POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 6, 2011 Brian Sandler Civil Service Secretary/Chief Examiner A/Sgt. T. Smith Police Promotional Exam Results

This purpose of this Memorandum is to provide notice of my request to Contest/Appeal the final results of the testing process and final rankings. There have been three different versions of the final ranking and each new version is a result of a new error being discovered and the scoring results being recalculated. Granted the very first version was an unofficial version but the second version was supposedly correct. It was not until officers requested additional information be provided so they could review the process and make a determination if the results were accurate or not that the second mistake was discovered which caused a recalculation. I have attached a copy of your memo dated April 25, 2011 which lists all of the errors committed just completing the math (adding and multiplying the scores). In addition I spoke with Officer Hardin who told me that on May 2, 2011 he reviewed his results and found another math error. When he brought the error to your attention you reviewed the scoring sheet and determined that the score was correct but you had used the wrong multiplier. If this information is incorrect I apologize but I am sure he found a math error while reviewing his results. So maybe you could provide everyone with an explanation as to Officer Hardins situation. So based on the facts that there have been three different scoring results and the fact that Officer Hardin found an additional mistake in the scoring I dont see how anyone could have any faith in the process or the final results. Besides the issues with the inability to accurately add and multiply the scores there are other issues with the process that I would like to address. The first area is that Officer Jarratt requested additional information to allow candidates a chance to review the process. All we were given were some rater comment sheets. On these comment sheets there are comments similar to candidate scored 90 out of 120 on the oral knowledge portion. We were never provided a list of the correct 120 answers or the answers we provided. So there is no way to determine if that

information is correct or not. With the history of math errors already demonstrated during the calculation of the final results there is no way anyone can just assume those are the correct number of right answers. I believe I gave more correct answers then credited but I have no way to make a determination. This same problem is evident in the tactical portion of the assessment center. There are comments similar to you missed several of the expected areas. This comment implies that there is some right or required answers that need to be provided during the exercise. Again we were not allowed access to that list of required answers or our answers during the exercise. I specifically asked you about this while I was reviewing my results. You told me that you have never given that information out. I told you that on the prior Sergeant exam that information had been provided to candidates to review. Please review the prior test and you will see that information was provided. So in addition to the all of the issues relating to calculating the final scores there is no way anyone can review the results of this test and make any determination as to the accuracy of the results or believe the results are correct. I don t understand the reason to not allow people access to the information so that the answers provided by candidates can be compared to the expected answers. My final concern is that I still do not believe the final scores are correct. One candidate started out ranked 5th and has remained 5th throughout all of the recalculations despite the fact that almost everyone else moved after the final recalculation. I dont have access to the scores but intuitively that does not make sense. If the scores were initially calculated using the wrong score and then a new score was used it seems the ranking should or would change too. As a result of this testing process I dont believe anyone, Sergeant Candidates, Police Administration or the Civil Service Commission can feel comfortable that the results of this testing process are correct. You have denied the candidates the opportunity to review all of the testing material to check the scores for accuracy. The only thing the testing process has shown consistently is that people make mistakes yet the candidates are not provided the opportunity to check the accuracy of the results. This is especially significant in areas of the testing process where there appear to be correct and required answers such as the Oral Knowledge portion and the Tactical portion of the Assessment Center. An error or discrepancy was found on 5/2/11 by Officer Hardin but he was told the score is correct. How is it possible that the math computations used to calculate scores are so complicated that the right answer can be determined but the process used to get to the right answer cant be shown correctly? What is the solution? I am sure nobody wants to retake the test. But there must be a fair way to resolve these issues. I believe there are only two options available. The first option is to use only the Sergeants Assessment review score, the Essay score, and the Oral Board score from the assessment center. Take those three scores (raw scores) and create your list. The best possible score would be a 75 as each of those

exercises were scored out of a possible 25 points. The reason I believe that only these three exercises can be used is the fact that all three are subjectively scored by at least two raters and consensus scored. The Oral Knowledge and Tactical portion of the Assessment center cannot be accepted as there is no way to be sure that people received credit for all of the correct answers provided. If the Civil Service Commission cannot change how the process is scored then the only fair and reasonable thing to do is to re-administer the test and make sure the new testing process is open and reviewable by everyone so there can be no doubt about the accuracy of the results. Respectfully Submitted, T. Smith