The vote was 4-to-1 to adopt the new Rule. However, since the initial vote, one of the Commissioners has recanted. The Rule will now be revisited sometime after this writing. We will attempt to keep you posted at the April Union meeting. Here is verbatim language sent to us by Civil Service explaining the new rules:

“...Important points in Rule 313 - Certification of Eligibles are listed below:”

A difference of 181 points is not significant? Is there no difference between a B+ and a D-? GOD! I wish my father was alive today so I could tell him “...hey Dad, I really was a B+ student!”

Theoretically, Civil Service argues that the candidate who scored 900 may have had a good day and therefore 900 is not the candidate’s true score; he/she is comparable to the candidate that scored 719. What Civil Services doesn’t theorize is that the candidate who scored 719 also may have had a good day, and therefore that candidate’s true score of 538 is not comparable. One could refer to the new rule as statistical voodoo rather than statistically valid.

Careful attention must be paid to Civil Service’ “bureaucratic ESE”. We need to scrutinize every sentence of their explanation for Statistically Valid Grouping. Consider the last sentence of Paragraph No. 2 in the aforementioned explanation.

“...additional eligibles may only be considered when the top score is exhausted.”

“May only” is the key phrase of the previous sentence. The appearance is that Civil Service is protecting the candidate who applied themselves and placed higher on the list than other candidates. Let’s revisit the 1994 Captain’s Exam and consider the impact to the List when the top score is exhausted or the first candidate is promoted. The difference in the scores between the first two candidates was 44 points; therefore the Band would slide to 675 points on the list, picking up an additional 28 candidates to add to the original 43. Now there would be a pool of 70 candidates available for the second promotional position. Our letter grade has now moved from a “B” to an “F”. The second promotional position may be filled by a lieutenant who actually failed the exam.

It’s extremely difficult for me to fathom the concept of statistically valid grouping. Is there a clandestine plot to return to the “Spoils System”? Nah, it’s outright blatant! Political appointments will rule the day. It would be very difficult to identify favoritism or to prevent nepotism. Parameters within the Civil Service Rules already permit the appointing officer to use broad discretion in the selection process. Now Civil Service has made it virtually impossible for truth and fairness to prevail.

Local 798 has no alternative but to seek arbitration. I hope we are successful, because if not, Statistically Valid Grouping will have a devastatingly negative impact on the San Francisco Fire Department for many years to come.

Home