pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 8 | President Peeler asked if there were any objections to hearing the information, or giving Mr. Low more time. Don Peterson, Alameda resident and former member of Local 595 IBEW, stated that he thinks this process is the same as what went on with the hiring process. They (the City) make a set of rules and they do not stick to it. They (the City) have people set up to be put in places and when it gets discombobulated they (the City) do not know what to do. Mr. Peterson thinks you (the Board) need to make a set of rules and live by them. When you set up rules for hiring someone you need to use those rules not disregard them. President Peeler stated that the Board needs to review the information now or later. Vice President Horikoshi stated that the Board can still review the documentation without having Mr. Low tell the Board about it. Mr. Riddle stated that each side will have three minutes again. The appellants will have three minutes and the City three minutes. Mr. Gossman stated that the Appellants are looking for justice. You cannot have a manager going up to people and saying they have already selected them and then 30 or 40 days later give a test and these people have no chance whatsoever. You have all these different dots out there and when you put it all together and it was a scheme designed to eliminate these positions so he could hand-pick the employees he wanted to work for the department. What is important is that Mr. Dale Lillard had made public statements to his staff prior to the testing of who was going to be selected for the new Recreation Specialist classification. That is the information that is the facts, that is the evidence and we have managers who will testify to that. Now the answer from the City is this, "This statement is unfounded." Mr. Gossman stated how can the City make that statement when they did no investigation. Then the City says, "regardless of what Mr. Lillard is alleged to have stated to staff prior to testing, the testing process was designed by the Human Resources Department with Mr. Lillard's input, but he had no influence on the evaluation or score." Mr. Gossman stated all he (Mr. Lillard) has to do is go to the people who are doing the test and say here are the people he wants, give them the scores, that is who I want, and that is what happened. Mr. Gossman stated that they are looking for justice and equality. We have a great city here. Civil Service is based on merit and not on nepotism and this is what you preach and is in your Civil Service rules and that is what they are asking for, fairness and equity. They (the appellants) want a level table. Mr. Low stated to the Board that it is important to realize that all six applicants for this promotional opportunity are City employees. Or in this case, were City employees. The design of the examination process promoted merit in civil service principles and practices. They (the City) did remove the personal bias and prejudice that is alleged, as the supplemental questionnaires were evaluated externally from those two other park and recreation districts. The personal identity of the applicant authors was removed. To say Page -8- G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |