Loading...
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