John Parisik, CSC Docket No. 2024-1181

BackgroundJohn Parisik, Jr. appeals his score on the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Captain (PM5026D), Hackensack. It is noted that the appellant failed the subject examination.

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 70 percent of the final score and seniority was worth the remaining 30 percent. Of the test weights, 35.26% of the score was the written multiple-choice portion, 22.04% was the technical score for the evolving exercise, 2.79% was the oral communication score for the evolving exercise, 13.56% was the technical score for the administration exercise, 2.79% was the oral communication score for the administration exercise, 22.04% was the technical score for the arriving exercise, 2.79% was the oral communication score for the arriving exercise.

The oral portion of the second-level Fire Captain examination consisted of three scenarios: a fire scenario simulation with questions designed to measure knowledge and abilities in assessing risk (Evolving); a simulation designed to measure technical knowledge and abilities in administrative duties (Administration); and a fire scenario simulation designed to measure technical knowledge and abilities in strategy and attack plan and hazmat (Arriving). For the Evolving and Administration scenarios, candidates were provided with a 25-minute preparation period for both, and candidates had 10 minutes to respond to each. 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. For a performance to be acceptable, other than for oral communication, a candidate needed to present the mandatory courses of action for that scenario. Only those oral responses that depicted relevant behaviors that were observable and could be quantified were assessed in the scoring process. Scores were then converted to standardized scores.

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 3 on the technical component, a 3 on the oral communication component. On the Administration Scenario, the appellant scored a 2 on the technical component and a 3 on the oral communication component. On the Arriving Scenario, the appellant scored a 1 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 Arriving Scenario. As a result, the appellant’s test material, video, and a listing of PCAs for the scenario were reviewed.

The Arriving Scenario involved the response to a fire at a two-story, duplex, wood-framed, residential property with a common cockloft where the candidate, a second-level Fire Captain and the company officer of Engine 3, will be the highest- ranking officer on scene. Upon arrival, the candidate sees smoke coming from the second-floor windows on Side A. The police department has yet to arrive and a large crowd has gathered. There are some residents near the door yelling to see if anyone is inside. There are multiple cars parked in front of the residence. The prompt asks the candidates what their concerns are when sizing up this incident and what specific actions should they take to fully address this incident.

The SME awarded the appellant a score of 1 based on a finding that the appellant failed to identify multiple mandatory and additional responses, including, in part, identifying concerns of fire spread/attached exposures and life safety, and ordering a primary search of the involved building. On appeal, the appellant cites several statements that he contends demonstrate that he should have been credited with the mandatory response of performing a primary search. Specifically, the appellant argues that he covered identifying the concerns of fire spread/attached exposures by mentioning “delta exposure issue” and stating that he would make sure there was “no extension to shared attic space.” Finally, the appellant points to 10 statements he maintains demonstrate that he identified the concern for life safety.

In reply, 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 the mandatory response of conducting a primary search. TDAA asserts that while the statements cited by the appellant relate to conducting a primary search, they were insufficient for the distinct PCA of identifying life safety as a concern. Further, TDAA maintains that the appellant was properly denied credit for the mandatory response of fire spread/attached exposures because his reference to “delta exposure issue” did not specify what the concern was, i.e., fire spread to the exposure. Although the appellant asserts on appeal that he stated he would “[m]ake sure there was no extension to shared attic space,” at a specified point, a review of this portion of this video indicates that he identified the potential for extension to the attic, but did not state that it was a “shared attic space” (emphasis added). As such, it cannot be said that he identified the potential for fire spread to the attached exposure. Finally, TDAA has also advised that, based upon its review of the appellant’s presentation on appeal, the appellant should have been credited with the additional PCAs of ordering the building to be laddered and ordering a crew to stretch a back-up hoseline to the fire building. Based upon the foregoing, TDAA submits that the appellant’s score on the technical component of the Arriving Scenario shall be raised from 1 to 2. The Commission agrees with TDAA’s assessment.

Finally, TDAA advises that even with the scoring change for the technical component of the Arriving Scenario, the appellant still failed the subject examination.

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, except as indicated above, the appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted in part and that the appellant’s score on the technical component of the Arriving Scenario be raised from 1 to 2 with retroactive effect.

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