Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Reyes Ayon from the Senior Code Enforcement Officer Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-00690
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 Reyes Ayon for the Senior Code Enforcement Officer 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 Senior Code Enforcement Officer posted effective December 21, 2025 (Attachment 2). On January 3, 2026, Reyes Ayon submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On January 6, 2026, Appellant Ayon received a notice of disqualification (Attachment 4) stating they were not successful in the examination process.
ISSUE RAISED BY APPELLANT
On January 14, 2026, Appellant Ayon submitted an appeal response (Attachment 5) to the disqualification and cited Civil Service Board (CSB) Rule 4.10(c)(1): Erroneous interpretation or application of the qualification standards prescribed for the classification. Appellant Ayon’s appeal states in part:
“The Training and Experience (T&E) Examination required applicants to self-select experience duration in several core competency areas, including conflict resolution, investigative work, public communication of complex regulations, evidence-related procedures, and staff guidance. I believe my responses did not fully reflect my cumulative and overlapping experience in these areas.
My educational background includes an Associate of Arts degree in Criminal Justice and a degree in Sociology, providing formal training in law enforcement principles, regulatory compliance, investigations, evidence handling, conflict resolution, and working effectively with diverse communities...
Additionally, my experience includes applying documentation and evidence guidelines for enforcement actions and providing instruction and functional guidance to newer or lower-level staff in the course of daily operations. While these duties may not have occurred as isolated functions, they collectively demonstrate progressive responsibility consistent with the Senior Code Enforcement Officer classification.
Because the T&E examination format did not allow for explanation of cumulative or overlapping experience across multiple competency areas, I respectfully believe the application of the qualification standards may not have accurately reflected my total qualifying experience”.
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification and evaluation standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Ayon in alignment with the standards stated in the job posting and in the administration of the examination. The City responds as follows:
I. For clarification, given the rule cited by Appellant Ayon in their appeal, their education and experience were not evaluated for minimum qualifications. Appellant Ayon 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. Those 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.
II. 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 resulting Training and Experience (T&E) examination was specifically designed to evaluate each applicant’s training and experience in relation to the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) identified as most critical for successful performance in the classification, as defined in the classification specification. The published job announcement (Attachment 2) clearly outlined both the minimum qualification standards and the examination process for this recruitment.
Appellant Ayon requests reconsideration of their T&E responses based on their cumulative education, training, and professional experience. However, T&E examinations are scored using a standardized rating methodology developed in advance and applied consistently to all candidates. Responses are evaluated only against the predetermined criteria for the knowledge, skills, and abilities being tested.
The examination is not used to determine whether an applicant meets the minimum qualifications, nor does it award credit for all qualifying experience. Minimum qualifications establish baseline eligibility and are reviewed as a separate step in the process. The examination instead measures the depth and relevance of an applicant’s training and experience as it relates to the most critical KSAs. Because all candidates must be scored using the same established criteria, the examination cannot be re-scored based on a general review of cumulative qualifications.
Because Appellant Ayon did not achieve a passing score on the examination their minimum qualifications were not evaluated.
III. Consistent with Civil Service Board (CSB) rules, City practices, and exam administration protocol 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.”
IV. Pursuant to CSB Rule 5.3(e), due to Appellant Ayon’s failure to meet the qualifications established for the examination, the City is unable to certify Appellant Ayon for placement on the eligibility list:
“Open lists. These lists consist of eligibles who have successfully competed in an examination open to any person.”
V. 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 Ayon’s examination results, Appellant Ayon 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