pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-08-28 | 7 | San asked City staff to review the documentation. A 30-minutes recess was given to them for review. President Peeler called the meeting back to order at 6:30 p.m. City Attorney Kern addressed President Peeler and the Board and stated that the City concurred that there was a mathematical error in the scoring as stated. Ms. Kern thanked everyone for their time and hoped that there would have been a settlement. HR Director Brock-Cohn reminded the Board that the names on the list are selected by the Interview Panel and Department Head can select whomever she/he wanted on the list. The question still would remain as to whether she/he would have taken the top three or skipped around on the list and taken different candidates because of the new order. There is still the question of whether the Department Head would have selected the exact same people since there may have been a different order on the list. President Peeler asked if the selection was by the top three or rule of the list. HR Director Brock-Cohn stated that it is the rule of the list. The person making the selection can select whomever they want off of the list. Mr. Riddler asked for the difference between candidates three and four on the list. Management Analyst Low stated that the difference would be that Mr. Wong would have 72.6 points and Mr. McDaniel's would have 72.2 points. This results in Mr. Wong increasing by 1.2 points, or .40 more than Mr. McDaniel on the published list. Mr. Gossman stated the issue now is that the scoring was inaccurate. His recommendation is to have a new test for fairness and equality. Ms. Kramer stated that the important point from her perspective was that with the scoring of the supplemental questions there appeared to be some comment about applicants not being evaluated properly because they did have certain experience that was reflected on their applications. Ms. Kramer went back and reviewed the rating sheets prepared by the raters (Ms. Kassebaum and Ms. Ely) and they actually indicated that they wanted to give the applicants a zero. These zeroes were not ignored and oversights on their part. In fact, Ms. Ely wrote that in giving five different categories a zero rating, "provided very few details due to way in which questions were answered, unable to determine specifics of experience, no real length of time or other key information provided to score." Ms. Ely intentionally gave these applicants zero where it is indicated on the pieces of paper as opposed to making a mistake and not rating them a particular category. Ms. Kramer also stated that just to clarify, the candidates or Mr. Gossman stating that mistakes were made in the scoring of the supplemental questions, while he might disagree with the numbers given, those were the numbers given. There is no evidence/indication that either Ms. Kassebaum or Ms. Ely had any sort of bias against any of the applicants or this rumor of a predisposed plan by Mr. Lillard in any way impacted their subject matter evaluation of the supplemental questions. Page -7- G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf |