Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Monday, August 5, 1996 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Sande, Ellingson, Glassheim.

1. Matter of requesting Civil Service Commission to reinterview
candidates for police captain.
Chairman Sande made statement with regard to procedure of the promotional process, in this case, police captain: the Civil Service Commission sets qualifications for the position, Human Resources advertises the position and when application deadline is met, Human Resources and chief of police determine which applicants are qualified and meet qualifications as stated; subsequently, those applicants take the test, Civil Service Commission, without knowing individual results of the test, determines cut-off for the exam; the remaining candidates are interviewed, and in this case, there were three members of the police department interviewed; there was an interview board of four members: a member of the HR department, a member of the department (a captain), a member of an outside police department (asst chief Kuchera of the Fargo police department), and a member of the Civil Service Commission (chairman of the Commission, Sally Page); that three members of the interview board (two police officers and HR director gave grades of between 33 and 39 out of a potential 40 pts. for the interview, the member of the Civil Service Commission gave much lower grades, as low as 10 in one case; the chairman of the CSC as a member of the review board wrote a one page narrative of why she felt these people were un-
qualified, which was seen by the members of the CSC, the other three members of the interview board gave scores only; many of you have read the transcript of the meeting of the CSC on July 18, at that point Miss Page defined items she felt were lacking in the three candidates, ie., leadership, administrative develop- ment and vision; that these are (in some respects) new qualifi- cations which have never been considered, but the purpose of the probationary period, which is one year for this position, is for successful candidates to demonstrate their abilities. She stated that her feeling is that since three of the four members of the interview board felt that these candidates were qualified and one was highly qualified as he received grade of 39 from at least one of the interview board members, that the members of the CSC were unduly influenced by a member of the interview board and feels very strongly that because the implementation committee, which both Member Glassheim and she are on, has worked very hard to get this department back to a position of strength and harmony, that this refusal to certify the promotional register is counter-productive, and that is her opinion.

She stated that there are two other items which have come up subsequently; one is the question of the order of the candidate interviews; that the interviews were not scheduled in order of rank in the interview process, ie., the person with highest ranking in the testing procedure was not interviewed first and no reason that he should have been interviewed first, the interview

MINUTES/PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
August 5, 1996 - Page 2

schedule was based on the work schedules of the persons involved and the order just happened to be the way it was, and should never be based on order of finish; 2) there are questions because temporary Capt. Dunn was on the interview Board for the position of lieutenant and there was a question that he received an advan- tage because the questions were the same for lieutenant and captain; she reviewed questions for sergeant, lieutenant and captain and are basically the same, a few differences, but in her opinion the questions are those you could expect to be asked, and each interviewer had at least one, if not several, questions of their own choosing.

Member Ellingson reported he had talked with several members of the CSC and asked specifically why these people were not qualified for this position, and answers received were that they were basically qualified, met basic qualifications for the position, which is what the job description asks for, and then, of course, preferred requirements, things we would like to have; but job description sets level for a position and if those candidates meet those, then can proceed in the process; asking them to meet basic requirements of that position, which the three individuals did, and that is all they are asking of that posi- tion; that it would be his estimation that in meeting basic requirements, would be able to perform duties of the position.

Sally Page, chairman of the CSC, stated that as an interviewer of the candidates, and in her judgment based on the interview process; questions asked, questions responded to. She stated that in her judgment this is one of the three highest positions in the police department, which requires administrative skill, demonstrated management skill and as such, the officers who interviewed did not and were not able to demonstrate that they had taken the initiative to develop their leadership and management skills at this level of the police department, and that she went into some depth and provided those comments as a matter of record when she submitted her scores; that she also took considerable time at the Commission meetings to explain that position, and those are also available by transcript; that she thinks that we need to assess basic requirements in being able to compete for the position and these officers met those basic requirements to compete, to be able to test, both for the written examination as well as the oral examination, and those two pieces which comprise 70% of the process and the ability of these people to meet administrative leadership prerogatives were not demonstrated, and in her belief that her position was correct for the police department to have the appropriate leadership at the top to be able to direct what is essential at a strategic level, that this is not a tactical function, a daily operation, but leadership, and when the candidates cannot articulate management concepts correctly or have difficulty doing that, have not shown the progression in terms of developing their skills in this area

MINUTES/PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
August 5, 1996 - Page 3

to prepare themselves for promotion, just having time in rank is not essential; and that was her determination and she has put herself on record for that purpose.

Chairman Sande asked what Chairman Page would have liked to see them do in the way of preparation; Miss Page stated that she thinks you prepare yourself by advancing your education, take more than in-house seminars, that when you go for advanced training to develop essential skills in the background for that type of promotion, and that was not demonstrated.

Member Ellingson stated that if committee were to do nothing tonight, the position would be reopened, that the three can- didates could re-apply and other personnel within the department, and could go to outside the department.

Ms. Page stated it would go to those individuals who had lieutenant's experience or above, if they did not have experience in a position equivalent to a police lieutenant, wouldn't meet the basic opportunity to write the exam and oral board.

Member Ellingson stated that there is a possibility that someone from outside the Grand Forks police department could come in; that these three individuals could re-apply for this position, but his problem is "why would they" when they have already been deemed to be ineligible.

Ms. Page stated that do people who believe themselves to be qualified and may not have demonstrated it through an internal process re-apply, in her human resources experience people do, and have been hired,because again of the competitive process
in which the competitive process does not provide a better qualified or outstanding candidate, and she would encourage these people to re-apply if they have other experiences that they haven't articulated and that were not part of the record previously, resubmit that information.

Member Ellingson stated that he would at least like to entertain the thought of a resolution asking the Commission to reconsider their decision and to certify the existing eligibility register, and at which time there would have to be a member of the Commis- sion who voted on the prevailing side bring that up at the meeting, and so moved.

Member Glassheim stated he was uncomfortable with the process of committee sending messages to the Commission, they make decisions on recommendations on personnel matters, that is what they are supposed to do, committee doesn't have to agree or disagree with them; they have some expertise in considering this and con- sidering the legals and in considering the good of the City
from point of hiring and promotion; today send a message on this, MINUTES/PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
August 5, 1996 - Page 4

tomorrow on something else, really uncomfortable in doing that.

Chairman Sande seconded the motion by Member Ellingson.

Member Ellingson stated that he agreed with Member Glassheim and that is the reason why the Commission was set up, to stay away from any undue political influence or outside pressures; he stated that in this situation the three individuals did meet the basic requirements, and in his opinion, exceeded some of those requirements, got quite close to many of the preferred require- ments, and would like to see that brought up at the Commission meeting.

Member Glassheim stated that there seems to be a distinction between minimum qualifications and optimal or desirable selec- tion, and it's obviously true that all candidates meet minimum qualifications, they are eligible, they theoretically can do it, whether that means you have to certify one of them, doesn't know; seems like the Commission decided there were other things that would be best for the department and the City in the long run, and that they didn't see them at this point, could legally and technically meet the minimum requirements, they were not optimal, doesn't know if that's true or not true, but thinks there is a distinction.

Member Ellingson stated that that's why it is a recommendation to reconsider and not a directive, and that's why he asked if these three individuals can re-apply.

Ms. Page stated that during discussion at the Commission meeting, they did allow Council Member Sande to speak to her concerns, Mayor Owens spoke to her concerns, Council Member Hagness ap- proached them before the meeting in terms of his position and the Commission itself did not truncate discussion from outside sources, even when it could have been interpreted as outside political influence within the system, and if it is the desire of this committee, as well as the council, to make such a recom- mendation for reconsideration, the Commission will at least entertain the wishes, whether other members of the Commission choose to bring it up and put it back on the table for discussion and to open, it certainly may, that she doesn't know what other commissioners will do, and whether or not they feel this is appropriate action.

Upon call for the question Members Sande and Ellingson voted in favor and Glassheim voted against the motion.

Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Alice Fontaine, City Clerk

Dated: 8/08/96.