pages: CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-08-28 | 8 | Mr. Peterson asked the Board if he could speak. He stated that he has a problem with someone getting a zero for experience that has 15-18 years of experience. How can that be rated a zero. He does not care if someone does not like them or not, the experience counts for what it is. A person who has been running the adult program for 18 years and she got a zero is not right. Ms. Kramer stated that what the raters relied upon was the actual response to the supplemental questions, by giving a zero it was their perception that the response to the supplemental questions did not evidence any experience. Vice President Horikoshi asked Mr. Riddle what the options were for the Board. Mr. Riddle stated that there are three different Appellants. The Board has three different appeals; 1) at one point all three wanted the process to be redone; 2) to have an investigation which has now happened; and, 3) to have the testing done over again and Mr. Wong is now, based on the arithmetic, the third highest person. Mr. Riddle stated that the Board can; 1) deny the appeal based on the investigation and the findings; 2) based on the arithmetical mistake; grant Mr. Wong's appeal in which case he would be considered the third ranked person. Again it is rule of the list, so there is no guarantee that he would have been picked; and, 3) grant the appeal for all three Appellants and direct that a new examination be given. President Peeler asked how the rule of the list is usually applied. Management Analyst Low stated that once an eligible list has been established the number of names certified to the hiring authority is based upon the civil service rules. The appointing authority has the ability to choose any of the names regardless of how they scored on the eligible list. There have been incidents where higher scoring candidates have been passed over for promotion and were not selected for a variety of legitimate reasons. For instance, they did well in the selection process and the appointing authority knows that they tested very well but there are deficiencies that do not make them necessarily the best candidate for the job. For example, in a number of our departments, Mr. Low can recall that certain employees/candidates scored very well throughout the testing/selection process but were passed over for the promotion. Mr. Gossman stated that in this investigation on the day of the exam they were determining whether to use a 50-50 or 60-40 weighing and they did the calculations to see who the highest three were. It was not about their discussing who they wanted to select, they had predetermined who they were going to take to the top three highest scores. President Peeler asked the Board for a motion. Board Member Malloy stated that her challenge is that we have heard from the City that we selected the top three. She thinks there should be three separate motions. City Attorney Kern stated that it is accurate that the top three were selected. The point that the City has made is that it is not preordained in any and all recruitments. The appointing authority can select from all eligible candidates. Member Malloy stated that she feels that there should be separate motions because Mr. Wong's case is clearly different than the other two cases. Page -8- G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf |