2010-09-21 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

long -range planning; and Exhibit G is the composite score sheet for just these three people — Todd Zeiller, one of the applicants, and the two selectees, April Suprenant and Garrett Smith. For Exhibit G, the comprehensive score sheet, if Daryn Arai is called to testify, he would testify that he compiled the scoresheets for all 14 applicants, and upon Ms. Noda's request condensed the scoresheet down to the two selectees and Mr. Zeiller. On the back of Exhibit G, which is page 2, the composite scores show that April Suprenant's total score was 806, placing her second out of all the applicants. Garrett Smith's total score from all three interview panelists was 819; and Todd Zeiller's total score was 533. Mr. Arai would also testify that the number above their total score shows the placement of all the applicants. Garrett Smith placed first, April Suprenant placed second, and Mr. Zeiller placed tenth. If called to testify, Margaret Masunaga, Deputy Director of the Planning Department, and also one of the panelists along with Mr. Arai, would testify that although Mr. Zeiller appeared to have some experience, training, and background and did meet the minimum qualifications for either of the two positions, his qualifications seemed to be more of a consultant rather than a program manager that the department was looking for; and the background, skills, experiences, and training of the two selectees, Mr. Smith and Ms. Suprenant, were much more in keeping with the qualities and background that the Planning Department was looking for to fill these two positions. If called to testify, they would compare Mr. Zeiller's background, skills, abilities to the two selectees. Based on the evidence that's been presented to the Board at this point, the County Planning Department has not violated any rule, law or procedure as far as minimum qualifications and the selection process. The composite scoresheet does set forth for the Board every single score that was done by the interview panelists, and it shows that Mr. Zeiller was far from being the top candidate for either Planning position. As such, based on the proof presented by the County that all recruitment and selection processes were followed by the County and that Mr. Zeiller has not proved that there was any violation by the County, the County again requests that Mr. Zeiller's appeal be denied. MOTION: Vice Chair Yoshiyama moved that the Appellant's appeal be denied as no civil service laws, rules, or regulations were 0