SUSPENSION APPEAL
,
~
J
I
C I T Y
OF
CLEARWATER
POST OFFICE BOX 4748
C LEA R W ATE R, F LOR IDA 3 4 6 1 8 - 4 7 4 8
Office of
City Attorney
June 5, 1989
Thomas Oldham, Esquire
Assistant Director
Department of Administrative
Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, ~l. 32301
Re: Roger Brennan, Suspension Appeal
Hearings
Dear Mr. Oldham:
. .
Enclosed are the following file papers, in duplicate, on the above
captioned appeal:
1. Notice of Suspension.
2. Appeal to the City Manager.
3. Memorandum to City Manager requesting withdrawal of Notice of
Suspension.
4. Response to Explanation and Answer to Charges on Suspension.
5. Request for hearing officer from Roger Brennan.
6. Request for hearing officer from Personnel.
As soon as a hearing officer is assigned to this case, please advise.
Sincerely,
Miles A. Lance
Assistant City Attorney
MAL:fs
enc.
cc:
City Clerk
Roger Brennan
/
"Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer"
J
I
}A\ LL~ .,
"\u..<.-t. l~ l Q. I i
\ L I I
tr' I I
~,'t.(.;8f !
1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: 1I&iI!~~~~~:'
FROM: H. Michael Laursen, Personnel Director
COPIES: Kathy Rice, Assistant City Manager; E. J. Robinson, Affirmative Action Officer;
William Baker, Director of Public Works; Roger Brennan, Credit Manager
SUBJEcr: Request for Hearing Officer for Civil Service Appeal - Suspension
DA1E:
May 23, 1989
Attached is a copy of a memo from Roger Brennan, Credit Manager, relative to his request for the
assignment of a Hearing. Officer to hear his appeal of a five-day suspension.
Mr. Brennan's explanation and answer to the charges upon which the suspension was based was
not accepted by the City Managet's designee and, consistent with Civil Service Rule 14, Section 8,
his request for a Hearing Officer is in order.
Please initiate contact with the State of Florida so that a Hearing Officer can be assigned to this
appeal.
For preliminary information purposes for a Hearing Officer, I have attached a copy of the
Suspension Notice (and Personnel Action Sheet), Mr. Brennan's Notice of Rebuttal of Suspension,
and his memo of May 12, 1989, and the response of the City Manager's designee to the employee's
explanation.
'J 'C. D
C ~ \
c ~ J'-'" ,......::).
\'- \:~,:I":J
,. ~ .:)
f' c. ~ - '.l
\' - . r\.-.:'~~~:~\'~
t'0't t- ~ ·
I
J,J 013
MA y 2 J'
. . 1989
I
C IT YO Fe LEA R WATER
Interdeplrtment Correspondence Sheet
10: Civil SeJ;vice Board
H. Michael Laursen, Personnel Director
FROM: Roger Brennan, utilities. Credi.t Manager-;::f~
COPIES: R. Rabun, K. Rice, oE. J~ Robinson, E.E.O.C.
.
SUBJECT: Request For a Hearing Officer
DATE: May 22, 1989
-In accordance with Civil Service rule 14, Sec. 8 and Personnel
Ordinance 1831", I would like to request a Hearing Officer be
assigned to review my suspension and the City Manager's non-
acceptance of my rebuttal.. 0
Please allow time to subpoena witnesses, personnel and doc-
uments.
,.
RB:v
. .
I
MJ, 2 2 1989
,
C I T Y 0 F C LEA R W ATE R
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Roger Brennan, Credit t1anager
COPIES: H. Michael Laursen, Personnel Director
SUBJECT: Response to Explanation and Answer to Charges on Suspension
DATE: May 22, 1989
In accordance with provlSlons of Rule 14, Section 6, of the Civil Service
Rules & Regulations, you have provided an explanation and answer to charges
upon which a five day suspension were based. The suspension commenced on
r.1ay 9, 1989.
You responded to the Suspension by filing a Notice of Rebuttal of Suspension
and a memo requesting that the City Manager withdraw the charges against you.
I have revi ewed your responses to the charges as contai ned in your Rebuttal
Notice. You have not provided any information in your rebuttal which
justifies the actions you took and upon which your suspension was based.
Your Notice of Rebuttal of Suspension (explanation and answer to the charges)
is not acceptable and the charges upon which your suspension was based will
not be withdrawn.
t!a5f-t.6 ~
Katny S. Rice~ssistant City Manager/Administration & City Manager's Designee
I
",:,t
. ,
;;>
I
C I T Y (0 F C LeA R W ATe R
Interdetlartment Correspondence Sheet
TO: Ron Rab.un, City M~nager
FROM: Roger Brennan, Utili ties Credit Manager ~ Q 0
COPIES: K. Rice, M. Laursen, E.J. Robinson, E.E.O.C.
.
SUBJECT: Rights of Appeal
5-12-89
DATE:
On May 4, 1989 I received a Notice of Suspension, which stated
that I was to be suspended for violating Civil Service Rule 14.
It further stated that I was incompetent, inefficient and in-
subordinate.
Attached to that suspension notice was page three (3), an
explanation of my rights of appeal pursuant to Rule 14 of the
Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
After carefully reading those rights I would like to request
that you withdraw your charges, as indicated in paragraph 4 of
the explanations provided to me. (see attached)
RB:v
I
I
,
# . . " ..
'. . .
- -: I
~'.. I
You are hereby advised that you are granted certain rights of appeal
pursuant to Rule 14 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of
Clearwater and Chapter 25 of the City of Clearwater Code, should you believe that
the Appointing Authority is taking this action without just cause.
You are entitled, under Rule 14, Section 6, of the Civil Service
Rules and Regulations of Clearwater, Florida, to file with the Appointing
Authority an explanation of and answer to the charges and specifications
contained herein. A copy of said explanation and answer is to be filed with the
Personnel Director of the City of Clearwater, Florida, within ten (10) days.
If the Appointing Authority accepts your explanation and answer,he
shall withdraw the action and provide written notice to you within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of your explanation and answer~~~ shall so nntif~
~ "ithiR ten (lO)d.y&-&f-Feceipt nf your explanation-and ~nswer.
[j In the event that the Appointing Authority does not withdraw *1=s
charges after hearing your explanation and answer, you may, within ten (10
calendar days from receipt of your explanation and answer,~ he shall so not].~fY . ~
you within ten (10) days of receipt of your explanation and answer.
. In the event that the Appointing Authority does not withdraw his
charges after hearing your explanation and answer~ you may, within ten (10) days
after receipt of the notice of non-acceptance by the Appointing Authority, file
a written request with the Civil Service Board for a hearing. This hearing would
be held before a Hearing Offi~er selected in a~cordance with the provisions of
Chapter 25.05 of the City Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida. At the
hearing both you and the Appointing Authority would be entitled to be heard
publicly, to be represented by another person, and to present evidentiary facts.
Any party adversely affected by the findings of the Civil Service Board after
its review of the Hearing Officer's recommendations, shall have the right to have
the administrative proceedings reviewed by fi 1 ing a' Petition for Writ of
Cert iorari with the Circuit Court of Pine 11 as County, pursuant to Florida
Statutes or the Court Rules.
You may have the option of filing a grievance pursuant to Article
VI of the contract between the City of Clearwater and the Communication Workers
of America, Local 3179, instead of following the appeals procedure outlines-
above. If you are inclined to file a grievance, consult with your Union
representative to determine whether you have such a right, and if so, what
procedural steps you must follow in perfecting your grievance.
The appeals procedures set forth above are intended to be utilized
by an employee who believes that the action of the Appointing Authority is not
taken for just cause. You have the option of accepting suspension if you feel
that an impartial Hearing Officer or Arbitrator would u hold your suspension.
. (II
. ,--A,/ r;(.~
CltyManager Appolntlng Authorl
Suspension
George H.
4 t h day of
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing
has been served on Roger C. Br ennan
Fasching at Clearwater, Flord~a
Ma y , 19.12-.
Notice of
by
this
~
C)
"
"
'"
.r.
.
< .
. .
TO:
Ron Rabun
Ci ty Manager
City' of Clearwater
I
I
NOI'ICE OF REBU'ITAL OF SUSPENSION
The reason for my suspension was not for the good of the service, or
to promote the efficiency of the Public Works Department; it was for
the purpose of oppression.
mARGE I
Roger C. Brennan violated Rule 14, Section 1, paragraphs (b) (e) and
(k) of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater
SPECIFICATION I
,
REBU'ITAL: Mr. Brumback I S meno of March 23, 1989 directed me to evaluate
the infonnation provided, make the appropriate inquiries and then make
my reccmnendation through the chain of canmand by March 30, 1989. In a
meeting, it was brought to Mr. Brumback's attention that I was inter-
viewing various personnel and tape recording their conversation with
me. Mr. Brumback then sent me another memo dated March 28, 1989 clarifying
his intent of the first memo dated March 23, 1 989. Mr. Brumback's memo
'states, -:ttpUI I want you to do is look into the incident between Mark
Tedder ai1d Pat Meri and Mark I s interaction withE. J. Robinson, the
Affirmative Action Officer. Based upon your assessment of that situation
and the .fact that Mark T~ denied to E. J. Robinson that he participated
in the prank, I want you to reccmnend to George Fasching the action you
deem appropriate, with regard to Mark Tedder's action and conduct. II Mr.
Brumback also stated in his March 28, 1989 memo that if I had any questions,
to please call him; so, I did that same day and asked him, if infonnation
became available to me about this situation that another person was involved,
woula I be able to interview that person. Mr. Brumback stated that I would
i
I
have to let him know in advance who the person was and he would decide
. , ~
J
I
on a case by case basis. I then contacted E. J. Robinson, the Affinnative
, . .
Action Officer to discuss Mr. Brumback's memos with him. Mr. Robinson
stated that he did not feel the memos restricted me from making the appropriate
inquiries. I then explained the phone conversation I had with Mr. Brumback
to Mr. Robinson, who then stated that if I had been instructed to do some-
".
thing, I must do it.
I responded to Mr. Fasching as I was directed to, by the deadline I was
given. To say that the contents of my response constitutes insubordination
would be erroneous, as I will address each item in specification I.
To say that I further carmitted an insubordinate act against a supervisor,
by failing to provide tapes of the conversations I had with various
employees, would be erroroneous also, since NO em: ever prohibited me from
.
using a tape recorder, and since NO CNE ever asked me for the tapes nor
did they ask me for the contents of the tapes or the names of the
personnel I interviewed. I stated that I sent the tapes to E.E.O.C. for
what I believe to be .good and just cause. No one ever told me beforehand
that I had to turn the tapes over to any authority. 'nlerefore, how can
I be insubordinate for sanething I was never asked to do.
To say that I was incanpetent or inefficient in the performance of my
duties is - a slanderous accusation that I will address at the end of
this rebuttal.
SPECIFICATION I, ITEM I:
9 12.237b
MUNICIPAL aJRroRATIONS ELECl'IONS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES
[ acrTICISM OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS ]
statements made by one officer concerning another are usually held not
sufficient cause, especially when they are made in confidence and gc:x:xl
.' .
.;
fai th. One officer's criticism of another mayor may not constitute
good cause. Such conduct by subordinates too, has been held both to
-
warrant and not warrant cause. However, an employee is entitled to
'/
exercise his constitutionally protected right to free speech, for which
I 1
in the absence of showing that his conduct impaired the public service,
he cannot'be properly punished.
1. [Dunning v Tuner 285 App Div 742, 140 NYS 2d 481]
11: allowed newspaper to quote his opinion, divergent from the City
Manager I S on a municipal utility problem. 11:
2. [Davis v Williams 598 F2d 916 (CAS) ]
11: although a deputy sheriff's action in conmunicating information to
authori ties suggesting improprieties on the part of the sheriff would
necessarily result in i.mpairment of working relationships between
himself and the sheriff, such action was constitutionally protected
from retaliatory ca~e, and could not properly serve as a basis for
cause.
