Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1977-8552RESOLUTION NO. 8552 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY ON EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION ON CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARDS OF OTHER AGENCIES The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, it has now become essential that any employees of the City who serve on Civil Service examination boards of other agencies be properly advised so as to minimize the possibility of allegations of discriminatory acts on their part while serving in such capacity, and WHEREAS, the Director of Personnel has now prepared an administrative policy for adoption by the City Council to provide such guidance, which policy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that the administrative policy on employee par- ticipation on Civil Service examination boards of other governmental agencies as contained in Exhibit "A" be, and the same is hereby adopted by the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Chula Vista be, and she is hereby copy of said policy to all other County of San Diego. that the City Clerk of the City of directed to forward a certified governmental agencies within the Presented by Approved as to form by ( , .- ,. __ ,~ L ~ F. - _- ~ ~_ ~. Adolph A. Bigge, Direc o of ~ George ~'~Lindberg, City Attorney Personne ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of March - 197 7 - by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Ecidahl, Hyde, Cox Scott NAYES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen Hobel `~ ,, ~'J / ; ,~ Mayor of the City of Chula Vista ATTES ~ ~. ~ ~~c~y... ' ' ~ Ci y erk S'15ATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I~ , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, Ca i ornia, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. and that the same has not been amended or repealed. DATED City Clerk r~ ' .~~....v.~. DATE SU~IECT~ PAGE Employee Participation on Civil Service Examination Boards of Other Public Agencies R E ~, PURPOSE To provide that City employees who are to serve on Civil Service Examination Boards of other public agencies shall obtain the prior written authorization of the appointing authority in each instance of such service and shall receive an orientation on the legal aspects of such service. BACKGROUND Appointing authorities of the City have informally authorized employees to serve on Civil Service Boards of other public agencies after considering the benefits to the participating employee, workload demands on the participating employee, and the need to reciprocate with another public agency for similar services. In recent years, this exchange of services has become essential to the City employee selection procedure. Recent court decisions indicate that individuals serving on such boards may be held personally liable for violation of civil rights, including discrimination, committed while so serving. Government Code, Section 825 provides that the City may be obligated to defend City employees so charged for any action committed within the course and scope of their employment. The City may also be required to pay the compensatory damages awarded to a plaintiff but is not obligated to pay any punitive or exemplary damages. Because of the essential need between public agencies for reciprocal service on civil service examination boards, and because adequate orientation of employees serving on such boards minimizes the likelihood of liability, the City Manager has established the following policy. POLICY It is the policy of the City that: 1. All City employees who serve as a representative of the City on any civil service examination board of any public agency other than the City must obtain prior written authorization by the employee's appoint- ing authority in each instance of such service. 2. All City employees who serve on any such board of another public agency must first receive a general orientation by the Personnel Department. Such orientation shall include, but shall not be limited to, current instructions on: -~~~, c,; Ty e~~~~~ ATT/1l,ti~~l~~' U FILED .=---- .' ~- (~ ~ y~ GUIDE TO INTERVIEWING I. INTRODUCTION TO INTERVIEWING The widespread use of the selection interview in both public and private agencies has been thoroughly documented. Surveys concerning its usage have typically found that between 70% to 99% of the responding organizations rely on the interview as an important part of their selection activities. Several reasons account for this significant reliance upon this interview. First, it is regarded as a means of evaluating qualifications which probably cannot be more effectively measured by written tests or other devices. For example, properly conducted the interview provides samples of the ability of competitors to identify and respond to important considerations in clearly job-related problems, permits assessment of the effectiveness of verbal communications, and allows competitors to demonstrate their familiarity with the nature and demands of a job. Second, many people remain somewhat dis- trustful of written tests and feel that is important to actually evaluate applicants in a "face-to-face" situation where competitive strengths and limitations can be explored in some depth and detail. A third and closely related factor is the feeling that "experienced persons" will be able to distinguish between those applicants who may or may not have the qualities which-make them successful at a given job. The employment interview has critics as well as supporters, however, and together with increasing concern with fair employment practices issues in civil service jurisdictions will come closer examination of the effectiveness of the interview as used in specific situations. On March 8, 1971, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company, that tests used for hiring or promotion must not assess the competitor in a general, abstract manner, but must assess only those qualifications which are specifically job related. A1- though testing and measurement procedures were recognized as potentially useful devices, their use without demonstrated relevance to the job in question was considered illegal. One year after the Griggs decision, on March 24, 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act became law, amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment strengthened the powers of the Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Commission (EEOC, established by the 1904 Act) and brought State and local governments within coverage of the law. The EEOC guidelines on employee selection procedures were accepted by the Court in the Griggs Case as expressing what constitutes a reasonable measure of job performance. These official standards on the development and use of selection devices apply explicitly to employment interviews and interview rating scales, as well as to paper and pencil tests, performance measures, personal history requirements, biographical information forms, weighted application blanks, and so on. If use of any such instrument adversely affects hiring, promotion, transfer or any other employment opportunity of groups protected by Title VII, the practice constitutes discrimination unless the instrument .is acceptably valid, possesses utility, and the user can demonstrate that alternative suitable assessment procedures are not available. Once a showing has been made that an employment practice has adverse effect, the burden of justifying the practice is on the employer. In California, the Fair Employment Practices Act forbids employment decisions based upon race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical handicap or a "medical condition"-(such as diabetes), unless any such factor constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification (Labor Code Section 1420 (a)). This Act also makes it unlawful for any employer to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, religious creed, national origin, sex, etc.,(Labor Code Section 1420 (d)). The two chief legal decisions involving the oral interview are Rowe v. General Motors Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, March 2, 197.2) and Hester v. Southern Railway Company (U.S. District Court, Georgia, October 3, 1972). In the former case, in court, in dealing against General Motors, determined that a promotional selection process which included an interview involved qualification,standards which were vague and subjective and that the employer failed to convincingly demonstrate the job relatedness of the. examination. The selection process adversely affected Blacks and the court indicated that General h1otor's many affirmative action activities did not mitigate the circumstances where discrimination still existed. The Hester v. Southern Railway Company case involved the selection interview for the position of entry-level Data-typist. Citing the principles of Rowe, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, noting that the interviewer used no written or formal guidelines to structure, conduct, or score the interview. The process was determined to be subjective and no safeguards to avert discriminatory practices were applied to the examination. It is clear, then, that in California, as elsewhere, the need for developing selection techniques of demonstrated job relatedness and thoroughly documenting their usage is now not only a social and professional concern, but a legal mandate. State and local