Civil Service Board - Regular Meeting

We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Adoption of the addenda. We'll entertain a motion. Motion by Board Member Solomon

Second.

Second by Board Member Jimenez. All in favor? Aye. Approving of the minutes.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Solomon. Second. Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. B1. Personnel Matters, copy of a request from Eric Davis, former Laborer 1, Department of Resilience and Public Works, requesting that his name be placed on the re-employment list for the classification of Laborer 1, pursuant to Civil Service Rule 12, Section 12.4, Resignations.

Board members, the employee has met all of the requirements under the rule, including the endorsement of the department.

Can you repeat that?

I wanted to let the board know that the employee has met all of the requirements under the rule, including the endorsement of the department director.

I'll make a motion. I'll second that motion. Motion by Board Member Jimenez, second by Board Member Soliman. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. C, military leaves of absence. C1, Michael Rivera, police officer, requests military leave without pay from February 1, 2026 for a period of 365 days. Copy of order submitted. Motion. Motion by Board Member Jimenez, second by Board Member Soliman. All in favor? Aye. C2, John Romero, police officer, requests Retroactive military leave without pay from January 5, 2025 for a period of 19 days. Copy of order submitted.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Jimenez. Second. Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. Aye. C3, Jim Kadastin, police officer, requests re-employment as a police officer following his return from military leave. Copy of a memorandum from the United States Southern Command indicating honorable discharge submitted.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Suleiman. Second. Second by Board Member Jimenez. All in favor? Aye. Aye. C4. Jimmy Rodriguez, police officer, requests re-employment as a police officer following his return from military leave. Copy of memorandum from the U.S. Coast Guard indicating honorable discharge submitted. Motion. Second. Motion by Board Member Jimenez. Second by Board Member Soliman. All in favor? Aye. C-5. Catherine Triana Vasquez, police officer, requests re-employment as a police officer following her return from military leave. Copy of a memorandum from the Army National Guard indicating honorable discharge submitted. Motion. Motion by Board Member Jimenez. Second. Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. As always, thank you to the men and women that serve our country. Thank you for your service. D. Disciplinary matters, please take note. D1 through D5. E. General items. E1. Copy of a judgment from Arthur Noriega, the fifth city manager concerning the whistleblower hearing on behalf of Alfredo Matias, former police officer relative to his termination, effective January 27, 2022. That's a notification. E2. Copy of a request to continue from Lynette Amagiri, assistant city attorney concerning the investigation hearing of Wesleyne Louis-Francois, Police Lieutenant, pursuant to Civil Service Rule 16.1, investigation by the board, abuse of power.

Good morning. Lynette Aguirre on behalf of the city. I am requesting a continuance on this matter. There is a federal court case that's pending approval by the city commission for settlement, and it includes this grievance. So we are requesting a continuance at this time. It's scheduled before the commission on February 12th, to be heard.

Wonderful. Is there anybody here representing the employee?

Ms. Mena is on.

Good morning, Ms. Mena. Can you hear us?

This matter, and I understand that it is before the commission, I am hesitantly agreeing to this continuance only because I know that the matter had been placed before the commission previously and not been heard. Moving forward, if it's resolved with the Commission in the next meeting, I will withdraw this hearing request. However, if it is not, I plan to possibly move forward with the hearing.

Okay, so I'm sorry. You were, I think, mid-sentence when we started hearing the audio, but from my understanding, you're hesitantly agreeing to the... to the continuance under the understanding that it'll be heard at the next commission meeting. And so for the moment you'll accept and table the hearing and then withdraw assuming it's a settlement. Is that correct?

Yes.

Yes, sir.

We'll entertain a motion. Motion.

Motion by Board Member Lanier. Second by Board Member Jimenez. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

Thank you.

F1. Hearing's pending list as of February 3rd, 2026. Board members, take note in your packet, the hearing's pending list. Our next meeting is scheduled for March 3rd, 2026. We have one hearing scheduled at the moment. Please take a look. If there's anything anybody notices and would like to address, please bring it forward. Anything on the hearings pendings list from board members? Seeing none, we'll move forward. G, request for hearings. G1, copy of an investigation hearing request from Dasha St. Remy, cultural complex manager, pursuant civil service board rule 16.1, investigation by the board to provide written clarification of the civil service board rules and regulations concerning the three-day suspension effective December 26th 2025. Good morning. Good morning. Please state your name and position.

Dasha St. Remy Silver, Cultural Center Manager at the Little Haiti Cultural Complex.

Thank you.

Good morning. To the Civil Service Board, I am here regarding the same media related matter that this board ruled on December 9th, at which time My probation was extended for four months after the city Parks and Recreation Department wanted it for six, which was agreed upon. I accepted the ruling with the understanding that it was a final resolution. However, on December 19th, 10 days later, I was called into a meeting by the Department of Parks and Recreation and issued an additional disciplinary action of three days without pay. For the same alleged violation, nothing was done. No violation was done since that hearing. Present at the meeting were Director Chuck Ellis, Assistant Director LaClevia Morley, Snipes, and Alicia Dreyer, and Service Coordinator and former Interim Supervisor Virginia Bentley, who was present at that hearing. I did not sign the write-up because I believe this action represents double punishment for an issue already adjudicated by this board. And pose an additional discipline after the board's decision to undermine due process, the authority of this body. Since beginning this position, my experience with the department leadership has been consistently punitive and reactive. I believe there is a broader pattern of inappropriate leadership practices that is affecting this role that I'm in, involving misuse of authority. I am respectfully requesting that additional sanction be removed and that the board authorize an investigation into the leadership practice related to this position, specifically that of the culture center manager at the Little Haiti Cultural Complex, including a broader review of the administrative department to determine whether systemic issues exist. Thank you.

If I may, the city does have an objection to this request for hearing. As we all know, we were here before the board in December for a request for extension of probation from the department. And as the board is well aware, a request for an extension of probation and an extension of probation is not a form of discipline. We have here a probationary employee who is requesting, although she's requesting a Rule 16 hearing, it's really in disguise as a Rule 14 hearing for a discipline that she received. And as we know, a probationary employee does not have civil service rights to be able to request a Rule 14 hearing. We heard from Ms. St. Remy who has alluded to the fact that she's challenging this because she considers this to be a double discipline. And again, it's because she considers the extension of probation to be a form of discipline. And as we know, it's not. So the board is, the city is objecting to a request for hearing at this time because the only basis for the request for hearing is the discipline that Ms. St. Remy received as a probationary employee within the city.

Thank you.

Board members, we'll open up for questions.

I have a question. The packet that you submitted, you said you did not sign the discipline.

I did not.

Do you have a copy of the discipline? It's not here.

I don't have a copy of it with me, no.

And the discipline is for, you're saying you were disciplined for the exact same thing you were extended probation on? Correct. And in 10 days, I'm sorry, say it again?

10 days after the hearing, yes, I was called into the office to receive a discipline of three days without pay.

And you're alleging abuse of power because of that?

Yes, because this is the routine of the department when it comes to this particular position.

Chair, I would like to see the discipline attached.

We don't have the discipline.

I mean, I know she's on probation, but if she was issued a form of discipline to sign, I would like to see that.

Well, Member Lanier is requesting if there's a way that we could get a copy of the discipline that was issued to Ms. St. Remy. to be able to see what she...

I believe I attached it to the email when I submitted to the Civil Service Board.

It's not in the packet, so... Mr. Remy's saying that she believes she attached it to the email that she sent to our board. If we can maybe look into that. In the meantime, is there any other questions from other board members? Mr. Remy, how long have you been employed by the city?

Today makes it exactly a year since I've been employed by the city.

Well, happy anniversary. And in that year, how many times have you been issued discipline?

One for during, after being here for three months, because the Miami Herald came to a Haitian Heritage Month meeting and spoke to me for the first time wanting to know who I was in this role. That was the first discipline, which wasn't a verbal warning. I was written up for not having had the proper training prior to that, should I say.

So your first discipline was issued three months into the employment?

Correct. I started in February. I was disciplined in April, end of April, beginning May.

OK. Since then, have you been disciplined again?

The second offense that they presented here was that I spoke to Island TV about Sounds of Little Haiti, which was celebrating 10-year anniversary. As I stated before, I was off the clock, and I also read that my position is to uplift the cultural center complex, which I was doing on that day.

That's the second discipline. Has there been a third discipline? There has not been a third. Okay, so that second discipline is the one that you're saying you were written up on on December 19?

That second discipline is the one, yes, for the Sound of Little Haiti offense, which was never broadcast, number one, and I told them about it.

Okay, so when you came before us the first time and we came to the conclusion of extending it four months instead of six of the department was requesting at that point in time you had only been disciplined once. So you're.

Correct. And for the Sons of Little Haiti, they told me that my probationary period would be extended, that that was the form of discipline, as I understood it, by Virginia Bentley herself, my interim supervisor at the time. That this most likely, and it was recorded, that this most likely will extend my probationary period.

Okay, but that incident took place before you came before this body the first time? Correct. And then what is the write-up that they gave you on December 19th that you're coming before us now?

There was no new violation. That's what I'm saying. From that hearing, they took the same thing that was presented here, and they said this is for the thing that was presented in the hearing on the 9th. There hasn't been no new violations since.

But before you came before us the first time, they hadn't issued discipline on that?

No, they had not. They had not. They only had a meeting with me and told me most likely it would extend my probation.

Okay. So you had been disciplined once before you came to us. Correct. And they told you because of this other incident, most likely your probation would be extended. Correct. Then you came before us and then- It was extended. It was extended four months. And then 10 days later, they issued you the discipline for that incident. That incident that occurred, the second incident, right? So you were disciplined once. Then the second incident took place. They told you that most likely your probation would be extended. You came before this body and it was extended. Your probation was extended four months instead of six. And then 10 days later, they actually issued.

So the extension of my probation is not a form of discipline.

Correct. I'm walking through the timeline of what you're telling me, just to get a good understanding. You were employed a year ago today. Two months and change later, you were issued your first written discipline, which is the first form of discipline that you're stating you were given. Then, when you came before this, then there was another incident that took place. They gave you a verbal type of discipline or warning telling you that based on this violation, your probation would most likely be extended. That's your testimony. Then you came before us. Then they were requesting six months. We settled on four months. And then 10 days later after that, after you were before us, they actually gave you written discipline on that second incident.

Is that correct? That's the timeline.

Okay. And then we're here. Wonderful. Have we had any luck pulling up the written? Oh, it's been handed out, thank you. Okay. Is there any other questions by board members, or maybe we take a second to review the... Chairman, can I be recognized? Board Member Cabrera, you're recognized.

So I just want to clarify that we're talking about a few things together. So I do recall the last time you were here. Yes. It is on.

I'm going to try this.

Yeah, maybe this is better. I recall the last time you were here and you went into detail about that there wasn't necessarily enough guidance regarding the protocol to talk to the media. Yes? Okay. And they advised that there's a very strict policy on talking to the media citywide, right, for the entire organization. Based on what the chairman was kind of breaking down, So I'm just trying to ensure that progressive discipline was followed correctly. So you received your first sort of verbal two months in. Then the second one was the reason you were here for the probation extension. And I also recall that it was mentioned that there was something in the pipeline for you regarding a second incident that occurred.

A third. A third.

So the third incident led to now the suspension.

What was the third incident? Because that was never brought up at that meeting, nor was it brought up at this hearing. They mentioned it, but there was nothing actually shown or proven. What was the third incident?

Well, I think that that's why the chairman did want to make sure that we were reading the discipline. But if it is following progressive discipline, this would be the third offense within the specified time period, right? Am I following this correctly?

There is no third offense. There was one that they stated here in the hearing that was still under investigation.

Is this the third?

That's not what that is.

So this discipline is for the second instance?

Correct.

And I want to go back to the attorney and ask a question regarding filing 14 and 16. If the employee has an issue with discipline and they want to grieve the discipline, that's different from abuse of power, which is a different request, right? But the employee has the right to challenge the suspension in a different setting.

The employee does not have civil service rights. Sorry. Got it. Okay. That's what I heard you say. That's rule 1.8.

Perfect.

Okay. The only thing that you could do is investigate the issue.

Okay.

But there's no right to an appeal hearing.

Okay. Understood. Does that make sense to you? I have no further questions, Chairman.

Any other questions from board members? I have a question. Board member Lanier.

So the two dates on this letter is April 2nd and September 19th. Those are the only two days that you have knowledge of being disciplined, correct?

Repeat the dates for me.

April 2nd and September 19th.

Correct. Those are the only two.

So you came here in December for your probation extended. Well, let me go back. On April 2nd and September 19th, did you get any suspensions on that at all?

not for April for the April 2nd. I don't, um, no, I did not. I just got a written, uh, reprimand.

And what happened on September 19th?

Um, the one that I told them about, yes. For the sounds of little Haiti, nothing was done. Nothing was done until, so that happened in September 19th, three days later, which would be September 21st is when I, um, told them about my engagement, um, during that day. And, um, They didn't do anything until after this hearing. So three months later, three months later.

So it's more of a timing issue. I mean, if they would have gave you these three days in September, would you have objected to it then? I mean, would it be?

Yeah, I mean, I mean, look at the time. They weren't happy about the six months to four months. And then 10 days later, I mean, I don't want to get into the emotions of our...

I'm just going to object for putting any kind of allegations like that. We don't know that speculation. The department isn't here to defend themselves.

I wanted to scratch that, but, I mean, look at the timeline. Three months to issue out a sanction for something that I admitted to that was never released. I mean, I would hope that the city of Miami would... would want to have an employee that has an integrity enough to say that something happened, here's what happened, and I'm putting this in your radar. I don't think the punishment fits what was done on the 19th. But, you know.

I understand that. I'm just trying to, I'm looking at the abuse of power aspect, and you're saying that you were, you're saying you were double disciplined. But I don't see the first discipline. I only see the three days, which is, I guess, encompassing April 2nd and September 19th, but you're saying that this should have been submitted to you before we came here in December, is that what you're saying?

I'm just trying to follow you, I'm not. My understanding of what took place on December 9th here with the Civil Service Board was that the four months extension was based on the second violation. a post-violation that I omitted to, right? And so, and this may be my lack of understanding with how the city is ran, as I hear, that it is not considered a sanction. And so, this is very discouraging. This is not the first time someone in my position has been in the position with Parks and Recreation where the department definitely discouraged someone in my position to lead the little Haiti cultural complex. And so I think it is systemic. I think that the board needs to look into it. And given that this is my year, officially my year being with the city, you know, had I known what I know now being in this role, I would still be in Philadelphia enjoying the winter breeze.

I have no further questions. Any other questions from board members? Okay. Just as a point of clarification from our board attorney, basically what we can do is investigate the matter, if I'm understanding correctly. We're really not in a position where we can grant a hearing based on the probationary period of the employee.

Correct. Probationary employees do not have civil service rights. So she doesn't have a right to an appeal hearing or under 14.3 or 16. So the only avenue for her would be an investigative hearing. Okay. I can read you the rule. It says, section 1.8, a probationary employee has no civil service rights and may be returned to a former classification in which the employee held permanent status or be discharged if an instrument position upon being notified in writing, but shall not be accorded a hearing before the Civil Service Board. That's section 1.8.

Mr. Remy, does that clarify for you further where we stand?

I'm very clear.

Okay. And I wish you well and hope you can enjoy Miami's breeze here.

Thank you.

I'll file a motion to deny.

I don't think there's, I mean.

You have to just have an investigation of the incident. She can't appeal it pursuant to 14. Okay.

So from my understanding, what's before us is a request for a hearing. So based on that, there's both.

Okay. First of all, the investigation is a hearing. It's a Rule 16 hearing. But the request was for Rule 14 and a Rule 16. But we have to dispose of the item. So we need a motion or two.

Okay, so the request, G1, has to be thrown out as it stands, and then we can entertain a different motion? I'm not understanding what we're...

Right. The G1 was a request for an appeal hearing and a request for an investigation hearing. So the board must dispose of this request by having a motion or whatever the board wishes to do.

So I believe board member Cabrera made a motion to- A motion to throw out or deny based on civil service rule 1.8. Deny the request for appeal.

Okay, so there's a motion for G1 by Board Member Cabrera to deny the motion. I second that motion. Second by Board Member Soliman. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. H, today's hearings. H1, grievance hearing on behalf of Wesleyan Louis Francois, police lieutenant, as it relates to Civil Service Rule 16.1, investigation by the board, abuse of power.

I believe that was tabled. That was continued.

H2, appeal hearing on behalf of Liz Linda Bremer, police sergeant, concerning her 10-hour suspension effective March 19, 2023.

Good morning. Gene Gibbons. We're here, present, ready to go.

City's ready to go. I just need two minutes to get the HDMI cord from communications so that I can share my screen during the hearing.

If you'd like, I think we're going to continue H3 so we can dispose of that if you want.

All right. So while we table H2 for a brief two minutes, we'll entertain H3. Appeal hearing on behalf of Victor Perez Gutierrez, police officer concerning his 40-hour suspension effective March 26, 2025.

Gene Gibbons, and we'd have no opposition to the continuance.

I requested a continuance in this. The officer, my witness, is out sick.

Okay. So, city's requesting a continuance. The employee's not opposed to it. We'll entertain a motion.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Solomons. Second.

Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. And we will remain in recess for two minutes, and we will be back for H-2.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Chris, I'm in the civil service. Talk fast. We just got a two-minute break.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm here. Good morning.

Thank you. you Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you.

All right. We'll continue with H2 with our hearing. Let's begin, I guess, with opening.

Yes. Zanetta Geary again on behalf of the city.

Today, sorry, let me, I'm getting a little feedback.

Okay. Today we are here before the board for an appeal of a 10-hour suspension by Sergeant Liz Linda Bremer. This is a very simple case. It's all on video. Words matter, and they matter even more so to a police officer. You'll see in the video that Sergeant Bremmer used words discourteous to a complainant, now we know as a complainant. And for these words, she should be held accountable. So after you hear the testimony from Sergeant Shirley Auguste, she was the supervisor for Detective Richard Jasmine, who was the author of this reprimand. She reviewed the reprimand, reviewed the video, agreed with the facts, agreed with the violations, and therefore she signed off on it. Detective Richard Jasmine has since, this reprimand, retired from the city of Miami. So today we will hear from Sergeant Shirley Auguste, and the board will be able to watch the video of this incident that was turned into internal affairs by the complainant. And after the board is able to hear the testimony and see the evidence, I'm confident that you will sustain the discipline and sustain the 10-hour suspension. Thank you.

Good morning. Gene Gibbons on behalf of Sergeant This is Linda Bremer. I have the distinct honor of representing a dedicated 20-year sergeant here. You're going to hear the facts of this case. They're extremely sparse, and now I'm hearing it's going to get sparser. All the facts are not on the video. The video you're going to see is very short. It's a partial clip of a long conversation So context is important as to what was said, why it was said, how it was said, and to whom it was said. So the video does not capture everything or all of it. This video is a partial clip of a conversation. So you've got to understand what happened before the videos kicked on and when the video ended. So we believe that the facts are going to show that there was no discourtesy. They're calling Sergeant Will August. I'm going to put on the record right now up front that the author of the reprimand were not able to cross-examine. Are you kidding me? That's a due process confrontation violation. If they don't present the author of this reprimand, I believe this board has absolutely the right to just find not guilty across the board. Sergeant August did not write this. He reviewed it. He did not investigate it. He reviewed the investigation. She has a right to confront the people who are accusing her, which would be the author of this write-up. If they don't produce the author, you're violating her due process rights through and through. It's simple. This is simple stuff. So if they don't produce the author of this reprimand, I'm going to ask you to dismiss this case. And if we do have to get to the Facts of this case, which I'm sure you already read them, we shouldn't even be here. I mean, this is embarrassing for the city of Miami to have a case like this come before for one of its police officers, a dedicated 20-year veteran. It's embarrassing. And so I'm going to leave it short, and we'll get rolling.

So the city calls Sergeant Shirley Auguste. She's on Zoom.

Good morning. Good morning, Sergeant. Please state your name and position.

My name is Sergeant Shirley August. I am a Sergeant in Internal Affairs.

All right. If you can please raise your right hand and repeat.

Sergeant August, can you please turn your camera on? We cannot see you.

Give me one second. I'm not sure why it should be on. Give me one second. Are you able to see me now?

No. Yes. OK, perfect. If you can please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So I hope you got it. I do.

Good morning, Sergeant Auguste. How long have you been with the City of Miami Police Department?

I've been with the city for 10 years, nine years as an officer and one year with crime scene.

You said nine years as an officer?

Yes.

Is that on patrol?

Patrol and other various units.

Okay. And how long have you been a sergeant of police?

I've been a sergeant of police for four years.

What ranks, Well, we know your rank. What units have you been assigned to as a police officer and as a sergeant within the city of Miami?

As a police officer, I was a neighborhood resource officer for downtown. I work in different areas of patrol. As a sergeant, I was also in patrol, and then I got promoted to work in internal affairs.

And are you currently assigned to internal affairs?

Yes, I am.

Okay, which... division are you in internal affairs. I'm the administrative sergeant and the general section. And what are your duties and responsibilities as the administrative sergeant internal affairs.

All right now my duties are to basically vet any complaints that come in through you know other sergeants the public and to review them and assign cases accordingly.

Are you familiar with internal affairs case number C-22076 regarding an investigation against Ms. Sergeant Lizlinda Bremer?

Yes, I am.

And how are you familiar with this internal affairs case?

I became familiar with it because I was Detective Mitchell Jasmine's supervisor towards the end of, I believe, in October. And the case came in as a complaint from Lieutenant Ray Blanco, basically stating that Sergeant Bremer responded to a location and had a bit of an altercation with the complainant, and the complainant wanted to file a complaint of discourtesy. Okay.

Okay. Before you keep going. Um, so you're saying that you were a detective Jasmine's direct supervisor towards the end of his, uh, or towards, at least during the time of this case, right? Is what you said?

Yes.

Yes, I was.

Okay.

Um, and when you, when you were his supervisor, what did, what did the, what does that mean as far as his internal affairs investigations?

As a supervisor of a detective, the detective will conduct their investigation, and my job is to ensure that they do a thorough investigation, review their summary of the investigation, and make sure everything's accurate before signing off on it.

And on this case, did you have to review the internal affairs investigation as well as the summary and the discipline actionary form that was authored? Yes, I did. And at the time that you reviewed it, did you agree with the facts as they were in the case? Yes, I did. Okay. Now I want to talk to you a little bit about the case specifically. You said that it came in as a complaint and Lieutenant Ray Blanco assigned it, is what you mentioned?

No, he didn't sign it. He responded to the scene. I believe the complainant contacted for a sergeant to respond, a supervisor to respond, and Lieutenant Blanco was the one that responded.

Okay, let's take it back. So do you remember April 27, 2022 is the day that this incident occurred?

That's the day the incident occurred based on documentation, but at that time I was not assigned to internal affairs.

Okay. So on April 27, 2022, Sergeant Liz Linda Bremer was at an apartment complex. Can you give us a little bit of the facts as you remember them?

Yes. Sergeant, based on the summary of the complaint...

I'm going to object to... She doesn't know the facts. She just testified that she didn't conduct the investigation, that she merely reviewed it.

She did. She reviewed the reprimand, the IA summary, the case before she signed off on it. And as a supervisor, she testified that those are her duties. She has to review everything for her subordinates under to make sure that everything was done accordingly. And that's when she signed off on it. She couldn't have signed off on it prior to. So she knew the facts when she reviewed them.

Okay. I'm going to go ahead and sustain. An administrative sign-off checking does not make her privy to the information that they're signing off as if she's aware of the incident. So just move on.

Okay. So based on your review, what was the allegation of discourtesy, Sergeant Auguste, if you know?

The allegation of discourtesy was that Sergeant Bremer had used profane language with the complainant.

Okay.

And when you reviewed this case, did you also review an accompanying video? Yes, I did. Okay. Now, this video, how did Internal Affairs become a hold of this video? The complainant submitted that video to our office. Okay. And the complainant, do you know who the complainant was?

It was Miss Mosse, I believe her name. Miss Joanna Manzi.

Okay. And Miss Joanna Manzi, if you know, do you know who she was in this altercation and why she came in to file a complaint against Sergeant Liz Linda Bremer?

You know, it's the incident that occurred on April on the incident when Sergeant Berman responded. So she came in and to file the complaint. I'm sorry, she didn't come in. She filed a complaint on scene with Lieutenant Ray Blanco.

Okay. And when she filed this complaint, she provided Lieutenant Blanco a copy of the video that we've been speaking about?

Yes, but I believe he wasn't able to upload the video because of how large the file was.

Okay, and when you received a copy of the video and you reviewed it, who was in the video, if you remember?

From reviewing the video, I could see Sergeant Bremer on the video, and I wasn't really able to see the complainant. I believe the male or the female was the one recording.

Okay, and we're going to go ahead and share the screen so I can show you a copy of... video and you can confirm whether this was the video that you were reviewed or not.

Oh,

That you should have that interest too. I can't talk to you. So you want to give me the story or you don't? If you don't, then don't worry about it. Then okay, then fine. Then I don't have anything else to say. You can talk all the little fun shit you want to talk, but I was trying to give you Sergeant August. Excuse me. Through the chair. Is there any way we could get it on our screen? Because it's... I'm actually playing it from my laptop because there was an issue this morning with the other laptop. I think we got it now.

It's on your screen.

Okay. Yeah.

Yes.

Could you start it from the beginning, please? We couldn't see it from this end.

Yes. I just want to confirm. Sergeant Agus, were you able to view the video? Yes, I was able to see it. Okay. And just to confirm, this is the video that you reviewed that was submitted, right, in this case? Yes.

You can talk all the little fun shit you want to talk, but I was trying to give you a opportunity to give me the conversation but obviously you've got a man that speaks to for you right my husband okay so you don't want to give me your silence stay away from each other that's all you got to do okay I work here. I'm the sergeant. And if there's a disturbance, I call you.

So it was this much?

It was this much.

I'm the one. I'm not her family. I'm not her family. She's not my blood. Yeah, and what? I actually met a bunch of people in this building, just for your information. Because I was the sergeant over there. for many years let me ask you a question though let me ask you okay let me ask you a question he didn't get he no he didn't he wasn't getting loud which would be to be getting louder in his face like that sergeant august in this video do you hear uh sergeant lisa linda bremer saying and this is a quote you can talk all the little fun you want

Yes. At least that's part of what she says in the video?

Yes, that's part of what she said.

Okay. How was her demeanor? How would you describe her demeanor in the video?

She was a little bit, she was abrasive. She was not conducting herself in a manner that she should be conducting herself as a supervisor.

She actually calls for conclusion. That's what you're here to decide.

If you could just tell us how you interpreted her demeanor, her character, the way she reacted. That's it.

She was discourteous.

That's what we're here to decide.

Without using the word discourteous, can you describe how she reacted and her demeanor was?

She used language that she shouldn't use as a supervisor.

Um, as a Sergeant of police, um, do you believe that this behavior is appropriate when you're responding to a call? No. Do you believe that this behavior is appropriate when you're dealing with a possible criminal defendant? No, it's not. Do you believe that this behavior is appropriate when you're dealing with, um, someone who just calls for a call for service?

Again, I'm going to object to what she believes is irrelevant here.

I'm trying to get within her experience as a sergeant of police as to why this behavior is not appropriate based on her experience and her prior experience and duties and responsibilities within the department. The board wants me to move on, I can move on.

I think we get the context of the conduct of an officer becoming in this situation, so let's just move on to.

Understood. Chair, I have a brief question here. Can we know how many years the Sergeant Auguste, and I apologize if I mispronounce your name, was a patrol officer, and then how many years were you a patrol sergeant, please?

Um, as an officer, I was in patrol for two years and then I became a neighborhood resource officer for three years. Um, and then I got promoted and was in patrol as a Sergeant for almost a year before going to internal affairs.

Thank you. Um,

Sergeant Auguste, in your experience as a police officer and sergeant within the city of Miami Police Department, what are the city's departmental orders? If you can just give me a brief description of what that is.

The departmental orders are some guidance and orders that we basically have in place for us to follow and abide by some rules and regulations that we need to abide by as officers and, you know, being, you know, having mission, vision, and, you know, I'm sorry, the elements of courtesy and having to know your departmental order within a 30-day period, as all officers have to do whenever they get promoted to either a sergeant or come into the department. And these are guides that guide us on what we can and cannot do.

So the departmental orders within the police department, Do they apply to sworn personnel as well as civilian employees within the department? Yes, they apply to sworn and civilian. And these are rules and regulations, as you stated, that every employee within the department has to abide by?

Yes.

And are all employees within the City of Miami Police Department responsible for knowing and staying updated with all of these departmental orders?

Yes.

Okay. So I want to take you to... Departmental Order 11.6.13.3, and it's courtesy. Are you familiar with this departmental order? Courtesy, yes. I'm familiar with it. Okay. And the courtesy departmental order, does it talk about using profane language when dealing with the public? Yes, it does. Now, as a sergeant of police, does... Does Sergeant Bremer's behavior within the video violate this departmental order of court courtesy?

Objection. That's for the board to decide. She keeps asking her questions that you're going to ultimately decide. Her opinion, it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant.

It's not her opinion. It's based on her experience as a sergeant, her experience within internal affairs, writing and looking through and investigating these disciplinary action forms and ultimately deciding An investigator has to come up with a determination whether a person will be sustained or not sustained for their investigation.

What she's doing is asking her to tell you what she's decided she's guilty of.

I understand. We have that on the record. I've been on here long enough. Look, I think we get the context. We understand what the departmental orders are. We understand as adults and civilians that have interacted with police or being police officers up here sitting on the dais, we understand what courteous and proper tone, you know, verbal and nonverbal communication. So if we could just continue. Yes, understood.

Okay. Sergeant Agus, once a disciplinary action form is signed by the author, what is the next step with a disciplinary action form?

Once the author signs the disciplinary action form, then it will go to me as a sergeant to sign, and it goes up the chain.

And so in this case, after Detective Richard Jasmine authored this disciplinary action form, it then went to you for review as a supervisor? Yes. Okay. And you reviewed this disciplinary action form and signed off? As you stated earlier, right? And then once the disciplinary action form is reviewed and signed by you, you stated that it continues up the chain of command? Yes, it does. Do you have any involvement in what a final discipline may or may not be based on the investigation and the disciplinary action form?

No, I don't.

Does the author of the disciplinary action form have any input or say into what the discipline should be once it goes up the chain?

No. Okay. Okay.

Okay, I have no further questions for you.

Well, it's almost afternoon. Good afternoon, Sergeant.

Good afternoon.

So I just want to, you didn't author this reprimand, did you?

No, I did not.

Okay, and you didn't investigate this case, did you?

No, I did not.

Your job as a sergeant is to review the investigation, correct?

Yes. Okay.

So as far as this investigation goes, everything you've testified to is a reliance on what the original author of this reprimand provided you, correct?

Yes, and what I reviewed, yes.

Okay. Now, you weren't in internal affairs when this case started as an investigation, were you?

No, I was not.

Okay, so you weren't there to see how this video was obtained, were you?

I was not.

Okay, so can you in any way, shape, or form authenticate the video? You know what I mean by authenticate?

I'm going to object to a legal conclusion. That's not for her to answer.

What was your objection?

Objection, legal conclusion.

Okay, let me rephrase. You weren't there when the video came in, were you?

I was not.

Do you know where the video came from?

I was made aware of where it came from, yes.

Through who?

Through my subordinate at that time.

Okay, so again, back to Jasmine it is, correct? Yes. Okay, but is it a he or she, Jasmine?

It's a he.

It's a he, okay. Detective Jasmine- Do you know how he obtained the video from these complainants?

It was sent to him. It was sent to him, I believe.

It was sent to him by the complainants?

I believe he retrieved the video from the complainants.

Okay. Do you know if the video was edited in any way?

I don't know.

and you wouldn't have any ability to know because you weren't involved, were you?

I wouldn't know if the videos were edited.

Okay, so you don't know if they're authentic, do you?

Objection, legal conclusion.

As we sit here right now, you don't know how authentic that video is. Is it a cut portion of a whole conversation? Did they just splice what they wanted? You understand?

Objection again, legal conclusion.

You can't authenticate this video, can you?

Objection, legal conclusion.

Just move on.

Chair, just briefly, can you define how we determine if something is authentic? Or in their, maybe this is for you, what is the policy for the police department to determine if a video is authentic? I would have to object to that.

I can follow up with that.

To you asking us questions, I'm sorry. I would have to object to that, because then you would have us giving you our own legal opinions as to what these words mean. I can give you an answer.

Sergeant, are you aware of the process for retrieving evidence off a cellular phone, for example?

I know sometimes the complainant will email or come into the office. Most of the time, they just try to email it to us or put it on a flash drive or a CD and bring it to us, especially if it's a large file.

Okay. But as you stand here or sit here and testify, you don't know how that was retrieved, do you?

Objection, mischaracterization of our evidence of testimony.

I mean, do you want him to rephrase how to ask it?

He said, she said, I'm sorry, that she knows that Detective Jasmine received the video from the complainant. She said that.

How did he receive it?

She said that too. He got it in an email.

She didn't say. I'm asking now. How did Detective Jasmine receive it?

I'm not sure how he received it.

Okay, thank you.

I apologize.

You stated that Ray Blanco filed this complaint. Is that right?

He... took the complaint. He didn't file the complaint.

Okay.

He did the complaint form and submitted it to our the internal affairs office.

Okay. So he didn't file it. He just took it from the complainants. Yes. Now, I think you stated and I think I can sum this case up and tell me if you agree. Um, the profane language that you referred to said that was the violation, right? Yes, sir.

Rejection.

On what grounds? Withdrawn, withdrawn.

She answered.

And that profane language is the word shit, right? Yes, sir.

Okay.

Now, are you aware that Sergeant Bremer told your investigator that she was basically paraphrasing and regurgitating words that were used with her prior to this clip by the woman in the picture, Mrs. Manzi. Those were her words, first spoken, fun shit. You remember that? And if you want, it's on page two of the reprimand, second paragraph down. She stated that she was paraphrasing the words that Mrs. Manzini used while interacting with her, referring to fun shit.

Yes. It's in the narrative. Okay.

You've been a police officer for a long time. Is it not sometimes a useful tool to talk to people the way they're talking to you in the sense of vocabulary?

Not in a discourteous manner, sir, no.

Okay. But if somebody said the words fun shit to you and then you said, no, we're not going to talk about that fun shit, they would know what you're talking about, wouldn't they?

I would never repeat that, sir.

Okay. So you never cursed in your life?

I've cursed in my life, but not at a complainant or any call of service I've responded to.

And you consider the word shit profane language?

Yes, sir.

Do you discipline every Miami police officer who uses a profane word while they're in a uniform?

I don't discipline them, sir.

What do you investigate them?

If there's a discourtesy, I don't investigate cases. I no longer investigate cases, so it goes to the investigators that investigate the cases, and based on what the sergeants see and review, based on their findings, then they make their appropriate decision.

I don't have anything further. Thank you.

I have a brief cross.

Redirect. Sergeant Auguste, the video that you saw today, is that the same video that you reviewed when you initially reviewed this case to sign off on the disciplinary action form?

Yes, I remember, yes.

And it was the same video?

It was that video, yes.

And it hasn't changed since the first time that you saw it, from what you remember, right?

From what I remember, no, it has not changed.

Okay. And when an officer is at a... responding to a call or dealing with the public, civilians, is it appropriate to use profane language or to react in a way that's similar to the complainant?

And per our departmental orders, you know, even in the face of provocation, we're, you know, supposed to remain courteous and patient with the complainant.

Thank you. No further questions.

All right. We'll open it up to questions from the board for the sergeant.

Yes, I have a bunch of questions, actually.

Okay. We have Board Member Lanier, you're recognized.

Okay. Looking at the video that we saw, first off, Sergeant Agus, again, you didn't investigate. You just looked at all the facts and came up with a determination. Is that correct?

I didn't come up with the determinations. Detective Jasmine came up with, you know, did his investigation, came up with the basis and the findings of this case, and I reviewed it, and I agreed with him.

So whose decision is it to determine whether or not she violated elements of courtesy, public contact, and tactic consideration? Who made that determination, you or Jasmine?

The detective Jasmine made that decision, and I agreed with the decision.

Okay. Going back to the incident date, was she alone on that scene?

At first she was. From my memory, she was, and then she requested units that came.

So from the video that we saw how many people were there versus how many officers are on the scene.

Officers in the scene from my recollection from the video we just saw off on their video it was about a sergeant Bremer and the gentleman and that's a complainant.

To complain how many people are standing downstairs.

I believe there was a vehicle downstairs. I can't recall.

I counted seven to one.

It was two people standing in front of her and there were five people standing downstairs and I only saw one city of Miami officer on the scene. Is that fair?

Yes. I mean, I have to review that video again to see the other people standing in the rear.

Okay, so she didn't have backup at that moment. At that moment of the video, she had no backup on the scene.

From my understanding, I don't believe she had anyone on the scene with her.

Okay, but she was clearly outnumbered, is that correct?

I mean, she was dealing with the two people at the staircase. I'm not sure she was dealing with anyone else.

But she does have to be aware of her surroundings, is that correct? Of course, yes. So all of those five people downstairs could have caused her just as much harm as the two people standing in front of her, would you agree?

Yes, but I don't believe they were part of what she was talking to the other two individuals.

But we don't know, right? We don't know, yes. Do we know if she searched the two people standing within five feet away from her? I'm not sure. So we don't know if they were armed or not? I don't know. Okay. Do we know if her response... was tactful in nature at that time, being that she's outnumbered seven to one. Do you think she was tactful?

If she was tactful? I wouldn't say outnumbered seven to one because I'm not sure what the other two people, the other five people that you stated had to do with her talking to the complainants. She should have probably called for a backup if she saw anything, if anything was escalating to anything.

Do we know if she called for backup?

She did end up calling for officers to come on the scene.

So she did need backup. So it wasn't seven on seven from the video we saw. It was seven on one, basically. I know you're saying that the people downstairs may not matter, but it's an officer on the scene and she's there alone. And those people can cause just as much harm as the people standing in front of her. You were on patrol, so you understand that, correct?

Yes, and I would not go to a call, especially a disturbance call by myself. I would always call for backup before responding to a call for service.

Correct, but we're there. We're there. So she's there and she's committed. She can't back out. We don't have a duty to retreat, right? You don't. Okay. I'm going down a list of policies that that before I even get into that. So I'm a patrol lieutenant and I work in a very aggressive district. And I've been on the scene as recently as a week ago where I dropped the F-bomb like nine times. Why? Because I was outnumbered. I had to control the scene. I had to deescalate. I needed to do what I could do until backup got there. I believe we have a policy that states that we can do that you're aware of that or not.

It is but it was not it was not and policy at that time this incident took place this party policy that you're stating came into play of last year, a probably a pro 2025 and this incident with sergeant Berman took place in 2022.

Being that you didn't do the investigation you just over you would what Jasmine did These policy violations that we enlisted, courtesy, elements of courtesy, public contact, technical consideration, this is what Jasmine said that he feels she violated. Is that correct?

Not he feels he violated. Those are written in the departmental orders.

Okay.

That goes with exactly what was viewed on video.

Okay. Let's just go over the main four policy violations, which are the ones that I mentioned, because without these, the other ones don't occur. That's courtesy, elements of courtesy, public contact, and tact and consideration. If she doesn't violate those, the other ones don't occur, right? Is that fair?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

So the four policies that are the meat and potatoes of this reprimand are courtesy, elements of courtesy, public contact, and tact and consideration. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

So if she doesn't violate these four, The other ones are not a violation.

Is that correct? Which other ones are you referring to?

Members should know the rules and regulations. If she doesn't violate these, she doesn't violate that. Responsibility. If she doesn't violate these, she doesn't violate that. Discipline, action, general defenses. If she doesn't violate these four, she doesn't violate that. Is that correct?

Yeah, so these are just to put in there and in the context that you're supposed to know your rules and regulation. This is, you know, standard that's put in every reprimand that's written because it's just to remind, you know, that you're supposed to know your rules and regulation, reference courtesy, public context, taking consideration, and basically all departmental orders.

Okay. All right, let's go through these four real quick. I'll try to make it brief. Let's look at courtesy. If you look at a policy for courtesy, you go two lines down, it says that she shall always be quiet, civil, orderly, and courteous. Do you see that? Yes. Okay, you go two more lines down, and it says, when required, they must act with firmness, with sufficient energy to properly perform their duties. Now, in a situation where you're outnumbered seven to one, should she be quiet, civil, orderly, and courteous, or should she be firm with sufficient energy to properly perform her duties? Yes. Then this policy kind of contradicts itself.

It says firmness. It doesn't say to be profane, use profanity. It says firmness. There's a way of using a tone to be firm, not to use profanity towards anyone.

But I don't see profanity as a violation on here.

If you go down, it says, you shall at all times refrain from using coarse, violent, profane, or insolent language.

Okay. So let's go to the next one. Elements of courtesy. It said, courtesy consists of a quiet, unassuming behavior based on a sincere consideration of the feelings of others. Do you think it's fair that she should be concerned about how these other seven people feel when she's outnumbered? Or should she just stand her ground and be firm like the policy above said that she should have done, which she actually did?

I'm not sure about being outnumbered, but yes, that's what we're here to do is serve the public and make sure that we are courteous to everyone. I understand there's certain situations, you know, you have to be firm. but we also have to not use profane language when speaking to the public. And it also states in the department's order, even in the face of provocation, they shall be diplomatic in the performance of their duties.

Okay, give me an example. You said there are situations where she should be firm. Give me an example of a situation where she should be firm.

They say she's outnumbered. Your tone, your officer presence,

that's you know it's standing you know you're saying standing your ground uh does it have to use profane language to stand your ground okay going back to the policy before that the courtesy the last three lines it says they shall at times not all the time it says at times they shall refrain from using coarse violent profane or insolent language is this a time where she should not have used it with two people standing in front of her yelling or is this a time where She should have been profane.

Excuse me, I just want to clarify. Before you answer, Sergeant, I apologize. I just want to clarify. The DO does say they shall at all times.

At all times. Okay, then disregard. I apologize. Okay, let's go to the next one, public contact. The second line, it says, attitudes of effrontery, egotism, and superiority by officers in such contact will not be tolerated. These people dialed 911, did they not? Excuse me, who dialed 911? She was responding to a call. They dialed 911 for police to respond. Is that correct?

No. She got a personal phone call from the other party involved. It was not a call for service. She responded on her own.

So somebody called the police to respond, whether they did it through dispatch or the officer, they called the police to respond.

The other party involved with, not the complainant, the other party that was involved in the disturbance contacted Sergeant Bremer to respond and informed her of the situation that was taking place. So that's how Sergeant Bremer responded to the scene. There was not a call for service that was dispatched.

But she was called to respond?

By the other party, yes, via her personal phone.

Okay, the policy states superiority by officers in such contact will not be tolerated. How can she not perform with superiority when she's an authoritative figure on the scene? They call for police to respond, so they want someone superior to respond and handle the situation. Is that not right?

Yes, of course, in a respectful manner.

Okay. And the last one, tact and consideration. It says members and civilian employees should remember that tact and consideration will be of great value in any work that is to be done. Being that she responded to them the way that they responded to her. Do you consider that being tactful on her part? Or should she have been quiet, civil, orderly, and courteous like the other policy says?

She should always remain tactful and consider and consider and have consideration for wherever she respond or whoever she does with the public, especially that's who we work for.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to dismiss this reprimand total. I don't see any policy violations. I know we're not at that point, but this is.

Motion by board member in there. To dismiss.

I actually second that too. For clarification, on what grounds?

On grounds that this, I don't think she violated any of these policies. These are officer, this is officer safety concern. She's out number seven to one and she's supposed to be nice and courteous when two people are yelling at her and five people are behind her. I don't see any policy violations. based on that.

We have a motion by board member Lanier, board member Cabrera.

I second it. And I'll give just a few reasons why. It's very interesting that there is now a policy to allow profanity, even though I don't necessarily consider the S-H-I-T word profane. I'm not going to say it here just in case. We're in a different time altogether. Maybe that's not relevant to you guys, but it is to me. I also feel that your policies contradict themselves. I'm in agreement with that, for sure. It also... I was reading the... the reprimand itself and i even saw at one point somebody changed it from a recommended reprimand to a suspension and i feel that that seems extreme based on the the facts being presented and the context of what happened um i don't think it merits a suspension at all i don't okay so we have a motion by board member lanier to dismiss

A second by board member.

The clarity, is that finding the employee not guilty?

Yes, yes. Okay. Excuse me, before the board takes a vote, I just, for the record, need to object. Please. The hearing has not finalized. The city hasn't finished putting on all of its evidence, so.

just for the record the city's objective we're not we're not there yet so if you could just allow me to conduct a meeting here i would greatly appreciate it so board member lanier um has made a motion to dismiss second by board member cabrera uh under further discussion by the board and board only at this time is there any other uh questions or comments from any other board members Okay, seeing none. Sergeant, I have a question. Are you aware why it's taken three years for this investigation to come before us here on a hearing, why it's taken three years?

No, I'm not aware.

Okay. And then let me ask you, a lot has been said about the language that was used and the word profane comes forward. In your departmental orders, does it delineate what defines profane language?

No, it does not.

Okay. So there's somewhat of discretion from the author or the person reviewing it or yourself in this matter, since you're the one giving the testimony as to what you consider to be profane language.

I mean, we all know what... you know, profane language is and what language we can and cannot use with the public. I can't comment up to you or even if you're screaming at me and use whatever language I wanna use towards you. I still have to be, I'm still a professional, I'm still a supervisor and I still have to conduct myself in a courteous manner, no matter what our departmental order says in the face of provocation, like I still have to maintain my cool and remain professional and courteous at all times.

Sure. But in your training, when you're training in the, when you're riding along with an FTO or your training or anything like that, I mean, is it up to a certain discretion as to what you consider to be aggressive, courteous, profane, proper language or not? I believe so, yes. Right. So, I mean, like if I tell you, all right, I like that. That's good shit. I mean, would you consider me to be aggressive in any tone? I mean, in the English language, you know, I love my wife. I love my children. I love ketchup. I think the context of how you use a word can determine, you know, like if I say, you know, there's a heat game tonight. I mean, I usually like to go to those things because, you know, it's fun shit. I mean, is that something that, you know, you would consider me being discourteous? Even if I was wearing a uniform and I'm sworn in what it is. I mean, because it's pretty serious for the amount of time and resources that it takes up here. I get the fact that there's... since been obviously it's taken three years for this uh complex case to to come before us but um there's since been uh a revision to departmental orders and stuff where you can use in a context you know some kind of profanity or whatnot but i'm just curious as to what language would be determined uh you know to be discourteous or improper uh especially with with a word like that can be used, you know, in so many different forms. So, you know, I want to bring that to the record and see how you and your experience, you would determine if somebody using that language, you know, if me as a citizen was using that language to you, would you take that as a, I'm being aggressive, I'm, you know, threatening you in any way, saying something like that?

Tones and context, as you stated, is important. But if a citizen comes towards me and using that language, yes, I would take it as being aggressive. And the complainant also felt the same way, where she did not appreciate the fact that the sergeant was using that language with her. So that's, and our departmental order also states, you know, to remain, you know, courteous and not to use profane language. We all know what profane language are. So, yes.

So if I came to you and I said, you know, I have, this situation going on over here, and I'm a complainant, I'm a citizen, and I'm letting you know, man, I'm over here. This situation here, there's fun shit going on, it smells like shit, and you repeat back to me, like, reasserting, like, what shit are you talking about? Is that something where then I would be able to say, hey, what kind of language are you using back at me when I'm referring to something to you and you're kind of getting clarity or matching my tonality, getting clarification? within the context of the situation, would that be something that you would be held, you deem that you should be held accountable in that situation?

In that situation, I don't see it was the same where that language was used towards the sergeant. So if the civilian were to come and talk to me like that, the civilian is able to talk like that. But me as a professional in uniform, I'm not allowed to use that language.

Chair, may I say one more thing?

Go ahead, Board Member Cabrera and then I'll recognize Board Member Jimenez.

Thank you. I worry that this is sort of a consequence. These cases that come before us are a consequence of having potentially lack of experience out on patrol in the field combined with having rules and regulations that potentially are out of date or a little ambiguous, right? Maybe a lot ambiguous. Because I did hear that the sergeant has, you know, 20 years on the job. And that's why I asked how long you were in patrol, because I think that's important. It sounds like you're fortunate that you may not have had a situation where you had to sort of, to de-escalate, meet the person or the group in the emergency or in the situation with the same energy, the same sort of language, to de-escalate, right? I just hope that it's not because, you know, your judgment potentially might be clouded because you don't necessarily have the experience. But then you're in a role that you're reviewing these administrative concerns, complaints, et cetera. And, you know, I think the chair kind of mentioned that there's a lot of time invested here and money, of course, to review these cases that end up not really being cases at all. So just wanted to add that.

Thank you.

Member Jimenez? I just wanted to second what you said. I mean, context does matter. And I'm talking about the chair, what he said earlier. If I was to use the word A-S-S, it would depend on how the context of that word is used, how you interpret that. Another one would be another name for a cat that is used. So it does matter.

I'm talking now in general, and I think we're forgetting a situation with when our parents and our grandparents were alive, no word is accepted. We should keep that in mind, regardless of the content it's used or not. You have to be aware there may be children around you, there may be women around you, and profanity or incorrect words should never be used. I don't care where society is heading. It's just common decency. And forgive me if anybody doesn't agree with me, But I think our society needs to go back to the basics and respect. That's being looked at very softly and very lightly. And when you're in a professional role, and forgive me, Sergeant, but even being a Sergeant, I know sometimes the situation gets heated. but you have to control yourself. It doesn't mean that I agree with the 10-day suspension, but when I get stopped by a police officer, every T has to be crossed, every dot, everything is by the rules. Everything I do, there's no exceptions. So I expect the same thing from the other side. If you're going to expect that from me, then I expect the same thing from the other side. No matter how difficult, no matter how heated, how hot the situation is, if you expect me to control myself, then when you're in a difficult situation, I expect the same thing, especially from a sergeant. So that's my personal opinion. And a lot of people reviewed this. And another thing, I'd like to know why this complaint happened on April 27, 2022. It went to a disciplinary review on January 23. It was signed by the city manager on March 23. It is February 3, 26. Why has this taken so long? Does anybody here know or does anybody know of anybody that can answer this?

I can say from on behalf of the city as far as me personally when I received this case I remember the very first time that I received it I did ask for a continuance and this was way after I believe I don't even know when the appeal was submitted but there was a couple continuances I believe I personally, I think in this specific case, I asked for two, three, three. Don't quote me, I might be wrong. I asked for three after I got the case, which was way after I believe my first time up was in 2024 in this matter. Other than that, any other continuances prior to that, I can't speak for, but I do know that the board's, hearing list is always very full, and so I'm sure that there was probably a scheduling issue after I had requested some continuances, but I do know that I personally, when I received this matter, asked for a couple continuances, and the last one was just last month, when I had found out that the author of this discipline had retired, and that's why I needed just a brief continuance, and you all granted it just for this month.

One thing, one point I want to make about this, taking so long, Maybe the city needs to do a better job because this employee has had her nerves on the edge for three years trying to, what's happening? Is this going on my record? Am I going to be affected? That's not fair to the employee, whether it's the sergeant we have in front of us or any other employee. We should be more conscious of this and try to make sure things like this don't happen.

Completely understood. And also, Tamika just reminded me as well, we were in settlement discussions. I personally was not, but I know my office was prior to me receiving this case with the sergeant, not just on this matter, but on another matter. So we were trying to come up with a global resolution and that fell through. So I believe that also played into the delay. But yes, I do understand what you're saying.

Thank you. Yeah, I mean, the fact that it takes three years, I mean, only one word comes to mind and it starts with bull. That's really how it feels. Honestly, I'm beside myself at the fact that we could spend three years and all of this over a call and have a video come forward of what I see. I'm very disappointed at... basically the protocol and how it takes place within the police department. I'll tell you this, and Board Member Solomon, I'm listening to what you're saying, and I can remember growing up, and to this day, because, you know, when you grow up, no matter how old you are, your parents are your parents, and your grandparents are your grandparents, whether they're here or they're not, you hear them in the voice in your head, and you know what they'd say. And I tell you what, if I use anything that my parents thought would be profane on my grandparents, it'd probably be matched and gone over since they're my direct supervisor over me, and they would go ahead and let me know in probably a more profane way that that was not acceptable and okay. And I will tell you, it's very disappointing because quite frankly, a police officer's position is something that now that I have three sons myself, If they told me that they wanted to become a police officer, I'd tell them as their father that I would strongly reconsider and look at what it is because of situations like this that are, again, bull. because you know certain situations we can all nitpick none of us are perfect none of us do any of our jobs to a perfect way I mean if in the private sector they could complain about things I do I'd have a lot of reprimands because I make mistakes daily and I and I do misjudgment and I don't make the right calls but I will tell you that respect is a two-way street so Yes, our officers have to always act, and you're always in a position. They're also human beings. They're not perfect, and there's some kind of discretion. I mean, if every single time I had a bad incident or I made a minor mistake and a police officer held me to the rule right by where it was, then I'd probably have some kind of a criminal record or a reprimand of some sort. I'd have at least a traffic ticket on what it is. But sometimes, you know what, I've I've come across officers I maybe wasn't sure, and they treated me with great courtesy and told me, you know, in a way, and I would expect that if I got pulled over and a cop tells me, do you know why I pulled you over? And I said, well, you know what? This is some bullshit. I would expect that their demeanor and their discretion would probably change. You know, I've thought, you know, I lower my window. If I get pulled over, whether I think I'm right or wrong, and I treat them with the courtesy that I would want to be treated, I put my hands out. I've done this for your safety. Um, and usually that's gotta be a pretty good result of what it is. I don't know if anybody else saw or heard the video, but I saw it and I thought that the, the tone of the approach of two people, we met somebody that's coming to address a situation that they're called on, um, kind of, you know, the way I see it and even written from what I read on it is, The tone and the verbiage that was used was said, you know, oh, this is fun shit, whatever. And that was responded back like almost like a questioning. That's the way I interpret it. I didn't interpret it as if they were, you know, going through saying, you know, I'm going to have, you know. a bunch of shit with this or something. I don't see it that way. And again, I question what does everybody, you know, consider to be bad language? I mean, I could be a kid growing up and see, you know, movies in black and white and, you know, I don't give a damn, you know, at some time before in old departmental orders, that might have been a real, you know, that's some SWAT-themed language going on. But I mean, every time, you know, One of us has a serious situation, hopefully never. Most humans probably don't ever have the need to call 911, thankfully. But I'll tell you one thing, when you call 911, whether you need fire or police services and stuff, at that time, you're saying, shit, I hope they get here really fast. Because you have a serious situation if you call 911. And it's embarrassing sometimes. here in early February in 2026 that we're sitting here in a hearing that has started in the morning and going on into the afternoon over the context of what I saw in a video, and it takes three years to get to this conclusion. And you want to take out of a 20-year veteran's paycheck 10 hours and cause this extended time, like you said, 10 hours is a fourth of your week. For any of us, no matter what you're in business, that's a good portion of time for one shitty situation. So with that, if anybody else doesn't have any other comments, we can go ahead and call the roll. And I hope that we don't have situations like this. I think you'll see it in the vote, and I hope it sends a message. I think it's time to change with this because I'm not very happy about the situation.

Through the board, could I make a suggestion as to the motion? We deal in guilty and not guilty, so could the motion be not guilty of all charges? We'll ask the proffer of the motion. I'd like to make the motion that...

Yes.

Sergeant, you're refused. Thank you for your testimony and your time.

Thank you.

I'd like to make the motion that Sergeant Linda Brimmer did not violate one single policy on this reprimand.

So we have an amendment to the motion. Is that an amendment? That is an amendment to the motion. An amendment to the motion.

And I second.

Board Member Cabrera seconds it. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the roll.

Member Solomon?

I agree with the motion.

Member Jimenez?

Yes.

Member Cabrera? Yes. Member Lanier?

Yes.

Chair Cabrera?

Yes.

Motion passes 5-0.

For the record, the city still objects. Thank you.

I imagine so. Thank you. If there's no other further business, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Solomon. Second by Board Member Lanier. We'll remind everybody our next board meeting and hearings are scheduled for March 3rd, 2026. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you. We know it can be difficult to tell when someone's trying to scam you. If you ever feel concerned, just hang up the phone or ask the person to leave. If you feel unsafe, call 911 and ask for help.

You can find more information about how to protect yourself from scams on fpl.com slash protect.

We're here at a vacant lot that currently has some issues that co-compliance is here to address. There used to be two structures which got demolished by the city because the owner wasn't able to maintain them. And now the grass is overgrown again and the property, it's not maintained. So we're here to assess the situation and carry out some type of communication with the owners if we can get them. And if not, the city will have to get involved. They have 10 days to come into compliance and part of the compliance is maintaining their swale, which would be the overgrowth along the right of way. It would be clearing up the lot as well as registering it with the city of Miami because it is now vacant and it's no longer a structure on here and it's not being occupied. A lot like this is a hazards to our neighborhood. It attracts illegal dumping, it attracts trash, stray animals, and it devalues the property values of the houses around us.