STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
F. JOHNSON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-1030
) CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The final hearing in this case was held on June 20-22, 1990, in Tarpon Springs, Florida, before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: John A. Shahan, Esquire
526 East Tarpon Avenue
Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689
For Respondent: Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire
109 North Brush Street Suite 200
Tampa, Florida 33601 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether "just cause" exists for the termination of B. F. Johnson (Petitioner) from his position as Captain in the Police Department of the City of Tarpon Springs (Respondent).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
At the hearing, the Respondent called six witnesses and introduced twenty- nine exhibits; one exhibit which the Respondent sought to introduce, marked as R-25, was rejected. The Petitioner testified on his own behalf, called fifteen additional witnesses and introduced five exhibits.
The transcript of the final hearing was filed on July 2, 1990, and thereafter, the parties sought and were allowed three extensions of time to file proposed recommended orders and memoranda, which ultimately were filed on August 28, 1990, and which were considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On or about October 22, 1968, the Petitioner began his employment with Respondent's Police Department as a police officer, reaching the position of second in command in the early 1970s. At all times material hereto, the Petitioner has held the rank of Captain, reporting directly to the Chief of Police as second in command of the Police Department. The duties of Captain include: (a) the supervision and coordination of subordinate personnel engaged in law enforcement activities; (b) planning, organizing, evaluating and directing personnel involved in station and field operations; (c) evaluating assigned personnel for efficiency and effectiveness; (d) reviewing all reports for accuracy; (e) representing the Police Department at civic, community and law enforcement meetings; (f) determining situations requiring personal attention and exercising optional command over dispatch operations; and (g) supervising the general direction and procedures of investigative actions. In addition, other duties may be assigned to the Captain by the Chief.
Blaine LeCouris was the Chief of Police from 1975 to 1985. During the latter years of his tenure as Chief, LeCouris observed a reduction in Petitioner's performance. He was dissatisfied with Petitioner's performance in 1984 while he was serving as Acting City Manager and Petitioner was in charge of the day to day operations of thee Police Department. Petitioner was frequently absent from duty, and could not be reached. LeCouris removed certain training duties from Petitioner because of his dissatisfaction with his performance, and reassigned them to a subordinate officer.
From August 1985 until April 1987, Carl Hernandez served as Chief of Police. During this time, the Petitioner did not carry out his duties in a satisfactory manner. He needed constant supervision and was regularly absent without explanation, showed little initiative, had a careless attitude, and was suspended for two days over an incident involving the police dispatcher. Hernandez removed certain administrative duties from Petitioner, and reassigned them to a subordinate due to Petitioner's inability to get things done in a timely manner.
William Lyght served as Interim Chief from July to October 1987, and during this time he formed the opinion that Petitioner was a very poor administrator who could not meet deadlines, or communicate effectively with the public or others in the Police Department. He observed Petitioner sleeping in his office while on duty on three or four occasions, and regularly had difficulty finding him. Lyght testified that Petitioner did not have a "command grasp" of his position or its duties. He counseled Petitioner about his performance, as well as his excessive weight which he felt was hindering Petitioner's performance, but he did not discipline Petitioner since he was only serving on an interim basis.
On October 27, 1987, Keith R. Bergstrom was appointed Chief of Police. Within his first few months as Chief, Bergstrom met with Petitioner on several occasions about his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance, including specifically his inattention to detail, absences, sloppiness of appearance and of work product, and his inability to direct and organize the employees of the Police Department.
On January 11, 1988, an incident involving a hostage occurred in the City of Tarpon Springs. Petitioner was not at the hostage scene, and did not come to the scene when notified by telephone of the incident. Rather, Petitioner attempted to exercise partial command via the telephone from his
home, and did not clearly delineate who was in charge at the scene. He testified that he was unable to come to the hostage scene because he was suffering from severe diarrhea, and his feet and legs were swollen badly.
Chief Bergstrom verbally counseled Petitioner about this incident and wrote him a memorandum requesting his answers to specific questions about Petitioner's handling of this matter. In his written response, Petitioner incorrectly numbered several paragraphs, and in several places used incorrect words or spellings. The Petitioner has admitted that he has trouble with paper work, and with communications, either verbal or written.