governmental jurisdictions are covered by such law and the oral interview is regarded as being a "test" which is subject to enforceable selection practices guidelines. II. HOW TO INTERVIEW An easy way to guide an interview is to list specific questions which can be asked in assessing candidates on each job related rating factor. Specific questions posed to individual candidates may be different, but the rater must be able to thoroughly assess each candidate on al] of the factors. Panels should have time before the first interview to work out a pattern of questions whic~~ is comfortable for them. Look to the panel chairperson for guidance in developing a pattern. If a panel is thorough and consistently confines its questioning and rating to job related factors that samp]e knowledges and skills required to perform important tasks of the job, then the interviews will be legally defensible. In designing the format and questions, there are some legal limitations to be aware of. The Fair Employment Practices Commission of California (FEPC) has ruled that a potential employer may make no inquiries orally or in writing relating to any of the following topics in such a way that discrimination might be inferred, nor may any of these factors be considered in rating or disqualifying a competitor: a. Race, color, national origin, or ancestry b. Sex or marital status c. Age or physical disabilities d. Political or religious affiliations e. Success or failure in previous examinations In practical terms this means you can not question a candidate in any of these areas. FEPC has issued a Guide to Lawful and Unlawful Pre-Employment Inquiries; interviewers should read it and note those questions you should avoid (see Appendix A). Areas of Caution :~~ a,;~iition to thc~so lc~~ally restrict~:d areas, the areas where extreme caution should be exercised. 1. The panel should not make medical judgments and should not disqualify a candidate on factors that are purely medical in character. 2. If a panel member is related to an applicant by blood or marriage, the panel member must so inform the chairperson and not participate in rating the candidate. If a panel member is acquainted with a candidate, rely on the integrity of the individual panelists, to use their best judgment in determining the most appropriate course of action. 3. Candidates should not be disqualified for lack of sufficient moti- vation, interest in the work of the class, immediate employment, or work in a particular location in the face of their having submitted an application and appeared for the interview. 4. In the interest of fairness to all candidates, panel members should not needlessly reveal that they are going to serve as panelists. Panel members should not reveal to anyone, any candidate's name, any information about the candidate's qualifications, nor the score which the members gave the candidate. 5. Be careful of social conversation. Raters tend to be off guard when entertaining pleasant conversation intended to put a candidate at ease. As one example, casual conversation about family or children can lead to allegations of sex discrimination. Be pleasant, but be conscious of avoiding topics that could be interpreted as adversely affecting one or more protected group (i.e., race, color, religion, sex, and national origin). Do not assume that an interview is ended just because you have finished your questioning. It is the better practice to save any additional conversation for another date. Drnr~or{i~nnc Generally, the same procedure is followed for each candidate: 1. Before each interview, the panel reviews the next candidate's application form. This review is to become familiar with the candidate`s background, work experience, educational and personal qualifications. The panel will also decide which areas need elabo- ration.or require special scrutiny. 2. The chairperson brings the candidate before the panel, makes the introductions and invites the candidate to be seated. 3. The chairperson explains the purpose of the interview and then starts the discussion by asking the candidate to describe the major duties and responsibilities of the candidate's present or last job. This is usually a good place to start an interview as the most current job usually represents an applicant's highest achievement, and puts the candidate at ease. 4. All panel members should then ask positively phrased questions to encourage applicants to explain their work experiences and qualifi- cations. The questions should be asked in such a way that applicants will present the experiences and qualifications in their background that make them eligible for the position. It is often helpful to ask open-ended questions that invite candidates to explain their feelings and motivations as well as the facts. The panel should approach their task as a team. Questions may be asked by any panel member, in any order; however, if one panelist begins a line of questioning, it is best for that panelist to pursue it to its completion before moving on to another area. Remember, too, that all questions must be justified on the basis of job related factors. As you are interviewing, make mental notes regarding the candidates qualifications in each of the rating areas. However, do not let your note writing become obvious. You have additional time for notes after the candidate has left the room. 5. When the chairperson feels that all rating factors have been fully developed, and the panelists have no further questions, the chair- person will ask the candidate if he/she has anything further to add or has any questions. Finally, the chairperson will thank the candidate for coming, and dismiss the candidate. 6. After the candidate leaves the room, the panel members will discuss how well the candidate's qualifications meet the rating standards and assign rating scores. The time required for the preliminary review of the application and interview will vary depending on the level and type of interview. It is important to keep on schedule as candidates become apprehensive when asked to wait for excessive amounts of time. Additionally, it is not fair to devote a disproportionate amount of time to some of the candidate group. -III. HOW TO EVALUATE AND RATE Evaluating a Candidate 1. Ratings must be based exclusively on information brought out during the interview or on the candidate's observable behavior in the interview. Ratings must be justifiable on the basis of the identi- fied rating factors and on no other factors. 2. The overall rating is an estimate of the candidate's potential success in the position for which competing. The ratings are not judgments of the candidates' effectiveness in their current jobs. 3. A general test of qualification which each panel member should make is, "Setting aside my personal biases, would I hire this individual with reasonable confidence that the individual could handle the job successfully." In applying this test; the panel should not be particularly influenced by the fact that competitors have passed earlier portions of the selection process. Each part of the process measures different capabilities and is important in its own right. Dealing with Stereotypes and Qiases Two covert situations frequently develop in an interview. Raters unconsciously evaluate candidates on the basis of stereotypes and/or biases. Individuals ~~~ho conduct interviews frequently develop an image of the ideal applicant. Once developed, they carry this image with them into future interview situations and evaluate on this basis. For instance, in the case of a Police Officer, a rater's stereotype image could be of a clean-cut neatly-but conservatively dressed individual with a strong handshake who speaks with authority but is not overbearing. If a candidate who did not look this way appeared before this rater, the rater would tend to rate the candidate low not because of the candidate's actual qualifications but rather because of assumptions that are based on•the candidate's appearance. This can vrork in reverse, too, where a candidate who fits the visual image receives higher ratings than are actually deserved. In many cases, the stereotypical person is in~~ fact a good candidate, but remember, one sometimes finds poor and good candidates who do not fit a stereotype. Biases are an even more difficult thing to deal with appropriately. There are many types of biases including those against subcultures such as hippies, against women, against marijuana users, racial biases including accents, and many others. As with stereotypes, ratings can be lower on the rating factors as a result of one characteristic rather than being based on a composite of an applicant's character. As an example, some people do not feel women should hold certain jobs so they unconsciously rate them lower on the evaluation criteria. In essence, this one characteristic eclipses all others and taints the ratings in an unfair manner. Everyone has biases of one sort or another, some of which may even be subconscious and many people have developed stereotypes for certain occupations. In most cases, raters don't even realize that their ratings can be and are influenced by these factors. How can one deal with this problem? The best way is to follow an interview pattern which guides panelists toward appropriate rating criteria. On an individual basis, one can merely be aware of these things within oneself, and make an effort to set them aside when evaluating candidates. Consciously attempting to be open-minded and receptive to alternate patterns of career preparation further insures fairness. If a candidate believes that one of the panel members is biased, the candidate may ask that the member be excluded from the interview. If, upon questioning, the candidate appears to have a reasonable basis for such a trouble between the panelist and the candidate or .if a panel member had previously disqualified the candidate in another interview. When in doubt, it is better for the panelist to withdraw as it avoids future complications. Filling Out Rating Forms 1. Consider the competitor's qualifications orr each of the rating factors listed on the rating form. 2. Panel members should have taken careful notes after the interview in the spaces provided for remarks. Comments must refer to the. rating factors and should be a means of justifying the candidate's numerical score regardless of whether the candidate passes or fails. Overall ratings are usually not assigned until the competitor has left the room and the panel members have discussed with one another their impressions of the candidate's qualifications. If panelists find that their ratings are within five points of one another, they should proceed to the next candidate; but if they envision widely divergent scores, then there is a need for more discussion because they are obviously not seeing the same things in an applicant or applying the rating standards in the game way. Where there is much disagreement regarding a candidate, it is usually because the raters are making different inferences from the information present- ed or it could mean that the rating factors were not adequately explored during the interview. The panel chairperson is responsible for seeing that ratings for any given candidate are within five points of each other. 3. Panel members should usually not assign overall percentage ratings until they have interviewed the first three or four candidates and have had an opportunity to discuss the rating standards as applied to these first candidates, If there is agreement concerning the application o the standards, the panel can proceed to numerical ratings in accordance with the particular rating scale being used. 5. 4. When there is a question about the adequacy of the candidate's qualifications, an especially careful review of the candidate's strengths should be made and these should be balanced against the . candidate's limitations and deficiencies. The latter must, of course, be related to the rating factors listed on the rating form. When confronted with an inadequate candidate, there is a tendency among raters to give the applicant a 70%, assuming that the candidate will never be hired with such a low score and thus avoiding the paper work of a disqualification report of candidate appeals. However, you must assume that anyone you place on the list has the potential for being hired. It is therefore your responsibility to see that every candidate on the list is in fact qualified for the position. In times past candidates were disqualified on a competitive basis because their qualifications ranked so far below the majority of the candidate group. It is no longer thought wise to do this. Candidates should be evaluated against the absolute standards out- lined in the rating standards and evaluated according to how well they meet these standards. If all panel members feel a competitor is unacceptable in any category then the candidate fails the interview. Specific reasons for disqualification should be entered on individual rating forms. Justification is particularly important in the case of disqualification. Comments should be specific and related to the rating factors. To complete the rating for any candidate, each panel ~nen~ber should (a} enter the overall rating in the proper space, (bp sign each form to idc~ntif, ersnnal ratings and (c) complete the remarks section regardless of rating (justification of score). It is the . responsibility of the panel chairperson to see that each rater completes these steps for each candidate. Suggestions for Panel ~e~rbers 1. Raters should not ask a candidate to reveal other test results, or grades in course work, because such information can easily bias the interview score. However, you may ask applicants what they think/ feel about their own job performance or their own work capabilities. 2. A friendly, easy-going, positive approach will usually produce more useful information about a candidate's qualifications than will an interview which is characterized by a series of rapid fire, direct questions, or which causes candidates to feel they have been put on the spot. 3. Use vocabulary and ideas which are at or near the candidate's level, Due to more education or higher level of experience, panel members may normally think and speak in terms which are un- familiar to the candidate. 4. Be aware of the different types of questions you could ask and the possible advantages of each. Direct or leading questions have advantages in that they are easy to understand, bring concise answers, produce specific information, and an interviewer can ask many such questions in a short period of time. Open questions, on the other hand, often bring out unexpected and valuable information, sometimes reveal attitudes and feelings, and indicate how well candidates can organize their thoughts. Situational questions may also be asked. They have the advantages of requiring a candidate to analyze a situation, may show the limitations of a candidate's experience and may show appreciation of the ethics or practices of an occupation. In keeping vrith the desired positive approach for this process, it is felt that it is better to stay away from both leading ques- tions and stress questions. Situational questions can be valuable if time permits (although answers are frequently not clear-cut and are therefore hard to evaluate). On the whole, the best approach semms to be the open-ended question in hopes that candidates will reveal valuable information. 5. Maintain consistent standards. Applying standards consistently through a series of interviews requires diligence on the part of all the panel members. Should early ratings prove to be out of line, members should adjust them to reflect a candidate's qualifi- cations correctly. 6. Use the full rating scale. If interview ratings are to carry their intended weights, panel members should ordinarily spread the scores of qualified candidates, employing the full scale. 7. Keep on schedule. Panels should make every reasonable effort to keep interviews on schedule. Candidates become needlessly appre- hensive when asked to wait excessive amounts of time. However, if the panel drops behind, no interview should be unduly abbreviated in order to return to the schedule. _ 8. Keep accurate complete records of the interviews. Be sure that all necessary documents are carefully and completely filled out, and that all comments are appropriate and related to the performance dimensions. ~. .. ~ATR ~r LOY:~i~~tT PRACTxCE5 CO;~u9ISS:COY GUID% TO PRr.-~~LOYi~.+T SNQUIRSES The California Fair l~nployment Practice 1'~ct, like otller Fl;r- laws, provides that no pre-employment inquiries or specifications, direct or indirect, may be made concerning a Sob applicant's race, religiouU creed, color, natural origin, ancestry, sex, or physical ilanaicap.* lne Act further I~.roizibits any non-,job- related inquiry, either verbal or through u:~e of an ai~plication fonn, which may directly or indirectly affect the employ.ert opportunities of those protected by the Act. The Act does not othes•~;ise limit the right of employers to seek full information about the prospective employees or to establish the fob- • performance qualifications they consider essential. ~dhatever qualifications or standards set, however, must be applied equally to all perr,ons. 41YIen an employer requires pre-employment data to comply with fedez•al guidelines and reT;ulations, t'rlat information may be soliciteQ voluntarily and used for statistical purposes, provided certain safeguards are observed. (See No. 5 below.) The California FEP Commission does not regard the 1ilni.tation •on pre-employment inquiries as a guarantee, of itself, against discriminatory, Iliril~g, but as one feature of the law which will help in this direction. Job n.pplication :£o.rm3 end interviews, help-wanted advertising, and union membership applications are mechanisms which mc~.y work for or against equal employment opportunity. 'they are regulated in all FFl'C states substantially as set forth in this Guide. Tho fol.lawing points should be noted: (1) T}1Q lists of acceptable and unacceptable gtlc:,tions herein by no meculs include all inquiries which mc~y be appropriate or innppi•opriate, but are meant to be illustrative of questions frequently asked. (2) Inappropriate inquiries are those to which tho anowerc~--z+hethrr or not so intended--would tend to limit a person's employment opportunities because of their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex or physical handicap. (3) The Guide pertains only to inquiries, advertisements, etc., directed .to an applicant prior to employment. Once the applicant is on the payroll the employer msy, if he wishes, enter otherwise prohiba.ted fllfoiwation (c.g. plioto~;ra~>h) in Lhc lIldiviciLlR1'I1 peI"IIC11Il1Cl Ells, pl•o- vided such information is not used for arty subsequent discrimination, us in upgrading or layoff. Note that •erployers who require proof of applicant's n~;e or citizenship tney not, before employment, inspect birth certificates, naturalization papers, or otller such documents *?rc-employment inquiries regarding the physical fitness of applicants arc allowed if the inquiry or request for information is airectly related and pertinent to Ln~: position applied for. . which indicate country or origin (and often race and religion); but may hire a person subject to his being aUle to produce such proof on or after reporting for work. - (A) A number of iu~acceptable inquirie3 wi11 be seen to have little bearing on applicant's race or religion but do touch, directly or indirectly, on national origin or ancestry--e.g. U.S. vs foreign birth of applicant or his relatives. lne laW prohibits all such inquiries. (5) Pao prohibited questions or stateinetits mcy lawfully appear on pre- employment application or registration forms. Questions related to sex and ethnic identificatior. used for statistical or resea.rcli purposes must be on a separate fox•,~a ox• tear-off portion of the employment application. This data must be separated from the application form on receipt and not used as the b asi~ for an employment decision. Misuse of such data constitutes a violation of the r~P Act. (6) In all situations, whether or not covered by the examples shown here pre-employment inquiries must be fob-related. k I ACCFt 1A1~3LL PiZF-Li u'LOYJ•~ti i Iiw ~UIRIES SU~3JLCT UI•J~1CC]sPTA13LL F'Ri;-lT•:I'LOiJ~i,t;~iT Ii+GZUIRIr, i "have you worked for t11is company 1~lA~u. Forlncr nr~Ine of applicant whose nnme under a different n~Ime?" i~as been changed by court order or "Have y'ou ever bcen convicted of a otherwise* Crli't^ LL'1d~'r ~,nothcr I71I".°?" Appiicallt's place of residence l ~ lu~D>,.ES~ OR f Fiow loIlE, applicant has Ueen resident 'i~A`i'IOTJ OF DL Of this Stcte or city lI- -R-~-sS-I-Dui,Cr "Can you, after employment, aua:~it a 3~F;Tr)".c'LACE 3irthplace of applicant birth certificate or other proof of 3irthplace of applicant's parents, US citizenaiiip or age?" spouse or other relatives Requirement that ax~plicant submit a birth certificate, naturalization or ba ti:~mal record+ "Can you, after employment, aubu>_i.t a AGa Queotions which ,tend to identif`f work permit if under eignteer,?" applicants .k0 - 6~ years ox' age "Are you over eighteen years of age?" "If hired, can you furnish proof of aUre?" /or/ Statement that hire ig subject to verification that applicant's age Ineetn 1c al. re uirements . RisLIGIOUS Applicant' c- religious C1C11OGllIlfltlOn or affiliation, church, parish, pastor • ~ or religious llolidcly~ observed "Do you attend religious services /or/ a liou:~e of worship?" Applicant nl~.y not be told "`l^hia is a Catholic/Protestant/J'ewish/atheist or.~nization." Statement by employer ol" regular days ,I WOiiit llAYS hours or uhift to be worked 111iID Si(I'r''rS ItACL OiZ Complexion, color ai' sl:i.n, or other COLOR questions directly or indirectly incLzcctin rnce o.r color Statement that photograph may be ~i:0i0GRAPii Requirement that applic~uit affix a required after employment pllotogrnpii to Ills application form . Request apl~li.cant, at hi.s option, to submit }~]I~to(;.rnplt Requirement of pllotoeraph after inter- view but before hirin~+ __ "If you are not a US citizen, have yot-CiiiZr~tiSHIP "Are you a US citizen?" the 1ega1 right to remain permanent 4thether applicant or his parents or 1y in the US? Do you intend to spouse are naturalized Or native reln,ain permanently in the US?" born tlni~ted States citizens Statement by employer that if hired, Date when applicant or parents or applicant mr~ be required to submit spouse n.cgtured US citizenship proof of citizenship Requirement that applicant produce his naturcLlizatian papers or first . first papc>•c•r Wl~cther n1l~lical~t'n parents or spou©o r.rc citi cn~__of the US .~ I{OYES * The employer may ask other names under which the applicant lens worked (for excunple, a married woman applicant's rnaicien name), if he :oust have such names in order to check the educational or employrncnt records or references, and if , it is his standard practice to checi; such references. + Aocwnerrte such as birth eerti~icates or naturalization papers, which reveal race and birthplace, and often religion, mciy not be required prior to hiring; likewi:-e photographs or any evidence of race, religion, or national origin. The Commission lrac ruled .that the point of hire is reached once the employer has decided to hire the applicant and has so informed. him. 4Jiien 'this point has been reached, the othe arise forbidden inquiries may be made. T}rus any , proof needed to support elai:.~s Wade by the applicant---e.g., as 'to US citizen- ship, veteran status, age--nay be inspected by the employer before the • individual actually goes on the payroll. If the proof is laclcing, the hire need not be consummated. a i ~ ACC~ii'Ai3~, pIZ--i:~'•~LOY;wiiT ,Y..IGUI:?Ir,S SL~J:.Ci^ Ui+1lCC1~I"i'/tIlLE i'IiI;-T;f/ri'LOYi•~~T17.' IIi~UTRx};S Lenguagee applleent z'eacit3, speaXs or ~ ri~l•~lU:~ItL, c Applicaut~a nuCa.onal.:ity, .Lineage, ' tirz'it©s fluently t OR1GI:i OR I ancestry, national origin, cleseent • '' ~ ~:iCr.SiRY or parentage • ~ Date of arrival in Unites: Strtites or port of entry; haw long a resident ' Nationality of r~pplicn.rit' li psrrenta or rpourle; mai.dell name o!' applicant's ~ wife cr mother ' ~ T.anguaJ;e colrunonly u:3ed by applicant. . "1•Jiiat is your mother tonF;uei" o ~ ility to o~r applicant acquired si • ~ ~ read, write or spesclc a foreign l a.n ~ru~e ... Applicant' c acac.ez~ic, vocationay, or %D'JCl'-iIOiJ ~ :Jate lrzat ntt©nded hig12 school professional education; sciiool© e.+, t e n clc d ~ ,._.,.,_,... ApSiiccnt's work experience J r~iLc~2~-iCE Applicant' o ntiilitary experience Applicant's military experience iri ~ (general) erred forces o.f United States, in a Typo of military discharge state r-ilitia (US), or in a parti- j cular brn_nch of ti,", nrnr~cl forces ~ "Jie.ve you ever been convicted of t~nf CtiARACir.R "iiave you ever been arretated`J" •crin,~?" If so, when, where, a.nd ' c~is~o;,i•f;inn of case? ~ .Jeres of applicant's re]_ativea ~ ~LA`iIVr.S ' ~ riarital status or rrwnber of det~and t±3.recdy eruployed by this company ~ ~ en'ts 21ar_~e and adaress of parent or guardian ' ita.Ine or address of relative, spouse if applicant is a minor ~ or chilcZren of adult n.ppl.ica-nt ' "With whom c1o you renicle?" r'Do~u lave wi l.h ti~o>>r ~nt•cn f;r 7 ~~ _ _____ ~te~e told adc~regt3 of p©rnon to ba rloti ~ NOTxCE iri ~ ~VEld11p nlltl adc11"CLIE3 Of 1 @liltiVC t0 b@ i'ied in cs~se of accident or f CASE OE noi;ified ~.n caste of nceids:nt or eI-_er~;cncti~ Eh'r??r,~TCY amen cn Oz'g2.nizai;ions, clubs, professional ' ORGti;iIZA-, ~ "List cil.l organizations. clubs, societies, or other associations of iIO:iS ~ ~ societies, and lodges to Which you which applicant is a member, exclud belong." 'in3 any r2~tes the character of which' indicate the race, reliJ3fous creed, co . l color, nations~l creed, or ancestry cf its r"er..bers ~ I "3y :Thom were you referred fox a ~El!~i~1iC:~S equirement of oubmission of a relit?ic tiositian hire?" ~ E re fe.rencc~ 'Do you hove srny physical condition i i'i~YSICAI, ~"llo you have any physical d~.sabilitier ~;hich ray limit your ability to pe CO:+'D.iiIGY. ~ uestions on Uez~eral medical conditiol forr.I the yob applied for?" squirter as to receipt of Workers' Sta:etuent by etrploycr that offer nay Compensation by made contin,_,ent on passing a 2}1• ;iC%ll. !` ~^--i'71n~ i;1O;1 ZIOtiCe t0 app.l.lCant that any IIllState-- r~S1SCC,LLAi1G" u~ inquiry that i8 IlOt ;}Ob--1'Clated Hants or onlist;iena Of matera.ol "fact ~ 01jS Or IleC@SGary fOr deternrinina an in his a,>plication r"ay bo cause fez' ~ rapplicant'g aliUibility for employ- , pus ?n a ! ~Iii.uGllllleill. ~. w CITY OF CHULA VISTA ORAL BOARD AUTHORIZATION EMPLOYEE POSITION Department/Division AGENCY REQUESTING ASSISTANCE Deapartment Position Interviewing For Date/Time of Interviews Location of Interviews APPROVED BY TITLE DATE 1 copy retained by department 1 copy to Personnel Department ~J • ~ ~ • ~ " ~ + i w 3. Over a period of time, information obtained from these forms will enable the Personnel Department to determine which agencies are requesting participation, frequency of the requests and positions involved. This may be used to decide from which agencies to request reciprocation on our own oral boards. The "Guide To Interviewing" (Attachment B) provides a general orientation on the interviewing process and includes background information on legal requirements, dealing with stereotypes and biases, filling out rating forms, areas of caution and lawful and unlawful pre-employment inquiries. In addition, it offers some basic guides for improving interviewing techniques. Requiring that all employees read this guide before serving on an oral board for another agency will help to ensure that the employee is aware of proper interviewing techniques and possible problem areas and thereby minimize potential liability to the City. CONCLUSION The practice of-reciprocating with other agencies for employee participation on Civil Service examination boards is an important aspect of the City's selection process. While recognizing that risks are involved in allowing employees to serve on oral boards of other agencies, they can be minimized by: 1. Establishing specific authority to allow employees to serve on these boards. 2. Providing information and training for employees to enable them to avoid discriminatory actions while so serving.