Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 101. There were two major irregularities from past practice in terms of the interview questions. 2 First,there was no opening statement allowed.To completely eliminate this from the process was extremely 3 4 unusual,previously unheard of in an external panel interview and a dramatic departure from past practice. 5 Candidates are always afforded an opportunity to explain their qualifications to an outside panel in order to 6 familiarize the panel with the candidates'background and preparation for the position.Particularly in terms 7 of the position of Sergeant, the importance of the candidates' experience in supervision and career 8 9 development goes without saying. However, it quickly became apparent why this was done: "The Valentin 10 camp"candidates(Johanna Lizardi and the MET/SWAT candidates)had very weak resumes and a glaring 11 lack of experience, particularly in terms of supervision/leadership and Corporal assignments. Thus, the 12 elimination of the opening statement prevented the other candidates from outshining "the Valentin camp" 13 14 candidates at the very outset of the interviews. In other words, eliminating the opening statement was a 15 major disservice to candidates such as KACHIRISKY and a tremendous benefit to "the Valentin camp" 16 candidates. 17 102. Secondly, the first question(in lieu of the opening statement)was an abbreviated Practical 18 19 Exercise scenario. Despite having already completed a Practical Exercise interview, yet another Practical 20 Exercise scenario was introduced in this external panel interview. The initial Practical Exercise interview 21 involved a scenario in which an armed male was waving a gun and acting erratically in front of his residence. 22 The scenario in the external panel involved an armed suspect with a gun who committed a robbery and had 23 24 been tracked to a specific location(i.e., a slightly different scenario covering the exact same ground). This 25 was not only confusing(should candidates reiterate everything they had said in the Practical Exercise as it 26 involved essentially the same tactical concepts, approaches, and considerations?)but made clear that this 27 question's sole purpose was to serve to benefit the MET/SWAT candidates because of their supposed 28 tactical knowledge and experience by allowing them to highlight their SWAT backgrounds. 26 KACAIItISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE NO. COMPLAINT