Joseph Carman, CSC Docket No. 2019-2200

BackgroundJoseph Carman appeals his score for the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Lieutenant (PM1086V), New Brunswick. It is noted that the appellant passed the subject examination with a final average of 84.770 and a rank of 14th on the resultant eligible list.

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 fire scene simulation with questions designed to measure the knowledge of safe rescue tactics and procedures to safeguard citizens, supervision of fire fighters and the ability to assess fire conditions and hazards in an evolving incident on the fireground (evolving); and a fire 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 a building’s structure and condition (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. 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 3 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 5 for the technical component, a 5 for the supervision component, and a 5 for the oral communication component. The appellant challenges his score for the technical component of the evolving scenario. As a result, the appellant’s test material, video, and a listing of PCAs for the scenarios were reviewed.

The evolving scenario involved a fire in a bar area that has spread to the second and third floors of a five-story hotel of ordinary construction. Upon arrival, the fire is knocked down and the Incident Commander (IC) orders the candidate, who is the supervisor of the second responding ladder company, to begin salvage and overhaul operations on the first floor. Question 1 asked candidates to describe their initial actions in detail, including descriptions of techniques, life safety concerns, and building construction considerations.

The assessor noted that the appellant failed to open the exhaust ducts/pipe chases/voids for inspection, which was a mandatory response to question 1. It was also noted that he missed the opportunity to check carbon monoxide levels, which was an additional response to question 1. He used the “flex” rule to apply a score of 3. On appeal, the appellant stated that he pulled ceilings and walls to expose hidden fire. He argues that the Safety Officer would check carbon monoxide levels, and he provided the general response of continuing the tasks as long as the Safety Officer deemed it fit to do so.

Regarding the flex rule, mandatory responses are responses that are requirements for a performance to be acceptable (a score of 3). Sometimes, a candidate states many additional responses but does not give a mandatory response. The flex rule was designed to assign a score of 3 to candidates who fail to give a mandatory response but who provide many additional responses. However, a score higher than a 3 cannot be provided in those cases.

At the end of every scenario and prior to the questions, instructions state, “In responding to the questions, make sure your actions directly relate to the scenario. Do not assume or take for granted that general actions will contribute to your score.” Standard overhaul includes opening ceilings and walls, and opening the exhaust ducts/pipe chases/voids for inspection is a separate response. Credit is not given for information that is implied or assumed. Additionally, the SMEs determined that it was the ladder supervisor’s responsibility to check carbon monoxide levels, and that it why it is a PCA. The appellant did not give this response, and his argument that it should not be a PCA as it is the responsibility of the Safety Officer is unpersuasive. As he missed a mandatory response, the appellant’s score of 3 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.