10/04/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VR_ there is a time frame in the Civil Service handbook that needs to be followed. He further commented that he thought Mr. Deucher would make a good candidate for North Olmsted and recommended that he take the test the next time it is given. Mr. Thomay questioned how long a polygraph test took. Detective Branscum commented that it took about 3 hours depending on the results. Mr. Cummings suggested that the reason the applicant failed the background check was because he was not able to schedule a time therefore he failed the exam. Mr. Thomay indicated that he felt that the police department should have been more flexible in arranging a date. Mrs. Zolar commented that Mr. Deucher failed to call back after June 22, 1999 until he got his letter of dismissal. Mr. Thomay commented that the candidate had the highest scores, a collage graduate, passed other polygraphs and is a resident of North Olmsted the police department should have accommodated him better. Mrs. Zolar questioned why Mr. Deucher failed to keep in contact with the police department. Mr. Deucher indicated that his main concern was getting through the academy which he completed the end of July. He commented that he respected the Cities position either way and had a better understanding of their procedures. E. Cummings motioned to uphold the removal of candidate Deuchers name from the police entry level list, as he failed to set a date to take the background test he there bye failed the, background investigation. The motion was seconded by L. Zolar. Roll call on the motion; L. Zolar; yes, I Thomay; no and E. Cummings; yes. Motion Carried. Note: After the motion passed Mr. Cummings asked the clerk to send a letter to Mr. Deucher clarifying the reason Mr. Deucher failed the background investigation was because he failed to set a date to take the test. Chairman Cummings asked Mr. Kirkwood to come forward for his hearing. Mr. Dubelko commented that for the law department, the letter that was sent to Mr. Deucher indicated that the procedures that would be followed would be that the City would put out evidence as to the reason for the disqualification from the list. The applicant would then have an opportunity to deflect that. Mr. Dubelko commented that, that was not the right procedures under the Civil Service rules. The procedures for removal from the entry-level list are a little bit different. The Cities obligation is to only state a reason for removal, which -they have in their letter to you. You are then given the opportunity to give any evidence you may have to rebut that or to show that the reason is not valid. Because of the fact that the Commissions letter was not worded as it should be indicating the right procedures, if this causes you an problems you can request a continuance to prepare and it would be set for the next Civil Service meeting date. Or if it doesn't cause you any problems we can go forth with the hearing now. Mr. Kirkwood indicated that it did not cause him any problems and he would like to go forth with the hearing. Mr. Cummings indicated that the reason Mr. Kirkwood's name was removed is because he failed the background investigation. Mr. Kirkwood commented that he had shown a reaction to the question of his use of drugs and questions about his past employment. Mr. Kirkwood indicated the reasons he thought he failed the background investigation and commented that he had never taken drugs or drank on the job or went to work drunk in his life. He did not know why the test showed reactions to questions regarding drugs or drinking on the job, as he was not lying when he answered the questions. Mr. Cummings questioned Mr. Kirkwood's last employment. Mr. Kirkwood reviewed that there was a mix-up in the time he was going to take his vacation and when he got back he was informed he had been fired. Mr. Cummings asked Detective Branscum to review Mr. Kirkwood's test results. Detective Branscum indicated that he gave Mr. Kirkwood his