Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Promotion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merit Board reviews promotion packet, agrees to clarify makeup-testing exceptions
Summary
The Anderson City Merit Board reviewed its promotion packet and testing vendor on June 16, 2026, agreed to add explicit exceptions for makeup testing (injury, military deployment), clarified interview-board composition, and heard a chief's report on training and promotional scheduling.
The Merit Board of the City of Anderson Fire Department met June 16, 2026, and reviewed a promotion packet and testing procedures while agreeing to insert a line permitting exceptions to the packet's current ‘‘no makeup testing' language in limited circumstances.
Chair called the meeting to order and the Clerk moved to adopt the agenda, which the board carried. The board then approved last month's minutes before moving into review of the promotion packet and testing process.
Presenter said the packet was prepared to align with the board's rules and regulations and identified a vendor "testing testing for public safety," formerly the Institute of Public Safety, as the source for written study guides and testing used by other fire and police departments. "I just thought out of respect that you guys should at least see that I've actually done the promotional packet," the Presenter said.
Member (S2) asked for clarification of the oral interview panel described in the packet: one IAF representative, one member of the chief's staff and one merit member "mutually agreed." Member (S2) clarified the board's intent that "mutually agreed" means the commission itself will choose its member, not that the union and the chief jointly select that member; the Presenter confirmed that was the plan.
Board members discussed keeping consistency across interview panels so grading is uniform. "It would be better if it was the same number for all the interviews," Member (S6) said, and members agreed that having the same interviewer sit through all interviews for a given promotion (for example, all sergeant or captain interviews) would help ensure consistent grading.
A point of contention emerged over a line in the packet saying "no allowances are made for makeup testing." Member (S7) noted that the rules contain an additional sentence permitting exceptions "only at the discretion of the commission" and argued there are reasonable circumstances that should be explicitly acknowledged, such as on-duty injury or military deployment. "If that person's got called for military service, that would be it," Member (S7) said. Presenter agreed to add a clarifying sentence to the packet and to resend a dated copy to board members.
The board also discussed an inconsistency between the local ordinance and state statute about appointment lengths; Member (S2) said section 3 of the ordinance "is not in sync with what state statute says," and board members agreed appointing authorities must resolve whether particular positions are two- or four-year appointments before the next meeting.
In the chief's report, the Presenter said training classes have started, with four of five classes completed and instructor classes scheduled to begin. The Presenter reported average class attendance of about 24'25 personnel and reminded members that certifications must be in place 30 days before testing as required by statute.
Votes at a glance: the board adopted the June 16 agenda (Clerk moved; Clerk recorded the second), approved last month's minutes (Committee member (S4) moved; Clerk seconded), and voted to adjourn (Committee member (S4) moved; Clerk seconded). All three procedural motions were carried.
The Presenter said she will add the agreed language on exceptions for makeup testing, date the packet, and resend it to members. The board scheduled its next regular meeting for July 21, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. in room 105.
