HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-22 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes� of rAM99
r
7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
September 26, 1988
Revised September 29, 1988
Revised October 3, 1988
Revised October 14, 1988
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION/DISCUSSIONS
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
PUBLIC HEARING
The Special Meeting of the City Council originally to be held
on Thursday, September 29, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference
Room #1 (Room 103) at City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue,
Tamarac, Florida has been rescheduled to Tuesday, November
22, 1988.
The purpose of this special meeting is to conduct 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.
FINAL ACTION:
Public hearing was held and will be continued at another
meeting, the time and place of which will be determined by
the Attorneys involved.
Additional public hearings may be called if necessary.
All meetings are open to the public.
Patricia Marcurio
Acting City Clerk
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, rlorida Statutes
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the dt,,
Council with respect to any matter considered at such m:etiig o;
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for ":.... ,
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record ird.ue3r':
tMe testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to t e
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1988
TAPE 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on
Tuesday, November 22, 1988 at 9:10 A.M. in Conference Room #1 (City
Clerk's Office).
PRESENT:
Mayor Norman Abramowitz
Vice Mayor Jack Stelzer
Councilman Dr. H. Larry Bender
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
ABSENT AND EXCUSED:
ALSO PRESENT:
Councilman Henry Rohr
John P. Kelly, City Manager
Richard Doody, City Attorney
Janet Lander, Consulting City
Attorney
Pauline Walaszek, Special Services
Secretary
The purpose of this Special meeting is to conduct 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.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
Public Hearing was held.
Continuation of hearing would be scheduled
at a later date, the time and place of which
will be determined by the Attorneys involved.
Mayor Abramowitz said the proceedings at this meeting
would be carried out with the proper decorum and respect.
He said everything would go through the Chair and the
meeting would be recessed when needed. He said because
of the City Council's schedule, the meeting would have to
end for the day at 12:00 P.M., unless the meeting would
finish shortly after 12:00 P.M.
Mayor Abramowitz said the rules and regulations stipulate
that the Chair make the decisions and he would try to be
fair to all involved.
City Attorney Doody said the proceedings were governed by
two documents and one is the City of Tamarac Personnel
Manual, which provided that employees may Appeal the
decision of the City Manager to the City Council, Section
52.02. He said in anticipation of a Hearing under this
Section, the City adopted Resolution R-88-285 and he read
a portion of the Resolution into the record regarding
procedures. (SEE ATTACHMENT)
City Attorney Doody said this Hearing was an
Administrative Hearing not a trial. He said strict rules
of evidence did not apply and hearsay was admissible. He
suggested that the Attorneys present a 5 minute opening
and present the cases with closing arguments. He asked
Page 1
11/22/88
that the Attorneys limit their objections and try to work
Administratively through the Hearing as opposed to
becoming objective. He asked that the Attorneys state
their name and address for the record.
Janet Lander, from the Firm Ruf & Carsky, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, representing John P. Kelly, City
Manager of the City of Tamarac.
Charles Whitelock, Whitelock & Muldolf, 1311 S.E. 2nd
Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, representing John F.
Montalvo, Jr.
City Attorney Doody asked if there were any questions by
the Attorneys and Attorney Whitelock said he understood
that an Ordinance was created that would allow witnesses
to be subpoenaed. He asked if the City Council had
subpoena power.
City Attorney Doody said the City Council could issue
subpoenas; however, the Resolution indicated that the
parties requesting the subpoenas would pay for the costs
and, if the subpoenas were not complied with, the parties
requesting the subpoenas would be responsible for taking
the matter to Court and paying for the costs.
Attorney Whitelock asked how the City wanted to handle
the matter because he had a witness indicate that they
would not honor the subpoena.
City Attorney. Doody said it was anticipated that the
Hearing would not be completed; therefore, the Hearing
should continue until the Adjournment was called and
then, Attorney Whitelock could decide after the meeting
what actions should be taken to get the witness to comply
with the subpoena. He said a Hearing could be set at a
later date, if needed.
Attorney Whitelock said he sent the subpoenas to the
employees understanding that they would be required to
comply and he felt that it was not fair to ask the
employees to stand-by in case they were called to
testify.
City Attorney Doody said the Subpoenas indicated that the
witnesses were to contact Attorney Whitelock if there
were any questions. He said the witnesses were
subpoenaed by Attorney Whitelock and Attorney Whitelock
said it seemed that the Resolution was created for this
Hearing because it was not something the City Council was
empowered with.
City Attorney Doody said this was the second time the
Appeal process was invoked. He said this process was so
infrequent that the City did not have a procedure in
place.
Attorney Whitelock said he was not sure if the procedures
were created for his client or for the City as a whole.
He said he did not feel that a procedural Hearing was
common and could occur without the parties being present.
City Attorney Doody said the objection was noted for the
record and the Resolution was adopted at a Public Hearing
of the City Council.
Page 2
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock said he was never informed of the
Public Hearing and his client was the party involved. He
said this Resolution seemed to be a "Montalvo" Resolution
because it did not require the City to do anything.
City Attorney Doody said there are two Resolutions. He
said there was a Resolution setting up the procedures for
this Hearing and there was Resolution R-88-285 for
procedures that would stay in effect for any future
Hearings. He said the Resolution which Attorney
Whitelock received was for issuing subpoenas and was
personal for his client.
Attorney Whitelock asked that he be given charging
documents on this matter and City Attorney Doody said a
charging document was not necessary because this Hearing
was to review a decision made by the Administration. He
said there was a complaint filed in the Personnel
Department and a series of actions were taken on the
basis of the complaint. He said there was no formal
document charging Mr. Montalvo.
Janet Lander, Consulting City Attorney, said there was a
Notice of Suspension dated January 25, 1988, signed by
the Personnel Director, Larry Perretti.
City Attorney Doody asked if this Notice would be entered
into evidence and Attorney Lander replied, yes. City
Attorney Doody asked if a copy could be given to Attorney
Whitelock and Attorney Lander said she provided copies to
Attorney Whitelock of everything that would be entered
into evidence.
Attorney Whitelock said he received a copy; however, the
copy was devoid of any allegations or specifications. He
said this was a termination of employment as opposed to
the death penalty. He said the Florida Law required that
specific Notice be provided and there was no Notice of
any known violation. He said he was anticipating that
this was based upon the amended sexual harassment section
included in the new Personnel Manual.
Mayor Abramowitz said the purpose of the Hearing was to
hear a request from Mr. Montalvo and Attorney Whitelock
regarding the events that took place. He said he was not
qualified to pass judgement on the objection; however, it
was noted for the record. He suggested that the Hearing
continue.
City Attorney Doody suggested that Attorney Whitelock
take the matter up in Circuit Court if he felt that
proper notice was not submitted. He said the Hearing was
an informal Administrative Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock said an employee could not be fired in
the State of Florida without Notice and Hearing. He
said Notice of the charges and specifications had to be
provided and Mr. Montalvo has not received Notice. He
said there were no violations before the City Council at
this time. He said he was Appealing the termination
because there were no charges brought; therefore, there
was nothing to hear at this point. He asked if the
defense would be what the City brought up.
Attorney Lander said the evidence and testimony would
indicate that Mr. Montalvo was given Notice of the
charges against him and Mr. Montalvo was heard on many
occasions. She said there was no doubt that Mr. Montalvo
Page 3
11/22/88
was given Notice of the charges which was done through a
series of meetings with the City Manager. She said this
was subterfuge and suggested the Hearing continue.
Mayor Abramowitz agreed that the Hearing should continue
unless Attorney Whitelock wanted the Hearing to cease.
Attorney Whitelock asked that the Hearing be abated
because he would like the matter taken to the Circuit
Court. He said an Appeal could not be heard when charges
were not Noticed. He said a charge has not been filed
and it was a bigotry for the City Council to sit as an
Administrative Hearing Body. He said an employee could
not be fired without charges and he has never heard of
this happening before.
City Attorney Doody said he understood Attorney
Whitelock's position. He said Attorney Whitelock
requested the Appeal process and he asked if Attorney
Whitelock wanted the meeting to cease. He asked if
Attorney Whitelock was requesting not to have the City
Council hear the Appeal. He said the City would be happy
not to hear the Appeal.
Attorney Whitelock said that games should not be played
between the Attorneys. He said it was fundamental in
American Juris-Prudence and he knew of no case anywhere
administratively that employment could be terminated
without a basis or cause. He said this has been
rudimentary in this State for over 100 years.
Mayor Abramowitz asked what Attorney Whitelock was
suggesting and Attorney Whitelock said he wanted to know
what he was defending against.
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council was trying to be
as fair as possible and asked what Attorney Whitelock was
indicating. He asked if Attorney Whitelock wanted to
suspend the Hearings and seek relief in the Courts.
Attorney Whitelock replied, yes, predicated upon the fact
that Section 42 under the City Code clearly enunciated
what the basis of termination could be. He said there
has been no basis for either enunciated or written
charges provided.
Mayor Abramowitz said the Judge had the intelligence and
experience to make the judgement. He said the City
Attorney had a different opinion than Attorney Whitelock
and, he asked for the record, if Attorney Whitelock
wanted the meeting closed and suspended until relief from
the Courts was procured.
Attorney Whitelock said he was asking that the charges be
dismissed. He said if the City Council denied the Motion
to Dismiss, he would like to take the matter to the
Circuit Court for a rule upon whether Mr. Montalvo could
be dismissed without charges because there were no
charges pending.
City Attorney Doody asked if Attorney Whitelock was
entering a Motion to Dismiss and Attorney Whitelock
replied, yes. City Attorney Doody asked if Attorney
Lander wanted to respond.
Attorney Lander said everything raised by Attorney
Whitelock was within his knowledge since he became the
Attorney of Record on the Case. She said Mr. Whitelock
Page 4
11/22/88
has decided to raise the objections and it was
prejudicial to raise the objections at this time;
therefore, she urged the City to deny the Motion to
Dismiss and continue with the Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock, referring to Section 50 of the
Personnel Manual**, said this Section indicated that,
"prior to suspension or dismissal the City Manager or
designee shall furnish the employee with a written
statement specifying the reasons for termination or
suspension and the effective date and time of such
action. The employee shall have the right to respond."
** EDITOR'S NOTE: The Personnel Manual was revised and approved on
on February 24, 1988. Attorney Whitelock
was referring to Section 43 of the old Personnel
Manual.
Attorney Whitelock said the City Council would be
responsible at this time and he was under no obligation
to draft charges for the City Manager. He said he has
never heard that this objection was prejudicial because
the objection was that there were no charges present.
Attorney Lander said the objection was prejudicial
because it was being raised at this time and Attorney
Whitelock said the matter may be prejudicial because the
City neglected to abide by the Personnel Manual._
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's Motion for
Dismissal was DENIED. He said Attorney Whitelock could
either request the meeting be closed or continue on.
Attorney Whitelock asked what he was supposed to defend
and City Attorney Doody said the City would present their
case. Attorney Whitelock asked what his client, Mr.
Montalvo, was being charged with.
Attorney Lander said Attorney Whitelock indicated that
his client had the right to be notified of the charges,
to request a Hearing before the City Manager and respond
in writing to the charges. She said if the Hearing could
proceed, the evidence and testimony would indicate that
all of the criteria was met.
Attorney Whitelock said all he would like to know was
what the charges were against his client, Mr. Montalvo,
and Mayor Abramowitz said he would like to hear the
charges as well; however, Attorney Whitelock indicated
that he was not in the position to defend Mr. Montalvo.
Mayor Abramowitz said he ruled on Attorney Whitelock's
request for Dismissal and Denied the request. He said he
wanted to give Attorney Whitelock the opportunity to
continue with the Hearing or seek relief through the
Courts.
Attorney Whitelock said he has not heard a charge and,
unless there was a charge specified within Section 50 of
the Personnel Manual**, an employee could not be
terminated.
** EDITOR'S NOTE: The Personnel Manual was revised and approved on
on February 24, 1988. Attorney Whitelock was
was referring to Section 43 of the old Personnel
Manual.
Page 5
11/22/88
City Attorney Doody said Counsel was continuing to argue
the Motion which was Denied and noted for the record.
Attorney Whitelock said he was trying to present his
argument and he was sorry if it offended the City Council
and Counselors.
Mayor Abramowitz said no one was offended and he asked
Attorney Lander to present the case. He said if Attorney
Whitelock felt during the Hearing that the Hearing should
not continue, he should indicate to the City Council that
he would like the Hearing to cease.
Attorney Whitelock said he would go to Circuit Court with
the matter because, fundamentally, the Court would
understand the right to Due Process.
Mayor Abramowitz said he did not understand this right
and Attorney Whitelock said he could not believe Mayor
Abramowitz lived in the United States and did not
understand the rights.
Mayor Abramowitz said he did not appreciate hearing the
matter constantly. He said he understood Attorney
Whitelock's objections.
Attorney Whitelock said he was responding to City
Attorney Doody's question and, if the City Council did
not want him to respond, he should not be asked
questions. He said he would sit in silence while Mayor
Abramowitz ran the meeting so the Hearing could take
place and everyone could go home. He suggested a vote be
taken at this time to avoid wasting any more time.
Mayor Abramowitz said he has not heard the evidence and
Attorney Whitelock said he has not heard the charges.
Attorney Whitelock said his client, Mr. Montalvo, had the
right to know the charges. He said a person could not be
jailed or have their property taken away unless Due
Process was given. He said part of Due Process is why
there was a written Manual and the City was required to
follow the Manual because it was fundamental.
Attorney Whitelock said he was not obligated on the City
Manager's behalf to draft the charges or do his job. He
said he was present today doing his job and he said he
wrote to the City Manager and Personnel Director a few
weeks ago.
City Attorney Doody said one thing should be made clear
before the Hearing began. He said there were 50
subpoenas issued 4 days before the Hearing and the City
Council held a special meeting to enact the subpoenas.
He said the request which Attorney Whitelock requested
arrived 4 days ago.
Attorney Whitelock said he did not understand why the
request was only received 4 days ago because he sent the
request out November 8, 1988.
City Attorney Doody said he would supply the date of it's
arrival which indicated 4 days ago. He said the Motion
to Dismiss has been ruled on and he suggested the Hearing
be held.
Attorney Whitelock suggested that before the case was
tried, the money wasted and City Attorney Doody said the
Page 6
1
1
1
11/22/88
words, "try the case", this was not appropriate because
this Hearing was an Administrative Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock said he has never heard an
Administrative Hearing not called a Trial. He asked if a
determination would not be made to terminate his client,
Mr. Montalvo.
City Attorney Doody said there were no criminal charges
and it had never been proven that Mr. Montalvo had a
property interest in his job.
Attorney Lander said Counsel found that Mr. Montalvo had
a property interest and had the right to a Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock said he never heard Counsel indicate
that a public employee did not have a property interest
in his job. He said his client, Mr. Montalvo, at a great
expense was fighting this matter. He said Mr. Montalvo
has chosen to fight this matter because he felt it was
unfair and unjust. He said he did not want to sit
through 3 or 4 days of Hearing the case, which he was
going to defend or be jailed. He said he was willing to
ask if his client, Mr. Montalvo, had the right to be
Noticed and if the City Council had the right to grant a
Motion to Dismiss without a Notice of Charges in the
Courts. He said he did not believe a Judge would agree
with this process; however, if the Judge agreed with the
City Council, the case would be closed. He said he did
not want to waste the time of the City or employees or
his client's money.
Attorney Whitelock said he would take the matter to a
Judge predicated on the City Council denying the Motion
to Dismiss even though charges have not been provided in
accordance with Section 50 of the Personnel. Manual**. He
said if the Judge rules for his objection, the Hearing
would not have to proceed. He said if the Judge rules
for the City, the Hearing would continue.
** EDITOR'S NOTE: The Personnel Manual was revised and approved on
on February 24, 1988. Attorney Whitelock was
was referring to Section 43 of the old Personnel
Manual.
City Attorney Doody asked if Attorney Whitelock wanted to
close the Hearing until a ruling from the Circuit Court
was granted and Attorney Whitelock replied, absolutely,
predicated upon the dismissal and that the City would not
submit written charges on the case.
City Attorney Doody asked what the City's Counsel would
like to do and Attorney Lander said she would like the
City to proceed; however, Attorney Whitelock would have
the right to Appeal any action taken and any
determination by the City Council. She said the Hearing
was assembled and she preferred that the Hearing proceed.
She said if Attorney Whitelock felt that the proceeding
denied Mr. Montalvo Due Process it could be Appealed to
the Circuit Court.
Attorney Whitelock said he understood this; however, he
was concerned with putting everyone through the process.
He said if the City was going to be steadfast in it's
denial to provide written charges and specifications, he
felt that they could not because there were no legal
reasons or specifications.
Page 7
11/22/88
Mayor Abramowitz asked if Attorney Whitelock meant that
unless the City Council ruled in his favor, the
proceedings were out of order and should not continue.
Attorney Whitelock said this was correct in a round -about
way and Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock not to
be round -about and asked if he was correct in his
assumption.
Attorney Whitelock said Mayor Abramowitz was correct in
his assumption and Mayor Abramowitz said he ruled against
his Motion to Dismiss. Mayor Abramowitz suggested that
either the Hearing continue contrary to Attorney
Whitelock's wishes or close the case because Attorney
Whitelock did not want to continue.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock not to require
him to pass judgement on the legal questions because he
was not qualified.
Attorney Whitelock said he was asking that the Hearing be
abated until a Judge's ruling regarding the denial of the
Motion to Dismiss could be obtained through the Circuit
Court.
City Attorney Doody asked if Attorney Whitelock would
discuss the case at the Circuit Court Hearing by calling
witnesses, etc., and Attorney Whitelock said the Hearing
with the Circuit Court would be purely a procedural
argument regarding no written charges being submitted.
City Attorney Doody said on the basis of this, he
recommended the City Council proceed with the Hearing
because the Hearing was strictly an Administrative
Hearing and the City was ready and able to go forward and
present the evidence Attorney Whitelock may or may not
have received. He recommended the Hearing proceed.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Lander indicated that th'e
matters Attorney Whitelock objected to would be provided
in the testimony. He said the City was ready to proceed
with the Hearing and he asked Attorney Whitelock if he
was ready to proceed with the Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock said he was not ready to continue with
the Hearing because he and his client, Mr. Montalvo, were
not given written Notice of the charges as provided in
Section 50 of the Personnel Manual**. He said he has
never been provided with information from Attorney
Lander; therefore, her statement was false. He said the
only time he met with the City Council and the City
Manager was when he was called to what he thought was a
procedural matter which turned out to be an attempted
settlement discussion. He said he was not notified of
this meeting's contents and his client, Mr. Montalvo, was
not present. He said he asked if Mr. Montalvo should be
present during the setup of the meeting and he was told
that it was not necessary because the meeting was only
procedural. He said he and Mr. Montalvo have never been
apprised of the specifications or charges of the case.
** EDITOR'S NOTE: The Personnel Manual was revised and approved on
on February 24, 1988. Attorney Whitelock was
was referring to Section 43 of the old Personnel
Manual.
Page 8
11/22/88
Mayor Abramowitz RULED that Attorney Lander proceed with
the Hearing.
OPENING STATEMENTS
Attorney Lander said the matter being presented involved
the Appeal of John F. Montalvo, Jr., for the decision
made by John P. Kelly, City Manager, to terminate Mr.
Montalvo's employment with the City of Tamarac. She said
the grounds of Mr. Montalvo's termination...
Attorney Whitelock objected to the grounds because they
were not submitted to him or Mr. Montalvo.
City Attorney Doody said the objection was noted.
Attorney Whitelock asked if he could finish his objection
and Attorney Lander asked if she could finish her opening
statement.
Attorney Whitelock replied, no, because he was objecting
to her opening statement. He said he would not allow an
opening statement or testimony concerning the grounds
because he was not provided with the grounds.
City Attorney Doody said Attorney Whitelock claimed that
he was not given Notice of the charges; however, when the
City attempted to give Attorney Whitelock the charges, he
objected.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the opening statement
constituted Notice and Attorney Lander said she was not
giving Attorney Whitelock Notice.
Attorney Lander said the evidence would indicate the
grounds upon which Mr. Montalvo was terminated was for
violation of the City's policy on sexual harassment. She
said the evidence would show that the actions of Mr.
Montalvo constituted two distinct types of sexual
harassment; however, since this was an Administrative
Hearing and legal niceties should not take place, it was
important to give some background as to what was involved
in sexual harassment since the City had a policy
prohibiting it.
Attorney Lander said there were two types of sexual
harassment involved, the first is a "Quip -Pro -Quo Type"
where an employer or supervising employee required sexual
consideration from a subordinate employee as a
Quip -Pro -Quo for a job benefit and, the second type, was
a hostile environment. She said this type of sexual
harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably
interfering with the work performance of an employee or
creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working
environment.
Attorney Lander said the evidence would show that the
matter did not involve mere flirtations or isolated
instances. She said the evidence would indicate that the
actions of Mr. Montalvo against Elena Logan beginning
September, 1987 through late January, 1988 were
unwelcome, offensive and pervasive. She said the
evidence would support the decision of John P. Kelly,
City Manager, to terminate John F. Montalvo.
Page 9
11/22/88
Attorney Lander said the evidence would indicate that
Prior to making the employment termination John P. Kelly,
City Manager, gave John F. Montalvo and Elena Logan an
opportunity to tell their sides of the story and met with
them on several occasions before a final decision was
made. She said the evidence would indicate that the only
course of action based on the facts that were made known
to John P. Kelly, City Manager; and the only base of
action based on the totality of circumstances was to
terminate John P. Montalvo's employment with the City.
Attorney Lander said she was confident that after hearing
the evidence, the City Council would affirm the decision
of John P. Kelly, City Manager.
Attorney Whitelock said the specific policy was not
known, there were no grounds enumerated and the
procedures were specific as outlined previously, Sections
50 and 51 of the Personnel Manual**, which provide the
procedures in which to terminate an employee. He said
the provisions were never complied with and no Notice or
written Notice was provided to his client, Mr. Montalvo.
He said no specifications of any charges, in fact, there
are no charges and never have been any charges or written
decision which the City's Counsel referred to.
** EDITOR'S NOTE: The Personnel Manual was revised and approved on
on February 24, 1988. Attorney Whitelock was
was referring to Sections 42 and 43 of the old
Personnel Manual.
Attorney Whitelock said the hostile environment and
Quip -Pro --Quo which the City's Counsel referred to as a
basis of sexual harassment was never present within the
City. He said the relationship between John F. Montalvo
and Elena Logan existed for some time and the evidence
would indicate that these people lived, slept and dated
together for a period of time. He said Mr. Montalvo
provided Ms. Logan with money, took her to dinners and
was socially engaged for a period of time. He said Mr.
Montalvo co -signed for a car for Ms. Logan and this took
place during the time Elena Logan was dating someone else
and broke off the relationship and solicited Mr. Montalvo
during the time they were working.
Attorney Whitelock said Ms. Logan was in a subordinate
position and had approached Mr. Montalvo and a
relationship developed. He said after the relationship,
Ms. Logan, depending on her presence of mind, either
turned on or turned off the relationship. He said Ms.
Logan had an on -going relationship with John Montalvo
approximately 8 months during which time Ms. Logan became
involved with Mr. Montalvo's family members to the point
that they baby-sat her child.
Attorney Whitelock questioned what Counsel was referring
to in terms of sexual harassment and, whatever the City
Manager determined to be sexual harassment, because no
such charge existed or has been made. He said the
problem is that sexual harassment in a classic sense is
one where an individual used his position to either
engage in off-color activities or to solicit some type of
sexual favor of an employee for the purposes of obtaining
a job benefit or enhancing a job position. He said this
was never the case.
Page 10
1
1
1
11/22/88
1
1
TAPE 2
Attorney Whitelock said to the contrary, evidence would
indicate that not of John Montalvo but another
individual. He said that the sexual discrimination
policy of the City has never been followed despite
enumerable times that both Mr. Kelly and Mr. Perretti
knew about the situation occurring. He said evidence
would indicate that Mr. Montalvo and Elena Logan were
sent on a trip together during the time their
relationship was taking place and was known to all the
witnesses which would be called.
Attorney Whitelock said when the problem between Ms.
Logan and Mr. Montalvo occurred, it was brought to the
attention of a Supervisor who did nothing to discourage
the problem to be taken off the City's property. He said
the Supervisor left the problem to the employee to
resolve. He said during the time period, Ms. Logan
solicited the company of Mr. Montalvo both on and off the
employment status.
Attorney Whitelock said if there is a policy of sexual
harassment, it was never formulated as a policy and made
part of the rules and regulations or requirements
governing employee conduct. He said for this reason,
there was no legal sufficiency to the charge and any
specifications as to what Mr. Montalvo's conduct would
have been to infract those specifications or policies. He
said the City has taken the position that they had
knowledge of the relationship or, more important, that
this was a discriminatory or selective enforcement of
whatever policy existed at that time.
Attorney Whitelock said the evidence would also indicate
the motivation behind Ms. Logan's filing this complaint.
WTTMrgq :C
Attorney Lander called Police Chief Joseph McIntosh as
the first witness.
Chief McIntosh was sworn in as a witness by the
Secretary.
Attorney Lander asked Chief McIntosh to state his full
name.
Police Chief McIntosh stated his name as Joseph McIntosh.
Attorney Lander asked Chief McIntosh where he was
employed.
Chief McIntosh said he worked for the City of Tamarac as
the Police Chief.
Attorney Lander asked Chief McIntosh how long he was the
Police Chief for the City of Tamarac.
Chief McIntosh replied, 8-1/2 years.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh was familiar
regarding the matter involving Elena Logan and John
Montalvo in the City of Tamarac.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked how Chief McIntosh first became
apprised of the situation.
Page 11
11/22/88
Chief McIntosh said he became apprised of the situation
about January 14, 1988, when one of the Police officers
came to him and informed him of a problem involving a
City employee.
Attorney Lander asked what was the nature of the problem.
Chief McIntosh said the nature of problem was that a
female employee who worked in the Finance Department
reported to the Police Officer, who was also a female,
about the problem with her boss.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh could name the
female employee.
Chief McIntosh said the female employee in the Finance
Department is Elena Logan.
Attorney Lander asked who the female Police Officer was
that Elena Logan spoke with.
Chief McIntosh replied, Sergeant Barbara Chovan.
Attorney Lander asked if Sergeant Chovan investigated the
allegations voiced by Elena Logan.
Chief McIntosh said subsequently, this was why he became
apprised of the problem. He said at first the matter
started as someone to confide in and get advice. He said
when Sergeant Chovan came to him with the matter, she
felt that the problem was something more than an
Administrative matter and, possibly, was a criminal
matter.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the introduction of the
testimony as to the possibility of it being a criminal
matter. He said this was prejudicial to his client
because there were no criminal charges and have never
been any criminal charges. He said this seemed to be an
attempt to inflame or prejudice him. He MOVED to STRIKE
the response of the witness.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if Attorney Lander agreed and
Attorney Lander said she did not agree that the questions
were prejudicial as background of the involvement of the
City of Tamarac. She said the witness swore to tell the
whole truth regarding the matter; however, anything that
was not relevant to the issue would be avoided and they
would stick to the sexual harassment charges.
Attorney Whitelock MOVED to STRIKE the response from the
record and City Attorney Doody said the objection was
noted.
Attorney Lander asked if Sergeant Chovan completed her
investigation of the matter.
Chief McIntosh said subsequently, Sergeant Chovan did.
Attorney Lander asked if Sergeant Chovan reported the
results of the investigation to him.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked what Chief McIntosh did upon
learning the results of the investigation.
Page 12
11/22/88
Chief McIntosh said when Sergeant Chovan informed him of
the matter with City employees being involved, he
reported the matter to John P. Kelly, City Manager, the
following morning by informing him of problems with City
employees. He said as the investigation developed, he
kept the City Manager informed of the results.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh attended any
meetings in City Manager Kelly's office with either Elena
Logan or John Montalvo present.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked if the charges based on the
allegations made by Elena Logan were discussed with John
Montalvo during the meetings.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question. He said it
was wholly improper and, if there were any criminal
charges pending...
Attorney Lander said she was not discussing criminal
charges...
Attorney Whitelock asked that he be allowed to finish his
objections. He said if there were any criminal charges
pending, there was a certain predicate to the
introduction of any statement by his client, if this was
what was trying to be accomplished.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock to bear with
the Chair. He said he was willing and anxious to hear
both sides of the case and anything that could shed light
in making an intelligent decision he wanted to hear. He
said Council was interested in getting a fair and
equitable decision and, based on this, he would allow the
City's Counsel to continue because he was interested in
what occurred in the City.
Attorney Lander asked Chief McIntosh if he attended any
meetings at which John Montalvo and Elena Logan were
present.
Chief McIntosh said he did not attend meetings with both
parties present.
Attorney Lander asked if he attended separate meetings
with John Montalvo and Elena Logan.
Chief McIntosh said he attended a meeting in which John
Montalvo was present.
Attorney Lander asked if the substance of the discussion
involved the allegations of sexual harassment made by
Elena Logan against John Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the leading nature which
denied the right of confrontation and hearsay as to his
client, John Montalvo. He said they were speculative and
argumentative.
City Attorney Doody said this was an Administrative
Hearing and Florida Law made it clear that leading
questions were permitted and hearsay evidence was
admissible. He said hearsay evidence in itself could not
support a finding of the Board; however, in finding out
what happened, hearsay was permissible.
Page 13
11/22/88
Attorney Lander said she was not trying to introduce the
substance of the conversation for the truth but just that
the statements were made.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objections
were noted and asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected because the case was
not a story. He said a case had to be presented which
was governed by law. He said he disagreed with City
Attorney Doody because there was no law permitting
leading questions to be asked of a witness...
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock to respect the
City Council and he said he would allow anything that
contributed and allowed the City Council to make an
intelligent decision and observation. He said Attorney
Whitelock's objection was noted. He said he would like
to hear the whole story and he could not agree with
Attorney Whitelock because he was not qualified.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mayor Abramowitz could agree
with his own law. He said the City Resolution, R-88-285
(SEE ATTACHMENT), Sub -Section A, "The Council shall hear
evidence upon the charges and specifications as filed
with it by the officer of the City initiating the action.
No material amendment of, or additions to, said charges
or specifications will be considered by the Council".
Attorney Whitelock said by the City's own Resolution
prohibited the City Council from hearing a story. He
said the City Council was precluded from hearing anything
other than the specifications and charges presented.
Mayor Abramowitz said the objection has been noted and
asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked Chief McIntosh if he was present...
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question. He said he
had a right to make the objection.
Attorney Lander said she asked the question and Attorney
Whitelock objected and Attorney Whitelock said he
objected to the form of the question.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh was present in
the City Manager's office when the City Manager had
individual meetings with Elena Logan and John Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the question because the
question has been asked previously and answered.
City Attorney Doody said he would lay the ground rules
one more time. He said this was not a Court of Law, it
was an Administrative Hearing. He said he wanted both
sides to understand that the Hearing was not going to be
bogged down and there would not be any objections to
leading questions. He said Administrative Hearings for
the most part permitted hearsay and he asked the
Attorneys to limit their objections. He asked that
Counsel try to make progress.
Attorney Whitelock asked where the law indicated that
leading questions were permitted and City Attorney Doody
i
Page 14
11/22/88
quoted Noti vs. Holiday, 458 SS.795, "Generally hearsay
evidence is admissible in Administrative Hearings".
City Attorney Doody said if Attorney Whitelock wanted to
Appeal the matter, it could be Appealed with the Circuit
Court. He said he did not care if the question was a
leading question.
Attorney Whitelock said he cared because it was a
testimony that Attorney Lander was trying to solicit from
the witness.
Attorney Lander said the question was not a leading
question and Attorney Whitelock knew this. She said she
asked Chief McIntosh if he was present and asked how it
could be a leading question.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected to the repetitiveness
of the question. He said City Attorney Doody brought out
the leading question issue.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock was out of order
and asked Attorney Lander to rephrase her question.
Attorney Lander said she would ask the question again and
Attorney Whitelock would object that the question was
asked and answered.
Attorney Whitelock suggested that Mayor Abramowitz rule
on the question being repetitive. He said the Hearing
could proceed more rapidly if the ruling was made. He
said he respected that the City Council were not lawyers
and had no legal training. He said he appeared several
times before Administrative Boards and City Councils who
were not lawyers; however, he could not sit in silence
and allow these things to take place.
Mayor Abramowitz said he understood that Attorney
Whitelock appeared before several people; however, he was
appearing before the City Council of Tamarac and he was
making the ruling. He said if Attorney Whitelock was
truthful in his statement regarding the Hearing to
continue, it should continue. He said he ruled Attorney
Whitelock out of order and ruled the question admissible
and asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander said directing attention to the time of
the meeting with John Montalvo, she asked Chief McIntosh
if he recalled the substance of the discussion.
Chief McIntosh said he recalled the City Manager informed
John Montalvo of what the charges were.
Attorney Whitelock objected to Chief McIntosh's response
because it was hearsay.
V/M Stelzer asked if this Hearing could continue without
all of the objections.
Attorney Whitelock said if the City Manager was going to
testify, Attorney Lander should call him as a witness.
Mayor Abramowitz overruled the objection and asked
Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Whitelock said he has never heard a lawyer doing
this before. He said the witness could not testify...
Page 15
11/22/88
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Lander was going to say
three words and Attorney Whitelock would object. He said
this matter could continue in this fashion if so desired.
He said he was determined that Attorney Whitelock's
client was going to get a fair Hearing and, for the
record, indicated that the Hearing was before the City
Council not the Courts. He said the Chair ruled that the
line of questioning was admissible and the Hearing could
continue. He said Attorney Whitelock could object as
much as he wanted; however, he would be ruled out of
order if the objections were not valid. He asked
Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh recalled the
question.
Chief McIntosh said the City Manager informed John
Montalvo of the charges against him. He said he did not
remember the specifics and he was not involved in the
conversation. He said he was present in the room along
with the Personnel Director. He said he believed at this
point the City Manager informed John Montalvo that he was
being suspended.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh was present when
discussions took place with Elena Logan in John P.
Kelly's office.
Chief McIntosh said he recalled one instance where he was
present in John P. Kelly's office and Elena Logan was
present.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh recalled the
substance of the conversation.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan was in fear...
Attorney Whitelock objected to the hearsay. He said
Elena Logan was going to testify and Chief McIntosh's
testimony was self-serving as far as the City was
concerned.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noted and asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander asked how many times he met with Elena
Logan other than the meeting in John P. Kelly's office.
Chief McIntosh said he did not think he had any meetings
with Elena Logan personally.
Attorney Lander asked if the meetings were with John P.
Kelly present.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes. He said Sergeant Chovan
met with Elena Logan individually.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh had the
opportunity to observe Elena Logan's demeanor and outward
behavior during that meeting in John P. Kelly's office.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Chief McIntosh to describe Elena
Logan's state of mind during the meeting.
Attorney Whitelock objected to this question.
Page 16
11/22/88
Mayor Abramowitz noted the objection.
Chief McIntosh said it was difficult to describe Elena
Logan's state of mind; however, she was in fear of her
life and there seemed to be no doubt about it.
Attorney Lander asked what Chief McIntosh's understanding
was for the basis of Elena Logan's fear.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan was afraid of what John
Montalvo may do because of her rejections.
Attorney Lander asked what Elena Logan's rejections were.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan's rejections of John
Montalvo's advances.
Attorney Lander asked if Chief McIntosh did anything in a
professional capacity in response to Elena Logan's fear.
Chief McIntosh said he assigned an officer to cover the
restaurant where she worked one night a week. He said
Elena Logan was afraid of having to work at the
restaurant and drive home alone; therefore, he assigned
an officer to cover that matter.
Attorney Lander said she had no further questions of
Chief McIntosh.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Chief McIntosh became aware
of the matter.
Chief McIntosh said he believed it was January 14, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh investigated
the matter.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh took any
notes, memos, directives or reports.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any documents
existing besides Sergeant Chovan's documents pertaining
to Chief McIntosh's involvement in the matter.
Chief McIntosh said the only document available was the
Police report that Sergeant Chovan had.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh created any
documents.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh took any notes
during the meetings he attended.
Chief McIntosh said he did not recall taking any notes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the matter was brought to
Chief McIntosh's attention by Sergeant Chovan on January
14, 1988 and he asked when Chief McIntosh reported the
matter to the City Manager.
r
Page 17
11/22/88
Chief McIntosh said the following morning, January 15,
1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Chief McIntosh had contact
with John Montalvo.
Chief McIntosh said he dial not know the exact date. He
said he thought the meeting may have taken place a week
later.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone besides Chief McIntosh
was present.
Chief McIntosh said City Manager Kelly, John Montalvo and
Larry Perretti, Personnel Director, were present at the
meeting.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh stated that he
did not remember the specifics of the charges.
Chief McIntosh said he did not recall exactly what was
said.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was because the charges
were never mentioned.
Chief McIntosh replied, he did not think so.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were no reports,
directives or memos made to City Manager Kelly or Mr.
Perretti, how there could be any specifics.
Chief McIntosh said he informed the City Manager of the
matter and the City Manager made a determination at that
time. He said the City Manager informed Mr. Montalvo
that there were charges made.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the City Manager indicated
what the charges were.
Chief McIntosh said he did not recall exactly what was
said.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh recalled the
specifics of the charges.
Chief McIntosh replied that he could not recall.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the purpose of the meeting
was.
Chief McIntosh said the purpose of the meeting was to
inform Mr. Montalvo of the charges and to take
disciplinary action at that time.
Attorney Whitelock said in other words the meeting took
place to advise Mr. Montalvo that he was being suspended
and he asked Chief McIntosh if this was correct.
Chief McIntosh replied that he believed so.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Mr. Montalvo was given a
letter or Notice of suspension.
Chief McIntosh said he did not recall this being done.
Page 18
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh appeared in a
meeting more than once with Elena Logan.
Chief McIntosh said only once that he could recall.
Attorney Whitelock asked when the meeting with Elena
Logan took place in relation to the meeting with John
Montalvo.
Chief McIntosh said the meeting would have been between
January 15, 1988 and the meeting with John Montalvo,
which may have been January 25, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked where the meeting with Elena
Logan took place.
Chief McIntosh said in the City Manager's office.
Attorney Whitelock asked who was present during the
meeting.
Chief McIntosh said the City Manager, Elena Logan and
himself.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the nature and purpose of
the meeting.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan was shaken and appeared
to be in fear. He said Elena Logan was seeking help.
Attorney Whitelock asked what Elena Logan was in fear of.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan was in fear of John
Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock asked for what reason.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan seemed to feel that her
life was in danger.
Attorney Whitelock asked why. He asked if John Montalvo
threatened Elena Logan's life.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan seemed to feel that he
did.
Attorney Whitelock asked how John Montalvo made a threat
against Elena Logan's life.
Chief McIntosh said he did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked if John Montalvo did anything to
Elena Logan such as physically attacking her or touching
her.
Chief McIntosh said he did not think so. He said there
was nothing reported to the Police Department.
Attorney Whitelock asked what John Montalvo did that
Chief McIntosh felt compelled to report to the City
Manager.
Chief McIntosh said the things that were necessary to
report to the City Manager were advances John Montalvo
was making, letters and flowers being sent to Elena
Logan, staying after work and talking to Elena Logan.
Page 19
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if poems were written. He asked
if there were any threats.
Chief McIntosh said he did not know if the letters were
poems; however, the letters did not contain any threats.
He said he did not think that John Montalvo made any
threats to Elena Logan.
Attorney Whitelock asked how long the notes were being
sent.
Chief McIntosh said he was not sure. He said he thought
it may have been occurring for a couple of months.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the notes were being sent
since June, 1987.
Chief McIntosh said he was not aware of the notes being
sent at this time; however, he thought the relationship
had been occurring.
Attorney Whitelock asked what type of relationship was
occurring.
Chief McIntosh said when the matter was reported to the
Police Department, Elena Logan stated that she initially
went out on a date with John Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was the only explanation
of the relationship given to Chief McIntosh.
Chief McIntosh said the report indicated this was all.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan and John Montalvo
lived together.
Chief McIntosh said he did not have personal knowledge of
this occurring.
Attorney Whitelock asked what Elena Logan told Chief
McIntosh.
Chief McIntosh said he did not think that Elena Logan
revealed this matter.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh asked Elena
Logan.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anybody bothered to ask Elena
Logan.
Chief McIntosh said he was sure Sergeant Chovan did.
Attorney Whitelock asked if John Montalvo did anything
for Elena Logan such as giving her money or financial
assistance.
Chief McIntosh said he had no personal knowledge of this
occurring.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this matter was discussed
with City Manager Kelly during the meetings.
Chief McIntosh said he could not answer this question.
Page 20
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if anybody inquired as to the
extent of the relationship between Elena Logan and John
Montalvo prior to the time of the meetings.
Chief McIntosh said Sergeant Chovan would be able to
answer these questions.
Attorney Whitelock asked if it was true that this matter
was just two lovers breaking up.
Attorney Lander objected. She said this question was
improper.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Whitelock to continue.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this matter pertained to two
lovers breaking up.
Chief McIntosh said he could not answer this; however, he
thought the matter started out that way and then evolved
into an employee/boss situation which became a harassment
situation after the relationship was over.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the documents gathered in the
investigation were seen by Chief McIntosh.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked what documents were exhibited.
Chief McIntosh said the documents sent to Elena Logan.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this included the notes and
poems.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan provided the
Police Department with a written statement on January 25,
1988.
Chief McIntosh said he did not see this statement.
Attorney Whitelock asked if documents and poems
commencing in June, 1987 were viewed by Chief McIntosh.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes.
Attorney Lander asked Attorney Whitelock to allow Chief
McIntosh to view the documents before asking if they were
seen.
City Attorney Doody said any documents entered into
evidence by the City would be labeled, "City 1", etc.,
and documents from Attorney Whitelock would be labeled,
"Montalvo 1", etc.
At this time, Attorney Whitelock allowed Chief McIntosh
to review evidence, "Montalvo 1".
** All EVIDENCE is on file in the City Clerk's office for viewing.
Attorney Whitelock objected to Attorney Lander reviewing
the documents with Chief McIntosh.
Page 21
11/22/88
Attorney Lander said she was reading the documents at the
same time as Chief McIntosh. she said she was not
reviewing the documents with Chief McIntosh.
Attorney Whitelock asked for the Exhibits back and he
said if Attorney Lander had an objection to the Exhibits
being given to Chief McIntosh one at a time for review,
she should pose an objection for the record.
Attorney Lander asked if Attorney Whitelock wanted Chief
McIntosh to read the Exhibits and Attorney Whitelock said
he did not want Chief McIntosh reading the Exhibits.
Attorney Lander asked how Chief McIntosh could confirm
that he saw the Exhibits if he could not read them.
Mayor Abramowitz said if Attorney Whitelock wanted Chief
McIntosh to answer the questions, the documents should be
reviewed by Chief McIntosh.
Attorney Whitelock said he had no objection to this;
however, he wanted the record to reflect that Attorney
Lander was reviewing the documents in a position with the
witness which he did not want to occur prior to his
examination.
Mayor Abramowitz said for the record he only saw Attorney
Lander and Chief McIntosh reviewing the documents without
conversation.
Attorney Whitelock
said he stated that
Attorney Lander
and Chief McIntosh
were reviewing the
documents together.
He said he did not
indicate that there
was conversation
taking place.
Attorney Whitelock
introduced a document
dated June or
July, 1987 and he
asked Chief McIntosh
if he ever saw
this document.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone ever presented this
document in the investigation.
Chief McIntosh said not to him.
Attorney Whitelock introduced two documents dated
September 15, 1987 and September 24, 1987 and he asked
Chief McIntosh if he ever saw these documents.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock introduced two documents dated October
9, 1987 and October 10, 1987 and he asked if Chief
McIntosh if he ever saw these documents.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock introduced a document of October 26,
1987 and he asked Chief McIntosh if he ever saw this
document.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Lander objected to the introduction of the
documents in evidence on the grounds of relevancy. She
Page 22
11/22/88
said the witness has never seen the documents; therefore,
it was not relevant to the witnesses' testimony.
Mayor Abramowitz RULED that the documents could be
introduced into evidence.
Attorney Whitelock gave the documents to the Secretary
for labelling as "Montalvo 1".
Attorney Whitelock identified the documents as six hand
written notes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Chief McIntosh to review the
information in the documents of June or July, 1987.
Attorney Lander objected and she asked what Attorney
Whitelock was trying to accomplish.
Attorney Whitelock said he would like to ask Chief
McIntosh if the information was ever made available to
him.
Attorney Lander said Chief McIntosh already answered the
question stating that it was not.
Mayor Abramowitz said Chief McIntosh indicated that he
never saw the documents before this Hearing.
Attorney Whitelock said the information indicating the
fact that Elena Logan and John Montalvo were living or
sleeping together...
Attorney Lander objected to this question because the
note did not establish they were living together. She
said the note did not establish anything. She said the
note was self-serving.
Attorney Whitelock said he received the notes from
Attorney Lander.
Attorney Lander said she never submitted these documents
to Attorney Whitelock nor were the documents presented to
her. She said she requested prior to the Hearing that
the Exhibits be exchanged.
Attorney Whitelock read the document into the record, "I
hoped you had sweet dreams last night, I missed you
coming to bed. Too bad my loss, I did not discuss with
youa little plan. I was going to get Ryan up with me
this morning and take him but decided to let him sleep
on. So if you wouldn't mind bringing him anytime this
morning. I will call you sometime this afternoon."
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan indicated to
Chief McIntosh at any time during the course of the
investigation that she was living or sleeping with the
individual.
Attorney Lander said this question was compound and
suggested that the questions be asked one at a time.
Chief McIntosh said he previously answered this question.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan provided Chief
McIntosh with any other information other than her fear.
Chief McIntosh replied, no. r�
Page 23
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan provided Chief
McIntosh with any facts or allegations surrounding
actions by Mr. Montalvo that lead her to this fear.
Chief McIntosh said not that he could recall.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were criminal charges
filed.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were criminal
allegations made.
Chief McIntosh said he did not believe so, not in the
City of Tamarac.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were criminal
allegations in any other City.
Chief McIntosh said he could not speak for another
agency.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan ever made Chief
McIntosh aware of any other complaints or criminal
allegations which she brought in any other jurisdiction.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan informed the Tamarac
Police Department of the letter sent to Hollywood which
was being investigated by the Hollywood Police
Department.
Attorney Whitelock asked who the letter was addressed to.
Chief McIntosh said the letter was addressed to a former
boyfriend of Elena Logan.
Attorney Whitelock asked when the letter was written.
Chief McIntosh said the letter was written prior to Elena
Logan informing the Tamarac Police Department of the
matter.
Attorney Whitelock asked if another Police Agency
contacted Chief McIntosh regarding investigating John
Montalvo for any alleged criminal wrong doing.
Chief McIntosh replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked how Elena Logan made the
complaint. He asked if the complaint was in a written
form.
Chief McIntosh said the complaint was given verbally to
Sergeant Chovan.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was ever a written
explanation regarding what Elena Logan considered to be
her complaint. _
Chief McIntosh said not that he was aware of. He said he
never saw a written explanation.
Attorney Whitelock asked if actions of John Montalvo
which occurred prior to January 14, 1988 were that Mr.
Montalvo wrote poetry, sent carnations, roses and other
type of flowers.
Page 24
11/22/88
Attorney Lander objected to the characterization of the
question.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan felt that she was being
harassed.
Attorney Whitelock asked if that was the type of
harassment which took place.
Chief McIntosh said poems, unsigned letters, flowers
without indicating who they were from, etc., were
considered harassment. He said there was vandalism.
Attorney Whitelock asked what vandalism Chief McIntosh
was referring to.
Cnier mclntosn saia vanaalism to Elena Logan's vehicle
such as placing chewing gum in the door locKs and
flattening of the tires.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone saw John Montalvo do
this.
Chief McIntosh said he did not know if anyone saw this.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any other meetings
with Elena Logan to John Montalvo other than the meetings
specitied.
Chief McIntosh replied that he did not think so.
Attorney WhitelocK asked if there were any written
charges prepared or presented or John Montalvo.
Chief McIntosh said he did not see any written charges if
there were any.
Attorney Whitelock asked when John Montalvo was separated
or terminated.
Chief McIntosh said it was sometime at the end of
January, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan indicated that
the poems and flowers were being sent because of ner
rejections of John Montalvo's advancements.
Chief McIntosh replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked what advancements Elena Logan
was referring to.
Chief McIntosh said he thought part of the Report
indicated that John Montalvo was staying after work and
was trying to continue the relationship; however, Elena
Logan was not interested. He said John Montalvo was
sending letters and flowers to Keep the relationship
going. He said Elena Logan indicated that John Montalvo
was staying after work and tried to talk to her about
continuing the relationship.
Attorney WhitelocK asked if Elena Logan reported this
matter to any Supervisor prior to coming to the Police
Department.
Chief McIntosh said Elena Logan stated that she did.
Page 25
11/22/88
TAPE 3
Attorney Whitelock asked when Elena Logan did this.
Chiet McIntosh said he would have to guess. He said it
was within a week or two before reporting the matter to
the Police Department.
Attorney Lander suggested Chief McIntosh not guess the
date.
Attorney Whitelock objected to Attorney Lander
instructing the witness.
Mayor Abramowitz suggested Attorney Whitelock continue.
Chiet McIntosh said he could not give the specific date;
however, Elena Logan indicated that she reported the
matter to her immediate Supervisor.
Attorney Whitelock asked who Elena Logan reported to.
Cniet McIntosh said Elena Logan's immediate supervisor
was Glenda Christian.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Chief McIntosh had any
conversation with Ms. Christian.
Chief McIntosh said he did not.
Attorney Whitelock asked it Chiet McIntosh was aware of
any action taken by Ms. Christian.
Chief McIntosh said the Report indicated that Ms.
Christian advised Elena Logan to handle the matter
herself.
Attorney Whitelock had no further questions.
At lU:35 A.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and
RECONVENED at 1U:55 A.M. with ALL PRESENT.
Attorney Lander called Sergeant Barbara Chovan as the
next witness.
Sergeant Barbara Chovan was sworn in by the Secretary.
Attorney Lander asked Sergeant Chovan to state her tull
name.
Sergeant Chovan stated her name to be Barbara Grace
Chovan.
Attorney Lander asked Sergeant Chovan where she was
employed.
Sergeant Chovan replied, the Tamarac Police Department.
Attorney Lander asked what Sergeant Chovan's title was
with the Tamarac Police Department.
Sergeant Chovan said she was Sergeant in charge of
Administration.
Attorney Lander asked how long Sergeant Chovan has been
employed by the City.
Sergeant Chovan replied, 11 years.
Page 26
11/22/88
Attorney Lander asked when Elena Logan first contacted
Sergeant Chovan regarding the matter between herself and
John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan came to her January 8,
1988 regarding John Montalvo.
Attorney Lander asked the nature of the problem Elena
Logan brought to Sergeant Chovan.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan asked if she would give
she was having.
her some adv—kce:: on a problem
Attorney Lander asked it Elena Logan tried to make the
nature of her problem known to her immediate Supervisor.
Sergeant Chovan said when Elena Logan informed her of the
matter she indicated that she informed her Supervisor of
the problem. She said she had no knowledge of this
occurring until January 8, 1988.
Attorney Lander asked if the Supervisor resolved the
matter.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan indicated that the
Supervisor did not attempt to resolve the matter.
Attorney Lander asked what occurred during the
investigation regarding the Elena Logan matter.
Sergeant Chovan said on January 8, 1988, Elena Logan came
to her and they had established a working relationship
because the computer room was teaching her how to use the
Word Processor. She said she became very familiar with
the employees in Data Processing after several months.
Sergeant Chovan said when Elena Logan approached her, she
Celt that Elena Logan thought she could confide in
Sergeant Chovan as a friend. She said initially this was
the approach and her reaction to the matter. She said
Elena Logan appeared to be sad and upset for several
weeks; therefore, when Elena Logan came to her, she was
not surprised that Elena Logan wanted to share her
problems. She said Elena Logan received a letter and
flowers anonymously and another type of letter was sent
to Elena Logan's boyfriend; therefore, this led Elena
Logan to take more action by consulting her and asking
what should be done because the matter was getting out of
hand.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan informed her of the
events of how she became employed with the City and how
John Montalvo had trrst approached her, they went out,
what it led up to and how she tried to break it otf at
the end of the 1987 Summer.
Attorney Lander asked it Elena Logan ever denied that she
and ionn Montalvo nad an intimate relationship.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no.
Attorney Lander asked what happened after Elena Logan and
John Montalvo broke up.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan indicated that she was
receiving poems sent to her apartment, cards on her car
at her other job and flowers on her car. She said Elena
Logan felt that she could not discourage John Montalvo
Page 27
11/22/88
enough even though she said she wanted to put an end to
the relationship. She said Elena Logan indicated that
John Montalvo was not a bit discouraged and continued to
pursue her. She said Elena Logan felt that this had come
to a climax at the end of October, 1987 and that John
Montalvo has gotten the message since they broke up at
the end of August, 1987. She said Elena Logan had been
dating other people since she and John Montalvo broke up.
Sergeant Chovan said everything recurred again early in
November, 1987, when the Baystreet Restaurant opened and
Elena Logan brought another date to the opening. She
said when Elena Logan left she said there was gum on the
car handle and two of her tires were deflated and Elena
Logan indicated that she felt this was done by John
Montalvo.-
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan indicated that she
approached John Montalvo regarding the matter the next
day and she said John Montalvo denied doing this. She
Said their voices must have gotten loud because Elena
Logan approached John Montalvo in his office. She said
Elena Logan felt at that time that John Montalvo
threatened her by indicating that, "he could do something
about getting her out of here", and Elena Logan took this
to mean that she would lose her job.
Sergeant Chovan said this was when Elena Logan apparently
approached Glenda Christian, Elena Logan's immediate
Supervisor, who indicated that Elena Logan could not lose
her job because John Montalvo could not fire her and for
Elena Logan to handle the matter.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan indicated that she
handled the matter by informing John Montalvo that she
knew he did these things to her car and she wanted him
out of her life and to stop this. She said Elena Logan
indicated that she moved and the matter with John
Montalvo was part of the reason. She said Elena Logan
indicated that she moved to another address and did not
give John Montalvo the address or telephone number. She
said Elena Logan telt that by December, 1987, the matter
died down and went to her old apartment around Christmas
and tound a plant there from Jonn Montalvo. She said
Elena Logan felt this may be the end and she could know
some peace; however, when she contacted her everything
became serious because a whole new set of events took
place.
Sergeant Chovan said in the beginning of January, 1988,
when Elena Logan went back to work after the New Year's
Holiday, she found a letter that John Montalvo had signed
stating that he hoped that her New Year would be good and
he was sorry for any trouble in 1987 and he wished her
well. She said Elena Logan indicated that this was great
except, a few days later, Elena Logan received an
anonymous letter at work, "Dear Beautitul Lady, You shine
like stars in the night, I jump at joy when I think
about", this type of letter signed, "Desperately Wanting
You".
Sergeant Chovan said the day after Elena Logan received
this letter, she received four dozen roses anonymously
with the same, "Desperately Wanting You", signature. She
said Elena. Logan felt that this was erupting again and
was now something out of control.
i
Page 28 �,�
11/22/88
Sergeant Chovan said this was actually what drove Elena
Logan to her and Elena Logan was wondering what she could
do because she had been to her Supervisor which did not
help. She said Elena felt things had died down and now
anonymous threats were being sent to her boyfriend and
anonymous letters and flowers were being sent to her.
Sergeant Chovan said she felt Elena Logan had been upset,
nervous and sad for several months. She said when Elena
Logan contacted her, she saw the urgency and the fear in
her voice and face and she felt she should do something
to console Elena Logan.
Sergeant Chovan said she asked Elena Logan to bring her
the letters because if anything official was to be done
and, the matter was indeed a criminal act, she would need
proof. She said she informed Elena Logan to bring the
letter to her and she would discuss the matter with the
Police Chief to see if the matter should be informal or
formal.
Attorney Lander submitted evidence which was marked the
City's composite Exhibit "1", consisting of 12 pages.
She asked Sergeant Chovan to review the Exhibit and
indicate if Sergeant Chovan recognized the contents.
Sergeant Chovan reviewed the Exhibit and she said she
recognized that some of the Exhibit was samples that she
asked Elena Logan to get from the typewriters in the
Finance Department, which indicated her name and the City
address so that the envelopes addressed to her could be
simulated. She said the anonymous letters came to her on
January 6, 7 and 2U, 1988. She said she recognized the
Exhibit as envelopes and letters.
Attorney Lander submitted the Exhibit to Attorney
Whitelock for review.
Attorney Whitelock asked where the originals were and if
there were two copies of the same letter.
Attorney Lander said the copies were not the same
letters. She said the salutation was the same; however,
the letters were different.
Attorney Lander submitted the Exhibits into evidence for
labelling which were labelled "City l", consisting of -L2
pages.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the Exhibit because the
information was not original and he did not receive
copies of the information.
Attorney Lander said she sent copies of the letters to
Attorney Whitelock.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objection was
noted.
Attorney Lander asked Sergeant Chovan where the originals
were kept.
Sergeant Chovan said she had the originals present.
Attorney Lander asked Attorney Whitelock if he would like
to see the originals and Attorney Whitelock replied, yes.
Page 29 ` '
11/22/88
Attorney Lander said the originals were part of the
Public Records File in the Police Department and they
could not be relinquished; therefore, copies had to be
offered into evidence for the purpose of the case. She
said Attorney Whitelock could compare the originals to
the copies entered as evidence.
Attorney Whitelock said ne would have to check his files;
however, he did not remember receiving the documents.
Attorney Lander asked if Attorney Whitelock wanted his
objection to stand regarding copies being entered into
evidence.
Attorney Whitelock said he withdrew his objection;
however, the objection regarding the information not
being submitted to him remained. He said if his files
reflect that the copies were submitted, he would wxtndraw
the objection.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected to the hearsay nature
regarding a document of an analysis by the U.S. Post
Office. He said he did not know the purpose in which it
was being offered; however, it denied the right to
confrontation.
Attorney Lander asked Sergeant Chovan to explain the
problem presented, evidence considered and the findings
made as contained in the evidence labelled "City 1".
Sergeant Chovan said there were three letters and three
envelopes mailed to Elena Logan at the City of Tamarac
marked "Confidential". She said there was another
envelope included that appeared to be made from the same
typewriter; however, an expert was needed to make this
determination; therefore, the three letters and the four
envelopes together with samples of what she felt would
have been the typewriter used in the Finance Department,
which John Montalvo had access to...sample were taken at
10 and 12 marginal spacings from the typewriters. She
said the samples from the typewriter as well as copies of
the four envelopes and the three letters in question were
forwarded to the United States Postal Inspectors Office
for an analysis of the documents to see if they were made
by the same typewriter. She said findings from the lab
indicated that the preparation of the four envelopes and
the three letters bore characteristics and seemed to be
as those used by the typewriter samples that were
submitted.
Attorney Lander submitted City Exhibit #2 to Sergeant
Chovan and asked her if she recognized the information.
Sergeant Cnovan reviewed the Exhibit and indicated that
she recognized the information.
Attorney Lander asked if Sergeant Chovan received this
information from the Postal Inspector in response to an
investigation theory sent in the normal course of
Sergeant Chovan's business practice as a Police Officer
undertaking an investigation.
Sergeant Chovan replied, that was correct.
Page 30
C]
11/22/88
Attorney Lander submitted the information to Attorney
Whitelock for review.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected to this Exhibit
because it denied the right for confrontation and expert
testimony.
Mayor Abramowitz said Attorney Whitelock's objections
were noted.
Attorney Lander offered the information into evidence
which was labelled, "City 2", by the Secretary.
Attorney Lander asked Sergeant Chovan to explain the
Crime Laboratory Examination Report's problems, findings
and how it related back to Exhibit 1, "City 1".
Attorney Whitelock said he objected unless there was a
predicate laid that Sergeant Chovan had the expertise and
was involved in the experiments and the preparation of
the Report. He said Sergeant Chovan was reading from a
Report that was submitted and spoke for itselt. He said
ne objected to the hearsay and to denying the right to
confrontation.
Attorney Lander said the Report was the second Report.
Attorney Whitelock said he understood this; however, he
did not feel that Sergeant Chovan was a fingerprint
expert and did not conduct the experiments. He'said he
was objecting to Sergeant Chovan testifying to what
someone else has written.
Mayor Abramowitz said he understood Attorney Whitelock's
objection; however, he and the City Council wanted to
hear the complete story trom both sides; therefore, he
would allow the witness to continue.
Attorney Whitelock said he objected because the complete
story was not being presented. He said the information
being given was Sergeant Chovan...he asked if he could
bring any witness in to testity to the propriety of the
Report.
Mayor Abramowitz said he personally would not object.
Attorney Whitelock said he did not have a problem with
this if he could bring experts in to testify to the
validity of the Reports or the lack of the Reports
validity.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Attorney Lander to continue.
Attorney Lander said the cover sheet related to an
examination of the Exhibits contained in composite
Exhibit 1, "City 1", which involved certain envelopes and
letters addressed to Elena Logan. She asked the purpose
of the Crime Lab Report.
Sergeant Chovan said there were two things to determine.
Attorney Whitelock objected to a narrative and asked that
Sergeant Chovan respond to the questions.
C/M Hoffman said he would like to hear what Sergeant
Chovan had to say.
Page 31
11/22/88
Mayor Abramowitz said he understood Attorney Whitelock-s
concerns and asked Sergeant Chovan to continue.
Sergeant Chovan said the letter was from the United
States Postal Service in response to her request to check
the typewriter samples to see if they were one and the
same so it could be established if the letters and
envelopes came from the City. She said the second lab
request was to compare a set of standard prints in the
Police Department of John Montalvo with the fingerprints
on the three letters and the four envelopes. She said a
different expert from the United States Postal Service
checked for the fingerprints.
