Civil Service Board - Regular Meeting

you

The June 9th 2026 civil service board meeting will begin with a Pledge of Allegiance We will begin with the adoption of the agenda motion Motion by Board Member Jimenez. Second. Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. Approving of the minutes. Motion. Motion by Board Member Lanier.

Second.

Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. B, Personnel Matters. B1. Copy of a memorandum from Chief Manuel Morales, Director, Department of Police, requesting an extension of probationary period of Brian Aguilar, police officer, for three additional months beyond June 12th, 2026. Good morning.

Good morning, everyone. I want to start off by saying good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for having me here today.

If you could please state your name and position.

I am Brian Aguilar. I'm a police officer.

Thank you. Do you understand why you're here today?

I do.

Okay. And are you in agreement with the extension?

Yes.

All right. Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Could you state your name and position for the time?

Malikia Barnett, Administrator A1, representing the City of Miami Police Department Personnel Unit. Wonderful.

And do you have anything to add to the request here for today, for the three months?

No.

Okay. No. Okay. Board members, any questions? We'll entertain a motion.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Lanier.

Second.

Second by Board Member Jimenez. All in favor? Aye. Good luck out there.

Thank you.

B-2. Copy of a memorandum from Chief Manuel A. Morales, Director, Department of Police, requesting an extension of probationary period of Anthony Shrediron, police officer for six additional months beyond June 12th, 2026.

He's not available for today, but he do not have any.

Sorry, can you speak up?

He's not available for today, but he don't have no objections. Reference the probation extension. Okay.

He was notified that he.

He was notified, yes. Okay. Did he respond to us, or he just... No objections.

All right. Motion. Motion by Board Member Lanier.

Second.

Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. B-3, copy of a memorandum from Chief Manuel A. Morales, Director, Department of Police, requesting an extension of probationary period of Chandrika Hawkins, police officer, for six additional months beyond May 8, 2026.

Morning. Hey, good morning. Good morning. Please state your name and title. Shandricka Hawkins.

In your position.

I'm a police officer for City of Miami Police.

Welcome. Do you understand what's being asked today? Yes, I do, sir. Are you in agreement?

Yes.

All right.

City?

Okay. Board members, any questions?

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Lanier.

Second.

Second by Board Member Jimenez. I have a question quick before we do so. How come her extension is for six months, some of the others are for three?

The reason her...

If you could speak into the mic.

For Hawkins, she was on light duty between July 31st, 2024 to November 7th, 2024. And then along with that, She had an extension during her field training. So that's why we requested the six months of probation.

Understood. So she was on light duty, so you need that extra time to get the full assessment.

Yes.

Excellent. All right. Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you. B4. Copy of a memorandum from Chief Robert Hevia, Director, Fire Rescue Department, requesting an extension of probationary period for Julio Vizcaino, firefighter, for six additional months beyond August 4th, 2026. Good morning.

Good morning, Assistant Fire Chief Steve Perez, City of Miami Fire Rescue Division of Professional Standards.

Good morning, Julio Vizcaino, firefighter. Good morning. Julio, do you understand what's being asked today here for the extension for you?

Yes.

Are you in agreement? Yes. All right. Chief, anything you would like to add to the request?

No. We are extending him for this period for extra evaluation periods. should he provide sustained improvement and meets the expectations, we can grant him permanent status prior to that six months.

Excellent. Any board members with any questions? We'll entertain a motion.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Soliman.

Second.

Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, gentlemen. Good luck out there. C, military leaves of absence. C1, Andres Holguin, police officer, requests active duty military leave effective August 20th, 2026 for a period of 400 days.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Jimenez.

Second.

Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor?

Aye.

C2, Jessica Kennedy, police officer, requests active duty for training military leave. from May 4th, 2026 through July 24th, 2026. Copy of order submitted. Motion. Motion by Board Member Jimenez. Second. Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. C3. Wesleyan Lewis, police lieutenant, requests active duty for training military leave from June 15, 2026 through August 7, 2026. Copy of order submitted. Motion. Motion by Board Member Lanier. Second. Second by Board Member Jimenez. All in favor? Aye. Thank you to the men and women from the City of Miami that serve our country. D, disciplinary matters. Board members, take note. D1 through D5. E, general items. E1, status update concerning the appeal hearing of Tashara Eileen, police sergeant, as it relates to her unsatisfactory evaluation period ending September 19, 2023, relative to civil service rule 13.2.

Yes, good morning. Lynette Aguirre on behalf of the city. I just wanted to give you all an update. I know that we were before the board, and I had requested to hold this hearing in abeyance while we waited for Miami-Dade. We got a hearing date from Miami-Dade. It's on August 11th. So we do have Sergeant Eileen's unsatisfactory evaluation hearing set for sometime in September, I believe. I would just ask that we keep that date because we have the Miami-Dade one before it anyways, so there's no need to move it. But I wanted to give the board that update.

Did we get a date on the Miami-Dade one?

Yes, Miami-Dade is August 11th.

Okay, wonderful. Great. Thanks for the update. Moving on, E2. Let's take note for board members. F1, hearings pendings list as of June 9th, 2026. Board members, take a look. Any questions? Our next board meeting is scheduled for June 23rd, 2026. And we have one hearing on the docket.

Any questions, comments by any board members?

Seeing none. G, request for hearing. G1, copy of request from Alfonso Davila, heavy equipment mechanic helper, former. Pursuant, civil service rule 16.1, investigation by the board concerning an alleged abuse of power. by Mardelis Puig, fleet management representative, as it relates to his dismissal effective July 11, 2025. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Alfonso Davila.

Permission to approach the board? Good morning, my name is Alfonso Davila. I'm here today on my request for an investigation hearing under Civil Service Board Rule 16 against Ms. Mordeles-Buig, Fleet Management Representative. I want to be very clear from the beginning. I understand that I have a separate appeal hearing scheduled on June 23rd, 2026. I do not intend to argue those merits on that termination today. My request today is narrow. I am asking the board to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to grant an investigation hearing into whether Ms. Puig exceeded her authority or abused her position when she proposed, initiated, submitted, processed, validated, or participated in a job abandonment against me. The possible violations I am asking the board to investigate include CSR Rule 16.1, because this investigation request is into an alleged abuse of authority. CSR Rule 14.1, because removal of separation authority appears to rest with the city manager or department director, not an employee acting without written delegation. I am not asking the board today to decide whether the job abandonment charge itself was valid. I am asking the board to investigate whether Ms. Buick had lawful, written, or delegated authority to propose, initiate, or validate that process. The basis of my request is not speculation. It comes from the city's own record response. The city was specifically asked to produce any written delegation, policy rule, authorization, email, memorandum, or directive giving Ms. Puig authority to do so. The city's response was that it had no documents to that response. This is why I'm requesting an investigation hearing. I am not asking the Board today to decide the full termination appeal. I am asking the Board to investigate the separate issue whether Ms. Bouygues had lawful or delegated authority to take actions that she took and whether her involvement in violating civil service rules, city policy, or the proper chain of authority. Again, I am not intentionally presenting the full evidence relating to my June 23rd because the Board's email correctly stated that the reviewing case-related information before June 23rd could affect the fairness of that appeal. For today, what I am presenting are a threshold of documents needed to show why an investigation is warranted. And you have the four exhibits there, which would be the email scheduling of the board's consideration of my Rule 16, a request for investigation on the Rule 16, city public records that are highlighted stating that there was no written authority or delegation from Ms. Puig to do so, and a limited PAF action record showing Ms. Puig's involvement in the job abandonment personnel action. Based on this limited record, I respectfully request that the board grant an investigation into Ms. Puig's conduct, authority, and role in my job abandonment. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. City? If I may, the city does have an objection to this request today. Mr. Davila has not cited any specific civil service rule or regulation that has been potentially or possibly violated by Ms. Puig. So we're clear. Rule 16.1, an investigation by the board is whenever the board has reason to believe that these rules and regulations have been violated by the abuse of power in recommending or making an appointment to any position or in a layoff to motion suspension or removal without justification. And obviously the rule goes further. Ms. Puig is simply a payroll liaison in HR in the GSA department. She had absolutely no say authority or power over Mr. Davila's job abandonment situation, and that will come out at the June 23rd termination hearing, appeal hearing, excuse me. You'll hear from multiple witnesses who will testify and will explain the circumstances surrounding Mr. Davila's job abandonment, and that includes Ms. Puig. She will be here to testify that day as well. There's no specific rule that has been violated or alleged to have been violated other than rule 14, which is the appeal hearing that we have coming up in two weeks anyways. This is just simply a request from Mr. Davila to move up his hearing. And how do I know this? Because he has contacted the executive director's assistant multiple times and requesting to move up his termination hearing. Specifically, the first email that he sent was back in March of 2026 and then after that sent an email on the 11th, on the 19th, on the 24th, the 25th, and the 31st of March, and all of those were asking to move up his appeal hearing. Now he's trying to get a second bite at the apple before the board to request for an investigation to this employee who had absolutely nothing to do with his job abandonment other than she was doing her job as the payroll liaison, entering whatever time was in the records for Mr. Davila, and you'll hear all of this information in two weeks. Ms. Puig was actually one of the individuals who reminded and advised Mr. Davila that he didn't have the time in his bank for his quote-unquote, approved vacation, which was never even really approved. And you'll hear all of this coming up in two weeks. So again, it's the city's position that there's been no specific rule that's been violated pursuant to Rule 16, and therefore there should not be an investigation into this matter. And if the board is so inclined to investigate the matter, we should just table this until June 23rd anyways, because you're going to hear all the testimony from the witnesses on that date anyways.

Thank you.

All right. Any board members have any questions?

I have a question.

Board Member Cabrera.

Thank you. Good morning. The public records request that you requested was to try to prove that there was instruction provided to the employee?

Yes, ma'am. If she had any written delegation from the department director herself or anybody else above her.

Okay, and to the attorney, is there, maybe this is at the department level, is there some kind of policy that the payroll liaison follows to initiate that kind of sort of escalation?

So the payroll liaison is simply, her job is simply to input the person or the individual's time so that the individuals in the department can get paid. She has absolutely no authority, say, or power to, you know, declare someone as job abandonment, declare someone terminated or anything like that. And that's also evidenced by Mr. Davila's resignation letter that was signed by the city manager, who ultimately has the final decision in this matter anyways. So she was just basically doing her job and inputting the time that Mr. Davila did not have. So there's no, she didn't make the decision to, you know, deem his resignation as job abandonment or anything like that. She was just simply doing her job, putting in the time that he had and the time that he didn't have, and that's it, and clarifying whether he could have had his vacation approved or not, which he couldn't because he didn't have the time in his bank.

Understood. I think, Chairman, that potentially this should be tabled until after the hearing. These mics. that the request be tabled until we have the hearing in two weeks to get a little more information and background as to what happened?

Ms. Cabrera, if you look at the PAF, it clearly states that she proposed it and advanced the job abandonment. That means that she's going over her payroll liaison rule.

So based on that, I think that it would be best, the best approach here is to table the request until after the hearing and all of the evidence is presented from all sides.

Okay, can you clarify, tabled, what that means, please?

Meaning that we're not deciding yes or no. We're going to wait until the next hearing for your termination hearing, which is scheduled for the 23rd of this month, to hear all of the evidence and then make a decision as to whether or not your request for this hearing is valid.

Okay, now let me ask you a question. This has nothing, like I clearly stated on what I just said, that this has nothing to do with the 23rd. This is something completely separate.

I understand that, but the fact that we are going to be hearing very much the same evidence we would hear, it would make sense for us to hear it first and then make a decision on this if there's any basis for this.

Okay. I mean, I think I provided enough, even with the city's own determination, and especially what they wrote, that there is no documents giving her the permission to do so. But I mean, I respect what the board wants to do. I just feel like I have enough evidence that she did go over her head, and she did something she wasn't supposed to do. And it's beyond her means. She is a payroll liaison, so all she does is clock in hours.

I understand that. Sorry, go ahead. If I may? Yes, sir. I think if it could help clarify, I think what- my colleague is trying to state and when they're saying table it's basically like to hear concurrently to at the same time right obviously um obviously from what you're saying if we would grant you a hearing here today then we would have to table it and it would be heard realistically after because you're you're our next board meeting okay in our next board meeting we're going to have your termination hearing so A lot of the facts are going to come there from what you're saying. If we grant this meeting and it's granted three months from now, then it's kind of like working backward because you're saying what you're saying is you want this hearing because a lot of what the actions that you're alleging that the name of the Ms. Puig took is what led to the termination, which is why you're having the hearing in two weeks. So what we're proposing is we table it and basically hear it. concurrently if you will if there's a separate issue that arises once we get those facts that are coming out in that hearing then you know the board might Deem to say you know what we want to grant an additional hearing for these allegations of what you're saying But a lot of it it might just get all settled in at once When you have your hearing next week because that that's what's gonna be heard first. That's the next thing on our on our agenda.

Sounds good, huh? Oh, by the way, I also want to clarify that to what Ms. Aguirre said also. I have attempted several times to reach out to the city of Miami for a pre-hearing rescission due to the job abandonment. So I wanted to put that out there, but I'm still waiting in good faith to settle before if the city does want to do that. Thank you, guys.

Chair, can I add something really quick to that? During these sessions, we actually review our schedule of hearings. So we try to accommodate as many as possible per hearing, per meeting. So sometimes the timeline is based on what already exists. Okay. Thank you.

All right.

So will it entertain a motion, maybe to table the request for a hearing? A motion to table. Motion by Board Member Cabrera. I'll second. Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you, guys.

Today's hearings. I'm sorry, to table the item until after June 23rd? After June 23rd, yes.

Today's hearings, H1, appeal hearing on behalf of Liz Linda Bremer, police sergeant, concerning 20-hour suspension effective September 13, 2024.

Yes, good morning again. I've been in contact with the department on this matter, and Sergeant Bremer will be receiving the 20-hour suspension back and the... Suspension will actually just be a straight reprimand. So I'm asking the board if we can continue pending a settlement I've already spoken to the department. They've approved that and we will be Submitting the memos to HR and to the board as well. So it'll be moot for civil service Okay, I believe we have Mr. Gibbons, no, mr. Gibbons doesn't represent her on this matter. He represents her on the second one Okay

So what you're asking is to request continuance just to have time to get all the paperwork done. Okay.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Solomon. Second. Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. H2 is appeal hearing on behalf of Ms. Linda Brummer, Police Sergeant, concerning 10-hour suspension effective April 4, 2026.

And on this matter, both Mr. Gibbons and I will be requesting a joint continuance so that we can try and resolve this matter. We've been talking and hopefully can come to some kind of resolution and settlement.

Excellent. Mr. Gibbons, anything you want to add to that? Good morning.

Good morning. No, nothing to add to that, sir. Thank you.

All right. So with that, we'll entertain a motion for the request for a joint continuance. Motion. Motion by Board Member Lanier. Second. Second by Board Member Soliman. All in favor? Aye. H3, appeal hearing on behalf of Marquise Williams, police officer, concerning 10-hour suspension effective June 17, 2023.

On this matter, the city is going to be requesting a continuance. We're not ready to move forward today.

City's requesting a continuous, they're not ready to move forward. Is this the first one? Is this your first request?

It is a pretty old matter. We have tabled this for quite some time because we were trying to work it out, get to some kind of settlement agreement. We weren't able to work it out, and then it got reset, and unfortunately today we're not ready to move forward with it. I've been speaking to Mr. Gibbons about this matter.

Okay. Mr. Gibbons? Mr. Gibbons, do you object to their request? Yes, sir.

I have no objection to their request.

Okay. I'm sorry. You said that you have an objection to the request? No, sir. I have no objection. Oh, you have no objection.

I'm okay with their request.

Okay. So we have the city requesting a continuance. There's no objection. We'll entertain a motion.

Motion.

I'm sorry. Motion by Board Member Soleimani. Second. Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. Wonderful. I think that concludes all of our agenda. We'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion by Board Member Cabrera. Second. Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. We'll see everybody June 23rd. Thank you. Thank you.