"There is nothing worse than a liar and a thief"


There is nothing worse than a liar and a thief and when some forced to resign retread is imported by the city manager and within two weeks of starting here lies to all the employees and then methodically tries to disenfranchise virtually all the older long term employees it results in the following:
Coastal Florida
Police Benevolent Association
810 Fentress Ct., Suite 150 Daytona Beach, FL 32117 (386) 304-2393 » 1-800-625-5451
Tuesday, May 26,2015
To: Mr. David Harden
Port Orange City Manager
Reference: Demand for Impact Collective Bargaining
As General Counsel of Coastal Florida PBA/PEA, it has come to my attention that the Public Utilities Director, Andrew Neff, intends to institute a massive reorganization that would include an elimination of the maintenance department. It is also my understanding that as proposed, the reorganization would have a disproportionately large impact on the older employees of the city.
While the city may have a right to reorganize the structure of the city’s departments, the city does have an obligation under Florida Statutes chapter 447 to engage Coastal Florida Public Employees Association in collective bargaining over the impact of those changes on the wages or other working conditions of the bargaining unit members. This must happen before enacting any such reorganization.
If the city does intend to enact a reorganization that would impact the members’ working conditions, please provide the details of the proposals and some dates the city would be available to begin collective bargaining over the impact of the proposed changes.
Protecting The Protectors

[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bznby4cJhHWTN0M5N19vbGxNbHc/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”city manager letter 5-26-15.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” width=”100%” height=”900″ style=”embed”]

11 thoughts on “"There is nothing worse than a liar and a thief"

  • May 27, 2015 at 8:01 pm

    3M To Pay $3 Million To Settle Age Discrimination Claim
    • Print
    • Email
    Article InformationPublished on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 23:23
    3M has agreed to pay $3 million to a class of former employees to resolve a nationwide age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC alleged that “3M unlawfully laid off hundreds of employees over the age of 45 during a series of reductions in force (RIFs) from July 1, 2003 through Dec. 31, 2006.” Further, according to the EEOC, the layoff included many highly paid older employees, including the level of director. The EEOC also alleged that 3M did not provide older employees with leadership training and laid off older workers to make way for younger workers. The EEOC’s investigation revealed an e-mail from a 3M employee describing then-CEO Jim McNerney’s “vision for leadership development” as “we should be developing 30 year olds with General Manager potential” and “He wants us to tap into the youth as participants in the leadership development.” Age discrimination is prohibited pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects people aged 40 and older from employment discrimination. Pending approval, 3M will pay $3 million in monetary relief to approximately 290 former employees. In addition, 3M will implement a review process for termination decisions and training on how to prevent age bias. 3M will report on its compliance, provide RIF information to the EEOC over the next three years, and post a notice about the settlement. Michael Baldonado, district director of the EEOC’s San Francisco office, stated that “The law requires employers to base employment decisions upon each person’s strengths and talents instead of relying upon generalized assumptions calculated around an employee’s age…This consent decree is the result of productive and thoughtful negotiations with 3M. In addition to providing meaningful monetary relief for hundreds of former 3M employees, the settlement contains important preventive measures, including company policy changes and training designed to provide older people equal opportunities in the workplace.” Read More.
    Age Discrimination Claims Can Be Costly for Employer
    • Print
    • Email
    Article InformationPublished on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 15:56
    The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older. Discrimination can occur when the victim of age discrimination and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40. The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. It is also unlawful to harass a person because of his or her age. Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person’s age. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
    As a recent case demonstrates, age discrimination claims can be costly for employers. In the case, a unanimous jury of nine decided that RadioShack intentionally fired an employee in retaliation for his complaints about age discrimination. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) lawsuit, in the fall of 2007, David Nelson, then 55, had been employed for more than 25 years when RadioShack assigned a new, 43-year-old regional manager to supervise him. The EEOC charged that within four months of the new supervisor’s arrival at the regional office in Denver, Nelson, who had a spotless performance record, was placed on two performance improvement plans. Nelson believed that he was being discriminated against by his new supervisor because of his age and he complained to the human resources department about the discrimination. Within five days of the first complaint, before the period for assessing the improvement in his performance had expired, RadioShack allegedly terminated Nelson in retaliation for his discrimination complaint.
    The Denver jury awarded Nelson $187,000 in back pay on the retaliation claim and found that this conduct by RadioShack was willful. Federal Court Judge Lewis T. Babcock will decide several issues in the near future, including liquidated damages, which is double back pay, since the jury found the behavior to be willful. The judge will also determine whether front pay is appropriate and, if so, the amount of front pay, as well as equitable relief. EEOC Senior Trial Attorney William (Bill) Moench, who tried the case commented that, “With the graying of the work force, employers may not base employment decisions on age-based stereotypes — it is unlawful. There was credible testimony during the trial that when a new supervisor started at RadioShack he made a derogatory comment about employees in their 50’s. We are heartened that the jury saw RadioShack’s discriminatory behavior for what it was — wrong and illegal… .” Read More.
    An Inference of Age Discrimination May Exist if Others Not In Protected Class Are Treated More Favorably
    • Print
    • Email
    Article InformationPublished on Monday, 24 September 2012 17:49
    The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee who is over forty years of age because of the employee’s age. Under a “disparate treatment” theory of discrimination, a plaintiff in an ADEA case can establish age discrimination based on: (1) “circumstantial evidence” of age discrimination; or (2) “direct evidence” of age discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the employee must allege that he or she was: (1) at least forty years old; (2) performing his or her job satisfactorily; (3) discharged; and (4) either replaced by a substantially younger employee with equal or inferior qualifications or discharged under circumstances otherwise giving rise to an inference of age discrimination. An inference of discrimination can be established by showing the employer had a continuing need for the employee’s skills and services in that their various duties were still being performed . . . or by showing that others not in their protected class were treated more favorably.
    In a recent case, Sheppard v. David Evans and Assoc., Kathryn Sheppard, who worked for David Evans and Assoc., alleged that that she was wrongfully terminated due to her age (over forty). She also alleged that even though her performance was satisfactory or better and she received consistently good performance reviews, she was terminated and five of younger coworkers kept their jobs. Although the lower court held that Sheppard had not pled sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, on appeal to the 9th Circuit, the court disagreed holding that Sheppard’s allegation that “her five younger comparators kept their jobs gives rise to an ‘inference of age discrimination’ because it plausibly suggests that Evans ‘had a continuing need for [Sheppard’s] skills and services [because her] various duties were still being performed.’ It also plausibly suggests that employees outside her protected class ‘were treated more favorably’ than Sheppard.”
    This case highlights the fact that employers must be careful about termination of employees who are age 40 or older to ensure that it does not constitute a violation of the ADEA. An inference of age discrimination may exist in situations where a group of employees is performing the same job but only the employee over age 40 is terminated, even though the employee did not have performance issues. Similarly, an inference of age discrimination may exist in situations where an employee is over the age of 40, has no performance issues, is terminated, and subsequently replaced by a younger employee. In cases where performance problems do exist with a worker protected by the ADEA, it is essential that such problems be properly documented in advance of any termination. Read More.
    AT&T Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by EEOC
    • Print
    • Email
    Article InformationPublished on Thursday, 27 October 2011 16:52
    AT&T has agreed to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC charged that AT&T discriminated against a class of retired AT&T workers by denying them the opportunity for reemployment because they retired under certain early retirement programs. The EEOC claimed that this practice violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, individuals who participated in the early retirement programs were restricted by AT&T from being reemployed or engaged as contractors because they took one of these retirement packages. The EEOC filed suit after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. AT&T denied the allegations in the lawsuit, but agreed to change its policies related to the reemployment of retirees. The consent decree prohibits AT&T from maintaining any policy that excludes from reemployment employees who left AT&T under one of the early retirement plans. The decree also prohibits AT&T from requiring a different process for selecting retirees than any other former employees. Anna M. Pohl, an EEOC trial attorney, commented that “Many former employees who took an early retirement package years ago still need work, and will now have an equal opportunity to apply for new jobs at AT&T…AT&T is to be commended for changing its policies and working with the EEOC to resolve this case.” Read More.

    • May 27, 2015 at 10:09 pm

      Nine Signs of Age Discrimination
      Age Discrimination In my experience as an employment lawyer representing employees, I’ve found that the recession was particularly hard on older employees. They seem to have been disproportionately targeted in layoffs, and they have a much harder time finding new jobs.
      Employers might assume you’re close to retirement and don’t need a job, but that’s far from true for most Americans. They might also assume that older employees will miss more work or have more medical issues. Yet statistics show that older employees tend to be the most reliable. It’s not only foolish to discriminate based on age — it’s also illegal for most companies to do so.
      Who’s Protected From Age Discrimination?
      The Age Discrimination in Employment Act says that it’s illegal for an employer to discriminate against you because of your age, but that only applies if you’re age 40 or older, and only if the employer has at least 20 employees (or is a government of any size). Some states, counties and cities have laws that protect employees of smaller organizations. Some states also have laws that further limit age-based discrimination. Always check with an employment lawyer in your state when in doubt.
      But How Do I Prove Age Discrimination?
      Here are the top signs that you might be a victim of age discrimination:
      1. Biased comments
      These are the most obvious signs, and thus the rarest. If your boss calls you “grandma” or “old man,” asks you about your retirement plans, says that they want a younger image, or says that your best days are behind you — document it. This could be considered direct evidence of discrimination. If there are any witnesses, write down their names. Note dates, times and places.
      2. Comparisons
      Look around you. Pay attention to how younger employees are treated. If they are treated differently than you under the same circumstances, that could be evidence of age discrimination. Who was laid off and who wasn’t? If older people were the primary targets, start writing down their names, along with the names of younger, less-qualified employees who were kept on.
      3. Disparate discipline
      If you’re disciplined for something that younger employees do without consequences, write it down. They might be building a case against you due to your age.
      4. Promotions
      If you’re more qualified than a younger employee, but you’re not chosen for a promotion that you applied for, it may well be due to your age.
      5. Favoritism
      If younger employees are given the best leads, assignments and equipment, this could be a sign of age discrimination. Additionally, if older employees are excluded from key meetings, or if the boss only socializes with younger employees, then these too may be signs of age-based discrimination.
      6. Hiring younger employees
      If you see a pattern of your company hiring only younger employees, or if you are turned down for a position that you apply for and see it given to a less-qualified younger employee, it may be a sign that the company is discriminating due to age.
      7. Suddenly stupid
      Does the attitude at work change after you hit an age milestone? Or does a new boss only like younger employees? If you turn, say, 50 or 60 and suddenly get negative performance reviews and write-ups, you might have an age-discrimination claim.
      8. Harassment
      If it doesn’t affect you in the wallet, it’s considered harassment. If you think your boss is trying to make you miserable due to your age to try to get you to quit, or if you’re being called names and made fun of due to your age, start writing it down.
      9. But the boss is older
      Even if the boss is your age or older, if they prefer younger employees over older ones, it still might be age discrimination.
      What to Do If You’re Being Subjected to Age Discrimination
      If the company hands you a severance agreement and you think you’ve been targeted for layoff due to your age, contact an employment lawyer. They might be able to negotiate a better severance package for you. Plus you might be giving up rights that you don’t need to sign away. Always read and understand before you sign.
      If you’re being harassed (something that doesn’t affect you in the wallet) because of your age, then the Supreme Court says that you have to report it, if the company has a harassment policy, and give them a chance to fix the situation. Only if they don’t remedy it, or if the harassment continues, can you file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or your state agency. If you just up and quit, or if you skip this step, you may lose your right to sue for discrimination.
      If it’s an adverse employment action, like denial of a promotion, a demotion, suspension without pay, or termination/layoff, you need to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (they’re at http://www.eeoc.gov) or your state/county/city agency before you can sue.
      You will have either 180 days or 300 days from the date of discrimination, depending on your state, to file with the EEOC.
      Your state/county/city might have different deadlines. Don’t miss your deadline! This is a requirement before you’re allowed to sue.
      Federal employees have a completely different set of rules for filing a discrimination claim. They have 45 days to see their designated EEOC counselor, with an entire investigative process that circumvents the EEOC. There’s a morass of tangled hoops to jump through, so if you work for the federal government be particularly careful not to miss any deadlines.
      Most importantly, if you think you’re the victim of age discrimination, gather your notes and evidence and go see an employment lawyer in your state, so that you can find out whether you have a potential claim and what you need to do under your state’s laws.

  • May 28, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    Retaining and Benefiting From Long-Term Employees
    May 3rd, 2011 by CAI
    All successful company leaders and senior management executives understand the value that comes from long-term employee relationships. With low levels of turnover, organizations are better positioned for success, internal consistency and stability, but how can companies get to the point where employees consider their place of employment permanent instead of temporary? It all comes down to maintenance, recognizing individual and departmental needs and making those needs an overall company priority. Here are five ways to keep your employees’ loyalty at a high level:
    Motivating and challenging workload – Boredom is one of the fastest ways to have your staff turn to job employment search engines. There is little or no excitement that comes from performing the same routine day-to-day. Even though the mundane tasks still need completion, make sure employees are participants in interesting projects and that their workload is challenging.
    Acknowledgement and appreciation of work well done – Confirmation of strong performance is more effective than you may realize. By publicly acknowledging the achievements of your staff, you remind individuals of their own personal value to the organization, which is critical. When employees can visually recognize that the work they do not only matters, but makes a difference on a companywide scale, they have little reason to find satisfaction elsewhere.
    Upward growth opportunities – When given a challenging workload and excelling at the tasks at hand, employees sooner or later are going to inquire about internal advancement. Be open to discussing growth opportunities and remember, employees are not looking for instantaneous promotion; they just want to know that there is an open path for management consideration.
    Healthy working environment – Does your company operate under high levels of tension, stress or anxiety? Monitor the environment your employees are exposed to and try to keep high levels of stress and concern within executive offices. When employees are aware of all elements of the organization, performance levels may decrease because of the concern and worry that arises.
    Personal relationships and understanding – Employees are likely to remain loyal when relationships have a personal component. It’s important to maintain the subordinate-management roles, but make sure that employees understand you are there for support, mentorship and guidance.
    Long-term employees have a strong organizational knowledge base that will assist in the teaching and training of new company members. Investing in your current staff will always benefit you and your company in the long run.

  • May 29, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    The 12 Steps of “Restructuring” Jobs to Eliminate Older Workers
    September 25, 2011 By UndercoverLawyer 5 Comments
    A bully boss will go to great lengths to terminate an employee they no longer want. Frequently age discrimination, a kind of senior-employee-phobia, is the root cause. As both a defense lawyer advising companies, and in my role as the Undercover Lawyer advising individuals, I’ve witnessed the following pattern many times:
    1.) First Time Supervisor is in his/her 30’s and nervous about being in charge of other employees
    2.) First Time Supervisor is intimidated and scared of employees who are in their 50’s and 60’s, but doesn’t want anyone to know it
    3.) Employees in their 50’s and 60’s get micro-managed and nit picked by the First Time Supervisor over minuscule issues, which are the only issues the First Time Supervisor understands
    4.) Older Employees get sick of being nattered at about non-essential aspects of their jobs
    5.) The Older Employees voice their concerns about First Time Supervisor to higher management, exposing gaping holes in the First Time Supervisor’s job knowledge
    6.) First Time Supervisor reacts angrily, and starts “writing up” the Older Employees for minuscule mistakes in non-essential areas of their jobs
    7.) HR informs the First Time Supervisor that the Senior Employees have too many years of good appraisals to fire them right away for job performance
    8.) HR and First Time Supervisor decide to “re-engineer the department” and “flatten the structure” (which means eliminating 2 senior level jobs occupied by older employees)
    9.) To discourage the Older Employees from applying for one of the three so-called “new” jobs, the three new jobs pay far less than the two eliminated positions
    10.) The pay range of the three new positions are perfectly acceptable to young employees in their 20’s who have roommates to help pay rent and no families to support
    11.) This change is reported to the Press and the Government as “utilizing efficiencies for the net creation of one job”
    12.) Bullies in other organizati0ns point to “jobs creation” like this as proof that “if you don’t like it here you can just quit and find a position with another company”
    Take a look at the video below, then let me know in the comments section if you have seen or experienced this pattern in your own work life.

  • May 29, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Didn’t the previous public utility director that only lasted 7 months Tiny Yarborough have a massive reorganization planned for public utilities employees? I thought the PEA came in to represent about 2 dozen employees during an internal investigation in which much evidence was brought forth that would suggest Mr. Yarborough may have committed age discrimination, violation of HIPPA laws, slander, bribery, intimidation, and generally creating a hostile work environment. Instead of following through with the investigation and verifying the evidence, the city asked Tiny Yarborough for his resignation.
    In spite of being forced to resign from a previous assignment in Palm Bay for similar infractions against the employees he managed, the city manager in Port Orange, (who was fired from his previous job also) hired Jason Yarborough even though Jason never applied for the job, and there were viable candidates that had already been through the interview process. Jason was brought in to crush the union and gut the public utilities department by his very actions, and by the plethora of evidence he hastily left behind on his disheveled desk.
    Now, David Harden (a city manager asked to leave Winter Park for illegal procurement of tax free fleet vehicle purchases for his and his church buddies own personal ownership) has hired Smiling Bunny Teeth, an administrator that was booted out of Seminole County along with his boss and the personal reference on his resume Joe Forte. Neff and Joe Forte with a number of other fired Seminole County administrators were summoned before the Ethics Commission in Tallahassee the same week that Harden hired him as the new public utility director. Neff never applied for the public utility director in Port Orange but was a candidate for the public works director. Harden did not honor the selection committees process that he set up and passed over selected candidates to vet Neff in spite of him being the lowest rated candidate by the committees after 3 rounds of interviews.
    Neff was imported by Harden to gut public utilities and run off all the long term employees. Neff told his new staff that he had no agendas coming in and had no intention of making any radical changes or doing any reorganizations. Within two weeks Neff announced to everyone that he was now planning a massive departmental reorganization. He was fired from his last job, and his work history would suggest that he never stays in one place for more than three to five years since the inception of his career. He has also been planning to fire Fred Griffith for many weeks now and has been coercing public utility employees to sign statements that they have witnessed behavioral problems in his professional interactions. In essence, Mr. Neff has been preparing a paper trail on Mr. Griffith, in order to deliver a scape goat for the city manager to temporarily appease the city activists. I sure hope none of our elected officials are complicit in this, and it would be nice to see an elected official with some integrity and a pair of cojones to step up and put an end to the endless shit.

    • May 30, 2015 at 5:33 pm

      Don’t push retiring employee out early; you’ll risk age lawsuit
      by Business Briefing on April 5, 2004 12:00am
      in Discrimination and Harassment,Firing,Human Resources
      Just because an older employee is preparing to retire, it doesn’t give your organization the right to push him out the door.
      The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which outlaws job bias against people age 40 and older, does allow you to make reasonable inquiries into employees’ plans, including retirement. But watch your timing.
      Employees will hit you with an age-discrimination lawsuit if they’re fired right after disclosing their retirement plans. And courts will side with them.
      Bottom line: Remind supervisors to make age-neutral employment decisions. And if you plan to fire, demote or discipline workers, make sure it’s not right after they discussed their upcoming retirement.
      Recent case: Dr. Gerald Strauch, 69, served as the head of a trauma department for 13 years. When a new director arrived, he asked Strauch about his plans. Strauch said he planned to retire in two years. Soon after, the director hired a new, younger replacement for Strauch, and Strauch was shown the door.
      Strauch filed an ADEA lawsuit. The employer tried to argue that its decision didn’t concern Strauch’s termination, just the timing of his departure. The court didn’t buy it, saying that considering an employee’s age when determining the timing of a firing is no different than considering his age when making the firing decision itself. (Strauch v. American College of Surgeons, No. 02 C 3314, N.D. Ill., 2004)

      • May 30, 2015 at 7:09 pm

        Isn’t Joe Coury the board member of the South Daytona/Port Orange chamber of commerce who is connected to Allen Green and was brought in a couple of years ago to psychoanalyze finance department employees and clean house?

  • June 5, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    Completed Completed Completed Current
    Home Search
    openings Search
    results Job
    View help for this window Help
    Job details
    Job 1 of 1
    Working Title Instrumentation Control Technician 2
    Auto req ID 1416BR
    Organization OM5505522 Homestead FS-Pump Station Ops & Maint
    Location Homestead Field Station
    Job Description
    This is a senior career technician that performs a broad range of work involving routine to difficult installation, calibration, repair, maintenance, and troubleshooting of new and existing automated systems. Installation, calibration, and preventive maintenance on various complex electrical and electronic instruments and devices such as Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC), soft start/hard start motor controls, variable frequency drives and instruments that involve hydraulic or pneumatic systems. Troubleshoots and calibrates closed loop automated systems and electrical controls. Assembles, troubleshoots, and services electrical, electronic, hydraulic, pneumatic, and mechanical modules and assemblies from schematics, rough sketches, and verbal instructions to support Operations and Maintenance operations while ensuring safety and environmental compliance.
    Writes and updates drawings, technical reports, equipment data sheets, and all other equipment information as well as operation and maintenance manuals. Tests continuity of circuits to insure electric compatibility and safety of components using testing instruments such as computers, software, ohmmeter, oscilloscope and voltmeter. Evaluates functioning of installed equipment or system to detect hazards and the need for adjustments, relocation, or replacement. Diagnoses and replaces damaged or broken wires and cables, malfunctioning electrical apparatus such as transformers, motors, instruments, transducers, solenoids, valves and valve actuators. Plans layout, installs, and repairs conduit and wiring, electrical fixtures, apparatus and control equipment. Plans new or modified installations to minimize waste of materials, provides access for future maintenance, and avoids unsightly, hazardous, and unreliable wiring. Ensures all work is consistent with specifications and local electrical codes.
    Performs advanced analysis and interpretation of test data. May edit Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) programs using software. Coordinates with District departments and interacts with contractors to provide liaison support to ensure high quality and consistent installations throughout the District. Works with manufacturers and vendors to handle issues and questions. Recommends new procedures, equipment or changes to service schedules. Stays abreast of new technologies, methods, and products. Provides technical expertise and trains/ leads lower level staff.
    Has advanced knowledge of electrical, electronics, hydraulics, pneumatics, mechanical devices, instrumentation, and controls software and hardware. Is adept in performing mathematical (electronic) calculations. Has working knowledge of theory, design characteristics, operation, and functions of District equipment. Has the ability to apply critical reading skills and advanced skill in interpreting diagrams, sketches, and other work related documents. Has advanced knowledge of electrical/ electronic theory/ practices, instrumentation, and local electrical codes. Is detailed oriented with effective time management, analytical, and problem solving skills. Is skilled in using a PC with applicable software. Has effective verbal and written communication skills. Has the ability to interact effectively and courteously with the public, co-workers, supervisors, and managers. Is willing and capable of working with teams as an integral team member.
    Has physical stamina including the ability to stoop, climb, and maneuver in hard-to-reach places in a hot, wet/humid environment. Operates a variety of heavy vehicles. Considerable field travel (including overnight) to devices throughout the District. Regularly sets up, adjusts, controls, tests and operates equipment to complete assignments. Work environment may be hot and humid with no facilities. Moves or otherwise transports equipment weighing up to 50 pounds or more.
    Employment Guidelines
    Typically has Associate’s Degree in a related discipline, such as but not limited to Electronics Engineering, Electronics Technology and Electrical Engineering and 5+ years experience that demonstrates measurable technical career growth in the instrumentation control discipline.
    International Society of Automation Certified Control Systems Technician (CCST) Certification Level I; or National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) Level III or Level IV; or American Society for Quality, Training, Certification and Networks (ASQ) Calibration Technician Certification required. If incumbent does not posses any of these certifications, incumbent must obtain the CCST Level I Certification within one year of hire date and/or placement in the job.
    US military consideration will be given for the rate/rank of Naval Electronic Technician Second Class and above; or the equivalent within other branches of the US Armed Forces.
    Journeyman Electrician License preferred.
    Valid State of Florida Driver’s License.
    Physical Requirements/ Working Environment
    Due to the District’s response role and in the total scope of emergency management, this position may at times, be required to provide support before, during, and after major storm events and emergency situations, such as hurricanes or other declared emergencies, depending on assigned emergency response role.
    Regularly sets up, adjusts, controls, tests and operates equipment to complete assignments. Work environment may be hot and humid with no facilities. Moves or otherwise transports equipment weighing up to 50 pounds or more.
    Salary Minimum $51,792.00
    Salary Midpoint: $61,547.20
    Salary Maximum $88,753.60

    • June 6, 2015 at 3:43 pm

      This is how Port Orange competes in the job market. Pitiful. Good luck filling that position. This job is very instrumental in keeping all of our utilities in compliance with state and federal regulations.

  • June 6, 2015 at 8:47 pm

    I hear that there are several other key utilities personnel who are going to drop the news that they are retiring earlier than they had planned and their exodus will not be pretty. They may be planning to get on the council agenda like Kyle Brayman did and explain that their retirement plans have been expedited by Mr. Neff’s ill conceived and deceptive reorganization. A major utility with over $750,000,000 worth of high tech infrastructure that recently had two instrument and control technicians now has none. Upper management was told ahead of time that this was going to happen and they scoffed at it. Now their game plan is to advertise these openings with a starting salary not much higher than somebody flipping hamburgers at McDonalds. I wonder what happens when from lack of maintenance the process logic controllers drift out of parameters without periodic program tuning and the whole utility system drops out with no one available to intervene. Who will become the scapegoat for that?

    • June 7, 2015 at 10:49 am

      I think they are planning to recruit from all the burger joints. Management and council were warned about this several years ago. I guess they don’t take the health and safety of our citizens too seriously. Maybe when they start drinking toilet quality water and sewage is flowing down the streets they’ll wake up. No future planning. I have talked to several veteran utilities employees that are not happy with the present management situation and are making plans to retire or seek employment elsewhere for much more money and benefits as soon as possible. We have low wages, reduced benefits and lousy management. These people are loyal employees and could probably handle the wages and benefits if we had decent management. Loyalty works both ways…. Bring in the clowns.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.