Caleb Speer, CSC Docket No. 2023-1998

BackgroundCaleb Speer appeals the examination for Police Sergeant (PM5318D), Stratford.

This was a two-part examination, which was administered on February 28, 2023, consisting of a video-based portion, items 1 through 20, and a multiple-choice portion, items 21 through 80. The test was worth 80 percent of the final average and seniority was worth the remaining 20 percent. As noted in the 2023 Police Sergeant Orientation Guide (Orientation Guide), which was available on the Civil Service Commission’s (Commission) website, the examination content was based on the most recent job analysis verification which includes descriptions of the duties performed by incumbents and identifies the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) that are necessary to perform the duties of a Police Sergeant. As part of this verification process, information about the job was gathered through interviews and surveys of on-the-job activities of incumbent Police Sergeants throughout the State. As a result of this process, critical KSAs were identified and considered for inclusion on the examination.

AnalysisAn independent review of the issues presented under appeal has resulted in the following findings:

Questions 71 through 80 refer to a letter received by the Riverton Police Department’s Internal Affairs Unit and an Internal Affairs Unit Report Form that an officer filled out based on the letter which were provided to candidates in their test booklets.

Question 79 refers to the Internal Affairs Unit Form, box 14, “SUMMARY OF THE TYPE OF INCIDENT AND ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE ALLEGED CONDUCT” which provides:

Complainant asserts that he observed two officers using excessive force on an intoxicated individual. The complainant asserts that when he attempted to question the officers about there behavior, the officers became aggressive and threatening toward him. The complainant asserts that Officer Kim threatened to put him in the back of the police car if he did not walk away. Complainiant felt intimidated by the behavior of the oficers, but ultimately, he was permitted to leave the seen. The complainant seeks an investigation into the incident and the conduct of the officers.

The question asks for the number of spelling errors contained in the summary. The keyed response is option d, 4. The appellant indicates that he identified two spelling errors, “oficers” and “complainiant.” He argues that “the other two words, seen and there[,] are grammar errors. Seen and there are two correctly spelled words, just used in the wrong context . . . The question did not ask to identify all [E]nglish writing errors, it specifically asks for spelling errors.” A contextual spelling error occurs when an incorrect, although correctly spelled, word is used in a sentence. Typically, this type of spelling error occurs with words that are homonyms, i.e., words that sound the same but are spelled differently. In this regard, while “seen” and “there” are spelled correctly, the correct words within their respective sentences are spelled “scene” and “their.” Thus, the question is correct as keyed.

CONCLUSION

A thorough review of appellant’s submissions and the test materials reveals that the appellant’s examination score 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.