Civil Service Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the September 1st, 2026 Civil Service Board meeting. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Adoption of the agenda.

Motion. Motion.

Motion by Board Member Jimenez.

Second.

Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor?

Aye.

Approving of the minutes. Motion. Motion.

Second.

Motion by Board Member Lanier. Second by Board Member Solomon. All in favor? Aye. D, disciplinary matters. D1, Board Members take note. E, general items, E1, status updating concerning the appeal hearings of Marcel Jackson, police officer, former, as it relates to his 10-hour suspension effective December 13, 2025, 40-hour suspension effective December 14, 2025, and a 60-hour suspension effective December 21, 2025.

Hi, good morning. Lynetta Geary on behalf of the city. We've been able to settle all of Mr. Marcel Jackson's cases. So the settlement agreement was sent over, I believe, yesterday to the board, and all the cases should be removed from the docket.

Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. F1, hearings pendings list as of September 1st, 2026. Board members, take a look in your packets, the calendar. As of right now, our next hearings after today's meeting are scheduled for October 6, 2026. We have no hearings scheduled before that. And as of right now, we have two board meetings scheduled believe September 15, and September 29, that there are no hearings scheduled for. And I believe on October 6, we have one hearing because one of the other hearings is Marcel Jackson that we just got an update from the city that that's been settled on those 200 hours you see there. So

I'd like to make a motion to cancel the hearing scheduled for the 15th and the 29th.

There's a motion to cancel the board meetings on September 15th and September 29th. I guess as we don't have hearings, that's a motion. Do we have a second?

Second it.

Second. Any discussion on it? The next board meeting would be October 6th, where we have the one hearing scheduled for now. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. All right. Anything else from the calendar, pendings list? All right, then. Take note, the next civil service board meeting will be October 6, 2026 with a scheduled hearing. Moving on, H, today's hearings, H1, appeal hearing on behalf of Alfonso Davila, heavy equipment mechanic, helper, former, concerning of a termination effective July 11, 2026, continued from June 23, 2026 meeting. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning.

State your name.

My name is Alfonso Davila, heavy equipment mechanic helper for GSA.

Wonderful.

City?

Sorry, yes, Lynette Aguirre on behalf of the city. If I could just have five minutes, I'm trying to, Get some scheduling done with my witness because I thought she was going to be here by now, but she's not. So if I could just have five minutes just to clarify that. And if I'm not going to be able to call her, then we could just continue and move forward. But if I could just have five minutes to figure that out, please.

Okay. We will take a five-minute recess, and then we'll pick up with H1. We'll come back from recess and continue with H1.

Yes. So I would just like to proffer to the board that the witness that I was going to call, her testimony really goes to the second phase of this hearing, so really the guilt phase, if we get there. So I would just ask that we continue to move forward. Both sides can do our closing arguments. The board can deliberate. You can vote. And then if we do get to the guilt phase, if you would allow me just a couple minutes to call her so she can come or get on Zoom so that she can testify as to the guilt phase, if we even get there. That's the only request I have.

Okay, so at this point, we would want to move forward. What you're proffering is to move forward with both sides of the closing statements, and then we just move on to any action from the board.

Right, unless Mr. Davila has any additional evidence or testimony he needs to get.

Perfect, thank you.

Well, I submitted some emails between angela roberts and jennifer ramirez and i also had a couple of questions for her but apparently she's not here not even on zoom as well so i mean i guess if the board could render a decision today that would be amazing um so mr david i believe you're referencing board members there's employee exhibit 9 and 10 that have been presented to us and have been entered in and the city also submitted an additional exhibit exhibit 26.

Board members, take note. Exhibit 26. So we're getting all by stipulation? From the city.

I have no objection to his. I'm not sure if he has any objection to mine.

Any objections to their exhibit? I'm trying to figure out, because it looks like they stated that a password was changed. I mean, I don't recall any password being changed or being asked for. Is this to check hours is what it is?

That is the documentation that shows that your iMiami password was changed prior to your termination, and that your last login into iMiami was on July 18, 2025.

My last login, July 18th of 2025? Okay. I don't recall logging in July 18th. That's fine. I mean, if they submitted it, that's fine. It's there. It's not going to make a difference anyways.

Okay, so board members, city has entered exhibit 26 for the city and the employee exhibit nine and 10 are added to your packets. I guess if there's any questions on any of those three, board members will be able to bring that up. Other than that, I guess we can, move into the closings on both sides. So let's continue with that. And then from that, then the board can take any action it feels compelled to do. Before we go into the closings on both sides for H1, I want to just, I guess, table H1 for one second and address H2, which is an appeal hearing on behalf of Marquise Williams, police officer concerning a 10-hour suspension effective June 17, 2023.

We're requesting a joint continuance of both parties. We've communicated. I'm sorry.

Good morning. I'm so sorry. If you could state your name and your title for them.

Tiffany Brooks, Assistant City Attorney on behalf of the city, obviously. We're requesting a joint continuance. We've communicated with the opposing party, and we're all in agreement.

Okay. So there's a request for a joint continuance between the city and the employee. We're stating on the record that both sides have been in communication or in agreement with the joint request. I guess board members will entertain a motion.

A motion.

Motion by board member Solomon. Second. Second by board member Lanier. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you.

Wonderful. With that, we will go back to H1. and continue with the closings. Statements from both sides. I'm ready, I'm ready.

Well, good morning again, everyone. Lynette Aguirre on behalf of the city. I wanna start off by saying that one of the most important questions that lawyers and judges ask potential jurors during a trial proceeding, during the jury selection proceeding, is will you follow the law? That's one of the most important questions that's asked. And why is this? The reason why is because lawyers and judges need to find a jury panel that will set aside all of their biases, life experiences, and issues just to follow the law. The judge and the lawyers always remind all of the jurors, you may not agree with the law, you may not even like the law the way that it's written, but it's important that you as a juror follow the law, even if you don't agree with it. Now, I know that we're not in a jury trial today. We're not before a judge. We're not with a jury panel. We're here at an administrative hearing. But I don't think that that rule should change. This is... This board today is essentially sitting as the jury and as the judge, because you're listening to and evaluating all of the evidence that has been presented in this case. And ultimately, you're going to deliberate based on all of this evidence that's been presented to you, and you're going to render a verdict that complies both with the evidence that's been presented and with the law. Now, what's the law here? The law here is the civil service rules. the collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, collective bargaining agreement article 17.3, and that's the city's exhibit three. 17.1 of article seven states, subsection three, 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. Also, subsection five, unexcused failure to return to work after 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. Now, the civil service rules that apply here that are the law. Rule 14, if you go to the city's exhibit Five, rule 14, which is subsection Q, and in this exhibit it's subsection 17, 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 and canceled. And also, cities exhibit six, which is civil service rule 15.10. Any employee who fails to report for duty at the expiration of a leave of absence without the consent of the director of the department shall automatically be removed from the rules. Personnel records shall indicate separation failure to return from leave. That's the law that we are looking at today. That's the law that you all have to apply the evidence that's been presented in this case to so that you can render a verdict. Now, I want to read a small blurb from a very important Florida jury instruction. Again, I'm going back to that because I think it's very important that we remember that. It's important for you to remember that it will not be the jury's job to decide what the law ought to be. Rather, the jury is to determine what the facts are, then apply the law to those facts, using the court's instructions on the rules of law to apply, which will be fully given to the jury at the appropriate time. Again, I know we're at an administrative hearing, but the rules really don't change. The board, you're all sitting here today as the jury and as the judge. You have to evaluate all of the evidence and apply the law to that evidence. This case is very simple. Mr. Davila requested 40 hours vacation leave. He only had eight hours of leave in his time bank. So his 40-hour request was not granted. He was only granted eight hours leave. He was given notice of this eight-hour leave approval by his direct supervisor and the payroll liaison in the department three specific times. We heard that through the testimony of Mr. Robert Rionda and Ms. Mardelis Quigg. He chose not to show up for work or call in for the other four days that he was not approved for. And the... The CBA governs his employment. Article 17, which I've already read to you, is the specific article that applies here. Now, I want to go back to the evidence that's been presented in this case. And I think it's very important that we remember evidence comes in two forms. It's tangible evidence, which is all of the documents, photographs, anything that's been introduced in these exhibits, exhibits from the employee, exhibits from the city. That's all of the tangible evidence we have in this case. We also have intangible evidence, which is testimony that you heard. Testimony comes from witnesses that have been placed under oath. Testimony, you heard testimony from five different