Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel And Certifications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veil Service Commission denies appeal over fire lieutenant exam question on trench rescue distances
Summary
At its May 6 meeting the Veil Service Commission voted to deny an appeal that argued a written promotion exam question about trench rescue distances had multiple correct answers; commissioners and staff also discussed updating Chapter 5 of the procedure manual to clarify wording.
The Veil Service Commission on May 6 voted to deny an appeal to a written promotion exam question for fire lieutenant that a candidate said had two correct answers about safe distances during trench rescue operations.
The protest argued the question—about limiting conditions that could contribute to a secondary collapse during a trench rescue—could be read to require answers of either 50 feet or 300 feet because two different sections of the procedures document discuss distancing. A staff presenter said the question specifically referred to secondary collapse and pointed to Chapter 5, section 5054.2, noting that "the keyword being that, it contributes to a secondary collapse" and that the question was intended to test that specific guidance.
Commissioners and staff debated the difference between staging distances for responding units and the minimum safe distance once units are moved in. A commissioner called the question "a fly specking question" and said they would have upheld the protest for the single applicant affected, while other commissioners and staff said the question was narrowly focused on secondary collapse and that the 50-foot answer aligned with the secondary-collapse subsection.
The motion to deny the appeal passed on a voice vote; Miss Campbell, Mister Spring and Mister Elvigore recorded "yes." Meeting discussion also recorded a staff recommendation to update Chapter 5 of the procedure manual to clarify language about staging and collapse distances; staff said they will discuss proposed wording with the branch director and review county guidelines.
The commission noted that the contested question affected only one applicant's score and that the larger remedy proposed was a manual clarification rather than retroactive crediting of exam answers.
Background: commission members cited two parts of the Chapter 5 procedures document during the exchange—one referenced as section 5054.2 (secondary practices/secondary collapse) and one referenced as 505.3 (more general trench collapse guidance). Staff said the question was written to target the secondary-collapse guidance in 5054.2.
