City
advertising. He said there were 8 other employees that were laid
off with the budget cuts.
Mr. Perretti said the Personnel Manual reads that Council has up
to 3 days to make a decision on this matter. He said Council
received a copy of Fire Chief Simon's original proposal for the
Personnel Summary in May, 1985. He said at that time he was the
Personnel Director and not the Acting City Manager. He said the
1
12/4/85
/pm v
Personnel Summary was signed b
y Jud,the Assistant Personnel Director, andDwas sdatedh5o at that
/31/85. time was
Mr. Perretti said the main reason he is noting this for Counc'
attention is to show that even at that time there was no intent o the part of the Fire Chief to make any irregularities pertain'
to Captain Watkins' future with the Cit t on
Chief requested at that time was for a Battaeisaidon th chaan.gesnthe
request was denied. He said the Fire Chief also requestand ed none
Fire Captains and "3" Fire Inspectors.
C/M Stein left the meeting at this point.
Mr. Perretti said in the entire method to Chief Simon's
Of the application of his manpower,
there was no intent to get rid of
nj
in fact, he wanted to increase his
Firefighters from 22 to 30.
layoff of Captain Watkins He said the end result of the final
to do with Chief Simon or the well as a Assistant FirefChief,ighterrwhadwas Acting
Fire Chief at that time.
Acting
Mr. Perretti said in July he became Acting City
given the responsibility of preparing the budgetMtoasubmitd was
to
Council. He said on his and the Finance Director's initial
review, the City was 3 million dollars short in balancing th
budget. He said the first decision that was made at a staff
meeting was to cut every department's request for additionale
manpower. He said
every department hadxrequestedor aafsubstantiialew of the mincreasller epin marts,
Mr. Perretti said after further cuts in the budget a in manpower.
to reduce the budget to approximate) 1 they were able
still not balanced. Y 51,100,000.00 and this was
considered. He said theyaworkedat taacompletet time tdar areas had n h
budget and it was uncomfortable to Y and night on this
contract. He said the final decision concerning each ithe Fire tem of h
Depart-
ment was that the Fire Chief could not have a Battalion Chief as
was requested and would remain with the same classification
Fire Captains but, instead of having 3 positions of
eliminated. , l was being
Mr. Perretti said the other
sosition eliminated was one of the 22
current Firefighter position
t the same time
People were laid off throughout the sCity adepartments. other
Mr. Perretti said Mr. Watkins did file for unemployment and
forms he filed concerning "Reason for Discharge or on the
g
Mr. Watkins put "Budget Cut Quit",
"I left or lost this job because eIswas temporarilyd he also statlaidn the form, because of lack of work." Mr. Perretti said he feels this
issue since Mr. Watkins was temporaril this is the
Of work and for no other reason.
Y laid off because of lack
Mr. Perretti said as a matter of history, Mr.
Watkins
from his position of Fire Captain on October 16, 1985,was laid off
the actual effective date was October 3 esaid
'
weeks compensation in lieu of notice, 1985 and he received two
his recall rights for the next 12 monthseasaid Mr. Watkins retains
Per-
sonnel Manual. He said Mr. Watkins elected ttorfreeze the lhiss contributions when Judy Deutsch, Assistant Personnel Director,
spoke to him about the monies he had in the Pension Fund. pension
on October 7, 1985, Mr. He said
before the City Maager intaccordanceswithaSectionn4e Hearing
Personnel Manual, He said on October 15, 1Se 2 of the
held a Grievance Hearing with Mr. . the City Manager
grievance was based on the fact that thenwas thesaid Mr. Watkins'
Captains but the first to be laid off. senior of 3
Mr. Perretti said on October 22, 1985
hto Mr.
Denying his grievance based on the fact thatoseniority intakins
Supervisory capacity is not the determining factor. He said
decision was made by the Department Head based on overallthe
assess-
ment. He said on October 28, 1985 representing Mr. Watkins Roger Haagenson, Attorney
served written notice of a request for a
2
12/4/85 /
/Pm �/
Public Hearing regarding the City Manager's decision of October 22
and, today that public hearing is being held.
Mr. Perretti noted that a Managerial employee does not have
seniority as a determining factor in a layoff; however, that
clause is written in the 3 union contracts the City has. He said
to the best of his knowledge, that is not a rule in any Managerial
Position throughout Broward Count
was not laidoff, it is Y• He said if Captain Watkins
disputing their layoff aswell.
one of the other Captains would be
a request for rebuttal after Mr. Haagensonts�commentshis arecbeawith
rd.
For the record, Mr. Henning referenced the documents being refer-
red to by Mr. Perretti. He said the first was the Personnel
Summary for FY 85/86 (See Attachment 1
if he had any objections to this document beingked maderpartageOf nthe
Minutes and Mr. Haagenson said no.
Mr. Haagenson said it is true that seniority is not the governing
factor; however, it is a factor in determining who is to be laid
Off. He said the real
was a Management em to was is that, even though Mr. Watkins
P Y , he was a public employee for a public
employer and has certain due process rights. He said
Mr. Watkins' job cannot be taken away from him without
going
through due process. He said even though the City states that
Mr. Watkins is on layoff, he is not drawing a salary and action
was taken against him rather than anyone else in the department.
Mr. Haagenson said the City has taken the action and
Mr. Watkins' position is that the City justify the action that was taken. has an obligation to
Department Head took the action but therelisMno wayPerretti
thed the
Council can determine whether this action was app
hearing the reasons why this decision was made. Hepsaidethwi
ishout
would be a complete sham if this is not done. He said
Mr. Watkins' due process rights would be strictly violated if the
and Council are not able to hear why Mr. Watkins was chosen for
layoff rather than anyone else. y
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Haagenson if he was suggesting
a reason other than funding and Mr. Haagensosaes, thererhass
to be a reason why they chose Mr. Watkins.
Mra Haagenson said the
City must have cause for this action and cannot lay someone off
arbitrarily. He said they do not know what that is and, if the
City is not going to tell them then this whole procedure is a
complete sham.
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Haagenson whether he is requesting calling
the Fire Chief as a witness and Mr. Haagenson said he feels th
Fire Chief should be called by the City as a witness since he is
the one who apparentlye
should hear whatthereasonsmade twerehe ethatohe chose the Council
laid off. se Mr. Watkins to be
Mr. Henning said he is not prosecuting this case for the City but
is present as the Council's advisor.
chosen not to call the Fire Chief as aHwitness; e said Mr. Perretti has
Mr. Haagenson wants the Fire Chiefs testimony, however, a
him available in order to allow Mr. Y► the City can make
Mr. Haagenson said yes, he would likeathentQretChiefltotbe
sent.
pre -
Mr. Perretti said when it was determined that the budget was to be
cut, those people involved in cutting the budget had no names in
front of them but only job classifications.
on a witch hunt because it involved other people throughout the
He said they were not
City as well and none of them have grieved their particular layoff
yoff
Mr. Perretti said the reason why he did not have Chief Simon
present was basically because this is a Management right. He sai
he feels very strongly that Management has a rightd
�
strict seniority clause, to layoff whomever they want for what
reason. He said regardless of what the reason was he feels if
Chief Simon comes to the meeting other things other than the ever
key
3
12/4/85 j
/Pm V
issue will be brought up. He said that will involve the situation
of personalities rather than the true reason for the layoff, which
was budget restraints.
Mr. Perretti said the issue is budget restraints recommended by
the City Council and not by the Department Heads. He said he
wanted to make it clear it was not the Department Heads or the
City Manager who had originally said these people were to be let
go. He said it was decided that in the Fire Department a Captain
and a Firefighter were to be laid off without names being mention-
ed.
Mr. Haagenson said it must be remembered that there are 3 Fire
Captains here and a decision was made amongst those 3 to select
Mr. Watkins for layoff. He said if, what Mr. Perretti is saying
is true, the City of Tamarac Personnel. Manual means absolutely
nothing as far as the grievance procedure for management
employees. He said Mr. Perretti has stated that it is management
prerogative and it cannot be reviewed and, taking this position,
the Council cannot review the decision because it is not known how
the decision was made.
Mr. Haagenson said there is a provision in the Personnel Manual
that allows Mr. Watkins to grieve this action and he has rights as
a public employee. He said this distinction should be made since
what Mr. Perretti is saying holds true for a private employer. He
said a private employer has absolute discretion and can be
completely arbitrary; however, that is not the case for the public
employer. He said the City must show that there was due process
and cause for what was done.
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Haagenson if he sees any distinction in
layoff vs. other methods of termination and a Management
employee vs. a non -Management employee concerning the property
rights in the job. He asked Mr. Haagenson to address what he
believes the employees' rights are in a Management category in a
layoff situation.
Mr. Haagenson said as a laid -off person something has been taken
away from Mr. Watkins and a property right in the job has been
removed. He said he is suggesting this cannot be done arbi-
trarily. He said it cannot be stated that it was done because the
City wanted to do it and it cannot be reviewed. He said that is
what Mr. Perretti is saying.
Mr. Perretti said he used two words previously, which were,
"overall assessment". He said it goes back to a judgmental matter
since the Fire Chief reviewed the 3 Captains, weighed discussions
with the Assistant Fire Chief, reviewing the work capabilities,
attendance records and overall assessment of the 3 employees and
determined that Mr. Watkins must be laid off. He said testimony
that will be received from Chief Simon or Assistant Chief Briant
will all be based on a judgmental decision.
Mr. Perretti said he feels it is wasting a lot of time to listen
to judgement decisions and Department Heads are paid to make
judgmental decisions. Mr. Haagenson said it is a judgmental
decision but there is a provision that the Council can review this
but it cannot be done unless they know what the decision was based
on. He said Mr. Watkins' rights are completely violated by not
telling the Council why he was selected. He said the City's
position is that they do not have to justify what was done since
it was a management prerogative, however, that is not the law.
Mr. Perretti said he disagreed with that.
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Haagenson if there was any other testimony
that he wanted to put on the record at this time.
Thomas Watkins said he would like to correct one thing and referr-
ed to Mr. Perretti's statement earlier in his testimony when he
cited parts of the Personnel Manual on the layoff status. He said
Mr. Perretti said Mr. Watkins retained his right to be reemployed
with the City within the department in that classification for a
period of 12 months. He said that is not the way the Personnel
Manual reads. He said it reads, "that classification or any other
4 j
12/4/85
/pm
classification or position", meaning Firefighter, Driver/Engineer,
Lieutenant, Assistant Chief or Chief, if the positions are vacant.
He said he believes there are some positions in the Fire
Department that are not filled.
Mr. Perretti said to the best of his knowledge there is nothing to
be filled because the City is not officially advertising at this
time.
Mr. Henning said for the sake of the record, he would ask Captain
Watkins what funded positions he believes are vacant in the Fire
Department. Mr. Watkins said Mr. Perretti stated a Captain and a
Firefighter were to be laid off. He said a Captain was laid off
but a Firefighter was not laid off.
was a budget cut, the Firefighter was Hnotucut alongwwith1thehFire
Captain. He said the City did not fill a
Positionhter
that was vacant but there was also anotherPositionoof FFireffighter
that was not going to be filled. Fire-
fighter positions vacant, one new Position tthat at lMrVePerretti
states the City is not advertising for and another position of
Firefighter that has a person out because of a bad back and the
Position is not filled.
tated
FirefightegssfundedhinbtheeFireves MDe par
r. Watkins said there were 22
there were only 21 authorized. P tment and, after the budget,
working plus an injured man. HeHasked dMr. Watkins if he
ethere were 20 rwasghters
suggesting that the one Position that is held by the injured man
is available to him and Mr. Watkins said it has not been filled
and the vacant position was never filled.
