pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 15 | community is small. Similarly the Human Resources field is small. We know people all over. With regard to redacting that personal information, we tried to continue to design a process that would be fair and equitable. Regarding the search for evaluators, we went to a number of different recreation and park districts searching for a high enough level individual in those districts who would adequately be qualified to evaluate the responses. Given the tight time frame the two individuals were available. HR Director Brock-Cohn stated that anytime that she has done a recruitment that is sent out the names are always redacted and that is a very common practice especially for public safety positions. Ms. Blumkin stated that it was kind of ironic how both of them were former City of Alameda employees and have worked with us (appellants). It is kind of ironic that our little small community could find two people that have worked for us. Vice President Horikoshi asked, in terms of the other two candidates who were not working in that department, he is presuming that Human Resources reviewed their applications and made sure they met the minimum qualifications before forwarding them to be reviewed from the outside reviewers. Mr. Low stated yes. Vice President Horikoshi stated that it looks like the outside reviewers, after reviewing the applications, believed that they met at least the minimum qualifications and were competitive in the process, is that correct. Mr. Low stated yes. Vice President Horikoshi is also assuming that the interviewers that interviewed the applicants based on the answers the applicants gave, also believed that they at least met the minimum qualifications. He is asking these questions because there seems to be some question about how other city employees, who seemingly may not have that kind of relevant experience, how they could have prevailed in the process. Member Malloy asked if the questions asked of all the applicants were the same. Mr. Low stated yes. Member McHugh asked Mr. Gossman about the issue of the notification that there would be one layoff and there were three and asked if that is part of the issue or not? Mr. Gossman stated that when we met we were under the perception that there would be one layoff. The people that were the four players were going to be taking the test. This was the same perception given to the four coordinators at their meeting on March 1, 2012 with Mr. Dale Lillard. That was the perception that started this whole ball rolling. As time went on it expanded in letting more people who were allowed to take the test, etc. Member McHugh stated but it is not part of the remedy that the appellants are seeking. Mr. Gossman stated there are a lot of directions to go. You could vacate the test and take a new test. Do we really need the specialist position; do we need three of them? There are different directions to go. We had four very experienced employees with over 30 years' experience. They already work with contractors, citizens, organizations with building experience. All they were going to do was train to increase cost recovery from 60% to 90%. All they needed to do was call or get a plan together. Instead they said you are out Page -15- G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |