Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Civil Services Commission - 09/13/1990 (3) Y' fS• y CITY OF KENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES' September 13, 1996 Members present: Robert Jarvis Ron Forest Scheduling Conflict: Calius Zaratkiewicz Others present: Chief R. Frederiksen, Police Department Lt. Rufner, Police Department Mr. Steven Strand, Mr. Timothy Hughes Catherine Dixon, Secretary/Chief Examiner Detective Burwell, Police Department Captain Byerly, Police Department Lt. C. E. Miller, Police Department Ofc. Kathy Holt, Police Department Captain J. Miller, Police Department Alana McIalwain, Administration Additional people were present The meeting was called to order at 8:00 a.m. by Chairman Robert Jarvis. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Jarvis stated that the Commission would be hearing two appeals. The first appeal by Steven Strand, appealing the decision to remove him from the Eligibility List for Entry Level Police Officer. RJ: This hearing is held prusuant to the rules and regulations of this Commission. This hearing is being recorded. To assist the court reporter we ask that you give a voice identification when you speak. I would ask our other Commissioner to introduce himself at this time. RF: I am Ron Forest, Civil Service Commissioner. RJ: Before the Opening Statements we should consider some preliminary matters. The first would be Jurisdiction. Is there any challenge to the jurisdiction of the commission to hear this matter? (No response) . Is there any challenge to any of the Commissioners? (None) b Special Meeting - Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 2 RJ: The materials that are part of the Commissioners record in this matter consist of a letter from Steven Strand, dated July 2, 1990. The Commission also has copies of its Rules. RJ: Are there other documents or materials that should be submitted, or made part of the record at this time? (none were given) . RJ: Are there any other motions or issues for the Commissioner to consider before we proceed? (None given) . RJ: At this time we would ask for an opening statement from the Petitioner Steven Strand. Do you wish to make an opening statement? SS: Yes. RJ: Please state your name and address for the record. SS: My name is Steve Strand and my address is 2501 148th Ave SE #C4, Bellevue, WA 98447. My name was taken off the Police Officer Eligibility List. To the best of my knowledge the reason it was done was because of my background investigation. My name was listed on a Police Report with regard to an obscene phone call and I had no idea or knowledge of this incident before the investigation until the investigators told me of this. I offered to take a Polygraph Test. Also some negative things were said about me by my ex-girlfriend and I don't think this should reflect on me in any way. RJ: Basically an Opening Statement is just a brief outline of what you want to present. If you wish to consider that as a statement, basically we' ll just swear you in and testify that the information you just gave us is the truth. Is there anything further? RJ: Would you step back up, we'll do this again. Apparently I didn't do it correctly. Will you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth? SS: Yes I do. RJ: (To Chief Frederiksen) . Is this going to be an opening statement? Special Meeting - Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 3 CF: Yes, would you like to swear me in? RJ: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth? CF: Yes, I do. Good Morning Mr. Chairman, the Police Department is ready to proceed with the information for the Commission. I would like to advise that we did conduct a background investigation on the applicant for the position of Entry Level Police Officer for the City of Kent. During the background investigation, information was brought to my attention that led me to believe that this individual did not possess the characteristics that we were seeking for the position of Police Officer for the City of Kent. Both Lt. Rufener and Detective Bob Burwell conducted the background investigation and presented the information to me and are present and will speak to the issues that were brought up. Thank you. RJ: Mr. Strand do you have any witnesses today? SS: No I don't. RJ: Thank you. RJ: Chief, do you have any questions of Mr. Strand at this time? CF: Actually I don't. I would like to, if I could at this time, call Lt. Rufener and Detective Burwell to supply information to the Commission with regard to the Background Investigation of Mr. Strand. I reserve that right. Lt. Rufener would you come forward. RJ: Do you Swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth? LR: Yes, I do. My name is Lorna Rufener, I am a Lieutenant for the Police Department. I was assigned to do Background Investigation during June and July. We had several questions that we felt that we did not have enough information on and Detective Burwell was the primary investigator on this particular applicant. I would ask him to come forward. RJ: (To Detective Burwell) . Do you sear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth? DB: Yes, I do. RJ: Please state your name. Special Meeting - Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 4 DB: I am Detective Bob Burwell. I was assigned to do the Background Check on Steven Strand. A considerable amount of information was collected. We did not look at just one specific item. There were several red flags that we saw that stuck out. Initially there were some ommissions on his initial application. And one of those ommissions was one of the High Schools where he attended. He had started at Vashon High School and then transferred to Seattle to Roosevelt High School. He then transferred back to Vashon where he graduated. During that time he was listed as a Suspect on a Seattle Police Report for Obscene Phone Calls. This was a concern of mine so I felt that Lt. Rufener should look into that. She confirmed that he went to that high school at that time and that he had a Shop Class with the victim, the gal who received this information on her phone recorder. We interviewed her, she believed that it was him on the telephone. So that ommission initially on the application was a concern of ours. We ended up doing a subsequent interview with Mr. Strand on the eighteen of May to clarify some of our concerns. He indicated that he didn't feel that it was important to list that on the initial application as he didn't graduate from there. overall he got fairly good ratings from most of his references. His present employer gave him a good reference. His High School teacher from Vashon rated his maturity quite highly with the exception that his choices of women are not good. He indicated a specific occasion when Mr. Strand was visiting him at school when Mr. Strand called his girlfriend to check up on her to see if she was where she said she'd be at. Now, for High School this is probably not that big of a deal but we started to see a pattern. Recently we spoke with his ex-girlfriend, Candy Middling, after receiving a phone message from her on May 28th and subsequently called her back. She stated she had run into her brother-in-law on the Ferry Boat to Vashon and he felt that she had probably ruined Steves chances, that because of her Steve was unable to get a job. I was able to question her about a domestic that occured at their residence in Bellevue. She indicated that she had called 911, the Police Officer that responded told her that she was visibly shaken. She told us that she was scared. Mr. Stand did not come to the door and speak to the officer and she indicated that she was really scared and that she had gotten into a fight with Mr. Strand. Domestics occur but this was one more thing pointing towards that pattern. His mother indicated that he had trouble with relationships. Special Meeting - Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 5 DB: A Highschool friend, Dave Long indicated that Steve was under quite a bit of stress with his present relationship with his girlfriend. His older sister indicated the same in reference to his ex-girlfriend. I spoke with Mr. Strands father and another point that came out was with regard to racial prejudice. He also stated that his son had written a paper on the fact that women should not be allowed in combat. He stated that his son had chauvanistic ideas. I spoke with Laura Strand, his younger sister in reference to the racial prejudice. She stated that he often made the statements for shock value. There was an overall pattern that we were seeing developing. I talked with two other references. One of these was his best friends father. Mr. Long stated that his strongest trait was his strong character and his weakest trait was his inability to get along with his girlfriend. Some of my concerns are Steves inability to deal with Domestic Violence cases. I 'm concerned about Citizens Complaints and the Liability on the part of the Police Department should he be employed. I have some questions about truth because there were some omissions on his initial application. His Personal History Statement with regards to Speeding Citations, these were fairly recent. Fairly excessive speeds, 53 in a 35 in November 1988, 49 in a 25. He also ommitted an equipment violation in June 1989. He indicated that he had withdrawn from the King County Police Officer testing because of the Traffic Violations. I called them and talked with Detective Barris who stated they allowed him to withdraw because the citations were too recent. We still feel that those are excessive and too recent also. RJ: Is there anything further that is pertinent? DB: Lt. Rufener and myself checked another ommission on his application with regard to a security job he had on Vashon Island. Mr. Strand considered it as unimportant due to the fact that the business was now shut down. I think that all of this sheds a light on the applicants background and certainly questions his honesty, his integrity his maturity and I question his ability to do the job and recommend his removal from the list. RJ: We will allow Mr. Strand to ask of you any questions he might have at this time. Do you have any questions Mr. Strand? Special Meeting - Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 6 SS: Yes, I do. What did my references say about my maturity overall? DB: Overall, your references gave you quite high marks for your maturity. But delving into the matter there were certain concerns. RJ: Any further questions? May this witness be excused? Thank you. CF: Mr. Chairman, based on the information that Detective Burwell has presented to you and the philosophy within the department, that of ensuring that we foster an attitude of quality within the department and delivery of service to the community. I felt in light of the information that we received on Mr. Strand and the ommissions, that he did not possess the character that I was looking for for the department. I would ask that he be removed from the list on that basis. RJ: I would like to clarify something for myself. When was the last domestic incident? Do you know how long ago that was? DB: It actually occurred after our investigation started. It was occuring during the month of May. RJ: Of this year? DB: Yes. We received the application in March we were doing the background in May. The domestic occured during the end of May. RJ: State your name again, so we know who's talking. SS: My name is Steven Strand. When I found out I was taken off the list I contacted the Bellevue Police when I heard about the Domestic Violence case. I talked to the Officer who responded. He stated that there was no record of it, there was no case number, there was no Domestic Violence. It was merely a 911 verification. My girlfriend dialed 911 and hung up. The police came out and talked to her, they did talk to me, I did come to the door. I did talk to the officer and he said that he was just verifying that nothing was going on as they'd had a 911 call that was hung up. There was no violence, no disturbance. RJ: Okay. RF: Do you have that Officers name? Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 September 13, 1990 SS: Yes, Officer Elliott. RF: (To Detective Burwell) . Did you have that information? DB: I did not have the Officers name. RF: You did not talk to the Officer who responded? DB: No, he (Mr. Strand) is correct. There is no record of the Bellevue Police responding. RJ: Any further questions? Do you have a rebuttal Mr. Strand? This is an opportunity for you to basically make a closing statement. SS: My name is Steve Strand. As far as the ommissions on the application they were honest mistakes. Regarding high school I understood that the ones wanted were those where I got degrees; therefore I did not put Vashon. As far as my Work History. I didn't put Baskin Robins because it was so long ago and for such a short time that I had forgotten about it. Nothing happened there, nothing bad and nothing that would look bad on me that I was trying to conceal. As far as the obscene phone call, I went to Roosevelt between the years of 1983 and 1984 and worked at Baskin Robins. The obscene phone call was in January 1985. I was on Vashon in 1984. I wonder why 2 years later this girl thought I would want to make obscene phone calls to her. I only worked with her a couple of weeks and did not really know her that well. That ommission was an honest mistake. They asked me if I would take a Polygraph regarding the obscene phone call, I was so shocked that I could be a suspect and have never heard about it. I would like an opportunity to take the Polygraph. I did write a paper about Women in Combat it was supposed to persuade people to a certain philosophy. Nowhere in there did I state that that was my philosophy. I ended up changing my thesis. special Meeting Minutes Page 8 September 13, 1990 As far as my ex-girlfriend. My Highschool Teacher said that I phoned to check whether she was where she was supposed to be at. What he didn't say was that she wasn't. She was the first real girlfriend and relationship I 'd ever had and it turned into an unhealthy one and I ended it. It was difficult to have an untrustworthy girlfriend. It was the first one and the last one. As far as the speeding tickets. The last one was over a year ago and I haven't had any since. King County has a strict rule that you can only have 6 points and I had 7 . They told me to come back at a later date and reapply. I contacted Kent before I applied to make sure that they did not have that rule. I was assured that they did not. It seems like my references and the people you talked to said that I was mature and everything. The only negative thing is about my ex-girlfriend and I dealt with that the best way I could. I got out of it, it was a bad relationship, I got out of it, felt it was the best thing to do. Perhaps I should have ended it sooner. I don't think that her behavior should reflect on me. A lot of people are now putting her down because they didn't know what she was going to tell Kent Police. RJ: Okay. CF: Chief Frederiksen again. Mr. Chairman, in addition to what I had indicated previously Mr. Strand filled out a Personal History Statement. He spoke about leaving certain information out of the Personal History Statement and certain ommissions he had made. Mr. Strand signed the Personal History Statement which involved a paragraph and I 'd like to read it for the record. "I hereby certify that there are no misrepresentations, omissions, or falsifications in the foregoing statements and answers to questions. I am fully aware that such misrepresentations, omissions, or falsifications will be grounds for immediate rejection or termination of employment." RJ: Thank you. This concludes the hearing of the appeal. Before we proceed Mr. Strand is there anything in rebuttal you would like to comment on after the Chiefs statement? Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 September 13, 1990 SS: No. RJ: We will deliberate on this after we hear the second appeal. We will render a written decision in approximately 10 days to the address you have given. Is that a correct address? SS: Yes. RJ: You can also pick up a copy of this from the Secretary & Chief Examiner if you chose in approximately ten days. She will have a copy of it and will send it to you in the mail. SS: Okay. RJ: At this point we are going to proceed with the hearing of Timothy Hughes. This is the matter of the Appeal by Timothy Hughes appealing the decision to remove him from the Eligibility List for Entry Level Police Officer. Again this is pursuant to the Rules & Regulations of the Commission. Myself, Robert Jarvis and Ron Forest are the two Commissioners. I would ask that Timothy Hughes present his address and phone number for the record. TH: Good Morning. My name is Timothy C. Hughes. My address is 24620 Russell Road #A301, Kent WA 98032 . My phone is 854- 5069. RJ: Thank you. Before the opening statements is there any challenge to the jurisdiction of the Commission to hear this matter? (No response) . Are there any challenges to any of the Commissioners? (No response) . The materials that are part of the Commissioners record in this matter consist of a letter from Timothy Hughes dated June 26, 1990. We also have copies of the Rules & Regulations. Are there any other materials that should be submitted or made a part of the record at this time? (No response) . Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 September 13, 1990 RJ: Are there any other motions or issues for the Commissioner to consider before we proceed? (No response) . Mr. Hughes do you choose to make an opening statement? TH: Yes. RJ: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth? TH: Yes. RJ: I 'd just like to take this opportunity to send my appreciation to the Commissions time in allowing me to appeal this decision. I welcome any questions concerning this appeal. RJ: Do you wish to make an opening statement Chief Frederiksen? CF: Yes. RJ: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth? CF: I do. Mr. Chairman, for the record I am Chief Frederiksen, Kent Police Department. Per the Background Investigation of applicants for Police Officer for the City of Kent there is a Psychological Test that is conducted by a consultant that is hired by the Department. In this case Dr. Dave Smith, who we have used for a number of years and I respect. We are prepared to proceed with information with regard to the Psychological Testing conducted by Dr. Smith and that was one of the primary basis of my rejection of this applicant. I am requesting that you remove him from the list. With the permission of the Commission I would like to have Dr. Smith testify as to what conclusions he came to after testing Mr. Hughes. Thank you. RJ: Mr. Hughes do you have any witnesses? TH: No I don't. RJ: Thank you. Do you wish to testify on your own behalf? TH: Yes I do. Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 September 13, 1990 RJ: You may do so. TH: Do you have any questions you'd like to ask me? RJ: If you want to testify about your position on the matter at this time this is a good opportunity to do that. TH: Yes, after my interview with Dr. Smith I assume that it is due to a lack of clear focus on my career path for a person of my age who should be established. I do not have any excuses for that. Thats all I really have to say. There are things that I would do differently given the opportunity, thats for sure. But I am serious about pursuing this career path. I welcome any questions. RJ: (To Chief Frederiksen) . Do you have any questions of Mr. Hughes? CF: No. I would like at this time to call Dr. Dave Smith to provide information. RJ: Dr. Smith do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth? DS: Yes, I am Dr. David Smith. I am a Psychologist licensed in the State of Washington. I have worked for various Police Agencies. I examined Mr. Timothy Hughes on June 13, 1990. Mr. Hughes was given a battery of psychological tests and a lengthy interview. Based on my evaluation some of which were anchored in a number of the test scores which were a substantial variance from the normal applicant for Police Officer. I determined that Mr. Hughes was, in my judgement, a below average applicant for this position. I recommended to the Police Department that he was a Marginal applicant for the position. I would be happy to explain why I made the judgement that I did if the Commission would like to hear it. RJ: Can you give us an overall, I guess my question is can you make a summary of it. Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 September 13, 1990 DS: A brief summary. Some of Mr. Hughes test scores were quite a ways out of the norms for averages for Police Applicants in general. The scores in my judgement, indicate that he is very unfocused in his interests. He has demonstrated a lack of accomplishments. DS: He sets goals and doesn't complete them. He has a very sporadic work history and I was very concerned that if he were hired by the Police Department he would portray the same mental attitudes and would not be highly focused and follow through. In general he did not behave as we would expect applicants to behave when they are going to get hired as police officers. I can go into more detail if you'd like. RJ: I guess that it would be appropriate for you to go further. DS: Do you happen to have the report on this applicant? The report was written two days after I interviewed him. It is fairly detailed in the terms of the practical examination. In the summary on page two I recommended that Mr. Hughes not be hired based on test scores and my broad evaluation. Individuals who score as he did on the MMPI and the 16 PF are likely to be perennialy in conflict with established authority and often get into trouble. By getting into trouble I mean in this sense not getting into trouble with police but trouble in the sense of not following through with their goals and established objectives in life. They often get into conflict with individuals and in this applicants history I found that both in jobs and school and with his relationships it confirmed what his test scores were telling me. People who score like this tend to be impractical and have difficulty attending to the situation in hand. He scored very low on factor G for example; in fact as I indicated here these individuals tend to be low on what is known as test conventionality or group conformity. They have difficulties in effecting satisfactory judgements to life and in his history in fact reflects this. I found Mr. Hughes to be a very pleasant person, we had a pleasant interview and socially he will get on well with people. What I 'm more concerned about is that he tends to be somewhat of a dilitente or a dabbler in life. He starts things and doesn't complete them. His history and in the tests that he took confirm that. On the 16PF for example, the test which was validated on thousands of people, indicates that he tends to fantasize and is impractical, he has some difficulty in continuing with whenever he is involved with a crime. The test indicates that he has a history of conflict in family relationships. He has told me that he has an inability to emphasize with others which tends to make him move away from other people. Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 September 13, 1990 He has trouble establishing good social and personal relationships with individuals and this is in fact reflected in some parts of his history. He has a tendency towards immaturity, being impulsive. He tends to be less conservative than the average individual. Those are comments that I have made from the 16 Personality Factors test which I found to be true in my interview. On the MMPI there were several test scores that were out of variance with the average Police Applicant. One of those test scores was Field L of the MPI, this particular scale if elevated means that the scorer was trying to present themselves in a improbably favorable light and as trying to impress people as being somewhat more accomplished, if you will, than the average person. Ergo, another way of putting that is that there is a lack of candor in the test taking attitude of the person. This particular scale was elevated substantially beyond what was seen in the average Police Applicant. In the Interpersonal area the MMPI suggested that this individual is an outgoing person. Very sociable. His relationships tend to be very superficial and somewhat insincere. He has difficulty establishing contact with other people in terms of long term, responsible kind of mature relationship. I found that again not to just be true of the test scores but also reflected in his personal life. Given the totality of the test scores that we looked at and my interview with him, I found Mr. Hughes to be below average, in my judgement for this position. I was concerned with his inability to establish clear goals and objectives in his life. I am afraid he would bring that into the Police Department and not be able to follow through on the things that would be expected of him. I graded him as a Marginal Applicant. I do not think he would complete the established training period in Law Enforcement. RJ: Thank you. Mr. Hughes do you have any questions? TH: No questions, but I do have a comment I 'd like to make. RJ: Mr. Smith, has Mr. Hughes received a copy of this report? DS: I don't know. TH: No. Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 September 13, 1990 RJ: I think that that would be appropriate at this time if he does receive a copy of this information. I want to admit this into the record as evidence. Mr. Hughes, should you have a rebuttal to this you will have an opportunity to look at this. Do we have another copy of this? CF: We'll have a copy made at this time. RJ: I 'd appreciate that. We're going to give him an opportunity for rebuttal to this. At another time. CF: Mr. Chairman, I am Chief Frederiksen. We take what Dr. Smith has indicated in his report very seriously and consider it very informative in our selection of candidates. However, that is not the only basis for the rejection of Mr. Hughes. I would like to supply one additional witness to provide you with information. Prior to his testimony I would like to indicate that within the Department that there 'is the policy of zero tolerance for drugs within the community. We screen our applicants very thoroughly for past drug usage and examine that very closely. Although that does not preclude necessarily, their hiring as an employee of the department, it is something we look at very seriously as well as honesty and Personal History Statement and the information supplied. I would like to have Lt. Chuck Miller provide information to the Commission at this time with regard specifically, past drug usage and the Personal History Statement. RJ: Please raise your hand. officer Miller do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth? CM: I do. My name is Charles Miller when I reviewed the background of Mr. Hughes I was assigned to Internal Affairs, conducted a Polygraph. During the Polygraph examination, more appropriately during the pre-testing with Mr. Hughes, I tried to confirm the information provided by the applicant. In doing so I was reviewing Mr. Hughes Personal History Statement with him which was completed on April 14th. I was conducting this information on the 27th of April. In his Personal History statement there was a question concerning the use of marijuana or any other drugs not prescribed. Mr. Hughes indicated that he had used Marijuana one time in High School at a party and he identified that as being 1976. Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 September 13, 1990 CM: When I confirmed this information, Mr. Hughes indicated that he had used it five more times in College in Bellingham and had also used cocaine twice. After we were through verifying information that Mr. Hughes provided, I have a questionaire that is 13 or 14 pages long. In the Criminal History portion there is a section dealing with the use of drugs. We specifically get into different types of drugs. Mr. Hughes did not feel comfortable with stating that he had used marijuana five times. I asked him if he would feel more comfortable if he said less than ten times and he replied yes. I then asked him if had used speed and he indicated yes once at a party. So in addition to marijuana, cocaine and speed the candidate did not include this in his Personal History Statement. After all of this was over I conducted the polygraph on Mr. Hughes and found no deception indicated. RJ: Mr. Hughes do you have any questions? TH: No. RJ: The witness may be excused. CF: Mr. Chairman, for the record I do have a copy which I will present to Mr. Hughes of the Psychological Testing. RJ: Okay. We' ll give you a couple of minutes to go over this and if you chose to rebuttal today you may. If you chose to give a rebuttal at the next meeting we'll allow you that grace also. TH: I don't need to read over this. I pretty much remember the conversation with Dr. Smith. I would like to give a brief rebuttal. RJ: You may proceed. TJ: I have no qualms or disagreements with Dr. Smith. I've been through a pretty eye-opening year. Its time for me to start doing what I want to do in pursuing a career that I want to pursue. I 've been working for the Boeing company in Engineering for almost a year now and am doing quite well. I have taken this whole process as a learning experience and will accept the decision of the Commission whether or not to permanently remove me from the list thius time around. With respect, I will reapply next time and continue to work to get my ducks in a row and perhaps be sucessful next time. Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 September 13, 1990 RJ: Would you consider that your closing argument? Is that your closing argument? TJ: Yeah. RJ: Chief, do you have a closing statement? CF: Mr. Chairman, again Chief Frederiksen. Based on the totality of information presented to me and the testimony here before the Commission it is still my conclusion that Mr. Hughes does not possess the characteristics and traits that we are looking for as a member of the Police Department. That is not to say he is not a good person. I don't make that statement at all. Simply we feel that he is not the type of individual we're looking for for the Department. I feel strongly that the information presented justifies the decision. RJ: Thank you. This concludes the Hearing of the Commission. We will recess and deliberate this. We will offer you a written conclusion, finding of fact decision in approximately ten days. Is the address that you have provided us with accurate? TH: Yes. RJ: You can also pick up a copy at the Secretary & Chief Examiner office here at City Hall if you chose in approximately ten days. Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 September 13, 1990 ROT: We do not have anything further on our Agenda. This is a Special Meeting so we will recess into deliberation at this time. Thank you. Chairman Jarvis stated that the next Regular Meeting will be on Wednesday September 19, 1990 at 8:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers. Meeting was adjourned at 8:54 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine M. Dixon Secretary and Chief Examiner Approved: Robert rvis Chairman 3. The Commission notes that Kent Civil Service • 1 Commission Rule No. 6, Section 6 provides for the following burden of proof: "The burden of proof shall be upon the applicant to 2 satisfactorily show the Commission that he or she posses the 3 qualifications which are required under this rule" . 4 4. The Commission finds that Applicant Strand 5 adequately responded to the concerns raised by the Police Department 6 regarding applicant's qualifications to apply for the position of Kent Police Officer. 7 8 5. The Applicant was not established to be a g perpetrator of the obscene phone call cited by the Kent Police 10 Department. 11 6. The Commission is not convinced of the credibility 12 of the reports from applicant's ex-girlfriend regarding a proported domestic violence incident. 13 � 14 7. The Commission finds that without these factors 15 being established, the Commission cannot find that there exists any 16 established negative pattern regarding applicant that should be of concern to the Kent Police Department regarding this applicant's 17 ability to meet the qualifications of this position. 18 19 ACCORDINGLY, the Commission makes the following: 20 II. CONCLUSIONS 21 22 1. The appeal by Steven Strand, appealing the decision to remove him from the eligibility list for City of Kent 23 Entry Level Police Department is hereby granted, and Applicant P4 Strand's name should be placed upon the eligibility list for this 25 position. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 2 26 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION • 27 SANDRA DRISCOLL KENT CITY ATTORNEY 220 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH KENT.WASHINGTON 98032 859-3340 DATED this day of September, 1990. 2 Robert Ja is Chair 3 Kent it Service Commission 4 5 n Forest ivil Service Commissioner 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • 6356L-30L 27 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 3 SANDRA DRISGOLL OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NENT CITY ATTORNEY 220 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH NENT.WASHINGTON 98032 859-3340 :s `.: Nk, 1 2 3 4 5 6 BEFORE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENT 7 IN RE THE APPEAL OF TIMOTHY ) 6 HUGHES ) 9 ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE 10 ) CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 11 12 ) 13 • 14 15 THIS MATTER having come regularly before the City of Kent 16 Civil Service Commission on September 13, 1990, appeal of Timothy Hughes appealing the decision to remove applicant from the 17 eligibility list for entry level police officer. 18 19 The Commission makes the following: 20 I. FINDINGS OF FACT 21 22 1. The Commission finds the testimony and report authored by Dr. David Smith raises sufficient concerns regarding 23 this applicant's qualifications for the position of entry level P4 police officer. 25 26 • 27 SANDRA DRISCOLL KENT CITY ATTORNEY 220 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH VENT,WASHINGTON 98032 859-3340 2 . The Commission finds that the applicant was given 1 opportunity for rebuttal to the report by Dr. Smith, and chose not to contest the findings contained therein. 2 3 3 . Testimony was also presented regarding the 4 applicant's drug usage, and less than candid responses regarding past drug use during the application period. 5 6 THEREFORE based upon the following, the Commissioners' make the following: 7 6 II. CONCLUSIONS 9 10 1. The appeal by Timothy Hughes appealing the decision to remove him from the eligibility list of entry level 11 police officer is denied. 12 DATED this day of September, 1990. 13 • 14 15 o rt Ja is 16 Chair Kent Civil Service Commission 17 16 19 For st ivil Service Commissioner 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • 6357L-30L 27 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 2 SANDRA DRISCOLL OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION KENT CITY ATTORNEY 220 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 859-3340