Vincent Granese, CSC Docket No. 2023-2269

BackgroundVincent Granese appeals his score on the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Lieutenant (PM2384C), Ventnor City. It is noted that the appellant passed the subject examination with a score of 85.410 and appears in the third position on the subject eligible list.1

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, 35.90% of the score was the written multiple-choice portion, 22.04% was the technical score for the evolving exercise, 7.45% was the supervision score for the evolving exercise, 5.71% was the oral communication score for the evolving exercise, 23.20% was the technical score for the arriving exercise, 5.71% 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

1 The appellant was initially ranked second on the list when it promulgated on February 16, 2023.

However, one additional eligible took a make-up of the subject examination in September 2023 and was added to first position on the PM2384C list based upon their final average. As a result, the appellant’s position on the subject eligible list shifted from second to third.

the ability to assess fire conditions and hazards in an evolving incident on the fireground (Evolving Scenario); 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 Scenario). Knowledge of supervision was measured by a question in the Evolving Scenario, and was scored for that scenario. 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.

On the Evolving Scenario, the appellant scored a 2 on the technical component, a 5 on the supervision component, and a 4 on the oral communication component. For the Arriving Scenario, the appellant scored a 5 on the technical component and a 3 on the oral communication component.

Appellant's argumentThe 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 scenario were reviewed.

The Evolving Scenario involved the response to a two-car motor vehicle accident in which the candidate, the first-level supervisor of Ladder 5, will be the incident commander and will establish command. The prompt advises that Engines 2 and 3 are delayed and will arrive in 10 minutes. Upon arrival, the driver of a crossover SUV that hit a sedan head-on is seen sitting on the ground by his vehicle, appearing dazed and having a large gash on his forehead. The sedan driver is still in her vehicle and appears to be unresponsive and entrapped. A dog is barking loudly in the backseat of the sedan. Question 1 asks what specific actions the candidate would take to address this incident. The prompt for Question 2 provides that a small pickup truck flying down the shoulder of the roadway slams into the back of parked Engine

3. The front end of the pickup truck has been smashed and Engine 3 skids forward a few inches. The driver stumbles out of the cab of the pickup truck, looking bewildered. Question 2 then asks what actions the candidate would take to address this development.

The SME awarded the appellant a score of 2 on the technical component of the Evolving Scenario, based upon a finding that the appellant failed to identify the mandatory response of ensuring that the driver received emergency medical services (EMS) in response to Question 2 and missed a number of additional opportunities in response to both questions, including, in part, the opportunity to de-energize both vehicles and establish a working area. On appeal, the appellant maintains he addressed ensuring that the driver received EMS and establishing a working area at specified points during his presentation. The appellant also presents that while he did not de-energize the vehicles, he called for charged hoselines to be put in place at a stated point during his presentation.

CONCLUSION

In the instant matter, a review of the appellant’s presentation fails to demonstrate that he should have been credited with the PCA of establishing a working area. In this regard, the appellant received credit for the relevant PCAs that corresponded to the actions he described, including placing the apparatus into appropriate blocking positions and ensuring that all crews wore safety vests. However, because he did not address the immediate working area itself, where resources like tools, generators and tarps would be deployed, he was properly denied credit for this PCA. Since he does not dispute that he failed to de-energize the vehicles, the denial of credit for that PCA was similarly appropriate. Finally, regarding the mandatory response of ensuring that the driver received emergency medical services (EMS) in response to Question 2, upon review of the appellant’s appeal, the Division of Test Development, Analytics and Administration (TDAA) has determined that the appellant should have been credited with this response. Based upon the foregoing, TDAA states that the appellant’s Evolving Scenario technical component score should be raised from 2 to 3. The Commission agrees with this determination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted in part and that the appellant’s Evolving Scenario technical component score be raised from 2 to 3 with retroactive effect.

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