18-002111 City Of Clearwater vs. Petras Jakstas Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, December 12, 2018.

Summary: Petitioner proved that Respondent willfully failed to comply with the terms of his development plan in violation of City policy and procedures. Termination of employment recommended.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CITY OF CLEARWATER,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 2111

PETRAS JAKSTAS,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in this c ause was held

in Clearwater , Florida, on October 16 , 2018, before

Linzie F. Bogan, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Owen Kohler, Esquire

City of Clearwater

112 South Osceola Avenue

Clearwater, Florida 33756

For Respondent: Edward C. Castagna, Jr., Esquire

Nichole A. Kerr, Esquire

Castagna Law Firm, P.A.

611 Druid Road , Suite 702

Clearwater, Florida 33756

Ted Starr, Esquire

Starr Law Offices

8181 U.S. Highway 19 North

Pinellas Park, Florida 33781

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent Petras Jak s tas committed the violations

alleged in the Termination and Dismissal Notice , and , if so, the

appropriate discipline that should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petras Jakstas (Respondent) is employed by the City of

Clearwater, Florida (Petitioner/City). Re spondent was informed

by the City that his employment was being terminated due to

alleged violations of the Clearwater Civil Service Board Rules

and Regulations and the Performance and Behavior Management

Program (PBMP). Respondent filed a Notice of Appea l contesting

the City Ó s intended action. The City, pursuant to contract,

referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings

(DOAH) for a disputed - fact hearing.

During the hearing, Petitioner offered the testimony of

Madai Gutierrez, Lisa Goodr ich, and Kevin Dunbar. Respondent

testified on his own behalf and called no other witnesses.

Petitioner Ó s Exhibits 1 through 8 were admitted into evidence.

Respondent Ó s Exhibits 3 through 11 were also admitted into

evidence.

A Transcript of the disputed - fact hearing was filed with

DOAH on November 2, 2018. The parties filed a Joint Motion to

Extend Deadline for Proposed Orders and the same was granted. On

November 21, 2018, each party filed a Proposed Recommended Order

(PRO) .

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The C ity is a municipality governed by a city council.

A city manager oversees the City Ó s operations.

2. On January 22, 2007, Respondent was hired as a Parks

Service Technician I. He successfully completed the Parks

Service Technician Apprenticeship Program and was promoted to his

current classification of Parks Service Technician II on

February 2, 2008. Respondent Ó s job responsibilities include, but

are not limited to, the collection of trash and the emptying of

trash receptacles.

3. Respondent is a nativ e of Lithuania. While Respondent

does not speak Ð perfect English, Ñ the record indicates that

Respondent speaks and understands English at a level of

proficiency which allows him to function in an environment where

only English is spoken or written without the necessity of an

interpreter.

4. The Clearwater Civil Service Board has adopted rules and

regulations which govern the conduct of all City employees.

Chapter 13 of the Clearwater Civil Service Board Rules and

Regulations (Civil Service Rules) provide s the framework for

suspending, demoting, and dismissing City employees.

5. Chapter 13, section 6 of the Civil Service Rules ,

provides that the Ð City Manager or designee may discharge an

employee for one or more of the causes listed under Section 3 of

t his Chapter or in accordance with the established performance

and behavior management program . . . or for other good cause. Ñ

6. On or about March 20, 2018, Respondent received from the

City a termination and dismissal notice advising that his

employment with the City of Clearwater was being terminated

effective Ð Wednesday, March 21, 2018, at the end of the day. Ñ

The notice of termination and dismissal cites the following

violations as cause for the termination of Respondent Ó s

employment:

Personal Respons ibility Standards,

¤ We will follow all City policies and

procedures .

¤ We will comply with all City and our

respective Department, division, and section

rules and standard operating procedures.

¤ We will cooperate and participate in City

processes.

¤ We will resolve to accept personal

accountability and responsibility for our

actions.

¤ We will perform our work assignments with

established standards and comply with written

or verbal instruction from the supervisory or

management group.

Integrit y Standards,

¤ Violation of the provisions of Chapter 13,

Section 3, of the City Civil Service Rules

and Regulations.

Excellence Standards,

¤ We will treat everyone with dignity,

respect, and courtesy.

¤ We will present a professional image

through actions, dress, speech and behavior.

¤ We will strive for excellence and

continuously learn and make improvements.

¤ We will learn from mistakes, modify

behavior and recommend procedural changes to

improve operations and processes.

7. The notice of t ermination and dismissal , in addition to

the generally referenced ÐIntegrity Standard s Ñ violation, also

specifically provides that Mr. Jakstas violated Civil Service

Rules, c hapter 13, s ection 3, to wit:

(b) Failure to perform satisfactorily within

establ ished guidelines.

(e) Commitment of a flagrant offense,

including harassment or discrimination or

abusive conduct or language toward coworkers,

City officers, or the public.

(g) Commitment of or participation in any

activity or action which undermines public

confidence or otherwise significantly impairs

the employees Ó ability to perform his/her job

productively.

(l) Failure to conf o rm to the dictates of

corrective action, including but not limited

to failure or inability to comply with an

agreed upon Ð development plan, Ñ or when the

City believes that an employee is willful in

refusing to adhere to established rules,

regulations, or guidelines.

8. The gravamen of the charges against Respondent derive

from his alleged vi olation of Civil Service Rules , c hapter 13,

section 3(b), (e), (g) , and ( l ). The City Ó s current proceeding

against Respondent is as a result of Respondent Ó s flirtatious

statement to a current female City employee , which occurred while

Respondent was working under a Ð Development Plan , Ñ which was

implemented because he harassed a former City employee and used

City property while doing so.

A. PERFORMANCE & BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

9. The City developed its PBMP in order Ð to provide a

method of working with employees whose performance or behavior

does not meet the City Ó s standards. Ñ The philosophy of the

program Ð is based upon the belief that, in most cases, employees

can change behavior and improve performance when standards

and expectations are clear and when employees are given

op portunities to change. Ñ Whenever practicable, Ð the City will

provide intervention, coaching, and corrective guidance or

counseling . . . for employees . . . in order to bring their

performance or behavior up to standard. Ñ The program recognizes,

however, Ð that some behaviors that are serious and are direct

violations of City Policy may warrant immediate disciplinary

action up to and including termination. Ñ

10. According to the PBMP manual, there are three

categories of performance and behavior: Personal Responsibility,

Integrity, and Excellence. As to each, the manual notes that :

These categories are based on employees Ó

willingness or ability to meet standards of

behavior or performance. Willingness refers

to the employees Ó decision to meet

expectation s, follow rules and policies, and

perform work that meets efficiency and

quality standards. Ability refers to the

employees Ó capability and skills in

performing job tasks. The first two

categories, Personal Responsibility and

Integrity, are considered Ð w ill do Ñ

categories because they typically involve

situations wherein the employee has a choice

and makes a decision about whether or not to

meet the standards. The third category,

Excellence, is considered a Ð can do Ñ

category, because it most often refers to a

situation where the employee is not able to

perform up to standard because of a lack of

resources, skill, or capability. City of

Clearwater expectations for each of these

three categories are stated below.

Personal Responsibility ( Ð Will Do Ñ Issues)

City of Clearwater employees will be held

personally accountable for the actions they

take in meeting the customer service needs of

the City and the community the organization

serves. Employees are expected to take full

responsibility for their conduct and job

performance and exhibit commitment to

fulfilling their responsibilities to the best

of their ability.

Integrity ( Ð Value and Ethics Ñ Issues)

As public employees representing the citizens

of Clearwater, employees are expected to

commit to the highe st standards of personal

and professional integrity. The City expects

employees to communicate openly and

continually demonstrate honesty, fairness,

and respect for others. Employees should do

what is ethically appropriate. Employees are

expected to adh ere to City policies.

Excellence ( Ð Performance/Can Do Ñ Issues)

City of Clearwater employees have an

obligation to provide the highest quality of

service and results to our customers. This

commitment to excellence involves developing

the job knowledge an d skills needed to

perform the tasks required and to continually

improve the City Ó s ability to meet the needs

of the community we serve.

11. The PBMP manual generally lists 75 Personal

Responsibility Standards, 14 Integrity Standards, and 41

Excellence S tandards. Regarding the Integrity Standards, the

PBMP manual notes in bold print that Ð immediate formal

discipline, up to and including termination, may be recommended Ñ

for a violation of these standards. The PBMP manual does not set

forth any such illum ination for the other standards. As

previously noted, certain PBMP standards are referenced in the

termination and dismissal notice provided to Respondent by the

City.

B. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

12. The initial step of PBMP entails supervisor coaching

and counseling of employees as a strategy for helping employees

to meet supervisor, department, or City expectations or

standards. In instances where an employee has committed a

serious offense of the PBMP standards and expectations, the City

may place an emp loyee on a development plan, a decision - making

leave without pay, or both. On October 23, 2017, Respondent was

placed on decision - making leave without pay for the two - day

period of October 24 and 25, 2017. On October 26, 2017, when

Respondent returned to work he was placed on a development plan.

Both actions resulted from an incident involving former City

employee Ms. Kelsey Souto.

13. Ms. Souto previously worked for the City , and during

the course of her employment Respondent developed a physical

attra ction to her. There is no evidence suggesting that

Ms. Souto was in any way interested in Respondent.

14. Sometime around the early part of 2017, Ms. Souto

relocated from Florida to Idaho. The undisputed evidence is that

Respondent tracked Ms. Souto Ó s whereabouts and began to send her

letters, jewelry, and at one point, he even mailed her a rooster.

Ms. Souto found Respondent Ó s behavior to be extremely upsetting

as evidence d by the Petition for Protective Order that she swore -

out against Respondent whe rein she requested, on or about

August 24, 2017, that the District Court for the State of Idaho

enjoin Respondent from engaging in Ð malicious harassment,

stalking, [and] telephone harassment. Ñ

15. On September 28, 2017, Respondent submitted to the City

a request for vacation days and included therewith a notice of

hearing regarding the Protective Order that was filed against him

by Ms. Souto. The hearing was scheduled for September 29, 2017.

Respondent attended the hearing in Idaho and Ð agreed to entry of

a protection order. Ñ

16. The exact date is not clear from the record, but it is

undisputed that sometime between September 28, 2017, and

October 26, 2017, the City learned two things from Respondent.

First, the City learned that Respondent used a Cit y of Clearwater

Parks and Recreation envelope to mail a letter to Ms. Souto as

part of his campaign of harassment against her ; and second, the

City learned the full details of Respondent Ó s harassment

activities directed towards Ms. Souto. Given this infor mation,

on October 26, 2017, the City, pursuant to its PBMP , placed

Respondent on a written development plan.

17. The development plan contains a section titled

Ð Specific Examples of Behavior or Performance Observed (completed

by Supervisor). Ñ In this se ction, Respondent Ó s supervisor noted

the following with respect to the circumstances surrounding

Respondent Ó s interaction with Ms. Souto:

Approximately one year ago, your manager was

contacted by the owners of the beach

concessions, Mr. and Mrs. Chandler, to inform

him that you were showing an interest in one

of their workers, but she was not interested

in you. You were persistent with this female

and you had sent her a gift of a wedding ring

by mail. When the Chandlers contacted your

manager, they stated they did not want to make

a formal complaint with the City, but wanted

to speak with you about the situation and

return the ring.

The City has learned that despite this female

moving out of state, you have continued to

pursue her. On Thursday, September 28, 2017,

you turned in a vacation request to your

supervisor along with a notice of hearing for

a protection order filed against you in the

District Court of the Fifth Judicial District

of the State of Idaho. This protection order

was filed by the female who formerly worked

for a beach concessions and it cited malicious

harassment, stalking, telephone harassment as

the reasons for her petition to the court.

The petitioner described in the protection

order that she met you while she worked as a

manager at Barefoot Beach House on Clearwater

Beach. She explained that City employees were

provided free soft drinks by an established

lease agreement and you as well as other City

employees, would go to the restaurant for that

reason. She further explained that beginning

approximately five years ago, you would

regularly bring her candy, gifts, and treats

and she would often politely decline your

offerings or put them out for all her

employees. She state d that you would come in

several times throughout your workd ay waiting

in long lines, just so that she could wait on

you.

The petitioner stated that she moved to Idaho

in 2016 and somehow you obtained her contact

information on - line and you began sending her

certified letters about every other month.

Additionally , she said at Christmas time she

received a diamond ring and gold necklace from

you of which she returned to you. Most

recently, on August 23, 2017, she state d that

she received notification from the post office

that you had sent her a live rooster as she

recognized your handwriting on the notice and

card. She further described that you sent her

emails and text messages, so she blocked your

phone number.

On October 4, 2017, your supervisor was

provided a copy of a City of Clearwater Parks

and Recreatio n envelope [which] shows you used

City material to mail her a certified letter

on August 15, 2016.

When meeting with your Director, you admitted

to using City materials for personal use and

acknowledged it was a bad thing to do however;

you did not take f ull responsibility of the

seriousness of your inappropriate behavior and

conduct which led to the protection order

filed against you, stating that you Ð were only

trying to have fun.

18. Based on the information involving Ms. Souto, the City

specifically identified in Respondent Ó s development plan certain

standards and expectations that Respondent had not met, including

the following: Ð We will treat everyone with dignity, respect,

and courtesy; [w]e will present a professional image through

actions, dress , speech and behavior; and [w]e will learn from

mistakes, modify behavior and recommend procedural changes to

improve operations and processes. Ñ

19. Reference in the development plan to these specific

standards and expectations, as well as inclusion of an extensive

narrative regarding his harassment of Ms. Souto, put Respondent

on notice that future instances of conduct of a similar nature

would not be in compliance with the terms of his development

plan.

20. The development plan contains a signature li ne where

the employee is to sign. Below the employee Ó s signature line is

the following statement: Ð My signature indicates I have read and

understand the Development Plan outlined above, and agree to

comply with all City standards and policies, although I may not

agree that a violation has occurred. Ñ Respondent signed the

development plan on October 26, 2017. The development plan notes

that its duration is for six months.

21. I n addition to signing the development plan, Respondent

also wrote the followi ng on the plan: Ð I will not misuse City

prop[erty] again. No mean no! Sorry I recognize my fault! I

will make better choices in my life. I recognize my fault. Ñ

C. SEA BLUES FESTIVAL

22. On Saturday, February 24, 2018, Respondent was working

at the S ea Blues Festival, which is a cultural event sponsored by

the City. Madai Gutierrez, wh o is employed by the City as a

r ecreation s pecialist, also worked the festival on that date.

23. Ms. Gutierrez Ó job responsibilities involve overseeing

matters relat ed to patron ticketing and gate operations. Her job

duties do not include overseeing or otherwise supervising

Respondent or workers who are similarly classified.

24. Ms. Gutierrez Ós credibly testified that on the day in

question, while in the backstage a rea of the festival, Respondent

summoned he r to the area where he and a co worker were picking up

trash. Ms. Gutierrez, thinking that Respondent had an inquiry

about a matter pertaining to the event, walked over to Respondent

where he told her , Ð You Ó re so beautiful. You have the eyes like

an eagle. Ñ Respondent Ó s statement to Ms. Gutierrez was a

discourteous statement that lacked dignity and respect, the

statement failed to comport with the development plan goal of

maintaining a professional image through Ð speech , Ñ and by making

the statement , Respondent d emonstrated a failure to modify his

behavior as required by the development plan.

25. R espondent Ó s statement to Ms. Gutierrez was

sufficiently similar in character to the conduct Respondent

displayed towa rds Ms. Souto.

26. Mr. Gutierrez testified that Respondent Ó s statement

made her feel Ð weird and creepy, Ñ and she immediately left the

area after hearing the same and went to her ticketing trailer.

27. On the day of the incident, Ms. Gutierrez reported

Re spondent Ó s conduct to her supervisor. On Monday, February 26,

2018, she then prepared a written statement detailing her

interaction with Respondent.

28. Respondent admits that he spoke to Ms. Gutierrez but

states that it Ð was about work. Ñ (T r. 2 00 : 9) In further

explaining himself, Respondent testified , Ð I told them that I

never said in this way and -- and that we were talking about --

strictly about work. Ñ (T r . 2 00 : 16 - 18). In this statement,

Respondent is referring to his conversation with Ms. Gutierre z on

February 24, 2018.

29. At the time of his interaction with Ms. Gutierrez,

Respondent was still working under the limitations of the

development plan and this would certainly provide sufficient

motivation for Respondent to not be truthful regarding his

interaction with Ms. Gutierrez.

30. Ms. Gutierrez testified that on occasion she will

instruct a City worker whose job includes responsibility for

trash collection to empty an overflowing trash receptacle.

However, Ms. Gutierrez specifically testifie d with clarity and

certainty that at no time during the Sea Blues Festival did she

ever instruct Respondent, or any other trash worker, to empty a

trash can.

31. Ms. Gutierrez Ó s testimony regarding what was said to

her by Respondent is found to be more credible than Respondent Ó s

denial. Respondent Ó s assertion that he had a Ð work - related Ñ

conversation with Ms. Gutierrez on February 24, 2018, is not

credible and is rejected.

D. I NEED AN INTERPRETER

32. Respondent claims that the City knew that he nee ded a

language interpreter but failed to provide one during the

discipline determination meeting resulting from the incident

involving Ms. Gutierrez. The job position occupied by Respondent

is covered by the Agreement between City of Clearwater, Florida ,

and Communications Workers of America, Local 3179 (Fiscal Years

2017 Î 2018) (collective bargaining agreement). Article 11,

section 4 of the collective bargaining a greement provides, in

part, that Ð [w]henever an employee who is a Union member is

noticed of any meeting that could result in discipline, the

employee will be granted a minimum of two (2) business days

before the meeting to arrange for Union representation. Ñ The

right to union representation at any such meeting is commonly

referred to Ð Weingarten Ñ rights. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. ,

420 U.S. 251 (1975).

33. On March 7, 2018, the City informed Respondent that a

discipline determination meeting was scheduled for March 14,

2018, to discuss the alleged incident involving Ms. Gutierrez and

its possi ble impact on his continued employment with the City.

Respondent attended the meeting along with his union

representative Phil Hughes of the Communications Workers of

America.

34. There are no provisions in the Civil Service Rules, the

PBMP manual, or th e collective bargaining agreement, which

require the City to provide a foreign language interpreter for an

employee who is represented by his union at a disciplinary

meeting. Respondent cites no authority in support of his

contention that the City was obl igated to provide him with such

services and furthermore there is no factual basis in the record

otherwise indicating that Respondent even requested such services

from the City once the current termination and dismissal

proceedings commenced.

CONCLUSIONS O F LAW

35. Jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties lies

in section 2.285 of the Clearwater Code of Ordinances, which

authorizes the City to contract with DOAH to review Ð employee

appeals resulting from alleged adverse employer action, Ñ

including dismissal.

36. Chapter 2, section 3(b) of the Civil Service Rules ,

provides that hearings conducted pursuant to section 2.285 of the

Clearwater Code of Ordinances Ð shall utilize a procedure as

outlined in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Ñ The proced ure

utilized herein, unless otherwise limited, comports with such

requirements.

37. The Clearwater Code of Ordinances does establish a

standard of proof in an appeal by a discharged employee.

Ordinarily, an employer seeking to terminate an employee bears

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that

discipline is appropriate. See Allen v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. ,

571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3 d DCA 1990). Ð A Ò preponderance Ó of

the evidence is defined as Ò the greater weight of the evidence, Ó

or evidence that Ò more likely than not Ó tends to prove a certain

proposition. Ñ Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla.

2000).

38. Respond ent was charged with violating ch apter 13,

section (3)(l) of the Civil Service Rules , which provides, in

part, that there is a Ð [f]ailure to conform to the dictates of

corrective action, including but not limited to failure or

inability to comply with an agreed upon Ò development plan. ÓÑ

Chapter 3, page 6 of the PBMP manual, which is incorporated by

express referen ce into Civil Service Board Rules, provides that

Ð [i]f the employee refuses to comply with the development plan

(i.e., the employee does not follow the agreed - upon plan of

action willfully rather than not following it because he or she

is not able to) the supervisor, with the agreement of the

department director, will contact Human Resources to discuss the

situation. Ñ Accordingly, Petitioner must prove that Respondent

willfully violated the terms of his development plan.

39. Neither the Civil Service Rule s nor the PBMP manual

provide a definition of the term Ð willful. Ñ A willful act is

therefore best defined by Florida case law Ð as one that is

voluntarily and intentionally performed with specific intent and

bad purpose to violate or disregard the requirem ents of the law. Ñ

Fugate v. Fla. Elec. Comm Ó n , 924 So. 2d 74, 75 (Fla. 1st DCA

2006).

40. As previously noted, Respondent is charged with failing

to comply with the terms of his d e velopment p lan in violation of

c hapter 13, section 3(l) of the Civil Servi ce Rules.

41. On February 24, 2018, when Respondent told

Ms. Gutierrez , Ð You Ó re so beautiful. You have the eyes like an

eagle [,] Ñ he knew that his development plan was still in effect.

Despite this knowledge, Respondent nevertheless stopped

Ms. Gutier rez from going about the normal affairs of her workday

by summoning her to his work area and ambushing her wit h an

unsolicited, unwanted, non work - related, flirtatious statement

that was sufficiently similar in character to the conduct

Respondent displayed towards Ms. Souto. Respondent Ó s conduct was

a willful violation of his de velopment plan in violation of

c hapter 13, section 3(l) of the Civil Service Rules, as charged.

42. The same evidence that establishes a violation by

Respondent of his development plan also proves that Respondent

failed to perform satisfactorily within established guidelines ,

which constitutes a violation of c hapter 13, section 3(b) of the

Civil Service Rules, as charged.

43. As previously noted, Respondent was also charged with

vi olating c hapter 13, section 3(e) of the Civil Service Rules.

This section provides that it is a violation of the rules to

commit a Ð flagrant offense, including harassment or

discrimination or abusive conduct or language toward coworkers,

City officers, or the public. Ñ Chapter 4 of the Civil Service

Rules defines ce rtain terms as used within the r ules. The Civil

Service Rules do not, however, define the phrase Ð flagrant

offense. Ñ Neither Petitioner nor Respondent cites authority

suggesting how the City h as previously interpreted this phrase.

44. The Merriam - Webster D ictionary defines the term

Ð flagrant Ñ to mean Ð so obviously inconsistent with what is right

or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality. Ñ

https://www.merriam - webster.com/dicti onary/flagrant . The City,

in its PRO, acknowledges that Respondent Ó s statement ( Ð You Ó re so

beautiful. You have the eyes like an eagle : Ñ ) Ð may not be

considered egregious [but certainly] is inappropriate at the

workplace. Ñ The undersigned concurs with th e City Ó s position and

finds that under the particular circumstances of this case,

Respondent Ó s statement to Ms. Gutierrez does not constitute a

flagr ant offense within the meaning c hapter 13, section 3(e) of

the Civil Service Rules.

45. In addition to the matters discussed above, Respondent

w as also charged with violating c hapter 13, section 3(g) of the

Civil Service Rules. The City, in its PRO, makes no argument as

to this alleged violation and therefore the same is considered

abandoned.

RECOMMENDATION

B ased on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the

City of Clearwater enter a final order terminating Mr. Jak s tas Ó

employment.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1 2 th day of December , 2018 , in

Tal lahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LINZIE F. BOGAN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 92 1 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1 2 th day of December , 2018 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Edward C. Castagna, Jr., Esquire

Castagna Law Firm, P.A.

Suite 702

611 Druid Road

Clearwater, Florida 33756

(eServed)

Owen Kohler, Esquire

City of Clearwater

112 South Osceola Avenue

Clearwater, Florida 33756

(eServed)

Nichole A. Kerr , Esquire

Castagna Law Firm, P.A.

Suite 702

611 Druid Road

Clearwater, Florida 33756

Ted Starr, Esquire

Starr Law Offices

81 81 U.S. Highway 19 North

Pinellas Park, Florida 33781

Rosemarie Call, City Clerk

City of Clearwater

Post Office Box 4748

Clearwater, Florida 33758 - 4748

NOTICE OF RIGHTS

Civil Service Board regulations do not authorize the filing of

exceptions to this Recommended Order. The Recommended Order will

be considered by the Civil Service Board at a meeting to be

noticed at a later time and place. At that meeting the Civil

Service Board will make a determination on the disposition of

this matter and thereaft er send its order and penalty, if any, to

the City Manager. See § 2.285(4), Code of Ordinances.