Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Christopher Meyer from the Accounting Technician Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2025-01882
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 Christopher Meyer from the Accounting Technician Recruitment pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.11(c)(6).
End
Contact
Contact: Ambrosia Allen, Personnel Analyst, (916) 808-7065, alallen@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 an Accounting Technician recruitment posted on September 10, 2025 (Attachment 2). On September 10, 2025, Christopher Meyer submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On September 25, 2025, Appellant Meyer received a notice of disqualification (Attachment 4) stating they were not successful in the examination process.
ISSUE RAISED BY APPELLANT
On September 25, 2025, Appellant Meyer submitted an appeal response (Attachment 5) to the disqualification, and on September 26, 2025, cited Civil Service Board (CSB) Rule 1. Appellant Meyer’s appeal states in part:
“I would like to appeal the result of the examination process based on my educational qualifications. I have a conferred bachelor's degree in business administration - accounting. Attached is my transcript which shows the conference on page 2 of my transcript. All the required courses are listed on page 1 of the attached Cal Poly transcript and the attached Foothill transcript.
I would like to move forward with the appeal citing Rule 1.4 and Rule 1.5. I am requesting is to become eligible for the Accounting Technician position given that I qualify for Accountant 1/Auditor 1 positions within the City of Sacramento… Given the Accounting Technician position is entry level position, I believe that 1) I have the training required to do this job and 2) I have the experience required of this job.”
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification and evaluation standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Meyer in alignment with the standards stated in the job posting and in the administration of the examination. The City responds as follows:
I. Appellant Meyer cited Civil Service Board Rules 1.4 and 1.5 as the basis for their appeal. However, under Civil Service Board Rule 1.5, they are ineligible to appeal under Rule 1.4. Rule 1.5 states:
“Where a specific appeal process is provided in these rules, only that process shall be used. Where no specific process is provided, only the appeal process contained in Section 1.4 shall be used.”
Because Civil Service Board Rule 4.10 outlines a specific appeal process for disqualifications, that process supersedes Rule 1.4.
II. Appellant Meyer was sent notice of disqualification (Attachment 4) on September 25, 2025, in alignment with Civil Service Board Rule 4.4:
“Applicants and candidates shall be sent written notice of the acceptance or rejection of their application and the results of their examination. If rejected, the notice shall state the reason.”
The notice Appellant Meyer was sent included the grounds for appeal under Civil Service Board rule 4.10(c):
Grounds for appeal: The following are the grounds for appeal of disqualifications:
(1) Erroneous interpretation of application of qualification standards prescribed for classification; or
(2) Improper procedure in the administration of the test; or
(3) Discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, political beliefs, sex, physical handicap, marital status, pregnancy, age, or sexual orientation.
III. For clarification Appellant Meyer’s education and experience were not evaluated for minimum qualifications because the appellant was disqualified from the recruitment process for failing to achieve a passing score on the examination (Attachment 4). This disqualification is consistent with Civil Service Board (CSB) Rule 4.3(a), which states:
“The Director has the authority to disqualify applicants, candidates or eligibles consistent with the provisions of these rules. The following shall constitute grounds for disqualification of an applicant, candidate or eligible: (a) Failure to meet any of the requirements or qualifications established for the examination, as published in the announcement.”
Candidates who successfully pass the Training and Experience (T&E) examination and are ranked within the top three reachable ranks are placed on the eligible list. Their applications are then forwarded to the hiring department for further consideration. Human Resources evaluates applications for minimum qualifications only for those candidates selected by the hiring department for interview consideration.
IV. Consistent with Civil Service Board (CSB) Rules and established examination administration protocols, the Human Resources Department collaborated with subject matter experts possessing direct knowledge of the duties, requirements, and responsibilities associated with the classification to develop the examination. The examination utilized a Training and Experience (T&E) format designed to assess each applicant’s relevant training and experience in relation to the knowledge, skills, and abilities defined in the official classification specification. Furthermore, the published job announcement (Attachment 2) outlined the qualification standards and examination procedures applicable to this recruitment.
V. The minimum pass point for the examination was established during the examination development process (CSB Rule 4.9(a)):
“The Director shall set minimum qualifying ratings for each phase of the examination and shall provide that all candidates failing to achieve such rating in any phase shall be disqualified from any further participation in the examination. The Director shall set minimum qualifying ratings in accordance with the Director’s normal practices which shall be in compliance with state and federal law.”
VI. Pursuant to CSB Rule 5.3(e), due to Appellant Meyer’s failure to achieve a passing score on the examination, the City is unable to certify Appellant Meyer for placement on the eligibility list:
“Open lists. These lists consist of eligibles who have successfully competed in an examination open to any person.”
VII. 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 Appellant Meyer’s examination results, they did not obtain a passing score on the examination for this classification.
End
FinancialConsiderations
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
End
LocalBusinessEnterprise
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
End