12/16/2013 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Chairman Barrett, to have a special meeting to discuss the removal of a candidate on the Promotional Police Sergeant Eligible List on January 13, 2014. Motion passed unanimously. A general discussion commenced regarding procedures for the special meeting, the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, City's audio system, court reporter, hearing officer, and the City's retention of outside counsel. Legal Counsels concurs that there is no need for an outside hearing officer and that Mr. O'Malley can regulate the meeting. Notice of Hearing Regarding Protest for the Police Sergeant Promotional Testing The Commission received a protest on November 13, 2013 by Detective Charles Fioritto regarding the Promotional Police Sergeant examination. Detective Fioritto explained that his protest was the result of the Police Sergeant written examination and the result of the written test indicated the six (6) eligible candidates to move on to the oral assessment. However, one (1) of the six candidates was Patrolman Brian Bielozer and prior to the written examination Patrolman Bielozer was placed on Administrative suspension or leave which was due to indefinitely suspension from LEADS. LEADS is the Police Department's Law Enforcement computerized database run by the FBI of the State of Ohio. Without access or authorization you cannot perform the functions of a Police Officer yet alone the functions of a Police Sergeant. He has taken the spot of another candidate who is eligible to perform the duties. Detective Fioritto stated that he has concerns of the process used in the oral assessment. His first concern was incorrect seniority credit. As of November 4, 2013 Patrol Officer Dombek and himself should have had 14 years of service instead of 13 years of service. His second concern was in the past the candidates have always remained anonymous. For the written examination, all the candidates received a candidate number and their names were excluded from any test materials. For the oral assessment, the candidates were greeted by their names and thinks this is a huge compromise when you are actually identified. The third issue with the oral assessment was there were two (2) evaluators which were Police Chiefs, a professor at the University of Akron who was the proctor and a graduate student who was the time keeper. The proctor was there to read the questions and then the two examiners would review those questions and ask follow up questions if needed. The proctor did ask questions that were not in writing and were not part of the preset evaluation. Detective Fioritto's final thought is that oral assessments are primarily used to evaluate and predict what the future performance of the candidate would be but you have to make some kind of evaluation to take in account past performances. Legal Counsel Patrick Milligan questioned Detective Fioritto and said that he mentioned that Patrolman Bielozer was on paid Administrative Leave and if he was aware of any rule,regulation or any other legal ruling that would preclude the candidate from taking the test. Detective Fioritto said no but common sense will tell you if he is suspended for LEADS violation he should not be eligible to take the test. Mr, Milligan questioned Detective Fioritto further and asked if he was aware the Patrolman Bielozer filed a grievance and could be reinstated or that his disciplinary action could be reversed as a result of the grievance process. Detective Fioritto said that he was not aware of the grievance and that anything is possible. Legal Counsel Joseph George stated that he wanted to correct Detective Fioritto that Patrolman Bielozer was never suspended; he was placed on Administrative Leave and that there are no reasons to revoke the eligible list because there were no irregularities the way the test was administered per