Personnel Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Today's March 10th, 2025. It's about 3.06 in the afternoon. We're here for the Personal Appeals Board. With that, I'm going to call the roll. Board Member McKenzie?

Here.

Board Member Jimenez? Here. Board Member Klayman? Actually, she'll be Sheriff Klayman. She's asking. Board Member Mineta? Here. Board Member Kinzer? Here. We have a quorum, but for the first order of business, we're going to have to nominate an acting chair for the day, since the chair is not available. I could entertain a motion for that.

I'd like to make a motion.

To nominate who?

Ms. Johnson. Okay, is there a second?

I second the motion.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Are you opposed? No. So you say yes.

I'm sorry, yes.

All right, the motion carries. And with that, I'll hand it over to the town manager.

Thank you, members of the board. We have reconvened the Personnel Appeals Board involving Ms. Dina Goldstein. This is a continuation of our initial meeting board meeting and I'll just kind of recap where we are after the board had some preliminary discussions involving the evidence presented at the close of the last meeting the parties were invited to see if they can resolve the matter without further I guess further discussion of deliberations and ultimately a decision by this board. As it turns out, the parties did attempt to settle the dispute, but that was unsuccessful. belaboring the board with any of those details I think your time is better spent trying to reach a resolution of determination of Ms. Goldstein by the town consistent with section 2-151 which sets out the personal appeals board rules of procedure and I think is at rule 11. Rule 11 under that section sets forth that the decision of the board must be based on whether the town's discharge or reduction in pay or rank in this case is the discharge of the employee was for cause. And in order for the board to find adverse employment action the board shall then take one or more of the following actions order a new hearing dismiss the appeal on the merits order the reinstatement of the employee absolutely or on terms or conditions or requires such other action as may be just it is the town's position that this board cannot find no reason for the employment action. In other words, it is a town's position that there is a reason for the adverse employment action. And to that end, I just want to refer each of you to page 440, 439 and 440. Those two pages set out the termination action that was memorialized in a letter dated November 7, 2024, and delivered to Ms. Goldstein. about items one through four. And I think what was missed in that deliberation of items one through four is what followed. Now, items one through four really speak to the investigation that was done by And if you look at these two pages, the termination letter, you will see that the manager reviewed that report, and the manager then indicates in his letter that after reviewing the report, the documents referenced therein, the recorded documents, interview of the town's investigator as well as the entire personnel file the manager found miss goldstein in violation of the town's compensatory lead policy and in the next paragraph the manager found about the divulgence of sensitive personal to the next page, the manager also found that Ms. Goldstein's oversight of the parking program, that's the business parking program you'll recall that we spoke about, to be at least a neglect of duty and competence, the result of poor judgment and or violation of town code policies or procedures. And after making all those findings, the manager and applied the town's policy manual at section 6.c and took the action that we know took place by virtue of this letter. Now, for this board to find no cause, would simply be a complete disregard for all of the evidence that you heard last time. Meaning, you learned about the code and you learned about how the rates were established under the code for the business parking program as an example. And you learned that Ms. Goldstein took actions inconsistent with that, that she testified was essentially based on conversations that she had with some of her then superiors. That was, I think by her own testimony, just oral in nature, nothing was memorialized anywhere. And this is a person who knows how to memorialize things. Personnel file you could see that she knows how to communicate in writing when she needs it appropriate So we have nothing to corroborate these or all representations Instead what we have is a documented rate sheet for business parking and we have a documented deviation of from that rate sheet by Ms. Goldstein as demoralized in the emails that you have seen in evidence. And nothing from any town manager that authorized that. That's one example. So I think the evidence is clear that on at least that prom of termination, there is Now, it's hard to sit here as lay people on board to second guess decisions made by management. And I think that human aspect of what you're called to do here is difficult to say the least because you, as human beings, as a fellow resident, may sympathize with Ms. Goldstein and the actions she took and the justifications that she gave for those actions. But I don't think it's fair for you to sit here as a board and place yourself in the shoes of management. Because management is called upon to apply the code. Management does not make the code. Management applies the code as it is given to them by the town commission. town commission set forth that it's the manager's authority to set the rates and no one can deviate from that except the manager or the commission if they change the code. We don't have a change in the code, we know that. So what we have is a manager who set the rates, an employee who deviated from the rates, and no written authority to do so by anyone. So that's a basis by which the town could take action, and apparently it did. The other basis, which I think is clear from the evidence, relates to the comp time. In this instance, you have a contract between the police, excuse me, and the town. You have a contract that sets forth the limitations for compensatory leave. This contract is entered into by and between the police bargaining unit known as the FOP and the town that the commission, Again, no one but the commission and the FOP can change that. We know Ms. Goldstein was the payroll person for the police. The evidence is clear on that. She's been in that role and that position for a long time, I think more than a decade. She was considered, she was awarded, she was given all kinds of accolades for that role. And yes, other people are responsible for the same error. And other people cannot be held accountable for that error because they are no longer employed by the town. But Ms. Goldstein was. her colleagues in the police are, and they were each held accountable in the way that was authorized by law, by rule, by policy. There's plenty of evidence that the comp time taken by the officers exceeded that authorized by contract, by code, and by federal law. and Ms. Goldstein was in the position to stop it, to say something about it, to elevate it to the highest levels of administration, but didn't. As a result, the town paid out comp time in excess of contract, in excess of code, in excess of federal law. That is another basis for her termination evidence is clear to establish it. So there are at least two faces that the town exercised in its discretion to terminate Ms. Goldstein. So let me now walk you through policy manual within effect at the time of the termination. And it's important that you refer to it when you render a decision here. Chapter one.

Sorry. Do we have a copy of that?

You have it in the evidence. You should have that. We know my page. Sorry. Sorry. The page numbers...

For what?

For the policy name.

It was sent to them separately. I could print it for them. Okay.

Apparently it was sent separately, but it looks like this.

I think it wouldn't be an e-mail. I think they've got to be an e-mail.

You've got to be an e-mail. I can put this in front of you. I'm just going to look into the pertinent portions.

What page is it?

I could turn it. So, chapter 1, paragraph C, which is on page 1 of the manual, references at world employment. And it begins by saying that the employment relationship between the town and its employees for the first two years is at will. Obviously, we're here because Ms. Goldstein has worked for the town more than two years, and that's why she's entitled to this procedure. But the nature of the relationship remains one of at will. Also, paragraph 1g page 2 of the manual states management's rights nothing in this manual shall limit the town conditions or the town manager's ability to respond to unique circumstances with unique solutions it is not intended to serve as a limitation on the management of the town to take any administrative or legal action it considers appropriate the manual does not give rise to any contractual rights and does not supersede any federal or state laws, town charter, or ordinance, benefits, rights, or obligation conferred by laws or ordinances. Chapter 2, subparagraph B. Sorry. It speaks to the authority of the town manager under the charter of Section 35 and basically places in the town manager the power to hire and fire town employees as the chief executive officer. Chapter 6 pertains to discipline. And that's at page 66 of the manual. And the significant part here deals with 6B, discipline and disciplinary actions. And at paragraph the town recognizes the investment it makes in training employees and may therefore elect to use progressive discipline at its sole discretion. Again, at its sole discretion. So by that, the policy manual states that the town can choose progressive discipline, but it's not required to. It exercises and maintains that discretion. Under Chapter 6... the grounds for disciplinary action, this is what is referenced in the termination letter, essentially. So, paragraph C1, beginning on 66, which continues on to basically page 69, sets forth to the termination of Ms. Goldstein, and those include 1a, violation of federal, state, county, or town law. 1b, violation of a provision of the town and search site charter or ordinance. 1c, violation of town policies or procedures or departmental rules and regulations. during safety regulations. 1D, failure to carry out any lawful direction or work assignment from an authorized authority. Where such failure amounts to any act of insubordination or a breach of proper discipline or has resulted or reasonably might be expected to result in loss or injury to the town co-workers or the public. That applies here because of monies that the town and its taxpayers did not receive as a result of some of the exercise of discretion by Ms. Goldstein, contrary to the manager's rate sheet as an example, and contract as another example. that every employee has a duty to follow the law. M, exercising poor judgment on a matter within the employee's responsibility when such judgment results in a negative impact on the department or town. So here you have, again, with respect to the comp time and with respect to the business parking permit program. another ground on authorized taking or using of town time property equipment or funds for personal And then if you look at paragraph 2, I'm sorry, that would be chapter 6 of section C and 2F and the termination section. The authority to discharge shall not be delegated below the town manager level. In other words, the town manager is the only person who can terminate, and that's in fact what happened here. A written notice of termination shall be provided to the employee with a copy to HR, and that's exactly what happened there too. So in other words, the town complied with its manual in exercising its termination. That is why I argue to this board that there is cause for the termination action and why this board must affirm that termination because there was a basis for doing so. And it's important that the board keep in mind that The town exercised that action based on the conduct that gave rise to the action. And the town is the one that decided that the grounds that gave rise to the action were warrants. of cause the board simply needs to either find a cause or determine that there was no cause because the evidence supports a cause for termination the appropriate result of this board should be to concur with that finding of a cause and ultimately dismiss the appeal on the merits because the evidence supports it. Even if this board feels that they might have done something different if they sat in the manager's seat. the sole discretion to do so. And it shouldn't be your place to act as the manager. It should be simply to look at the evidence, determine if there was a cause, and if so, affirm the decision. And that should hopefully be unanimous amongst the four of you. It will require a unanimous vote of this board to make any binding decision on the town. So if all four of you cannot agree, then the result will be as determined by you, but will not be binding on the town. That's under Rule 12. And with that, I yield.

So for the procedure for today, I'm just confused because I think the panel's supposed to be five, meaning four out of five. Now we're down to four. Does that mean three out of four?

It does not. You have a quorum, and you have an acting chair in the same room.

Was there a notification in advance so that Ms. Goodman would be scheduled to accommodate Ms. Goodman?

What was the question?

Whether Ms. Goodman had notified us in advance that she was going to make it. Today. Did she notify us today? She was going to be scheduled.

We had a quorum.

I understand. I'm just getting some time. Thank you. I appreciate the presentation. It doesn't really change the fact that this entire investigation that precipitated Dina's firing was an absolute sham. The investigation doesn't create evidence that never existed and was never consulted. The discussion at the last hearing, at the end, focused on town finances, available positions, working with Chief Doset. None of those are permitted considerations, and Mr. Boutin confirmed that today. None of those are to be considered. In fact, I think it was erroneous to have those discussions and might contain it at work so we can address that if we need to. But what we look at in talking about discipline is in chapter 6, B1, when we talk about the purpose of it, it's not to be punitive. In the fourth line, it says, the essential purpose of disciplinary action is to correct a performance deficiency and or behavioral problem, prevent recurrence, and provide clear communication to employees as to acceptable standards of performance and conduct. And so the town can use progressive discipline. And when discipline is justified, or termination justified, what it says in C1 is it's supposed to be utilized in the best interest in the town of Surfside. And what was done to Dena was far and away not in Surfside's best interest. It absolutely was not in this town's best interest. It may have been in the manager's best interest, who's no longer here. may have been in Chief Dose's or Assistant Chief Holbrook, but it certainly wasn't in the towns. And so I think what has been glossed over and not really addressed are any of the performance evaluations, because we're here talking about what her performance was and what she did. So I can bring those up and start talking about those. nearly 17 years. Let's just talk about the last several evaluations. The evaluation date of September 30, August 23, August 29 of 2022, September 10 of 2020, September 10 of 2019. Those are the only ones that exist. during that that time frame there was no evaluation in the for 2021. there's nothing less than a four none of the evaluators have any problem with any aspect of penis job performance notably during the time period in which everything that was investigated is alleged to have occurred whether it's parking whether it's comp time, whatever it is, everything is a form. Every piece is organized and accurate and there's no indication, and I'm looking at page 96, there's no indication that he knows anything other than accurate and organized. She reported the information when it came to the comp time, It's on the spreadsheets. It was inputted after the guardrails were taken off. And the finance didn't catch it because the procedures weren't there. Deena's not in a policymaking position. She's not in a position to make judgment calls. Deena's an executive assistant to the chief. She follows orders when she finds something out of line. The testimony is that she reported it. We heard nothing to the contrary. Every comment is laudatory throughout Dina's employment history, but looking at the last four, there's nothing in there to indicate to Dina that she was doing anything wrong by any of those that were evaluating her, including those responsible for overseeing the department, payroll of the officers, use of company leave time, parking permits, and Dina's overall job performance. So there's been nothing that's been brought up during the last hearing or even earlier that there's any change in Dina. She's the same person doing the same job in the same manner. And according to every other evaluator, it was the highest possible evaluation as before. in every aspect of her job to be evaluated. So what changed? Well, what changed was the evaluator. And so what we have next is we have, with respect to the, how payroll was to be done, I'll show you this. We start on page 2 of the email chain, which is an instruction from Chief Dozier, indicating there's a new process and time frame for completing payroll. If you go on Monday at 5, only be done during working hours. We've got a new process where the Chief's office must sign off on payroll. including a review and approval by the deputy chief, captain, or myself. Once you complete it, it'll undergo a review from my end before submission to finance. And payroll will not be submitted directly by you, Dina, to the finance without this approval. Please also provide a detailed email outlining the steps you take to process payroll. Dina was requested at 3.28 p.m. on July 1st, 2024. Dina responds, and sends it to 419 the same day, and goes through her process. Now, if there was an issue in the process that Dina was using, if there was a problem, then there should have been, first of all, what the conversation has had, but what we talked about last time, what Dina talked about, she goes, they talked about earlier, earlier conversations. Okay, bye. What about an email? No email saying the process is wrong. Well, let's look at the disciplinary measures. We can have a verbal counseling. That didn't happen. So what about a written counseling? Nope, that didn't happen either. What about a written warning? Didn't happen. No, what happened was there was a predetermination that was made. And I'm not going to sit here and tell you that there was predetermination. I'm going to prove it. Because eight days later, a decision was already made what to do with Pena. Now, I realize that this letter dated July 9th of 2024 may not have made it to your packet that was provided to you by the town. But it was provided to Sergeant Ramos to initiate his investigation, which I talked about last time. It was an investigation that was done by the town. It had findings. It had summaries. It had summaries of findings. And on the last page, you'll see it's after the date was a separation notice and backup. That's this letter. But it didn't make it to you. And why? Because there was already a decision made to get rid of Lena within eight days of telling her there's a new payroll process that's being used. A 16 and a, going on 17 year employee, who's been your only constant in the police department with the command staff, or assisting with command staff. and talked about compound policy in 2022 and 2023, trust and confidentiality, which has been proven, according to this investigation, and the job responsibilities and job proficiencies, although they're not really spelled out in the determination letter. Here, they talked about other things. PowerPoint, payroll, schedule creation, She did not have any symptoms. A-roll flawed. So within eight days of telling Dina there's a new A-roll system after Dina explained what she's been doing, no hiding, no nothing, during every year she's had fours on every category in which she's been evaluated. employment by a chief who comes in and just decides that's it. There's already been a decision made. And there's a shadow of an investigation which we already went through. The only witness that was talked to was Nina. The only evidence that was provided were summarized. It did not include any policies on how to submit payroll, who's to approve, how it's done. Sure, the town is responsible. And if you're gonna find fault, you know, let's look at it. The town's responsible. The town manager's responsible. The finance department is responsible, the chief's office is responsible, each officer is responsible, their supervisors, and then Dina who inputs the information. There hasn't been any testimony or evidence that Dina had the discretion to do anything but transpose the information. There were guardrails in place, but the finance took them off for whatever reason. So, the decision was already made, speaking at Red Adena. There's been votes that occurred earlier that there was no evidence to support any of the decisions that were made. There's been no evidence of any intervening discussions or emails that happened between November 1st through today about Dena's performance. Instead it was suspend and then terminate Dena and look for something to conjure up. And that's exactly what's been done because this panel's job is not to find evidence. and none warranting termination. So, when you talk about an investigation, this is an investigation that was provided a predetermined outcome, because there were findings and summaries of findings, and the investigation itself, curiously, didn't come to any conclusions or recommendations or anything. But, Somehow, based on that, with lack of evidence, the same people who reported the concern made the decision that evidence existed. They were guilty until proven innocent. And that continues through today. So, one of the things that I want to discuss was, you know, there's no evidence that Dina sends emails to request clarification, or there are no emails about changes to or modifications to the parking permit program. I submit it's not Tina's burden. If the town contends Dina engaged in anything improper, what is it? Dina didn't collect any money from anybody. the town did. If Dita was doing something wrong and it cost the town all this money, why didn't somebody tell her she did anything wrong until after she was suspended? The manager who decided to suspend and terminate being no longer here. He was fired. So, when you talk about the grounds for discipline, what chapter 6, c1 says, discipline in the best interest of the town. And it talks about this may include administering discipline outside the normal progression, depending on the severity. So really what we're talking about is the normal progression would be to use the progressive discipline system, but we're not married to it, depending on the severity of what went on. and the severity of what went on was an unfounded allegation by someone, for which there's no report, from the chief of police, mind you, about some post that nobody's ever seen. And so we talked about a lack of documentation. There should have been documentation, certainly in a call log, should have been documentation that an investigation was conducted, who went out, what was said, with whom, and a report filled out. Whether