Aug 28, 2024 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

IS THERE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND THAT.

ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES, SAY AYE.

ANY, ANY, ANY NEGATIVE VOTES, SAY NAY.

DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE APPEAL PROCEDURAL PROCESS, MR. LOPEZ.

UH, THAT MOTION PASSES AND THE, AND THE MINUTES, UH, ARE APPROVED.

UH, I NOW CALL TO ORDER THE APPEAL HEARING FOR THE FIRE BATTALION DIVISION CHIEF, THE FIRE LIEUTENANT, AND THE FIRE ENGINEER PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS, WHICH WERE ADMINISTERED ON AUGUST 1ST AND AUGUST 2ND, 2024.

BEFORE WE START THE HEARING OF THE INDIVIDUAL APPEALS QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO ASK THE CIVIL SERVICE

[a. Review of procedures for Civil Service Appeal Hearing by Civil Service Director.]

ITEM THREE B ON THE AGENDA TODAY.

SO, I JUST WANNA READ THROUGH SYSTEMATICALLY FROM WHAT THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES SAY, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE IN CASE IT'S YOUR FIRST TIME GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, OR IF YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH IT MANY TIMES.

THIS IS THE STANDARD PROCESS FOR THE CONDUCT AND OF THE APPEAL HEARING.

SO THE, THE REASON FOR THE EX EXPLANATION, JUST TO ENSURE CLARITY AND UNDERSTANDING FOR ALL THE PARTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED.

FOR THE TO HEAR, FOR THE APPEALING HEARING PROCESS FOR THE FIRE BATTALION CHIEF, FIRE LIEUTENANT, AND FIRE ENGINEER EXAMINATIONS THAT WERE ADMINISTERED ON OCTOBER 1ST AND OCTOBER 2ND, 2024.

SO PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, I WANNA REMIND THE COMMISSION AND APPELLANTS OF FACTORS THAT DO NOT SUPPORT AN APPEAL.

THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WILL NOT SUPPORT AN APPEAL INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONE EVIDENCE THAT REFERENCE OR OTHER REFERENCE MATERIALS OR SOURCES SUPPORT AN ANSWER WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE APPROVED ANSWER.

TWO EVIDENCE THAT THERE EXISTS ANOTHER ANSWER WHICH IS ACCURATE IN CERTAIN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT WHICH IS NOT ACCURATE GENERALLY.

OR THREE EVIDENCE THAT A REFERENCE PAGE NUMBER IS INCORRECTLY STATED.

A PAGE NUMBER IS ONLY GIVEN TO ASSISTANT LOCATING THE BASIS FOR AN APPROVED ANSWER IN REGARDS TO THE STRUCTURE AND FORMAT OF THE APPEAL HEARING.

FOR EACH APPEALED QUESTION ON THE AGENDA TODAY, THE APPELLANT WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS OR HER REASONS FOR THE APPEAL.

THE APPELLANT MAY DESIGNATE SOMEONE ELSE TO PRESENT COMMENTS IF THEY'D LIKE.

AND PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, EACH APPELLANT WILL BE ALLOWED ALLOTTED UP TO FOUR MINUTES TO STAND BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND SPEAK AFTER THE APPELLANT HAS SPOKEN ON THE QUESTION, THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR OR ANY OTHER NECESSARY PARTY.

THEREAFTER, ANYBODY WHO'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE PARTICULAR ITEM THAT WAS SIGNED UP ON THE LIST BY THE DOOR, THEY'LL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND SPEAK ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM AS WELL.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN UP TO THREE MINUTES.

HOWEVER, I ASK YOU JUST TO BE BRIEF AND TO THE POINT AS POSSIBLE IN YOUR STATEMENTS.

AND THEN AFTER THE APPELLANT HAS SPOKEN AND OTHERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, THE COMMISSION WILL ARRIVE AT A DECISION BY MAKING A MOTION AND THEN VOTING ON IT.

THE COMMISSION WILL DECIDE ON ONE OF THE FOLLOWING.

FOR EACH OF THE APPEALED QUESTIONS, THEY CAN KEEP THE ANSWER THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL KEY.

THEY CAN CHANGE THE CORRECT ANSWER.

THEY CAN ALLOW MORE THAN ONE CORRECT ANSWER, OR THEY CAN DELETE THE QUESTION IN ENTIRETY FROM THE TEST.

AFTER THE COMMISSION VOTES ON APPEALED QUESTIONS, THERE WILL BE A RECESS ULTIMATELY TO RECESS AND RESCORE ALL THE TESTS AND THEN COME BACK AND ANNOUNCE THE OFFICIAL ELIGIBILITY LIST FROM THIS PROMOTIONAL TEST THAT WERE HAD.

THAT'S OKAY.

THANK YOU MR. LOPEZ.

WITH THAT WE'RE GONNA PROCEED TO, UH,

[b. Conduct hearing and consider the appeal of Question #38 from the Fire Lieutenant promotional examination, which was administered on August 1, 2024.]

TODAY, WHICH IS, UM, APPEAL QUESTION NUMBER 38 FROM THE FIRE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION.

AND, UH, MR. ZACHARY COX IS THE APPELLANT.

UH, MR. COX, ARE YOU HERE AND DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK, MR. COX, IF YOU'LL COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE

[00:05:01]

AND IF YOU'D ALSO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR RANK PLEASE? UH, ZACHARY COX, AND I'M A ENGINEER.

I, I'D LIKE TO, UH, WITHDRAW THE QUESTION OR MY APPEAL.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU MR. COX.

THERE'S ALSO TWO OTHER PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO QUESTION 38.

UH, WILLIAM, UH, FRIGE.

MR. FRIGE? WILLIAM FRIGE, UH, ENGINEER.

I'LL WITHDRAW.

MR. SAUNDERS? SEAN SAUNDERS ENGINE OPERATOR, UH, WITHDRAWAL.

AND THERE'S ALSO A THIRD PERSON, MR. SEAN SAUNDERS.

TO ITEM THREE C, WHICH IS GONNA BE QUESTION NUMBER 52.

ALRIGHT, WITH THAT, UH, SINCE THE ORIGINAL APPELLANT IS GONNA WITHDRAW THE APPEAL, THERE'S, UH, NO ACTION REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION AND WE ARE GONNA MOVE ON

[c. Conduct hearing and consider the appeal of Question #52 from the Fire Lieutenant promotional examination, which was administered on August 1, 2024.]

UH, THAT ALSO IS, UH, MR. COX AS THE APPELLANT, UH, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK ZACHARY COX, ENGINEER AND I WOULD WITHDRAW THIS APPEAL AS WELL.

OKAY? OKAY.

UH, MR. SAUNDERS, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK ALSO? I WITHDRAW.

AND WE ARE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM, UH, 3D, WHICH IS QUESTION, UH, NUMBER 22 FROM THE FIRE ENGINEER PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION.

THANK YOU AGAIN.

SINCE, UH, MR. COX HAS WITHDRAWN HIS APPEAL, THERE'S GONNA BE NO ACTION REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION,

[d. Conduct hearing and consider the appeal of Question #22 from the Fire Engineer promotional examination, which was administered on August 2, 2024.]

UH, THE APPELLANT ON THIS QUESTION IS, UH, RYAN GUZMAN.

IS MR. GUZMAN HERE? RYAN GUZMAN, FIREFIGHTER.

I WITHDRAW.

UH, I'VE ALSO GOT, UH, MR. JEREMY, UH, ETT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO THIS QUESTION.

UH, JEREMY P.

FIREFIGHTER, I DON'T WISH TO SPEAK.

MS. WILLIAMSON, VIRGINIA WILLIAMSON FIREFIGHTER, I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST TO SPEAK.

AND WE ALSO HAD VIRGINIA WILLIAMSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS QUESTION.

THREE E, QUESTION NUMBER 53.

THANK YOU AGAIN.

SINCE, UH, THERE'S BEEN A WITHDRAWAL IN THIS QUESTION, THERE'S NO ACTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO TAKE.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM

[e. Conduct hearing and consider the appeal of Question #53 from the Fire Engineer promotional examination, which was administered on August 2, 2024.]

UH, THE APPELLANT ON THAT IS, UH, RYAN GUZMAN, RYAN GUZMAN, FIREFIGHTER.

UM, I'D LIKE TO SELECT BOTH A AND D AS CORRECT ANSWERS.

UH, THE EXAM WRITER ALSO AGREES WITH ME, UM, COUNSELING WAS THE CORRECT ANSWER, BUT ON THE PAGE BEFORE IT, IN THE SAME BOOK, UM, COACHING, UM, IS VERY SIMILAR AND EVEN LISTS SOME OF THE SAME ELEMENTS THAT REINFORCE CORRECT BEHAVIORS, REDIRECTS INCORRECT BEHAVIORS, WHICH IS RIGHT OUT OF THE QUESTION.

I HAVEN'T RECEIVED, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T RECEIVE A RESPONSE, UH, BUT LIKE MR. GUZMAN DID, BUT I AGREE WITH MR. GUZMAN AND THE, THE TEST MAKER THAT BOTH A AND D ARE CORRECT.

AND MR. ETT, YOU'VE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ALSO DURING PAQUETTE FIREFIGHTER, AND I AGREE.

UH, WITH, NO, NOBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

IS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? NO COMMENT UP TO MS ON QUESTION THREE E I'M NOT SURE ON ANYBODY.

OH, I'M SORRY.

MS. WILLIAMSON, YOU DID SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR THAT.

I'M SORRY.

I ACTUALLY APPEALED THE QUESTION ALSO, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WASN'T SENT TO ME.

THE RESPONSE WASN'T SENT TO ME.

BUT I, MS. WILSON, I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU.

UH, I ALSO APPEALED THE QUESTION, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

[00:10:01]

THE DEFINITION OUTTA CONTEXT IS EXTREMELY.

THE TWO ARE EXTREMELY SIMILAR FOR COUNSELING AND COACHING.

THERE ARE SOME VERY DIFFERENT, UH, FEATURES OF COUNSELING AND COACHING, BUT AS PER THE DEFINITION WRITTEN ON THE EXAM, THEY'RE EXTRAORDINARILY SIMILAR.

OH, THANK YOU.

IS THAT MICROPHONE ON? YES, IT'S, SHE'S JUST QUIET.

I JUST QUIET.

WELL, IT, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU, .

OKAY, THEN FOR QUESTION, UH, THREE E, UH, WOULD NOBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? UH, WE'VE GOT, UH, INFORMATION FROM THE, THE TEST WRITER THAT, UH, UH, AGREES WITH, WITH BOTH OF YOUR, UH, APPEALS THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT.

UM, BOTH ANSWERS.

IS THERE A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT TO ACCEPT BOTH A AND D AS CORRECT ANSWERS.

SECOND.

MOTION AND SECONDED.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ITEM? OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.

F, WHICH IS QUESTION NUMBER 63 ON THE FIRE ENGINEER PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION.

THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE WILL CHANGE THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO BOTH A AND D FOR QUESTION NUMBER 53 ON THAT EXAM.

UH, THEN LET'S, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM THREE

[f. Conduct hearing and consider the appeal of Question #63 from the Fire Engineer promotional examination, which was administered on August 2, 2024.]

AND, UM, THE APPELLANT IS, UH, MR. BLAKE STOUR, UH, MR. STOUR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? UH, YES, SIR.

BLAKE STEFANO FIREFIGHTER.

UH, SO QUESTION 63 STATES THAT, UH, A HOSE LINE LAYING ON THE STAIRS WILL REQUIRE, REQUIRE ONE LENGTH PER FLOOR AND ADDITIONAL FIREFIGHTERS FOR ADVANCEMENT.

THE SENTENCE DIRECTLY ABOVE THAT ALSO STATES A RULE OF THUMB FOR HOSE LINES PULLED UP.

THE EXTERIOR OF A BUILDING OR UP A STAIRWELL IS ONE LENGTH FOR EVERY THREE FLOORS.

UH, I'M ASKING THAT ANSWER CHOICES, UH, A AND C BOTH BE CORRECT? UM, I BELIEVE IT'S EASY FOR THE READER TO UNDERSTAND STAIRWELL AND, UM, STAIRCASE TO MEAN THE SAME THING.

UH, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I WAS ASSIGNED TO ADVANCE A HOSE LINE UP A STAIRWELL, I WOULD TAKE THE STAIRCASE.

IF I WAS ASSIGNED TO ADVANCE A HOSE LINE UP THE STAIRCASE, I'D DO THE SAME ACTION.

UH, AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THAT BOTH A AND C ARE CORRECT.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR MR. AUER? UM, .

UM, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, MS. WILLIAMSON, YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE.

I AGREE WITH THE, UH, QUESTION AS WRITTEN AND INITIALLY ASSESSED.

UH, I THINK, I BELIEVE THAT ONE WAS VERBATIM FROM THE BOOK, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

AND, UH, MR. PAQUETTE? UH, MR. PUCKETTE? I WITHDRAWAL MY, UH, OKAY.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

ARE ANY ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

NO.

READING THE MATERIAL, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I JUST HAVE A COMMENT AS, AS I READ THROUGH THE INFORMATION AND LOOKING AT THE, UH, HOSE LAYING ON DIFFERENT STAIRWELLS AND A PICTURE THEY GAVE US GOING FROM ONE TO THREE WITHOUT LAYING IT PARTICULARLY ON, ON THE GROUND.

I SEE HOW THERE COULD MAYBE BE SOME CONFUSION ON THIS QUESTION, EVEN THOUGH, UH, THE ANSWER IS, IS QUOTED VERBATIM IN THE MATERIAL.

SO, JUST, JUST A COMMENT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NONE THAT I HAVE.

ALRIGHT.

WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT A MOTION, MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL HERE.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? I'D LIKE TO RECONSIDER.

WITHOUT A SECOND.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THIS.

DO WE NEED A SECOND BEFORE WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT? WELL, THE MOTION OR, OR THE MOTION WILL FAIL WITHOUT

[00:15:01]

A SECOND MOTION.

MM-HMM .

MOTION DIES.

MOTION DIES WITHOUT A SECOND.

YOU CAN THEN YOU CAN DISCUSS MORE AND TRY TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.

IF, IF THERE'S NOT A SECOND TO THE MOTION, THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION.

YES, PLEASE.

MR. VALIER, UH, THE DISCUSSION THAT I'D LIKE TO, UM, IMPOSE IS THAT, UM, FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, THE HOSE LAID ON THE STAIRS, UH, WILL REQUIRE, UH, ONE LENGTH PER FLOOR IN ADDITIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, UH, FOR ADVANCEMENT.

IF IT'S NOT ON THE STAIRWELL, IS THAT APPLICATION THE SAME? IS IT WHERE THAT AMOUNT OF REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE? IF IT'S NOT IN THAT POSITION ON THE STAIRS, WOULD THAT BE TO MR. STEFAN HOUR? UH, YES, PLEASE.

WOULD.

WOULD YOU? YEAH.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT PLEASE? IBEL? I BELIEVE THAT IF THE BOOK CLARIFIED TO RAISE THE HOSE LINE OVER THE HANDRAIL OF THE STAIRS, THEN IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO ADVANCE IT IN ANY OTHER WAY THAN THE STAIRCASE ITSELF.

UH, THE BOOK DOESN'T SAY TO PUT IT OVER THE HANDRAIL, IT JUST SAYS TO ADVANCE IT UP THE STAIRWELL, WHICH MOST FOLKS TAKE THE STAIRCASE UP, THE STAIRWELL, THE ADVANCEMENT.

I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THE REQUIREMENT AND, UH, THE ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF HOSE, IS THAT, IS THAT THE SAME? UM, I WOULD SUPPOSE IT'D BE SHORTER.

SO IT WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL APPLICATION TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT IF IT'S ON THE STAIRWELL.

WHAT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

I'M SORRY.

OH, I, IF, IF IT'S ON THE STAIRWELL, IT WOULD ACTUALLY REQUIRE MORE LENGTH OF HOSE? CORRECT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? NO.

TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, CORRECT.

AND, AND AGAIN, MY COMMENT BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, THIS QUESTION TO ME IS A LITTLE CONFUSING AND NOT BEING A FIREFIGHTER.

UH, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GIVEN US A LITTLE PICTURE HERE ABOUT HOW A HOSE CAN BE STRETCHED FROM ONE FLOOR TO THREE FLOORS WITHOUT GOING ZIGZAGGING IT UP AND DOWN, WHICH, WHICH CONFUSES ME ON THE QUESTION.

SO I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY THERE MIGHT BE SOME CONFUSION FROM, UH, YOU APPELLANTS ON THAT.

UH, JUST TO COMMENT FOR ME.

SO WITH THAT IS THERE, IS THERE A MOTION WE WANT TO ENTERTAIN FOR THIS QUESTION? I HAD LIKE TO MOTION TO ACCEPT, TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL CASE OR SECOND? UM, I WOULD NOT SECOND THAT.

IT'S, UM, IT DOES SAY FAIRLY CLEARLY IN THE, IN THE TEXT AND THE ONE SENTENCE RIGHT BEFORE IT, RULE OF THUMB FOR HOSE LINE PULLED UP THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR A STAIRWELL AS ONE LENGTH FOR EVERY THREE FLOORS.

AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY THE ONE HOSE LINE LAID ON THE STAIRS WILL REQUIRE ONE LENGTH PER FLOOR.

SO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THERE AND RIGHT.

BUT THE QUESTION ITSELF IS SAYING HOSE LINE LAID ON THE STAIRS WILL REQUIRE ONE LENGTH PER FLOOR.

SO IT, I I THINK IT FOLLOWS RIGHT OUT OF THE BOOK.

I'LL, I'LL SECOND THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR SO THAT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.

OKAY? OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR, FOR SHARING THAT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? NO.

UH, WITH THAT, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL.

UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

WHEN YOU SAY ACCEPT THE APPEAL, WHAT ARE YOU ACCEPTING AS FAR AS SPECIFYING, UH, THE APPEAL TO ACCEPT, I GUESS BOTH ANSWERS A AND C.

WANT TO CLARIFY? THANK YOU.

THE MOTION IS TO ACCEPT BOTH ANSWERS, A AND C AND TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL.

UH, THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT'S SAY AYE.

AND I'LL VOTE.

UH, ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED? ONE DAY.

RECESS TO REGRADE THE TEST

THAT, UH, THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL ACCEPT BOTH ANSWERS A AND C FOR QUESTION NUMBER 63.

ALRIGHT, UH, WITH THAT WE ARE GOING TO, UH,

[00:20:01]

[g. Civil Service Director statement on regrading process.]

ITEM 3G.

THAT'S NEXT ON HERE BEFORE WE RECESS.

I'M SORRY.

UM, YEAH, ITEM 3G, UH, WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM OUR CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR AGAIN, MR. LOPEZ.

YES.

I JUST WANNA TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO ADDRESS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM THAT CAME UP FOLLOWING THE TEST DURING THE APPEAL REVIEW PERIOD.

IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY ONE OF THE TEST TAKERS DURING THEIR APPEAL REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH WAS MR. ZACHARY COX, WHO TESTED FOR THE FIRE LIEUTENANT, THAT UPON REVIEWING HIS SCANTRON DURING THE APPEAL PERIOD, WHICH, WHICH IS THE FIVE DAYS FOLLOWING THE TEST FIVE BUSINESS DAYS, HE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS AN ITEM MARKED ON HIS TEST, WHICH HE MARKED THE CORRECT ANSWER, BUT THE SCANTRON REPORTED IT AS INCORRECT WHEN IT REPORTED IT, WHICH DIDN'T GIVE HIM THE CREDIT FOR THAT QUESTION.

AND I MET WITH MR. COX TO UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERNS AND BETTER UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION IN GENERAL AND WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THAT.

THOUGH UPON REVIEW OF THE SCANTRON, I COULD VALIDATE THE CORRECT ANSWER WAS MARKED APPROPRIATELY ON THE SCANTRON AND THAT THE SCANTRON COUNTED IT INCORRECTLY.

I ALSO STAFF AND I DETERMINED THAT THE MACHINE DID NOT GRADE CORRECTLY FOR THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION, AND IT WAS LIKELY DUE TO HE HAD AN ERASER MARK ON IT.

BUT IT WAS WHAT WAS CLEARLY ERASED WAS DEFINED THERE THAT IT WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE ERASED AND THAT THE CORRECT ANSWER WAS MARKED APPROPRIATELY FROM OUR ASSESSMENT WITH STAFF.

AND I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT TOO, THAT MR. COX NEVER HAD ACCESS TO HIS ORIGINAL SCAN DRAWN OUTSIDE OF WHEN HE TURNED IT IN ON THE TEST STAY.

SO ANYTHING THAT HE LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED IN OUR OFFICE WAS A COPY OF THE SCANTRON.

SO HE NEVER HAD ACCESS TO ANY OF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL DURING THAT PROCESS.

THAT WHEN WE POSTED THE RAW UNCERTIFIED SCORES, WHICH WE POST 24 HOURS AFTER TESTING, WE POSTED WITH MR. COX'S FOR THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION, IT WAS INCORRECT, SO WE DIDN'T RECEIVE CREDIT FOR IT.

SO THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, IN MY UNDERSTANDING AS I REVIEW THE RULES, DOES NOT FALL UNDER THIS APPEAL PROCESS BECAUSE THIS APPEAL PROCESS IMPACTS EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO TAKES THE TEST.

THIS WAS PARTICULAR TO MR. COX ON HIS EXAM FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM AND ISSUE.

SO PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, THERE'S VARIOUS THINGS WHICH I'M TO BE THE CHIEF EXAMINER AS THE CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR OF TESTS AND APPEALS.

THAT'S IN SECTION ONE POINT 16 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LOCAL RULES.

AND IT FURTHER POINTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR BEING THE SUPERVISOR OF ALL EXAMS, INCLUDING THE SCORING AND HANDLING OF SUCH MATTERS AS DEEMED REASONABLY NECESSARY IN REGARDS TO EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.

SO GIVEN THE CONCERNS RAISED BY MR. COX, I FIND THIS TO BE A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM IN NATURE OF WHAT OCCURRED.

AND I FIND HIS REQUEST VALID AND I FURTHER, I FIND THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION WAS GRADED IN THERE AND IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.

AND TO THAT END, WHEN WE GO INTO THE REGRADING PROCESS, WE WILL APPROPRIATELY AWARD THE POINT FOR THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION TO MR. COX BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND REVIEW FROM OUR OFFICE.

I WANT TO SAY THAT THE GOAL WILL ALWAYS BE TO PROVIDE, PROVIDE A FAIR AND EFFICIENT PROCESS.

TO THAT END, ONCE WE WERE INFORMED BY MR. COX THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR ON THAT, OUR STAFF REVIEWED EVERY SINGLE SCANTRON FROM THE TEST AND REVIEWED EVERY ANSWER TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS NOT ANOTHER ERROR THAT WAS FOUND ON THAT.

AND IN THAT REVIEW PROCESS, THERE WAS NO OTHER ERRORS THAT WERE ANYTHING THAT WAS MARKED INCORRECTLY.

SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE BEING FAIR OF EVERYBODY WHO TOOK THE TEST IN THE PROCESS, THAT THERE WASN'T ANY INEQUITY IN THAT.

AND THE ONLY ITEM THAT WE DID FIND WAS QUESTION NUMBER 16 THAT MR. COX BROUGHT FORWARD THAT WAS MARKED INAPPROPRIATELY.

SO BASED ON ALL THAT, DURING OUR, WHEN WE GO BACK AND REGRADE, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT WE WILL ADD THAT POINT TO THE TEST AS APPROPRIATE AS WE WOULD'VE DONE FOR ANYBODY ELSE WHO BROUGHT THIS FORWARD.

AND IN THE REVIEW, IF WE FOUND ANYTHING ELSE, WE WOULD'VE TAKEN THAT SAME ACTION AS WELL.

THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

THAT'S OKAY.

THANK YOU MR. LOPEZ.

UH, WITH THAT WE WILL, UH, RECESS.

I THINK THERE'S INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM THOUGH, IF THEY WANNA SPEAK TO IT.

NO, UH, MATTER OF FACT, WE HAD, UH, SEVERAL SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO THAT, UH, MR. WILLIAM JE, FIRST WILLIAM JE ENGINEER.

UM, I'VE GOT SOME DOCUMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO HAND OUT TO Y'ALL IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

THERE'S A COPY OF LOCAL CIVIL SERVICE CODE.

I'M SURE Y'ALL HAVE IT, BUT I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAD IT.

Y'ALL DIDN'T HAVE IT.

SPECIFICALLY TO SPECIFY THE CHALLENGE QUESTION NUMBERS ONLY THE CANDIDATE MAY NOT COPY THE QUESTIONS, BUT THE LIST OF THE QUESTION NUMBERS, THE ANSWERS, THE REASONS FOR THE APPEAL AND THE REFERENCE MATERIAL UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED.

AND THIS IS A COPY OF THE DIRECTIONS THAT WE WERE GIVEN PRIOR TO TAKING THE TEXT.

THESE WHERE TAKEN FROM HR.

I LIKE TO SPEAK TO TWO ISSUES WITH THIS ADDITIONAL AWARDING OF THE TEST.

THE FIRST BEING THAT IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION 10.24 OF THE LOCAL CIVIL SERVICE CODE, IT SAYS, AND AN EMPLOYEE MAY REQUEST A COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THE EMPLOYEE'S PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION AND ANSWERS THE GRADING OF SAME AND THE SOURCE MATERIAL FOR THE EXAMINATION BY FILING A WRITTEN REQUEST WITH THE DIRECTOR WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE EXAMINATION SCORES ARE POSTED, SATURDAY, SUNDAYS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, EXCLUDING HOLIDAYS.

MR. COX DID THAT.

HE DID APPLY, HE DID APPLY WITHIN THE REASONABLE TIMEFRAME.

IF YOU CONTEND YOU TO READ IT SAYS, ALL APPEALS MUST BE IN WRITING

[00:25:01]

IF ANY CANDIDATE APPEALS A QUESTION ON A PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION UNDER THIS RULE, THE DIRECTOR SHALL PREPARE A WRITTEN NOTICE FOR THE HEARING AND NOTIFY ALL PARTIES DATES, TIMES IN PLACE WITH, IN PLACE OF THE HEARING.

THE DIRECTOR SHALL PREPARE THE PACKAGE AND IT GOES ON TO EVERYTHING ELSE NOWHERE IN OUR CIVIL SERVICE CODE.

I UNDERSTAND MR. LOPEZ'S ARGUMENT THAT HE'S ATTEMPTING TO DO THIS EFFICIENTLY AND FAIRLY.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT BY AWARDING HIM THE POINT ADMINISTRATIVELY, THERE'S NOTHING THAT ALLOWS HIM TO AWARD SPECIFICALLY AWARD POINTS ADMINISTRATIVELY.

IF THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE GRADING, IT SAYS IN TEXT IN SECTION 10.24, THAT THAT MUST BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

SO HE, ACCORDING TO THIS, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT ACCESS.

FURTHERMORE, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE THREE OF THE SECOND SET OF DOCUMENTS I HANDED YOU, IT SAYS THAT ABOUT A THIRD OF THE WAY DOWN, THERE'S A CHECK MARK.

WE UTILIZE A SCANTRON FOR GRADING PURPOSES SO FAR TO COMPLETELY ERASE AN ANSWER MAY CAUSE THAT ANSWER TO BE SCORED INCORRECTLY.

MS. MCKAY STANDS IN FRONT OF US, SHE READS VERBATIM FROM THIS, WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE'RE WALKING INTO.

I HAVE A THIRD, A FOURTH GRADE DAUGHTER LAST YEAR.

SHE TOOK STATE STANDARDIZED TESTING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON A SCANTRON.

SHE'S NOT ABLE TO BRING IT BACK AND REAPPEAL IT.

IT'S SIMPLY SHE FILLS IT OUT AND SHE HANDS IT IN.

I'VE BEEN A PARAMEDIC FOR 15 YEARS.

WHEN I TOOK MY SCANTRON, WHEN I TOOK MY TEST OF GET MY CERTIFICATIONS, I HAD TO FILL IT OUT ON SCANTRON AND SEND IT IN.

I NEVER HAD THAT ABILITY TO GO BACK AND LOOK, SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE SAID TO ME, WHAT WOULD YOU DO UNDER THIS SITUATION? I SAID, BECAUSE MY ENTIRE CAREER HAS BEEN BASED ON TAKING STANDARDIZED TESTING AND SCANTRONS.

WHEN YOU GET IT WRONG, IT'S WRONG.

YOU DON'T GET TO GO BACK AND SAY, HEY, WHAT ABOUT THIS MY THIRD GRADE DAUGHTER? WE'RE PUTTING ENOUGH FAITH IN THIRD GRADERS TO DO THIS.

WE SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH FAITH IN THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE LETTING GO INTO PEOPLE'S HOMES AND BE AROUND THEIR PRIVATE STUFF, THEIR, THEIR THINGS AND THEIR TIMES OF NEED.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU MR. JE.

UH, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, MR. SMO, IS IT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? ROBERT SMO, LIEUTENANT, UM, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS NOT MY INTENT TO BE AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR FIREFIGHTER OR FOR ANY FIREFIGHTER.

MY INTENT HERE TODAY IS JUST TO, UH, STAND ON THE MERIT OF THIS, THIS PROBLEM.

MR. LOPEZ STATED BEFORE WE STARTED TALKING, UM, THAT HE WAS GONNA GO OVER, UH, WHAT THE ACTUAL RULES WERE FOR ANYBODY THAT HAS NEVER TAKEN THIS, BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

LIKE MR. FRIGE SAID, IT IS STATED BEFORE THIS TEST THAT IF YOU DON'T PROPERLY ERASE SOMETHING, THEN IT'S GONNA BE COUNTED AGAINST YOU.

THAT BURDEN OF PROOF IS PUT ON THIRD GRADERS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT CAN'T BE PUT ON, UH, ADULT PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE THING.

I BELIEVE IT'S A CIVIL SERVICE THING.

IF WE ALLOW THIS TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE, WE'RE ALLOWING SUBJECTIVITY INTO THIS PROCESS.

WHAT SHADE OF ERASURE MARK ALLOWS FOR IT TO BE GIVEN TO, UH, A CORRECT ANSWER OR A FALSE ANSWER.

I CAN TELL YOU IT'S STANDARDIZED ALREADY.

IT'S STANDARDIZED IN THE MACHINE.

THE MACHINE PICKED UP THAT IT WASN'T PROPERLY ERASED AND MR. LOPEZ STATED HIMSELF THAT HE WENT BACK AND NO OTHER ERASER MARKS WERE PICKED UP.

SO THAT MEANS TO TELL ME THAT IT WASN'T A MECHANICAL ISSUE.

THE ISSUE WAS IT WASN'T PROPERLY ERASED.

MISTAKES HAPPEN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS FIREFIGHTER WANTS THIS TO BE CHANGED, AND I GET THAT COMPLETELY, BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THESE MISTAKES.

UH, SO THAT MEANS TO TELL ME THAT IT'S NOT A MECHANICAL ISSUE.

UH, WE EXPECT THIRD GRADERS TO DO THIS, AND THIS IS A STANDARDIZED THING THAT WE NEED THE CIVIL SERVICE TEST TO BE TAKEN, UH, OBJECTIVELY AND NOT SUBJECTIVELY BY AN HR MANAGER OR SOMEBODY ELSE IN ADMINISTRATION.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

UH, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, MR. MICHAEL DAWSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

MR. DAWSON.

MICHAEL DAWSON, LIEUTENANT, UH, I'M JUST GONNA PRETTY MUCH PIGGYBACK ON WHAT LIEUTENANT BAMO SAYS.

YOU KNOW, IT STATES CLEARLY IN CIVIL SERVICE THAT THE, THE PROCEDURES WE HAVE TO GO TO, TO CHALLENGE THESE QUESTIONS.

AND THIS IS A CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

SO TO ME, I MEAN, IT IS VERBATIM THAT IF MR. LOPEZ HAD AN ISSUE, HE SHOULD HAVE PUT IT DOWN IN WRITING AND SENT IT UP TO YOU FOR SO WE CAN ARGUE ON IT.

AND SO Y'ALL COULD LOOK AT IT AS WELL.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON IT.

UH, NEXT SPEAKER IS, UH, MR. SEAN SAUNDERS.

[00:30:08]

I WITHDRAW, SIR.

AND OUR FINAL SPEAKER THAT SIGNED UP IS MR. ES STEFAN RODRIGUEZ.

I WILL HAVE TO AGREE WITH LIEUTENANT BAMO.

COULD COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND RANK? OH, I'M SORRY.

ESTEBAN RODRIGUEZ.

UH, ENGINEER.

I'LL HAVE TO AGREE WITH LIEUTENANT BAMO.

IT WASN'T THE SCANTRON THAT MADE THE INCORRECT.

IT WAS THE USER.

I KNOW THAT MYSELF BECAUSE I ERASED A COUPLE OF ANSWERS THAT WERE RIGHT AND GOT 'EM WRONG, SO IT COUNTERED THEM WRONG.

SO THE MACHINE WAS RIGHT, IT'S JUST A USER ERROR WHEN IT COMES TO BUBBLING.

THE MACHINE PICKED UP THAT IT WAS TWO ANSWERS, SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS THE INCORRECT.

UH, WITH THAT, WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO ITEM THREE H.

IS THAT CORRECT?

[h. Recess to regrade tests, if necessary.]

THAT'S CORRECT.

IS THERE ANY ACTION WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE ON THIS? IT'S NOT AN ACTION ITEM.

NOT AT THIS TIME.

I WANNA NOW, UH, RECONVENE OUR OPEN MEETING OF THE BAYTOWN CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANNOUNCE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5 51 0.102 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, NO ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE'LL NOW, UM, SPEAK TO ANYTHING RECESS TO REGRADE, UH, THE TESTS.

UM, THE CURRENT TIME IS NOW, UH, 2 32 AND THEN WE WILL REOPEN THE MEETING AFTER THE TESTS HAVE BEEN REGRADED, IS THE COUNSELOR GONNA GO OR AS A, AS A COMMISSION.

WE'RE GONNA GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AND THEN COME BACK AND KIND OF GIVE YOU WHERE WE'RE GONNA, HOW WE'RE GONNA DEAL WITH THIS AND WHERE WE'RE GONNA GO FROM HERE.

SO WE'RE GONNA ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 2:36 PM OKAY.

[i. Reconvene the Civil Service Appeal Hearing.]

THE TIME IS NOW, UH, 3 22 AND WE WILL RECONVENE APPEAL HEARING FOR THE FIRE BATTALION DIVISION CHIEF, THE FIRE LIEUTENANT, AND THE FIRE ENGINEER PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS, WHICH WERE ADMINISTERED ON AUGUST 1ST AND AUGUST 2ND, 2024.

[j. Certification of the Fire Battalion Chief/Division Chief, Fire Lieutenant, and Fire Engineer eligibility lists.]

WE WILL NOW, WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM THREE J, CERTIFICATION OF THE FIRE BATTALION DIVISION, CHIEF, FIRE LIEUTENANT AND FIRE ENGINEER ELIGIBILITY LIST.

