Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Elijah Kryvoshey from the Police Records Specialist I Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-00418
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 Elijah Kryvoshey for the Police Records Specialist I recruitment pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.11(c)(6).
End
Contact
Contact: Juanita Salazar, Personnel Analyst, (916) 808-5944, jsalazar@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 Police Records Specialist I posted on October 11, 2025 (Attachment 2). On October 13, 2025, Elijah Kryvoshey submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On November 26, 2025, Appellant Kryvoshey 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 November 27, 2025, Appellant Kryvoshey 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 Kryvoshey’s appeal states in part:
“In my job history, all three of my past work experiences placed in my profile, shows that I have dealt with multiple days of public contact with people, both in-person and telephonic contacts. Making sure that they leave satisfied and resolve whatever issue they had that day. As well as keeping in public contact with my co-workers, exchanging information that they need to know, and doing our best to keep efficiency up with our work. For the second portion of the experience, most of my days at my current work, I interact with computer systems to take care of invoices, purchase orders, and keep inventory. As well as make use of office-related software to further help my co-workers who do not have access to my department's information but need information from it. Some of this information is not fully placed in exact detail, like how I just typed it. But it is in the whole overview of the brief explanation of my work experience as a parts advisor in my profile. That is why I believe that my application was dismissed too early and wasn't properly looked at. I would like for at least a formal request to be made for more information about my work experience to me, or for a possible contact of my professional references.”
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Kryvoshey, and they do not meet the qualification standards as stated in the job announcement. The City responds to each item raised by Appellant Kryvoshey, respectively, as follows:
I. The minimum qualifications for the classification that Appellant Kryvoshey applied to are as follows:
EDUCATION and EXPERIENCE
Experience:
Six months of public contact experience involving both in-person and telephonic contacts. Experience with computer systems and office-related software programs are desirable.
II. The City interprets and consistently applies the minimum qualifications to mean at least six (6) months of experience with direct interaction with members of the public, including both in-person and telephone interactions.
Appellant Kryvoshey’s application listed current and previous experience in the Work Experience section of their application that demonstrated the required six (6) months in-person public contact experience but failed to demonstrate the six (6) months of telephonic public contact experience.
III. Appellant Kryvoshey’s request to evaluate additional work experience provided in their appeal and their request to have Human Resources contact professional references, is not consistent with the City’s established application screening procedures or Civil Service Board rules. Applications are evaluated based on the information provided in the work experience section of the application submitted before the final filing deadline. The additional information could not be accepted or considered as qualifying as it was received past the final filing deadline of October 25, 2025, 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.”
IV. In their appeal, Appellant Kryvoshey stated, “Some of this information is not fully placed in exact detail, like how I just typed it. But it is in the whole overview of the brief explanation of my work experience as a parts advisor in my profile.” It is important to clarify that Human Resources evaluates minimum qualifications solely based on the information provided in the duties area of the Work Experience section of the employment application. Experience that is not demonstrated in the duties area of the Work Experience section cannot be assumed or inferred. Additionally, position/job titles are not considered in determining whether the minimum qualifications for this position have been demonstrated. Appellant Kryvoshey affirmed their understanding of this requirement (Attachment 3):
V. Based on the work experience provided on the application, Appellant Kryvoshey 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 Kryvoshey is not eligible for further consideration as their application failed to demonstrate they met the minimum qualifications for the job posting.
“Failure to meet any of the requirements or qualifications established for the examination, as published in the announcement.”
Appellant Kryvoshey will have the ability to re-apply when this classification is recruited for again. Recruitments are conducted on an as-needed basis based on operational need.
VI. 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.
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 Kryvoshey’s application, Appellant Kryvoshey 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