pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 9 | that Mr. Lillard could call these people and say he wants them to rate certain people down so they are not given a promotional opportunity, when the evaluators do not even know who the authors are, it is hard to say. Mr. Low responded the interviews were also conducted by subject matter experts who with the exception of one, Mr. Patrick Russi, did not have any intimate knowledge of the applicants. The interview panelists again were Assistant City Manager Lisa Goldman, Recreation Supervisor Patrick Russi, and Amy Wooldridge. At this point, the City does not believe that there is a basis for an appeal of the Recreation Services Specialist recruitment results or subsequent appointments. All three appellants before the Board applied for the promotion, participated in the selection process, and all three achieved a rank on the eligible list. The City Manager, who is the appointing authority, approved the appointments of the top three ranking candidates who are considered to be the best qualified based on their relative performance through the selection process which was how people responded to the supplemental questions and how they responded to the questions in the structured oral interview process. All of the applicants answered the same supplemental questions and all of the applicants answered the same structured oral interview questions. The City recommends that the Civil Service Board uphold the recruitment and selection process as well as the subsequent appointments. Mr. Peterson asked what percentage was based on written and what percentage on the oral exam. Mr. Low stated that scores were based on 40% supplemental questionnaire and 60% on oral. Mr. Riddle stated that it is up to the Board to determine if they want questions from the public to be answered. Mr. Peterson stated that the Board said the public could ask questions. President Peeler stated the Board did say they would allow questions. Don Peterson, Alameda resident and former president of Local 595 IBEW, stated that in the old days, 20-30 years ago, we used the same process and the reason they used 40% on the written and 60% on the oral, was to eliminate minorities and applicants they did not want. They kept the oral as a way of eliminating people that they did not want. The City can say that their testing is fair but he knows from previous experience as the president of a local that this was used in the past and it sounds like we do not do that anymore because it was not fair. The City is using an antiquated system that is not fair so their (the City's) results to him are moot. Ms. Blumkin stated that even though the two outside people went through the supplemental questions, if they were informed by Mr. Lillard who applied for the job even though their names were not on those applications or supplemental questions, if you were not qualified you would not be able to answer half of the questions because it asked for specific duties that you did in a job that we (appellants) were doing. Because it was a promotional job, it was promotional so it was things that we were doing as a program coordinator already. So Page -9- G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |