Mark Roth, CSC Docket No. 2019-2577

BackgroundMark Roth appeals his score for the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Captain (PM1051V), Paterson. It is noted that the appellant passed the subject examination with a final average of 82.610 and ranks 47th 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 Captain 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 4 for the supervision component, and a 4 for the oral communication component. The appellant challenges his scores for the supervision and oral communication components 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 involved a report of fire on the first and second floor of a row home, where there were people squatting inside when the fire broke out. Question 3, the supervision question, indicated that as the candidate is evacuating other rowhomes on the block, one of his firefighters gets into a screaming argument with a resident who does not want to leave, and the firefighter attempts to perform a firefighter’s carry with the resident. The question asks for actions to take now and back at the firehouse.

For the supervision component, the assessor noted that the candidate missed the opportunity to ensure the resident is okay. On appeal, the appellant states that he took down the residents information to follow up afterwards.

In reply, 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.” A review of the appellant’s presentation indicates that on scene he did not ensure the resident is okay after the fireman had attempted a fireman’s carry on the resident. Following up afterwards is not the same, and the appellant cannot receive credit for ensuring that the resident is okay on scene by “following up,” at some point later. The appellant missed this action as noted by the assessor and his score of 4 for this component is correct.

As to oral communication component for the arriving scenario, the assessor noted a minor weakness in non-verbal communication as he used a pen as a pointer throughout the presentation, causing a distraction. The appellant argues that his pen was used as a tracking tool so that he would not lose his place while reading.

In reply, a factor in oral communication is nonverbal communication. A weakness in this factor is defined as failing to use gestures effectively, thereby causing confusion or distractions, and failing to maintain eye contact with the camera when speaking. A review of the presentation indicates that the appellant used a pen as a pointer throughout the presentation, however, this did not significantly detract from the presentation. Accordingly, the appellant’s score for this component should be increased from 4 to 5.

CONCLUSION

A thorough review of the appellant’s submissions and the test materials indicates that, except for the oral communication component of the arriving scenario, 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 the appellant’s score for the oral communication component of the arriving scenario be increased from 4 to 5, and the remainder of the appeal be denied.

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