witnesses. Mr. Lazaro Chapleton, Robert Rionda, Hector Macias, Carlos Pau, and Mardelis Puig. It's important that you remember that what the attorneys say is not evidence. It's not testimony. It's only arguments that are supposed to assist and aid in understanding the evidence and understanding the law that you're all deliberating on. As such, what a pro se litigant says is not evidence because neither one of us have been placed under oath. So no testimony has been taken from a pro se litigant or an attorney, specifically in this case as well. So what is the evidence that was introduced at this hearing that follows the law? The evidence specifically that shows that Mr. Davila did not show up for work and failed to abide by the collective bargaining agreement and the civil service rules. City has submitted exhibits 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20. And you all can review each of those exhibits during your deliberation. But I'm sure you all remember all of the testimony that was already also stated at the last hearing. All of the city's witnesses confirmed the same facts that I initially proffered to you. There was a request for 40 hours made. There was only eight hours available. Only eight hours were approved. He did not show up for work for the rest of the week. So ultimately, whether you agree with the law, the rules, or not, whether you like the law, the rules, or not, you have to follow them. Notice was given to the employee. Whether you agree with the way the notice was given or not, notice was given. The testimony is clear and the evidence in the record is clear. Notice was given of an eight-hour approval. Mr. Davila chose not to come in to work for the rest of the week. All of the evidence that's been presented in this hearing goes directly to proving all of the rules that have been violated in this case. And I'm confident that once you all deliberate and you examine what the rules say and what the evidence is, that you will rule that Mr. Davila has effectively abandoned his job. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Davila. Madam Chair and members of the board, good morning once again. The city bears the burden to prove job abandonment by a fair preponderance. The issue is not merely that I was physically absent. Under Article 17, the city must establish that I was absent without notification of a valid reason and that I had no legitimate reason for not giving additional notification. The written evidence shows that I notified the city before I left. I submitted one RFL identifying the exact dates, July 7th through July 11th, and vacation as the reason. Supervisor Rionda signed it after confirming coverage and placed 40 hours in the management outlook calendar. The city later added an eight-hour restriction after the form had already been signed, but Riondo admitted that he did not deliver the revised pen copy. He also admitted that he issued nothing in writing revoking or denying the leave. Puig did not give me a written denial. No witness produced a receipt, acknowledgement, email, or other document proving that the revised restriction was delivered to me. Board member Solomon identified the seriousness of that conduct on this record, addressing the practice of changing a document after individuals have signed it and then failing to provide them the corrected document. He stated, this is a gross violation. That observation goes directly to the central defect in the city's case. A material restriction was added while I was not present without my initials, signature, acknowledgement, or proof of delivery. The altered RFL was not the only unexplained document conflict. The board also examined two substantially identical emails sent on different dates and questioned why a date inside that later email had been changed. The witness did not provide a clear explanation. I am not asking the board to make a criminal finding. I am asking it to give these post-event changes the way they deserve when deciding whether the city's reconstructed timeline is reliable. Supervisor Hector Macias was in the drop retirement program and retired before this case was completed. His retirement standing alone does not prove wrongdoing, and I am not asking the board to speculate why He retired, but the sequence is troubling and should not be ignored. Macias was a supervisor connected to the disputed emails, and the dates in those emails were later changed in a manner that aligned with Mar Delis Puig's testimony. When the city relied on those altered records to establish its timeline, the board should examine their reliability with particular care. The management calendar showed 40 hours. Powell saw that entry, could not establish that it was corrected. Daily reports upward traveled from Powell to Director Ramirez, but no instruction traveled downward to me. No one ordered me to report July 8th, July 9th, July 10th, or July 11th. Director Ramirez approved or supported treating me as resigned without first confirming that the revised RFL had been delivered, without resolving the 40-hour outlook entry, and without asking me for my understanding. When I received the July 11th communication, I immediately wrote that I had never resigned. The board does not need to find that every city witness acted intentionally or dishonestly. It only needs to decide whether the city carried its burden. It did not. The evidence proves, at minimum, serious management communication failure and legitimate reason for my understanding that I was on scheduled leave. The city cannot transform its own undisclosed document changes, unexplained date changes, and internal communication failures into my resignation. I respectfully ask the board to sustain my appeal, remove the job abandonment designation, correct my employment record, and award all restoration and relief within its authority. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we'll entertain any motion or discussion from the board.

Through the chair.

Member Cabrera.

Thank you. So what we're here is to determine whether the employee abandoned their position and therefore was terminated as a result of that. We cited civil service rule 17.13. And then there was also some additional references made to in Exhibit 5 and 6. It was 17 on 5. And forgive me for not knowing the section.

Yeah, for the record, that Article 17.1, Section 5, is from the contract. And Civil Service Report 14.2B is the one that the Civil Service Board added.

Okay, thank you. The employee submitted formal request for leave it was initially based on the testimony provided by the witnesses it was approved by the supervisor potentially not properly reviewed or the time was not properly reviewed at the time that it was approved then there was some review that occurred after the fact and at the employee was never issued or given a copy of the updated leave where his time was no longer available and therefore the entirety of his leave should not have been approved. The employee went ahead and went on his leave. Nobody contacted him to let him know, hey, you're not authorized anymore for the entirety of the time that you were supposed to be out or that you put in for being out. And then he received an email saying, thank you for your resignation. We had witnesses come in here and sort of contradict each other as to why there were emails that didn't make sense. And again, the supervisor did admit that he never followed up with the employee to let him know that there was a change with the leave. No?

Yeah, that's going to be improper, so just continue through and we'll discuss it with you.

If the employee submitted a formal request for leave and he was under the impression that it was approved, then he did not willingly abandon his position because he was under the impression that he was under an approved leave. That's how I see it.

Do you want to proffer a motion or do you? Any other board members have any comments, questions? We can entertain a motion and then discuss under, that would be more, I think, proper. We can always do a motion and a second for, we can always do a motion and a second for discussion and then, you know, nothing changed from there. We can always retract the motion and, you know, do another motion, but. The proper way would be to have a motion and a second. Yes, thank you.

So I motion for not guilty.

There's a motion by Board Member Cabrera. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Board Member Lanier. We're open for discussion.

Yes, that's my understanding of the events. I know that we can further discuss it in a follow-up to this, but just based on testimony, based on all the evidence that was provided, and what the law states or the rules state.

Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Do we have any other comments, questions, discussion by board members?

For clarification, it's not guilty of all charges, correct? Because there's two charges.

Yes. Okay.

So there's a motion for not guilty for both charges, and there's a second. We'll recognize board member Solomon.

Chair, I tend, I agree 100% with member Cabrera's testimony, and I'm very troubled by the fact that a document was changed with the employee's signature, and that was never given back to the employee. So I just want to say that I'm in agreeance with the motion, and If we vote, I will be voting in favor of the employee. Thank you.

Thank you, Board Member Solomon. Any other board members? Any questions, discussion? Seeing none, go ahead and call the roll.

Member Solomon?

Yes.

Member Jimenez?

Yes.

Member Lanier?

Yes.

Member Maria Cabrera?

Yes.

Chair Cabrera?

Yes.

Motion passes five zero.

With that, I think that concludes everything on the agenda for today. We'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion.

Motion by Board Member Solomon.

Second.

Second by Board Member Lanier. All in favor? Aye. We'll see everybody October 6th at the next Civil Service Board meeting. Have a good day.

I had advised Mr. Davila that the board will render its findings today. Reggie will prepare them. You all will approve them. And I will prepare a packet to go up to the manager. I had spoke with Mr. Davila yesterday.

OK. OK, so.

The manager will provide a judgment.

For the record, we've deliberated here as a board. As per custom, our board attorney will put together the packet with a recommendation that goes up to the manager on behalf of the board, and then with any recommendations and suggestions of everything that was redacted throughout the course of this hearing, and then the manager will ultimately render his final judgment on it.

All right.

Thank you, guys. Thank you, everyone. We'll see everybody October 6th at the next civil service board meeting.

Thank you. Okay. It should be noted that the findings will be presented to the board at the October 6th.

Those findings will be presented at the October 6th at the next civil service board meeting. With regard to his relief, what is the recommendation? That he be restored? fully reinstated and get all of his time back.

Board members, is there anything that we want to put on the record for our board attorney when he's putting together that recommendation that we want to recommend any type of restoration for the employer? What kind of remedy would we like to see based on our...

Also, we've adjourned, so we've got to reopen the meeting.

Okay, so if somebody could give a motion so we can reopen the meeting here with public notice. Everybody stand by. Don't go away.

Motion to reopen the meeting.

Motion by Board Member Solomon. Second. Second by Board Member Jimenez. All in favor? Aye. It's not ready yet. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're still not live here. We're not recorded. For generations to come, anybody that wants to see it. I can't hear you, but that sounds good. So make the motion again. Okay, so we're going to entertain a motion to reopen the meeting briefly to finish some business.

Motion to reopen the meeting.

Motion by Board Member Solomon.

Second.

Second by Board Member Jimenez.

All in favor? Aye. We're back for the September 1st meeting briefly here, and we're going to open to our board on our wise board attorney's suggestion. We would like any recommendation that we want for any kind of restoration based on our findings for the employee that can be included in the packet that will go up to, that will be presented on October 6th here on the findings that will go up ultimately to the manager for his final decision.

Are there any presentations from either side with regards to the recommendation to the manager? Nothing from the city. Okay.

Nothing from the city? Mr. Davila, is there any... Well, I sent her an offer and I was waiting on it. She said that the only, which was a disrespect and a slap in the face, she literally told me on the email that the only thing that she could do for me, for my next employer...

I just want to object as to those are confidential settlement discussions. I don't think that you should be disclosing any kind of confidential settlement discussions. However, if you do and the door is opened, I can also respond.

Okay. What I think we should do is, Mr. Davila, you just need to tell us what relief you seek. Your discussions and settlement discussions with the city are not appropriate for the board.

Okay. Well, I had sent her a draft offer of what I was asking for.

Let me just, if I could. Okay. clearly uh any discussions between you and the city are between you and the city and clearly they got nowhere and they ended up in our hands so now since we're here september 1st at 11 16 a.m what we want to what we want to hear from you is what what is it that that you would like proffered to the manager on your behalf don't worry about the city the city has their opportunity they've On the record, declined to give any opinion on it. What is it that you would like?

So you want me to state it or do you want the actual document? I mean, I don't know.

State it because we're going to make our statements here that are going to go to our board attorney and he's going to put together those findings that's going to come back that ultimately we're going to approve on the next board meeting. It's going to go up to the manager. So now's your opportunity to state to us what you would like, because we've never been in any meetings or any settlement type. We were hoping that that would take place between you guys. Since it didn't, we made our findings, and now is our time to make our recommendation for what we see fit.

Well, technically, I would like my retro, my hours back, my sick, my vacation. I know I'm owed a 6% cost of living increase as well to my hourly salary. And also, I did my retro my entire day. duration out of the city and I also pulled out that I had to live off of personally my retirement that I pulled out to live off of the entire time because I couldn't find any employment till recently okay okay so board members you've heard um from the employee and now at this time we'll entertain um

What the board wishes to convey to our board attorney to put together for the findings.

I'd like to file a motion. Okay. Board Member Lanier, you recognize? File a motion that the city makes him hold from the day of his last day of vacation until today.

So for the record, Board Member Lanier is asking for it to be retro to the last day of vacation. When you reference last day of vacation, off the top of my head, is that like July 11th? I mean, just a state to be clear on the record on whatever it is. The last day of his vacation from the case, I guess. Let me look at the date.

July 11th.

Correct. Yeah, you're correct. July 11th. July 11th, 2025 until today.

August 20, September 1st, 2026.

All right.

So right now we have a motion from Board Member Lanier for the employee to be made whole from July 11th, 2025, through today's date, September 1st, 2026.

I'd like to make a correction, I'm sorry.

We've got to... Yep, let's modify the motion. Until the date the manager makes his decision. Excellent. Board Member Lanier has modified the motion to restore the employee's... pay from July 11, 2025 until the date the manager makes his decision on it, through that date. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Board Member Cabrera, open for discussion. On that, anything else that maybe anybody else wants to add, include, modify to ask the motion maker? consider anybody else hey well with that then all in favor our board attorney does that give you everything you need to prepare that we look forward to seeing your statements on October 6 and with that we'll attempt again We'll entertain a motion to adjourn the September 1st, 2026 Civil Service Board meeting. Motion. Motion by Board Member Lanier. Second. Second by Board Member Soliman. All in favor? Aye. Now, we will see everybody October 6th, right back here. Thank you, guys. Wonderful City Hall.