I AM GONNA NOW READ THE SCORES BASED ON THE ADJUSTMENTS WE'VE MADE ON, ON THE TEST FOR THE FIRE BATTALION CHIEF DIVISION.

CHIEF RANK NUMBER ONE, ANTHONY AZIZI, RANKED WITH A SCORE OF 96.

RANKED NUMBER TWO IS JOHN SHEFFIELD WITH A SCORE OF 93.

RANK NUMBER THREE, JAMES WEAVER 84.

RANK NUMBER FOUR, DAVID ZINSKY WITH A SCORE OF 82.

RANK NUMBER FIVE, OTIS DOBBINS WITH A SCORE OF 80.

AND RANK NUMBER SIX, JAMES MOSS.

ALSO WITH A SCORE OF 80, I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CERTIFY THESE RESULTS.

MAKE A MOTION TO CERTIFY THOSE RESULTS.

SECOND.

OKAY, WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CERTIFY THESE RESULTS.

UH, ANY DISCUSSION? ANY QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY.

HEARING NONE.

THAT, THAT MOTION PASSES AND THOSE RESULTS WILL BE CERTIFIED.

I'M NOW GONNA MOVE ON TO THE FIRE LIEUTENANT SCORES, UH, RANKED AS NUMBER ONE.

SEAN SAUNDERS WITH A SCORE OF 98.

RANK NUMBER TWO, ZACHARY COX WITH A SCORE OF 96.

RANK NUMBER THREE, WILLIAM FRIESER WITH A SCORE OF 95.

RANK NUMBER FOUR, ZACHARY HENDERSON WITH A SCORE OF 89.

RANK NUMBER FIVE, ESTEBAN RODRIGUEZ WITH A SCORE OF 89.

RANK NUMBER SIX, JOHN HUGHES WITH A SCORE OF 87.

AND RANK NUMBER SEVEN, CHLOE MATULA WITH A SCORE OF 85.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THESE.

MAKE A MOTION TO CERTIFY THOSE RESULTS.

I SECOND.

OKAY, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY.

RANK NUMBER TWO, VIRGINIA WILLIAMSON

THOSE RESULTS ARE NOW CERTIFIED ALSO.

AND I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO THE FIRE ENGINEER SCORES.

UH, RANK AS NUMBER ONE BLAKE STEFAN HOUR WITH A SCORE OF 1 0 4.

[00:35:01]

WITH A SCORE OF 1 0 3.

RANK NUMBER THREE, JEREMY PAQUETTE WITH A SCORE OF 1 0 1.

RANK NUMBER FOUR, RYAN GUZMAN, SCORE OF 99.

RANK NUMBER FIVE, BRIGHTON SEABERG WITH A SCORE OF 98.

RANK NUMBER SIX, JASON KRAUS WITH A SCORE OF 98.

RANK NUMBER SEVEN, BRIAN BLAKE BERG WITH A SCORE OF 97.

RANK OF NUMBER EIGHT, GARY HAEL WITH A SCORE OF 95.

RANK NUMBER NINE, RYAN JONES ALSO SCORED 95.

RANK NUMBER 10, CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR.

ALSO A SCORE OF 95.

RANK OF NUMBER 11, ERIC SULLIVAN WITH A SCORE OF 93.

RANK NUMBER 12, BRADLEY BRYANT WITH A SCORE OF 91.

RANKED NUMBER 13, STEPHAN BOGGS WITH A SCORE OF 90.

RANK NUMBER 14, CHARLES EVES WITH A SCORE OF 90.

RANK NUMBER 15, ROBERT SCHWEISS WITH A SCORE OF 90.

RANK NUMBER 16, JEREMIAH CHAPLIN, SCORE OF 90.

UH, RANK NUMBER 17, DANIEL TY WITH A SCORE OF 83.

UH, RANK NUMBER 18, MARTIN SEIC WITH A SCORE OF 80.

RANK NUMBER 19, THOMAS PHILLIPS WITH A SCORE OF 80.

RANK NUMBER 20, TAYLOR BROWN WITH A SCORE OF 79.

AND RANK NUMBER 21, BRANDON SPEARS WITH A SCORE ALSO OF 79.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT A MOTION TO CERTIFY THESE SCORES.

MAKE A MOTION TO CERTIFY THE SCORES.

IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, THERE'S GONNA MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE RESULTS? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY.

THAT MOTION, UH, PASSES ALSO, UH, WITH THAT, UH, JUST ONE FINAL COMMENT, UH, FROM THE COMMISSION.

ACCORDING TO, UH, SECTION 10.15 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, UH, COMMISSION, UH, RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR, UH, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS ABOUT, UH, THE TESTS OR QUESTIONS, UH, THAT COME UP, UH, WHICH IS WHAT, UH, HE HAS DONE.

AND THERE'S GONNA BE NO ACTION, UH, FROM THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME, UH, ABOUT THOSE SCORES.

UH, WITH THAT, UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA.

ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, SIR? OKAY.

WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED, NAY.

ALRIGHT, THAT MOTION'S ACCEPTED AND, UH, WE ARE ADJOURNED.