HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-17 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesIr
MAIL REPLY TO-
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320
5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
December 5, 1985
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
PUBLIC HEARING
There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council on Tuesday,
December 17, 1985, at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of.
City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac.
The purpose of this meeting is a continuation of the public
hearing requested by Thomas S. Watkins pursuant to Section
44.02 of the Personnel Manual to appeal his grievance due
to his layoff from City employment.
. The public is invited to attend.
Marilyn Bertholf, CMC
City Clerk �0
Pursuant toSection 286.0105, Florida Statutes
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may nood to ,cnsur�i that a verh;.fin moor ±
thetC ti{ , � o�i?ii4� c; f?�., 4".• - !'.�::, ^. Ci."! ti!'1:.. i :�(.3'.%�.-. i. r i'r.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
.rsa � c•r+y�::.�._�.-raecp,.�.rbgW::�p.�r.w;A„..,,...:-wx.'� �-,�--�wr.n.,�.- .........-....._.,,. m�-. ,.,.. , ,��,
SPECIAL MEETING
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tape CALL TO ORDER:
1 order on Tuesday,
Chambers pursuant
appeal grievance
employment.
ROLL CALL:
ON
G�i;[i15 mftk1A4&Qk.&".
DECEMBER 17, 1985
Mayor Philip B. Kravitz called the meeting to
December 17, 1985 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council
to Section 44.02 of the Personnel Manual to
of Thomas S. Watkins due to his layoff from City
PRESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz
Vice Mayor Helen Massaro
Councilman Arthur H. Gottesman
Councilman Raymond J. Munitz
Councilman Sydney M. Stein
ALSO _PEESENT: Acting City Manager Larry Perretti
City Attorney Jon M. Henning
Secretary - V. Diane Williams
Thomas S. Watkins, appealant
Roger D. Haagenson, Esq.
MEDITATION -AND -PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kravitz called for a
Moment of Silent Meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Henning recapped that this was a reconvened meeting from a
Special Meeting of December 4, 1985 at which time Council met as
the review board to make a judicial determination on the final
grievance step or procedure on the grievance filed by Captain
Watkins regarding a layoff from fire service. The City Attorney
said there was a question at that meeting as to making Chief Simon
available and Council recessed until today so that Chief Simon
could be present. He said they had discussed the fact that the
grievance procedure had come this far as outlined in the City's
Personnel Manual because although Mr. Watkins was a firefighter,
he was outside the bargaining unit because of his rank as captain.
Mr. Henning said both sides agreed that the procedure for arriving
here was in the manual but that regarding any rules or policy for
layoff, they were unable to locate anything on layoffs in the
manual. The City Attorney said, unless there were any additional
questions by Council, Mr. Perretti would proceed with additional
evidence.
Mr. Perretti advised that the witnesses would need to be sworn in
by the City Clerk but to expedite time he revealed that he had
spoken with Mr. Haagenson yesterday pertaining to a letter he had
submitted to Mr. Perretti on December 10, 1985 regarding questions
about Mr. Watkins. The City Attorney asked if this discussion was
concerning negotiations. Mr. Haagenson said it was and objected to
any reference to negotiations. Mr. Henning advised Council that
negotiations for settlement took place since the last meeting and
have not been resolved and as far as the terms of the negotiations,
since there was objection, discussion should be held until a later
date. He elaborated that there should be no discussions as to the
demands or responses because it was not agreed to and there was no
reason to prejudice Council.
Marilyn Bertholf, City Clerk, sworn in the following witnesses:
Fire Chief Bernard Simon
Mark Tillinghast, former Firefighter
George Strittmatter
J
1
12/17/85
/vdw
Thomas S. Watkins
Mr- Perretti called Chief Bernard G. Simon as the first with
M P rretti: witness.
Would you please state
Y� Please your name and your
Position with the C
by the City? . and how long you've been employed
C f imon: Bernard G.
Department. Been with the City 1aboutFire ten Chef' Tamarac Fire
years and ten months.
Mr.Perretti: How l
Watkins? on g have you known the petitioner, Tom
Chief Sir+;on; Between eight and nine years.
Mr. Perretti: When he first came to work for the Fire Depart-
ment what position did he have?
itL— imon: Firefighter.
XL. Pe retti: During that time that
risen in rank?
Chief Simon• Yes_
M - P rretti: To what position?
ghief`.5.�' mon
Captain.
You have known him he has
M P etti: This
Your budget to the City Manager,awhatspartcal icularhtn you submitted
were you seeking. YP of manpower
of on:
We were seeking to keep
additional in the event of ambulance servicehbeinwe
g at had plus eight
the City. instituted in
Perretti And keeping Watkins? P g what
you had included Captain
S of gn. Yes, sir.
t': What transpired after
the City Manager? You made that request of
C1�s;mon: First of all, I believe the eight were he
until finalization of the Certificate of Convenience and Necessback
ity and then it would be considered at that time, and the other w
that we had the order for budgetaryNecessity
restraints to cut a captain.
,Mr. Perretti: And that order was
Manager? given to you by the City
Ci�ef,'mon: Yes.
M P tti: At that
order to cut a ca tain w aParticular time when you were given the
to whichparticular
cut follow to make a
determination as
ef s;mon:
myself; Okay. I went through the personnel Manual
then I consulted Jon Henning to see if there was anything
I missed in the thing. Being the Personnel Manual did not ad
management people as far as layoffs o I
go over previous evaluations. g , made a determinationto
Of the rank of captain was rebuOnedevaluation
by Thomas since
Watkithe
institution
use that being that it was not adjudicated or anything else.
did not
M Pe tti: What
year was that?
n: The last year, 1985.
the first one from the institution of theWranknOflcaptain w
was instituted, I think. there; we took
We went through the whole thin hen it
9• I took
2
12/17/85
/vdw
all answers on the basis of one to five - all categories. I
averaged them out; they were all satisfactory. I come up and
Captain Budzinski and Captain Hurst had a higher average than
Captain Watkins on it. And at that I was under the impression
that inverse seniority for layoffs was a negotiated item in the
contract and I did not feel that I could lay off a person with a
better record in a management category than by using the inverse
seniority system.
Mr., P r etti: Now, referring to seniority, when was Tom
Watkins made a captain?
Chief on: They were all made together; I don't have the
exact date. It's a little over four years now.
Mom_, Per,etti: Okay. Are you saying to me, then, that all
three were made captains at the same time?
Chi f im n: Correct.
Mrs P retti: So from the standpoint of seniority, as a
captain, all three had the same date as seniority.
Chit Simon: Yes.
M ett': The seniority issue, then, is coming up because
Watkins has more time in the Fire Department?
Chief-g mon: In the Fire Department, yes.
Mr. Perretti concluded examination of Mr. Simon but reserved the
right for reexamination.
Mr. Roger Haagenson, representing Thomas Watkins, cross-examined
Chief Simon.
Mr., Hasiganson: Chief Simon, when ... you said that you made com-
parison of the evaluations... You compared the evaluations of the
three captains; when did you do this?
Chief n: In the morning of September 30th when we were
notified that one captain would go by our table of organization
in the new budget that was supposed to be finalized that night,
which it was.
Mr: Haagenson: At some point did you put this in writing?
Chief -Limon: Yes.
Mr. aagenson: And is this the ... what we received last time,
this document dated 11/22/85?
Chief_Si non: I don't have a date on it.
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Simon if he wished to review the document
Mr. Haagenson had since he was not at the last meeting.
Mom„ Simon: I got it, yeah. This was when it was in print
and I distributed a copy to our City Attorney and our City Manager
and explained to him the process I went through. I had it roughed
out before.
nson: Okay. But you had done this before the cutback,
right? It wasn't afterwards?
Cb j QL 2j&gn: When I was notified at 11 o'clock in the morning
on September 30th that one captain was gone from that budget plus
one firefighter.
Mr. Haagenson: That's when you made the comparison and that's
what you based your decision on?
Chief n: Could you put that another way so I understand
3
12/17/85
/vdw
A
you correctly?
Mr. Haagenson: Am I correct in assuming that, from your state-
ments that you made your decision based solely on these comparisons
of evaluations?
Chief Si Qn: Mainly. Mainly on those.
Mr. Haagenson: What other factors did you use?
Chief Simon:
My
four years'
experience with the captains
and things like
that.
Everything
in an evaluation isn't covered.
Mr. Haagenson:
Do
you have any
specifics as to the criteria
that you used?
Chief Simon:
No,
not that I
would bring up.
Mr. Haagenson: And, again, this was before ... you made these
comparisons before you made the decision?
Chief Simon: Yes.
Mr. Haagenson: Did you tell Captain Watkins or anybody else or
Captain Hurst or Budzinski what you were doing as far as these
evaluations?
Chief Simon:
Mg, Haagenson:
ghigf Simon:
At what time?
Any time.
I don't remember.
Nara Haagenson: Well, if this was the basis of your decision,
wouldn't you then tell them why you were making that decision and
how you made the decision?
Chief Simon: I did at one time but I don't remember exactly
when it was. I believe it was after ... after the decision was mad
Mr. Haagenson: Okay. Did Mr. Watkins ask you why you made the
decision that you made?
Chief Simon: No, he has not spoke to me since that time.
Mr. H-gag-enson: Okay. Did you tell the Acting City Manager that
that's how you made your decision at that time?
Chief Simon: What time are we talking about now?
Mr. Haagenson: The time that...
Chief Simon: September 30th?
Mr. Haagenson: Yes, the time that they were laid off ... That he
was, that Mr. Watkins was laid off.
Chef _Simon: Yeah, because I already looked at his evalu-
ations that I based that paper on that you have in your hand.
Mr. Haagenson: Okay. And you told Mr. Perretti, then, that that's
why you made the decision because it was based on the com-
parison of the evaluations.
Chief Simon: I said I did evaluate their records and I woul
recommend that if one had to go it would be Watkins.
Mr. Haagenson: But did you tell him, specifically, how you had
gone through and made this analysis here of picking out the
different years and adding them up and averaging them; did you tell
him that?
Chief Simon: I went through their folder. I keep a folder on
N
i
12/17/85
/vdw
them, a memory folder.
I went through it and I based it on one to
five. I took it throw
passing marks. gh and Captain Watkins had the lowest
of the
You kept a "memory
To guide me in making future
ions to
improvements, lack of improvements lortanyt lyinin be
g
M nson:
You had on each Okay. Was
individual?
C 'ef on:
allowed to look at
Anybody could look
going out.
M enson:
that you put down.
of on :
nson:
on:
or a one to five
average. I took
viously? on:
folder"?4A29son: Would
What is that? You explain that?
on:
able to document
like that.
this a private folder, then, that
No. No, it wasn't
it, other Private. Captains were
at it in mPeOPle were allowed to look at it.
y Office; I just didn't want paper
How did you arrive, then, at these numbers here
I thought I explained that.
Well, would you explain it again.
I went ... There's five categories on evaluation
scale. The higher the number, t
he
them all down and averaged them outbetter the
Were these evaluations that had been done pre_
on: Yes. It was done s'
Lion of a captain's ix months
the rank and job; at that time, t after the incep-
then, it was done they went off probation for
to the last evaluation W Yearly after that all the way u
which I did not use. P
Mr. a qenson..
did you wait until Why didn't
y ubput this
this? he
in writing before? Why
e tprior hearing to do
Slmnn. I had it in writing all
didn'-ta have in t the time but i just
typed form.
nson: And it's is
that you made this decision Your to timbaseny that that
se evaluations? the reason
Ch ' f i on:
being the It was the only decision that I could make
guidelines were not specific.
that Mr• Haa enson: Was there anythin
decision?tated you or anythin that g that Mr. Watkins had done
g had something to do with your
No.
No? Strictly on his evaluation?
n: Nothing
running a fire deparothitme g any more than anybody else did because
like and I don't ima ine it's onlythings that didn't like, I could that he... if I didpthingsdon't
get 99$ of the job to say the samething.Mr. as enson:
was this Was this decision to cut b
back Part of the budget in that back a fire captain,
a fire captain or could you havecutsome
the budget? Pacifically cut
where else in
mnn . I was told
that we had... It was mentioned a
rank and salary.
some other waybut I did ou entertain thought
told to cut ait was not..it did not cs that it could be
captain on September 3when
down...2 was
hen it came down with
5
12/17/85�
/vdw
the personnel part of our budget.
Mr. Haagenson: Who told you to cut the captain?
Chief Simon: I had a conversation with the Acting City
Manager and the Vice Mayor.
Mr. Haagenson: And, would you identify them?
Chief Simon: Vice Mayor Helen Massaro. Acting City Manager
Larry Perretti.
Mr. Haagenson: Okay, Then, it was their decision, then, they
were telling you that you had to cut a fire captain rather than
do something else?
Chief Simon: They put it in the light of budgetary restraint.
Mr, Haasenson: Well, could you have done something else? Could
you have, let's say, cut a firefighter or cut the assistant chief
or done some other things? Not purchased equipment or something
like that, could you have done that?
Chief Simon: We had no equipment to purchase; we don't have
one capital item in this budget.
Mr,-Haagenson: Could you have done something else other than
cut a fire captain?
Ch,,ipf,Oimon: I could've done anything they told me. But they
were talking monetary basis to reduce a very tight budget.
Mr. Haagenson: Okay, and they said specifically you had to cut a
fire captain?
Chief Simon: Yes.
Mr. Haagenson: And this was on what date?
Chief Simon: September 27th... No, September 30th, it came
definitely as a captain. September 27th I was told that I needed
a further cut in my budget. My budget was so decimated that I
could not do anything but personnel being our budget is 90 to
95% personnel costs.
Mx,-Haagenson: Did you discuss with Captain Watkins or any of
the other captains the various possibilities of what you could do
other than laying off a captain.
Chief Simon: September 28th in my office was a Saturday.
Mr. Haagenson: What was the result of that? What was dis-
cussed?
u
Chief _Simon: Well, they discussed cut anybody else but don't
cut us. It was discussed that one of them thought that they would
all revert to the rank of captain and that would give sufficient
money. There was talk about firing or laying off the secretary.
Thought of laying off additional firefighters. There was also
talk that possibly come up with cuts in pay.
Mr* Haagenson: At this meeting, who was at that meeting?
Chief Simon: Thomas Watkins, Jim Budzinski and Dave Viele.
He's the fire inspector but he was drawing the same pay as a fire
captain.
Mc, Haagenson: Why wasn't Captain Hurst there?
Chief Simon: Because I had no intention at that time to
disturb him because he was serving in a training capacity through-
out the job.
6
12/17/85
/vdw
Mr. Haagenson: Okay, was he then ... When you made these evalu-
ations here you got all three, Budzinski, Hurst and Watkins; were
you considering laying off one of those or just was Hurst one of
them that could have possibly been laid off?
C i fSimon: Yes, he could have been. Mr. Haagenson, I'd
like to bring something up. I believe I was called to this stand
as a witness to say what I based my judgment on and you were
talking to the point of this whole hearing being a sham and I
don't think it's so. The decision, I think, without a doubt, is
not capricious or arbitrary and I think you're starting to drift
from that subject right now.
Mrs Haagenson: You choose not to answer it..
_Qbief Simon: Pardon me?
Mr. Hgagenson: If you don't want to answer, you don't have to
answer.
Chief Simon: I know that.
Mr, Haaggnson: So are you refusing to answer my questions,
then?
Chief -Simon: What was the question?
Mr. Haagenson: Were you considering laying off one of the three
or had you narrowed it down already to two of them? That you were
going to lay off one of the two?
Chief Simon: I had the whole field open at that time. I had
better communication with Captain Hurst at that time.
Mr. HaagensQn: Didn't you, in fact, tell Mr. Watkins and
Mr.Budzinski: you told them that one of those two were going to be
laid off.
Chief Simon: I don't ever remember saying that.
Mr. Hgagenson: You don't remember saying that?
Chief Simon: No.
Mr. Haaggnson: Do you remember saying that at that meeting?
Chief Simon: No. Because I also had a fire inspector in
there, too. Because I was addressing the salary line because the
issue was money; it was not personalities.
Mr. Haagenson: Do you recall meeting prior? You're talking
about a meeting that took place on Saturday?.
Chief Simon: Yes.
Mr. Haagenson: There was a meeting also on Friday with
Budzinski and Captain Watkins; do you recall that meeting?
Chief Simon: I remember talking to them.
Mg. Haagenson: Do you recall saying...
Chief gimon: That there was going to be a further budgetary
cut.
Mr. Haagenson: Right. And that one of them was going to be
laid off.
Simon:Chief I can't say that I remember saying that it would
be one of them laid off. I spoke in terms of money. I was told
that in a monetary sense.
Mr. Haugnson: I'm going to ask you the question, again: Did
7
12/17/85
/vdw
You ever make the statement, in the and Captain Budzinski, that one of those wasC grog Watkins
Off?
going to be laid
Chef : I don't remember saying that.
—• Haagenson; You can't remember an
or any of the criteria that Y of the other factors
terminate? You used in making the decision to
thief Simon• I told
evaluation. You it was all on that paper - on the
M nson:
NO' You also said there were some other factor
that you used in
your memory file or something.
Chief Simon; Except the other captains were a little
productive; that's why the result of the evaluation was
And in the more
Position of captain which is a pretty responsiblejob
for the way it was drafted, I had some ideas of my own that
job wasn't going that good. And through correction would the
through punitive action. Sometimes I would address the wholt bee
three captains on what I was talking about.
H enson: You mean
that well, you mean... + when you say the job was not going
-C� on: It wasn't
going the way I intended it to go.
M enson: As far as the captain's job itself or ind'
uals within the position? ivid-
Mr. Perretti objected to Mr. Haagenson, line of questionin
said, first of all, on numerous occasions in cross examination
Chief Simon has said that he was put to the task of determiningHe
through to n
p management to have a layoff and a cutback of acapain.
The Acting City Manager said Chief Simon's testimony also in
that he devised a point scale to determine which of the three
captains would be laid off. indicated
revious
meeting that this was a He said he had stated at a ree
did not have anything judgment call and the line of questioning
Y g to do with Chief Simon s decision because
when it was brought to his attention that someone would have
be cut, Chief Simon objected strenuously to anybody beingcu to
Mr. Perretti said he felt the issue was from Friday, t.
27, 1985 when he was told that he would have to cuSeptember
to September 30, 1985 when the cut was actually personnel
nothing to do with anythingY made and had
said there were seven otheprior' The Acting City Manager
He said the decision was notpsolel lard off in the City as well.
Y Chief Simon s.
Mr. Henning said the questioning appeared to be repetitive
asked Mr. Haagenson if there was a and
in his cross examination of Chief Simon• he was gees g to make
that he wanted to pursue his line of questioning as he stated
gfelt very important to determine why Chief Simon made the decision t was
felt there was a great question as to whether
based on these evaluations or some other factor. decision wasand
Attorney said that under the normal latitude of cross examination
Mr. Haagenson would be allowed to proceed with The City
questioning,h his line of
although a significant amount of time was being spent
on this questioning. He suggested that Mr. Haagenson get to t
point. he
Mayor Kravitz allowed Mr. Haagenson to continue his line of
questioning.
M nson: At the budget meeting when you were told t
You had to lay off a fire captain, who, again, told that
Mr. Perretti and Vice Mayor? You that?
n:
Yes, sir.
8
12/17/85
/vdw
Mr. Haag@nson: Was this a meeting....
Chief Simon: No, this was by phone; it was preparation for
the cut that was going to come into the budget on September 30th.
Mr, Haagenson: Okay. Was there also discussion of laying off a
firefighter at that time?
Chief Simon: There was a firefighter laid off. There was one
that we had a vacancy for and we were told not to hire it.
Mr, Haagenson: Which firefighter was laid off?
Chief mon: There was a firefighter that didn't complete
probationary period so that left a vacancy so rather than rehire
and then lay off when the new budget, we just left it as unfilled
position and then we eliminated that position.
Mrs Haagenson: Who was that?
-ChiefSimon: Alfred Dow, I believe. I don't have the record
right here but I believe it was Alfred Dow.
Mr Haagenson: Was he not called back or is he out on an injury
layoff?
SimQn: He's not injured. He was let go because of un-
satisfactory service in a probationary period which is the only
reason we give.
Mr: Haagenson: Okay, so he's no longer employed .by the City?
Chief -Simon: No,
Mr, Haagenson: Did you have any discussions with Mr. Watkins
regarding fire inspections in the City?
Chief Simon: I, myself, no.
Mr. Haagenson; No?
-ChiefSimon: The Assistant Chief did.
Mr. Haagenson: Did you have any discussion with him regarding
anything to do with fire...
CU_ef Simon: Mr. Haagenson, I got to remind you...
The Acting City Manager objected stating that it was irrelevant to
the fact that Tom Watkins was, as far as the City was concerned,
legally laid off from the City of Tamarac.
Mr. Henning said he assumed that Mr. Haagenson was trying to raise
a question of credibility as far as any inconsistencies based on
the witnesses he had to call. Mr. Haagenson said that was
precisely what he was doing. The City Attorney asked Mr.
Haagenson to try to conclude his questioning.
Mg, Haagenson: So you didn't have any discussions with
Mr. Watkins regarding fire inspections?
Chief Simon: I was on Worker's Comp for five months and if
anything was discussed, it was during that period. What I would
like to bring up to you my evaluation did not cover that year.
Any dissatisfaction he may have, the others might've had it, too.
So that was not considered. What was considered was the unrebutted
signed evaluation of the three captains.
Mr. Haagenson concluded his questioning. Mr. Perretti indicated
that he had no additional redirect of the witness at this time and
had no additional evidence to present.
v
9
12/17/85
/vdw
Mr. Haagenson called Mr. Perretti as a witness, and having been
duly sworn by the City Clerk, testified as follows:
Mr. Haagenson: Mr. Perretti, at the end of September, what was
your position with the City?
Mr. Perretti: At the end of September I was Acting City
Manager.
Mr. Haagenson:
Did Chief
Simon tell
you why, at that time,
why
he made the decision
to lay
off Captain
Watkins rather than one
of
the other two?
Mr. Perretti:
He submitted
to me the,
I believe (I haven't
seen in total
what you have
there) but
the evaluation point
schedule that
he had made on
the three
captains.
M nson: Okay, at that time, on September 30th, he pre-
sented these things?
Mr. Perretti: Yes, sir.
Mr. Haagenson: You're talking about these evaluations and the
cover sheet here concerning how he evaluated them and averaged them
out and everything.
Mr._Perxetti: This I saw on November 22nd; this particular
form. In fact, you can see my initials up here showing November
22nd.
Mr. Haagenson: Okay. What did he show you on the 30th?
Mr. Perretti: This was shown to me on November 22nd and was
not shown to me on the 30th.
Mr. Haagenson: What was shown to you on the 30th, then?
Mr. Perretti,: On the 30th? I don't believe anything, then,
was shown to me because I did not remember the date that was on
that that shows my signature on it showing November 22nd.
Mr. Haagenson: Okay. So the first time you saw anything about
evaluations was on November 22, 1985?
Mr. Perretti: Yes, sir.
Mr,-H-aas-enson: That was some month and a half, two months after
the layoff?
Mr. Perretti: That was after, I believe, Tommy had filed his
grievance and that's what caused that to be prepared.
Mr. Haagenson: This was prepared after the grievance was filed?
After he was laid off?
Mr. Perretti: Yes, sir.
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Haagenson to identify the documents for the
record. Mr. Haagenson said one of them has Mr. Perretti's initials
and a written date of 11/22/85 which is a one -page letter with two
pages of calculations; the other document was legal -sized.
Mr. Haagenson: The first time you saw those was on November 22?
Mr. Perretti: Yes, sir.
Mrs Haagenson: What did Chief Simon give to you as a reason
that he picked Captain Watkins rather than the other two captains
to lay off?
Mg. P ett': The point system that he had utilized.
10
12/17/85
/vdw J,
Mr. Ha Benson: The point system?
M Perretti: Yes.
Mr. H enson: When did he tell you that?
Mr. Perretti: Let me back track a moment prior to November 22.
I think that it's necessary for the Mayor and Council and yourself
to understand what the scenario was here. On the Friday of
September 27, there was an all day budget... looking at the budget
to attempt to cut down in any areas that we might with the Finance
Director, the Vice Mayor and myself. Looking at some ways to get
the ad valorem down to a more satisfactory state and also to see
whether there was any areas within the budget that could be cut.
At that particular time, I think the meeting broke up around seven
o'clock at night and started around eight o'clock in the morning.
MrLaagenson: Who was at this meeting?
Mr. Perretti: I just mentioned the Finance Director, Frank
Etheredge, the Vice Mayor and myself, and during the course of the
day, we called in all of the department heads that were involved -
whether it be manpower or whether it be cutting anything out of
their line items, meetings and seminars, or any other items, and
explaining to them why we were going to do these things. During
that particular day, when it came to the Fire Department, Bernie
was called on the phone and was told that he had to go over his
budget again and asked, again, whether there was any other areas
to be cut. If I remember correctly, his initial answer was "No",
and at that particular time, it was then decided, by those in
attendance at that particular budget meeting, that we had to do
some cutbacks and one area was in manpower. That was occurring
on the Friday of the 27th. On Monday, the 30th, which was a
budget hearing at night, the final budget hearing that had to be
held, I remember very clearly that the Assistant Chief Ray Briant
and Bernie visited my office very early that morning making an
impassioned plea not to cut any manpower because I had already
cut their request of eight firefighters as well as any additional
monies that they wanted for their particular department. They
made their impassioned plea but the end result was that you had
to cut a fire captain and you weren't going to be able to put
anybody in the place of the firefighter that he had mentioned was
let go because of unsatisfactory performance. So, again, it was
clearly a case of us telling Chief Simon, then, that he had to
have somebody go, and at that particular time, it was then decided
that if he had to let anybody go, then it would be Captain Watkins.
nson: You told him on what date? The 30th? What did
you say?
Mr. P.crrgtti: The initial discussion was on the 27th which
was Friday when we were holding our budget meeting?
Mr. Heagenson: When did you finally tell him that it had to be
a fire captain?
Mr. Pergetti: The last...I forget whether we told him on late
Friday afternoon whether it had to be a fire captain or it was that
Monday morning early but it was either late Friday afternoon or
early Monday morning when he and Ray came into the office.
Mr. Haagenson: Okay. And then how long after that before the
decision was made that Mr. Watkins was laid off?
Mr. Perretti: Well, it was during the course of that parti-
cular meeting that he said to that if you are telling me that
a fire captain has to be laid off, then coming up with an answer
then the answer has to be Captain Watkins would be the one that
would be let go.
Er.Haagenson: I think that we can conclude from that that
11
12/17/85
/vdw
at that point then, he had not gone through these evaluations.
You had just said, "You have to lay off a fire captain" and he
said, "Okay, if it's a fire captain, then it's going to have to
be Mr. Watkins"; obviously, he didn't have time to go through
to make all these calculations. This would be very time con-
suming; this would probably take a day or two to do.
Mr. Perretti: I am sure that that took a day or two but i
think that there's one area that you're missing is the fact that
each and every employee in the City is evaluated on a yearly
basis and sometimes even more than a yearly basis so I think that
Chief Simon had stated that even with this point system that his
determination was based on past performances in comparing the thr
captains.
Mr, Hal-ggenson: All right. But he hadn't, at that time, to yo r
knowledge, had not gone through and made this actual comparison?
Mr. Perretti: I did not see it. If he did, I did not see it.
Mrs Haagenson: Did he say anything about that he had done that?
Mr. Perretti: No.
. Haag nson: I'm suggesting that perhaps this was done later;
do you have anything to the contrary?
B.--Perretti: No, I am telling you that I don't remember when
Captain Watkins filed his grievance but I believe that this was
done because of the grievance; it probably would not have been done
if Captain Watkins did not grieve.
Mr. Haagenson concluded his direct examination of Mr. Perretti. He
called Thomas S. Watkins.
Thomas S. Watkins, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
Mr. Haagenson:
State your name, please.
Mr. Watkins:
Thomas Samuel Watkins.
Mr. Haag nson:
What position did you hold with the City?
Mr., Watkins:
Held the position of fire captain.
Mr. Haag-enson:
How long had you been a fire captain?
Mg. Watkins:
Approximately four years.
Mr. Haagenson:
How long had you been with the department?
ns:
Eight years, eleven months and sixteen days.
Mr. HaaqgDson:
the rest of the
What was your length of service in relation to
people, personnel, in the Fire Department?
Tape
2 Mr. Watk'ns:
department. As
Over the total job I was fifth senior man in the
fire captain, I
on the job; we
was senior fire captain with length
all made fire captains at approximately the same
day.
Mr. Haagenson:
fifth?
Okay. But in the whole department you were
Mr, Watkins:
I fifth
was in seniority.
Mg_. Haagenson:
i want to go back to late in 1984; at that time
was your job changed?
tk'ns:
Yes, sir, drastically.
a n on:
Okay. How was it changed?
12
r
12/17/85
/vdw
L Wank s: I was told that I was going to be placed on da s
to be evaluated in a position in a possibl Y
I would be looked at and evaluated for m Y higher classification.
per
sibly new position 'in a higher.classificationformance in this pos-
Mom._ a enson: Was there a job description or anything?
Watkins: No, sir, there wasn't a job description. I
requested a clarification. The three of us captains requested a
clarification of that job description. I wanted to know what I
was going to be evaluated for. If I was going to be evaluated
I thought I deserved to know what I was so I could prepare myself for an evaluation. oing to in evaluated an
during miniscule I find myself on days
deliverin°bs, running errands for the Assistant Chief,
g Paperwork, sitting upstairs punching holes in file
cards. I was... Actually, my job didn't mean very much to me at
that point.
enson: Okay. Did you complain about this to anyone?
t ins. Yes, sir, I did. I asked at a staff meeting for
Chief Simon to give me a clarification and I wanted to know why
this was being done and for what
our input was important. we ran Purpose. We were always told that
that time and I thought that I wasretty owed ancexplanation. most ohe3 e during
asked, I was told, "You're going to do it because I said son
Mr. Haaaenson: Did you complain further?
Xr-t ens: Yes, sir, we. informed the Chief that we would
have to file a grievance to get a clarification on that. And at
that time we did, the three of us captains filed a grievance. At
the time, E11y Johnson was the City Manager.
Mr. Haaaenson: What was the result of that?
Mr.-Kat ns: Wellthe first step take it to the Chief. The Chief told usothim stand there anatewerwasnnte going to
was to
,
cut his legs out from under him and have hd take
We took it to the second step
it. So he denied our grievance.
which went to the City Manager. The City Manager, at that time,
reversed. the decision, Placed us back on days with an explanation
that there was no money in the budget for a
Position in a
classification and for us to go back to our assigned workinghigher
under our past job description.
son: So you went back on your regular shifts?
at ;ns• Yes, sir,
we did,
M Ha aenson: And jobs as before?
Yes, sir, we did.
on: Subsequent to that were
days, again? you then put back on
Nlr.. Watkins: Yes, sir. Just a very short time after that
Mr. Elly Johnson got terminated from the City employment, at which
time, Acting Assistant Chief Btiant placed us back on days for a
totally different reason. He wanted us to ... He cut the budget into
equal parts; I was in charge of maintenance and repair of all fire
department apparatus and inspections in my administrative district.
M . a enson: In April 1985 did Mr. Perretti? You have occasion to see
ML,-- tkins: Yes, sir, I did.
over a lot of I came to see Mr. Perretti
being treated unfairlysand
hit was undue at was beins on me. I felt I was
harassment. I didn't
13
12/17/85
/vdw
understand what my job was; I found myself sitting upstairs
punching holes in file cards and straightening out inspection files
and my job ended up a very meaningless job. I found myself under a
lot of stress and I went to Mr. Perretti and asked for some advice.
Mrs Ha ens n: And what was the result of that?
Mr. Watkins: Mr. Perretti suggested that, and he noticed
right away that I was under a lot of job stress, I go to a psycho-
logical institute for evaluation. He said that he would help me
and see this thing through with me. And, at which time, he made
arrangements to have me go to a psychological institute for eval-
uation.
Mr. iiaagenson: He made the arrangements. He picked the
psychological institute.
: Yes, sir, the City picked the doctor that I was
to go and see.
Mr. H a nson: Okay. I'm going to show you a letter dated
May 1, 1985. Would you identify this letter?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir, this is the report from the Clinical
Psychological Institute to Mr. Perretti; I was sent a copy of this
letter to my home.
,Mrg H4a enson: Did you have occasion to review your personnel
file prior to this hearing?
Mom_. Watkins: Yes, sir, I did. I had to review my personnel
file on a few different occasions because there were some things
that were supposed to have been taken out of there that weren't
and there were some things that was supposed to be in there that
weren't.
Mr. Ham nson: Isn't it true that I presented you with the per-
sonnel file as given to me by the City and you reviewed that?
Mr Watkins- Yes, sir, I did.
i__Haagenson: Was this letter in that personnel file?
Mr. Watkins: No, sir, it wasn't.
Mr. Haagenson: What was the result ... What was the conclusion
that the psychologist, Dr. Caddy, concluded here?
Mr. Watkins: It's kind of lengthy. "Finally," ... I'll read
the last paragraph: "Finally, while Captain Watkins is experienc-
ing some personal difficulties, it is my view that your department
be well served to examine further the leadership/management style
of the Fire Chief. I believe what Captain Watkins is saying and
given this belief, I am concerned that your Fire Department may not
be being well served by the style of management employed by your
Fire Chief. Perhaps it is the fire system than rather solely
Captain Watkins that would benefit from some management consul-
tation".
Mom,„ agenson: And this was the psychologist that the City
sent you to?
Mr.. Watkins: Yes, sir, it was.
nson: Prior to seeing Mr. Perretti in April con-
cerning the problems on the job, did you have any conflicts with
the fire chief other than the conflict regarding the job reclassi-
fication?
1 tcins: Yes, sir, a couple of incidences. One, back
in February, I did an evaluation on one of my lieutenants,
Lt. Peloso. The Chief did not agree with my evaluation and called
me into the office. He told me to reduce Lt. Palloso's
14
12/17/85
/vdw
evaluation. I, then, explained to Chief Simon that I would not
reduce his evaluation. I worked with the lieutenant on a daily
basis, I see more of him than the Chief does and I would not re-
duce his evaluation. He is the Chief and if he wanted to make
his own evaluation, that's his prerogative but I would not sign my
name to his opinions. The Chief had then stated tome, if I do
not reduce Lt. Peloso's evaluation, he would burn me on mine.
Mr. Haagenson: And did you reduce it?
Mr. Watkins: No, sir, I didn't.
Mr. Haagenson: What was finally the result of that, then?
What happened?
Mrs Watkins: Obviously, I'm unemployed.
Mr. Perretti objected. The City Attorney asked if that was the
evaluation both sides had said was not a part of the calculations.
Mg. Watkins: No, sir, it isn't.
Mr. Haagenson said it was another evaluation that Mr. Watkins did.
Mr. Perretti reiterated his objection to Captain Watkins'
response because at that particular time he was not laid off;
he said that incident took place a considerable number of months
after and concluded that his answer that he was laid off had
nothing to do with this particular incident. The Acting City
Manager further objected to discussion of Chief Simon's management
style; he said it was turning into a management style grievance
rather than the issue of Captain Watkins' layoff.
Mr. Haagenson stated to the contrary because their contention is
that they do not think that the reason for the layoff were these
evaluations but felt they were done after the fact. He said he
was trying to ascertain the true basis for Mr. Watkins' layoff;
therefore, it was absolute pertinent, relevant and felt that he
had an absolute right to present these matters to Council.
The City Attorney said his first concern was the statement made by
Mr-. Watkins which he felt was an improper conclusion or at least
for Council to draw its own conclusions that the reason for his
termination or layoff was because of the misunderstanding or dis-
agreement over the lieutenant's evaluation. Mr. Henning said the
subject of the layoff versus the management style as presented by
management was that it was the prerogative of management and that
there was an evaluation. He said he assumed that Mr. Haagenson
was trying to rebut the evaluation or question the credibility of
the Fire Chief. The City Attorney felt that the line of question-
ing was drifting and reminded Mr. Haagenson to address the points
at hand.
Mr. Haagenson asked, as a matter of procedure, who ruled on the
objections. Mayor Kravitz stated that he would rule on the ob-
jections with the advice of the City Attorney. Mr. Haagenson
offered into evidence the letter dated May 1, 1985 from Dr. Caddy.
The City Attorney asked if there was objection to the admission of
the letter. Mr. Perretti objected because he informed Captain
Watkins that the main reason why it was not placed into his file
was, under the Sunshine Law, things such as the letter in question
were considered to be of a confidential nature. The Acting City
Manager said if Mr. Haagenson wanted to include this in his
client's personnel file and have pertinent information about
Captain Watkins revealed in the newspapers, then it would be fine
with him. 'He stressed that no employee within the City has this
type of information in his file. Mayor Kravitz admitted the
letter into evidence. The City Attorney noted that the evidence
will be marked as exhibits upon conclusion of the hearing.
RESUMATION OF DIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. Haagenson: I'm handing you another letter from the
same individual dated September 11, 1985 from the psychologist.
15
12/17/85
/vdw
Did you find this letter in your personnel file?
B.L. W tk'ns: I don't believe I did. I don't remember.
I don't believe I seen it in there. I don't believe I seen any-
thing from the Clinical Institute in there.
_Mr* aagensgn: Well, for the record, I reviewed...I got the
personnel file from the City and this letter was in the personnel
file. The May 1 letter was not in there but this letter dated
September 11, 1985 was in the personnel file.
Mr. Perretti stated, in defense of his earlier statement, this
letter was included in Mr. Watkins' file because it contained the
final conclusion of the psychologist as far as whether he could
return to work. He said the letter stated He is capable of
handling his full duties and responsibilities but not to the
exclusion of the above recommendation for continued therapy".
He determined that there was nothing in this letter which detail-
ed Captain Watkins' behavior but had to do with his work status
which, he felt, warranted inclusion in his personnel file.
Mayor Kravitz asked who requested the letter dated September 11,
1985 from Dr. Caddy. Mr. Haagenson directed the question to
Mr. Watkins.
Mr. Watkins: I was told by Mr. Perretti to see this doctor
and to take whatever advice the doctor gave me. The doctor placed
me on a reoccurring therapy to reduce my tension and anxiety
caused by the undue job stress. I had to use my own sick time,
personal time and any other time that I could find available to
me. The Assistant Chief, at that time, decided that I was a sick
time abuser and sent me home. I took a personal da
crued time, to go and see this doctor. The day after theown personal
day, I was feeling ill and didn't come to work; the Assistant
Chief forced me, when I came to work the next day, the Assistant
Chief sent me home and would not accept me back on the job unless
I got a letter from the doctor that the City sent me to saying
that I could come back to work. But it wasn't a conclusion, it
was not a conclusion of his findings, this was down the road, and
it was, I feel, harassment'by the Assistant Chief to make me go
back, spend my money, again, to get a note from the doctor.
Mayor Kravitz asked Mr. Watkins if the note was prepared by the
doctor at his request.
Mr. Watkins: Excuse me?
Mayor Kravitz redirected if it was his request to Dr. Caddy to
issue the letter to show his capability of returning to work and
to assume his full duties.
lxrx_Watkins: It was Assistant Chief Briant's request. And
it was the only condition that I could return to work after taking
a sick day after personal leave.
The City Attorney asked Captain Watkins who communicated the
request to the doctor to write a letter.
t ens: I did. Ordered from the Assistant Chief.
Mr. Haagenson offered the letter dated September 11, 1985 into
evidence. Mr. Perretti offered no objection. Mayor Kravitz
admitted the letter into evidence.
Mr. Haagenson: Continuing where we left off before, we were
discussing the Peloso evaluation. We were discussing possible conflicts that you had with the Chief; did you have any other
conflicts around that time with the Chief?
M Watkins: Yes, sir, I did.
Simon left the job on Workmen's Comp
morning before he left he handed me
that I was disobedient and I did not
The very same day Chief
with a heart disorder. That
an employee warning stating
follow procedures and I took
16
12/17/85
/vdw
a leave day without it being approved. I rebutted that. I took
it to the City Manager; Mr. Perretti was the personnel director
at the time. We walked into the City Manager's office with it.
The City Manager asked me at a meeting if I was being harassed in
any way, shape or form by the fire chief; I then stated that I
have been and I showed him that employee warning. I told him that
I did not feel that this should be part of my file. That it was
not any fault of my own; my leave request had laid on his clip-
board for over a week. I followed all the proper procedures.
There was other employees' leave requests on that same clipboard
that did get approved, mine did not get approved and he never
stated that it did not get approved. The City Manager, at that
time, told me not to worry about it and it would not be part of
my record. Approximately two months later, in reviewing my
Personnel file, I found the same warning in there. I took it
back to the City Manager and he pulled it out,
a nson: Okay. In your nine years with the Fire
Department have you ever received a written warning before?
rWatkins: No, sir.
Mr. HaAgenson: All right. As part of your job, were you
required to do fire inspections?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir, I was detailed to days to do main-
tenance and repairs, and then changed over to do budgetary... set
Up the budget for the next fiscal year and I was told that I would
be responsible for all the inspections in my administrative area.
Ha nson: Okay, So you were doing fire inspections?
M ns: Yes, sir, I was.
Mi, Haagason; Okay. Did you at some point learn that your
doing fire inspections was somehow illegal?
Mr Watkins: Yes, sir. I was ordered to.attend a Broward
County Fire Inspectors Meeting at Fort Lauderdale. Fire Department
along with Acting Assistant Chief Hurst, at the time. I gained
knowledge that to perform fire inspections in the State of Florida
you first must be a State -certified firefighter. I was given a
copy of the State Statute 633.081. I read it; I interpreted it.
It was very black and white to me. I came back to the fire house
and I requested interpretation.
M enson; Were you State -certified?
Mr. Watkins: No, sir, I wasn't.
Mr. Haagenson: All right. Go ahead.
Mrs Watkins: I brought the State statute back to the fire-
house and I requested a clarification from Assistant Chief Briant.
For a.clarification of the State statute and was there anything
that superseded it. He advised me, in front of a witness, Acting
Assistant Chief Hurst, that, he stated and I quote, "The State's
full of shit". He says you can do fire inspections and he says
it's under the South Florida Building Code and he referred to a
section under the South Florida Building Code saying that it
superseded the State statute.
Mr.Haagenson; Did you continue doing fire inspections, at
this time?
Mr• Watk ns: No, sir, I didn't. I advised Acting Assist-
ant Chief Brian Hurst, at that point, that I would no.longer do
fire inspections until there was a clarification of this matter.
He then advised me to call Tallahassee and talk to the State Fire
Marshall's Office to see just what the bottom line was. At that
point I did, at 11:50 A.M.
Mr. H nson; When was that that you called the State?
17
12/17/85
/vdw
Mr. Watkins: The very same day. I'd have to look into my
records to find the date but it was the very same day that I asked
for a clarification.
Mom* Haagenson: Okay. What did they tell you?
Mr. Watkins: I spoke to a Mr. Gene Napals, the Assistant
Director of the State Fire Marshall's Office. I asked him four
questions... Three questions, excuse me. One, "Could a person do
fire inspections in the State of Florida if they were not State -
certified"? His answer was no, that they couldn't. My second
question was: "Can I be held personally liable by performing
inspections without being State certified"?; the director told me
yes, I could be. My third question was: "Are you people going
to come down here and arrest me because I'm under orders to do
fire inspections illegally"? His answer was, "No, we won't but
they cannot order you to break the law and I highly suggest
that you quit doing them immediately".
Mrs Haagenson: Okay. Was there a letter received in the
City from an attorney regarding this issue?
Mrs Watkins: Yes, sir, the director told me that he would
turn it over to Legal and that a letter would come down to the
fire chiefs, which they were already aware of, the law was passed
in 1983. He said he would send them another letter and I asked
for them to send me a copy of it. I know that they had letters
from the past but they did not act on them.
Mr, Haagenson: I show you this letter dated August 16, 1985.
Can you identify this letter?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir, that's the letter from the State.
Mr. Haagenson asked that the letter dated August 16, 1985 be
admitted into evidence. The City Attorney stated it was a
letter from the State of Florida Department of Insurance and
Treasurer signed by Ruth L. Gokel, Attorney, and addressed to
Chief Briant.
Mr. Haagenson: After these discussions with the State and
this letter, were you asked to continue to do fire inspections?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir. I was told by Chief Simon and by
Assistant Chief Briant that I could do CO inspections - Fire CO
inspections, Certificate of Occupancy Fire Inspections. I then
informed them that it was still a fire inspection and they said
I could do it based on the South Florida Building Code which
caused me another great deal of confusion.
Mrs Haagenson: Is the CO inspection a fire inspection?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, it is. It's probably the most important
fire inspection you can do. And I was somewhat concerned after
talking to the State because of a violation I issued to a certain
condominium association in the City of Tamarac and caused them to
spend an excessive amount of money to repair some exit lights that
I later found out they did not need in the first place. And I was
afraid that the City was going to be held liable and myself held
personally liable. That's why I contacted the State Fire
Marshall's Office again and brought up the question of CO inspec-
tions. They told me that a CO inspection is a fire inspection an
if I was not State -certified, I could not and should not perform
those inspections.
Mr. Haagenson: After all this transpired, then, did the
City...Chief Simon send you and anybody else to a school to be-
come State certified as an inspector.
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir. Approximately a few weeks after
that. Well, I spent the next couple of weeks sitting upstairs
back punching holes in file cards; he took all of my responsibi-
18
12/17/85
/vdw
lities and Placed them on to the lieutenant's. r
responsible for evaluations, scheduling,was aP longer
leaves, disciplinary action or an other approvingidisapproving
job description stated that I do and twhat�Ibdidnin th that m
years. I found myself doingin the past tour
becoming very minuscule work,'sitting upstairs,
Deutsch, whowas
it. At that time I called Judy
breakdown of the monetary g Personnel director, to give me a
tailboard because I did not afeel lue lthatlthe°PositioniI was
on
that time was beneficial to me, the Fire Department as in at
or the citizens of Tamarac. the City
AK-1LJi4a enson: Did you, then
for being certified? , subsequently begin schooling
M tens: Yes, sir, I did. that's given by the State; it's approximately I started a free class
and then a State exam to become Sed.U�rhour course
enson: During this time, did
illegaluinspections?retti
regarding these, what you felt were,see
Mr. atkins: Yes, sir, when I became aware of th
inspections and under the stress in not knowing a illegal
I thought Mr. Perretti... 9 which way
to help me through this thing the past he seemed that he was going
turn,
as he stated. I brought theg and get everything straightened out
he would get to the bottom ofpitblfortmehto�sit tightaato nd me that
would get with the Chief and strai hten it Out. And
back to as far as the inspections went or anything never
he never got
Mr. he
uaano Y g else.
- nson: Did you express to Mr. Perretti that you felt
that there were some violations of the personnel
doing these inspections. manual by you
1�_. Wat-kins:
Yes,
Siir, IDisshowed him the
e Fire Department's
Rules and Regulations
says, "Any supervision that causes an employeevtoicommitwanru it
ful act can be terminated.
ly causes an employee to causeyharmemploremonetary loss t nlaw-
of the City of Tamarac can be terminated"
willful and knowing -
sections of the Fire Department Rules and� And I felt°thatithose
broken by the Chief because they willfullyRangulations
d-knowin lad been
out doing inspections.son
g y had us
the Personnel:
Manu You're referring to, o, I believe, Section 43 of
fir. Wai-k;;,U� Possibl
Regulations and the y• The Fire Department's Rules and
Yes,-,Sirpersonnel manual overlap in a lot of cases.
