Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Personnel Appeals Board-November 17th, 2011- Minutes


 Town of East Hartford
Personnel Appeals Board

November 17th, 2011- Minutes of Firefighter Richard Leach’s Appeal.     Appeal Dated October 19th, 2011, Concerning the October 6th, 2011, Posted results of the Town of East Hartford’s Fire Department’s Promotional Examination for Pumper/Driver/Operator.

Members:
Shaun Jones  - Chairperson -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor            Present
Paul Sousa -   Member associated with labor                                                     Present
Thomas A. Ogar, Esq. - Member associated with management -                                      Not Present

ALTERNATES:
Lynn L. Kayser -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor                                Present
Robert Keating -  Member associated with labor                                                  Not Present
Valentine P. Povinelli, Jr. - Member associated with management                                         Present
        
Appellant Firefighter Richard Leach                                                     Present

Appellee Fire Chief John Oates                                                  Present
Assistant Corporation Counsel Frank Cassetta                                    Present
Acting Human Resources Director Frank Cassetta                                  Present
Personnel Assistant Sue Kyeremateng                                                     Present 

Daniel Wasilewski - President of the International
Association of Firefighters –Local 1548-                                Present

Meeting started @ 5:29 P.M      For Motions, and Members making and seconding same, and the resultant votes see the VOTING TALLY SHEET directly attached to these minutes at the bottom of these pages following the conclusion of the minutes.         Executive Session @ 6:34P.M.            Appeal Proceeding Resumed @ 7:06P.M.    Adjournment @ 7:30P.M.   Acceptance of Previous Minutes dated November 2nd, 2011 @ 7:07 P.M.    

A preliminary issue was addressed by the Chairperson in that on the Town’s Website the Notice and Agenda indicated that the day for this Appeal was for Wednesday November 17th, 2011.
However, the Correct Date of Thursday, November 17th, 2011 was filed with the Town Clerk.
Be that as it may, the Chairperson inquired of the members if they received a correct copy noticing this Appeal and Agenda.  Member Sousa, Povinelli and Kayser acknowledged proper notice.  In fact, The Fire Chief , the Appellant and the Union President acknowledged their receiving proper notice of this meeting.

The Appellant made the following comments in addressing the Board:

  • The appellant along with the 20 members of the Department who took part in the June 2011, Written Exam – “Phase One –Pumping Practical (Value 70 Points)” –all were given via E-mail dated Tuesday, August 9th, 2011, an opportunity to review a written document containing the noticed information, entitled “Candidate Preparation Information,” for the September 13th, 14th, & 15th “Phase Two Driving Skills Practical (Value Thirty Points).”
  • “ALLEY DOCK” - Both the Appellant and Appellee agree that this part of the exam is the subject of this appeal.   This part of the exam has a value of 10 Points.
  • The appellant indicated that the “ALLEY DOCK” exam, that is the focus of this appeal, was changed in two specific ways that did not correspond to the information that was provided in the “Candidate Preparation Information.”
  • First the “Restricted Area Boundary Line” and the dimensions for same that were outlined in the “Candidate Preparation Information” materials was changed.  Originally the “Restricted Area Boundary Line” was to extend 45 feet from the “Flag Line.”  The Fire Chief, The Union President  and the Appellant all agreed that the “Restricted Area Boundary Line” was moved out further some approximately 15 to 20 feet; with all in further agreement that the actual placement of this “Restricted Area Boundary Line” was not known with any degree of certainty.
  • Second the part of the “ALLEY DOCK” exam concerning the grading of the driver/operator’s application of the Fire Truck’s  “air brake” and the stopping of the vehicle to determine how close the driver can position the bumper to the ’”Flag Line” in the ultimate determination of the grade for this part of the exam was changed in that the scoring protocol of two years ago was utilized rather than the protocol outlined in the “Candidate Preparation Information” materials.
  • The appellant indicated that the grading of this portion of the exam could have affected outcomes in as much as those who practiced for the driving portion of the exam utilized the materials as provided and may have had their specific abilities impacted as a result.
  • Furthermore, for determining the distance of the Fire Truck’s bumper to the Flag Line, the “average method” was utilized by the proctor for this exam [Take the average of both the passenger side and driver’s side of the rear bumper’s distance to the Flag Line] vs. the “Closest” [The closest part of the Fire Truck’s bumper to the Flag Line].    The “Candidate Preparation Information” materials indicated that the “Closest” part of the bumper method was to be utilized.
  • After his presentation, the Appellant requested the following as a remedy:
  • Eliminate this section of the test from the grade for the total grade for the exam and re-calculate the grades accordingly.
  • Re-distribute the Eligibility list after re-adjusting the grades accordingly.
  • Maintain all grades for all the rest of this exam and re-schedule the “ALLEY DOCK” Exam as soon as practicable for all applicants to re-take and after re-grading is accomplished for this exam then re-assemble a total grade and re-distribute the Eligibility List as soon as the final grades are finished.


  • The following is the discussion as it ensued with the comments attributed to those asking questions, offering historical perspective or responding to questions as presented:
  • Assistant Corporation Counsel asked if the exam was fairly presented in an equal fashion to all.  The Fire Chief, The Appellant, The Human Resources Representative and The Union President all agreed that  the proctor applied the test in the same fashion to all of the 18 Applicants.
  • The Chairperson marked exhibits presented by the Appellant and the Fire Chief and indicated that such exhibits would be attached to the minutes if no Members of the Board objected to same.  There was no objection by any Members and in fact when the Chairperson inquired of the Assistant Corporation Counsel if that would be appropriate, the Assistant Corporation Counsel indicated that would be appropriate and furthermore his office would have no objection.  The Chairperson inquired of the Fire Chief and the Fire Chief offered no objection.  Finally, the Union president was afforded the same courtesy and the Union President offered no objection either.
  • The Fire Chief indicated that yes the “Restricted Area Boundary Line” was changed principally due to Hurricane Irene and as a result utilizing the ability to change the exam as needed did so with the ability of utilizing a boundary line easily discernible and readily available for effective marking without utilizing distance measuring devices to reconstruct the “Restricted Area Boundary Line” as outlined in the Candidate Preparation Information” materials.
  • The Fire Chief indicated that yes the “averaging method” was utilized by the proctor, and such grading protocol was only found out to have been utilized by the proctor after the exam was concluded.    All agreed –Fire Chief, The Appellant and The Union President – that this discovery was made after the exam was concluded and moreover the proctor had been apprised of the “Candidate Preparation Information” materials before the exam and the “Closest Part of the Bumper Method was explained in those materials.
  • The Fire Chief indicated that with the increase of the “Restricted Area Boundary Line” that would not necessarily pose a hardship to anyone.
  • The Fire Chief indicated that with all applicants being graded in the same fashion as every one else then the “averaging method” would seem to pose an equal challenge to all applicants.
  • The Appellant before making his statement as indicated previously re-capped the sequence of events to outline his appeal from the written part of the exam, to the practicing for the driving practical evolutions, to the letter sent to the Fire Chief, to the letter sent to the Acting Human Resources Director, and finally to the Letter to the Acting Resources Director following his decision requesting this Appeal.  
  • The Appellant re-confirmed his earlier statement from the last meeting and re-emphasized it at this appeal proceeding by stating again for the record that he had no problem with the proctor and would not request that the proctor be present at this appeal.
  • Paul Sousa inquired of the Fire Chief did the Fire Chief have to take the top candidate.  The Fire Chief responded the choice would be made from the top three candidates.   The Fire Chief indicated that all of the Candidates , all 18 of them, passed the Phase Two and all were on the eligibility list which will be maintained for up to two years.
  • The Fire Chief  indicated this was the practice for this exam and if a re-test would occur it would extend this examination announcement and delay any new exam until May of 2012.
  • Lynn Kaiser indicated this was a difficult decision and asked the Fire Chief and Union President if the notice was given to the applicants regarding the change to the “averaging method” in a similar fashion as was given to the applicants with respect to the change in the “Restricted Area Boundary Line.”  The Fire Chief , The Union president & the Appellant all agreed with their response of “no.”  Lynn Kaiser remarked again about the difficulty of this decision and the potential effect such decision could render upon those affected.
  • Valentine Povinelli, Jr., asked if the Fire Chief could come back with the dimensions of the Fire Truck so one could determine situations with respect to the permutations of the averaging method of such parking evolution so as to determine what outcome if any the averaging test could have on an applicant’s exam.    The Fire Chief and the Union President and the Appellant all agreed that the width was approximately over 9 feet but under ten feet.  The Fire Chief agreed to bring back such information at the next proceeding date of the Appeal.
  • The Union President reaffirmed its role of being an observer so that fair tests are administered to all in the same methodology and grading done in equal fashion for all.
  • The proctor confirmed averages for all 18 applicants.  The notes of the proctor containing the measurements of the applicant results as it pertains to the positioning of the bumper were not retained by the Human Resources or Fire Department.
  • The appellant wondered what relevance would there be in extending the appeal with respect to the issue of the size of the Fire Truck’s length.  The Board Member it was reminded to all indicated his need for such information so as to grasp a fundamental concern with respect to an inquiry about the impact of the “averaging method.”
  • It was agreed that the next meeting would occur on Monday December 12th, 2011 @ 5:30 P.M. in a room to be decided by the Mayor’s Office based upon availability and such location will be duly notified in the Notice and the Agenda.
  • The Union President remarked that the “averaging test” has been utilized for the past 15 years or so.  Also he remarked previously two proctors were utilized and the previous Human Resources Director served if not as another “proctor” but also as an observer to record the grades as the exams were conducted.
  • All again, The Appellant, The Fire Chief & The Union President agreed that the use of One Proctor had no bearing on the exam and is not a part of this appeal as all further commented that the proctor was fair in  the implementation, managing and the grading of the exam.
  • The Fire Chief summed up the essence of the exam was basically to test the proficiency of the driver in that to gauge whether anything was “touched,”
 Personnel Assistant Sue Kyeremateng will send copies of the Minutes to the same parties that receive the Notice and Agenda.

All parties agreed that the Appeal would be held on Monday, December 12th, 2011, @ 5:30 P.M. in the Town Hall Welling Conference Room (note: if the Mayor’s Office assigns another meeting place then notice of said location will be affixed to the Town Hall Conference Room).

Paul Sousa made a motion to adjourn until the next call of the Board @ the Appeal to be held on Monday, November 12th, 2011, @ 5:30 P.M.  Valentine Povinelli, Jr. , seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned @ 7:30P.M.


VOTING TALLY SHEET
Town of East Hartford
Personnel Appeals Board

November 17th, 2011- Minutes of Firefighter Richard Leach’s Appeal.     Appeal Dated October 19th, 2011, Concerning the October 6th, 2011, Posted results of the Town of East Hartford’s Fire Department’s Promotional Examination for Pumper/Driver/Operator.


  • Member Paul Sousa made a motion @ 6:34 P.M. in favor of the Members of the Personnel Appeals Board to enter Executive Session to discuss the Appeal, with Assistant Corporation Counsel Frank Cassetta  advising the Board that it was proper for an Executive Session Meeting (and for that matter it was proper for the Executive Session to be held without the benefit of the services of the Assistant Corporation Counsel for his advice) to be held  so long as no formal decisions were made within the Executive Session.    At the request of the Appellant, and with the Assistant Corporation Counsel in agreement that it was not necessary for the Assistant Corporation Counsel to be invited into the Executive Session to advise the Board in as much  that in the Assistant Corporation Counsel’s  dual capacity of Acting Human Resources Director, the Assistant Corporation Counsel did in his dual capacity of Acting Human Resources Director actually did decide not in favor of the Appellant’s position  and as such the Appellant’s concern that especially in Executive Session the line of deciding and advising would not necessarily be distinct within an Executive Session deliberation.   The board took the Assistant Corporation Counsel’s advice of not inviting the Assistant Corporation Counsel into consideration and agreed to not invite the Assistant Corporation Counsel into the Executive Session.   Alternate Member Valentine Povinelli, Jr. , seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Shaun Jones  - Chairperson -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor            YES
Paul Sousa -   Member associated with labor                                             YES
Thomas A. Ogar, Esq. - Member associated with management -                                      Not Present
ALTERNATES
Lynn L. Kayser -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor        Present; but not voting due to Alternate Status.
Robert Keating -  Member associated with labor                                          Not Present
Valentine P. Povinelli, Jr. - Member associated with management                                 YES

  • Member Paul Sousa made a motion @ about 7:07 P.M.  in favor of accepting the November 2nd,  2011 Minutes.  Alternate Member Valentine Povinelli, Jr. , seconded and the motion passed unanimously.  
Shaun Jones  - Chairperson -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor            YES
Paul Sousa -   Member associated with labor                                             YES
Thomas A. Ogar, Esq. - Member associated with management -                                      Not Present
ALTERNATES
Lynn L. Kayser -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor        Present; but not voting due to Alternate Status
Robert Keating -  Member associated with labor                                          Not Present
Valentine P. Povinelli, Jr. - Member associated with management                                 YES

  • Paul Sousa made a motion @ 7: 24 P. M.  to take a recess from the appeal and suspend such appeal until the next call of the Board for the continuance of this Appeal to  be held on Monday, December 12th, 2011, @ 5:30 P.M.  Valentine Povinelli, Jr. , seconded and the motion passed unanimously.  
Shaun Jones  - Chairperson -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor            YES
Paul Sousa -   Member associated with labor                                             YES
Thomas A. Ogar, Esq. - Member associated with management -                                      Not Present
ALTERNATES
Lynn L. Kayser -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor        Present; but not voting due to Alternate Status
Robert Keating -  Member associated with labor                                          Not Present
Valentine P. Povinelli, Jr. - Member associated with management                                 YES


  • Paul Sousa made a motion to adjourn. Valentine Povinelli, Jr. , seconded and the motion passed unanimously.    Meeting/Appeal Adjourned @ 7:30P.M.
Shaun Jones  - Chairperson -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor            YES
Paul Sousa -   Member associated with labor                                             YES
Thomas A. Ogar, Esq. - Member associated with management -                                      Not Present
ALTERNATES
Lynn L. Kayser -  Member not associated directly with either management or labor        Present; but not voting due to Alternate Status
Robert Keating -  Member associated with labor                                          Not Present
Valentine P. Povinelli, Jr. - Member associated with management                                 YES