HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Civil Services Commission - 11/28/2001 (3) • CITY OF KENT - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
November 28, 2001 MEETING MINUTES
Members Present: Callius Zaratkiewicz
Ron Banister
Others Present: City Attorney Lubovich, Jed Aldridge, Sue Viseth,
A/C Hamilton, Lt. Ohlde, others present
Chair Zaratkiewicz called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
I. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
II. HEARING:
1. There was a decision rendered in regard to the CaptainsPromotional
exam that was held on September 11, 2001. The Commission found that
the written portion of the exam was to be excluded from the final
scoring and the remaining portion of the exam was upheld as valid. A
• revised Eligibility List was posted November 6, 2001.
Chair: At this time I make a motion that we accept this into record .
Motion moved and seconded. Motion passes.
III. OLD BUSINE55:
A. Accept Into Record
1. Chair Zaratkiewicz moved to approve the minutes from the
October 24, 2001 Civil Service Meeting and item number 2 is e-mail from
KPOA member Lt. Bob Cline withdrawing their objection to the upcoming
Police promotional testing process an issue that was tabled at the October
24'h meeting.
Chair: Any questions any comments? Seeing none, motion moved and seconded.
Motion passes.
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
• A. Accept into Record
Commission Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2001
Page 2
Chair Zaratkiewicz asked those present to review items one through four
(Chair noted that there were two number 3's. and that be changed to number
4).
1. Revised Eligibility List dated September 13, 2001 for Police Captain.
2. Letter dated October 30, 2001 notifying Randy A. Freeman that his
name has been removed from the Entry Level Corrections Officer list.
3. Letter dated November 1, 2001 notifying Daniel C. Will that his name has
been removed from the Entry Level Corrections Officer eligibility list
• due to the fact that he has accepted employment elsewhere.
4. Letter dated November 1, 2001 to Mary Bovela notifying her of her
Termination effective October 31, 2001.
Chair: Accept Into Record... Is there any one of the four items that anybody would
like to discuss? Ok, seeing none. I'm going to make a motion that we accept items
one through four, item number four being the last number three, into record.
Seconded and motion passes.
B. Action Items for Discussion
1. Memo from A/C Hamilton requesting that the Commission temporarily extend
the six month provisional appointments for another three months for Provisional
Asst. Chiefs Mike Scott and Brian Kruml .
Chair read the action items.
• Chief Hamilton: On further information and further consideration, not having
thought through this completely, uh, we want to withdraw that issue. And we're
gonna go ahead and appoint new provisional appointments. We are unsure whether
• Commission Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2001
Page 3
or not there's going to be another Asst. Chief hired, it takes some to do that.
(mumbling) we might as well just start fresh in January.
Chair: Ok, do we need to make a motion to withdraw that or just accept his
withdrawal?
Lubovich: Well, I think you...it's just withdrawn.
Chair: Ok, so we just leave it then. Ok, is there any further business to come
before the Commission? Seeing none I make a motion that we adjourn...
Chief Examiner Winecka: I would like to update you on both the Fire Chief position,
. the recruitment for that which is a non-civil service position, and then also update
you as to where we are with the Lieutenants exam. Um, with the Fire Chief we're
going with Waldron and Associates. Um, they are recruiting through eleven states,
western states but not Montana and Idaho. But they did include Texas and Florida
as well as Colorado. Um, it's open for approximately a month and it will be closing
December 7'h. And then the City will be involved in the interviewing process with
the Fire Chief. Um, as far as the Lt.'s exam, uh, we will be holding that December
loth and ll'h. We have six candidates that are going to be testing. The exercises
will include role play exercises, written tests, and interviews. Um, Chuck Krieble is
developing the test right now, as we speak, and will be able to provide more details
by, um, mid-week next week. He and I will be working together at the end of the
assessment center um to collaborate the data. I will have the data in my control at
all times.
Chair: Ok.
Lubovich: Is there any question on the exam?
Chair: Do we have any questions? Ok. Do we need to accept that into record?
• Lubovich: No, that's just informational. Unless...you've already approved the exam,
haven't we? This is just an informational process that's going on?
• Commission Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2001
Page 4
Winecka: Correct.
Chair: Is there any further business to come before the Commission? Seeing none
I make a motion that we adjourn. Seconded and motion passes. The meeting was
adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
• Natalie D. Winecka
Civil Service Secretary & Chief Examiner
Approved:
Chair C us Zaratkiewicz
P:\Employment\Civil Service\A"e dasdMinutesCSMeetinos\Minutesauaus1200Ldoc
•
BEFORE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENT
IN RE: APPEAL OF LIEUTENANTS APPEAL NO. 01-1
GLENN P. WOODS, ROBERT KLEIN,
BRUCE WEISSICH, ROBERT M. HOLT, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
AND STEVE OHLDE OF LAW, AND RULING OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION
I. ACTION APPEALED
The City of Kent Captain Promotional Examination held on September 11, 2001.
II. RULING
The Commission holds that: (1)the written portion of the examination is invalidated
and is not to be included in the final scoring for all candidates; and (2) that the remaining
portions of the examination are upheld as a valid examination. Accordingly, the
Secretary/Chief Examiner is instructed to eliminate the written exercise portion of the
examination from the final scoring of all candidates and to recalculate the final scores and
rank the applicants accordingly.
• III. INTRODUCTION
Appellants filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission on or about September
26, 2001, appealing the Civil Service Promotional Examination conducted on September 11,
2001 for the position of Captain. The appeal was heard before the Kent Civil Service
Commission on Monday, October 22, 2001. The examination in question consisted of a
written' exercise, a labor relations exercise, a supervisor briefing, two management
interviews, and a tactical exercise. The Appellants, in their appeal, challenged the written
exercise, the labor relations exercise, and the supervisor briefing and, further, alleged a
violation of Civil Service Rule III, Section 2, "Duties," subsections 3 and 4. During the
hearing, the Appellants withdrew their challenge to the labor relations exercise and,
therefore, it was not considered further. With respect to the remaining issues, the Appellants
allege as follows:
1. WRITTEN EXERCISE. The Appellants allege that the'instructions for the
written exercise specifically required the candidates to prepare a one (1) page handwritten
draft document to be submitted for typing, followed by one opportunity to edit for content
before final typing and submission. Appellants allege that following the exam it was
determined that some of the candidates had been advised by the test consultant Mr. Chuck
Krieble that candidates were not limited to one (1) handwritten page as long as the final
• typed document was no longer than one (1) page. It is alleged that at least two (2) of the
FINDINGS OF FACTS,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION- 1
. candidates were not afforded the same instructions and, therefore, obtained different scores
for this portion of the exam. Additionally,Appellants allege that the scheduling exercise was
unfair in that some of the candidates had more time to work on the written exercise because
other portions of the exam were scheduled for later in the day, while other candidates had
their other exercises scheduled during the morning. Appellants asked that this.portion of the
examination be eliminated from final scoring for all candidates.
2. SUPERVISORS' BRIEFING. This exercise required that the candidates
conduct a briefing to three (3) newly promoted sergeants. Appellants allege that this was
supposed to be another role playing exercise. When led to the room, they were told that the
sergeants were waiting for them to conduct this exercise. When entering the room, they
observed three (3) people sitting at the table who had been assessors in other exercises.
Appellants allege that it is unclear whether or not these three (3) individuals were assessors
or role players playing the part of the Sergeants. Appellants further allege that the exercise
was flawed for these individuals were either told they could not interact with the candidates
or they were not given clear instructions as to their role and were not giving feedback.
Appellants request that this portion of the examination be eliminated from the final scoring
for all candidates.
4. VIOLATION OF RULE III. The final error alleged to have occurred is that
the examination material was removed from the care, custody, and .control of the
Secretary/Chief Examiner in violation of Civil Service Rule ]II, Section 2, "Duties,"
subsections 3 and 4. It is alleged that Mr. Chuck Krieble was allowed to take the material
home with him to score the exams. Based on this alleged violation,-Appellants are
requesting that the entire examination be invalidated and that a new examination be given.
IV. EXHIBITS AND MATERIAL REVIEWED
In addition to considering the letter of appeal and the candidate test files that were
reviewed in-camera following the hearing, the Commission further considered the following
exhibits presented by the parties during the hearing:
Exhibits presented to the Commission by the Appellants:
A-1 Copy of the participant instructions for the written exercise.
A-2 Copy of Civil Service Rule III, Section 2, subsections 3 and 4.
Exhibits presented to the Commission by the City:
C-1 Consultant's response to examination appeal.
C-2 E-mail from Jed Aldridge to Dennis Joiner.
•
FINDINGS OF FACTS,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-2
C-3 E-mail from Jed Aldridge to Maria at DDT World.com
• C-4 Schedule matrix from day of assessment center.
C-5 Copy of City contract with Dennis Joiner.
C-6 Copy of City contract with 01dani Group.
C-7 Copy of Civil Service Rule X, Section 9, entitled "Grading."
V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONDUCT OF HEARING:
4.1 The parties agreed to the roles of the attorneys in the Legal Department and
the hearing procedures outlined at the beginning of the hearing. More specifically, that: (1)
the City Attorney, Roger Lubovich, would represent the Commission and would act as
moderator for the hearing; (2) that Brett Vinson, Assistant City Attorney, had provided
representation to the Employee Services Department, and (3) that the hearing would be
conducted in an informal basis and that the formal Rules of Evidence would not apply.
4.2 Appellants: (1) appealed the written exercise portion of the examination and
• requested that it be eliminated from final scoring; (2) appealed the supervisors' briefing
exercise portion of the examination and requested that it be removed from final scoring; and
(3) alleged a violation of Civil Service Rule III, Section 2, entitled"Duties," subsections 3
and 4, and requested invalidation of the entire examination. See, Letter of Appeal, dated
September 26, 2001.
4.3 Appellants had also alleged a violation of the labor relations exercise of the
examination, but during their hearing withdrew this challenge.
4.4 During the hearing, all candidates agreed to allow the Commission to conduct
an in-camera review of all candidates' test files.
WRITTEN EXERCISE:
4.5 Appellants made two (2)challenges to the written portion of the examination.
First, they alleged a change to the instructions given to some of the candidates during the
written exercise portion of the examination. Secondly, they allege that the scheduling of the
exercise was unfair in that some of the candidates had more time to work on the exercise
because other portions of the examination were scheduled for later in the day, while other
candidates had the other portions of the examination during the morning prior impacting the
written exercise.
•
FINDINGS OF FACTS,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-3
4.6 The Commission finds that the instructions for the written examination
• portion are clear in that they state " . . . prepare a one page handwritten draft document
directed to the Chief of Police . . . ." The instruction further provides " . . . your draft must
be submitted to the Co-facilitator. . . . It will be typed `as-is' with no grammatical changes."
See, Exhibit A-1. The Commission finds that this language speaks for itself and a one page
handwritten draft document was contemplated for the exercise which was to be subsequently
typed.
4.7 The Commission also finds that Appellants presented credible evidence that
some of the candidates may have been provided modified instructions allowing for unlimited,
handwritten draft pages and only requiring that the final typed document be no more than one
(1) typed page. The testimony indicated that Lieutenants Weissich, Holt, and Ohlde did not
receive the benefit of the modified instructions and that Lieutenants Woods, Ruefner, and
Klein did obtain the benefit of the modified instructions. Accordingly,the Commission finds
that the candidates may not have been treated equally. Therefore, the outcome of the written
exercise portion of the exam may have been impacted to the detriment of those candidates
who were not afforded the same modified instruction.
4.8 Mr. Krieble testified that there was no change from the written instructions;
however, he also testified that he did not see the drafts that were submitted, only the final
product. Whether or not the very modified instruction was actually given or perceived as a
modified instruction, a review of the test documents indicates that some candidates
responded to the instructions differently than others; therefore, calling into question the
written examination itself. An in-camera review of each candidate' written exercise by the
Commission revealed that some of the candidates who were believed to have received the
modified instructions wrote more than one page of a draft,while those candidates who were
believed not to have received the modified instructions, limited their drafts to one(1)page.
Therefore, this brings into question the fairness of the written examination.
4.9 Testimony was presented by Mr. Krieble that there would still be a valid
examination if the written portion of the examination were invalidated and eliminated from
final scoring of the candidates. No evidence was presented to the contrary. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the elimination of the written exercise portion of the examination
would not invalidate the remainder of the examination.
4.10 Due to the Commissions findings that modified instructions had been given
to some of the candidates, and that the candidates may not have been treated equally during
the examination process of this exercise, the credibility of this portion of the examination is
in question and, therefore, should be invalidated and not included in the final scoring of all
the candidates.
4.11 Further, the Commission finds that there was no credible evidence submitted
supporting the claim that the scheduling of the exercise presented any impact on the results
•
FINDINGS OF FACTS,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-4
of the written exercise portion of the examination. However, since this portion of the
• examination is invalidated for other reasons, this issue is moot.
SUPERVISORS'BRIEFING.
4.14 Appellants allege that the three (3) individuals conducting this exercise were
not properly identified as assessors or role players playing the part of sergeants during this
exercise. They further allege that there was no interaction with these individuals as would
normally occur in such a briefing. The Commission finds that the instructions for the
supervisors' briefing exercise were clear and that the candidates needed to proceed with this
portion of the examination as instructed. The Commission further finds that it is not
important whether or not the three(3) individuals seated at the table during the exercise were
identified as role players for the exercise. Again, the instructions were clear. They were
identified as the sergeants and that the fact that they did or did not interact in a role playing
exercise is not a critical flaw in this portion of the examination.
4.15 There was testimony that the candidates were told that they were to respond
to the exercise as if in a typical day of the police department. However, the Appellants allege
that due to the lack of role playing, the exercise was not realistic within the culture of the
police department. Again, the Commission finds that the lack of role playing between the
sergeants acting as assessors and the candidates is not a critical flaw in this examination
process. There was testimony during the hearing that it may not be likely to have role
• playing exchanges on the briefing of new case law to recently promoted sergeants. There is
also testimony from one of the candidates that what was requested from the candidates for
this process is similar to that which may be asked from them during a typical briefing session
for them in the City of Kent. The lack of identification of the sergeants as assessors and the
lack of role playing is not an important factor. The Commission finds that the instructions
did identify the individuals at the tables as recently promoted sergeants.
4.16 Finally, the Commission finds that all the candidates were treated the same
and were similarly situated and that they were required to respond to the instructions as
given. Accordingly, the Commission finds no error with this portion of the examination
process and upholds the same.
RULE ERROR.
4.19 Appellants allege that Civil Service Rule III, Section 2 entitled "Duties,"
subsections 3 and 4 were violated. The Appellants allege that the Examiner, Mr. Krieble,
took the examination materials home, or removed the same from the Civil Service
Commission office, in order to grade them; therefore, removing the testing documents from
the care, custody, and control of the Chief Secretary/Examiner. Civil Service Rule III,
Section 2 entitled "Duties,"subsection 3 provides in part that the Secretary/Chief Examiner
shall "Keep the records of the proceedings of the Commission; have charge of and be
• responsible for the safe keeping of the books, records,papers and other property in the office
FINDINGS OF FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION- 5
of the Commission . . ."and fin-ther subsection 4 provides in part that the Secretary and Chief
• Examiner shall " , . . supervise examinations and mark and grade all papers in a fair and
impartial manner and shall be personally present at all examinations. . . ." See, Exhibit A-2.
Appellants argue that removal of these documents from the office of the Civil Service
Commission by the Examiner, Mr. Krieble, outside the supervision of the Civil Service
Secretary/Examiner constitutes a violation of these rules and, therefore, the whole
examination should be invalidated and a new test should be administered.
4.20 The Commission finds that there are two (2)reasonable interpretations of the
provisions of these rules. The first interpretation, as the Commission understands the
Appellants to allege, is that all of the records and property in the office of the Commission
means that all the records must be "located and maintained" within the office of the
Commission and, further, that the supervision of the examinations and marking of the papers
by the Secretary/Chief Examiner means that he or she must be"present'during all grading
of the examinations. Therefore, under this reading of the provision, the records must be
graded and must remain in the presence and custody of the Civil Service Secretary/Chief
Examiner at all times.
4.21 Under the second interpretation, the provisions can also be read to mean that
the Secretary/Chief Examiner shall have the "responsibility for the safe keeping" of all
records kept in the office of the Commission: However,this does not mean they necessarily
need to be maintained in the office. Further, that the Secretary/ Chief Examiner has the
responsibility to "supervise"an examination in a fair and impartial manner, but that does not
require that the grading of an examination be done in his or her"presence,"but rather under
his or her"supervision and control."
4.22 The Civil Service Commission finds that the better interpretation of the rules
is this second interpretation whereby the Secretary/Chief Examiner has a responsibility for
the safe keeping of the records which are maintained within the office of the Commission.
Otherwise, a strict interpretation of that provision would prevent documents from ever
leaving the office of the Commission. The Commission also finds that the requirement of
the Secretary/Chief Examiner to supervise examinations and mark and grade all papers in a
fair and impartial manner does not require that the Secretary/Chief Examiner be "present'
during the full grading process, but rather that he or she maintain"supervision and control'
of the examination process. Supervision and control would include allowing a test examiner
to take test documents home to grade.
4.23 During the hearing, there was testimony and evidence presented that the
removal of the testing documents from the office of the Commission by the Test Examiner
to grade is a typical process. See, Exhibits C-2 and C-3. The Commission understands that
the rules of the Commission must be followed regardless of the practice of other
jurisdictions. However, because the Commission believes the interpretation of the rule
allows for the removal of the test documents, the process followed during this subject
•
FINDINGS OF FACTS,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-6
examination was consistent with City of Kent Civil Service Rules as well as with the practice
• of other jurisdictions.
4.24 The Commission finds that there was no violation of the rules and, even if the
removal of the testing documents by the Test Examiner for grading as alleged by the
Appellants was a violation of the stated rules,no evidence was presented to the Commission
to indicate that such a violation would have impacted the results of the test and, therefore,
call into question the examination results.
In summary, the Commission has concerns regarding the instructions provided for
the written exercise portion of the exam and, therefore, holds that this portion of the
examination is invalidated and eliminated from the final scoring of all the applicants.
Further, the commission finds that the supervisors briefing of the examination was properly
conducted and that all applicants were treated equally and therefore there is no basis for
invalidating the same. Finally, the Commission finds there was no violation of Civil Service
Rule III as alleged and, if a violation did occur, there was not evidence presented that u ould
indicate that such a violation had an impact on any of the candidates or their test results and,
therefore, it is not a basis for invalidating the whole examination.
Commissioners J. Callius Zarathiewicz and Tim Gimenez.
Commissioner Ron Banister concurs in part and dissents in part with the decision of
the majority as follows:
I concur with the majority of the Commission,with respect to the first two (2)points
of the appeal, specifically that: (1)the written exercise portion of the examination should be
invalidated and not included in the scoring for the final candidates, and (2) that the
supervisors' briefing portion of the examination be upheld, as a valid examination exercise
in that there was no error in this portion of the examination process. I concur with the
majority on these two (2) points for the reasons as outlined in the majority's opinion. I
dissent, however, with respect to the third point, more specifically, that there was no
violation of Civil Service Rule III, Section 2, entitled "Duties,"subsections 3 and 4. 1 find
a violation of this rule and believe that it is substantial enough to invalidate the „hole
examination requiring that a new examination be given.
The majority outlines two (2) interpretations of these rules. The first interpretation
is that all the records and property of the Commission means that all records must be
"located and maintained" within the office of the Commission and further that the
supervision of the examinations and the markings of the papers by the Secretary/Chief
Examiner means that she must be "present" during all grading of the examinations. The
second interpretation is that the Secretary/Chief Examiner shall have the "responsibility for
the safe keeping"of all records kept in the office of the Commission; however, they do not
necessarily need to be maintained in the office and, further, that the Secretary/Chief
• Examiner has the responsibility to"supervise"an examination in a fair and impartial manner,
FINDINGS OF FACTS,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-7
but that does require that the grading of the examination be done in his or her"presence,"but
• rather under his or her "supervision and control." The majority accepts the second
interpretation in their decision. It is my opinion that the first interpretation should apply,
resulting in a violation of the rule which, calls into question the integrity of the examination
process.
Pursuant to Rule III, Section 2, subsection 3, the Secretary/Chief Examiner shall keep
the records of the proceedings of the Commission. Rule III, Section 2, subsection 4 further
provides that the Secretary/Chief Examiner shall supervise examinations and mark and grade
all papers in a fair and impartial manner. It is clear from the language that the intent of the
rule is that the Secretary/Chief Examiner is to maintain care, custody and control of the test
documents and to be in charge of the grading of the same—not the Test Examiner. This
means that the test documents should not leave the possession of the Secretary/Chief
Examiner. Regardless of the practices of other jurisdictions or the Cit}''s past practice, the
rule should be complied with, or otherwise amended. Not maintaining the care, custody, and
control of the test documents raises serious concerns about the integrity of the examination
process, more specifically, the scoring of the examinations and, for this reason, the entire
examination should be invalidated.
DATED this /ST day of /Job�110�' , 2001.
By. B \
• J. Callius Zarathiewicz, Tim Gimenez,
Civil Service Commissioner and Civil Service Commissioner
Chair of the Commission
By:
Ron Banister
Civil Service Commissioner
P.(SHIIIF31.}.fYnwf.:W 11Ys W q.Yp�FrlbNnM1Jf
•
FINDINGS OF FACTS,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-8
I-LUU I 4:UkVeM r KUM KMIV I UIV MHUI"I11V 15 1 5 ;ewb 23bbbW8 P. 2
• but that does require that the grading of the examination be done in his or her`presence,"but
rather under his or her "supervision and control." The majority accepts the second
interpretation in their decision. It is my opinion that the first interpretation should apply,
resulting in a violation of the rule which,calls into question the integrity of the examination
process.
Pursuant to Rule III,Section 2,subsection 3,the Secretary/ChiefExaminershall keep
the records of the proceedings of the Commission. Rule III, Section 2, subsection 4 further
provides that the Secretary/Chief Examiner shall supervise examinations and mark and grade
all papers in a fair and impartial manner. It is clear from the language that the intent of the
rule is that the Secretary/Chief Examiner is to maintain care, custody and control of the test
documents and to be in charge of the grading of the same—not the Test Examiner. This
means that the test documents should not leave the possession of the Secretary/Chief
Examiner. Regardless of the practices of other urisdictions or the City's past practice, the
rule should be complied with,or otherwise amended. Not maintaining the care,custody,and
control of the test documents raises serious concerns about the integrity of the examination
process, more specifically, the scoring of the examinations and, for this reason, the entire
examination should be invalidated.
DATED this day of /r//0 2001.
By. By:
I. Calliu arathiewicz, Tim Gimenez,
Civil Service Commissioner and Civil Service Commissioner
Chair of the Commission
By:
Ron Banister
Civil Service Commissioner
•
FINDINGS OF FACTS,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RULING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-8
Winecka, Natalie
• From: Winecka, Natalie
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:29 AM
To: Fire All Personnel; Police All Personnel; Anh Hoang; banisters@uswest.net; Becky Fowler;
Brett Vinson; Cheryl Viseth; Dee Drake; Debra Leroy; Jan Banister;jczak@iam751.org; Jed
Aldridge; Jim White; Joe Bartlemay; Karen Ford; Kathleen Senecaut Marvin Bartlemay; Mike
Martin; Natalie Winecka; RobS@council2.com; Roger Lubovich; Rose Jacob; Steve Ohlde;
Sue Viseth; Tammy McQueeney; TGimenez@msn.com
Subject: The ACTUAL Minutes of the Nov. Meeting!
Please disregard the first message sent, I accidentally attached the agenda...50, please click on the
icon below for the MINUTES from the November 28th Civil Service Commission meeting.
U&F
MinutesNovemb
er2001.doc
Thank you!
Natalie Winecka
•
•
t