Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-2004 Peter B. Lewis, Mayor 25 West Main Street * Aubum WA 98001-4998 * www.cl.auburn.wa.us * 253-931-3000 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held October 12, 2004, in Resource Room #2 located on the second floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. The following members were in attendance. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dick Kammeyer, Chairman; Chuck Booth, Member; Cyril Van Selus, Member; Gail Solberg, Secretary/Chief Examiner STAFF PRESENT: Police Chief Jim Kelly; Fire Chief Russ Vandver; Joe Beck, Assistant City Attorney GUESTS: T.J. Bloomingdale and Paul Richards Chairman Kammeyer called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. ACTION: Approval of September 14,2004 Civil Service meeting minutes. Minutes were accepted as written. COMMISSION POLICE DEPARTMENT Gail stated we had the Sergeants test mid-September with five candidates testing and three passing. There were no appeals to the testing process. The list has been posted at the Police Department. We continue to recruit for lateral police. We have two candidates with conditional offers out waiting for personal history statements to return to begin the background investigations. Entry-level police testing is scheduled for Saturday, October 23rd at Riverside High School. We set the maximum applications at 250, the closing date is this Friday, October 15th, and currently have approximately 50 applications left to distribute. FIRE DEPARTMENT Chief Vandver stated the Assistant Chief exam was completed and posted last Thursday. Three candidates testing with #1 on the list being Mike Gerber, #2 Stan Laatsch, and #3 Dave Smith. We will look at promoting, using the rule of 3, within the next few weeks. There was an appeal on the test, from a non-candidate member of the Fire Department, however the appeal has been withdrawn. Chief Vandver stated he will AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED have a discussion with the individual on the concerns and make any necessary adjustments, if appropriate. . APPEALS: We heard two appeals, both on being removed from the Entry Level Firefighters list. Joe Beck conducted a group oath with everyone who was present. Everyone attending swore to tell the truth (Kammeyer, Van Selus, Booth, Vandver, Bloomingdale, Richards, Solberg). Beck also defined the agenda as starting with the staff report then hearing the response from the candidates appealing. T.J Bloomingdale Appeal: Staff report from Solberg - Bloomingdale received a conditional offer of employment and was tested at the Exercise Science Center (ESC) as part of the background process. There are three elements with ESC that you have to pass at 2.0 or above. Bloomingdale took the test on July 20th and did not receive a passing score. He and Solberg talked about his score and Solberg explained the City allows people to test a second time. Bloomingdale wanted the opportunity to retest and did retest on July 29th, however did not receive a passing score on the second test. Therefore, he was sent a letter rescinding the conditional offer because he did not receive a passing score. Chief Vandver stated the ESC is a process we've been using for several years with all candidates. Report from T.J. Bloomingdale - Bloomingdale stated he doesn't think the ESC test is a bad test, however is concerned that it has different standards for men and women. He handed out exhibit #1 (Firefighter Physical Assessment Battery from the ESC) and pointed to the weight lifting standards. There are two portions; one is absolute grading comparing someone with same sex and age, where he tested average. The other factors in weight where he did not test well. His opinion is that the standards should be the same no matter what your gender. He believes there is a big difference between standards for men and women with ESC and the intent of the ESC is to give you an overall health rating. Bloomingdale stated he tried to get information about what the test was about unfortunately there was not a lot of information available to help train for the test. Blake at ESC stated after the first test that if he lost 10-15 pounds he would be able to pass because of the weight/strength ratio. Bloomingdale went back on his own to the ESC on September 30, after he lost 11 pounds, and passed the test. He referenced the Civil Service rules 11.06C stating process from withholding from the list or removal with the reason no longer existing and also referenced 7.03. Bloomingdale stated he assumes he was removed because he was physically unable to perform in the position, however he has now passed the test and believes he should be added back on the list now that he has passed the ESC test (same exact test he took in July). He stated being a CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Dick Kammeyer, Chairman Cyril Van Selus, Member Charles A. Booth, Member Gail Solberg, Secretary/Chief Examiner firefighter is a passion of his, specifically an Auburn Firefighter. He has a high work ethic and has great references from previous employers. Kammeyer stated we cannot take someone who does not pass this test because the academy will not accept them so our hands are tied when someone cannot pass the test. Bloomingdale stated he understood, however he has now passed the test and believes the physical portion is no longer a problem. The ESC test on July 20, 2004 was entered as exhibit #3 and the ESC test on July 29 was entered as exhibit #4, the letter from Bloomingdale requesting an appeal was entered as exhibit #5. Kammeyer asked Chief Vandver about the academy accepting someone at this late date and Vandver stated the academy has already started (back in September). Bloomingdale stated he knows he is too late for this academy/hire, but wants to be back on the list for the next opportunity. Solberg stated the written test we're working from was in August 2003. Joe Beck addressed the Commission stating that if the Commission is considering reinstating the appellant we should continue the hearing and allow City staff to research his argument. City staff would then provide the Commission with what authority they have and a legal understanding on the options of reinstating the appellant on the list. Vandver stated we have no openings at this time but do anticipate an opening next year. Solberg commented that as part of our defined recruiting process we allow candidates to take the ESC test a second time, if they do not pass the first time. From a recruiting standpoint we want to make sure our standards are consistent so we maintain creditable processes and she would like that to be taken into consideration. Beck stated that allowing an individual to be back on the list after failing the exam twice would be a breech of policy; if the Commission chooses to breech the policy Beck will provide information on what legal ground they stand on if they choose to breech the policy and also the Civil Service rules. Motioned and carried to review additional information, if considering reinstatement. Beck stated we need to be sure there has been no ex-party communication with either of the appeals (or staff/appellants) for the appearance of fairness doctrine. Booth stated he has not received any information on the appeals, he has not discussed the situations with anyone and no one has discussed it with him, the only materials he has received regarding the issues were the letters of appeals. Kammeyer stated as chair he received notification but the request for hearings. Van Selus stated he has had no contact. All three verified their statements go for both appeals. Paul Richard Appeal: Staff report from Solberg - Paul Richards was an entry-level firefighter candidate. In conducting the normal background checks (prior to conditional offers) Richards had activity on his WATCH (submitted as exhibit #1), the WATCH is a Washington State Patrol background check and his record showed an arrest offence with status not received for supplying liquor to minors; in addition he has on his driving record CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Dick Kammeyer, Chairman Cyril Van Selus, Member Charles A. Booth, Member Gail Solberg, Secretary/Chief Examiner (submitted as exhibit #2) in 2000 a neg.driving with a description that he cut through a parking lot to avoid a red light. Solberg stated that although the neg. driving may be minor by itself when we look at backgrounds we look at all the information we receive in making a decision. A letter was sent to Paul Richards stating we will not be extending a conditional offer of employment based on the results of his background check. Richards was concerned and called Solberg stating he was going to call the arresting officer and find out why that was on his record; he was under the assumption that his record was cleared. Richards then called and asked the City to pull a new WATCH background and Solberg said 'no', we already have the information from the original WATCH and cannot ignore that information. At that point Richards asked if he could file an appeal and Solberg stated that he could. The letter from the applicant was submitted as exhibit #3. Solberg also stated that when we look at candidates we look at every piece of information we receive. We have very high standards especially when it comes to public safety (ie Fire, Police); we incorporate all information received into the decision making process. All firefighters drive so the driving record is important, the activity in the WATCH with supplying alcohol minors is critical information when looking at Civil Service and acting on behalf of the City. Report from Paul Richards - Richards stated on the neg. driving that was a mistake and it was four years ago. With contributing alcohol to minors, the first time he found out that was on his record was when he received the information from Solberg. He contacted the courts and found there was a clerical error between the court and Seattle PD and the charge was dismissed. The courts notified Solberg the charge was dismissed. He was charged with furnishing liquor to minors. Once finding out about the charge he discussed it with the City Attorney who told him if he did a pre-trial diversion it would be taken off his record. He decided to go that route with the assumption that his background would be clear - he signed without seeking legal advice. When he found out it was on his record he contacted the Officer who was there (Officer Jon Engstrom) and asked him for a statement (exhibit #4). The letter states Richards was with him the entire night. The activity was at Richard's dormitory house where tenants share a floor with others (kitchen, bathrooms) and they rent their own room. The floor where he lived had a party and police were called. When Richards arrived home he was met by the police and they placed him under arrest because he was the only one who was 21. Officer Engstom arrived on the scene and explained Richards was with him that night. They released Richards from custody and said he would not be charged. Richards didn't hear anything until 5 months later when there was a charge from the Prosecutor for contributing to minors. At that time Richards signed the pre-trial diversion form and was told it would erase his background and everything would be clear. Today his background shows a dismissed charge and Richards is working with the Judge to get it expunged from his record. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Dick Kammeyer, Chairman Cyril Van Selus, Member Charles A. Booth, Member Gail Solberg, Secretary/Chief Examiner Richards presented the Municipal Court of Seattle Docket (exhibit #5) showing his charge was dismissed with prejudice. Kammeyer asked what dismissed with prejudice means. Beck stated it means the charge cannot be refiled against him. Richards concluded by distributing additional letters stating that aside from his neg. driving his background is clean (once he gets the charge off his record) and he would like to be placed back ån the eligibility list. Kammeyer asked if the incident happened in Richards's room and Richards replied 'no', only on his floor, his room was locked. Richards distributed a map of his dormitory (submitted as exhibit #6). Van Selus asked what pre-trial diversion means. Beck stated it's a form of a plea- bargain; generally someone does community service or attends training. Richards stated essentially that's what it was. Beck asked a follow-up question to Richards. In the letter asking for the appeal it stated floormates had a party and when Richards arrived home police met him at the door; Richards states in the letter he was not at the party and had nothing to do with the party. Beck asked if that is still Richards statement today. Then Beck asked Richards if he had a chance to review the official police report, Richards stated yes (Seattle police report submitted as exhibit #7). Beck gave the report to Richards and asked if it was the same as what he reviewed. Richards said yes. Richards then explained that the report said he came to the door of his dormitory and the police met him asking if he lived there, he said yes. The police asked what was going on and Richards said they were invited and they were guests of Richards. Richards replied by stating what ever makes the situation easier for you. The police asked for a straight answer and Richards said "yes" they're invited guests, they'll be my guests. Richards was placed under arrest. Once other officers arrived Richards was released. Richards believes the arresting officer was a Seattle police officer. There were about 8 officers there (may have been 1 or 2 campus police). Beck asked if Richards agreed with the following statement in the police report "as the officer reached the 3rd floor the door was open and several people could be seen with open containers. The officer identified himself and Richards came to the door. The officer asked for permission to enter the residence and Richards gave his approval". Richards said he was not there when they initially arrived at the dormitory. Beck asked if when Richards was there when the police got to the third floor. Richards said "no". Beck asked if the officer was not telling the truth in the report. Richards said he doesn't think the officer was purposely lying, there were approximately 40 people there and he could've been confused. Richards stated the police were already on the third floor when he arrived. They were not in Richard's individual room, his room was locked. Beck stated that in the report Richards states that everyone at the party was either a guest he invited or invited by the guests - then Beck asked if that was true. Richards stated that is what CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Dick Kammeyer, Chairman Cyril Van Selus, Member Charles A. Booth, Member Gail Solberg, Secretary/Chief Examiner he said at the time, it was the third time the officer asked the question and he didn't want to make him mad. Beck concluded by making a few points. Both issues are regarding City policies that have been followed. It may be that Richards background is favorable to the City but it may be that because of City policy he may need to come back next time and retest. As it is with the failed ESC test. Both are failed tests in the background investigation process. Beck also stated that the letter from the officer is not an authenticated document (even though we're quasi-judicial) it's something to consider. Beck urged the Commission to consider whether or not it's something they can rely on, realizing it is the Commission's decision to make. . Beck also stated we have an opposed police report vs. the appeal letter from the appellant. The letters don't match. Kammeyer asked if there were any questions before the Commission closes. There were no questions. Kammeyer asked the two appellants to step out while the Commission deliberates in a closed session. The Commission deliberated for approximately 20 minutes and invited the appellants back in to close. Van Selus address both appellants by stating he was impressed with both of them and encouraged them to retest during the next examinations. He stated that rules are rules and we have to follow them. Beck asked if that is a motion to uphold the decision of the City. Van Selus said yes, Booth seconded. Kammeyer stated those who agree say "I" - Van Selus, Booth, and Kammeyer stated "I". Kammeyer stated the motion was carried. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. cc: Commission Members Mayor Peter B. Lewis Police Chief Jim Kelly Asst Police Chief Bob Lee Fire Chief R Vandver Interim Asst Fire Chief Gerber Brenda Heineman, Director of Human Resources/Risk Mgmt Dan Heid, City Attorney Dani Daskam, City Clerk Joe Beck, Assist. City Attorney Police Guild/Mark Callier FF Union Local #1352/Doug Darmody RudyPeden mailto:firesta33@yahoo.com CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Dick Kammeyer, Chairman Cyril Van Selus, Member Charles A. Booth, Member Gail Solberg, Secretary/Chief Examiner