Mr. Henning said it would be helpful to have the correct informa-
tion available to Council before this hearing is terminated to
determine if, in fact, there were 22 funded positions before the
new budget year and, if, in fact, there was a reduction in the
funded positions.
Mr. Watkins said his point was that the Personnel Manual reads
that if there is any opening in the Fire Department, not just in a
Captain's classification, he has the right to be called back to
duty. He said it would not have to be advertised. Mr. Henning
asked if Mr. Watkins meant called back before anybody else is
called back and Mr. Watkins said yes, _
that no one else has been called to fillthosepositions. noted
Mr. Perretti said the reason he said that was because he was
quoting Florida Unemployment Law. He said in a layoff situation,
an employee cannot be forced to take a lesser amount of money
unless the employee was willing. He said Mr. Watkins has stated
something completely new since he has never before said he would
be willing to take a Firefighters
job
Mr. Watkins said he disagreed with that fstatementsanan
d opening.
Mr. Haagenson said he objects since that is misleading and is not
the case. He said he would like to hear a cite to the Florida
Statute that says that.
Mr. Henning said as advice to the Council, there are two alterna-
tives at this point. He said Mr. Haagenson has requested that the
Fire Chief be available and, if that is his next presentation, he
suggested a recess or a reconvened meeting to make the Chief
available to him so that he can proceed. suggest closing this meeting todayif Mr. He said he would not
has
further presentation he would like to make HforeCouncil. nson an
said
otherwise, he would suggest that as soon as possible there be a
reconvened meeting with the Fire Chief available.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Watkins if he did state he was willing to
take a Firefighters' pay if there is an opening and the work is
offered to him. Mr. Watkins said no, he just wanted to clarify
what Mr. Perretti had said. He said Mr. Perretti said, " ...if a
knows the Personnel Manual and it states
Position was open in a Captain's classification... He said he
that classification or in any other classification"t1He soen
aid in
there was a point in time not long ago when he requested a break-
down of the monetary value for a position in a lower classifica--
5
i
12/4/85 I
/Pm v
tion just to see what the differential was. He said he is not
saying at this time that he would accept a position in a lower
classification.
V/M Massaro said she wanted to clarify the point as well because
this concerns a budget cut here and there cannot be discussion for
spending more money for a Firefighter. She said a certain amount
of money was cut and the City must live within that budget.
Mr. Watkins said when he was cut as Fire Captain the City also cut
a Firefighter since he is a State Certified Firefighter. He said
that cut lost a Fire Captain, a Firefighter, a Driver, a Lieuten-
ant, and many times an Assistant and a Chief since he has worked
in all of those classifications.
Mr. Haagenson said for clarification of the record, he asked
Mr. Watkins when he was asked the question if he would be willing
to accept a Firefighter classification he was stating that he
would not accept it. Mr. Watkins said he was never offered the
position and he does not know at this point if he would accept it.
V/M Massaro said she asked Mr. Watkins a very specific question,
"Would you take a Firefighters pay if a Firefighter position was
offered to you?" and he said no. Mr. Watkins said he did not say
"no" and asked what a Firefighters pay is. He said V/M Massaro
asked him to clarify what he said and that is what he attempted to
do. He said he would have to think about that question.
Mr. Perretti said Mr. Watkins interprets the Personnel Manual in
his way and, since he was the Personnel Director, he interpreted
the Personnel Manual in a different vein. He said he has been
before the Unemployment Compensation Board enough times to see what
some of their decisions have been. He said he does not think the
Personnel Manual states, "Fire Captain or other positions". He
said it states, "...your present classification or other pos-
itions." He said the other positions in the Personnel Director's
understanding would have been something that was comparable, not
something that was lesser.
Tape 2 Mr. Perretti said if Mr. Watkins' salary was $25,000.00 per year
and there was a supervisory position open in the Public Works
Department for that amount, he would consider that a comparable
position. He said unless the employee makes an actual request of
the Personnel Department to take a lesser position, he would never
have been called for the Firefighter's position because it would
have been a considerable difference in pay.
