Court Opinion

ID: 2964136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:05.894928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.856277
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

           June 6, 1996
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2167

                             WILLIE VICTOR ORTIZ-PI ERO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                VICTOR RIVERA-ARROYO,
                     INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAYOR OF GURABO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

             The opinion of this Court  issued on May 15, 1996, is  amended as
        follows:

             Cover  page:   Change "[Hon.  Hector M.  Laffitte, U.S.  District
                                                                ______________
        Judge" to "Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge" 
        _____                              __________________________

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2167

                             WILLIE VICTOR ORTIZ-PI ERO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                VICTOR RIVERA-ARROYO,
                     INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAYOR OF GURABO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                 [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Carlos A. Del Valle Cruz for appellant.
             ________________________
             Elisa Bobonis Lang, with whom Jos  R. Gaztambide and Gaztambide &
             __________________            __________________     ____________
        Plaza were on brief for appellees. 
        _____

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                     May 15, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                          2

                                          3

                    CYR,  Circuit Judge.    Plaintiff  Willie Victor  Ortiz
                    CYR,  Circuit Judge.
                          _____________

          Pinero ("Ortiz") appeals from  a district court judgment dismiss-

          ing  his  political discrimination  claims  against  the City  of

          Gurabo, Puerto Rico, and its incumbent Mayor.  We affirm.

                                          I
                                          I

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

                    In  1981,  the City  of  Gurabo  enacted an  ordinance,

          pursuant to P.R.  Laws Ann.  tit. 3,    1351, designating  eleven

          municipal offices as  positions of "trust"  or "confidentiality,"

          including  the directorship  of  the Office  of Federal  Programs

          ("OFP"), the municipal agency charged with obtaining and adminis-

          tering  federal funding for  various public works  projects.  See
                                                                        ___

          Municipal Ordinance No. 3, Series 1981-82 (Sept. 14, 1981).

                    In  August  1991,  then-Mayor  Ramon  Garcia  Caraballo

          appointed Ortiz, a fellow member  of the Popular Democratic Party

          (PDP),  as OFP Director, and allegedly  described the position to

          Ortiz  as a  non-"confidence"  position.   Mayor Caraballo  later

          extended  Ortiz' appointment  through August  1993.   In November

          1992, however,  after the PDP  mayoral candidate was  rejected by

          the electorate,  outgoing Mayor Caraballo notified  Ortiz that he

          should  resign  forthwith  because  the OFP  directorship  was  a

          "confidential" position which the new administration was entitled

          to fill.   Ortiz refused to resign.  Thereafter, the incoming New

          Progressive  Party (NPP) mayor,  defendant-appellee Willie Victor

          Rivera Arroyo ("Rivera"), dismissed Ortiz.  

                    In due  course, Ortiz initiated the  present action for

                                          4

          damages and reinstatement under 42 U.S.C.   1983 against the City

          of Gurabo and Mayor Rivera, claiming political discrimination and

          deprivation  of  his property  interest  in  continued employment

          without the benefit  of a pretermination hearing, in violation of

          the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the  United States Consti-

          tution.   The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground

          that the OFP directorship is a "trust" position for which compat-

          ible  political  affiliation  constitutes  a  legitimate qualifi-

          cation.   See  Branti v. Finkel,  445 U.S.  507 (1980);  Elrod v.
                    ___  ______    ______                          _____

          Burns, 427 U.S.  347 (1976).  Their  motion was accompanied  by a
          _____

          written  "certification" from the  City personnel office defining

          the responsibilities  of the OFP directorship.1   After determin-

          ing  that the evidence compelled a finding that the OFP director-

          ship is  a  trust position,  the district  court granted  summary

          judgment for defendants on  all claims.  Ortiz-Pinero v.  Rivera-
                                                   ____________     _______

          Acevedo, 900 F. Supp. 574 (D.P.R. 1995). 
          _______

                                          II
                                          II

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

          A.   Standard of Review
          A.   Standard of Review
               __________________

                    We review de novo,  to determine whether the pleadings,
                              __ ____

                              
          ____________________

               1The certification  lists five responsibilities:   (1) "[t]o
          direct,  coordinate  and  supervise  all the  operations  of  the
          Federal  Programs Office"; (2)  "[t]o see  to the  compliance and
          good  functioning of  said  Office";  (3)  "[t]o submit  all  the
          corresponding  reports to  the Municipal  Services Administration
          Program, the  State Agency  delegated upon  by the  C.D.G.B. Pro-
          gram";  (4) "[t]o  take part  in seminars  and training  that are
          offered on the Federal Programs as well as to accompany the Mayor
          in all  matters concerning  the Program"; and  (5) "[t]o  perform
          other similar duties as assigned." 

                                          5

          depositions, answers to interrogatories,  and admissions on file,

          together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue

          as to any material fact and  that the moving party is entitled to

          judgment  as a matter of law.   See O'Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d
                                          ___ ________    _______

          905,  906-07 (1st  Cir.), cert.  denied, 114  S. Ct.  634 (1993).
                                    _____  ______

          Although all  competent evidence  and  reasonable inferences  are

          viewed in  the light most favorable to Ortiz, he cannot carry the

          day on mere "`conclusory  allegations, improbable inferences, and

          unsupported  speculation.'"   Id. (quoting  Medina-Munoz v.  R.J.
                                        ___           ____________     ____

          Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir.1990)).
          ____________________

          B.   First Amendment Claim
          B.   First Amendment Claim
               _____________________

               1.   Applicable Law
               1.   Applicable Law
                    ______________

                    In a political discrimination case, the plaintiff first

          must show that party affiliation was a  substantial or motivating

          factor  for the challenged action.   See Mount  Healthy City Sch.
                                               ___ ________________________

          Dist. Bd.  of Educ. v.  Doyle, 429  U.S. 274, 287  (1977); Jirau-
          ___________________     _____                              ______

          Bernal v.  Agrait, 37 F.3d  1, 3  (1st Cir. 1994).2   The  burden
          ______     ______

          then shifts to defendants to establish either a nondiscriminatory
                                                 ______

          reason for the dismissal, see Ferrer  v. Zayas, 914 F.2d 309, 311
                                    ___ ______     _____

          (1st Cir.  1990), or that  plaintiff held a  "political" position
                            __

          for which party affiliation constituted an appropriate qualifica-

          tion  for continued employment, see  Branti, 445 U.S.  at 518; De
                                          ___  ______                    __

          Choudens v. Government Dev. Bank of P.R., 801 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir.
          ________    ____________________________

          1986),  cert. denied, 481 U.S.  1013 (1987).   Thus, the Branti/-
                  _____ ______                                     ______ _
                              
          ____________________

               2We  assume,  without  deciding, that  there  is  sufficient
          competent  evidence  that  political  affiliation  motivated  the
          dismissal. 

                                          6

          Elrod defense is designed  to ensure that "representative govern-
          _____

          ment not be undercut by tactics obstructing the implementation of

          policies  of  the new  administration, policies  presumably sanc-

          tioned by the electorate." Elrod, 427 U.S. at 367. 
                                     _____

                    Whether a  government position is  "political" does not

          depend  upon  such  loose-fitting  labels  as  "confidential"  or

          "policymaking," but on  the substance of  the duties inherent  in
                                      _________ __  ___ ______ ________  __

          the  position itself.    Branti, 445  U.S. at  518  (noting:   "a
          ___  ________ ______     ______

          position may be appropriately considered political even though it

          is neither  confidential nor policymaking in  character," and, by

          the same token, party affiliation is not a relevant consideration

          for  all  policymaking  or  confidential  positions);  see Romero
                                                                 ___ ______

          Feliciano v. Torres  Gaztambide, 836  F.2d 1, 3  (1st Cir.  1987)
          _________    __________________

          (abjuring reliance on "rigid labels" in Branti/Elrod analysis).  
                                                  ______ _____

                    We employ  a two-part  inquiry to  identify "political"

          positions under the Branti/Elrod analysis: 
                              ______ _____

                    First,  we inquire whether  the overall func-
                    tions  of the employee's department or agency
                    involve  "decision  making  on  issues  where
                    there  is room for  political disagreement on
                    goals or their  implementation."  Second,  we
                    decide  whether the  particular responsibili-
                    ties of the plaintiff's position,  within the
                    department  or agency,  resemble those  of "a
                    policymaker,  privy to  confidential informa-
                    tion,  a communicator,  or some  other office
                    holder  whose function  is  such  that  party
                    affiliation  is  an  equally appropriate  re-
                    quirement"  for continued tenure.   Among the
                    indicia  material to  the second  element are
                    "`relative  pay, technical  competence, power
                    to control  others, authority to speak in the
                    name  of   policymakers,  public  perception,
                    influence on programs,  contact with  elected
                    officials,  and  responsiveness  to  partisan
                    politics and political leaders.'"  
                                                       

                                          7

          O'Connor, 994  F.2d at  910  (quoting Jimenez  Fuentes v.  Torres
          ________                              ________________     ______

          Gaztambide, 807 F.2d 236, 241-42 (1st Cir. 1986) (en banc), cert.
          __________                                                  _____

          denied, 481 U.S. 1014 (1987)) (other citations omitted).  
          ______

                    Although obviously fact-intensive, the  ultimate deter-

          mination whether a government  position is "political" presents a

          question of law  for the court, rather than an  issue of fact for

          jury  resolution.  See McGurrin Ehrhard v. Connolly, 867 F.2d 92,
                             ___ ________________    ________

          93 (1st  Cir.  1989) (Breyer,  J.)  (noting that  the  "important

          constitutional and governmental  interests surrounding the appli-

          cation of the [Branti/Elrod] exception" make it more suitable for
                         ______ _____

          determination by the court).  Examining all competent evidence in

          the light most  favorable to Ortiz, we conduct  a de novo assess-
                                                            __ ____

          ment of the relevant  factors, see In re  Howard, 996 F.2d  1320,
                                         ___ _____  ______

          1327 (1st Cir. 1993) (plenary appellate review generally accorded

          issues of law), and "make a common sense judgment in light of the

          fundamental purpose to be served [by the Branti/Elrod analysis]."
                                                   ______ _____

          Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 242.  
          _______________

               2.   The OFP and "Partisan Political Interests"
               2.   The OFP and "Partisan Political Interests"
                    _________________________________________

                    The OFP  is charged with  marshaling and  administering

          the million  or so dollars  obtained annually from  federal agen-

          cies,  and with doling it  out for various  public works projects

          within the municipality.  Thus, the OFP unmistakably is a munici-

          pal  "department  or  agency [whose  overall  functions]  involve

          `decision making  on issues  where there  is  room for  political

          disagreement  on goals or  their implementation.'"  O'Connor, 994
                                                              ________

          F.2d  at 910 (citations omitted).  Indeed, its inherent responsi-

                                          8

          bilities inevitably  entail the kinds of  discretionary decisions

          traditionally associated with municipal politics.3   Accordingly,

          we  conclude  that  defendants  met the  first-prong  test  under

          Jimenez Fuentes.4 
          _______________

               3.   The Duties Inherent in the OFP Directorship 
               3.   The Duties Inherent in the OFP Directorship 
                    ___________________________________________

                    Under  the second  prong, we  examine any  evidence the

          defendants may have adduced that "the particular responsibilities
                                                __________ ________________

                              
          ____________________

               3See id. (noting that the first prong of the Jimenez Fuentes
                ___ ___                                     _______________
          test  was readily met  where the  municipal department  for which
          plaintiff worked was responsible for  developing and implementing
          public  works  programs, since  "[e]lections  often  turn on  the
          success or  failure of the incumbent  [administration] to provide
          these services"); Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d  at 242 (finding that
                            _______________
          regional  director of  commonwealth  housing department,  charged
          with ameliorating housing conditions  among low and middle income
          families, was a position  "relate[d] to partisan political inter-
          ests"); accord  Juarbe-Angueira v.  Arias, 831  F.2d 11,  15 (1st
                  ______  _______________     _____
          Cir. 1987) ("Where, how,  and when the government will  repair or
          reconstruct public buildings, . . . when and where money is to be
          spent, may  well be a  matter of considerable  interest to .  . .
          political leaders."), cert. denied,  485 U.S. 960 (1988); Mendez-
                                _____ ______                        _______
          Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt, 813  F.2d 1255, 1260 (1st  Cir. 1987)
          _____    _________________
          (finding Administration  for Environmental Quality  Board engaged
          in a "politically-sensitive mission" for purposes of Branti/Elrod
                                                               ______ _____
          analysis).

               4Ortiz  also contends that  the first  prong of  the Jimenez
                                                                    _______
          Fuentes test should focus upon the City as the pertinent "depart-
          _______
          ment or  agency," not on  the OFP.   Ortiz does not  contend that
          this shift in  focus would alter the  first-prong inquiry itself,
          since under  either scenario the  City or the  OFP would have  to
          undertake the politically sensitive mission of allocating federal
          funds among  various constituencies within the  municipality.  He
          argues, instead, that the shift in focus could affect the inquiry
          under prong two,  see infra Section II.B.3(b),  since Ortiz could
                            ___ _____
          then be viewed  as a  subordinate City official  rather than  the
          head of  the first-prong "department or agency"  (i.e., the OFP).
          ____
          Be  that as it may, the attempt  to distance Ortiz from political
          decisionmaking not only distorts the function of the second-prong
          inquiry under Jimenez Fuentes, but runs  counter to our precedent
                        _______________
          in  O'Connor, where we focused  the inquiry under  prong one upon
              ________
          the municipal department of public works, rather than the munici-
                        __________                                  _______
          pality.  See O'Connor, 994 F.2d at 907-08; supra note 3.
          ______   ___ ________                      _____

                                          9

          of the plaintiff's position, within the [OFP], resemble those  of

          `a policymaker,  privy to confidential information,  a communica-

          tor,  or some  other office  holder whose  function is  such that

          party affiliation  is  an equally  appropriate  requirement'  for

          continued tenure."  O'Connor, 994 F.2d at 910 (citations omitted)
                              ________

          (emphasis added).

                    a)   Lack of Written Job Description
                    a)   Lack of Written Job Description
                         _______________________________

                    Ortiz first  argues that summary judgment  is precluded

          because  the City of Gurabo has no official, written job descrip-

          tion (a.k.a. Form OP-16) for its OFP Director, nor indeed for any
                                                                        ___

          of its municipal  employees.  He  relies upon  cases in which  we

          have held that courts  should determine the duties inherent  in a

          particular   position  by  examining  the  governmental  entity's

          written, signed job descriptions, rather than the duties actually

          performed  by the plaintiff or prior occupants of the position in

          question. See, e.g., Mendez-Palou  v. Rohena-Betancourt, 813 F.2d
                    ___  ____  ____________     _________________

          1255, 1260  (1st Cir. 1987).   Ortiz would have  us conclude that

          the absence  of any written  job description, combined  with con-

          flicting circumstantial  evidence as  to the duties  performed by

          the OFP director, leaves unresolved issues of material fact which

          preclude summary judgment.   See Romero Feliciano, 836 F.2d  at 3
                                       ___ ________________

          ("[W]e have considered the OP-16 dispositive in other Puerto Rico

          political  discrimination cases .  . . .").   In so  doing, Ortiz

          misconstrues  our precedents  and the  nature of the  issue under

          consideration.

                    Although  written, signed job  descriptions may provide

                                          10

          highly probative evidence as  to the responsibilities inherent in

          a particular  government position,  and may even  prove "disposi-

          tive," see id. at 3,  we have never suggested that their  absence
                 ___ ___                                            _______

          is  dispositive, cf.  Mendez-Palou, 813  F.2d at  1260 ("Whenever
                           ___  ____________                       ________

          possible,  we will rely  upon this  document because  it contains
          ________

          precisely the information we need . . . .")  (emphasis added), or

          precludes  a defendant  from  resorting to  other evidence,  see,
                                                                       ___

          e.g., Romero Feliciano, 836 F.2d at 3 (noting that defendant "may
          ____  ________________

          present additional  evidence at  trial" besides the  disputed OP-

          16).  Nor does the absence  of a written, signed job  description

          preclude  summary judgment,  so long  as defendants  adduce other

          competent evidence as to the responsibilities inherent in the OFP

          directorship from  which the  "political" nature of  the position

          can be determined as a  matter of law, see McGurrin Ehrhard,  867
                                                 ___ ________________

          F.2d at 93 (ultimately, the Branti/Elrod defense poses a question
                                      ______ _____

          of  law),  even  though some  nonessential  facts  may remain  in

          dispute.   See Mariani-Giron v. Acevedo-Ruiz, 877 F.2d 1114, 1117
                     ___ _____________    ____________

          n.5 (1st Cir. 1989).5 

                    b)   The Responsibilities Inherent in the Position 
                    b)   The Responsibilities Inherent in the Position
                         _____________________________________________

                    Ortiz  contends  that  the  district  court incorrectly
                              
          ____________________

               5The  district court  relied on  the lack  of a  written job
          description as probative  evidence that the OFP directorship is a
                                                                       __
          "political" position.  Ortiz-Pinero, 900  F. Supp. at 580 (citing
                                 ____________
          Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1262-63 ("`[A]n employee with responsi-
          ____________
          bilities  that are  not well defined  or are of  broad scope more
          likely functions in  a policymaking  position.'") (citing  Elrod,
                                                                     _____
          427 U.S. at  368)).  But since  the City had  adopted no job  de-
          scription  for any position, cf.  supra note 1,  and it obviously
                         ___           ___  _____
          could  not reasonably  be inferred  on that  basis that  all City
          positions are "political," we give no weight to such an inference
          in the present context. 

                                          11

          assessed the  record evidence relating to the  duties inherent in

          the OFP directorship.   He claims that he administered the OFP in

          a  politically-neutral fashion  and  took no  meaningful part  in

          mayoral  "policymaking"  or   "political"  decisions   concerning

          federal  funding  allocations  among  the  various constituencies

          within the municipality.  

                    As previously  noted, probative indicia that a position

          is  "political"  include  "`relative  pay,  technical competence,

          power  to control  others,  authority to  speak  in the  name  of

          policymakers, public perception,  influence on programs,  contact

          with  elected officials, and  responsiveness to partisan politics

          and  political leaders.'"  O'Connor, 994  F.2d at  910 (citations
                                     ________

          omitted).   Defendants adduced evidence that Ortiz had not had to

          compete  with other candidates  for the OFP  directorship.  More-

          over, Ortiz concedes that he was no "expert" in the financial and

          accounting aspects of the OFP's responsibilities.  Thus, we think

          the evidence does  not support  a fair inference  that Ortiz  was

          selected for  his managerial  or technical expertise.   Moreover,

          Ortiz' prominent PDP affiliation,  see Ortiz Deposition at 179-81
                                             ___

          (acknowledging  that,  at  various  times, he  was  a  "political

          activist," electoral commissioner,  and campaign finance director

          for the PDP and PDP candidates), plainly permits a fair inference

          that  he was  selected  for the  OFP  directorship based  on  his

          "political" service  and talents.  See McGurrin Ehrhard, 867 F.2d
                                             ___ ________________

          at 93  (finding position "political" where  plaintiff, formerly a

          clerical  employee, was tapped for position as director of secre-

                                          12

          tary of state's  regional office, after  having worked on  Secre-

          tary's  state  senate  campaign,  and where  Secretary  "did  not

          advertise  the job, solicit applications,  or . .  . consider any

          [other] applicant").  

                    More importantly, Ortiz was  appointed to head the OFP,
                                                              ____

          whose overall  functions clearly  involved  "`decision making  on

          issues where there is room for political disagreement on goals or

          their  implementation,'" under  the  first prong  of the  Jimenez
                                                                    _______

          Fuentes test.   See supra Section  II.B.2.6  By his  own account,
          _______         ___ _____

          Ortiz was  in complete charge of  the OFP staff,7 as  well as the

          applications for, and the administering of, all federal grant and

          loan programs involving the City, amounting to approximately one-
                              
          ____________________

               6See, e.g., O'Connor, 994 F.2d at 911 ("[W]hatever difficul-
                ___  ____  ________
          ties  we might face  in applying the second  prong of the Jimenez
                                                                    _______
          Fuentes test to subordinate  positions within the Department, the
          _______
          Superintendent's 'inherent responsibilities' .  . . plainly '"had
          a  bearing on the partisan goals and policies"' of the Department
          as  a whole.") (citations omitted); De Choudens, 801 F.2d at 9-10
                                              ___________
          (noting that it would  have been much more likely that  the posi-
          tion would be considered "political" had plaintiff been president
                                                                  _________
          of  the bank,  rather  than senior  vice-president); cf.  Juarbe-
                                                               ___  _______
          Angueira, 831  F.2d at 15  (finding it not  "clearly established"
          ________
          that regional directorship of public building authority was other
          than  a  "political" position,  even  though it  involved  only a
          "'modicum' of 'policymaking responsibility,'" given that supervi-
          sory  position  was  "moderately-high-level  position  within the
          agency").  

               7Ortiz  points out that he  supervised an OFP  staff of only
          four persons (accountant, secretary, and two clerks).  As we have
          noted, however, the  relative staff size, not  its absolute size,
                               ________
          affords the more illuminating insight.  See,  e.g., O'Connor, 994
                                                  ___   ____  ________
          F.2d at 911  n.3 (noting that,  on per-capita basis,  plaintiff's
          supervision of smaller municipality-level staff may be equivalent
          to supervision  of much bigger  staff in a  larger municipality);
          McGurrin Ehrhard,  867 F.2d  at 95 (finding  position "political"
          ________________
          even  though plaintiff  supervised  four-person regional  office,
          where  satellite branch was but one of two such offices in Massa-
          chusetts). 

                                          13

          third  of its municipal budget.  See Ortiz Deposition, at 29-30.8
                                           ___

                    Ortiz  reported  directly  to the  mayor,  rather  than

          through  intermediaries, meeting with him on an average of six or

          seven times a year.   Cf. Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d  at 1260 (noting
                                ___ ____________

          that plaintiff  performed duties with  "only general instructions

          and superficial supervision" from the administration).  He served

          as the  mayor's "eyes"  and "ears," periodically  visiting public

          work  projects and reporting back to the mayor on their progress.

          See  McGurrin Ehrhard, 867 F.2d  at 95 (noting  that employee who
          ___  ________________

          acted as  "eyes and  ears" for secretary  of state engaged  in an

          "overtly political  task[]").9   Such  first-person  (thus,  more

          subjective) field assessments often influence policy formulation,

          and policymaking influence, even though indirect, is an important

                              
          ____________________

               8We reject the contention  that the April 1993 certification
          of duties issued by the City personnel department, see supra note
                                                             ___ _____
          1, is without any probative force  because it is unsigned and was
          not prepared until after Ortiz left office.   Of course, an OP-16
          signed by the employee has added probative value since it consti-
          tutes the employee's  contemporaneous "admission" concerning  the
          duties inherent in the position.  But it does not follow that the
          unsigned  certificate, by  which the  City prospectively  commits
          itself  to  its description  of the  duties  inherent in  the OFP
          directorship,  is without  probative  weight.   Although we  have
          noted that an  unsigned OP-16 may  leave a factual dispute  as to
          its authenticity, see  Romero Feliciano, 836  F.2d at 3-4,  Ortiz
                            ___  ________________
          asserts  no challenge either to the  authenticity or the validity
          of the certification.   Nor  did we suggest  in Romero  Feliciano
                                                          _________________
          that  such evidence should be completely discounted in a trial on
          the merits.  

               9See Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 246 (noting that  "politi-
                ___ _______________
          cal" position  holders, like directors, "monitor  the progress of
          the agency's programs and  thus gauge the success of  the Admini-
          stration's . . .  policies"); cf. Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d  at 1260
                                        ___ ____________
          (finding it relevant that  plaintiff "represents the President in
          activities  .  . .  [and gives]  top  level counselling  [to] the
          President").

                                          14

          indicium of "political" positions.10

                    Ortiz  admittedly  received  and  reviewed   copies  of

          federal  audits  and  oversight  reports, including  the  Federal

          Transit Administration's Triennial Review of the City's federally

          funded transit program, which identified areas where the City was

          not in compliance.  See Defendant's  Exh. 6; see also 49 U.S.C.  
                              ___                      ___ ____

          5307(i) (2).  This  politically-sensitive report is precisely the

          type  of  document whose  contents are  not  likely to  be shared

          freely with any but the  mayor's trusted political confidants for

          fear  it might become fodder  for the political  opposition.  Cf.
                                                                        ___

          Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1262-63 ("[W]e believe that an official
          ____________

          working in close contact with the head of a government agency  is

          also more likely to be privy to a substantial amount of confiden-

          tial information. . . .").

                    Finally,  Municipal Ordinance  No. 3,  enacted in  1981

          pursuant to P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3,   1351, designates only eleven

          municipal offices as  positions of "trust" or  "confidentiality,"

          including  the  Director of  the  Office  of Federal  Programs.11
                              
          ____________________

               10See McGurrin Ehrhard, 867  F.2d at 94 (noting that  plain-
                 ___ ________________
          tiff did not  have "final  authority to hire  or fire  employees,
          [but]  she had 'input'"); Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 245 ("That
                                    _______________
          Regional Directors do not have final decision-making authority is
          not determinative . .  . . 'because such positions  [i.e., direc-
          torships] are a natural  source of influential recommendations of
          changes in policy.'") (citation omitted).

               11Section 1351  of the Personnel Act  provides, in pertinent
          part:

                    1.   Each [commonwealth] agency shall present
                    for  approval  of  the [Central]  Office  [of
                    Personnel  Administration] a  plan containing
                    the  confidential positions  by which  it de-

                                          15

          Consistent with  the ordinance,  former Mayor  Caraballo notified

          Ortiz in  writing on  December 24,  1992, that  he was among  the

          eleven  municipal officials who must  resign to make  way for the

          incoming NPP administration.  

                    Against  this  formidable  array,  Ortiz   offers  five

          arguments.   First, he contends that Municipal Ordinance No. 3 is

          a nullity  because the defendants have not shown that it was duly

          submitted to  the Central Office of  Personnel Administration for

          approval, as supposedly required  by the Personnel Act.   But see
          ________                                                  ___ ___

          supra note 11.  This claim is unavailing.  
          _____

                    On its  face, the ordinance  reflects that it  had been

          submitted  to  the  Central  Office  of  Personnel Administration

          ("Central  Office") for review.  See Municipal Ordinance No. 3,  
                                  ______   ___

          3.  Thus, the burden lay with Ortiz to show that the City did not

          comply  with the  statutory requirements,12  and he  proffered no
                              
          ____________________

                    sires to operate.  In the case of municipali-
                    ties, the Municipal Assembly shall follow the
                    ordinance  or  resolution approving  the plan
                    submitted by  the mayor and shall  send it to
                    the Office for the sole purpose of ascertain-
                               ___ ___ ____ _______ __ __________
                    ing that  the provisions of  section 1350  of
                    ___ ____  ___ __________ __  _______ ____  __
                    this title have been complied with.
                    ____ _____ ____ ____ ________ ____

          P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3,   1351 (emphasis added). 

               12We recognize that  the burden of proof normally  shifts to
          the  governmental entity  to establish  that the  substantive re-
                                                            ___________
          quirements  of its  enactment comport  with the  First Amendment.
          But we  have found  no authority, nor  can we  discern any  sound
          reason, for shifting  the burden of  proof where the  challenging
          party alleges only procedural irregularities of nonconstitutional
                             __________
          dimension in an ordinance-enactment  process.  See, e.g., Friends
                                                         ___  ____  _______
          of the City Market v. Old Town Redev. Corp., 714  S.W.2d 569, 575
          __________________    _____________________
          (Mo. Ct.  App.  1986)  ("Ordinances  are presumed  to  have  been
          adopted in accordance with the requirements of the law . . . .").

                                          16

          evidence that the ordinance was not duly submitted to the Central

          Office.   See O'Connor, 994  F.2d at 906-07  (noting that summary
                    ___ ________

          judgment  opponent  must proffer  more than  "'conclusory allega-

          tions,  improbable  inferences,  and  unsupported  speculation'")

          (citation omitted).  In all  events, the statutory language  does

          not  purport to make submission to the Central Office a prerequi-

          site to the validity of  Municipal Ordinance No. 3.   Rather, the
                      ________

          requirement of post-enactment compliance  "review" by the Central

          Office, in  relation to  a municipal  ordinance, stands  in sharp
                  __  ________ __  _ _________  _________

          contrast to the heightened obligation of Commonwealth agencies to
                                                   ____________ ________

          seek Central  Office approval.  See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3,   1351
                               ________   ___

          (mayor's "plan" to be  submitted to Central Office "for  the sole

          purpose of ascertaining  that the provisions  of section 1350  of

          this title have been complied with").  See Appendix A for text of
                                                 ___

            1350.

                    Second, Ortiz correctly notes that state laws identify-

          ing  government positions  as "trust"  or "confidential"  are not

          dispositive of  the  federal-law question  whether  a  particular

          position  is "political."  See  Jimenez Fuentes, 807  F.2d at 243
                                     ___  _______________

          n.9.   On the other hand,  we have explained that  state laws and

          municipal ordinances  designating positions as "trust" or "confi-

          dential"    like  P.R. Laws Ann.  tit. 3,    1351, and  Municipal

          Ordinance No. 3     are  entitled to "some  deference" under  the

          Branti/Elrod  formula,  see Jimenez  Fuentes,  807  F.2d at  246;
          ______ _____            ___ ________________

          accord Juarbe-Angueira,  831 F.2d  at 14, especially  where other
          ______ _______________

          evidence clearly points in the same direction.

                                          17

                    Third, Ortiz attempts to  estop defendants from assert-

          ing a Branti/Elrod defense by  pointing to the putative assurance
                ______ _____

          made to  him  by Mayor  Caraballo in  August 1991,  that the  OFP

          directorship was not  a "trust"  position, see supra  p.2.   Even
                                                     ___ _____

          this evidence is not  hefty enough to ward off  summary judgment,

          however.13  

                    For one  thing, application  of the equitable  estoppel

          doctrine against governmental entities, including municipalities,

          is  narrowly circumscribed.     See Heckler  v. Community  Health
                                          ___ _______     _________________

          Servs.  of Crawford County, 467 U.S. 51, 60-62 (1984).  Moreover,
          __________________________

          any  attempt to interpose estoppel  as a bar  to the Branti/Elrod
                                                               ______ _____

          defense must fail, since reliance on the Caraballo representation

          would not have been  objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

          See United States v. Javier  Angueira, 951 F.2d 12, 16 (1st  Cir.
          ___ _____________    ________________

          1991) (noting  that even if estoppel is available against govern-

          mental entity,  "`the party  raising the [estoppel]  defense must

          have reasonably relied on some "affirmative misconduct" attribut-

          able to the  sovereign.'") (citations omitted); A.E.  Alie & Sons
                                                          _________________

          v. United States Postal Serv., 897  F.2d 591, 593 (1st Cir. 1990)
             __________________________

          (same).  

                              
          ____________________

               13We note, as  a threshold matter, that its admissibility is
          far  from clear.  See Fed. R. Civ.  P. 56(e).  Even assuming that
                            ___
          former  Mayor Caraballo could  bind the  City by  his representa-
          tions, see  Fed. R. Evid. 801 (permitting  "admissions" of party-
                 ___                                                 ______
          opponent),  it  is extremely  problematic  whether  the successor
          ________
          mayor, defendant Rivera, can be  bound, especially since the very
          nature of the   1983 claim made by Ortiz appears  to preclude any
          characterization of former Mayor Caraballo as a party "opponent."
          As this  evidence is  otherwise deficient, however,  we need  not
          determine its competence at this time. 

                                          18

                    Immediately prior to his  appointment to the OFP direc-

          torship,  Ortiz, concededly  a "political  activist," served  for

          three  years as  City  assemblyman, a  position which  would have
                                 ___________

          brought  all City ordinances  within his  constructive knowledge.

          See Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454  U.S. 516, 531 n.25 (1982) (noting
          ___ ____________    _____

          that  all persons are charged with knowledge of the provisions of

          duly enacted  statutes/ordinances); Deibler  v. City of  Rehoboth
                                              _______     _________________

          Beach,  790 F.2d  328, 331  (3d Cir.  1986) (same);  cf. Good  v.
          _____                                                ___ ____

          Dauphin County  Social Servs.  for Children  and Youth,  891 F.2d
          ______________________________________________________

          1087,  1091  (3d  Cir.  1989)  (reasonably  competent  government

          officials should know laws  governing their conduct).  Similarly,

          Ortiz  admitted to  having served  for four  years in  a previous

          "trust" position,  as Regional Director of  the Administracion de

          Derecho al Trabajo, making it highly unlikely that  he was not on

          actual  notice of P.R. Laws  Ann. tit. 3,   1351,  or of the fact

          that municipalities  were required  to designate  certain "trust"

          positions by ordinance.
                    __ _________

                    Fourth, without  citing  either authority  or a  policy

          rationale,  Ortiz  argues that  the  OFP  directorship cannot  be

          considered a  "political" position since there  is no requirement

          that the municipal assembly approve the mayor's selection for the

          post.  We think this far too  thin a reed to warrant rejection of

          the traditional Branti/Elrod criteria.  Many "political" appoint-
                          ______ _____

          ments  (e.g., to the executive staff of  a governor or mayor) are

          not subject  to legislative approval, a  requirement which corre-

          lates  more closely to  the issue of  political accountability in

                                          19

          the legislative branch, than to the partisan political attributes

          of an executive position.  

                    Finally, Ortiz insists that the OFP directorship duties

          actually  performed  by him  under  Mayor  Caraballo were  merely

          administrative and  technical, that Caraballo  alone decided  how

          federal  funds were to be  spent, and that  Ortiz merely informed

          the mayor regarding the  administrative status of federal funding

          applications.   These  claims  are insufficient  to overcome  the

          well-supported legal determination, see  supra pp. 9-14, that the
                                              ___  _____

          OFP directorship  is a  "political"  position.   At most,  Ortiz'

          contrary characterizations, fully credited, establish the servic-

          es actually rendered by Ortiz while he served as the director, as

          distinguished  from the responsibilities inherent in the position

          itself.  Cf. Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1258 (actual duties not as
                   ___ ____________

          probative as inherent duties).   As the ultimate issue  presented

          is one  of law, rather than  fact, McGurrin Ehrhard, 867  F.2d at
                                             ________________

          93, summary  judgment was warranted on  the political discrimina-

          tion claim.

          C.   Due Process Claim
          C.   Due Process Claim
               _________________

                    Ortiz  advances  essentially  the  same   arguments  as

          support  for the  due process  claim:   that he had  a legitimate

          expectation of continued employment under commonwealth law, which

          gave rise to a "property right" entitling him to a pretermination

          hearing.  See Cleveland  Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532
                    ___ _______________________    __________

          (1985).  The pretermination process due  a government employee is

          a  matter of federal law,  see Rivera-Flores v.  Puerto Rico Tel.
                                     ___ _____________     ________________

                                          20

          Co.,  64 F.3d 742, 749  (1st Cir. 1995),  whereas the preliminary
          ___

          question whether  a government  employee possessed  a protectable

          "property  right,"  or  a  legitimate  expectation  of  continued

          employment,  is controlled  by the  employment contract  or state

          law.  See id.
                ___ ___

                     Since  Ortiz' employment  contract  included a  clause

          permitting his unilateral, unconditional termination by the mayor

          at any time, commonwealth or local law would be the only possible

          basis for an  actionable claim to continued  employment.  Accord-

          ingly,  Municipal Ordinance  No.  3  is  dispositive of  the  due

          process  claim, since  it designates  the OFP  directorship as  a

          "confidential" position,  pursuant to P.R.  Laws Ann.  tit. 3,   

          1351.  The  Personnel Act in turn defines "confidential" appoint-

          ees as, inter alios, "those who intervene or collaborate substan-
                  _____ _____

          tially in the formulation  of public policy, who advise  directly

          or render  direct services to  the head  of the agency,"  and are

          subject to "free selection and removal." Id.   1350.  Thus, Ortiz
                                                   ___

          had  neither a property right  nor a contract  right to continued

          employment  as OFP  Director,  and defendant-appellee  Rivera was

          under no constitutional obligation to afford him a pretermination

          hearing.

                                         III
                                         III

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION
                                      __________

                    The claims for damages are barred under the doctrine of

          qualified immunity,  because Ortiz failed to  demonstrate that it

          was "clearly  established" that  the OFP directorship  was not  a

                                          21

          "political"  position.   See Mendez-Palou,  813 F.2d  at 1259-60.
                                   ___ ____________

          Furthermore, since we conclude  as a matter of  law that the  OFP

          directorship was  indeed a  "political" position, the  claims for

          damages and reinstatement are foreclosed on the merits.  Finally,
                  ___ _____________

          the due-process claim fails because Ortiz possessed  no right to,

          or reasonable expectation of,  continued employment as OFP direc-

          tor.  

                    The judgment is affirmed; costs to appellees.
                    The judgment is affirmed; costs to appellees.
                    ____________________________________________

                                          22

                                      Appendix A
                                      __________

                            LAWS OF PUERTO RICO ANNOTATED
                                TITLE THREE. EXECUTIVE
                         CHAPTER 51. PUBLIC SERVICE PERSONNEL
               SUBCHAPTER V. PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM; STRUCTURE

            1350. Confidential employees

               Confidential employees  are those who intervene  or collabo-
          rate substantially in the  formulation of the public policy,  who
          advise  directly or  render direct  services to  the head  of the
          agency, such as:
               (1)  Officers  appointed  by  the  Governor, their  personal
          secretaries  and drivers; as well as their executive and adminis-
          trative assistants who answer directly to them.
               (2)  Heads  of  agencies,  their  personal  secretaries  and
          drivers; as well as their executive and administrative assistants
          who answer directly to them.
               (3) Assistant heads of agencies and their personal secretar-
          ies and drivers.
               (4) Regional directors of agencies.
               (5) Personal  secretaries and drivers  of officials selected
          by popular  election,  as well  as  their assistants  who  answer
          directly to them.
               (6) Members  of boards  or standing committees  appointed by
          the Governor and their respective personal secretaries.
               (7) Members and personnel of boards or commissions appointed
          by the Governor having a specific period of effectiveness.
               (8) Personnel of  the offices of the  Puerto Rico Ex-Govern-
          ors.
               Confidential  employees  shall  be  of  free  selection  and
          removal.  Likewise  confidential  shall  be those  employees  who
          though of free selection  may be removed  only for good cause  by
          provision of law or those  whose appointment is for a  term pre--
          fixed by law.
               Every regular employee in a career position who is appointed
          to  a confidential position shall be entitled to be reinstated in
          a position equal or similar to the last one he held in the career
          service.

                                          i