Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Kevin Eduardo Portillo from the Tree Maintenance Worker Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-01853
End
Location
Location: Citywide
End
Recommendation
Recommendation: Pass a Motion: 1) waiving formal rules for conducting the hearing pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4(11)(c)(7): and 2) adopting the Director’s findings, determinations, and decision of disqualification in the appeal of Kevin Eduardo Portillo for the Tree Maintenance Worker Recruitment pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.11(c)(6).
End
Contact
Contact: Brenda Almanza, Personnel Analyst, (916) 808-5498, balmanza@cityofsacramento.org, Human Resources Department
End
Presenter
Presenter: None
End
Attachments
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Job Announcement
3-Applicant’s Application
4-Notice of Disqualification
5-Appeal from Applicant
End
Description/Analysis
IssueDetail
Issue Detail:
BACKGROUND
A job announcement for Tree Maintenance Worker posted on July 16, 2026 (Attachment 2). On July 16, 2026, Kevin Eduardo Portillo submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On August 27, 2026, Appellant Portillo received a notice of disqualification (Attachment 4) stating they did not pass the stated qualifications under the “Experience and Education” portion of the job announcement.
ISSUE RAISED BY APPELLANT
On August 28, 2026, Appellant Portillo submitted an appeal response (Attachment 5) to the disqualification, citing Civil Service Board (CSB) Rule 4.10(c)(1): Erroneous interpretation or application of the qualification standards prescribed for the classification. Appellant Portillo’s appeal states in part:
“My name is Kevin Portillo, and I am submitting this appeal because I believe my experience and qualifications make me a strong candidate for the Tree Maintenance Worker position.
I currently work for the City of Sacramento as a Tree Pruner II, which is a higher position than Tree Maintenance Worker. This is work I do every day, and I have about four years of professional tree work experience…
I was also ranked number 1 on the eligibility list when I applied for this position. That matters to me because my application, experience and qualifications were already reviewed before I submitted this appeal. Being ranked number 1 tells me that my experience and qualifications were recognized during the application process.
The main reason I am submitting this appeal is because I already know this work. I am currently working for the City of Sacramento as a Tree Pruner II and I have been doing tree work for about four years. I am not starting from zero or learning this job for the first time. I believe my experience gives me a strong advantage for this position…
I respectfully ask that you consider my current position, my experience and my qualifications when reviewing my appeal. I truly believe I am well qualified for this position and that I can do the job well from day one.
My application included relevant tree maintenance experience and training that I believe meet the qualifications for the Tree Maintenance Worker position. I respectfully request that the Board review my application and determine whether my disqualification was correctly applied. I would like to clarify what happened with the 'duties' section of my application. I made an honest mistake when completing that section because I relied heavily on my previous Tree Pruner II application. Those applications were very similar and I used much of the same information because the duties and experience were related. My previous application for the Tree Pruner II position a higher-level position was accepted and I currently work for the City in that role. I now understand that I should have provided more detailed information about my specific job duties in that section of my current application. I sincerely regret making this mistake, and I take responsibility for it. But I respectfully request that my actual experience and training be considered. As a remedy, pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.10(c)(1), I respectfully request that my disqualification be reconsidered, and that I be allowed to continue in the selection process and participate in the interview. Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal and for considering my request.”
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Portillo, and they do not meet the qualification standards as stated in the job announcement. The City responds to each item raised by Appellant Portillo, respectively, as follows:
I. The minimum qualifications for the classification that Appellant Portillo applied to are as follows:
Any combination equivalent to experience and education that could likely provide the required knowledge and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be:
One year of landscape or tree maintenance experience including some experience handling and applying pesticides.
II. The City interprets and consistently applies the minimum qualifications to mean:
Any combination of experience and education that demonstrates landscape or tree maintenance experience that includes some experience handling and applying pesticides. Examples of duties include but are not limited to: Plant, fertilize, spray, prune, low limb and remove trees. Inject trees and apply chemicals to plants and trees for disease, pest, and weed control. Graft and bud plants, trees, and shrubs. Water, prune, fertilize, and transplant various flowers, shrubs, and trees. The minimum qualification for this classification permits any combination of education and experience that would provide the required knowledge and abilities to be successful in the role. Meaning, applicants may meet minimum qualifications through relevant educational coursework applicable to the Tree Maintenance worker classification.
III. Appellant Portillo’s application listed “N/A” under the duties area for each listed employer of the Work Experience Section of their application indicating no applicable duties under their work experience to evaluate against the minimum qualifications for Tree Maintenance Worker. The submitted application failed to demonstrate any applicable experience in landscape or tree maintenance experience that included some experience handling and applying pesticides. Additionally, Appellant Portillo did not report completion of any units from an accredited college or university in their response to Supplemental Question #3 on their application. In the absence of qualifying education, the applicant would need to meet minimum qualifications through relevant work experience, which was not demonstrated in the duties are of the work experience section of their application.
IV. While the appellant did include duties relating to landscape and tree maintenance experience in their appeal response, the additional information could not be considered qualifying because applications are screened based on the information provided by the applicant in the duties area of the “work experience” section of the employment application. Appellant Portillo answered yes to understanding the supplemental question below on their application (Attachment 3) indicating they understood they must list current and/or past job-related experience in the duties area of the Work Experience section of their application:
Additionally, the details of Appellant Portillo’s work experience provided in their appeal could not be accepted or considered because this information was submitted after the final filling deadline of July 30, 2026, in alignment with Civil Service Board Rule 4.2 which states in part:
“Applicants for examinations must meet the qualification standards for the
classification by the date set forth in the announcement.”
Therefore, the additional work experience information provided in their appeal
response could not be considered when determining whether Appellant Portillo met the minimum qualification for this position.
V. In their appeal, Appellant Portillo states, “I was also ranked number 1 on the
eligibility list when I applied for this position. That matters to me because my application, experience and qualifications were already reviewed before I submitted this appeal. Being ranked number 1 tells me that my experience and qualifications were recognized during the application process.” To clarify, the ranking reference by Appellant Portillo is determined by the Training and Experience examination, which consists of questions located at the end of the application. Responses to the Training and Experience questions are rated and scored, and those scores determine the applicant’s rank on the eligible list. The ranking itself does not represent a review or determination that the information provided in the Work Experience section of the application met the minimum qualifications for the position.
As indicated in the Screening Committee section of the Selection Procedure, all candidates who pass the examination and are placed in one of the top three ranks will have their applications forwarded to the hiring department for review. The hiring department will select the most competitive applications for further consideration. Human Resources will evaluate applications for the minimum qualifications, as stated in the job announcement, only after an application has been selected by the hiring department. During this review, it was determined that Appellant Portillo’s submitted application did not demonstrate that the minimum qualifications were met based on the information provided in the duties section of the application.
VI. Additionally, in their appeal, Appellant Portillo stated, “I would like to clarify what
happened with the 'duties' section of my application. I made an honest mistake when completing that section because I relied heavily on my previous Tree Pruner II application. Those applications were very similar, and I used much of the same information because the duties and experience were related. My previous application for the Tree Pruner II position a higher-level position was accepted, and I currently work for the City in that role.” It is important to clarify that Human Resources evaluates minimum qualifications independently from other submitted applications. Minimum qualifications are reviewed solely based on the information provided in the duties area of the Work Experience section of the applicant’s application. Additionally, position/job titles are not considered in determining eligibility for meeting the minimum qualifications and therefore could not meet qualification based on holding a current higher-level position within the City of Sacramento. Appellant Portillo confirmed their understanding of this requirement by selecting yes to Supplemental question #1 (Attachement 3).
VII. Based on the work experience provided on the application, Appellant Portillo failed to demonstrate they met the minimum qualifications for the classification. As stated in the job announcement, and in alignment with Civil Service Board Rule 4.3 (a), Appellant Portillo is not eligible for further consideration as their application failed to demonstrate they met the minimum qualifications for the job announcement.
“Failure to meet any of the requirements or qualifications established for the examination, as published in the announcement.”
Appellant Portillo will have the ability to re-apply when this classification is recruited for again. Recruitments are conducted on an as-needed basis based on Department needs.
VIII. The same evaluation standards prescribed for the classification were applied to all applicants.
As such, the Director of Human Resources recommends that the Board adopt
the Director’s findings, determination, and decision of disqualification pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.11(c)(6).
End
PolicyConsiderations
Policy Considerations: Civil Service Board Rule 4.3 Disqualification (a) Failure to meet any of the requirements or qualifications established for the examination, as published in the announcement. Appeals for disqualification shall be heard by the Board unless the Board requests and receives permission from the City Council to utilize the services of a hearing officer. (Civil Service Board Rule 4.11). When the Board hears the appeal itself, the Board may waive the formal rules of procedure in the interest of justice in individual cases and may adopt its own findings, determinations, and decision for adoption and incorporation into the official Board minutes. (Civil Service Board Rules 4.11(c)(6) and (c)(7)).
End
EconomicImpacts
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
End
EnvironmentalConsiderations
Environmental Considerations: The recommendation does not constitute a “project” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines as the recommendation is a continuing administrative or maintenance activity and an organizational or administrative activity of the City that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5)).
End
Sustainability
Sustainability: Not applicable.
End
Commission/Committee Action
Commission/Committee Action: None.
End
RationaleforRecommendation
Rationale for Recommendation: The City strives to ensure the qualification and evaluation standards prescribed for recruitment processes and practices are correctly and consistently applied to all applicants. Based on the information provided with Appellant Portillo’s application, Appellant Portillo did not meet the qualification standards as stated in the job announcement for this position.
End
FinancialConsiderations
Financial Considerations: Not applicable
End
LocalBusinessEnterprise
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
End