Mr. Perrettand also
the eisonnel manual.
advised me to hold tight and he would what l feel iszthe°casethaHeto
He would call the Chief in; get to the bottom of it.
with him anyway over somethingie said he was going to g° toe to toe
he would get to the bottom of t•He advised me to sit tight and
laid offidn t hear anything after
that. Other than I was being
a enson: Okay. How is it that
going to be laid off? Give us the sequencethat ldu
learned
dea
You were
Mr. Watkins: P to that.
Chief of the department for was emeito attend
ordered to the
certi-
fied. On Friday I was called back to the station einto te Chief's Office, myself and Captain Budzinski alone. The Chief
then stated to myself and Captain Budzinski that
two are Chief
gonna be fired; I'll let you know which one hit-segof onnaou
be next Tuesday". I then asked he's a captain, also. If it's a captain what
cut, about Brian Hurst;
volved with this"? Chief Simon then stated to me, No way. No
i
way I would even consider Brian Hurst in this situation".
W�
12/17/85
/vdw
Mrs haagenson: What transpired then? When did you learn that
you were going to be laid off? Or did you have any discussions
then prior ... Let me rephrase that: Did you have any discussions
with Chief Simon regarding budget cuts, etc.?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir, he called me at home and asked me if
I would come into the fire house on a Saturday; I agreed to. I
showed up at the firehouse along with Captain Budzinski and In-
spector Viele.- We went into his office and he said, "Okay, guys,
give me some alternatives. I've got to cut another $30,000.001.
We offered suggestions - four or five different suggestions; he
wrote them down and he said that he would present them.
Mr.-Haagenson: When did you learn that you were going to be
laid off then?
Mr. _W-t-kins.: October 2nd.
Mr. Haagenson: How did you learn that?
Mr. Watkins: I was given a message at school. I was in the
school trying to acquire the skills needed for my State certi-
fication. I was left a message to report to City Hall the next
morning, October 3rd. I'm sorry, let me back up a bit. October
1st, I was left a message to report to City Hall October 2nd. I
reported to City Hall; I reported to Mr. Perretti's office to when
he advised me that I had been selected for layoff. I then
asked him, "Well, why me? I'm senior ranking officer. I've got
nine years on the job. I've got a clean record. Why?" He then
stated to me that it was the Fire Chief's decision. He said
originally the budget cut was supposed to be for assistants - all
assistants, Assistant Finance Director, Assistant Chief, Assistant
Public Works Director. Then he started talking about the
garbage pickup and this, that and the other and so forth and so on
and never did answer my question.
Mr_, Haagenson: Were any of these assistants laid off to your
knowledge?
MkI4Jtk_ins: Not to my knowledge, no, sir.
Mr. Haagenson: To your knowledge, was there anybody else laid
off within the City regarding this budget cut?
Mr. Watkins: Mr. Perretti also told me that there was a
police captain that was supposed to be laid off but they did not
lay him off because he agreed to retire next year. So they left
him working. I also believe that other people that were supposed
to be laid off got transferred to different departments and
different positions.
Mr.-Haagenson: When you were told that you were laid off, were
you offered any kind of transfer or, you know, switch to another
department or anything?
Mr. Watkins: No, sir, I wasn't.
Mr. Haagenson: You were just laid off.
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir.
Mr. Haagenson: No options?
Mr. Watkins: No options. He gave me two weeks' pay in lieu
of two weeks' notice.
Mr. Haagenson: You then filed a grievance concerning your lay-
off?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir. I couldn't find anything in the
personnel manual that covered layoff policy for a managerial
person.
20
12/17/85
/vdw
BX-*-3aa nson: Did you have a meeting, then, with Mr. Perretti?
Mr. Watk"ns: Yes, sir, I did. I filed a
and requested a meeting with Mr. Perretti. grievance procedure
M H a -son: Did you ask Mr. Perretti, why ou
were laid off? erretti, specifically, Y Y
rW� king: Yes, sir, that was the reason for the meeting
I asked Mr. Perretti; I wanted an explanation as of how and wh
I was selected for the layoff. y
AL -_A anenson: What were you told?
BX_tWatns; I was not
ian anser.
by Mr. Perretti that it was adepartmentwhead decision It was
merely
stated
department head chose me. the
enson: Was there any discussion about these evaluations
and the comparisons Of evaluations and everything?
&--NA_tkins: No, sir. He
was an overall I can t think ofaeheme a general statement as it
but it was ... An overall assessment, Ipbelieverecise ,,°somethinghtoutsed
hat
effect. The overall assessment came lay me off.
to the Chief s decision to
.xg nson: Okay, Tom, why do you feel that you were
to be laid off? picked
WatkinY; It's my opinion that I was laid off because I
would not lay down, number 1, for the day shift to be evaluated
in a higher classification because they would not provide me wit
a job description for it. That's when it started, h
on down the road to where the evaluation Of Lt. Then, it went
lot of aggravation and a lot of ill feelings. Then, I feelethat
because I refused to do the inspections and raised question a
why and how are we doing inspections when it's illegal, I believe
caused them to figure that I must have been a troublemaker or
somethin e
lay doing. And itmustem
have
e aggravated them that I just would not
perform those illegal acts.
the camel's Do you feel that this was the straw that broke
back, then, the fact that you were complaining about
the illegal fire inspections and talking with the State and
having letters written and everything?
Mr. Watkins: I believe so. Evere threw out the 185 evaluation of CaptainnWatkins becaus that they
Capt
Watkins put in a rebuttal but no one's asked why did Captaina1n
Watkins put in a rebuttal and did anybody look at the rebuttal
that Captain Watkins put in.
I ut in about
fourteen reasons why I rebutted that kevaluation: I believeeit
or
was discriminating and I believe it was a conspiracy setup to
discredit the captain's position, number one.
And to
Captain Watkins, specifically. So that 185 evaluationdwasrnott
used and I cannot understand that. ot three
commendation in 185 alone. I trained the other twoters fireocaptains
that are on the job now; I was a training officer for five ears
The Chief took the training officer's Y .
Captain Hurst, without any explanation to me Position, gave in to
why, where or anything that concerned it whatsoever,�oandeif as to
he's basing not laying Off Captain Hurst because he is his
training officer, what about the five years that I had to get
called in on the carpet because one of the men didn't know how to
Put on their bunker coat or wasn't up to
par on a
For five years I carried that burden with no extracmonetary e
There's other firefighters that's been in this departmentvalue.
that train probationary firefighters and the
centive. I was a training officer for five years and�neverarotn-
g a
21
12/17/85
/vdw
dime more for it. I attended meetings on my own at night and
never got a dime for that.
that. Never got any appreciation at all for
r ve been in the hospital a few times; I put my life on the
line for this City. I just don't think it's right.
Mr. Haagenson concluded direct examination of Mr. Watkins.
Cross examination by Larry Perretti, Acting City Manager.
P rretti: Tom, just a couple of questions.
record, you had mentioned that You For the
re-
ceived the fire department's rues and regseandhfoundtoutnthat
since you weren't State certified that you shouldn't be doing
these particular inspections
P Do You recall what timeframe this
was? I'm just trying to get this on to the record as far as when
that occurred.
ML,_ t ins: If you look at the letter from the State Fire
Marshall's Office where the date was August 16, then, it was
a very short, short time - a matter of two or three days beforest
that.
M . P etti: So it was like in the month of August. Since
You feel that you should not have been the individual laid off,
who do you feel should have been laid off, then? When we're
talking strictly about captains.
Mr. Watkins: WP11 A--,- r_ _
r. Haagenson objected on the grounds that it was not a proper
question to ask Mr. Watkins. He said it was asking him to make
a legal conclusion and felt the question was improper.
Mr. Haagenson said his client was not on trial.
Mr. etstated he felt it was a very important question becauserof the
fact, as he stated in the first meeting, that this would be a
judge and jury judgment. He said if it was decided that he
shouldn't be laid off, somebody would have to be laid off to
satisfy the budget. Mr. Haagenson stated that he would make
the legal arguments and instructed Mr. Watkins not to answer
the question.
The City Attorney said they have
prothe Point where they are in agreementrthatdaxlayoff wouldthisnbeto
legal but perhaps the contention was that it was executed il-
legally or improperly. He said he has not heard that a layoff
would not be permitted but if Mr.
that a layoff, under any circumstances, would enson enot re sbegero er
then that argument needs to be made. P Per,
suming that a layoff would be Mr. Henning added as -
second guessing of the judgment
and since there is a
question would be proper. He gment made, then, Mr. Perretti's
question unfair assuming that there hhas �been tnooconten the
there could not be a layoff. Lion that
Mayor Kravitz asked Mr. Haagenson if he wanted to respond.
Mr. Haagenson said his position was that it called for a legal
conclusion on his part and that he would make the legal argu-
ments as he did not think it proper to force Mr. Watkins to make
a legal argument as to how this should have been done.
C/M Munitz said the question was not how but who. Mr.
said that involved why they were here as to how this said
was done and why they felt it was done improperly and that's
Mr. Perretti's asking Mr. Watkins which he reiterated was not a
proper question. The City Attorney responded that in Mr.
Perretti's opening remarks he indicated that whoever had been
chosen could have or probably would have sat in Captain Watkins'
seat with an attorney next to him to file a
if Council wanted to know what was unique aboutethe cchoisa
ce o£id
Captain Watkins over the others, then he felt it would be an
appropriate question; however, he did not feel, at this
Point i
the hearing, that it would not be insubordinate for Mr. Watkinsn
not to answer. He said the record was clear as to his attorne 's
Y
22
12/17/85
/vdw
1
advice to refuse to answer.
Mr. Haagenson withdrew his objection and instructed his client to
answer the question.
Mri W tk ns: Yes, sir, I will. Number one, since the in-
ception of the fire department, we've always been undermanned,
understaffed. You have a $280,000 ladder truck that you put one
person on it. It's a four -person truck at least, and the reason
that you have minor accidents with that ladder truck is because
one person is placed on that ladder truck to drive that big, long
wide vehicle. Number two,...
Mr. Perretti objected. The City Attorney reminded Mr. Watkins
that the question was which of the three captains should have been
laid off. Mr. Haagenson said he was answering the question
and asked that his client be allowed to finish his response.
Mr. Perretti reiterated his objection on the grounds that
Tape what Mr. Watkins is discussing now were the same arguments used
3 by Chief Simon and Assistant Chief Briant as to why they needed
more manpower and the City refused to accept their requests for
additional manpower. He said to have one person on it was a
management decision. Mayor Kravitz ruled, unless there was an
objection, that Mr. Watkins answer the question, then if he
wanted to offer additional information, he would be allowed to
do so.
C/M Munitz referenced an earlier statement made by Mr. Watkins
in which he stated he was punching holes, etc., and now he has
stated that the department was undermanned.
Mr. Watkins: I don't understand either, Councilman. That's
why I'm saying I found myself sitting upstairs doing nothing and
you had labor supervising, evaluating and scheduling labor. I
don't understand either, maybe that's a question that Chief Simon
can answer.
Mayor Kravitz noted that they were getting off the subject and re-
iterated his request that Mr. Watkins answer the question as asked
by Mr. Perretti.
Mr.Watkins: Okay. What is the question?
Mayor Kravitz stated that the question was did he feel that
another person should have been laid off instead of him.
_"_Wi t ns: No, sir. I don't feel anybody should. I don't
feel anybody should have been laid off.
Mayor Kravitz informed that one had to be laid off.
Mrs Watkins: If someone had to be laid off, it should be the
person with the less time on the job. Don't forget, I'm still a
firefighter.
Mayor Kravitz stated that there were three fire captains within
the City, including Mr. Watkins, and asked him if he could answer
which one of the other two he felt should have been laid off.
Mr -, --Watkins: No, sir, I can't.
Mavog K tz: You can't answer that?
Mr. Watkins: No, I don't think any of us should have been laid
off.
Mayor K tz: Well, that's not answering the question.
B1_,.Watkins: (Laughs) Well, I don't know what you're getting
at. You want me to pick somebody else other than me?
23
12/17/85
/vdw
MAyox Kravitz: Well, you're saying you shouldn't have been
laid off. In your opinion, should one of the other two been laid
off instead of you?
Mr nlatkins: I don't think a staff officer should have been
laid off at all. If it's a monetary value, then you would cut
from the bottom.
M.Avor Kravitz: That's not the issue. No, that's the decision
of Council; they decided that.
Mr Watkins: It's not my decision who should be laid off.
Mayor K a itz: Okay. Therefore, you don't feel you can answer
that?
M... Watkins: No. You have two ambulances worth $80,000 that
are sitting in the firehouse because you can't run them. Number
one, you don't have a certificate and number two, you don't have
the people.
Mr. Perretti concluded his cross examination of the witness.
C M Muni,,---- You said that you had told the Acting City
Manager that you had three suggestions as to how to cut $30,000
in the budget; what were those three suggestions?
Mr. -Watkins: I don't believe I specified the amount of sug-
gestions. It was collectively between the three of us, Captain
Budzinski, Inspector Viele and myself, and we had a few alter-
natives. We had firefighters that were just put on the job
not even a month on the job, it wouldn't have been that big of an
upset to lose one of them; they were still under probation. We
could've not purchased some of the equipment. I believe the City
went out and spent $25,000 on uniforms. There was many other
areas. We had a secretary that the three captains all collec-
tively agreed that really...I wouldn't feel that probably would
have passed probationary period if she was allowed to continue in
the manner in which she was. There was other areas. We suggested
not to purchase any new fire trucks or anything. Meetings and
seminars. Other areas of the budget. Don't forget, (laughs) I
prepared most of the budget for last year. The Chief put us on
days for two weeks alone to do nothing but put justification
supports for the new budget and spend something like $25,000
in the old budget, and I'm going "I can't believe this. Here
we got money we gotta spend or we're not going to get it back'.
I think we went out and spent $6,000 on tires alone; if you go
down to the firehouse, there's racks and racks of tires sitting
down there. Why would you waste a captain's salary? Don't for-
get, a captain is first a firefighter, a driver/engineer; I had
to go through every one of those ranks. Okay, so when you make a
cut and you cut from the top, you're losing all of those posi-
tions. It took me nine years to acquire the skills that I got,
and it was through a lot of hard work, both on my part and on
everybody's part in the department. When I started this depart-
ment we had nothing and we built this department, along with
Chief Simon, up to where it is now and I just don't feel that
it's fair to cut from the top.
CLM R nitz: I have an observation and I don't know how
pertinent it is but you say you have nine years' experience,
does that make you a better hole puncher?
Mr. Watkins: Well, let's take a popular consensus and let's
ask the firefighters who would they rather be on a fire with.
Like I said, I've gotten letters of commendation from Lauderdale
Lakes, Coral Springs, this City alone. Okay, I've been in the
hospital a number of times, sustained injuries on the job for
fires that I fought. You ask any one of the firemen that ever
worked under me, for me or with me who would they rather be on
a fire scene with. Okay, you take their consensus, not who
lays down. If you want to ask who lays down and let them run
24
12/17/85
/vdw
over illegal activities and the whole nine yards, I'm going to
stand up for what I believe is right. If I'm wrong, you prove
to me I'm wrong and I'll accept it. But no one has been able
to prove to me and show me documentary proof that those inspec-
tions, number one, are legal.
C/M Munitz: In the second page of the May 1 letter that you
submitted, the last sentence says, "It is my view that while he
would experience less stress if he volunteered to accept a lesser
rank"; did you, at any time, ever volunteer to accept a lesser
rank.
Mr.Watkins: Yes, and I'd like to explain that.
C/M Munitz: Did you or didn't you? Yes or no?
Mr. k s: I called Judy Deutsch, and I believe she remem-
bers
my conversation with her when I was underneath all this
stress and harassment, and I
asked her to give me a breakdown
along with the fire inspector because he was under a lot
of
stress. Okay. We asked for a monetary breakdown. Judy Deutsch,
at that time and it
was approximately two weeks before the bud-
get cut, she stated to me, "Tom, don't do
anything. Don't take a
cut. Don't do anything. There's something in the wind and just
hold
tight because everything is going to be straightened out in
two weeks". I
took Judy's advice and I decided, okay, I'll just
hold on to the position of captain; I'll
put up with this aggra-
vation for a couple more weeks and I'll see what happens with it.
Okay. After
that two -week period, I was called in Mr. Perretti's
office and laid off. if
So you're asking me would I accept a job
as a firefighter...
M M n'tz: I didn't ask that question.
M tkins: over a job at all.
CZM MuD11g: I said if you had ever offered to accept a lower
or lesser rank.
Mr. -Watkins: I was never offered. At the time of dismissal,
I was
never offered.
.Q M Munitz: My question was not were you offered, the
question, based on the observation
of the psychologist, that you
would be better able to perform your duties if you volunteered to
accept a lesser rank. Did you ever volunteer to accept a lesser
rank? Yes or no?
r. NAtkins: I was inquiring about a lesser rank and I was
told not to act on it.
Mayor Kravitz said he believed the answer was no and he didn't for
other reasons.
CLM„Gottesman: Mr. Watkins, you state that you were under
stress and other members of the fire department were under stress.
It's -a known fact that any fire department and the firefighters
are under stress so why do you think you have more stress or
called upon to sacrifice yourself more than anyone else? The
whole fire department had to...
Mr. Watkins: I believe I stated undue stress. I can accept
the job stress, okay? I'm talking about undue stress, okay? I'm
talking about intimidation. I'm talking about harassment. I'm
talking about being called "a no-good redneck". I'm talking about
slanderous and demeaning nature in the way I was being treated
because I would not lay down and just roll over for certain things
that I was told to do. That I must do.
M t s an: You also made a statement that the City bought
tires that were not needed or spent $25,000 on uniforms. Wasn't
25
12/17/85
/vdw
the tires bought for the
quality, the a ui Purpose of maintaining, in a fine
q pand also the uniforms to cover your safety
attending
and welfare while attending a fire?
Mr. Watkins;
Yes, sir. You're correct.
ment•ott I don't think that has any place in
Your argu
M . W tens: We11, w
maintenance and re when I was given the responsibility of
was $21,000 in the air, that was M folevehi
approxi-
mately one week after I assumed that responsibility responsibility. There
Iles alone; cleaning up the tool room and getting the tools y and started
causing and effecting those repairs,in order and
Pulled that $21,000 out of the budget for maintenance a
Assistant Chief Briant
and bought uniforms with that money. atmosphere to where I could not y• Therefore, he causednd ranairs
dered me to perform because not perform theduties that he or -
that, money in the budget for
C M t s an: You seemed to
have had a lot of problems.
Mr. tkihs: yeah in Of problems in theFlastthe last year, yes, sir, I've had a lot
year.
M M ss ro: The comments that Mr.
the secretary were veryv Watkins made regarding
ut
the secretary and thenyou
You said something
was what did you mean by said, If she was to continue as she
y that?
w tk ' ns :
about the last fou�kyearsuobesyoneWewveve only
own typing s had a secretary for
her typin aanidsn'�trVeal weak. The secretary ythat nweahave, oll Of ur
here and a memo there or somethinglbut the mal. She jority oust a memo
would be spent on the telephone talkingY boyfriend,
her day
forth and so on. When asked to do things, her boyfriend, k down to such fine detail that it took ourmy°U have to break it
it than it would if you did it Yourself. Andethiseito explain
opinion and I believe it was the opinion of the other thre my
captains and that's why we said ob
for a short amount of time ' and she was only three
skills. We were all willing wtowtake aademotion ke over tto lieutenant.
secretarial
If there was an 8% difference between lieutenant tand �captain, all three of the captains were willing to take an 8% d
down so no one would captain,
have to lose their emotion
Mr. Haagenson requested a short recess.fobs over it.
C/M Munitz stated they had heard testimony that Chief
asked the performance of illegal duties referring to t
on inspection and asked the CitySimon
Attorney� s legal opinion.
he law
Mr. Henning said there was a reference in the South F1
Building Code under Section 3.01.2 orida
(i) about conflicts between
the State law and the South Florida Building Code being
cited by the Board of Rules and
know if a Appeals. He said he did rnot
n_
Presentation had been made to the Board of Rules and
Appeals and to his knowledge,
give an opinion on this matterhinhas thenever been requested to
said he could prepare a memorandum for PCouncilhfor�the future
but that he was not in a Y Attorney
legal or he Position to determine whether itisillegal.C/M Munitz asked how pertinent was this
information to the decision Council will have to make
the contention that because of budgetary
ire
captain had to be let go. other than
ment and based on that He said this ywas sardecisionhOffmanage-
Chief Simon said the evaMuatWatkins his chosen.
Fire Captain Watkins off. s f Munitz said
sides a allowed to The City y suggested
u ge for laying
y cases
and
t both
that both
given an Opportunity their cases and that both sides be
PPortunity to briefly summarize their points. He said
26
12/17/85
/vdw
J
if C/M Munitz still had questions after that point, then it was
something that they should discuss.
Mayor Kravitz announced that he would be leaving the meeting and
designated the Chair to Vice Mayor Massaro.
C/M Munitz requested and received permission to question Chief
Simon.
Chief Simon: Chief Simon. Tamarac Fire Department.
C/M Munitz: You said the setup on the fire captains was not
going as intended; briefly, can you tell us exactly what you
meant?
Gbief Simon: Yeah. What I originally intended was that they
would be in charge of two stations and that didn't exactly happen.
In other words, it was brought out "I can't be in two places at
one time". The degree of responsibility wasn't there. The posi-
tion was farther the way to a battalion chief; you know, to be
able to handle a fire with several units in. The City of Fort
Lauderdale changed their title from captain to commander to do
the same thing - to handle multi -units and it was in the nature
of budgetary restraints.
;/_M__Munitz: Was there any reason other than the result of
your evaluations that you decided that Mr. Watkins would be laid
off?
Chief Simon: Not really, no.
CZN Munitz: That was the only decision, the only facts that
you used in coming to that decision.
Chi- Simon: Yeah.
MMunitz: When were your evaluations made; there seems to
be some conflict as to the time?
Chief Simon: Well, it was made - the first one was made six
months after they were appointed to their probationary positions.
And then there was a year after that and a year after that. But
it was three altogether in a two and a half -year period.
C/M Munitz: If you were not required, under budgetary re-
straints to lay off a fire captain, would you have either laid
off or terminated Fire Captain Watkins?
Ch,ie moon: No. Why would I do it if I don't have any bud-
getary restraints.
C/M „Munitz: I'm asking you the question.
Chief on: No. I would not.
,ZM Munitz: It was the budgetary restraints and none of these
other extraneous factors that Mr. Watkins told us.
Chief Simon.- Can I address that?