On February 2, 1988, Chief Bergstrom again counseled Petitioner, and wrote him a memo confirming the fact that on January 27, 1988, Petitioner had failed to carry out a specific instruction to seek out information, brief police officers, and provide for the proper supervision of the repossession of an automobile. Additionally, he was instructed to keep his beeper on while at home when he was serving as Acting Chief in Bergstrom's absence since there had been an incident on February 2, 1988, when Chief Bergstrom was out of town and the Petitioner could not be reached either by telephone or beeper.
On March 10, 1989, Chief Bergstrom evaluated Petitioner's performance from October 1987 to October 1988, and issued a warning and a directive to correct deficiencies involving the quality and quantity of Petitioner's work, his ability to work with others, absenteeism and tardiness, and his personal demeanor. Petitioner's work was characterized as untimely, sloppy, inaccurate and incomplete. Bergstrom noted that Petitioner was unwilling to make decisions, or to accept responsibility for those he did make. Petitioner required constant, close supervision in order to get any work done, and Bergstrom concluded that Petitioner had to make "major improvements" in every evaluation category.
Following this evaluation, Petitioner's work did not improve. Chief Bergstrom continued to counsel him about his performance, and ordered him to take a forty hour management course.
On March 7, 1989, Petitioner was reprimanded because he had a City vehicle repaired prior to obtaining a purchase order, contrary to standard procedure. Petitioner offered as an explanation of his action that he wanted to return the vehicle to service as soon as possible, and that he felt the job had been done at the lowest possible cost to the City.
On August 14, 1989, Chief Bergstrom wrote Petitioner a memo informing him that an auxiliary officer associated with the Police Department, who had been hired by the Petitioner while he was Acting Chief, had been arrested that day on three counts of the sale and possession of cocaine. Chief Bergstrom requested some background information on this auxiliary officer's hiring. In response, Petitioner wrote that the position of auxiliary officer "is not a sworn position", and that this officer was only a "helping officer." Petitioner's response evidences that he did not understand the nature of the position of auxiliary officer, nor the need to make more complete background checks of such officers before they are hired.
In his position as Captain, Petitioner was responsible for the payroll, and in that capacity had been authorizing the payment of premium holiday pay whether an employee worked one hour on a holiday or some longer period. Chief Bergstrom became concerned about this practice because, at times, work on a holiday would only constitute part of a shift. He felt that premium
pay should only be paid for that part of a shift falling on the holiday, and the remainder of the shift should be paid at their regular rate of pay. In response to Bergstrom's concerns, the Petitioner wrote him a memo on September 7, 1989, stating that to his knowledge there was no set policy on the subject, and that if an officer worked any part of his shift on a holiday, it had been his practice to pay the officer for his entire shift at premium pay, if the officer requested such payment. Because the Petitioner had been in charge of payroll ever since Bergstrom had become Chief, Bergstrom felt that a uniform policy on this subject should already have been developed.
As a result, in the Fall of 1989, Chief Bergstrom directed Petitioner to develop a payroll manual so that there would be definite, uniform policies to cover all payroll functions. Bergstrom changed Petitioner's assignment and placed him in charge of "special projects" in order to give him time to devote to this project almost exclusively, and also because Petitioner had announced his intention to run for the City Council. Deadlines were established by Bergstrom for Petitioner's completion of this manual, but at Petitioner's request these deadlines were extended several times. Finally, on January 3, 1990, Chief Bergstrom directed that Petitioner turn over to him whatever work he had completed on the manual. After two months, the document was not close to being in final form. This failure to complete an assigned project was consistent with Petitioner's performance on other special projects assigned to him, which ultimately required Chief Bergstrom to take more time correcting errors and checking for completeness than if he had done the entire project himself.
Patricia Haynes is the secretary in the Chief's office who worked with both the Chief and the Captain. She testified that she observed Petitioner sleeping at his desk and by the coffee pot during the workday on several occasions, and that Petitioner was frequently hard to find during the workday.
