pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-08-28 | 2 | Street racial discrimination by the three minority Appellants; and 2) Involved the fairness of the recruitment process. As stated in the report, there is no evidence suggesting that racial discrimination played a role in the recruitment or selection process. Ms. Kramer stated that the Appellants do agree on this finding. Ms. Kramer also stated that as far as the fairness of the recruitment process is concerned, whether Dale Lillard, then ARPD Director, had a predisposed plan to have his candidates selected, or that he in any way influenced the outcome of the recruitment there was no evidence indicating that the selection process was conducted in a biased or unfair manner. The facts that were presented to Ms. Kramer did not corroborate with any of the allegations. Ms. Kramer found that there were three parts to the recruitment process. The first part was a written application in which all of the minimum qualifications were met by all of the applicants and to which the Appellants did not object. There were two issues that were raised; 1) one applicant not having a degree and; 2) another applicant not having enough number of years of experience required. Both allegations were also not corroborated and unsubstantiated. The second part of the recruitment process involved the supplemental questions. During the interviews, Appellants did acknowledge that there were no objections to the supplemental questions. These questions were prepared by Chris Low, HR Management Analyst. The questions were reviewed by Mr. Lillard, but no changes were made to the questions prepared by Mr. Low. Completed supplemental questions were reviewed by subject matter experts who were recommended by Mr. Lillard. Neither of the subject matter experts communicated with Mr. Lillard regarding the questions. There was no indication that he in any way had impacted the evaluation of the responses to the questions. There was no evidence that the subject matter experts were in any way impacted in their evaluation of the responses and there was no evidence the subject matter experts were biased to the applicants. The third part of the process involved an oral interview panel. For the most part, none of the Appellants objected to the members of the interview panel. Two of the Appellants were concerned about the involvement of Ms. Lisa Goldman, City of Alameda Assistant City Manager, since she is or was Mr. Lillard's immediate supervisor. The panel members were chosen by the City Manager and there is no evidence that shows any bias against any of the applicants. The questions that were asked of the applicants during the oral interview were created by Mr. Low and Ms. Goldman. Mr. Lillard was not involved in the creation of those questions. There is no evidence that the questions were leaked prior to the interviews. There was a concern raised by the Appellants that one of the applicants was interviewed by telephone, and a legitimate explanation for that has been provided. There was concern about corroboration about the rating process which was found to be Page -2- G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf |