Opinion ID: 202423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Aracelis Gascot-Cuadrado

Text: 43
44 Gascot had a bachelor's degree in business administration, with a focus on secondary education, and a master's degree in administration and supervision of schools. She worked as a teacher in a number of high schools, and then later in a superintendent's office until 1993 when she began working in the CDA as the entrepreneurial director, which at that time was categorized as an Assistant II position. She worked in this position for seven years. In the spring of 2000, Gascot became aware of a posting, dated April 14, 2000, for the position of director of the CDA's management and entrepreneurial school, a career position. She applied for and obtained this position, which had an eight-month probation period [and] I was to have evaluations every two months ... the first evaluation undertaken from June the 1st to July the 31st. The first of the first two months of work. The probation period would end on January 31, 2001. Gascot's duties included managing the school's equipment and physical resources, budgeting, and planning the school's curriculum. 45 Within that eight-month period, Gascot was evaluated for the following time periods: (1) June 1, 2000 to July 31, 2000; (2) August 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000; (3) October 1, 2000 to November 30, 2000; and (4) December 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. These evaluations were performed by Gonzalez. Gascot received all positive evaluations. After Gonzalez's departure following the change in administration, Gascot was not informed of anyone taking Gonzalez's position. 46
47 Aside from a general, agency-wide meeting where he was introduced to the CDA as the newly-appointed administrator on January 9, Gascot recalled only one occasion in which [she] met personally with Santiago, which occurred on January 14 or 15. On that occasion she went to his office: [a] group of employees was dismissed [from their jobs] and he asked me to explain to him regarding an aid program for them. I explained to him what the program was about, and what was normally done. Gascot stated that Santiago never discussed the nature of her work at the CDA and never conducted any evaluation of the program she directed. Gascot testified that during the transitionary period a report was made for the work performed at the school and it stated the amount of participants which had increased and the working plan. While it is unclear from the record whether Gascot prepared this report herself, Gascot stated that Santiago never requested from her either statistics about the school or that working plan. 48 On her final evaluation, for the period from January 1 to January 31, Gascot noted that as to her planning, organization, and performance, Santiago had written the same thing: improper utilization of funds and resources available in the offering of courses, careless in the effective maintenance of the vehicle assigned to the school. Gascot testified that this evaluation was not discussed with me at any time and was given to me on January 31, 2001. That was the date that ended my probation period. On January 31, Gascot was told not to leave work that day without going to the administrator's office. She went to the administrator's office at 5:10 pm, where she was handed a letter that read, in part: [i]n view of the above, effective today, January 31, 2001, you are being separated from the position you have been occupying at the agency. If you are not in agreement with this decision you are entitled to discuss it within the next ten days with the personnel administration. Gascot stated that [w]hen the document was given to me and I was about to talk ... [Defendant] Ms. Vilma Giménez [sic] tells me that that [sic] is not the forum for me to talk. 49 According to Gascot, it was only later, through Santiago's deposition, that she learned why Santiago had given her such a negative final evaluation. Gascot recalled that Santiago had said that [she] had been assigned a mobile unit [truck] ... [which] was deteriorated and [she] had used it wrongly and it was not well used and there were badly used funds. To Gascot's knowledge, the vehicle was purchased by a prior administrator in 1995 or 1996 for the CDA. It was her understanding that [a]ll agency vehicles are under the General Services Administration. They are the ones who provide maintenance of the vehicles. Gascot claimed that she never used the vehicle during her time as director of the managerial school. Gascot also learned through Santiago's deposition that rumors came to him from other business centers and business people that the courses were inefficient and nonoperative, but he could not recall the names of anyone from whom he heard these rumors. 50 On cross-examination, Gascot again testified that she believed that the agency vehicle for which Santiago held her responsible was, in fact, the responsibility of the general services department, which, as of August 2000, was run by Negrón. 51
52 Gascot stated that she was affiliated with the NPP, and had been since she first voted forty (40) years ago. She participated in ladies' groups, political reelection groups, and professional agencies. She also belonged to an NPP group comprised of CDA employees that met outside of working hours. During the 2000 election, Gascot participated in municipal campaigns, and served as an election functionary, checking voter lists. Gascot testified that she knew the political affiliations of both Hernández and Santiago—they were both members of the PDP. As to Hernández, Gascot stated that Hernández had been working [at the CDA] for many years. She has held high posts within her town. She's also worked within her political party and it is known throughout all the [CDA] employees that she belongs to the Popular Democratic Party. As to Santiago, Gascot testified that when he came to the [CDA] he came from COFEC [Corporation for the Economic Development of the Capital City].... It was a department within the municipality of San Juan created when Sila Maria Calderon [the new PDP governor] was there. 53 Gascot testified that her affiliation was known at the CDA because she first arrived at the CDA as a special aide under an NPP administration, a trust position. Gascot recalled specifically that Hernández had direct knowledge of her affiliation. Gascot recalled an incident when she first started working as the director of the managerial school. Hernández, who Gascot identified as the institutional brain of the CDA, asked her to identify her political affiliation. By institutional brain, Gascot understood Hernández to be an individual who dedicate[s] themselves to identify[ing] the [political affiliation of the] people when they come in. Hernández was the person who knows everybody in there.