It was the established policy of the Police Department to require all employee's to report outside employment. This policy was initially set forth in a memo from then-Chief Hernandez in April 1985, and was confirmed in March 1989, through a memo from the Personnel Department reminding all employees of this policy. On December 15, 1989, the Petitioner completed a Notification of Outside Employment form in which he indicated he had begun outside employment delivering newspapers at night in October 1989. In fact, Petitioner began employment delivering newspapers with the St. Petersburg Times on May 27, 1989. Although he indicated to Chief Bergstrom that he had been unaware of this established policy, Petitioner had been Captain of the Police Department and second in command from the initial inception of this policy. Other officers of lower rank who Petitioner identified as also having failed to comply with this policy, contradicted his testimony and stated that they had, in fact, filed the appropriate notification form.
Rule 8 of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations has been in effect and has remained the same at all times material hereto, requiring all employees to provide information about outside employment prior to beginning employment. The failure to furnish such information is deemed an infraction and a separate cause for dismissal.
On October 30, 1987, Chief Bergstrom directed Petitioner to lose weight to a level appropriate to his height and age. Petitioner informed Bergstrom that he was about to begin an extensive weight loss program, including counselling, which might take up to two years to complete. The Chief indicated that if requested by Petitioner he would recommend that Petitioner be given financial assistance for this program. It was the opinion of Bergstrom that
Petitioner was not physically fit to perform his duties and that his physical appearance engendered disrespect for his rank and the Police Department as a whole.
Petitioner is between 5 feet 8 to 5 feet 10 inches tall, and his birthdate is June 24, 1942. During the time when William Lyght served as Interim Chief, Petitioner's weight exceeded 400 pounds. Approximately one month prior to the hearing in this matter, Petitioner's weight was found to be 346 pounds, according to Maurice Bonilla, M.D. At all times material hereto, Petitioner has been severely overweight, with a weight that is not appropriate for his height and age.
In early 1988, Petitioner enrolled in the weight loss program at Total Fitness, Inc., and according to Dean Cosgrove, who was accepted as an expert in weight counselling, Petitioner weighed 383 pounds at the beginning of this program, and by April 1988, his weight had been reduced to 341 pounds. To achieve this weight loss, Petitioner was put on a liquid diet of 520 calories a day, with walking exercises. He had minimal side effects from this liquid diet, according to Cosgrove. However, Petitioner discontinued the program from May 1988 to January 1989, when he reenrolled and was weighed at 373 pounds. In November 1988, Petitioner incorrectly informed Chief Bergstrom by memo that he was still on the weight loss program through Total Fitness, but that he had been taken off the liquid diet for health reasons. There is nothing in the record to substantiate Petitioner's memo of November 22, 1988, to Bergstrom concerning the status of his weight loss program. After resuming the program, Petitioner reduced his weight from 373 pounds in January 1989, to 348 pounds in March 1989. Cosgrove testified that he is unaware of any reason why Petitioner could not lose weight on the Total Fitness program. There is no record of Petitioner suffering from severe diarrhea while on the liquid diet program.
In September 1989, Petitioner enrolled in a different program to tone muscles and improve his appearance through a facility called Tender Toning. At the start of this program, his weight was 338 pounds and in November 1989, when he discontinued this program, his weight was 332 pounds.
Marcus Occhipinti, M.D., who was accepted as an expert in medicine, characterized Petitioner as "excessively obese", and diagnosed him from his medical history as having "Pickwickian syndrome" which causes sudden, unexpected sleepiness during the day, and which can only be cured through weight loss. Dr. Maurice Bonilla characterized this condition as a disorder of obesity which causes a person to spontaneously fall asleep without warning. Dr. Bonilla did not diagnose Petitioner as having this condition. Dr. Occhipinti testified that he told Petitioner that he had Pickwickian syndrome on his first visit with him, but Petitioner denied he was ever told of this condition and does not feel that he has it.
According to Dr. Bonilla, who was as accepted as an expert in medicine and who specializes in the treatment of high risk obesity patients, 170 pounds is an appropriate weight for a person 5 feet 8 inches tall with a large frame like Petitioner's. An appropriate and reasonable goal weight for Petitioner would be 200 pounds, the goal suggested by Chief Bergstrom for Petitioner. Dr. Bonilla's experience in diagnosing and treating obese patients is far greater than Dr. Occhipinti's, and therefore, Dr. Bonilla's testimony is found to have greater weight than that of Dr. Occhipinti. Even Dr. Occhipinti, however, testified that there is no medical reason why Petitioner cannot lose weight. It is found, therefore, that Petitioner's overweight condition is not due to any disability, including Pickwickian syndrome.
On December 27, 1989, Chief Bergstrom delivered to the Petitioner a direct order that he appear at Dr. Bonilla's office on January 3, 1990, so that he could be weighed to determine what progress, if any, he had made in achieving any weight loss. The Petitioner did not keep this appointment. Prior to January 3, 1990, a law suit was initiated on Petitioner's behalf in Federal District Court, and a protective order was sought to prevent Petitioner from having to keep this appointment. On January 4, 1990, the day after the scheduled appointment, an Order was entered in Case No. 89-1634-CIV-T-17C which stayed the physical examination of Petitioner until further Order of the Federal District Court.
Chief Bergstrom has warned others in the Police Department about being overweight. Specifically, on February 9, 1989, Chief Bergstrom noted on his evaluation of Bobby Lockhart, Jr., a narcotics detective, that he had to reduce his weight. At that time, Lockhart, who is six feet tall, weighed 375 pounds. In response to counselling and a concerted weight loss program, by February 1990, Lockhart had reduced his weight to 277 pounds. Despite Petitioner's assertion that there are other overweight officers in the Police Department who have not been ordered to reduce their weight as he has been, no evidence was introduced to show that there are any other sworn officers in the Tarpon Springs Police Department whose stature is even remotely comparable to Petitioner's. To the contrary, it appears that Petitioner's overweight condition was by far the most severe among officers in the Police Department, which was particularly problematic for the person holding the position of second in command. Chief Bergstrom reasonably felt that Petitioner's weight hindered him in the performance of his duties, and that others in the Police Department and the public may view Petitioner's overweight condition as an indication of his lack of concern or interest in his position, and an absence of willpower and a sense of accountability, and that his appearance could reasonably be expected to engender a lack of respect for him in his position as second in command and for the Police Department.
On January 9, 1990, Petitioner was informed that Chief Bergstrom had recommended that he be terminated, and he was given the right to respond to Bergstrom's charges that he had violated Rules 18(1)(b) and (1)(k) of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations. After considering Petitioner's responses through counsel to these charges, a Notice of Discharge and Statement of Charges was issued to Petitioner, dated January 15, 1990, and approved by the City Manager on January 19, 1990, based upon Rules 18(1)(b) and (1)(k). This dismissal was effective on January 19, 1990. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed an appeal of this matter before the City's Civil Service Board pursuant to Rule 18(9), and the final hearing in this case was held by the undersigned at the request of the Civil Service Board and with the agreement of the parties.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties, and the subject matter in this cause. Section 120.65(9), Florida Statutes; Rule 18, Section 10, City of Tarpon Springs Personnel Rules and Regulations. Since this is a matter in which the Respondent seeks to dismiss the Petitioner from his position as Captain in the Tarpon Springs Police Department, the Respondent has the burden of establishing "just cause" for its intended action by a preponderance of the evidence. In their prehearing stipulation, the parties concurred with this assignment of the burden of proof.
In pertinent part, Rule 18 of the City of Tarpon Springs Personnel Rules and Regulations, provides as follows:
Section 1. Cause for Suspension, Demotion, and Dismissal
The following .... are declared to be just causes for suspension, demotion or dismissal of any employee though charges may be based
upon any cause which wills promote the efficiency of the City service other than those herein enumerated, namely, that the employee:
* * *
(b) Is incompetent or inefficient in the performance of the duties of his position.
* * *
(k) Has violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation or order or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction made and given 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 the public.
Section 2. Guidelines for Disciplinary Action The Guidelines for Disciplinary Action
are not to be construed as a limitation upon the retained rights of the City, but are merely
a guide .... It is recognized that violations of rules and regulations or standards of performance in departments and operations that affect safety, health and/or welfare of citizens may necessitate more serious disciplinary action than contained in these Guidelines.... Where combinations of offenses have occurred, whether at the same or different levels of offense, the City may combine the penalties in a cumulative manner as, in its judgment, is warranted.
Further, in pertinent part, Rule 8 of the City of Tarpon Springs Personnel Rules and Regulations governs outside employment, and provides at Section 2(a)(3) that:
Employees who are engaged in any outside employment, activity, or enterprise or who may hereafter desire to engage in such outside employment, activity, or enterprise, shall inform the Personnel Director through their respective Department Heads on such forms as the Personnel Director shall prescribe of the location, nature, and extent of such outside
employment. Failure to furnish such information shall be deemed an infraction of this Rule.
