David Radsniak, CSC Docket No. 2023-262

BackgroundDavid Radsniak appeals his score for on the essay portion of the examination for Police Captain (PM3483C), Point Pleasant. It is noted that the appellant passed the examination with a final average of 83.480 and ranks second on the resultant eligible list.

This was a two-part examination consisting of a multiple-choice portion and an essay portion. The examination content was based on a comprehensive job analysis. Senior command personnel from police departments, called Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), helped determine acceptable responses based upon the stimulus material presented to the candidates, and they scored the performances. In the essay portion of the examination, candidates were presented with a scenario, and were directed to respond to all four parts. Two candidates appear on the eligible list, which has not yet been certified. For the essay portion, on a scale of 1 to 5, the appellant scored a 4 for the technical supervision/problem solving/decision making component.

CONCLUSION

The scenario involved receipt of a call regarding a young man having an overdose. Part A indicates that the candidate opts to report to the residence as it is that of the Police Chief who is away on vacation and the caller was the Chief’s daughter. The question asked for actions to be taken, or ensure are taken, while at the residence. The assessor indicated that the appellant missed the opportunity to have Emily and Ashley evaluated by medical professionals (Part A).

The appellant argues that he stated that he assigned an officer to identify all involved participants and victims who may have used the controlled substance, ensured that EMS were dispatched to the scene, and turned medical care over to them upon their arrival. He states that he met with Emily and advised her to call again if additional victims experience overdose symptoms. He states that he had a Police Sergeant present to ensure the Police Officers were performing their jobs properly.

In reply, for Part A, the question asked, “What actions should you personnaly take, or ensure are being taken, while at the Jones residence?” A review of the essay indicates that the appellant stated, “Sgt. Thompson will be directed to secure the scene. I will ensure the victim is immediately rendered medical aid by my officer including: obtaining baseline vitals, administer Narcan, CPR if required. I will confirm with Dispatch that EMS and Paramedics are responding and request an estimated time of arrival. As additional officers arrive, I will assign them to identify all of the involved participants. Officers will be directed to attempt to identify any additional victims who may have ingested the same batch of heroin in an attempt to advise them of potential for overdose. Once medical care is transferred to EMS, I will consult with Sgt. Thompson.” At the end of Part A, the appellant wrote, “Once all personnel have left the home and Ben Nelson has either been transported to the hospital or refused medical, I will assist Emily in securing the home and advise her to call again if another overdose occurs.”

Instructions to candidates indicated that all responses must be legible and comprehensible so that the intent of the responses can be understood by those scoring the responses. A review of the essay confirms that the appellant misssed the opportunity to have Emily and Ashley evaluated by medical professionals. The appellant clearly rendered medical aid to Ben, and ensured that the EMS and Paramedics are responding. Having officers attempt to identify any additional victims who may have ingested the same batch of heroin, or advising Emily to call again if another overdose occurs, are different actions than having Emily and Ashley evaluated by medical professionals. Credit cannot be given for information that is implied or assumed, but is awarded solely based on what is written. Viewed holistically, the appellant’s presentation warrants a score of 4, but he missed further actions to enhance his score.

A thorough review of appellant’s submissions and the test materials indicates that the decision below is amply supported by the record, and 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.