[00:00:01]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.THE TIME IS 9 32 ON, UH, JUNE 26TH, AND THIS EVIDENTIARY PANEL, UH, OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS RECONVENING AFTER BEING CONTINUED ON MAY 18TH.
UH, THIS IS THE HEARING OF A COMPLAINT AGAINST JUAN, MR. JUAN GOMEZ, A DALLAS WATER UTILITIES EMPLOYEE.
AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGATIONS, I AM TOM PERKINS.
I WILL SERVE AS CHAIR OF THIS HEARING PANEL.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT A QUORUM OF THE PANEL IS PRESENT.
I'LL ASK THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PANEL TO STATE THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING, SUSAN BOWMAN, PAUL GARCIA, UH, WITH THOSE PRESENT FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.
PLEASE STATE THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
BART BEAVERS WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.
LAURA PHELAN WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE AND THE RESPONDENT AND HIS, HIS REPRESENTATIVE.
STATE HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
SO ANA OR THE RESPONDENT, YOU NEED HIM TO STAND ALSO, RESPONDENT, YOU NEED HIM TO STAND UP TOO.
AND COULD YOU MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS ON SO THAT IT IS RECORDING YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE? TO BE CLEAR, IT'S, IT'S KEVIN WIGGINS AND SALTANA FOR RESPONDENT JUAN GOMEZ.
UH, THOSE PRESENT FROM THE SIKH CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
PLEASE STATE THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
MAYOR SLAA MARTINEZ, DONNA BROWN, AND THE ATTORNEY ADVISOR TO THE E AAC PANEL.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON TODAY'S AGENDA? ALL RIGHT.
FOR ALL THOSE WITNESSES WHO INTEND TO TESTIFY TODAY, UH, WE WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE RULE IS GOING TO BE INVOKED.
UH, THE COUNSEL IS WELL, WELL AWARE OF THE, WHAT THE RULE MEANS.
UH, AND DO YOU HAVE AN, AN INTENT TO INVOKE THE RULE TODAY? WE DO, YOUR HONOR.
UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE THEN, ANY WITNESSES ARE INSTRUCTED NOT TO DISCUSS, UH, THIS CASE OR THEIR TESTIMONY WITH ANY, ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN THE CASE UNTIL THE HEARING IS COMPLETED.
THE WITNESSES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE HEARING ROOM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, UH, EXCEPT WHEN THEY'RE CALLED TO TESTIFY.
PLEASE WAIT IN THE HALL, UH, UNTIL YOU ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY OR HAVE BEEN PLACED ON STANDBY, UH, BY THE ATTORNEYS.
WOULD, AT THIS POINT, ALL WITNESSES, EXCUSE THEMSELVES, MAY I HAVE 30 SECONDS TO EXPLAIN TO OUR WITNESSES WHAT THAT MEANS? IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULE.
[00:05:04]
WE'RE READY TO PROCEED, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.UH, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND I WERE CHATTING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME PRELIMINARY ISSUES WE MIGHT LIKE TO BRING UP TO THE CHAIR AND PERHAPS TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE VOTE.
PLEASE PROCEED UNLESS THERE IS SOME OBJECTION BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL.
JUST MIGHT STREAMLINE MATTERS.
FIRST IS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NO LONGER WORKING FOR THE CITY, NO LONGER EMPLOYEE THAT.
AND SECONDLY, IT'D ACTUALLY BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYERS STAFF AND THE, THE, UH, CITY AS A WHOLE TO HAVE IT DISMISSED.
AND THEN THIRDLY, IT'S IN THE BEST SENSE OF JUSTICE.
IS THERE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION? THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
UM, UNDER THE PROCEDURAL RULES, 3.5, IT SAYS, PROCEDURAL MOTIONS MUST BE FILED FIVE DAYS BEFORE.
UH, I OBVIOUSLY HEARD HIM CHARACTERIZE THIS AS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION.
UM, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM THE DEFENSE.
I ACTUALLY SPOKE TO MR. SANA AT THREE 15 ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE EMAILED US THEIR WITNESS LIST, THEIR DOCUMENTS AND ALL THIS STUFF AND, AND A MOTION TO DISMISS.
AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING UNTIL NINE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGAN.
AND, UH, HE GAVE US SOME HARD COPIES.
NUMBER ONE, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE EAC SHOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN IT WASN'T FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES THAT YOU GUYS CREATED.
AGAIN, AS, UH, AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POINTED OUT, UH, WE CHA THIS IS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION READ, DISMISS.
SO, UH, WE BELIEVE THE, UH, THE COMMISSION CAN ENTERTAIN SUBSTANTIVE MOTION.
UH, SECONDLY, ON THE MATTER OF THE DOCUMENTS WE DID, UH, THE EXHIBIT LIST OR EXHIBITS AND AN EXHIBIT LIST, LIST PRINTED OUT LIST OF THE DIFFERENT ITEMS, THE 10 EXHIBITS WE WERE SENT, WE DID SAY WE WOULD SEND THEM OVER TO HOME ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
AND WE DID, MR. WIGGINS SENT THEM TWICE IF HE'D BE HAPPY TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT FURTHER, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS GOES INTO A NEXT SECOND, PERHAPS WHAT WE CAN STIPULATE AS FAR AS AS EVIDENCE SO WE CAN BE NORMAL.
NO, I, UH, EMAILED, UM, THE DOC, DO I NEED TO PRESS THE, OKAY.
UM, MY RECORDS REFLECT THAT I EMAILED DOCUMENTS TO MR. BEAVERS AT HIS GIVEN EMAIL ADDRESS AT AROUND FIVE ON FRIDAY.
UM, LATER I GOT, UM, A NOTIFICATION BACK AND HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED.
UM, SO AT 10 I EMAILED IT AGAIN, BOTH TO MR. BEAVERS AND TO, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY SHIPPED PERSON, BUT IN ANY EVENT, I MAILED IT AGAIN AT 10, UM, OH SIX TO BOTH DONNA BROWN AND, UH, UH, MR. BEAVERS IN CASE I DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT EMAIL ADDRESS FOR HIM.
UM, AND I DIDN'T GET ANYTHING BACK AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT I, I DO KNOW THAT I SENT THEM, I CAN LOOK IT, I CAN SHOW YOU THE EMAIL, THE SENT EMAIL.
AND I MIGHT SAY THAT I SPOKE PERSONALLY WITH MR. ER THAT AFTERNOON FRIDAY, GETTING HIS EMAIL ADDRESS, CUZ THEY DIDN'T PAN IT OUT ANYWHERE CITY AT STEVE BURN'S OFFICE.
HE GAVE IT TO ME, THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE, THEN CALLED ME BACK WITH THE EMAIL THAT MR. WIGGIN SENT IT TO, UH, EVENTUALLY CALLED ME BACK AND GAVE ME THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE READY, THE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT, MR. SAID AFTERNOON TWICE, ONCE TALKING ABOUT 10 DOCUMENTS AND THE EXHIBIT LIST.
MAY I RESPOND? AND THE WITNESS? YEAH, PLEASE DO.
I GAVE MY CONTACT INFORMATION TO MR. WIGGINS AT THE FIRST SETTING.
THAT WAS ON MAY 18TH, 2023, ONE MONTH AND NINE DAYS AGO.
UM, I GAVE MR. ANA MY EMAIL ADDRESS ON FRIDAY AT THREE 15 WHEN WE HAD A NINE MINUTE PHONE CONVERSATION.
I CALLED HIM THE DAY BEFORE AND DIDN'T GET A CALL BACK.
THAT'S WHY I CALLED HIM ON FRIDAY.
AND DAISY VIGAS WAS CONTACTED BY, I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. ANA ON WEDNESDAY OF LAST WEEK, AND SHE VERBALLY TOLD HIM WHAT MY EMAIL ADDRESS
[00:10:01]
WAS.SO THEY'VE HAD OUR CONTACT INFORMATION FOR OVER A MONTH.
AND THIS TRIAL BY AMBUSH GIVING US DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS, AND WITNESS LISTS, NINE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGINS IS COMPLETELY IMPROPER.
MAY I SPEAK, YOUR HONOR? UH, YES, PLEASE.
I, I DEEPLY RESENT THE IMPLICATION OR DIRECT ACCUSATION THAT WE WERE SOMEHOW, OR I WAS SOMEHOW, UH, TRYING TO ENGAGE IN A TRIAL BY AMBUSH.
I DO NOT REMEMBER
WHEN I GOT IT FROM MR, I GOT IT FROM MR. SANA ON THE DAY THAT I WAS SENDING IT.
IT IS THE ONE THAT HE SAYS HE, UH, IS HIS CORRECT EMAIL.
I ALSO SENT IT TO MS. BROWN AT WHAT I KNOW TO BE HEARD, CORRECT EMAIL.
AND SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT MY PHONE SHOWS THAT IT WAS SENT.
UH, I'D BE INTERESTED KNOWING IF MS. BROWN RECEIVED THAT EMAIL THAT I DID NOT.
BUT MAY I SHOW YOU MY
SO I MIGHT ALSO ADD ON THE ISSUE OF THIS TRIAL BY AMBUSH, THE 10 LITTLE TEENY DOCUMENTS ARE ALL INTERNAL EMAILS FROM THE CITY.
EVERYTHING THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO'S LOOKED THROUGH THIS FILE, LOOK THROUGH MR. DO'S RECORD, BE THERE.
THOSE ARE THE 10 SIMPLE INTERNAL CITY EMAILS THAT WE ASKED TO BE SUBMITTED.
EVIDENCE THAT HE NOW RESISTS SOMEHOW TRIAL BY ANSWER.
UH, UNDER 12 A 50, JURISDICTION AND POWERS B3, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS UP TO ONE YEAR IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, WHICH USED TO BE B, BUT IT'S NOW C AFTER THE REVISIONS THAT WERE PASSED LAST WEEK.
UM, THE TERMINATION OF A CITY OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES DUTIES DOES NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL DUTIES.
YOU CLEARLY HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS, AND ONE REASON IT'S IMPORTANT IS THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS NEED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED.
MAY I RESPOND MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR.
WE DO NOT CHALLENGE THE PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO HEAR THIS.
WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON MY CITATION A MOMENT AGO, PROCEDURALLY WHEN I CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION.
FIRST, I THINK THIS, UH, HEARING IS GOING TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE PREVIOUS RULE.
IS THAT CORRECT? NOT THE AMENDED RULES.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. TO THE ATTORNEY? RIGHT.
THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION, UM, OCCURRED PRIOR TO JUNE 14TH, UM, OF THIS MONTH.
SO ANY REFERENCES TO THE CODE OF ETHICS SHOULD BE UNDER THE, UM, THAT WAY MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FORMAL RULE, WHICH IS NOW AFTER JUNE 14TH, UM, A NEW CITATION.
SO I THINK THAT'LL JUST STREAMLINE THE PROCEEDINGS TO MAKE IT EASIER.
UM, SO MR. CHAIR, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT, WANNA PROCEED ON THIS MOTION, UM, TO DISMISS, MAYBE, UM, SUMMARIZE THAT THERE'S A MOTION TO DISMISS FROM THE APPELLANT, UM, WITH THE, A SUMMARY OF THE REASONING BEHIND THE MOTION AND THEN PUT IT TO THE PANEL.
FIRST, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL BEFORE WE PROCEED TO, UH, A DISCUSSION OR DETERMINATION OF THE MOTION ON THE TAPE? ARE WE ADDRESSING ONLY THE PROCEDURAL PROPRIETY OF THE MOTION, OR ARE WE ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE BASIS THAT MR. UH, IS NO LONGER A CITY EMPLOYEE? IT'S ON, ON THE MERITS AT THIS POINT.
THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND THAT IS, IS THERE ANY DISPUTE FACTUALLY AS TO WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS CURRENTLY A CITY EMPLOYEE? THERE'S NO DISPUTE AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED.
I HAVE RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THAT HE DID RESIGN ABOUT A WEEK AGO, MAYBE EIGHT DAYS AGO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO HE IS TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT.
AND WHAT IF WE WERE TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING AND FIND A VIOLATION? WHAT, WHAT WOULD THE SANCTIONS OPTIONS BE FOR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE? I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY SANCTIONS OPTION.
I THINK WHAT'S AT ISSUE WOULD BE THE INFORMATION ITSELF AND THE DISPOSITION OF THOSE CHARGING
[00:15:01]
INSTRUMENTS.AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE ETHICS RULES, YOU EITHER SUBSTANTIATE OR YOU UNSUBSTANTIATED.
IF YOU HAPPEN TO SUBSTANTIATE ONE OF THE EIGHT VIOLATIONS THAT WE ARE ALLEGING IN THESE TWO FACT PATTERNS, THEN YOU COULD, IF HE WAS STILL AN EMPLOYEE, YOU COULD MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO HIS MANAGEMENT BY SAYING, THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO GO THROUGH ETHICS TRAINING, TO BE TERMINATED, TO BE WHATEVER.
ALONG WITH THAT, I BELIEVE YOU COULD MAKE THE, YOU COULD MAKE A, AN ASTERISK OR WHATEVER SAYING, THIS PERSON SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE.
AND SO, UM, IF THE E AAC GRANTS THIS MOTION TO DISMISS, UM, THERE WON'T BE ANY RECOMMENDATION, NOTHING TO STOP HIM FROM COMING BACK AND REAPPLYING FOR THE CITY FIVE MONTHS FROM NOW AND TRYING TO, UH, GET EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY AGAIN IN A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT.
THERE'S, THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE AND EVALUATE WHY WE FILED ON THIS GUY.
SO I HOPE THAT ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION.
I I JUST WANT, I WANNA REFER THIS QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
THERE ARE SANCTIONS THAT CAN BE IMPOSED FOR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, MISS, UH, CITY ATTORNEY? UH, YES.
THE LIST OF SANCTIONS FOR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE ARE FOUND IN SECTION 12 A DASH 57 E.
UM, AND THAT IS A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, LETTER OF ADMONITION, UH, REPRIMAND, RESOLUTION OF CENSURE, VOIDING OF PRIOR ACTIONS, UH, REF REFERRAL FOR DAMAGES OR INJUNCTION AND REFERRAL FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PANEL WAS AWARE THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL SANCTIONS FOR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE WHO IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY THE CITY.
WITH THAT, UH, I TURN THIS OVER TO DISCUSSION BY THE PANEL, PLEASE, MS. MORSON, IS THERE ANYTHING UNDER THOSE CATEGORIES THAT YOU JUST READ THAT WOULD FALL UNDER SOMETHING LIKE PREVENTING, UM, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REHIRE? NO, THOSE RULES FALL UNDER, UM, THE PERSONNEL RULES AND THE DALLAS CITY CODE, AND THOSE ARE INTERDEPARTMENTAL POLICIES.
SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND THAT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE EAC.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL? W MR. PERKINS? ONE MORE, ONE MORE, MORE QUESTION.
JUST PROCEDURALLY THOUGH, DID WE RESOLVE THE ISSUE THE FIVE DAYS BEFORE MS. MORRISON? WHAT IS THE, I UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS POINT ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL, BUT WHAT IS THE RULE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO IN TERMS OF MOTIONS THAT WOULD BE FILED AHEAD OF THE HEARING? UH, THOSE ARE PROCEDURAL REQUESTS.
IT'S, UM, AS THE IG STATED, IT'S 3.5 IN YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, ALL PROCEDURAL MOTIONS THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OR RESPONDENT WISHES THE PANEL TO CONSIDER AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE NO LATER THAN FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
AND WE DON'T REALLY, WE DON'T PROVIDE FOR A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL.
UM, BUT IT SURE SEEMS LIKE THIS IS ARGUABLY STILL COULD BE PROCEDURAL IN NATURE AS WELL.
THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE PANEL TO DETERMINE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH HAS BEEN FINAL BY THE RESPONDENT? IS THAT EARLIER? YEAH.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SORRY, ONE MORE.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN GETTING, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, UH, THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET THEIR RESPONSE ON THAT? PLEASE RESPOND AS TO RESPECT TO GENERAL.
I TRY TO KEEP OPPOSING COUNSEL INFORMED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO AND DO THINGS ABOVE THE TABLE.
I DO READ THAT THE RULES, THE INTERIM RULES STATE THAT IT'S A PROCEDURAL MOTION OR PROCEDURAL MOTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FILED.
IF, IF THAT WAS ME, I WOULD FOLLOW THOSE FOR ANY SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS.
EITHER IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S GET YOUR HANDS ABOVE THE TABLE AND LET'S DO IT UP HERE.
UM, I JUST THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO INTERPRET THAT AS, OKAY, UH, IT SAYS PROCEDURAL MOTIONS, BUT I CAN MAKE A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION, UH, AND, AND, AND GIVE
[00:20:01]
OPPOSING COUNSEL ALL THAT STUFF FIVE TO NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE ACTUAL HEARING STARTS.I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHY YOU GUYS CREATED THESE RULES.
I THINK YOU GUYS CREATED THESE RULES TO CREATE SOME SENSE OF ORDER TO PREVENT THIS LAST MINUTE TOUGH TACTICS.
MIGHT I RESPOND MR. CHAIR? UM, THE RULES ARE WRITTEN PROCEDURAL MOTIONS.
IF IT, IF THE WRITERS OF THE RULES HAD MEANT ALL MOTION, THEY WOULD'VE SAID ALL MOTIONS.
THERE'S A DISTINCTION CLEARLY MADE IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENTS ABOUT PROCEDURAL.
THIS IS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION TO DISMISS THE, THE MATTER BEFORE YOU.
I I AND ALSO, I DISCUSSED THIS EXTENSIVELY WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON FRIDAY, EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE GONNA BE DOING TODAY AND WHY WOULD WE BE DOING IT BECAUSE THIS IS THE BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, UH, OR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY, OR QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL? YES.
UM, JUST THE COMMENT THAT IF WE WERE DOING THIS, UM, EVEN IF IT WAS SENT ON FRIDAY, THAT'S NOT FIVE DAYS.
SO WOULD IT BE AN OPTION TO FURTHER DELAY THE HEARING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE DOCUMENTS? OR WHAT IS THE OPTION AT THIS POINT? I MEAN, SINCE IT WASN'T SUBMITTED FIVE DAYS PRIOR, AND IF WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS, WOULD IT BE AN OPTION TO FURTHER DELAY THE HEARING OR IS THAT JUST KIND OF OUT OF THE QUESTION AT THIS POINT? THE PANEL ALWAYS HAS THE OPTION, UH, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING IF MORE TIME IS NEEDED.
UM, BUT AT THIS TIME, IF, IF THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PANEL CHOOSES TO DO, THEN WE WOULD NEED A MOTION FROM THE PANEL TO EITHER GRANT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OR DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
AS FAR AS THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE MOTION IS APPROPRIATE.
I THINK WE CAN SPLIT HAIRS OVER WHETHER IT'S A PROCEDURAL MOTION OR A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION.
I TEND TO THINK IT'S A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION, BUT EITHER WAY, I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS ADEQUATELY RESPONDED TO IT.
I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION IN THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
UM, THERE'S NOT A DISPUTE AS TO THE UNDERLYING FACTS.
THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE A REASON? TO ME THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE A REASON TO PROCEED WITH THIS HEARING NOW OR EVER, UM, IF THE RESPONDENT IS NO LONGER EMPLOYEE, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT THERE ARE, THERE A DIFFERENCE CAN BE MADE IF THE CITY COUNCIL CAN IMPOSE A SANCTION SUCH AS A REPRIMAND OR A CENSURE, SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO INTO A RECORD AND PREVENT THE RESPONDENT FROM BEING REHIRED AGAIN ON THAT BASIS, I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE MOTION REGARDLESS OF THE TIMING ISSUE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD DENY THE MOTION AND PROCEED WITH THE HEARING THERE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DENY, UH, THE MOTION.
UH, I JUST, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, WAS THAT A MOTION YOU WERE MAKING? YES.
THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE TO DENY THE MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
I THINK IT TAKES FOUR OUT OF FIVE TO, AND I, I, I VOTE.
AYE ALSO, UH, SO AT THAT POINT, I THINK THE WILL OF THE PANEL IS THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE HEARING.
IS THAT RIGHT, MS. THE ATTORNEY? RIGHT.
DO WE STILL NEED TO DEAL WITH THOUGH THE, THE TIMELINESS OF THE WITNESS LIST, EXHIBIT LIST, ET CETERA? UH, ALL RIGHT.
SO I GUESS AT THIS POINT THERE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE ANY EXHIBITS THAT SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT THIS POINT.
THE, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES IS WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE HEARING THAT THE PARTIES MUST EXCHANGE AN EXHIBIT LIST, A WITNESS LIST, AND THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS AND THE ACTUALLY LIST OF THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS, WHICH WE, AS WE'VE SAID WE DID FRIDAY EVENING.
UM, AND, AND I SAID THESE ARE JUST DOCUMENTS THAT ARE INTERNAL TO THE CITY AND DEAL WITH, UH, MR. GOMA.
SO WE, WE FEEL WE DID, DO, WE DID THAT BEST AS WE COULD.
UH, THERE'S NO TRYING TO BE SURPRISED HERE.
AND, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 DOCUMENTS.
THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT I'VE RAISED WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, NOT HIS DOCUMENTS.
[00:25:01]
THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, WE'RE JUST TRYING, WE WERE TRYING TO, BEFORE THE HEARING STARTED, TRY TO STIPULATE THESE DOCUMENTS COME IN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL, MAY I RESPOND? YES, PLEASE.
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY IS THE VERY FIRST ETHICS ORDINANCE PROSECUTION UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM.
WHATEVER DECISIONS THAT YOU GUYS MAKE TODAY ARE GONNA BE PRECEDENT SETTING AND EVERYBODY'S GONNA GONNA PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HAPPENS.
AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA SEE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOR CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
AND THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, RULES ARE RULES.
SOMEBODY CREATES A RULE AND THEY'RE IN AUTHORITY, THEN I NEED TO FOLLOW IT.
UH, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM THEM UNTIL NINE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGAN AT NINE 30.
MS. BROWN DIDN'T RECEIVE THE SAME EMAIL THAT THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE SENT ME AT THE SAME TIME.
AND, UH, IT'S, IT'S JUST TRIAL BY AMBUSH AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BE PUT IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT.
AND SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO, UH, I WOULD ASK YOU JUST TO ENFORCE THE RULES THAT YOU CREATED AND LET'S GET ON.
WE'RE READY TO TEE THIS THING UP.
WE'RE READY TO PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE.
AND I JUST ASK YOU TO ENFORCE THE RULES THAT YOU VOTED ON.
AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I, I TAKE UMBRAGE AT THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WAS SOME MISCONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO OUR ATTEMPT TO SERVE THE DOCUMENTS.
I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE HAND DELIVERED THEM.
UH, APPARENTLY THAT'S NOT DONE ANYMORE, SO I SENT THEM VIA EMAIL.
UM, I DON'T, HAVING DONE THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE I SHOULD HAVE DONE TO MAKE SURE THE DOCUMENTS WERE RECEIVED TIMELY.
UM, I CAN SHOW YOU THE EMAIL THAT WE SENT, UH, OR I SENT THAT I SENT, UM, FORWARDING THE DOCUMENTS.
UM, AND I, I DO NOT DOUBT THAT THEY DID NOT RECEIVE IT, BUT WHAT I DO DOUBT IS ANY IMPLICATION THAT THERE WAS SOME EFFORT TO SOMEHOW UNDERMINE THIS PROCESS OR NOT FULFILL OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS PROCESS.
DEEPLY OFFENDED BY SUCH A SUGGESTION.
AND MR. CHAIR, I MIGHT SAID I'VE KNOWN MR. WIGGINS FOR 40 YEARS AS A FORMER JUSTICE OF THE, OF THE COURT OF APPEALS HERE IN DALLAS TO ATTACK HIS REPUTATION.
I FIND DISGUSTING BENEATH THE, ANY KIND OF POSITION THAT ANYONE IN THE CITY SHOULD TRY TO DO.
I BELIEVED IT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT FRIDAY.
IF MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL CAN STAND UP AND SAY THAT IT, THERE'S NOT A GLITCH HERE AND SAID IT MADE, CAN YOU SAY IT DID NOT GET HERE? IT ABSOLUTELY DID NOT GET HERE FOR SOME TECHNICAL REASON.
I'VE WORKED OUT AT CITY HALL, A LOT OF THINGS DON'T HAPPEN CORRECTLY.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE MY EMAIL, I'D BE HAPPY TO SHOW IT TO YOU.
I I, I PREFER TO SEE SOMETHING THAT WILL REFLECT ACTUAL RECEIPTS OR, WELL, BUT THE, THE, IT SAYS EXCHANGE I IS, IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE TERM EXCHANGE.
AND LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
THOSE DOCUMENTS WOULD'VE SENT TO WHO, UH, UH, MS. BROWN AND SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T RECEIVE IT.
AND MR. BEAVERS, BOTH OF THEM.
SO, SO MR. BEAVERS, YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS? NO, SIR.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT STUFF UNTIL NINE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGAN.
MS. BROWN, DID YOU RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS? NO, I DID NOT.
SO AT, AT THIS POINT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THESE DOCUMENTS, THE ADMISSION OF THESE DOCUMENTS? I, I HAVE A QUESTION.
ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT EXHIBITS AT THIS POINT? YES.
HOW MANY PAGES TOTAL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FOR THOSE 10 EXHIBITS? APPROXIMATELY 40.
FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED THIS MORNING IF WE GAVE YOU A SHORT DELAY TO LOOK AT THOSE 40 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS? IF THEY ARE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEM, I WOULD THINK AT AT LEAST 30 MINUTES, MAYBE AN HOUR.
AND THIS CITY ATTORNEY, IS THAT WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BODY TO GRANT THIS ADDITIONAL TIME? UH, YES.
THE PANEL COULD RECESS FOR 30 TO 60 MINUTES TO GIVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE TIME TO REVIEW THE, THE PROPOSED EXHIBITS.
I HAVE, MAY I RESPECTFULLY THE REQUEST? YES, I HAVE A, UNBEKNOWNST TO ME WHEN THIS WAS SET, I HAD ANOTHER HEARING SET AT 11.
IT'S JUST, UH, ON A PROBATE MATTER AND I'M THE ATTORNEY AD LITEM.
SO, UH, THAT MAY TAKE 15 OR 20 MINUTES, BUT IT'S SET FOR 11 O'CLOCK.
SO IF WE COULD COME BACK AT 1130, IT'S A ZOOM MEETING
[00:30:01]
TO WALK OUTSIDE AND WELL, HOW, HOW WOULD YOU HAVE NAVIGATED THAT IF WE WOULD'VE STARTED THE HEARING? UM, WE WOULD'VE BEEN IN THE PROCESS.MR. SANA WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, HERE AND HANDLED WHATEVER CAME UP DURING THE EARLY PART OF THE HEARING.
AND I WOULD'VE ALSO ON, ON THAT POINT, UH, I WOULD'VE ASKED FOR LIKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.
SO MR. UH, WIGGINS COULD DO THIS ZOOM MEETING.
THERE WAS NO INTENT TO DISRUPT THE, THE PROCESS HERE.
IT WAS GOING TO GO FORWARD AND THERE WAS NO, NO, UH, NO INTENT ON MY PART TO DELAY THIS.
AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TWO DAYS SCHEDULED FOR THIS TODAY AND THURSDAY, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA WASTE YOUR TIME.
THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY POINT.
I HAD NO INTENTION OF ASKING FOR DELAY, UM, WHILE I WAS GOING WITH THE HEARING TO GO ON WITH MR.
AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HELP MOVE THAT ALONG WHILE STIPULATING AS TO THE EVIDENCE TO THAT, YOU'LL HAVE TO HEAR.
SO, SO, SO THIS MATTER HAS BEEN CONTINUED ONE TIME AS I, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO IS, I THINK IT'S IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE FIN THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE HEARING THIS MORNING.
THE QUESTION IS, DO WE GIVE THE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO TAKE, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL HAVING ONLY SEEN THESE DOCUMENTS NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING? I'M GUESSING THAT IT WOULD TAKE ME 30 TO 60 MINUTES TO GO THROUGH THEM AND TRY TO EVALUATE THEM.
I WOULD PREFER THAT THEY NOT EVEN BE ENTERTAINED BECAUSE OF THE LATE NATURE OF, OF THEIR SERVICE U UNDERSTOOD.
DOES IS THE, THE WILL OF THE BODY TO GIVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 30 MINUTES OR DO WE MOVE ON THE MOTION TO ADMIT OR DENY THESE DOCUMENTS NOW? MY SENSE WOULD BE THAT WE SHOULD NOT EXCLUDE THE DOCUMENTS AT THIS TIME.
ALLOW THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 30 MINUTES TO REVIEW THEM AND IF THERE'S A MOTION TO BE MADE ON THEIR EXCLUSION, IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT THEN YOU WANTED TO YEAH, I WOULD, JUST AS A TAGLINE, I THINK YEAH, ONCE MR. BEAVERS HAS A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE A COMPLETE TRANSITION IN HIS STRATEGY, UM, AND IT WOULD CAUSE HIM PREJUDICE TO MOVE FORWARD, GIVEN THE LIMITED TO TIME, I THINK WE COULD ENTERTAIN IT AFTER HE HAS A CHANCE TO REVIEW.
SO IS IT THE WILL OF THE BODY TO GIVE, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 30 MINUTES YES.
TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS? IS THAT YES.
THAT, THAT IS THE WILL OF THE BODY AT THIS POINT, UH, TO GIVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE 30 MINUTES TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND THE, UH, PROCEEDING WILL RESUME IN 30 MINUTES.
WE'LL RE WE'LL RESUME AT 10, 10 35.
WE STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 10 35.
THE PARTIES PREPARED TO RESUME THE HEARING.
MR. CHAIR AS AN INSPECTOR IN GENERAL, ARE YOU PREPARED TO PROCEED? YES, WE, WE DID.
UM, AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING INSPECTOR GENERAL ABOUT HOW BEST TO PROCEED WITH THE EVIDENTIARY MATTERS TO STIPULATE TO OR NOT STIPULATE OR NOT AGREE SO AS TO STREAMLINE THE HEARING.
UH, WE, AND WE'D LIKE TO PERHAPS DISCUSS THAT WITH THE, THE COMMISSION THAT WE HAVE A MOMENT.
UH, IS THAT OKAY WITH THE BODY? I THINK WE CAME REAL CLOSE TO COMING INTO A COMPLETE AGREEMENT FOR PHASE ONE.
UH, THE WAY I SEE IT, PHASE ONE WOULD BE LIKE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE PHASE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL.
PHASE TWO, YOU WON'T GET THE PHASE TWO UNLESS YOU GUYS SUBSTANTIATE SOMETHING.
SO WE TRIED TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON PHASE ONE AND STIPULATE, AND I THINK WE GOT REAL CLOSE, BUT MR. UH, ANA MAY DISAGREE.
WAS THAT ACCURATE, MR. ANA? DID WE COME VERY CLOSE TO AGREEING? YES.
MR. BEAVERS, I THINK, UH, WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THERE'S A PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, HOWEVER, AND IN THE KO, MR. BEAVERS, THIS IS, UH, YOUR FIRST HEARING WITH THE ATTER, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
YOU'RE SETTING PRECEDENCE AS TO WHAT TYPES OF EVIDENCE YOU'LL BE LOOKING AT AND THE FUTURE.
UM, SO FOR MY CLIENT AND FOR ALL THE POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, UH, RESPONDENTS IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE ARGUING THAT WHAT YOU SHOULD NOT CONSIDER IN PHASE ONE OR PHASE TWO IS ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE PRIOR TO THE EMPLOYEE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.
CERTAINLY THAT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME.
[00:35:01]
THE EMPLOYEE WORKING HERE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT RELEVANT TO THIS COMMISSION AND THIS BODY.NOW, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU WERE TO THE CLIENT OR THE RESPONDENT OR, BUT THEY'RE LYING AND BEAVERS WILLING TO IMPEACH HIM WITH, OH NO, YOU LIED ABOUT X, Y, Z WHEN YOU WERE IN KINDERGARTEN.
BUT I THINK FOR OPENING, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RULE TO FOLLOW.
ONLY FAIR TO THE ACCUSED TO SAY THAT WITH WHAT HE DID OR SHE DID AT THE CITY AS AN EMPLOYEE IS WHAT YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON, NOT WHAT THEY DID IN HIGH SCHOOL, NOT WHAT THEY DID IN COLLEGE.
AND THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE I'M SAYING.
SO THOSE, THOSE ISSUES, THOSE ITEMS THAT THE MR. BEAVER MIGHT LIKE TO REDUCE OR HAVE YOU CONSIDER OF PRIOR ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ALLEGED FOR, UM, MR. VES WAS THE CITY EMPLOYEE, NOT TO CONSIDER, NOT TO BE REPORT YOU, UH, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL? YES, SIR.
IF I WAS A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE AND I GOT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND I LOOKED AT THE JURY AND I SAID, I'M A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, I WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE THAT.
THAT OPENS THE DOOR FOR SOMEBODY TO COME AND ATTACK ME AND IMPEACH MY CREDIBILITY WITH, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, UM, I WAS BEING PROSECUTED TODAY FOR DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, AND IT WAS MY THIRD TIME, AND THAT'S A FELONY.
AND I GET ON THE STAND AND I SAY, I WOULD NEVER DRINK AND DRIVE.
THEN THE PROSECUTION COULD IMPEACH ME MY CREDIBILITY WITH THE FOUR PREVIOUS DWIS THAT I HAD YEARS AGO TO SHOW THAT, HEY, YOU'RE ATTACKING HIS CREDIBILITY.
IF I'M FOOLISH ENOUGH TO GET ON THE STAND AND OPEN THE DOOR BY SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT.
YOU WOULD BE, EXPECT SOMEBODY TO ATTACK MY, UH, UNDER MY HYPOTHETICAL THAT, THAT I HAD SOME PRIORS OR WHATEVER.
AND SO THAT, UM, THAT'S REALLY NOT RELEVANT IN PHASE ONE, UNLESS, UNLESS YOU TAKE THE STAND AND OPEN THE DOOR BY SAYING SOMETHING FOOLISH.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN FENCING ABOUT HERE BEFORE WE RESUME THESE PROCEEDINGS.
AND WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF OFFERING ANYTHING BEFORE HIS EMPLOYMENT.
I THINK HE STARTED HERE IN JUNE OF 2015.
BUT IF MR. GOMEZ TAKES THE WITNESS STAND AND SAYS SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS FALSE, IT'S NOT JUST PERJURY, IT'S AGGRAVATED PERJURY.
AGGRAVATED PERJURY IS WHEN YOU TESTIFY FALSELY DURING AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING THAT IS A THIRD DEGREE FELONY THAT CAN GET YOU 10 YEARS OF PRISON.
SO IF HE WANTS TO GET ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY, HEY, THAT'S HIS RIGHT, BUT IF HE GETS ON THE STAND AND TESTIFIES AND OPENS THE DOOR BY SAYING SOMETHING LIKE, I'M A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, I WOULD NEVER DO WHAT I WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE, THEN AT THAT POINT, I GUARANTEE YOU, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR FROM ME.
WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE DETAILS, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FENCING ABOUT BEFORE THE PROCEEDINGS RESUMED.
WELL, OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS TRYING TO SET PRECEDENCE FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND IS, AS MR. BEAVER VERY ELOQUENTLY POINTS OUT IF ANYONE GETS UP THERE AND LIES, THAT'S A PERJURY, WAS IT THIRD DEGREE PERJURY, AGGRAVATED PERJURY, AGGRAVATED PER, AND THAT'S NOT FOR YOU TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT.
THANK GOD IT'S GONNA GO ON TO A CRIMINAL COURT.
SO IF ANY, ANY WITNESS IS FOOLISH ENOUGH TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND YOU, THAT'S, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
UM, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S, UH, THERE ARE, THERE ARE, UH, PENALTIES AND PROCEDURES OUTSIDE OF THIS BODY FOR HANDLING.
ALL RIGHT, LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.
HAVE, HAS THERE BEEN AN AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO STIPULATIONS ON THE EXHIBITS THAT HAVE BEEN PROFFERED BY ANY PARTY TODAY? I WOULD BE WILLING TO AGREE TO STIPULATE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT HE GAVE ME NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN TODAY, IF HE WILL AGREE TO ALLOW A THROUGH G, WHICH IS ALL PHASE ONE STUFF.
WE DON'T EVEN GET TO PHASE TWO UNLESS YOU GUYS SUBSTANTIATE SOMETHING, YOU MAY UNSUBSTANTIATED EVERYTHING AND THEN IT'S OVER.
BUT IF WE GET TO A PHASE TWO, THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS THAT WE WOULD TEND TO WANNA OFFER AT THAT TIME.
AND TO ME, THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE, I THINK.
AND WE HAVE A, AN AGREEMENT MR. ANA, UH, TO STIPULATE TO EACH OTHER'S EXHIBITS FOR PURPOSES OF PHASE ONE ONLY.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, I WOULD, AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, UM, MR. MR. CHAIR,
[00:40:01]
WE, UM, THE RESPONDENT CANNOT NOT AGREE ON PRINCIPLE TO ALLOWING DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN EITHER PHASE, UH, THAT OUR, UH, THE PREDATE THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, IT SOUNDS LIKE.IS THAT WHAT MR. BEAVERS IS SAYING? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT UNLESS THE DOOR IS OPENED? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND, AND WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO IF THE DOOR IS OPENED? IF THE DOOR IS OPEN, OBVIOUSLY, UH, I THINK THAT, UH, THAT THAT'S THE WITNESS ALLOWS ANYTHING TO COME IN TO, TO, UH, TO IMPEACH, UH, THAT WITNESS, UH, WHERE HE OR IT LOOKED AS IF HE MIGHT BE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
AS FAR AS JUST AN EVIDENTIARY POINT, I THINK WE, SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT AN AGREEMENT FOR PHASE ONE.
I WANT TO GET THIS THING GOING.
BUT YOU DO SET PRECEDENCE AGAIN, REMEMBER ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE LISTENING TO IN THE FUTURE.
THIS IS THE FIRST CASE FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO BRING, BRINGING IN ALL KINDS OF EVIDENCE AND HAVE THIS FIGHT ALL THE TIME? I MEAN, THIS IS DOC EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENT IS REALLY THE ISSUE.
WELL, I THINK WE CAN CROSS THAT BRIDGE IF WE HAVE TO.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST CONCERNED WITH, HAVE YOU ALL REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE STIPULATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AT THIS POINT? AND AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT? BOTH PARTIES? THAT SOUNDS LIKE EXACTLY THE WAY I'M THINKING ABOUT IT.
ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL? WELL, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, WE CAN'T MAKE YOU STIPULATE IF Y'ALL HAVE A STIPULATION, TELL US WHAT IT IS, JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR.
I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER, UH, PROSECUTION EXHIBITS A THROUGH G.
UH, WHAT WE'RE OFFERING TODAY IS WHAT WAS SERVED ON MR. GOMEZ BEFORE HE HIRED MR. ANA AND MR. WIGGINS TO REPRESENT HIM.
WE GAVE THAT TO HIM DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SETTING.
SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, THEY WERE SERVED ON MAY 16TH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU GUYS A HARD COPY OF EXHIBIT D AS IN DOG, PAGE ONE AND EXHIBIT C, PAGE FIVE.
IT'S WHAT THEY'VE HAD FOR A MONTH AND NINE DAYS NOW.
BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS KNEW THAT.
DON'T GIVE IT TO 'EM UNTIL WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT HERE.
UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS HAD A COPY SINCE WE, WE CHANGED THOSE, WE ALTERED THEM SLIGHTLY BEFORE THE FIRST SETTING.
SO THEY'VE HAD WHAT WE'RE GONNA TRY TO OFFER TODAY, THEY'VE HAD FOR OVER A MONTH NOW.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD ACCURATE COPIES.
WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE, WITH, WITH THE, UM, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S, UH, D ONE C5.
SO, SO DO WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT? YEAH.
WHAT, WHAT IS THE AGREEMENT? RIGHT? I'LL AGREE TO EVERYTHING THAT THEY GAVE ME, THE 10 EXHIBITS, NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN.
I WILL AGREE THAT THAT IS ADMITTED IF THEY WILL AGREE THAT A, B, C, D, E, F, AND G WILL BE ADMITTED SO WE CAN GET THIS THING GOING OR WE'LL STIPULATE TO THAT.
SO THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE PANEL WITH, WITH UNDERSTANDING SO THAT, AGAIN, ON CERTAIN OF THOSE DOCUMENTS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES.
I'M NOT GONNA GET INTO ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED BEFORE HIS EMPLOYMENT.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS MARKED, BUT I'M NOT GONNA EVEN GET INTO THAT UNLESS HE TAKES THE STAND AND SAYS SOMETHING TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR ME TO IMPEACH HIS CREDIBILITY AND THEN THE EAC CAN MAKE A DECISION AT THAT TIME TO ENTERTAIN THAT.
ARE WE READY TO PROCEED TO THE MERITS OF THIS MATTER? YES, PLEASE.
ONE LAST, UH, UH, ITEM JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES.
THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING WE'RE HAVING BEFORE YOU ON, ON, UM, THIS MATTER WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
WE, FOR, FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S HEARING WITH WHICH STANDARD OR PROOF, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WAY I READ IT WOULD BE THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE STANDARD OR PROOF, NOT THE NEW ONE.
MY, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING, IF I'M INCORRECT, PLEASE CORRECT ME, MISS CITY ATTORNEY, IS THAT CLEAR AND CONVINCING IS THE STANDARD THAT WE WILL USE FOR THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN THIS HEARING? THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIR.
TODAY'S STANDARD OF PROOF IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THE STANDARD OF PROOF WAS IN THE CODE OF ETHICS WHEN THIS INFORMATION WAS FILED WITH THE E AAC.
[00:45:01]
SO JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR, EXHIBITS A THROUGH G FOR MR. BEAVER SIDE IN EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH 10 FOR THE RESPONDENT'S SIDE ARE ADMITTED, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY IS STIPULATING TO.THAT IS WHAT I'M STIPULATING TO.
WE ARE PREPARED FOR OPENING STATEMENTS.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL NOW PRESENT, UH, THE OPENING STATEMENT OF YOUR OFFICER.
MAY I PROCEED MR. CHAIRMAN, PLEASE DO.
UH, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, WE HAVE TWO CASES THAT WE FILED AGAINST JUAN GOMEZ.
JUAN IS A ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION.
THE OTHER IS A FRAUDULENT FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS ALLEGATION, UH, THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION CONTAINS FIVE SEPARATE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS ALLEGATIONS CONTAINS THREE SEPARATE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
THE ROAD RAGE CASE IN THIS SITUATION OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023, AND WE'VE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION AND WE PLED IN THE CONJUNCTIVE SO WE CAN PROVE IN THE DISJUNCTIVE.
UH, WE MADE TWO ALLEGATIONS THAT HE DROVE A CITY VEHICLE IN AN UNSAFE MANNER AND THAT HE MADE OBSCENE GESTURES AT TERRENCE PERKINS.
THE SCUR WHERE THIS OCCURRED IS SOUTH OF SECOND AVENUE AND BRUTON ROAD WHERE THOSE TWO ROADS INTERSECT.
AND THE G P S SATELLITE DATA IN THIS CASE IS GONNA SHOW THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DRIVING 39.09 MILES PER HOUR IN A SUGGESTED 20 MILE PER HOUR ZONE.
IT OCCURRED AT EXACTLY 2:34 PM WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE COMPLAINANT TOLD US WHEN HE FILED THIS CASE.
SO WE, THE EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW THAT WE PULLED THE GPS SATELLITE DATA JUST TO SEE IF THE GUY'S EVEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HE WAS, HE WAS EXACTLY WHERE TERRENCE PERKINS SAID HE WAS.
AND THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS CASE INCLUDES A 10 MONTH TIME PERIOD FROM APRIL 23RD OF LAST YEAR TO FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR.
AND SO IF YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME PROGRAM, IT IS PEOPLE WORK THEIR NORMAL SCHEDULING WORK HOURS.
YOU DO NOT DO OVERTIME METER EXCHANGES DURING YOUR WORK HOURS.
IF YOU WANNA WORK THOSE HOURS, IT'S GOTTA BE, UH, AFTER 4:00 PM ON THE WEEKDAYS AND BEFORE SUNSET.
IF YOU WANNA WORK THAT PROGRAM ON THE WEEKENDS, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT THAT'S GOTTA BE SEVEN TO THREE.
AND THE EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DOING PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME EXCHANGES DURING HIS NORMAL WORK HOURS, WHICH IS AGAINST THE RULES, OBVIOUSLY.
THE, UM, HIS WORK SCHEDULE IS SEVEN TO FOUR AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE STANDARD WAS SET ON JUNE 25TH, 2015 WHEN HE SHOWED UP AND WENT THROUGH ORIENTATION AND WAS SPECIFICALLY TOLD FALSIFYING TIME IS A VIOLATION.
AND HE SIGNED THOSE RECORDS ON HIS FIRST DAY OF EMPLOYMENT WITH ORIENTATION.
HE KNEW THE STANDARD ON DAY ONE.
AND WE VERIFIED THE ACCURACY OF THESE VALID ALLEGATIONS, NOT THROUGH ONE, NOT THROUGH TWO, BUT THROUGH THREE METHODS.
THE FIRST METHODOLOGY THAT WE USED WAS QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS.
WHEN YOU GO OUT AND YOU DO A PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE ON THE OVERTIME PROGRAM YOU FILL OUT WHEN YOU ARRIVE, WHEN YOU LEFT, AND THE DATE THAT IT HAPPENED, ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION OF THE ADDRESS ON A QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT, A SUPERVISOR COMES BACK THE NEXT DAY OR DAY LATER AND SAYS, HEY, LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS.
UH, TELL ME ABOUT THE METER EXCHANGE THAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY AT 6:00 PM IF THE HOMEOWNER SAYS 6:00 PM NO, IT WAS ONE O'CLOCK YESTERDAY, THAT'S WHEN IT WAS DONE.
THAT WOULD BE VERIFYING THROUGH THE HOMEOWNER THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE, THAT IT WASN'T DONE AS WRITTEN DOWN ON THE RECORDS THAT HE FILED.
AND DURING THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE PROGRAM ISSUES ON THE FALSIFICATION THAT WE VERIFIED THROUGH THAT FIRST METHODOLOGY, WE DISCOVERED NOT JUST TIME DISCREPANCIES, BUT DATE DISCREPANCIES.
THAT'S THE FIRST METHODOLOGY THAT WE USED.
WE WENT TO A SECOND METHODOLOGY AND CONFIRMED THE FALSIFICATIONS THROUGH A SECURITY GUARD ENTRANCE LOG ON JULY 20TH OF LAST YEAR.
WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING A CITY TRUCK AND YOU'RE DONE, YOU TAKE YOUR TRUCK AND YOU DRIVE IT BACK IN.
AND WHEN YOU DRIVE IT BACK IN TO 28 61 MUNICIPAL, YOU GET LOGGED IN THE TIME YOU DROVE THE TRUCK IN AND ON JULY 20TH OF LAST YEAR, HE DROVE HIS TRUCK IN AT 7:26 PM 7:26 PM AND THE RECORDS ARE
[00:50:01]
GONNA SHOW THAT HE ON HIS PAPERWORK, SAID HE BEGAN HIS LAST JOB OF THE DAY, 60 SECONDS EARLIER AT 7:25 PM AND THAT WAS A 20 MINUTE VISIT.YOU CAN'T BE TWO PLACES AT ONCE.
AND SO THE, THE SECURITY GUARD INTEREST LOG, THE ENTRY BEFORE THAT WAS FIVE AND A HALF MILES AWAY FROM 28 61 MUNICIPAL.
YOU CAN'T GET THERE AND BE WHAT'S DAMAGING ABOUT THE RECORDS THAT WE'RE GONNA PRESENT TO YOU ON THE SECOND METHODOLOGY IS THEY WERE LISTED SEQUENTIALLY BY MR. GOMEZ, A TO B TO C TO D TO E TO F, ALL THE WAY DOWN.
AND SO IF THOSE LAST TWO ENTRIES ARE FALSE BEYOND ALL DOUBT BECAUSE OF THE SEQUENTIAL NATURE OF THESE VISITS, THEY'RE ALL FALSE.
WE USED THE THIRD METHODOLOGY AND THAT IS THE GPS SATELLITE DATA THAT WAS AFFIXED TO THESE TRUCKS IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
AND WE'RE GONNA SHOW YOU EVIDENCE OF WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY THERE BASED ON THE GPS, UH, DATA FROM HIS TRUCK.
AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO COMPARE THAT TO WHAT HE WROTE DOWN.
SO WE DIDN'T JUST DO IT FROM ONE, NOT TWO.
WE USED THREE METHODOLOGIES TO VERIFY THAT THESE RECORDS ARE FALSE.
AND WHEN WE'RE DONE PRESENTING THIS EVIDENCE, WE'RE GONNA ASK YOU FOR EIGHT VERDICTS OF SUBSTANTIATED.
UH, DOES THE RESPONDENT WISH TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT, MR. CHAIR? WE DO, BUT WE RESERVE OUR OPENING STATEMENT UNTIL WE PUT ON OUR CASE.
I GUESS THERE'S NO REASON FOR REBUTTAL AT THIS POINT.
WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE.
UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MAY BEGIN PRESENTING, UH, YOUR OFFICE'S CASE.
AND JUST SO THE RECORD'S CLEAR A THROUGH G HAVE BEEN ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE FOR ALL PURPOSES.
THANK YOU, SIR, FOR THAT CONFIRMATION.
I CALL AS MY FIRST WITNESS, AMANDA MOLNAR.
MS. BROWN, I WANNA MAKE SURE I KNOW HOW TO SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.
DO YOU JUST CLICK THAT SHARE BUTTON ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT HERE, SCREEN, SCREEN BACK.
OKAY, SO YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH SCREEN, SCREEN HIGHLIGHTED? MM-HMM.
I DON'T, DO YOU THINK OUR PRESENCE ON THE VPN IS AFFECTING OUR ABILITY, MARY? OKAY.
MAY I PROCEED, MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, YES.
I'M GOING TO FIRST SWEAR IN THE WITNESS.
MS. BROWN, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GIVE TODAY IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
MS. MOLER WOULD, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? SURE.
[00:55:01]
AND WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING? I'M AN INVESTIGATOR PER INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION.UH, WHEN DID YOU BEGIN YOUR CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT? JUNE 23RD, 2022.
AND WHERE DID YOU WORK IN LAW ENFORCEMENT? UM, SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLACES.
I STARTED IN CHEYENNE, WYOMING, UM, WORKED IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT FACILITIES THERE.
UM, LAST WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BEFORE HERE AS A POLICE DETECTIVE IN MONUMENT, COLORADO.
WHAT DID YOU HAVE TO DO TO BECOME A POLICE OFFICER IN COLORADO? UM, HAD TO GRADUATE THE POLICE ACADEMY.
UM, COMPLETE FTO, UM, PROOF PROFICIENCY AND ALL THE BASIC SKILLS, FIREARMS DRIVING, ARREST CONTROL.
DID YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY OF PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS? YES.
DID YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH ACADEMY? YES.
DID YOU HAVE TO PASS AN EXAM? YES.
DID YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT YOU WERE PROFICIENT WITH FIREARMS? YES.
WHAT ABOUT ARREST CONTROL, TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OR INVESTIGATION? YES.
WHAT KIND OF TRAINING OR EDUCATION DO YOU HAVE? UM, I HAVE AN ASSOCIATES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
I HAVE HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TRAINING IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MOST RECENTLY IN FRAUD TRAINING THIS LAST YEAR WE HELPED TWO CLASSES HERE.
AND THOSE WERE THE NATIONAL WHITE COLLAR CRIME CENTER CLASSES, THE FIT FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS IN PRACTICING SKILLS COURSE? YES.
AND THEN THE FINANCIAL RECORDS EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS COURSE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT POSITION DO YOU CURRENTLY HOLD? UM, LEAD INVESTIGATOR.
AND WHAT DO YOU DO FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION? I'M AN INVESTIGATOR AND INVESTIGATE CASES, BUT I ALSO SUPERVISE THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM AND I'M ALSO ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TO LEADERSHIP.
AND WHAT KIND OF CASES DO YOU INVESTIGATE? UM, ANYTHING RELATED TO FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, AND PUBLIC CORRECTION IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THIS POSITION? UM, I STARTED IN JUNE, BUT I WAS PROMOTED IN NOVEMBER TO LEAD INVESTIGATOR.
LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATIONS IN THIS CASE.
WHEN DID YOU FIRST HEAR ABOUT THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JUAN GA? UM, WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ON FEBRUARY 10TH OF 23.
IS THAT ON PAGE FOUR OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? I HAVE TO REFER TO MY REPORT, BUT I BELIEVE IT IS.
LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE FIVE OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.
WHEN DID YOU REACH OUT TO PAUL COSTAK? UM, I REACHED OUT TO HIM ON FEBRUARY 15TH.
AND ALSO ON PAGE FIVE OF YOUR REPORT, WHEN DID YOU DISCUSS THE INTERVIEW OF PERKINS? UM, WAS THAT FEBRUARY 22ND? YES, IT WAS FEBRUARY 22ND.
AND DID YOU INTERVIEW PERKINS ON MARCH 1ST? YES, I DID.
AND WAS WHAT TERRANCE PERKINS SAID IN THAT INTERVIEW ON MARCH 1ST CONSISTENT WITH HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH BOTH OF HIS WR WRITTEN STATEMENTS? YES.
AND IS THAT DOCUMENTED ON PAGE SIX OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES, IT IS.
ON MARCH 22ND, 2023, DID YOU INTERVIEW LADALE HALL? YES, I DID.
AND SHE WAS THE PASSENGER IN THE CAR WITH MR. PERKINS? SHE WAS.
AND IS THAT DOCUMENTED ON PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES, IT IS.
WAS HER TESTIMONY DURING THAT INTERVIEW CONSISTENT WITH TERRENCE PERKINS' STATEMENTS? YES, IT WAS.
IS THAT FACT CONFIRMED ON PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES, IT IS.
ON MARCH 29TH, DID YOU REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO YOU BY PAUL COSTELLO? YES, I DID.
AND WHAT RECORDS DID YOU REVIEW? WELL, THERE WAS A LOT OF RECORDS, UM, IN RELATION TO THIS.
ARE THE RECORDS THAT YOU REVIEWED DETAILED ON PAGE EIGHT OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES, THEY ARE.
CAN YOU JUST TELL THEM THE RECORDS THAT YOU REVIEWED, PLEASE? SURE.
UM, WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM PERKINS, WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM, UM, JUAN EZ, UM, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLE, UM, GPS SPREADSHEETS, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE NOTICE LETTER OF COUNSELING, UM, CITY VEHICLE INCIDENT REPORT FOR AN AT-FAULT ACCIDENT THAT GEZ WAS IN LETTER OF COUNSELING.
COUNSELING DATED, UM, JUNE 5TH OF 19.
SERVICE REQUEST, CITIZEN COMPLAINT DATED, UM, JANUARY 24TH, 2020.
UM, A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM EZ DATED 1 28 OF 2020.
UM, ANOTHER CITIZEN COMPLAINT DATED 2 24 OF 2020.
ANOTHER WRITTEN STATEMENT WAS NOT DATED, BUT IT WAS RE REGARDING THE FEBRUARY 24TH, 2020 INCIDENT.
[01:00:01]
THE DOCUMENTED CONVERSATION BETWEEN, UM, SUPERVISOR TIMMERMAN AND JUAN EZ, A MEETING SIGN AND SHEET FOR CONVERSATION WITH DEEZ DATED THE 13TH OF 22.AN EMAIL FROM 10 TRUSTEE, UM, AN INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING TRUSTEE'S FEEDBACK ON TWO 15 OF 23.
LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS PROSECUTION.
EXHIBIT B OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE.
TELL US WHAT PAGE D ONE IS THOSE WERE DISPLAYING? YES, THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SCENE OF THE ROAD RAGE INCIDENT.
IS, IS, IS THIS THE DIRECTION THAT THE CARS WERE DRIVING INVOLVING THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION? YES.
THAT IS A, A ONE-WAY ACCESS RAMP TO AN INTERSTATE.
AND THIS SHOWS A, A, A BACK VIEW OF THE S-CURVE THAT'S AT ISSUE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
IT'S AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CURVE, YES.
UM, THAT'S JUST A CLOSER END VIEW OF THAT SAME S CURVE.
JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE KIND OF THE END OF THE FIRST TURN AND THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND RIGHT HAND CURVE, I NOTICED THERE'S A DROP OFF ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD.
CAN YOU TELL THE MEMBERS OF THE EAC ABOUT HOW DEEP THAT DROP OFF IS? SURE.
IT'S, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A REALLY STEEP DROP OFF.
I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY 20 TO 30 FEET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD.
AND THERE'S NO GUARDRAILS, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THERE ARE NO GUARDRAILS.
CORRECT ME YOUR ATTENTION TO B3, IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SAME INTERSECTION? IT IS.
IS THIS FACING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE FIRST TWO PHOTOGRAPHS? I, I BELIEVE SO.
DO YOU NEED ME TO ZOOM IN SO YOU CAN SEE? YEAH, IT'S NOT SCREEN ON THE OVERHEAD FOR SOME REASON.
THAT WOULD BE FACING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE FIRST TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, RIGHT? SO IS THAT CORRECT? HE WOULD'VE BEEN COMING FROM THAT DIRECTION.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO V4, THAT'S BACK IN THE DIRECTION THE FIRST TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THAT'S AS YOU CROSS OVER SECOND STREET AND YOU CAN SEE THE DROP OFF HERE, CORRECT? FROM V FIVE, THAT'S KIND OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD VIEW OF THE SAMES CURVE.
AND IT SHOWS THE SIGN TO MERGE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND V6 IS, UH, MORE CLOSE IN OF THE LAST, UM, THE RIGHT HAND CURVE.
AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN? I'D HAVE TO LOOK.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE OF ALL THIS.
IT WAS DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION? IT WAS, IT WAS DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION WAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED TO EVIDENCE OF EXHIBIT C PAGE ONE.
UH, WHAT IS THIS? THAT'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAP OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THERE'S A RED SQUARE AROUND THE AREA WHERE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.
SO IF THE MEMBERS OF THE EAC ARE CURIOUS ABOUT WHERE DID THIS HAPPEN? THEY CAN SEE THE DOWNTOWN AREA RIGHT HERE WHERE WE'RE SITTING WITH THE GATE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THAT THIS RED SQUARE IS SOUTHEAST OF DOWNTOWN DALLAS? CORRECT.
IS MAP TWO THAT I'M ABOUT TO SHOW YOU A BLOW UP OF WHAT'S IN RED ON THIS MAP RIGHT HERE? YES.
AND THEN I SEE ANOTHER RED SQUARE.
WHAT IS THIS RED SQUARE IN THE MIDDLE ON B2? THAT RED SQUARE IS THE, IT'S JUST AROUND THE SCENE AND WHERE IT HAPPENED.
SO WHEN WE GO TO B3, IS THIS THE S CURVE C3? WHEN WE GO TO C3, IS THIS THE S CURVE THAT'S IN QUESTION, UH, INVOLVING THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION? CORRECT.
THIS IS THE VIEW THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE STREET NAMES AND THAT S-CURVE IS AN UNNAMED ACCESS RAMP.
AND IS THIS WHERE THE ROAD RAGE, UH, INCIDENT OCCURRED THAT PERTAINS TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WE'VE MADE? YES.
AND IS THIS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS? YES IT IS.
DID YOU COMPARE THE MAPS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA TO THE GPS DATA
[01:05:01]
LOGS FROM MR. JOHN'S TRUCK? YES, I DID.AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE FOUR, WHEN THE ALLEGATION CAME IN, DID YOU JUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEARD OR DID YOU PULL THE G P S DATA OUT SATELLITE DATA TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MR. GOMEZ WAS EVEN THERE? YES, I DID.
I DID LOOK AT THE GPS DATA TO CONFIRM THAT HE WAS EVEN IN THE AREA.
AND DID THIS OCCUR ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023? YES, IT DID.
AND ON THAT C4, I NOTICED THAT THERE'S A DOCUMENT FROM A 21 TRANSPOSED AT THE TOP, AT LEAST THE GPS DATA LOGS FROM A 21 SUPERIMPOSED ON THE MAP, UH, SHOWING HIS DRIVING AND THE DIRECTION HE WAS GOING.
AND SO WHY DID YOU COMPARE THE MAP TO THE GPS DATA LOG? JUST TO PROVE THAT HE WAS IN THE AREA? I TRIED JUST AS HARD TO PROVE IT TRUE AS UNTRUE.
AND IN THIS CASE, IT PROVED IT TRUE THAT HE WAS DRIVING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED IN YES.
SO WHEN AN ALLEGATION COMES IN, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE TOLD YOU? NO.
YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ACTUALLY THERE.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, I SEE.
UH, 0.1 TO 0.2 ON THIS MAP IT SAYS ONE MILE AND TWO UNITS.
UH, HOW DID YOU CALCULATE HIS SPEED? UM, I USUALLY CALCULATE SPEED BY DOING SPEED EQUALS DISTANCE DIVIDED BY TIME.
WHAT DID YOU KNOW? UM, THAT HE TRAVELED ONE MILE.
AND YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE MEASURED IT.
WHAT ELSE DID YOU KNOW? UM, THAT HE DID IT IN TWO MINUTES AND THAT HE WAS DRIVING 30 MILES PER HOUR.
SO WE KNOW THERE'S 60 MINUTES IN AN HOUR, CORRECT? CORRECT.
DID YOU CONVERT MINUTES TO HOURS BY DIVIDING TWO MINUTES BY 60 MINUTES? YES.
AND DID THAT COME UP WITH 0.03333 HOURS? UH, NO.
IT CAME UP WITH 0.03333 HOURS, 0.03333? CORRECT.
DID YOU DIVIDE THE DISTANCE OF ONE MILE THAT HE TRAVELED BY THE TIME THAT HE DID IT IN 0.03333 OF AN HOUR? CORRECT.
AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GOT YOUR 30? YES'.
SO WHEN YOU SAY HE IS GOING 30 MILES AN HOUR, THAT'S THE METHODOLOGY THAT YOU USE TO CALCULATE THE SPEED? YES, IT IS.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE, UH, 0.2 TO 0.3, DID YOU USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY IN CALCULATING THE SPEED THERE? I DID.
AND SO HOW FAR DID HE TRAVEL? UM, HE TRAVELED 1.2 MILES AND YOU KNOW THAT CAUSE OF WHAT I MEASURED IT, AND HE DID THAT IN TWO MINUTES.
AND IS THAT BECAUSE GPS SHOWS TWO MINUTES? YES.
IT'S SO DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GPS WAS CHECKING IN EVERY TWO MINUTES? BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT 8 21 AT THE TOP, IT'S EXACTLY TWO MINUTES SEGMENTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW THERE'S 60 MINUTES, AN HOUR? YES.
DID YOU CONVERT MINUTES, HOURS BY DIVIDING TWO MINUTES BY 50 MINUTES? YES, I DID.
AND YOU CAME UP THE SAME NUMBER, 0.03323? CORRECT.
DID YOU DIVIDE THE DISTANCE OF HIS TRAVEL 1.2 MILES BY THE TIME THAT HE DID IT IN? YES.
AND WHAT NUMBER DID YOU COME UP WITH? 36 MILES PER HOUR.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE TWO, SAME EXHIBIT 0.3 TO 0.4, DID YOU USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE HIS SPEED FROM 0.3 TO 0.4? YES, I DID.
DID YOU HAVE ANY OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS HEADING TOWARDS THE INCIDENT SCENE WHEN YOU SEE HIS MOVEMENT FROM EAST TO WEST? UM, WELL, MY OPINION IS MOSTLY FACT BASED, THAT HE WAS TRAVELING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE S-CURVE AT THAT TIME.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAY C5.
WHAT IS C5 THAT'S THE SCUR, UM, WITH CORRESPONDING G P S DATA MM-HMM.
SO THE CALCULATIONS THAT YOU MADE ASCERTAIN THE SPEED YOU DESCRIBING WAS BASED ON THE GPS DATA ON STRUCK? YES.
AND ASKING YOU, LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT 0.5 ALL THE WAY TO 0.8, THE LAST POINT HERE.
DID YOU MEASURE THAT DISTANCE? I DID.
[01:10:01]
0.5 TO 0.8 TO 0.8 IS 723 FEET.AND YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU MEASURED IT YOURSELF? I DID.
AND YOU KNOW THAT HE TRAVELED THAT DISTANCE IN 18 SECONDS? YES.
AND YOU ALSO KNOW THERE'S 3,600 SECONDS IN AN HOUR, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
DID YOU CON CONVERT SECONDS TO HOURS BY DIVIDING 18 SECONDS BY 3,600 SECONDS? YES, I DID.
DID YOU COME UP WITH 0.005 HOURS? YES.
DID YOU DIVIDE THE DISTANCE TRAVEL? YES.
BY THE TIME THAT HE DID IT IN, YES, I DID.
AND WHAT SPEED DID YOU COME UP WITH FROM 0.5 TO 0.8? 27.39 MILES PER HOUR.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION UP HERE FROM 0.5 TO 0.6, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO POINTS? 207 FEET.
AND YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU MEASURED HIM? YES.
AND HOW FAST DID HE COVER THAT? 207 FEET, NINE SECONDS.
AND WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? WELL, GPS SHOWS IT.
AND YOU ALSO KNOW THERE'S 3,600 SECONDS IN AN HOUR? YES.
AND COULD YOU CONVERT TO HOURS BY DIVIDING NINE SECONDS BY 3,600 SECONDS? I DID.
AND DID YOU COME UP WITH 0.0025 HOURS? YES.
DID YOU DIVIDE THE DISTANCE TRAVEL BY THE TIME THAT HE DID IT IN? I DID.
AND SO WHAT SPEED DID YOU GET FROM 0.5 TO 0.6? 15.68 MILES PER HOUR.
AND THAT'S DETAILED ON THE MAP HERE IT IS.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 0.6 TO 0.8, THE LAST TWO THIRDS OF THE S CURVE THAT WAS DRIVEN, DID YOU CALCULATE A SPEED OVER THIS 516 FOOT SECTION OF THE S CURVE? I DID.
AND DID YOU USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY THAT YOU'VE BEEN TESTIFYING TO? I DID.
WHAT DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE VISIONS? UM, I, HERE WE GO.
SORRY, MY, I HAD MY PAGES OUT OF WATER.
AND YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU MEASURED IT YOURSELF? I DID.
AND HOW FAST DID HE COVER AT 516 FEET? 39.09 MILES PER HOUR.
HOW MANY SECONDS DID IT TAKE HIM TO GET FROM 0.6 TO 0.8? ONLY NINE SECONDS.
AND DID YOU CONVERT THAT BY, UM, FROM SECONDS TO HOURS DIVIDING NINE SECONDS BY 3,600 SECONDS? YES, I DID.
AND DID YOU DIVIDE THE DISTANCE THAT HE TRAVELED BY THE TIME THAT HE DID IT? I DID.
AND IS THAT WHERE YOU CAME UP WITH 39.09 MILES PER HOUR? YES.
IS THAT A SAFE SPEED TO BE DRIVING WHEN THE SIGN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD SAYS A SUGGESTED SPEED OF POINT? UM, MY OPINION, NO.
DID YOU FORM ANY OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE GPS DATA SUPPORTS OR HAMPERED MR. PERKINS COMPLAINT REGARDING THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION? IT SUPPORTS MR. PERKINS ALLEGATIONS.
AND SO THE ADVISORY SPEED AT THIS PORTION IS 20 MILES PER HOUR, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FRAUDULENT FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS ALLEGATION, WHEN DID YOU FIRST HEAR ABOUT JUAN GOME ALLEGEDLY FALSIFYING RECORDS? I BELIEVE THAT WAS, UM, ON PAGE NINE OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT, I THINK IT WAS APRIL 11TH AND THE VERY NEXT DAY ON APRIL 12TH, DID YOU MEET WITH PAUL COSTAK TO DISCUSS THESE ALLEGATIONS? I DID.
AND IS THAT DOCUMENTED ON PAGE NINE OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES.
WHAT IS THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME PROGRAM AND HOW IS IT SUPPOSED TO WORK? MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S AN OVERTIME INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYEES TO EARN EXTRA MONEY WORKING AFTER THEIR NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS TO EXCHANGE OUTDATED METERS THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT OVERTIME PROGRAM ON A WEEKDAY, WHEN MUST THE METER EXCHANGES BE DONE AFTER YOUR NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS, WHICH IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEIR NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS ARE FROM SEVEN TO FOUR, SO THEY CAN WORK FROM FOUR UNTIL SUNSET.
SO THE END TIME CHANGES WITH THE TIME CHANGE.
IF YOU WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT OVERTIME EXCHANGE PROGRAM ON THE WEEKENDS, WHAT HOURS SHOULD THOSE METERS BE EXCHANGED? I BELIEVE THAT'S, UM, EIGHT TO FOUR OR SEVEN TO THREE.
I PROBABLY DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY.
UH, ARE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME METER EXCHANGES,
[01:15:01]
ARE THEY TO BE DONE DURING NORMAL WORKOUTS? NO.IF AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMS METER EXCHANGES DURING NORMAL WORK HOURS, HOWEVER CLAIMS TO HAVE DONE THEM AS A PART OF AN OVERTIME PROGRAM, HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THEM? THEFT.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS AS WELL? YES.
DID YOUR INVESTIGATIVE TEAM ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THAT ACCURACY OF THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS ALLEGATIONS? YES.
WHAT METHODOLOGIES DID YOU USE IN TRYING TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE OCCURRED? NO, WE WERE ABLE TO VERIFY IT THREE DIFFERENT WAYS.
UM, FIRST WAS, UM, THE QCC THERE, UM, IT IS JUST A PERMANENT OVERSIGHT THAT THEY DO.
UM, AND THEN A SECURITY, A SECURITY GUARD ENTRY LOG THAT, THAT AREA THAT THEY PARK THEIR VEHICLES IN KEEPS AND THEN THROUGH GPS SATELLITE DATA.
AND DID YOU NOTIFY DATE AND TIME DISCREPANCIES WHEN YOU WERE VERIFYING THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE BUSINESS METHODOLOGY? YES.
DID YOU DISCOVER TIME DISCREPANCIES WHEN YOU UTILIZED THE SECURITY GUARD ENTRANCE LOG FROM JULY 20TH OF LAST YEAR? YES.
DID YOU NOTICE ANY TIME DISCREPANCIES WHEN YOU COMPARED THE GPS DATA LOGS AT THE TIMES THAT MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN ON THE SHEET? YES.
HOW MANY PAGES OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS DID YOU RECEIVE FROM PAUL HOSPITAL? 128.
AND ARE MANY OF THOSE RECORDS CONTAINED WITHIN EXHIBIT F? YES.
LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE IN THE FOUR PAGE DOCUMENT CALLED EXHIBIT D.
AND WHAT IS D ONE THAT I'M SHOWING YOU RIGHT NOW? THIS IS, UM, A SUMMARY CHART OF THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME PROGRAM FROM APRIL 22 THROUGH FEBRUARY 23.
AND THIS IS THE PART THAT WAS VERIFIED BY THE QCC.
NOW THIS FOUR PAGE EXHIBIT IS THE SUMMARY EXHIBIT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
DOES THIS FOUR PAGE EXHIBIT SUMMARIZED THE 77 PAGES CONTAINED WITHIN EXHIBIT F? YES, IT IS.
AND UH, SO I NOTICED THE FIRST THREE LINES ARE IN GREEN AND THE LAST FIVE LINES ARE ORANGE.
WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE THREE GREEN LINES? WHY IS THAT DEMARCATING FROM THE REST OF THESE LINES? BECAUSE THAT'S A DISCREPANCY WITH THE DATE AND THE REST ARE DISCREPANCIES WITH THE TIMES AND STILL STAYING ON DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION? THESE TWO, I DON'T SEE ANY GREEN LINES HERE.
SO THESE ARE TIME DISCREPANCIES ALONE? CORRECT.
AND DID YOUR TEAM GO THROUGH AND VERIFY THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS TO VERIFY THAT NUMBERS AND THE TIMES AND THE DATES THAT MR. DOMINIC PUT DOWN WERE INCORRECT? YES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I COME TO MY ATTENTION.
THIS HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT D THREE.
IS THIS THE METHODOLOGY THAT YOU USED WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SECURITY GUARD ENTRANCES LAW? YES.
AND IF THE MEMBERS OF THE P AAC ARE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THE RECORDS JUST FOR D THREE, THAT WOULD BE, UH, EXHIBIT F, PAGE 35 TO 44 AND F 35.
IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK SO, YES.
AND WHAT IS D FOUR LAST PAGE OF THIS FOUR PAGE SUMMARY EXHIBIT? THOSE ARE THE SUMMARY OF THE THINGS THAT WERE VERIFIED BY THE GPS.
AND JUST DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION TO LINE ONE, MR. JAMZ SHOWED WHEN HE APPEARED AT ZERO 16 SAND SPRINGS AVENUE, HE WROTE DOWN THAT HE SHOWED UP AT FOUR O'CLOCK, RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND WHAT DID GPS SHOW AS TIME ARRIVAL WAS, UM, 1:25 PM.
[01:20:01]
PAGE IS THE GPS SATELLITE DATA THAT YOU COMPARED TO THE TIME ENTRIES THAT WE WROTE ON THE PME OVERTIME EXCHANGE PROGRAM ON FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR.IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AFTER EXAMINING ALL THIS EVIDENCE, DID YOU ARRIVE AT ANY CONCLUSIONS? YES.
DID YOU FIND THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DOING THE PME OVERTIME EXCHANGES DURING HIS NORMAL WORK HOURS AT SEVEN FOUR? YES.
UH, WHAT ELSE DID YOU CONCLUDE? WAS HE ENTITLED TO THESE OVERTIME WAGES? NO, HE WASN'T.
AND HE, I HAVE ACTUALLY NOTATED IN THE LAST COLUMN THERE HOW MUCH OVERTIME HE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY HOW MUCH HE WAS PAID FOR.
I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING DURING THOSE HOURS, BUT I COULD VERIFY THAT HE WASN'T DOING THE PME.
DID YOU MEET WITH CHRISTOPHER PRESS? I DID.
MUTE MS PRESS IS CHRISTOPHER PRESS THE PERSON WHO CONDUCTED THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS ON THE FIRST METHODOLOGY THAT YOU NEED TO VERIFY? YES.
AND DID HE CONFIRM FOR YOU THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT? HE DID.
I WENT THROUGH EACH PAGE AND HAD HIM VERIFY ALL THE TIMES THAT HE WROTE AND THAT IT WAS HIS WRITING.
WAS HE SCARED WHEN YOU SPOKE TO HIM? HE WAS TERRIFIED, ACTUALLY.
UH, IS HE HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY AGAINST JUAN GA? HE WOULD NOT APPEAR TO TESTIFY.
DID YOU GO BACK AND ASK MR. COSTA ABOUT MR. PRESSMAN'S FEARS? I DID.
DID HE CONFIRM THOSE FROM YOU OR DID HE SAY THAT THEY THERE WAS NOTHING TO IT? HE CONFIRMED THAT CHRIS CRESS WAS TERRIFIED OF, UM, RETALIATION FROM JUAN GUYANAS, AND HE ALSO ADDED THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE THAT HE WORKS WITH THAT ARE FEARFUL OF HIM.
DID MR. COSTCO ADDRESS FROM YOU, UH, ANY PRECAUTIONS THAT HE TOOK DUE TO THE APPEARS OF MR. GARO? HE DID.
HE, HE GAVE A PICTURE TO THE SECURITY.
THEY CHANGED ALL THE LOCKS TO THE FACILITIES.
UM, THEY LOOKED INTO, UM, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS TO BE INSTALLED IN THAT AREA.
AND DID HE ALERT THE GROUND SUPERIOR OF THESE ISSUES? HE DID, YES.
DID HE PROVIDE A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. JONAS, THE GROUND SECURITY? YES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE PASS THE WITNESS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I USE THE PODIUM TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS, MS. MOLNAR, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
THE, UM, LET'S GO BACK TO YOUR, UM, YOUR, UH, THE DOCUMENT WHICH YOU AUTHORED, I THINK IT'S CALLED INSPECTOR GENERAL'S DIVISION OFFICE.
UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPORTED INVESTIGATION.
YOU ARE FOR THAT, CORRECT? YES.
AND YOU HAVE HELP IN PREPARING THAT? I, I, I THINK I'M MENTIONED THIS, SEE MR. TRAILER'S NAME INVOLVED.
UM, ACTUALLY MR. TRAILER DID NOT ASSIST IN PREPARING THIS DOCUMENTATION.
HE DID START THIS CASE, UM, HE REACHED OUT, HE, HE DID A LITTLE BIT OF PRE INVESTIGATING, KIND LIKE A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, AND THEN I TOOK OVER THE FULL INVESTIGATION.
IS THAT HOW THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S, UH, INVESTIGATIONS WORK? SOMEONE ELSE STARTS IT, YOU FINISH IT OR WHAT? SOMETIMES WE ALL HAVE STRENGTHS.
UM, SO GENERALLY WE PUT THE, THE COMPLAINT OR THE CASE WITH THE PERSON WHO HAS THAT STRENGTH.
IN MY CASE, I, I PUSHED A BLACK AND WHITE FOR MANY YEARS.
I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN TRAFFIC, SO THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED THAT I WOULD TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS CASE.
BUT WHEN DID YOU ACTUALLY GET INVOLVED IN THIS? I GOT REFER TO MY, MY NOTES HERE.
UM, THAT'S KIND OF A, THAT'S KIND OF A TRICKY QUESTION BECAUSE I'M IN, I'M ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN EVERY CASE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING BECAUSE I TRIAGE EVERYTHING AS IT COMES IN AND IT GOES THROUGH A WHOLE TRIAGE PROCESS.
WELL, SO I'M AWARE OF EVERY CASE.
I AM INVOLVED WITH EVERY CASE, SO, ALL RIGHT.
LET ME MAKE, LET ME REWORD THAT.
WHEN DID YOU FI, WHEN DID YOU GET HANDS-ON INVOLVED IN THE CASE, WORKING ON THE ACTUAL INVESTIGATION? WHENEVER MR. TRAILER ASKED ME TO ATTEND AN INTERVIEW WITH HIM.
DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WAS? THAT WAS WITH MR. PERKINS.
[01:25:16]
FEBRUARY 22ND.NOW, NEITHER YOU NOR MR. UH, TRAY, YOUR OTHER INVESTIGATOR, WERE AT THE SCENE OF THIS INCIDENT AT, UM, AT THE CURB, THE SCUR ON ONCE AT RUDIN IN 1 75, CORRECT? OF COURSE NOT.
IN FACT, THE ONLY ACTUAL WITNESSES WHO WERE THERE WERE MR. PERKINS.
WHO UNITS INVEST YOU INTERVIEWED AND MS. HALL THAT YOU INTERVIEWED AND MR. GOMEZ, CORRECT? CORRECT.
DID YOU EVER INTERVIEW MR. GOMEZ ABOUT ANY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS? I DID NOT.
IS THERE A REASON YOU DID NOT? UH, YES, BECAUSE I HAD A WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR MR. GEZ AND HE WAS ALREADY ON PAID ADMIN LEAVE, AND I HAD BEEN FOREWARNED THAT HE, HIS DISPOSITION ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING WAS LESS THAN PLEASANT.
SO WE OPTED NOT TO INTERVIEW MR. GEZ.
IS THAT THE PROCESS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE IS GONNA TAKE IN THE FUTURE? NOT TO INTERVIEW THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MADE, WHOSE ACCUSATIONS ARE LEVELED AT THEM? OBJECTION, SPECULA.
NOW, MISS, UH, MS. MUL, YOU, ME, YOU MENTIONED A LONG HISTORY IN, IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
NOW, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UH, CONSISTENTLY USES THE WORD ROAD RAGE.
ABOUT THE INCIDENT AT THE INTERSECTION, RIGHT? RIGHT.
WHERE IS ROAD RAGE, UM, MENTIONED IN THE TWO INFORMATIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE? THE WORD AT ALL? I'M SORRY.
WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? WELL, THERE ARE TWO CHARGING DOCUMENTS.
ONE IS DEALING WITH THE WHILE ON DUTY, UH, DEALING WITH THIS INCIDENT WITH A TRAFFIC INCIDENT.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE DEALING WITH FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS.
THOSE ARE THE TWO DOC CHARGING DOCUMENTS BROUGHT BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? CORRECT? UM, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I WASN'T INVOLVED IN CR THE CREATION OF THIS DOCUMENT, THIS IS HANDLED BY THE ATTORNEYS AFTER I COMPLETE MY PORTION OF THE INVESTIGATION, UHHUH
DO YOU SEE ROAD RAGE MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THAT DOCUMENT? TAKE YOUR TIME.
IN FACT, IS HAVING WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, YOU KNOW, ROAD RAGE IS A CRIME, DON'T YOU? SURE.
IS THERE ANY, WAS THERE ANY KIND OF CHARGE FILED WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT ROAD RAGE DEALING WITH THIS INCIDENT? I AM NOT AWARE.
WHY AREN'T YOU AWARE OF THAT? WOULDN'T THAT BE IMPORTANT? WELL, WELL, IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT, BUT WE DON'T WORK IN TANDEM WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, SO I WOULDN'T BE AWARE OF THE REPORT THAT WAS FILED WITH DPV.
WELL, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU MADE IT REAL CLEAR THIS IS A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT.
WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO KNOW IF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN ALERTED TO SUCH AN INCIDENT? SURE.
BUT WE, WE CAN CHOOSE TO HANDLE CRIME ADMINISTRATIVELY OR WE CAN FORWARD IT TO D P D IN THIS CASE, WE DECIDED TO HANDLE THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY INSTEAD OF SENDING IT FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
WELL, DO YOU THINK THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT IT'S ROAD RAGE IS CORRECT? YES.
WHY? IT WELL, WHAT TERRY PERKINS AND LALE HALL EXPLAINED WOULD FIT IN MY PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL OPINION, ROAD RAGE INCIDENT.
I MEAN, DID YOU, DID YOU, DID YOU ADVISE MR. PERKINS OR MS. HALL TO FILE CHARGES OF ROAD RAGE? I DID NOT.
WHY? UM, I, THEY FILED THE VENUE THAT THEY CHOSE TO FILE THROUGH MR. PER MR. PERKINS WAS OBJECTION.
WHY DID YOU NOT REFER, TELL MR. PERKINS SUGGESTED MR. PERKINS, MR. MS. HALL TO FILE A CRIMINAL CHARGE WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ROAD RAGE.
THEY CAME TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
I'M WANNA GO THROUGH, NOW YOUR REPORT, YOU, YOU WROTE AND PREPARED.
NOW IT, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, THIS, UM, INCIDENT TRAFFIC INCIDENT HAPPENED, UM, IN, UH, EARLY FEBRUARY, 2023, CORRECT? YES.
AND THERE WERE THESE, IN THESE INTERVIEWS WITH MR. PERKINS THE WITNESS, MS. HOLLOW WITNESS, BUT THEN IT LOOKS LIKE BY LOOK HERE, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS IN APRIL, TWO MONTHS LATER WHERE MR. PERKINS IS CALLED IN AGAIN TO QUOTE.
[01:30:01]
IS ON PAGE EIGHT TO CLARIFY QUESTIONS.WHAT KIND OF CLARIFICATION DID YOU NEED? YOU'LL HAVE TO GIMME A MINUTE TO REFER TO MY REPORT.
CAN YOU GIMME A PAGE NUMBER WHERE YOU SAID EIGHT? PAGE EIGHT.
CAN YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE? YES.
UM, WHY WAS THERE A NEED TO RE-INTERVIEW MR. PERKINS IN APRIL? SOMETIMES ANSWERS AREN'T CLEAR AND I NEED CLARIFICATION.
I DON'T WANNA BRING FORWARD FALSE INFORMATION OR INFORMATION.
I'M THAT 100% CERTAIN THAT, AND WHEN IN FACT, AT ONE POINT IN ONE INTERVIEW HE SAID HE HAD STOPPED, AND THEN ANOTHER POINT IN ANOTHER INTERVIEW A FEW MONTHS LATER SAID HE DIDN'T STOP WHEN ALL THIS SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED.
YEAH, I WOULD DEFINITELY NEED CLARIFICATION ON THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT HE DID.
ONE INTERVIEW, HE STOPS WHEN THE INCIDENT HAPPENS, INTERVIEW, OTHER INTERVIEW.
UM, WELL, NO, DIDN'T HE SAY I STOPPED AND HE SAID, NO, I DIDN'T STOP.
UM, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK UNLESS I DON'T RECALL.
BUT, UM, I THINK THAT HE SAID HE PULLED OVER AND DID NOT SPECIFY IF HE STOPPED OR NOT.
AND THEN I HEARD ANOTHER STATEMENT THAT THEY PULLED OVER AND SLOWED DOWN, BUT DIDN'T COME TO COMPLETE STOP.
SO I WAS UNSURE ABOUT A COMPLETE STOP OR LIKE A ROLLING STOP.
I WANTED TO BE CERTAIN OF WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED THERE.
SO I ASKED HIM WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED, OCCURRED THERE.
AND SO, UH, WHAT, BUT THEY WERE IN CONSISTENT STATEMENTS.
I, I CAN'T ACTUALLY, I I CAN'T SAY THAT THEY WERE OR NOT BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL ACTUALLY THE STATEMENT THE FIRST TIME.
I REMEMBER NOT BEING CERTAIN, IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS A, A ROLLING STOP OR A COMPLETE STOP AS IF IT WASN'T STATED THAT I DON'T, I DON'T ACTUALLY RECALL.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CONDUCTED THIS OR MR. TRAILER, BUT IT SAYS YOU'LL SEE THERE IN THE, IN THE ITALIC FRONT OF MR. RESULT.
YOU THINK THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT I AM IMMEDIATELY WAS ABLE TO STOP, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
HE, UH, YOU INDICATED THAT MR. PERKINS SAID AT YOUR, IN SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEW IN APRIL THAT HE DID NOT STOP.
CAN YOU TELL ME THE PAGE, PAGE EIGHT IN YOUR INTERVIEW OF APRIL THE FOURTH? YEAH.
SO WHEN I CALLED FOR CLARIFYING, HE SAID THAT HE, HE PULLED OVER AND DID NOT COME TO AN ACTUAL COMPLETE STOP.
HE PULLED OVER AND STOPPED DRIVING, BUT HE, HE NEVER ACTUALLY CAME TO THAT COMPLETE FULL STOP.
THAT WAS THE CLARIFICATION THAT I WAS AFTER.
AND THEN AGAIN, YOU WERE NOT THERE.
I WAS NOT THE, UM, LET'S GO ON TO SOME OTHER IN ISSUES HERE ON, IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE NINE, ON APRIL 11TH, YOU WERE MADE AWARE THAT MR. DAMES WAS SUSPECTED OF TIME FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION RECORDS.
HOW DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THAT? UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, THE INFORMATION WAS FORWARDED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHO THEN GAVE IT TO ME TO ADD TO THIS COMPLAINT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WENT ON PRIOR TO THAT, BUT IT CAME FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHO FORWARDED IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? I DO NOT.
WELL, LET'S GO DOWN THAT SAME PAGE WHERE, UM, WHICH SAYS COSTELLI, THAT'S PAUL COSTLEY, CORRECT? COSTELLI, YES.
AND THAT'S MR. DAM'S SUPERVISOR? CORRECT.
THAT'S THE FELLOW WHO AUTHORIZES OVERTIME? I WOULD PRESUME SO, YES.
SO HE SAYS, HE STATED HE RECEIVED A TIP ALLEGING THAT, UH, DALLAS WATER DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES WERE, UH, SITTING AROUND AND ALL.
IS THAT CONNECTED WITH HI, WITH THIS ALLEGATION OF FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS, THIS TIP?
[01:35:01]
YES.DO YOU KNOW WHO THE TIP WAS FROM? I DO NOT.
DID YOU INQUIRE WHO MADE THE TIP? NO, THE FACTS WERE IMPORTANT TO ME, NOT THE TIP.
WELL, YOUR ONLY, YOUR SOUNDS LIKE PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IS BASED ON A TIP, YET YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT, WANNA KNOW WHO IT WAS? WELL, I RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION FROM A VERY CREDIBLE SOURCE, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SO I DID NOT QUESTION IT.
SO, YOU KNOW WHERE, WHEN THEY CAME FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, YOU DIDN'T ASK, WELL, WHO MADE THE TIP? I DID NOT.
SOMEONE INSIDE THE DEPARTMENT, SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT.
I WAS NEVER IN AN OPEN FORUM WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ASK THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERSON IT CAME FROM.
AND IT SOUNDS AS IF THE, UM, WHEN YOU WERE ASKED BY MR. BEAVERS THAT SOMEONE SITTING IN O DOCUMENTS FOR OVERTIME LIKE THAT WOULD BE CALLED THEFT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WAS MY ANSWER, YES.
IF YOU'RE FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS IN WHICH YOU EARN OVERTIME, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TIME THEFT.
WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY KIND OF, UM, UH, ALLEGATIONS BY MR. UMES TO THE, UH, HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE CITY COMPLAINING ABOUT, UH, MR. ICK? NO.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE, MR. GOMES HAD HAD MEETINGS WITH, UH, THE INSPECTOR, UH, THE, UH, HR PEOPLE GOING BACK TO 2022, ABOUT MR. HIS, HIS SUPERVISOR? I WAS AWARE THAT, UM, THERE WERE ONGOING HR INVESTIGATIONS, BUT I HAD NOT SEEN, UH, THE EMAILS WHICH YOU BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY.
WELL, DID YOU SPEAK TO ANYONE IN HR ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS MR. GAMOS WAS MAKING AGAINST HIS SUPERVISOR, MR. COST? LOOK, WELL, NO, I WASN'T AWARE, SO I DID NOT.
WELL, YOU KNEW ABOUT SOME ONGOING HR INVESTIGATION THEN.
DEALING WITH MR. GOMEZ'S SUPERVISOR? YES.
BUT IT WASN'T AGAINST, IT WASN'T ACTUALLY AGAINST COSTELLA.
SO WASN'T WASN'T INVOLVING COSTELLA.
I THOUGHT YOU, WELL, HELP ME UNDERSTAND, IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE IN HR, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO IT WAS AGAINST? I KNOW WHO IT WAS, BUT IT WAS NOT MR. COSTELL.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT AT NO TIME BACK IN, UH, TWO, 2022 SPRING, THAT HR DOC, NO KIND OF INFORMATION OR COMPLAINTS FROM MR. GOMAS ABOUT HIS SUPERVISOR, MS. COSTELLI? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU ASK THAT QUESTION AGAIN? DO, DO YOU, SIR, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF HR HAVING RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION FROM MR. EZ BACK IN SPRING OF 2022 AGAINST HIS SUPERVISOR, MR. COSTELLO? NO, I'M NOT AWARE.
THAT'S, I'M SAYING THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, YOU'RE JUST NOT AWARE.
IF YOU WERE AWARE, IF YOU HAD BEEN MADE AWARE OF IT, WOULD YOU HAVE TALKED TO THE PEOPLE IN HR ABOUT PERHAPS THOSE ISSUES? PERHAPS.
BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T, WE, WE STAY OUT OF HR INVESTIGATIONS.
I MEAN, IF THEY FORWARD INFORMATION TO US TO INVESTIGATE, WE DO DO THAT.
WE WILL SEND THINGS TO HR AND THEY'LL SEND THINGS TO US.
UM, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE HAVE TO GATHER DOCUMENTS FROM HR, BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS EXISTED.
THERE WAS NEVER A POINT IN TIME THAT, OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD'VE LED ME TO THOSE DOCUMENTS.
AND, AND TO CLARIFY THIS TIMELINE, THIS TRAFFIC INCIDENT HAPPENED IN FEBRUARY, 2023, AND IT WASN'T UNTIL APRIL TWO MONTHS LATER THAT THIS FALSIFICATION ISSUE CAME TO LIGHT BECAUSE OF MR. COSTA OR ANONYMOUS TIP, OR HELPING HIM AT LEAST THE DATELAND OR, OR CLEAR ON THE DATES.
I GOT THIS INFORMATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO THEM RECEIVING IT.
SO I WENT, AS SOON AS I LEARNED THIS INFORMATION, I THEN SOUGHT, UM, SOUGHT, EXCUSE ME, SOUGHT
[01:40:01]
MR. COSTELLA OUT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS INFORMATION.BUT SO YOU'RE FIRST AWARE OF IT WAS IN APRIL? IT WAS IN APRIL.
TWO MONTHS AFTER THE TRAFFIC? YES.
AND AS BEST YOU CAN, UH, SURMISE OR BASED UPON YOUR INFORM THE INFORMATION, YOUR, YOUR INVESTIGATION, THIS INFORMATION CAME FROM YOUR MR. COST DEALING WITH THE FALSIFICATION OF THAT OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
NOW I WANNA GO BACK TO AGAIN HOW YOU, UM, FINALIZED YOUR, FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, AND THAT WAS THAT, UH, SORT OF FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO FALSIFY THESE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY IN OVERTIME WOULD'VE BEEN THEFT, CORRECT? YES.
AND IF A SUPERVISOR AND TOLD HIM TO DO IT THAT WAY, WOULD THE SUPERVISOR BE IMPLICATED IN THEFT? NO.
THAT'S, THAT'S A QUESTION I WOULD REALLY HAVE TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF, BASED UPON YOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, IF A SUPERVISOR OR OVER EMPLOYEES TOLD THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS COUNTER TO THE RULES, WOULD THEY NOT THAT SUPERVISOR HAVE SOME BE COMPLICIT, CERTAINLY PASS THE WITNESS.
WHEN, UH, WHEN MR. V WAS ASKING YOU WHY DIDN'T YOU FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES? UH, I GOT A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
ACTIVITIES AND BEHAVIORS THAT WE INVESTIGATED, ARE THEY A VIOLATION OF THE STANDARD OF TECHNICAL BEHAVIOR CONTAIN
YOU DIDN'T ADVISE MR. PERKINS ON THIS HALL TO FILE A POLICE REPORT, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
IS THAT CAUSE DUN, AS AN ACTIONS VIOLATED OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS AND FAVOR RESPONSIBILITY? YES.
AND WHEN YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT AN HR INVESTIGATION IS REAL CLEAR, YOU WERE AWARE OF HR INVESTIGATION AGAINST MR. DONEZ, CORRECT? CORRECT.
BUT YOU WERE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF ANY HR INVESTIGATIONS, MR. COSTAK, UNTIL ABOUT FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGAN WHEN I SHOWED YOU SOME OF THE EXHIBITS THAT THEY WERE OFFERING? THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, JUST QUICK, QUICKLY, YOUR HONOR.
I MEAN, BUT YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT THOSE, YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE INVESTIGATIONS IN HR AGAINST MR. COSTA DIDN'T EXIST, YOU JUST WEREN'T AWARE OF? WELL, HONESTLY, THOSE, THOSE EMAILS DON'T ACTUALLY PROVE THAT THERE'S AN ACTUAL HR INVESTIGATION.
WELL, I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION WILL DECIDE WHAT'S PROOF HERE TODAY.
BUT WERE YOU AWARE, AGAIN, I WAS NOT AWARE.
AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T, DIDN'T EXIST.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY DID NOT EXIST.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS? NONE, YOUR HONOR.
PLEASE DO SO, UM, MAY MR. CHAIR, WE HAD AGREEMENT EARLIER WITH, UH, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT WE MIGHT RECALL WITNESSES.
IF THEY COULD SPEAK, THERE'LL BE A AVAILABLE.
IS THAT OKAY? ANY OBJECTION TO RECALLING WITNESSES? WE HAVE NO OBJECTION FOR HER TO STILL BE ON STANDBY.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION, JUST SO WE KNOW, GOING FORWARD, DO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE WITNESS QUESTIONS? UH, UH, IF IT IS MY DISCRETION, I SAY I I WOULD, YES, I WOULD ALLOW THE QUE THE PANEL TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS ONCE THE PARTIES HAVE FINISHED THEIR, UH, EXAMINATION OF THE, OF THE WITNESS.
AND, AND I'M FINISHED WITH HER RIGHT NOW.
AND IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, NO OBJECTION, NO OBJECTION TO THE MEMBER.
ALL FROM THE RESPONDENT, AND WE'LL LIMIT QUESTIONS TO WHAT SHE HAS TESTIFIED TO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, IF THE PANEL HAS QUESTIONS.
IS THAT FAIR? WELL, THEN I DO HAVE JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS.
IF, IF YOU'LL DIRECTED TO WHAT SHE HAS TEXTED YES.
DIRECTED TO WHAT SHE'S ALREADY DISCUSSED.
VERY QUICKLY, UM, WHEN YOU, I'M JUST INTERESTED IN HEARING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR MEETING WITH MR. PERKINS.
OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF A LOT OF, OF PEOPLE AND YOUR EXPERIENCE.
[01:45:01]
YOU, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE FIND, UH, MR. PERKINS CREDIBLE IN, UM, OUTLINING WHAT HAPPENED? AND, AND IF SO, WHAT WERE SOME OF THE, UM, REASONS? WHAT WERE SOME OF THE REASONS THAT YOU FOUND HIM PARTICULARLY CREDIBLE? I DID FIND HIM TO BE A CREDIBLE, UM, COMPLAINANT.UM, FIRST AND FOREMOST, WHAT HE SAID MAKES SENSE, AND THEN I WAS ABLE TO BACK THAT UP WITH FACT.
AND I ALWAYS LOOKED INTO EVERY WITNESS, AND HE'S AN UPSTANDING MEMBER OF HIS COMMUNITY.
UM, HE HAS SERVED THE CITY OF DALLAS IN MANY FORUMS ON MANY BOARDS.
SO IF HE'S REPRESENTING THE CITY OF DALLAS ON THESE DIFFERENT WAYS, OF COURSE I'M GONNA SEE THAT HE'S CREDIBLE.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOLLOW UP.
WHEN YOU WERE ASSESSING MR. PERKIN'S CREDIBILITY AND HE TOLD YOU THAT THERE WAS A TRAFFIC INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT TWO 30 OR APPROXIMATELY TWO 30, AND YOU PULLED THE SATELLITE DATA FROM MR. G TRUCK, FOUND THAT ACCIDENT HAPPENED AT 2 34, DID YOU CONSIDER THAT CREDIBLE? EXTREMELY CREDIBLE, YEAH, THAT WAS VERY CREDIBLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST QUICKLY? ONE, UM, MS. MUELLER, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, PUTTING IT, UM, PAINTING THE, THE, UM, COMPLAINT, MR. UM, MR. PERKINS IS SUCH FLIGHT, BUT YOU KNOW, HAS THE SERVICE OF THE CITY AND ALL, ISN'T EXACTLY WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE NEEDS TO DO.
THIS QUESTION, THE, THE, THE VERACITY OF COMMISSIONERS, EMPLOYEES, THE STAFF, NOT JUST GIVE THEM A PASS.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO, TO ANSWER THAT? YES.
SO ABSOLUTELY 100% IS OUR JOB TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY I LOOK INTO EVERY WITNESS TO SEE WHAT THEIR BACKGROUND IS AND WHAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMMUNITY IS AND WHAT THEIR SERVICE TO THE CITY HAS BEEN.
YES, I DO TRY TO ESTABLISH THE TYPE OF PERSON THEY ARE AND THEIR STANDING NOTHING FURTHER.
I AS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT I MAKE THE RULINGS ON THE OBJECTIONS IF THE COMMISSION OR ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION OBJECTS TO MY RULINGS.
YOU MAY SO STATE AND BY VOTE, UH, SIMPLE MAJORITY.
ANY, ANY RULING ON MY OBJECTION CAN BE OVERRULED.
WHAT IS THIS WITNESS'S NAME? AND MR. COSTELLO, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GIVE TODAY IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YOU MAY PROCEED.
UH, MR. COSTELLA, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? PAUL COSTELLA.
AND WHAT'S YOUR OCCUPATION? MR. COSTELLI? MANAGER OVER METER SERVICES DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS? EIGHT YEARS AND TWO MONTHS.
AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? MANAGER OVER METER SERVICES.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN JUAN GOMEZ'S DIRECT SUPERVISOR? I WAS AS DIRECT SUPERVISOR FOR A YEAR, GIVE OR TAKE, AND THEN I WAS, UM, MOVED INTO A MANAGERIAL POSITION.
AND WHAT'S YOUR EDUCATION? UH, JUST HIGH SCHOOL AND SOME COLLEGE.
UM, WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE MR. GOMEZ IF YOU SAW HIM AGAIN? YES, SIR.
YOU SEE HIM IN THE HEARING ROOM TODAY? YES, SIR.
WOULD YOU POINT HIM OUT AND DESCRIBE AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING AS ON A WHITE SHIRT AND A TIE
[01:50:01]
IN THE BACK THERE, MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THIS WITNESS HAS IDENTIFIED JUAN GOMEZ.LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PHASE ONE, WHICH WAS WHAT HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS THE ROAD RAGE INCIDENT.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR. JUAN GOMEZ FROM FEBRUARY? OBJECT TO THE ROAD PAGE.
THE OTHER ROAD RAGE IS NOT MENTIONED, AND I OBJECT TO HIM TO CONTINUING USE THAT PHRASE.
IT DOES INVOLVE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR, DOES IT NOT? YES.
BEING, WELL, ROAD RAGE COULD BE, I SUPPOSE, THE STANDARD HERE, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING, HE'S NOT TALKING ABOUT, I, I HAVE TO OBJECT TO THAT PHRASE.
THERE ARE, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO ROAD RAGE.
MAY I RESPOND? YES, IT PLEASE.
I THINK IT'S UP TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EAC TO DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR. JUAN GOMEZ ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023? YES, SIR.
HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT THEM? UH, ACTUALLY IT WAS FROM ONE OF MY SUPERVISORS, UH, MS. RITA ROBINSON.
UH, MR. PERKINS ARRIVED AT, UH, DALLAS WATER UTILITIES ON MUNICIPAL STREET APPROXIMATELY 2 45 TO THREE O'CLOCK.
UM, ON THAT DAY, I WAS IN THE BACK WAREHOUSE C UM, AND I WAS UNAWARE OF MR. UH, PERKINS ARRIVAL AT THAT TIME.
UM, HE CAME TO MY OFFICE, I WASN'T THERE.
HE WENT UPSTAIRS AND, UH, LOCATED MS. ROBINSON.
SHE'S THE FIRST OFFICE YOU COME TO WHEN YOU COME IN OUR FACILITY UP THE STEPS.
SO, UH, HE WAS VERY IRATE, UM, AND, UH, WANTED TO KNOW WHO DROVE, UM, A CERTAIN VEHICLE.
HE'D WRITTEN DOWN A LICENSE PLATE AND THE VEHICLE NUMBER.
UM, AND MS. ROBINSON WASN'T AWARE OF WHAT TECHNICIANS DRIVE WHAT VEHICLES, SO SHE WENT TO ANOTHER SUPERVISOR, UH, MS. TIA RUSSELL, WHO HANDLES OUR FLEET.
UM, AND THEY, UH, WERE ABLE TO FIND OUT WHAT, UH, VEHICLE AND WHICH PERSON WAS DRIVING THAT VEHICLE OR WHICH PERSON WAS ASSIGNED TO THAT VEHICLE.
UM, MR. PERKINS LEFT THE CARD, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE CITY OF DALLAS, UH, PARKS AND BOARD MEMBER CARD, AND ASKED, UH, FOR MY NUMBER AND TOLD MS. ROBINSON THAT, UH, HE WOULD BE CONTACTING ME.
AND, UM, UH, HE IN FACT DID LEAVE ME A VOICEMAIL AT APPROXIMATELY FIVE 30 THAT SAME EVENING.
AND I RETURNED HIS CALL THE FOLLOWING MORNING AT 8:00 AM AND, UH, HE EXPLAINED THE WHOLE INCIDENT AND, UH, I ASKED HIM TO PUT IN AN EMAIL AND THEN I WOULD TURN IT OVER TO HR TO INVESTIGATE.
IS THERE DOCUMENTATION OF THIS EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN YOU AND TERRENCE PERKINS IN YOUR FILE? YES, SIR.
LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN MR. CHAIRMAN.
IS IT OKAY IF WE WAIT TILL THE DOCUMENTS APPEAR ON THE SCREEN? ANY OBJECTION? NO OBJECTION.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A DELAY FROM THE TIME THAT WE DO THIS TO THE TIME THAT IT APPEARS ON THE SCREEN.
UM, MR. CHAIR, UH, SINCE IT'S ABOUT NOON TIME, DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF TIMELINE LUNCH, THINGS LIKE THAT FROM THAT, FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR A BREAK?
[01:55:02]
NO, I'M SORRY, I I'M CLICKING ON THIS AND IT WON'T DO ANYTHING.I THINK YOU NEED TO SHUT DOWN AND REBOOT MR. CHAIR PREP IS A GOOD TIME FOR HIM.
RIGHT? HOW, HOW LONG DO YOU ALL THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO GET ALL OF THE TECH STUFF? AND, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO RESTART HIS COMPUTER BECAUSE IT'S CLOSING.
IS THIS A GOOD, THIS A GOOD TIME FOR LUNCH BREAK WHILE YOU ALL GET ALL THE TECH STUFF TOGETHER? IS THAT OKAY? ALL RIGHT.
SO HOW LONG, LET'S SAY, LET'S SEE, IT'S 12 O'CLOCK, IT'S 2025.
IS, IS 30 MINUTES LONG ENOUGH? 30 IS FINE FOR, ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S RESUME AT AT 1230, IS THAT OKAY? ALL RIGHT.
SO WE'LL STAND AT RECESS UNTIL 1230.
ARE, ARE THE PARTIES READY TO PROCEED? YES, YOUR HONOR.
COMMISSION MEMBERS READY TO PROCEED.
IT IS 1235 AND THE ETHICS ADVISORY, THE COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS ARE BACK IN ORDER.
I THINK YOU HAD JUST CALLED YOUR NEXT WITNESS, I BELIEVE.
MAY WE CONTINUE OUR EXAMINATION? YES.
UH, MR. COSTAK, HAS MR. COSTAK BEEN SWORN IN MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, HE HAS, YES.
UM, PICKING UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF, MR. EK, UH, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU GOT A CALL FROM TERRENCE PERKINS AND DID YOU TALK TO HIM ON THE PHONE? YES, SIR.
HE LEFT ME A VOICEMAIL AT FIVE 30 ON, UH, EVENING OF FEBRUARY 7TH.
I RETURNED HIS CALL ON THE MORNING OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHT O'CLOCK, FEBRUARY THE EIGHTH.
AND DID YOU HAVE, UH, DID YOU ASK HIM TO PUT THAT IN WRITING? YES, SIR, I DID.
AND IS THERE DOCUMENTATION OF THAT INCIDENT IN YOUR BUSINESS RECORDS? YES.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A ON PAGE TWO AND THREE? IS THIS, UH, IS THIS THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO? YES.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD IT BE OKAY IF I PUBLISHED THIS EMAIL BY READING IT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EAC? ANY OBJECTIONS? YES, PLEASE PROCEED PAUL.
IN REFERENCE TO THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED YESTERDAY, I WAS TRAVELING WEST ON BRUTON ROAD, CROSSED OVER SECOND AVENUE, AND BOTH LANES BEGAN TO MERGE.
AT THAT TIME, WE BOTH WERE APPROACHING 1 75 C UPON FREEWAY.
A CITY OF DALLAS WATER TRUCK BEGAN TO MERGE IN THE LANE AT A FAST SPEED.
I WAS IMMEDIATELY PUSHED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE RAMP.
AT THAT TIME, I WAS ONLY A FEW FEET AWAY FROM GOING OVER THE EMBANKMENT.
THE EMBANKMENT ON THE, ON THE ON-RAMP DOES NOT HAVE ANY GUARDRAILS OR CABLES TO ENSURE ONE DOES NOT GO OVER.
I IMMEDIATELY WAS ABLE TO STOP AND THEN CONTINUE BACK ON A 1 75.
AT THAT TIME, I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER AND THE TRUCK NUMBER, THE CITY OF DALLAS UTILITY TRUCK.
IT APPEARS TO BE A BROWN LATINO DRIVE THE VEHICLE.
I BLEW MY HORN AT THE DRIVER TO LET HIM KNOW THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE INAPPROPRIATE.
HE IMMEDIATELY FLICKED ME OFF WITH A MIDDLE FINGER AS A SIGN OF FU, ALSO USED HIS POINT FINGER OF HIS RIGHT HAND TO POINT AT HIS TEMPLE AS A SIGN OF BLANK HEAD.
I IMMEDIATELY EXITED BAYER STREET TO MAKE A REPORT AT THE SERVICE CENTER AND SPOKE WITH RITA ROBINSON.
DUE TO THIS DRIVER'S ACTIONS, I FELT UNSAFE AS A DRIVER OF MY LIFE AND MY LIFE.
AND PASSENGER'S LIFE COULD HAVE BEEN IN DANGER GOING OVER THE IN BANK, WHICH COULD HAVE RESULTED IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH.
ALSO, WHILE TRYING TO MAKE HIM ACKNOWLEDGE
[02:00:01]
THE INCIDENT, HIS RESPONSE WAS DEFINITELY INAPPROPRIATE.AS A CITY WORKER, IT IS MY PRAYER THAT EVERY CITY EMPLOYEE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE CUSTOMER SERVICE AS WELL AS MINDFUL OF THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS THAT THEY SERVE.
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS EMAIL AS AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER UTILITIES AT THE CITY OF DALLAS.
BEST REGARDS, TERRENCE PERKINS DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO, DID MR. GOMEZ GIVE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THIS INCIDENT? YES, HE DID.
AND I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT'S IN EVIDENCE IS A FOUR.
THIS IS DATED FEBRUARY 15TH, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND DID YOU READ MR. GOMEZ'S STATEMENT THAT REPLIED TO THIS SITUATION? UM, NARRA BONFIELD, UH, ASKED MR. GOMEZ TO WRITE THIS STATEMENT.
AND GOING ON TO A FIVE, THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS.
WHO TOOK THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? I DID.
AND IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TRUCK THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DRIVING ON FEBRUARY 7TH OF THIS YEAR? YES, SIR.
AND DOES IT HAVE THE NUMBER OF THE TRUCK ON THE SIDE? YES, SIR.
AND THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE AND IT HAS CITY OF DALLAS VEHICLE.
IT'S GOT THE NUMBER ON THIS SIDE TOO, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND THIS IS THE, THE BACK OF THE TRUCK? YES, SIR.
HAS THE SAME NUMBER ON THE BACK, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND IS THIS THE VEHICLE THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DRIVING ON FEBRUARY 7TH OF THIS YEAR? YES, IT WAS.
GOING ONTO TO PAGE EIGHT, UH, IS THIS A SCREENSHOT OF MR. GOMEZ'S TIME CARD ON FEBRUARY 7TH OF 23? YES IT IS.
AND THE EMAIL REQUESTING IT? YES.
AND DOES THIS SHOW THAT HIS WORKING HOURS WERE FROM 7:00 AM TO 4:00 PM YES, SIR.
WOULD THIS BE HELPFUL FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER MR. GOMEZ WAS WORKING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AT 2:30 PM ON FEBRUARY 7TH? YES.
AND SHOWING YOU WHAT'S IN EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A 10, IS THIS A FLEET OPERATIONS CHECKLIST? YES, IT IS.
AND WHAT IS A FLEET OPERATIONS CHECKLIST? IT'S A, UH, CHECKLIST INSPECTION THAT'S DONE EVERY MORNING BY ALL, UH, TECHNICIANS THAT ARE, UH, GOING OUT IN THE FIELD, WHATEVER VEHICLE THEY'RE DRIVING THAT DAY.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION UP TO THE TOP, DOES THIS HAVE MR. GOMEZ'S NAME ON IT? YES, SIR.
HAS HIS NAME, EMPLOYEE NUMBER, AND THE VEHICLE HE WAS DRIVING.
AND IT HAS HIS EMPLOYEE NUMBER HERE? YES, IT DOES.
AND IS HIS NAME AND EMPLOYEE NUMBER TIED TO VEHICLE 2 0 1 0 4? YES, SIR.
AND THIS WAS ON FEBRUARY 7TH OF THIS YEAR? THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT AT THE BOTTOM IT'S SIGNED BY MR. GOMEZ, IS IT NOT? YES, IT IS.
AND YOU RECOGNIZE HIS SIGNATURE? I DO.
AND YOU'VE SEEN HIS SIGNATURE MANY TIMES OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS? I HAVE.
IF WE WENT THROUGH PAGES 11 THROUGH 22, THIS IS ALL THE G P S SATELLITE DATA FROM HIS TRUCK THAT DAY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS.
AND THAT'S 12 PAGES STARTING AT 8:40 AM IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND ENDING AT 3:14 PM ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IF WE GO TO PAGE 21, IT'S BATES NUMBER TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT.
UM, THIS IS THE GPS SATELLITE DATA THAT WE WERE FOCUSING ON THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION, CORRECT? YES.
ON PAGE A 23, IS THIS AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE NOTICE? YES, IT IS.
AND THAT'S ISSUED TO JUAN GOMEZ? YES, IT IS.
AND IT WAS DATED FEBRUARY 15TH, 2023? YES.
AND IT WAS PERTAINING TO THIS INCIDENT? YES.
UH, AS WELL AS, UH, THE, UH, ANOTHER INCIDENT THAT HR WAS INVESTIGATED.
[02:05:01]
THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ON FEBRUARY 15TH OF THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION? YES.HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT C4 RIGHT HERE, WHICH WAS HIM HEADING TOWARD THE SCENE OF THIS, UH, TRAFFIC INCIDENT AND THEN C5 HERE? YES.
AND DID YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSPOSE GPS DATA FROM EXHIBIT A 21 AT THE TOP? YES.
AND DID YOU NOTICE ON THE SECOND ENTRY, THE HARD CORNERING RIGHT, WAS JUST WHERE THE ROGUE TURNED? CORRECT.
AND THE HARD CORNERING LEFT WAS DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM, NEAR 0.8? YES.
DO YOU THINK THE GPS DATA ON HIS TRUCK SUPPORTS OR HINDERS THE PROSECUTION'S NARRATIVE IN THIS CASE OF UNSAFE DRIVING? I BELIEVE IT SUPPORTS IT.
WHAT DOES HARD CORNERING MEAN WHEN YOU SEE THAT ON GPS STUFF? ON THE TRUCKS THAT YOU SUPERVISE? UH, THEY'RE GOING EXCESSIVE SPEED, UH, WHEN THEY'RE MAKING A LEFT HAND OR A RIGHT TURN, OR DID YOU FORM ANY OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE GPS DATA FROM THIS TRUCK SUPPORT OR HINDERS MR. GOMEZ'S ACCOUNT OF THE SITUATION BASED UPON HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT? I BELIEVE IT HINDERS HIS ACCOUNT.
DID YOU MEET WITH CHRISTOPHER CRESS WHO CONDUCTED THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS? YES, I DID.
AND DID HE CONFIRM FOR YOU THAT HE IN FACT DID THAT WORK? YES, HE DID.
WAS HE SCARED WHEN YOU TALKED TO HIM? UH, YES.
UH, IS HE HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY? NO, HE HAS NOT.
UH, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION? UM, I CONTINUED TO GATHER INFORMATION WHEN I FIRST STARTED DOING QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS ON, UH, MR. GOMEZ.
UH, WHY DID, WHY DID YOU ASK CHRISTOPHER CREST TO DO THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS? UH, I'D HAD, UH, JUAN'S, UH, DIRECT SUPERVISOR, UH, UH, MR. JOSHUA TIMBERMAN.
HE'D, UH, HAD OTHER DUTIES HE WAS DOING DURING THE DAY.
MR. CREST WAS MY NIGHTS AND WEEKEND SUPERVISOR, AND SO I ASKED HIM TO, TO DO THAT FOR ME.
BACK TO THE FEAR QUESTION I ASKED YOU EARLIER, WERE THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WORKS FOR YOU THAT WAS AFRAID OF MR. GOMEZ? MR. JOSHUA TIMBERMAN.
DID YOU INSTITUTE ANY PRECAUTIONS IN RESPONSE TO WHAT YOUR STAFF EXPRESSED TO YOU ABOUT FEAR? I DID.
WHAT DID YOU DO? UH, THERE'S 2 28 61 MUNICIPALS IS A DOUBLE WIDE MOBILE TRAILER OFFICE.
AND, UM, IT'S SURROUNDED WITH THE RAZOR WIRE FENCE AND THERE'S TWO ENTRANCES FROM THE STREET, UH, UH, TWO GATE ENTRANCES.
UH, I HAD THOSE, UH, PADLOCK, UH, CHAINED AND PADLOCKED, AND THEN I HAD THE LOCKS ON.
THREE EXTERIOR DOORS TURNED, NEW KEYS MADE FOR THEM.
AND I HAD MR. JOSHUA TIMMERMANS OFFICE KEY, UH, CHANGED OUT AS WELL.
AND THEN, UM, I CALLED A MEETING WITH, UH, THE SECURITY ON THE LOT AND, UH, GAVE THEM A PICTURE OF MR. GOMEZ AND, UH, TOLD 'EM UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THIS GENTLEMAN'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE PROPERTY.
AND I INSTITUTED A SYSTEM WHERE, UM, THE EMPLOYEES COME IN THEIR EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT AND ISN'T BACK.
AND BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE JUST TO DRIVE STRAIGHT IN, PARK THEIR CAR, WALK IN THE BACK DOOR, CLOCK IN AND GO ABOUT THEIR DAY.
UM, SO I INSTITUTED A SYSTEM WHERE THEY HAD TO SHOW THEIR BADGE TO THE SECURITY GUARD BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO ENTER AND THEN GO PARK THEIR PERSONAL VEHICLE.
DID YOU ALERT GROUND SECURITY TO THESE ISSUES? I DID.
DID YOU PROVIDE A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. GOMEZ TO GROUND SECURITY? YES, SIR.
[02:10:18]
LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS INCIDENT.UH, ARE YOU WERE AWARE OF THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS ALLEGATIONS AMIN AGAINST MR. GOMEZ FROM APRIL 23RD LAST YEAR TO FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR? IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THOSE? IT HAD BEEN, UH, BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY OTHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT THAT, UH, POSSIBLY THERE WERE SOME INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE, UH, NOT DOING AS THEY WERE ASSIGNED TO DO ON OVERTIME.
UH, WHAT IS EXHIBIT G ONE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU HERE? UH, THAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE.
UH, THAT IT'S THAT, UH, EVERY EMPLOYEE THAT GOES THROUGH DALLAS WATER UTILITIES IS PART OF THE PERSONNEL RULE BOOK CITY OF DALLAS.
UH, IT, UH, PERTAINS TO, UM, YOUR, UH, UH, EMPLOYEES, UM, FALSIFYING TIME OF ANY SORT IN ANY WAY.
UH, WHAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION IT CAN LEAD TO.
I NOTICE IT'S DATED JUNE 25TH, 2015.
IS THAT THE FIRST DAY HE BEGAN WORKING FOR THE CITY? YES, IT IS.
AND DOES IT ESTABLISH PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES FOR PAYROLL PROCESSES? YES, IT DOES.
AND DOES IT CLEARLY STATE THAT FALSIFICATION IS A VIOLATION OF THE PERSONNEL RULES? YES, IT DOES.
UH, I'VE NOTICED MR. GOMEZ'S NAME IS ON HERE AND HIS SIGNATURE, IS THAT HIS SIGNATURE? YES, IT IS.
AND SO DOES THIS PROVE THAT HE RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS ON DAY ONE? YES, HE DID.
ALL EMPLOYEES RECEIVED THE, UH, ORIGINAL COPIES IN A NOTEBOOK AND ON G2, WHAT IS THIS? THAT IS, UH, THE PERSONNEL RULES THAT, UH, COINCIDES WITH THE LAST, UH, DIRECTIVE.
SO THAT'S HIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE PERSONNEL RULES? YES.
AND YOU RECOGNIZE HIS SIGNATURE HERE ALSO? YES.
AND WHAT IS G THREE HERE? UH, THAT IS A SCREENSHOT OF, UH, UH, HIS OVERVIEW AND WORKDAY.
HIS WORKDAY POSITION PROFILE? YES.
AND DOES THIS PROVE THAT HE WAS AN ACTIVE EMPLOYEE, UH, ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023? YES, IT DOES.
DOES IT SHOW HIS TITLE ON HERE? YES, IT DOES.
AND WHAT IS THAT CREW LEADER WATER UTILITY.
DOES IT SHOW HIS LENGTH OF SERVICE? YES, IT DOES.
DOES THAT SHOWS THE HIRE DATE? YES.
SO HE'S BEEN THERE ALMOST EIGHT YEARS? WOULD'VE BEEN EIGHT YEARS, YES.
LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE 77 PAGE DOCUMENT CALLED EXHIBIT F.
UM, WHAT ARE THESE 77 PAGES? UH, THESE ARE, UH, THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE, UH, SERVICE ORDERS THAT ARE GIVEN OUT TO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ON A DAILY BASIS AND, AND OVERTIME AS WELL.
SIR, DO THESE CONTAIN THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVER TIME PROGRAM FORMS THAT ARE FILLED OUT BY YOUR STAFF? YES, SIR.
DOES IT CONTAIN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS ALSO? YES, IT DOES.
AND DOES IT HAVE TIMECARDS WHEN THEY'RE AVAILABLE? YES.
AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT HE'S BEEN CHARGED WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR FALSIFYING RECORDS, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT SOME OF THOSE RECORDS, THE IG DIVISION, VERIFIED THROUGH QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS? YES.
AND YOU'RE ALSO AWARE THAT WE VERIFIED SOME OF THOSE FALSE STATEMENTS THROUGH SECURITY GUARD ENTRANCE LOGS DATED JULY 20TH OF LAST YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS.
AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT SOME OF THOSE STATEMENTS WE VERIFIED THROUGH GPS SATELLITE DATA? THAT IS CORRECT.
WOULD YOU TELL THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, WHAT IS THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME PROGRAM AND HOW IS IT SUPPOSED TO WORK? WELL, PETER, UH, PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE PROGRAM IN ITSELF IS METERS THAT ARE 10 TO 15 YEARS OF AGE.
WE, UH, ARE SUPPOSED TO REPLACE THEM.
AND, UM, UH, IN THIS INSTANCE, THE PROGRAM IS SET UP FOR, UH, ANY INDIVIDUALS THAT WANNA WORK, UH, AFTER THEIR
[02:15:01]
REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS, UH, WHICH ARE IN MR. GOMEZ'S CASE, SEVEN TO FOUR, OTHERS SEVEN 30 TO FOUR.UH, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO START THE PROGRAM AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK AFTER THEIR REGULAR BUSINESS DUTIES ARE COMPLETED.
UM, THIS AND GO TILL DUSK IF, IF, UH, IF THEY SO WANT TO.
AND THEN ON THE WEEKENDS, UM, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY 7:00 AM TO 3:00 PM SO HIS REGULARLY SCHEDULED WORK HOURS ARE SEVEN TO FOUR? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IF MR. GOMEZ WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM, IT WOULD BE HAVE TO BE AFTER FOUR AND BEFORE SUNSET ON A WEEKDAY? YES SIR.
IF HE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE, PAY IN THIS PROGRAM ON THE WEEKEND, WHAT HOURS DOES HE NEED TO DO IT? BY? 7:00 AM TO 3:00 PM.
AND IF AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMS THESE OVERTIME PME EXCHANGES DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS, WHAT IS THAT? FALSIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION.
DID YOU VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE G P S TRANSPONDER ON THE TRUCK THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DRIVING ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023? I DID, I VERIFIED IT ON APRIL 25TH.
WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION WHAT YOU DID TO VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE GPS TRANSPONDER ON THAT SPECIFIC TRUCK? I DOCUMENTED A TIME THAT I STARTED THE UNIT, UM, TOOK, TOOK A PICTURE OF THE DASH TO VERIFY THE MILEAGE.
UM, AND, UH, SO I HAD TO READ ON THAT AND, UH, VERIFIED MY START TIME.
UM, AND THEN I WENT TO A SPECIFIC LOCATION, UH, IN THIS CASE LEFT 28 61 MUNICIPAL DROVE TO 65 0 6 LAKE JUNE, UH, TO A CIRCLE K SAT THERE, UM, GOT AN ODOMETER REED AT THAT POINT IN TIME AS WELL.
AND THEN I DEPARTED THERE AND, UH, WENT TO 55 0 1 SOUTH BUCKNER.
THERE'S A 7-ELEVEN THERE AGAIN, SAT THERE, UM, TOOK ANOTHER ODOMETER.
REED DEPARTED THERE AND HEADED BACK TO MUNICIPAL.
AND THEN THE, TO VERIFY THAT, UH, THE ODOMETER WAS IN, IN LINE AND THE, AND THE THE DISTANCE WAS IN LINE.
UM, I PULLED THE G P S DATA TO CONFIRM THAT, UH, TO THE MINUTE THAT THE G P S WAS IN FACT ACCURATE.
SO YOU TOOK SCREEN CAPTURES ON YOUR PHONE, MADE A TRIP FROM POINT A TO POINT B AND THEN BACK TO POINT A.
AND THEN YOU WENT INSIDE AND PRINTED OUT THE GPS AND COMPARED THEM SIDE BY SIDE? YES.
AND HOW ACCURATE WAS IT? A HUNDRED PERCENT.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGES ONE THROUGH 34 AND EXHIBIT F, DO THESE RECORDS VERIFY THE FALSE STATEMENTS THAT MR. GOMEZ MADE THROUGH QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS? DID THESE RECORDS VERIFY THAT THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS WERE THE METHODOLOGY, THE FIRST METHODOLOGY THAT WE USED TO CONFIRM THE FALSIFICATION OF THESE RECORDS? YES.
AND THAT'S PAGES ONE THROUGH 34? CORRECT.
WHAT IS A P M E FORM AND WHAT'S ITS PURPOSE? IT'S SO THAT WE CAN TRACK AN INDIVIDUAL'S, UH, TIME MILEAGE PARTS USED ON EVERY JOB.
AND IT'S GOT THE ADDRESS WHERE THEY STOPPED AT THE TOP? YES, SIR.
AND DOWN AT THE BOTTOM IT SHOWS THE TIME THEY STOPPED AND THE TIME THEY LEFT? CORRECT.
AND IT'S GOT THE DATE WHERE THE EXCHANGE TOOK PLACE? YES, IT DOES DOWN AT THE BOTTOM AS WELL.
AND WHO FILLS THESE OUT? THE EMPLOYEE THAT'S, UH, PROVIDING THE WORK.
WHEN AN EMPLOYEE FILLS ONE OF THESE FORMS OUT AND YOU SEND IN A SUPERVISOR TO DO A QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT, UM, WHO CONDUCTS THOSE? I, UH, ALWAYS ASK SUPERVISORS TO CONDUCT THEM OR, OR IF IT'S FOR, UM, IF I CAN A CREW LEADER, IF IT'S, UH, ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL THAT'S INVOLVED, BUT USUALLY IT'S SUPERVISORS, THAT'S MY PREFERENCE.
AND WHO CONDUCTED THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE? CHRISTOPHER RES.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO F1, UH, LET'S START UP HERE ON THE TOP LINE,
[02:20:01]
THE 71 15 RED BUD DRIVE.AND LET'S GO THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS, THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS THAT RESULTED IN THE, UH, SUMMARY EXHIBIT BEHIND US.
AND THE FIRST ADDRESS WAS 71 15 RED BUD DRIVE.
AND THE SUMMARY EXHIBIT TO THESE RECORDS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS BEHIND ME ON A TRIPOD.
UM, AND THESE ARE THE DATE AND TIME DISCREPANCIES VERIFIED BY THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS? UH, YES.
AND ON THE SECOND PAGE, D TWO, LET'S JUST GO THROUGH THESE RECORDS.
WHEN'S THE FIRST ON 71 15 REDBUD DRIVE.
WHEN DID MR. GOMEZ SAY THAT HE ARRIVED AND LEFT? HE WROTE ON HIS TICKET, HE ARRIVED AT 7 25 AND DEPARTED AT 7:40 PM AND THAT WAS ON 4 23, WHICH IS A SATURDAY? THAT IS CORRECT.
WHEN YOU DID THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS, I NOTICED SOME OF THIS PENMANSHIP IS IN BREAD, INK, NOT BLACK.
WHEN THE SUPERVISORS DOING THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK, THEY TRACK THEIR OWN MILEAGE, UH, AND PUT THEIR OWN TIME DOWN, UH, IS THE ONE THEY, UH, MADE CONTACT AT THE RESIDENCE, UH, DOING THE QC.
SO WHEN MR. CREST DID THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS, WHAT DID HE DETERMINE ON THIS EXCHANGE? UH, THAT, UH, THE CUSTOMER, UH, HAD STATED THAT, UH, HE WAS HERE ON FRIDAY THE 22ND.
SO THE CUSTOMER SAID HE DID THE EXCHANGE ON FRIDAY AND MR. GOMEZ'S PAPERWORK SAID IT WAS DONE ON SATURDAY.
AND WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE SECOND ONE OF EXHIBIT D ONE, AND THAT WOULD BE PAGES F THREE AND FOUR.
THIS HOME WAS AT 71 0 6 RED BUD DRIVE.
AND WHEN DID MR. GOMEZ SAY THAT HE ARRIVED, UM, AT 7:45 PM AND DEPARTED AT 7:55 PM AND WHAT DATE DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE DID THIS METER EXCHANGE? APRIL 23RD.
WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT ON PAGE FOUR WAS DONE, WHAT DID IT REVEAL, UH, REVEALED THAT MR. UH, GOMER GOMEZ WAS THERE ON UH, APRIL THE 22ND.
SO HE WAS THERE ON A FRIDAY, BUT CLAIMING TO HAVE DONE IT ON A SATURDAY? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND GO TO PAGE F 5 7 0 51 REDBUD DRIVE.
WHAT DATE DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE DID THIS EXCHANGE? APRIL 23RD AND IT SHOWS THAT HE ARRIVED AT 8 0 3, 8 0 3, 8 0 5, UM, AND THEN LEFT AND DEPARTED EIGHT 15 AND DEPARTED EIGHT 15 WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DONE? EXCUSE ME.
UH, WHAT DID MR. CREST PUT HERE? UH, UH, THAT THE CUSTOMER STATED THAT, UH, MR. GOMEZ WAS THERE ON UH, FRIDAY, APRIL 22ND.
SO THIS IS THE THIRD CUSTOMER THAT CONFIRMED IT WAS DONE ON FRIDAY, NOT SATURDAY.
MOVING ON TO F SEVEN, THIS IS HIS TIME CARD FOR THAT DAY, CORRECT? YES IT IS.
AND DOES THAT SHOW HIM CLOCKING IN AT 6 56 AND LEAVING AT 3 52? YES, SIR.
GOING ON TO EXHIBIT F 8 50, 2 31 CLOVER HAVEN STREET, MR. GOMEZ DID THIS EXCHANGE ON APRIL 27TH, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, WHEN DOES HE CLAIM TO HAVE ARRIVED? 5:05 PM AND DEPARTED AT 5:20 PM WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DONE, WHAT DID THE CUSTOMER TELL MR. CHRIS THAT, UM, THE TECHNICIAN ARRIVED AT 4:00 PM GOING ON TO THE NEXT 1 63 69 CYAN ROAD.
[02:25:01]
AND WHEN WAS THIS EXCHANGE DONE? UM, MR. GOMEZ STATED 6:45 PM TO 7:00 PM AND THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK, UH, THE CUSTOMER STATED IT WAS AT 6:00 PM AND THAT'S DOCUMENTED HERE ON PAGE F 11, CORRECT? YES.AND HIS TIME CARD ON THAT DAY WAS 6 59 TO 8:30 PM CORRECT.
WHEN WE GET TO PAGE F 13, IT'S 63 41 CHRISTENSEN DRIVE.
AT WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE SHOWED UP TO DO THIS EXCHANGE? 4:25 PM WHEN HE DEPARTED AT 4:40 PM WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WHAT DID THE CUSTOMER SAY? SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 2:40 PM AND 3:00 PM ON THE NEXT ONE AT 62 26 PETAIN AVENUE.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE ARRIVED FOR THIS JOB? 6:25 PM WHEN HE DEPARTED AT 6:40 PM WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DONE ON THIS CASE, WHAT DID THE CUSTOMER SAY AS TO THE TIME HE ACTUALLY SHOWED UP? 5:00 PM AND ON PAGE F 18, THIS, OH, SORRY, THIS IS HIS TIME CARD FOR THAT DAY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND WHEN WE GET TO F 18, THAT'S 34 13 FAIRVIEW AVENUE? CORRECT.
AND THAT WAS DONE ON MAY 6TH? YES.
AND WHAT TIME ON MAY 6TH DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE SHOWED UP TO DO TO BEGIN THE EXCHANGE ON THAT HOUSE? 6:42 PM.
6:52 PM AND WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WHAT DID THE HOMEOWNER TELL MR. CHRIS THAT HE ARRIVED AT 5:00 PM DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE F 20 AT 3 0 9 OH MILL LANE.
THIS WAS JUAN DOWN ON MAY 9TH, CORRECT? YES.
AND WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE SHOWED UP TO DO THIS ONE ARRIVAL AT 4:00 PM DEPARTED AT 4:15 PM AND WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THIS, WHAT DID THE CUSTOMER SAY? 20 HOURS OF 2:00 PM AND 3:00 PM ON 360 8 CRUSADER DRIVE.
UH, THIS WAS DONE ON MAY 9TH, CORRECT? YES.
AND WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE SHOWED UP TO BEGIN THAT JOB? 4:40 PM DEPARTED AT 4:55 PM AND WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WHAT DID THE CUSTOMER SAY? UH, 4:00 PM WAS THE ARRIVAL ON THIS, WAS HIS TIMECARD ON THAT DAY? YES.
FROM 7:00 AM TO 8:30 PM CORRECT.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT F 25, THIS WAS DONE AT 9 39 CARRUM WAY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
AND THIS WAS DONE ON MAY 16TH? CORRECT.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE SHOWED UP TO BEGIN THIS JOB? 5:20 PM AND DEPARTED AT 5:35 PM WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THIS JOB, WHAT DID THE HOMEOWNER SAY AS TO WHEN HE ACTUALLY SHOWED UP? 3:00 PM GOING ON TO F 27.
THIS IS ADDRESS 6 0 7 NORTH PLEASANT WOODS DRIVE.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY THAT HE SHOWED UP TO BEGIN THIS JOB? 6:25 PM DEPARTED AT 6:35 PM AND WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THIS EXCHANGE, WHAT DID THE CUSTOMER SAY AS TO THE TIME THAT HE SHOWED UP? 2:30 PM GETTING TO 97 48 STONE WOOD DRIVE.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE BEGAN THIS JOB ON AUGUST 29TH? 4:25 PM AND LEFT WHEN? AT 4:45 PM AND WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT EXCHANGE, WHAT DID THE CUSTOMER
[02:30:01]
SAY AS TO THE TIME HE ACTUALLY SHOWED UP? UH, BETWEEN THREE 30 AND 4:00 PM AND ON F 31, THIS WAS 96 35 PINEHURST DRIVE AN EXCHANGE THAT WAS DONE ON AUGUST 29TH.WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY THAT HE SHOWED UP FOR THAT JOB? 6:05 PM DEPARTED AT 6:15 PM AND WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT EXCHANGE, WHAT DID THAT CUSTOMER SAY? SAID THE TIME HE ACTUALLY SHOWED UP BETWEEN 3:30 PM AND 4:00 PM AND GO ON TO F PAGE F 33.
WHAT TIME THIS WAS DONE ON AUGUST 29TH.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE STARTED THIS JOB AT 6:30 PM DEPARTED AT 6:50 PM AND WHEN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT EXCHANGE, WHAT DID THAT CUSTOMER SAY IS THE TIME HE ACTUALLY SHOWED UP? 5:30 PM LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO F 35.
WHAT IS THIS MR. COSTELLO? THAT'S A GATE LOG BY SECURITY AT, UH, MUNICIPAL, A SECURITY GUARD ENTRANCE LOG? YES.
AND DO YOU SEE MR. GOMEZ'S NAME HERE ON JULY 20TH OF LAST SUMMER? YES.
AND DO YOU SEE HIS, UH, IS THAT HIS LICENSE PLATE NUMBER OR HIS VEHICLE NUMBER? IT'S HIS LICENSE PLATE NUMBER ON THE VEHICLE HE WAS DRIVING AT THAT TIME.
SO ACCORDING TO THESE RECORDS, IS THAT MR. GOMEZ'S HANDWRITING? YES, THE, UH, THE PRINT THERE OF HIS NAME.
ACCORDING TO THIS DOCUMENT, HE DROVE HIS TRUCK BACK ONTO THE PROPERTY AT 28 61 MUNICIPAL AT 7:26 PM CORRECT.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY THAT HE BEGAN THIS JOB? 4:15 PM DEPARTED AT 4:35 PM AND ON 33 0 6 CYAN COURT.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE BEGAN THIS JOB? 4:40 PM DEPARTED AT 5:05 PM AND ON 33 10 CYAN COURT, WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THIS WHEN HE BEGAN THIS JOB? 5:10 PM DEPARTED AT 5:35 PM AND AT 33 15 CYAN COURT, WHAT DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN ON THIS FORM AS TO WHEN HE BEGAN? 5:40 PM DEPARTING AT 6:00 PM AND 33 39 CYAN COURT.
WHAT TIME DID HE SAY HE BEGAN THIS JOB? 6:05 PM DEPARTED AT 6:25 PM AND ON F 41 ADDRESS? 33 14 CYAN COURT.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ SAY HE BEGAN THIS JOB AT 6:30 PM DEPARTING AT 6:50 PM ON PAGE F 42.
LOGAN, WHAT DRIVE, WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE ARRIVED AT THIS JOB? 7:00 PM DEPARTING AT 7:20 PM AND ON, HOW FAR IS THIS ADDRESS RIGHT HERE FROM WHERE THEY PARKED THE TRUCKS AT? 28 61 MUNICIPAL, APPROXIMATELY FIVE AND A HALF MILES, DEPENDING ON THE ROUTE YOU TAKE.
YEAH, ANYWHERE FROM FIVE TO 11 MILES, DEPENDING ON THE ROUTE.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO LEAVE THIS JOB AT SEVEN 20 AND GET TO 28 61 MUNICIPAL IN SIX MINUTES? NO.
IN THE BEST CONDITIONS, AT LEAST 12 MINUTES OR MORE ON 31 0 9 LOGAN WOULD DRIVE.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE BEGAN THIS JOB? 7:25 PM DEPARTING AT 7:45 PM SO ACCORDING TO THIS DOCUMENT, HE BEGAN A 20 MINUTE JOB AT 7 25.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO BEGIN A 20 MINUTE JOB AT 7 25 AND 60 SECONDS LATER APPEAR TO CHECK YOUR TRUCK IN AT 28 61 MUNICIPAL? NO, SIR.
[02:35:01]
UH, THESE LAST, THE LAST EIGHT HOUSES THAT I SHOWED YOU, ARE THEY LISTED SEQUENTIALLY? YES, THEY ARE.AND THEY'RE LINKED BY THE TIME THAT HE LEFT ONE JOB TO THE TIME THAT HE BEGAN ANOTHER, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THEY'RE THERE, THE ADDRESSES THEMSELVES, IF YOU'RE ASKING IF THEY'RE SEQUENTIALLY, THERE'S ONE OUT 33 15 WAS DONE AT FIVE 40 TO 6:00 PM THEN JUMPS TO 33 39 ON 33 14 WOULD'VE BEEN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
AND DID YOU HAVE G P S ON THE TRUCKS ON JULY 20TH OF LAST SUMMER? NO, SIR.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT F 45 AND THAT WOULD BE 1 0 0 6 SAND SPRINGS AVENUE.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN ON THIS FORM THAT HE BEGAN THIS JOB? 4:00 PM DEPARTING AT 4:10 PM SO HE CLAIMS TO HAVE WORKED 10 MINUTES BEGINNING AT 4:00 PM THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WHAT DID THE GPS SATELLITE DATA SHOW WHEN THAT JOB BEGAN AND ENDED? YES.
HIS ARRIVAL TIME IS, UH, 1:25 PM PARTS AT 1:32 PM WHEN WE GET TO F 46.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE BEGAN THIS JOB AT 4:15 PM DEPARTED AT FOUR OR 4:10 PM DEPARTED AT 4:25 PM AND WHAT DID THE GPS SHOW AS THE TIME THAT HE ACTUALLY STOPPED? 2:03 PM DEPARTED AT 2:11 PM AND GOING TO F 47 1 0 40 44 SUMMER OAKS DRIVE.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE BEGAN THIS JOB AT 4:30 PM DEPARTED AT 4:40 PM AND WHAT DID GPS SHOW WHEN THAT JOB WAS DONE? 2:14 PM TO 2:23 PM I'M SORRY, 2:53 PM SO THAT WAS A 33 MINUTE STOP AT THAT LOCATION? CORRECT.
THE GPS SHOWED THAT THIS WAS DONE FROM TWO 14 TO 2 23, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
GOING ON TO F 48 1 0 2 24 HILLHOUSE LANE, WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE BEGAN THIS JOB? 4 45 ARRIVAL.
AND WHAT DID THE GPS RECORDS SHOW AS THE TIME THAT THAT JOB WAS ACTUALLY DONE? 2:20 PM TO 2:53 PM SO THAT'S A 33 MINUTE STOP, CORRECT? CORRECT.
ON THE NEXT 1, 28 34 LEWISTON AVENUE, WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE BEGAN THAT JOB? 5:00 PM DEPARTING AT 5:10 PM AND WHAT DID G P S SHOW AS THE TIME THE JOB ACTUALLY HAPPENED THERE? 2:57 PM TO 3:09 PM ON 7 54 HELENA STREET.
WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE BEGAN THAT JOB? 5:15 PM DEPARTED AT 5:25 PM AND WHAT DID G P S SHOW? 3:28 PM TO 4:02 PM AND ON F 51 5 39 BETH PAGE AVENUE, WHAT
[02:40:01]
TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE BEGAN THAT JOB? 5:30 PM TO 5:40 PM AND WHAT DID GPS SHOW? 4:09 PM TO 4:15 PM AND ON F 52, 7 42 EZEKIEL AVENUE, WHAT TIME DID MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN THAT HE BEGAN THAT JOB? 5:50 PM DEPARTING AT 6:00 PM AND WHAT DID G P S SHOW ON THAT 1:20 PM TO 4:27 PM AND ON PAGES F 54 TO F 64, THOSE TWO PAGES, ARE THESE THE GPS LOGS FOR MR. GOMEZ'S TRUCK ON FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR? THAT IS CORRECT.AND GOING DOWN TO F 63, UM, PARDON ME, F 60 THROUGH F 63, ARE THESE, IS THIS THE GPS DATA THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE TIMES THAT MR. GOMEZ PUT DOWN ON THE PME FORMS ON 2 23 OF THIS YEAR? YES, IT IS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS DATA COMPARED TO THE STOPS THAT HE MADE, WHAT DOES THIS GPS DATA TELL YOU ABOUT WHERE HIS TRUCK WAS ON THAT DAY? STARTING AT AROUND FOUR O'CLOCK, UM, APPROXIMATELY FOUR 30, UM, HE ARRIVED AT, UH, 70 37 LAKE JUNE ROAD.
THERE WAS A 7-ELEVEN THERE AS WELL AS I BELIEVE A T-MOBILE OR SOME OTHER STORE AS WELL.
UM, HE'S, HE'S THERE, UH, FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 MINUTES AND THEN, UH, HE DEPARTS THERE AND PROCEEDS TO UH, UH, 1310 GUARD DRIVE.
HOW LONG WAS HE PARKED AT 1310 GUARD DRIVE THAT DAY? HE ARRIVED AT 4 45, 5 32.
ARE THERE ANY METERS ON THAT STREET? NO, THERE ARE NOT.
AND WHERE DID HE GO NEXT? UH, THEN HE, UH, DROVE BACK TO 28 61 MUNICIPAL.
HE ARRIVED THERE AT 5:50 PM AND THAT'S THE ADDRESS TO WHERE YOUR TRUCKS ARE PARKED? YES, SIR.
IS MR. CRESS HERE TODAY? NO, HE IS NOT.
WHY IS HE NOT HERE? WHY IS HE NOT HERE? MR. COSTELLO? UM, HE, HE WORKS NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS AND, UH, HE WAS AFRAID, UH, HIS FAMILY'S SECURITY WHILE HE WAS AT WORK DUE TO THE, HIM DOING THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS AND BEING ASKED TO, UH, COME TO THIS HEARING.
MR. CHAIRMAN PASS THE WITNESS.
UM, HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED WITH THE CITY NOW? EIGHT YEARS.
WHAT DID YOU DO BEFORE THAT? I WAS SELF-EMPLOYED HERE FOR A PERIOD CARPENTER.
BEFORE THAT I WAS IN KANSAS CITY.
DOING WHAT? BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES? THE CITY OF MIRIAM.
AND HOW, AND UH, HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN MR. WAGU? APPROXIMATELY EIGHT YEARS, I GUESS.
[02:45:01]
UH, HE CAME TO WORK IN THE NORTH DIVISION.WE WERE BOTH IN THE SAME DIVISION.
UH, WE WORKED FOR JOE JIMENEZ, HE WAS OUR SUPERVISOR.
AND I THINK YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, JUAN WOULD'VE CAME IN ABOUT, UH, JANUARY OF 2019, FULL-TIME, LONG? NO, JUNE OF 2015.
HE WOULD'VE COME IN IN IN JUNE OF 2015.
WHAT, WAS HE WORKING PART-TIME AT ALL WITH THE CITY? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
AND WHAT DID HE KNOW, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE HAD ANY OTHER KIND OF EMPLOYMENT IN PRIOR TO 2015? OTHER THAN DOING WORK FOR THE CITY? I KNOW THAT HE HAD A PART-TIME JOB FOR A PERIOD OF HOME DEPOT, I BELIEVE NOW THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
UM, I THINK HOW IT'S CHARACTERIZED AS A, UM, P M E PROGRAM.
NOW ALSO IN INSPECTOR IN GENERAL'S, UM, SUMMARY REPORT, IT'S REFERENCED ON PAGE NINE.
AND THEY REFER TO IT AS AN OVERTIME INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
I'VE HEARD IT REFERENCES THAT.
UH, WHY WOULD THE CITY, THE WATER DEPARTMENT, NEED A OVERTIME INCENTIVE PROGRAM? BECAUSE WITH, UH, COVID, A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENED WHERE WE WEREN'T GETTING METERS EXCHANGED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
SO WE WERE BEHIND ON, UH, GETTING OUR 10 TO 15 YEAR WARRANTY METERS EXCHANGED.
SO THEY ALLOWED US TO DO OVERTIME PERIODICALLY TO TRY AND MEET THOSE NEEDS.
IS THERE A WRITTEN POLICY ABOUT HOW THIS OVERTIME INCENTIVE PROGRAM WORKS IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU APPROVE OVERTIME FOR THAT? I DO WITH THE APPROVAL OF MY, UH, SUPERIORS.
AND DO YOU ASK, DO YOU HAVE TO ASK YOUR SUPERIOR TO, TO WHO TO GIVE OVERTIME TO, OR DO YOU MAKE THAT DECISION YOURSELF? I ASK MY SUPERIORS, YES.
I'M SORRY? HE APPROVES YOUR DECISION.
DO YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY OVERTIME TO PEOPLE IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT WORKING WITH YOUR GROUP? YES, I DO.
SO WOULD IT BE INCORRECT FOR ME TO SAY, BASICALLY YOU DECIDE WHO HAS THE OVERTIME INCIDENT PROGRAM BENEFITS AND WHO DOES NOT? UM, THEY DECIDE.
SO WE HAD PROGRAMS SET UP, SO THOSE THAT WERE MEETING NEEDS DURING THE DAY, THEY'RE EXPECTED TO DO THEIR, NOT CREW LEADERS, BUT OTHER TECHNICIANS SUPPOSED TO DO THREE METERS A DAY, 15 METERS A WEEK, WHICH THAT IS WRITTEN IN THEIR GUIDELINES WHEN THEY SIGN ON BOARD TO BE A WATER METER TECHNICIAN.
UH, THAT'S PART OF THEIR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
SO THOSE THAT, UH, DIDN'T MEET THOSE NEEDS, UH, THAT WERE JUST WATER METER TECHS, THEY WEREN'T, THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED THE, THE OVERTIME, DAVID, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
UNLESS IT WAS, UNLESS, UH, MY SUPERIOR OPENED IT UP TO EVERYBODY AND THEN I WOULD OPEN IT UP TO EVERYBODY.
AND, UH, IN YOUR TIME WITH THE WATER DEPARTMENT, HAS THERE ALWAYS BEEN THIS INCENTIVE PROGRAM? NO, SIR.
SO IT ONLY STARTED WITH COVID? PRETTY MUCH? YES.
HAD YOU BEEN ABLE TO, UH, WELL, HOW MANY METERS WERE YOU BEHIND? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? 27,000, PARDON ME.
AND HOW MANY ARE YOU BEHIND? THAT WAS JUST IN FIVE, EIGHT METERS.
7,001 INCH METERS, ANOTHER 30,000, AN INCH AND A HALF, AND TWO INCH METERS.
AND WHERE ARE YOU NOW WITH, UH, HOW MANY ARE YOU BEHIND? WE'RE PROBABLY, UH, CLOSE TO 18,005, EIGHT METERS, 2000, ONE INCH, INCH AND A HALF, TWO INCH.
WE'RE STILL CLOSE TO 27,000 OR SO.
A LOT OF THAT TOO HAS TO DO WITH PRODUCTION, WHICH WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.
UH, WE'VE HAD TO HALT THE PROCESS OF THE FIVE EIGHT METERS HERE JUST IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS BECAUSE WE'RE, OUR MEN, MAX STORE ROOM ONLY ALLOWS US TO TAKE OUT, UH, THEY WANT 7,000 IN THE STORES.
SO, UM, WHEN THOSE, UH, WHEN THEY GET DOWN TO THAT MINIMUM, THEN THEY ASK US TO CUT THE OVERTIME ON THOSE SO THAT, UH, THEY CAN MAKE SURE WE HAVE METERS FOR EMERGENCY USES.
HELP US UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSIONER.
UNDERSTAND HOW, UH, A MR A DAILY A DAY WOULD WORK.
TYPICAL DAY IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT.
WHEN YOU SEND OUT A CREW, LET'S START WITH HOW MANY THEY ARE EXPECTED METERS THEY'RE SUPPOSED EXPECTED TO TAKE CARE OF ONE DAY, THREE METERS
[02:50:02]
PER PERSON.SO OBVIOUSLY DEPENDS ON THEIR DISPATCH CALLS, THEIR HAND LOGS, THEY GO OUT WITH THEIR HAND TICKETS SO THEY CAN DETERMINE THEY SET THEIR SCHEDULE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEIR EXPECTATIONS ARE.
THAT'S THEIR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
SO FOR THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS TO EXPECT THEIR METERS TO BE UP TO PAR WITH THE NEED, THIS, UH, INCENTIVE PROGRAM WAS INSTITUTED, TRY TO CATCH UP BASICALLY.
AND YOU'VE MADE, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, SOME PROGRESS THAT'S CORRECT.
WITHOUT THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM, WOULD YOU HAVE MADE THE SAME KIND OF PROGRESS? WE WERE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS UNTIL PRODUCTION STOPPED, CUZ OF COVID, WE WERE PUTTING FOUR, 3000 METERS IN THE GROUND A DAY, A, A MONTH.
YOU MENTIONED, UM, THERE HAS BEEN SOME REFERENCE AND WITHOUT ANY REAL EVIDENCE THAT MR. GOMES, THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF MR. GOMES IN YOUR DEPARTMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THEY BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION, YES.
HAVE YOU DOCUMENTED THAT ANYWHERE IN MR. GOMEZ'S FILE? I HAVE NOT.
I JUST DID WHAT THEY ASKED, UH, TO DO AND FORWARDED ALL THAT INFORMATION TO JUST MADE THE THE FACILITY SECURE.
DID YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY WERE SAYING? I DIDN'T HAVE ANY REASON NOT TO.
WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU DOCUMENT IT SOMEWHERE? I DIDN'T, I WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH, UH, GETTING SECURITY OUT THERE AND SEEING ABOUT GETTING OUR, UH, WE'RE THE ONLY UNSECURED WATER DEPART PART OF WATER IN THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.
SO I WAS TRYING TO GET BADGES FOR THE DOORS, TRYING TO GET, UH, IMPLEMENT SECURITY CAMERAS AND, UH, MAKE IT SAFE FOR NOT ONLY THERE, BUT I'VE HAD COMPLAINTS FROM OUR CLERICAL STAFF, NOT OF MR. GOMA BROTHER SECURITY ISSUES.
SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE WERE ON BOARD.
AND, UM, CLAIRE, WHEN DID YOU START CHANGING THESE LOCKS OUT AND THE BADGES? WHEN WAS THAT? TIME WISE, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT UP THAT INFORMATION, BUT I WANT TO SAY IT WAS SOMETIME IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR.
AND THAT'S THE SECURITY PROGRAM THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT FOR OVER A YEAR.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU COMPLAINT ABOUT SECURITY ISSUES WITH MR. GOMEZ BEFORE THAT TO SOMEONE? NO, SIR.
WHY NOT? I DIDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO COMPLAIN BEFORE MR. GOMEZ AND PEOPLE WERE BRINGING THINGS TO ASKING ONLY, ONLY CAME THERE AFTER HE WAS GIVEN THE ADMIN LEAVE ON FEBRUARY THE 15TH.
SO ONLY CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION AS A SUPERVISOR THAT YOUR EMPLOYEES HAD SAFETY CONCERNS UNTIL AFTER THIS TRAFFIC INCIDENT ISSUE? THAT'S CORRECT.
THE, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL REFERENCED, UM, A BUSINESS AFFIDAVIT THAT YOU SIGNED ON APRIL 18TH, 2023? CORRECT.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? UH, WHEN I GAVE HIM DOCUMENTATION, YES.
128 PAGES ABOUT JUAN GUMS? CORRECT.
AND IS THERE ANY, IS THIS THIS ENTIRE FILE? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I THINK I GAVE EVERYTHING TO HR FIRST.
SO, I MEAN, I'M JUST HANDED OVER EVERYTHING.
THEY ASKED ME ABOUT ANY SERVICE REQUESTS OR COMPLAINTS AGAINST HIM, SO I PROVIDED ALL THAT INFORMATION TO HR.
SO I WAS TOLD TO GIVE WHATEVER THIS LEGAL COUNSEL ASKED FOR TO GIVE IT TO HIM.
WOULD YOU FEEL THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION YOU HAVE ON MR. EZ? I BELIEVE THAT I DID.
TO BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, YOU PRO YOU PRODUCED TO THE OTHER SIDE, ALL THE EMAILS THAT REFERENCE TO YOU FROM MR. GOMEZ, ALL THE, UH, ISSUES MR. GAMMA BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ALL THE COMPLIMENTS MR. GAMMA HAD, THAT'S, I KNOW IT'S A MULTIPLE QUESTIONS, TAKE ONE AT A TIME.
WERE THERE ANY EMAILS IN MR. GOMEZ THAT YOU PRODUCED? I DID NOT.
THEY ONLY ASKED FOR COMPLAINTS.
HOW ABOUT ANY EMAILS FROM MR. GAMMA REFERENCING ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT YOU? I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT UNTIL TODAY.
I YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY KIND OF CORRESPONDENCE BACK AND FORTH MR. GOMEZ AND YOU IN HR ABOUT YOU? I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY EMAILS UNTIL TODAY AS FAR AS ME BEING SO YOU'LL AGREE THAT THIS BUSINESS AFFIDAVIT REFERRED TO EXTENSIVELY, HIS GENERAL IS NOT HIS COMPLETE FILE? WELL, IT MAY NOT BE BECAUSE I WAS NOT HIS SUPERVISOR FOR HIS FIRST FOUR YEARS.
WELL, LET'S SAY FOR THE LAST, WHEN WERE YOUR SUPERVISOR? I WAS A SUPERVISOR FOR LESS THAN A YEAR, THEN I WAS A MANAGER,
[02:55:01]
SO I WAS NOT HIS DIRECT SUPERVISOR.WHEN WERE YOU DIRECTLY SUPERVISING MR. GOMAS? I BELIEVE IT WOULD'VE BEEN AROUND 2019.
ARE, ARE ALL YOUR CORRESPONDENCE REFERENCING MR. GOMAS, YOUR EMAILS TO HIM, ARE THEY IN THIS BUSINESS RECORDS AFFIDAVIT IN 2019? YES.
SINCE YOU, WHEN YOU WERE SUPERVISING JUST A LETTER OF COUNSEL? THAT'S IT.
AFTER ALL THIS TRAFFIC INCIDENT MATTER, PAM UPRIGHT IN FEBRUARY, 2023, AFTER ALL THAT, WHAT, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? UH, YOU, YOU SUPERVISED HIM BEGINNING IN 2019.
THERE'S NO REFERENCE ANYWHERE IN HIS FILE THAT YOU PRESENTED HERE TODAY TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF ANYTHING ABOUT COMPLAINTS ABOUT MR. GEZ OTHER THAN WHEN HE BEGAN WITH HIS TRAFFIC INCIDENT? WHAT I TURNED OVER IN THE FILE IS, OR, OR ACCUMULATION OF THINGS THAT WERE IN HIS FILE.
WAS THAT A YES OR A NO? I'M SORRY.
FROM 20, WHEN I BECAME MANAGER, THAT'S WHEN I HAD TO FILE.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN LETTER OF COUNSEL WHEN I WAS HIS SUPERVISOR.
SO THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE ONLY RECORD THAT I WOULD'VE HAD.
AND THEN WHEN I BECAME MANAGER AND THEN THEY ARE, UM, THEY'RE SRS AND STUFF THAT COME ACROSS MY DESK FOR INDIVIDUALS, THEN I PUT 'EM IN A FILE.
I WANNA ASK, UH, IF WE CAN GET EXHIBIT ONE, RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT ONE TO THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, TO COUNSEL AND LET, UM, AND LET MR. UM, COST LAKE REVIEW IT WITH HIS, WITH, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL.
DID YOU GUYS WANT ME TO GIVE HARD COPY THAT WE ASK THE QUESTIONS? WELL, HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE TO DO IT IF, IF I'M GONNA QUESTION THE WITNESS ON IT.
SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, MR. CASTEK, IF YOU'LL TAKE A MOMENT AND LOOK AT, UH, RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT ONE.
YOU SEEN IT BEFORE I RECALL? YEAH.
YOUR NAME'S ON IT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
I GET HUNDREDS OF EMAILS A DAY.
SO, UM, ACTUALLY CAME FROM YOU THAT'S CORRECT.
DATED DECEMBER, 2021? THAT IS CORRECT.
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH, WHAT'S IT ABOUT? UH, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, UM, MS. UH, S WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE, UH, DO AN EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION FOR MR. V GOMEZ.
WHILE, WHILE YOU'RE AT THAT TOO, I'LL STOP.
I'M ASKING THAT RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT TWO AND THREE PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND TO, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL UNDERSCORE.
THESE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ADMITTED.
YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT EXHIBIT TWO? EXHIBIT TWO? YES.
AND WHAT DOES I DO WITH ALL MY EMPLOYEES? I ACKNOWLEDGE, UH, JOB WELL DONE.
WELL, I DIDN'T ASK A QUESTION YET.
OKAY, LET'S, I'LL NOT GET AHEAD CUZ UM, WE DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE COMMISSIONERS ANY ANYMORE THAN THERE HONOR.
NOW WHAT IS IT, THIS DOCUMENT? I'M SORRY, WHAT IS THIS DOCUMENT? DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT? UH, R A D UH, WANTED TO REACH OUT AND UH, WAS AN ACCOMMODATION LETTER FROM OUR DIRECTOR, UH, THAT SHE'D RECEIVED, UH, OR GREAT JOB DONE BY, UH, THESE, UH, FOUR INDIVIDUALS, MR. GOMEZ, MR. RODERICK, MR. BOYLES, AND MR. SESSION COMMENDATION FROM A CUSTOMER THAT IS CORRECT.
[03:00:02]
CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.AND WHAT'S, UM, NUMBER THREE, YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE.
THAT WOULD BE ONE OF OUR, UH, DISPATCHERS, UH, UH, GIVEN A SHOUT OUT TO MR. GOMEZ FOR, UH, HELPING AN ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL.
AND THAT'S, UM, DATED SEPTEMBER, 2020 22, CORRECT? CORRECT.
DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING THIS VAGUELY RECEIVED A LOT OF THEM.
SO CAN'T SAY I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY.
AND, UM, DID MR. GOMEZ EVER COMPLAIN TO YOU ABOUT ANY WORK YOU WERE DOING AS A SUPERVISOR? COMPLAIN ABOUT MY WORK AS A SUPERVISOR.
HE WOULD COME AND TELL ME ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS WORK.
WELL, LET ME ASK HIM ANOTHER WAY.
DO YOU REMEMBER HIM EVER COMPLAINING TO YOU ABOUT YOUR SUPERVISORY ROLE AND WHAT YOU WERE DOING AS A SUPERVISOR? WHAT I WAS DOING TO SUPERVISOR? YEAH, A SUPERVISOR OF THIS GROUP AND HIM IN PARTICULAR.
DO YOU REMEMBER HIM EVER COMING TO YOU AND TALKING ABOUT THEM? I DON'T REMEMBER COMPLAINTS ABOUT MY SUPERVISORY OR MANAGERIAL SKILLS.
PARTICULAR WELL ASK SOMEONE SAYS IN RESPONSE TO YOU, DID YOU REMEMBER COMING AND TALKING TO YOU ABOUT CONCERNS HE HAD ABOUT YOUR SUPERVISORY SKILLS? NOT ABOUT MY SUPERVISORY SKILLS, NO.
WHAT ABOUT WORK IN GENERAL? SO YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY IS HE NEVER COMPLAINED TO YOU ABOUT ANYTHING ABOUT YOU AS HIS SUPERVISOR? UH, THE ONLY THING THAT I COULD THINK OF THAT MIGHT BE A COM CONSIDERED A COMPLAINT WAS WHEN, UH, I ASKED HIM TO START CLOCKING IN WHEN HE WAS NO LONGER IN THE INTERIM SUPERVISOR ROLE.
AND WHEN WAS THAT? I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE.
AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE, SO IT LOOKS LIKE ON MARCH 22ND, 2022, IS THAT WHEN YOU, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CLOCKING IN, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S CORRECT.
WHERE DO YOU, WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? EXHIBIT FOUR.
NOW WE HAVEN'T QUITE GOT THERE YET.
I HAVE TO CIRCULATE TO THE COMMISSIONER'S RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT FOUR, BEAR THAT WITH INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UH, SO YOU'VE COME TO, YOU'VE JUMPED TO EXHIBIT FOUR.
WHAT IS, IS THIS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? IS THIS HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH CLOCKING IN AND IS THAT CORRECT? WITH MR. GOMEZ? YEAH, NO, I'M SORRY, MISTAKEN ABOUT THAT.
HAVE YOU SEEN THIS BEFORE TODAY? BEFORE TODAY? HAVE I SEEN THIS? NO.
AND WHAT'S, SEE IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY AT LEAST WHO THE PLAYERS OR ARE, YOU KNOW, MR. GOMES? IT'S FROM MR. GOMES.
IT'S TO MS. SHAWN BOWERS, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SHE'S MY SUPERIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF PETER SERVICES DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.
AND DOES IT LOOK AS IF MR. GOMEZ IS TRYING TO GET A MEETING WITH YOUR, WITH SEAN BOWERS? YES, IT DOES.
BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS ABOUT? I DON'T CAUSE I NEVER SAW THIS EMAIL.
AND THIS IS MARCH 22ND, 2022, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WELL, WHEN DID YOU START COMPLAINING ABOUT MR. GOMEZ'S TIME ISSUES NOT CLOCKING IN FOR INSTANCE, ABOUT THAT? WHEN, WHEN WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY?
[03:05:02]
I HONESTLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT CUZ I DON'T KNOW WHEN, WHENEVER MR. TIMMERMAN CAME ON BOARD AS A SUPERVISOR AND I WASN'T COMPLAINING.WELL, I'M GONNA ASK THAT WE GET LET GONNA ASK ANOTHER EXHIBIT B, UH, CIRCULATED EXHIBIT SEVEN.
I ASSURE THE COMMISSION IF I TRY TO PUT THESE ON THE SCREENING WOULD TAKE IT MUCH LONGER.
MR. COST DELIC, DO YOU RECOGNIZE EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN? I DO.
WHAT IS THAT? UH, REMINDING MR. GOMEZ, UH, TOLD ME HE DIDN'T PUNCH IN YESTERDAY.
UH, HIS TIME'S BEING TRACKED IN KRONOS NOW IS NO LONGER BEING TRACKED IN WORKDAY.
KRONOS, WORKDAY OR JUST CITY KIND OF SYSTEMS, RIGHT.
FOR TRACKING TIME? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WHAT'S THE DATE ON THIS AGAIN THERE? APRIL 14TH, 2022.
SO UP UNTIL APRIL, 2022, HAD YOU ANY KIND OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT MR. GOMEZ'S TIME OR CLOCKING IN THAT YOU CAN RECALL? I MEAN, THIS IS NO SIR.
WHEN YOU'RE IN WORKDAY, YOU DON'T CLOCK IN.
HE WAS AN INTERIM SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME.
WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO THIS REFRESH YOUR MEMORY ABOUT THE QUESTIONING I WAS PROVIDING TO YOU A MOMENT AGO ABOUT COMPLAINTS YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD ABOUT MR. THOMAS'S TIME.
REFRESH YOUR MEMORY ABOUT THE TIMELINE.
COMPLAINTS THAT I HAD ABOUT HIS TIME ON KRONOS, ISSUES OF HIS TIME.
NOT UNTIL THIS POINT THAT I'M AWARE OF AS FAR AS CLOCKING IN AND CLOCKING OUT.
SO IT'S APRIL, 2022? THAT IS CORRECT.
IN YOUR, IN THE INVESTIGATION WITH THE MOVE FORWARD A BIT, THE INVESTIGATION ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE COMMENCES IN, UH, FEBRUARY, 2023, THE CAR INCIDENT, RIGHT? THE TRAFFIC INCIDENT, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN IT GOES TO HR, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN, AND ON FEBRUARY THE 11TH, ACCORDING TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 2023, YOU RECEIVED A TIP ABOUT SOMETHING WRONG WITH OVERTIME IN YOUR INCENTIVE PROGRAM, CORRECT? IT WASN'T FEBRUARY OF NO, NO, I SAID IT WAS, I SAID IT WAS APRIL 11TH OR, OR WHEN, DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS, WHEN THE TIP WAS? IT WASN'T A TIP.
IT WAS ME CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE NOT DOING THEIR OVERTIME.
IT WAS BEING BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY OTHER EMPLOYEES.
I'M I MAYBE THE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CHARACTERIZES AS A TIP.
YOU JUST HAVE INFORMATION COMING TO YOU IS AMONG EMPLOYEES.
WHEN WAS THAT? THAT WOULD'VE BEEN IN APRIL, MARCH, APRIL OF 22, I BELIEVE.
DID YOU INVESTIGATE MR. GOMAS AT THAT TIME? HIS, I STARTED INVESTIGATING HIM AND OTHERS, YES.
WHO IS THAT EVIDENCED ANYWHERE IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S HERE TODAY? I MEAN WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION OR DID YOU FINISH THE INVESTIGATION? I HAVE TURNED IT OVER TO HR, YES.
HAS THAT BEEN PROVIDED TO, UH, MR. GOMEZ AT ANY, AT ANY TIME INVESTIGATION ON MR. GOMEZ, THIS INVESTIGATION? YOU STARTED, YOU SAID IN 2022?
[03:10:02]
I I DIDN'T PROVIDE ANYTHING UNTIL FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.SO IT WASN'T DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE AGAIN IN HIS FILE OR, OR ANYTHING.
I HAVE A FILE ON PEOPLE THAT I'M INVESTIGATING FOR.
AND THAT'S, AND THEN WHEN I GET DONE ACCUMULATING EVIDENCE, THEN I TURN IT OVER AND I WASN'T DONE ACCUMULATING EVIDENCE AND THEN ALL THIS CAME ABOUT AND THEY ASKED FOR ME FOR EVERYTHING THAT I HAD.
SO I GAVE THEM WHAT THEY, ALL THE DOCUMENTATION ON MR. GOMEZ.
SO YOU PRESENTED A FILE TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OR THE, OR HR.
AND DID YOU EVER TALK TO MR. GOMES ABOUT THE RESULTS OF YOUR INTERNAL INVESTIGATION? I DID NOT.
WHY NOT? HE WAS PUT ON ADMIN LEAVE ON FEBRUARY 15TH.
WELL, YOU MENTIONED OTHERS WERE INVESTIGATED.
ARE THOSE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS? YES, THEY ARE.
SO MR. GOMEZ'S WAS THE FIRST ONE YOU CONCLUDED? YES.
I DON'T COMPLETE 'EM, I JUST TURNED THEM IN.
SO, UH, I HAVE TO HAVE, I HAVE TO, I HAVE TO GIVE LIKE THIS EVIDENCE HERE.
AND WHAT HAPPENS THERE? IT'S, IT'S OUTTA MY HANDS.
SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER HR EVER GAVE IT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE? I WOULDN'T HAVE A CLUE.
THEY WOULD KNOW, BUT YOU WOULDN'T.
WHO ELSE WERE YOU INVESTIGATING IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT? OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO I DON'T THINK I'M AT LIBERTY TO DISCUSS THAT.
WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE TO RESPOND, MR. CHAIRMAN DID, DID MR. GOMEZ ON THIS TRAFFIC INCIDENT IN FEBRUARY 25TH, DID HE EVER DENY THAT HE WAS THIS, THERE WAS SOME SORT OF INCIDENT, TRAFFIC INCIDENT OVER BRUIN AT 1 75 TO YOU? HE JUST STATED HIS CASE WHEN, UH, THE ADMIN LEAVE WAS BEING PRESENTED BY, UH, RENEE BONFIELD? YEAH.
BUT DID HE EVER DENY IT THAT HE WAS THERE AT THAT LOCATION? NO.
DID HE EVER DENY THAT THAT WAS HIS TRUCK? NO.
DID HE EVER DENY, UH, THAT YOU KNOW, THE TIME, APPROXIMATE TIME THAT IT HAPPENED? NO.
SO FROM WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND OF THAT INVESTIGATION, AND I ASSUME YOU WERE INVOLVED AT SOME POINT IN THAT INVESTIGATION, RIGHT? UH, JUST AS WHAT YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED HERE.
I HAD A PHONE, PHONE CALL WITH MR. PERKINS.
I TURNED IT ALL OVER TO HR IN A MATTER OF DAYS IT'S BEING INVESTIGATED BY SOMEONE ELSE.
AND THEN THAT'S WHEN THE, UH, ADMIN LEAVE WAS ADMINISTERED.
AND TO BE CLEAR, YOU, YOU WERE NOT THERE AT THAT INTERSECTION OF BRUNEY 1 75? NO SIR.
IN FACT, THE ONLY PEOPLE WERE THERE.
MR. GOMEZ AND MR. PERKINS, CORRECT.
DO YOU SEE MR. PERKINS HERE? I DO NOT.
YOU SEE MS. HALL HERE? I DO NOT.
YOU SEE MR. GOMAS HERE THEN? I DO.
SO YOU CAN'T SAY REALLY ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED THERE THAT DAY? I CANNOT.
MR. UH, LIK DID YOU, IN OCTOBER OF 2021 HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. EZ WHERE YOU TOLD HIM YOU REALLY DON'T CARE IF THE METERS ARE DONE DURING THE DAY, IF YOU HAVE DOWNTIME SO LONG AS YOU'RE, YOU'RE HELPING YOUR CREW AND WE'RE FINISHED ON THE RADIO CALLS, NOT OVERTIME, METERS.
DID YOU EVER SAY TO HIM IN OCTOBER, 2021 THAT IF YOU'RE, BUT IF YOU DO DO THAT TO METERS ON YOUR, ON THE REGULAR TIME THAT YOU WERE ONLY, YOU WERE TO REFLECT IT AFTER 4:00 PM IN CASE YOUR BOSS INQUIRED ALL METERS DONE ON OVERTIME WERE DONE AFTER 4:00 PM ANY METERS THAT THEY WANTED TO DO DURING THE DAY, GO FOR IT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S RESPONSIVE, BUT LET'S TRY AGAIN.
YOU DID NOT TELL HIM THAT HE COULD DO OVERTIME METERS DURING REGULAR WORKING HOURS.
DID YOU EVER TELL HIM THAT IF HE DID DO OVERTIME METERS DURING REGULAR TIME AND POSTED IT PRIOR
[03:15:01]
TO FOUR O'CLOCK, HE WOULDN'T BE PAID FOR OVERTIME? UH, NO SIR.WE'RE ALL, UH, SIGNED THAT SAME DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED EARLIER ON OUR FIRST DAY OF ORIENTATION.
WHEN UM, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE THIS OVER TIME, ARE THE SUPERVISOR, ARE THE TEAM PURPOSES, LIKE THE TEAM LEADERS LIKE MR. GAMMAS REQUIRED TO DO 15 A WEEK METERS? NO, SIR.
AND WHY IS THAT? UH, THEY ARE SUPER, THEY'RE BASICALLY SUPERVISORS IN THE FIELD.
UM, THEY'RE TO UH, ENSURE THAT THEIR CREWS HELP THEIR CREWS DO THEIR DAILY ACTIVITIES, THEIR WORK, HELP 'EM ON ANYTHING, WHETHER THEY'RE TRAINING NEW PEOPLE AND OR WHETHER THEY'RE HELPING THEM IN AREAS WITH THEIR NORMAL TICKETS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE THAT DAY.
SO, UH, TEAM UNIT LIKE MR. GEZ HAD OTHER KIND OF SUPERVISORY TYPE THINGS TO DO, RIGHT? RATHER THAN CHANGE UP, HE COULD HAVE UP TO FOUR EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD HE BE SUPERVISING IN THE FIELD? RIGHT.
AND THEN PAPERWORK THAT, UH, COMES WITH THAT? YES.
SO HE DOES HAVE DOWNTIME DURING THE DAY WHEN HE IS MAYBE HAVING LUNCH OR DOING, YOU KNOW, THIS PAPERWORK OR SUPERVISING, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IF HE SAYS YOU TOLD HIM THAT DURING THAT DOWNTIME IT WAS OKAY TO DO THE OVERTIME METERS, WOULD HE BE INCORRECT IN SAYING THAT? YEAH, I NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE ANY OVERTIME BEFORE FOUR O'CLOCK ON THE METERS.
I WOULD IF HE, IF HE ACKNOWLEDGED IT AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK, YOU WOULD GIVE HIM THE OVERTIME.
IF HE COMPLETED THE TASK AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK, I WOULD GIVE HIM THE OVERTIME AND IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGED IT ON PAPERWORK IT WAS AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK, YOU WOULD GIVE HIM THE OVERTIME IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGED ON PAPER THAN IF IT'S AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK.
SO I THINK IT WAS EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN, THE, UH, ISSUE WITH THE KRONOS.
WHEN YOU SEEM TO HAVE SOME BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WITH MR. CU NO BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS. I'M JUST DOING MY MANAGERIAL DUTIES AND MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE, WHEN THEY'VE DROPPED DOWN IN A POSITION WITH THE INTERIM SUPERVISOR AT THAT TIME, UH, WHEN YOU ARE IN THE INTERIM SUPERVISOR ROLE, YOU DO NOT CLOCK IN.
YOU PUT YOUR TIME IN THROUGH WORKDAY.
SO I HAD NOTICED THAT UH, SOME PUNCHES WERE MISSED.
SO I WAS REMINDING HIM THAT HE'S NO LONGER IN WORKDAY, THAT HE NEEDS TO PUNCH IN THE KRONOS CUZ HE IS NOW BACK TO HIS CREW LEADER POSITION.
I'M GONNA ASK YOU, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN THIS, UH, MR. COSTEL, IF YOU HAVEN'T, I'M GONNA READ THIS AGAIN.
THE CHARGING INSTRUMENT FOR THIS, THE FALSIFYING OF RECORDS THAT THE, UH, INSPECTOR GENERALS PUT TOGETHER.
UH, SIMPLE DOCUMENT, BUT IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, CHARGING MR. GOMEZ THAT ON OR ABOUT APRIL 23RD, 2022 THROUGH FEBRUARY 13TH, 2023 THAT MR. GOMEZ DID HERE AND THERE GOING OFF, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, HIS FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS.
IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT WHEN MR. GOMEZ, YOU START TALKING ABOUT HIS KRONOS TIME, APRIL OF 2022 IS WHEN THIS CHARTING INSTRUMENT ALL OF A SUDDEN SAYS HE'S FALSIFYING RECORDS? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A COINCIDENCE.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH SELECTING APRIL 23RD, 2022? NO.
DO YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHERE APRIL, 2022 COMES IN? THAT'S APPROXIMATELY WHEN I WAS INVESTIGATING PEOPLE FOR, FOR DOING METERS.
NOT ON OVERTIME, BUT COLLECTING FOR OVERTIME.
AND THAT'S WHEN YOU COMPLAINED IN APRIL, 2022, NUMBER SEVEN, YOU COMPLAINED ABOUT MR. GOMAS NUMBER SEVEN? MY COMPLAINT WASN'T HIS, NOT HIM NOT CLOCKING IN SIR CUZ HE WAS NO LONGER IN WORKDAY.
I WAS REMINDING HIM THAT HE NEEDS TO PUNCH IN, PUNCH OUT LIKE ALL THE OTHER EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN SUPERVISORS.
DID YOU EVER FEAR THAT MR. GOMEZ MIGHT REVEAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AS A SUPERVISOR THAT WOULD COMPROMISE YOUR POSITION? COMPROMISE MY POSITION FOR DOING MY JOB.
MEANING IF YOU HAD TOLD HIM TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IN OVERTIME WHEN HE WASN'T WORKING? I'VE, I'VE NEVER TOLD MR. GOMEZ OR ANYBODY TO CLAIM OVERTIME WHEN THEY'RE NOT WORKING OVERTIME.
WOULD YOU EVER THE UNACCOUNTED FOR BRASS IN THE DEPARTMENT, WAS THERE ANY KIND OF ISSUE THAT OH YES, THAT WAS, THAT WAS BROUGHT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
AND THEN I HAD HIS SUPERVISOR, MR. JOSHUA TIMBERMAN,
[03:20:02]
HOLD THE TAILGATE MEETING WITH MR. GOMEZ ALONG WITH ANOTHER SUPERVISOR, MR. RA CARROLL, AND ASKED MR. GOMEZ ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS OF BRAS BEING STOLEN AND SOLD OR WHAT HAVE YOU.AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY HAD THAT MEETING AND MR. GOMEZ SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
BUT DISAPPEARING BRASS IS A PROBLEM FOR THE CITY, RIGHT? IT CAN BE, YES.
IS IT NOW? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
WE JUST COMPLETED OUR INVENTORY TODAY.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, 1% $54 IS MISSING OUT OF A, AND IN FACT, YOU HELPED ARRANGE THAT AUDIT PROGRAM.
I I WAS A PART OF REARRANGING THE AUDIT PROGRAM.
SO BEFORE YOU DID THE REARRANGEMENT OF THE AUDIT PROGRAM, YOU WERE LOSING BRASS ALL THE TIME? I GUESS THEY WERE, I WASN'T AS I I WASN'T INVOLVED THEN.
AND IF MR. GOMEZ HAD KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT ANY KIND OF PROPER RELATIONSHIPS WITH FEMALE EMPLOYEES IN THE OR WATER DEPARTMENT THAT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN, WOULD HE BE INCORRECT? INCORRECT IN WHAT? MY, MY PERSONAL LAW WITH YOU? NO.
WITH YOU BEING INVOLVED WITH FEMALE EMPLOYEES OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT INAPPROPRIATELY.
WHAT'S INAPPROPRIATELY? I'M GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
YOUR MY OBJECTION, HIS RETALIATION AGAINST THIS EMPLOYEE IS ABSOLUTE, ABSOLUTELY.
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MR. GO FEELS THAT YOU RETALIATE AGAINST HIM.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? I DON'T KNOW WHY I WOULD RETALIATE AGAINST HIM.
WELL, I JUST MENTIONED JUAN OR TWO OF THE BRASS, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE ISSUE OF, OF WHAT? ABOUT AN INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP WITH FEMALE STAFFERS IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT.
HAVE YOU EVER DONE THAT? THERE WAS NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE.
DID YOU EVER MOVE YOUR MISTRESSES FURNITURE IN A CITY CAR, UH, VEHICLE? NO, I DID NOT.
DID YOU EVER HAVE OBJECTION, OVERRULED.
I MEAN, DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH A FEMALE SUBORDINATE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? NOT IN MY DEPARTMENT.
WHICH DEPARTMENT WOULD'VE BEEN THE MEDIA READING DEPARTMENT? IS THAT THE WATER DEPARTMENT? IT IS, YES SIR.
YOU'RE MARRIED, AREN'T YOU? I AM.
IS THAT RELATIONSHIP ONGOING? NO, SIR.
MY WIFE AND I ARE WORKING THINGS OUT.
WHO ELSE IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT KNEW ABOUT THAT RELATIONSHIP? I HAVE NO CLUE.
UM, I'M GOING TO PASS THE WITNESS.
MR. CASTILLO, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE QUALIFICATIONS
YOU FILLED OUT THE BUSINESS RECORDS AFFIDAVIT.
IS THERE ANYWHERE ON THERE THAT SAYS THESE ARE ALL THE RECORDS IN MR. GOMEZ'S FILE? NO.
YOUR BUSINESS RECORD DOES NOT SAY THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, SIR.
AS FAR AS THE BRASS INCIDENT THAT MR. ANA BROUGHT UP, UH, YOU ASKED MR. GOMEZ FOR DETAILS OF THAT BRASS ISSUE, DID YOU NOT? AND HE REFUSED TO TELL YOU WHAT HE KNEW? I
[03:25:01]
ASKED HIS SUPERVISOR, MR. JOSHUA TIMMERMAN, TO CONDUCT AN, AN INTERVIEW AND ASK HIM ABOUT IT? YES, I HAVE AN EMAIL IN THE RECORDS THAT COOPERATE CORROBORATES THAT.AND DID MR. GOMEZ COOPERATE BY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION ON THE ISSUE THAT HE RAISED? IF I RECALL, WITHOUT SEEING IT, HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW.
AND THAT IF ANOTHER MEETING WAS CALLED THAT, UH, HR NEEDED TO BE PRESENT.
SO HE RAISED THE ISSUE, YOU ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION AND HE DIDN'T PROVIDE IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME THAT WE DO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BRING CALL THE WITNESS BACK IN OUR CASE.
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FROM, UH, A ONE OR MEN OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, JUST VERY QUICK.
UM, HOW, IF THE CUSTOMER IS NOT, WHEN THE QC PROCESS IS BEING DONE, IF THE CUSTOMER IS NOT HOME, THEN THERE'S NO WAY TO TO PURSUE THAT CHECK, IS THAT RIGHT? WE CAN WE PURSUE THE CHECK.
WE JUST DON'T, UH, WE DON'T GET THE CUSTOMER'S INPUT.
SO LIKE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE YOU TODAY, IF YOU JUST SAW DIFFERENT, LIKE TWO FROM ONE DAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER SIX, NOBODY ANSWERED THE DOOR.
WE STILL DID THE QUALITY CHECK TO MAKE SURE THE METER WAS EXCHANGED, EVERYTHING WAS DONE EXCEPT THE CUSTOMERS, UH, UH, VERIFICATION.
AND THEY MIGHT ANSWER THE DOOR, BUT THEY MIGHT SAY, I WASN'T HOME YESTERDAY.
THEY, THEY WOULD ANSWER THE DOOR SOMETIMES.
UH, A LOT OF TIMES THERE WAS NO ANSWER, BUT THEY WOULD ANSWER THE DOOR AT TIMES AND THEY WOULD SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEIR METER HAD BEEN EXCHANGED.
AND THEN IS 15 MINUTES A A FAIRLY STANDARD DURATION FOR THE EXCHANGE? SURE.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET, WHEN YOU GET GOOD AT IT, YOU CAN, YOU CAN KNOCK 'EM OUT PRETTY FAST.
IF THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY, LET'S SAY THAT IT WAS ON A WORKDAY, UM, AND YOU KNOW, MR. JIMS HAD SUBMITTED 6:00 PM BUT IT WAS REALLY 5:00 PM IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THERE REALLY WOULDN'T BE ANY, IT WAS STILL FALSE, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY HARM, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT WAS STILL AFTER, AFTER THAT IS CORRECT.
WE'RE JUST, I'M JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THE TIME THAT WAS STATED VERSUS YES.
AND THEN, SORRY, I I I THOUGHT OF ONE MORE THING EARLIER WHEN YOU SAID, UM, IF YOU CAN, YOU MADE A COMMENT WHERE YOU SAID, WELL, IF YOU CAN, UM, IF YOU COULD HAVE EXCHANGED THE METERS DURING THE DAY BY ALL MEANS, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WAS YOUR POINT, IF YOU COULD REPLACE IT WITHOUT CLOCKING IN FOR OVERTIME, THAT'S FINE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU WANTED TO DO MORE WORK, THAT'S FINE.
ALWAYS ENCOURAGING CHANGING METERS THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
BUT AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT DOING ANY OVERTIME METERS DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS, ONLY AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK.
MAY THIS, MAY THIS WITNESS BE EXCUSED, SUBJECT TO RECALL STILL UNDER THE RULE? YES, SIR.
AND WE GOT ONE LAST EXHIBIT WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER.
MAY I HAVE THE, MAY I HAVE YOUR PERMISSION TO PLAY THIS APPROXIMATELY 92ND VIDEOTAPE? ANY OBJECTION, COUNSEL? NO, NO OBJECTION.
[03:32:17]
MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, THE PROSECUTION RESTS.RESPONDENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT? WE DO.
UH, MR. CHAIR, COULD WE HAVE LIKE A FIVE MINUTE BATHROOM BREAK? UH, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT MYSELF.
[03:45:09]
OH,[03:45:09]
OH,[03:45:09]
THANK YOU.IT IS 2 23 AND THE RESPONDENT MAY BEGIN PRESENTING THE RESPONDENT'S CASE.
WE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE WE'RE GONNA PUT ON AND DEMONSTRATE SEVERAL THINGS.
IT'LL SHOW THAT MR. GOMEZ HAS WORKED FOR THE CITY A LONG TIME.
HE KNEW HIS JOB, HE WAS PROMOTED TO TEAM LEADER.
HE WAS COMMENDED FOR HIS WORK, AND HE'S TRYING TO PROVIDE FOR HIS FAMILY, LIKE ALL OF US.
HE WAS EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW YOU THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY BASICALLY COAXED OVER TO WORK EXCLUSIVELY, NOT THE SECOND JOB ANYMORE BY MR. UH, KALIK BECAUSE OF THIS OVERTIME ISSUE, THE, THE HIND AND REPAIR FOR THESE, THESE METERS.
AND HE, HE CAME ON BOARD, HE CAME ON BOARD WITH THE CITY.
AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE'S GONNA SHOW YOU THAT, THAT, THAT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF PROBLEM WITH O WITH THESE METERS BEING BEHIND IN BETWEEN THESE METERS FOR WHATEVER REASON WAS AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S POINTS OUT AT OVERTIME INCENTIVE PROGRAM INSTITUTED APPARENTLY BY THE CITY TO CATCH UP.
THE EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW YOU THAT, THAT HE, UM, HE DID HIS JOB.
HE WAS LEADING THIS CREW, THAT HE HAD SUPERVISORY DUTIES DURING THAT, THAT TIME WHILE HE WAS A SUPERVISOR.
AND THAT HE WAS TOLD NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE IN OCTOBER, 2022 AT 2021 AND MAY OF 20 20, 22, THAT HE COULD WORK OVERTIME AND CLOCK DURING HIS REGULAR HOURS AND ENTER IT AS OVERTIME TOLD TWICE BY HIS SUPERVISOR, MR. LIK, THAT THIS IS WHAT HE SHOULD DO AND THAT HE JUST ALL, HE HAD TO DO, WORK IT, DO HIS WORK DURING THE DAY, BUT ALSO IF YOU GET THOSE OVERTIME OUT OR OTHER METERS DONE, FINE, HE'D BE PAID.
AND MR. EVIDENCE WILL SHOW BY ME THAT MR. GOMA WAS TOLD THAT IT'LL SHOW, THAT EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW THAT, UH, BEGINNING IN APRIL, 2022, MARCH OF 2022, THAT HE FEARED FOR RETALIATION FOR INFORMATION MR. OR RESPONDENT MR. GOMEZ FEARED RETALIATION FROM HIS SUPERVISOR, MR. COSTAK, UH, BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS HE WAS MAKING MR. GOMEZ TO HR AND THAT HE WAS TARGETED BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE HE KNEW TOO MUCH BECAUSE OF THAT.
AND MR. COSTIC, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, WAS AWARE OF THAT AND INSTITUTED A TARGET AGAINST HIM AND RETALIATED AGAINST HIM.
AND THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT US HERE TODAY.
I THINK DAVID IS GONNA SHOW THAT JUAN DID NOT TRY TO RUN THIS A CITIZEN OFF THE ROAD.
THERE WAS A ISSUE ABOUT A EMERGE AND EMERGE POINT AND HOW THAT RULES OF THE ROAD WORKED AT THAT.
THE EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW THAT MR. GO GOMEZ DID NOT DO ANY KIND OF THE OBSCENE GESTURE TOWARD MR. PERKINS THAT WHAT HE DID, WHICH IS BASICALLY POINT TO THE SIGN, THE MERGER SIGN, AND THEN THEY WENT OFF.
HE WAS NOT TRYING TO INSULT A CITIZEN.
IT WAS AN EVERYDAY KIND OF TRAFFIC ISSUE AND NOT ROAD RAGE AS IT'S BEEN CHARACTERIZED, I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW THAT THIS INCIDENT WITH THE TRAFFIC INCENTIVIZED
[03:50:02]
MR. COSTA, HIS SUPERVISOR, TO CONTINUE TO COME DOWN ON HIM, MR. GUNS, THIS WAS GONNA BE THE WAY HE WOULD GET RID OF HIM AS AN EMPLOYEE, EVEN BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD BE TELLING HR HAD BEEN TELLING HR VERY DAMAGING THINGS ABOUT MR. COSTA.WE CALL OUR FIRST WITNESS JUAN GOMEZ.
WILL YOU, UH, MR. GUMP GOMEZ, DO YOU, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE, THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE TODAY IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, SIR.
WILL YOU PLEASE, UH, MAY PROCEED.
AND, UM, YOU RESIDE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS? YES, SIR, I DO.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS? I'VE BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS, EIGHT YEARS AT THE WATER DEPARTMENT.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN, UM, WHAT YOUR JOB IS WITH THE WATER DEPARTMENT? MY JOB AT, UH, MY ROLE AT THE, UH, CITY OF DALLAS IS A CREW LEADER FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT, PLEASANT GROVE.
AND I'M IN CHARGE OF A CREW OF, UH, APPROXIMATELY THREE MEMBERS.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SIX, BUT, UM, I'M, I'M THERE TO SERVICE ALL THE CITIZENS COMPLAINTS, UH, MAINTENANCE ISSUES, TURNOFFS, TURNOFFS, UH, ANY KIND OF, UH, UH, SERVICE REQUESTS FROM THE, FROM THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS.
AND, UH, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY, UH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN KIND OF TO THE COMMISSION WHAT A CREW OR A WATER DEPARTMENT CREW DOES AND, AND EVERY DAY? SO IN NORMAL CORE, UH, NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, WHAT WE DO EVERY DAY IS WE RECEIVE SERVICE ORDERS THAT WERE, UH, INPUTTED BY CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM THE CITIZENS, AND THEN WE RECEIVE 'EM ON A PRINTER, AND THE NEXT DAY WE, I SORT 'EM OUT AND GET THE, UH, CREWS GOING, THE CREW GOING TO EACH PROSPECTIVE CREW MEMBER, THEY GO OUT AND PERFORM THESE TASKS.
AND IF THEY NEED ANY HELP OR ASSISTANCE, THEY CALL ME.
OR IF THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE CITIZEN BEING UPSET OR A PROBLEM THAT THEY CANNOT SOLVE, THEN I, I RESOLVE IT MYSELF.
BUT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WE HANDLE ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT THE CITIZEN MIGHT COME OUT AND SAY, HEY, UM, I HAVEN'T CALLED IT IN, BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM OVER HERE OR OVER THERE.
JUST BASICALLY SERVING THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS IN ANY, UH, CAPACITY REGARDING WATER.
AND YOU SAID YOU STARTED IN 2015.
WHEN, WHEN WERE YOU PROMOTED TO CREW LEADER? I WAS PROMOTED TO CREW LEADER IN, UH, 2017 AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE, UH, UM, CREW LEADER.
AND PRIOR TO WORKING WITH THE CITY, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER JOBS PART-TIME OR FULL-TIME? YES.
UM, I WORKED WITH, UH, HOME DEPOT IN THE FLOORING DEPARTMENT.
AND, UH, PREVIOUS TO THAT I WORKED FOR THE, UH, AN AGENCY THAT SERVICES ACCOUNTS FOR V BANKS.
AND AT SOME POINT, WERE YOU WORKING, UM, WERE YOU WERE WORKING FULL-TIME WITH THE CITY BEGINNING OF 2015, CORRECT? JUNE, THAT IS CORRECT.
BUT YOU ALSO HAD THIS JOB WITH HOME DEPOT, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WHY DID YOU HAVE THE TWO JOBS? THE REASON WHY I HAD THE, UH, SECOND JOB IS BECAUSE, UM, MY MOTHER, SHE, UH, IS, UH, ON DIALYSIS AND, UM, SHE, UH, BASICALLY RECEIVES A SMALL SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK.
SO IT WAS MY DUTY TO, UM, PROVIDE FOR HER MONETARILY.
SO I WORKED HOME DEPOT, UM, EVERY DAY.
WHEN DID YOU FIRST MEET, UH, PAUL COSTLY? I MET HIM, UM, IN, UH, 20, 20 15 WHILE WORKING IN THE NORTH.
IN THE WHAT? IN THE NORTH DIVISION.
AND, UM, DID YOU, DID HE MAKE YOU SOME KIND OF OFFER ABOUT COMING ON THE CITY? SO IN 2019, JANUARY, 2019, UH, MR. COSTELLI, I THINK IT WAS RIGHT AFTER HE BECAME THE INTERIM SUPERVISOR FOR THE, UH, SOUTHERN DIVISION OF, UH, THE WATER DEPARTMENT METER SERVICES.
UH, HE APPROACHED ME AND SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'D BE BEST THAT YOU, UH, IF WELL FOR YOU, I KNOW YOUR SITUATION.
CAUSE I EXPLAINED IT TO HIM BY WHY I COULDN'T DO METERS DURING THE WEEK, ONLY ON THE WEEKEND.
SO HE SUGGESTED, HE SAID, WE HAVE A APPROXIMATELY 52,000 METERS THAT NEED TO BE EXCHANGED, AND I WOULD LIKE
[03:55:01]
TO EXTEND YOU THE OFFER TO COME WORK FOR US ON THE OVERTIME.INSTEAD OF LEAVING HERE, GOING HOME, CHANGING, GOING TO HOME DEPOT, AND THEN STAYING UNTIL 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT.
HE SAID, YOU CAN COME, UH, WORK WITH US AND THEN JUST, YOU KNOW, DO THE OVERTIME HERE.
AND, UH, HE SAID IT'S APPROXIMATELY, PROBABLY ABOUT THREE YEARS WORTH OF, UH, OVERTIME, HE SAID, AND HE GOES, YOU KNOW, HOW THE CITY WORKS BY THAT TIME WHEN THE THREE YEARS EXPIRE, WE'LL PROBABLY BE CHANGING THOSE METERS THAT WE JUST INSTALLED.
AND SO WHAT DID YOU, SO HE, HE BASICALLY COAXED YOU TO COMING TO WORK? YEAH, HE, HE SOLICITED YOU TO COME THERE BECAUSE HE KNEW MY, UH, MY EFFICIENCY ON CHANGING THE METERS.
IT, IT DIDN'T TAKE ME 15 MINUTES, IT TOOK ME THREE MINUTES TO CHANGE THE METER.
UM, SO HOW DID THAT WORK WHEN YOU START DOING THAT AGAIN IN JANUARY 20TH, 2019? 2019, RIGHT.
YEAH, SO I STARTED, I STARTED DOING, UH, METERS ON THE WEEKEND ONLY BECAUSE I WAS STILL WORKING AT THE HOME DEPOT.
AND WHEN DID YOU SWITCH OUT THAT ARRANGEMENT? UM, THE, THE FOLLOWING YEAR, JANUARY, 2020.
I, I WENT AHEAD AND QUIT THE HOME DEPOT AND, UH, WENT, CAME ON FULL-TIME, UH, WORKING DEMEANORS AND BOXES.
AND, AND SO AGAIN, YOU HAVE A CREW, OR DO THEY DO, IS YOUR CREW HAVE A QUOTA THEY NEED TO DO AS FAR AS CHANGE OUT DAILY OR WEEKLY? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, SO EACH CREW MEMBER HAS A QUOTA OF, UH, THREE METERS PER DAY, WHICH IS 15 MINUTE, I MEAN, 15 METERS PER WEEK AND 60 METERS PER MONTH.
DOES IT, WOULD THAT PROCESS, DO THEY EVER GET CAUGHT UP THE CITY? UH, NO, NO, THAT WAS JUST TO, UM, SATISFY THE 750 METERS, UH, QUOTA PER MONTH THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO CHANGE, UH, PER DIVISION, WHICH IS THE NORTH SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF DALLAS.
THAT'S NOT THE ONES INCLUDING THE, UH, THE METERS THAT WE WERE BACKLOGGED ON THE 52,000, UH, NUMBER.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COMMISSION WHAT THIS BACKLOG MEANS AND HOW IT WAS, HOW IS THE BACKLOG RESOLVED? SO, SO THE BACKLOG RESULTS AS A, AS A, UM, REASON FOR BEING FOR THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE HAD ANYWHERE, AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, WE'VE HAD PROBABLY 25 TO 32 VACANCIES, UH, WITHIN THE WATER DEPARTMENT METER SERVICES.
SO THEREFORE THOSE NUMBERS WERE NOT BEING MET.
AND, UM, THE METERS THAT WERE BEING EXCHANGED OR NEEDED TO BE EXCHANGED WERE FALLING OUT OF WARRANTY.
SO, UM, THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO DO SOMETHING TO, YOU KNOW, REACHED ITS GOAL OR, OR BRING DOWN THE NUMBER OF 52,000.
THAT WAS JUST FOR THAT YEAR, THE 50 2020 19.
AND YOU LEFT THE CITY, UH, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, CORRECT? YES.
YOU RESIGNED? YES, I RESIGNED IN FEAR OF, UM, IN FEAR OF THE, UH, HEARING THEY HAD ON THE 20TH, UH, WITH HR, BECAUSE I KNOW THEY'RE ALL IN CAHOOTS TOGETHER.
SO I, I DIDN'T WANNA GET RAILROADED.
AND AT THE TIME WHEN YOU RESIGNED, HAD, WAS THE CITY STILL BEHIND IN THIS METER ISSUE? THEY STILL ARE.
SO IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT TODAY THAT THIS INCENTIVE PROGRAM, METER OVERTIME INCENTIVE PROGRAM WAS SEEN BY YOUR SUPERVISOR, ROSA COSTA IS A WAY TO MAKE SOME HEADWAY IN THIS BACKLOG? YES, BUT LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THAT, THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN EMPLOYED HERE.
I MEAN, THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD, UM, A BACKLOG, A SURPLUS OF BACKLOG.
I MEAN, TO, TO WHAT EXTENT? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST KNOW THE NUMBER THAT I WAS GIVEN IN 2019 BY MR. COSTELLI.
SO IT WASN'T AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T JUST CAUSED BY COVID? NO.
THAT, THAT PROBLEM HAS BEEN, WE'VE HAD VACANCIES FROM THE, FROM THE TIME I, THE DAY I STARTED.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE'S STAFF, VA STAFF, STAFFING ISSUES, LOTS OF EMPLOYEE RETENTION IS A PROBLEM.
UH, I'VE SH SHOWN YOU, UH, WE'VE ALREADY INTRODUCED, UH, YOU WERE HERE, UH, EXHIBITS, RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
THOSE THINGS WERE SOME COMMENDATIONS THAT YOU RECEIVED, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME OR TO THE COMMISSIONERS EXACTLY WHAT THAT ENTAILS? SO, SO WHAT THAT ENTAILS, I MEAN, IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE THEY CAME FROM BECAUSE SOME CAME FROM THE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE WATER, UH, DIRECTOR'S OFFICE.
SOME CAME FROM ESCALATION, SOME CAME FROM CUSTOMER SERVICE, UH, WHERE CITIZENS CALL IN AND THEY, YOU KNOW, EXPRESS THEIR, UM, APPRECIATION AND GRATITUDE FOR A JOB OF, UH, WELL DONE OR SOMETHING WHERE I WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND, OR ANY EMPLOYEE FOR THAT MATTER.
SO, UH, IN THIS CASE, WELL, I'M THE EMPLOYEE, YOU KNOW, SITTING IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS, BUT YES, THEY WOULD CALL IN AND, AND, AND, UH, LET THEM KNOW ABOUT HOW GREAT A JOB I'VE DONE.
AT SOME POINT, UM, IN, IN TIME, DID MR. LIK, UM, BECOME LIKE A SUPERVISOR OR INTERIM DIRECTOR
[04:00:01]
OR SOMETHING? AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TIME WHILE YOU WERE THERE? OH, YEAH.SO, UH, WELL, HE WAS INTERIM SUPERVISOR AND INTERIM MANAGER AT, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, YES.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THAT THAT WAS IN 2019? NO, WHEN I BEGAN HAVING PROBLEMS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COMMISSION WHAT KIND OF PROBLEMS YOU BEGAN HAVING AT THAT TIME? SO THE, THE FIRST EXHIBIT THAT THEY, THAT THEY ENTERED ONTO AS EVIDENCE IS THE ONE WHERE, UH, HE SAID I WAS INSUBORDINATE AND THAT I, UH, DID NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS.
SO THAT, THAT BASICALLY, THAT, THAT SITUATION WAS WHERE HE CAME TO ME AND SAID, HEY, I NEED THIS GUY TO RIDE WITH YOU TODAY, OR, OR, UH, SO YOU CAN CROSS TRAIN WITH HIM.
AND I SAID, WELL, I ALREADY HAVE SOMEBODY RIDING WITH ME SHOULD ON PG VERSION OR JUST HOW YOU TOLD ME, YES, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA BE DISRESPECTFUL.
NO, I JUST, WHAT HE SAID WAS, THAT'S NOT A F IN OPTION, IT'S A F IN ORDER.
AND HE STARTED BANGING ON THE WALLS GOING, F**K, F**K, F**K.
YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY TO HIS OFFICE.
AND THEN HE CAME BACK AND HE SAID, WHEN YOU GET DONE, YOU COME SEE ME.
AND I SAID, THAT'S NOT VERY ETHICAL AND NOT VERY PROFESSIONAL FOR YOU TO EMBARRASS ME IN FRONT OF MY PEERS CURSING ME OUT.
I SAID, THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO HANDLE THAT.
I SAID, BUT I KNOW WHEN THINGS ARE NOT ADDING UP, I NEED TO SUBTRACT MYSELF FROM THE SITUATION.
SO WHAT I DID IS I FILLED OUT A VACATION FORM AND I TOOK THE DAY OFF AND I, I LET HIM KNOW THAT I WAS LEAVING FOR THE DAY AND THAT I WOULD TRY, I WOULD COME BACK AGAIN TOMORROW AND TRY THIS AGAIN.
AND SO I CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY AND HE SAID, WHEN YOU GET DONE, I NEED TO SEE YOU IN MY OFFICE.
AND I WENT THERE AND HE SAID, I WROTE YOU UP FOR INSUBORDINATION AND JOB ABANDONMENT.
SO I WENT TO THE HEARING, I APPEALED IT, WENT TO THE HEARING, UM, HUMAN RESOURCE.
WELL, THEY READ THE ALLEGATIONS.
UM, HUMAN RESOURCES ASKED ME WOULD I LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ON MY BEHALF.
I WOULD, I EXPLAINED TO THEM THE SITUATION.
THAT'S WHAT I, JUST WHAT I TOLD YOU.
AND SHE SAID, WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO DISMISS THIS, SO CAN YOU JUST PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE THE ROOM AND THEN MR. UH, ALEX LAND WILL BE WITH YOU HERE IN A SECOND.
AND THEN I TOLD, WHEN THEY PRESENTED ME THE PAPER IN THE OTHER OFFICE, THE SAME PAPER WITH THE ALLEGATIONS, HE SAID, UH, ALEX LAN SAID, UH, I SAID, HEY, THIS THING DOESN'T SAY, THE PAPER DOESN'T SAY THAT IT'S BEING DISMISSED.
IT'S IT'S ACTUAL CHARGING INSTRUMENT THAT YOU PRESENTED TO ME.
AND HE SAID, OH, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
IT'LL BE OUTTA YOUR FILE WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
AND, UM, THAT'S JUST BASICALLY ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THAT STARTED WITH, WITH PAUL AFTER THAT, I MEAN, IT JUST, UM, HE WENT, HE BECAME INTERIM MANAGER AND, UM, I TRIED TO STAY AWAY FROM HIM AS MUCH AS I COULD.
SO FOR THE DURATION OF THE TIME, FROM 2020 ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL 2021, UM, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY DEALINGS WITH HIM DIRECTLY, BUT THERE WAS NO PROBLEMS. OKAY.
LEMME GO BACK TO THIS, UH, INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF, OF AUTHORIZING OVERTIME WITH YOU AND YOUR SQUAD, OR THIS INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR THE METERS? SO, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY KEEP REFERRING TO IT AS THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
THERE WAS NEVER SUCH THING AS AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
THE OVERTIME, UM, THE OVERTIME BASICALLY CONSISTED OF BOXES HELPING NIGHT SHIFT AND CHANGING METERS ON THE BACKLOG.
HE CAN TURN IT, TURN IT ON, TURN IT OFF WHENEVER HE WANTED TO.
SO HE COULD OFFER OVERTIME TO PEOPLE HE LIKED AND NOT OVERTIME TO PEOPLE HE DIDN'T LIKE.
IN, UH, IN OCTOBER, 2021, THINK BACKWARDS.
HAD A WHAT DID YOU, WHAT DID, CAN YOU RECALL WHAT YOU SAID? YES.
SO WE HAD A MEETING IN HIS OFFICE.
HE CALLED ME OVER THERE AND ASKED ME, BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IN TIME, UM, I WAS ONE OF THE FEW THAT WERE, THERE WAS ONLY SIX PEOPLE DOING OVERTIME CONSISTENTLY IN THE WHOLE DEPARTMENT.
AND HE CALLED ME OVER THERE, UM, INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I WAS WORKING ON A DIFFERENT, UM, SIZE METER THAN THE ONE THAT WOULD EVERYBODY ELSE WAS DOING.
DURING THAT CONVERSATION, HE TELLS ME THAT HE REALLY DOESN'T CARE WHEN THE METERS ARE EXCHANGED.
THAT AS LONG AS I, UH, PUT, IF I HAVE DOWNTIME OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I'M NOT HELPING MY CREW OR I HAVE NO SERVICE ORDERS OR ANYTHING, UH, THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
IF EVERYTHING'S COMPLETED, THEN I CAN GO AHEAD AND START ON THE METERS.
AND HE'S, THE ONLY THING HE O OTHER THING HE INSTRUCTED ME TO DO WAS
[04:05:01]
TO, UH, WRITE DOWN THE TIME TO REFLECT THE START TIME OF THE OVERTIME BEING FOUR O'CLOCK TO WHATEVER TIME WAS ALLOTTED, BEING DUSK, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT GOT DARK.HAD YOU EVER DONE THAT BEFORE THAT TIME? NO, SIR.
AND I HAD, I HAD BEEN DOING OVERTIME ON METERS WAY BEFORE PAUL EVEN TOOK THE HELM AT THE, AS THE INTERIM.
AND YOU NEVER REFLECTED THAT YOU DID WORK AS OVERTIME WHEN YOU DIDN'T DO IT? NO, SIR.
UP UNTIL OCTOBER, 2021 WHEN PAUL TOLD YOU TO GO K YES.
AND HE SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU, BE SURE TO BOOK IT AND ASK AFTER FOUR.
WHY? WELL, BECAUSE IF HIS SUPERVISOR, UH, SEAN BOWERS WOULD ASK FOR THE DOCUMENTS, HE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SHOW AND JUSTIFY THAT IT WAS DONE DURING THAT TIME.
AND YOU'RE NOT, THAT'S A CUT TO THE CHEST.
YOU'RE NOT SAYING YOU DIDN'T DO THAT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I DID DO IT BECAUSE MR. YOUR SUPERVISOR TOLD YOU TO DO IT.
DID HE DO THAT FOR OTHER PEOPLE? DO YOU KNOW? UM, DID HE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH HIM? I DON'T KNOW.
I KNOW HE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH ME.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE TOLD OTHER PEOPLE.
THERE WAS NEVER A STANDARD, UH, AS FAR AS THE METER, UH, EXCHANGES WERE CONCERNED.
IT WAS NOT A, A SET DEAL FOR, HE HAD DIFFERENT DEALS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
I MEAN, EVERYBODY WASN'T DOING OVERTIME ON THE METERS.
I THINK NUMBER FIVE HAS ALREADY BEEN, NO, IT'S NOT BEEN ADMITTED, I DON'T BELIEVE OR WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT.
YOU GOT ANY THAT'S THE COMMISSIONERS.
MAY I ASK IF MR. CHAIR NUMBER FIVE BEEN BROUGHT UP THERE? IT, YES.
UH, MR. UH, JUAN, JUAN MACCO, YOU, ONE WAS NUMBER FIVE.
WHAT IS THAT? IT'S DATED MARCH 22ND, 2022.
THIS EXHIBIT HERE IS, UM, THE, THE DAY I REQUESTED A, A MEETING WITH, UH, SEAN BOWERS, UH, PAUL CASTELLO'S SUPERVISOR.
WELL, WHY DID YOU REQUEST THAT MEETING? THE REASON I, I REQUESTED THAT MEETINGS BECAUSE I HAD, UM, BEEN SERVING AS THE INTERIM SUPERVISOR FOR THE SOUTH.
AND, UM, I FELT LIKE I HAD BEEN WRONGED BY PAUL AND MISLED, UM, ON THE HIRING OF THE SUPERVISOR POSITION.
AND I HAD, UM, EXPRESSED TO SEAN BAUERS OF, UH, SEVERAL UNETHICAL PRACTICES THAT, THAT PAUL HAD BEEN, UH, DOING.
AND THAT, UH, HE MANAGED THAT THERE WERE THREE.
DURING THAT CONVERSATION, I, UH, TOLD HER THAT THERE WERE THREE SUPERVISOR POSITIONS AND TWO CREW LEADER POSITIONS.
AND PAUL MANAGED TO WHITEWASH ALL OF 'EM THAT THERE WAS NO DIVERSITY OR INCLUSION, THE THINGS THAT THE CITY PRIDES THEMSELF ON.
AND THAT I FELT SLIGHTED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I WAS NEVER TOLD THAT I WAS DOING A BAD JOB.
I WAS ALWAYS TOLD THAT I WAS DOING A GREAT JOB, AN AWESOME JOB, FANTASTIC JOB.
AND, UH, I EVEN WENT TO PAUL AND I ASKED HIM, I SAID BEFORE THEY MADE THEIR DECISION, AND I ASKED HIM, I SAID, PAUL, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW THAT I AM HIGHLY INTERESTED IN THIS POSITION, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SOUTH SERVING CITIZENS AND THE, THE GUYS SINCE THEY ALREADY KNOW ME.
AND PAUL SAID, UH OH, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
YOU KNOW, UH, JUST WAIT TILL, UM, THE REQUISITION NUMBER COMES AVAILABLE AND THEN WE WILL CROSS THAT BRIDGE THEN.
SO I SAID, OKAY, NOT A PROBLEM.
SO I GO ON VACATION AND COME BACK AND HE'S ALREADY OFFERED THE POSITION TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
HE CALLED SOMEBODY ELSE IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT AND TOLD THEM THAT, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE 8% PAY CUT.
I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA OFFSET THAT PAY CUT THAT YOU'RE GETTING OVER THERE WITH OVERTIME.
I'LL GIVE YOU 2.5 HOURS PER DAY AND IT'LL OFFSET THE PAY DIFFERENTIAL THAT YOU'RE GONNA GET OVER THERE.
SO THEN, UH, I ALSO TOLD HER ABOUT THE, UH, IMPROPER RELATIONSHIPS, SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT HE WAS HAVING WITH ONE, HIS DIRECT EMPLOYEE, TIA RUSSELL.
UH, I'M GONNA OBJECT TO RELEVANCE.
YOUR HONOR, WE'VE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE FACT THAT, UH, RETALIATION IS A PART OF THIS CASE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO KIND OF, UH, PERHAPS FOR THE SAKE OF THE INNOCENT, MAYBE REDACT SOME NAMES, BUT THE ISSUE OF AS, UH, EXTRAMENTAL AFFAIRS INEV IN EVIDENCE AND WE NEED EXPLORED SOMEWHAT, REALLY, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT.
UH, AND AT THIS POINT, UH, I'M NOT GONNA ALLOW THAT TESTING.
I'M GONNA SHOW YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT NUMBER FOUR.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN IN, IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.
DO YOU WANT RECOGNIZE WHAT THAT IS?
[04:10:14]
WELL, EXHIBIT FOUR IS THE SAME AS EXHIBIT FIVE.THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? WHEN YOU'RE, THIS IS THE, THIS IS YOUR, THIS IS BASICALLY, UH, UH, COLLAB, CORROBORATING THE FACT THAT YOU HAD HAD BEEN DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES WITH, AT A MEETING WITH SEAN BAO.
AND THEN, AND AT THAT TIME WHEN I HAD THE MEETING WITH HER, SHE FELT THAT IT WAS OF CONCERN THAT I LET HR KNOW AND DEBRIEFED THEM ON WHAT, UM, I WAS STATING TO HER.
SO SHE SCHEDULED ANOTHER MEETING FOR THE 31ST OF MARCH, 2022.
UH, SO I CAN SIT THERE, I MEAN, SIT IN FRONT OF HR, HER AND CHARLES THOMAS AS A WITNESS AS TO WHAT MY ACCOUNTS WERE.
I'LL ASK IF NUMBER SIX COULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND TO THE INSPECTOR GENERALS RESPONDENTS.
NUMBER SIX, DO YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU, UH, MR. UH, JUAN, NUMBER SIX, EXHIBIT NUMBER SIX, RESPONDING? YES, I DO THAT.
WHAT IS THAT? DO YOU RECOGNIZE HER? THIS IS THE, UH, EMAIL THAT I SENT TO, UH, TAMMY ANDERSON IN HR, UH, LET HER KNOW THAT, UH, THE RETALIATION TARGETING BY PASEK HAS BEGUN.
UM, HE STARTED OUT WITH THE, UH, UH, SITUATION WITH THE KRONOS DEAL, AND I HAD EXPLAINED TO PAUL, UM, VERBALLY THAT THE KRONOS DEAL, WHENEVER SOMEBODY ADJUSTED AND YOU GO IN AND PUNCH IT MANUALLY, THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY SH DOESN'T SHOW THAT YOU PUNCH IN OR OUT.
AND IT'S A, IT'S ACTUALLY AN EMAIL CHAIN GOING BACK TO, LOOKS LIKE, UH, APRIL THE 12TH, 2022, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND THERE'S A SCREENSHOT, COUPLE SCREENSHOTS.
EXPLAIN THOSE TO THE COMMISSION.
SO THERE'S A SCREENSHOT THERE OF THE, UH, THE TEXT MESSAGE CUZ I, I STARTED TELLING, UH, PAUL AND JOSH THAT, UH, GOING FORWARD I WAS GONNA TAKE, UH, PICTURES OF ALL MY PUNCHES TO, SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY DISCREPANCIES OR PROBLEMS OR ISSUES WITH ME PUNCHING IN OR OUT.
AND THAT'S THAT KRONOS PHOTOGRAPH, THE LAST SCREENSHOT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, AND WHAT IS THIS OTHER THING WITH JOSH TIMBERMAN SCREENSHOT? YES, THAT'S THE, UH, MESSAGE THAT, UH, JOSH TIMBERMAN SENT ME, UH, REGARDING THE, UH, NOT PUNCHING IN AND OUT ON CON'S.
I'LL ASK, I'LL ASK THAT RESPONDENT'S NUMBER EIGHT, BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION AND, UH, RECOGNIZE JUST THE RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER EIGHT, JUAN? YES, SIR.
THIS IS A, UH, EMAIL, UM, COMPLAINT THAT I SENT TO, UH, TAMMY ANDERSON AT HUMAN RESOURCES AND, UH, LETTING HER KNOW THAT, THAT PAUL HAD, UH, CHRISTOPHER, CHRIS STARTED FOLLOWING ME, UH, AROUND, UH, ON THE PREVIOUS DAYS, UM, THE PREVIOUS DAY METERS THAT I HAD EXCHANGED AND THAT THEY WERE TALKING TO, UH, EACH OF THE CUSTOMERS, ASKING THEM WHAT TIME I HAD BEEN THERE, OR, UH, WHAT TIME DID THEY SEE ME THERE OR ANY, IF THEY HAD ANY RECOLLECTION OF ME BEING THERE.
AND THERE'S SOME SCREENSHOTS THERE.
WHAT ELSE WERE THESE SCREENSHOTS? THE SCREENSHOT, THE PICTURES THERE ARE, UM, OF, ACTUALLY, OF JOE GARCIA.
CHRIS CRESS IS IN THE TRUCK, BUT OF COURSE YOU CAN'T SEE 'EM IN THE PICTURE.
BUT, UH, I PULLED UP TO THE TRUCK SO THEY COULD SEE ME AND LET THEM KNOW THAT I KNEW THEY WERE FOLLOWING ME AROUND.
SO YOU'RE JUST, THIS EMAIL CHANGE IS BASICALLY TELLING, UH, MISS TAMMY ANDERSON IN HR THAT THIS, THIS
[04:15:01]
IS WHAT YOU FEEL IS GOING ON? YES.BECAUSE IT WAS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AGAINST, UH, PAUL FOR THE STUFF THAT I HAD MENTIONED TO, UH, HER AND, AND SEAN BOWERS, WHEN YOU MET WITH HR IN MARCH OF 2022.
UM, AND SEAN, YOU MET WITH SHAWN BOW, UH, SEAN BOWERS.
AND WAS, WAS THERE ANYBODY THERE FROM HR? SEAN BOWERS IS, UH, PAUL'S THE DIRECT SUPERVISOR.
WAS THERE ANYONE THERE FROM HR THOUGH? YES, TAMMY ANDERSON.
UM, SO IT WAS IN MARCH OF 2022 THAT YOU LAY OUT THESE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR. MR. COSTA TO THEM.
DID THEY EVER FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON THIS? UH, NO.
I KNOW YOU'RE STILL CONTINUING TO WRITE NO MEMOS TO THEM AND LIKE INTO THE SUMMERTIME, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND ALL SHE KEPT TELLING ME WAS, OR RESPONDING TO ME WAS, UH, WE WE'RE, LOOK, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA LOOK INTO IT AND I DON'T FEEL NUMBER, WE'LL GIVE NUMBER NINE AND 10 TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
SO THE LAST EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS, CAN YOU, YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK, UH, JUAN AT NUMBER RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER NINE AND 10? YES.
THIS EMAIL HERE IS, UM, WHICH ONE ARE WE REFERENCING? UH, NINE.
SO THIS EMAIL HERE IS A, A, UH, FOLLOW UP, UH, EMAIL WITH, UH, TAMMY EXPLAINED TO HER HOW, UH, OR SHOWN HER AN EXAMPLE OF HOW PAUL MANIPULATES THE OVERTIME AND DOES WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WHEN HE WANTS TO GIVE IT OR NOT.
AND THE REASON TH THIS, UH, SITUATION WAS BROUGHT UP WAS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT MARK GARBE, UH, DECIDED NOT TO TAKE A SHIFT THAT THEY WERE TELLING HIM, TRYING TO FORCE ON HIM.
AND HE WAS TELLING THEM THAT THE ONLY WAY HE WOULD TAKE THAT SHIFT ON NIGHT SHIFT WOULD BE WITH, UH, PAY DIFFERENTIAL.
AND THEY SAID, NO, YOU, THEY, THEY RESPONDED TO HIM THAT THEY, HE ONLY HAD, WOULD TAKE THE, UH, UH, THE, THE SHIFT ANYTIME THE CITY OF DALLAS WANTED TO CHANGE HIS SHIFT, THAT THEY COULD DO SO.
SO HE SAID, NO, I'M NOT GONNA DO IT.
AND THEN PAUL SENDS THIS EMAIL SAYING, TELLING.
ALL AT THAT TIME, I WAS INTERIM SUPERVISOR SENT ALL THE SUPERVISOR AN EMAIL LETTING MEN KNOW NOT TO GIVE MARK GARBE OVERTIME AS A CAUSE OF THAT.
AND NUMBER 10, CAN YOU YOU IDENTIFY EXHIBIT NUMBER 10? YES.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 10 IS A EMAIL THAT I HAD SENT TO, UM, PAUL, UH, REGARDING A, UH, ARGUMENT THAT I HAD WITH CHRIS, CHRIS OVER THE FACT THAT HIS CREW WAS NOT DOING THEIR JOB AND THEY WERE, UM, NOT REPORTING, UM, THE, UH, INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AS THEY WERE INSTRUCTED.
SO, AND, UM, CHRIS CRES AND I HAD, UM, EXCHANGE OF WORDS BEFORE THIS EMAIL WAS SENT.
SO I SENT THE EMAIL, UH, PROMPTING PAUL ABOUT THE SITUATION BEFORE CHRIS CREST GOT OVER THERE.
UM, BECAUSE WE, WE DID HAVE SOME HEATED CONVERSATIONS.
SO THIS IS, THIS, UH, NUMBER 10 IS DATED FEBRUARY THE 22ND, 2022, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THIS CHRISTOPHER CRES IS, THIS IS THE SAME CHRISTOPHER CRES THAT WAS PUT IN CHARGE BY PAUL LIK TO DO YOUR INVESTIGATION OF YOU? THAT'S CORRECT.
NOW, YOU MENTIONED, WE TALKED ABOUT A MOMENT AGO IN OCTOBER, 2021 WHEN MR. CAS, YOU SAY, MR. CASTLEY TOLD YOU TO
[04:20:01]
GO AHEAD AND DO THE, THE DOCUMENTATION ABOUT THE OVERTIME.UH, AND THAT WAS, SO WOULD YOU, HE TOLD YOU TO DO THAT, RIGHT? REMEMBER THAT? YES.
DID YOU EVER TALK TO HIM AGAIN AFTER THESE DIFFERENCES BEGAN TO, UH, TO SURFACE BETWEEN YOU AND HIM AND PERHAPS OTHER STAFF? YES, I DID.
I, UH, WENT TO HIS OFFICE ON MAY 2ND AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM TRYING TO WORK OUT MAY 2ND WHEN MAY 2ND 20, UH, 22, AND TRY TO WORK OUT OUR DIFFERENCES, UH, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT HE HAD BEEN, UM, DEBRIEFED BY HIS BOSS IN REGARDS TO THE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED TO HER AND HR ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE COMPLAINTS THAT I HAD AGAINST HIM.
DID YOU, UM, WHAT WERE, DID YOU, WAS THERE A RESOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE BETWEEN YOU AND MR. KOTICK, OR WHAT? SO I, I FEEL, CAUSE I'VE ALWAYS BEEN TAUGHT THAT IF I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH SOMEBODY TO RESOLVE IT FACE-TO-FACE AND WORK OUT THE ISSUES AND KIND OF HASH IT OUT, YOU KNOW? AND PLUS, I MEAN, I DIDN'T WANNA HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT BETWEEN ME AND, AND MY MANAGER.
I MEAN, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WANTED.
SO WE WORKED IT OUT AND THEN HE REITERATED THE SAME THING THAT HE TOLD ME IN OCTOBER.
HE TOLD ME, I REALLY DON'T CARE WHEN HE SAYS, MAN, I REALLY DON'T CARE WHEN YOU DO THE METERS.
HE GOES, JUST DO 'EM ON YOUR DOWNTIME.
HE GOES, I JUST NEED THAT TIME TO REFLECT, UM, FROM FOUR TO WHATEVER TIME.
BECAUSE THE REASON WHY I SAY TO WHATEVER TIME IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT DURING THE DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE TO, YOU KNOW, SEVEN OR, YOU KNOW, EIGHT O'CLOCK DEPENDING ON WHEN IT GOT DARK.
SO HE WANTED TO SEND BEFORE THEN.
SO I WAS LIKE, OKAY, NOT A PROBLEM.
HE SAID, JUST MAKE SURE THAT IF, YOU KNOW, YOU DOCUMENT IT, MAKE SURE THAT THE TIME REFLECTS FROM BOARD AT WHATEVER TIME IN CASE MY BOSS ASKED ME FOR THE SERVICE ORDERS.
SO YOU'RE TESTIFYING TODAY THAT IN OCTOBER, 2021, MR. CASTLE FIRST TELLS YOU, GO AHEAD, DO THE OVERTIME THIS WAY, DIS DISGUISE IT WITH THAT, AND AGAIN, IN MAY, 2022 AND ANOTHER PERSON, MEANING HE TELLS YOU THE SAME THING, BASICALLY? YES, THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO DISGUISING.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT HIS WORDS WERE VERBATIM.
HE SAID, MAKE SURE THAT IT REFLECTS THAT.
SO IF MY BOSS ASKED FOR THAT, THEN IT WOULD REFLECT THAT YOU DID IT ON OVERTIME.
AND THAT'S, LET'S GO TO THE, UM, THIS TRAFFIC INCIDENT.
DO YOU REMEMBER BACK IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR? YES, I DO.
THIS INCIDENT THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, YOU'VE SEEN THE, THE VIDEOS OF THIS INTERSECTION AND, AND YOU'VE SEEN HOW THEY TRACKED YOUR TRUCK.
DID YOU EVER DENY TO ANYONE THAT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE OF THIS INCIDENT WITH MR. PERKINS? NOT AT ALL.
IN FACT, WHEN YOU WERE CONFRONTED BY MR. CASTOR LIQUOR OR WHOEVER, WHAT DID YOU TELL HIM? I TOLD THEM THAT, UH, WELL FIRST THEY EXPLAINED THE SITUATION, UH, AS TO WHAT WAS BEING ALLEGED.
AND THEN I TOLD THEM, I GAVE 'EM A STATEMENT ABOUT MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HAPPENED.
LET'S KIND GO BACK TO THAT DAY.
FEBRUARY THE SEVENTH, I BELIEVE.
SO FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 7TH, WHEN THE INCIDENT HAPPENED.
FEBRUARY 15TH IS WHEN I WAS YEAH, FEBRUARY 7TH.
WERE YOU IN A HURRY ANYWHERE? UH, NO SIR.
WERE YOU LATE? NO, I GOT OFF AT FOUR.
SO WHAT WERE YOU GONNA DO WHEN YOU WERE THERE? YOU FOUND YOURSELF AT THIS, THIS, UH, RAMP AND INTERSECTION.
WHERE WERE YOU GOING? OH, I WAS GOING BACK TO, UH, SUBSTATION WHERE I REPORT TO A MUNICIPAL.
WHAT HAPPENED BEST YOUR RECOLLECT, UH, ON THIS RELATIVE TO THIS INCIDENT WITH THE TRAFFIC? YES, SIR.
SO, TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AND WHAT I KNOW TO BE, UH, WHAT HAPPENED IS I WAS AT THE INTERSECTION OF BRUTON AND SECOND.
AND SO I WAS IN FIRST POSITION HERE AND THERE WAS A WHITE HONDA ACCORD HERE.
AND SO THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN AND WE PROCEEDED THROUGH THE LIGHT.
SO WE WENT THROUGH THE LIGHT, THE HONDA ACCORD TOOK OFF.
I GUESS HE WAS TRYING TO SHOW OFF HIS CAR OR WHAT HAVE YOU, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT HE TAKES OFF CUZ THEY DRIVE FAST DOWN BRUTON.
BUT HE TOOK OFF, I CONTINUED ON AND THEN, UM, I GOT ALMOST TO THE YIELD SIGN.
AND WHEN I GOT UP TO THE YIELD SIGN, I LOOKED TO MY LEFT TO WATCH THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC BECAUSE THOSE CARS ARE ZOOMING, YOU KNOW, LIKE AT 65, 80 MILES AN HOUR, WHATEVER.
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I LOOKED TO MY RIGHT LIKE THAT AND I, I LOOKED IN MY REAR MIRROR, HERE COMES THIS VAN, THIS MINIVAN.
IT WAS A LIGHT GREEN MINI VAN OR A DARK MINIVAN.
UM, I, I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT COLOR IT WAS, BUT ANYWAY, CAME ALL THE WAY TO THE PASSENGER SIDE, UH, DOOR.
AND, AND THEN, SO I KIND OF LIKE SCOOTED UP AND THEY PROCEEDED TO GET BEHIND ME.
WHEN THEY GOT BEHIND ME, I COULD SEE IN THE, IN THE, WELL THEY WERE, FIRST OF ALL, THEY WERE HONKING AT ME, LIKE, YOU KNOW, TELLING ME A LITTLE BIT, GETTING CLOSE TO THE TRUCK AND HONKING.
AND THEN, SO I LOOKED IN MY REAR MIRROR AND IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE TAKING A VIDEO OR A PICTURE OF THE BACK OF THE TRUCK FOR THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND THEN I SCOOTED UP AND I POINTED TOWARDS MY EYE LIKE THIS, LETTING THEM KNOW BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T, THEY WOULDN'T STOP HONKING.
[04:25:01]
SO I POINTED TOWARDS THE YIELD SIGN LETTING THEM KNOW THAT I HAD THE YIELD TO THE UPCOMING TRAFFIC.AND SO FINALLY THE TRAILER PASS, THE TRUCK PASS AND I GOT ON THE FREEWAY, I GOT ON HOLD UP.
SO THAT'S THAT THIS ALL HAPPENS AT A POINT WHERE THERE'S A MERGER ONTO THE RAMP OF 1 75, CORRECT? RIGHT.
SO IN THERE, UH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S A MERGE LANE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
YOU HAVE TO MERGE OVER CAUSE ONE LANE, CORRECT? RIGHT.
AND SO SOMEONE'S GONNA HAVE TO YIELD WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH A MERGE LANE.
NOW ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY AHEAD OF THIS VAN THAT WAS COMING? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO YOU, YOU, ARE YOU SAYING YOU MOVED OVER TO THE RIGHT AND WHERE TO I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T HAVE TO MOVE OVER.
I WAS ALREADY IN THE POSITION.
YOU WERE ALREADY IN THE POSITION DOWN TO THE FREEWAY.
AND THAT'S WHEN THEY CAME UP TO YOUR SIDE AND BEHIND AND STARTED HONKING THE HORN? WELL, THEY CAME UP TO THE SIDE AND THEN I SCREWED IT UP CUZ THEY STARTED HONKING.
AND DID YOU AND ALL AND WHAT, AND AGAIN ALL YOU DID WAS POINT TO BASICALLY EYE OR YOUR EYE AND LOOK AT THE YIELD SIDE? CORRECT.
CAUSE I COULDN'T TURN MY HEAD ALL THE WAY AROUND.
SO I JUST DID LIKE THIS, I DID LIKE THIS AND I WENT LIKE THAT.
AND THEN I LOOKED BACK TO THE LEFT TO SEE IF THE TRAFFIC WAS ALREADY PASSED ME.
DID YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY TO GET TO PULL OVER IN THAT MERGE AT THE MERGE POINT? YEAH, THERE WAS NOBODY BESIDE ME AT THE POINT WHEN I WENT TO THE, UH, YIELD SIGN.
AND TO GET OFF THE FREEWAY AND THERE IS A MERGE POINT, I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY HOW THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REFERENCED.
IS IT? RIGHT, THE MERGE POINT STARTS, I THINK, UM, BACK WAY BEFORE THE YIELD SIGN.
AND YOU WERE ALREADY, YOU WERE ALREADY OVER IN THE I WAS ALREADY THERE.
NOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU GET ONTO 1 75? SO AFTER I GET ONTO 1 75, UM, THE, UH, UH, GENTLEMAN IN THE VAN, UM, THEY DO LIKE A SLINGSHOT I GUESS ONCE THEY CLEAR THAT LITTLE PATCH OF GRASS, THE TRIANGLE PART, THEY DO LIKE A SLINGSHOT MOVE, YOU KNOW, AND GO BEHIND ME AND THEN BESIDE ME.
AND THEY ENDED UP SIDE BY SIDE, UH, WITH ME.
AND, UM, I LOOKED WHICH SIDE, WHICH SIDE WERE THEY ON? ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE, THERE'S TWO LANES.
YOUR, YOUR, YOUR DRIVER'S? YES, CORRECT.
THERE'S TWO LANES TO, TO MY LEFT.
UM, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT YOU GET ON THE FREEWAY ON.
AND WHAT HAPPENED THEN? SO AT THAT POINT I LOOKED OVER THERE BECAUSE I MEAN, I KNEW THE, THE DRIVER WAS UPSET AND SO THE DRIVER KIND OF LEANED OVER LIKE THIS AND WENT LIKE THIS, I GUESS CUZ HE, HE FELT LIKE I COULDN'T SEE HIM AT THE HEIGHT OF THE TRUCK AND THE VAN.
SO YOU, YOU WENT LIKE THIS, YOU MEAN HE, HE BUT HE THREW YOU IN A RATHER IMPOLITE GESTURE? YES.
AND THEN THE, UH, THE PASSENGER, UH, HAD HER PHONE IN THE, IN HER HAND AND WENT LIKE THIS AS IMPLYING TO ME, OR I TOOK IT AS SHE WAS IMPLYING THAT SHE TOOK A PICTURE OR VIDEO OF, OF ME OR THE TRUCK.
AND WHAT DID YOU DO THEN? SO WHAT I DID THEN IS I THREW MY THUMB UP LIKE THIS AND I WENT LIKE THIS AND I JUST WENT ABOUT MY, MY WAY.
AND WHERE DID THEY GO? SO THEY DROPPED BACK KIND OF TO THE BACK BUMPER ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE.
AND I GUESS THEY WERE GETTING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER TO THE TRUCK AND THEN YOU WENT ON TO WHEREVER YOU WERE GOING? YES, I GOT OFF ON THE, ON THE PROCEEDING EXIT, WHICH WAS, UH, RAILROAD ROAD.
UH, THAT'S WHERE WE GET OFF AT TO GO TO THE FACILITY.
AND I COULD SEE THAT THEY, UH, EXITED BEAR STREET.
DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE INTERACTION WHATSOEVER WITH THIS VAN? NO.
DID YOU SEE WHERE IT WENT? YEAH, IT GOT OFF ON BEAR STREET.
THE FOLLOWING EXIT AFTER RAILROAD.
NOW YOU HAVE, YOU COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THE PERSON DRIVING THIS VAN WAS MR. PERKINS, RIGHT? NO, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE INDIVIDUAL WAS.
THEY NEVER TOLD YOU WHO THE PEOPLE WERE.
DO YOU SEE ANY KIND OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEM? NOT UNTIL FEBRUARY 15TH.
AND IT HAPPENED ON FEBRUARY 15TH.
YEAH, I KNOW, BUT WHAT HAPPENED ON FEBRUARY 15TH? OH, FEBRUARY 15TH.
THAT WAS, UH, INSTRUCTED BY, I WAS TEXT BY MY, UH, DIRECT SUPERVISOR, JOSH TIMBERMAN, TO, UH, SHOW UP TO THE FACILITY, UM, EARLY AT THREE O'CLOCK BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SPEAK TO ME.
AND I SAID, OKAY, WELL YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
SO I SHOWED UP TO THE FACILITY, HE SAID, WE HAVE A MEETING WITH PAUL AT THREE 30 AT, IN HIS OFFICE.
SO I GOT THERE, UH, GOT A TRUCK, WENT AND PUT MY STUFF UP, AND HE, UM, ESCORTED ME TO THE, UH, TO PAUL'S OFFICE.
SO YOU WERE PUT ON SUSPENSION WITH PAY? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH.
SO, SO THERE WAS A CONFERENCE CALL WITH, UH, RENARD.
BONFIELD AND, UH, PEDRO, I FORGOT HIS LAST NAME, BUT, AND, UH, EDGAR, JOSH, AND PAUL.
AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT HAD BEEN ALLEGED THAT I WAS BEING, UH, YEAH, I HAD BEEN ALLEGED THAT I WAS BEING INVOLVED IN A DRIVING INCIDENT WHERE I CUT SOMEBODY OFF AND THAT, UM, THAT I ALMOST, UM, MADE HIM RUN OFF THE ROAD.
AND ALSO THAT THERE HAD BEEN A, A SECOND, UM, ALLEGATION AGAINST ME FOR RACISM AGAINST A FORMER EMPLOYEE THAT RESIGNED.
[04:30:01]
RACISM.SO THE, SO THE RACISM, UH, ALLEGATION WAS WITH MR. UH, TIM, TRUSTEE, UH, FORMER EMPLOYEE OF MINE.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION, WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT AND WHEN IT HAPPENED? ALLEGEDLY, SO, SO TIM, TRUSTEE, UM, I HAD HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM IN REFERENCE TO, UM, SOME SERVICE ORDERS THAT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED, UH, THAT DAY.
AND I HAD INSTRUCTED HIM THAT MORNING, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT HE COMPLETES ALL HIS WORK BECAUSE, UH, THE ONES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT ARE THE ONES THAT COME OFF THE RADIO BECAUSE THE CITIZEN HAS CALLED IN THAT DAY.
SO I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SIX OF 'EM THAT WERE NOT COMPLETE.
SO I WAITED TILL THE NEXT DAY.
CAUSE I SORTED AFTER WORK, I WAITED THE NEXT DAY AND I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM.
I HAD TO SIT DOWN ONE-ON-ONE AS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO HIS CREW LEADERS.
SO I SAT DOWN WITH HIM AND, AND SPOKE WITH HIM IN REGARDS TO THAT.
AND I ASKED HIM WHAT HAPPENED.
AND HE TOLD ME THAT BASICALLY THAT HE GOT TIRED AND THAT THERE WAS NO, NO WAY THAT HE COULD, UH, PERFORM THOSE DUTIES ON THOSE OTHER SIX SERVICE ORDERS.
SO I EXPLAINED TO HIM, I SAID, MAN, I'M JUST GONNA TELL YOU, BE, UH, UPFRONT WITH YOU AND LET YOU KNOW THAT OUT OF CON I MEAN, JUST OUT OF CONCERN FOR YOUR HELP.
BECAUSE HE DID HAVE SOME, UH, HEALTH ISSUES.
I MEAN, THERE'VE BEEN A COUPLE TIMES THAT WE PULLED UP TO JOB SITES AND HE GOT OUT THE TRUCK AND, AND NEXT THING I KNOW, HE WAS STUMBLING 20, 30 FEET INTO THE CUSTOMER'S YARD AND LANDING ON HIS BACK.
DID, SO WHAT WAS THE, UH, DID YOU IN ANY WAY SAY ANYTHING RACIALLY DEROGATORY TO MR. TRUSTEE OR HE TO YOU? UH, SO WE, WE PLAYED AROUND, UH, ONE CONVERSATION.
THIS IS WHERE THE CONVERSATION CAME UP OF HIM, UH, SAYING HE, HE TURNED THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD, WHICH BETWEEN ME AND HIM INTO SOMETHING, UM, THAT IT WASN'T, HE TOOK IT OUTTA CONTEXT.
SO BASICALLY I TOLD HIM THAT SAME DAY AFTER THAT CONVERSATION I HAD WITH HIM BY AS HELL.
AND, UH, I TOLD HIM, I SAID, MAN, YOU ONLY GOT 17 SERVICE ORDERS TODAY, SO YOU OUGHT BE ABLE TO FINISH THOSE WITHIN TWO TO THREE HOURS.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, AND I COULDN'T, MR. MR. JUAN, IS THERE SOME DOCUMENTATION WHICH REFLECTS THIS ISSUE WITH MR. TRUSTEE? UH, ANY MEMOS OR NO, THERE WAS SOMETHING IN HR INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THERE WAS NOT AN ISSUE BETWEEN US.
THIS, ALL THIS CAME ABOUT AFTER THE FACT.
SO ALL THIS ISSUE WITH THIS TRUSTEE IS PART, CAME AFTER THE, THIS ISSUE WITH THE VEHICLE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
NOW, UM, SO DO YOU REMEMBER, I WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR, YOU DID NOT IN ANY WAY DO ANYTHING DISRESPECTFUL TO THIS VAN OR TOWARD THE VAN OR ANYTHING DANGEROUS.
IS THAT COR IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? UH, YES SIR.
AND YOU WERE THERE, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
ANYBODY DRIVING WITH YOU, RIDING WITH YOU? NO, SIR.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE THERE AND MR. PERKINS, THE COMPLAINANT WAS THERE AND MS. HALL, UH, WAS THERE RIGHT IN THE VAN WHEN WE UNDERSTAND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE? THAT'S IT? THAT'S CORRECT.
NOW, JUAN, I WANT SH SHIFT GEARS TO THE SECOND PART OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU.
THIS FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS.
OKAY? NOW, I'M, IF YOU'D LOOK FOR A MINUTE ON PAGE 11 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, YOU HAVE THAT THERE, IT DEALS WITH THE, UH, PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME PROGRAM, ALSO KNOWN BY CLIENT FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS THE OVERTIME INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
DO YOU UNDER, CAN YOU EXPLAIN, I JUST FOCUS IN THIS IS, THESE ARE, UH, A GRAPH AND A CHART, UH, PREPARED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UM, LOOKING AT MANY, MANY DAYS GOING ALL THE WAY INTO PAGE 12.
IT LOOKS LIKE, LET'S JUST FOCUS ON THE FIRST TWO.
IS THAT, CAN WE DO THAT? MM-HMM.
AND THEN, UH, ANOTHER ENTRY THERE.
AND IF YOU GO ACROSS THERE, IT LOOKS AS IF, UH, ONE'S ON OLD MILL LANE IN DALLAS AT 4:00 PM DO YOU SEE THAT MAY PAGE, MAY 9TH, PAGE 11 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT? YEAH, PAGE 11.
[04:35:05]
THIS, EXCUSE ME, MR. CHAIR, TO MAKE SURE, GIVE US A MOMENT TO PULL THAT OUT OR IT'S PART OF YOUR PACKAGE.I'M GONNA SHOW YOU, WELL, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU THE, WHAT I'M REFERENCING.
THOSE FIRST TWO, UH, TOP OF THE PAGE, UH, FOR MAY 9TH, 2022.
AND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES.
AND THEN CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COMMISSIONERS EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT AND HOW OVER THERE ON THE RIGHT HAND CORNER IS FIVE AND A HALF HOURS, IT LOOKS LIKE OVERTIME.
WHAT DOES ALL THAT MEAN? SO BASICALLY WHAT THIS, WHAT I GATHER FROM WHAT IT'S SHOWING HERE, THE TWO ADDRESSES IS THE TWO ADDRESSES THAT I DID DO BEFORE FOUR O'CLOCK, UM, BECAUSE I HAD DOWNTIME.
AND, UH, THE 4.5 HOURS REPRESENTS THE WHOLE OVERTIME PERIOD FROM FOUR TO EIGHT 30.
AND YOU DID DO THOSE ADDRESSES ON MAY 9TH.
BUT YOU, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS NOT ACTUALLY AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK.
WELL, THESE TWO, THESE TWO HERE WERE, THEY WERE AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK.
NO, THEY WERE BEFORE FOUR O'CLOCK, RIGHT? YES.
AND YOU DID THAT AND YOU DID THAT AND YOU DID THE ENTRY THAT WAY BECAUSE OF WHY? BECAUSE I WAS INSTRUCTED BY PAUL ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS TO, UM, DO 'EM WHEN I HAD DOWNTIME.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, I DIDN'T EVEN DO 'EM BETWEEN TWO AND THREE.
AND YOU'RE NOT DENYING THAT AT ALL.
NICK, LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR COWORKERS A BIT.
AND MR. COSTA, LIKE YOUR SUPERVISOR, IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT SOMEHOW PEOPLE WERE AFRAID OF YOU WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.
UH, WHAT IS, I SAID, DO YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU EVER THREATENED ANYBODY AT WORK OR GIVE THEM CAUSE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY? NO.
I MEAN, I, I EVEN HAD A, SUCH A GREAT REPORT WITH MY EMPLOYEES THAT I WOULD HAVE A MONTHLY, UH, EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION, UH, LUNCH AND AT MY EXPENSE EVERY MONTH JUST TO SHOW MY EMPLOYEES MY APPRECIATION.
SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE SUGGESTIONS ARE ALL ABOUT? IT'S JUST A SAMIR CAMPAIGN BY HIM.
MS. SEAN, UH, RATHER, SEAN BAUERS WITH WATER DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR TAMMY ANDERSON WITH HR.
DID THEY, HOW DID THEY RESPOND ABOUT THESE ISSUES? ABOUT STOLEN BRASS AND IMPROPER RELATIONSHIPS IN THE OFFICE OF MR. ICK AND ALSO, UM, NIKE PROMOTIONS FROM PEOPLE OF COLOR? WHAT, HOW DID THEY RESPOND TO THAT? WELL, IT JUST FELL ON DEAF EARS AND THEY WERE JUST TELLING ME BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, I'LL, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU.
AND, UM, SHAWN DID RESPOND AT ONE POINT IN TIME SAYING THAT, UH, EVEN, UH, THOUGH I HAD RAISED THE, UH, UH, QUESTION ABOUT THE DIVERSITY, UH, WITH THEM ON THE SUPERVISOR POSITION AMONG THE RANKS, I GUESS, UH, SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS STILL GOING TO LET THE, UH, UH, PROMOTION OF JOSH GENTLEMAN AND, UH, ALL THE OTHER SUPERVISORS, UH, GO THROUGH.
DID ANYONE IN THE INSPECTORS GENERAL'S OFFICE EVER INTERVIEW YOU OR TALK TO YOU ABOUT THESE TWO NO.
GROUPS OF ALLEGATIONS? NO SIR.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY EXISTED.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY EXISTED UNTIL I GOT, UH, TWO EMAILS AND TWO CERTIFIED LETTERS, UH, VIA MAIL AT THAT THEY EXISTED.
BUT I NEVER WAS CONTACTED, UH, PRIOR TO, TO, UH, APRIL, I GUESS 26TH IS WHEN I RECEIVED THE RECEIPT OF THE, UH, CERTIFIED MAIL AND UH, EMAIL.
DO YOU THINK THAT SOME OF YOUR EMPLOYEES OTHER ARE, ARE NOT SO MUCH SCARED OF YOU BUT REMEMBER SCARED OF MR. COSTA? YES.
THEY'RE AFRAID OF RETALIATION.
THAT'S WHY MY, UH, WITNESSES WOULD NOT COME FORWARD AND SPEAK, YOU KNOW, AGAINST HIM.
MR. GOMEZ, UH, I'M GONNA ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS AND IF YOU
[04:40:01]
DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING YOU, WOULD YOU PLEASE LET ME KNOW CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING YOU, OKAY? YES SIR.UM, ON EXHIBIT SIX HERE, THIS IS AN EXHIBIT THAT YOUR DEFENSE TEAM PUT IN.
YOU CLAIM THAT PAUL COSTELLO IS HARASSING YOU AND THAT THE SUBSTANTIATION FOR THAT IS YOU'RE NOT LOGGING IN AND OUT.
SO DO YOU CONSIDER IT HARASSMENT WHEN YOUR BOSS TELLS YOU THAT YOU NEED TO SIGN IN AND OUT OF THE SYSTEM? YES, I DO BECAUSE PAUL COSTELLO'S NOT IN CHARGE OF THE KRONOS DEAL, IT'S TIA RUSSELL.
SO YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT HARASSMENT WHEN A SUPERVISOR ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING SIMPLE LIKE SIGN IN? NO, IT WAS, IT WAS ONGOING.
AND SO CONTINUING TO REMIND YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S REQUIRED OF YOU, LIKE SIGNING IN AND OUT, YOU CONSIDER THAT HARASSMENT? I'VE BEEN THERE EIGHT YEARS AND NEVER HAD A PROBLEM.
I'VE BEEN LATE ONE TIME IN EIGHT YEARS.
BACK OVER HERE WE GOT A TEXT MESSAGE THAT YOU GUYS ALREADY OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE AND THAT'S A TEXT MESSAGE FROM NOT PAUL, BUT FROM JOSHUA TIMMERMAN.
IS HE HARASSING YOU TOO BY REMINDING YOU TO SIGN IN AND OUT? NO.
SO IT'S, WE'RE JUST REITERATING THAT IT'S NOT SHOWING ON THE KRONOS CAUSE HE RECEIVED THE EMAIL FROM PAUL PRIOR TO THAT TEXT MESSAGE.
SO IT'S HARASSMENT IF IT COMES FROM PAUL, BUT NOT IF IT COMES FROM MR. TIMMERMAN.
WELL THERE'S A REASON WHY PAUL IS DOING THAT.
I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT QUESTION.
UM, ON EXHIBIT EIGHT, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCEPT OF A QUALITY CONTROL CHECK, ARE YOU NOT? NO SIR.
SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT A QUALITY CONTROL CHECK WAS.
I KNOW THEY EXISTED BUT THEY WERE NEVER DONE.
WELL, ACCORDING TO EXHIBIT EIGHT, YOU'RE FOLLOWING THESE GUYS AROUND.
SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A QUALITY CONTROL I'M FOLLOW, I'M FOLLOWING AROUND TO THE ADDRESS THEY, I WENT TO THE PREVIOUS DAY.
THEY WERE FOLLOWING YOU AND YOU SPOTTED THEM.
AND THEN YOU TURNED AROUND AND STARTED FOLLOWING THEM AND DROVE YOUR TRUCK UP CLOSE ENOUGH TO WHERE THEY KNOW, YOU KNOW THAT THEY WOULD SEE YOU.
BUT I WAS NOT DOING THE QUALITY CONTROL.
I DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE DOING THE QUALITY CONTROL.
I'M SAYING YOU KNOW THAT THEY EXIST, RIGHT? YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCEPT OF A QUALITY CONTROL, SIR? NO SIR.
THOSE, THOSE QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS HAVE NEVER BEEN CONDUCTED BY ANY SUPERVISOR, MANAGER PREVIOUS TO PAUL.
SO YOUR FIRST REACTION WHEN YOU SEE THESE PEOPLE COMING BEHIND YOU, INSTEAD OF GOING ABOUT YOUR DAY AND DOING YOUR JOB, YOU DECIDED TO TAKE PICTURES OF MR. CRESS AND YOU PULLED UP NEXT TO HIM TO LET HIM KNOW THAT YOU WERE WATCHING THEM.
AND THEN ACCORDING
WELL ACCORDING TO THIS, IT SAYS THE CUSTOMER CAME OUT DURING THE WORK AND I ASKED HIM WHAT DID THE TWO INDIVIDUALS, CHRIS CRES AND JOSE GARCIA ASK HIM YESTERDAY? AND HE REPLIED THAT THEY WERE ASKING SEVERAL QUESTIONS AS TO DID I COME TO THE DOOR, NOTIFY HIM, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU DIDN'T CONFRONT THAT CUSTOMER? I DIDN'T CONFRONT THE CUSTOMER.
THE REASON I RETURNED TO THAT ADDRESS IS BECAUSE I HAD TOLD THE CUSTOMER TWO DAYS PRIOR OR THE DAY BEFORE I WENT THERE, I HAD TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD RETURN TO REPLACE THE BOX BECAUSE THE CURB HAD BEEN REPLACED AND IT WAS NOT UP TO GRAY.
SO HE ASKED ME TO RETURN AND DO THE BOX AND I SAID, OKAY, I WILL WHEN I HAVE TIME.
SO I RETURNED THE FOLLOWING DAY AND WHEN HE CAME OUT I ASKED HIM, I DIDN'T CONFRONT HIM.
AND ON IT ALSO STATES HERE ON EXHIBIT EIGHT, I ALSO WENT BACK TO 63 69 CYAN ROW TO SPEAK WITH THE CUSTOMER, ALFONSO ESQUIVEL ABOUT WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT WITH HIM, BUT HE WAS NOT AT HOME AT THAT TIME.
SO YOU ATTEMPTED TO APPROACH TWO PEOPLE? YES.
NOT CONFRONT HIM AND APPROACHING THESE PEOPLE AND QUESTIONING THEM AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU GETTING ABOUT YOUR DAY AND JUST FOCUSING ON YOUR JOB? I WAS DONE WITH MY JOB.
WOULD YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? GOING AROUND AND CONFRONTING THESE HOMEOWNERS LIKE YOU DID WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU THAN JUST GETTING ON DOWN THE ROAD AND FOCUSING ON YOUR JOB? NO SIR.
BUT YOU DID THAT, YOU ADMIT THAT YOU DID GO BACK AND I DIDN'T CONFRONT HIM.
YOU DIDN'T CONFRONT HIM BUT YOU NO SIR.
[04:45:18]
LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION.LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A FIVE.
AND THIS IS THE TRUCK THAT YOU WERE DRIVING, IS IT NOT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO YOU ADMIT THAT THE TRUCK NUMBER ON THE SIDE IS THE TRUCK THAT YOU WERE DRIVING AND YOU WERE DRIVING AT 2:30 PM ON FEBRUARY 7TH OF THIS YEAR.
AND THIS IS THE SAME THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAME TRUCK.
YOU AGREE THAT THAT WAS THE TRUCK YOU WERE DRIVING? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOUR SCHEDULE WORK HOURS ARE FROM SEVEN TO FOUR, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOUR EMPLOYEE ID NUMBER USED TO BE 1 1 9 3 70? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOU ADMIT AT THE BOTTOM OF EIGHT 10, THAT'S YOUR SIGNATURE THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOU'RE IN AND OUTTA YOUR TRUCK ALL DAY WHEN YOU'RE ON THE JOB AND YOU'RE REPLACING METERS, YOU'RE IN AND OUTTA YOUR TRUCK ALL DAY, AREN'T YOU? JUST DEPENDS.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN YOUR TRUCK WITH YOU ON FEBRUARY 7TH, CORRECT? NO SIR.
LEMME GO BACK UP HERE AND ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT.
YOU WROTE THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ON FEBRUARY 15TH, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THIS IS YOUR STATEMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND LET'S SEE, YOU SAID I WAS FIRST NEXT TO A WHITE HONDA VEHICLE AND WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, WE PROCEEDED TO HEAD THROUGH THE LIGHT ON APPROACHING THE RAMP.
OUT OF NOWHERE CAME A LIGHT GREEN OR MAYBE HAVE BEEN DARK BECAUSE IT WAS CLOUDY.
BUT THIS VAN WAS SPEEDING AS WE WERE ABOUT TO MERGE, I THEN POINTED TO THE YIELD SIGN TO LET THE DRIVER AND THE MANY SEND NO TO MERGE.
SO YOU ADMIT TO MAKING YOUR FIRST HAND GESTURE HERE AT THIS POINT, BUT YOUR TESTIMONY IS TODAY IT WAS POINTING WITH YOUR INDEX FINGER, NOT WITH YOUR MIDDLE FINGER.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THEN DOWN HERE AGAIN, YOU ALSO ADMITTED TO MAKING A SECOND HAND GESTURE.
WHEN YOU JUST TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE EAC, YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT, YOU SAID THUMBS UP AND THEN YOU GAVE THE OKAY SIGN.
BUT THAT'S NOT ON YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT.
SO ARE YOU CHANGING YOUR STORY TODAY? NO SIR.
SO YOU GAVE THREE HAND SIGNALS? YES SIR.
SO THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT WOULD NOT BE ACCURATE.
WOULD YOU ADMIT THAT? NO, IT IS ACCURATE.
BUT IT FAILS TO LEAVE OUT ONE OF YOUR THREE HAND SIGNS THAT YOU ADMIT TO NOW ADMIT UNDER OATH TO MAKING.
WELL I JUST DID THE OKAY SIGN.
IT'S ALLEGED THAT I STUCK THE MIDDLE FINGER OUT.
YEAH, BUT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY WAS THAT YOU POINTED AT A YIELD SIGN AND THEN YOU POINTED, YOU GAVE A THUMBS UP AND THEN YOU GAVE AN OKAY SIGN.
THOSE ARE THREE ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY I DID FOUR.
I POINTED TO MY EYE, POINTED TO THE YIELD SIGN.
I POINTED TO THE YIELD SIGN FIRST DID THE OKAY SIGN AND THEN I DID THE OKAY SIGN.
SO YOU POINTED TO YOUR EYE, YOU POINTED TO WHAT YOUR YIELD SIGN? YES SIR.
WHAT ELSE? YEAH, I DID THE OKAY.
AND THAT'S YOUR TESTIMONY UNDER OATH? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND YOU WERE IN THE LEFT LANE AND THE OTHER CAR WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE? I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE OTHER CAR WAS THERE.
THERE WAS NO CAR BESIDE ME AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN I CAME TO THE YIELD SIGN.
WHEN YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THAT S CURVE, UH, YOU WERE ON THE LEFT AND THAT CAR WAS ON THE RIGHT.
CORRECT? THERE WAS NO CAR BESIDE ME.
SO YOU I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAR WAS.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE A MERGE ISSUE
[04:50:01]
ON THIS S-CURVE? THERE'S NO MERGE ON THE S-CURVE.WELL THERE WAS A MERGE SIGN ON THERE.
BUT THERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO MERGE THERE AT THE SIGN.
THIS IS WHERE IT STARTED, CORRECT? ARE YOU ASKING ME? YEAH, WHAT STARTED, WHAT STARTED THERE? THIS IS WHERE YOU STARTED DOWN THE S CURVE WHERE I STARTED? YEAH.
THIS IS WHEN YOU DROVE THROUGH THE S-CURVE? YES.
THIS IS WHAT YOU SAW RIGHT AFTER YOU LEFT THE INTERSECTION? WELL THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAW, BUT YES, THAT'S WHERE IT STARTED.
YEAH, WHEN I STARTED THE S-CURVE.
A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT? WELL I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEARLY, AND YOU TESTIFIED REPEATEDLY THAT I THINK FIVE OR SIX TIMES THAT YOU POINTED AT THE YIELD SIGN.
CAN YOU SHOW ME A YIELD SIGN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? I DON'T SEE ONE.
YEAH, NO, IT, THE YIELD SIGN IS AT THE UH, BOTTLENECK OF THE, OF THE RAMP RIGHT BEFORE YOU ENTER THE THE HIGHWAY.
SO YOU ADMIT THERE'S NO GILL SIGNS ON THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? I DON'T KNOW.
I DIDN'T TAKE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT THERE'S NO YIELD SIGN THAT I CAN TELL.
SO THERE'S NO GILL SIGN ON THE S-CURVE.
BUT YOU TESTIFIED REPEATEDLY THAT BEFORE THE MERGE YOU POINTED AT A YIELD SIGN AND THERE'S NO YIELD SIGNS ON ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? NO, I DID NOT TESTIFY THAT.
I TESTIFIED THAT RIGHT AS APPROACHING THE YIELD SIGN RAMP.
THE RAMP WHERE THE YIELD SIGN IS, I POINTED TO THE YIELD SIGN BECAUSE I SAW THE VAN SPEEDING TOWARDS ME.
SO ACCORDING TO YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT, YOU DID NOTIFY THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER CAR THAT THEY NEEDED TO YIELD? I LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE YIELD SIGN, I POINTED TO THE YIELD SIGN, HOWEVER THEY PERCEIVED IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE THINKING.
DOESN'T THE SIGN SAY LANE ENDS MERGE, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WHEN YOU SAY YIELD SIGN, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO OR ARE YOU REFERRING NO SIR.
I'M REFERRING TO YIELD SIGN WHITE RED.
AND DID YOU GUYS BOTHER TO GO OUT TO THE SCENE AND TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS YIELD SIGN TO PROVE THAT IT EXISTS? CUZ IT'S NOT ON OUR PHOTOGRAPHS? YEAH.
YEAH, THEY GO, OH THOSE ARE PICTURE GIVE SECOND.
MR. GOMEZ, LET ME ASK YOU THE NEXT QUESTION.
UM UH, YOUR STORY IS THAT PAUL EK TOLD YOU TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THESE FALSE ENTRIES INTO THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME PROGRAM.
AND YOUR NAME IS JUAN GOMEZ? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND YOU DID THIS BETWEEN APRIL 23RD OF LAST YEAR AND FEBRUARY 13TH THIS YEAR, CORRECT? I'M NOT SURE ABOUT ALL THE METERS, BUT I DID DO SOME METERS ON MY DOWNTIME AS I WAS INSTRUCTED.
AND YOU DID THIS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS? YES SIR.
YOU ADMIT TO DOING THESE THINGS KNOWINGLY, BUT YOUR EXCUSE IS, HEY, I'M NOT A BAD GUY.
I JUST DID IT CUZ MY BOSS TOLD ME TO.
THAT'S YOUR STORY, RIGHT? NO SIR.
MY STORY IS THAT I DID WHAT I WAS INSTRUCTED TO DO AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I DID.
THE SO YOU KNOWINGLY DID THIS, THE T TO THE T? YEAH.
YOU KNOWINGLY DID THIS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WHY YOU QUESTION MY BOSS? YEAH.
SO YOUR EXCUSE TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS YES, I DID THIS BUT I WAS OBEYING MY BOSS.
BUT YOU KNEW IT WAS WRONG WHEN YOU DID IT, DIDN'T YOU? I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS WRONG.
YOU DIDN'T KNOW MAKING FALSE ENTRIES IS WRONG.
DID YOU BOTHER EMAILING HUMAN RESOURCES ABOUT THIS? I, I HAVE ABOUT OTHER THINGS AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED.
NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS STUFF.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS FALSIFYING RECORDS.
HE INSTRUCTED ME TO WRITE THAT ON THERE.
YEAH, BUT YOU GOTTA KNOW BECAUSE WE JUST INTRODUCED EVIDENCE ON JUNE THE 15TH WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED, YOU WERE TOLD MAKING FALSE ENTRIES IN TIME STUFF IS A VIOLATION OF THE PERSONNEL RULES.
[04:55:01]
KNEW FROM DAY ONE THAT WHEN YOU PUT SOMETHING DOWN FALSE THAT THAT'S WRONG.AND YOU DID THAT KNOWINGLY DIDN'T YOU? AT THE INSTRUCTION OF MY BOSS.
SO AT THE INSTRUCTION OF YOUR BOSS, YOU DID IT KNOWINGLY.
AND EVERY TIME PAUL DOES SOMETHING UNETHICAL, YOU EMAIL HR.
IS THAT PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE SEE HERE? NO SIR.
SO ON THESE SUMMARY EXHIBITS THAT YOU WERE QUESTIONED ABOUT, YOU'VE SEEN 'EM RIGHT HERE, EXHIBIT D, WE WENT THROUGH ABOUT 31 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
AND SO YOU AGREE THAT YOU ALL THAT STUFF YOU DID, NOT ALL OF THEM.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOUR TIMES ARE ACCURATE? NOT ALL OF THEM.
DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR MEMORY OR THE GPS SATELLITE DATA WOULD BE THE MOST ACCURATE ABOUT WHEN YOU SHOWED UP ON A JOB? BOTH.
IF I REMEMBERED EACH ONE OF THEM.
SO YOU THINK YOUR MEMORY IS MORE ACCURATE THAN GPS SATELLITE DATA ON A SPECIFIC DATE MONTHS AGO IF I REMEMBERED THEM.
AND YOU ADMIT IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT WE JUST SHOWED YOU EARLIER THAT YOU FOLLOWED THE TRAFFIC LAWS TO A T THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID IN WRITING.
UM, WHEN YOU DROVE THROUGH THIS SUGGESTED 20 MILE PER HOUR ZONE AT TWICE THAT SPEED LIMIT OVER 39 MILES AN HOUR, YOU CONSIDER THAT FALLING TRAFFIC LAWS TO A T? NO SIR.
SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU VIOLATED TRAFFIC LAWS? YES SIR.
YOU ADMIT TO DRIVING OVER 39 MILES AN HOUR IN THAT 20 ZONE? YES SIR.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S ALLEGED.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT DRIVING 39 MILES PER HOUR AND A 20 ZONE IS UNREASONABLE? YES SIR.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT DRIVING 39 MILES PER HOUR IN A 20 ZONE IS UNSAFE? PROBABLY.
AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT DRIVING 39 MILES PER HOUR AND A 20 ZONE WOULD NOT BE FOLLOWING THE TRA THE DRIVING LAWS TO A T? YES SIR.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT DRIVING 30 MILES PER HOUR IN A 20 ZONE IS RECKLESS? MAYBE.
SO CAN WE PUT D ONE UP JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT, WHAT YOUR, WHAT YOUR TEAM IS ATTEMPTING TO DO TODAY? LET ME DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO D ONE.
UM, AND ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE? THE FIRST THREE LINES THAT ARE IN GREEN, YOU ADMIT TO DOING THESE ON A SATURDAY BUT WRITING IT DOWN LIKE YOU DID IT ON FRIDAY? NO, THEY'RE NOT ACCURATE.
YOU DID IT ON FRIDAY, BUT YOU WROTE IT DOWN AS SATURDAY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YEAH.
BUT YOUR TIMES ARE NOT ACCURATE.
SO HOW DO YOU RECALL THE EXACT TIMES ON THOSE THREE METER EXCHANGES? BECAUSE I KNOW I DIDN'T DO 'EM AT THAT TIME.
SO AGAIN, IT'S BACK TO YOUR INCREDIBLE MEMORY.
AND ON D THREE, CAN WE PUT D THREE UP PLEASE? ON D THREE ON D THREE ON THE BOTTOM LINE RIGHT HERE, IT SHOWS THAT YOU STARTED WHAT YOU CALL A 20 MINUTE JOB AT 7 25 AND FINISHED AT 7 45.
AND YOU AGREED THAT THE SECURITY GUARD ENTRANCE LOG SHOWS YOU CHECK IN AND DRIVING YOUR TRUCK BACK IN 28 6 28 61 MUNICIPAL 60 SECONDS AFTER 7 25.
AND JUST TO MAKE SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DID THAT KNOWINGLY AND YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO REPORT IT TO ANYBODY ELSE, CORRECT? AT THE INSTRUCTION OF MY BOSS, YES.
AND YOU SAID SOMETHING EARLIER, CAN WE GET G FOUR PLEASE? THE GPS SATELLITE DATA.
[05:00:09]
WOULD YOU AGREE? LIKE ON LINE ONE WHERE YOU PUT DOWN THAT YOU WERE THERE AT FOUR AND GPS SHOWS YOU AT 1 25, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE GPS WAS MORE ACCURATE THAN WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN? THAT'S CORRECT.SO GP S ON THESE ENTRIES ON THIS PAGE OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE ACCURATE? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND YOU'D ALSO ADMIT, WOULD YOU NOT, IT WASN'T, UH, IT WASN'T JUST THE TIME YOU SIGNED IN AND THE TIME YOU SIGNED OUT CAUSE THAT'S 10 MINUTES, THAT'S 10 MINUTES, THAT'S 10 MINUTES.
BUT ALL 10 MINUTES VISITS SUPPORT YOU WRITING.
THESE ARE NOT ONLY DIFFERING IN THE TIME, BUT THE LENGTH EACH VISIT.
DID YOU AGREE TO THAT? WOULD I AGREE TO WHAT? EXPLAIN THAT TO, AGAIN, THIS SHOWS A 10 MINUTE VISIT START BEFORE THIS SHOWS THAT A SEVEN MINUTE VISIT START AT 1 25.
SO IT'S NOT JUST THE TIME YOU STARTED AND LEFT, BUT THERE'S DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LENGTH OF WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN OH, YES.
AND THE LENGTH OF WHAT GPS SHOWED.
THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE WE WERE ALLOTTED 15 MINUTES PER METER TO EXCHANGE IT AS THE WITNESS.
MR. GOMEZ, UM, LET'S GO TO THE ISSUE OF THE, THE YIELD SIGN AND ALL I, AGAIN, I WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF, YOU KNOW, A TRACKER, A TRACKING YOU THERE, BUT IT THIS, THIS INTERSECTION OF, OF BRUDEN IN 1 75, IT'S COMING ON TO A HIGHWAY, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WOULD IT BE SAFE TO ASSUME THERE WAS A YIELD SIGN IN THERE? IS IF WE COULD PULL IT UP HERE ON THE COMPUTER, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA BE NECESSARY.
YOU, YOU HAVE TO YIELD TO ON THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC.
I WANT TO GO BACK, UM, TO, UM, THE INSPECTOR GENERALS TALKED ABOUT YOUR REGULAR DAY, JUST A MOMENT AGO AND CROSS-EXAMINING ON IT.
CAN YOU, WHAT YOUR REGULAR JOB DUTIES ARE ON A PARTICULAR DAY AS A CREW LEADER? SO AS A CREW LEADER, MY PARTICULAR DAY ON A NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS DAY WOULD BE TO ASSIST MY CREW TO HANDLE ANY, UH, ESCALATION CALLS, CUSTOMER SERVICE CALLS, ANY EMAIL, UM, SENT BY PAUL COSTELLO, UH, JOSH TIMBERMAN OR ANYTHING ELSE CUSTOMER SERVICE MAY WANT ME TO SERVICE.
NOW DO YOU AS A CREW LEADER HAVE A QUOTA FOR, UH, FOR METERS THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO YOU YOURSELF? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY.
SO, UH, DO YOU HAVE NO QUOTA FOR METERS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN AS A CREW LEADER? YES, SIR.
AND YOU GET PAID THE SAME DURING THE WORKDAY, WHETHER OR NOT METERS ON YOUR, YOU KNOW, GET, GET DONE OR NOT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
EVEN IF I DON'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL, I, I STILL GET PAID.
AND IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE DONE DOING ANYTHING.
ALL YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION THAT YOU HAVE AS A LEADER, YOU HAVE PAPERWORK TO DO AND OTHER ISSUES YOU HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF AS A TEAM LEADER FOR THESE, ARE THERE THREE OR FOUR ON YOUR TERM? THREE.
IS THAT CORRECT? DID YOU HAVE THINGS? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND I WANNA BE CLEAR, THE COMMISSIONERS, YOU, UM, YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE HERE TESTIFYING THAT YOU WERE THERE AND SAW WHAT HAPPENED AT THIS TRAFFIC INCIDENT, CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IS YOUR MEMORY OF THE HA WHAT HAPPENED IN THE TRAFFIC INCIDENT? CLEAR? IT'S JUST TALKING FEBRUARY 23.
ANY, ANY ISSUE YOU HAVE WITH YOUR MEMORY ABOUT THAT TRAFFIC INCIDENT? NO SIR.
EXCEPT NOW YOU'VE ADDED THE FACT THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAD MAYBE TWO OTHER GESTURES, OKAY? RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN WRONG OR CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT I COULD HAVE MENTIONED AS
[05:05:01]
WELL, BUT I MEAN THEY'RE NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT HAPPENED.YOU DIDN'T SHOOT THE FINGER AT THIS, AT THE DRIVER AND OR THE OCCUPANT OF THIS, OF THIS VAN.
AND UNLIKE WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT SAYS WHERE IT SAYS THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GET THAT IDEA.
YOU HAD THE RIGHT OF, CORRECT? YES, I WAS AT, AT THE INTER I MEAN AT THE YIELD RAMP INTERSECTION PART WHERE YOU ENTERED THE HIGHWAY.
SO AT THE MERGE POINT YOU HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY? YES.
THERE WAS NO VEHICLE BESIDE ME.
AND YOU DID NOT DO ANY KIND OF UNTO GESTURE OF ANY TYPE TOWARD THE OCCUPANTS OF THAT VAN? THAT'S CORRECT.
HE WOULD HAVE, UH, THE, UH, THAT PAUL COSTAK CURSED YOU OUT IN FRONT OF YOUR PEERS.
AND WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN? IT HAPPENED WHEN THE, UM, WHEN THE ALLEGED COMPLAINT OF THE INSUBORDINATION HAPPENED IN 2019.
AND SO WHO WAS PRESENT AT THAT INCIDENT? EVERYONE.
HOW MANY PEOPLE? UH, PROBABLY EIGHT.
YOUR LAWYER ASKED YOU A QUE A QUESTION ABOUT RACIAL STATEMENTS TO TIM TRUSTEE AND HE INTERRUPTED YOU AND CUT YOU OFF BEFORE YOU COULD ANSWER.
WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER GONNA BE? MY ANSWER TO THAT WAS GONNA BE THAT ME AND MR. TRUSTEE, WHEN I INSTRUCTED HIM THAT HE ONLY HAD 17 SERVICE ORDERS TO WORK FOR THAT DAY AND IT, WHICH SHOULDN'T TAKE HIM MORE THAN TWO OR THREE HOURS TO COMPLETE, HE SAID, WELL, IT PROBABLY WON'T TAKE YOU, UH, TWO OR THREE HOURS.
I MEAN, PROBABLY TAKE YOU TWO OR THREE HOURS TO COMPLETE BECAUSE YOU'RE MEXICAN.
I SAYS, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS.
I SAID, THE REASON WHY YOU PROBABLY WON'T COMPLETE 'EM IS CUZ YOU'RE A WHITE CRACKER.
SO YOU USED A, A RACIAL STATEMENT OF WHITE CRACKER? YES, IT WAS LOCKER ROOM BANTER BETWEEN ME AND HIM.
WE HAD THAT TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP.
I THOUGHT YOU TOLD YOUR LAWYER ON DIRECT EXAM THAT YOU DIDN'T USE ANY RACIAL STATEMENTS IN THAT CONTEXT OF HURTING OR BEING, YOU KNOW, ILL WILLED TOWARDS SOMEBODY? NO.
SO YOU ADMIT TO MAKING A RACIAL STATEMENT? NOT IN THAT CONTEXT.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING NICE TO CALL SOMEBODY, IS IT? NEITHER IS MEXICAN.
AND SO DID SOMEBODY CALL YOU A MEXICAN? IS THAT WHY YOU CALLED HIM A WHITE CRACKER? NO, WE WERE BANTERING BE BETWEEN US.
SO MAKING RACIAL STATEMENTS IS FUNNY.
WHAT IS BANTER? IT MEANS THAT WE AND HIM HAVE A RAPPORT WITH EACH OTHER, THAT WE PLAY AROUND WITH EACH OTHER AND SAY DIFFERENT THINGS TO EACH OTHER.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THIN SKIN TO WHERE WE MAKE A COMPLAINT OR A, A BASELESS COMPLAINT BASED ON SOMETHING THAT WE'RE JOKING ABOUT.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TIM TRUSTEE? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, BUT YOU SENT HIM A NASTY TEXT MESSAGE AFTER HE LEFT, DIDN'T YOU? IT WASN'T NASTY.
DID YOU SEND HIM A TEXT MESSAGE THAT SAID, HEY TIM, I JUST FOUND OUT THIS MORNING THAT YOU RESIGNED.
WELL, I WISH YOU WELL IN ALL YOUR FUTURE ENDEAVORS AND MUCH SUCCESS.
WE'RE HAVING YOUR WAKE TODAY AT 3:30 PM IT WAS A JOKE.
AND YOU THINK THAT'S FUNNY TO SEND A TEXT MESSAGE TO SOMEBODY LIKE THAT AFTER YOU RAN HIM OUT OF THERE? I DIDN'T RUN HIM OUT OF THERE.
YOU WERE ASKED, UH, YOU BROUGHT UP A SITUATION YOURSELF, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT IT IN YOUR PERSONNEL FILE THAT THERE WAS BRASS MISSING, CORRECT? YES.
BUT THAT'S NOT A CONVERSATION I BROUGHT UP.
WELL, I THINK YOUR LAWYER BROUGHT IT UP DURING YOUR EXAMINATION.
THAT'S TOTALLY SEPARATE TO WHAT THAT EMAIL'S.
AND WHEN YOUR SUPERVISORS ASKED YOU, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION.
YOU REFUSED TO GIVE THEM INFORMATION AND ASK FOR AN HR REP TO BE NEXT TO, DIDN'T YOU? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT.
I BRING UP THIS MISSING BRASS ISSUE.
MY BOSS COMES TO ME AND ASKS ME TO GIVE ME SOME MORE DETAILS, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN I DON'T WANNA TALK ABOUT IT.
AND YOU DON'T COOPERATE AND ANSWER SOMEBODY TO BE WITH YOU WHEN YOU'RE ASKED QUESTIONS.
[05:10:01]
WHAT? WHAT'S UP WITH THAT? I DIDN'T BRING IT UP TO THEM.YOU DIDN'T BRING UP THE MISSING BRASS? NO, SIR.
WHEN YOU WROTE TO, UH, MR. TRUSTY THAT HAVING YOUR WAKE, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? A WHY BUT WAKE BASICALLY THAT, YOU KNOW, HE, HE'S NO LONGER THERE, SO YOU KNOW THAT HE'S NO LONGER THERE.
SO WHEN SOMEONE PASSES ON, THERE'S AWAKE.
WAS THAT SOMEHOW PRE PROCEED ON YOUR PART AS HOSTILE? NO, ME AND HIM HAD A A, A RELATIONSHIP, A RAPPORT WORK.
IN FACT, THAT'S A PRETTY COMMON DEFINITION AND A COMMONLY USED WORD.
IS THERE ANYTHING REMOTELY THREATENING ABOUT THAT WORD WAKE? I'M ASKING YOU? NO.
I MEAN, THREE 30 CAME AND WENT.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
WE'D LIKE HIM SUBJECT TO RECALL THOUGH THE RESPONDENT'S RESTROOM.
SORRY ABOUT THAT QUESTION BY A INFORMATION MEMBER OR MEMBERS.
JUST, JUST REAL QUICK, UM, ON, UH, EARLIER YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE QC PROCESS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.
IT HAS NEVER, EVER BEEN PERFORMED, EVER IN THE EIGHT YEAR HISTORY I'VE BEEN THERE.
AND HERE'S, HERE'S ONE THING I WANNA TRY AND UNDERSTAND.
EXHIBIT EIGHT, WHICH IS THIS EMAIL THAT YOU SENT ON APRIL 29TH, THERE'S A LINE WHERE YOU SAY QCS ARE DONE BY THE SUPERVISOR YOU WORK FOR, BUT NOT FROM A SUPERVISOR.
UM, I HAVE NEVER, AS A CREW LEADER BEEN QC BY MY PAST SUPERVISORS.
I, I READ THAT AS, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE POTENTIAL QCS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN, BUT THAT IS, THAT IT IS DONE BY A DIRECT SUPERVISOR AND THAT, THAT HAD NOT HAPPENED TO YOU SPECIFICALLY.
IS THAT, WELL, I'M AWARE OF THE FORM, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN IT DONE, EVER.
BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE AWARE THAT THEY ARE DONE, NOT THAT THEY'RE DONE, THEY'VE NEVER BEEN DONE.
I'M AWARE OF THE FORM, I KNOW WHAT THE FORM LOOKS LIKE, BUT NEVER HAVE I SEEN ONE DONE.
AND THEN, UM, I'M JUST GONNA ASK, I UNDERSTAND YOUR, WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS YOUR, YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT THAT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, YOU WERE ASKED BY YOUR SUPERVISOR TO DO SOMETHING.
UM, BUT WHERE IN YOUR VIEW WOULD, WOULD THE LINE BE DRAWN? IN OTHER WORDS, UH, AT, AT SOME JUNCTURE, RIGHT? IF YOUR SUPERVISOR ASKS YOU TO TAKE A BRIBE OR IF THEY SAID, HEY, THIS ONE, UH, THIS ONE MAN DOWN THE STREET IS WILLING TO PAY US TWO GRAND IF WE HUSTLE UP AND PUT THEIR HOUSE FIRST, LET'S DO IT.
UM, IN THAT INSTANCE, WOULD, WOULD YOU HAVE GUT CHECKED THAT? WOULD YOU HAVE SAID, HEY, I'M, THAT'S A LINE I'M NOT WILLING TO CROSS, OR WOULD YOU HAVE SAID, WELL, I, I'M INSTRUCTED TO DO THAT.
I'M I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD.
I JUST WANNA GET YOUR, YOUR TAKE ON THAT.
WELL, IN THAT INSTANCE, I MEAN, I WOULD, I WOULD NOT DO IT.
BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, HE ALWAYS CAME IN THE APPROACH THAT HE HAD ALREADY GOT IT APPROVED BECAUSE THERE WAS, THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER, UM, ANOTHER DEAL WHERE HE HAD AN INCENTIVE THAT ON THE WEEKENDS HE WOULD COME TO US AND SAY, HEY, THE QUOTA FOR THIS PARTICULAR WEEKEND, OR EVERY WEEKEND IS 24 METERS.
HE WOULD SAY, I DON'T CARE WHEN YOU FINISH THE METERS.
I JUST NEED THE TIMES TO REFLECT FROM SEVEN TO THREE.
SO I WOULD FINISH AT 10 AND OTHER PEOPLE WOULD FINISH AT 10 30, 11, AND THEY WOULD PUT THEIR TIMES ON THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME SPECIFICALLY THEY PUT ON THERE, BUT I KNOW I PUT MINE UP UNTIL THE TIME THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO GET OFF THE, THE, UH, KRONOS PUNCHES THAT YOU SAW OUT THERE FOR THE WEEKEND.
THEY GO IN KRONOS AND CHANGE THE TIME TO REFLECT THREE O'CLOCK BECAUSE KRONOS AUTOMATICALLY
[05:15:01]
TAKES AN HOUR LUNCH OUT FOR CREW LEADERS AND 30 MINUTES FOR THE CREW MEMBERS.SO, SO I WOULD FINISH AT 10 30, 11 O'CLOCK CLOCK OUT, AND THEN THEY WOULD COME BEHIND ME, WHICH I'M TALKING ABOUT JOSH TIMBERMAN, UH, CASTELLI WOULD GO IN THERE AND CHANGE THE TIME TO FOUR O'CLOCK OR 3 52 OR WHATEVER THE TIME WAS ON THERE, UH, TO SHOW AND REFLECT THAT WE WORKED THE WHOLE EIGHT HOURS WHEN WE, IN FACT, WE DIDN'T.
UH, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU DID NOT, IN, IN SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT MR. BEAVERS JUST WENT THROUGH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU DID NOT PUT THOSE TIMES IN? THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IN RESPONSE TO SEVERAL OF HIS QUESTIONS, YOU SAID THAT YOU, YOU DID THAT AT THE DIRECTION YOU PUT IN THOSE TIMES AT THE DIRECTION OF YOUR SUPERVISOR.
SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN PUNCH WHATEVER TIME, LIKE I WOULD PUNCH OUT AT 10 30 10:30 AM AM YEAH, FROM SEVEN TO 10:30 AM I WOULD FINISH THOSE 24 METERS.
ON THE WEEKENDS? YES, ON THE WEEKENDS.
AND THEN THEY WOULD GO IN THERE AND CHANGE IT TO REFLECT THE WHOLE EIGHT HOURS AS OPPOSED TO THE THREE AND A HALF HOURS THAT I ACTUALLY WORK.
YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? RIGHT.
BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT POINT THAN THE ISSUE OF SAYING THAT YOU'RE WORKING OVERTIME WHEN IN FACT YOU'RE NOT.
WHAT I'M SAYING TO THAT IS THAT I PUT THE TIMES DOWN AS REFLECTING.
THAT'S HOW HE INSTRUCTED ME TO DO THAT.
IT NEEDS TO SHOW FROM FOUR O'CLOCK UP UNTIL WHATEVER TIME THAT WE, YOU KNOW, STOP WHETHER IT WAS SEVEN O'CLOCK OR EIGHT O'CLOCK, WHATEVER.
AND DID YOU EVER, DID YOU EVER SAY, HEY, I, THIS IS CONCERNING TO ME THAT I'M, THAT I'M PUTTING DOWN A TIME THAT I'M NOT WORKING? NO, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS AN, AN INCENTIVE THAT HE WAS GIVING US.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL? ALRIGHT, SO ARE, LET'S SEE.
ARE YOU PREPARED? HAVE, HAVE YOU FINISHED YOUR REBUTTAL? YES, WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.
CLOSING STATEMENTS FROM, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL AT THIS POINT.
UH, AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT GONNA OFFER ANY REBUTTAL EVIDENCE.
SO IF, ARE YOU ASKING FOR US TO GIVE OUR FINAL CLOSING STATEMENT FOR PHASE ONE? UH, UNLESS THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL REBUTTAL EVIDENCE, IT IS NOW TIME FOR YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE YOUR CLOSING NOW? YES, I AM.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES, WANT TO GIVE, UH, GIVE HIM FIVE MINUTES TO GET HIS CLOSING TOGETHER.
WE'LL TAKE A SHORT BREAK, FIVE MINUTES OR 10 MINUTES FOR YOU TO GET YOUR, UH, UH, CLOSING STATEMENT TOGETHER SO EVERYBODY WILL BE, BE PREPARED TO MAKE CLOSING COMMENTS WHEN WE RECONVENE IN 10 MINUTES.
[05:21:31]
SOME EXHIBITS.SO I GUESS IT'S, UM, NO, I CAN'T DO THAT TILL WE GO ON THE HOLD.
LEMME GET BACK ON HERE SCREEN, ENTIRE SCREEN THERE.
[05:32:09]
OKAY,[05:32:10]
WE'RE GONNA PROCEED WITH, UH, FIRST IS THE CLOSING STATEMENTS BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.MAY WE PROCEED MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, PLEASE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION ADDRESSING THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATIONS.
FIRST YOU SAW AN EXHIBIT, A PAGE OF TWO THROUGH THREE, THAT THIS WAS A DALLAS WATER TRUCK.
ACCORDING TO MR. PERKINS OFFICIAL COMPLAINT, THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO THUMBS UP.
IT WAS A EXTENSION OF HIS MIDDLE FINGER.
MR. GOMEZ WAS EXTENDING HIS MIDDLE FINGER AND HE WAS ANGRY AND HE WAS DRIVING OVER TWICE THE, THE SPEED LIMIT.
WHEN YOU GET TO PAGE FOUR, YOU SEE A COUPLE OF THINGS.
YOU SEE IN TWO SPOTS THAT HE ADMITTED TO MAKING TWO HAND GESTURES.
HE DIDN'T AGREE IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT THESE HAND GESTURES WERE THE KIND THAT MR. PERKINS SAID, BUT THE FACT THAT HE ADMITTED TO TWO AND TODAY CHANGED HIS STORY TO THREE AND THEN TO FOUR, UH, HE ALSO FLIPPED THE WHOLE TABLE SAYING, IT WASN'T ME SHOOTING THE FINGER, IT WAS THEM SHOOTING THE FINGER.
COMPLETELY LACK OF CREDIBILITY BY MR. GOMEZ.
HE ADMITTED THAT UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION TODAY, UH, IT WAS HIM DRIVING THROUGH THE S CURVE AND 2 34 ALL THE ELEMENTS.
WHEN YOU GET TO THE SCENE OF WHERE THIS S CURVE OCCURRED, YOU DON'T SEE ANY YIELD SIGNS.
HE TALKED ABOUT YIELD SIGNS IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT.
HE TALKED ABOUT YIELD SIGNS AND ACTUALLY POINTING THEM OUT DURING HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION, BUT HE COULDN'T POINT ANY OUT IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T THERE, THERE WERE NO YIELD SIGNS ON THE S-CURVE.
AND I THINK THAT TENDS TO SHOW THAT HE MADE IT UP.
HE'S DRIVING 39 MILES PER HOUR AND A 20 MILE SUGGESTED SPEED LIMIT.
THAT SHOULD BE IN THE DICTIONARY.
THERE SHOULD BE A PICTURE OF THAT, OF RECKLESS DRIVING IN THE DICTIONARY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROAD RAGE ELEMENTS WHERE WE'VE CHARGED HIM, THE FIRST THING IS THE IDENTITY OF THE RESPONDENT.
WE'VE PROVEN THAT WE PROVED THE DATE IT WAS ON HAPPENED ON FEBRUARY 7TH.
IT HAPPENED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
HE ADMITTED BY HIS OWN OMISSION THAT THIS WAS DONE KNOWINGLY.
THE FIRST ETHICS VIOLATION ON THE ROAD RAGE WAS HE FAILED TO CONDUCT HIMSELF AND OPERATE WITH INTEGRITY THAT MERITS THE TRUST AND SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC.
[05:35:01]
OTHERS WITH RESPECT WHAT AN EMPLOYEE WOULD'VE DONE IN SIMILAR SITUATION, KIND OF THE GOLDEN RULE.HE FAILED TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF HIS ACTIONS AND THE NEGATIVE EFFECT THAT IT COULD HAVE ON THE CITY.
HE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE UTMOST RESPECT AND COURTESY TO RESIDENTS.
AND FINALLY, NUMBER FIVE, HIS ACTIONS WERE ABUSIVE, BELLIGERENT, CRUDE, DEROGATORY, IMPERTINENT, PROFANE AND THREATENING.
AND WE PLED THIS IN THE CONJUNCTIVE SO WE COULD PROVE IN THE DISJUNCTIVE, WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE BOTH PHRASES.
HE DROVE A CITY VEHICLE IN AN UNSAFE MANNER AND MADE OBSCENE GESTURES.
UH, BUT WE, WE DID IN TWOFOLD.
THERE WAS THE WHILE ON DUTY, DROVE A VEHICLE IN AN UNSAFE MANNER AND MADE OBSCENE GESTURES.
AT TERRENCE PERKINS, YOU ONLY HAVE TO BELIEVE ONE OF THOSE TWO.
AS FAR AS THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS, ALLEGATIONS ON EXHIBIT G, PAGE ONE, WE GOT THE STANDARD THAT WAS SET OUT WHEN HE SHOWED UP ON DAY ONE.
FALSIFYING RECORDS IS A VIOLATION OF THE PERSONNEL RULES.
HE WAS TOLD THAT'S WRONG FROM THE GET-GO FROM THE BEGINNING.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME, HE WAS DOING STUFF ON FRIDAY, BUT SAYING THAT IT WAS DONE ON SATURDAY, THAT'S YOUR DATE DISCREPANCIES.
WHEN YOU GO TO EACH LINE, THEY HOMEOWNER SAID IT WAS DONE AT FOUR, NOT FIVE O'CLOCK, IT WAS DONE AT SIX, NOT 6 45.
IT WAS DONE AT, HE STARTED AT TWO 40, NOT 4 25, IT WAS FIVE O'CLOCK WHEN HE STARTED, NOT 6 25, LIKE HE PUT DOWN, IT WAS FIVE O'CLOCK HERE, BUT NOT 6 42 LIKE HE PUT DOWN.
UH, YOU GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, IT'S BETWEEN TWO AND THREE, NOT FOUR.
LIKE HE SAID, IT WAS STARTED AT FOUR O'CLOCK, NOT FOUR 40 STARTS AT THREE, NOT FIVE 20 STARTS AT TWO 30, NOT, NOT 6 25 LIKE HE PUT DOWN.
IT STARTED BETWEEN THREE 30 AND FOUR, NOT 4 25 LIKE HE PUT DOWN.
THIS IS A PATTERN OF CONTINUING TO PUT DOWN THE WRONG STUFF.
AND HE ADMITTED THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING OF ALL.
MR. GOMEZ ADMITTED TO DOING IT.
HE ADMITTED NOT ONLY TO DOING IT, BUT TO DOING IT KNOWINGLY.
THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF OUR CASE AS FAR AS THE SECURITY GUARD ENTRANCE LOG WE SHOWED WHEN HE WAS, UH, COLLECTED IN AT 7 26.
AND HE STARTS THIS JOB 60 SECONDS EARLIER.
IT'S JUST COMPLETELY FABRICATED.
IT'S A HISTORY AND A PATTERN OF LYING AND DECEPTION AND DOING IT OVER AND OVER.
THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THESE RECORDS ARE ALL SEQUENTIAL BECAUSE THEY'RE TIED TOGETHER BY THEIR TIMES.
YOU KNOW, IT HAPPENS SEQUENTIALLY.
AND WE'VE PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT THOSE BOTTOM TWO LINES ARE FRAUDULENT AND FALSE BECAUSE THEY'RE TIED TO THE OTHER ENTRIES THROUGH THE SEQUENTIAL NATURE OF THE TIMINGS THAT WERE PUT DOWN.
WHAT'S INTERESTING IS IF YOU LOOK AT F 35 AND EXHIBIT F 44, YOU SEE THAT HE CHECKED THE TRUCK IN ON JULY 20TH AT 7:26 PM HE ENTERS HIS KRONOS TIME CHECKING OUT AT EIGHT 30.
AND WHAT HAPPENS THREE MINUTES LATER, ACCORDING TO SECURITY GUARD INTEREST LOG, HE'S DRIVING OFF THE PROPERTY IN HIS OWN VEHICLE.
THESE RECORDS FIT TOGETHER LIKE A GLOVE.
UH, THE VERSION OF THE, OF OUR NARRATIVE IS CLEARLY, UH, BELIEVABLE AND CREDIBLE.
IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT G ONE, HIS SIGNATURE, EXHIBIT G TWO, AND YOU COMPARE THAT TO HIS SIGNATURE ON F 35, THAT'S THE SAME SIGNATURE.
THAT'S HIS SIGNATURE ON THE GPS STUFF, THE PERIOD PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE PROGRAM.
UH, YOU COULD SEE THAT HE STARTED THAT JOB AT 1 25, NOT FOUR O'CLOCK, LIKE YOU SAID, 2 0 3, NOT 4 15, 2 4 14, NOT 4 30, 2 20, NOT 4 45, 2 57, NOT FIVE O'CLOCK 3 28, NOT FIVE 15 LIKE YOU PUT DOWN 4 0 9, NOT FIVE 30.
LIKE YOU PUT DOWN FOUR 20, NOT FIVE 50 LIKE YOU PUT DOWN.
IT'S JUST REPEATED HABITUAL FALSIFICATION IN LINE.
YOU TAKE THE REGULAR TIME THAT HE OWNED THAT HE WAS PAID AT $22 AND 38 CENTS AN HOUR.
[05:40:01]
THAT WOULD BE TIME AND A HALF, THAT WOULD BE 33 57 PER HOUR.AND YOU ADD IT UP TO WHAT WE PROVED TODAY OVER THIS TIME PERIOD, THERE'S AT LEAST $1,326 OF, OF FRAUDULENT STUFF.
WE ASKED MR. MR. COSTAK TESTIFIED THAT HE VERIFIED THE ACCURACY OF THE SATELLITE DATA ON HIS TRUCK AND EXPLAINED TO YOU WHEN HE DROVE FROM POINT A TO POINT B AND BACK TO POINT A AND THEN CHECKED THAT.
SO YOU KNOW THAT THE TRUCK WAS NOT ONLY EQUIPPED WITH GPS, BUT IT WAS ACCURATE BECAUSE HE CHECKED IT.
AND IT'S UNREASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT 30 OF THE 31 ENTRIES FROM EXHIBIT D SHOW HIS TIME IN AND OUT, ENDING IN A FIVE OR A ZERO.
IT'S ALMOST ALWAYS 30 OUT OF 31 TIMES ENDS IN A FIVE OR A ZERO.
IT'S NEVER A FIVE 16 OR A 6 28.
ON THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS ELEMENTS.
WE'VE GOT THE IDENTITY OF THE RESPONDENT, THE DATE, THE 10 MONTH TIME PERIOD FROM APRIL 23RD LAST YEAR TO FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR.
IT HAPPENED IN THE, THE CITY OF DALLAS.
HE ADMITTED THAT IT WAS KNOWINGLY AND IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, HE FAILED TO FULFILL THAT FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE CITY.
AND HIS EXCUSE TO YOU WAS MY BOSS TOLD ME TO DO IT.
THE SECOND IS HE FAILED TO BE A RESPONSIBLE STEWARD OF TAX PAYER RESOURCES.
AND HE TOOK ACTIONS THAT BENEFITED HIMSELF AT THE UNWARRANTED EXPENSE OF THE CITY.
AND HE FAILED TO EXERCISE PRUDENCE AND GOOD JUDGMENT.
UM, IF HE ADMITTED TO FALSIFYING RECORDS, BE BECAUSE PAUL ELECT TOLD HIM TO.
BUT THAT DOESN'T FIT WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HIM.
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT 'EM IS FROM THEIR EXHIBITS.
AND WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT 'EM IS EVERY TIME PAUL COSTAK DOES SOMETHING THAT GOMEZ DOESN'T LIKE, HE EMAILS HR ABOUT IT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT FOUR AND FIVE THAT THEY OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE, TALKED ABOUT, IT'S NOT IN THAT DOCUMENT, BUT WHEN HE WAS EXPLAINING THAT DOCUMENT IN HIS TESTIMONY ON DIRECT, HE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WHITE WASHING AND THE INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP THAT HAPPENED IN 2022, SUPPOSEDLY ON EXHIBIT SIX.
UH, IT'S ALL ABOUT HARASSING AND TELLING HIM TO LOG IN.
IT'S ABOUT THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS.
ALL THOSE HAPPENED IN 2022, SUPPOSEDLY EXHIBIT NINE, HE CUT OFF MARK GARBY FROM THE OVERTIME PROGRAM.
SO ANYTIME COST ELECT DOES SOMETHING THAT HE DOESN'T LIKE, HE EMAILS HR ABOUT IT.
AND THOSE FOUR EXHIBITS THAT THEY OFFER, NOT US SHOW THAT TO BE TRUE.
EXCEPT, EXCEPT FOR WHEN COST ELECT TELLS HIM TO FALSIFY HIS OVERTIME PAPERWORK.
AND THERE'S NO EMAIL, UH, NO EMAIL TO HR ON THAT.
AND THAT THAT SHOWS YOU RIGHT THERE THAT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
PAUL EK IS THE KIND OF PERSON WE NEED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, THE KIND OF PERSON THAT WILL REMIND YOU, YOU NEED TO PUT YOUR TIME IN, YOU NEED TO PUT YOUR TIME IN.
THAT'S HIS JOB TO TELL PEOPLE TO DO STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND ON EXHIBIT SIX AND EIGHT THAT THEY OFFERED THE RESPONDENT'S OWN EXHIBIT SUPPORT OUR OPINION OF THE TRUE NATURE OF GOMA'S CHARACTER.
HE'S BELLIGERENT, HE'S THREATENING AND HE'S DISRESPECTFUL.
AND HE DOES NOT LIKE BEING SUPERVISED.
HE DOESN'T LIKE HAVING QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS COME BACK, COME BACK IN BEHIND HIM TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT HE DID IT RIGHT.
AND HE TELLS HR THAT ELECT IS HARASSING HIM BY TELLING HIM TO CLOCK IN.
THAT'S WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU WORK AT DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.
HE TELLS HR THAT HE FOLLOWED CREST DOING QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS AND TOOK PICTURES OF THOSE QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS.
AND HE EVEN CONFRONTED THE HOMEOWNER ABOUT IT.
THIS GENTLEMAN OVER HERE TO MY LEFT THAT WE'VE BEEN PROSECUTING, ADMITTED TO THE ELEMENTS OF THIS OFFENSE, UM, WE'VE PROVEN IT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU RETURN EIGHT VERDICTS OF SUBSTANTIATED.
THANK YOU MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UM, I, AND I STARTED PLEXING LAW 40 YEARS AGO, AND AN
[05:45:01]
OLDER LAWYER TOLD ME, YOU KNOW, A JURY MAY NOT REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID, BUT THEY REMEMBER HOW LONG YOU SAY TAKE TO SAY IT.THE FIRST THING I NEED TO GET CATTLE OF THE WAY IS A GOOGLE SHOT MAP RIGHT HERE.
YOU CAN GO TO IT ON YOUR PHONE.
THERE IS THE NOTORIOUS YIELD OBJECT.
HE'S REFERRING TO MAPS THAT ARE NOT IN EVIDENCE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE'RE NOT GONNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THE YIELD SIGN.
UM, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED AT THE, AT THE, THIS INCIDENT WITH THE TRAFFIC THREE WITNESSES.
YOU HEARD MR. GOD'S TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND THERE WERE TWO OTHER ACTUAL WITNESSES.
MR. PERKINS WASN'T TESTIFYING HERE.
MS. PAUL WASN'T TESTIFYING HERE.
WELL, WE DO KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE INSPECTOR'S OWN REPORT THERE, MR. MR. PERKINS'S TESTIMONY, IT WAS INCONSISTENT.
THEY HAD TO GO BACK AND TALK TO HIM AGAIN.
WE DON'T, MS. HALL WHO WAS A PASSENGER THERE, SHE DIDN'T MENTION ANY, ANY KIND OF, UH, OBSCENE GESTURE.
IN ONE ARGUE, SHE'S IS THE PASSENGER IN IN THE VAN.
SHE'S IN A BETTER POSITION TO KNOW WHETHER SHE'S THOUGHT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING IN AN INDISCREET MANNER, MANNER.
HE SAID HE SIGNED, POINTED TO HIS HEAD AND TALKING TO HIS EYE.
THAT'S THE BASE OF THE EPI VI'S INSPECTOR GENERAL'S ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THIS MANNER.
HE'S TESTIFIED WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
HE'S LIED HERE TODAY TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.
INSPECTOR GENTLEMAN HAS NOTHING BUT THEIR REPORT WHERE THEY JUST SUMMARILY THINK THAT THEY, THAT THE MR. PERKIN HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT THEY DID THIS, AND THEY DID THAT WITHOUT ANY PROOF.
HE'S NEVER SAID HE WASN'T THERE.
HE NEVER SAYS HE WASN'T NOT DRIVING THE TRUCK.
WE COULD HAVE STIPULATED THAT A LOT EARLIER AS TO THE FINANCIAL ISSUES.
HE'S ADMITTED THAT HE DID SOMETHING WRONG.
BUT LET'S LOOK AT WHY THE WATER DEPARTMENT HAS A REAL SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH BACKLOG.
AND THEY HAVE AUTHORIZED THEIR SUPERVISORS TO DO THIS INCENTIVE PAY OVER TIME FOR, AND IT'S BEEN WHO KNOWS HOW LONG, HOW LONG IT WILL CONTINUE AND OFF AND GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO THE SUPERVISOR TO HAND OUT THIS OVERTIME PAY TO PEOPLE WHO WILL WORK WITH HIM ON HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IS WHAT MR. THOMAS TESTIFIED TO.
NOW, WHY, WHO IS THIS WHO'S REALLY INCENTIVIZED BY THIS PROGRAM? IT'S THE SUPERVISORS WHO HAND OUT THESE THIS CAN, THEY NEED TO REDUCE A BACKLOG.
WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT FROM MR COST, FROM MR. GOMEZ.
THEY'RE INCENTIVIZING THE SUPERVISORS TO DO THIS TO THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE A DENT IN THIS BACKLOG.
YOU KNOW, AS MR. GOMEZ TESTIFIED, HE GETS PAID ANYWAY.
HE'S NOT REQUIRED TO DO ANY KIND OF MEETING.
THE SUPERVISOR, MR. COSTLY, KNOWS THAT HE KNOWS WHAT THE SUPERVISOR, HE KNOWS WHAT THE TEAM LEADERS ARE ALLOWED TO DO, WHO REALLY BENEFITS BY GIVING HIM OVERTIME.
BUT DOES HIS SUPERVISOR GET TO CHECK OFF A COUPLE OF MORE METERS AND A BACKLOG THAT GOES EXTENDS FOR YEARS.
NOW, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANY OF THAT.
MR. GOMAN, HE CAN SIT IN HIS TRUCK, DO HIS PAPERWORK, HE GETS PAID ANYMORE, BUT WHEN APPROACHED TWICE, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE BY HIS SUPERVISOR AND SAID, DO IT THIS WAY, IT'S OKAY.
AND HE HE DOES, HE DOESN'T CHALLENGE ON THERE.
AND AS TO HIS COMPLAINTS TO HR YOU, DOES THE COMMISSION REALLY NOT WANT TO PEOPLE TO COMPLAIN TO HR? HE DID EVERYTHING RIGHT.
I I'M, WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THOSE ISSUES RIGHT NOW.
[05:50:01]
HE DID NOTHING WRONG IN COMPLAINING HR FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO SUGGEST SOMEHOW THAT'S EVIDENCE OF A BAD EMPLOYEE, AN EMPLOYEE WITH A CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER.AND YOU ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, I HOPE CUZ IT'S MR. BEAVERS POINTED OUT, THIS IS THEIR FIRST CASE.
ARE YOU GONNA ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD? WHISTLEBLOWERS, ARE YOU GONNA PUNISH SOMEONE AS DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEES? WE SUBMIT THAT THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED HERE TO YOU TODAY, BUT EXACTLY HOW THINGS HAPPENED IN THAT TRAFFIC INCIDENT AND WHY MR. GOMEZ DID WHAT HE DID AND EVIDENCE AS TO HOW ACTUALLY THE SUPERVISOR WAS THE THREAT.
HIS SUPERVISOR REMAINS A THREAT TO THE PEOPLE IN THAT WATER DEPARTMENT.
DOES THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WISH TO MAKE A BRIEF REBUTTAL STATEMENT? NOT AT THAT, NOT AT THIS TIME.
WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO PHASE TWO OF THIS PROCEEDING, AND THAT IS THE DELIBERATIONS REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINTS.
SO I JUST WANT TO REAL QUICKLY, THIS IS LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
LET THE PANEL KNOW I HAVE PASSED OUT SAMPLE MOTIONS, UH, FOR THE PANEL.
AND THESE MOTIONS ARE IN REGARD TO EACH ALLEGATION AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT.
UM, BEFORE DELIBERATIONS START ON EACH OF THE ALLEGATIONS, A MOTION WILL HAVE TO BE MADE AND SECONDED.
AND IF THE MOTION IS TO FIND THAT A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS OCCURRED IN ORDER FOR THAT MOTION TO PASS FOUR OUTTA THE FIVE PANEL MEMBERS HAVE TO VOTE.
UM, IF THE MOTION IS THAT A VIOLATION DID NOT OCCUR, A SIMPLE MAJORITY IS ENOUGH TO APPROVE THAT MOTION.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? AM I RIGHT THEN WE NEED TO, SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE A MOTION BEFORE WE CAN DELIBERATE.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH ALLE ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE.
IS THAT AND WALK, GO THROUGH THEM? IS THAT THAT? OKAY.
UH, IS THERE, UH, A MOTION WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE? AND IF AT ANY TIME YOU NEED ME TO ASSIST WITH READING INTO THE RECORD, UH, WHAT THE, HOW THE PROVISION READS IN THE CODE OF ETHICS, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT ALLEGATION.
TO CONDUCT THAT IS ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE IS TO CONDUCT, UH, THEMSELVES EMPLOYEES, UH, WITH INTEGRITY AND IN A MANNER THAT MERIT MERITS THE TRUST AND SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC.
IS THERE A MOTION ON, ON FE THIS ONE IS JUST FOR FEBRUARY 7TH, RIGHT? YES.
SO I, I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE, AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS AFTER THE MOTION, BUT I, I WOULD MOVE, UM, THAT THE PANEL FINDS THAT, UH, MR. GIS DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 12 A FOUR A ONE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I WAS JUST, I, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF, OF OUR, OR MY THINKING ON IT, JUST SO WE CAN LAND IN THE RIGHT SPOT.
UM, AS TO THE FEBRUARY 7TH INCIDENT, I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AS TO APRIL 23RD, BUT FOR FEBRUARY 7TH, I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH DRIVING CONDUCT, UM, AND WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE WAS CUT OFF OR NOT, I, I HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING THAT THAT IS A ETHICAL VIOLATION.
I ALSO THINK THAT IN THIS INSTANCE, GIVEN THAT THE STANDARD
[05:55:01]
IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING, WHEN WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM TWO THIRDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE, AND WE ONLY HEARD FROM, UH, MR. GEZ, UM, I, I HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING THAT, UH, THERE WAS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IN FACT THE MIDDLE FINGER WAS USED SO THAT THERE WAS SOME OTHER CONDUCT.AND IN FACT, AS IT WAS NOTED IN THE CLOSING, UM, ONE OF THE FOLKS WHO WERE IN THE OTHER CAR DID NOT CORROBORATE THE, THE MIDDLE FINGER.
SO THAT'S JUST MY, MY THINKING, UM, AT A HIGH LEVEL, UH, AS TO THE DRIVING INCIDENT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I I WOULD, I WOULD I, I AGREE WITH HIS SENTIMENTS AND WOULD JUST ADD THAT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE TESTIMONY FROM MR. PERKINS AND THE OTHER WITNESS WERE BEFORE US AND IT WERE ACCURATE, UH, IF THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WOULD TESTIFY TO, WERE LEFT WITH JUST COMPETING TESTIMONY OF, OF THE WITNESSES, I THINK THINK IT'S A FAIR, A FAIR FIGHT.
UH, I, I CAN'T GET THERE TO SAY THAT IT'S, I'M CLEARLY IN, I'M CLEARLY CONVINCED, CLEAR, CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? D DELIBERATION WITH RESPECT TO NUMBER ONE? A MOTION IS ON THE TABLE, THEN THERE'S A MOTION IN SECOND, ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, IT SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
THE THE MOTION CARRIES MS. GOLDMAN VOTE AYE.
MOVE ON TO ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO REGARDING THE FEBRUARY 7TH INCIDENT, UH, THAT TO TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT DOING FOR AND TO OTHERS WHAT THE OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR AND TO HIM OR HER, UH, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AS TO ALLEGATION TWO, FOR THE FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023 INCIDENT, I WOULD MOVE THAT THE PANEL FINDS THAT JUAN GAZ DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 12, A FOUR, A THREE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
I SECOND ANY DELIBERATION WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
NO, MS. MS. BOWMAN? UH, I THINK SHE VOTES.
THAT'S THE ALLEGATION NUMBER THREE.
SO I THINK THE CONSENSUS IS AT FEBRUARY 7TH, WE ALL KIND OF ARE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT HOW WE FEEL.
CAN WE, ARE WE NOT? OKAY, NEVERMIND THEN.
SO I WAS GONNA ASK IF WE COULD JUST READ, MAKE A MOTION, A MOTION FOR THE REST OF THE, BEFORE FEBRUARY 7TH, BUT IF WE'RE NOT IN, CAUSE I SAID THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN, THEN, THEN I'LL, THEN I'LL JUST MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE NEXT ONE.
UM, AS TO ALLEGATION NUMBER THREE, FOR THE FEBRUARY 7TH INCIDENT, UNDER THE PANEL FUNDS, MR. RON GOMEZ GOT VIOLATED SECTION 12 A 4 86 BY CLEAR CONVINCING EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO, UM, THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL ACTION TO THE EFFECT SUCH ACTION COULD HAVE POSITIVELY RUN NEGATIVELY ON THE CITY'S REPUTATION OPENING THE COMMUNITY AND ELSEWHERE WITH REGARD TO HIS FEEDING, BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF HIS EATING IN, IN THAT, GIMME A SECOND.
IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT ONE, MR. CHAIR? I, I, WE COULDN'T QUITE HEAR THE MOTION WE HAVE.
YOU STILL KIND AS TO REPEAT IT.
NUMBER THREE VIOLATION WAS THAT HE VIOLATED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, NUMBER SIX, TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION
[06:00:01]
OF PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIONS.IS THERE DELIBERATION ON NUMBER THREE? ALLEGATION NUMBER THREE? I THINK THIS SINCE WE ARE UP FOR DISCUSSION.
WELL THEN THE, THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS EMPLOYEES TO ACT IN A MANNER THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
THE SPEED LIMIT WAS 20, HE'S DOING 39.
WE DON'T HAVE THE OTHER PEOPLE SAYING THAT.
UM, BUT THEY, WE DO HAVE PROMPTS FORGETTING ABOUT THE PERSONAL, YOU KNOW, HAND MOTIONS.
UM, WE, THE, THE, UM, COMPLAINANT SAID THAT THEY WERE CUT OFF, THAT THEY WERE IN A POSITION THAT WAS POTENTIALLY, UM, NEGLIGENT OR THE MR. EZS PART.
UM, I THINK THAT THEY DON'T TALK VERY MUCH.
THERE ISN'T MUCH DEFENSE ABOUT, UH, WHO GOT PUSHED OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.
I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO CENSURE MR. MR. ES FOR THOSE ASH.
SO, FURTHER DELIBERATION WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATION NUMBER THREE.
I, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE SENSE THAT THE SPEEDING IS DIFFERENT MM-HMM.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS DISPUTED IT SEEMS LIKE.
BUT I ALSO STRUGGLE WITH, OKAY, IS SPEEDING SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS? OR CAN WE READ THE CODE OF ETHICS IN A WAY THAT MERELY SPEEDING? IF THAT'S THE ONLY PIECE OF THIS THAT'S PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF VI OF A VIOLATION.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
ALL THOSE AGAINST NAY? NO, NAY.
SO ON ALLEGATION NUMBER THREE FOR THE FEBRUARY 7TH INCIDENT, THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR ANOTHER MOTION.
UH, BUT IF THERE'S NOT A MOTION, IT'S THE STATUS QUO, UM, IS KEPT, WHICH MEANS THERE'S NO VIOLATION.
I, I I THINK THERE'S AN AGREEMENT THAT THERE WAS NOT A MO THERE WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION ON THAT ONE.
WHERE ARE WE, MADAM? CITY ATTORNEY ALLEGATION NUMBER FOUR, FOR THE FEBRUARY 7TH INCIDENT, WHICH IS 12 A DASH FOUR B ONE
IS THERE ANY DELIBERATION WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATION NUMBER FOUR? NO DELIBERATION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
[06:05:01]
S TO ALLEGATION NUMBER FIVE FOR THE FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023 INCIDENT.I MOVE THAT THE PANEL FINDS THAT JUAN GOMEZ DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 12 A FOUR B2 BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
SO NOW NOT MAKE COMMENTS OR ACTIONS THAT, THAT ARE ABUSIVE, BELLIGERENT, PROVE.
SO THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND A SECOND.
ALLEGATION NUMBER FIVE B B TWO.
ANY DELIBERATION ON THAT MOTION? NO, SIR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY THOSE BY SAYING AYE.
ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE, AS FOR 20 APRIL 23RD, 22 THROUGH FEBRUARY 23.
THAT IS A VIOLATION OF 12 A THREE, RIGHT? 12 A THREE TO TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT, RIGHT? NO.
1283 IS A CITY OFFICIAL AND EMPLOYEE, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES SHALL FULFILL THE CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEE'S FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE CITY.
IS THERE A MOTION ON ALLEGATION NUMBER I I THAT THE PANEL FINDS THAT JUAN EZ SECTION THREE OF 1283 BY CLEARING AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF VIOLATED MM-HMM.
UM, THE EXCUSE OF MY SUPERVISOR ALLOWED IT, OR MY SUPERVISOR ENCOURAGED IT TO ME, DOESN'T CHANGE THE LIABILITY.
THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER IN THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE SANCTION SPACE, BUT FALSIFICATION IS FALSIFICATION.
ANY FURTHER DELIBERATION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
UH, NEXT UP IS ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO FOR THE APRIL 23RD, FEBRUARY 13TH ALLEGATION, WHICH IS, UM, AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 12 A DASH FOUR A FOUR TO BE RESPONSIBLE STEWARD OF TAXPAYER RESOURCES.
IS THERE A MOTION, MOVE IT AGAIN FOR VIOLATION.
ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO FOR THE APRIL 23RD OF FEBRUARY 13TH INCIDENT ON YOU THAT THIS PANEL ON JUAN FOUND THIS, UM, VIOLATED SECTION 12 DASH A,
[06:10:01]
UH, 12 A DASH FOUR A FOUR BY CLEAR AND CONDUCED, IT'S BEEN MOVED.IS THERE A SECOND? A SECOND IS MOVE A SECOND ON ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO.
UH, IS THERE DELIBERATION ON ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO? THINK IT'S, I WAS GONNA SAY, I THINK IT'S THE SAME LOGIC THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BEFORE IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED AS TO ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY THAT BY SAYING AYE.
ALLEGATION NUMBER THREE, VIOLATION OF SECTION 12 A FOUR, A FIVE.
AND THAT'S TO TAKE NO ACTIONS THAT COULD BENEFIT THE OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE PERSONALLY AT THE UNWARRANTED EXPENSE OF THE CITY.
AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND TO EXERCISE PRUDENCE AND GOOD JUDGMENT AT ALL TIMES.
IS THERE A MOTION ON ALLEGATION NUMBER THREE AS TO ALLEGATION THREE FOR THE APRIL 23RD, 22, 2022 TO FEBRUARY 13TH, 2023 AND INCIDENT? I WOULD MOVE THAT THE PANEL FINES, MR. GIMS VIOLATED SECTION 12 A FOR A FIVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND SAID, DELIBERATION, NO DELI, NO DELIBERATION.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY, BY SAYING AYE.
SO THIS IS LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THE CHAIR HAS ASKED ME TO SUMMARIZE FOR THE RECORD, UH, THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE PANEL.
AND THAT WAS ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE FOR THE APRIL 23RD THROUGH FEBRUARY 13TH, INCIDENT ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO FOR THE SAME INCIDENT, AND NUMBER THREE FOR THE SAME INCIDENT THAT IT WE'RE READY FOR PHASE TWO.
NOW, PHASE TWO, THE COMMISSION WILL DETERMINE THE, THE PENALTY PHASE IS THAT WHAT'S CALLED PENALTY SANCTION PHASE? ALL RIGHT.
SO TO DETERMINE THE PENALTY PHASE, BOTH PARTIES WILL BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT SAVINGS, UH, UH, OPENING STATEMENTS, PREVENT EV PRESENT EVIDENCE, PRESENT CLOSING STATEMENTS.
THE PANEL SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTORS DURING PHASE TWO, THE CULPABILITY OF THE PERSON CHARGED THE HARM TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INTERESTS REGARDING RESULTING FROM THE VIOLATION, THE NECESSITY OF PRESERVING PUBLIC TRUST IN THE CITY, WHETHER THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A PATTERN OF, OR OF DISREGARD OR ETHICAL STANDARDS, WHETHER REMEDIAL ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT WILL MITIGATE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE VIOLATION.
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT IS A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE, THE PANEL MAY RECOMMEND ANY OF THE SANCTIONS LISTED IN SECTION 12 A DASH 57 E, IF ANY, THE COMMISSION'S LEGAL COUNSEL HAS PROVIDED A HANDOUT LISTING THOSE THINGS.
ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE WILL PROCEED TO
[06:15:01]
OPENING STATEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO SANCTIONS.INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL PRO WILL PROCEED.
FIRST, MR. CHAIR, WE DON'T HAVE THAT HANDOUT FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THERE WAS A, I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING THAT CHAIR SAID YOU HAD.
NO, I, IT'S A HANDOUT THAT I PROVIDED TO MY THANK YOU.
COUNCILOR, UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S JUST THE LIST OF POSSIBLE SANCTIONS IN THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER.
ARE YOU READY FOR ME, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, PLEASE, PLEASE PROCEED.
IN PHASE TWO, WE TEND TO OFFER, I GUESS WE'LL WAIT TO SEE IF YOU WOULD ALLOW IT INTO EVIDENCE TWO.
EXHIBITS, EXHIBIT H AND EXHIBIT I.
EXHIBIT H IS MR. GOMEZ'S DISCIPLINARY HISTORY, WHICH INCLUDES INCIDENTS DATING BACK TO JANUARY 14TH, 2019, WHERE HE WAS RECRE, RECEIVED A LETTER OF COUNSELING FOR UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT, MORE SPECIFICALLY FAILURE TO FOLLOW WRITTEN AND VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS AND ARGUING OVER ASSIGNMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS.
UH, HE WAS DISCIPLINED FOR THAT.
THE NEXT INCIDENT IN EXHIBIT H WOULD BE 88 DAYS AFTER THAT, ON APRIL 12TH, 2019, WHEN GOMEZ RECEIVED A LETTER OF COUNSELING FOR UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT, MORE SPECIFICALLY, OPERATIONS OF A VEHICLE OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN AN UNSAFE MANNER, WHICH RESULTED IN A COLLISION ON APRIL 12TH, 2019.
NO REPORTED DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE.
THE NEXT INCIDENT WE INTEND TO OFFER EVIDENCE OF WAS 287 DAYS AFTER THAT ON JANUARY 24TH, 2020, A THREE 11 CITIZEN COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED REGARDING MR. GOMEZ RE DISRESPECTING THAT CITIZEN.
THE NEXT INCIDENT IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE WOULD BE 31 DAYS AFTER THAT, ON FEBRUARY 24TH, 2020, ANOTHER THREE 11 COMPLAINT CAME IN FROM A DIFFERENT CITIZEN, UH, COMPLAINING THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS BEING RUDE.
TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS AND 19 DAYS AFTER THAT INCIDENT.
ON MAY THE 13TH OF 2022, GOMEZ MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT EMPLOYEES STEALING BRASS AND THEN REFUSED TO GIVE MORE DETAILS TO SUPERVISORS DURING A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE COMPLAINT.
AND HE ALSO DEMANDED A HUMAN RESOURCES REPUTA REPRESENTATIVE, 171 DAYS AFTER THAT, ON OCTOBER 31ST OF LAST YEAR, 2022, AN EMAIL WAS RECEIVED FROM A PREVIOUS DIRECT REPORT TO GOMEZ, DOCUMENTING INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS OF A SUPERVISOR, RACISM, AND DIMINISHING COMMENTS TO A PERSON BY THE NAME OF TIM TRUSTEE.
I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT TIM TRUSTEE RESIGNED ON FEBRUARY 3RD OF THIS YEAR.
TWO DAYS LATER, HE SENT AN EMAIL AND EXPLAINED THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST GOMEZ.
TWO DAYS AFTER THAT, ON FEBRUARY 7TH, AT 3:05 PM MR. GOMEZ TEXTED HIM AND TAUNTED HIM FROM HIS WORKSTATION.
TWO DAYS AFTER THAT, ON FEBRUARY 9TH, 2023, TIM TRUSTEE TEXTED THE SCREENSHOT OF FEBRUARY 7TH, TEXT FROM MR. GOMEZ TO TIM TRUSTEE, AND ON FEBRUARY 15TH OF THIS YEAR, MR. GOMEZ FILLED OUT A QUESTIONNAIRE BY HR AND MADE A TACIT ADMISSION THAT HE HAD MADE A RACIAL REMARK.
AND ALSO 99 DAYS AFTER THAT, ON FE FEBRUARY 7TH OF THIS YEAR, THERE WAS, UH, OBVIOUSLY A COMPLAINT IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE, WHICH THE, WAS THE RESULT OF, OF WHAT WE HAD THE HEARING ABOUT TODAY.
WE'RE ALSO GONNA INTRODUCE EXHIBIT I, WHICH ARE CERTIFIED COPIES OF MR. GOMEZ'S FOUR FELONY CONVICTIONS WHERE HE SPENT 10 YEARS IN PRISON ON EACH OF THOSE CONVICTIONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS FOR RETALIATION, THREATENING A WITNESS THAT WAS GOING TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIM, AND THAT, UH, THESE CERTIFIED RECORDS WILL SHOW THAT HE WENT TO PRISON FOR 10 YEARS ON EACH OF THOSE FOUR FELONY CONVICTIONS.
[06:20:10]
YOU MAY PROCEED, COUNSEL FOR MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, UM, WE, UH, WE, I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. GOMEZ TO TESTIFY AS TO ONE PORTION THAT, UM, I'M SORRY, MR. BEERS, UH, WAS IT EXHIBIT I, THE, THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH HIS PERSONNEL FILE, UH, MR. EZ, YOU'VE HEARD THE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GO THROUGH YOUR PERSONNEL FILE GOING BACK QUITE AWAY.IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT? MR. CHAIRMAN? I, I THINK THIS IS OUTTA ORDER.
IT'S HIS OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN OFFERED THESE EXHIBITS YET.
I THOUGHT YOU ARE OFFERING THEM.
AS SOON AS THE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE OVER AND WE BEGAN THE EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF PHASE TWO, THAT'S THE FIRST THING I'M GONNA DO.
COUNSEL, WOULD YOU PROCEED WITH AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE DELIBERATIONS? THE, UH, THE INCIDENTS IN THE, IN THE, IN THE PERSONNEL FILE WHEN I HEAR ARE NOT ETHICS VIOLATIONS, BUT CLARIFY THAT WHEN WE TALKED TO MR. MR. UM, MR. GOMEZ, BUT IF THE, UM, AGAIN, WE'VE, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TALKED, WE'RE NOT LIKE SAYING WE CAN'T HAVE THAT BE PART OF THE PART YOUR CONSIDERATION, BUT THEY ARE NOT ETHICS VIOLATIONS.
AND AS, AND AS TO THE CRIMINAL ISSUE, THESE, THESE ALLEGATIONS OF THAT CRIMINAL RECORD REC PRECEDED MR. GOMEZ'S EMPLOYMENT HERE BY MANY, MANY YEARS, MORE THAN ALMOST 20 YEARS.
SO AGAIN, I THINK YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER AS, AS A WHOLE, A BODY WHERE YOU WANT TO GO WITH THE PRECEDENCE OF THOSE KIND OF MATTERS.
HOW FAR BACK ARE YOU WILLING TO GO BEFORE AN EMPLOYEE BECOMES AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OR STAFF AT THE ARMED CITY? WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO ASK FOR CONSIDERATIONS? DEALING WITH THE SANCTIONS, THE PHASE TWO PART OF YOUR NECESSARY DELIBERATIONS, WE ARGUE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT ALLOW ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE MR. GOMEZ'S EMPLOYMENT.
MR. UH, UM, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS POINT? NOT IN THE WAY OF AN OPENING STATEMENT.
THEN IS THERE EVIDENCE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO OFFER PROSECUTION EXHIBIT H AND I AT THIS TIME, WE, UH, DO NOT OBJECT TO THE PERSONNEL FILE.
WE DO OBJECT TO THE CRIMINAL RECORDS.
SO THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO OB TO THE, UH, CRIMINAL RECORDS, UH, EXHIBIT I, WHICH IS THE ANY, WHICH IS ANYTHING PRIOR, THESE THINGS PRIOR TO MR. GOMA'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY.
THESE ARE ALL CERTIFIED COPIES.
EVERY PAGE, CERTIFIED COPIES OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AND INCLUDING THE INDICTMENTS OF ALL FOUR FELONY FELONIES THAT HE WENT TO PRISON FOR, I MIGHT RESPOND.
I DON'T, WE'RE NOT DOUBTING THE, THEY'RE CERTIFIED.
IT'S MORE AN ISSUE OF WHAT'S GONNA BE ADMISSIBLE FOR THIS PHASE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE, IN THE SANCTION PHASE TO SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED, OR COULD IT, OR COULD WAS SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED 30 YEARS BEFORE HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE.
THAT'S THE PRECEDENCE YOU ARE AGREEING TO MAKE THAT.
MAY I RESPOND? UH, YES, PLEASE.
UH, WHAT WE, WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM THE TESTIMONY IS PATTERNS.
PATTERN NUMBER ONE IS EVERYBODY'S A LIAR, EXCEPT FOR ME.
EVERYBODY ELSE IS WRONG, EXCEPT ME.
PATTERN NUMBER TWO IS A PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS DATING BACK TO 1995 WITH THE RETALIATION OF THREATENING A WITNESS THAT WAS GONNA TESTIFY AGAINST HIM IN A FELONY TRIAL.
ARGUABLY, I THINK THAT YOU COULD MAKE A CASE OF WITNESS TAMPERING.
UH, ONE OF THE CASES, AT LEAST ONE OF THE CASES WAS FOR ARSON, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A LETTER OF NO REHIRE AND TO REPAY BACK THE $1,326.
FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO, UH, WAS IT, I THAT IS A CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND? YES, MR. I'M GOING TO RULE
[06:25:01]
AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF THAT EVIDENCE.UH, THAT IS SUBJECT OF COURSE TO, UH, OBJECTION BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL, BUT THAT IS THE RULING CHAIR.
WHAT ELSE DO WE, ALL RIGHT THEN.
UH, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH ANY, UH, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU MAY HAVE OR STATEMENTS YOU MAY HAVE.
UM, IS EXHIBIT H BEEN ADMITTED? IT? EXHIBIT H IS ADMITTED.
I'M GONNA CALL MY FIRST WITNESS.
THE PROSECUTION CALLS PAUL COSTELLI.
MR. COSTELLI, I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT H AND THE 28 PAGES THAT IT CONTAINS.
ARE THESE THE RECORDS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN JUAN GOMEZ'S PERSONNEL FILE? YES.
UH, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE INCIDENT THAT BEGAN ON JANUARY THE 14TH OF 2019, WHAT WERE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR. GOMEZ? CAN YOU SEE THAT SAYS TWO THREE ON FEBRUARY THE 22ND OF 2019, DID MR. GOMEZ RECEIVE A LETTER OF COUNSELING? YES, SIR.
AND WHAT WAS THAT FOR? UH, THAT WAS FOR, UH, THAT WAS THE UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT, FAILURE TO FOLLOW WRITTEN AND VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS, ARGUING OVER ASSIGNMENTS OR INSTRUCTIONS.
AND WAS MR. GOMEZ DISCIPLINE FOR THAT IN 2019? IT ORIGINALLY WAS A LETTER OF REPRIMAND AND GOT REDUCED TO A LETTER OF COUNSELING.
AND THESE DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT WHAT YOU JUST SAID ARE ON PAGE TWO AND THREE? YES.
AND SO THE LETTER OF COUNSELING IS ON PAGE TWO? CORRECT.
AND DOES THIS PAGE TWO AND THREE PROVE THAT HE WAS DISCIPLINED ON FEBRUARY THE 22ND, 2019, FOR ARGUING OVER ASSIGNMENTS AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS? YES.
88 DAYS AFTER THAT, ON APRIL THE 12TH OF 2019.
UH, ON PAGE FOUR, FIVE AND SIX, UH, DID MR. GOMEZ RECEIVE ANOTHER LETTER OF COUNSELING FOR UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT? YES.
AND WAS THAT FOR OPERATING A VEHICLE IN AN UNSAFE MANNER? YES.
AND DID THAT VEHICLE SITUATION RESULT IN A COLLISION THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON APRIL 12TH, 2019?
[06:30:02]
YES.AND WAS HE DISCIPLINED FOR THAT SITUATION? UH, YES.
HE RECEIVED A LETTER OF, OF COUNSEL FOR THAT AS WELL.
AND IS ON PAGE FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX.
WHAT IS THIS? THAT'S THE ACTUAL REPORT FROM, UH, UH, ORIGAMI, THE INVESTIGATING DEPARTMENT.
AND SO WAS THIS UNSAFE DRIVING? YES.
AND WHAT IS PAGE SEVEN? ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? YES.
THAT'S OF THE VEHICLE THAT HE WAS DRIVING AT THAT, THAT TIME WHEN HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COLLISION? YES.
AND ON H PAGE EIGHT, DID HE RECEIVE A LETTER OF COUNSELING DATED JUNE 5TH, 2019? YES.
AND DOES THIS DOCUMENT PROVE THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DISCIPLINED ON JUNE THE FIFTH, 2019, WITH A LETTER OF CORRECTION FOR OPERATING A VEHICLE IN AN UNSAFE MANNER? YES.
ON JANUARY THE 24TH OF 2020, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY THREE 11 CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING MR. GOMEZ? UH, YES.
AND ON PAGES NINE THROUGH 15, DOES IT DETAIL THE COMPLAINT THAT CAME IN AGAINST MR. GOMEZ? YES, IT DOES.
AND WAS THAT FOR DISRESPECTING A CITY OF DALLAS CITIZEN? YES, IT WAS.
AND THIS DOCUMENTATION IS IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE? YES.
AND THAT WAS SERVICE REQUEST NUMBER 20 DASH 0 0 0 8 0 8 19 YES.
AND DOES THIS PROVE THAT ON JANUARY 24TH, 2020, A CITIZEN MADE A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM FOR BEING DISRESPECTFUL? YES.
AND ON PAGE 15, ON PAGE 15, DID MR. GOMEZ PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT REGARDING THIS COMPLAINT? YES, HE DID.
AND THAT WAS ON PAGE H 15, CORRECT.
31 DAYS AFTER THAT INCIDENT ON FEBRUARY 24TH, 2020, DID ANOTHER THREE 11 COMPLAINT COME IN FROM A DIFFERENT CITIZEN OF DALLAS? YES.
AND DID, WAS THAT A COMPLAINT WHERE HE WAS RUDE TO SOMEBODY? YES.
AND IS THAT DOCUMENTED ON PAGES 16 THROUGH 22 OF EXHIBIT H? YES.
WAS MR. GOMEZ DISCIPLINE FOR THIS INCIDENT? HE WAS NOT.
HE WROTE A STATEMENT, ACCOUNTING FOR HIS ACTIONS.
AND ON PAGE 22, DID HE PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THIS ALLEGATION? YES.
SO EVEN THOUGH HE WASN'T DISCIPLINED, DOES IT PROVE THAT A CITIZEN FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM FOR BEING RUDE? YES.
AND 19 DAYS AFTER THAT, ON MAY THE 13TH OF 2022, UH, DID GOMEZ MAKE A COMPLAINT ABOUT EMPLOYEES STEALING BRASS? NOT TO ME DIRECTLY, BUT TO ANOTHER MANAGER WHO, UH, LET ME KNOW ABOUT THE COMPLAINT.
SO I HAD A FOLLOW UP, HAD HIS SUPERVISOR FOLLOW UP WITH THE ALLEGATIONS TO SEE IF THEY WERE TRUE.
AND WHEN YOU APPROACHED HIM AND MET WITH HIM, DID YOU ASK HIM TO GIVE MORE DETAILS ABOUT WHAT HE WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT? I WASN'T INVOLVED IN, UH, UH, THE INTERVIEW PROCESS.
HIS DIRECT SUPERVISOR, JOSHUA TIMBERMAN, WAS ALONG WITH ANOTHER SUPERVISOR, EDGAR CARROLL.
AND, UH, JOSHUA, UH, ASKED HIM THE, THE QUESTIONS.
DOES THE DOCUMENTATION SHOW THAT HE REFUSED TO GIVE MORE DETAILS TO HIS SUPERVISORS WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT? YES, HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW.
AND THAT'S CONTAINED ON PAGE ONE AND PAGE 23 OF EXHIBIT H.
[06:35:03]
IS THAT CORRECT? YES.AND DOES H 23 PROVE THAT A MEETING OCCURRED ON FIVE 13 OF 2022 BETWEEN GOMEZ AND TIMMERMAN FOR EMPLOYEE COUNSELING? YES, IT DOES.
AND ON H ONE, THAT WAS AN EMAIL FROM JOSHUA TIMMERMAN TO YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
I ASKED HIM TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE OUTCOME AFTER THE, UH, TAILGATE MEETING AND ON PAGE ONE OF EXHIBIT H, DOES IT PROVE THAT MR. GOMEZ REFUSED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO HIS SUPERVISOR WHEN HE WAS ASKED? YES, 171 DAYS AFTER THAT, ON OCTOBER THE 31ST OF 2022, WAS THERE AN INCIDENT BETWEEN MR. GOMEZ AND A PERSON NAMED TIM TRUSTEE? I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY INCIDENTS BETWEEN HIM AND MR. TRUSTEE UNTIL MR. TRUSTEE RESIGNED.
AND ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY THE THIRD WAS AN EMAIL RECEIVED FROM A PREVIOUS DIRECT REPORT, MR. TRUSTEE, REGARDING INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOR OF A SUPERVISOR? MR. TRUSTEE SENT ME AN EMAIL ON FEBRUARY THE FIFTH.
AND DID THAT, DID THOSE ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS OR BEHAVIOR, RACISM AND DIMINISHING COMMENTS? YES.
WAS HE PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION? ON FEBRUARY 23RD OF THIS YEAR, ON FEBRUARY 15TH? FEBRUARY 15TH, DID THIS INCIDENT ACTUALLY COVER A PERIOD OF TIME FROM OCTOBER 31ST LAST YEAR TO FEBRUARY 23RD OF THIS YEAR FOR FOUR MONTHS? YES.
WAS MR. GOMEZ DISCIPLINED OVER THIS INCIDENT? NO.
THAT WAS WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WAS GIVEN ALONG WITH THE, THE OTHER.
SO HE WAS PUT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FOR THIS SITUATION? YES.
AND THIS DOCUMENTATION IS IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE? YES.
AND ON H 24, THAT'S THE EMAIL FROM TIM TRUSTEE? YES.
AND IS THIS THE EMAIL? YES, IT IS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I PUBLISH THIS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EAC BY READING IT TO HIM? OBJECTION.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY HEAR WHAT'S IN IT.
HAS THIS BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD? YES, SIR.
IT WAS OFFERED AND ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE BEFORE I CALL THE FIRST WITNESS.
UH, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO READ WHAT IS ALREADY ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
DOES H 24 PROVE THAT ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2023, TIM TRUSTY EMAILED YOU REGARDING MR. MR. GOMEZ'S ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL SLURS, RIDICULING NEGATIVITY TOWARDS MANAGEMENT, CONDESCENDING BEHAVIOR, AND RUDENESS? YES.
WHAT IS H 25? THAT IS A TEXT MESSAGE THAT, UH, MR. TRUSTEE RECEIVED FROM MR. GOMEZ.
AND ON PAGE 26 THROUGH 28, IS THIS A QUESTIONNAIRE THAT MR. GOMEZ FILLED OUT REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS FROM TIM TRUSTEE? YES, IT IS.
AND QUESTION 10 ASKED HIM, DID YOU TELL TIM TRUSTEE THAT BECAUSE HE'S WHITE, HE SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM MOVING UP IN THE ORGANIZATION, AND HE, MR. GOMEZ WROTE, EVERYBODY JOKINGLY STATED THAT TO HIM IN THE OFFICE TRAILER AS BANTER AMONG THE GUYS? THAT WAS HIS STATEMENT, YES.
DO YOU CONSIDER THAT A TACIT ADMISSION THAT MR. GOMEZ MADE A RACIAL STATEMENT TO SOMEBODY THAT WORKED FOR HIM? YES.
AND THIS DOCUMENTATION IS IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE? YES, IT IS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY VERY QUICKLY, UM, MR. GOMEZ CALL MR. GOMEZ, UH, GOMEZ, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS GONE THROUGH, UM, YOUR PERSONAL ITEMS IN YOUR PERSONNEL FILE.
YOU WERE LISTENING TO THEM, CORRECT? UH, YES.
[06:40:01]
WANT YOU TO REALLY FOCUS ON JUST WHAT, WHAT, UH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND ASK IF YOU HAVE A RESPONSE.THE FIRST INCIDENT IS FEBRUARY 22ND, 2019, THE LETTER OF COUNSELING.
DO YOU REMEMBER THE, THE, THAT INCIDENT? YES, I DO.
SHOULD HE BE CROSS EXAMINE? HE SHOULD BE, YES.
I HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR THAT WITNESS.
IF YOU HAVE NO, WE REST IN PHASE TWO.
YOU, MR. YOU, YOU'RE CALLED AS A WITNESS.
YOU'RE STILL UNDER, YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH.
YOU REMEMBER THAT? RIGHT? OKAY.
NOW, AGAIN, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S GONE THROUGH THE, UH, YOUR PERSONNEL FILE, SOME ITEMS IN THERE.
THE FEBRUARY 22ND, 2019, UH, INCIDENT IS A LETTER OF COUNSELING.
DO YOU RECALL THAT? YES, I DO.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE, UH, THE, UH, WHAT, UH, WAS JUST TESTIFIED TO BY MR? NO, I DON'T WHY? THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE I EXPLAINED TO YOU GUYS EARLIER THAT MR. COSTELLO HAD CUSSED ME OUT, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON WHY I WAS ROLLED UP THE FOLLOWING DAY.
HE SAID I WAS INSUBORDINATE AND HAD ABANDONED MY JOB.
HE DIDN'T TELL ME NOTHING ABOUT HE'S, YOU KNOW, NOT FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
HE SAID, SUBORDINATION, JOB ABANDONMENT.
HE SAID, IT'S NOT A FING OPTION, IT'S A FING ORDER.
I'M GONNA ASK YOU NOW TO, TO GO TO THE, UH, THE, THE ITEM REFERENCE BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL JUNE 5TH, 2019, A LETTER OF COUNSELING.
DO YOU RECALL THAT INCIDENT? IS THAT THE, UH, ACCIDENT THAT SEE, UM, WHERE THE COLLISION OF APRIL THE 12TH? YEAH.
SO, SO BASICALLY ON THAT SITUATION THERE, WE WERE INSTRUCTED BY RISK MANAGEMENT AND ALSO, UH, MANAGEMENT THAT IF WE HAD ANY, UM, COLLISION, WHETHER IT BE AT FAULT, NOT AT FAULT, WHATEVER, WE WERE CALLED 9 1 1 BECAUSE CITIZENS WERE COMING BACK.
IT WAS A PREVIOUS INCIDENT WHERE A CITIZEN CAME BACK THREE MONTHS LATER AND STATED THAT A, THAT THE CITY EMPLOYEE HAD HIT THEM FROM BEHIND AND LEFT THE SCENE.
AND THEN THEY WANTED TO FILE, UH, A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR DAMAGES.
SO IN THAT INSTANCE, WHAT HAPPENED IS THE LADY STOPPED AND I ACCIDENTALLY BUMPED HER BUMPER BECAUSE SHE, AT THE LAST MINUTE, DECIDED NOT TO GO THROUGH THE YELLOW, UH, LIGHT OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO I BUMPED HER AND I GOT OUTTA THE VEHICLE, AND I WENT UP TO HER CAR AND I SAID, MA'AM, CAN, CAN WE PULL OVER TO THE WALGREENS BECAUSE I HAVE TO CALL 9 1 1 AS A CITY EMPLOYEE AND DO MY DUE DILIGENCE? SO SHE SAID, OKAY, NO PROBLEM.
SO WE GET OVER THERE, SHE SPEAKS TO HER HUSBAND ON THE PHONE, AND SHE SAID, HE SAYS, HERE, PUT ME ON VIDEO CHAT.
HE SAID, THERE'S NO DAMAGES TO OUR VEHICLE, JUST GO AHEAD AND GO.
SHE EXPLAINED TO HIM WHAT I EXPLAINED TO HER, THAT I HAD TO MAKE A REPORT REGARDLESS OF DAMAGE OR NOT.
AND SO SHE SAID, LOOK, MY HUSBAND SAID WE'RE FINE.
I WAITED FOR RISK MANAGEMENT TO SHOW UP, AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM THE SAME SITUATION I EXPLAINED TO YOU NOW.
AND SO NEXT THING I KNOW I GET A LETTER OF OF COUNSEL.
THE CITY DIDN'T PAY NO PAY, NO CLAIM.
I DIDN'T DO, I JUST BUMPED THAT LADY.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO, NO DAMAGES.
AND I GET A, I GET A POINT FOR CALLING IN SOMETHING THAT I WAS TOLD TO DO.
I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO, UH, TO FOCUS DOWN ON THE, ON THE, UH, A COMPLAINT OF, UM, BY, UH, A CALLER OF WHAT? LIKE IT WAS IN, UH, FEBRUARY 20, FEBRUARY, 2020 4, 25, UH, 2020.
DO YOU RECALL THAT? OH, I'D HAVE TO SEE IT BECAUSE HE HOLLER.
HE HAD EXPRESSED THREE OF THEM.
THIS IS THE ONE THIS, OH, YES, I DO RECALL THIS.
SO, ON THIS, IN THIS INSTANCE HERE, THE, UH, I WENT OUT TO, UH, THIS SERVICE REQUEST THAT WAS IN, I WAS INSTRUCTED BY MY SUPERVISOR TO GO OUT TO AND ASSIST WITH IT.
SO I WENT OUT THERE AND I WAS TRYING TO ASSESS THE SITUATION AND THE, AND THE CITIZEN CAME OUTTA THE HOUSE.
AND, UM, I WAS TRYING TO DO MY, MY DUE DILIGENCE AND GO THROUGH THE STEPS OF LOOKING TO SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS.
AND I NOTICED THAT IT WAS A PREVIOUS REPAIR THAT WAS DONE BY REPAIRS, UH, OUR DISTRIBUTION TEAM.
AND, UH, SHE KEPT TELLING ME THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS WRONG AND WHAT, WHAT I HAD TO DO AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND I TOLD HER, MA'AM, I KNOW.
I SAID, I'M GONNA CALL IT IN THIS DISPATCH AND LET THEM KNOW IT'S A PREVIOUS REPAIR THAT IT'S NOW STARTED LEAKING AGAIN.
SO SHE CALLED IN AND SAID THAT I WAS NOT BEING, UH, UH, LISTENING TO HER COMPLAINT.
AND I WAS LIKE, I CALLED MY SUPERVISOR
[06:45:01]
AND I TOLD HIM, I SAID, HEY, YOU MIGHT WANNA CALL AND TALK TO THIS LADY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT TRYING TO HEAR WHAT I'M TRYING TO RELAY TO HER, THAT I HAD TO CALL DISPATCH AND LET KNOW THAT THIS IS A PREVIOUS REPAIR THAT STARTED LEAKING AGAIN.SO THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
AND THE REASON I WAS NOT, THE REASON I WAS NOT DISCIPLINED IS BECAUSE THEY DETERMINED MY SUPERVISOR AND PAUL ELLI DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO, NO HARM DONE.
I'M GONNA, NOW I FOCUS YOUR TO ATTENTION ON, UH, A MAY 13TH, 2022, UH, EMAIL FROM JOSHUA TIMMERMAN.
UH, DO YOU RECALL THIS DEALING WITH, UH, THE, THE STEALING OF BRASS? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED THERE? YES.
SO WHAT HAPPENED THERE IS I HAD A CONVERSATION, UH, WITH MY PREVIOUS SUPERVISOR, CHARLES THOMAS, AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON WITHIN THE WATER DEPARTMENT.
AND SO HE HAD ALREADY MOVED ON TO CITY HALL AND, UH, AS A MANAGER AND I, I EXPLAINED TO HIM, I SAID, MAN, YOU KNOW, THEY JUST DID THIS COUNT.
AND THEY SAID THAT WE FELL UNDER 1% OF, OF, UH, LOSS, BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE.
I SAID, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE, ALL THE BRASS IS BEING STOLEN BY, BY EMPLOYEES.
AND THEN, SO, UM, I TOLD HIM THAT I WASN'T, THAT EVEN IF I WAS ASKED ABOUT IT, CHARLES, I TOLD CHARLES TO, I EVEN ASKED ABOUT IT BY ANYBODY OTHER THAN HIM, THAT I WOULD NOT DIVULGE NAMES TO HIM BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I'M NOT GONNA HELP PAUL'S CAUSE CAUSE I KNEW HE WAS, YOU KNOW, OUT TO GET ME.
AND I'M GONNA, UM, FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON THIS, UH, UH, PAUL, UH, UH, MR. CASTOR WAS TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT MONTH AGO, ABOUT MR. TRUSTEE.
WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT EARLIER.
YOU THINK YOU ALSO NEED TO ADD REFERENCING THAT, UH, EPISODE? YES.
UH, THE PART THAT I DIDN'T GET TO, UH, EXPLAIN TO YOU GUYS IS THE FACT THAT WHAT TRIGGERED HIS RESIGNATION WAS, UH, ONE, THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH HIM ABOUT HIS HEALTH.
AND THEN, UH, WHEN I WENT OVER THAT SITUATION ABOUT HIS HEALTH, BECAUSE HE SAID THAT HE DIDN'T COMPLETE THOSE ORDERS BECAUSE HE WAS TIRED ALL THE TIME.
HE SAYS, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? IF I'M TIRED, I'M TIRED.
I SAID, WELL, TIM, YOU GOTTA UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HIRED YOU TO DO THIS JOB.
AND IF I SAID, LET'S JUST BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES, IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE PHYSICALLY TO DO THIS JOB, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A PHYSICAL, YOU KNOW, ASPECT.
SO IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THE JOB, I MEAN, I WOULD BE HONEST WITH MYSELF.
I'M, I'M PUTTING MYSELF IN HIS POSITION.
AND SO I SAID I WOULD HAVE AN HONEST CONVERSATION WITH MYSELF AND ASK MYSELF, IS THIS SOMETHING I REALLY WANNA PUT MYSELF THROUGH? SO THEN I TOLD HIM, I SAID, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF I DON'T SAY ANYTHING TO YOU AND YOU, SOMETHING HAPPENS TO YOU ON THE JOB, THE FIRST THING I'M GONNA BE ASKED ABOUT THE CITY IS, DID YOU KNOW OR NOTICE ANY MEDICAL AILMENTS OR ANYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, KEPT HIM FROM DOING HIS JOB? CAUSE WE HAVE HAD CITY EMPLOYEES DOWN ON THE JOB, YOU KNOW.
SO I WAS CONCERNED OUTTA HIS, OUT OF CONCERN FOR HIS HEALTH, IS WHY I HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH HIM THE FOLLOWING WEEK.
AND I'LL, AND THEN PART OF THAT INVESTIGATION, OR BACK AND FORTH WITH, UM, WITH MR. CHAIRMAN IS THIS QUESTIONNAIRE OF FEBRUARY 15TH, 2023.
THAT THEY GAVE YOU THE QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH, WHICH
THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME ON, UH, FEBRUARY 15TH.
IT WAS GIVEN TO ME ON FEBRUARY 15TH AT THE, UM, UH, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING YOU, THAT YOU, YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THAT QUESTIONNAIRE? WELL, YEAH, I LET THEM KNOW, YOU KNOW, THAT I HAD AN ISSUE THAT THE ISSUE, YOU KNOW, WITH, UH, WITH TIM TRUSTING, I TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD CONTINUOUSLY MAKE, UM, UM, COMMENTS ABOUT POLITICS AND ABOUT HOW DEMOCRATS HAD AN OPEN BORDER, YOU KNOW, AT THE, AT THE BORDER OF MEXICO AND LETTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN.
AND HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THESE PEOPLE, UM, BEING ON MINORITIES, BEING ON WELFARE.
AND HE SAID HE WAS GONNA WORK EXTRA HARD THE FOLLOWING MONTH SO THEY CAN, THEY CAN EAT BETTER, YOU KNOW, WHILE ON WELFARE.
AND I SAID, TIM, I SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA UNDERSTAND THERE ARE, UH, FOUR THINGS WE DON'T DISCUSS HERE AT THE CITY.
WE DON'T TALK ABOUT RACE, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT RELIGION, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT POLITICS, AND WE DON'T DISCUSS, DISCUSS EACH OTHER'S THING.
HE GOT UPSET ABOUT IT, AND, UH, TOLD ME THAT, UM, BASICALLY I WAS JUST BEING A HARD ASS.
AND THAT, UM, HE'S, HE'S GONNA, HE'S ABLE TO TALK ABOUT WHATEVER HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
AND ALSO, I HAD ASKED HIM TOO, BECAUSE HE HAD STARTED, UM, SMOKING A E VAPE PIN IN THE TRUCK.
AND I TOLD HIM, I SAID, HEY, TIM, I, I SAID, I, I HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU, BUT WE DO NOT SMOKE IN THE CITY VEHICLES.
AND HE SAID, WHY? HE GOES, UH, BRADLEY, LET ME SMOKE IN HIS VEHICLE.
AND I SAID, WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT TO BE TRUE, BUT I'M TELLING YOU THE RULES.
AND SO HE, I MEAN, EVERY DAY HE
[06:50:01]
WOULD TALK ABOUT THESE, THESE POLITICS AND EVERYTHING, AND I WOULD SHORTSTOP HIM AND TELL HIM, HEY, WE'RE NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT.WE'RE GONNA KEEP IT ALL ABOUT WORK.
AND THIS GUY, HE WAS PASSIONATE ABOUT THE THINGS THAT HE TALKED ABOUT WHEN REGARDING THE POLITICS.
BUT I MEAN, I, I NOTED ALL THAT STUFF HERE.
AND THE PART THAT HE SAYS THAT I ADMITTEDLY CALLED MR. TRUSTEE, UH, SOME RACIAL NOT TRUE.
WE HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR MR. GOMEZ.
WE ARE, WE HAVE COMPLETED EVERYTHING EXCEPT A SANCTIONS RECOMMENDATION, A SANCTIONS VOTE.
IS THAT RIGHT, MR. COUNTY? THAT'S CORRECT.
I THINK YOU ALL HAVE A LIST OF THE POTENTIAL SANCTIONS THAT, UH, CAN BE PROPOSED AND VOTED ON BY, BY THE COMMISSION.
I'VE DISTRIBUTED A SAMPLE MOTION THAT HAS THE LIST OF THE POSSIBILITIES.
MAY WE BE HEARD ON CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THIS PHASE? COULD, OH, I'M SORRY.
AND COULD WE HEAR YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AGAIN, MR. ROTH? THIS WILL TAKE ABOUT 90 SECONDS.
UH, OUR INTENTION IN MOVING FORWARD WAS TO HOLD MR. GAMMA AS ACCOUNTABLE AND GENERATE THE RECORD NEEDED TO VET THIS INDIVIDUAL SHOULD HE EVER SEEK TO COME BACK AND SEEK EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY.
AGAIN, WE WANTED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN A PUBLIC FORUM SO THE PEOPLE OF DALLAS COULD SEE WHAT HAPPENED.
WE WANT TO SET A STANDARD FOR OTHERS WHO HAVE DONE THE SAME THING OR THINKING ABOUT DOING THE SAME THING.
AND WE ALSO WANNA SEND A MESSAGE THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE TOLERATED.
THE AGGREGATE IMPACT OF TIME THEFT, LORD KNOWS HOW BIG IT COULD BE, BUT THIS IS JUST A PIECE OF IT.
AND THERE'S A BROADER POLICY ISSUE AT STAKE, AND THAT'S BEYOND THE MERITS OF THIS CASE, REINFORCING THAT THE FIDUCIARY DUTY THAT EMPLOYEES OWE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS INCLUDES ENTERING ACCURATE TIME AND BEING SAFE AND COURTEOUS.
AND OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER MAKING IS NUMBER ONE, UH, A LETTER THAT HE'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE NUMBER TWO, TO REPAY BACK THE $1,326 THAT HE STOLE FROM THE CITY.
AND NUMBER THREE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12, A 48 B3.
IF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE CITY EMPLOYEE COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER, THAT EMPLOYEE SHALL REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR THE LEGAL FEES THAT WERE PAID TO HIS LAWYERS TODAY.
MS. WILLIAMS? YEAH, I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THE REAL, THE ISSUE HERE I THINK IS FINANCIAL DAMAGE OR LOSS.
YOU KNOW, THE WAY THIS PROGRAM WORKED BASICALLY IS TO ALLOW THE TEAM LEADERS WHO HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOING, UM, METER CHECKS OR METER REPAIRS TO DO THEM, BECAUSE THE ECONOMICS OF IT WERE, THEY HAD A CHOICE OF EITHER NOT WORKING DURING THEIR TIME OFF AND GETTING PAID FOR IT, OR TAKING ON THIS EXTRA WORK AND COUNTING IT AS OVERTIME.
YOU KNOW, IF THEY CHOSE NOT TO WORK, THEY WOULD GET THEIR FULL SALARY.
RIGHT? IT'S MAKING THE DECISION TO DO THE OVERTIME, WHICH ALLOWED THEM TO MAKE, TO, TO WORK.
SO THERE WAS NO REAL ECONOMIC DAMAGE HERE.
UM, AND SO I'M ARGUING BASICALLY AGAINST THE, UH, NOTION THAT THERE SHOULD BE PAYBACK BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DAMAGE.
AND I SEE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD, BUT THE ISSUE IS HE WOULD'VE BEEN PAID, HE ONLY DID THIS ON HIS TIME THAT HIS OFF TIME.
EVEN IF IT WAS DURING THE WORKDAY, HE TESTIFIED AND MR. UH, UM, WHAT IS HIS NAME? PATELLA, OR, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.
THAT THEY HAD TIME DURING THE DAY THAT THEY WERE NOT WORKING FOR WHICH THEY WERE BEING PAID.
AND SO, AND SO THE ISSUE WAS, I MEAN, AND, AND I KNOW THIS, I KNOW HE DISAGREES IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT, UM, UM, HE WAS TOLD TO DO THIS, BUT IT REALLY WAS A WAY TO WORK DOWN THE NUMBER OF,
[06:55:01]
UH, THE, THE NUMBER OF, UM, YOU CALL IT ME, METER CHANGES AND GET SOME BENEFIT OUT OF THE DOWNTIME.THAT'S ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT THIS.
ARE, ARE THERE? NO, THIS IS CLOSING.
I, I THINK WE HAVE COME TO THE END.
WE ARE IN THE, THE LAST PART OF THE PROCESS IS TO, UH, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR SANCTIONS AND DELIBERATE AND DECIDE WHAT FRANK, WHAT SANCTIONS SHOULD BE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
SO, UH, THE CITY SECRETARY, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS, UH, THE DISTRIBUTED A LIST OF THE POTENTIAL SANCTIONS AND THIS THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE OR COULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
UH, AND WE NEED A MOTION IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR SANCTIONS.
AND MR. CHAIR, I'LL JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UH, THAT THE SANCTIONS THAT THIS PANEL MAY CONSIDER ARE THOSE IN SECTION 12 A DASH 57 E NUMBERS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, AND 10.
UM, THERE'S ALSO AN OPTION, UM, FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF NO SANCTIONS.
THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY, RIGHT? SO I JUST HAVE ONE PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
WHAT, WHAT IS THE, I I SEE THE, THE WRITTEN DIFFERENCE, BUT IS THERE ANY COLOR YOU CAN PROVIDE ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPRIMAND AND RESOLUTION OF SENSOR CENSURE? I MEAN, THE ONLY GUIDANCE I CAN GIVE IS WHAT IT SAYS HERE IS THAT, UM, THE COUNCIL MAY ISSUE A REPRIMAND IF THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER WAS NOT MINOR AND WAS COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE CHAPTER.
UM, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF CENSURE IF THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT A SERIOUS OR REPEATED VIOLATION OF THE CHAPTER HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY THROUGH RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE CODE OF ETHICS, AND THE VIOLATIONS SUBSTANTIALLY THREATENS THE PUBLIC TRUST.
SO I THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO REALLY IS THE SEVERITY OF THE ALL ALLEGATIONS.
AND THEN ONE MORE QUESTION ON THE, ON THE NUMBER ON THE REFERRAL FOR DAMAGES OR INJUNCTION.
SO WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO DECIDE YES, PAYBACK THE 1300, IT'S NOT EFFECTUATED BY OUR DECISION, OBVIOUSLY CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THERE'S AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE CITY IN THE CIVIL CONTEXT, RIGHT? IF, IF THAT WAS AN OPTION THAT THIS PANEL, UH, WANTED TO DECIDE ON, THAT WOULD THEN GO TO CITY COUNCIL AS A RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT THEY CONSIDER SENDING THAT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO TAKE WHAT AC WHATEVER ACTIONS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NEEDS TO, UH, RECOVER ANY POTENTIAL DAMAGES.
YOU, YOU HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF PENALTIES.
IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SANCTIONS, REPRIMAND AND REFERRAL FOR DAMAGES? IS THERE A SECOND? IS A, THIS IS SUSAN BOWMAN, AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON, UM, MR. WIGGINS COMMENTS REGARDING, UM, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, MR. GOMEZ'S RESPONSE THAT HE WAS FOLLOWING HIS, THAT THERE WAS NO, UM, REAL LOSS TO THE CITY BECAUSE THERE WAS THE, UM, INSTALLMENT OF NEW, UH, EQUIPMENT.
MOST OF US AT WORK, UM, WORK AND GET PAID FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HOURS AND, UM, WE'RE EXPECTED TO WORK ALL OF THOSE HOURS.
AND SO, UM, IF YOU HAVE THREE HOURS, YOU GO TO YOUR BOSS AND YOU SAY, WHAT CAN I DO IN THESE THREE HOURS THAT I HAVE THAT, UH, EMPTY? AND THAT WAS WHAT, THAT'S WHAT ONE
[07:00:01]
WOULD EXPECT FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE.AND SO WE HAVE TAKEN AWAY, IN A SENSE, UH, OVER TIME FROM PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T, WHO COULD HAVE EARNED IT IN AND INSTALLED OTHERS.
AND THEN WE HAVE THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INSTALLING DURING THE HOURS THAT THEY ARE BEING PAID FOR.
SO, HOWEVER I LOOK AT IT, WHEN I'M CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE, I AM TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC AND US USING THEIR TAX DOLLARS WISELY.
AND IT HASN'T BEEN USED WISELY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
SO FOR MY POSITION, UH, THE, THE, UM, MR. GAMMAS NEEDS TO REFUND THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE CITY BECAUSE HE DID NOT EARN THAT MONEY.
THIS IS THEIR, THIS IS THEIR DELIBERATION.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE CLOSED FOR RESPONSES FROM THE PARTY.
THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I HAVE TO MAKE THAT COMMENT.
THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE AT THIS POINT.
UM, MR. BEAVERS HAS ASK THAT THE LETTER, INCLUDE A COMMENT THAT, UM, WOULD PRECLUDE THE, UM, MR. GOMEZ FROM BEING EMPLOYED AGAIN BY THE CITY.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT COULD BE PUT IN THAT OR NOT.
THAT IS NOT PROPER FOR THE PANEL CON TO CONSIDER IT, CAUSE THAT THAT FALLS UNDER THE PERSONNEL RULES.
AND I'LL WITHDRAW THE REQUEST.
SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
UH, THE SANCTIONED, THE PROPOSED SANCTION BEING A REPRIMAND, UH, AND A REFERRAL FOR DAMAGES.
UH, IS THERE DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION? THERE'S A, IS THERE DELIBERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SANCTION THAT IS, UH, PROPOSED IN THE RECOMMENDATION? THE ONLY THING I, I JUST WANTED TO ASK CHAD, IF, SINCE YOU MADE THE MOTION TO MAKE SURE YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TO, TO MR. WIGGIN'S POINT THAT HE, THERE WAS NO HARM.
THE WHOLE IDEA WOULD BE HE COULD HAVE FILLED, I THINK THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE SAYING TOO, HE COULD HAVE FILLED THE REST OF THE DAY, THE, WITH ADDITIONAL WORK, BUT THE FACT THAT HE THEN, THAT THERE WERE OVERTIME HOURS BILLED AT THE, AT THE RATE THAT MR. BEAVER'S RESPOND, PUT ON THE SCREEN, SHOWS THAT THAT WAS AN ADDITIONAL $1,300 NOT PAID.
I'M NOT MISSING NO, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY VIEW.
IF THE WORK WAS DONE DURING THE ORDINARY WORK DAY, THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY OVERTIME PAIN.
AND, AND I'LL, WHILE I HAVE MY MIC ON, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY, THE REASON WHY I SUGGESTED OR MOVE FOR REPRIMAND IS THAT I DON'T THINK THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL OF SERIOUS OR REPEATED IMPLICATING THE PUBLIC TRUST.
SO I THINK, TO ME, REPRIMAND SEEMED TO FIT RIGHT.
ALL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, UH, WHICH IS THE SANCTION BEING A REPRIMAND AND A REFERRAL FOR TAMMY.
ANY FURTHER DELIBERATION? DO, DO WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THE AMOUNTS OR THERE'S NOTHING, RIGHT? IT, NO, THE, THE AMOUNT WOULD BE WHATEVER THE CITY PAID FOR THE LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
WELL, I'M SORRY, I WAS ANSWERING THE WRONG QUESTION.
THE, THE AMOUNT WOULD BE WHATEVER THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INVESTIGATION INCLUDES WOULD BE THE AMOUNT HE IS THE CITY.
UM, THE QUESTION IS, UM, MR. BIEBER'S RECOMME, THE, UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE, UH, LEGAL COSTS OF MR. GANNON.
SO THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE PART OF THE MOTION.
ANY FURTHER DELIBERATION? IS THERE A MOTION? UH, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? STATE FIVE THAT SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, I AYE, I'M SORRY.
I, I JUST WANNA SAY ONE THING, THAT THIS IS THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT WE HAVE HAD SINCE THE CITY APPOINTED A, UH, AN INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UH, I WANNA THANK, THANK THE STAFF, THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAFF COUNSEL FOR ALL OF THE PARTIES, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
[07:05:02]
AND COMMISSIONERS, ESPECIALLY FOR YOUR PATIENTS IN COOPERATION, AS WE HAVE WORKED THROUGH THE FIRST ONE OF THESE.WITH THAT, I THINK WE'RE, OUR, OUR WORK HERE IS DONE.
UH, DON'T GET, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT.
NO, I JUST WANTED TO THANK ALL YOU ALL.
IT IS 5 44 AND THE MEETING OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS COMPLETED.