Civil Service Board Meeting (Special)

Civil Service Board Meeting (Special) — May 12, 2026 - 10:24 AM

welcome to the civil service board meeting. Today's MAY 12th, 2026. We will begin with the pledge of allegiance. Pledge by the united states. Indivisible. Adoption of the agenda. Entertain a motion motion motion by board member jimenez. >> second. Second by board member solomon. All in favor? I approving of the minutes. Motion motion by board member jimenez. Second second second by board member solomon. All in favor? Aye. De. Disciplinary matters d one please take note board members f one hearings pending list as of MAY 12th, 2026. Board members please take note. Our next board meeting is scheduled for JUNE 9th 2026. Any board members? Anything on the agenda? No h today's hearings h one unsatisfactory service rating hearing on behalf of tashara elaine police sergeant relative to civil service rule 13.2 concerning her annual evaluation period ending SEPTEMBER 19th, 2023. Good morning. On behalf of the city I did I was in communication with MISS Mina. She is um sergeant eileen's attorney. She told me she's running a little late. I don't know if maybe we can pass this, go to the next hearing and address that so we can wait for her to get here. If nobody on the board has an issue, we can table h one and move on to h two. Let's do that. So we will table h one moving on h two appeal hearing on behalf of sheila white's crime scene investigator one concerning 20 hour suspension effective NOVEMBER 4th, 2025. Good morning again. Um this in this hearing date the department has decided to reduce the discipline to just a reprimand. So it's moot for the board at this time. Okay. >> um so just for clarification um. Because the discipline is a. 20 hour. Yes it's a reprimand with a 20 hour suspension. So um csi white's will be receiving her 20 hours that um I guess she was suspended for she'll receive that as soon as the memo is everything signed once everything goes through hr in the process it will just be a reprimand. So it's a so it's there's a settlement basically kind of. I mean it's not a it's not really a settlement. It's a I guess a decision of the department to reduce it to just a reprimand. And at this time if since it's just a reprimand, it's no longer in the purview of the civil service board. Okay. >> because they're rescinding the hours and they'll be giving her her hours back and her money for that for those. Hours rescinding the hours and just giving the reprimand. Just straight reprimand. Okay. >> good morning. Good morning. You state your name and your title. Sheila white sorry. And your position here with the. Crime scene investigator one. >> well good morning. Good morning. How come how can we help? Oh no. >> I just wanted to say thank you for giving me the time to appeal and thank you for that consideration. And that's it. And also thank you to the state um the city attorney for the settlement. Wonderful. >> well, that's what we're here for. Uh thank you. Thank you. >> wish you well. So I guess that'll be removed from the docket. All right, well, I guess we're back to h one. I don't know if we need to take a a little recess and give some time for MISS Myrna to, uh, we're going to get back on and come back from recess. At this time we'll address h one. Again that's it's the unsatisfactory service rating hearing on behalf of tashara eileen police sergeant relative to civil service rule 13.2 concerning her annual evaluation period ending SEPTEMBER 19th, 2023. Good morning. I apologize for being a little late this morning. A little incident um good morning. On behalf of the south florida police benevolent association and sergeant charlene. I think we were here for status this morning. Yes. >> good morning again. Um so I don't I don't know if the board remembers but the last time that we were here the city did ask to hold this hearing in abeyance because sergeant eileen right now has a current appeal pending with the miami-dade um commission on human rights. I've been in contact with the office of miami-dade and they have yet to give me a hearing date. I followed up with them last week. I asked them to give me one by monday because I needed to give you all an update today. They haven't responded to my email. Um but what I can say is that sergeant eileen has responded to my request which I know I was waiting for the last time we were here. So that obviously signals to me that she intends to move forward with that appeal hearing. So I'm just asking this board to again hold it in abeyance until we have that hearing because again it's the same allegations from her evaluation as she has in the miami dade hearing pending right now and for judicial economy. Um, it doesn't really make sense to have this hearing here. And then again, you know, before miami-dade if when we have the hearing for miami dade, if they determine that there was no cause as they've already determined, then we'll be right back here. The board can hear this unsatisfactory evaluation hearing if they determine that the evaluation was discriminatory or retaliatory, then at that point something has to be done about that evaluation anyway. So then we might not even have a hearing. Um so that's kind of the reason as to why we want to go forward with miami-dade first to make that determination and then come before this board. Okay. >> we were here a month ago to try and have this hearing just because it's been a while that this evaluation and unsatisfactory evaluation has been pending. I understand that the city's position is that we shouldn't have a hearing in two places. Um I think that today we were here to see if they were able to have a date. Um I'm ready to move forward with the hearing here. I know the board um has a choice of whether they want to let the um ethics and human rights commission hear the it's up to the board essentially. I don't know if the hearing should go twice. I think that we could run into an issue later on if there is two hearings, uh just on my previous experience with these kinds of situations. Um and I would hate to waste the board's time, but we are ready to move forward and I have evidence to my evidence to be able to put forward to the board if you so choose to have this hearing today. Again for judicial economy, I just we need a determination from miami dade before moving forward and that's why I'm asking to hold it in abeyance. It's the same allegations um for the evaluation and the hearing before miami dade. Any board members have any questions? Um I have a question. Board member lanier. So based on your um I guess position what you're saying is regardless of what the ethics commission decides that you're still going to allow her to have a hearing for her evaluation here. Right. >> so I'm not going to object if the so once we have the hearing before miami dade if they determine that the evaluation was discriminatory or was retaliatory then then the city itself needs to make a determination as to that evaluation. Right. Um and that would then come before the board if they determined that there was no cause as they've already determined. Then again we come before the board and we'll have the hearing again before you all and then you all make your determination based on the rule for the unsatisfactory evaluation. >> so the city is not going to object and say that she's trying to get a second bite at the owl. No it's a different situation. It's not the same situation that we had somewhere in another in a previous case which I know I've argued before it's just that so this hearing that we have today per the rules is something mandatory that the employee has to come before the board. This isn't even something she chose to do right? Whereas in the other cases I've argued that they've chosen what forum they want to go to first and that's why you should not be able to, you know, have multiple bite bites at the apple. This isn't that case. It's a different situation. Okay so all the witnesses available for the hearing today. Not my witnesses. I have a witness who is right now in washington on the police memorial and I don't want to get it wrong so I don't want to say the the wrong um name but I do know that they left saturday they were riding bike up to washington and so he's not available today. Any other board members have any questions? Okay um so we have the employee ready to move forward and then the city requesting that we wait to hear from the county's uh, investigation or whatever the proper verbiage is. Um, would it be? I would say would it be reasonable to put another date on the calendar when we do it? And if you know I understand the city's position of wanting to, you know, be as efficient as possible and see if if we can get kind of maybe the employer would be satisfied from the outcome that they would get from the county's uh, outcome. But if we don't have a certain date and it's up in limbo and the employee is ready to move forward, I think the most reasonable thing would be to get a date down. If you don't have a firm answer by then of a date or something that it seems that that's going to come to a resolution that satisfactory both to the city and the employee, then we move forward with the hearing at that point, right? We set a date and if by then you haven't gotten an answer you can't this we can't keep waiting on another, you know, government agency and stuff without having any kind of uh, you know, affirmative thing. We got to move forward with the city's business here and and, uh, the employee has its right to move forward, um, with its hearing before us. So I don't know if that's kind of proffer that if that's kind of a happy medium for both if that's something that's good for both sides. I just don't want to run into the situation where we have again that I'm again asking for an abeyance because the last time we were here it was the same thing and I still don't have a hearing date. So if that's the board's ultimate decision I mean you know it's the board's decision. I'm asking to hold it in abeyance until we have that hearing. But but but it's completely out of your hands out of anybody's hands here in the city the employee and everything. So to keep saying that we're just going to keep waiting until an issue outside of the city takes place to see if it can help our issue here that doesn't seem prudent nor you know, um, fair to an employee that's ready to move forward quite frankly today they were ready to move forward at the last uh a month ago when they came before this body and we kind of tabled it to here. So I mean, I'm one of five I would say from my end at most I would say let's schedule another date moving forward if if you're not making way on that resolution of seeing that way happening with a solution coming outside of this board and it comes before this board and the employee is ready to move forward, I'm going to ask you to at that point know that if there's not a resolution you got to be ready and the witness is ready. If not because we're going to move forward. Uh so make sure that you know, whatever memorial and bike rides and all those things are set in place for that date when it comes if we can't come to we have to move forward. This is a case this is something that's pending since 2023. So, uh, we want to be able to let the employee move forward. So I would say that's from my end again. Um, if there's any other input from any other board members. I'd like to um file a motion to grant this the city's position. Um what is that abatement. Hold it in. Abeyance hold it in abeyance because very very rarely will you hear the city say regardless of the other outcome they're not going to say get a second bite at the apple and if they're going to grant her a hearing regardless I would like to see the outcome of that decision from the ethics board. Obviously I'm not the employee and I know she's I'm sure she's she wants to have her hearing that's why is here. But I like to file a motion to um in the city's position for the abeyance. That motion is clear. I'm sorry. Uh well we'll have a motion then we can open the discussion. We have a motion by board member lanier. Do we have a second on that motion? Second there's a second by board member jimenez .Uh, we're open for discussion. Board member cabrera. So by granting the abatement we're not committing to another hearing date. We're just going to sort of stand by. I'm with the CHAIRMAN On this I don't oh but I'm I I don't think that it's fair to the employee to just kind of be in a holding pattern. Um, and I and I do see that the city is doing their best to kind of get a date from the third party, um ,to see when they're going to have their hearing. But I, I agree with the CHAIRMAN That we should potentially just set a date and kind of come back to it. Um, you know, this is three years now.. >> board member solomon. I'd like to ask the attorney what um the employees attorney how she feels about uh, setting a date or or or leaving it. Well, as I mentioned previously, we've been ready for a while. We've gotten kicked down the road a couple of times for other matters. My concern was what board member lanier said that if they hear it in the county then we would come back here and say you've already had your shot. You're not going to have a hearing. It's happened to me and my clients in the past, but if the city is representing that we're going to be able to move forward regardless of the outcome of the county case. But I would like a date certain my client since 2023 would be if this board finds that the the commission or the evaluation is um should be satisfactory, she would be entitled to back pay a position that she was removed from because of this unsatisfactory evaluation. And I think the evidence will put forward that it should have been a satisfactory at least evaluation in 2023 when she was um presented this evaluation with other instances she would be entitled to that once you make your decision if you choose to side with us but I would like a date certain so that we can get it done and over with. I understand the judicial economy portion of it. I understand that if the county decides that there is the retaliation or discrimination portion that it would be changed. But also if this board finds that it should be changed it will be changed as well. So if we can have a date certain um to have this hearing I that's my I think my client would agree with that but we just want an end. Okay. >> do we have. >> any if I MAY just to clarify something um the jurisdiction of this board for the rule 13 um unsatisfactory evaluation hearing is not to determine whether an evaluation should be changed or not. So regardless of what the board decides at that hearing the evaluation will not change. So and this board I mean not the miami-dade board. So if she's saying that she wants to be entitled to her back pay that will come a determination with miami-dade if miami-dade determines that the evaluation was discriminatory or retaliatory if this board moves forward with this hearing, the only jurisdiction that this board has and I'll read it straight from the rule is that the employee has the burden to show why he or she should not be removed and if no reason is shown satisfactory to the board, the employee shall be removed, suspended or reduced in grade as the board shall determine. So the board has no jurisdiction or purview to change any evaluation. So that's another reason why it's beneficial to the employee to us for us to wait for miami-dade because if it does rule in her outcome then she would be entitled to that back pay if you all do not if you all rule in her favor in this case she's still not entitled to the back pay if I'm making sense. Do we have any idea when, uh, miami-dade is going to hear it or it's just it's up in the air? I've asked and they are sometimes very responsive, sometimes not. I ask them to give me a date or to give me some kind of inclination by today and I haven't heard back so I don't know and we've been waiting for a while because i believe we got her appeal sometime in OCTOBER of last year if I'm not um yeah, OCTOBER of last year is when we got the appeal notice and I've been asking for a date since then and we haven't gotten it so. Okay. >> thank you. So we have a motion we have a second uh, I would say um. We have an employee before us that say they're ready to move forward my reservation with just the way that the motion reads of just basically granting the abeyance the way the city is saying open ended. Uh, I just don't feel comfortable with that without setting a date to come forward under that understanding because at the end of the day, whether it's the employees best interest, not what not that's not my decision. That's that's the employee's decisions, their council whatnot. Um, when I'm when I'm looking to see what I approve, here's what I want to give is the civil service right to the employee that they have earned and if it's their prerogative to want to move forward with a hearing regardless of what's going on outside these walls in the world or anywhere else, I want to give the opportunity to have a date set come before it and the city have the understanding that if we come that date and there's a strong likelihood based on the fact that this has been this way since 2023 that we're found in the same situation and the employee says they're ready to move forward if somebody is out of town in pto, whatever it is, I want to allow the employee the opportunity to move forward that date. So I want to set a date from today with enough time that if anybody has memorials, bike rides, time off, whatever it is, anything else the employee can move forward on that date if they if they so choose to do so. So that that would be my position on what it is. Um so I you know, I'd be willing to support a motion that that is made and second with that amendment if the motion maker is willing to adopt it if not then I you know, I simply wouldn't be in support of the motion the way it stands just because I don't want to leave it open ended, uh, that way. That that is more clear and I don't object to it to modifying the motion to support that. Um okay. So um, would you make an amendment then adding that we he doesn't add a date to it kind of. I was just wondering if there was a date in that motion then that's like. A no the motion the motion didn't didn't include any date. It just basically supported um to grant the advance that the city is requesting but it didn't have it wasn't setting. So I asked, uh, board member lanier if you'd be willing to amend the motion to add, uh, a date where we set the next hearing, uh, and under the understanding, uh, having it that if we're found in the same situation where the employee wants to move forward that we're going to move forward that day assuming obviously we come back and they say, hey, miami dade had their thing. We got the thing. The employee says, I don't want to move forward. The city says we got it. Then you know that's that's what we strive for. But. So I would say that the motion uh, just would I would ask if it could be amended to say to include to set a hearing date. Uh, from now. I'd like to amend the motion to set a hearing date, um, to move forward with this case. CHAIRMAN If I could be recognized. I have a question. Thank you. Um and this is kind of rhetorical to the city attorney we don't have there's no hearing calendar for example, like we have um where we're okay. Um and is there any precedent on how long um do we have any experience with these kind of cases to kind of have an idea of how long this could take until they have a hearing? So the only experience that I have from my office that I've been told because I didn't handle that hearing personally, there was another hearing that did move forward before the miami-dade commission. Um and it was years ago and it was set very quickly. Everything moved very fast. But I think now with a lot of the changes in the laws and all of the recent bills that have been signed with um um addressing um affirmative action and equal protection and things like that in the state. I think that's maybe why things are you know, holding up a little bit. Um but I'm not 100% sure I really don't know. >> if you were forced to give us kind of like a timeline. Um ,how long do you think it would be reasonable to kind of um, set a date like into the future about three months, six months. Um. >> so I guess reasonable for the employee or for the city I mean. Well I'm sorry, let me let me clarify reasonable for the expectation of how how fast this should go. Um no right. I just don't I don't know and they haven't they are not very responsive to me right now unfortunately. Do you. Don't only because we don't deal with that office very often so I wouldn't be able I mean my experiences with the county attorney's office um it could take months but this has already been pending for months so I couldn't give you a great estimate. >> okay. So we don't we don't have an idea of how long would be appropriate, um, to set a date. So I guess cautiously maybe. Uh, towards the the last quarter of the year I would say if that if that works for for the employee. As long as there's a date certain and I know that I'm not going to move past that date, I'm okay with what the board decides. I think that considering that we're getting into the summer months and everybody's going to be planning vacations and things like that, my fear is that we come before the board. My client's sitting here and then somebody is on vacation with their children or their parents or whatever it is. So I don't know if there's a date in early SEPTEMBER maybe that we could set um just so that we don't run in and that gives everybody enough time to plan ahead. Board members we do have one hearing scheduled for OCTOBER 6th. It is a major hearing. It MAY take a while but we do have that date available. OCTOBER 6th. We have no SEPTEMBER I'm sorry, OCTOBER 6th we have two hearings scheduled each for 915 ,929 and then 1027. So I would think early we have ten six which has one hearing and NOVEMBER 17th which has one hearing. The only thing that I would say is that I know that there is a preference given to these unsatisfactory evaluations in the civil service rules. Um I think that that I learned that the very first time that my case got continued here that they like to set these before other hearings only because they are evaluations and they can affect the employees ability to move forward with their positions or applications or things like that. So I don't know if there is a preference that's given to I'm not sure if MISS Agatha can. Um question. Um don't we have a board meeting on on the schedule for SEPTEMBER 1st and I see no hearings pending that date. No labor day is SEPTEMBER 7th. So because. I think SEPTEMBER 1st we have a board meeting. Uh yes, we do have a board meeting scheduled. Okay. >> and we have no hearing scheduled that day. >> that is correct. >> we can always table it and put it that date. Obviously if there's a resolution from miami-dade county or whatever it is satisfactory to the employee and they want to retract it, they retract it before it and will notify before it. If not, we can have it on the calendar for that date and we have a board meeting if not if we don't have a hearing scheduled before it, I will surely sometime in AUGUST probably prefer to cancel that meeting, but we might as well put a. Okay so then would the motion be to continue the matter to SEPTEMBER 1st? Well I'm I'm I'm bringing that up that date. I mean if that's something satisfactory to the employee and the city, it seems reasonable that you know, between today MAY 12th and then it gives an opportunity to see if the resolution that hasn't taken place since SEPTEMBER of 23 can happen then good. If not then we'll all know that on SEPTEMBER 1st we'll move forward if the employee wants to move forward and that hasn't happened I would that's what I wo