it's an offense incident report or some other report. But there's not. And that should be really concerning. That's a ground for terminating somebody. the chief of police who doesn't document a conversation that results in the termination of an employee? That's terrible. Violation of town policies or procedures? Okay, what happened to everybody else? Dina input information. She created a flyer. Was it her decision? No. Did it standardize things? Yes. And if Dina created the flyer, was she hiding anything? No. She was following orders. Carrying out lawful directives or work assignments. That was the other update. That's a new one. What was Dena asked to do that she didn't? There's been nothing. Neglect of duty. There's been no neglect. There's no evidence of neglect. And the only thing there's evidence of is that Dina has been an above satisfactory employee in every aspect of her job until July 9th of 2024. Exercising poor judgment on a matter within the employee's responsibility. Dina testified, and there's been no evidence to the contrary, that she didn't have judgment. What judgment did Dina exercise? She didn't set any rates. She didn't change any parking. She decided to charge or not charge. She was a conduit for information, and she prepared documentation reflecting that. She's not been hiding it. Dina was doing something on tour, and it happened for years. How come nobody found it earlier? Auditors, finance department, how come nobody spoke about it? Because it wasn't a problem. And so, then you get to this letter P, unauthorized use or taking of town, time, property, equipment, or funds for personal use. This should include improper or misuse of town vehicles. I don't think there's any other way to show how desperate the town is to support the gross conclusion to terminate Dean's employment than now claiming that there's evidence for the Dean litigation unauthorized use of taking the town time, property, equipment, or funds for personal use. That's not desperation, I don't know what is. If there was a question about what Dina needed to do or what she should do, certainly there would be documentation about performance concerns. And there's none. What we have are counseling sessions with the employee, with Dina, during or as part of her evaluation process. where each of our evaluators spoke with her about what had gone on and what's next to go on. And those are in your packet at 200 through 206. You're not gonna find anything in 2000 through 2023 about Nina being counseled for not doing any of these things properly. She exercised discretion properly where she could find accommodations. Tina is not above and beyond staying in on the weekend, volunteering time, doing everything she can for this town. We have all the accommodations. The accommodations are 219, 220, others are 245, 242 to 245. There's combinations. There really should be a look into why Dina, who was the civilian of the year for the town in 2021, is scapegoated for all of this. Because in the end, there is absolutely no evidence to support the manager's decision to terminate Dina when there were findings of 5-0 4-1 and 3-2 on the four performance issues that were identified. It was 5-0 that Dina did not make information. It was 4-1 that Dina did not commit potential fraud in connection with the department. That Dina, 4-1, did not neglect her job duties. And it was three to two with respect to the Compton issue. And the issue there was a lack of communication. So what the town's now telling Dina, and what it's going to tell the rest of its employees, is that you can be accused of something, or multiple things. It could all be made-up nonsense, unsupported by evidence. But as long as it's written as an accusation, we're going to take it as true. You're going to be guilty until proven innocent. And then if you don't communicate something, that's grounds for termination. Not a write-up. That's what we're talking about, because the town does have the ability to utilize progressive discipline. Page 77, which is... Chapter 6, C2. First of all, discipline should be administered to the employee, student after the event is practical. It wasn't. We talked about things that are over a year old. And then, for progressive discipline, it should be, if deemed appropriate, it should be implemented as follows. One, verbal counseling. Then a written warning. And if they're preventable accidents, it's repayment of damages. Then suspension, then demotion, and then termination. So, for Tina, apparently not communicating what was going on with, or not writing any your business parking program, or if you're not receiving emails under the business parking program, or if you're not receiving emails about how payroll is conducted, incidentally, to the finance department, or bypassing the chief's office. There's no counseling, there's no warning, there's no suspension, there's no devotion. Determinate. That's the town's position. That should start fear into any employee of the town for more than two years who's not a subject to a collective argument. I don't think that's why. I don't believe that to be appropriate. I don't think you all believe that to be appropriate. And there is no evidence to support in finding that Dina should be terminated for cause. And in this situation, again, this appeals board, on a finding.

Can I ask that you move on? You've repeated this guy a few times. I'm sorry.

that there's no basis for the adverse employment action, an order in a hearing, a submissive appeal, or a reinstatement, absolutely on terms and conditions, will require such actions as addressed. For Dina, she should be reinstated. If there was something that should have been caught earlier, at most, she should have a written warning.

I just have a very brief rebuttal to some of these statements that were just there. Absolutely. Thank you. Just briefly, on the employee performance evaluations, I think it's important to note that we're talking about things that happened in the last couple of years, and the evaluator from the On September 30, 2023, the book was signed off by Chief Healy, page 101. And Chief Healy is the same chief that the town is suing for a violation of Florida law. In addition, with respect to the... performance evaluation that was signed off in 2022. That was Chief Torres, I believe. And he designed for his employment with the town. And obviously, the comp time issues didn't become clear until probably after the date of that evaluation. So I have to point those out. Also, there seems to be at the very least a discrepancy in the evidence that was just alluded to by opposing counsel. So we handed you out some emails signed by or authored by Chief Dose, dated July 1, and then he made reference to some predetermined decision with this letter that he showed you dated July 9. This doesn't exist in our records. I don't know where this came from. But what does exist in our records that you should have, and I'll make you another copy, which I have here to circulate. I'll ask Madam Kirk to circulate it. duty on August 6th, not on July 9th. I think that's important to note. Beyond that, you heard some reference to Nina just following orders. Employees are expected to follow the law, not necessarily just follow orders, because if an unlawful order is given, you have a duty to not follow an unlawful order. So I don't expect the board to accept following orders as a justification. Otherwise, I think you've heard enough, and I believe that there is a cause for reaction by the time. Thank you.

So I actually have some questions. Based on Florida law, isn't every employee in the state of Florida at will, therefore not needing to be provided any information based on why they were let go?

I don't know if the town attorney wants to chime in, but I'm certainly happy to answer that question. I could tell you... and I'll let the town attorney confirm or deny it, but yes, you're correct, this is an Atwell state. The only nuance as it becomes applicable here with respect to public employees is after two years, there needs to be a cause, right? And that's why we're here, because the town issued its letter based on multiple causes, and your board is asked to essentially affirm or overrule that.

No, ma'am.

I have a question on that.

Can you repeat again what it means to be an at-will state?

Can you speak into the mic, please?

Can you please repeat what it means to be an at-will state?

So generally speaking, we all, in this at-will type of environment, An employer can choose to dismiss an employee based on any reason that's not protected, necessarily. So you can't dismiss someone based on your race or your gender or your age or things of that nature that are protected by law. But otherwise, an employer can choose to part ways with an employee for any reason. In the context of the town, as the code is written and as the policy manual sets forth, after two years, you need to have a cause. You can't just decide to part ways. Thank you.