3. [Matthews v Washington, 424 F Supp 97 (D OC) ]
11: Provisions of the District of Columbia personnel manual and correspond-
ing regulations and orders prohibited fran making public "Any disagree-
ment with or cri.ticism of the official policies and operating practices
of the District of Columbia Government" were violative of the first
amendment as imposing overly broad restrictions upon free speech rights
of the employees of the District of Columbia.
SPECIFICATION I, ITEM 2
Mr. Fasching states in his request for disciplinary action against me
that "Mr. Brennan is Mark Tedder I s supervisor. He was provided with
transcripts and a statement fran the union representative, that would
enable any reasonable supervisor to identif"y the fact that Mark Tedder
lied to E. J. Robinson in his official capacity, while conducting a
formal inquiry. Mr. Brennan's inability to canprehend this from
the evidence presented (without any necessity for additional witness)
is, in my view, clearly (level 3-6) "prociuctivity, workmanship or efficiency
not up to required standards of performance".
I
.;
I I
Mr. Fasching further states that I am incompetent and inefficient in
.-
the perfonnance of the duties of my position. The tolerance which he
demonstrates for such a serious breach of discipline is also indicative
of his unacceptable .standard of perfonnance. His failure as a first line
supervisor to initiate disciplinary proceedings, as was his responsibility,
is further evidence of his unacceptable level of perfonnance in the
conduct of this inquiry.
The only incompetence and inefficiency was the prejudice and bias that
Mr. Fasching and Mr. Brumback. danonstrated in their request for disciplinary
action against Mr. Tedder and myself. To say that correcting the choice
of words used by my superior supervisor, wfiich reflects an inaccurate
perception of the events that occurred is castigating him, I disagree.
,
Mr. Fasching and Mr. Brumback. wanted to take Mr. Tedder's rights for due
process away before he ever received them. They wanted me to look at the
infonnation they gave me, and only that infonnation, and find what they
wanted me to find, that Mr. Tedder was guilty and that's it, don't
question my TNOrd or we will. find you guilty too, as they did. However ,
as indicated in item number 1, the constitution guarantees our right
to freedOm of speech.
SPECIFICATION I, ITEM 3:
9 12.240
MUNICIPAL aJRPORATIONS ELEcrIONS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES
[mSUBORDINATION ]
A municipal employee has the absolute obligation to perform satisfactorily
the duties and work.in his position. He may speak as he wishes, but
also must be responsible for his statements. Insubordination can right-
fully be predicated only upon a refusal to obey sane order which a superior
.; officer is entitled to have obeyed. NOr deemed insubordination was disrespect
provoked by a superior officer's unwarranted actions.
1. [Forstner v San Francisco, 52 CAL RPTR 621,243 CAL App2d 625]
I
2. [Wyoming m rebdley, 75 ~O 144,293 P2d 678]1
3. [Grottano v Kennedy,' 5 NY2d 381, 184 NYS 2d 648, 157 NE 2d 632]
SPECIFICATION I, ITEM 4
Item 4 does not specify what part of Civil Service Rule 1 4, Section
1 that I violated.
'.
It merely states a Fair reading of Mr. Brumback I S memorandum of March
- .
23, 1989 and March 28, 1989 show this to be untrue. That is Mr. Fasching I s
opinion. My opinion of a !:.:!1: reading of Mr. Brumback I S memo is that
I was restricted in my interviewing of employees. What rule have I
violated in this item? A Fair reading of my memo of March 30, 1989,
will show that Mr. Fasching I s and Mr. Brumback I s statements are untrue.
SPECIFICATION I, ITEM 5
.
Mr. Fasching eludes to statements that I have made and actions that I
have taken. He also el1.1des to statements and acts violate his duty
to report to his supervisor. What duty to report'? Report what? Is Mr.
Fasching referring to, sane military requirement, because I know of no duty
to repo~ to a supervisor. Mr. Brumback I S memo of March 23, 1989, instructs
me to make the appropriate inquiries! It does not say how to accanplish
that task.
It does not say to make all inquiries in person.
It does not say to make all inquiries by phone.
It does not say to make all inquiries by memo.
It does not say to make all inquiries during business hours.
It does not say you cannot use a tape recorder, nor does it say that if you
do, hand over all tapes to supervision. It does not say a lot.
Therefore, how can I be insubordinate for not doing something I was never
.:
asked to do.
I
I
CONCLUSION
I
I
The charges against me must be proven by a fair pret:Onderance of the
evidence, in order to warrant this action. Evidence for the cause of
action taken must q: substantial and not merely inferred. The mere
conjecture of a charge ,does not make it valid. The weight of sufficiency
'.
does. The specification of the charges against me are so vague I can
barely answer them and sane I am unable to respond to.
I do believe that these charges are a willful and malicious attempt
to injure me, and their final acceptance will show a negligence .which
manifest culpability, wrong intent, evil design or intentional and
substantial disregard for the City's inter.est.
I believe the conduct of the employees initiating these charges are
intentional or comni d:ed under circumstances exhi.bi ting a reckless disregard
for health and well being of others, thus allowing the City and it's
officials to be libel for the following actions:
1. DEFAMATION: As general rule, slander constitutes an individual TORT
that does not give rise to liability under the theo:ty of respondeat
superior. Nevertheless, where a municipal employee makes a slanderous
statement within the course and scope of his or her employment, the
municipal. employer is liable under the theo:ty of respondeat superior,
thus a municipality may be held liable under respondeat superior principles
for DEFAMATION.
[Rogers v Town of Black Mountain]
2. IN'I'ERFERENCE wrm EMPI.DYMENr REIATIONSHIP:
[City of Tampa v Davis]
The aggravating cir~tances attending th~ TORT may be shown to enhance
the allowance of canpensato:ty damages for: wounded feelings, Public
degradation and personal indignity suffered by the plaintiff.
[Winn & Lovett Grocel)' Co. v Archer, supra]
I
c.~
",,-Y"_ _
:1?8-~i-7C:;il
~#
. .
r
1
Agency #
TO THE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
I
Dept./Oiv. Code 2030
Budget Position !;!J
~ ,6... 0
C1.TY OF CLEARWATER
RECORD OF PERSONNEL ACTION
Rev. 4- 1.80
Posted on Payroll Records
Date By
Posted on Personnel Records
Date By
AT 7: 30
riout
A.M.I~,~.
From Public vvorks/Utilities EFFECTIVE Ma~&.:, 1989
Rcq~r C. Brennan Ccedit Managec SAMP
Emllloy...os name Claa.. Titl. P".. CiLY Plan
517.6
Status OProbationary {2JPennanent OPart Time o Emergency OTemporary O'Seasonal DUnclassified
ClaoSoS No.
IS HEREBY GRANTED:
1. _ as a probationarJ employee from the eligible list
2. _ unclassified
3. _' in &u ~mf:lrgency
4. _ temporarily
5. _ sea~nally
o Additional
o Replacement
Replacement - Under "Remarks" give name and position of employee replaced.
Emergency - Give reason and duration. Not over 90 days.
Temporary - Processed as regular employee. Not over 6 months.
Explain other;. ~pe
paymen~so~~a~", ~,t.c:
6. _ starting salary 1.
7. _ sick leave with pay
8. _ sick leave without pay
9. _ vacation with pay
10. _ vacation without pay
11. _ time off with pay
12. -l time off without pay
13. _ compensatory time off
14. _ leave of absence
15. _ salary adjustment -
o B/W OHR. Range #
Step . #
~,..., .......,.. ,,"
N umber of regularly scheduled work hours off F . ;:. ~ ~ '1 t"'~ . ~ '
ExPLANATIO~: . .,.-<.\--.l~~~o';' .....,,:...... .,/1, \~/
Sus'OensJ.on for fJ.ve ( 5) '9avs:.~- ,.',..' ." lJ,'
~ l( , -.:J/ . . . ,"
05/09 10 16 17 18/1989 ,. /~~..; /" .:.:.~~ \)~...;."
RETURNED A..M./P .M.
WILL RETURN
{from s
to: s
16. _ range and/or step change from Range #_ Step f:t
17. - promotion J to..
lS. _ detrotion
19. _ transfer
Claaa TiLle
8ud!l.~ Poaition I'fo.
Qa~. }
AT 7: 30
A..M.~.
OB/W DHR.
DB/WOHR.
plus S
s
plus S
S
to Range #
Step #
in
Oellt./d iv.
Cla.aoS No.
OellL./O;v. Code
:?D. _ by lay "ff
21._ by dismissal
22. _ by resignatlon
IS HEREBY SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE OF THE CITY: 0
{Give reason for this action under "Remarks;' Termination Code
Letter of termination and dismissal dated
. Resignation signed
RE.\iARKS:
~ -:7I-P4-
5/ II rr
'o...'!'
...:rl :JI fJ
51;;Y & i
I 0..
( ~,<7-
P~rsonne r Director
Date originally received
in Personnel Office
Date returned from
Affirmative Action Office
Date returned from
City Mgrs. Office
I
I
TO: Roger C. Brennan
Utilities Credit Manager
Public Works/Utilities
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION
Upon the recommendation of your Department Director,
William C. Baker , as City Manager and Appointing Authority, and
pursuant to the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of
Clearwater, Florida, and the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Clearwater, Florida, I hereby notify you that you are suspended
without pay for a period of five (5) working days commencing on
Q~~~~~~L1~_QU1~.~5LlL______ a~d terminating on
05/18/89
The reasons for your suspension are for the good of the
service, to promote the efficiency of the Public Works Department
and for the following reasons:
CHARGE I
Roger C. Brennan violated Rule 14, Section 1, paragraphs
(b), (e) and (k) of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the
City of Clearwater:
"(b) Is incompetent or inefficient in the performance of the duties
of his position (specific instances to be charged).
and
"(e) Has been offensive in his conduct or language toward his
fellow employees, City officers, or the public."
and
"(k) Has violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation or
order or failed to obey any lawtul and reasonable direction
made and. gi ven to him by his superior officer when such
violation or failure to obey amounts to insubordination or
serious breach of discipline which may reasonably be expected
to result in a lower morale in the department or to result in
loss, inconvenience, or injury to the City or to the public."
SPECIFICATION I
On March 23, 1989, a memorandum from the Assistant Director
of Public, Works, Robert Brumback, was sent to Roger C. Brennan,
Utili ties Credit Manager, to investigate an employee problem
involving Mark Tedder and Pat Meri, and perhaps others. Robert
Brumback is two levels of supervision above Roger Brennan. A
second memorandum was sent to Roger Brennan on March 28, 1989, by
Robert Brumback, to clarify the first memorandum. Roger Brennan
responded to George Fasching, his immediate superior, by a
memorandum dated March 30, 1989, which memorandum, constitutes an
insubordinate act by Mr. Brennan because of its content, and he
further committed an insubordinate act against his supervisors by
failing to provide copies of tapes he made during his
investigation. According to Roger Brennan those tapes were turned
over to EEOC (who has denied receiving them). By his actions he
was also offensive in his conduct to Robert Brumback and
incompetently, and inefficiently performed his duties.
. Roger Brennan was insubordinate, offensive, incompetent and
inefficient in the performance of his duties as follows:
1. In the second paragraph of said memorandum referred to Mr.
Brumback, Assistant Director of Public Works/Utilities as "pursuing
a personal vendetta against Mr. Tedder."
~!.
"
.....
'.
:,~~
<:',- ".~.:.,~..., ;'i~\',,":";"~ '~:"
..... ,
'f',.'
..
. \
.>:~ '....-,:........~,. ": '.:.~.~:: ~: :.:..:
:. "
. . .
. .
I
I
Page 2
Roger C. Brennan
2. In the paragraph numbered 1 of said memorandum he accuses
Mr. Brumback of inferring that Mr. Tedder committed a crime because
Mr. Brumback referred to Mark Tedder as "a perpetrator", relying
on a dictionary definition to castigate a superior supervisor of
the City.
3. In the paragraph numbered 2 of the memorandum he accuses
Robert Brumback, in the following words: "who has been observed
a time or two to tell a distasteful (to say the least) joke, during
working hours", and refers to this conduct as horseplay or
malicious mischief. This is insubordinate, offensive and
inefficient.
4. In the paragraph numbered 3 of the memorandum Roger
Brennan refers to the March 28, 1989, memorandum by Robert Brumback
as restricting inquiries of the appropriate persons and thus
eliminating the ability to render a fair and proper evaluation and
recommendation. A fair reading of Mr. Brumback's memorandum of
March 23, 1989, and March 28, 1989, shows this to be an untrue
statement by Mr. Brennan.
5. In the paragraph numbered 4 of Roger Brennan's memorandum
to Robert Brumback, paragraph 2 thereof, he charges a "widespread
coverup"; he states that this information has been forwarded to
EEOC for review (referring to the tapesJ and refers to "OUTRIGHT
RETALIATION", against Marx Tedder, all of which obviously refers
to Robert Brumback, or other City supervisory officials. The
referral of the indicated tapes to EEOC, has been denied by EEOC.
Roger Brennan's statements and acts violate his duty to report to
his superiors and the statements concerning City ,supervision are
untrue. '
The discipline for this action is governed by and most
nearly comparable to Level 4 Offense #2 of the Guidelines for
Disciplinary Action: .
" Insubordination by refusal to perform work assigned or by
failure to comply with written or verbal instructions of the
supervisory force."
ASSESSED FOR THIS INFRACTION
TOTAL ACCUMULATED POINTS
40 POINTS
40 POINTS
\
"
"-
"
, .- /,
-....
".. "".,..,..-. ./f:. ~:";"n.:"';~; ~ -:', .".
'~fT"""" .
, ",
-'"":"". .
'. .
~
I
I
You are hereby advised that you are granted certain rights of appeal
pursuant to Rule 14 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of
Clearwater and Chapter 25 of the City of Clearwater Code, should you bel ieve that
the Appointing Authority is taking this action without just cause.
You are entitled, under Rule 14, Section 6, of the Civil Service
Rules and Regulations of Clearwater, Florida, to file with the Appointing
Authority an explanation of and answer to the charges and specifications
contained herein. A copy of said explanation and answer is to be filed with the
Personnel Director of the City of Clearwater, Florida, within ten (10) days.
If the Appointing Authority accepts your explanation and answer,he
shall withdraw the action and provide written notice to you within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of your explanation and answer, he shall so notify
you within ten (10)days of receipt of your explanation and answer.
In the event that the Appointing Authority does not withdraw his
charges after hearing your explanation and answer, you may, within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of your explanation and answer, he shall so notify
you within ten (10) days of receipt of your explanation and answer.
In the event that the Appointing Authority does not withdraw his
charges after hearing your explanation and answer, you may, within ten (10) days
after receipt of the notice of non-acceptance by the Appointing Authority, file
a written request with the Civil Service Board for a hearing. This hearing would
be held before a Hearing Officer selected in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 25.05 of the City Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida. At the
hearing both you and the Appointing Authority would be entitled to be heard
publicly, to be represented by another person, and to present evidentiary facts.
Any party adversely affected by the findings of the Civil Service Board after
its review of the Hearing Officer1s recommendations, shall have the right-to have
the administrative proceedings reviewed by fi 1 ing a. Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, pursuant to Florida
Statutes or the Court Rules.
You may have the option of filing a grievance pursuant to Article
VI of the contract betwee~ the City of Clearwater and the Communication Workers
of America, Local 3179, instead of following the appeals procedure outlines
above. If you are inclined to file a grievance, consult with your Union
representat ive to determine whether you have such a right, and if so, what
procedural steps you must follow in perfecting your grievance.
The appeals procedures set forth above are intended to be utilized
by an employee who believes that the action of the Appointing Authority is not
taken for ju~t cause. You have the option of accepting suspension if you feel
that an impartial Hearing Officer or Arbitrator would u hold your suspension.
Suspension
George H.
4 t h day of
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing
has been served on Roger C. Br ennan
Fasching at Clearwater, Flordia
Ma V , 19 89 .
Notice of
by
this
,
,
"
"
'.
'.t'
"", .
,:,:'f .
,.. .,.. "......-.~' ,.......,." ..;';'l "'.' -:: .,. ,.,. :.."
. ,~;,::,. . , .;,- - ,