Civil Service Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the June 23rd, 2026 civil service board meeting. We will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Adoption of the agenda. We'll entertain a motion.

Motion.

Second.

We have an addendum.

We have an amendment. I'm sorry, on my agenda, I don't see it.

So it's not on the agenda. So we, in our last meeting, we had a request for a hearing. Oh, sorry, let me turn this one on, sorry. In our last meeting, we had a request for a hearing that we tabled, and with consideration with today's hearing on the agenda, I was hoping to amend the agenda to add a decision on that tabling. Does that make sense?

Okay, so it sounds like we're saying that there's a hearing on today's docket on the agenda, but based on last meeting on tabling a hearing, you wanted to proffer to see if it was possible to amend this agenda to...

Determine, to make a determination on whether a hearing is appropriate or not. We tabled the decision.

Okay, understood. So you want to see if we can... decide whether we should move forward or not with the tabled item. That's correct. Okay.

Motion to amend the agenda.

So we have a motion by Board Member Cabrera to amend the agenda to bring up what was tabled from last meeting.

I second that motion.

Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, so now, to begin the meeting after the pledge, good morning to everyone, and now we will entertain a motion to adopt the agenda.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Lanier. Second. Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. Wonderful. Approving of the minutes. We'll entertain a motion.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Lanier.

Second.

Second by Board Member Jimenez. All in favor? Aye. D, disciplinary matters, D1, board members take note. E, general items, board members take note, E1, E2. F1, hearings, pendings list, board members could take a look. As of right now, our next scheduled board meeting is July the 7th, and pending a settlement on the one hearing we have there from what I see. Is that something that we don't know it's still pending as far as the settlement on that?

Yes, sir, it's still pending.

Okay. All right. Board members, any questions on any of the hearings pending list?

The... The settlement is in July, let me see the settlement. July 7th, a 20 hour suspension?

That's our next board meeting. I just asked the executive secretary and we're still pending a settlement on that, so it's still pending. Okay. That's our next scheduled board meeting and that hearing is pending.

I'm sorry, I think we have an update. Yes, board members, please look at item E1. E1.

If I'm not mistaken, that is the actual settlement.

Right. OK, so it seems that.

But we're just confirming that it's the same case because she had.

OK, yeah. That was my question, so I'm sorry. It is that one. Bingo. OK, so board members, as of right now, our next scheduled board meeting, we have no hearings scheduled for that day. Is that something that we wish to continue with that meeting, or would we like to table that regular business to our next board meeting on July 21st, where we have two hearings pending? Because we have no pending hearing as of the time.

Motion to table the hearing.

For July 7th. No, it would be, we would probably want to cancel at that point. Okay. And then automatically we'd table the regular business to the 21st.

Okay. I'll revise it. Motion to cancel the meeting for July 7th.

We have a motion to cancel the July 7th meeting by Board Member Soliman. Second it. Second by Board Member Cabrera. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.

Excuse me, Chair. I said July 7th. I apologize. July 9th.

No, it's July 7th. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. July 9th, you have other matters. Okay. All right. Sorry. So please take note. After today, our next board meeting, civil service board meeting, will be on July 21st. So far, we have two hearings pending scheduled for that day. Any other questions by board members on the pending, hearing pending list? No? Seeing none, we'll move forward to today's hearing, H1, appeal hearing on behalf of Alfonso Davila, former heavy equipment mechanic helper, concerning of a termination effective July 11, 2026. Ready to proceed? Good morning.

Good morning, ready to proceed?

If you could please state your name and position for the right of way.

My name is Alfonso Davila, heavy equipment mechanic helper.

Thank you, sir. City?

Yes, the city's ready.

City's ready to proceed.

Yes.

All right, do we need maybe 10 minutes to get ready for the hearing or so? Five minutes. Five minutes. Five minutes to get ready for the hearing? All right.

Mr. Davila, you have exhibits? Yes. Could you give it to...

I brought one for each board member. Yes, I understand that. No, I don't.

All right, we're in recess for five minutes.

Thank you.

And we're ready to begin with today's hearing, H1.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Alfonso Davila, again, Heavy Equipment Mechanic Helper for GSA Administration.

Good morning. Lynette Aguirre on behalf of the city.

Okay. If I can ask both, do you have any witnesses today? Yes. How many do you have? One. One. City?

I do. I have five witnesses.

Five witnesses? Yes. OK. All right. All right.

I guess that we'll proceed. If you want to do an opening, you can do it. Yes. OK, go ahead.

Madam Chair, members of the board, let's start with the job abandonment actually is. It is when an employee abruptly stops showing up for work and fails to communicate with their employer for a prolonged period, typically three or more consecutive scheduled days. It is an employer prolonged period typically Three or more consecutive scheduled days, it's a no call, no show. The employee goes silent, unreachable to every call, email, and text from management or HR, and it requires intent. A prolonged absence showing no intention of ever returning, not one piece of that applies to me. I am here to prove it element by element. My supervisor, Robert Rionda, signed a request for leave form approving my vacation July 7th through the 11th, 2025. That approval is in his own city, own outlook scheduling system. Exhibit five, the absence was authorized. Element one, fails. No written revocation was ever served to me. I received nothing telling me to report. Rionda's own email, exhibit four, is his written admission that he failed to deliver any updated form to me. Element two, fails. The day I received the termination letter, I submitted a written dispute immediately. A person who attends to abandon a position does not fight for it the same day. Element three fails. When all three elements of charge fail, the charge fails itself. This termination has no legal foundation. Consider the logic of it. This job had accommodated me in parts for medical reasons that under HIPAA, I am not required to disclose and I will not. I had a schedule built around my daughters, my wife's demanding work hours, flexible leave, and FMLA. What reasonable person walks away from a job built around his family's needs, his medical accommodation, and federal leave protection? It makes no sense because it did not happen. The city may point to a leave of absence of 8.5 hours. Across two evaluation periods, exhibit seven, Rionda himself recorded 27 days without pay in a single cycle with a satisfactory evaluation, no discipline. Not once has a day without pay been called abandonment until now, until after something changed. That is selective enforcement. There's a second fatal defect, the personal action form that proposed my removal identifies as as the proposing authority, not a supervisor, not a director, not an appointing authority. This termination was proposed by someone with no legal right to propose it. It was void the moment she signed it. Every approval that followed was built on a foundation that does not exist. There was already tension before any of this. I had a modified schedule. My schedule was six to two. I was modified from 7.30 to three. Built around my culmination. Other mechanics noticed. I personally heard complaints about it more than once, including her husband, Fernando Puig, Mardenis Puig's husband in the same department questioning why I had that schedule, and they did not, and they didn't. That resentment existed before I ever said a word about Ms. Puig's own conduct. Now, why more than we propose this termination? I had personally witnessed her leaving workstation out of authorized break visit to visit her husband at his station in the early morning before designated breaks. And again, lunch outside of scheduled break time. This was a pattern. I made comments to my fellow mechanics and coworkers about exactly what I witnessed. Her leaving her post on city time.

Objection to any of these allegations. This has nothing to do with his job abandonment. This is all allegations against an employee. and the city's not on notice of any of these facts, anything, and I'm gonna object to any of this coming in, and this is all argument as well.

Excuse me.

Let me hear from the council. For him to rule on the objection and to me issue an opinion. He's claiming that there is an abuse of authority, and this seems to be relevant to that in a sense, that he said that he submitted a leave request form, and he's giving the rationale as to why He's giving a rationale as to why he thinks that the leave request form was ignored and he's being terminated. So I think it is relevant.

Yes, thank you. Overruled. Those comments spread through the workplace. Her husband, who already resented my schedule, heard that was being set up by his wife. And through him, it got back to her. What followed was not a coincidence in the same timeframe. After her husband told her what I said, she, a payroll liaison with a system access and zero termination authority, initiated my removal. She bypassed every procedural protection a classified employee has turned an approved vacation week into a weapon. She had the motive. She had the access. Her husband told her what I said about her conduct and she made it personal. There is one word for that, retaliation. That's the reason why for the abuse of power on June 9th I came. I didn't want to state that June 9th because it would have ruined the integrity of my case. A favorable ruling is not enough. If I return, I return to a department where a payroll liaison can violate city time policy without consequence and use administrative access to end an employee's livelihood for speaking honestly. No classified employee should have to choose between his rights and his job. Finally, I subpoena three witnesses. I have no need to cross-examine them. Their own emails already contradict each other on the record. The ladies and gentlemen from the board, you have that there on the exhibit. If the board has any questions for them, ask directly. I am asking the board to render a decision that reflects on what the record demands. Thank you.

City? On one issue, do you agree to his exhibits? Can they be entered? What are we doing on that?

Um...

Yes, they're right here. No, no, I'm gonna start, I'm gonna do the exhibit one.

A lot of them are duplicates of my own exhibits.

Yeah, so do you object to them?

I have no objection.

All right, so for the record, the employees' exhibits, there's no objection to them, so they're all coming in, exhibit one through seven.

Okay, noted. So employees, the employee's exhibits, there's no objection to them. I'll ask the employee, do you have any objections to the city's exhibits that they're proffering?

I just noticed one about another employee named Anthony Rosari that was a no call, no show that he abandoned his job, but he never intended to even fight for his job back. That's the last exhibit, which it should be, which I never had a copy of that.

Are you going to object to the exhibit as a question or you don't care?

No, I don't care.

Okay, then there's no objection. So there's no objection to any of the exhibits?

No.

Okay. Now, so now with that city?

Yes. Good morning, everyone. This is a very simple case. It's a no call, no show, which means no notice, no job. There's no excuse here. Mr. Davila requested 40 hours vacations. and instead he was approved eight hours vacation. Just because you request 40 hours does not mean that it's approved. He was only approved eight hours and he was also told of this explicitly three specific times and you're gonna hear the testimony today from the witnesses that are present. The three times that he was told this was once by his direct supervisor and twice by the payroll liaison. Common sense tells you that if you don't have the time approved you have to come back to work. And Mr. Davila failed to come back to work. He obviously had no intention of returning to work. What reasonable person doesn't show up for work after they've been told multiple times that they don't have approved vacation?

Objection.

It's very clear.

I was never once verbally told and had no written revocation to return, no email, no phone call, no text message. Thank you.

Again, the evidence will show that Mr. Davila was told multiple times that his vacation was approved only for eight hours. That was the only time that he could take. And there's also an exhibit that also shows that from the city. Now, it's the city's position that Article 17 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, to which Mr. Davila was a union member, applies in this case. Specifically, 17.1 subsection 3, abandonment of position. An employee absent for a period of three work days without notification of valid reason to the city and who has no legitimate reason for not notifying the city of his or her absence may be considered as having resigned. It's clear. Mr. Davila was absent from work for more than three days. Four days specifically. Never called. and never told anyone that he wasn't going to show up to work.

I'm sorry, excuse me. Could you tell us which exhibit is the one that shows that Mr. Davila was informed that his vacation was denied?

There is... So exhibit number 12 is the original request for leave that Mr. Davila submitted. Now, if you notice, this exhibit is only signed by Mr. Davila and his direct supervisor. This hasn't gone up the chain of command, and I'll explain all of that through our witnesses. And then exhibit 14 is the final request for leave. That is the documented one, city documents and records, official records, that show only eight hours were approved.

Objection. If you look at the bottom, it says eight and a half hours, but were the two boxes, say, approved or disapproved? None were checked.

Again, the exhibit speaks for itself, and I also have two witnesses that will testify to the verbal notification that they gave Mr. Davila regarding his approved eight hours of vacation.

All right, we'll just go ahead and overrule. Everybody will look at the exhibit, and we'll hear from the witness, so it'll be clear.

And if I may as well, further, it's the city's position that Article 17 was also violated because Section 5 also discusses unexcused failure to return to work after the expiration of a formal leave of absence. An employee who fails to return from a formal leave of absence will be considered as having resigned. Again, he was approved eight hours, did not show up for work for the rest of the week. He has been resigned.

Objection.

Then, I just want to finish my opening statement.

Yeah, there'll be a... Oh, no, well, job abandonment does require intent, and as soon as my director, Jennifer Ramirez, sent me an email, I responded within 10 minutes' time.

What authority do you have to say that job abandonment requires intent?

That's the definition of job abandonment.

From where?

Google, it says anywhere, you can look it up.

Okay, let's overrule, let's let her finish the opening statement and then we'll get into the discussion with witnesses.

Further, it's the city's position that civil service rule 14 has also been violated. And if the board looks at subsection B, Mr. Davila is clear, and it will come out through all of the testimony that you will hear today and all the evidence that's going to be presented, that he is guilty of misuse of sick leave privilege or excessive tardiness or absenteeism without good cause, as well as subsection Q, which is has been absent from duty without leave or has failed to report for work after the leave of absence has expired or after the said leave of absence has been disapproved or revoked or canceled. So again, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very simple case. Mr. Davila was approved eight hours vacation. He decided he wanted to take the rest of the week, and it's the city's position that he has effectively resigned from his position. He never called, never notified anyone that he was not gonna be showing up for work. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen of the board, I just wanna say, I don't need to give a call to anybody in the department if I was on an approved leave signed by my direct supervisor, which APM 2-87 clearly states that approval comes from your direct supervisor or your director. And not once did my director, Jennifer Ramirez, refuse my vacation, and neither did my supervisor, Robert Rionda, which is in the exhibits.

Wonderful, okay, so we have opening statements in, so I guess we'll proceed forward with the hearing. Mr. Davido, would you like to call your first witness?

Yes, I want to call Lázaro Chaputin, and he's going to give his testimony.

Good morning, board.

Good morning, if you could please state your name.

My name is Lázaro Chaputin, I live in the city of Miami. I'm a former employee of the GSA department,

Wonderful. Can you please raise your right hand?

Yes, sir.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God? Wonderful. Let's move forward with the first witness, Mr. David.

Sir, you have to ask him questions. Yeah.

If you want, you can take this podium or whichever one you're more comfortable in, and then he can take the other so you can ask him the questions on the record.

Well, basically, I didn't have any questions. I just wanted him to speak on the exact same things that we had going on, because not only I have been targeted, but he as well, by the same person, Mardenis Puig.

You can't get in evidence that way. You have to ask him questions.

In order to follow the procedure of the way it works, you would have to have like a, it's called ask-answer. So you would ask him a question like, You know, you would have to ask him questions kind of where you want to get your point across.

Okay. Well, basically, this would be just for the June 9. The only question I have for you as well, do you believe that Mardeles Puig, an HR liaison, does she abuse of her power?

Totally. Not only with him, but with me.

Mr. Davila, if you could just stand on this one, ask him the questions in there so it comes out on the record, both of you, so we can hear both of you.

so that we can get a record.

Excuse me, guys, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a heavy equipment mechanic helper, so I'm trying to do my best. Well, basically, that's what I'm trying to think. The only question I have for you, sir, is have you undergone the same exact abuse of power as well at GSA? Can you please state that? And can you please state the person that does that as well?

Our department is a total abuser of power. Violates every kind of policy there from the city. The city doesn't even know about what's really going on in that shop with that lady. If you want me to talk about the list, I could talk about the list if you allow me to.

And I have also one more question. Was I right or wrong where this Mardela Spuig walks up and down the shop as she pleases with... without the authority of anyone. She just does as she pleases in the shop.

She's walking all over the place like she was that director, actually, with her husband next to her. This is kind of a big situation there in the shop. Husband and wife in the same department, you know, and hearing what people say and all kinds of stuff going on there. If you let me, allow me to talk about the list, I will tell you about what's really going on with the list. I got one more question.

Did you know I was going on vacation from July 7th to the 11th?

You told me you weren't because you asked me where I was going to go on vacation. I said, no, I'm staying home. And then you told me that you had approved 40 hours of vacation and you were going to go with your family on vacation.

Thank you. Any other questions you want to ask? City?

Mr. Chapleton, you recently stated that you were a former employee of the city of Miami, correct?

Yes.

And you worked in the GSA department just like Mr. Davila?

Correct, as an automotive mechanic, yes.

But you were in the light fleet department or division?

I was in the light fleet. Light fleet, which is cars, and he worked in the heavy fleet, which is trucks.

Right, and they're not in the same division, right? We are in the same garage, same shop. But it's a different division. You report to a different supervisor or reported to a different supervisor than Mr. Davila, correct?

Yes, under the same director and under the same liaison.

But different direct supervisors, correct?

Yes.

Were you ever Mr. Davila's direct supervisor?

If I was his supervisor?

Were you ever his direct supervisor?

No, no, no.

So you never had to evaluate his performance as an employee, right?

No, I never did.

You never had to approve any of his requests for leave, right?

No, no, I have no authority to do that. That's not my position.

So today you are just stating that Mr. Davila told you that he was approved for 40 hours and he was going to go on vacation, and this is what you believed because he told you, right?

What I'm saying is that when we have our free time, like lunchtime and all that, that we talk together and all that, you know, he'll say, what are you doing for, you know, vacation, the holidays, July, you know, 4th of July and all that. I say, no, I'm staying home, you know, with my family. He says, I got approved to go on vacation a week. Because that's what he told you, right? Yes.

Okay.

Now, Mr. Chaputin, you also, you were terminated recently from the city, correct?

I was what?

You were terminated from the city recently, correct? Yes, I was.

Yes.

And you have a pending hearing before this board that will happen sometime this year, right?

Yes, I do have it sometime in the future, yes.

Okay. Now, wasn't there a workplace violence investigation that was done against you by the Human Resources Department here in the city? Am I allowed to talk about the list? This is a yes or no answer.

That's why I want to talk about the list.

I'm just asking you whether you were investigated for workplace violence in the city of Miami.

I was investigated, but I never committed any kind of violence.

And you were substantiated for distributing any kind of disruptive behavior in violation of the APM of workplace violence, correct?

As a whistleblower...

No, sir, that's not my question.

No, the question is, as a whistleblower, I have complained to my supervisors and even to my director about what really is going on in the shop. That's why I said, do you allow me to talk about the list? So the panel here, the board, will know what really is going on in our shop.

And I'm sure you're going to be able to go into all of that at your specific hearing. I'm just here to ask you specifically, you were sustained for exhibiting Disruptive behavior and violation on the workplace.

I'm supposed to be here. I'm supposed to be here in his case Not in my case towards the end of the year.

Okay, no further questions Okay, I have one more question Mr. Lassiter Chaputin as Miss Lynette stated you were fired or recently terminated for workplace violence Why was that and who was the one that said that you were being violent in the shop?

I?

Thank you.

That's why I keep talking about the list, because there's a list there. There's a black list. That's why I want to talk about the list.

You got to be asked a question. I don't ask the questions.

So you're asking... Kava, would you like to talk about the list?

I'm going to object. That's going to go into everything that he's going to talk about at his own termination hearing. That has nothing to do with Mr. Davila's hearing today.

Well, the June 9th, like I said, about the abuse of power. I mean, I can still keep thinking about questions because we could definitely prove the abuse of power and also... With the same person that got this man fired, which he was in a supervisor's room where the lovely Mar Delis Puig came in and stated that Chapa was being violent because he said that he was a mercenary. 27-year veteran from the city of Miami who has never been written up, has had any problems but being a whistleblower, was fired due to the fact that Mar Delis Puig says that this guy's a violent man. Once again, this does tie into what I came for on June 9th. Like I stated earlier, I did not want to speak about that because I didn't want to jeopardize the integrity of my job abandonment case this morning. Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen.

If I may, just to confirm with the board, Mr. Davila's request for hearing here is abuse of power as far as Ms. Mar Delis Puig in her authority or no authority to initiate a job abandonment. It has nothing to do with any kind of allegations that Mr. Chappleton is making today. It has nothing to do with anything regarding his own termination. He can testify as to the reasons for his termination at his termination hearing before this board. He's obviously here today in testifying for Mr. Davila based on the facts that we have here today. That's it.

Agreed. So it's two separate cases. Mr. Davila has the right to come before and is granted a hearing, and he's called them as his witness, so he can use them as a character witness or whatnot, so he's free to ask him the questions if he feels that there's questions to ask that are not pertaining to Mr. Templeton's case, but that... that there's a valid point or something that could do to characterization or anything that could help support his case, then we'll grant it to him. Do you have any other question that you want to ask him? Anything?

I have no other questions. I just wanted to know when can I do the exhibit walkthrough because there's also other things that I need to point out with the witnesses that are here as well. I have no further questions for Mr. Chabotin.

Okay. City, any other request, follow-up?

I have no questions for him.

Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. City? Do you have another witness? No, sir. Okay.

No, I don't have any other witness.

I asked at the beginning of the hearing. He said he had one. The city said they have five. City, would you like to call your first witness? Yes.

The city would call at this time Mr. Robert Rionda.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Robert Rionda. I'm the Heavy Equipment Mechanic Supervisor for the City of Miami GSA.

Good morning. If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so I'll help you God?

I do. Okay.

Mr. Rionda, how long have you been working with the City of Miami?

Since 1999.

And, sorry, if you already mentioned it, what was your specific title?

Heavy Equipment Mechanic Supervisor.

How long have you been a supervisor?

Since about 2014.

And at the time that Mr. Davila was employed with the city of Miami, you were his direct supervisor, right?

That's a little tricky because Mr. Davila switched from different areas of the shop. Sometimes he worked at night. Sometimes he worked on the crane section, which is under another supervision, but also heavy equipment. And he worked for me in the beginning on heavy equipment. Then he did those other positions and ended up with me at the end. So I would say that recently I worked with him maybe, if my memory serves me correctly, about two years.

But ultimately, prior to his resignation from the city, you were his direct supervisor.

Yes, yes.

And you were the first chain that had to approve any kind of request for leave for Mr. Davila, right?

Correct.

And as his supervisor, you also completed some evaluations for him as an employee, right?

Correct.

So if I can take you to Exhibit 8. Was this one of the evaluations that you completed for him?

That is correct.

Yeah, no, this one I didn't. My apologies. It's actually Exhibit 11. Was this one of the evaluations that you completed for Mr. Davila?

Yes, it was, but it was not signed by me because I happened to be on vacation. I filled out the evaluation without signing it.

And the, but everything that's filled out in this evaluation and the comments within this evaluation were done by you, right?

Correct, correct.

If I can take you to the last page of the evaluation where it talks about appraiser's comments. Uh-huh. The third line, second sentence, or third sentence, where it says, unfortunately, Alfonso's attendance is erratic and he is unreliable, which makes it difficult to assign preventative maintenance work to the other helpers. Did you write that?

Yes, I did.

Can you explain to the board why you wrote that?

Well, it's self-explanatory. It was just hard to rely on him as an employee because he was constantly calling in sick.

Objection. When I called in sick, it was on FMLA leave.

I'm going to object to him doing any kind of speaking objections. It's either he has a legal objection or not.

Let me hear the objection.

Well, when I called in sick, and he would know, and it's in the record and still in the city, I had 190 FMLA hours that were still available to me. And the duration that I did work with Robert, when I did call in sick, it was because I was on FMLA leave.

We'll just overrule, let him continue, and then you'll have your chance to make a point. Continue.

Yeah, so as I was saying, he was just unreliable. For whatever reason, he was missing work. I mean, he was... Let me ask you.

In the top, it says he had 27 days WOP. Does WOP stand for work without pay?

Correct.

So, sorry, without pay.

Without pay.

So essentially there was 27 days within this evaluation period where he called in sick, but didn't have the sick time.

Correct.

And this evaluation, if we go back to the first page, covers the time from November of 2023 till January of 2025. Right? Correct. Now, I want to ask you specifically about the request for leave that Mr. Davila submitted in this matter. If you can go to Exhibit 12. Was this the original request for leave that Mr. Davila submitted to you?

Yes, that is.

And is this your signature on the bottom where it says Supervisor's Signature 62425? Yes, it is. And Mr. Davila is requesting 40 hours vacation.

Correct.

Now, can you explain to me what the significance of this request for leave form is when it comes to you, the direct supervisor?

Okay.

When an employee fills out an RFL, which is the request for leave, my job is to look in the calendar, the heavy equipment calendar, because all I'm approving is that For instance, mechanic helpers, we usually have two in the shop. I cannot allow both mechanic helpers to request vacation at the same time because I won't have coverage on the floor. So my approval when I'm being submitted a request is to just verify that I can cover the mechanics that are being out. So if... If he would have had the other mechanic helper fill out a request for leave, the second person that filled out that request would be denied because I can't allow for both helpers to be out at the same time. That's the only thing I'm approving is the coverage that I have left on the floor, on the shop floor.

So then once you verified that there was no other mechanic helper that was going to be out, you signed this request for leave form. Correct. And then where does the request for leave form go?

After I sign it, I scan it, I put it in the heavy equipment mechanic calendar, and I submit the form to the payroll liaison, which is Mardelli-Pugh.

So when this request for leave form is uploaded into the mechanic helper's calendar, that's just so that all the supervisors are aware of who may or may not be out during that week? Correct, correct. And then once you submit the request for leave form to the payroll liaison, what happens next, if you know?

She checks his time available to him, and in this particular case, She called me and said, Alfonso Davoli doesn't have coverage for this time that he's requesting. You need to let him know right away. To which I did.

So that conversation between you and Mardalis happened as soon as you submitted the request for leave form?

20 minutes afterwards, 30 minutes. I don't recall the time frame. It was a little while after she received the documentation.

but the same day that Mr. Davila submitted it?

Yes, same day.

And now, if I can take you to Exhibit 19, is this a statement that you wrote regarding the incident and what happened that day?

Yeah, that's my testimony as to what happened.

Okay, so to be clear, you submitted the request for relief form to the payroll liaison, Ms. Puig. She advised you that Mr. Davila only had the eight hours and that he could only be approved for eight hours. Is that what happened?

That's correct.

And then once you were made aware of this information, well, first of all, before we even get there, why didn't you know that Mr. Davila only had eight hours in the books?

I or any of the mechanic supervisors on the floor have access to any employees' times. We don't know how much vacation time or sick time or compensatory time that they have available to them. We're just not given that information. There's no way for us to know what time they have on the books.

So your initial level of approval is just to make sure that there's going to be a helper on working that day.

Correct.

Or that time period.

Yeah, just to make sure that I have enough coverage left who's staying to cover the workload.

Now, once you were advised that Mr. Davila only had the eight hours approved, what did you do next?

Ms. Pugh told me to let him know, which I did. About 10 minutes after I spoke to her, he happened to walk into my office, and I told him, I said, Hey, bro, my daddy's just telling me that you don't have time to cover your vacation. You only have eight hours available. And with that, he kind of got a little irritated, and he proceeded to call her on the phone that's next to mine in my office.

So just so that we're understanding, your office is shared by someone else?

My office has two desks. My desk, which is the day shift heavy equipment mechanic supervisor, and Mr. Hector Macias' desk, which is the night shift heavy equipment mechanic supervisor. So we share that office. There's probably maybe four feet between both of our desks.

And when you advised Mr. Davila that he was only going to be approved for the eight hours for vacation, that's when he then decided to call Ms. Puig on the phone?

Yes, he called her from Hector's Extension.

Okay, and did you hear the conversation? What was going on?

I heard one side, which was his side, and he was rather agitated about it. Obviously, I didn't hear what Ms. Pugh was telling him or anything, but it was a very animated conversation from what I saw.

And once that conversation was over, it's your understanding that it was clear to Mr. Davila that he was only going to be approved for eight hours of that week?

Yeah, it was quite clear.

Because you informed him of it, obviously.

Because I informed him and because I could tell how the conversation was going between him and Ms. Pugh.

Okay. And so once that happened, did you... Did you finalize the request for leave form on your end?

Yes, I was told to make the changes that he was only approved for eight hours and to resubmit the RFL.

Can I, okay, so now I want to direct you to Exhibit 14. Is this the final request for leave form that shows the notes and the approval for Mr. Davila?

Yes, correct.

Now, next to your signature where it says approved, it says as per note. Did you write that in? I did. And is that referring to the note up on top where it says only eight hours approved due to no time on books?

Correct.

Is that your signature also under that note?

Yes, yes, ma'am.

When you finalized this request for leave form, who did you submit it to?

I returned it back to my delis.

And now these forms, they come with copies behind them, right?

Right.

So the white form is the one that originally stays with the department and the payroll liaison?

Well, actually... There's the three copies, white, yellow, and pink, and I submitted all three copies to Madelis.

And did Ms. Puig return to you the pink form, the last page in that pink form?

I don't recollect. I'm not sure. I think at some point she did.

Okay. So I want to take you back to Exhibit 19, which is your statement. This statement was written by you and sent to the department director, Ms. Jennifer Ramirez, right?

I'm sorry, what was that?

This statement was written by you and emailed to the department director, Ms. Jennifer Ramirez?

Yes.

And this was done on July 15th, 2025?

I'm assuming so, yes.

which is close in time to when this incident happened, right? Correct. And so if I can take you to your statement, lines...

The last statement.

About halfway through line 10 towards the end on the right-hand side where it says she then provided me with the employee pink copy.

Okay. Okay.

Okay, so Ms. Puig gave you the pink copy and instructed you to advise Mr. Davila that he was only approved of the eight hours, right?

Yes.

Okay. Now, that pink copy, did you ever give it to Mr. Davila?

I did not. I did not.

Why not?

Well, first of all, it's not normal procedure for us to supply the employee with a copy of whatever paperwork they fill out for time off. Ever since we did the direct deposit and the iMiami has been installed, we don't give any copies to the employees when they fill out paperwork for time off. They can go into the iMiami and look at their bank hours, what is current, what's being deducted, and stuff like that. So it's not normal procedure to supply them with a copy.

So let me, for the record, if you can explain, iMiami is a program that all city employees have access to?

It's their direct deposit statements.

Within that program, you can tell your direct deposit statements? You can tell all your hours, yeah. You can see how many hours you have for vacation and for sick leave?

Correct.

Okay. And so... before this iMiami program was installed or available to city employees? It was proper protocol for employees to be given documentation or anything like that?

Before what would happen is we would not give them a copy. The copy would go upstairs to the liaison and I'm assuming that eventually she would separate them and maybe once every three months, they'd return the copies to the floor supervisor and he would separate, let's say that Mr. Davila took three days off that week or that month, he would have three of those copies available to him and the supervisor would hand them out to each employee.

So point of the matter is that that documentation is really for documenting purposes. It's not procedure in the department to ever give an employee, unless they ask for it, right?

Only if they ask for it.

Okay, so it wasn't uncommon for you to not give Mr. Davila that pink form? No, not at all. But again, you advised him when he came to your office that he was only approved for those eight hours.

I did, yes.

Okay, so now Mr. Davila obviously requested for July 7th from July 11th for those 40 hours of vacation, right?

Correct.

And we can go back to exhibit 14, which is the final. Now, did Mr. Davila show up for work on July 8th?

No.

Did he show up for work on July 9th?

No.

Did he show up for work on July 10th?

No.

What about July 11th?

No.

Did he call you any of those days to tell you he wasn't going to come into work?

He did not.

Objection. I have a text message that states that he knew I was going on vacation, and he told me to be safe.

Okay, overrule for now, let him continue, and you can bring that up.

Just so you understand, did you cry?

Yeah, once she's done, you're going to have the opportunity to then question him on anything you want. Okay, thank you. Anything he's saying that you don't agree with, that you want to counter or something, you'll be able to ask.

Once again, thank you, sorry.

You got it.

Did he text you that he was going to be out?

No.

So he never advised you from July 8th to July 11th that he was not going to come in to work?

Not by text or phone call, no.

And he never showed up for work those days?

He never showed up.

Did you inform your direct line, your chain of command, that Mr. Davila didn't show up to work on those specific dates?

Well, actually, my superintendent... Mr. Carlos Powell was in communication with me daily asking me, how did we look in terms of employees on the floor? And would ask me if everybody that was out was calling in. And I told him, Alfonso Davila did not report. Each day I was called.

And each day you told him that Mr. Davila was not reporting?

And each day I advised him that Alfonso Davila did not report. Yes, correct. Okay.

I have no further questions.

Okay. Mr. Davila, would you like? Good morning, Mr. Rionda. How are you? Good morning, Mr. Davila. I have a question for you. You said that you stated that Carlos Powell called you. Do you have any emails directly writing to Carlos Powell stating that I was an O'Connell show?

No, it was all verbal over the phone.

Sounds good. Your statement on this email on Mrs. Lenetta Geera's evidence on exhibit 19 and on mines would be exhibit four for the ladies and gentlemen of the board. Ladies and gentlemen of the board, I highlighted for you guys to see how many times Mr. Rionda stated he approved my vacation. I never got any verbal- Sorry, does he have a question for the witness? Okay.

Do it in the form of a question.

You can say anything you want. Ask it in the form of a question.

So you wrote an email on June 23rd, 2025, stating that I submitted the request for leave form, right?

I'm going to object to improper characterization of the testimony and as well as the exhibit.

Okay. He asked a straightforward question. He's asking you a question. Answer the question.

What is the date that I wrote?

The question is here. You wrote an email July 15 stating that on the 23rd, I submitted the request for leave form, right? Yes. Okay, you here state, and I quote, that you placed the pink copy in your desk, is that correct?

That is correct.

Did you sign and approve my 40 hour leave knowing and uploaded it into the Microsoft Outlook calendar for everybody in the department to see that I was taking 40 hours?

I did, yes. Okay, next question.

You said you spoke to Ms. Mardelis on the 23rd, is that correct? On exhibit 19 for you.

The same day that you handed me your RFL, I did speak to Mardelis, yes.

But the RFL clearly states that it was signed on the 24th. Also, you, another question for you. You said you spoke to Mardenis on the 23rd. She said she spoke to you on the 25th. Why is that? Why is there a two-day discrepancy on the emails and you talking to Mardenis?

I don't know why that is. I don't. I spoke to Madelis the same day that you handed in your RFL.

Well, she said she spoke to you on the 25th.

You would have to ask her about that because I don't know.

No, I'm just asking you. You said you spoke to her on the 23rd, correct? Correct. Why is she stating she spoke to me on the 25th? that you guys spoke on the 25th?

Objection asked and answered. Again, he's already stated he did. He spoke to her that day. He can't answer as to why she said something. So ask him what it pertains to.

Okay, so you spoke to Mark Dennis on the 23rd?

Yes, as far as my recollection, yes.

Are you familiar with APM 2-87? I'm not... Oh, okay. So, APM 2-87 clearly states that a supervisor... Objection.

He said he's not familiar with it. Do you have a copy of it so we can see it and review it?

I should have.

He's looking for APM 2-87, I believe.

I don't have a copy, but I can explain if the board allows me to.

Do we have... A copy of 2-87. Anywhere ready and accessible? You don't have it? Okay, I don't have it. That's fine. All right. Next question. Next question. All right, one second.

You can tell him what it says and then ask him a question about it.

Okay. So APM 2-87 states that once a supervisor or a director are two only people that have the authority to approve or revocate vacation time. That's what, too, that's 80%. Did you approve my vacation leave?

I don't see how that can possibly be when I have no idea how much time you have accumulated in your bank.

It's ask, answer. Did you approve his? I approved, yes, I approved.

Perfect.

Next question. Did you ever issue me anything in writing, revoking, or denying the approved leave?

No, I did not. Not that I'm aware of.

Thank you, Robert.

Any other questions?

No, sir.

Perfect.

I have a redirect.

I'm sorry?

I have a redirect.

You have a redirect? Brief, go ahead.

Mr. Rionda, you're the first level of approval when it comes to any kind of request for leave for your subordinates, right?

Correct.

So your approval isn't the final say in whether someone's approved vacation or not, right?

No.

And when you input the RFL into the outlook calendar, that's just to show all of the other supervisors that are working who's going to be out or who potentially will be out based on your level of approval, right?

That is correct.

But the actual finalized request for leave never goes into the Microsoft Outlook calendar for you all?

No, no.

And that's not the final city documented approval notice that goes into a person's personnel file?

No, it's not.

Thank you. No further questions.

Do you have any other further questions based on that? No. No, okay. Board members, questions? I have a question. Board member Lanier, recognized? Good afternoon.

Hello. You have the exhibits there?

Yes.

Can you go to exhibit 12?

Okay.

So this is the initial exhibit that Mr. Davila gave you stating he would like to take 40 hours off, correct? Correct.

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

This is the initial leave request that you received requesting 40 hours off. Correct. You looked at your schedule to see if you had coverage for 40 hours. Correct. Okay. Go to exhibit number 14. This is the same form, right? When you wrote on a note, only eight hours approved, due to no time on the books. Did you let Mr. Davila know he only had eight hours?

Yes, I did.

Okay. You see the same form. You see, go down to, uh, we're on the left-hand side. It says, check below. Mr. Davila check, uh, code zero three for 40 hours. Correct. Go all the way down to code 93. You see what 93 says?

Without pay authorized.

Has anyone ever requested time off from you, knowing that they didn't have any time because they needed their time off anyway?

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Davila actually has done that before he was given FMLA.

So in this situation where he only had eight hours, he needed another 32 hours. If he would have redone this form and checked Box 93, would you have still approved it the same?

My approval is just for coverage on the floor. Like I said, I do not have access to their bank hours.

Correct.

I would have checked off the approval box if no other mechanic helper asked for that same time period off. Yes, I would have checked off the approval box. But ultimately, the final decision as to whether he is approved of the time off does not lie with me. I'm just the first barrier.

If you want to say no, I understand you're just for scheduling and if he can't even he said he needed 40 hours for scheduling Whether he wanted to get paid or not, would you have approved it?

Yes, thank you

I just want to confirm, was there any other employee that was also approved for time off during that period of time with consideration that Mr. Davila was only approved for eight hours?

There was not another mechanic helper, which is the only thing that would have affected him. There might have been a mechanic, which is okay to allow both to go off at the same time.

Okay, earlier you stated that the forms are not necessarily provided, a copy of the forms are not necessarily provided to the employee unless they request it. On exhibit, I think it's 19, which is your email.

Wait, I'm backwards here.

Yes, on exhibit 19, the last sentence, due to the chaotic nature of these circumstances, I totally forgot to supply him with the updated RFL pink copy. Why did you feel the need to have to state that if you're also saying that you have no formality with these forms?

Well, because of the fact that it was brought to my attention by Ms. Pugh that he didn't have the coverage and that I needed to add the note that he was only approved for eight hours, it was obvious that the documentation would need to be provided to him. And I don't know, maybe she even told me specifically, give him the pink coffee. Understood. To which I did not.

One more question regarding this email, still Exhibit 19. There was a conversation between all of you where it was stated that he may work July the 4th, you may work July the 4th to make up some time. So you were aware that you didn't have enough time to cover the entirety, at least, of the vacation request you were making.

I was doing it just in case I didn't have, but I didn't have access to my iMiami at that moment.

The question wasn't for you, sir, right? Well, it was. It's to both of them, actually. Sorry, I apologize. To the witness with the fact that there was a discussion because you disclaimed it here in this email, and then the other part of it is to Mr. Davila for him to acknowledge that he's considering working overtime to add some time to his bank.

Just in case I didn't have enough time to cover you, just in case.

So MIT, okay. You didn't have access to your iMiami, why?

Because I didn't have the right password. They always give us the capital letter orange 234567 and at that given moment I didn't have access to my iMiami. I relied on thinking that I had 40 hours.

iMiami automatically sends you a password reset when you hit forgot my password.

Well, no, I would have to ask Carlos Powell. And I have text messages also to Hector Herola where I would ask them, I forgot my iMiami password, can you send me? And they request a password. It never worked for me to press forgot password and it would send it because I don't even have a city email.

Okay, okay, okay. That I didn't know. You have to have a city-issued email in order to access iMiami on your own. I do have a follow-up question to this when we speak to the payroll liaison. So I'll hold off my questions until then. Thank you.

Any other board members with questions? Yes. Board Member Suleiman.

Mr. Davila, do you have the message that you stated, the text message that you stated that when you were on vacation, you texted your supervisor?

Yes, and I'll read it to you here.

One second. I'm going to object if he's going to enter it into evidence. I need to see it. We can print it if necessary. We can print it if necessary.

He's being asked a question by a board member, so let him ask the question. He can ask him where, so overall.

After you read it, I'd like to see the message, your phone, and also if you could show it to the attorney. I'd appreciate it.

So July 3rd, as they stated, I called in sick on the email, July 4th. It states it on the email. I wrote him a text message saying, hey, boss, not making it today. See you when I get back. He wrote, okay, be safe. Following that, that's when I send him the text message saying, boss, man, you know what's crazy? You approved it, and I get an email stating that I haven't called in. I'm not sick, and the paperwork is in the computer. So even if I don't have the time, I would have assumed that somebody would have called me to say, hey, you need to call in sick, or you need to come back to work. Nobody did that, brother, as I considered him, not only my supervisor.

Could you please show it to the city attorney? Thank you.

Are you gonna be entering that into evidence? As an exhibit?

All right, so I can reflect that the employee is taking some screenshots of some text messages that he has, and he's entering it into his exhibits, I guess.

And I'd like for the record to state that Mr. Davila's testimony was confirmed on his phone when I read it exactly how he explained it.

Okay, any other questions, Mr. Solomon?

Yeah, I've got an attorney sorry a question for our city attorney We have to Request for leave forms the one that copies the ones that mr. Davila Provided to us in in his in his exhibits And the one that was provided by by the city and And Mr. Avila's form does not reflect the note, only eight hours approved, due to no time on books. And it also doesn't show the note on top of the signature of the supervisor as per note. Do you have any proof that, and they have the same date. That's why I'm concerned. That's why I'm concerned. if Mr. Davila was probably informed, do you have any proof that this second revised form that was revised after everybody signed it and it has no follow-up revision signature showing that the employee, that concerns me a lot because the employee signed something the way I see it and then that form gets signed online Without his knowledge, do you have any proof that he got the revised form that he had signed with the changes? Is there any proof that he was informed of these changes of the form that he signed?

So again, the only documented proof that we have are the cities exhibit 12, cities exhibit 14, which are the two requests for leave forms. Technically, it's one form. One in exhibit 14 is the finalized form after it's gone through all of the chain of command and the levels of approval. What I can proffer to the board is that through Mr. Trionda's testimony, you heard that he advised him verbally that he only had the eight hours. You'll also hear the same from the payroll liaison once she testifies. that she also advised him twice of the same thing. So this is not, and you'll hear what Mr. Davila's response was, well, I'm going to take it anyway. So he specifically knew that he didn't have the time approved, and he just decided to just not show up to work. And you're going to hear all of that testimony. The proof is the testimony from the witnesses.

My concern is that I'm not hearing from you that he was notified of or received any that he received any proof that this form had been changed.

So he was notified. He was notified verbally. He doesn't have to be notified via a specific form. I do not have a form that shows anything other than what these witnesses are going to testify to today.

Then what can you tell me about the text message? that the supervisor claimed that he did not communicate in a text message, testified to it, and Mr. Davila provided the text message confirming that he had text.

So if I may, and this is why I needed a printed copy of all of these text messages, you look at the date, the date is from July 3rd, where Mr. Davila's telling Mr. Rionda, I'm calling out, I'm not gonna be here today. I'll see you when I get back, right? Doesn't specify I'm not coming in to work after the eight hours that I wasn't approved, even though he already knew he wasn't approved of it. And then Mr. Rionda's testimony is, or I'm sorry, the text message from Mr. Rionda to Mr. Davila says, okay, be safe. That was from the July 3rd date. Obviously, since Mr. Rionda advised Mr. Davila that he was only gonna be approved eight hours, he was expected to return to work on the 8th of July, which he did not. And so that's when he expected him to return.

Why then on July 11th, the last day of vacation that Mr. Avila requested, the supervisor is confirming the conversation and that he's off. The supervisor obviously had knowledge that he was off according to that message dated July 11th.

So again, if you, and I need to look at specifically the wording of Mr. Rionda's text message back to Mr. Davila because it specifically says on there, and I believe it said, you need to talk to Jennifer, I would request a meeting with her. There's nowhere in what Mr. Rionda tells Mr. Davila says, I knew that you were gonna take 40 hours even though I already told you that you only had the eight. So it's a... Mr. Davila's trying to characterize it as Mr. Rionda knew that I was going to take the 40 hours, even though he was already told that he only had the eight hours. And that text message doesn't confirm that Mr. Rionda knew he was going to be out for 40 hours. You need to read the specific wording, and this is why I want a printed copy of it, so we can confirm the specific wording.

Did he email you? Excuse me. Can I interject, please?

You're getting into a discourse and allowing the attorney to make basically her closing argument. What I want you to do is just listen to the witnesses, look at the facts that have come in. If there's a factual dispute, like you don't believe he was properly given the second pink sheet because the document says I forgot to give it to him, that's something you weigh in making your decision. But I want to sort of stop this kind of like closing argument that she gets these extra arguments to make. I want you just to listen to the testimony. Your questioning is right on point, but you have to rely on this and not argument from counsel, okay?

Understood, thank you.

If I may add, let's just, we have a witness before us. I don't know if the city's gonna exercise using all five of the witnesses or it's gonna be redundant, but let's stick to any questions that we have right now to this witness that we have here, and that way we can keep the hearing moving forward.

Okay, one final question for this advisor. So you stated, just to be clear, that you never gave Mr. Davila the second, the final form that The request for leave form, the final form, you never considered it?

I never gave it to him.

Thank you very much.

Any other board members with questions?

I have one. Member Jimenez? I have two, actually. Exhibit 12. Is exhibit 12 and exhibit 14... Two separate forms, or is that part of the same request?

Are you asking the...

I'm asking Mr. Davila.

Say that again, Mr. Jimenez?

So for Exhibit 12. In City Exhibit 12. Yeah, City Exhibit 12.

Yes, sir.

In City Exhibit 14. Is that one form that you fill out, or is it two separate forms?

It's one RFL form that has three different pieces of papers, a white one, a pink one, and a yellow one, yes.

No, what I'm asking you is, are the two forms separate forms that you had to fill out, or they're the same package?

No, no, no, those are, that's the, okay, can you please clarify, so you're saying that the RFL form The exhibit 12 and exhibit 14, are they the same or two different copies? They're two different copies.

I understand they're two different copies. Are they part of the same form that you have to fill out?

That is the white one, yes. They're both the same first page.

I believe he also, sorry Chair, exhibit one from Mr. Davila also shows the same. So it looks like the original, then it was additional comments were added to the original, and then that finalizes it. Yes. Is how I understand it.

Yes. The original one that I signed was the first one, which is for the city, is exhibit 12, and then the updated one is 14, where the one that says as per note.

All right, so let me ask you, Did you fill out Exhibit 12? You filled that out?

I filled out Exhibit 12, yes.

What about 14, Exhibit 14? No. You filled that out? No, okay. Did they give you a copy back from Exhibit 12? Did they give you a copy back?

No, the only copy I received was when I asked for all the documentation from O.C. Rind.

Okay, so they never gave you a copy back?

I was never provided no copy whatsoever.

Okay.

Is that a true statement, Mr. Reynad? I'm sorry, uh... Rihanna? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah.

Okay. No further questions.

Thank you. Briefly. Board Member Lanier? Briefly.

Yes.

On what date did Mr. Rihanna notify you that you only had eight hours? Excuse me? On what date did Mr. Rihanna notify you that you only had eight hours?

I was never notified. I signed my document on the 23rd, and it was approved on the 24th.

So what date did you come into his office and then you contacted Ms. Puig immediately on the phone? What date was that?

I spoke to Robert on the 23rd. I never spoke to Ms. Puig on the 23rd. The conversation she said that we had was on the 25th.

That's what she states. And did you speak to her on the 25th? Yes. Did you speak to her about you only having eight hours?

No.

What did you speak to her about?

She was, well, I'm sorry. On the 25th, I spoke to her, letting her know that I was going to take the vacation. But I never was told that I didn't have that eight and a half hours in my bank. Like I said, I wrote down on the first original request for leave form with my intentions knowing that I had 40 hours. So I went off of the fact that I had 40 hours.

Okay. And I have one more question for Mr. Rionda. On what date did you write this note? Because if you look at exhibit 12 and 14, exhibit 12 is approved by you. Exhibit 14 is approved by you. It's the same form. So on the 23rd, you approved it. What date did you come back and write this note on 14?

To be quite honest with you, I do not remember the exact date. that that add-on note was put on there.

But it was after, it was approved?

It was, if it wasn't the same day, it was immediately afterwards. The next, the following day maybe, two days, I'm not 100% sure.

Okay, I have no further questions. Thank you, thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, I have some, I have several questions. Let's see. still all right I got about a minute left so good morning good morning okay how long have you been supervisor in your current position since 2014 2014 okay and how many subordinates you have under your purview it can vary normally I have 10 12 10 12 okay so you get asked for a vacation time

Regularly. Regularly. Yes.

Do you handle it always the same?

Yes.

Okay. And you believe in progressive discipline?

I believe in respect. I'm not a by-the-books guy when it comes to coming down on any employee, if disciplinary, action-wise. I believe in respect. I consider Mr. Davila a friend of mine. Likewise. I treat them with respect, and that's pretty much all I can say. Okay.

Have you had any other issues with any other employees during your tenure here in the city? So you started working in 99 with people taking PTO time, sick time, anything like that?

Any issues with them taking time? Have you had any other issues? There was one instance where one of our employees that works under me claimed that the city was stealing time from him and Ms. Pugh had to do an audit of all of his time that was taken. But other than that, no other problems.

Okay. And just from my understanding, so Mr. Davila is a heavy equipment operator. You're his supervisor. What is your job description?

My job description, and he's a heavy mechanic helper, not an operator. My job description is to hand out work assignments, make sure that they're performing their work assignments, and check the work if it needs to be checked after their completion.

OK. So you're an extension of a equipment operator kind of thing. That's your specialty. You supervise the equipment type. Correct. Employees.

OK.

So we're here in a very documented hearing, right, and a process that exists for you and for your subordinates and everybody else in the city. When you come before us and there can't be a settlement and stuff like that, documentation and the way that you request time, whether your own personal vacation time is very important. It's very important when you come before us as we're trying to assess and come up with a character you know, evaluation. Because there's a lot of hearsay. So when you have conversations and you tell them something, that's hearsay. We've got to take you, you know, kind of by your word, evaluate it. When there's text message, when there's emails, when there's forms filled out and signed, that's something that we have to take very seriously here because we're seeing it. And some of the questions that my colleagues had that came up, when you see Exhibit 12 and it's filled out, And then there's Exhibit 14, and the testimony is that it's the exact same piece of paper. And basically, I mean, you can appreciate this. You don't have to be a lawyer. You don't have to be a doctor to understand. If you sign a piece of paper, you and I, we write anything down. We write, I am here at the hearing. I'm the chairman. You are the supervisor testifying. We both sign, and we sign it right here, witness in time. And then I go and I add something to it after. I add a note to it. and I don't properly notify you and give you that, if I don't notify you back, how am I supposed to be, or you, vice versa, either way, supposed to be privy of something that's written there? So I understand when you say not being by the book or not being this. Right now when we're asking the employee in this scenario, he has to request time. Does he request time by just saying, hey, I need 40 hours, I need eight hours, I'm not going to be in tomorrow? Would that be a proper way for an employee to ask for time off?

No.

Okay, so then in return, when I'm sitting here and I'm trying to evaluate, to be told back, hey, you don't have the time, or hey, they say you didn't have it, it's, would you deem it to be proper to not get notified in one way or another back in writing, kind of have it, you know, to cover the other way back, right? I mean, if an employee's responsible, a supervisor's held to a different level, right, to notify back in that way. Especially if you have an evaluation and you deem someone to be maybe not, I mean, when I'm looking at evaluations of what you're putting there, I didn't see like fives across the board. You know, discipline, dependability, things like that. It seemed that your judgment of him and your testimony is, you know, you got some twos, some threes. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. It's also concerning on my end. And, you know, I have to tell you because it's taking the time of the city here. We have the whole shop, it seems like, is here in-house today. And I'm a taxpayer. And we're sitting up here hearing it because this couldn't come to a resolution before. But in that evaluation that you filled out, your testimony is you filled it out and you didn't sign it. You forget to sign it. I mean, you're filling out the whole evaluation, and because, ironically, you're on vacation or whatnot, if you have enough time to fill out the application, how do you not put your signature on it? You're filling out an employee's evaluation.

It needs to get approved before I can continue with the signature.

No, no, but when you're sending, you filled out the form, so you're going to fill it out, and you're going to sign it and turn it in up the chain to get approved. Don't tell me that you don't sign something. That's an oversight. That's a big error to not sign something. If you're going to request time off and you don't sign on it, maybe it could get disapproved because, well, you didn't sign it. You didn't officially request it. It's incomplete, if you will. That's concerning because we're here talking about somebody on a termination on something because of them not following documentation. Have you had issues supervising Mr. Davila with time off? I know that you say you're not aware of how many hours he has, but you're Do you miss work regularly? No. Okay. And your job is directly to supervise the 10, 12, 14 people, give or take, that you have coming in and off. You know some people call in more than others. Correct. You more or less have a thing. And so, I mean, you know, you have that in your years of experience. You've been here a long time. When you're submitting that, you know, I would ask you, you know, for future things, whether it's Mr. David or anybody else, To kind of have that. You work in government. You work here. This is the way it works. Whether it's not, you know, on the bro code or whatever it is that you want to be, I'm all about palabra and having everything. But here there's a way that it's got to work. You have to believe in progressive discipline because that's where you sign up to be here, to be a supervisor. That's the way it works. We've got to give a formal counseling. Formal counseling can be verbal. you see that that's not reaching across, that you have somebody, maybe they're not getting the message, maybe they don't understand you, there's a communication issue. Well, here you go, I'm gonna formally let you know in writing, sign, here's a note, un-updated, to kind of avoid these situations, and kind of cover yourself as a supervisor, because it seems that...

Believe me, I've learned my lesson, and I'm continuing to learn my lesson.

I'm happy to hear that, and I hope that that's taking place throughout the whole department. You're the first witness, but I'd ask this of anybody else. whether you're approving hours, whether you're not, how you say it, if somebody has the options. Because then something else that I see, like Board Member Lanier brought up, when you have this form, you've been here a long time, you've requested time, you know what it is. If you're a supervisor, they gotta give you some training, not ask city and HR to give it to supervisors. At the end of the day, your specialty might be more, you know, supervising heavy equipment, this, that. I might know you might not be state of the art on technology and this, that. Maybe, maybe not. you would have to know that you got to at least tell as a supervisor and employee, hey, listen, you don't have hours. If you're having some kind of a situation, because you consider him a friend, you consider him somebody, you're a supervisor, you tell him, if you don't have the hours, you might want to fill out, you might be able to put under 93 and resubmit it. I don't know what they'll do, but let me tell you what it is, what you got to do, and then I pass it up, you know, based on maybe there's a conversation, on a hearsay conversation that he says, I have a situation at home, I need this, I need to take, whatever it is, and you say, hey, listen, It's kind of out of my hands. My hands are kind of tired, but fill it out this way.

But what I'm noticing... That's exactly what I told him, and he proceeded to call Miss...