Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0346.012 1996-1998 • •~w.y County of 9fawaii - Deyartmtnt of CivilScrvice Interoffice ~?-lemo' ° S? SrP 2 f',I i ~ 5 TO: Nelson TsuJl, Flre Chief CC'.~ , N I r ~,",U;,~I! FR.oa~f: Michael R. Ben, Director of Personnel i._ D.217B: August 25, 1997 S4IBJEC'r Investigation of May 12, 1997 FEO Interviews N'P have completed our investigation of the alleged irregularities concerning the May 12 interviews for nre eyuiprneni opeit~iui. i i~ ufiGf6d flits i..'v 83ti.J. Qtiv:: when I erroneously interpreted the Hawaii fire Fighters Association's request for an independent investigation to mean an investigation by my department. I contacted the Deputy Fire Chief to inquire if the Fire Department would have any concems about our investigating the incident, and none were expressed. Neither did the HFFA express any concems when I informed them that our ;:eparfment would be conducting an investigation. A total of 19 persons were interviewed as part of this investigation, including the interview panel members, the candidates for interview, and others. Opportunity was given, through the Fire Union, for anyone to come forward and offer testimony and evidence of any improprieties in the selection interview. No one came forward. Findings • No hard evidence was found to conclude that any individual(s) was, in fact, cheating. • Notwithstanding the IaCk Of hnrrl eyirianrg r-irri imctpnfinl ouiriAnro persuasively suggests that improprieties occurred with the selection interview process. However, with no hard evidence, it is not appropriate to take any kind of action against any particular individual(s). • Awell-defined "chain of custody" with respect to the interview questions was seriously lacking. • Interview panel members did not appear to be appropriately knowledgeable on the scoring of the candidates. Coffin. »a..~~.~ P'IIr tt;i.~_ F~ r He f. T~~:_--..-C_Se~!~ def. liate__$~ U 2 1.0.47 Nelson Tsuji, Fire Chie' August 25, 1997 Page 2 Recommendations • The fire department should reassess its selection process, especially in light of the County's new EEO/AA interview procedures. o The department's interview has become nothing more than an oral examination, rather than a review of candidates' desirable qualifications and traits for the subject position. o There is apparent department-wide concern over the existing interview process, with the process being characterized as being entirely political. o Help in this area is available through seminars and workshops occasionally offered in interviewing. o We can be of assistance if needed. o In the development of a new selection process, consultation with the appropriate unions may be appropriate to secure an understanding between management and the union and the employees it represents on how the selection process will work. • The department must develop a secured "chain of custody" procedure to ensure that any questions developed for an interview may not be subject to the view of unauthorized personnel. • Interview panel members must, prior to the interview, meet to discuss and agree upon how candidates are to be evaluated and "scored" during the interview. Discussion Circumstantial Evidence Points fo IrreyularMies No clear and convincing evidence could be obtained that would have corroborated that cheating did in fact take place in the fire department's selection process. As would be expected, all parties denied any wrongdoing, and no one came forward and provided corroborating evidence of cheating. While no evidence could be obtained to prove that cheating occurred, I nevertheless believe that circumstantial evidence suggests that one candidate, at least, was aware of both a specific question to be asked, and the answers required. Nelson Tsuji, Fire Chie' August 25, 1997 Page 3 Given the technical nature of the suspect question asked, and of the eight responses needed to score well on this question, a candidate who is knowledgeable on the subject question would not have responded erroneously as was done. Furthermore, a knowledgeable person would not have given such a dubious response, which is how I would categorize the "wrong" correct response.' Given the dubious nature of the "wrong" correct response, I doubt if such terminology used in the response can readily be found or summarized from any fire service or EMS reference materials. Nevertheless, no conclusion should or can be drawn on such speculation. Conceivably, the candidate could have very well given an answer he erroneously thought was the correct and appropriate response. Because there is no hard evidence that cheating did occur, it would be inappropriate to impose disciplinary action on any party concerning this matter, nor would I be justified in taking action to remove anyone's name from the eligible list. These types of actions are very serious and should only be taken when direct proof can be found of cheating. With a suspicion that a candidate was able to know of a specific question/answer to be used, the next question to arise is how the candidate obtained or saw the question. Again, there was no evidence submitted to show that a candidate did in fact have a copy of the question(s)/answers or that the candidate had in fact seen the question. What we do know, however, is that the chain of custody of the interview question leaves much to be desired. Chain of Custody The department has retained a listing of job-related questions previously used in selection interviews and has, in essence, created a database of these question.<_. These questions ore kept by the Deputy Fire Chief as well as on the hard drive on an unsecured personal computer. From this "data base," questions are selected by the Deputy Fire Chief for a particular interview. The Deputy, on copies of the "data base," selects questions to be used in a particular interview. When done, he submits his materials to the private secretary for preparation. The private secretary then draws upon the selected questions found on the personal computer and prepares them in the format and manner prescribed by the Deputy. The location of the personal computer does not provide for ' This "wrong" correct response was found on each panel members rating sheet to guide the panel members in scoring the candidate on each question. Nelson Tsuji, Fire Chie" ` August 25, 1997 Page 4 privacy; i.e., any party could easily see what was on the personal computer's screen. Once the secretary is done, the materials given by the Deputy are discarded in the trashcan at her desk. The discarded materials, in this instance, were not shredded in any way before being discarded. In this particular instance, once the secretary was done preparing the questions, she printed the questions up and next turned the materials over to another clerical personnel for copying and collating. This process was interrupted for approximately 45 minutes, during which time, the materials were placed face down on the clerical personnel's desk unattended. This desk is located in an of~ice that is accessible to Tire personnel. hio materials were found missing. Copying and collating complete, the materials were placed in two monila envelopes (unsealed) and left in the Deputy's pickup tray located on the secretary's desk (which is accessible to fire personnel). The following day, which was May 2, give or take a day, the deputy picked up the packets and returned to his office. He then sorted the materials, creating an interview packet for each interview panel member. The interview packet contained the interview questions and answers. The packets were marked with the panel member's designation (F-2, AC-1, AC-2-2, AC-3) along with "FEO- 5/12/97" which indicated the interview and interview date for which the packets were prepared. These packets were not sealed. The packets were then placed in a filing cabinet in the deputy's office until May 12, when the deputy took them for the interview. This cabinet was not kept locked. Neither is the door to the Deputy's office locked during his absence. Notwithstanding these facts, the packets did not appear to have been removed during the May 2-12 period. With whot I have just described, there are numerous opportunities for the questions/answers to have been "leaked." Furthermore, fire department personnel related that everyone knows that the Deputy makes up the interview questions and stores them in his office. Problem wBh fhe Ir>terview Panel Scoring We suspect that the panel members did not understand the evaluation process to be used nor did they give much credence to the interview process. Evidence of this is seen by examining the interview questions and the scoring done by the panel members. c Nelson Tsuji, Fire Chie' ' August 25, 1997 Page 5 The questions used in the process were very technical and the expected responses to these questions were precise; i.e., the answers given were either right or wrong. Each panel member was given rating sheets with which to evaluate and score each candidate. For each candidate, a panel member would have individual sheets of paper with each sheet having only one question and the list of acceptable responses to those questions. Oddly enough, given the objectivity of the interview questions, it is inconceivable that a candidate would score, e.g., 107, 122, 143, and 160, yet this occurred. This sF+read among the panel members indicates a lack of correlation among the panel members. I would note for discussion only that there was also a lack of correlation among the panel members concerning the candidate who was "suspect." At the point the interview was canceled, the candidate was ranked 3rd overall by two panel members and 4th overall by one panel member while the fourth panel member rated the candidate 1st overall. While the fourth panel member rated the "suspect" candidate 1st overall, the other three panel members had rated another candidate as 1st overall. I am concerned that immediately after the suspect candidate was interviewed, the panel members could not themselves, agree upon what they heard with respect to the suspect question in which the "wrong" correct response was given. Furthermore, the panel members, including the panel member who called attention to the "wrong" correct answer that had been given, had each checked off that the correct response was given. In other words, all panel members checked off that the candidate had in fact answered the question correctly. I am concerned also that no one questioned the candidate further during the interview when the "wrong" correct answer was given. Since the response made no sense, I can't understand why no one followed up by asking tha candidate to elaborate further. Conftdence In the Flre Department's Selection Process During the period of our investigation, the Finance Committee gave fire personnel the opportunity to speak on this matter at a meeting of the Finance Committee. At this meeting, many who testified vented their frustrations over the Fire Department's selection procedure, oftentimes categorizing it as highly political. They offered testimony on incidents such as personnel telling other personnel who would receive a promotion before the selection ever took place. While this could be coincidence, it becomes suspect when "coincidences" keep occurring. Nelson Tsuji, Fire Chie' August 25, 1997 Page 6 It is difficult to ignore the vocalization that took place at the finance Committee, especially after having concluded our investigation. In addition to believing that at least one candidate may have possibly seen the questions and answers to be used in the interview, I believe that the evaluation and scoring process of the candidates are equally suspect in this matter. Taken all together, the department should reassess its selection procedure. Other Th=e civil service laws, which a~?mittndly many people do not understard, give the appointing authority, in this instance, the Fire Chief or the Chief's designee, the complete authority to select any individual from the list of certified eligibles our department provides. These laws do not provide any requirements for the appointing authority in making a selection from the certified list of eligibles, however, the appointing authority must remain cognizant of HRS §76-92, (titled "Other prohibited activities and penalties"), and applicable discrimination laws and rules. This right of an appointing authority to select an individual is also preserved by HRS §89-9(d). Contrary to popular belief, our department has no authority over any appointing authority's decision as to whom the appointing authority selects. Well- intentioned parties may make the best suggestions on how the selection process should work, but the final decision always remains with the appointing authority. With this understanding, then, we have submitted our recommendations, and urge the fire department to reassess its selection process. We are available to offer any assistance the department may need. Cc: Mayor Stephen Yamashiro Robert Bailey, HFFA Aaron Chung, Finance Committee Chair