The Respondent seeks dismissal of the Petitioner based upon the above cited provisions and specific allegations of incompetence and inefficiency, refusal to obey direct orders or directives, and the falsification of the record of his outside employment. The Respondent seeks to defend his actions, in part, due to Dr. Occhipinti's diagnosis of "Pickwickian syndrome", and that Chief Bergstrom's directives to him regarding his weight were unreasonable, unwarranted and inconsistent with actions taken regarding other sworn officers within the Tarpon Springs Police Department.
It was clearly established by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner was incompetent and inefficient in the performance of his duties in violation of Rule 18(1)(b). He was frequently absent during the work day and could not be located while he was supposed to be on duty. Although he was given two months to complete a payroll manual, without any other substantial assignments, Petitioner was unable to complete this assigned task. In administering the payroll functions of the Police Department for several years, Petitioner did not take steps to insure the establishment of uniform policies, but rather, paid premium pay for an entire shift to officers whose shift only partially occurred on a holiday, whenever officers requested such payment. He failed to follow standard procedures which require a purchase order to be obtained before having work performed on a City vehicle. During a hostage incident, Petitioner exhibited poor management skills by failing to appear at the scene to take command without good cause, and also by failing to clearly delineate who was in charge at the scene during his absence. He also demonstrated that he failed to understand the position of auxiliary police officer and the need to conduct a thorough background check on persons selected to fill such positions. The Petitioner has admitted that his communication skills, both verbal and written, are poor, and examples of his writing introduced in evidence contain errors of basic grammar, syntax and sentence structure which confirm this admission.
Finally, but very significantly, Petitioner was observed on several occasions sleeping on the job, either in his office or at the coffee pot. There can hardly be a clearer example than this of incompetence and inefficiency in the performance of one's duties as Captain, and second in command, in a Police Department. It is on this point that Petitioner, through counsel, seeks to assert the defense of physical handicap due to his weight, Pickwickian syndrome. However, Petitioner himself testified that he did not believe he had Pickwickian syndrome, and denied ever having been informed of such a diagnosis prior to hearing. While Dr. Occhipinti testified that he had made this diagnosis upon taking Petitioner's medical history, and claims he so informed Petitioner, Dr. Bonilla testified that Petitioner did not have symptoms consistent with Pickwickian syndrome, and that he had made no such diagnosis. The record reveals that Dr. Bonilla saw Petitioner over a more extended period of time, and more frequently, than did Dr. Occhipinti, and Dr. Bonilla's credential's in the treatment of high risk obesity patients is far more extensive than Dr. Occhipinti's. His testimony is, therefore, given more weight. However, even Dr. Occhipinti and Dean Cosgrove, experts in medicine and weight counselling, respectively, who were called by the Petitioner, testified that there was no reason Petitioner could not lose weight. It is concluded that Petitioner has not established that his overweight condition is due to a physical handicap, and therefore, the defense of Pickwickian syndrome is not accepted to explain or excuse the repeated instances when he fell asleep on the job.
The Respondent established by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner failed to obey orders or directives given by Chief Bergstrom on two occasions in violation of Rule 18(1)(k). First, he failed to make a reasonable and consistent effort to reduce his weight, although he was given a two year period in which to attain the weight of 200 pounds, which was shown to be a reasonable goal for a person of Petitioner's height, age and build. He enrolled in two programs during this two year period, but failed to stay with either program. He made a material misstatement to Chief Bergstrom when he claimed he had been taken off of the liquid diet at Total Fitness due to a medical condition, when in fact, there is no evidence that he had been given any medical advice to discontinue this program, and to the contrary the evidence is that there is no medical reason he could not have continued on the liquid diet program at Total Fitness. Thereafter, he enrolled in the program at Tender Toning, but made only minimal efforts in this program over a two month period. Through his handling of a similar overweight situation with Detective Lockhart, chief Bergstrom demonstrated that his approach was to work with employees who were making a good faith, reasonable effort to comply with his order to reduce their weight. However, the Petitioner did not make the same effort to comply with the Chief's order.
The second instance in which he failed to follow an order or directive was when he did not disclose his outside employment with the St. Petersburg Times until December, 1989, when he had begun that employment in May, 1989. It had been the established policy in the City since 1985 that such outside employment was to be disclosed. In March, 1989, the Personnel Department reminded all employees of this policy. As second in command, Petitioner should have known of this policy. Yet, when he started his outside employment only two months after the Personnel Department's reminder, Petitioner ignored this policy. Equally as significant, however, is the fact that when he did disclose his outside employment in December, 1989, he gave false information about when his employment began, misrepresenting the actual starting date by five months. At the least, Petitioner's conduct in this regard demonstrates sloppiness in record keeping, inattention to and disregard of established administrative policies, and the lack of any meaningful memory of recent events, such as the date on which he started his outside employment. Based upon the record in this proceeding, as well as the demeanor and testimony of the Petitioner at hearing, however, it is concluded that Petitioner was well aware of this policy, but chose to ignore it, until pressed by the Chief in December 1989. He then intentionally misrepresented his starting date, and gave a false explanation of his reason for seeking outside employment, in an attempt to make this violation seem less severe.
The Chief's order that Petitioner attain a goal weight of 200 pounds over a two year period, and the established policy that outside employment must be disclosed are both reasonable and lawful orders and directives. Chief Bergstrom reasonably felt that Petitioner's weight hindered him in the performance of his duties, and that others in the Police Department and the public may view Petitioner's overweight condition as an indication of his lack of concern or interest in his position, and an absence of willpower and a sense of accountability, and that his appearance could reasonably be expected to engender a lack of respect for him in his position as second in command and for the Police Department. The established policy codified in Rule 8 regarding the reporting of outside employment was developed to insure that employees did not engage in employment which was "inconsistent, incompatible or in conflict with their duties, functions or responsibilities of their department." Rule 8, Section 2(a)(1). The fact that the person occupying the position of second in command of the Police Department would ignore and fail to obey this order and
policy directive, amounts to insubordination and a serious breach of discipline which may reasonably be expected to result in lower morale in the Police Department. Petitioner's actions set a very poor example for the officers and employees of the Police Department who the position of Captain was supposed to supervise and coordinate in the performance of their duties. The loss of respect which the public and members of the Police Department could reasonably be expected to have for him, as Captain, and for the Police Department as a whole represents a real and significant loss to the City resulting directly from Petitioner's conduct.
The Respondent also alleges that Petitioner's refusal to comply with the Chief's order that he be examined on January 3, 1990, by Dr. Bonilla to determine his weight constitutes a third violation of Rule 18(1)(k). However, while Petitioner did fail to appear at Dr. Bonilla's office on January 3, 1990, the Federal District Court issued an Order on January 4, 1990, staying the physical examination of the Petitioner. While this Order was not, in fact, in effect on January 3, and the Petitioner did not have a valid, legal defense which excuses his failure to comply with the order of the Chief, nevertheless, the fact that a stay was entered on the next day requires the conclusion that Petitioner's failure to appear on January 3, 1990, did not result in a lowering of morale, or of loss or injury to the City or the public. Therefore, on this charge it is concluded that Petitioner has not violated Rule 18(1)(k).
Finally, as discussed above, the Respondent has established by a preponderance of evidence that the Petitioner did falsify his report of outside employment regarding, specifically, the date on which his outside employment began, and has, therefore, further violated Rule 18(1)(k). This constitutes a separate infraction of the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City of Tarpon Springs, in accordance with Rule 8, Section 2(a)(3).
Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the appeal of B. F. Johnson, Petitioner, be DISMISSED, and that his dismissal be AFFIRMED.
DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida.
DONALD D. CONN
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1990.
COPIES FURNISHED:
John A. Shahan, Esquire
526 East Tarpon Avenue Tarpon Springs, FL 34689
Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire
109 North Brush Street Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33601
Courtenay N. Crutcher, Chairman Civil Service Board
City of Tarpon Springs
P. O. Box 5004
Tarpon Springs, FL 34688-5004
Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager City of Tarpon Springs
P. O. Box 1575
Tarpon Springs, FL 34686-1575
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 20, 1990 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 20, 1990 | Recommended Order | Proven that petitioner was incompetent and inefficient in his duties, refused direct orders, and falsified the records of his outside employment. |
