pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 4 | that employees had already been preselected who were going to get the positions. In essence, we had employees who did not have any fairness or equity in going through the testing processing. After the oral interviews a manager who sat on the board, came up to the employee and stated, "You know what, I was just a pawn. I had no input into the selection process. It was out of my hands." Mr. Gossman concluded that this has been documented in the information provided to the Board. Mr. Riddle asked if Mr. Gossman was referring to the letter and there was also something called an appeal. Mr. Gossman stated that first of all this is an appeal. They have an appeal. Mr. Riddle asked if this was the initial letter. Mr. Gossman stated yes. Mr. Gossman stated that right after the examination the employees were told that one of the examining people had no part of it. Within two days, they were called into the office and told they were laid off. The employees asked for their test scores. They were told they did not have test scores and that they just did not pass. So they walked out the door after a combined 30 years of experience. The employees are very upset and angry because of the testing process. They all realize that everyone has to take the test and they were looking for fairness. In this testing process and whole examination, it did not happen in this case. The appellants are requesting that the test be vacated, that a new testing process be completed and that it be completed from outside Human Resources personnel, from another agency so that the test can be done fairly and correctly. They were expecting that one person would be laid off and there were three people laid off. One of the new persons hired was an individual who was a custodian in the Library. In being objective, how could a custodian who works in the Library have more experience or training? In fact, he had no training in the parks recreation programs to be selected. The second issue is that this individual owns a lawn business in the City of Alameda. The red flag is; how can an employee who works full-time for the City of Alameda and at the same time have a full-time lawn business while he's supposed to be working for the City of Alameda. Mr. Gossman feels that is a conflict of interest which is another red herring in this case. They are requesting than an outside investigation be conducted regarding what has happened. Mr. Gossman stated that the bottom line is they are looking for a new test, employees to be put back whole from where they were, and that the facts and truth come out of what happened in this testing process. Trini Blumkin, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, stated that they all have 30 years combined experience. They understood that there was going to be a reorganization and understood that someone was going to be laid off. They were asking for a fair process. Page -4- G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |