To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information



Year:2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997   

 

 

Minutes of Special Meeting

 

Monday, August 1, 2005

 

12:30 p.m.

 

I.

The Special Meeting was called to order at 12:45 p.m.

 

 

 

Present:

President Linda Richardson

 

 

Vice President Thomas T. Ng

 

 

Commissioner Alicia D. Becerril (Arrived @ 1:08p.m. during Item III, missed items I and II)

 

 

Commissioner Donald A. Casper

 

 

Commissioner Morgan R. Gorrono

 

 

 

 

President Linda Richardson presided.

 

 

II.

Public Comment on all matters appearing on the Special Meeting Agenda Session.

 

 

 

1)  Vincent Harrington – on behalf of the Police Officers Association representing all Lieutenant candidates, historically association supported a fair, equitable reasonable selection process and was involved in bargaining.  Concerns about proposal under Rule 213.7:  a) test is best evidence of who is qualified; b) in July 13, 2005 meeting the Commission had not looked at data or privy to individual scores, do not understand basis for Civil Service Commission to deviate from its Rule; c) ask Civil Service Commission to disclose as much as possible because it’s a deviation.

 

2)  Tom Feledy – thanked Commission for informational meetings – provided interface one on one with members of department.  Submitted a written statement:  “This City needs – and the Charter mandates – the most qualified persons be promoted.  Psychometricians know the most qualified are those who score highest on relevant tests.  With this broad Rule, the Commission uses dubious statistics to justify social engineering and deny the reality that equal opportunity cannot guarantee equal results.  Through Prop. 209, the people of the State of California have spoken, but this Commission chooses to ignore them.  In doing so, the Commission drives officer morale downward, invites litigation, and does a disservice to those who live and work in the City.  With a valid and job related test, why should we now throw aside the hard work done by test preparers and test takers?  Is the Chief’s opinion a better test?  I believe this Rule is too broad and not legally necessary.  I recommend the Commission return to the Rule of 5 Scores to certify this list.”  Concerns:  a) make clear band; b) remaining 1 -18 eligibles; c) Civil Service Commission has no decimal points resulting in tie scores; d) rule proposed is too broad, not necessary and should return to Rule of Five Scores.

 

3)  Gary Delagnes, President, Police Officers Association – represents 2200 members, promotional process in San Francisco Police Department looked at by members with wary eyes, there is a morale problem, little or no information, do not trust promotional system, if Rule is adopted it will destroy the morale in the department; high score should be rewarded.

 

 

III.

Implementation of Civil Service Commission Rule 213.7 – Certification of Promotive Eligible List applicable to the Police Department Q-60 Lieutenant Examination on November 3, 2004 (written) and January 25, 2005 (oral) – (Announcement No. 52496 – Amended and reissued November 4, 2004).  (File No. 0377-05-5) – Discussion and Possible Action Item

 

 

 

July 5, 2005:

Continue to a Special Meting to be scheduled the week of July 11, 2005.

 

 

 

 

July 13, 2005:

1) Propose that the implementation of the certification rule for the eligible list resulting from the Q-60 Lieutenant examination on November 3, 2004 (written) and January 25, 2005 (oral) – (Announcement No. 52496 amended and reissued November 4, 2004) shall be the Rule of Five Scores for the first 14 hiring requisitions.  Thereafter, a statistically valid grouping with a confidence level 1.96 and a sliding band of 129 points shall be used starting with Rank 19.  Consistent with Civil Service Commission Rules, candidates in Ranks 1 to 18 who are not selected under the Rule of Five Scores shall be considered with those in the band.

 

 

2) Instruct the Executive Officer to calendar the implementation of the certification rule for the eligible list resulting from the Q-60 Lieutenant examination on November 3, 2004 (written) and January 25, 2005 (oral) –Announcement No. 52496 amended and reissued November 4, 2004) at a meeting of the Civil Service Commission on August 1, 2005

 

 

3) Instruct the Human Resources Director to post the eligible list resulting from the Q-60 Lieutenant examination on November 3, 2004 (written) and January 25, 2005 (oral) – (Announcement No. 52496 Amended and reissued November 4, 2004) as soon as possible.

 

 

4) Instruct the Executive Officer to set up informational meetings with interested parties and stakeholders prior to the Civil Service Commission meeting August 1, 2005 to answer questions on the proposed implementation of the certification.

 

 

 

 

Resolution:

Resolution Implementing Rule 213.7 For Police Department Q-60 Lieutenant Examination Administered on November 3, 2004 (written) and January 25, 2005 (oral) – Announcement No. 52496 (Amended and Reissued November 4, 2004)

 

Whereas, The process of certifying eligibles from the eligibility list for the above-referenced Q-60 police lieutenant’s examination must satisfy the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and

 

Whereas, Application of the Rule of Five Scores would adversely impact one or more groups as measured under Title VII; and

 

Whereas, To ensure compliance with Title VII, Civil Service Commission Rule 213.7 provides that if application of the Rule of Five Scores to an eligibility list will result in adverse impact under Title VII, the Commission shall adopt a broader process for certifying eligibles; and

 

Whereas, For the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with Title VII, pursuant to Civil Service Commission Rule 213.7 the Commission is adopting the broader process for certifying eligibles specified below; and

 

Whereas, That broader process for certifying eligibles does not mandate, ensure, or suggest that any specific person will be promoted, or that members of any specific racial, ethnic, or gender group will be promoted, and does not grant a preference to or discriminate against any person or any racial, ethnic, or gender group; and

 

Whereas, That broader process for certifying eligibles is consistent with and furthers merit system principles; and

 

Whereas, To avoid any suspicion of favoritism in adopting that broader process for certifying eligibles, members of the Commission have not been privy to individual exam scores or names of test-takers; now, therefore,

 

Be It Resolved, That, for purposes of the above-referenced Q-60 police lieutenant’s examination, the Commission adopts the following process for certifying eligibles from the eligibility list:

 

The Rule of Five Scores for the first 14 hiring requisitions.  Thereafter, a statistically valid grouping with a confidence level of 1.96 and a sliding band of 129 points shall be used starting with Rank 19.  Consistent with Civil Service Commission Rules, candidates in Ranks 1 to 18 who are not selected under the Rule of Five Scores shall be considered with those in the band.

 

 

 

 

Action:

Adopt.  Implementation of the certification rule for the eligible list resulting from the Q-60 Lieutenant examination on November 3, 2004 (written) and January 25, 2005 (oral) – (Announcement No. 52496 amended and reissued November 4, 2004) shall be the Rule of Five Scores for the first 14 hiring requisitions.  Thereafter, a statistically valid grouping with a confidence level of 1.96 and a sliding band of 129 points shall be used starting with Rank 19.  Consistent with Civil Service Commission Rules, candidates in Ranks 1 to 18 who are not selected under the Rule of Five Scores shall be considered with those in the band.  (Vote of 5 to 0)

 

 

IV.

Adjournment

 

 

 

1:28 p.m.