Civil Service Board - Regular Meeting

to the March 17, 2026 Civil Service Board meeting. We will start with the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll begin with the adoption of the agenda.

Motion.

Second. Motion by Board Member Soliman, second by Board Member Jimenez. All in favor? Aye. Approving of the minutes.

Motion.

Second. Motion by Board Member Jimenez, second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. C, military leaves of absence. C1, Nicholas Masi, a firefighter, requests retroactive military leave without pay from January 25, 2026 through February 6, 2026, and a military leave extension through February 10, 2026. Copy of both memorandums submitted.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Jimenez. Second. Second by Board Member Soliman. All in favor? Aye. As always, thank you to the men and women that serve. D, disciplinary matters, take note. E, general items. E1, E2, take note. E3, copy of a request for a joint continuance from Stephanie K. Panoff, Division Chief, Office of the City Attorney, and Brody M. Schulman, Attorney, concerning the appeal hearing of Maria Cotullo-Milks, paralegal, as it relates to her two-day suspension, effective January 30, 2025.

Attorney Schulman.

Attorney Schulman, can you hear us?

Lynette Aguirre, I'm covering for Ms. Panoff this morning. I can tell you that they have been in communication. They are both requesting a joint continuance for this hearing. I don't know if Mr. Schulman is going to speak, but I know him and Ms. Panoff has been in communication.

Who has to unmute?

Somebody has to... There we go. Mr. Shulman, I think... Mr. Shulman, you might need to unmute your... There you go.

Good morning, everyone. Yeah, I just got transferred over, so now I can hear all of you. I couldn't hear you before. Good morning, everyone. Brody Shulman from Prairie Law Group.

So... I'm sorry, Mr. Schulman? I'm sorry.

Yes, sir.

Can you repeat? I'm sorry. I couldn't hear what you said. I'm sorry.

No problem. Can you all hear me okay now?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Brody Schulman from Pereira Law Group on behalf of our client, Ms. Maria Mu.

Okay. We have the understanding that there's a, I guess, a joint continuance request? Yes, sir.

Yes, Ms. Panoff and I had conferred on this earlier, and I believe she had submitted the request to you all, and that is correct, sir.

Okay. Board members, I believe the employee has requested one continuance, and then this is the first continuance, I guess, mutually between both parties. So we'll entertain a motion.

Motion.

Second.

Motion by Board Member Soliman, second by Board Member Cabrera. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. All right. So the appeal hearing is scheduled for March 31st, 2026, our next board meeting. See you all then.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this, everyone.

Have a great day.

Thank you. May I be excused?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Wishing you all a great day.

F1 hearings pendings list. Oh, excuse me. I got ahead of myself. E4. Copy of a motion to dismiss from Lynette Emagiri, Assistant City Attorney on behalf of the City of Miami concerning the grievance hearing of Marvin Bravo, Police Sergeant.

Yes, good morning again. I believe Mr. Hillman is on Zoom.

Yes, I am. I'm sorry. I'm trying to get off of the video. It's just going on now. Mike Hellman, Staff Council, PBA, on behalf of Sergeant Bravo.

May I proceed? Yes. Okay. Yes. So the city has filed a motion to dismiss in this matter. If the board remembers, Sergeant Bravo was before you all requesting when he filed his request for hearing. And specifically at that request for hearing, I actually made a motion to dismiss as well, or at the point, at that time, the city objected to his request for hearing because his request was really a disguised Rule 16 hearing. So, and I'll backtrack a little bit. Sergeant Bravo was promoted to the position of lieutenant, and then he was rolled back to sergeant because he had multiple deficiencies and there was issues with his probation status after there was a request for an extension of probation granted and everything. Then at that time, Sergeant Bravo brought before this board a request for hearing claiming abuse of power by discrimination because of his military status. At that time I explained to the board because he was a probationary employee while he was a lieutenant, he couldn't be requesting a hearing before the board to contest his rollback. But the board at that time agreed and allowed him to move forward with his request for hearing. We're here today because I have filed a motion to dismiss because Sergeant Bravo has also filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, the Veterans Affairs Division. They have already reviewed Sergeant Bravo's complaint, which is the same allegations that we are here before you today, the allegations of abuse of power and discrimination based on his status as a military service member. And so the city is now moving forward with this motion to dismiss for arrest Judicata. The Department of Labor has already listened to Sergeant Bravo's case. They've investigated it. They've even spoken to witnesses specifically. They interviewed Major Keandra Simmons. They also interviewed Commander Alfredo Delgado. And if you can see attached to the city's motion, Exhibit D is their findings where they have found no violations and have even given the sergeant an opportunity to file with the Attorney General's office. if he contested the Department of Labor's decisions, which he has not to this point. And so at this time, the city is requesting that this hearing be dismissed because the claims and allegations that Sergeant Bravo has been making have already been litigated. It's the same thing as saying when a litigant goes to state court, doesn't like the result, and then tries to go to federal court for the same claims. You can't do that. Similarly, that's why in the city we have processes and why you can either choose when, as an employee, if you're going to appeal a discipline, you can either choose a civil service board or you can choose to go the grievance route. It's an election of remedy. And at this time, the city is arguing that Sergeant Bravo is already elected as remedy, went through the Department of Labor, he had them investigate their case, they already interviewed, did everything they needed to do, came back with their findings, and this board has no jurisdiction to hear the same allegations and claims again, and that's why we're moving to dismiss.

Mr. Hammond? Very briefly, I mean, this is here for a Rule 16 for an abuse of power issue. The idea that this is going to be something that, you know, USARA and federal law, you're allowed to basically check with the Veterans Affairs Office to see if USARA was violated. The idea that somebody abused their power really has no bearing on this other UCR investigation. I'm looking at Exhibit D now. I mean, I don't know if there's more of an investigation that was done or more of a report, but this is the first that I'm hearing about it. And I believe that I've been listed as an attorney on record since at least June or July of last year. This is the first time I'm hearing of this. And the idea that on exhibit D, there's no, it just says we're closing our file. And if he wants to proceed and go forward with the AG's office. And this isn't something that he's requesting an appeal of the rollback. It's just an investigation for abuse of power. and the idea that there was somebody who was doing something incorrectly and abused their power in a way that they had never done with any other lieutenant in that situation before, that's basically the investigation, and that's the reason that Sergeant Bravo requested the Rule 16 hearing.

If I can clarify, I just want to be clear. If you look at his request, which is attached to the city's motion as Exhibit A, his allegations of abuse of power are against one of his supervisors at the time, and specifically, it's due to his affiliation with the military. So that's the basis of our motion. He's arguing that there was an abuse of power, there was discrimination because of his military affiliation. The Department of Labor's already investigated it. Just wanted to clarify.

Okay. I want to hear from our counsel on this.

Can you hear me?

We can now.

Okay, good. Good morning, everyone. I reviewed this case thoroughly. And this Lieutenant was supervised by three different supervisors and each found him deficient. He was given an extension of probation. I think that the motion should be granted because I think on the marriage should be guaranteed. There's not a strong UCR claim. The Department of Labor has heard that and we should not be stepping in for a federal agency. And second, according to our own rules, He's a probationary employee, basically trying to appeal his rollback, which is specifically not something that comes before this board. So for two reasons, I think that this... motion should be granted one that they're arguing and one based on our own rules if you look at his file and their response to the department of labor they outlined that he was deficient and found deficient by three different supervisors so while he's focused on major keander simmons all of his supervisors found him deficient all of them concurred that he should be rolled back all of them concurred with his um extension of probation so um for multiple reasons, this is not something that this board should handle.

And if I could just respond to that, when Major Simmons was the person responsible for doing the evaluations of Sergeant Bravo, or Lieutenant Bravo at the time, the only thing that she would write in her evaluations is that she was unable to evaluate him because he was out on military leave. And then she would give that a deficient rating. And then for every other section, she would say that there was not enough information. So it would show up as a deficient rating. There was no final evaluation that was done. There was no meeting. There was no conclusory thing done by Major Simmons. So the idea that you could just pick and choose and abuse your power when someone's on probation and there's absolutely no remedy is kind of wild. The idea that this is happening and that rules exist for a reason, people are supposed to follow the rules, the idea that Major Simmons isn't doing stuff that she's supposed to do in terms of providing evaluations and actually evaluating – When on the same hand with other people, they've done the same exact thing where there's been evaluations done on the time that they were there, and that's it. The idea isn't that it's a – it's that she abused her power in part because of his military affiliation. But the main complaint is that she abused her power.

I didn't want to cut him off, but I didn't want to object to what he was saying because everything that our counsel just argued was getting into the merits of the actual argument, which we could hear next week if you all decide that the hearing should proceed forward.

Well, I just find it that in the paperwork that was provided to, I guess, the Sarah investigator once again is the 1st time I've seen this. I've been I was in a termination hearing last week and then I had to go out for a family emergency. So I just came back into town this morning. The idea that this is something that. You know that. This, he was extended, he was put underneath the kind of mentorship of a lieutenant. And the idea that none of this is mentioned, it's picked and choosed in terms of what information is given to the USARA investigator. And when you get to choose what you tell the investigator, of course, they're going to kind of come to a conclusion. But once again, I was never, if there's a report other than the one page thing saying that we've concluded our investigation and he's been told that if he wants to proceed forward he can go to the attorney general's office if there's anything more than that i'd like to be provided with that before you know any decisions made on this board members uh we'll

Any questions for Member Cabrera?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. I have two questions. The first one is, are we able to see something a little more substantive in terms of the discussions or the investigation? I do see the exhibit. Let's see. from the city that was sent to USERRA. This is exhibit B, no, excuse me, exhibit C, and then exhibit D automatically is just kind of like a summary page. Can we see, I guess I would want to see the meat of it, right? And then the second question is, and maybe it's not appropriate to your point during this discussion, what is the procedure, if any, when an employee is on military leave and they happen to be in a period of evaluation, such as a probationary period, where they're technically not being evaluated, it doesn't make sense to submit an evaluation, when the employee was absent and then say that their deficiency is because they weren't present when it is an allowed sort of separation from their position, right?

So to answer your first question, if you see the city's motion attached to it, Exhibit A, I apologize, Exhibit B is the letter that the city received from the Department of Labor Veterans Affairs section explaining Mr. Sergeant Bravo's complaint and essentially asking the city to provide the department with our position statement documentation, anything that will provide an assisting for this investigation. Exhibit C was the city's position statement that was supplied to the Department of Labor. This position statement included multiple, multiple exhibits that were not included in this motion. because it's very lengthy. But then after that was submitted, the Department of Labor also did their own investigation. And in my motion, I detailed where they also took, they interviewed different witnesses. Now, if you want a full, I guess, documentation, a full recap of everything that the Department of Labor looked at and used in their investigation, then we would have to do a public records request to them. But I guess that's the whole point as to why we're here today and why I filed this motion, because if they have already done their investigation, their independent investigation, they've looked at everything that the city's provided, and they've also looked at everything that Sergeant Bravo provided at the time, they made their decision. And ultimately, this is the letter that we received. And while it says that the file, the investigations concluded, and that they were closing the file, they did give Sergeant Bravo the opportunity to move forward with the Attorney General's office if he, you know, decided and if he wanted to. And he did not. So... essentially it's closed. You can't come back and try and re-litigate the same issues before a different board. You don't like the outcome in one case, you can't go, it's just the same thing. You can't go to federal court, you don't like the outcome, then you can't go to state court. Which is why you can't come before the civil service board, you don't like the outcome, you can't then choose grievance, right? To go before an arbitration. And then as far as your second question, that all has to, depending on, I can't speak for the departments, I can't speak for the evaluations that were done, But that also goes into the facts of this specific case and, again, goes into the investigation that the Department of Labor already did and how they interviewed all these witnesses and took into consideration all the documentation. I don't know specifically what happens and how every department does their evaluation of employees when they're out on military leave. I think that's something we would have to discuss with the department in specific if you have specific questions for that.

Yes, to the last one. I would like to know how that works because potentially this is a situation that can repeat itself. We have a lot of employee, every meeting we have, we have notices of employees going off to military leave. So yes, that makes sense. And then... I'm not fully convinced that just kind of getting a summary is enough to say, you know, yes, let's just, from me, this is my stance, to say just dismiss it based on a summary versus just, I like to understand things, especially if I'm voting in favor or against something, and I don't have enough information to understand what was discussed or reviewed by voters. So that's my stance right now.

Understood. And to that point, just so that I can be clear with the board, a lot of times when we're in court, we get decisions from judges, we get orders from judges that say nothing but granted, dismissed, case closed, case open. So just kind of to give you that, when a motion to dismiss is filed based on the merits, because the merits have already been decided, it doesn't matter. what the final outcome says in their summary. I just kind of wanted to clarify that. I understand you want more clarification, but I just wanted to clarify that for the board.

Thank you.

I guess, and I kind of want to reiterate that, I don't know that you're going to get much more information from the Department of Labor. They reveal certain things, but they don't reveal it when there's potentially ongoing litigation. So the fact that he has a right to an appeal, you're not going to get that. But his case hinges on the fact that because of his military leave, he wasn't given a fair evaluation. They would have reviewed that. That would have been the central core of their investigation to see whether his military status impacted his the decision to roll him back. And based on the report that was sent by the city and the documents attached it was clear that the evaluations by three different supervisors um were done independently of his military status so his military status really had nothing to do with the decision to roll him back it was his lack of judgment as demonstrated by leaving a crime scene one hour, by trying to, when he's doing a wellness check, break into the home of the police officer that he was doing a wellness check for, and other incidences that just showed that he lacked the requisite judgment that they thought was required for a lieutenant. And then also the city showed that the supervisors, specifically Officer Delgado, spent a lot of time training and retraining him to help him in his new role and that he was not was not improving major simmons role was that she said that he should not be the only lieutenant on duty that was her direct order he violated that order by seeking an overtime duty where he would be the only lieutenant um so that was really her role the the the alleged evaluations by her while he was on duty don't make sense because um he would have been evaluated by the commanders, not per se by the major who is two steps above that position. So this is a case where I don't think he even belongs in front of us because he is a probationary employee. And our rules clearly state that probationary employees have no civil rights, civil service rights. So Why are you hearing a case of a probationary employee when your rules clearly tell you that you should not be hearing that case? So this is something that you need to think about. The city's motion is based on the fact that he had a hearing and had his rights heard before USIRA, which USIRA, I mean, the Department of Labor is going to try to protect someone in the military that is allegedly abused by his employer. And they found no such thing because the independent evidence was that his evaluations from three separate supervisors showed deficiencies. And the fact that we, this board is granted an extension of his probationary period because we felt that the city had shown that he had sufficient evidence to need an extension of probation. So while the board may be sympathetic to him, we have to follow our own rules. And our rules are, and I can read you the rule, it says clearly that we do not hear cases of probationary employees. Section 1.8, probationary employee means any employee in the classified service who is regularly appointed to a position, but who has not completed the required probationary period. 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 insurance position upon being notified in writing, but should not be accorded a hearing before the civil service board. It's in black and white, ladies and gentlemen. We don't have a right to hear this probationary employee's claim. His UCERA claim was brought to the Department of Labor. That was heard, and they denied him that claim. If he wants to go further, he can appeal it. But he really has no rights to appear before this board. and his case has already been heard. So res judicata means his case has already been heard, and his case has been heard by the Department of Labor, and now he's trying to have it heard again. There's a certain point where the resources of this Civil Service Board need to be guarded and protected. And one of the things that we protect from is probationary employees. If you're going to do this, then every probationary employee can now violate that rule because you've set a standard that probationary employees have civil service rights when the rules and the unions and everybody knows they don't have such rights. Thank you very much. Thank you, Reggie. Board members?

I have a couple of questions. Good morning. Member Lanier? Good morning. According to the city's argument, they're basically stating that the Department of Labor made no findings of discrimination in violation of USERRA. And then they reference exhibit D. All exhibit D states is that the investigation has been concluded and we are closing our file to this matter. Exhibit D does not state whether or not anything was, what was investigated. Now, the city received this letter from Department of Justice, March 24 of 2025. We're in 2026. So the city has had this information for a year now. My question to the city is, since you guys got this letter from the Department of Justice, Department of Labor over a year ago, can the city show the board any document where a legal decision was made by the Department of Labor?

Where a legal decision was made?

Where a legal decision was made.

So what we got from the Department of Labor was what I attached as City's Exhibit 4, I mean Exhibit D, and then also Exhibit B, which was the first letter that we received from the Department of Labor, is what details what the Department of Labor was looking for and what we needed to submit to them for their investigation.

So the City is basically saying that he's trying to get a second bite of the apple. Right. I'm trying to find the first bite of the apple. So my question to you is you cannot show me anything where the Department of Labor made a legal decision? So this is their legal decision.

They're closing their case. And if you look at City's Exhibit B again, it says towards the end, should the evidence support Mr. Bravo's allegations, he may be eligible. you know, for wages, benefits, loss, because of the reclassification action. So clearly they were requesting a lot of documentation for us to determine whether there was a violation in USARO because of his military status or not. I can't speak to what the Department of Labor gave us or not. This is the only thing we received from them.

So we don't have a legal decision from them?

This is their final legal decision.

Do we have a findings of facts?

If I could interject through the chair.

Excuse me?

This is the legal decision. When they do an investigation and close their file, that is the legal decision. And they're basically telling us because it's an administrative decision that they didn't find anything. If they had found something, they would have had a finding and said that there was a violation. The fact that they closed their file and said, we're closing it and he can go and appeal it. um to the attorney general means that it's the burden is on the officer to appeal this decision the city is not in this litigation they get a letter that closes out the investigation that's it there's nothing more that is a legal finding um and as an employment lawyer this is what I know this to be. So the city can't go to the Department of Labor and appeal the decision because they're not a party to this decision. The person who has to appeal it is Officer Bravo, and he has to appeal it within a certain timeframe. But in no uncertain terms, this letter constitutes a decision by the Department of Labor.

Does that clarify? It does clarify, but all this is saying is that it was closed. It's not telling us what they investigated. There's no findings of facts. There's nothing in this letter that says anything was resolved based on the employee's claim. How do we know based on this? I guess now this is a legal decision. How do we know based on this legal decision that Sergeant Bravo's claims for abuse of power was investigated at all? It's not telling us anything. And for me personally, if the city had this for a year now and the city didn't say, well, we would like to know ourselves from the Department of Labor, what you guys investigated. To me, that doesn't seem right.

Okay, any- Through the chair again, it may not seem right, but it is how government, especially federal government agencies do. They give you these one line sentences. If there had been more to it, they would have said, we found a violation by the city. This board sits and watches the review. Every military officer who needs to go on leave, we grant. When they come back, we re-employ them. This is not a place where we do not respect veterans. When they have a promotional exam, we give them their veteran preference points. That has been something that, you know, and we've bent over backwards to be fair. Nothing in this in his tenure relates to his military service, that would be a violation. I mean, looking at this case, this officer dropped the ball on multiple times and seriously. He left a crime scene where the body washed up on shore. After being on the scene for only one hour, he failed to notify his superior officers. And he'd been warned that if there's something serious, you've got to notify us. I don't know what's more egregious than a woman missing. And you're not telling anybody until the next morning so that, you know. special crime unit victim doesn't get there until after the body's washed up on shore. You're told not to be the only lieutenant on duty and you defy a direct command. You break into an officer's home on a wellness check. These are things that are just shows a clear lack of judgment. And so while We wanna protect every employee. We also need to protect the public from a Lieutenant that doesn't have good judgment. And are you guys gonna put him back on the street when he's leaving crime scene after one hour where he takes He takes some evidence, a scooter that was involved in an accident, and he touches it and throws it out of the crime scene before anybody can, CSI can even do their investigation. I'm sorry, gentlemen. Usually you do not hear from your counsel, okay? I am quiet. I do not try to influence it. But when you read what this officer has done, the city has bent over backwards to try to help him. And to blame his... Lack of judgment because he's a military officer raises my hackles. I am a civil rights lawyer. I hate when people cry wolf and try to use their race, national origin, religion, gender, or in this case, veteran status to try to get around the fact that they are not qualified. This officer is not qualified to be a Lieutenant. Any one of those three incidences should have been enough to let him go to three, And his statement that only one person found him at flaw, all three supervisors found him unsatisfactory. All three, for three separate, different, multiple different instances of lack of judgment. Officer Lanier, I know that you don't pick up a gun at a crime scene. I know that you would not remove a scooter from the person who had just gotten killed at a crime scene. Can I object to this?

We're talking about we can't talk about facts and you're basically plotting a city argument. I appreciate that you follow federal law. Congratulations on that. Thank you for following federal law. That's very important. But also, this could be something where Sergeant Bravo is a member of the Florida National Guard. It could be just as simple as them saying, You're not covered under federal, you're covered under the State National Guard, which is why you'd go to the Attorney General's office. But there's nothing in there that says that. It just says the case is closed, you can go to the Attorney General's office. It doesn't say for what, it doesn't say for anything. My biggest issue with this entire thing is, if we had this motion to dismiss the last time it was up when we requested a continuance because of Lieutenant Bertrand, that'd be fine. But we waited until literally two weeks before... The the the the final hearing for this when it's been sitting for six months and I've been asking for updates as to whether we can go earlier. And then the answer is no, we can't. That's fine. But if you're sitting on this for a year, a year, a calendar year, and you don't let me know, like, what's that about? Like, can you as a city attorney explain that to me? Just so I just so I can be on the up and up with that.

All right.

Do we have any other questions from board members? I just wanted to finish up. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I just want to just clarify one thing. Reggie, I heard everything you said, and I respect you. I really do. I'm just trying to find out why we have certain information that we don't have other information, and that was the basis of my question. I'm not here to take sides or to determine whether or not any of Bravo's actions were justified or make any sense because technically we're not even at that point. We're trying to get to that point. My concern is the same concern I had when we had the employee here from the Cultural Arts Center. She was on probation and she was claiming abuse of power. So my concern is, yes, he's on probation and he doesn't have probationary rights, And there may not be a civil service rule that states that the Department of Labor's investigation removes this board from hearing a civil, a Rule 16 grievance. But if the Department of Labor can't tell us whether or not they investigated his claim other than it's just been closed, that just brings a concern to me. Because like the other employee, yes, you're on probation. You don't get probationary, you're on probation so you don't get to have a hearing, but does that mean that probationary employees cannot complain about, cannot be victims of abuse of power? That's all I'm saying. That's all I'm saying. Okay.

Are you, any other? I'm done, I apologize.

Thank you, thank you, Reggie, thank you. Board Member Jimenez. Thank you. Recognized. Just to add to what my colleague just said, just a question to Reggie. Can a probationary employee bring a claim under Rule 6 examination? 16? No, 6. Rule 16? Rule 6 examination.

I'm not sure. No, no, no, no.

My question is, can an employee under probation bring a claim under Rule 6 examination?

Are you asking if they can file a 16 alleging a violation of Rule 6?

Yes. That's...

It says probationary employees. Rule six is dealing with examinations. This is not an examination case. This is a probationary employee. I understand that. Is being declassified. So I'm not sure I understand your question. Like if this was an examination process and he failed it, then yeah, they can appeal examinations, but that's not the situation.

No, so my point is that our rules are not clear then. If an employee could do that, because you were stating that our rules clearly say that they cannot bring it under probation. They cannot bring anything before the board, but obviously they're not clear because if you could do a Rule 16 and claim a Rule 6 violation under it, then it's not clear that what you're saying is that what you said was that they cannot bring any claims before the board if they're under probation.

So an employee that has taken an exam is not under probation. They've just taken an exam. So Rule 6 allows them to question the examination process, and that's clear, and we allow that. An employee who has been promoted and is in their probationary period is considered a probationary period by Section 1.8. And that employee, when they're in probationary period, in the case of such as sergeant bravo they are they don't have civil service rules and if you look at your book and you read section 1.8 which is i think on page six it clearly shows probationary employees have no civil service rights and cannot have a hearing before the civil service board so this case should not be before you based on our own rules The city is seeking to say on a legal concept that if a case has been heard by one court, you can't have another court rehear that case. And so in this case, an administrative process has been heard by the Department of Labor. on the very issue that he's bringing before this board. And so you can't get, in effect, two bites of the apple. You can't have a case, and she used an example, like if I file a case in state court and I lose, I can't file that very same case in federal court. So in this case, he had his case before the Department of Labor, and he could bring up everything about his military service and why this was unfair to him and why he should be kept in his position. And they looked at it, they looked at the facts, and they made a determination that they weren't going to investigate any further. They were closing their case, which means there is no finding in favor of the veteran. The EEOC, when they do an investigation, other administrative agencies, when they close the case, that means they've investigated it and it's over. That's what's happened here.

Just to clear something, you said that an employee cannot be under probation if they've taken an exam. Actually, no, an employee could be under probation seeking another promotion and going through an examination at the same time.

If I can help clarify, I think under different rules, clearly an employee can be under probation and not have rollback rights. But an examination is not the same thing as going on Rule 16 while you're a probationary employee. So I think we're talking about two completely different things. So, I mean, I definitely agree our rules can be clearer on certain subjects. But when it comes to somebody appealing Section 6, an examination, whether they're probationary or not, is a different story than a Rule 16 abuse of power examination. when you're a probationary employee with no rollback rights for that given position at the time. If there's other questions or any other point to it, or if not, we can entertain a motion.

Uh, if I can just say 1 final thing, I apologize the position or my position would be that Sergeant Bravo was a full time sergeant and a probationary lieutenant at the time. So he is an employee. And you could be, you could have an abuse of power done to anybody that's an employee in the department. whether he has the ability or the board has the final authority to grant him basically a reversal back to lieutenant. That's not even the issue here. The issue is the abuse of power. So the idea of whether it's Sergeant Marvin Bravo that says that there is an abuse of power or temporary or probationary Lieutenant Marvin Bravo, it's still an employee of the department.

Noted. And that's why we're debating back and forth. And then this body will decide whether we grant or deny a hearing. Board Member Solomon.

Thank you, Chair. Based on the testimony of our attorney and the fact that to me it's clear that this employee was on probation and he doesn't have the right to come before this board not even thinking of the gross violations that he committed during performing his job. I feel that At this time, I would like to make a motion to approve the City of Miami's motion to dismiss.

There's a motion by Board Member Solomon to dismiss. Do we have a second?

I second on section 1.8.

Second by Board Member Cabrera. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll take the roll.

Motion to grant the motion to dismiss. Member Lanier? No.

No.

Member Jimenez?

No.

Member Salomon?

Yes.

Member Cabrera? Yes. Chair Cabrera?

Yes.

Motion passes 3-2.

Thank you all. F1. Thank you. F1 hearings pendings list as of March 17, 2026. Please take note, our next board meeting is scheduled for March 31, 2026. If there's any discussion or any comments by board members on any of the hearings pending.

I have a question. Yes, sir. So now we're not going to hear Marvin Bravo on the 31st There was another case last hearing that we were trying to pencil in. I can't remember which case was that. I don't know if you have. Is there an update from the?

No, we did reach out when we first got the request, the motion to dismiss and the request for the continuance. And no other pending case was able to pivot so fast. So we won't have any hearings for the 31st.

Thank you. Thank you.

So there's, as of right now, no hearings for March 31st? That is correct. Okay. I mean, we can entertain if...

I wanted to add something because I did try to add... There's a case, Davila, who was scheduled for June, I believe, for termination. He submitted a request to our office to move his hearing up, given that we don't have any hearings on the 31st. I did reach out to the department to see if they would be prepared and ready to go forward. In all fairness, they're not ready, so we're going to have him on June. I just wanted to put that on record.

Okay. No other questions. If there's no hearing scheduled for March 31st, we can entertain a motion to cancel that meeting.

Motion. I second.

Motion by Board Member Lanier, second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. Take note, the next Civil Service Board meeting will be April 14th, 2026. If no other questions, then we will then move on to, well, that's it. Just a motion to adjourn.

Motion.

Second by Board Member Lanier, second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

Today is the closeout of our Fit City Challenge. We're here in the beautiful District 4 Manolo Reyes' Park with city staff. We did a 5K this morning and a Fit City is a good city to serve you, the community. We are talking about being consistent with our health through various initiatives we've had throughout the entire month. This closes it out and I'm so happy to be the chair of the City of Miami Commission and also the chair of this initiative. We rock City of Miami.

I want to congratulate Chairwoman Christine King for organizing an exceptional month of events focused on being healthy and staying healthy.

super important for everyone to get out, get some exercise, get some fresh air, and to see a little bit of the different neighborhoods in the city.

This is a great event for us to be outside, get together, meet our colleagues and friends in our neighborhood. So really excited about this event and happy to be here.

Attention, residents of Miami. In the next few days, the older people who live in the city of Miami and who own their home, with the exception of Homestead, will begin to receive their taxes refund checks. As part of the tax relief program for older people, the owners who qualify will receive a refund of 100% of the taxes at Valorem de la Ciudad, a measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to our residents. Adults mayores con ingresos fijos aprobado en el presupuesto del año fiscal 2025 a 2026. Este programa beneficia a residentes de 65 años o más cuya propiedad sea su residencia principal con Homestead dentro de la ciudad de Miami. Es importante destacar que este reembolso aplica únicamente a la porción de impuestos de la ciudad. No incluye los impuestos del condado, la junta escolar u otras autoridades fiscales. Para más información sobre elegibilidad y detalles del programa, visite miamigov.com o contacte a la ciudad de Miami.

Hello Miami! We are here at the beautiful Legion Park for Jazz on the Bay. It's a concert series that I kicked off last year in October. Today we have amazing artists Tito Puente Jr. and Gerald Albright. I cannot be happier to be the host of this.

Being here at Legion Park with Brian and all the wonderful people that put this wonderful event together, I'm honored to be here. I appreciate the invite and we want to come back time and time again.

These kind of events in our community are so important. It gives everybody a chance to come out and just have a really good time with colleagues, with residents, but everybody has one big family in our city. I'm a resident of Miami for many, many years, and I'm so excited and thrilled that we have such a wonderful situation here. It's just wonderful, magical.

I think that it's very important that we have dance or any type of music for the community because it gives cultural awareness and it also gives us a chance for downtime and relaxation.

Illegal dumping is a real issue here in the city of Miami. The disposing of bulky trash and yard waste should be done following the city's once-a-week bulky trash collection schedule. Residents who do not receive City of Miami solid waste services can bring bulky trash items to our Department of Solid Waste mini dump facility located at 1290 Northwest 20th Street. It is open Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. and on Saturdays at 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. Please visit www.MiamiZeroWaste.com for your collection, schedule, and guidelines. By working together, we can create a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable Miami for our residents.

Or you. Your lungs. Even though you quit smoking years ago, you may be at risk for lung cancer. But with a routine screening, you can detect it early.

Learn more at SavedByTheScan.org.

Mosquitoes can spread dangerous diseases, but together we can stop them. Keep doors and windows tightly closed. Repair any holes in window screens to keep mosquitoes out of your home. Use air conditioning when possible. Mosquitoes breed in standing water. Empty or cover any containers that can collect water. Buckets, toys, kiddie pools, bird baths, trash cans, and tires. Remember, just a teaspoon of water can be enough for mosquitoes to multiply. Protect your skin by using insect repellent. Read the label instructions carefully, especially when applying to children. Make sure the repellent is safe and appropriate for all family members. Let's take action today to keep our community healthy and free of mosquito-borne diseases.

Illegal dumping is a real issue here in the City of Miami. Reporting incidents of illegal dumping is vital to addressing the issue promptly. Residents can report such incidents by dialing 9-1-1 for in act and 3-1-1 for after the act dumping by submitting a report on our official website MiamiZeroWaste.com. under the Let's Get Rid of Illegal Dumping tab. Your cooperation is crucial in maintaining the wellbeing of our community and environment. Illegal dumping can also be reported by Crime Stoppers at 305-471-8477. There is a $500 reward for reports that result in citation or arrest. By working together, we can create a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable Miami for our residents.

Why would drug dealers put a lethal dose of fentanyl in drugs if they know it's so harmful? It's cheap, it's potent, and it's profitable. Really just all about the money.

The Move Over Law was originally enacted to protect first responders and service workers that were providing critical services on our roadways. Anytime there was a critical service being provided, the law stated that motorists had to move over a lane to provide those workers with more space to do their job safely. Or if you're not able to move over a lane, you have to reduce your speed to 20 miles an hour under the posted speed limit. And again, the purpose of the law was to really just Protect the people that are out there protecting you and providing these critical services. At the end of the day, we all want to get home safely. We really just want people to know the law is in place and to really abide by it for all of our safety. We have these move over tear sheets where we hand them to drivers that states all the information about the law. It doesn't mean it's a guaranteed ticket. We try to take sometimes an educational approach because at the end, again, we want everybody just to really understand the law and understand the importance of it.

We are here to assist all the residents and small business owners to start their applications and help them with anything they might need, especially with certificate of use. We assist them from the beginning to the end and we also assist them with the application with a county DERM.

The mid-block pedestrian signals, or MPS, is a traffic control device that functions like a regular traffic signal at a mid-block crossing location. The MPS operates as a standard semi-actuated traffic control signal, but instead of the typical solid red indication, the MPS will display a flashing red indication during the pedestrian clearance interval. How to use. Pedestrians. The pedestrian signal can be activated by pressing the button when a person arrives at the intersection and wishes to cross the street. Pedestrians should wait for the walk signal to appear before attempting to cross and should only initiate the crossing when it is safe to do so, making sure vehicles have fully stopped behind the stop bar. As pedestrians proceed through the crossing, a countdown will indicate the remaining time to complete the crossing. If pedestrians arrive at the signal to cross after the countdown has started, do not cross. Please press the button to activate the cycle and wait for the walking signal indication. Drivers Drivers should pay attention to the light change on the signal. If the signal shows a green light, it means that drivers can proceed normally. If it changes to a red light, they should stop at the stop bar pavement marking. When the red light is flashing, it means drivers must come to a complete stop. Then, look both ways and proceed with caution if no pedestrians are present at the crossing. The MPS is intended to ensure safety at pedestrian crossing.

See a problem? Don't let it stay. Report anything from potholes to noise complaints through 311. It's your tool to make Miami cleaner and safer for everyone. Call 311, your voice for a better Miami.

Has visto una acera dañada en Miami? Si has encontrado una acera en Miami que está rota, desigual o dañada por raíces de árboles, queremos saberlo. Antes de reportar, verifica que la acera esté dentro de los límites de la ciudad de Miami en el sitio web de la ciudad. Para reportar, anota la dirección más cercana y llama al 3-1-1. Una foto del daño también ayudará a asegurar un reconocimiento rápido. Oh, I don't see where you got your degree. I don't have one. I went another route. All right. I guess tell me a bit about your experience.

For 15 years, I've been managing logistics and mastering project management skills.

Wow. Sounds like you've got just the kind of skills and experience we're looking for.

Did you know that the dangerous excessive speeding law is now in effect? This is a criminal offense for any driver who seeks the speed limit by 50 miles per hour or operates a vehicle in 100 miles per hour or more in a manner that threatens the safety of others and is punished as follows. First conviction, up to 30 days in jail and a fine of $500. Upon the second subsequent conviction, it will be 90 days in jail and a fine of $1,000. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of dangerous excessive speeding within the last five years of the first conviction will have their driving privilege revoked for up to one year.