1995_PSC_minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RaseviIIe Sergeant Promotional Egamination Addendum to the Minntes from the Febiva�y 27. 1995 meeting and in respoase to questions raised at the Ma�ch 27, I99S meeting. Provided by Arvids Pexersons, PDI. This adde�tdum addresses Offioer �'Neill's concerns that the `Yt seemed [ike something was done under thie ta61e" abaut the changes in weight5 for tile Promotahility Index: At the Febr�ary 27. 1995 Roseville Police Civ� Service Commission meeting, we c�scussed the weights for the various partions of the promotianal exam. �ne offcer was pmsent during the meeting- The Cvmmission discasscd the implications af using only pcc,r cvaluations or only suporvisor evaivahons, and decided that eacn pr+ovides vaiu�6lc 'sa�forx�ation anei si�aald "oe a pa�: of `�e process. Further, the rati�ags should not be on equal footing with a�tual examination performanc:e becavse t�ere was more room for "opiniom" in the Promutability Index. Additionally, the cancern was raised regar�d'mg whether all the candidates wotxid have ac�al knowledge abo�t other participants (e.g., some cand.idates have not work�ed ditectly in the department for extended periods) � whether the supe[visors have equal kaawledge about each candidate_ After a discussion about the merits of relying sv heavily (e.g., 2Q%) on the Promotability Index, the Commission decided #.o rcduc:e [h� weigLt to 10% with S°!o going ta the supervisor evaluations and 5% gvmg ta thG peec evaluations. Thc rcmaining 10°lo was distributcci evenly amang the Oral Tnbervicw and Role Play so that each af these aow accounts for 25 JQ of the final score. That wgs the extent of the discussio� None of the promotianal examination conteut was discussed. Thus, in my apinion, the o�csr present has no advantage over Ehe other officers wha were not at the meeting. ��,� ILwA,a�eUSSBL�J6CCS�x�Va.LtC+11A1flTADObf-DOC • � . s _ . : �. � ' f�+S' ,"' . . .,