C/MMunitz: Sure.
hief Simon: In the form of a rebut. I'm not going to go into
everything about it but a good percentage of that was personal
opinion that could never be proved or anything else. I did hear
rumors, I can't remember where, that Tom Watkins was going to go
for my throat; it looks like he did on it. The rebuttal on
Lt. Peloso's evaluation: The thing is Captain Watkins complained
"I got the two worst lieutenants going", and I said, "How did you
mark'em about average?" I used the evaluation to try to correct
things on it and this is why I try to influence them on that - to
look at these certain things. There was a couple of points
brought up and he said no, I didn't personally see it. Well, I
27
12/17/85
/vdw
don't personally see a lot of the stuff and an evaluation is a
Place to get that out. The other term he said, "I'll burn you"
quoting me, I have never used that term. And that I would
strongly rebut. But if I said it, according to him, I must have
said it in private. The whole thing about this psychiatrist was
I asked in a memo that Captain Watkins
go to a
meaning Dr. Serrano, because I took an abnormalCitamountyof csick
leave and I went through the whole record of his and it was for
very minor things for a guy in that health; he's in the
Prime
life. And it was all flu, headaches, and stuff like that and of
then we ended up with this session with a psychiatrist. The
other thing, I can't understand how the psychiatrist can judge
me without knowing what my management style is, without ever
talking to me. It's kind of unusual, I would say that. The
question he talked about unapproved leave; that was quite a time
before what he stated. I put it out because something happened
in December regarding the captains and not being some place
that I thought they should be, which is irrelevant right now.
So I said get your leaves approved
sick leaves. And it turned pthat 48thwas sway underctheXbottom
of the Pile Chief and
it's
not approved unless I sign it or the
signsThere's a lot of work a fire inspec-
tor can do with county certified. It's u whether this is necessary for State certification.UPforgrabs
right
snow
ere'a
big battle going on; the City of Hollywood, the City of Fort
Lauderdale. The City of Fort Lauderdale uses only the South
Florida Building Code to conduct their fire
prevention
tions and they do not have to have State certified inspectors -
in that. We are in a different boat. have theInsurance Association Fire Code but wheneAssistant ChiefcBriant
told them to go out there and do the inspections, first of all,
all the Co inspections, I don't believe... Watkins that he could not do it is wrong becauseryoulareomnspec-
ting under the authorization of the South Florida Building Code.
Also, he did...
The City Attorney acknowledged that the Mayor has left the dais
and the gavel was passed to the Vice Mayor and stated he would
discuss its significance at the end of the hearing.
Chi f i on: Most cities did not have State -certified inspect-
ors at the time. It was very controversial even though it
might've been passed in 183 on the thin We went up or Chief
Briant called Chief Stark, who is in charge of the State Bureau of
Training, and he says the surveys instead of inspections will
tect you. Later on if that...being that objection come down from -
Tom Watkins to okay, we had one State -certified inspector write a
speed letter to serve a violation.
The udite surveycome back and the State --certified in pector did the servingaof the
he
violation order which made it legal. What I'm saying is there's
a great big case going on right now about the legality of that re-
garding Hollywood. I don't remember... g
C/M Munitz: Mr. City Attorney?
Excu.all of this to the decision that we haves tommakeHow andpwhatnareis
actual options that we have in coming to a conclusion? the
The City Attorney said both presenters will indicate to Council
what they feel is the significance of it. He id
cated from the beginning that there is no Citysregulationave indi-
regarding layoff only a regulation regarding grievance. There
has been a decision made by management, and, obviously,
Mr. Watkins and his attorney feel that decision was erroneously
concluded. Mr. Henning said some of the substance of the
testimony was not relevant to the conclusion but perhaps was be
presented for credibility questions. in9
CLM Gottesman: Chief, Mr. Watkins said that you told him and
Budzinski that they would be fired...
Ch' f i on: I do not remember. I have never used the term
"fired". I have used the term "laid off" and I do not remember
saying that to them. But, as far as...if he's so emphatic in
28
12/17/85
/vdw
putting quotation marks on it, I know I do not use the word
"fired" when it's a layoff situation.
C/M GOTTESMAN: Fine. Thank you. There's a big difference,
obviously, between one being fired and one being laid off because
of restrictions placed on the...the restraints on the budget.
The Vice Mayor asked Mr. Henning if he was saying that the Chief
should not continue to make statements unless questioned. The
City Attorney replied that she was correct. Hearing no further
questions, the witness was asked to be seated.
Mr. Henning said everyone involved was anxious to resolve the
grievance. He suggested that both sides be allowed to summarize
their positions, and since there are three days under the person-
nel rules in which a decision must be made, Council could
stipulate that the Mayor listen to the tape before making a final
decision to hear the summations. The City Attorney informed that
there is a special meeting scheduled for Thursday and that Council
could deliberate today, however, he cautioned them that the Sun-
shine Law should be observed. He suggested that Council take a
few minutes of the special meeting on Thursday and attempt to
reach final deliberations unless they wished to schedule another
meeting. The City Attorney asked the Acting City Manager and
Mr. Haagenson their suggestions as to how they wished to proceed.
C/M Munitz asked the City Attorney what their options were. The
City Attorney said he understood the remedy sought was not a
determination of whether or not Captain Watkins is fit for employ-
ment or whether or not he should have been fired but the question
before Council is whether or not the layoff was proper and he
either remains in his layoff status or whether he is reinstated
with, he assumed, retroactive pay possibly less any unemployment
received. C/M Munitz asked how they could reinstate him if there
was not money in the budget. He said the answer to Mr. Henning's
first stipulation was very simple in that it was a budgetary de-
cision; Chief Simon has indicated that if it were not for the bud-
get restraints, he would have not laid off Mr. Watkins. It would
be impossible, according to C/M Munitz, to reinstate him because
there is no money there to pay. The City Attorney said the irony
was that Council approved the budget with the particular positions
and it was one less captain. C/M Munitz said this was based on
the recommendation by the Fire Chief. Mr. Henning said the recom-
mendation was by the Acting City Manager either with or without
the concurrence of the fire chief. The City Attorney said the
alternatives were: upholding management's decision leaving him
on layoff, leave the budget the way it is and tell the Acting
City Manager to select another captain or anything other than that
would require Council to indicate a desire to change the budget
for the Fire Department of not necessarily the bottom line but a
reallocation of the line items. He concluded those were the only
alternatives he saw barring a change in the dollars allocated to
the Fire Department which he did not feel the City was in a posi-
tion to do at this time but, certainly, they have that authority.
Mr. Henning reiterated the alternatives as: reinstatement with
another captain chosen, approving manager's decision and leaving
the layoff intact or reinstatement with an agreement to reevaluate
the Fire Department's budget.
V/M Massaro asked for clarification of his statement in which he
said they had three days in which to make a decision. Mr. Henning
said three days from the conclusion of the hearing. He said,
technically, Council could reconvene the meeting but he was not
suggesting that they do that because everybody would like a
_
solution to the problem as soon as possible. The Vice Mayor sug-
gested that a meeting be held on Friday. C/M Gottesman said he
had a scheduling conflict on Friday but asked if he were allowed
to give his decision to the Mayor or to Mr. Perretti. The City
Attorney said the problem was they do not have proxy voting,
although he could see no problem with C/M Gottesman submitting a
statement to be read at the meeting but would not rule that he
could vote at the meeting if he were not present. The City Attor-
29
12/17/85
/vdw
ney asked for a recess to allow Mr. Perretti, Mr. Haagenson and
himself a chance to resolve certain matters.
The Vice Mayor recessed the meeting for five minutes at 11:12 A.M.
V/M Massaro reconvened the meeting at 11:20 A.M.
The City Attorney revealed that Mr. Haagenson has asked to call
one additional witness and then both sides will be prepared to
give their summations.
James Budzinski, having first been duly sworn, testified as
follows on direct examination.
M Haa nson: Would you state your name?
!!Ll-Budzinski: James Budzinski.
Mks Haagenson: And where are you employed?
I �dz�nski: City of Tamarac Fire Department as a Fire
Inspector.
Mr, _ udzinSki: At the time in September of 1985, were you a fire
captain?
Mr-Budzinski:
Yes,
I was.
L,--
,agenson:
You
have been reclassified since then?
Mr.._Budzinski:.That's
correct.
M
as nson:
When
were you reclassified?
M . Budzinski: I'm not sure of the exact date. It would be
sometime either the end of October, possibly early November.
Mr.Haagenson: Do you recall a meeting at the end of September
where Chief Simon, you and Mr. Watkins were present and there was
discussion about layoffs?
Mr- Bud 'nski: Yes, I do.
Mi-L- �agenson: Okay. Do you recall what Chief Simon said about
who was going to be laid off?
Mr. Budz!nski: There were two meetings that we had on that
weekend. I believe the first was Friday afternoon, the 27th of
September. It was about 4:30 because we had just returned from
the State certification class that we were attending and Chief
Simon called Captain Watkins and myself to his office and said,
"One of you two will be laid off. I'll tell you who it will be
Tuesday".
MML-- a enson: No reference was made to Captain Hurst?
Mom. Budzinski:.He was not considered, at that time. That's what
Chief Simon indicated to us.
Mr. Haagenson concluded his direct examination.
Upon cross examination, the witness, having been duly sworn,
testified as follows:
M9, Pe a ti: Yes, Jim, I just want to ask you a couple of
questions. You say you are now a fire inspector and you were a
captain?
Mz_--aUdzj„nski: Correct.
XL-,- ti: Was there any change in pay from going to a
captain to a fire inspector?
30
12/17/85 V r
/vdw
Mr. udz' sk•: There was no change in
Pay at this time.
Mrl. P rretti: And isn't it true that the captain and
the fire
inspector are on the same grade level?
M ud •n k•: At this time, we are
yeah.
Mr. Perretti concluded his cross examination of the w
C/M Gottesman asked Mr. fitness.
Mr- Budzinskianswered that he wasxf he was certified now.
seemed to be a question about certificationtbecauseesman aMr.tW Watkins
did not want to perform inspections stating that it
.Mr. Budzinskiinformed that atkins
Watkins had, and this he attended the same schools asCaptaintest becoming Past Monday he took and passed the State
State certified within the week.
stated that his reassignment was prior to
asked him if he objected to the reclassificat certification
said he was not doing inspections to the extentofissu'
vio-
lations but was Mr. Budzinski
and he would as going
out
rn with aconduatin surveys, u issuing
Of �.t on the scene but not issue the violation upgrading the files
and either advise the people
infor-
mation. to
Inspector Vie7_e who is or he would return
P Vi.ele would return ttoethe rlocation.,hvi w the
violation and issue the violation at that time.
asked, since he was not State certified, that i view the
Proper for him to C/M Gottesman
issue violations but onlyt t would not sbe
urvey
and a warning. Mr.Bud.zinski said they coductednausu a survey
indicated any problems that were found
occupants. , at that time, to
much difference Gottebecausman said, in
other words
cting
a curve get around it it did not make
a survey.
Sy. MC. Bud State -certified said he conduct any
that itcwas unecessary
COCOinsd Count type of fire inspection inspection,
B become Count He said it was also possible that one would need
y certified in order to meet their requirement in
addition to the States. Mr. Budzinksisaid his and
the State came first. understanding was
C/M Munitz asked Mr. Perretti the exact date Mr. Budzin
classified. Mr. Perretti said ski
available at the he did not have the information was re -
available at C/M Munitz asked the reason for the
Mr. Budze he
said he would need to direct that
question to the Chief because he did not know. C
since there was no monetary change
cation g involved in theMMunitz reclassifi1d,
lied
the change was as the reason
eor for
the change*
reorganization sh ofg aptaisibilities because
when ,they .were captains, the w
had a shift and worked on a 24-hoursscheduleta�ns.
hours off. Mr. Perretti said it was a Each captain
these particular individuals could work bet 24 hours on and 48
management decision that
and work on a day shift. ter on fire inspections
hour shift and placed them He said it took the captains off a 24-
asked the City Attorne hour work week. C/M Munitz
Tape City AttorneyY how pertinent was this information. The
4 stated, unless either side could
significance of it, he did not see an
it was only background information.
Y significance in out the
in it and felt
The City Attorney
the Vice At y suggested that the summations be made and asked
will is Mayorto instruct each side as to the length of time the
asked a Provided in which to give their summations.
Haagenson how much time he would need to presentahisrO Y
summation; he answered ten
he would need only minutes. Mr. Perretti indicated that
y three minutes.
SUMMATION BY MR. HAAGENSON:
Mr• Haagenson said his summation would
the Council what their position is w � hopefully,clarify for
and to try to tie it together to hat all theyovidence means
enable them to
He said the first thing which needed to be realized
thatPosition-is make a decision.
. and employe
was positive that it was the law, that
their
You are a public employee, you have a property
that when
y right to your job.
31
12/17/85
/vdw IJ
He said an employee cannot be summarily dismissed by arbitrary or
capricious means; there has to be a reason. Mr. Haagenson said
there has to be due process. The City initially took the position
that that is not necessary, stated Mr. Haagenson, that it was
management's prerogative and the City could do whatever they
wanted and that they did not have to justify what they were doing.
Mr. Haagenson stressed that was not the law, and was certain that
Mr. Henning would support him on that. He said there was no
question that a public employee has a property right to the job.
He felt that Mr. Watkins' so called "layoff" was really pretextual
and that the layoff was not based on the evaluations but he felt
Mr. Watkins was either laid off because he called attention to
the fact of illegal inspections or because of personality con-
flicts with the chief. Mr. Haagenson said this was a classic
case of "whistleblowing"; here is an employee who had the guts
finally to stand up and say, "No, I'm not going to do something
that's illegal". Mr. Watkins checked it out, and the State Fire
Marshall informed him that it was illegal with a letter from the
State verifying that it was illegal. Mr. Haagenson said Tom
Watkins stood up, made a lot of waves, and because he was the
"whistleblower", he is the one who was discharged. He said
Chief Simon said he made evaluations but Mr. Haagenson stated his
contention was that Chief Simon made those evaluations and summary
after the fact to justify what he had done. All the evidence,
said Mr. Haagenson, does not follow what his intention is that he
did it at the time. Captains Watkins and BudzinslU testified that
at the September 27th meeting Chief Simon stated that one of the
two would go, not one of you three. Mr. Haagenson said he could
not have done the evaluations but did the evaluations after the
fact trying to justify what he had done. He said he believed
Chief Simon selected Watkins because of the fire inspection prob-
lems and other personality conflicts they had which he does not
feel was a proper basis, at all, for a layoff.
Another interesting point, said Mr. Haagenson, that came out was
that C/M Munitz stated, within the last half hour, that Chief
Simon was the one who had requested that one fire captain be
eliminated. C/M Munitz asked him to repeat his statement.
Mr. Haagenson reiterated that C/M Munitz said, and it was on the
tape, that Chief Simon had requested that one of the captains
be eliminated. C/M Munitz said that was true when he was given
the budget restraints, this was his decision. Mr. Haagenson said
he thought that to be very interesting that under the guise of a
budget restraint or budget cutback, the Chief said he would eli-
minate one of the captains and he selected Watkins. C/M Munitz
asked Mr. Henning if he could comment; Mr. Henning answered no
because it was deliberations. C/M Munitz continued that a speci-
fic question he asked Mr. Simon was if there were any factors
other than the evaluation for his conclusion and if he did not
have the budgetary restraints, would he still continue to employ
Mr. Watkins, and everybody heard Mr. Simon's answer.
Mr. Haagenson said he was relying on his recollection of what
was said and it could be verified by the tape.
Mr. Haagenson said their contention was that testimony that
Mr. Watkins was laid off because of comparison of those evalu-
ations was not the case. He reiterated that this was done after
the fact to try to justify what had been done and what was done
was to lay Tom Watkins off because he pointed out the illegal
activities of the City and his refusal to participate in them.
Mr. Haagenson felt that he was not given due process, and he
could not say who should have been laid off, if anybody, but
his contention is that the way it was done was not legal. He
said it was violative of his due process rights and felt that
Council would have no choice but to put him back.
The City Attorney asked Mr. Haagenson for explanations on the
legal issues he raised. Mr. Henning said Mr. Haagenson indicated
the property right that a public employee has in his job and
asked him to distinguish, for Council, the difference between a
disciplinary action where someone's deprived of their job versus
a layoff based on funding.
Mr. Haagenson said the explanation was very simple because in a
32
12/17/85
/vdw J
layoff situation the City cannot, just as in a discipline situa-
tion, be arbitrary; there has to be a reason. He said the City
cannot go in and sayy? "Well, it's a layoff so I can do whatever
I feel like; I can discharge him because I don't like his looks
or because he's a whistleblower" or whatever; the City cannot do
that. Mr. Haagenson said there has to be cause and the em-
ployee's due process rights have to be recognized in a layoff
situation just as in a discharge situation; he said'it was the
same thing.
Mr. -Henning asked him if he would agree, in reviewing the deci-
sion of management, that the right decision for the wrong reason
would still be appropriate. Mr. Haagenson said he did not know
but his contention was that the way it was done violated
Mr. Watkins', rights because it was justified after the fact. He
said Chief Simon wanted to get rid of him and he did.
ACTING CITY MANAGER'S SUMMATION:
Mr. Perretti said they were discussing a management right which
is being questioned by an employee which the employee has every
right.to do. The Acting City Manager stated, however, the final
decision still rests with management. He said, upon direction
from the Mayor and Council as,Acting City Manager, he has to com-
plete and present a balanced budget to the public. Mr. Perretti
said.it was Council's decision as to where the budgeted monies
should be appropriated which includes manpower, and regardless
of the legal phraseology used by Mr. Haagenson concerning pro-
perty right, there is nothing that prohibits any city's Mayor
an& Council within the State of Florida from deciding on their
manpower increases or decreases. The Acting City Manager said
the budget decisions were designated as the responsibility of
the.city's chief administrator since the mayor is elected.
Mr..Perretti said it was an administrative decision to present,
to, the elective body, a budget, and the determining factor was
there would be an unknown number of employees who would be laid
off from the City. He said an interesting note was that Captain
Watkins was the only employee lai-d off who filed a grievance.
Mr. Perretti stated he mentioned that because there has been
constant criticism as to why Chief Simon had prepared these
particular documents in November and said one of the reasons why
he prepared the documents was because of the grievance. He ex-
plained that in order to answer a grievance correctly, at least
from a third -step or before it went to arbitration, the laws
governing grievances state that all the facts have to be laid
out on the table. The Acting City Manager said there was no
reason why he should not have given this evaluation point system
because if it had gone to arbitration rather than to a Mayor/
Council hearing, those points would have been raised.
He said if they were not brought up at a grievance procedure,
then, labor law dictates that it cannot be addressed at the
arbitration hearing if the other side has not been made aware
of opposing opinions.
Mr. Perretti said Chief Simon was placed under fire by him, as
the Acting City Manager, to make a decision. He recalled that
he. had stated earlier that Chief Simon and the Assistant Chief
came into his office on that Monday morning. The Acting City
Manager said Captain Watkins stated that he and Captain Budzinski
were asked for other alternatives to reduce the budget; he said
the responses they gave to Chief Simon were transmitted to him
on that particular day and were not allowed. Mr. Perretti said
if anyone should take the blame as -far as a particular position
being laid off, it should be the City Manager's position and not
the Chief's.. He recalled that the Chief's testimony stated that
he would not have laid off Captain Watkins if he had not been
called on Friday by him, as City Manager, after a budget meeting.
The Acting City Manager said it was also necessary to know that
all three captains became captains on the same day. Granted,
said Mr. Perretti, Captain Watkins had more seniority in the
City; howevex, there are a lot of different seniority clauses
throughout this country of which are departmental seniority, job
33
12/17/85
/vdw
classification seniority and overall seniority of all the em-
ployees who are hired by an employer. He said, since there was
no particular layoff procedure in the present personnel manual,
it was decided to make the selection for layoff by rank which
was, again, a management decision disregarding seniority in this
particular decision. Mr. Perretti said this principle was
applied in other areas throughout the City. The Acting City
Manager said it was not that easy to have a person go from a
managerial position back into a union position because it would
be a unilateral decision and Captain Watkins could not, on a
unilateral decision of Council, be placed back into the union
ranks without prior consultation with and approval by the union.
Mr. Perretti said a statement was made earlier that Captain
Watkins was not asked to work in another department within the
City and stated that it was true because the City has three
unions and each of the unions dictate their layoff policies and
who can and cannot be a part of their union. He said if there
were no unions within the City, they could have given Captain
Watkins a choice; however, the City was bound in that they could
not offer him a choice of employment in the Police Department,
the Federation of Public Smployees,in addition to the fact that
Captain Watkins never asked torany position outside of the Fire
Union. Consequently, continued the Acting City Manager, even if
there was a position, it was not pursued because the question
was not asked. He said Captain Watkins himself,and Mr. Haagenson
in his summation, said they would not know, in a layoff situation
who, other than Captain Watkins, should be laid off.
The Act`ing:City Mina" "'aid he had stated at the initial meeting
that this was'a diff-cult..jgdgment call and continues to be a
judgment call. He stated that the City performed the legal and
proper steps by Council's..decision to reduce the budget not only
in manpower but in other iine items as well. Mr. Perretti said
the only decision that can be made by Council is that Captain
Watkins was properly laid off,not terminated or dismissed,and
that management's decision should stand. He said they were not
sitting there to judge a popularity contest as to which fire--
fighter liked who as a manager because there were probably many
managers who might get a minus mark from some of their employees.
Mr. Perretti said it was top management's decision to decide who
their department head should or should not be and not determined
by subordinates of a particular department head.
The City Attorney advised Council that it was their prerogative
to deliberate today; however, he asked Council to consider a
decision by Friday. He cautioned that Council's deliberations
should be in the Sunshine in the form of a pre -announced meeting.
C/M Gottesman asked why they had to attend the meeting to give
their suggestions when they could write out their decisions and
present them to the Acting City Manager or to the Mayor. The
City Attorney said Council members were not permitted to vote by
proxy but if both sides wanted to stipulate to a sealed vote,
he felt it would be acceptable. Without that stipulation, the
voting would be a voice vote at the dais. Mr. Henning said,
barring such a stipulation, he could not see an exception to
allow proxy voting.
C/M Munitz clarified, assuming Mr. Watkins has grounds for which
he must be reinstated, where would the money come from; and
secondly, if it is determined that he has the right to force the
City to reinstate him, it seemed to him to take the right away
from Council to determine and set its own budget. He said in-
directly it would give the right to the employee to dictate how
much should be spent. C/M Munitz said those two factors were
very important and that he was trying to steer clear of testi-
mony given that there were ulterior motives for Captain Watkins'
layoff rather than strictly the evaluations. He said the
question he posed to Chief Simon as to if there was any other
reason other than the evaluation for his decision, and Chief
Simon's response was no. C/M Munitz said if he were to be rein-
stated, would he work for nothing because there was no money in
1
34
12/17/85
/vdw
the budget to pay him.
1
Mr. Henning said when Council comes to a point to vote to rein-
state Captain Watkins, they should further indicate their
directions: either for another layoff or Council agreed to meet
to adjust line item transfers within the budget.
V/M Massaro recessed the meeting at 11:56 A.M. and announced t
it will be reconvened at the conclusion of the 2:00 P.M.hat
on Thursday, December 19, 1986. meeting
Mr. Henning placed the following exhibits into evidence:
Exhibit #1 - Personnel summary
iscal
Exhibit #2 - and the letter sized Fdocumentadated$6
11/22/85 initialled by Larry Perretti and the three_
paged document, the letter with two pages
lations attached of calcu-
Exhibit #3 - Legal -sized three -paged document which is
the calculations of the employee performance ratings
Page 1 - '83-184
Page 2 - 182-183
Page 3 - April, 1982 to November, 1982
statifromClinicalPs
bonery cletter
cdated May 1, 19$5 on
three -paged letter signed bylGleInstituteogy nA. Caddy, -Ph,D.
Exhibit #5 - Additional letter from Clinical Psychology
Institute signed by Glen R. Caddy, Ph.D.
Exhibit #6 - Letter on the State of Florida stationery
Department of Insurance and Treasurer dated August
16, 1985 by Ruth Gokel
r
MAYO
C Y CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of
per copy to inform the general public and �3�10or
Ployees about recent opinions and consid Public officers ah W
of the City of Tamarac, considerations by the City Council. -
CITY 4F TA AIA&C
AP RAYED AT MEETING OF
City Cler
35
12/17/85
/vdw