Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bates 2011 - results, interviews, etc..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Did anyone else get notice from Bremerton about being on the eligibility list?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by nwavant View Post
      Did anyone else get notice from Bremerton about being on the eligibility list?
      Yup, but not in the top three...probably need vet points for that. Are they only taking the top three to move on?

      Comment


      • #78
        ..........
        Last edited by BC1979; 07-27-2011, 11:22 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by nwavant View Post
          Did anyone else get notice from Bremerton about being on the eligibility list?
          Yea I did. Sucks there's no band or ranking so who knows.

          Comment


          • #80
            Rule of the List

            What exactly does "Rule of the List mean"? I've tried searching South Kitsap's website for this information but can not locate anything regarding their hiring practices. I'm trying to figure out why Bates Technical College posted on their testing information pamphlet for 2011 that "Veteran's Preference will be added to the results of the written exam" yet South Kitsap invites 11 people to their initial interview (oral board), one person who did not score above an 88 and is not a veteran was invited when I know of other folks who scored higher with Vets points but were not invited? So they (S. Kitsap) must not add vets points to the written score? They (S. Kitsap) must also use "other criteria" for interview invitations? If this isn't the case then why did this person get an invite to S. Kitsap (11 people) but not Bellingham (top 30) and Bellingham clearly states they do not add vets points until the 1st interview is complete? It doesn't make sense?! According to the results listed on cob.org the top 30 scoring candidates from the Bates 2011 list scores varied from 88.71%-92.45% (two were veterans who had their points added AFTER the 1st oral board).


            I'm not accusing S. Kitsap of illegal hiring practices because the person who scored an 88ish was invited to the interview but did not move on in the process. I'm simply trying to understand how this all works and why anyone should pay $75.00 for such an unorganized, opaque hiring (or lack thereof) process offered by Bates Technical College?? Another thing. I know for a fact that I have heard from each department that is hiring off of this list based on my score on the written test and here's how it breaks down.

            South Kitsap: Hired 3
            Bellingham: Hiring 3

            that's it. Bremerton is not hiring. South King KNEW they weren't hiring based on their Prop. failing. Central Kitsap, never heard a peep. Nothing from Seatac either. Why even list 6 departments if only 2 are hiring? Why make statements about when vets points will be added if it's false? Any insight?
            Bueller....
            Last edited by hadenough; 07-27-2011, 11:30 AM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Yeah you are.
              Regardless of what Bates states, each department has their own separate hiring practices. They are just the "testing agency".

              Veterans points are indicated to be added by Bates when forwarding the list of names, but are not necessarily added immediately by each individual department based on their own criteria. As well as that they also need to be verified by receiving the candidate's DD-214 during the background phase.

              If I recall correctly, if your name is forwarded to one department, it is withheld from another until you complete that department's process. (May be confusing that with PST's testing though.) The transparency you are looking for may not necessarily always be there in black and white.

              Comment


              • #82
                No, I'm not.

                Like I said, simply looking for transparency or real answers...not the convoluted attempts by those with jobs scouring hiring forums threads from New York to Tacoma with outdated "when I was hired" information .

                ffbam24, after seeing your various antagonistic posts to numerous threads it's apparent you have quite the personality (sarcasm) and maybe spend too much time on this site? Is it frustrating when people don't know how to correctly use their, there and they're, your and you're, its and it's? yes. Is it frustrating when people throw out random "facts" they heard from their buddy in the dept. about layoffs? yes. The rest of us let it go, ignore the stupid people but YOU insist on clogging the threads with pointless banter and smart***** comments. So for some reason TODAY I feel like telling you, from my perspective, consider a firehouse forum break. Spare us your confrontational input, just for a little while!

                It's unfortunate people troll these sites with nothing better to do than suggest outdated "guesstimates" as to how the process works or the classic "at my department" (as if that's the way it's done everywhere) response. I've discovered over the past year the majority of information "needed" can be acquired from HR, the Department or real contacts. AND when you call HR they don't treat you like an impish child if you ask a question that might, to them, seem obvious or a little naive! So lookie here, I've solved my own issue! Quit posting questions on this forum when I can call HR and get real answers! Thanks man or woman (although based on a previous underlying bigoted comment regarding women and hiring posted by you my guess is you are not a woman), I knew you'd be good for something someday!

                Someone will chime in here and tell me what a ***** I am and stand up for you, because you're just trying to "help us all out" but based on your attitude and the way you come across on these threads I would say it'd be more helpful if you didn't post.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Ooooooo!
                  Feel better now? You sure did put a lot of effort into little ol' me

                  Take it all with a grain of salt dude. My perspective is unique to me and from what I experiened while I was out there. Granted it has thankfully been a few years, but a lot of my experiences are still what is happening out there.

                  In the meanwhile, the CPAT is a watered down physical agility and designed so anyone can pass it. If not, you're either horribly out of shape, not trying, or just not cut out for it.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Apply,
                    Written Test,
                    Screen,
                    Rank,
                    Eligibility List,
                    Oral Board,
                    Vet Credit,
                    Rank,
                    Certified List,
                    Chief's Interview,
                    Appoint.

                    Bates deals only with the first two items. (I like Bates because it is a cheap way to test for multiple agencies). Angencies generally like to have (or must have..... depending on their charter) a list of candidates that they can access in case they get budget to hire, or need to backfill an unexpected vacancy. So agencies do subscribe to the Bates process, even though they may not have solid plans to hire.

                    No hard and fast rule in WA on how/when Vet Credit applied.... just that it must be applied by the end of the process.

                    Rule of Three - If one is to be hired, Chief interviews three, and can pick from any of the three. If Civil Service Commission is involved the Commission certifies only three people from the eligibility list, and those are the only names given to the Chief to interview. For every additional hire, one additional name is certified and provided to the Chief. (Bremerton has Rule of Three)

                    Rule of Five - If one is to be hired, Chief interviews five. If Civil Service Commission is involved the Commission certifies five people from the eligibility list, and those are the only names given to the Chief to interview. For every additional hire, one additional name is certified and provided to the Chief. (Renton has Rule of 5..... or so their Civil Service Rules say)

                    Rule of the List - Chief gets to pick from anyone on the Eligibility list. (Apparently S.Kitasp has Rule of List; Bellingham also reserved the right to certify anyone from the top 15; Tacoma has the right to certify anyone in the top 22 Bands; Seattle has the right to certify anyone in the to couple of hundred candidates..... these are all pretty much rule of lists).

                    Banding - Multiple bands are approved as being on the Eligibility list. This allows significant discretion for the BCs, FF committees or Chief to pick candidates and choose who he/they wants to advance to OB. City of Tacoma a good example here.

                    Ranking: A top rank does not give you a better chance (in most cases) than another certified candidate who may have a ranking lower than you. When a candidate makes it to a certified list, (in most cases) ranking DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. Each candidate is starting from scratch with the Chief from the moment he enters the room for the Chief's interview. In fact, I believe there is a bias against the highest ranked candidate(s) b/c Chief suspects they have memorized the answers to the OB questions, have learned how to take the written tests, and often have the point advantage of vet credit.

                    It is troubling how a city's management can fly the flag at half mast outside city hall (like last Tuesday), but inside the building they shroud their decisions in secrecy.

                    Selective Certification - Chief can ask the Civil Service Commission to certify any specific candidate from the Eligibility list (i.e. a Paramedic, FF1, volunteer, highly trained technical rescue specialist, or his own nephew). Its up to the Civil Service Commission to act as independent third party to Certify candidates fairly and transparently (but I have never seen disclosure on Certification ..... even though it can be obtained by freedom of information act... but usually need an attorney who knows how to file for it). Spokane did this (advised all applicants in an entry level recruitment that they would Selective Certify paramedics) a few years ago.

                    BTW, Selective Certification based on race (to establish parity) was disallowed by the Wash courts several years ago, so this process has morphed into a vague and indistinct discretion usually handled in private (non-public) forums between HR and Chief. To make it public is to invite lawsuits from disenfranchised candidates. All cities pretty much have embraced the concept of parity (God Bless America).

                    Exceptions - From my experience, there appears to be rampant and many exceptions where Civil Service rules are not followed or enforced (even though the Civil Service Rules are posted on the Agency's web sites). Civil Service Commission is sometimes too close to the Chief (or too inexperienced) and gives him cart blanche on who to certify and what rules to follow and what rules they/he can ignore. Civil Service commission often has the power to instantly modify and grant exceptions to its own rules so that specific situations can be accommodated (and even though they should be publicized to candidates, they most often are not). This particular power is extremely disturbing.... because the Civil Service Commission is rarely monitored by anyone (I know for a fact that only one member of the public attended a recent Civil Service Commission meeting for a city wherein the Eligibility List was approved). Irregularities appear to be frequent, and HR/Civil Service Commission are resistant to fully disclose....... in spite of how polite they are at answering questions or e-mails. (BTW, City of Bothel has a clause in their Civil Service Rules that require that all candidates must be notified if Civil Service Rules are changed during a recruitment)

                    Applicants are mostly afraid of alienating the Chief or Agency or HR or Civil Service Commission, so they do not ask pointed or detailed questions..... HR, Chief, Civil Service Commission prefer oblique policy.... (and sometimes cast a suspicious eye on anyone who attends their meetings, which are, by their charter, open to the public).


                    No Civil Service Commission = Chief runs the department like his own business. (S.Kitsap ?)

                    ......to be continued.

                    Patience my friend. I see you are at the top in just about all the scores and OBs. Great to see a competitor so highly qualified. Just a matter of the right chemistry in a Chief's interview for you.... I've seen that you can generate the OB chemistry.

                    Stay cool. You are not the only one frustrated with the system.

                    Thanks for your continued contributions to the forum. (Better than all those blood suckers that know stuff and don't blog squat).

                    PS. Bam is in Big Apple (a little rude, but most are back there) .....former Puget Sound..... sure seems to me like he wants to get back. Sift through his comments, and you get some good info (the same goes for the entire Forum). He sifts through ours to get the scoop on local happenings. Good trade as far as I'm concerned.

                    PSS. It looks to me like a certain amount of FFs, once they pass the threshold of getting the appointment, have become junkies of the process.... and are hooked on seeing the activity/excitement/drama surrounding a recruitment, reliving their own journey/experience, and also trying to stay current with that environment so they won't waste time if they have to jump in again..... or trying to jump up to a bigger department, or better geo location. Or maybe they just want to increase their understanding of the political/HR/Operational parts of the FD. Remember, they go through similar interviews for their own promotions.

                    Whatever the reason they blog,...the benefit of their rambling accrues to those that can sift through it all and find the gems.

                    I encourage all of the wanabe's to attend a Civil Service Meeting or two. Or get an advocate to do so, if you don't feel comfortable about seeing the Chief in person. The more you get involved the less they can hide.
                    Last edited by JD2011; 08-05-2011, 01:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I wouldn't say I'm wanting to go back.
                      Love it here.
                      Department, the city, the attitude. Plus the non-PC approach that the east coast has.

                      I like to keep an eye out on the testing out there and offer up what I can. Sort of a vested interest if you will. But no. No real interest to go back.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        When does Bates announce when the test date will be and which departments are participating? Anyone have an idea?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          They usually announce right around January or so. The test is Fire Team Test (one only per year, unless they get a special district request), and is usually at end of March. You can call them to get on the mailing list. Full info on their site.

                          http://www.bates.ctc.edu/page.asp?view=20914

                          Comment

                          300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                          Collapse

                          Upper 300x250

                          Collapse

                          Taboola

                          Collapse

                          Leader

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X