Where do we go now? Madam Chair, so now you can continue your deliberations until you're ready to issue your rule. Okay, is there anybody who would like to start?

Madam Chair, I think we've talked quite a bit the last hour here. Personally, being in business for so long, I have faced this problem many times. Both coming from me and also going to the CSI. Life sometimes is unfair. And what I think has been lacking throughout this whole nine hours of talking regarding this issue is the responsibility of the employee. You know, in private business, if you hire someone to do a task and they have responsibilities, if they see something that's out of order, they need to move that, move the dial, become active, things of that nature. And I haven't heard a lot about that. I've heard about She did, she didn't do it. And as far as I'm concerned, just the original, I think that I would be ready to affirm the determination of the town. I think the last time we spoke, we won. I thought, at least from my perspective, I thought we were giving the, you know, miss goldstein the opportunity to negotiate her way out in an honorable way so that you know just didn't tarnish her reputation which apparently all the evidence points to her being an exceptional employee exceptional and you know when you check the boxes but i also don't see a box that says based on her experience, I mean, everybody's allowed a voice when it comes to diligence of duty. And that's all I have to say. I think that from my perspective, I wanted the board to know that I would affirm the determination of the county.

Thank you. Did anybody else have anything they wanted to liberate?

I'm sorry, I can't see that well, but I've written some notes here. Because Ms. Goldstein was a good employee and a longstanding resident, I think that this could be settled at the lowest possible level, which is here. Ignorance and or negligence is no excuse to break the rules. Four officers were overpaid thousands of dollars, and I think that that's a lot of money for the town to overpay. It took a new set of eyes to discover the missteps, and because of the longevity that Ms. Goldstein has been here and great job she did in the past, I think this can be settled if she withdraws her grievances against the town. and she can go with her pay, my opinion, and her vacation time and everything, and remove all negative items from her file, and she can find another position somewhere else. If I had overpaid employees like that in my position, I would have been walked out by the office inspector general, and... At the last meeting that we were here, Ms. Goldstein said that she was willing to remove, withdraw all grievances against the town. And I think if we all come together, this could be positive for both sides, for Ms. Goldstein and for the town, and come to a positive conclusion on this. And that's all right now, for now.

Thank you. Do we need to deliberate any more? If the board is done and no one has anything else to add?

Yes.

Do we need some motions to put it to vote? I motion to... You can make a motion as a chair.

I motion to vote. On what? What's the motion? What's your position? Oh, I need to say a word? I'm terminating. Terminating a job.

I'm going to see terminating.

Does that mean fun comes? Oh, absolutely. And you're affirming the town's decision? Yes. Is there a second? Second.

I second.

Is there any discussion in this motion? I actually do have a question. If we do affirm that we can prove cause, is there any way, because Miss Woldstein is a town president, this is a, sorry, an HR nightmare. It has already been on the news. Town members know about it. They've seen it. I mean, people have contacted me from out of town with things that are going on in the town who were longtime residents. Is there any way that we can kind of mitigate the fallout? Is there any way that she can get a positive recommendation moving forward and we can settle this?

I'll just be direct because that's just the best way. This is a public forum. Everything that happens here is being recorded. Obviously, we're a governmental entity. We're subject to other records laws. And there's nothing stopping anyone from procuring that and using that however they deem appropriate. But I will say that there's always a way for the parties to come together at whatever point but unfortunately we're here because we need the board to act and and i think both sides appreciate the attitude that the board gave the parties to try to not come to this but we're here nonetheless i hope that answers your question thank you

Are we ready to call the question? Board Member McKenzie?

Yes.

Board Member Jimenez? What's the question? You're affirming the cost of termination? Yes. Board Member Benadry? Yes. Acting Chair Kinzer?

Yes.

The motion carries.

I thank the members of the board. I think the only work left to do is for the attorney to memorialize this in a form of a resolution, which will be prepared and circulated for entry. And we'll do that in due course.

Can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Can I make that? I say. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No motion carries.