Mr. Henning said everyone has been referencing a provision in the
Personnel Manual and he requested that the Section or Page involved
be put on the record for reference purposes. He asked
Mr. Haagenson if he has anything else to present to Council;
otherwise Council will want to reconvene as soon as possible so
that the Fire Chief can be present.
Mr. Haagenson said he feels they should hear what the City wants to
do. He said it would be pointless to reconvene if the City has
decided that it is a Management,;prerogative and they do not have to
justify what they are doing and the Fire Chief will not be called.
Mr. Henning said Mr. Haagenson has indicated that his client's due
process rights entitle him to confront the Fire Chief and, although
subpoena power is not being used, the City will make the Fire Chief
available for testimony. He said from what he understands from
Mr. Perretti's presentation, he does not plan on calling Chief
Simon.
Mr. Haagenson asked if that is the City's position or Mr. Henning's
position and Mr. Henning said he cannot say how Mr. Perretti will
present his case but he is trying to advise Council on a procedure.
He said he is not prosecuting this case. He said on behalf of the
City Council, the Fire Chief will be made available to
Mr. Haagenson for his presentation.
Mr. Haagenson asked Mr. Perretti whether he intends to call the
Fire Chief and Mr. Perretti said he does not intend to but if the
6
12/4/85
/pm
Council decides that they will go along with Mr. Haagenson's
request he will request the opportunity to cross-examine.
Mr. Henning said that goes without saying. Mr. Perretti said he
feels it is unnecessary to have the Fire Chief present.
C/M Munitz said Mr. Perretti has stated that regardless of what the
Fire Chief states the right of Management to act as they did is
still there. He said Mr. Perretti feels there is nothing to be
gained by having the Fire Chief give his testimony. He said,
however, Mr. Haagenson feels it is important for the Fire Chief to
appear and give testimony. He asked Mr. Henning what Council will
gain by hearing from the Fire Chief if it does not make any differ-
ence what his testimony is.
Mr. Henning said that is the position the City is taking; however,
there is a question of Constitutional rights and Right of
Confrontation. He said if Mr. Haagenson wants to have a witness
called, especially an employee of the City, he has a right, unless
it is completely irrelevant, to have that person called. He said
obviously, as Mr. Perretti has pointed out, he has a right of
cross-examination of that witness. He said he does not feel it is
up to him or Council to direct the City Manager on how he should
present his case.
V/M Massaro said she has not heard an answer to whether Mr. Watkins
is willing to take a lesser job at the lesser pay. She said he
stated that he did not know and she questioned when he could tell
the City. Mr. Henning said for the record it should be indicated
that the top salary for a Firefighter is $24,959.00 and, if
Mr. Watkins was making more than that as Fire Captain, he would be
entitled to the maximum salary of a Firefighter.
V/M Massaro said she does not feel there is much to discuss without
Mr. Watkins answer as to whether or not he would consider taking
this position.
Mr. Haagenson said Mr. Watkins is not on trial here and should not
have to answer questions like this and make a commitment as to what
he would or would not do. He said that is not the function of this
meeting.
Mr. Henning said to a degree he agrees with Mr. Haagenson. He said
if the Council has a factual question of history he feels
Mr. Watkins has an obligation to respond to that type of testimony.
Mr. Henning said regardless, V/M Massaro has indicated that she is
interested in his response to this question and, perhaps before the
3 days expire during which Council is required to make a decision
or before the meeting is reconvened, Mr. Watkins will be in a
position to answer that.
V/M Massaro said she feels it is a very important answer in view of
the -fact that the Acting City Manager has stated over and over
_again that this was a budget cut.
C/M,-,Gottesman said Council has 3 days to make a decision according
to -the Personnel Manual and he questioned what decision can be made
since Council is a Legislative body vs. a Management body.
Mr. Henning said he assumes that when this hearing is over both
parties will tell Council what they think the decision should be.
C/M Munitz asked Mr. Watkins what his salary was when he was laid
off and Mr. Watkins said in excess of $29,000.00. He said he
stands corrected since the section of the Personnel Manual that he
quoted previously was under "Demotion", which states that if an
employee does not successfully complete a probation, he could be
put back in a lower classification or any other position.
Mr. Haagenson asked that a short break be called so that he could
consult with his client and Mayor Kravitz called a 5 minute recess.
After the recess, Mr. Henning said the purpose of the recess was to
determine whether or not the Fire Chief will be called and whether
or not the City had further evidence on the rationale for the
decision that was made. He said although there is a provision in
the Personnel Manual for the grievance procedure that necessitates
7
12/4/85
/pm IJ
this meeting today, no one has found a paragraph in this Manual
concerning layoff. He said layoffs are discussed in union or labor
contracts but there is nothing in the Manual concerning Management
or people outside the bargaining':.unit.
Mr. Henning said Mr. Haagenson has made it clear that he feels the
City should respond to his request for a rationale for the decision
the City made. He said Mr. Perretti has indicated that he feels it
was done with "Management Rights" and he asked Mr. Perretti if he
has any other evidence to present regarding his rationale.
Mr. Perretti said in light of having Chief Simon
present,
copies of evaluation forms from 1982 through 1984run off.he had
g
Attachment 2). He said this was done when Chief Simon receivede
notification from the City Manager's office that there would have
to be a layoff. He said Chief Simon used an "overall assessment"
of each of the 3 Fire Captains in a point factor situation. He
said Chief Simon threw out the 1985 evaluation because Captain
Watkins rebutted that evaluation.
Mr. Haagenson said for the record he objected to this type of
evidence being presented since it is hearsay for the purpose of
explaining the City's rationale. He said he has had no opportunity
to cross examine Chief Simon to determine how the decision was
made.
Mr. Henning suggested this meeting be reconvened as soon as pos-
sible so that Chief Simon may be present.
C/M Gottesman said it should be noted that the 3 days allowed for
Council to make a decision is voided and Mr.
definite since the meeting has not been completed�ng said that is
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Haagenson if he has anything further to
present today before the meeting is reconvened with the Fire Chief
present. Mr. Haagenson said no, not if there is going to be a
reconvened meeting.
Mr. Haagenson noted that Mr. Watkins is not employed and they would
like this meeting as soon as possible.
Mayor Kravitz closed the meeting at 11:30 A.M.
EDITOR'S iVOTE: After the meeting, Mayor Kravitz called a Special
Meeting for Tuesday, December 17, 1985 at 9:00 A.M. in the C
Chambers for further discussion of this item. ouncil
.
v MAYOR
AITY!L,-a
CLER
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $92.58
o
Per copy to inform the general public and public officersand2.57
employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City
Council of the City of Tamarac.
1
CITY OF TA.MAIIIA
APPROVED AT REETING GF
City Clerk
8
12/4/85
/pm
ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 1 of 2
__12/4/85 Special Council Meeting
DIVISION IF APPLICABLE
PERSONNEL SUMMARY
FISCAL YEAR 1985-86
POSITION
TITLE
'Fire Chief
Assistant Chief
Battalion Chief
Fire Captains
Fire Inspector
Fire Lieutenant
Driver/Engineer
Firefighters
Secretary
Admin. Secty.
CURRENT
AUTHORIZATION
1
1
0
3
1
6
9
22
1
0
DEPARTMENT
REQUESTED
1
1
Tu ti S
0
3
6
9
30
0
1. List your current roster of positions, authorization per
1984-85 Budget and your requested roster.
2. If the department requested deviates from your current
authorization, please explain the rationale for the difference
on this form.
