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Department, however the appeal has been withdrawn.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