pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 5 | They found out that there were some people that had some insight already and understood who was going to get the job and who was not going to get the job. They had their union representative call Mr. Russo, City Manager, and they asked him to get someone who would be unbiased and an outside person to read over the applications and supplemental questions. Mr. Russo agreed and made the announcement to Lisa Goldman, Assistant City Manager, and the Human Resources Department to make sure that they got an outside person, with no bias, to look over the applications because they knew something was going on. Ms. Blumkin stated that come to find out, you can ask Chris Low, the person who looked over the applications was a former City employee who worked with them as a group, worked in the same department, and is friends with the previous ARPD Director, Dale Lillard. Her name was Anne Kassebaum; she was the one out of millions of people that they could have chosen to be non-biased. It was someone who knew us and was the one grading the applications and supplemental questions when we had asked and they were directed by John Russo, City Manager, to get someone who was non-biased. And, this person had previously worked for us and was friends with the previous Director. That was the ultimate of the ultimate to being unfair. We were just asking for fairness, we knew this was coming, we knew someone was going to lose their job. But, for three of us who had all that experience to lose their jobs when we were told there would be one was just crushing. Ms. Blumkin asked the Board to go to an outside organization and perform an outside investigation, to show what the Human Resources Department, and whoever else was involved, how unfair the process was. Andy Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, thanked the Board for hearing their case. He received his degree from Fresno State and worked in the field for 10 years full-time, 12 years total. He worked special events and built the teen program from the ground up. In March 2012, when the job elimination was brought up he understood it. Being the lowest employee in seniority he sort of anticipated being the first to be let go. But, he was supposed to have the opportunity for a fair shot and equal opportunity. If you look at his City supplemental questions, he felt that he was 90 percent qualified for the job. Mr. Wong also has a Class B license which it says on the supplemental is highly preferable along with experience in special events and serving at risk youth. He has done a lot of new programming for the City and ARPD, is a community player, worked with schools and became a very, very good across the board professional. On April 19, 2012, he was called into the office and handed a lay-off letter and the Director said he was not chosen. Mr. Wong asked about his score. It was not given to him, but the Director told him that he was ranked fourth. Mr. Wong stated that his wife was devastated knowing that he worked really hard for the Department. It was a disruption to the family. It was not fair to him to go through an interview, put his skills down on paper, come in for an interview and the result is someone who is not even from the recreation background gets hired. The Board would have to look at some of the other sub-categories on what the person qualifies for. He feels that he was Page -5- G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |