Civil Service Board - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Civil Service Board Meeting. Today's May 12, 2026. We'll begin with a Pledge of Allegiance. Adoption of the agenda. I'll entertain a motion.

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 Jimenez. Second. Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. D, disciplinary matters. D1, please take note. Four members. F1, hearings pendings list as of May 12, 2026. Four members, please take note. Our next board meeting is scheduled for June 9, 2026. Any board members? Anything on the agenda? No. H, today's hearings. H1. 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 19, 2023.

Good morning. On behalf of the city, I was in communication with Ms. Mena. She is 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-1 and move on to H-2. Let's do that. So we will table H-1. Moving on, H-2. Appeal hearing on behalf of Shayla White's Crime Scene Investigator 1 concerning 20-hour suspension effective November 4th, 2025.

Good morning again. In this hearing date, the department has decided to reduce the discipline to just a straight reprimand, so it's moot for the board at this time.

Okay, so just for clarification... Because the discipline is a... 20-hour?

Yes, it's a reprimand with a 20-hour suspension, so CSI Whites will be receiving her 20 hours that... 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'll just be a reprimand.

So there's a settlement, basically?

I mean, it's not really a settlement. It's, I guess, a decision of the department to reduce it to just a straight reprimand. And at this time, since it's just a straight reprimand, it's no longer in the purview of the Civil Service Board.

Okay. Okay.

Because they're rescinding the hours and they'll be giving her her hours back and her money for those hours.

Rescinding the hours and just giving the reprimand.

Just straight reprimand.

Okay. Good morning. Good morning. Can you state your name and your title? Shayla White. And your position?

Crime scene investigator one.

Good morning.

Good morning.

How can we help?

I just wanted to say thank you for giving me the time to appeal and thank you for that consideration. And also thank you to the state, the city attorney for the settlement.

Wonderful. Well, that's what we're here for. 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 H1. I don't know if we need to take a little recess and give some time for Ms. Manna to arrive. Sounds good. We're officially in recess. We're going to get back on and come back from recess. At this time, we'll address H1. Again, 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 19, 2023. Good morning.

Good morning, and I apologize for being a little late this morning, had a little incident. Good morning, Chris Kamena on behalf of the South Florida Police Penultimate Association and Sergeant Tashara Eileen. I think we were here for status this morning.

Yes, good morning again. So 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 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. But what I can say is that Sergeant Eileen has responded to my discovery 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, it doesn't really make sense to have this hearing here. And then again, before Miami-Dade, 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, you know, 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. 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.

We were here a month ago to try and have this hearing just because it's been a while that this evaluation, unsatisfactory evaluation, has been pending. that the city's position is that we shouldn't have the hearing in two places. I think that today we were here to see if they were able to have a date. I'm ready to move forward obviously with the hearing here. I know the board has a choice of whether they want to let the 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 we could run into an issue later on if there is two hearings. Just on my previous experience with these kinds of situations. And I would hate to waste the board's time, but we are ready to move forward. And I have my evidence to be able to put forward to the board if you so choose to have this hearing today.

Again, for a judicial economy, 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 for the evaluation and the hearing before Miami-Dade.

Any board members have any questions?

I have a question.

Board Member Lanier.

So based on your, 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. So once we have the hearing before Miami-Dade, if they determine that the evaluation was discriminatory or was retaliatory, then the city itself needs to make a determination as to that evaluation, right? And that would then come before the board. If they determine 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's not going to object and say that she's trying to get a second body to act?

No, it's a different situation. It's not the same situation that we had 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, it's 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 have multiple bites at the apple. This isn't that case. It's a different situation.

Okay. Are 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 wrong 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. So we have the employee ready to move forward and then the city requesting that we wait to hear from the county's investigation or whatever the proper verbiage is. Would it be, I would say, would it be reasonable to put another date on the calendar when we do it? And if I understand the city's position of wanting to you know, be as efficient as possible and see if we can get kind of, maybe the employee will be satisfied from the outcome that they will get from the county's outcome. But if we don't have a certain date and it's up and limbo and the employee's 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's satisfactory both to the city and the employee. Then we move forward with the hearing at that point. We set a date, and if by then you haven't gotten an answer, you can't do this. We can't keep waiting on another government agency and stuff without having any kind of affirmative thing. We've got to move forward with the city's business here, and the employee has its right to move forward with its hearing before us. So... I don't know if that's kind of a pro for 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 still asking to hold it in abeyance until we have that hearing.

Right, but it's completely out of your hands, out of anybody's hands here in the city, the employer 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, fair to an employer that's ready to move forward. Quite frankly, today, they were ready to move forward at the last, 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's ready to move forward, I'm gonna ask you to, at that point, know that if there's not a resolution, you gotta be ready and the witness is ready. If not, because we're gonna move forward. 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 we want to be able to let the employee move forward. So I would say that's from my end. Again, if there's any other input from any other board members.

I'd like to file a motion to grant the city's position to Was it abatement?

To hold it in abeyance.

To hold it in abeyance, because very rarely will you hear the city say, regardless of the other outcome, they're not going to say, get a second bite of the apple, and 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'm sure she wants to have her hearing. That's why Griska's here. I'd like to file a motion to end the city's position for the abeyance. If that motion is clear, I'm sorry.

Well, we'll have a motion, then we can open to 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. 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 think that it's fair to the employee to just kind of be in a holding pattern. And I do see that the city is doing their best to kind of get a date from the third party to see when they're going to have their hearing. But I agree with the chairman that we should potentially just set a date and kind of come back to it. You know, this is three years now.

Board Member Solomon.

I'd like to ask the attorney what, the employee's attorney, how she feels about setting a date 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 your hearing. It's happened to me and my clients in the past. But if the city's 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 commission or the evaluation 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 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'll be changed as well. So if we can have a date certain to have this hearing, I think my client would agree with that, but we just want an end.

If I may, just to clarify something. The jurisdiction of this board for the Rule 13 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. 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 become 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 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 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... Miami-Dade is going to hear it, or it's up in the air?

I've asked, and they are sometimes very responsive, sometimes not. I asked 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... 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. I would say 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 advance the way the city is saying open-endedly, 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 employee's best interest, that's not my decision, that's the employee's decision, their counsel, whatnot. When I'm looking to see what I approve here, 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's 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 so choose to do so. So that would be my position on what it is. So I'd be willing to support a motion that is made and seconded with that amendment if the motion maker is willing to adapt it. If not, then 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 um i don't object to modifying the motion to support that um okay so um would you make an amendment then adding that we it doesn't add a date to it

I was just wondering if there was a date in that motion then.

No, the motion didn't include any date. It just basically supported to grant the amends that the city is requesting, but it wasn't setting. So I asked Board Member Lanier if he'd be willing to amend the motion to add a date where we set the next hearing. and under the understanding, 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 what we strive for. So, I would say that the motion just would I would ask if it could be amended to include to set a hearing date from now.

I'd like to amend the motion to set a hearing date to move forward with this case.

Chairman, if I could be recognized. I have a question. And this is kind of rhetorical to the city attorney. We don't have, there's no hearing calendar, for example, like we have where we're okay. And is there any precedent on how long, 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, 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 addressing affirmative action and equal protection and things like that in the state. I think that's maybe why things are holding up a little bit, but I'm not 100% sure. I really don't know.

If you were forced to give us kind of like a timeline, how long do you think it would be reasonable to kind of set a date, like into the future? About three months, six months?

So I guess reasonable for the employee or for the city, I mean... Well, I'm sorry, let me clarify.

Reasonable for the expectation of how fast this should go? No, right?

I just don't know, and they are not very responsive to me right now, unfortunately.

Do you? I don't, only because we don't deal with that office very often, so I wouldn't be able... I mean, my experience is with the county attorney's office.

It could take months, but this has already been pending for months, so I'm 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 to set a date so I guess cautiously maybe I towards the last quarter of the year, I would say, if that works 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 gonna 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 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? I'm sorry, October 6th. We have two hearings scheduled each for 9-15, 9-29, and then 10-27. So I would think we have 10-6, 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. I think that I learned that the very first time that my case got continued here, that they'd like to set these before other hearings only because they are evaluations and they can affect the employee's 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 Agitek can

Question. Don't we have a board meeting on the schedule for September 1st? And I see no hearings pending that date. No, Labor Day is September 7th. Because I think September 1st we have a board meeting.

Yes, we do have a board meeting scheduled.

Okay, and we have no hearing scheduled that day. That is correct. You can always table it and put it that day. Obviously, if there's a resolution from Miami-Dade County or whatever it is, satisfactory to the employee, and they want it retracted, they retract it before it, and we'll notify before it. If not, we can have it on the calendar for that day, then we'll have a board meeting. If not, if we don't have a hearing scheduled before it, I will surely sometime in August probably proffer 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 bringing that up, that date. I mean, if that's something satisfactory to the employee in the city and 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 would.

Yes.

So then I hear a motion. I did not hear a second.

Well, so I think the motion still, the original motion maker is Board Member Lanier. The second is Board Member Jimenez. I think Board Member Lanier has asked to amend the motion to include that we set a date now being for September 1st, 2026, to reschedule the hearing for that date. And, you know, we're all in hopes that the resolution can come from the outside. If not, we'll find ourselves in a similar setting where the employee, if they choose to want to move forward, we're going to move forward on that date.

That is correct.

Thank you. All right. That is correct. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Have a great day.

Thank you.

And I think that covers all of today's business. So we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion. Motion by Board Member Solomon.

Second.

Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. We'll see everybody at the next Civil Service Board meeting, June 9th, 2026. Thank you. Thank you. responsibility to the city.

So I think it'll be enlightening.