pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-08-28 | 4 | the Mr. Gossman stated that Mr. Lillard had called Ms. Kassebaum and asked her to review written responses to the supplemental questions. Mr. Lillard also told Ms. Kassebaum that the City would likely keep 3-5 employees. Ms. Kassebaum assumed Ms. Bailey was one of the candidates since she was previously informed by Mr. Russi that Ms. Bailey's position would likely be eliminated. Mr. Gossman stated that there was indeed communication between Mr. Lillard and Ms. Kassebaum as indicated in page 12 of the investigative report. Mr. Gossman stated that the third issue was that there was no notice to applicants on how the grading process would be conducted. The candidates did not know that the supplemental examination was to be weighed and how much the oral examination would be weighed or that it was unknown. Mr. Gossman continued to compare the bulletins published by the Human Resources Department pointing out the weighing of the examination for the Senior Civil Engineer is clear and that the interview weighed as 100% versus the bulletin for the Recreation Services Specialist. Typically, jurisdictions utilize supplemental questions to reduce the size of the applicants. Supplemental questions, typically, are not used to score the application. Mr. Gossman stated that another issue was why there were two panels interviewing for a promotional position. Also, the supplement questionnaire clearly and in bold black print dictated the examiner was to score the answer in the following scoring method: 0 - to indicate no experience, 1-4 to indicate minimal experience, 5-7 to indicate moderate experience, or 8-10 for extensive/quality experience. Ms. Blumkin clearly answered the questions and received no credit, pointing to Addendum #3 in the report he had provided. This is clear evidence that shows one of the raters failed to follow the scoring matrix resulting in an inaccurate score for Ms. Blumkin. Mr. Gossman stated that in Addendum #6, identifying discrepancies in the Oral Interview matrix, there were seven questions to be answered during the oral interview and only six categories to score the applicants. The specific scoring matrix did not have categories that matched the questions. The matrix does not match and was not accurate; it is quite obvious that the scoring matrix was used from another examination. In addition, the raters did not even comment on any of the questions; the questions were very complicated, and only 25 minutes was given for candidates to answer the questions. The real issue of this reclassification is a budget issue; the City is going to change the budget by removing positions; and the individuals (applicants) are already being paid from the Athletic Trust Fund. The City is trying to get rid of certain employees, even senior employees. Mr. Gossman stated that the Appellants are just looking for fairness and equality. The recruitment process was flawed, inaccurate, and he wants to have this rectified. President Peeler invited Mr. Andy Wong to speak before the Board. Mr. Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, called attention to the report he provided to the Board. He stated that an actual number should be used to determine the outcome of an average score and not a check mark. The checkmark was used to indicate Page -4- G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf |