Helmut Krauth, CSC Docket No. 2019-2130

BackgroundHelmut Krauth appeals his score for the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Lieutenant (PM1093V), Union Township. It is noted that the appellant passed the subject examination with a final score of 86.620 and his name appears as the 7th ranked eligible on the subject list.

It is noted for the record that this two-part examination consisted of a written multiple-choice portion and an oral portion. Candidates were required to pass the written portion of the examination, and then were ranked on their performance on both portions of the examination. The test was worth 80 percent of the final score and seniority was worth the remaining 20 percent. Of the test weights, 31.35% of the score was the written multiple-choice portion, 22.49% was the technical score for the evolving exercise, 7.53% was the supervision score for the evolving exercise, 4.28% was the oral communication score for the evolving exercise, 19.23% was the technical score for the arriving exercise, 7.53% was the supervision score for the arriving exercise, and 7.59% was the oral communication score for the arriving exercise.

The oral portion of the Fire Lieutenant examination consisted of two scenarios: a salvage and overhaul scene simulation with questions designed to measure knowledge of how to conduct salvage and overhaul operations, supervision of fire fighters and the ability to assess building conditions and hazards in an evolving incident on the fireground (evolving); and a multi-vehicle collision scene simulation designed to measure the knowledge of safe rescue tactics and procedures to safeguard citizens, supervision of firefighters and the ability to plan strategies and tactics based upon the accident scene (arriving). Knowledge of supervision was measured by questions in both scenarios, and was scored for each. For the evolving scenario, candidates were provided with a 15-minute preparation period, and candidates had

10 minutes to respond. For the arriving scenario, a five minute preparation period was given and candidates had 10 minutes to respond.

The candidates’ responses were scored on technical knowledge and oral communication ability. Prior to the administration of the exam, a panel of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) determined the scoring criteria, using generally approved fire command practices, firefighting practices, and reference materials. Scoring decisions were based on SME-approved possible courses of action (PCAs) including those actions that must be taken to resolve the situation as presented. For a performance to be acceptable, a candidate needed to present the mandatory courses of action for that scenario. Only those oral responses that depicted relevant behaviors that were observable and could be quantified were assessed in the scoring process.

Candidates were rated on a five-point scale, with 5 as the optimal response, 4 as a more than acceptable passing response, 3 as a minimally acceptable passing response, 2 as a less than acceptable response, and 1 as a much less than acceptable response. For each of the scenes, and for oral communication, the requirements for each score were defined.

For the evolving scenario, the appellant scored a 4 for the technical component, a 5 for the supervision component, and a 5 for the oral communication component. For the arriving scenario, the appellant scored a 2 for the technical component, a 5 for the supervision component, and a 5 for the oral communication component. The appellant challenges his scores for the technical component of the arriving scenario. As a result, the appellant’s test material, video, and a listing of PCAs for the scenarios were reviewed.

The arriving scenario involves the handling of a multi-vehicle collision involving three vehicles, one of which involved the battalion chief’s truck. For the technical component, the assessor assigned a score of 2, and noted that, in response to question 1, the candidate failed to report that there were multiple victims with multiple injuries, and in response to question 2, he failed to ensure personnel are wearing reflective vests and he missed an opportunity to address arguments between the drivers and move them to a safe location. On appeal, the appellant believes that he did indicate that there were multiple victims with multiple injuries by stating in the initial radio report, “I need Police to shut down the highway in both directions for EMS and ALS for the occupants’ injuries.” Further, in his detailed report, he stated, “Dispatch from Ladder 1, I have three minor injuries and our Battalion Chief is involved.” Concerning the missed opportunity to address the argument between drivers and moving them to a safe location, the appellant acknowledged that he did not specifically address the argument between the drivers. However, he contends that he did move them to a safe location based on his statement, “I’m going to evacuate, have everybody, all non-essential people move out of the area and cordon off the area.”

In reply, the appellant’s statement in the initial report that the highway should be shut down for the “occupants’ injuries” is too general as he did specifically identify that there were three people with injuries or at least state that there were multiple people with multiple injuries. The instructions state, “Do not assume or take for granted that general actions will contribute to your score.” Further, the appellant’s statement, “I have three minor injuries” was during his response to question 2 and he did not state that he was going back to question 1, the initial report. Moreover, the appellant acknowledges that he did not address the argument between the drivers and his general instructions that everybody should be evacuated, does not address the driver’s argument nor does it specifically move the drivers to a safe location. Therefore, the appellant’s score of 2 for this component is correct.

CONCLUSION

A thorough review of the appellant’s submissions and the test materials indicates that the decision below is amply supported by the record, and the appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.