The URL can be used to link to this page

CSB ag & mins & misc 2002EQUAL PROTECTION CIVIL SERVICE BOAPE) OF THE CITY OF SANFORD 914 P.O. BOX 1788 SANFORD, FLORIDA 32772 -1788 Telephone: 407-330-5629 EMPLOYER- EMPLOYEE Job Line: 407 - 330 -5676 AGENDA CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING Tuesday, June 11, 2002 6:00 P.M. City Commission Chambers Approval of Minutes of April 10th Meeting II. Appointment of Election Committee III. Other Business ADVISE TO THE PUBLIC: IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE ABOVE MEETING, OR HEARING, HE MAY NEED A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, WHICH RECORD IS NOT PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SANFORD. (FS 286.0105) PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES NEEDING ASSISTANCE OFFICE TA.D ATCOORD COORDINATOR AT (40 ) PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTACT HUMAN 5626, 48 HOURS IN ADV NCE OF RESOURCES MEETING. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 6:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL, SANFORD, FLORIDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Oscar Redden Katheryn Alexander Roy Picklesimer Lorenzo Polk MEMBERS ABSENT: William Royster OTHERS PRESENT: Odiator Arugu, Esquire Benton Wood, Esquire Marion Anderson, Secretary The Chairman, Mr. Redden, called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. regarding the Disciplinary Hearing for Patricio Sanchez. Mr. Redden: This hearing is a disciplinary hearing for Mr.Patricio Sanchez by the City of Sanford. He asked if the City Attorney was present. Benton Wood: Present on behalf of the City of Sanford. Odiator Arugu: Present on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Redden: Are there witnesses in this case? Mr. Arugu: Very well, sir. Mr. Redden: Is there a desire on either part to request the rule of secret section? So it is o.k. that the people that are going to testify sit here. Affirmation by both counselors. Mr. Redden: Are there any opening statements from the City? Mr. Wood: Yes, sir. The issue before the Board this evening is an issue of insubordination for which Mr. Sanchez was disciplined for. You all are going to hear some evidence, I suspect, tonight about several grievances that Mr. Sanchez has had and some of it is going to be difficult to sort through, but the purpose of the meeting that Mike Kirby, the Department Director, had with Mr. Sanchez that resulted in insubordinate action was the result of a grievance hearing that was being held. Mr. Sanchez had a grievance filed in which he had a driving restriction placed on him. He objected to that and filed a grievance and that was held at that time at Mr. Kirby's level. Ultimately, that grievance proceeded through the non - disciplinary grievance procedure and was ultimately heard by the City Manager, and that is not a matter before the Board tonight. Also, Mr. Sanchez filed a grievance over a performance evaluation that he had. That performance 3 MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGI' 7 evaluation was also one of the gr_icvances t1lat was to be discussed the evening that Mr. Kirby had this grievance hearing with Mr. Sanchez. That grievance also has fully gone through the grievance procedure and has been heard by the City Manager, and has been ruled on. Thats not also before the Board this evening. The only grievance before the Board deals with a meeting that Mr. Kirby had with Patricio Sanchez on October 30th of last year. The meeting was to deal with these two grievances that I have just described to you. Mr. Kirby called Patricio Sanchez in for the grievance. This grievance hearing was requested by Mr. Sanchez and there was a witness, Ms. Jones, present during the meeting and you will hear her testimony this evening as well. And Mr. Sanchez was called into the meeting. He presented a tape recorder and he was informed that he was not allowed to tape record the meeting. He asked for a witness to be present during the grievance proceeding and he was informed that Ms. Jones was there to act as a witness during the hearing and he was not entitled to a witness. At that point, Mr. Kirbv, the Department Director, proceeded to go through these two grievances stating that here are the grievances, here is the first one we are going to deal with, its the driving restriction that has been placed on you. Om, how do you respond to this grievance. At that point, Mr. Sanchez said I'm not talking, I'm not talking to you, I'm not answering your questions. At that point, Mr. Kirby went to the second grievance and asked him to respond as to what his issues were on that grievance, the grievance dealing with the evaluation. Mr. Sanchez said I'm not talking to you, I'm not answering your questions. At that point, Mr. Kirby said to Mr. Sanchez that he is the Department Director, you asked for this meeting, this is your meeting, this is your grievance. I'm here to hear your grievance and this is your opportunity to be heard, and I can't do anything for your grievance if you won't talk to me. Mr. Sanchez wouldn't talk. At that point, he was instructed that he was ordered to answer the questions or be considered insubordinate. Mr. Sanchez refused to talk and that ended the meeting. And, as a result of that Mr. Sanchez ultimately received a four (4)day suspension and that is what we're here upon this evening. Om, we're confident that after you hear testimony this evening that you will rule in the City's favor. Thank you. Mr. Redden: Thank you. Mr. Arugu? Mr. Arugu: Good evening. Again my name is Odiator Arugu and I represent Mr. Sanchez in connection with this hearing. Om, Mr. Sanchez was purportedly suspended on October 30th of last year for alleged insubordination. This grievance challenges that disciplinary action and in order for the Board to have a full understanding of what led to the purportedly suspension is that it is important that the Board have the background of what transpired before the suspension was imposed. Om, Mr. Sanchez had, as known by his superiors, problems with the law whereby he went through the criminal justice system, did his probation and was finally released as having satisfied his MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 2. evaluation was also one of the grievances that was to be discussed the evening that Mr. Kirby had this grievance hearing with Mr. Sanchez. That grievance also has fully gone through the grievance procedure and has been heard by the City Manager, and has been ruled on. Thats not also before the Board this evening. The only grievance before the Board deals with a meeting that Mr. Kirby had with Patricio Sanchez on October 30th of last year. The meeting was to deal with these two grievances that I have just described to you. Mr. Kirby called Patricio Sanchez in for the grievance. This grievance hearing was requested by Mr. Sanchez and there was a witness, Ms. Jones, present during the meeting and you will hear her testimony this evening as well. And Mr. Sanchez was called into the meeting. He presented a tape recorder and he was informed that he was not allowed to tape record the meeting. He asked for a witness to be present during the grievance proceeding and he was informed that Ms. Jones was there to act as a witness during the hearing and he was not entitled to a witness. At that point, Mr. Kirby, the Department Director, proceeded to go through these two grievances stating that here are the grievances, here is the first one we are going to deal with, its the driving restriction that has been placed on you. Om, how do you respond to this grievance. At that point, Mr. Sanchez said I'm not talking, I'm not talking to you, I'm not answering your questions. At that point, Mr. Kirby went to the second grievance and asked him to respond as to what his issues were on that grievance, the grievance dealing with the evaluation. Mr. Sanchez said I'm not talking to you, I'm not answering your questions. At that point, Mr. Kirby said to Mr. Sanchez that he is the Department Director, you asked for this meeting, this is your meeting, this is your grievance. I'm here to hear your grievance and this is your opportunity to be heard, and I can't do anything for your grievance if you won't talk to me. Mr. Sanchez wouldn't talk. At that point, he was instructed that he was ordered to answer the questions or be considered insubordinate. Mr. Sanchez refused to talk and that ended the meeting. And, as a result of that Mr. Sanchez ultimately received a four (4)day suspension and that is what we're here upon this evening. Om, we're confident that after you hear testimony this evening that you will rule in the City's favor. Thank you. Mr. Redden: Thank you. Mr. Arugu? Mr. Arugu: Good evening. Again my name is Odiator Arugu and I represent Mr. Sanchez in connection with this hearing. Om, Mr. Sanchez was purportedly suspended on October 30th of last year for alleged insubordination. This grievance challenges that disciplinary action and in order for the Board to have a full understanding of what led to the purportedly suspension is that it is important that the Board have the background of what transpired before the suspension was imposed. Om, Mr. Sanchez had, as known by his superiors, problems with the law whereby he went through the criminal justice system, did his probation and was finally released as having satisfied his I MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 3 probation. Now, following that, he has been doing his job and has been in all respects a very, very modest employee. All of a sudden there was an anonymous letter received by his boss. The letter purportedly stated that Mr. Sanchez was a sex offender and had no business working in the position that he occupied. Hell broke loose form there on. I would like the Board to remember that before the receipt of that anonymous letter, Mr. Sanchez has had no problems whatsoever in connection with his employment. In fact, during the criminal proceedings, in this case, he received the full support of his supervisors. In fact, there are occasions when his supervisor also attended the criminal hearings with him. That was how supportive the Department was. Now, after the receipt of the anonymous letter, Mr. Sanchez was told that he could not drive the City's vehicle. Of course, by his responsibilities, it is very important that he drive the City's vehicle. Mr. Sanchez obeyed the directives and that was a given. Om, on a particular instance, there was a need for him to drive a City vehicle and his boss told him it was o.k. for him to drive provided he did not get into problems. Mr. Sanchez drove the vehicle based on the directives of his boss. Then it turned out that that became a problem. The directive was not in writing and that was followed up with a written memo from his boss, that is specifically, at this time not to drive unless he was with an employee of the City. And he complied to that. Now, Mr. Sanchez was worried about being placed on this what actually is a disciplinary action because all of his comparable colleagues all drove City vehicles. Even though this action was made to look as if it was non - disciplinary. We will respectfully submit that it was disciplinary to his tasks. That he was denied a working privilege that was available to all other comparable employees. Mr. Sanchez requested for the authority in suspending his driving privileges. The first request was made. A meeting was called which he attended. You will find that Mr. Sanchez is just like his attorney before you leave this evening. My humble self, have an accent and unlike me of course, he has difficulty really understanding the English language. Now he asked that he have a witness with him present, an employee. Present so that if he ran into problems this employee could explain issues to him, He also asked to tape the meeting, of course this was declined. There was a follow up meeting and Mr. Sanchez made the same request. It was declined.- Now another meeting was called and here I'll point out that my colleague for the City, ultimately got his facts wrong. The meeting was called by Mr. Kirby himself and not by Mr. Sanchez. At this meeting, Mr. Sanchez asked to have a witness present again and to tape the meeting if a witness could not be present. He was refused that chance. Ms. Lisa Jones was also at this meeting. Mr. Sanchez was told that Ms_ Lisa Jones was at the meeting to take notes. No notes were made available after the meeting pursuant to the request of Mr. Sanchez. Now, Mr. Sanchez rightfully stated to his boss that he didn't feel comfortable MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 4 proceeding with this meeting if he cannot have another employee present. At this point, under the rules, what we believe should have been done would have been to end the proceedings there and advance the matter to the City Manager. That was not done. There was a final meeting called by Mr. Kirby which led to his suspension. That meeting was not even necessary. Again, at this meeting, Mr. Sanchez expressed interest of having an employee present. It was declined. He refused to postpone the meeting, hence, the suspension. We are going to present evidence to show not only that Mr. Sanchez was willing and able to fully comply in all of the proceedings and meetings that were called on that day and previous meetings, that he did not do anything that warranted all of the events that occurred prior to his suspension and we respectfully at the end of the day, will ask for the Board to rescind his suspension which was for a week instead of four (4) days as stated by counsel. The suspension originally was to be for two (2) weeks but it was subsequently for no reason reduced to a week and Mr. Sanchez was not paid for the one (1) week period. And we are going to also ask that he be paid for the one week period. And that will be all for now. Mr. Redden: Thank you. All witnesses for the City and the appellant please stand. Starting with Joe, state your name and your employment status for the record. Joe Denaro: My name is Joe Denaro and I am the Human Resources Director for the City of Sanford. Mike Kirby: My name is Mike Kirby and I am the Parks and Recreation Direction for the City of Sanford. Lisa Jones: Lisa Jones, Superintendent of Recreation for the City. H. Jeffries:Howard Jeffries, Manager of Parks and Ground Maintenance for the City. A. Francis: Amardor Francis, retired Superintendent of Ground Maintenance. Mr. Redden: Asked that the witnesses stand again so that they may be sworn in. He asked that they raise their right hands and asked if they solemnly swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. Affirmation by witnesses. Mr. Redden: Asked that counsel proceed with his first witness. Mr. Wood: The City's first witness will be Mike Kirby. Would you please state your name for the record. Mr. Kirby: My Name is Mike Kirby. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE: 5 Mr. Wood: And who are you employed by? Mr. Kirby: The City of Sanford. I am the Parks and Recreation Director. Mr. Wood: And how long have you held that position? Mr. Kirby: I've been with the City almost 20 years. I have been the Director for the last 14. Mr. Wood: Do you know Patricio Sanchez. Mr. Kirby: Yes, I do_ Mr. Wood: How do you know Mr. Sanchez? Mr. Kirby: Mr. Sanchez has worked for me, I don't know the exact time, probably around 10 years. Mr. Wood: On October 30th of 2001 did you conduct a meeting in which Mr. Sanchez was present? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Wood: What was the purpose of that meeting? Mr. Kirby: To go over a couple of issues he had through the grievance process. One was on an evaluation that we were gonna ... he... was requesting clarification on the substance of what happened with his ... with his...with that ... with that and when we called him in and started speaking with him about that, you want me to go into details about that now or just... Mr. Wood: Explain what the issues were. Mr. Kirby: The first issue was his evaluation, the other was the clarification on why he is not allowed to be in a park by himself or to drive a City vehicle by himself. Mr. Wood: We've heard a little bit about that. What was that issue about? Mr. Kirby: The City vehicle and the park. Mr. Sanchez is a registered sex offender in the State of Florida concerning a child under 18. _We have reviewed it with the City Attorney and the City Manager. He has requested, and I agree, that he should not be allowed to be in a park by himself or to drive a City vehicle by himself. Mr. Wood: So when Mr. Sanchez's attorney made reference to "all hell broke loose" once this issue arose, was that the driving restriction or the restrictions that were placed on Mr. Sanchez at that time? _ Mr. Kirby: Yes. We had spoke with him about this many times and we have given something in writing that was reviewed by the City Attorney. My job as the Parks and Recreation Director is to provide recreation activities and do everything we can with the parks MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 6 systems here. And part of my responsibilities is to keep the parks safe. I just can't in good conscience, have somebody who is a registered sex offender, ah .... you can pull up on the Internet today if you wanted to, and have him be alone in a City uniform in a park, and ah ... I feel the City needs to be safe. Mr. Wood: So that issue Mr. Sanchez is upset about, he filed a grievance and that was one of the issues that you were hearing. Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Wood: O.K. and at that level, explain what the grievance process is. Mr. Kirby: He had received notification, there has been a couple of them, so you gotta please work with me. We had a hearing with the City Manager about this, om... Mr. Wood: But that was after your level? Mr. Kirby: Yes sir. It comes to his supervisor and then it comes to his department head, then it goes to the City Manager, then to here. Mr. Wood: So your level was the department head level, you are hearing these two grievances that Mr. Sanchez had. Mr. Kirby: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: O.K. what happened during the meeting? Mr. Kirby: When he came into the meeting he first asked if he could bring a witness in with him. He has made this request all along the line. We did not allow him to bring a witness in. I had downstairs, Ms. Jones, the Recreation Superintendent and asked her to sit in. Mr. Wood: Why did you ask her to sit in? Mr. Kirby: She is not somebody that works in Parks or Grounds Maintenance. He felt before, I think, when Howard Jeffries had sat in before, and he felt difficulty with another somebody he felt he couldn't trust, one of his bosses. So we got somebody who I felt was an independent person from the Recreation Division and asked her to sit in. He was not happy with that and he pulled out a tape recorder and turned it on. I said that was inappropriate and we couldn't tape it. The tape recorder went out of the room and we started the meeting. I started asking Mr. Sanchez some questions. I believe I started with the evaluation and how it ended up like it was and he said he was not going to speak with me. And I asked him repeatedly. We had the hearing about the evaluation. He said om...I said this is your chance for a hearing to answer any questions about it and he said I'm not going to speak to you. I said well the discipline stands on that and then I moved over to trying to explain to him once again why he was not allowed to be in the parks by himself or to drive a City vehicle by himself, and om...he once again would not answer me and then I warned him thats MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 7 insubordination for refusing to answer questions by a supervisor and he would not answer at that time and thats what led to the suspension. Mr. Wood: O.K. and what were the dates of the suspension for Mr. Sanchez? Mr. Kirby: It was, I believe it started on the, I don't have that in front of me, I believe it was October 30th, it was for four (4) days and there is a weekend in there. Mr. Wood: I see. Your understanding is it was a four (4) day suspension that Mr. Sanchez... Mr. Kirby: Thats actually what he served, yes. Mr. Wood: O.K. Now there was some reference that Mr. Sanchez' attorney just made that originally it was a two -week suspension. Mr. Kirby: Yes, it was ... om ... it was ... om...when we went over it and we discussed it...ah...at first it was going to be a two -week suspension. After further thought and all, I decided that four (4) days would be more appropriate, that ... om...I just thought that would be more appropriate. Mr. Wood: O.K. Alright. Thats all I have. Mr. Redden: Your witness Mr. Arugu. Mr. Arugu: Good Evening, Mr. Kirby. Now, prior to the meeting that you had with Mr. Sanchez, were you aware that he was on probation for the alleged sex offender crime? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Were you aware prior to the meeting that he had successfully completed his probation? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Do you recollect when he had the criminal proceedings in the sex offender case? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: When was this, approximately, sir? Mr. Kirby: Nine (9) years ago. Mr. Arugu: Nine (9) years ago, o.k. And when was it that he was asked for the first time not to drive a City vehicle? Mr. Kirby: What happened... Mr. Arugu: Please answer my question, please I'm asking for a date. MINUTES CIVIL, SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 8 Mr_ Kirby: O.K. I can't remember the date right off the top of my head. Mr. Arugu: O.K. May I approach the witness. Mr. Redden: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Arugu submitted Exhibit 1 (attached) and asked Mr. Kirby if he remembered the memo that is in front of him. Mr. Kirby: This one here from Howard Jeffries, yes. Mr. Arugu: Did you see that memo at anytime before today? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: What is the date on that memo? Mr. Kirby: 7/20/2001. Mr. Arugu: Is there any reason why Mr. Sanchez' driving privileges were not suspended the day of his sex offender status before that memo was issued? Mr. Kirby: Could you repeat the question? I'm sorry, I did not understand. Mr. Arugu: Is there any reason why Mr. Sanchez' driving privilege was not, why Mr. Sanchez was told not to drive? Mr. Kirby: OK I understand what you're saying. what came up then, some people were leaving pictures of him as a registered sex offender, off the Internet, and leaving them on City Hall doors, and all that, saying he is in your department, what are you going to do about it. I took it over to the City Attorney. We discussed some options and after that meeting is when we decided to let him continue to drive but he had to have another City employee in the truck with him. Mr. Arugu: Let me back up for a minute. What does that memo say? Mr. Kirby: You want me to read it? Mr. Wood: The document speaks for itself. Do you want him to read it into the record? Mr. Arugu: I'm not asking him to read it. I want for him to explain to me what that memo says. I would ask him to read it if I wanted him to read it. Mr. Wood: Again, the document speaks for itself and I'm placing my _ objection. Mr. Arugu: Will you explain to the Board your understanding of that memo? Mr. Kirby: It says ... om...you're not to operate a City vehicle without MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF' 10, 2002 PAGE 9 someone with you and you have disregarded this directive in the past and, they, Mr. Jeffries has suspended your driving privileges until further notice. And I believe there is a further notice after this memo. believe there is another memo. Mr. Arugu: Do you know when Mr. Sanchez was told for the first time not to operate a City vehicle? Mr. Kirby: I don't have that date. Mr. Arugu: You don't have that date? Do you know who would know of that date? Mr. Kirby: I'm sure its in the file. I can visit the file... Mr. Arugu: Very well if you want to do that. Mr. Kirby: You want to take a recess so I can look that up? Mr. Arugu: Oh, you have to... you have to... o.k. well I won't take the time on that, its alright. Now is it probable that he was told to not drive a City vehicle within a few weeks before that letter was issued? Mr. Kirby: It could be possible. Mr. Arugu: O.K. Now, do we know why he was not told to not drive a city vehicle during the criminal proceedings? Mr. Kirby: I don't know why. Mr. Arugu: O.K. Do we know why Mr. Sanchez was told not to drive a City vehicle after the criminal proceedings? Mr. Kirby: Why he was told not to drive after criminal... Mr. Arugu: Do we know why he was not told not to drive? Mr. Kirby: It was a while after. Mr. Arugu: Well afterwards, correct? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: O.K. Approximately how long afterwards? Mr. Kirby: A good bit afterwards. Mr. Arugu: Do you know why it took that long? _ Mr. Kirby: Yes- Mr. Arugu: Why'? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 10 Mr. Kirby: Because when people started taking his picture off the Internet as registered sex offender and taping them on City Hall doors, some action had to be taken and I met with the City Manager and the City Attorney and they said immediately, we have no other choice. We will not have a registered sex offender who is on the Internet today patrolling through the parks by himself. Mr. Arugu: So you were concerned about what, in taking the action that you took? Mr. Kirby: I'm concerned about the safety of the kids in Sanford. Mr. Arugu: O.K. Now, shouldn't your action, Mr. Kirby, have been to completely have him transferred to a different position or have him resign for some reason other than depriving him of his driving privileges? Mr. Kirby: We have been working, I think Mr. Denaro can attest to this, we have been working on trying to find a comparable position for him within the City. I think you're absolutely right. We haven't been able to find that position. Mr. Arugu: Did you discuss that with Mr. Sanchez, that you're trying to find... Mr. Kirby: There is nothing to discuss yet. Mr. Arugu: O.K. So...ah... you went ahead and asked him to not drive correct? Mr. Kirby: Yes Mr. Arugu: Now, may I approach, please. Mr. Redden: Yes. Mr. Arugu: I will seek to tender into evidence the first document that was given to the witness. Mr. Wood: I believe the first document was part of the package that you all received so I don't know if it should be entered into evidence or not. It is purely irrelevant, you all have access to it so I don't object to that. Mr. Arugu: So, go ahead. Mr. Wood: The second document, I don't believe its a part of your package. Mr. Redden: Yes, this is a part of our package too. No, this is a return to work dated 11- 15 -01, mine says 11- 07 -01. -- MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 11 Mr. Wood: This is the first disciplinary action at Mr. Kirby made reference to so I don't know if he will be moving this into evidence. Mr. Arugu: I'm going to be moving this into evidence. (Attached, Exhibit 2). Mr. Wood: We won't object. Mr. Arugu: May I proceed? Mr. Redden: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Kirby would you review that document and let me know once you're done because I'd like to ask you a few questions. Mr. Kirby: I've reviewed it. Mr. Arugu: What is the date on that document. Mr. Kirby: 10- 30 -01. Mr. Arugu: Who produced that document? Mr. Kirby: Ah, thats Howard Jeffries signature on there. I assume it cam from Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Arugu: O.k. Now, does that document state a two -week suspension? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Does that document state a return date from suspension? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: What is the return date? Mr. Kirby: After two weeks. Mr. Arugu: After two weeks? What date? Is there a return date? Mr. Kirby: Ah, 11- 15 -01. Mr. Arugu: O.k., alright. At this point I would like to tender the document that the witness has dated 10- Mr. Wood: No objections. Mr. Arugu: May I approach? Mr. Redden: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Kirby, please review the document before you, Disciplinary Action Record. (Exhibit 3, attached). I'd like to ask you a few questions after you're done. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE ]2 Mr. Kirby: Alright. Mr. Arugu: Do you recognize that document before you? Mr. Kirby: I've never seen it ... somebody has written some stuff in by pen that I've never seen it before. Mr. Arugu: Who issued that document? Mr. Kirby: Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Arugu: I'm looking at the document dated 11 -7 -01. Mr. Kirby: O.k. Mr. Arugu: Who issued that document? Mr. Kirby: It was done by Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Arugu: Who issued the document? At the top of it. Mr. Kirby: Oh, my name is at the top of it. Mr. Arugu: O.k. Was this document issued by you or not? Mr. Kirby: With this writing on it, no. Mr. Arugu: Do you know why your name is on the document as the issuer? Mr. Kirby: It was probably originated by me but somebody has written some things in... Mr. Arugu: I'm sorry. Mr. Kirby: It was probably issued by me but theres ... ah... this part that was written in, I assume, I don't know who, I assume it was Mr. Sanchez, I... Mr. Arugu: You're stating that you did not issue this document that bears your name as the issuer? Mr. Kirby: Yes, I originated it. Mr. Arugu: I'm sorry. Mr. Kirby: It originated from me. Mr. Arugu: Now, what is the date on this document? Mr_ Kirby: 11 -7. Mr.. Arugu: O.k. What disciplinary action does this document address? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE. 1 Mr_ Kirby: Four (4) day suspension. Mr. Arugu: Where is the four (4) day suspension on this document? Mr. Kirby: I assume there are some weekend days in there. I don't know. I don't have a calendar in front of me. I couldn't tell you. Mr. Arugu: Was this document pursuant to the document I just gave you dated October 30th, 2001. Mr. Kirby: Is it after that? Mr. Arugu: Yes. Mr. Kirby: Yeah, November. Mr. Arugu: Was it with respect to that document also, the... Mr. Kirby: Did this document come out after this one? Mr. Arugu: Did the document dated 11 -7 -01 emanate as a result of the document dated 10- 30 -01. Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: So, the issues in both documents are the same? Mr. Kirby: Yes. - Mr. Arugu: The disciplinary issues to the specifics are the same. Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Correct? Mr. Kirby: Correct. Mr. Arugu: Do we know why on the first document, I'm talking about the document dated 10 -30 -01 that has the return to work date of 11 -15. Mr. Kirby: I assume it is because the first one got changed to a four (4) day suspension. Mr. Arugu: O.k. Now, would you please calculate the dates for the Board to understand the dates. Let me back up. What was the effective date of the suspension? Mr. Kirby: I don't have that. The effective dates, I think was the 30th. Mr. Arugu: The 30th of October, correct? Mr. Kirby: Thats my recollection. Mr. Arugu: O.k. And he was asked to return to work on the 7th, correct? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING Or APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE: 14 Mr_. Kirbv: I believe so_ Mr. Arugu: O.k. is that a week, or less than a week? Mr. Kirby: I'm sorry. Mr. Arugu: He was asked to return to work November the 7th instead of November 15. Mr. Kirby: Right. Mr. Arugu: Now, was that a week's period of suspension or four (4) days? Mr. Kirby: He ended up serving four (4) days. Mr. Arugu: What does the document say? Mr. Wood: I object. The document speaks for itself. You all have the documents in front of you which says the effective date 11 -1 -01 to 11 -6 -01. The document speaks for itself. If you want him to read... Mr. Redden: Mr. Wood, there appears to be some kind of conflict and confusion over the date. Please let him get it cleared up so that we all benefit from the clarification. Mr. Arugu: Now, Mr. Kirby, you said he served a four (4) day suspension. Mr. Kirby: Correct. Mr. Arugu: Please look at the document dated 11 -7 -01. Now, it says return to work on the 7th. Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: My question to you is if the suspension was effective 10 -30 and he was to return to work on 11 -7, how many days will that be? Mr. Kirby: That would be six (6). Mr. Arugu: O.k. So its not four (4) days correct? Mr. Kirby: He served four (4) days. Mr. Arugu: Is there any evidence? Mr. Kirby: We looked at his time cards upstairs today for it. Mr. Arugu: Do you have that evidence before the Board? Mr. Kirby: No. Mr. Arugu: That he served four (4) days? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE: 15 Mr. Kirby: We can get that. Mr. Arugu: I don't know about that but do we have it before the Board that he served four (4) days? Mr. Kirby: Like I said, I can go get that for you if you'd like. We can take a break and I can go get that. Mr. Arugu: O.k. Alright. You tell that to the Board, alright. May I approach? Mr. Redden: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Kirby, do you recognize the document before you dated November 7th, 2001? Mr. Kirby: I recognize the document but there is some writing in here and I don't know where that came from. It was signed by me but its not my handwriting. Mr. Arugu: O.k. Excluding the handwriting for a moment, are the type written words, your words? Mr. Kirbv: Yes. Mr. Arugu: You wrote this letter? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Now, will you please go down with me to the middle part, the second paragraph. I would like for you to read the first sentence only of that paragraph. Mr. Kirby: O.k. Mr. Arugu: Would you please read that sentence? The first sentence in the second paragraph. Read it out please. Mr. Kirby: I have thought about the process I took to resolve your grievance and not to mitigate this action with further dissention... Mr. Arugu: O.k. Now, will you explain to the Board what you meant by I've thought about the process I took to resolve your grievance? Mr. Kirby: Thats why I changed it from two -weeks to four -days. Mr. Arugu: I'm sorry. Mr. Kirby: It seemed like the appropriate thing to do. _ Mr. Arugu: Why was it the appropriate thing to do? Mr. Kirby: A number of factors. Just like for the offense of him not answering me in his grievance. There are a number of reasons why MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 16 I just felt four -days was a more appropriate thing to do. Mr. Arugu: So when you imposed the two -week suspension, initially, you acted out of overzealousness and over reaction, correct? Mr. Kirby: I don't think its overzealousness, I think having a registered sex offender in the parks is serious business and this is very serious to the people of Sanford and to the kids of Sanford. I'm going to do everything in my power to protect them. Some people may agree, some people may disagree. I'm sorry, thats the way I feel. Mr. Arugu: So when you decided to reduce this to seven (7) days, the crime was not serious anymore? Mr. Kirby: It was every bit as serious as it was before. Mr. Arugu: Now, why did you reduce it specifically, what was your thought process? Mr. Kirby: After him not speaking at the hearings and not answering my questions, four (4) days seemed like the appropriate punishment. Mr. Arugu: So you were wrong in your initial two week suspension, correct? Mr. Kirby: I think four (4) days is more appropriate than two - weeks. Mr. Arugu: Were you wrong in your two -week suspension that you gave out initially? Mr. Kirby: I'm saying after thinking about it and after looking at what he did, I think two - weeks, ah... four (4) days were a more justified suspension than two - weeks. Mr. Redden: Is it possible to answer that question, Mike, yes or no? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Now, did the reduction in suspension have anything to do with a change in your perspective as to the seriousness of his sex offender status? Mr. Kirby: No. Mr. Arugu: I don't know if this letter dated November 7th, 2001 is in the packet. If it is not, I'd like to have it tendered into evidence. Mr. Redden: I believe this letter is in the packet. Mr. Wood: It is in the packet. We object to this letter because it is not authentic, there is handwriting on it. Mr. Redden: The original letter is in the packet without the handwriting. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 17 Mr. wood: The original letter is in the packet but this letter we object to. Mr. Redden: Its the same, the one with the additional writing is not reflective of whats in the packet. Mr. Arugu: Very well, the witness admitted that this was his letter and actually we are seeking to tender this into evidence with the Board specifically being requested not to consider the hand written material. Mr. Wood: You want to cross it out, highlight over it, and cross out the bottom of it? Mr. Redden: Just let the record reflect that Mr. Kirby acknowledges the letter to be of his origin with the exception of the addition, the hand written addition, on the letter. Does this satisfy both parties? Affirmation by both counsels. Mr. Arugu: May I approach. Mr. Redden: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Kirby, would you please review that document and after you're done let me know. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Mr. Kirby: Alright. Mr. Arugu: Are you familiar with this document. Mr. Kirby: I don't remember this document. This is from the City Manager, I believe, along with a copy to the Police Chief and this does not ring a bell with me. I don't know. Mr. Arugu: Might this be the anonymous letter that the City received? Mr. Kirby: No. Mr. Arugu: Is there another letter then that the City received? Mr. Kirby: What the City received is the picture, the arrest picture, holding up numbers and having it taped all over the doors. I have some copies of that if you'd like to see them. Mr. Arugu: Do we have it in the packet that you know of? Mr. Redden: Its in there. Mr. Arugu: Now, might this be the letter that accompanied the picture that you're talking about? Mr. Kirby: This letter here? Mr. Arugu: Yes. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 18 Mr. Kirby: I don't remember ever reading this letter before_ Mr. Arugu: O.k. Other than the picture that is behind that letter or attached to that letter, are you aware of any other material that was sent to the City concerning Mr. Sanchez' sex offender status? Mr. Kirby: I know this was left on some doors, and may be some other buildings, but I don't remember, that was a while back and I don't remember. Mr. Arugu: So what was left on doors? Mr. Kirby: I don't remember. I remember this was ... What spurred it all was this picture here and it said what vehicle he is on, the one that has the vehicle on there. I got this, I went to the City Manager and he said we need to have a meeting with Bill Colbert, the City Attorney. At that time I went across the street and met with him and thats what got the ball rolling. Mr. Arugu: Now, my question, Mr. Kirby, is other than the picture that you are aware of, are you aware of any other material that was sent to the City concerning the sex offender status of Mr. Sanchez? Mr. Kirby: Not that I can recollect right now. Mr. Arugu: Did you state not too long ago in your testimony here this evening that there have been several complaints about Mr. Sanchez sex offender status? Mr. Kirby: There have been some employees, you know, that may have mentioned it. Did you see this flyer? I think this flyer was turned in by a custodian. I have received no other anonymous letters or anything like that. Mr. Arugu: I'm not talking employees now. Of course, employees could have seen the postings of that material but my question is are you aware of any other material. Mr. Kirby: I'm not aware of any other material. Mr. Arugu: That is all the material about his sex offender status that you are aware of, correct? Mr. Kirby: That I can recollect, yes. - Mr. Arugu: Did anyone call you anonymously? Mr. Kirby: No. Mr. Arugu: To say that it was a problem having Mr_ Sanchez as an employee. Mr. Kirby: No. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 19 Mr. Arugu: Did anyone call anybody that you know of working with the City that it was a problem having Mr. Sanchez as an employee? Mr. Kirby: I've had a number of people to mention it to me, you know, around town, about whats the deal about this sex offender that is working for you, being in parks by himself, whats the deal going on with that. I've had people ask me about that but theres been no phone calls, anonymous phone calls, or anything like that. Mr. Arugu: O.K. So it is true then that other than the material you have here, there has not been any other anonymous material? Mr. Kirby: There could be some that I'm not aware of. Mr. Arugu: Is it true that you are not aware of any? Mr. Kirby: I think I've answered that. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Kirby, are you aware of the fact that when Mr. Sanchez was told not to drive, he requested for the authority for that action, are you aware of his request? Mr. Kirby: He requested not to drive? Mr. Arugu: No, he had requested that the City provide him with the authority for the action, are you aware of his request? Mr. Kirby: Are you saying did he request something in writing about why he can't drive? Mr. Arugu: Yes, are you aware of that? Mr. Kirby: Yes, he did. Mr. Arugu: May I approach. Mr. Redden: Yes. In the interest of time you may, after the witness receives whatever information that the City accepts, proceed. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Kirby, would you please review the document dated July 24th, 2001(attached). When your finished, I'd like to ask you a few questions. Mr. Kirby: O.k. Mr. Arugu: Does this document look familiar to you, have you seen this document before today? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Is this the document requesting for information regarding the action against Mr. Sanchez not to drive a City vehicle? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 20 Mr. Kirby: You're referring to this document from Mr. Sanchez to Mr. Denaro, yes. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if the information was provided that he requested? Mr. Kirby: I know he received a lot of written answers as to why he can't drive a car and be alone in a park. Yes, he received that. Mr. Arugu: Did you, yourself, generate any of the reasons why? Mr. Kirby: Yes, as a matter of fact. It was done by me and the City Attorney. Mr. Arugu: If this document is already in the packet we will.... Mr. Wood: No objections. Mr. Arugu: Now, Mr. Kirby lets shift gears to the reason for one of the meetings with Mr. Sanchez. Are you aware of a regrading of his performance evaluation? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Did you participate in any way in regards to this? Mr. Kirby: The evaluations went upstairs, preliminary group of employee evaluations went upstairs and was sent back by Human Resources _ that we had too many in the top performer category. They went down. We had a Staff meeting. I told them to go back, look at all their justification documentation on any employees that may be near the border, and then they came back and said that Mr. Sanchez was one they were going to change. I believe he was in an automobile accident that he was ticketed for. But, if you're alluding to did I tell anybody that they need to change Patricio Sanchez', the answer is no. Mr. Arugu: Did you consult with Mr. Sanchez's supervisor at the time, Mr. Amador, concerning the regrading? Mr. Kirby: I have never spoken to Amador about Patricio's evaluation. Mr. Arugu: Now, may I approach? Mr. Redden: Please. Mr. Wood: No objections. Mr. Arugu: I take it that the document is in evidence. Mr. Wood: It is a part of the packet as well. Mr. Arugu: Would you please review the memo dated October 16th, 2001 (attached). Now, looking at No. 7, what reason in No. 7 was given MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 21 for the regrading of Mr_ Sanchez' score? Mr_ Kirby: You want me to read the whole paragraph? I didn't write this, Mr. Jeffries did. Mr. Arugu: O.k. Looking at it was one of the reason's that he was not cooperative with authority? Can that be a fair summary? Mr. Kirby: That he has been uncooperative with authority? Mr. Arugu: Yes. Mr. Kirby: No, I don't see that anywhere. Mr. Arugu: It says on occasion... Mr. Kirby: To question authority, yes, you did question authority a decision made by your supervisor, yes, I'm sorry, yes. Mr. Arugu: Do you know what this means/ Mr. Kirby: I believe, Mr. Jeffries is here he can probably give you a better answer on that than I can. Mr. Arugu: Did he explain this to you? Mr. Kirby: We went over it briefly before it was changed by I have about 70 employees. Mr. Arugu: Now, lets touch on No. 8, Safety. Was the accident Mr. Sanchez had some time an issue here? Mr. Kirby: Was it an issue because he had an accident? Mr. Arugu: Yes. Mr. Kirby: I would say that if somebody wrecks a City vehicle and they are ticketed, yes, I would say thats an issue. Mr. Arugu: Thats an issue and did this contribute to the regrading he received? Mr. Kirby: I would assume so by reading this but I did not write it and I don't want to put words into somebody's mouth really. Mr. Arugu: Are you aware of any other employees of the City that have had accidents with a City vehicle? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr_ Arugu: Do you know if in all instances they were regraded? Mr. Kirby: I couldn't tell you in all instances, no, I couldn't tell you. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 22 Mr. Ar_uqu: Specifically, Mr. Kirby, do you know if Mr. Amador has had an accident with a City vehicle some time during his employment with the City? Mr. Kirby: I don't recollect that. I know he has had a bad accident on his personal business, but I don't know if he has been in one with a City vehicle. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if Cheryl Markos has had an accident with the City vehicle some time? Mr. Kirby: Yes, she has. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if she was regraded? Mr. Kirby: It happened before the... since... it happened within the last month. Mr. Arugu: I'm sorry? Mr. Kirby: It happened within the last month and we haven't evaluated anybody within the last month. I know she got something written in her file. Mr. Arugu: Um -huh, this was last month? Mr. Kirby: It was recently. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if any ... was she written up for this accident? Mr. Kirby: I was told she was, yes. Mr. Arugu: Who told you she was written up? Mr. Kirby: Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if Mr. Sanchez was written up for this accident? Mr. Kirby: I don't know. Mr. Arugu Mr. Kirby Mr. Arugu Mr. Kirby Mr. Arugu: I'm sorry? I don't recollect. Do you know if a Larry Thomas had an accident with a City vehicle some time in his employment? I ... we have five divisions. We have Parks, Ground Maintenance, Recreation, many divisions. Mr. Jeffries is the person who all that would go to. He is here this evening and I'm sure he could give you answers on all your questions on that. Finally, Mr. Kirby, do you remember if a Mike Bradley was involved in an accident with a City vehicle? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 1 -0, 2002 PAGE 23 Mr. Wood: I object. The witness has already testified that Mr. Jeffries is the appropriate person for that. Mr. Redden: Objection sustained. Mr. Arugu: May I approach. Mr. Redden: Yes, would both counsels approach the Board please. Proceed. Mr. Wood: I would like to state objections to this document. This is a write -up Mr. Sanchez apparently received for this accident. He was cited for and this hearing is about insubordination findings against Mr. Sanchez. This is getting out of control on the issues that are not before the Board. The Board is not, doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear the issue of Mr. Sanchez' evaluation which did somehow get incorporated into this. If you all want to hear all this testimony, I suspect we will be here all night, but thats not what is before the Board. Mr. Redden: I get your point, Mr. Wood, and the Board concurs that this is about disciplinary actions. I would caution that we focus on that. I think that there is a lot in this packet to deal with the issues that are before us and I'm not going to tell you how to represent your client or nothing like that. I think that everybody would be better served if we, you know, we went all into the charges of the sex offense and all. What I'm looking at and _ what was put on this paper and why did we convene this hearing, it says disciplinary hearing for Patricio Sanchez. Mr. Arugu: In response to the objection, I agree that this is not about the propriety of the accident, however, I stated in my opening that without the background of what led to the disciplinary actions, this -Board would not have been given the full information that it needs to be able to make a decision in this case. It is important to note that the springboard of everything that led to the disciplinary actions was based on his sex offender status, which the Board has a right to know of, and subsequently the suspension, which this Board has a right to know of, and also the accident which led to the regrading of his evaluation. Mr. Wood: But the only flaw with that is, is that we're getting into every nitty - gritty detail. Mr. Redden: Mr. Wood, I heard you. Now I'm listening to him. I'm hearing him and I appreciate what you're saying. You both have valid points. I would appreciate it and I'm sure that Mr. Sanchez, as well as the Board, that we would hear the word disciplinary some where in _ this every now and then. If you could tie that in for us so we can stay on track as to why we're here. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 24 Mr. Arugu: I would like to tender this document into evidence assuming it is not already in the packet and then proceed with asking questions from this document. Mr. Redden: I believe that document is in the packet. I'm getting confused on these documents but I'm sure I saw that earlier today. Mr. Arugu: Based on the objection and our response, we want to ask that this document is entered into evidence. Mr. Redden: Mr. Wood, it shouldn't be any problems, its already in there. Mr. Wood: I don't recall this in the packet. Whatever you all desire. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Kirby, have you had a chance to review the document, Disciplinary Action Record, Dated December 7th, 2000 (attached). Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Is this the form usually issued by the City? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Is this in connection with the accident Mr. Sanchez had with the City vehicle? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Some time on, I believe on November the 10th, 2000? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Might this be the disciplinary action that consequently led to one of the reasons why his grading was changed? Mr. Kirby: Mr. Jeffries made the call, I don't want to put words in his mouth. Mr. Arugu: Yes or no if you know. Mr. Kirby: I don't know. Mr. Arugu: I'm sorry? Mr. Kirby: I don't know. Mr. Jeffries evaluated him Sanchez. I don't evaluate Mr. Mr. Arugu: Just one more question and I'll be done with the witness. May I approach. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 25 Mr_ Redden: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Kirby, do you recognize the document before you from the Florida Department of Corrections? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Does that document state that Mr. Sanchez has successfully completed his probationary period for the sex offender crime? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: What dates are on the document? Mr. Kirby: April 5th, 1999. Mr. Arugu: Does this document also state that his rights as a citizen was fully restored? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Now, consider this document that does state that he has completed Mr. Arugu: Now, is this document from the correction's department wrong? Mr. Kirby: No. Mr. Arugu: This document does say that his rights were reinstated. Mr. Kirby: Absolutely. Mr. Arugu: Does this contradict what you just said? Mr_ Kirby: No. his probation and his rights were restored. Can you explain why it became necessary for the City to suspend his driving privileges? Mr. Kirby: Yes, he is to my understanding, under Florida Law, a registered _ sex offender to date. You can get on the Internet tonight and pull up Mr. Sanchez' picture. I believe that every time he moves, to this day he has to get a picture taken and notify where he moves to. I believe thats correct because I've been on the Internet two or three times and there are different pictures of him. That does not make... I'm glad he completed probation. Part of his probation, if I remember right, he had to stay away from a church or something like that. I don't know if whether he still has a right to go visit that church where the kids were at, I don't know. I'm not a probation officer, I don't know. Mr. Arugu: O.k. you're not a probation officer, correct? Mr. Kirby: I'm not. Mr. Arugu: Now, is this document from the correction's department wrong? Mr. Kirby: No. Mr. Arugu: This document does say that his rights were reinstated. Mr. Kirby: Absolutely. Mr. Arugu: Does this contradict what you just said? Mr_ Kirby: No. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 26 Mr. Arugu: So, the fact that he might have his picture on the Internet does not mean that he did not have his rights as a citizen, correct? Mr. Kirby: I mean he can still vote and run for political office and things like that. I might be wrong, but I think his picture would still be on there for a reason. Mr. Arugu: But he could still hold employment right? Mr. Kirby: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Arugu: And his employment should not be jeopardized for any reason compared to his colleagues, correct, based on his sex offender status alone, correct? Mr. Kirby: No. Mr. Arugu: That will be all. Mr. Redden: Thank you. Do you have any other questions for the witness. Mr. Wood: I need to follow -up. Mr. Kirby, I need to clarify one issue. Earlier you were asked several questions about ... the questions were Mr. Sanchez being restricted from driving a City vehicle. Are you aware of that particular restriction ever being imposed on Mr. Sanchez? Mr. Kirby: His only restriction is to drive with somebody else in the car _ with him. He can drive the vehicle but he needs to have another City employee with him in the car while he is driving. Mr. Wood: But the City never revoked his driving privileges, correct? Mr. Kirby: Not that I am-aware of unless something happened that I don't know about. Mr. Wood: Let me direct your attention to, do you still have the exhibits in front of you? Mr. Kirby: I sure do. Mr. Wood: The November 7th, 2001 letter please. I'm going to direct your attention to the second paragraph where it states the suspension which started on November 1st, 2001 and would run through Tuesday November 6th, 2001, do you see that? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Wood: Does Mr. Sanchez work on weekends? Mr. Kirby: No, he does not. Mr_ Wood: So he doesn't work on Saturdays or Sundays, correct? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 27 Mr. Kirby: No sir, lie does not. Mr. Wood: His suspension would have started on November 1st, 2001? Mr. Kirby: Correct. Mr. Wood: According to my count, Tuesday, November 6 ... November 1st would have been a Thursday correct? Mr. Kirby: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: O.k. he would not have worked on Thursday, thats one day. November 2nd is a Friday, he wouldn't have worked that day correct? Mr. Kirby: Correct. Mr. Wood: The 3rd and the 4th were the weekend, so he wouldn't have been suspended for those days, correct? Mr. Kirby: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: The 5th is a Monday, correct? Mr. Kirby: Yes. Mr. Wood: Thats three days and Tuesday, November 6th is the 4th day, correct? Mr. Kirby: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: So Mr. Sanchez was suspended ultimately for 4 days. Mr. Kirby: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: And that is consistent with the records that you made reference to earlier? Mr. Kirby: Yes sir it is. Mr. Wood: Now let me direct your attention to the Disciplinary Action Records that you were provided. There are two of them. Mr. Kirby: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: You were asked questions on what the effective date was of the suspension? Mr. Kirby: Yes. _ Mr. Wood: Let me direct your attention to both of these documents where it states in Section 2 at the bottom, excuse me, Section 3 at the bottom, Effective Date. Do you see that? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE; 28 Mr_ Kirby: Yes sir_ Mr. Wood: What does it say on both of these documents? Mr. Kirby: November lst --- Mr. Wood: So both these documents consistently represent that Mr. Sanchez' suspension started on November 1st.? Mr. Kirby: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: Not on October 30th? Mr. Kirby: Correct. Mr. Wood: That is all I have. Mr. Redden: Mr. Kirby, you may step down now. Mr. Wood: Next witness is Lisa Jones. Would you please state your name for the record. Ms. Jones: Lisa Jones. Mr. Wood: And what is your position with the City? Ms. Jones: Superintendent of Recreation. Mr. Wood: And we've already heard that you were called to attend the grievance meeting on October 30th, 2001, is that correct. Ms. Jones: Correct. Mr. Wood: Can you explain what your involvement was at that meeting? Mrs. Jones: I was asked by Mr. Kirby to.come in as a non - partisan, if you will. I've worked with Mr. Sanchez in the past but he does not work for me, only on special occasions. Mr. Wood: And you were present for the meeting? Ms. Jones: Yes, I was. Mr. Wood: Can you explain to the Board what your observations were of what happened during that meeting? Ms. Jones: O.k. When I was called into the meeting, it was myself, Mr. Kirby and Mr. Sanchez. And Mr. Kirby stated to Mr. Sanchez that we would be reviewing his two grievance complaints, if you will. One dealing with his dissatisfaction of his previous grievance and the other would be his evaluation from 2001. Mr. Wood: What happened then? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 29 Ms. Jones: At that point, Mr. Sanchez asked for a witness to come in. Mr. Kirby stated that I was there for any reasons like that and at that point Mr. Sanchez asked if he could use a tape recorder_ Mr. Kirby declined that and I believe at that point he did not want to talk anymore. Mr. Kirby asked that I remove the tape recorder and take that out of the room. At that point, Mr. Kirby started to review once again the grievance. I believe he started with his previous grievances. Mr. Sanchez said that without a witness or tape recording he would not respond. Mr. Kirby asked him again with no response coming from Mr. Sanchez. At that point Mr. Kirby said that he ruled that that would stand and he went on to the next one. The next grievance was the re- evaluation if you will, for his performance. And when he went over that, no response from Mr. Sanchez. Mr. Kirby asked him again and Mr. Sanchez with no response. Mr. Kirby asked him again and Mr. Sanchez with no reply. He said he would not reply without any witnesses or tape recording. Mr. Kirby said that that would stand as well. I believe he told Mr. Sanchez that it was his request to come in there and that this is his time to speak. No responses after a couple of more direct questions. Mr. Kirby said to Mr. Sanchez that that was insubordination and that he would discipline him as such if he did not provide the answers for the questions that he was asking. No response came. He said that he would discipline him and at that time the meeting was over. And Mr. Sanchez said at the end that this was a one sided meeting. Mr. Wood: Anything else about the meeting that you recall? Ms. Jones: No sir, it was pretty brief. Mr. Redden: Your witness. Mr. Arugu: Hi Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones: Good evening. Mr. Arugu: You were present at this meeting correct? Ms. Jones: Thats correct. Mr. Arugu: Were you told why you should be present at this meeting? Ms. Jones: No sir, he requested that I sit in on it. Mr. Arugu: Did he tell you why he wanted you to sit in on the meeting? Ms. Jones: I knew the context of the meeting. - Mr. Arugu: Did he tell you why he wanted you to sit in on the meeting. Ms. Jones: No he did not. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 30 Mr. Arugu: Might it be because he wanted you to serve as a witness of what transpired at the meeting? Ms. Jones: Ah...that would be speculative on my part. Mr. Arugu: Might it be? Ms. Jones: If I were speculating. Mr. Arugu: Yes or no. Ms. Jones: If I were speculating. Mr. Arugu: If you are speculating, yes or no. Ms. Jones: It could be. Mr. Arugu: O.k. Did he tell you to take notes at this meeting? Ms. Jones: No, he did not. Mr. Arugu: Did the issue of taking notes ever come up during this meeting? Ms. Jones: No. Mr. Arugu: So it is correct then to state that you were there not to take notes? Ms. Jones: I'm sorry? Mr. Arugu: Its correct to state that you were at the meeting not to take notes? Ms. Jones: I would say that is correct. Mr. Arugu: Now, from your testimony, I hear that there were basically two issues, that of the regrading, correct? Ms. Jones: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Do you know the details about the grading or regrading? Ms. Jones: No sir. Mr. Arugu: So you can't really comment on the details, right? Ms. Jones: That is correct. Mr. Arugu: Now, was there any other issue addressed other that regrading? _ Ms. Jones: Yes, it was Mr. Sanchez' request to revisit, if you will, his dissatisfaction of the conclusion of his previous grievance as I understand it. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE. BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGL; 31 Mr- Arugu: Do you know what the previous grievance was about? Ms- Jones: Revocation of his driving privileges. Mr. Arugu: Do you know the details surrounding the revocation of his driving privileges? Ms. Jones: I believe so, yes. Mr. Arugu: Did you hear this from somebody or it is of direct knowledge that you know about it? Ms. Jones: Direct knowledge, I knew of the situation at hand. Mr. Arugu: Would you please ... I have to back up. Ms. Jones, have you in the past been asked to be present in meetings of this kind? Ms. Jones: Not in a grievance meeting, no. Mr. Arugu: So, you don't know if there have been any grievance meetings in the past where an employee's request to have an employee as a witness been denied or granted? Ms. Jones: I have no knowledge of that, no. Mr. Arugu: That will be all. Mr. Redden: Any other questions? Mr. Wood: No sir. Mr. Redden: You may step down. The City is prepared to rest at this time? Mr. Wood: Yes sir. Mr. Redden: Mr. Arugu, the City has rested its case. Do you want to call another witness? Mr. Arugu: Yes sir. I'd like to call Mr. Amador, Francis Amador. Mr. Amador Francis. Sir would you please state your name for the record. Mr.Francis: I am Amador Francis. I was superintendent of Ground Maintenance, now retired. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Francis, do you know Mr. Patricio Sanchez? Mr.Francis: Yeah, I know him for 16 years. Mr. Arugu: Did Mr. Sanchez work with you at any time.? Mr.Francis: Yes, He worked under me as superintendent and he was one of the MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 32 supervisors. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Amador, do you recollect any time during Mr. Sanchez employment when he had a problem with the Criminal Justice System? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Do you know what the problem was? Mr.Francis: Its already been stated that its about child molestation or something. I'm not really paying attention but that was the context I learned. Mr. Arugu: Did you go to the court with Mr. Sanchez at any time? Mr.Francis: Yes, I was there probably in the last station or whatever it was, yes to give support. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if any employee of the City that was in a supervisory position or higher also attend court to give support? Mr.Francis: I'm not aware of. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Francis, are you aware of any time that Mr. Sanchez had an accident with a City vehicle? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if a disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Sanchez for the accident? Mr.Francis: Yes, I learned about it later --- about what was happening. The way I learned about it is that Mr. Sanchez was in an accident with very minor damage. But because he was ticketed by a policeman he had to report it to the City. In my own personal opinion if he didn't report it to the City no one would know because there is a minor dent, not even a dent. But because he is honest enough as an employee he gets to go through the procedure by reporting it to the City. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Francis, prior to this accident we're speaking about, are you aware of any other times that Mr. Sanchez has had an accident with the City vehicle? Mr.Francis: I'm not aware of. Mr. Arugu: Are you aware of any employees that you have worked with that have had accidents with a City vehicle? Mr.Francis: Yeah, I can recall Larry Thomas and myself. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if Larry Thomas was written up or disciplined for having an accident in a City vehicle? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 3 Mr.Francis: I'm not aware of. Mr. Arugu: You just stated that you, yourself, had an accident, correct? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Were you disciplined? Mr.Francis: I believe that my boss gave me a letter of reprimand, if I can recall. I'm not so sure now. But its something, the accident that was completely my fault, and I admit it my fault. Mr. Arugu: Did you receive a periodic evaluation from your boss? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Do you recollect if you were regraded because of your accident? Mr.Francis: No. Mr. Arugu: Do you recollect if your performance scores were reduced because of the accident you had? Mr.Francis: No. Mr. Arugu: Have you had any occasion to do a performance evaluation of any' employee that was under you that has had an accident with a City vehicle? Mr.Francis: I've not had that experience evaluation someone who has had an accident. Mr. Arugu: Are you aware of any policy or practice with the City that requires that an employee be down graded for having an accident with a City vehicle? Mr.Francis: Definitely, I'm not aware of. Mr. Arugu: Now did you provide a performance evaluation some time for Patricio Sanchez? Mr.Francis: Yes, for several years. Mr. Arugu: When was the last performance evaluation that you provided? Mr.Francis: I believe it was 2001. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if this was the evaluation that was later regraded? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Were you consulted before the regrading was done? Mr.Francis: I was consulted. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PACE 34 Mr. Arugu: Will you please explain to the Board why the regrading was done to your understanding? Mr.Francis: O.k. It was a money matter_ There is only so much for everybody. But I gave...fuzzy ... Patricio Sanchez top performer. But then they came to me later, that among others, just like the others, this has to be changed. O.k. thats only Mr. Sanchez with some others, but they had to be reduced, to change it. I was informed by Mr. Jeffries that if I don't change it, Mike Kirby will change it. I said go ahead let Mike change it, I will not. Mr. Arugu: Why did you refuse to change it? Mr.Francis: Well, honestly, he did good work for me and I was o.k. with the accident because to me it was the work that mattered, not the accident or anything else. What you have done during the year is what my evaluations are all about. Mr. Arugu: O.k. Mr. Francis, in your assessment of Mr. Sanchez, was he a team player? Mr.Francis: He is definitely a team player. Mr. Arugu: Can you expand on that? Mr.Francis: O.k. Every morning I get the supervisors, I required them to submit to me their agenda for today. O.k. we look over them, we discuss them, and if there are some changes, we talk about it. _ And from their report in the morning I get another form write it down and submit it to City Hall to Mr. Jeffries who was my direct boss. So he knows whats going on. And I check the work they are doing in the field, I just don't sit in my office. I go around without even their knowledge aside from killing fire ants and wasps. This what I do everyday. So I know that they are working right in the field to my satisfaction. Mir.. Arugu: Have Mr. Sanchez ever challenged or questioned your authority? Mr.Francis: Sometimes we had discussions about how the work is done, but thats normal. Mr. Arugu: O.K_ Did you at any time, when you evaluated Mr. Sanchez, taken into consideration negatively of any questions of your choices? Mr.Francis: There are so many items that you got to go through when you talk _ to them. One of the things that they look at is his communication skills, its really not that bad, but I was telling him to improve as well as he can because at times you've got to say the right things, you know. But these are things that are accidents, you _ know, with him being Spanish, and I'm Philippino, you know its so different. Mr. Arugu: Now is it correct to state that Mr. Sanchez is not an employee that questions authority? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 35 Mr.Francis: Can you restate your question? Mr. Arugu: It is correct to state that Mr. Sanchez is not an employee that will question or challenge his supervisors? Mr.Francis: No, I don't let him challenge my authority. Mr. Arugu: Is he the kind of employee that would challenge your authority? Mr.Francis: I don't think so but as far as I am concerned he is under control. Mr. Arugu: Has Mr. Sanchez ever had problems concerning his job prior to the anonymous letter that the City received concerning his sex offender status? Mr.Francis: No. Mr. Arugu: Has he been a modest employee until the letter was received by the City. Mr.Francis: Yes, its no problem really. Mr. Arugu: Do you know, Mr. Francis, what might be the reason for the regrading of his performance scores other than the reasons you were told? Mr.Francis: I won't say what I know, the thing is when he was being reevaluated I was asked by Mr. Jeffries to come and attend this meeting with Mr. Sanchez. They had meeting you know, and talk about the items before the evaluations so Mr. Jeffries asked me if I could come, I said no, whats your problem now, I have done my evaluations and that all, I stick to it. Mr. Arugu: So you did not attend any meetings where it was discussed whether or not to regrade the performance scores you gave Mr. Sanchez? Mr.Francis: I refused, I refused to change. Mr. Arugu: So you did not..., Mr. Francis do you have anything about Mr. Sanchez work performance that you can tell the Board this evening? Mr.Francis: I really cannot say anything about this. Thats why I gave-him top performer rating to him. As I said all my performance rating is based on what he has done during the last year, not during the future or the year before. Its one year based on that. Mr. Arugu: Are you aware of any other employees whose performance scores were regraded? Mr.Francis: Ah, yes. Mr. Arugu: Do you have direct knowledge why? Mr.Francis: Well, it is so that they, someone, told me that they just weren't MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 36 that. Mr. Arugu: You don't have direct knowledge, correct? Mr.Francis: I gave him the performance rating, but it was changed again. Mr. Arugu: For Mr. Sanchez or somebody else? Mr.Francis: Somebody else. Mr. Arugu: Did you speak to that performance? Mr.Francis: Yes, again and it was changed. Mr. Arugu: Did they tell you why the changed it? Mr.Francis: I don't know. Mr. Arugu: Did they tell you why it was changed? Mr.Francis: It seems that ... you know that is what is wrong with this performance, when you are put in some category you got to ... for us performance ratings have the purpose of improving yourself and you strive because it means more money, but in this performance rating, you are rated down in the dumps, and I can say some examples. Mr. Arugu: Please go on. _ Mr. Wood: I object, that is not a question. He answered his question. Mr. Redden: Sustained. Mr. Arugu: What examples do you have to give in connection with the statement that you just made? Mr.Francis: You want the person? Mr. Arugu: If you're giving examples, please feel free... Mr.Francis: O.k., I got two persons, Roy Magnify and Bill Barrington. Mr. Arugu: O.k. What about them? Mr.Francis: I put them...I gave them top performer because they had improved a lot through my guidance and I had asked them to perform specific duties and they did very well so its an improvement from the previous so they deserved to be raised. But I was ... they said they were only what you call a performer. Mr. Arugu: Very well Mr. Francis, do you know if the regrading of the performance scores that you gave Mr. Sanchez would have been as a result of the City's concern about his sex offender status? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE: 37 Mr.Francis: I don't know. Mr. Arugu: Very well, that will be all. Mr. Wood: Good evening Mr. Francis. Mr.Francis: Good evening sir. Mr. Wood: When did you retire sir? Mr.Francis: Ah, January lit of 2002. Mr. Wood: Congratulations. Mr.Francis: Thank you. I am enjoying it. Mr. Wood: The evaluation that you did in the fall of 2001, those would have been the last performance evaluations that you did correct? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Wood: And how long have you been doing annual evaluations for people? Mr.Francis: Since I joined the City in 1994, but previous to that I worked with the City to and I had been doing it to. Mr. Wood: So you're well aware with the evaluation and the forms that you will fill out correct? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Wood: And they are something you routinely do as part of your job duties? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Wood: Now from hearing your testimony it sounds like you were aware that during the rating period for Mr. Sanchez the last rating period that you evaluated that he had been in an accident in a City vehicle and he was written up for that, correct? Mr.Francis: Yes, I'm aware. Mr. Wood: And the performance evaluation form has a category for safety, care and use of assigned equipment, tools, uniforms, and or supplies, that is one of the categories that you evaluated Mr. Sanchez on, correct? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Wood: And in that category you gave Mr. Sanchez the highest rating you possibly could have given him, an outstanding performer, correct? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 38 Mr.Francis: Yeah, because the nature of the accident and all... Mr. Wood: But you didn't even take that into consideration, he actually got written up during this evaluation period for that and you gave him the top rating that you could possibly give him in that category, correct? Mr.Francis: Yeah. Mr. Wood: Now isn't it true that your supervisor, Mr. Jeffries, was your supervisor when you worked for the City, correct? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Wood: And he had the responsibility to review the evaluations that you did on all your subordinates, correct? Mr.Francis: Yes. Mr. Wood: And he explained to you that at least on that issue he took issue with how you evaluated Mr. Sanchez, were you aware of that? Mr.Francis: I don't remember if we talked about it. Mr. Wood: O.k. Mr.Francis: I don't remember. Mr. Wood: so you may just not have talked with Mr. Jeffries about it at all? Mr.Francis: Probably not, probably not. Mr. Wood: Once he informed you that he disagreed with your evaluation, you may have said I don't want to have anything to do with it, I'm done with this, I've done my work and that was the end of it, as far as you are concerned? Mr.Francis: Yeah, because they are doing a good job. Let me explain... Mr. Wood: You gave virtually... nobody fell in the category of performer.. Mr_ Arugu: Objection - Mr. Redden: Objection sustained. Now you're evaluating, Mr. Wood, whether or not he is competent enough to make that call. He answered your question. You said you gave all your employees high evaluations and he said yes. Mr. Wood: 0. k. Mr. Redden: And I don't think it is fair for you to attack him for that answer_ Mr. Wood: I was just asking him a question. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 39 Sir, you were here to hear the testimony of this meeting on October 30"' of last year that Mr. Kirby had with Mr. Sanchez on his grievance, did you hear that testimony? Mr.Francis: No. Mr. Wood: You were not present at that grievance hearing, were you? Mr.Francis: I don't think so, I don't remember. You mean when Lisa Jones was there? Mr. Wood: Yeah, do you recall ever being present when Mr. Kirby asked Mr. Sanchez, please let me finish my question. Mr.Francis: If I remember right... Mr. Redden: Mr. Amador, please let him finish the question. Mr. Wood: Do you ever recall being present in October for a meeting between Mr. Kirby and Mr. Sanchez in which Mr. Kirby was asking Mr. Sanchez questions and Mr. Sanchez refused to answer him. Mr.Francis: No, I wasn't there. Mr. Wood: Thats all I have. Mr. Redden: Thank you. Mr. Wood do you have anything else for this... anybody else you are going to call? Mr. Wood: No. Mr. Redden: Mr. Arugu? Mr. Arugu: I would like to call... Mr. Redden: Oh there is another witness. Mr. Arugu: I would like to call Mr. Sanchez. Mr. Redden: You would like to call Mr. Sanchez? Mr. Arugu: Yes. Mr. Redden: Were you sworn in? Mr. Wood: He was not. Mr. Redden: You can come up and be sworn in. Before we start with Mr. Sanchez, we will take a five minute break to service our needs. 8:00, we will be back at 8:00. O.k., we will reconvene our hearing. Mr. Sanchez is coming up to be sworn in. Mr. Sanchez you want to raise your right had please. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 40 Please state your name. Mr.Sanchez: Patricio Sanchez_ Mr. Redden: Do you solemnly swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Sir, would you please state your name for the record? Mr.Sanchez: Patricio Sanchez. Mr. Arugu: Are you presently employed? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Who are you employed with? Mr.Sanchez: Employed with the City of Sanford as supervisor in the Grounds Maintenance Division. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Sanchez, do you remember at any time attending a grievance meeting where a Ms. Jones was present? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Do you recall why this meeting was held, the reason for the meeting? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if the meeting was to address the regrading of your evaluation? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Do you know if the meeting also was to address the suspension of your driving privileges? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Did anybody tell you why Lisa Jones was present at this meeting? - Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Who? Mr.Sanchez: Mr. Mike Kirby. Mr. Arugu: Did Mike Kirby tell you why, the reason for Lisa's presence at the meeting? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 41 Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: What did he say? Mr.Sanchez: He told me that she was there just to take notes of the meeting. Mr. Arugu: Did you request to have a witness present at that meeting? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: What was the response? Mr.Sanchez: No, I'm not allowed. Mr. Arugu: And who told you that? Mr.Sanchez: Mr. Kirby. Mr. Arugu: Did he give you a reason why not? Mr.Sanchez: No. Mr. Arugu: Did you request to have the meeting tape recorded? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Were you allowed to tape record the meeting? Mr-Sanchez: No sir. Mr. Arugu: Who refused you to tape record the meeting? Mr.Sanchez: Mr. Mike Kirby. Mr. Arugu: Did he give you a reason why? Mr.Sanchez: No sir. Mr. Arugu: Why did you want a witness present at that meeting Mr. Sanchez? Mr.Sanchez: Because, basically, I've been going from meeting to meting Trying to trade off this situation and I've been finding out very clear that the statements been changed. One person say something then- " say that they didn't say it. I have nothing in writing. I need somebody to serve like a witness and can testify in a case like his. But some of the men including Mr. Jeffries, they refuse to sign it because they completely lie and I was involved. It was my career, that is in my record. I didn't want to say anything without somebody present here. And then Mr. Kirby said well Lisa is here and I told him but she is your witness, as she proved today, lying saying she wasn't there taking notes. Mr. Arugu: I'm sorry, what did you say about_ notes? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 1,„, I. AI Mr-Sanchez: That when he said that Lisa was present as a witness at our meeting, I say that she was his witness, not my witness because testimony shows today that she changed words, saying that -she wasn't there taking notes. Mr. Arugu: Did you have any discussions with Lisa Jones after the meeting? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Will you please explain to the Board the discussion you had with Ms. Jones? Mr.Sanchez: Yes, I was trying to remember correctly, one or two days after I decided to have a copy of those minutes and I approached her. She was at the Civic Center helping with the Golden Age Games and I asked her if I could have a copy of those minutes knowing that she was the one that took notes. She told me that they were in the file but she needed to check with Mr. Kirby before I have them. I say its o.k., I'm gonna just ask in writing and that is what I did. Mr. Arugu: Now, Ms. Jones testified before the Board that she was never asked to take notes and she did not take notes, is that true or false? Mr. Wood: I object to that question. That assumes facts that are not in evidence. Her answer, as I recall, and the record will reflect, she was not asked to take notes. She was not asked by anybody whether in fact she did take notes during that meeting. I believe _ the tape recording will bear that out. It assumes facts not in evidence. Mr. Redden: I don't recall the question so I don't want to make a ruling on it as such. Is it possible that if we have to, we could readdress Lisa Jones testimony and have her recalled to the stand. The City is saying that she did not say that. Are we at an impasse or could we proceed? Mr. Arugu: My recollection of Ms. Jones' testimony is that she never took notes. And I can, on that basis, ask Mr. Sanchez if Ms. Jones ever told him some time that she took notes. And if the answer were to be yes then there is a contradiction here, that is what we are trying to establish. Mr. Wood: If he is going to ask this witness whether he observed Ms. Jones taking notes.... Mr. Arugu: That is not, that is not what I just stated. Mr. Redden: Gentlemen, gentlemen. We can resolve this. Mr. Sanchez would you please step down from the witness stand. Have a seat right over there. The Board would like to recall Ms. Lisa Jones for the point of clarification on her testimony and if this don't clear it up, I guess we'll have to listen to the tape. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 4: Ms- Jones. Ms. Jones: Yes sir- Mr. Redden: You may direct the question at Ms. Jones. Mr. Arugu: Ms. Jones were you ... did you take notes at the grievance meeting? Ms. Jones: Yes I did. Mr. Redden: Ms. Jones answered the question. You may step down. Mr. Sanchez, you can come back. You may answer Mr. Arugu's question. Mr. Wood: We object to that question because not it has firmly been established that his question assumes facts not in evidence. Mr. Arugu: And in fact, I must state to the Board that Ms. Jones stated during her previous testimony that she did not take notes. Mr. Wood: She did not testify to that. Mr. Redden: Mr. Arugu the Board, other Board members, heard testimony just like you did, they have a decision to make. You've asked the question, Ms. Jones was recalled to the stand.. Now if it becomes an issue that we have to go back and play this tape, we'll do whatever is necessary but at this particular point, I want to keep you Mr. Arugu and Mr. Wood on track so that we can proceed on, if that is possible. Mr. Arugu: Very well, that is possible, but I would like to add that at this point, we will request that in the Board's deliberation, the Board does listen to the tape as to the initial testimony of Ms. Jones, and the Board will find on the tape that Ms. Jones testified before the Board that she did not take notes and if fact she answered no to my question when I asked her specifically was she asked to take notes. She has just stated that she took notes. Mr. Redden: The Board will take under consideration your request Mr. Arugu. Mr. Arugu: Thank you sir. Mr. Redden: You may proceed. Mr. Arugu: Now, Mr. Sanchez, you were stating that you had a discussion with Ms. Jones after the meeting correct? Mr.Sanchez: yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Will you please restate what that discussion was? Mr.Sanchez: Yes. I approached here about two days after the meeting at the Civic Center where she was working helping with the Golden Age Games and I asked her if I could have a copy of those notes from the meeting that we had and she said she didn't have them right MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 44 then and there, they were in the file. But she needed to ask Mr. Mike Kirby in order to give them to me_ I said well I need as soon as possible and I'm gonna request in writing and that what I did right there after I talked to her. I went to the boss' office and I put in a written request for those notes because she told me that there were notes. Mr. Arugu: May I approach. Mr. Redden: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: I believe this document, I just have this copy, I believe this document is in the packet. Mr. Redden: Did you show it to... Mr. Arugu: Yes Mr. Wood: If these documents are in the packet I don't object to them but I need to state that this issue has also been grieved and fully exhausted through the non - disciplinary grievance procedure and heard by the City Manager. Mr. Arugu: We are trying to establish that actually there are ... fuzzy.. admitted that Mr. Sanchez request for and he did not receive, and in fact the Board will find from this memo that there was in fact a discussion with Ms. Jones about notes. And if the Board does go back to the tapes the Board will also find that Ms. Jones said _ that she didn't take any notes.. Mr. Redden: Just for your own information Mr. Arugu and Mr. Wood, the Board is allowing this kind of a wide latitude or range because its, I haven't been doing this for years or anything, and I'm not trying to suggest that, but it just seems that this thing is kind of just going in all kinds of different directions and we don't want anybody to feel cut short in this. We want both sides to make your points and that all I'm trying to do but if we have to, like I said prior to this, we'll listen to the tapes. Mr. Wood: If it will speed things along, everything that he said prior to his reference to the tape, we stipulate to. We stipulate she took notes, we stipulate Mr. Sanchez asked for them, we stipulate that they were not produced to him, we stipulate that he had discussions with Ms. Jones about them. Mr. Arugu: We are fine with that stipulation if they stipulate to that, we are fine. Mr. Redden: O.k. Mr. Wood: There you go. Mr. Redden: Then proceed. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 45 Mr. Arugu: And that will be all for the witness. Mr. Redden: Did you have any questions Mr. Wood? Mr. Wood: Yes sir. Good evening Mr. Sanchez. Mr.Sanchez: Good evening. Mr. Wood: You and I met at the grievance hearing before the City Manager correct? Mr.Sanchez: Correct, really in the parking lot. Mr. Wood: Thats right and that grievance hearing pertained to your issue over... Mr. Arugu: The question being asked does not address the examination of the witness. Cross examination should be limited to crossing the witness on the questions asked by counsel and his answers. Mr. Wood: If they would like for me, if he would like for me to recall this witness as a rebuttal witness in my case, I'm more than happy to do it. This is... Mr. Arugu: You can very well do so if you want to do so but you must limit your cross examination to the questions that I asked the witness. Mr. Wood: This isn't a legal court proceeding and this is my opportunity to ask this witness questions about all these issues that have been raised over my objections that are not before the Board. The Board doesn't have jurisdiction to hear all these issues. Mr. Arugu: You can call the rebuttal witness if you want to do so. Mr. Wood: That is ... I'm trying to save time here. Mr. Redden: Listen, I don't want your or Mr. Arugu to say that we circumvented due process. If that is protocol that you call them as a rebuttal witness then do that. Mr. Wood: O.k. Mr. Sanchez during this meeting that you had with Mr_. Kirby that was pertaining to your grievance over the evaluation correct ? - Mr.Sanchez: Correct. Mr. Wood: And you had already had that proceed through one step of the grievance procedure, your immediate supervisor, correct? Mr.Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Wood: And so Mr. Kirby was your next step to discuss that issue right? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 46 Mr. Wood: And the purpose of that meeting was also to discuss the grievance that you had previously filed regarding the driving restriction that had been placed on you? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: And you've heard the testimony of Mr. Kirby, it sounds like you refused to answer his questions correct? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: He asked you about the evaluation and you said I'm not answering your questions correct? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: And then he proceeded to discuss the issue on the driving restriction and you refused to answer those questions as well, right? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: Did he also explain to you that he considered it to be insubordination that he is the Department Director and he is asking you questions about your grievance this is your opportunity to be heard but you needed to answer his questions? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. _ Mr. Wood: And you still refused to answer his questions? Mr.Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Wood: That is all I have at this time. Mr. Redden: O.k. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Sanchez, you just stated that you refused answering Mr. Kirby's questions, correct? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Will you please explain to the Board why? Mr.Sanchez: For several reasons. That was my second grievance including the regrade of my evaluation, my performance evaluation, and the previous grievance which were blocked up before I had time to ... fuzzy...city Manager and knowing that Mike Kirby was the person that regraded my, for my evaluation to be regraded. . There was nothing that he can work out on the evaluation and he said many times that he was not going to change it, you won't have it, that is the way its going to be. So what I presumed it was to go to the City Manager which is the due process... fuzzy... the disciplinary grievance. The first one was blocked up as MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 47 a .... fuzzy....and nobody did nothing about that. They had a copy of that with no signature as a Department Head. That was the first one. How can you expect that I'm going to have any result of the second one having many a problem on my evaluation... fuzzy ...another employee. Mr. Arugu: Did you have any concerns about in declining to answer questions, did you have any concerns about you not having a witness present? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: Why? Mr.Sanchez: Because... calling the meeting with Mr. Kirby and Mr. Jeffries being changed completely and they produced documents against my performance basis are not true and I not going to cooperate by messing up my record. I not going to do it. So I decided don't talk without somebody with me. Mr. Arugu: So your refusal to answer questions that day is not because you just did not want to answer questions, it is because you wanted a witness present? Mr.Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Arugu: Thats all. Mr. Wood: Now, if I heard your correctly, didn't you say you wanted to be heard by the City Manager on these grievances? Mr.Sanchez: So I didn't solve it all. That they proceed with the rules as the book say, and sign it and send me to the City Manager. Mr. Wood: And you were not deprived from seeing the City Manager on those grievances were you? Mr.Sanchez: After I refused to talk, they have no choice but to sign it off, suspend me and let me go home, very angry, and just send me to the City Manager. They had no choice. Mr. Arugu: I Object. As I understand it, he has one option to cross examine. I don't know if it is right to call him as a witness. I just don't know. Mr. Wood: I am asking a follow -up question to his question that he asked when he opened the door to it by saying that he wanted to be heard by the City Manager. I'm just clarifying the issue. I have every legal right to do that. Mr. Redden: Proceed. Mr_. Wood: You wanted to be heard by the City Manager on your grievance pertaining to the evaluations right? MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE: 48 Mr.Sanchez: Or somebody besides Mr_ Kirby. Mr. Wood: And you were heard by the City Manager on your grievance regarding the evaluation correct? Mr.Sanchez: ...fuzzy... Mr. Arugu: I object.... fuzzy..._ Mr. Wood: None of it is relevant. I've been saying that for the last 2'--2 hours but he has been asking these questions, I'm just trying to clarify. Mr. Redden: Direct your questions and statements to the witness, Mr. Wood please. Mr. Wood: Sir, did you have your grievance regarding your evaluation heard by the City Manager. Mr.Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Wood: And he ultimately ruled against you on that issue, correct? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Arugu: I object again. The grievance with the City Manager is not the reason we are here and I did not ask any questions about grievances with the City Manager. Mr. Wood: But he is asking, he answered the questions that he was asked and he raised that he wanted to be heard by the City Manager. I'm just making the record clear that he wasn't deprived of the grievance process. Mr. Redden: Thank you Mr. Wood. Any other questions? Mr. Wood: Yes sir. The other grievance that was being heard by Mr. Kirby pertained to this driving restriction, correct? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Wood: And you wanted that to be heard by the City Manager as well? Mr.Sanchez: I needed a result. Mr. Wood: And he heard that didn't he? Mr.Sanchez: ...fuzzy... Mr. Wood: You had a hearing before the City Manager. In fact, we were present at that weren't we? Mr.Sanchez: Yes. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 49 Mr. Wood: And the City Manager ruled against you on that issue as well? Mr.Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Wood: Now, I have no further questions. Mr. Redden: Thank you. Any other questions of this witness? Any questions by the Board? I have a question Mr. Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez you filed a grievance with the City of Sanford is that correct? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Redden: Mr. Sanchez, obviously you feel that due process was not afforded you in this matter. Mr.Sanchez: That is correct. Mr. Redden: Would you please tell this Board , if you can, why you feel due process was not afforded you in this matter? Mr.Sanchez: There is .... fuzzy....72 hours after the grievance been filed to speak to the supervisor then go to the Department Head. If they could not solve it, it goes to the City Manager. You can see the date of my first grievance and that date when the person, ah..the department received it. And its still without the signature of the Department Head. So it means that they did nothing about that one. Mr. Redden: Who was the first, your immediate supervisor, Mr. Amador? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. Mr. Redden: Is it a standard policy with the City of Sanford if they are unable solve the matter it would be referred to the next highest authority? Mr.Sanchez: Yes sir. I believe right down there the last part of the document it state it very clear. Mr. Redden: I don't have no other questions of this witness. You may step down sir. Anybody got questions of Mr. Jeffries? Anybody got questions of Mr. Amador? O.k., the City Attorney will make closing statements or remarks followed by the appellant. Mr. Arugu: Excuse me. During the recess, I did mention to you that after calling Mr. Sanchez, you would consider me calling one more witness. Mr. Redden: You did sir. _ Mr. Arugu: I will ask this witness only one or two questions. Mr. Redden: And if you do ask him one or two questions which you have a right to do, Mr. Wood has a right to ask one or two questions. Who is your witness. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Jeffries. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE' 50 Mr. Redden: Mr. Jeffries. Mr_ Arugu: I promise I'll be quick. Mr. Jeffries you are sworn already. Would you please state your name for the record. Mr.Jeffries: Howard Jeffries. Mr. Arugu: Do you recollect being present at any grievance meeting where the City Manager was present. Mr.Jeffries: Yes I do. Mr. Arugu: Do you recollect if the City Manager made a decision denying his allegations concerning the driving accident? Mr.Jeffries: Say that again. Mr. Arugu: Did the City Manager make a decision denying Mr. Sanchez allegations concerning the accident? Mr.Jeffries: Are you saying that he did not accept, that he did not have the accident or Patricio said he did not have the accident? Mr. Arugu: No. Did the City Manager make a ruling on the accident? Mr.Jeffries: Yes. Mr. Wood: We stipulate to this, I believe it is part of what you all have. Mr. Arugu: Mr. Jeffries please. Mr.Jeffries: What section you want me to look at? Mr. Arugu: Would you please look at Page 1, the second paragraph and the third paragraph. After you're done, I'd like to ask you one or two questions and I'll be done. Mr.Jeffries: O.k. Mr. Arugu: Is it correct that the City Manager did not make any decision concerning Mr. Sanchez' accident? Mr.Jeffries: That is true. Mr. Arugu: Is it the true that.. Mr.Jeffries: Wait, let me back up, when you asked me that question that pertains to drive a City vehicle. Mr. Arugu: Yes. Mr.Jeffries: O.k. that has nothing to do with the accident. Mr_ Arugu: Yes, now, let me back up myself. Is this connected in any way to the accident that you are aware of? Mr.Jeffries: The City driving privileges, no. MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE: 5 1. Mr- Arugu: So is there anywhere in this memo where the City Manager ruled on the accident issue? Mr.Jeffries:It says in the second paragraph on Page 2, it says the information was not provided the Manager with clear evidence the employee was not at fault. Page 2, second paragraph, last sentence. Mr. Arugu: O.k. and basically, the City Manager says there is not enough information, correct? Mr.Jeffries: Correct. Mr. Arugu: That is all. Mr. Wood: No question. We rest. Mr. Arugu: We rest. Mr. Redden: This hearing is officially closed. You can present your closing statements if you have any, followed by Mr. Arugu. Mr. Wood: Thank you all. I appreciate your time and patience. The last time I was before the Board, I think it was well after midnight before I got to this point, so, I feel like I have accomplished something here on a hearing that may be shouldn't have lasted this long. What I've heard this evening is a classic example of taking your _ eye off the ball. What Mr. Arugu has tried to do is take your eye off here. We had a meeting, Mr. Kirby had a meeting with Mr. Sanchez that pertained to two grievances that Mr. Sanchez had filed. Mr. Sanchez' opportunity to be heard and Mr. Sanchez refused to talk during that meeting_ Period, end of story. His supervisor, his department director said sir this is your opportunity to be heard and its insubordination if you refuse to answer my questions. And Mr. Sanchez refused to answer the questions. If that is not insubordination, we might as well erase the word from Webster's Dictionary because that is what, exactly what happened in this instance. The presentation that I heard over here wants to get you all eyes over there on that map talking about this evaluation or reevaluation which is something that is not before the Board, then wants you to focus on something up _ there on the screen talking about his status as a sex offender and you know his objection to that. Certainly, there is no question Mr. Sanchez objected to the driving restriction. There is no objection that he was dissatisfied with his performance evaluation. You all could probably take judicial notice that most of the employees with the _. City of Sanford who gets less than top scores on their evaluation are upset to one degree or another. Mr. Sanchez wasn't happy about that but that is not what we're here about. But they want you all to look over there at the evaluation and look over here at this driving restriction that was placed on Mr. Sanchez, but that is not what_ this hearing is about_ What is before you, the only issue before you is the grievance that was filed by Mr. Sanchez on MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 52 the insubordination findings made against him and the 4 -day suspension he received. Now, you heard a lot of talk over here about this was more than a 4 -day suspension. The record evidence here is clear. He was suspended from November 15t through November 6t" and there was a weekend in between. So ultimately the discipline here was 4 -days. Now, Mr. Kirby testified originally he was going to suspend the man for two weeks and he was subjected to some tough cross examination on this issue, but I suspect that if we get down to the truth of the matter, Mr. Sanchez' attorney wouldn't object to the fact that the Department Director actually took it upon himself to mitigate his own discipline. I suspect that that is a pretty rare event in the City of Sanford or for that matter, a lot of other places. But Mr. Kirby was man enough to do it. He looked at the circumstances. He obviously was mad when he was talking to a subordinate who was there for his own grievances and he refused to talk during those grievances. Mr. Kirby was obviously upset about that. He took some time to think about it, calmed down and reevaluated it and reduced the discipline to 4- days. The man is not to be condemned for that. That is good supervision and a good decision by a department director. But I admit his insubordination is a terminable offense. We could, in fact, be before you all on a termination proceeding. Because a lot of supervisors would terminate someone for insubordination and that wasn't something ever considered in this instance. So the bottom line here is it is undisputed that everybody that has _ testified, including Mr. Sanchez, admits that he refused to answer questions, refused to cooperate with the Department Director, and refused to answer questions and questions that pertained to his own grievances. That is clear insubordination. The appropriate discipline in this instance is 4 -days. These other issues are irrelevant for your all purpose. They took up a lot of time with issues that were not before you and we ask you to uphold the City's disciplinary action in this matter. We thank you for your time. Mr. Redden: Thank you. Mr. Arugu: I want to join in in thanking the Board for its patience. I do recognize you, that as the Chairman ... I recognize that we have, in this proceeding, sometimes attempted to go out of scope. Some times these things happen. It wasn't intended and we must apologize for that, to the extent that it was unplanned in that regard. What the City would want the Board to do today is have the Board pigeonholed in what they call insubordination. Without giving the Board the opportunity to look at the circumstances leading to this alleged insubordination. This Board, I believe _ strongly, is a Board of equity. This Board cannot be pigeonholed. This Board should go into the background and try to answer the question that this Board is presented here with today. Was Mr. Sanchez insubordinate? We are respectfully submitting that he was not based on the background of events and based on contradictory evidence that the Board has heard today. Now, as the evidence showed, Mr. Sanchez_ was a very good employee until. the anonymous letter was received by the City concerning his MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 53 sex offender status. The Board should note that it was from that point in time that all hell broke lose. Even Mr. Amador Francis, Mr. Sanchez' direct supervisor, had testified before the Board that Mr. Sanchez was a very good employee. In fact, his last evaluation was a top performer. In fact, Mr. Amador refused to change his scoring of Mr. Sanchez. Was Mr. Amador ... was any action taken against Mr. Amador Francis for insubordination. The Board needs to take note of this that is why the Board needs to know the background. The background is not that Mr. Sanchez refused to answer questions, and that is why the action was taken. We have a supervisor here, Mr. Francis, who refused to change the scores he gave Mr. Sanchez. Now in comparison, which is more serious, that no action was taken against Mr. Amador Francis. Now talking about the meeting with Mr. Kirby. Clearly, Mr. Sanchez admits that he declined answering questions but he said that he did not feel comfortable answering the questions based on what happened or transpired in the past. Several times in the past he has been misquoted, his statements misrepresented. All this man asked for was to have somebody present that will not only help him on the stand, what would have transpired at that meeting, but also serve as a possible witness if the need arises. Ms. Lisa Jones was at that meeting. She testified that she didn't know why she had to be at that meeting. Ms. Lisa Jones had no business to be at that meeting, but she was there because someone wanted her to serve as a witness. And she is here today as a witness. I, myself, will join in applauding Mr. Kirby for being a man to reduce the disciplinary action from two -weeks to one -week. I will also join in saying that rarely happens. We all know that it is very difficult for a supervisor to change his or her own disciplinary action. Something led to the change and the change was because the initial punishment was not commensurate with the crime or with the infraction. We have a man here that, for the most part, had a perfect record with the City. A man, in all of his years driving, have had only one accident and a very minor one for that matter. As affirmed in his supervisor's testimony, Mr. Amador Francis, but the City picked up on it and ran with it. What we see here is undeserved, unreasonable, over reaction by the City. You see we got this guy who is supposed to be labeled a sex offender, we knew about him all this time, we did nothing_ Now, somebody cries that we don't know about, somebody from the public or even someone with the employment system, in the City has cried that gee why do you have this guy. All of a sudden this guy does not deserve working for the City. That is the case that we have here today. The City does not want the Board to look at the background. The City has not said that there have been instances in the past where an employee has been regraded because of an _ accident. They have not contested that. In fact, Mr. Amador Francis said that he is not aware of that. He, himself, had an accident and he wasn't regraded. It is a smoke screen here. This alleged insubordination for not answering questions is a smoke screen for the alleged sexual offender status of Mr. Sanchez_ And we are respectfully asking the Board to look not just at the paper that says he was insubordinate for not answering questions, but look at the MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 1-0, 2002 PAGE 54 background_ And that is why the Board has the packet of evidence before the Board. We are asking that the Board turn over the decision suspending Mr. Sanchez and also pay him for the t -ime he was suspended that he was not paid. And that is our respectful submission. Thank you very much. Mr. Redden: The Board would like to thank both the City's representative and Mr. Sanchez' representative for making their presentations before the Board. At this time, we declare the hearing closed to any input of information and evidence. The Board will make discussion and on a proper motion present findings of facts in the form of a recommendation to the City Manager. Are you all ready to make a motion or recommendation? Having heard the presentation of the Attorney for the City and the Attorney for Mr. Sanchez, are you ready to make a motion to proceed? Mr. Polk moved to make a decision on the findings of the Board at this time. Seconded by Ms. Alexander. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Polk: My name is Lorenzo Polk. After listening to both sides, I feel that Mr. Sanchez had done a lot for the City of Sanford. After reading all of the documentation before me, I think he has been a great asset to the City. Look at the work that he has done . And I think communication is important on both sides. And after being stung one time, as Mr. Sanchez stated he was in the office with Mr. Kirby and Mr. Jeffries at one time, and they miscommunicated his sayings, I think I would be afraid also to go in by myself without a witness and that was to cover me. And I don't think that was asking a lot and as far as my vote, I go with Mr. Sanchez. Mr. Redden: So are you saying, Mr. Polk, that you ... you must clearly state that you are voting to rescind or affirm, and is this vote with the rescinding of the suspended days without pay and his days should be reinstated. You've got to clearly make your... Mr. Polk: Yes, I am saying that he should be reinstated and paid for the days that he missed, he was out, suspended for. Mr. Redden: As a point of clarification, Mr. Denaro do you think that wording is sufficient that the City Manager will understand what has taken place. Mr. Denaro: I think he'll understand what your recommendations are. The motion is to reinstate Mr. Sanchez for the 4 -days that he had lost in back pay. Is that.... Mr. Polk: Yes, exactly. Mr. Redden: You've heard the motion made by Mr. Polk and your vote will be indi- cated, ah ... the Secretary will make note of the ayes and nays. Are you ready to vote: MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 PAGE 55 Mr_ Picklesimer: Aye. Mrs. Alexander: Aye. Mr. Polk: Aye. Mr. Redden: Aye. Mr. Redden: As chairperson, I would like to say to the City of Sanford that this in no way reflect that we don't appreciate the concerns that the City has raised. This motion ,I note, in no way infers that anything be changed in the guidelines that the City has set forth for the supervision of Mr. Sanchez. That was not a part of this recommendation to the City Manager. I interpret this to mean that we are dealing solely with the charge of insubordination. That is all we are concerned with. Whatever the City of Sanford has to do in relationship to how it supervises the parks and the recreation areas of the City, that is a big responsibility, and I'm sure Mr. Sanchez understands that. So we are not here on that issue. We are here on the issue of insubordination and my vote is directly related to what Mr. Polk said. The guy asked for information and when I looked at these two sheets right here, I think probably had more to do with my decision. It says that these are non - disciplinary grievances that went through Mr. Amador and then he said the issue was not resolved. Then there was a long lapse of time before they went to the next person to act on them. I'm just trying to be fair, that is what I see. I'm going by what is before me and what I've heard. I think that is all I was asked by the City of Sanford to do, is to be fair, listen to what is presented and be fair, and that is what we have tried to do here tonight. So our finding is that the insubordination charge be rescinded, the suspension without pay be reinstated with whatever is owed him and that is it. Secretary: Mr. Chairman, as a point of clarification did Mr. Picklesimer second Mr. Polk's motion. Mr. Redden: He did. Mr. Polk: Yes. Mr. Redden: There being no further business to come before this Board, this Board stands adjourned at 9:30 P.M.