Sergeant Chovan said the fingerprints expert indicated
that the findings were indeed John Montalvo's
fingerprints on the outside of the envelopes.
Attorney Whitelock objected to the inclusion of who the
people were in the solidification of the matter. He said
the testimony was hearsay; however, it was expert
testimony and may be received as such.
City Attorney Doody said the document was in evidence and
Sergeant Chovan was reading from the document.
Attorney Whitelock said the document spoke for itself and
the Report could be read without Sergeant Chovan
explaining the document.
Attorney Lander said she was trying to assist in the
presentation of proof so that there was a picture of the
events. She said this was not a Court of Law. She said
referring back to the standards being used it would be
what reasonable people would rely on in conducting day
to day activities. She said a reasonable person could
rely on a Report from the United States Post Office
Agency in conduct of their day to day affairs.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if Sergeant Chovan was referring
to the Report.
Attorney Lander said Sergeant Chovan has not been able to
state what was in the Report.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if Sergeant Chovan reported on the
report up until this time.
Attorney Lander said Sergeant Chovan was trying to
indicate what the problem was and the results of the
investigation.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Sergeant Chovan to continue with
her statement.
Sergeant Chovan said the findings were that two of the
envelopes contained John Montalvo's prints and one of the
letters contained three of John Montalvo's prints.
Attorney Lander asked if the letters sent to Elena Logan
were signed with the same phrase.
Sergeant Chovan replied, "Desperately Wanting You".
Attorney Lander asked what Sergeant Chovan did after the
conclusion of the Report.
Page 32
11/22/88
Sergeant Chovan said the fact gathering was getting the
samples wnich took time. She said she asked Elena Logan
on January 8, 1988 to bring her the letters which Elena
Logan did approximately one week later. She said during
this request, Elena Logan only received one letter;
however, Elena Logan received another letter that was in
an unopened envelope addressed to her that bore the
characteristics of the other letter. She said Elena
Logan indicated that she did not touch the envelope and
she had just received it at her desk.
Sergeant Chovan said rubber gloves were used to process
the envelope so that possible latents were not spoiled.
She said she opened the envelope and removed the letter
and saw that the same "Desperately Wanting You", phrase
was used. She said she informed Elena Logan that she
would keep the Exhibits and ask the Police Chief it she
could open an active investigation and process the
Exhibits with the City's Detective Bureau.
Sergeant Chovan said she informed the Police Chief of the
matter and submitted the Exhibits for review. She said
the Police Chief approved the investigation of the matter
and requested that it be kept confidential. She said she
contacted Detective Pechuls of the Detective Bureau and
informed her that the matter was to be kept confidential.
She said she advised Detective Pechuls of the events and
latent testing was done.
Sergeant Chovan said Detective Pechuls tested the two
envelopes, two letters and a flower card from the tour
dozen roses. She said the process took lU to 12 days
involved waiting for fingerprints comparisons by the
Police Captain, who was an expert. She said the
fingerprints were compared and on January 15, 1988, it
was known that John Montalvo's fingerprints were on the
outside of the unopened letter.
Sergeant Chovan said there was enough information on
January 15, 1988, without submitting the samples to the
Postal Inspector, to continue the case as Unlawful
Activity. She said this was when the matter became a
criminal investigation.
Attorney Lander asked it Sergeant Chovan had any meetings
with Elena Logan in the month of January regarding the
investigation. She asked what Elena Logan's reaction was
to receiving the letters and the flowers as far as
Sergeant Chovan could perceive as a Police Officer.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan appeared very sad, yet
nervous. She said Elena Logan was fearful and felt
physically threatened. She said Elena Logan conveyed
many times that she was in fear for her life. She said
it had gotten to the point where Elena Logan was not
wanting to miss work and there had been absenteeism. She
said she had seen Elena Logan crying at times when
visiting the Computer Room. She said she even asked
Elena Logan what was wrong in October, 1987, or November,
1987; however, she did not want to pry.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan felt a trusting
relationship with her and, by the time the letters were
received, Elena Logan felt compelled to discuss them with
her. She said she noticed that things were not right
with Elena Logan because she always appeared nervous and
Page 33
11/22/88
unhappy. She said there was a sense of urgency and tear
for her life and Elena Logan actually felt threatened by
the letters when Elena Logan approached her.
Attorney Lander asked it the conclusion of the
investigation was reported to the Police Chief.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes, in a Report.
Attorney Lander asked if there was a chronological Report
of all the events relayed to Sergeant Chovan by Elena
Logan.
Sergeant Chovan said, yes. She said her Report indicated
the history and chronology of the events starting
November, 1986 to January 26, 1988 which was the last
contact from John Montalvo through carnations being sent
anonymously.
Sergeant Chovan said subsequent to the last contact, she
submitted information to the Postal Inspectors because
they were co -investigating the case. She said the
culmination of the investigation occurred approximately
February .3, 1988, wnicn was when her Report was typed and
a taped statement was given by Elena Logan. She said
these procedures were normal in the course of an
investigation.
Attorney Lander asked if there were any aspects of the
investigation or the Report that were not discussed
during this testimony.
Sergeant Chovan said the only thing was the lab results
received February 24, 1988, ten days after her Report.
She said the lab formally submitted the lab results.
Attorney Lander had no turther questions.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan confronted
Sergeant Chovan on January 8, 1988.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked it Elena Logan confronted
Sergeant Chovan as a friend as opposed to reporting a
crime.
Sergeant Chovan said more for advice.
Attorney Whitelock asked it Sergeant Chovan commenced a
criminal investigation.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said she did not
commence the investigation. She said she asked Elena
Logan to bring the information that she felt were threats
to her. She said she had to determine what the matter
contained.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the threats were.
Sergeant Cnovan said one threat was to Elena Logan's
boyfriend which was a warning letter threatening his
life.
Attorney Whitelock asked where the boyfriend lived.
Page 34
1
0
1
11/22/88
Sergeant Chovan said the boytriend lived in Hollywood,
Florida.
Attorney Whitelock asked who investigated the matter.
Sergeant Chovan replied, Sergeant Wolke of the Hollywood
Police Department.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the Tamarac Police Department
was involved in the investigation.
Sergeant Chovan said only that it may have been related
to the letters received by Elena Logan.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan received a
threat.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said Elena Logan
perceived the letters as a threat.
Attorney Whitelock asked what threat Elena Logan
perceived.
Sergeant Chovan said the letters were anonymous letters,
love letters.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there were any threats to
Elena Logan's safety.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan felt so and conveyed
this to her.
Attorney Whitelock asked if any of the letters threatened
Elena Logan's physical well-being.
Sergeant Chovan said if the letters were perceived out of
everything else she knew and this was all Elena Logan
had, sne would not perceive any danger. She said
combined with Elena Logan's fears, they seemed to be
threats.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan was Sergeant
Cnovan's friend.
Sergeant Chovan said not socially, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked Sergeant Chovan if she and Elena
Logan were friends.
Sergeant Chovan said they knew each other only through
computer work.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was why Elena Logan had
enough confidence to seek Sergeant Cnovan's help.
Sergeant Chovan said she felt Elena Logan felt confident
that she could give some advice as to which way to go
after Elena Logan's Supervisor declined to assist.
Attorney Whitelock asked besides the two incidents
reported, if there were any other threats or actions
taken against Elena Logan in which Sergeant Chovan
investigated.
Sergeant Chovan said she co -investigated the threat to
Hollywood, Florida.
Page 35
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock said this matter would be discussed
and he asked if there were any other matters.
Sergeant Chovan said the tlowers. She said the cards
were checked. She said she did not speak to anyone else.
Attorney Wnitelock said as a tormer Police Otticer, when
people filed a complaint, a set of facts were given. He
asked if he was correct.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock said a determination of criminal
misconduct is made and he asked if he was correct.
Sergeant Chovan replied, correct.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan received a
call from one of her subordinates explaining that they
received flowers and love letters from someone, if there
would be an infraction of any criminal Statutes.
Sergeant Chovan said the first letter received was the
lire threat to Elena Logan's boyfriend and Elena Logan
perceived it as a threat as well as the boyfriend and
Hollywood Police Department. She said this was where she
was looking for the criminal aspect because if it was
John Montalvo, as Elena Logan thought associated with the
love letters, the criminal activity was occurring in the
City of Tamarac which became her business. She said the
minute the threat was typed on the City's typewriter, if
it was in the .Finance Department, the actual crime
occurred in the City of Tamarac and she made this her
business because it was a Federal Felony.
Attorney Wnitelock asked if any citizen called in and
stated that they were receiving anonymous love letters
and flowers from an admirer, it would be considered a
Criminal and Federal offense. He asked if Sergeant
Chovan was telling him this.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no sir. She said she was
indicating that the letter that came along with these
things may have been typed by the same typewriter and,
indeed, sent by the same person.
Attorney Whitelock said assuming that they were, assuming
that he sent a handwritten letter to Sergeant Chovan
stating that he loved her and sent Sergeant Chovan a
dozen roses, he asked if this would be a Federal or State
Criminal Offense or a violation of any Code or
Regulation.
Sergeant Chovan said it would be a violation of the City
Regulation.
Attorney Whitelock asked if a person could be arrested
for this action.
Sergeant Chovan said the letters in themselves were not
criminal.
Attorney Wnitelock said the only thing of a criminal
nature was the matter handled by the Hollywood Police
Department.
Sergeant Chovan replied tnat this was correct.
Page 36
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if any of the Reports pertain to
this matter.
Sergeant Chovan said the United States Postal Service
indicated that they could not exclude or definitely say
that the letter sent to Hollywood, Florida, came from the
Dot Matrix in John Montalvo's office because they could
not do Dot Matrix comparisons.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any expert or
scientific evidence to conclude or connect the letter
sent to Hollywood, Florida, to John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said or to exclude that it could have
been John Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock asked if he could have written the
letter.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not think that Attorney
Whitelock would have had a motive.
Attorney Whitelock asked if he could have written it.
Sergeant Chovan asked Attorney Whitelock if he could type
on a Dot Matrix.
Attorney Whitelock replied, yes. He asked Sergeant
Chovan if she knew that John Montalvo could type on a Dot
Matrix.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked how Sergeant Chovan knew this.
Sergeant Chovan said John Montalvo programmed the Dot
Matrix. She said she checked with some of the employees.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone who could program or
type on a Dot Matrix could be a possible suspect.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any other evidence
other than the inconclusive Report.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not understand the point.
She said she was not investigating the matter because she
felt there was a crime. She said her primary objective
was that there may be a felony and she would have to ask
the Police Chief if she could take on a criminal
investigation.
Sergeant Chovan said secondary and, almost equally
important, there was an employee complaining that she
felt threatened for her life, whether the complaint was
true or false or it was John Montalvo or not, that was
what an investigation meant. She said the investigation
was to determine it Elena Logan had something to fear and
if a City Law or Regulation as well as a crime had been
broken.
Sergeant Chovan said she handled Internal Attairs on
employees when there was no crime. She said the
investigation was all part and parcel of giving the
courtesy to the employee as if the employee was a
citizen.
Page 37
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if the Internal Investigation
was done on John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said the investigation was considered
confidential and may have taken any course, to determine
whether it was criminal or if a City Regulation was
broken.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the investigation was
internal involving John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said it bordered on this once the
investigation became confidential and when the City had
to see if John Montalvo was breaking any laws against the
Federal Government by sexual harassment, etc.
Attorney Whitelock said the investigation was either
criminal or internal. He asked Sergeant Chovan which one
it was.
Sergeant Chovan said this would have to be defined by the
Police Chief and the City Manager.
Attorney WhitelocK asKed it Sergeant Chovan Knew what she
was doing.
Sergeant Chovan said she was conducting a confidential
investigation as to whether John Montalvo was committing
illegal acts against the Government and the City.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan reported this
matter to the vederal Agency.
Sergeant Chovan relied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked what action the Federal Agency
took.
Sergeant Chovan said the Federal Agency checked the
fingerprints.
Attorney Whitelock said he was referring to reporting a
violation of Federal Statutes. He asked if Sergeant
Chovan reported to the United States Attorney's Otfice.
Sergeant Chovan said a determination had to be made
regarding whether the matter was sexual harassment.
Attorney Whitelock asked it sexual harassment was a
Federal Crime.
Sergeant Chovan said sexual harassment was against
Federal Regulations.
Attorney Whitelock asked what Federal Criminal Statue
referred to sexual harassment.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not know what Federal
Statute; however, the Federal Government states that
there would be no sexual discrimination or harassment.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was under the Civil
Rights Action.
Sergeant Chovan asked it this was a Federal Statute.
Page 38
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock replied, yes; however, it was not
criminal.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not say it was criminal.
Attorney Whitelock said there were two aspects of the
investigation. He said one was already discussed
regarding no criminal allegations or misconduct and the
second matter was the Hollywood, Florida, investigation.
He asked if Sergeant Chovan was conducting this
investigation on behalf of the Hollywood Police
Department.
Sergeant Cnovan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the Hollywood Police
Department investigated the matter.
Sergeant Chovan said somewhat, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked Sergeant Chovan what she meant
by somewhat.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not know what was done on
the matter.
Attorney Whitelock asked who Sergeant Chovan spoke to at
the Hollywood Police Department.
Sergeant Chovan replied, Sergeant Wolke. She said a copy
of the Report was sent to her and she was informed that
the matter was referred to the Postal Inspector because
once a threat is made through the mail it became a Felony
and the Federal Government took over.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any action taken by
the Federal Authorities.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked what was done to John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not know what was done to
John Montalvo; however, the Federal Authorities became
involved in her case and she forwarded all of the
information to them.
Attorney Whitelock said he was not asking what the
Federal Authorities did in response to her correspondence
or communications. He said Sergeant Chovan recently
informed him that the Hollywood Police Department
forwarded the matter to the Postal Authorities.
Sergeant Chovan said they did.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the response was to the
matter.
Sergeant Cnovan said she did not know. She said she only
knew the response made to her.
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was any criminal action
taken on the matter.
Sergeant Chovan said no, not to her knowledge.
Page 39
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked Sergeant Chovan it she spoke to
Elena Logan in October, 1987.
Sergeant Chovan said many times in October, 1987, and
November, 1987, just by going to the Computer room. She
asked if this was what Attorney Whitelock meant.
Attorney Wnitelock replied, yes. He asked if Elena Logan
ever discussed or confided in Sergeant Chovan as to Elena
Logan's problems.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan never discussed her
problems with her.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan informed Sergeant
Chovan of the meeting with Elena Logan's Supervisor.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan indicated that she
approached her Supervisor but Elena Logan did not
indicate the specifics.
Attorney Whitelock asked when this matter took place.
Sergeant Chovan said atter the Baystreet incident which
was approximately November 5, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock asked what occurred as a result of
Elena Logan reporting the matter to her Supervisor.
Sergeant Chovan said she believed Elena Logan's
Supervisor informed her that sne could not lose her job
and to handle the situation.
Attorney Whitelock asked it there were any grievance
procedures available to Elena Logan at this time.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked it Sergeant Chovan ever advised
Elena Logan to file a grievance with the Supervisor to
resolve the conflict.
Sergeant Chovan said this occurred in November, 1987.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan advised Elena
Logan to file a grievance during the January 8, 1988
discussion.
Sergeant Chovan said she had to see what the matter
contained before she could advise Elena Logan.
Attorney Whitelock asked it there was a point determining
that there was no criminal misconduct.
Sergeant Chovan said she had not determined this.
Attorney Whitelock asked it Sergeant Chovan ever
determined this.
Sergeant Cnovan replied, no. She said she has not
determined if John Montalvo sent the threats which was
actually a crime if it was committed in the City of
Tamarac and sent through the mail.
Attorney Whitelock asked which threat Sergeant Chovan was
referring to.
Page 40
11/22/88
Sergeant Chovan said Attorney WhitelocK asked it she had
determined whether a criminal activity occurred. Sne
said there was no way to determine the matter to be
criminal because the prints were not processed nor it the
Dot Matrix was the same machine used to commit the crime.
Attorney Whitelock said the Report indicated that the
matter was in evidence.
Attorney Lander said she has not introduced the Reports
into evidence and she did not question Sergeant Chovan
regarding any of the events because she did not teel that
the matter was relevant to the case before the City
Council being that it was not directed specifically
against Elena Logan. She said it Attorney Wnitelock
wished to explore the matter, he should proceed.
Attorney Whitelock said he was trying to find out when
the criminal investigation was concluded and if there was
a result of the criminal investigation. He asked when
the matter was concluded.
Sergeant Chovan, referred to Exhibits 1 and 2, and said
on February 24, 1988, it was determined that it could not
be proven that John Montalvo positively committed the
crime.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the criminal investigation
was concluded on February 24, 1988.
Sergeant Chovan said nothing was done unless the
Hollywood Police Department and the Postal Inspectors
continued the investigation.
Attorney WhitelocK asked it Sergeant Cnovan was doing an
Internal Attairs Investigation.
Sergeant Chovan said the confidential sources that she
would have had to consult as well as the nature of the
investigation, Keeping it contidential, would classity
the case as an internal Attairs, meaning within the City
and contidential. Sne said it was an
internal/contidential investigation.
Attorney Whitelock asked why John Montalvo was called at
the end of January, 1988 to the City Manager's office if
the matter was confidential and the information was
disclosed and administration was taken at that time.
Sergeant Chovan said this was not for her to answer. She
said the City had to wait until she concluded her
investigation.
Attorney Whitelock said the City acted prior to the
investigation being concluded.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said it was concluded
on January 15, 1988, that John Montalvo's fingerprints
were on the anonymous letters which was enough for the
City to confront John Montalvo about the sexual
harassment. She said this was the issue and the City had
enough proof needed on January 15, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was all the proof the
City needed.
Sergeant Chovan said as far as she was concerned.
Page 41
11/2"2/88
TAPE 4
Attorney WhitelocK asked if a tingerprint on an envelope
was all that Sergeant Chovan needed to prove that there
was sexual harassment.
Sergeant Chovan said to prove that John Montalvo was the
sender of the letters. She said it was not up to her to
define the actions. She said she was looking at the
criminal aspect and the City misconduct. She said it
took her several weeks to get samples from the
typewriters and, in working with two other agencies, the
matter could not ae concluded witnin tnree days. She
said the investigation took approximately six weeks;
nowever, there was enough information on January 25,
1988, without the criminal aspect to make a determination
of misconduct with the City.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was when the information
was forwarded to the Police Chief.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the Police Chief forwarded
the information to the City Manager.
Sergeant Chovan said she was assuming that this was what
the Police Chief did.
Attorney WhitelocK asked if Administration Personnel
Action was taken at this time.
Sergeant Chovan said as far as she Knew.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the confidentiality ceased in
the investigation at this time.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock said the only response to the case
after January 25, 1988, was the two Reports regarding the
fingerprints and the typing.
Sergeant Chovan said this was correct.
Attorney Whitelock said Sergeant Chovan indicated that
Elena Logan admitted sleeping with John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said she believed Elena Logan indicated
tnat she and Jonn Montalvo had been intimate during the
two months they dated.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan filed and
reported on the matter.
Sergeant Chovan said that they were dating was included
in the Report.
Attorney Whitelock asked for the date of the Report.
Sergeant Chovan said she believed it was February 2,
1988, or February 3, 1988, the day after her taped
statement.
Attorney Whitelock said the Report did not indicate that
there was intimacy, sleeping with or any sexual
relationship between Elena Logan and John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said she would have to review the Report
word for word. She said if it was not included, it was
Page 42
11/22/88
because she did not feel it was necessary. She said she
could not state that Elena Logan stated that she was
sleeping with John Montalvo. She said Elena Logan
indicated that they had been intimately dating. She said
this was her interpretation of intimate and what intimate
may mean to one person could be interpreted differently
by another.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan asked Elena
Logan.
Sergeant Chovan said she made the assumption and never
specifically asked her this. She said she may have asked
Elena Logan the question during the taped statement which
she would have to refer to word tor word. She said she
did not see an importance in the question; therefore, she
may have neglected to ask Elena Logan specifically. She
said Elena Logan did not deny that she had a dating
relationship with John Montalvo.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan inquired into
the sexual relationship or the degree of intimacy between
Elena Logan and John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said she could honestly say that she did
not pry into the matter.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan asked about
the dating patterns.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan denied that she
was living with John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked it Sergeant Chovan found this to
be different.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if John Montalvo ever paid Elena
Logan's rent or bought her anything.
Sergeant Chovan said she believed Elena Logan indicated
that John Montalvo did not pay her rent or buy her a car.
Attorney Whitelock said the first page of Sergeant
Chovan's Report indicated... and he asked her to review
the underlined portion of the Report.
Sergeant Chovan said where it stated, "she denies
Montalvo living with her, paying rent or buying her
anything".
Attorney
Whitelock asked
if this was what Elena Logan
told Sergeant Chovan.
Sergeant
Chovan said from
what Elena Logan stated, yes.
Attorney
Whitelock asked
Sergeant Chovan made inquiry
regarding
if any of this
took place.
Sergeant
Chovan said no.
She said she did not see the
relevance
in her investigation
to do that.
9
Page 43
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if sexual harassment included
sexual conduct.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not understand the question.
Attorney Whitelock said Sergeant Chovan was doing the
internal investigation for the sexual harassment charge
in this case.
Sergeant Chovan said the case was not called anything at
the time of the Report. She said she indicated that the
investigation involved two aspects, a Felony and
Misconduct, regardless of what it is called, no one had
the business to intimidate or make anyone fearful in
their job. She said she felt an obligation to pursue the
matter and have it satisfied.
Attorney Whitelock asked if it was Sergeant Chovan's
obligation as a Police Officer to investigate the facts.
Sergeant Chovan said she was not persae, investigating a
sexual harassment case where she had to find out what
their sex activity was. She said it did not matter if
Elena Logan and John Montalvo were sleeping together
because sexual harassment on the job would have nothing
to do with their personal life.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan restricted
her investigation to the job.
Sergeant Chovan said she did. She said she talked to no
one else except Elena Logan and the other two agencies
involved.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan made any
inquiry to Elena Logan's past conduct or contact with
John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said she only reported what Elena Logan
stated and this was all that she could do.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Elena Logan admitted to
Sergeant Chovan that she was sleeping with John Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said she probably presumed that this was
occurring when Elena Logan indicated that she was having
an intimate relationship with John Montalvo. She said
she presumed that this meant they were sleeping together.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan included
anything about the intimate relationship in her Report.
Sergeant Chovan said she indicated in her Report that
Elena Logan stated, "or a more consistent dating basis
for approximately two months; however, as the
relationship became intense, she slowed it down and tried
several times to break it off". She asked Attorney
Whitelock what he needed to know to indicate that they
were seeing each other and that they were together. She
said she could only take what Elena Logan told her and
place it in the Report.
Attorney Whitelock asked if it would have been
appropriate to ask Elena Logan how she arrived to the
relationship, in other words, whether John Montalvo used
Page 44
11/22/88
his position as a superior or whether he made any threats
to Elena Logan or whether Elena Logan sought John
Montalvo.
Sergeant Chovan said in the early part of the Report she
indicated that Elena Logan went out with John Montalvo on
a friendship basis after he began showing interest in
her. She read from the Report, "she stated she felt
uncomfortable with a boss/employee relationship becoming
too personal and stopped agreeing to going out with him".
She said it was several months before they actually
started dating again and Elena Logan stated, "she had an
implied obligation". She said to her this meant that
Elena Logan felt uncomfortable.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan had any contact
with John Montalvo's family.
Sergeant Chovan said she had no idea.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone in John Montalvo's
family ever babysat Elena Logan's child.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked what extent the off -employment
contacts had other than the occasional dates indicated in
the Report. He asked if Sergeant Chovan was aware of any
other contact Elena Logan had with John Montalvo or
anyone else either his friends or family.
Sergeant Chovan asked if Attorney Whitelock meant on the
job.
Attorney Whitelock said he was referring to off the job.
Sergeant Chovan said she knew of Elena Logan's new
boyfriend, Bob, because of the threatening letter. She
said Elena Logan indicated that she was dating and
indicated who the person was that she was with at the
Baystreet Restaurant for the opening.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan had a lengthy statement
and probably revealed a lot more; however, she did not
want to take 15 pages of a statement and make a Police
Report.
Attorney Whitelock asked when Elena Logan gave her
statement.
Sergeant Chovan replied, February 3, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock said the date of the Report was
February 2, 1988 and the transcription was taken on
February 3, 1988.
Sergeant Chovan said the Report was typed February 3,
1988, the day after the Report was taken.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Elena Logan provided any
other statements.
Sergeant Chovan said she believed Elena Logan provided a
written statement to Larry Perretti, Personnel Director;
however, she did not see this Report.
Page 45
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan asked to
review that statement or knew the content of that
statement.
Sergeant Chovan said Elena Logan basically did a
chronology of the statement given to her.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan was certified
as a document examiner or a fingerprint expert.
Sergeant Chovan said no. She said she could process
fingerprints and she was not certified.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan testified as
an expert in any case.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no, not as an expert. She said
she had training in processing fingerprints.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan took the
fingerprints off of the envelopes and letters.
Sergeant Chovan said Detective Pechuls took the
fingerprints by spraying the inhydrant.
Attorney Whitelock asked how long fingerprints could be
on a letter.
Sergeant Chovan replied, indefinitely.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan knew of the
longest recorded time.
Sergeant Chovan said probably 50 years.
Attorney Whitelock said over 700.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan knew how many
points were taken off of the print.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said Captain Mortimer
would know because he made the initial analysis.
Attorney Whitelock asked if anyone could determine when
the print was placed on the envelope.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said the envelope was
postmarked and it was processed within a week later.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the print could have been
placed on the envelope anytime.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the latents and the ink
printed were sent in for comparison.
Sergeant Chovan said she had the originals with her. She
said the one Attorney Whitelock had was a copy of the
standards taken at the City for identification.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan knew which
prints were compared.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said the Captain and
Postal Inspector would be able to give this information.
Page 46
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if there was indication what
position the fingerprints were found.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said there were three
fingerprints found on the letter and one on each of the
two envelopes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the location of the
fingerprints was known.
Sergeant Chovan said, yes. She said on the outer flap of
the envelopes and the interior front of the third letter.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan had the
envelope.
Sergeant Chovan indicated that the January 6, 1988
envelope indicated the outer flap fingerprints.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the fingerprints were found
on the outer flap of the January 6, 1988 envelope.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan was referring
to the back side.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes. She said the flap that
seals.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this was Exhibit QlA.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan could explain
the contradiction in the Report she received from the
chemist who indicated the latent print was on the front
of the envelope.
Sergeant Chovan said Captain Mortimer found fingerprints
on the flap of the envelope which was enough evidence to
initiate the investigation. She said this was found on
January 15, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock said the expert indicated that there
was a fingerprint found on the outside front.
Sergeant Chovan said the expert said there was one
fingerprint found on the outside front.
Attorney Whitelock asked what the January 13, 1988
finding referred to.
Sergeant Chovan said that was the second envelope.
Attorney Whitelock asked where the fingerprint was found
on this envelope.
Sergeant Chovan said the Captain compared the two and
found the fingerprints on both.
Attorney Whitelock asked if this envelope was sent to the
Post Office.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Page 47
C/,
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked what the difference was between
Q1, Q2 and Q3.
Sergeant Chovan said the Exhibits were three different
letters sent at three times with three different subject
matter with, "Desperately Wanting You", received three
different times in the City of Tamarac.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan knew when the
letters were received.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the lab was unable to
determine if the typewriters or the submission of the
Exhibits was used in the City.
Sergeant Chovan said the lab reported that there were
indications that they were one in the same.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the limited characteristics
within the typing precluded a definite finding.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the Report indicated that the
typewriters used for Exhibits 2 through 4 were not used
in the remaining Exhibit.
Sergeant Chovan said Exhibits K were the typewriter
samples.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Exhibits were sent without
copies of the letters for comparison.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said the Q Series were
examples. She said the typed samples were the K Series.
She said the Q Series and the K Series were compared.
She said the lab reported that the Q series and K Series
were used in the preparation by the same typewriter. She
read from the lab Report, "there was indication that the
typewriter used in the preparation of Exhibits K2 through
K4", which are the samples taken from the Finance
typewriter, "were also used in the preparation of
Exhibits Q1A through Q3B, to limited individual
characters within the typewriting, precluded a more
definite finding".
Attorney Whitelock said he was referring to Exhibits K2
through K4.
Sergeant Chovan read from the Report, "The typewriter
used in the preparation used in Exhibits K2 through K4
was not used in the preparation of Exhibits Q4A", which
was the letter sent to Hollywood, Florida.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan had Elena
Logan get the samples of the typewriter.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes. She said Elena Logan
worked at night alone and was able to get the samples
from the typewriter. She said she was not going to
request copies of the typewriter from another employee on
a confidential investigation.
Attorney Whitelock asked if transmittal letters were sent
with the Exhibits to the lab.
1
1
Ii
Page 48
11/22/88
1
1
1
Sergeant Chovan replied, she believed there was.
Attorney Whitelock asked for the date of the transmittal
letter.
Sergeant Chovan replied, February 9, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked if John Montalvo was disciplined
at this time and out of the City for approximately 3
weeks.
Sergeant Chovan said as far as she knew, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked why the matter was still being
considered confidential.
Sergeant Chovan said the matter remained confidential so
that the reputations would be preserved because it was
still an open case as far as the City was concerned.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan allowed an
alleged victim prepare evidential Exhibits for an open
criminal investigation.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes. She said Elena Logan had
access to the typewriters.
Attorney Whitelock asked if it would have been simpler to
ask the City Manager to direct someone to do this other
than have these involved do it.
Sergeant Chovan said she did not know.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan supervised
Elena Logan getting the samples.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan was able to
determine whether any of the envelopes or paper used was
used in ordinary course by the City.
Sergeant Chovan said it appeared to be.
Attorney Whitelock asked if John Montalvo could have had
access to the stationary.
Sergeant Chovan replied, yes.
Attorney Whitelock asked if the fingerprints on the
stationary precluded the possibility that John Montalvo
could have touched the stationary in circumstances other
than what was proposed.
Sergeant Chovan said she could not answer this matter.
She said she did not know what John Montalvo had access
to. She said she knew nothing about John Montalvo's
office. She said Attorney Whitelock asked if John
Montalvo could have access.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan ever made a
determination in her investigation as to whether or not
John Montalvo had access to the paper.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no.
Page 49
11/22/88
Attorney Whitelock asked if it was possible that John
Montalvo coulJ have touched the paper in circumstances
other than what was being prescribed and Sergeant Chovan
never investigated this matter to preclude the
possibility.
Sergeant Chovan said the only investigated effort she did
to make sure that John Montalvo could not have touched
the stationary in the ordinary course of business was on
the letter mailed and postmarked January 13, 1988. She
said this letter was brought to her on January 14, 1988,
by Elena Logan unopened. She said she thought that John
Montalvo may have been able to touch the mail; however,
John Montalvo was not in the Department that day because
he was at a Seminar in Coral Springs. She said she
concluded that John Montalvo could not have touched this
letter unless he was the writer.
Attorney Whitelock asked how Sergeant Chovan was not sure
that John Montalvo did not touch the envelope two days, 1
week or 1 month prior.
Sergeant Chovan had concerns with this being done with
all of the Exhibits.
Attorney Whitelock asked how Sergeant Chovan could
determine that this was not done.
Sergeant Chovan said all of the other reams of paper
could have been tested.
Attorney Whitelock asked if Sergeant Chovan could exclude
the possibility of John Montalvo touching any of the
stationary prior to the mailings.
Sergeant Chovan said she excluded in her investigatory
effort that John Montalvo did not touch the envelope of
January 14, 1988.
Attorney Whitelock asked if prior to that day, the
possibility was excluded.
Sergeant Chovan replied, no. She said there was no
reason to prior to that day because everybody touched the
documents.
Attorney Whitelock had no further questions.
Mayor Abramowitz thanked the
and he said the next Hearing
accommodate the City Council
With no further business,
meeting at 12:00 P.M.
CA OL A. EVANS, CITY CLERIC
Attorneys for their conduct
Date should be set to
and the Attorneys.
Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this
TMAN ABRAMOWITZ, MAYOR
"This public document was promulgated at a cost of $340.00 or $9.44 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."
CITY OF TAMARAC
APP VED AT MEETING OF �S S
Page 50
City Clerk
''' I
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13'
14
15
16
17
i9
22 1
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
�0
32
33
34
35
��� /&'o 1
u �fIqLN ��A L.
lirii l r, rt6- l 1114
� " Temp. Reso.
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. R-88-- e�:F_5_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC RELATING
TO PERSONNEL PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR RULES
OF PROCEDURE FOR GRIEVANCE HEARINGS HELD
PURSUANT TO SECTION 52.02 OF THE PERSONNEL
MANUAL OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS Section 52.02 of the Personnel Manual of the
City of Tamarac provides that a permanent employee of the
City (excluding department heads or members of a collective
bargaining unit) who have been demoted, suspended or fired
and who have exhausted the grievance procedure outlined in
the Personnel Manual may file written notice with the City
Manager requesting a public hearing before the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish appropr-
iate rules of procedure to govern hearings held pursuant to
Section 52.02 of the Personnel Manual;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TAMARAC:
SECTION 1 That the following rules of procedure are
hereby adopted to govern public hearings held before the City
Council pursuant to Section 52.02 of the City of Tamarac
Personnel Manual:
A. The Council shall hear evidence upon the charges
and specifications as filed with it by the officer
of the City initiating the action. No material
amendment of, or additions to, said charges or
specifications will be considered by the Council.
B. The procedures shall be as informal as is compat-
36
Cc rf Ti Yq
able with justice and due process, and the Council
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i9
20
21 '
22
23
24
25
V1:9
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
36
and all parties will limit themselves to the
finding of facts only.
C. The officer of the City initiating the action shall
present the evidence and witnesses, if any, in
support of the charges. The grievant/employee
shall then produce said evidence and witnesses, if
any, as he/she may wish to offer in his/her
defense. The parties may then offer rebuttal
evidence, and the Council shall hear arguments.
D. The Council shall have the right to require attend-
ance of City employees as witnesses and the produc-
tion of pertinent City documents. Employees, when
notified, shall appear before the Council.
E. The Council may, in its discretion, request
opinions from the City Attorney regarding any
question of law and evidence. Conversely, the
grievant/employee shall have the right to be
represented by legal counsel, however, compensation
of such legal counsel shall not be the responsibil-
ity of the City.
F. The officer of the City initiating the action may
be represented by an attorney appointed and compen-
sated by the City, who is one other than the City
Attorney.
G. If the grievant/employee whose appeal is to be
heard shall fail to appear at the time affixed for
hearing, and if such absence is not excused by the
Council, the Council may proceed to hear and arrive
at its findings in absentia. If the officer
initiating the action shall fail to appear the
Council may dismiss the City's case or take what-
�4 —iTtqc,+-t r-1 e rf -r" IlWor Po
CID` "Pf 0 F D
♦
ever action it deems appropriate, including order-
1
ing reinstatement of the employee/grievant.
2
3
H. Irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious
4
evidence shall be excluded, but all other evidence
of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably
prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs
shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence
would be admissible in a trial in the courts of
9
Florida. Any part of the evidence may be received
10
in written form, and all testimony of parties and
11
witnesses shall be made under oath. Hearsay
12
evidence may be used for the purpose of supple-
menting or explaining other evidence, but it shall
13
14
not be sufficient in itself to support a finding
unless it would be admissible over objection in
15
civil actions.
16
t
1. The presiding officer of the Council shall have
the power to swear witnesses, take their testimony
19
under oath, and to issue subpoenas upon the written
20
request of any party or upon the Council's own
2;
motion.
22
23
J. Any person subject to a subpoena may, before
24
compliance and on timely petition, request the
25
Council to invalidate the subpoena on the ground
that it was not lawfully issued, is unreasonably
27
broad in scope, or requires the production of
28
irrelevant material.
29
K. A party may seek enforcement of a subpoena issued
t
by the Council, by filing a petition for
32
enforcement in the circuit court of the judicial
33
circuit in which the person failing to comply with
34
the subpoena or order resides. A failure to comply
35
with an order of the court shall result in a
36
CE J
3
4
9
13
14
15
16
17
19
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
36
finding of contempt of court.
L. Documentary evidence may be received in the form of
a copy or excerpt if the original is not readily
available. Upon request, parties shall be given an
opportunity to compare the copy with the original.
M. A party shall be permitted to conduct cross-
examination when testimony is taken or documents
are made a part of the record.
N. The final order of the Council shall contain
necessary findings of fact and conclusions at law.
The order of the City Council may reinstate the
grievant/employee, may provide for back pay, may
uphold the action taken by the City or provide for
any other disposition of the issues as the Council
may deem proper.
SECTION 2 : This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this ,1 - d y of ��1" �G •ti% , 19 88.
ATTEST:
r
CAROL A - EVANS
CITY CLERK
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have
approved this RESOLUTION as
to form.
K-1Q1
aa��
RICHARD L. DOOD
CITY ATTORNEY
ORMAN AB
RAMOWITZ _
MAYOR
RECORD OF COUNCIL VOTE
MAYOR ABRAMOWITZ - --
DISTRICT 1: C/M ROHR
DISTRICT 2: V/M STELZER f�y
DISTRICT 3: C/M HOFFMAN 14.x
DISTRICT 4: , -C/M BENDER