J. Glover Vol III

WIERZBICKI COURT REPORTING

IN RE: Investigation by Russell Van Sickle, Esquir e

VOLUME III

The Unsworn Statement of Joseph Glover t aken by

Russell Van Sickle, Esquire, commencing at 9:04 a .m., on

the 30th day of March, 2016, at Beggs & Lane, 501

Commendencia Street, Pensacola, Florida, before A ngela H.

Wierzbicki, FPR, Registered Professional Reporter and

Notary Public at Large, in and for the State of F lorida.


37

1 APPEARANCES

2

INVESTIGATOR: RUSSELL F. VAN SICKLE, E SQUIRE

3 Beggs & Lane LLP

501 Commendencia Street

4 Pensacola, Florida 32502

5 FOR JOSEPH GLOVER: PATRICK PANTAZIS, ESQUIR E

(via telephone) Wiggins, Childs, Pantazi s,

6 Fisher, Goldfarb

The Kress Building

7 301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 3520 3

8

___________________________________________________ ________

9

10 INDEX OF WITNESS

11 JOSEPH GLOVER

12 Direct Examination By Mr. Van Sickle: 239

13 Certificate of Reporter 299

14

15 INDEX OF EXHIBITS

16 Exhibit No.:

17 15 Composite of documents from Mr. 239

18 Glover's desk

19 16 E-mail, 7/8/15 240

20 17 E-mail, 7/21/15 240

21 18 E-mail, 4/2/15 246

22 19 E-mail, 4/8/15 247

23 20 E-mail draft 248

24 21 E-mail, 4/14/15 249

25 22 E-mail, 4/17/15 254


Page 238

1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS

2 23 E-mail, 4/20/15 255

3 24 E-mail, 4/20/15 256

4 25 E-mail, 4/27/15 257

5 26 E-mail, 4/28/15 258

6 27 E-mail, 4/28/15 259

7 28 E-mail, 4/30/15 260

8 29 E-mail, 4/30/15 262

9 30 E-mail, 4/30/15 263

10 31 E-mail, 5/4/15 265

11 32 E-mail, 5/5/15 266

12 33 E-mail, 5/8/15 269

13 34 E-mail, 5/13/15 269

14 35 E-mail, 5/18/15 270

15 36 Handwritten notes 270

16 37 E-mail, 3/15/15 272

17 38 Article 5 273

18 39 Demotion Justification Talking Paper 274

19 40 Letter from Mr. Deas, 2/3/12 274

20 41 Timeline response 278

21 42 E-mail, 12/4/15 282

22 43 Letter from Mr. Glover, 1/4/16 287

23

24

25


Page 239

1 WHEREUPON,

2 JOSEPH GLOVER

3 was called as a witness and testified as follows:

4 EXAMINATION

5 BY MR. VAN SICKLE:

6 Q I have a few follow-up questions. There's

7 a large stack of documents in front of me, but as you'll

8 see I think we'll move a lot quicker than the doc uments

9 would show.

10 A Okay.

11 (Exhibit 15 was marked for identifi cation)


13 Q I'm going to show you a stack right now and

14 my question about this stack is, this was on your desk.

15 A Okay.

16 Q And what I need to know from you, i s this

17 the notes you took related to the firefighter int erviews

18 on January 21 of this year?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Okay. If you'll just look through it, I've

21 got all of that that was in that stack, but just confirm

22 that that's what I have. That's what I believe t hat I

23 have, but I just wanted to make sure that I confi rm that

24 with you.

25 A Yes.


Page 240

1 Q I'm going to jump around a little b it.

2 This is a follow-up basically.

3 A Okay.

4 Q I've got some more documents since we last

5 met.

6 A Okay.



9 Q And I don't know if it's going to b e in any

10 particular order this morning, but one of the thi ngs I

11 received was this e-mail I'm showing you. It's d ated

12 July 8 from Melinda Grogan to you regarding car r ental

13 information. As I understand it, this was Melind a Grogan

14 confirming to you that she had reserved two SUVs to take

15 down to the orientation for the fire apprenticesh ip

16 program; is that right?

17 A Correct.

18 Q As of July 8th I understand that yo u

19 thought that you may have as many as I want to sa y

20 eight --

21 A Correct.

22 Q -- people going down for the orient ation.

23 A Right.




Page 241

1 Q Then what I've got next for you is a

2 July 21 e-mail from Melinda Grogan to you and it appears

3 that on that date, July 21, one of the SUVs was c anceled

4 in terms of reservation?

5 A Correct.

6 Q So as of July 21 you know that ther e's only

7 going to be two persons going down to the orienta tion?

8 A Correct.

9 Q There was some indication I had, an d I

10 think it's in this large stack, and I can go thro ugh it

11 if we need to, but tell me what your memory is.

12 I think there is some e-mail traffi c that

13 shows that the CPAT test for the apprenticeship

14 candidates was conducted on July 15th in Mobile, 14th or

15 15th.

16 A That sounds probably right.

17 Q And I understand that after that da y, the

18 14th or 15th of July, at that point you knew that there

19 were only going to be two candidates going down f or the

20 orientation?

21 A Not necessarily because when I spok e with

22 the proctors for the CPAT in Mobile, they had an

23 opportunity to come back, the individuals who wer e not

24 successful. So I was waiting to see if any would go back

25 and successfully pass it. So up until the time o f the


Page 242

1 21st, I guess is the date that you're talking abo ut, up

2 until the time that I left, I wasn't quite sure e xactly;

3 but there were a couple of people, a few of them who were

4 actually kind of close to passing it and thought that

5 they would be able to; and they did subsequently go back,

6 but were not successful. So up until -- I was ho ping

7 that there would be more people up until the time that I

8 actually left.

9 Q Okay. Did you keep any record -- I didn't

10 see any e-mail traffic or documents that indicate d that

11 any of the apprenticeship candidates tried a seco nd

12 chance at the CPAT. Is there any record of that?

13 A No, and that's because on the first

14 attempt, I took them down there. Any subsequent attempt

15 was going to be on their own and actually everyon e told

16 me that they would be going back to attempt again before

17 it was time to go for the orientation.

18 Q Do you know who -- was this like a

19 telephone call or something that you had where so meone

20 said, hey, I went back and tried it again?

21 A Phone conversations. I spoke with every

22 last one of them on the phone and each person sai d that

23 they were determined to go back. I think that so me of

24 them actually went back, but I don't think all of them

25 actually went back to attempt. I can't remember exactly


Page 243

1 who.

2 Q Did any of them pass on the second attempt?

3 A No.

4 Q They still couldn't make it?

5 A Still couldn't make it.

6 Q There was some e-mail traffic about a

7 practice test, particularly early on. The organi zation

8 out in Ocala had some practice test built in with their

9 pricing schedule and whatnot, and there was some e-mail

10 traffic with you mentioning a practice test. And I know

11 there's some additional e-mail a little later on with Ed

12 Sisson asking you about a practice, can you just have

13 them go and hold the hose and hold the equipment, put the

14 jacket on to kind of get them acclimated to the t est

15 since they obviously had no experience with firef ighting

16 at all.

17 What is your response to not having just

18 some time where the candidates could go to one of the

19 Pensacola fire stations and just kind of grab a h ose and

20 do that?

21 A As I explained to him, the CPAT is -- and

22 you would have to see what it's about. There's n othing

23 that we have that can really simulate what the CP AT is

24 about. And I tried to the best of my ability to get --

25 the reason that I tried to get them to go earlier is


Page 244

1 because I knew that they had three opportunities, and I

2 figured some would possibly pass it on the first time,

3 which two did, and then the acclimation that you' re

4 talking about would be the actual doing the CPAT because

5 they have three chances to do it at no additional cost.

6 Q I want to make sure I get your resp onse to

7 this particular question, and that is because the re was

8 suggestion made in the e-mail traffic to just sch edule a

9 time to let them come to the station, pick up a h ose,

10 pull it, put on a jacket, that kind of thing to g et them

11 acclimated. Was that ever considered by you? If it was

12 considered, why didn't it happen, that kind of th ing?

13 A Well, again, like I explained to

14 Mr. Sisson, that would not prepare somebody for a CPAT;

15 and I believe that that would give somebody a fal se sense

16 of security because one of the first events of th e CPAT

17 is a stringent accelerated treadmill on an inclin e that

18 they have to do with some type of breathing --

19 Q Respirator type of equipment?

20 A Correct. And we're not set up for that and

21 to actually perform a CPAT, we don't have an incl ine --

22 Q Treadmill?

23 A -- treadmill, nothing like that. A nd,

24 frankly, that's really what normally gets people is that

25 one.


Page 245

1 Q That's the toughest part?

2 A That's the toughest part. As I exp lained

3 to him, the best thing to do was for them to go a nd try

4 it and just go do it, and then they would know wh at they

5 would be up against.

6 Q Okay. On the issue of the rental c ar or

7 the rental SUV, was there any thought on the 21st instead

8 of just canceling one of the SUVs to decide, well , we

9 don't need a rental car because there's only goin g to be

10 three of us tomorrow and we can just use a fire

11 department vehicle? Was there any thought to tha t?

12 A There was, but my vehicle hadn't be en

13 serviced at the time and I just didn't want to.

14 Q Your city vehicle?

15 A My city vehicle. I just thought, y ou know,

16 we would use a rental vehicle like we had planned .

17 Q Was there any thought to whether to

18 downgrade the type of vehicle on the day before t o a

19 sedan?

20 A I really didn't give it a lot of th ought,

21 to be honest with you.

22 Q I guess the same question, when you got to

23 the counter, did you ask for a cheaper rate, coul d I get

24 an Impala or whatever?

25 A No, no. I was just there to get a vehicle.


Page 246

1 Q I'm going to switch gears a little bit, and

2 what I want to ask you about now is Edward Sisson 's

3 injection into the fire apprenticeship program. And I've

4 asked you at some length about the April 8 e-mail that

5 Sisson sent, but what I want to hear from you tod ay is

6 there's some additional e-mail traffic, additiona l

7 involvement by Sisson or HR; and what I want to k now from

8 you today is essentially the extent of the issue that you

9 had with Sisson and HR involvement in the apprent iceship

10 program.

11 A Okay.



14 Q So what I'm going to first show you is this

15 is an April 2nd e-mail. And just for your bearin gs, the

16 e-mail that you, and I actually have it right her e again

17 if you want to look at it, but the e-mail that yo u

18 identified as kind of the prompting problem was t his

19 April 8. So we're six days before that on April 2nd.

20 And you sent -- actually if you scroll down on Ap ril 1st

21 you sent Sisson contact information for Workforce

22 Escarosa.

23 A Yes, I remember doing that.

24 Q And you tell him, they're all extre mely

25 cordial and willing to assist. Let me know if yo u have


Page 247

1 questions or concerns and Sisson says that he'll be

2 planning a trip out there in the very near future on the

3 2nd.

4 A Right.

5 Q At that point did you consider that a

6 problem --

7 A No.

8 Q -- of Sisson's involvement or anyth ing like

9 that?

10 A No.

11 Q Tell me what was going on behind th e

12 scenes, so to speak, that you were sending Sisson on

13 April 1 contact information for the Workforce Esc arosa

14 folks?

15 A I'm thinking we had probably a phon e

16 conversation about him just going out there to me et the

17 people who were over the program.

18 Q Okay.

19 A So I just followed up with an e-mai l

20 sending him the contact information basically.

21 Q At that point there's no problems w ith

22 Sisson or HR involved with the apprenticeship pro gram?

23 A No, no.




Page 248

1 Q Let me show you an e-mail on April 8th and

2 as e-mails are printed out, they're in reverse

3 chronological order.

4 A Right.

5 Q But at the top it appears that Mary Joyner

6 from Escarosa is responding to your e-mail that s aid I

7 want a meeting ASAP and Mary Joyner is saying tha t Kathy,

8 Eric and Mary Joyner can meet any time the next d ay. I

9 didn't see a response to this e-mail. Did you re spond to

10 the Escarosa folks?

11 A I think I called them, and I'm not sure

12 what was going on the next day. I don't know if -- I

13 can't remember if I was available, but I wasn't s ure

14 based on what I wanted to discuss if it would be

15 appropriate for them to be there.



18 Q Okay. This next e-mail is not date d. It

19 was identified as a draft in your City e-mail in box.

20 And it doesn't appear to end. It looks like a dr aft. I

21 need to ask you if I'm interpreting this wrong. Was this

22 actually sent?

23 A No, I don't think that it was. I v aguely

24 remember this.

25 Q Okay. You went out on military lea ve the


Page 249

1 next week, the week after April 8th. And then wh ile you

2 were out on military leave there was some e-mail traffic,

3 which I didn't ask you about originally.

4 A Okay.



7 Q In front of you is an April 14 e-ma il from

8 Sisson to various folks at Escarosa. You're CC'd on it

9 as well as some others. It's addressed to Hello Team

10 Escarosa from Sisson. Are you familiar with this e-mail?

11 A Uh-huh (affirmative).

12 Q Did you have any issues with this e -mail

13 while you were out on military leave?

14 A Well, yeah.

15 Q Okay.

16 A And I'm going to tell you why.

17 Q Please.

18 A Again, that e-mail, I think the Apr il 8th

19 e-mail where I considered him being very condesce nding

20 and diminishing my role in the program, I really felt at

21 that point, and probably even before that because of

22 interactions with him, that he was either trying to

23 undermine the program actually because as I state d the

24 only resistance that I was experiencing was with him.

25 And like I explained to him, we're not


Page 250

1 talking about City employees. So HR's role in my mind

2 was very minimal or should have been very minimal because

3 you're not talking about City employees. That's where HR

4 gets involved when you're talking about actually those

5 individuals who work for the City. So his consta nt

6 interference I found objectionable and I felt lik e he was

7 not being honest when he said that he just wanted to go

8 out there and meet these individuals.

9 And if I can back up, a lot of it h ad to do

10 with the conversation that he had with my subordi nate,

11 Brock Jester. And I have a problem with Brock Je ster

12 being included in this e-mail as my subordinate. There

13 were several times where he contacted Chief Jeste r,

14 including a conversation that he had with him ind icating

15 that I had initiated this program without City Ha ll's

16 approval. So I took exception to all of that.

17 And, you know, again throughout thi s entire

18 process, he wasn't assisting at all. I'm the one that

19 knows the information and what's required to beco me a

20 firefighter. He doesn't. And from his perspecti ve there

21 was, again, no need for his constant interference ; and I

22 just felt like he was trying to undermine me, whi ch

23 really coincides with all the other issues that I have

24 with Mr. Sisson and the things that he's tried to do.

25 Q Those are the items that we discuss ed at


Page 251

1 the first interview?

2 A Correct.

3 Q This e-mail starts out in the first

4 paragraph by saying that someone from Escarosa, a nd he

5 doesn't say who, someone from Escarosa was callin g HR

6 wanting to know about the status of the apprentic eship

7 program. That's the premise of his sending this e-mail

8 out and this is while you were out on military le ave.

9 A Are you speaking of this e-mail on

10 April 14th?

11 Q Correct. You'll see it says --

12 A No, he was upset about -- or he had an

13 issue with, and he put it in quotation marks, int erviews.

14 And basically what his issue was -- I don't know what his

15 issue was with the candidates coming and meeting with me.

16 And basically like I explained to him and the Tea m

17 Escarosa was it was simply to gauge their interes t in the

18 program before we invested too much and tell them what

19 the expectations were.

20 Q Sure.

21 A And what they would be facing if th ey went

22 to Ocala. I explained to them the CPAT. I expla ined

23 that to them. So that's all it was.

24 Q It wasn't really an interview then; it was,

25 in fact, more of an informational session?


Page 252

1 A Correct.

2 Q This e-mail from Sisson, and I'm no t

3 professing that it's accurate, but it says that s omebody

4 from Escarosa was contacting HR on that day, Apri l 14th.

5 The way I read this e-mail, the premise is Escaro sa is

6 calling HR, you're on military leave and so Sisso n is

7 sending an e-mail saying, we're working on it and we need

8 to be planning the background checks, drug tests,

9 polygraphs, physical abilities test. We need to move

10 forward on it.

11 When you were out on military leave for

12 these two weeks in April, had you assigned respon ding to

13 apprenticeship questions from Escarosa to someone else in

14 the fire department? How did you leave that when you

15 went on military leave?

16 A Well, I kept Chief Schmitt abreast of what

17 was going on, and I actually spoke with Chief Sch mitt, I

18 believe, a couple of times while I was gone. But I did

19 not want to communicate with Ed Sisson until we h ad that

20 meeting that I was talking about.

21 Q Requested in the April 8th e-mail?

22 A Correct, when I got back.

23 Q What about if someone from Escarosa called,

24 was there a plan on how to deal with that while y ou were

25 out?


Page 253

1 A Yeah, Chief Schmitt was fully aware of what

2 was going on and he could answer any questions. I kept

3 him abreast of where we were. Everybody had a co py of

4 the timeline; and if there were any questions abo ut where

5 we were in the process, he could answer those que stions

6 while I was away.

7 Q I don't want to put words in your m outh,

8 but if HR was receiving a call from Escarosa whil e you

9 were on military leave, what do you believe HR sh ould

10 have done? Instead of sending an e-mail from HR to

11 Escarosa, what should HR have done?

12 A Contacted Chief Schmitt.

13 Q And done anything else?

14 A Not really.

15 Q Do you remember were you in a posit ion to

16 check and respond to e-mails when you were on thi s

17 military leave?

18 A I had my cell phone.

19 Q Did your cell phone, Smartphone, al low you

20 to receive City e-mails?

21 A Yes.

22 Q And obviously you were on military duty?

23 A Right.

24 Q The type of military duty you were doing,

25 would that allow you to handle any City work at t he time?


Page 254

1 I understand for some people they can do a little bit of

2 that on military leave.

3 A I could have done a little bit of t hat.

4 Q Obviously your first responsibility would

5 be to your service at that point?

6 A Sure.



9 Q Let me show you this April 17th e-m ail from

10 Sisson to Brock Jester at the top and then you're CC'd on

11 it as well as Schmitt. It basically reads as if Sisson

12 had called Brock Jester on Wednesday, April 15th. Jester

13 on the 16th told him to go directly to you or Chi ef

14 Schmitt, and then Sisson responds to Jester sayin g you're

15 out for two weeks and he would contact Schmitt an d he

16 feels certain that he would direct back to Jester .

17 A Yeah, I understand what he's saying , but

18 Brock Jester had already told him several times a nd Chief

19 Schmitt was also aware that Brock Jester had noth ing to

20 do with this program. You know, Mr. Sisson has a habit

21 of contacting subordinates. That is very unprofe ssional

22 and he's done it behind Chief Schmitt's back, don e it

23 behind my back and, you know, he's created an atm osphere

24 of distrust.

25 Q Did you think it was unprofessional for


Page 255

1 Sisson to send this e-mail to Battalion Chief Jes ter?

2 A Yes, absolutely, because he had bee n told

3 by Chief Jester and by myself that he shouldn't d o it.

4 He also does the same thing with Susan, just like I

5 explained to you asking for the tag number on my vehicle.

6 He calls Susan, not Chief Schmitt, not me.



9 Q This will be Exhibit 23, two e-mail s.

10 Sisson e-mailing Schmitt at 5:03 on Friday, April 17th

11 asking about the apprenticeship program and I gue ss some

12 different issue, TB testing for firefighters. An d then

13 Schmitt responds Monday morning on April 20th. D o you

14 remember getting this e-mail at the time, or were your

15 military duties such that you weren't able to kin d of

16 weigh in at this point?

17 A I don't really remember this e-mail . Okay.

18 I remember I had a conversation with Chief Schmit t, but I

19 don't remember this e-mail.

20 Q Schmitt appears to be telling Sisso n on

21 April 20th that he needed to contact you -- that Sisson

22 needed to contact you. I see that Schmitt is not exactly

23 volunteering to step in. He's just saying he spo ke with

24 you the week before you left for military leave - -

25 A Right.


Page 256

1 Q -- and there shouldn't be anything needed?

2 A Well, I can't speak for Chief Schmi tt, but

3 I do know that he shared some of the same concern s that I

4 did with him involving subordinates as well as he didn't

5 believe that Mr. Sisson was actually trying to he lp.



8 Q Let me show you this e-mail. It's the same

9 day later in the day on April 20th. Sisson is se nding an

10 e-mail to the apprenticeship program candidates. It

11 appears as if Sisson has arranged for appointment s with

12 the City nurse to schedule drug tests and giving a

13 deadline for that, told where to go, that kind of thing.

14 Was this a problem that Sisson was going

15 ahead and taking care of the drug test issue with

16 candidates?

17 A I wouldn't see that as necessarily an

18 issue. I mean, as long as -- and I would have to look

19 back at the timeline. As long as it coincided wi th the

20 timeline that Escarosa had agreed upon. His assi stance,

21 you know, never was a problem. So any assistance that

22 he -- and that's what I thought HR was there for. But,

23 unfortunately, a lot of it was more interference and

24 again it goes back to that e-mail where he basica lly --

25 Q The April 8th e-mail?


Page 257

1 A Correct.

2 Q What was the interference other tha n the

3 April 8th e-mail?

4 A Well, in the process -- well, I'll tell

5 you. The constant contact with my subordinate

6 including --

7 Q Jester?

8 A -- Jester, including telling Jester that he

9 couldn't get in contact with me and Jester standi ng right

10 there at my office door while I'm sitting there a nd he

11 claims that he could not get in contact with me. He's

12 literally on the phone with Ed Sisson and he's sa ying

13 that he can't contact me so he's contacting him.

14 Q Have you thought about this since w e last

15 met? Have you been able to put a time frame on w hen that

16 occurred?

17 A No. I mean, it all kind of runs to gether.



20 Q Okay. Let me show you an e-mail da ted

21 April 27th. Are you back from military leave on Monday

22 of this week on this day, Monday, April 27th?

23 A I was probably back Tuesday at work .

24 Q Okay.

25 A Yeah, because I worked that Monday there.


Page 258

1 Q On military duty?

2 A Right, right, and I came back to wo rk

3 Tuesday.

4 Q Is your military duty in this area?

5 A It's in Biloxi.

6 Q Not too far away but certainly not in town?

7 A Right.

8 Q My question about this April 27th e -mail

9 from Sisson to Chief Schmitt is did you have an i ssue

10 with Schmitt sending the e-mail or an issue with anything

11 that Sisson is saying that HR is doing in terms o f

12 advancing the apprenticeship program as stated in this

13 e-mail?

14 A No.



17 Q I'm going to show you an April 28 e -mail

18 from you to various folks at Escarosa. It starts out

19 with Alcon. That's a military term for --

20 A All concerned.

21 Q -- all concerned.

22 A Sorry about that.

23 Q I guess you had just gotten back fr om your

24 military duty.

25 A Probably.


Page 259

1 Q It indicates that or you're informi ng in

2 the e-mail that you're providing a CPAT testing l ink for

3 the Mobile facility and you're saying that you've been

4 trying to contact District Chief Ken Keller of th e Mobile

5 Fire Department the day before and again to take that

6 day, the 28th, to try to get the CPAT scheduled.

7 A Right.

8 Q Had you prior to that time attempte d to

9 schedule the CPAT? Where are we in the process a t this

10 point? Do you think you're on schedule right now ?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Had you tried to schedule the CPAT before

13 or was it just not necessary to try to schedule i t

14 before?

15 A Again, there was no need -- and I t hink I

16 indicated in that e-mail, there were certain step s they

17 needed to complete before going through the CPAT.



20 Q That's right. This is April 28th, an

21 e-mail from Sisson to you. My question is simila r as to

22 the others. Did you have a problem with Sisson s ending

23 this e-mail and any problem with the actions that Sisson

24 is saying that are next steps or need to be done? I'm

25 trying to gauge whether this e-mail is considered


Page 260

1 interference or bona fide assistance.

2 A No, I don't believe I actually had an issue

3 with this.



6 Q Let me show you Exhibit 28, an e-ma il dated

7 April 30th at the top. If you will look down at the

8 original e-mail, I guess not the original, but in the

9 chain sequence there's an April 29 e-mail to you and to

10 Sisson at 8:02 in the morning asking you and Siss on

11 whether there was a time frame regarding the poly graphs

12 because there was some correlation between gettin g that

13 done and the medical exam. And then Sisson e-mai ls to

14 the Escarosa individual and to you apologizing fo r not

15 receiving a response yet regarding the polygraphs , saying

16 that Sisson will touch base with the fire departm ent and

17 follow-up with her about what is decided.

18 Is that considered interference or

19 legitimate assistance or something else? I don't know.

20 You tell me.

21 A Well, let me look at this e-mail so I can

22 understand it in the proper context.

23 Q Sure.

24 A Well, first of all, again, I assume that he

25 was just responding back to the e-mail. When I l ook at


1

1 these e-mails, I look at who is being copied on t hem also

2 and to offer an apology like that and then includ e Dick

3 Barker, Amy Workman, Hosea Goodwyn, Susan Nelms, all

4 these people is unnecessary. And I don't know if that's

5 intentional, but it's certainly not appreciated a nd it's

6 unprofessional again. There's no need to do that .

7 Now, I think probably what I believ e

8 happened Chief Schmitt was in the process of gett ing the

9 person because you can't just say we want a polyg raph and

10 someone is readily available.

11 Q Right.

12 A So he was working on a contractor a t the

13 time and so I didn't see this as being helpful, a nd I

14 don't even remember him necessarily contacting me . He

15 may have contacted Chief Schmitt and Chief Schmit t may

16 have explained to him that he was working on gett ing

17 someone to administer the polygraph.

18 Q And it appears to me that in terms of who

19 is CC'd, it looks as if this may have been a repl y to all

20 situation.

21 A Yeah.

22 Q Where certain people are on the e-m ail

23 chain and people just keep replying to all.

24 A Right.

25 Q That's what it appears to be becaus e it's


Page 262

1 the same list that's in the e-mail below.

2 A I'll give him the benefit of the do ubt.

3 Q On this issue the way I read it, an d you

4 tell me if you think I'm reading it incorrectly, is

5 Escarosa sent an e-mail the morning of the 29th a nd there

6 was no response back to Escarosa as of 5:00 the n ext day

7 and Sisson is saying, I'm going to touch base wit h the

8 fire department and get up with you. Am I readin g that

9 wrong?

10 A No, no. What I will say is -- I ca n't

11 remember. I made a lot of phone calls to Escaros a. I

12 very well may have called them to respond instead of

13 replying by e-mail. So I don't remember.

14 Q And before you get too far on that line

15 because I've got another e-mail less than 30 minu tes

16 later, you reply on the same day at 5:32. It loo ks like

17 another reply to all and it's addressed to Alcon. You're

18 basically, I assume, answering Escarosa's questio n about

19 the polygraph issue.

20 A Right.

21 MR. PANTAZIS: Is that 5:30 a.m. or p.m.?

22 MR. VAN SICKLE: P.m.

23 MR. PANTAZIS: Thank you.




Page 263

1 Q So it looks like you were probably prompted

2 by Sisson's e-mail?

3 A I probably was, and I don't know wh at was

4 going on the day before. This is almost a year a go.



7 Q Right, I understand. Exhibit 30, I just

8 want to get your take on this. We're on the same day,

9 April 30th. It's 6:00 p.m., Sisson to you and CC with

10 Schmitt only. Do you remember this e-mail?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Did you have a problem with this e- mail?

13 A Yeah, the tone of it.

14 Q In that e-mail Sisson is suggesting that HR

15 be the central point of contact with Escarosa. I take it

16 from what you've told me earlier you did not appr eciate

17 that?

18 A I don't. I did not. This project was

19 assigned to me and this was an initiative by Coun cilman

20 Wingate in collaboration with Career Source Escar osa to

21 attract firefighter or potential firefighter cand idates

22 in the community to basically receive an endowmen t from

23 Career Source Escarosa.

24 Now, how HR has made themselves the central

25 point of contact doesn't make sense. Again, they 're not


Page 264

1 City employees. They're not guaranteed a job wit h the

2 City.

3 Q Were you involved in the hiring of the

4 successful candidate from the apprenticeship prog ram,

5 Mr. Tibbett?

6 A Actually the way that happened, Chi ef

7 Jester and Chief Schmitt contacted HR, contacted Amy

8 Workman, if I remember correctly, and basically a sked

9 them what was needed to be done to get him in the process

10 because what we were told before was that anyone

11 completing the program, they would have to go thr ough the

12 same process as anyone else.

13 I think there was a little change t o that

14 because of the dire need for firefighters at the time.

15 Q Who made that decision or who do yo u

16 understand made that decision?

17 A HR. And I'm sure that Ed Sisson pr obably

18 had something to do with it, but Chief Jester ask ed Chief

19 Schmitt because now this individual has done ever ything,

20 they're state certified, been through the program and he

21 was in contact with Chief Jester. He knows Chief Jester,

22 and so the question was asked, was posed to HR wh at the

23 process would be to possibly hire Mr. Tibbett. S o to

24 answer your question, I really didn't have any pa rt in

25 the actual hiring process.


Page 265

1 Q And what I understand from your ans wer is

2 that at the time of the apprenticeship program yo u were

3 operating under the belief that no apprenticeship program

4 participant would have any special path to or thr ough the

5 hiring processes; but when it came time to hire t he only

6 successful candidate, that successful candidate d id not

7 go through the normal hiring processes, but you w ere not

8 involved in that secondary decision; am I right?

9 A That's correct, and it was a little bit

10 different from the way it was explained. And the reason

11 from my understanding that a person would not hav e

12 special dispensation because they went through th e

13 apprenticeship program was because we didn't want to get

14 into potential litigation by someone who didn't g o

15 through the same process. They all had to be on even

16 footing.

17 Q Okay.

18 A Again, at the time there was no one on the

19 list, and I guess there was a consideration given and the

20 decision was made, but I didn't have anything to do with

21 it.



24 Q Okay. Exhibit 31, May 4 e-mail I'm showing

25 you from Sisson to Escarosa folks and you are not visibly


Page 266

1 on the recipient list of this e-mail, but somehow you

2 were able to forward it to Chief Schmitt. Did yo u have

3 an issue with this e-mail from Sisson to the Esca rosa

4 folks?

5 A I don't know how I got this e-mail. I

6 can't remember.

7 Q Yeah, I'm not sure either. Obvious ly you

8 got it, but I just can't tell.

9 A Yeah, and I'm trying to think -- le t's see.

10 Okay. I do remember it now.

11 Q Okay.

12 A I don't really believe I had an iss ue with

13 this. I don't know the reason that I forwarded i t.

14 Q To Schmitt, right?

15 A Yes.



18 Q Exhibit 32, May 5 from Sisson to yo u, CC'd

19 to Schmitt, and he's saying that you and he had n ot

20 spoken since your military leave. I think what y ou told

21 me earlier was that you did not want to speak wit h him

22 until you had a meeting with various supervisors and

23 whatnot, City Hall, Schmitt, that kind of thing, right?

24 A Right, because I believed, and if y ou

25 looked at all the e-mails, if you look back at th e


Page 267

1 April 8th e-mail, the people that he included in that

2 e-mail. I'll tell you that I intentionally repli ed to

3 all on that e-mail to get my point across when he

4 included all those individuals in the April 8th e -mail

5 unnecessarily, and then indicating that he had be en in

6 discussion with the fire administration as well a s City

7 administration, which was untrue, about basically taking

8 over the program.

9 And so he had a habit of, in my min d,

10 strategically including who he copied in these e- mails.

11 And then if you notice after the April 8th e-mail when he

12 wanted a meeting, he wanted only certain people. Well,

13 my feeling was if you made all these comments and then

14 you included all these people in the e-mail, why don't

15 you include all these people in this meeting?

16 Q You mean the Escarosa folks?

17 A Everybody. He included Brock Jeste r. He

18 included his subordinates in HR. He included all of the

19 Escarosa folks. He included Chief Schmitt. But then

20 when he tried to schedule the meeting, he only wa nted

21 Rusty Wells, Chief Schmitt, himself and I think t hat was

22 it.

23 Q Did you want Battalion Chief Jester in that

24 meeting?

25 A I wanted everybody in there actuall y at


Page 268

1 first because I believe if you're going to send a n e-mail

2 out there like that -- and then he talked about h aving

3 effective communication and all of that. Well, y ou don't

4 send an e-mail out like that without addressing i t to

5 those people who you included in that e-mail. Th ose

6 people are left in the dark not knowing what the meeting

7 was about and all of that kind of stuff.

8 He intentionally included all these people,

9 basically put me on notice, but then he wanted to have a

10 private meeting with just three or four people wh en his

11 initial e-mail included just about everybody.

12 Q So did you want Jester in that City Hall

13 meeting because I thought what you had said earli er --

14 A Well, after I thought about it, I d idn't

15 because it would be basically contradicting what I said

16 about subordinate involvement. But at first I di d

17 because I was upset. And that was the reason tha t I

18 included everybody in my response that I wanted a meeting

19 ASAP. It was really more to make a point.

20 Q What was to make a point?

21 A Well, including everybody in my res ponse

22 that I want a meeting ASAP. I replied to all.

23 Q What was the point you were trying to make?

24 A I wanted everybody to know that I w as not

25 in agreement with what Ed Sisson had said in his e-mail.


Page 269



3 Q Okay. Exhibit 33, May 8th e-mail f rom

4 Sisson to Escarosa. You are not CC'd on it that I can

5 see. Do you know if you've ever seen this e-mail ?

6 A No, I don't recall seeing this.

7 Q As of May 8th it appears as if Siss on is

8 giving an update to Escarosa regarding the status of

9 waiting for background results for the candidates . They

10 have all passed the drug test. As soon as we get the

11 background results back for all of them, we'll sc hedule

12 polygraph, medical exam and the TABE for those th at

13 haven't completed it, that kind of thing.

14 Did you think that this was appropr iate for

15 Sisson to be doing at this point or not?

16 A Well, I don't understand why I wasn 't

17 included on this. So other than that, I don't ha ve a

18 problem with what's being done here.



21 Q I think this gets us to the date of the

22 meeting at City Hall. At the top it's a May 13th e-mail

23 from Schmitt to Daily, CC'd to you about scheduli ng a

24 meeting with the individuals listed below.

25 A Okay.


Page 270

1 Q And the individuals you can kind of see at

2 the bottom of the page, Rusty Wells, Tamara, Eric Olson,

3 Ed Sisson, Joe Glover and Schmitt. Is that the m eeting

4 you are referring to?

5 A Yes.

6 Q So it looks as if that meeting was on

7 the -- this doesn't say it, but I think it was on the

8 15th. Does that sound right to you?

9 A Somewhere.



12 Q And then there's a May 18 e-mail fr om you

13 to the Escarosa folks at 5:55 p.m. wanting to get a

14 meeting with Escarosa, with you and Escarosa to m ake sure

15 everyone is on the same page of the program.

16 A Right.

17 Q Is that kind of a follow-up wheneve r that

18 City Hall meeting was?

19 A Yes.



22 Q Let me show you this. This is a

23 handwritten document from a notepad or notebook t hat says

24 at the top first responder prior to class, 40 add itional

25 hours.


Page 271

1 Let me tell you what I understand t his to

2 be. I understand this to be Battalion Chief Jest er's

3 notes he made when he was discussing with you an academy.

4 A Right.

5 Q Did you ever see these numbers?

6 A No, he gave me -- we discussed this and he

7 gave me some figures, but I didn't have this. Th is is my

8 first time seeing this, but we did have a convers ation

9 prior to electing to go through the fire college.

10 Q Do these numbers look like the numb ers that

11 were originally given to you?

12 A I can't remember. I can't remember . The

13 only thing I remember about it is the numbers tha t he

14 gave me initially that it would not be feasible t o do an

15 academy in-house. I do remember that, that the c ost to

16 do it and for the academy to break even, it wasn' t

17 feasible.

18 Q I understand that the rules require one

19 instructor for every six students?

20 A That is correct.

21 Q So I guess the fixed costs, so to s peak, at

22 least of the instructors go up with every seventh

23 student, so to speak?

24 A Correct.

25 Q So if you have six students, it's g oing to


Page 272

1 be less expensive than having seven obviously?

2 A Right.

3 Q And so on and so on. Was that your

4 understanding at the time?

5 A At the time that's not how it was e xplained

6 to me. I asked him the minimum number of student s that

7 would be needed to actually do an academy effecti vely and

8 the number that he gave me was about 20 students. I

9 asked him what the cost was, and I can't remember exactly

10 what it was, but it wasn't feasible. And plus th e fact

11 that putting 20 or so individuals through an acad emy, I

12 just didn't want to put all these individuals thr ough an

13 academy and then them not be able to have the pot ential

14 to have a job because we don't typically have tha t many

15 openings.

16 Q Right, at one time?

17 A Right.



20 Q Let's switch gears a little bit. T his is a

21 March 19, 2015 e-mail, Exhibit 37. To kind of se t the

22 stage for you, as I understand it there was a hir ing

23 round, so to speak, hiring process for some new

24 firefighters in March of 2015; and you'll see in this

25 e-mail that Chief Jester is saying he needs to mo ve the


Page 273

1 physical abilities testing and interviews because there's

2 not enough time for him to contact the applicants and

3 verify the qualifications, and then your e-mail r esponse

4 is, "Agreed. Let's take advantage of finally get ting

5 ownership of this process."

6 So my question to you is, what did you mean

7 by that in this context?

8 A Well, I have to go back and think a bout it,

9 but based on what he's saying is they didn't give him

10 enough time to do what needed to be done as far a s

11 notification for the fire candidates, the fire

12 applicants. Okay. What I must have meant, based on what

13 he said, was having more to say about the timelin e

14 because he wasn't given enough time to prepare fo r the

15 physical abilities test and the interviews with p eople

16 coming from out of town and I guess my response - -

17 MR. PANTAZIS: Don't guess. If you know

18 the answer, then answer. But don't guess .

19 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't really know.


21 Q Okay.

22 A I don't know for sure.



25 Q All right. Exhibit 38, I've got so me


Page 274

1 documents that I think will go pretty quickly. L et me

2 show you this is a document entitled Article Numb er 5,

3 General Rules and Personal Conduct. I understand this to

4 be the list of rules that were gathered in respon se to

5 Edward Deas' timeline e-mail; is that correct?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And then according to the -- if you look on

8 the last page, the document properties, it was cr eated on

9 August 31, 2015. Do you have any reason to belie ve that

10 that was not accurate?

11 A Oh, no.



14 Q Okay. And then the same question f or this

15 document. This is Edward Deas' demotion talking paper

16 and the Word properties indicate it was created o n

17 September 24th. Does that sound about right?




21 Q One of the things you had told me i n our

22 previous interview was explaining the reason for

23 attaching your July 3rd, 2012 memo to the fire de partment

24 as a whole to the demotion justification paperwor k for

25 Edward Deas, and you identified to me that Edward Deas


Page 275

1 was not -- certainly not the entire reason for th at memo.

2 A Right.

3 Q But his behavior was considered in writing

4 that e-mail and as I understand from you, and I'm

5 paraphrasing now, that Deas, you believed, had as ked you

6 as deputy chief to come speak to the PUFFA organi zation

7 and give them inside information or something lik e that.

8 Although you did tell me that Deas didn't specifi cally

9 say inside information.

10 But what I have been provided now f rom

11 Mr. Deas is this letter in front of you, February 3, 2012

12 where Deas appears to be sending a letter on PUFF A

13 letterhead to Chief Schmitt asking for a meeting and then

14 including an agenda, if you'll turn to those page s. Do

15 you remember this letter?

16 A I do.

17 Q Do you remember there was, in fact, a

18 meeting?

19 A Yes.

20 Q With Chief Schmitt?

21 A Yes.

22 Q How did that --

23 A And myself.

24 Q How did that meeting go?

25 A It went fine. Basically he at the time as


Page 276

1 president of the association made contact with Ch ief

2 Schmitt requesting this meeting, a formal meeting and I

3 think -- I don't know if the agenda was included at first

4 because if I remember correctly, Chief Schmitt di dn't

5 know what the meeting was about and I guess when he came,

6 he did provide the agenda, to my recollection.

7 Q As I understand, at least from Mr. Deas'

8 viewpoint, is that when you declined to speak to PUFFA

9 about these issues, he simply wrote this letter a nd

10 scheduled a meeting with Chief Schmitt. Is that your

11 memory?

12 A That is not -- first of all, this a genda

13 was not provided, a letter was not provided to me .

14 Q No, no. I know I'm interrupting yo u, but I

15 think from what you're saying --

16 A That's fine.

17 Q This is how I understand the sequen ce of

18 events, at least from someone's point of view, an d that

19 is that you were asked to come and speak about th e topics

20 on the agenda, maybe not given a written agenda, but

21 asked to speak about those topics and you decline d. So

22 as a result of your declining, Mr. Deas on behalf of

23 PUFFA asked for a meeting with Chief Schmitt. Do es that

24 sound right or not?

25 A I don't know if that's what his rea soning


Page 277

1 was or not. That's what he's saying. But I know I will

2 say that after this I was -- beyond this time I w as --

3 Q Beyond February 3?

4 A Correct. I was asked to come and s peak to

5 the association about certain things. Again, I t hink I

6 stated before, he was very critical, openly criti cal

7 about my refusal to do so. And from his perspect ive, the

8 way it was communicated to me, it was based on th e fact

9 of me being the black deputy chief. Because he's even

10 made comments to go along with those.

11 He's made comments about Captain Co bbs

12 being the black union president. He's made comme nts

13 about me being the black deputy chief and Captain Cobbs

14 being the black union president, and that we shou ld be

15 informing this association about what's going on in the

16 department; and my explanation to him, and it sti ll is,

17 I'm not the black deputy chief. I am the deputy chief

18 and anything I need to address, I'll address with

19 everybody in the department.

20 Q So to make sure I understand your r esponse,

21 sometime after the meeting that Edward Deas had w ith you

22 and Chief Schmitt responsive to his February 3, 2 012

23 letter, you're saying it was only after the meeti ng with

24 Schmitt and you that Deas was saying come speak t o PUFFA?

25 A That's what I recall. That's what I


Page 278

1 recall.

2 Q Do you know why he would be asking for a

3 meeting after you've already met recently?

4 A To talk about apparently other thin gs that

5 went on the agenda, and I don't know if those que stions

6 were answered.

7 Q The agenda item questions?

8 A Correct. I don't know if they were

9 answered to his -- I do remember in that meeting, because

10 I was in that meeting with Chief Schmitt, and I d o

11 remember Chief Schmitt telling him that he would get back

12 with him. He would consider his -- I don't think he

13 answered very many of his questions, if he answer ed any.

14 And he told him that he appreciated him coming in , if I

15 remember correctly, and that he would get back wi th him.

16 And I don't know if he ever did or not.



19 Q Okay. The next document I want to show you

20 is entitled timeline response. It's Exhibit 41. It's

21 typewritten. I understand it came off of your co mputer.

22 A It did.

23 Q Did you draft this?

24 A I did.

25 Q Did you ever give it to anyone?


Page 279

1 A No.

2 Q If you'll look for me, it's on the last

3 page of the properties, according to the Word pro perties,

4 it says it was created on December 22nd. Is ther e a

5 reason why you would have been doing this on

6 December 22nd particularly?

7 And I will say, if you recall, Mr. Deas was

8 given a written reprimand on the 18th of December . Was

9 this in reaction to that or something else?

10 A Well, actually --

11 Q The demotion paperwork was Septembe r 15th

12 and then the written reprimand was December 18th, if my

13 memory serves me correctly. I just didn't know i f that

14 refreshed your recollection as to why you were cr eating

15 this.

16 A I don't recall.

17 Q Were you asked to create it?

18 A Oh, no.

19 Q This is something you did?

20 A Yes, this is something that I did. I felt

21 that it was something that I needed to address.

22 Q There were some discussions when I

23 interviewed Chief Schmitt, and I think you had me ntioned

24 knowledge about some other demotions that had tak en place

25 for individuals who had or were believed to have been


Page 280

1 critical of fire department leadership. The name s

2 mentioned were Stephen Rhodes, John Madison and J ohn

3 Anderson.

4 I have pulled the personnel files f or those

5 individuals. There's nothing in the personnel fi les that

6 supports the idea that they were demoted for the reasons

7 that were identified to me by primarily Chief Sch mitt and

8 I think that was your understanding as well.

9 A Okay.

10 Q Do you know why that is?

11 A I have my suspicions. At the time, and I'm

12 not surprised at all that those aren't in their r ecords.

13 At the time Sherrer Kuchera, who was the HR direc tor, she

14 was close with Steve Rhodes and Paul Madison. Th ey had a

15 close relationship, friendship, what have you; an d so

16 when they made the decision to retire rather than take

17 the demotion, it doesn't surprise me that those d ocuments

18 wouldn't be in there.

19 Now, I've never physically seen tho se

20 documents, but I don't have any reason to doubt t hat

21 there was some demotion documentation. Did you a lso say

22 for Anderson?

23 Q Yes. Stephen Rhodes, John Anderson and

24 Madison.

25 A So none of those documents were in there?


Page 281

1 Q There's no criticism letter or ther e's no

2 documentation that they were being demoted or any thing.

3 A There's no letters -- now, I do rem ember

4 seeing the letters that they wrote, those letters .

5 Q Those aren't in the file. So my qu estion

6 to you is, do you know where they would be? Did you ever

7 see them?

8 A I did see the letters that they wro te

9 against Chief Schmitt, but that's been five, six years

10 ago.

11 Q Yeah, we're talking 2011. That's a long

12 time ago. Do you know who showed it to you?

13 A I can't remember. I cannot remembe r. I

14 have a question. Were those files pulled from Ci ty Hall

15 or the fire department?

16 Q I can't promise I'm going to answer every

17 one of your questions, but I'll tell you I pulled them

18 from both because I couldn't find them. That's w hy I'm

19 asking you if you knew where the documentation ma y be and

20 if you've ever seen it.

21 A Well, I don't think it's a coincide nce that

22 all three of them retired at the same time. I kn ow that

23 they were given notifications of their demotions and they

24 subsequently chose -- they opted to retire before their

25 time was up.


Page 282

1 Q I asked you in my original intervie w with

2 you about your knowledge of the pay raise that wa s

3 effective November of last year, 2015. I believe , again

4 paraphrasing, I apologize, but I think as I recal l you

5 telling me that you weren't involved in that. Yo u kind

6 of found out about it after the fact?

7 A Yes.



10 Q And so what I want to do then is sh ow

11 you -- I need to show you this e-mail. It's date d

12 December 4th, 2015. It's from Schmitt to Olson a nd

13 Yvette McLellan. The reason I'm asking you about it, you

14 can see you're CC'd on it.


16 Q It's attaching a spreadsheet, finan ce

17 spreadsheet and it's actually two spreadsheets th at are

18 attached. You're CC'd on it.

19 A Right. I remember this.

20 Q You do remember it?


22 Q Tell me what you remember about it.

23 A Well, what happened, from my memory , this

24 was sent out, but Chief Schmitt was not given the okay to

25 execute and that's what was explained to me by hi m.


Page 283

1 Q Did you ever ask Chief Schmitt abou t this

2 at the time, hey, what's going on; why am I getti ng this;

3 what does all this mean? Did you ever ask him ab out it?

4 The reason I'm asking is you got CC'd on it.

5 A Right, right. I don't think that I did ask

6 him and I assumed at the time that these adjustme nts were

7 going to happen, were going to take place at some point

8 and then he explained to me that he wasn't given the okay

9 to execute. The money wasn't -- from my recollec tion, he

10 wasn't provided the information on where the mone y was

11 going to come from to give these raises.

12 Q Okay.

13 A So he didn't know how to execute. What he

14 explained to me was that all of the other departm ent

15 directors were provided the information on the ac tual

16 execution of these.

17 Q Let me ask you this.

18 A Go ahead.

19 Q If you'll turn to the first spreads heet.

20 They're essentially in different forms. One has more

21 information than the other. One of the battalion chiefs

22 to which you had submitted the PAs to Sisson that were

23 dated July 29th, one of those PAs was an attempt to get

24 Hobbs up to the level of the other battalion chie fs.

25 A That's correct.


Page 284

1 Q And this spreadsheet with these num bers

2 does not make any attempt to give Hobbs any addit ional

3 monies to get him kind of equal or close to equal with

4 the other battalion chiefs. Do you know why that was?

5 Did you ever talk to Chief Schmitt about that?

6 A I did not. I actually -- I knew th at once

7 I submitted the PAs and there was no response fro m Ed

8 Sisson, I know that Chief Hobbs had taken the ini tiative

9 to try to get it corrected once he realized that his pay

10 was not where the other battalion chiefs were. S o I knew

11 he was making an attempt to work on it. So this

12 spreadsheet, I can't tell you why it wasn't chang ed on

13 the spreadsheet, but I certainly tried to get it

14 rectified by sending in the personnel actions.

15 Q On the issue of the personnel actio ns, I've

16 been able to gather written justification for the pay

17 raises from Chief Jester and Chief Peake.

18 A Okay.

19 Q And Chief Allen.

20 A Okay.

21 Q I haven't been able to find documen tation,

22 if any, submitted by Chief Hobbs and Hatler.

23 A Hobbs and Hatler, they did, and und erstand

24 that --

25 Q Do you know where they would be? D o you


Page 285

1 think that still exists?

2 A I'm sure it probably does. The pro blem is

3 Chief Hatler is retired and Chief Hobbs, if he ha sn't

4 retired yet, he's about to, and I think he's been off a

5 lot.

6 Q I guess my question is, do you know if you

7 would have --

8 A They were generated. They were gen erated.

9 I had all of them and it took me some time to com pile all

10 of them because of the scheduling and the way tha t they

11 were working. Some of them were quicker with the ir

12 response than the others.

13 Q The ones I have were in May and Jun e.

14 A Okay. Then I finally got the last one.

15 Chief Hobbs was the last one in July and that's w hy I

16 submitted the PAs then.

17 Q Do you know if you got that via e-m ail or

18 via hand delivery?

19 A It wasn't an e-mail. He gave it to me.

20 Same thing with Chief Hatler.

21 Q Would you have kept that?

22 A I know I wouldn't have thrown it aw ay. I

23 may have it. I may have it somewhere. I'm not s ure.

24 Q Do you know where it would be?

25 A I just don't know. But I did gathe r all of


Page 286

1 it. And like I said, the reason that I submitted the PAs

2 in July, I submitted them as soon as I got the

3 justification from all five of them because I did n't want

4 to do them separately.

5 Q Okay. Was there ever a direction t o Susan

6 Cotton not to speak with Edward Sisson?

7 A By me?

8 Q By you or did you ever hear anyone make

9 that direction if it wasn't you?

10 A It wasn't me, and I don't -- I'm no t aware

11 of that.

12 Q Were you present when Ms. Cotton wa s given

13 a written reprimand on December 8th of 2015 by Ch ief

14 Schmitt?

15 A I believe I was and I think it was because

16 of her discussing something about pay, a pay issu e, if I

17 remember correctly. It may have been -- I may ha ve

18 been -- is that what it was about?

19 Q Yeah, the allegation was that she h ad

20 shared the reason why Melinda Grogan was not on t his pay

21 raise spreadsheet.

22 A I do remember that now, yes.

23 Q Do you remember during the administ ering of

24 that written reprimand whether Chief Schmitt brou ght up

25 communication with Sisson?


Page 287

1 A I don't remember. I don't remember . I

2 don't recall. I couldn't say.

3 Q Was there any direction to any of t he fire

4 department that you recall that instructed someon e not to

5 communicate with Sisson?

6 A No.



9 Q I think I'm about done. I've got a couple

10 of documents that were found on your computer and my main

11 question for each is going to be did you send the se? So

12 I've got one or actually both --

13 A Oh, yeah. I didn't.

14 Q You didn't send them?

15 A No, I did not.

16 Q You wrote them but they did not go to the

17 recipients?

18 A Correct.

19 Q Do you know if Brandon Tibbett was ever

20 interviewed for the firefighter position?

21 A I don't know.

22 Q Did anyone attend a graduation cere mony in

23 Ocala for Tibbett?

24 A No. Something unexpected, I had pl anned to

25 be there, but something -- I can't remember exact ly what


Page 288

1 it was. I had a schedule, a conflict in my sched ule. I

2 had intentions on going but I couldn't.

3 Oh, I know what it was. Military d uty

4 happened to be right -- I think his graduation wa s that

5 Thursday or Friday, and that's when I had my dril l

6 weekend.

7 Q Was there any attempt to have anyon e else

8 from the City attend in your place or it may not have

9 come up?

10 A Well, I mentioned it to Chief Schmi tt and I

11 don't think that he was able to go either.

12 Q Okay. Did you make any efforts to

13 follow-up with the battalion chiefs after submitt ing the

14 PAs to Sisson?

15 A Constantly, constantly.

16 Q With each of them?

17 A Yes.

18 Q What did you tell them?

19 A Basically I'm waiting to hear back from HR.

20 I explained once I saw Sisson the date of the -- I guess,

21 prior to the e-mail that I sent him regarding the PAs, I

22 explained to them what I was told by him when I a sked him

23 about the PAs and that he said that he thought th ey were

24 a joke basically.

25 Q Right. And I don't want to belabor it, but


Page 289

1 is there anything more to that that you haven't a lready

2 told me about the conversation with Sisson? I ca n let

3 you tell me that again.

4 A No, no. I explained that to them a nd they

5 would individually ask me if I heard anything els e. And

6 then I think the last thing that happened was Chi ef

7 Allen, I had a discussion with him and he sent an e-mail

8 basically requesting another -- not another but

9 requesting a meeting with whoever he needed to di scuss

10 his pay with and then I responded. I replied to his

11 e-mail by telling him that, you know, I did not k now who

12 he could talk to basically.

13 Q I've got that e-mail.

14 A Okay.

15 Q Do you know why you didn't send the

16 justifications from the battalion chiefs?

17 A To be honest, I thought -- I wasn't sure if

18 I had -- I had intentions on attaching them to th e PAs.

19 I don't know why I didn't. I thought I had done that and

20 made copies and attached them to the PAs but appa rently I

21 didn't.

22 Q Did you and Schmitt ever get togeth er

23 looking at those written justifications and decid e

24 whether, for instance, there were additional duti es by

25 each of them? Did y'all go through that process?


Page 290

1 A We did. We had a couple of discuss ions

2 about it and, again, the issue of wage compressio n.

3 And I have to tell you something th at I

4 probably didn't mention before. In that response that Ed

5 Sisson -- that initial response to David Allen's first

6 e-mail, as I recall he made it a point that the c ontract

7 employees have nothing to do with the noncontract

8 employees, the bargaining unit members; and he we nt on to

9 say that each battalion chief would have to negot iate

10 their pay individually and provide justification and, you

11 know, he went into all this stuff never referenci ng

12 anything.

13 What I find interesting now that I think

14 about it, and I'm going to bring something else u p, he

15 made mention in that e-mail that bargaining unit members

16 and contract employees are separate, yet when it came to

17 my drug test that wasn't the case. So there's a lot of

18 inconsistency from the City's HR person when it c omes to

19 that type of thing. And it's basically, the way I see

20 it, it's shooting from the hip on a lot of things , just

21 like his response to Chief Allen.

22 Q Well, the drug testing, as I read i t, was

23 for better or for worse placed into the bargainin g

24 agreement, the collective bargaining agreement.

25 A And I'm not a collective bargaining unit


Page 291

1 member.

2 Q But that's in the bargaining agreem ent.

3 A I agree, it is. But, you know, the re's a

4 lot that's in that bargaining agreement. There's pay

5 raises. There's also union participation.

6 MR. PANTAZIS: Just answer the ques tion

7 that he asks.

8 THE WITNESS: Okay.


10 Q I've got Chief Jester's justificati on he

11 wrote up for a pay increase and in his letter he doesn't

12 differentiate between what are his new responsibi lities

13 since his last pay increase and what previously e xisted.

14 Did you get together with Chief Sch mitt and

15 kind of refine that to find out what was new and what was

16 old with Chief Jester or did you not go to that e xtreme?

17 A No, I didn't go to that extreme. W e know

18 what's new. I'm sure that HR probably doesn't kn ow

19 what's new. Yeah, that probably could have been done,

20 but, no, we did not go to that extreme. It was m ore of a

21 case of the issue of wage compression.

22 Q What the bargaining unit employees are

23 receiving as that goes up, you want -- and I'm

24 paraphrasing just to make sure we're on the same page --

25 you want your nonbargaining firefighter leaders t o be


Page 292

1 making more than the lower rank --

2 A Correct.

3 Q -- to encourage the desire to move up?

4 A Absolutely.

5 Q When was the demotion of Edward Dea s first

6 mentioned as a possibility that you heard?

7 A I don't remember. I don't recall.

8 Q Was it prior to the demotion date o f

9 September 15th?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Do you know how far ahead of that i t was?

12 A I don't. I can't recall.

13 Q Other than speaking with Chief Schm itt, did

14 you speak to anyone else in the fire department a bout the

15 possibility of demotion to Deas?

16 A No.

17 Q There's indication that the word wa s going

18 around prior to the demotion that that was, in fa ct,

19 going to be the decision. Does that surprise you ?

20 A It does not surprise me.

21 Q Why is that?

22 A Well, the fire department people ma ke

23 assumptions all the time and I'm assuming, if I m ay

24 assume, that based on what has happened in the pa st when

25 someone did something like what he's done.


Page 293

1 Q You're talking about the three, And erson,

2 Rhodes and Madison?

3 A Correct. So based on that people m ake

4 assumptions all the time.

5 Q Do you know anything about Foss' de motion?

6 A I do.

7 Q Were you involved in that decision?

8 A I supported it. I wasn't -- it was n't my

9 decision.

10 Q Did Foss' demotion have anything to do with

11 Andrew Irwin?

12 A I think part of it. I think part o f it

13 was.

14 Q What was the relationship of Foss' demotion

15 to Irwin?

16 A There was an issue with an accident that

17 was not reported to the chief, an alcohol related

18 incident that occurred that was not reported.

19 Q And the idea was that would have be en Foss'

20 responsibility to report that to whom?

21 A Correct. Me, I would have been his -- at

22 the time I would have been his supervisor. And t hen once

23 I found out, Chief Schmitt would be told. I foun d out

24 through, not a highway patrol, a deputy called me and was

25 telling me some things that I had no clue about.


Page 294

1 Q How soon after the -- let me back u p.

2 There was an incident with Andrew Irwin being fou nd in

3 regards to his vehicle being in a ditch or someth ing like

4 that?

5 A Yes.

6 Q It was at night somewhere. I under stand

7 that law enforcement was called to the scene but

8 Mr. Irwin was not arrested?

9 A That's correct.

10 Q How soon after that event did you h ear

11 about that event?

12 A It had to be maybe a week, I'm thin king.

13 Q And the concern, at least that you

14 understood it from Foss, was that Foss should hav e told

15 you sooner, if not right away?

16 A Absolutely.

17 Q Were there any other issues that yo u had

18 with Foss?

19 A Well, there were a couple of things that

20 Chief Schmitt as well as I were not in agreement with and

21 one of which was his employment with the County f ire

22 department. Being a battalion chief for the City fire

23 department and then being a firefighter and, you know, at

24 the time George just, he wanted to have his way b asically

25 and he would not be supervised.


Page 295

1 Q Do you remember what that was about ? What

2 was it that he didn't want to be supervised about ?

3 A Well, there was another incident th at

4 occurred and that one may have been the straw tha t broke

5 the camel's back, so to speak. There was an inci dent

6 where he, on his own, decided to attempt to use C ordova

7 Mall's parking lot to do a --

8 Q For a training exercise?

9 A -- training exercise there.

10 Q I think I saw e-mails on that. The mall

11 did not want the training on Saturday morning bec ause

12 that's a big day for the mall?

13 A Correct. And the person who he was talking

14 to was upset that he was pushing them and the per son, the

15 management of Cordova Mall thought that he was ge tting

16 the okay from fire department leadership. He was doing

17 this on his own and he was told to refrain, to ce ase,

18 stop talking to this guy, talking to this guy abo ut it;

19 but he insisted and George is relentless and some times

20 that's good and sometimes it's not good. And in this

21 situation it wasn't good for the department, but it

22 wasn't one incident that led to that.

23 Q Did any part of the decision to dem ote Foss

24 have anything to do with Foss making criticism of

25 leadership or anything like that?


Page 296

1 A No.

2 Q I'm just trying to confirm. Foss'

3 situation was not the same as Deas' situation?

4 A No, not at all.

5 Q Different circumstances?

6 A Very different.

7 Q I think that's all the questions I have for

8 you. If you have anything you want to add or you r

9 attorney wants to add, but otherwise I thank you for

10 coming in and I'm going to be done with this pret ty soon.

11 A I did notice, and I was waiting for it to

12 come up. I didn't notice any e-mails that were e xchanged

13 between myself and Eric Olson regarding the

14 apprenticeship program. And basically what those e-mails

15 will show is he was very satisfied with what I wa s doing

16 with the apprenticeship program even to the point where

17 he was asking about Mr. Tibbett or asking about b oth

18 candidates, how they were doing, if they arrived and all

19 that. I noticed that none of those e-mails were brought

20 out.

21 Q And you probably also noticed that I didn't

22 show you every e-mail that you had on the program .

23 A Okay.

24 Q I do have e-mails between you and E ric

25 Olson where you are -- or I guess Olson was askin g for


Page 297

1 updates and you would respond with an update.

2 A Sure.

3 Q And I think the first was something about

4 how many candidates are going and how did it go.

5 A Right.

6 Q And there's an e-mail exchange betw een you

7 and Olson about moving forward in the future on t he

8 program.

9 A Right, right, how to improve on it.

10 Q I've got that.

11 A Okay.

12 Q We could be here for several days i f I

13 showed you every e-mail.

14 A Okay.

15 Q I wasn't trying to -- I've got thos e. In

16 fact, if I felt they were self-explanatory or the re was

17 nothing more to add --

18 A I gotcha.

19 Q Do you think there's anything more to add

20 about that? It appears like I was getting the fu ll

21 conversation. Now that you say that, let me ask you

22 this. Did you have any additional verbal convers ations

23 with Olson about the program that wouldn't be acc ounted

24 for in the e-mail traffic?

25 A No.


Page 298

1 MR. VAN SICKLE: All right. That's all I

2 have. Again, I thank you for coming in. We're

3 going to get done with this very soon. H ow long

4 is your military leave?

5 THE WITNESS: I'll be back Monday n ight.

6 MR. PANTAZIS: No further questions over

7 here.

8 MR. VAN SICKLE: All right. Thank you.

9 (Whereupon, the unsworn statement w as

10 concluded at 11:00 a.m.)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 299

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

3 STATE OF FLORIDA )

4 COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA )

5

6 I, Angela H. Wierzbicki, FPR, Registered

7 Professional Reporter, certify that I was authori zed to

8 and did stenographically report the foregoing uns worn

9 statement; and that the transcript is a true reco rd.

10

11

12

13 ________________________ ________

Angela H. Wierzbicki, FP R

14 Registered Professional Reporter

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

J. Glover Vol III

Documents

Transcript of J. Glover Vol III