assessment center grievance complete

8/12/2019 Assessment Center Grievance Complete

1/54

Assessment Center

Grievance

For Fire & Rescue Lieutenants Assessment CenterAugust 23-25th, 2004Prepared by J.C. Rodriguez


2/54


3/54

Timeline to Grievance

Completed Oral assessments August 25, 2004.

Received Final Total Promotional Test Score approximately

September 10, 2004.

I began to hear, through word of mouth, that a valuable amount of

information about our performance could be obtained from

reviewing the assessors notes. Therefore, on September 15, 2004, I

made an Open Records Request to obtain my score sheets andassessor notes along with all other score sheets for comparison.

I am unable to recall the exact date I received the score sheet

portion of my Open Records request.

I then began the long task of tabulating all 3390 scores by hand, and

arranging the scores according to the assessor who gave the score.

I reserved judgment until the completion of my analysis of the data

on October 27, 2004. On that date, I became aware of the Civil

Service Departments failure to provide a fair an impartial assessment

as stated in Civil Service Rule VIII, Conduct of Examinations, Section

2. I subsequently filed the grievance with my department

before1900 hours on October 28, 2004. I obtained a written receipt. On February 18, 2004, I received the assessors notes for 32 of the

candidates who attended the August 2004 Lieutenants Oral

assessments. I am currently approximately 2/3rdcomplete in my

review of those documents.


4/54

Memorandum

DATE 10-27-2004

TO

SUBJECT: Assessment Center Grievance

On August 23rd, 24thand 25th2004, I attended the oral assessment portion of the promotionalexams for Lieutenant. Once the grades were finalized, I made an Open Records request for all ofthe grade sheets from all candidates who attended the assessment center. I then began the longtask of tabulating every score, and arranging the scores according to the assessor who gave thescore. Once the data was arranged, I discovered what I believe to be gross misconduct on the partof an assessor. That was assessor number one, Robert Fluker. I feel that the exceedingly highscores given to eight candidates severely impacted the fairness and impartiality of the assessmentcenter. Furthermore, I feel Mr. Fluker also influenced the assessors to whom he was paired to alsogive higher scores than the majority of the assessors

The Civil Service Board is charged with the responsibility to provide for examinations inaccordance with its Code of Rules and Regulations As stated in Chapter XVI, Dallas CityCharter, Civil Service and Personnel, Section 5. I believe the above stated breech of impartialityand fairness by Mr. Fluker is a violation of Civil Service Rule VIII, Conduct of Examinations, Section2, which states:

All examinations shall be impartial, fair, and practicaland designed to test relative qualifications and fitnessof applicants to discharge the duties of the particularposition in which they seek to fill.

I submit the following as evidence of the above mentioned rule infractions.Mr. Fluker assessed nineteen candidates over the three day assessment center. Eight candidatesreceived a perfect score of five in all five assessed dimensions. 11 of19 candidates (57.8%) Mr.Fluker assessed, promoted the first wave.Of the eight perfect scores Mr. Fluker gave, five four were consecutive.Three additional candidates received near perfect scores. Over the course of nineteenassessments, Mr. Fluker gave 95 individual scores, averaging 4.4210 per dimension. The list ofscores for all three days of assessments are as follows:

1. Assessor Robert Fluker gave eight perfect scores.2. Assessor Carl Mallory gave five perfect scores.

(2 of the five perfect scores occurred when paired with Mr. Fluker.)3. Assessor Kevin Scott gave four perfect scores.

(all four perfect scores occurred when paired with Mr. Fluker)4. Two separate assessors gave 2 perfect scores.5. Seven assessors gave only one perfect score.6. 23 assessors never gave a perfect score.

Ori inal Grievance


5/54

Memorandum

DATE10-27-2004

TO

SUBJECT: Assessment Center Grievance cont.

The above data has lead me to believe that the Civil Service Board failed to provide asystem that fairly and impartially assessed the candidates equally, therefore severelyimpacting every candidates opportunity to promote to the rank of Lieutenant. By not

allowing all assessors to evaluate all candidates, one poorly trained, poorly supervisedassessor has created a monumental travesty. If our assessments would have beenvideotaped, then all assessors would have the opportunity to evaluate our performances toobtain an average score. This average score would then be free of the disparity cause bythe lenient scores given by Mr. Fluker.

In conclusion, I feel there are only two options for a fair remedy.1. According to Civil Service Rule VIII, Conduct of Examinations, Section 5, :

The Civil Service Board, shall have the power, whenever in itsjudgment the interests of the public service require it, to order are-examination of applicants for any position, and shall have the

power to correct, amend ,or revoke any schedule, register, orother paper or record where it appears that an error or injusticehas been done,

Therefore I feel all candidates from the August 23rd, 24th, and 25th, 2004 Lieutenantsassessment should be re-assessed where all candidates are assessed by the sameassessors.

2. An alternate remedy is to allow the current list of drivers who are eligible to promote toLieutenant, to remain in effect until the list is exhausted.

I have attached the statistical data that I have compiled.

JC RodriguezR22A

(The statistical data is on file with the original grievance)

Ori inal Grievance cont.


6/54

Evidence of Impartiality and Bias

! Assessment center literature, both past and present, all have a

common theme in reference towards assessor performance. The

belief that the selection, training, and supervision of assessors has adirect and important impact on the quality of the end product of

the assessment center process. The single objective in any

assessment center process is the fair and objective evaluation of

the candidates.

! By a preponderance of the evidence obtained from Mr. Flukers

grade sheets and assessors notes, it is my belief, that Mr. Fluker, the

Assessment consultants, and the Civil Service Department, all failed

to provide a process for assessment that was fair and equitable to

all candidates.

! This was evidenced by:

o Failure to provide an assessment coordinator to observe the

assessors performance, to maintain consistency.

o Failure to proof the assessors ratings prior to the final grade

decision.

" Assessors errors would have been reduced if their notes

and score sheet would have been checked foraccuracy.

o Failure to provide a scoring methodology that allowed for

proper data (score) integration.

" The use of the same assessors for all candidates or

statistical integration.

o Failure to maintain an unbiased record of assessees

performances.

" As in video or audio records of our performance.

o Failure to provide a method to challenge a disputedassessment.

" Again, video or audio records would have provided an

easy method to review the candidates performances.


7/54

Evidence of Impartiality and BiasCont.

Nearly 70% (69.47) of Mr. Flukers assessments were the top two possible ratings


8/54

Assessor Inconsistencies

The following pages will further illustrate the inconsistencies

discovered within the assessors own note and score sheet.


9/54


10/54


11/54


12/54


13/54


14/54


15/54


16/54


17/54


18/54


19/54


20/54


21/54


22/54


23/54


24/54


25/54


26/54


27/54


28/54


29/54


30/54


31/54


32/54


33/54


34/54


35/54


36/54


37/54


38/54


39/54


40/54


41/54


42/54


43/54


44/54


45/54


46/54


47/54


48/54


49/54


50/54


51/54


52/54


53/54


54/54

assessment center grievance complete

Documents