Loading...
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