It is true that the rule of the municipal commission prohibit the employment as an examiner" of any persons employed in the department for whose benefit the eligible list is to be prepared. It would be a stern rule indeed that should prevent a commissioner or an examiner from obtaining the advice of such persons either as to the kind of questions to be asked or as to the manner in which they should be rated, and the evidence in this case fails to establish that Mumford was otherwise used. The re-ratings were made by the Commission, with such advice and assistance as they had obtained, including the advice of Mumford and Fisher, who, it appears, had conferred with each other and substantially agreed as to the proper method of rating. Neither does it appear that Mumford was employed or paid for services as an examiner. He was simply appealed to as one having knowledge of the subject matter for advice and it appears that where his advice differed from that of the city engineer it was disregarded. 6. There was lack of competition in the ladder test in the case of the three candidates whose names are not disclosed, but who did not participate in the actual test. There is no warrant or authority for placing their names on the eligible list with an arbitrary rating for a test in which they did not participate. 7. With the exception of the failure of competition in the ladder test affecting three men the eligible list for battalion chief seems from the evidence to have been fairly prepared and with this exception it should stand. Recommendations The State Civil Service Commission respectfully recommends to the municipal civil service commission of the city of Rochester, in the matter of the examination for battalion chief in the fire department, that the three candidates who did not participate in the ladder test be required to submit to the test in the same form as other candidates and be rated in the same manner, in default of which their names should be stricken from the eligible list. (Signed) WM. MILLER COLLIER State Civil Service Commission ALBANY, N. Y., April 8, 1902. State Civil Service Commission: IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE EXAMINATION FOR PROMOTION TO THE POSITION OF POLICE CAPTAIN IN THE POLICE FORCE OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, HELD DECEMBER 13, 1901, INSTITUTED UPON THE PETITION OF SHARON L. SHERMAN, Statement of facts The petitioner, a lieutenant of the police force of the city of Rochester, was a candidate for the position of captain in the above mentioned examination; he also took a similar examination on June 1, 1900. In that examination six lieutenants were examined, four passed, two were promoted and the petitioner and James E. Ryan were not appointed. The examination of December 13, 1901, was open to lieutenants, detective sergeants and patrol sergeants. The petitioner and said Ryan were the only lieutenants who passed the examination and there is but one other lieutenant on the force and he failed to pass. Ryan stands five and the petitioner fifteen on the present list, established December 31, 1901, as a result of the examination of December 13. One Monaghan, a veteran and a sergeant in the force, stands at the head of the list. Ryan brought an action to restrain the certification of the new list or appointments therefrom and secured a preliminary injunction. On December 31, 1901, the injunction was so far modified that the Commission was permitted to complete the new list as a list which should take effect only on the termination of the Ryan action, and all promotions to police captain were meanwhile enjoined. On the same day the Commission considered the appeals and confirmed and established the eligible list. Findings 1. The complaint is within the power of the State Civil Service Commission to investigate under subdivision 3 of section 6 of the civil service law. Although the State Commission cannot grant specific relief, such power being in the hands of the municipal civil service commission under rule XV of the municipal rules, yet the municipal commission has no power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses to establish the facts necessary for this action under said rule. The State Commission, having this power, may properly assist the municipal commission by eliciting the necessary information in the form of testimony. 2. The eligible list resulting from the examination held June 1, 1900, had expired. Section 6, rule XXVII provides "No eligible list for promotion shall be valid beyond one year." 3. The municipal commission had discretion to admit to the promotion examination persons holding positions in lower grades than that of lieutenant. This power is clearly given under section 3 of rule XXVII and there appears to be no statutory provision recognizing the subordinate grades in the police department of the city of Rochester. 4. The rating of the candidates in the examination for promotion to police captain was improper and inadequate. (a) Mental examination. The practice adopted in rating the mental examination was not conducive to a fair comparative rating of the papers, first, because no single commissioner made a comparative rating of all the papers; second, because Commissioner Toole who thinks he rated a majority of the papers, but is uncertain as to the exact number, seems to have selected a single paper as a standard by which to rate the others, such paper being one of the first papers reviewed by him and such selection being made before he had had opportunity to examine the remaining papers to see whether a better paper might not be found. The paper of this candidate seems to have been rated at 100 for answers and 100 for handwriting, spelling and general appearance, without previous comparison with the papers of other candidates. Commissioner Byran states that he marked 13 of the 16 papers; that there was no system of specific charges for errors; that he "adopted a standard of my own on my papers" that there was no discussion as to fixing the ratings for handwriting, spelling and general appearance, and that he did not know what system Commissioner Toole had for marking the papers in these subjects. In the consideration of appeals from ratings in this examination it seems that practically no consideration was given to the appeals for the reason that there was not sufficient time to fairly re-rate the papers in comparison with those of other candidates. (b) Service rating. The rule adopted in arriving at the service rating tended to unfairness among the candidates. First, because no superior rating was given for service as lieutenant over that given for similar length of service as sergeant. This seems to be contrary to the requirements of the civil service law and rules that due weight will be given to seniority. So long as these grades in the police department are recognized with differences in rank and salary, it seems clear that some additional rating, however small, should have been given for service in a higher grade over that given for similar service in a lower grade. Second, the rule is unfair because in rating for length of service above the rank of patrolman the additional credit given was limited to the term served in the highest rank held by the competitor, so that a candidate who had served five years as sergeant and five years as lieutenant received a lower rating than one who had served the whole ten years as sergeant; even if no higher rating were given for service as lieutenant than for service as sergeant the competitor should have received credit for the total period served in the grades considered and not merely for the period served in the highest grade which he had attained. Third, because no greater rating was given for the earlier years of service in a particular grade than for the later years. It seems unreasonable to give a candidate who has served fifteen years in a given grade three times as much credit for such service as is given to the candidate who has served five years. A sliding scale should be adopted whereby a candidate who had served say four or five years in a given rank, long enough to have become thoroughly familiar with the duties of that rank and its relations to the higher ranks, and to have had opportunity to observe the duties of those in higher ranks, should receive the major part of the credit given for service in such rank, and the additional credit for excessively long service in such rank should be small in comparison with the credit given for the first four or five years of said service. There is no serious difference between the witnesses as to the method, or lack of method, adopted in making the various ratings, and the whole testimony shows failure to appreciate the primary requisites to obtain a fair rating of the candidates. 5. That in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the records kept by the police department the Commission was justified in omitting the elements of efficiency, punctuality, attention and general good conduct in arriving at the service rating. For the same general reasons the assignment of weights, one for service and two for mental examination, cannot be said to be grossly unfair so as to vitiate the results of the examination. With our continuous and comparative records of efficiency, punctuality and good conduct there is no means of properly estimating the actual value of service in the department, and unless such records have been kept it would seem that a rating based upon mere length of service and seniority should not have a weight of more than onethird to one-half of the total. 6. The claim of the petitioner that "the entire examination is tainted with the suspicion of politics" is not substantiated. Although there is a great delay of testimony upon this point it is not shown that any action of the Commission was based upon political motives or that the calling of the examination or its conduct up to the time of the rating of the papers was different from the usual practice of the municipal commission. Recommendations The State Civil Service Commission respectfully recommend to the municipal civil service commission of the city of Rochester: 1. That the eligible list established as a result of the examination for promotion to police captain, held December 13, 1901, be set aside, under the authority granted by rule XV of the municipal civil service rules. 2. That the papers in the mental examination held on that date, in case their integrity has been preserved, be re-examined by com |