pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 14 | experience also included operational experience layered onto her own expertise on cost recovery models, Human Resources felt that she could be a very objective panel member. Member Malloy asked if others on the interview panel were also involved in developing the supplemental questions. Mr. Low stated no. Member Malloy stated that she assumes that there was not, what she would call, a full blown independent investigation yet. She asked for an explanation of how Human Resources gathered the information to answer the questions. Mr. Low stated that having been involved from the inception/design of the recruitment he was able to provide the City's logic and reasoning to address the appellants questions. Member Malloy asked if Mr. Wong is appealing or not appealing. The letter submitted only had two names, yet he spoke tonight, are there three individuals or two individuals? Mr. Low stated that he also has that question. Mr. Wong, as far as Mr. Low knows, was not included in the initial letter sent by Ms. Blumkin and Ms. Tsang. Nor did he attend the April 26, 2012 meeting between Human Resources staff, two other appellants, and union representative. For him (Mr. Wong) to now be included in the appeal, that is a question that Mr. Low also has. Mr. Riddle stated that in the event that the Board choses to vacate the exam, whether he is a party or not, presumably he (Mr. Wong) would be able to retake the exam like everyone else. Mr. Gossman stated that when the process started it was Ms. Blumkin and Ms. Tsang. Once they put their heads together they felt something was wrong and wanted to talk to other applicants regarding their input and feelings was when Mr. Wong was contacted. It took a month for him to get involved once they made their appeal. This process needs to be fair to all those that applied for this test and that is their (Union's) position. Member Malloy asked if she should believe that it is not Human Resource's perception that the applicants are claiming that race is a factor in the ultimate decisions. Should she perceive that Human Resources has not looked at this appeal from this perspective. Mr. Low stated that is right. Member Malloy asked why the recruitment was only a week. Mr. Low stated that since the beginning of March the union was put on notice that this work force change was being recommended. The actual item went to Council on April 2, 2012. We knew that we had at least four viable candidates working in ARPD, plus one former ARPD worker who had been laid off and had application rights. Given that there were five potential candidates and the staff report that went to Council on April 2, 2012 had indicated that we needed to start making this organizational change and have folks in place as Recreation Services Specialists in the following six weeks the process was fast tracked. Member Malloy asked how the subject matter experts were identified who reviewed the applications when they were redacted. Is that the standard way that it is done, that the applications are redacted and given to someone to rank and review the supplemental questions. Mr. Low stated that in this case, yes. Human Resources redacted the identity of the applicant authors because he knows from his experience that the recreation Page -14- G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |