pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 16 | the door and are using this ruse. These people who were rehired they do not know what the models are and have not been doing those models. They (Recreation Services Specialists) are running around saying what do we do now, what programs do we use? Member Malloy asked if the weighted average concept of using 60% interviews and 40% supplemental questions is standard. Or, was it decided by the department what ratio to use and how did we (the City) get there? Mr. Low stated that the practice is that Human Resources tries to go to the essential job duties, knowledge, skills, abilities and tries to use those as the anchors within a supplemental questionnaire and the relative weighing of someone to prepare written responses to the questions, also using the same essential job duties, knowledge, skills, abilities to give the weighing to the interviews. Human Resources felt that they would put the weighing at 60% interviews and 40% supplemental questions. Member Malloy stated that it ranges from 50-50 to 60-40 as the range. Mr. Low stated yes. Member Malloy stated HR chose the 60-40. Mr. Low stated yes. Mr. Peterson asked if they (public) were going to be able to ask a question. President Peeler stated not at this time Mr. Peterson stated two of the people that were hired did not meet the basic qualifications. One of them did not have a degree in recreation and one did not have any degree. So they should not have even been allowed to take the test. This whole thing is a charade. If you hire two people who were not qualified to take the test how can you base anything President Peeler stated the Board will look into all of that. Mr. Peterson stated as long as the Board knows the facts because they (HR/City) are not giving them (Board) all the information. Mr. Riddle stated that he wanted to clarify what issues are on appeal before the Board and what issues are not before the Board. There has already been a determination made by the Council, before it came to this Board, to create this new classification and the reasons why that was done. That is water under the bridge at this point. It was a decision that was already made. There was a decision to layoff some employees and that issue is also not before this Board. The issue before this Board is whether the exam that was given to make appointments to the new classification was fair or not fair or violated the Civil Service Rules. A member of the public asked if the Board will ask for the applicants' actual positions and what they filled out on their applications to see if they were qualified. President Peeler stated that is something the Board will determine after they look at all of the information. City Attorney Kern stated that if it would assist the Board the City Attorney's Office would be willing to, at the Board's direction, hire an independent person to investigate factual issues, interview people involved, and how the testing went and come back to the Board with that report, if it would be helpful. While the Board looks at documents and asks questions, if the Board would like to direct that the City Attorney's office do the investigation Ms. Kern would be happy to do that. Mr. Peterson asked if she was directing the Board to only look at the test and not people Page -16- G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |