Civil Service Commission approves two protests to fire captain exam over ambiguous questions

The Civil Service Commission voted to approve two protests to the fire captain written examination at its June 16 special meeting after concluding two contested questions were ambiguous and could reasonably allow more than one answer.

Commission members heard a written response from a department official who said the testing company’s interpretation was incorrect and that the exam language conflicted with department procedure. “I disagree with the testing company's interpretation. I feel that it's a poor question,” the official said, noting that one item referred to approval by Dr. Rabinowitz when she is available and to contacting an on‑duty physician at Akron General when she is not, which the official said allowed both answers.

Commissioners also reviewed a separate contested item about trench‑collapse response distances. The department explained that a 300‑foot requirement applies to staging equipment (vehicles and resources staged offsite), while a 150‑foot requirement applies to responding units that must be closer to the scene. The department representative said that context makes both answer choices defensible and that changing the policy wording at the vendor’s suggestion was unnecessary.

Captain Washington, who reviewed the policy language, said the procedure read plainly: “It seems pretty cut and dry when you read the policy procedure.” Other attendees noted the question could be read either way depending on context.

After discussion, a motion to approve both appeals was made and seconded. The transcript records roll votes with Mr. Oberndorfer and Ms. Kimball voting “yes”; the record indicates staff will notify the protestors of the roll‑vote results and submit the instructions to the testing vendor for regrading. “Yes, and I will let them know the results of your roll votes, and then she will grade them,” staff member Debbie said when asked who would communicate with the protest filers.

The commission then voted to move into an executive session; the transcript stops after the motion and second, and no further details or the result of that executive session motion are included in the record.

Why it matters: The commission’s action affects how the fire department’s promotional process is graded and could alter candidates’ exam standings. The panel treated the issues as questions of ambiguous exam wording and department procedure rather than substantive changes to operating policy.

What’s next: Staff will notify the protest filers and the testing vendor (Ryan Ramsey) of the roll‑call results and the vendor will regrade the affected exams. The meeting record does not show the outcome or details of the executive session that followed.