----- Original Message -----
The Town of East Hartford’s Personnel Appeals Board
MINUTES – FEBRUARY 22ND, 2011
APPEAL OF Town of East Hartford’s Fire Department Captain Matthew J. Flor.
Present at Meeting:
Board Members :
Shaun Jones, Paul Sousa, & Thomas A. Ogar, Esq.
Alternate Board Members:
Valentine Povinelli & Lynn L. Kayser
Assistant Corporation Counsel – Frank Cassetta
Personnel Director - Ron Savitski
Suzanne Kyeremateng -Human Resources Department
Fire Department Captain Matthew J. Flor - Appellant
Attorney Eric Chester for Matthew J. Flor
Members of the Public –
Journal inquirer Reporter -Al Hemingway
Meeting started @ 5:37P.M.
Paul Sousa so moved to formally accept Fire Department Captain Matthew Flor’s Appeal
Thomas Ogar Seconded such motion.
Eric Chester - Attorney for the Appellant raised the following:
- Appellant was appealing based upon the oral board of the exam.
- He believes that the questions were not scored correctly.
- He is asking for the disclosure of the score sheet.
- Attorney Chester is interested in protecting the integrity of the exam process as he remarked the Town is certainly interested in the same thing.
- Attorney Chester says the appellant wants to view the contents of his own score sheet.
- Attorney Chester said if the score sheet is placed in a secure location and the appellant can not copy same then Attorney Chester indicated from his previous practice in this area the score sheet should be able to be reviewed.
- The theory would be for limited access to the oral exam score sheet and that no copies of same could be made.
- The appellant indicated that once the review of the score sheet was made he would be satisfied that the score sheet either was or was not scored correctly.
- Attorney Chester indicated that there may be need to subpoena witnesses.
- The appellant’s attorney indicated that it may expedite this process if access to the personal score sheet can occur.
Board Member Paul Sousa asked:
Is there one score sheet or is there a personal score sheet?
Suzanne Kyeremateng -Human Resources Department -was the proctor for the exam.
Suzanne Kyeremateng indicated that there was a personal score sheet. Frank Cassetta indicated that the Town utilizes its own score sheet. Suzanne Kyeremateng also indicated that the Town does not purchase score sheets but in fact does utilize its own sheet which it has carefully crafted over the years.
Ron Savitsky, the Personnel Director, indicated that Suzanne Kyeremateng runs the personnel recruitment for the town.
Erik Chester inquired if Suzanne was a proctor and a panelist.
Suzanne Kyeremateng remarked that she is a proctor only.
Ron Savitski, Personnel Director remarked that the oral exam was comprised of only 6 questions.
Each Panel member gives a score for each of the six questions and then all the scores are tabulated.
Board Member Thomas Ogar asked:
Who collects the data ? Suzanne Kyeremateng remarked that she collects the data and tabulates the score.
How are the comments quantified? - asked Board Member Thomas Ogar
Ron Savitsky, the Personnel Director, indicated that there is a range from 4-10 and the comments made to the panelists by the applicants are given a score by the panelist. Then The Department of Human Resources will add up the scores to provide a total score.
Mr. Flor, the appellant, remarked that he believes that he answered the questions and did better than the 75% that was attributed to his responses for this exam.
The Panel members attach a number from the range of 4 -10 to the assessment that they provide when gauging the applicant’s response to the oral questions of the oral exam.
The Personnel Department serves as a score keeper. As another one of its roles in the recruitment process, the Personnel Department staff adds the individual scores for the six questions to compile the final score for the oral part of the exam.
The Board Chairman inquired of the Assistant Corporation Counsel that it might be prudent if Attorney Chester provide a brief vis/a/vis the issue of the personal review of the appellant’s oral exam score to be conducted in a secure location without the ability for the appellant to copy same. The Assistant Corporation Counsel indicated brief discussions between Attorney Chester and the Assistant Corporation Counsel were tried in an attempt to see if common ground could be reached to try and resolve a process for potential review of the oral exam results of the appellnt in question.
The Board Chairman suggested a recess should occur in order to further these discussions and to take into consideration the views of the Personnel Director who has vast experience in this area.
Board Member Paul Sousa so moved for a recess. Board Member Thomas Ogar Seconded such motion.
A Recess occurred @ 5:52P.M.
The Board re-convened @ 6:07 P.M.
Assistant Corporation Counsel indicated the following:
- In the hopes of settling this case;
- In the hopes of avoiding the issuing of subpoenas which may or may not have detrimental effects on securing panelists for future exams;
- In the interests of this case only, and not creating any type of new Human Resources/Personnel Department policy going forward and under the Assistant Corporation Counsel’s ability to recommend possible settlement of Human Resource Issues, Attorney Chester, on behalf of his client, Matthew Flor, and Assistant Corporation Counsel Frank Cassetta along with Personnel Director Ron Savitsky, at the advice of Assistant Corporation Counsel Frank Cassetta, agreed to allow, FOR THIS CASE/INSTANCE ONLY, Matthew Flor to review the oral exam score in a secure location and with no ability to copy said information or with no ability to take notes of the results reviewed therein.
Attorney Chester agreed that was the agreement reached. When asked to confirm the contents of said agreement by the Board Chairman, Attorney Chester confirmed that the Appellant alone would be allowed to review the oral exam and the appellant’s attorney would not be allowed to be placed in the secure location to review such results of the appellant’s oral exam.
Attorney Chester concurred with the Assistant Corporation Counsel’s statement of the agreement and remarked that he was amenable to same.
The Board Chairman asked Ron Savitsky, the Personel Director, if he concurred with the understanding as presented. The Personnel Director, Ron Savitsky, endorsed the agreement as presented by the Assistant Corporation Counsel as the understanding that was reached between the parties. Ron Savitsky, the Personnel Director, questioned if this agreement should be reduced to writing. Assistant Corporation Council, Frank Cassetta, remarked that the Minutes will reflect the understanding and agreement of the parties.
Assistant Corporation Counsel, Frank Cassetta, indicated that the time and secure location details would be ironed out by the Appellant and the Personnel Director.
The Board Chairman indicated:
- that in fact no decision was made by the Board;
- that the Board was thankful for the parties willingness to entertain discussing the issue at hand;
- that no Policy was made or no precedent was reached as the Assistant Corporation Counsel has indicated;
- and that as soon as the review by the Appellant is concluded then the Personnel Director is to send out a New Notice & Agenda calling the Board back into session to hear the results of the review.
The Board Chairman entertained a motion to adjourn @ 6:14P.M.
Board Member Thomas Ogar so moved.
Board Member Paul Sousa seconded.
Adjourned @ 6:14P.M.
Alternate Board Member -Valentine P. Povinelli, Jr.- indicated his new address as follows: 97 Langford Lane, East Hartford, CT 06118-2370 Such information will be given to the appropriate Personnel @ Town Hall to update this information on the East Hartford Website.
| 