Loading...
10/25/1976 - Special ..1\ ~<~.~ .' ~ ~ '. ~'." .' ;: .' ~ . {~~.::.. .; ~~'~.> !,"'I': . 1\ . 1\ '. '(j ',\ ':.\~ : . ' f ~.. . (:'i;;;!'C' , .. > ?l,~.. .' ..~"" . N?::',.:. ~t..>.J ' ~j'ri,'. ' r...... 1ft:', ;-""," '., 1rl.;.' . ''''-' . }tt Proceedings of Civil Service Board Special Meeting held on October 25, 1976. / / ./ Visitors: Bill Bryant, Gene Hunt, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Fintont Mr. & Mrs. Bobby Garretson, Mr. & Mrs. Paul Kane, Gardner Smith and Marion Olsen Chairman called meeting 'to order at 7:44 P.M. Members present: Robert Krause, Chairman, Tom Chenoweth, Alex Finch, Paul Hatchett Absent: ' George Linder Chairman stated the purpose of this meeting was to review complaint letter from Mr. Carlos Suarez of the U.S. E.E.O.C. regarding a complaint made by Edmund Dillon against the Board. He asked the Director to cover the background of the situation. Mr. Chenoweth moved that the Board receive the letter from E.E.O.C. Seconded by Mr. Hatchett. ' MOtion passed with Mr. Chenoweth, Mr. Hatchett and Mr. Krause voting aye and Mr. Finch voting nay. Dizector related that on July 22, 1976 his office received a Notice of Employment Discrimination from E.E.O.C. which indicated a charge had been filed by Mr. Edmund Dillon, Jr. claiming to be aggrieved. The bas is of discrimination was "race or color,1I the natuloe of the charge was "terms and conditions" and "disparity." Subsequently, on July 28, an amended Notice of Employment Discrimination was received fromE.E.O.C. The basis of discrimination was listed as "race or color,H " the nature, of the charge was "reprisal," and IIdisparity.1I Mr. Hatchett asked the Director if Mr. Dillon worked for the Civil Service Board. Director responded that he did not, after which Mr. Hatchett queried the City Attorney " with respect to the employee and employment status of Mr. Dillon. He asked how '~~', Dillon could file a complaint alleging employment discrimination against the Board When he doesn't work 'for the Board. City Attorney responded that Mr. Dillon works for the Ci~ of Clearwater and the Civil Service Board is part of the City government. Mr. Hatchett asked the City Attorney and Mr. Shoemaker if a job description was available for Mr. Dillon's position. Mr. Shoemaker stated that Mr. Dillon's functions are outlined in the City's administrative directives and he would provide a copy if desired. Mr. Finch related that he had received three different documents - whether chargas or notices - and that he had read the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and combining the three together there is no basis for them under the Act. He said the Board could and should answer what is asked and can get some more information from Miami. He advised the Board he had written to Miami, citing sections of the Act saying that the Notice and Chargc'were insufficient and the Board needed to know what he was talking ahout. He suggested the Board move for a bill of particulars. Members expressed the view that the letter from }tt. Suarez was misleading in relating that it was in reference to Charge No. TMM6-2819 Edmund C. Dillon v. City of Clearwater and that he was denied equal terms and conditions of employment because of his race (Negro/Black)." ~ ."i! ' ": ,t, I ~': ,;:' I J", :'; , , ,.,,>,.: . . I":,.,. J< ..~\ ': . ,"\ < . ], I. "';c ! ,"\. , ! \;.1:-, , , :';;I;:,~' I,l' ~.l~'~ , " . .'.~ ~ il,' i 're ~ :~:;~~ ;c: ' 'J~:!i':.,:::. " 'i.V:"':'c'c.: ,/;. , . :H: >::-, IJ :I,~c.~ .,..r," i . :1~:;j: ':' , .;J':;+:. . ;:, ~ \. ;::A;:'~ ':: . ~:';',',> }~;t< .."'" .t~:Jt J/:': . '. ,.......:. '" 'I ,." ..... I.. ~.; ; ~., I' . , ~~('" ',; ~~",[;\, \t'1:(O:: ~t,E;;. .' .:,:; r"-"';' . ~~~!i;;}' {)<)/''':l''''!'' ~Af~:~Y~: ,i.~.;; Wf{tg,:(~: ~! ~~'~.~it"." ,_ l{~~'j;.i ~ffli.~:"'~./'~ ' ~ ~~.~~~.~.~.;j:'.~; .;; tf'l'1J/' , . t,.. f~Uii 1 i\i;(~._. ~Q.1~1 '.......1.. ~~ tJ~,.. ~,; .1.. . I , ~~~;~w~ l~~{:~j;~~:/'~ l~, fJ,,;""r~.;. :~. .?ga:':::n;,~}~;: "U'~t~~ !;~::~ - 2 - Special Civil Service Board Meeting October 25, 1976 In response to Mr. Hatchett's inquiries as to whether the charge was in the proper "ball park," the City Attorney said Mr. Dillon works for the City of Clearwater not the Civil Service Board per se. Mr. Chenoweth suggested that the matter should possibly go to the City Commission since the letter 1s addressed to the City of Clearwater. City Attorney related that the Commission had been advised of the matter. Mr. Hatchett and Mr. Krause asked the Attorney if he knew of any action contemplated by the City Manager's Office and/or his Administrative Assistants and/or the City Commission pertaining to this particular charge as to action they intend to take. Attorney replied he did not know having only first seen the letter this morning. He indicated that it would be his duty to bring it before the Conunission and in response to questions as to when, he indicated their next meeting was on November 4th. Mr. Chenoweth related to the Board that since he was not named ,in the Charge, he felt it would be inappropriate for him to participate in the decisions that will determine the response in the event the Board determines it should respond. Mr. Finch noted that on the Charge made by Mr. Dillon it listed the Civil Service Board as his employer which is not correct and on the Receipt for the Copy of Charges, it lists the City of Clearwater as the Respondent. He said that the Director should have given it to the Ci~ Manager. The Board should answer the Charge and another MOtion to Quash this would lie because it is ambiguous and as he reads it, the four members of the Board ar2 in this with the City although he could not put much stocle in the letter~ He said the four members could rather quickly put together a response and that is what he felt should be done. City Attorney related to the Board that an answer to the Charge in the manner he felt the Board was contemplating would make the E.E.O.C. much more interested in the charge involved and quite possibly want to expand the scope of the investigatiotr. Jack White, attorney for Paul Kane, spoke to the Board and suggested that they inquire of the City Attorney since he has undert4ken to represent this Board at this hearing to follow the policies set by the majority of this Board in their response and, if he's not, to let this Board know where they stand if he's not going to represent the City in its segment known as the Civil Service Board. He noted that he and his client, Mr. Kane) were interested in this as his client is charged under exactly the same terms as this Board. He questioned whether the City Attorney could represent the Board) the Manager and the Commission if their policies were adverse. Chairman related that his was a valid question and asked Mr. Bustin where he stood on this situation. Mr. Bustin indicated that he would defend the City of Clearwater an~)every agency that makes up the same) including the Civil Service Board, in every case that's filed against the City with the same strength including cases filed by Mr~ White) and if"there are appropriate defenses they will be made. Upon continued questioning, Mr. Bustin indicated that if any conflicts arose) he would step aside. Chairman asked Mr. Finch) with the approval of the Board, to dictate the response to Mr. Suarez. Mr. Finch said the City Attorney should tell the Board what to do. City Attorney recommended that first of all we should make an attempt to contact Mr.. Suarez before filing a written response. Secondly, that the Board members should . t-;~;:::~\":: ',. \ .\~~::~ I:~:,~ ~.. {"., ", I' :,. , - 3 - Special Civil Servlca Board Meeting October 25, 1976 provide facts and data to be incorporated in the response. Based on those two steps, a written response should be prepared. Chairman related to the Board that he had asked the Director to prepare a position statement several days ago. He asked the members and City Attorney to look at it. Mr. Hatchett questioned the City Attorney as to the right of Mr. Chenoweth to abstain on a charge against the Board of which he is a member, stating that there was a charge against the Board and all members must respond and all members vote, otherwise itls not the Board. Mr. Chenoweth advised the Chair that members have abstained from voting at many past meetings. City Attorney stated that when it comes to voting, under State Statutes, if a member feels he has a conflict in voting on an item the Board is voting on, this must be disclosed as he does not have the per se right to abstain. A member does not have to participate in discussion. Mr. Hatchett said it was still not clear to him how a member could sit at a meeting and discuss an item and then not vote; if he is going to abstain, then he should be quiet all the way. The Board discussed the matter of whom ,the charge is against. The City Attorney stated that he felt the purported action, based on the pape~s provided, is brought against the 'City. Mr. Chenoweth moved to reconsider the original motion of receiving the letter from the E.E.O.C. Seconded by Mr. Hatchett. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Finch moved that on the opinion and advice of the Attorney for the Civil Service Board, Mr. Bustin the City Attorney, that this action or proceeding is against the City of Clearwater and not the Board, no action be taken. Seconded by Mr. Chenoweth and motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hatchett, after reading a proposed portion of a position statement relating to Mr. Dillon's stated reports against the Civil Service system, asked the City Attorney if it was, proper under Civil Service Rules, statute of Florida, for any official 'or employee of the City of Clearwater to attempt to subterfuge the action of an appointed Hoard by statute or by administrative procedure such as recommending abolishment of the Civil Service Board. City Attorney advised that such statements were protected under the First Amendment and that he knew of nothing in the Civil Service Rules or the Charter prohibiting such statements: Mr. Hatchett asked if such statements were covered in the proposed Ethics Ordinance. Mr. Bustin said the pro- posed Ethics Ordinance contains no provision that covers this situation. Chairman then related that subterfuge was perhaps the wrong word - sedition was suggested as being the proper word. Chairman asked City Attorney if Mr. Dillon's comments constituted a seditious act. City Attorney responded no. Mr. Finch moved that the Director be directed and instructed to mail tomorrow, Special Delivery, to Mr. Carlos M. Suarez, Equal Opportunity Specialist~ Equal Employ- ment'Commission with a proper address, a copy of the action taken by the Board tonight on items one and two relating to Discrimination Charge TMM6-2819, Edmund Dillon v. City of ClearWater, respondent and that at least two members of the Board read nnd approve the letter before it is mailed to assure that it embodies a clear~ brief summary of the Boardls intent. Seconded by Mr. Chenoweth. Motion passed unanimously. - 4 - Special Civil Service Board Meeting October 25, 1976 Under "Other Board Action," Mr. Hatchett indicated he wished to pursue continuation of the hearings as he had some volunteers willing to come forward to testify. He proceeded, with assistance from other members, to dictate a letter as follows: You are cordially invited to appear before the Civil Service Board to state your involvement and role in the discrimination charges alleged against the Civil Service Board of the City of Clearwater in the cascs of William C. Dixon and Edmund C. Dillon. We ask your appearance before the Civil Service Board on Upon your entrance into the designated place of hearing, kindly report to the Monitor on duty who will recognize you. The Monitor will be instructed as to your placement until you are called upon to testify in the hearing. Please respond to the Personnel Director by noon Friday, October 29, 1976 if you will attend thi~, meeting. Mr. Laursen may be reached at 442-6131, Extension 237 by telephone or personally at the City Hall Annex, 10 S. Missouri Avenue, Clearwater. . Mr. Hatchett asked the Director to provide a list of those previously subpoenaed, to himself and the Chairman and from those, selected individuals would be invited. Mr.. Hatchett moved the Civil Service Board continue the hearings on November l~ 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in this building (City Hall Annex). Seconded by Mr. Finch. Motion passed with Mr. Finch, Mr. Hatchett and Mr. Krause voting aye and Mr. Chenoweth voting nay. Chairman asked if any. citizens wished to speak. There being no further business, Mrf Chenoweth moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Hatchett and motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Approved: Personnel Director and Secretary Robert F. Krause, Chairman '~\ .1 '.. \' .' '