3. Submit this form to the Personnel Director.
4. Use multiple forms if required because of space limitation.
I have reviewed this form as to the accuracy of the "Position
Titles" and "Current Authorization %,
Signed ��tL ��� 1, ( ,,V t;�� DATE _hi
e
Forwar�ed to Finance on
ATTACHMENT 1 - page 2 of 2
12/4/85 Special Council Meeting
EXPLANATION FOR THE DEVIATION ON THE PERSONNEL SUMMARY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86
1. The current positions of three (3) authorized Fire Captains are to be re-
classified as one (1) Battalion Chief and two .(2) Fire Inspectors. With
three (3) Fire Inspectors in the Fire Prevention Bureau along with the
proposed fee schedule this Bureau Should.be capable of generating over
$95,000 00 of revenue income. This position -would be extremely cost
effective for the Fire Departzmerit budget. It'would greatly reduce the
present method of inspections which are utilising larger type vehicles'
and more manpower. 'These inspection are required by law and we recommend
that an ordinance be drafted incorporating a fee schedule. These positions
would be working administrative hours seven days a week. They would be re-
sponsible for all phases.of Fire Prevention duties, ie. Site Plan Reviews,,
Public Speaking, Fire Evacuation Drills, for both public and multiple
occupancies. As well as other staff functions.
2. Eight (8) additional firefighters would be used as follows:
Eight (8) people distributed to the three (3) shifts would
enable to maintain a twelve man functional shift. Station #2
would maintain a five (5) member crew on duty with a three
(3) member engine company along with a two (2)' person rescue
unit. This would enable to reduce responses from Station #1
on all single family type fire emergencies east of Rock Island.
Fire Station #1 would have seven (7) members functioning as
follows: Three member engine co.
Two member rescue co.
Two member ladder co..
Each functional shift position requires 3.8 people. Therefore twelve (12)
functional positions = 12 x 3.8 = 45.6 persons. Present proposed level
shift personnel = 37.
3. Request job classification change from Secretary to Administrative Secretary.
The present position I feel should be upgraded. This would place the only
Secretary employed by the Fire Dept. equal to other Department Head Secretaries
ie. Police, Public Works, etc.
ATTACHMENT 2 - Page 1 of 3
- 12/4/85 Special Council Meeting
7501 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE • PINE ISLAND ROAD
TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
AREA CODE (305)
722-7590
722-5590
Ar.1:111115]=I� V11kVA:IM
BERNARD G. SIMON
Chief of Department
RAYMOND BRIANT
Assistant Chief
These consolidated evaluations of Captains Budzinski,
Hurst and Watkins cover a period of time Viz April
of 1982 to October of 1984. The evaluations for 1985
were not used because one of them was rebutted.
This period of time covers the period when the posi-
tion was first created until October of 1984. 1
found all of them "above average" basing the compari-
son on other Company Officers although not Captains.
This consolidated evaluation comparison was made in
the light of there not being any guidlines in the
Personnel Manual for a situation such as this. As
all three were rated above satisfactory, I have taken
a positive approach and made a very difficult choice
by rating each Captain on a one to five basis and
coming to a final average for a basis of comp rison.
ATTACHMENT 2 - Page 2 of.3 - 12/4/85 Special Council Meeting
*r 7501 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE • PINE ISLAND ROAD
TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
FIRE DEPARTMENT
BERNARD G. SIMON
Chief of Department
RAYMOND BRIANT
Assistant Chief
FIRE CAPTAINS RATINGS FROM 4 $2 to 10 84
audzinski
4/82 to 11/82
10/82 to 10/83
10/83 to 10/84
Hurst
AREA CODE (305)
722-7590
722-5590
Average 142.4166 - 4.59408387
31 items
" 142.666 - 4.602129032
31 items
4.133333333
Total Average
15 items
13.32954623
3
4.443182076
4/82 to 11/82 Average 125.916 - 4.061806451
31 items
10/82 to 10/83 131.25 -- 4.233870967
31 items
10/83 to 10/84 63 4.2
15 items
12.49567741
3
Total'Avera e - 4.165225803
ATTACHMENT 2 - Page 3 of 3 - 1214185 Special Council Meeting
-2-
Watkins
4/82 to 11/82 Average 121.75 3.927419354
31 items
10/82 to 10/83 107 - 3.451612903
31 items
10/83 to 10/84 63 = 4.2
1'� itamc
Total Average
11.57903225
3
µ 3.859677416