James Clancy, CSC Docket No. 2025-2256

BackgroundJames Clancy, Jr., appeals his score on the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Captain (PM1996F), Cinnaminson. It is noted that the appellant did not pass 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, 20.77% 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, and 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 examination, 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. It is noted that candidates were told the following prior to beginning their presentations for each scenario: “In responding to the questions, be as specific as possible. Do not assume or take for granted that general actions will contribute to your score.”

On the Evolving Scenario, the appellant scored a 2 on the technical component and a 5 on the oral communication component. On the Administration Scenario, the appellant scored a 5 on the technical component and a 5 on the oral communication component. On the Arriving Scenario, the appellant scored a 2 on the technical component and a 5 on the oral communication component.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant challenges his score on the technical component of the Evolving Scenario.

The Evolving Scenario involves the response to a fire reported at a hotel where the candidate is the second-level supervisor of Engine 5 who will serve as the Division 5 Supervisor while Battalion 3 is the incident commander. Battalion 3 orders the candidate to establish a water supply and then take the first alarm response up to the fire floor and conduct operations. Question 1 asks for the candidate’s actions, orders, and requests to fully address this incident upon arrival and as Division 5 Supervisor. Question 2 presents that a drop ceiling collapse occurs in one of the fire rooms and it falls onto a hoseline operator, entangling him and the hose. It then asks what additional actions, orders, and requests the candidate would make or ensure are being made to address the situation.

The SMEs awarded the appellant a score of 2, based upon a finding, in part, that he failed to ensure any victims found were removed from the building, and the opportunity to coordinate resources with the staging officer. On appeal, the appellant avers that he addressed coordinating resources with the staging officer at a specified point in his presentation by ordering additional companies requested on the assignment to report to Division 3 for staging and also ordered the officer of the first arriving unit at the staging site to assume the role of the staging officer. He further contends that he covered the removal of found victims by stating that he would request a basic life support (BLS) strike team consisting of five BLS units for victims that would be removed from the building and indicating that he would use the Side B stairwell as a means of egress to remove residents and patients from the building.

In reply, a review of the record fails to demonstrate that the appellant should have been credited with the PCAs at issue. With regard to the PCA of coordinating resources with the staging officer, the appellant stated that he would call for two additional alarms and send them to staging, with the first arriving officer to be the staging officer. However, these would be actions performed by Battalion 3, as the incident commander, rather than the appellant as the second-level supervisor of Engine 5 and Division 5 supervisor. The appellant failed to discuss coordinating resources with staging officer as Division 5 supervisor, as required under the scoring standard for this PCA. Accordingly, he was properly denied credit for it. As to the PCA of the removal of found victims, the appellant stated that he “would request a BLS strike team, which would ensure [him] at least five ambulances, because there are going to be potentially many victims that will be removed. Any victims that will be removed will need to be triaged, treated and transported.” Calling for a BLS strike team covered the triage, treatment and transport of victims, but a BLS strike team would not remove victims from the involved building. Rather, Fire Fighters would handle that action. Since the appellant’s statement did not cover having his crew remove victims from the involved building, he was appropriately denied credit for this PCA. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to sustain his burden of proof and his score of 2 on the technical component of the Evolving Scenario is affirmed.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

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