Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Craig Warriner from the Supervising Building Inspector (Building) Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-00417
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 Craig Warriner for the Supervising Building Inspector (Building) 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 Supervising Building Inspector (Building) posted on July 6, 2025 (Attachment 2). On August 3, 2025, Craig Warriner submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On October 14, 2025, Appellant Warriner 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 October 17, 2025, Appellant Warriner 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 Warriner’s appeal states in part:
“This correspondence is to formally appeal the decision to exclude me from the interview portion for the position of Supervising Building Inspector (Building). The grounds for this appeal are an erroneous interpretation of the qualification standards prescribed for this classification, as my extensive practical experience and demonstrated leadership within the City of Sacramento directly align with the duties of the role.
My qualifications are built on a strong foundation of both formal education and decades of field experience. My education includes coursework in mechanical and electrical technologies at Sacramento City College, supplemented by foundational training at McClatchy High School. Prior to joining the City, my professional career as an HVAC installer and plumber included progressive responsibility, earning me positions as both a foreman and a field supervisor where I was responsible for crew management, project oversight, and quality control.
During my dedicated career as an inspector with the City of Sacramento, I have consistently performed duties that extend beyond my official job description and fall directly within the scope of a supervisor. As a Building Inspector IV, I have actively supported the supervisory team and demonstrated my leadership capabilities by:
1. Serving as Lead Inspector on some of the City’s most complex and high-profile projects, including the Safe Credit Union Convention Center, the Safe Credit Union Performing Arts Center, and the AC Hotel.
2. Training and Mentoring Staff by developing and teaching the new-hire plumbing class and personally training all commercial plumbing and mechanical field inspectors currently on staff.
3. Performing Supervisory Administrative Tasks, including scheduling daily assignments for the inspection team and serving on the interview panel for new Building Inspector I hires.
4. Handling Escalated Customer Issues by addressing and resolving customer complaints via phone, email, and site visits when supervisors were unavailable.
My record clearly demonstrates a history of de facto supervisory responsibility, trusted leadership on critical projects, and a deep commitment to developing the skills of my colleagues. This experience has prepared me to formally step into the role of Supervising Building Inspector.
The purpose of this appeal is to respectfully request a reconsideration of my application and the opportunity to interview for the position. I am confident that in an interview setting, I can further demonstrate my suitability and readiness to serve the City of Sacramento in this leadership capacity.”
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Warriner, and they do not meet the qualification standards as stated in the job announcement. The City responds to each item raised by Appellant Warriner, respectively, as follows:
I. The minimum qualifications for the classification that Appellant Warriner applied to are as follows:
EDUCATION and EXPERIENCE
Education
Completion of the 12th grade or GED certificate.
-AND-
Experience
Two years of experience performing duties as a Building Inspector with the City of Sacramento in which one year of work included lead or supervision of technical employees.
OR
Education
Completion of 21 units of college level courses in building inspection, construction, electrical, plumbing, carpentry or mechanical architecture, design, plan permitting, code enforcement or other related areas.
-AND-
Experience
Three years of experience performing duties comparable to a Building Inspector with the City of Sacramento in another municipality or county government agency in which one year of work included lead or supervision of technical employees.
II. The City interprets and consistently applies the minimum qualifications to mean:
Completion of the 12th grade or GED certificate and two years of experience performing duties as a Building Inspector employed by the City of Sacramento in which one year of the two years of work experience included lead or supervisory oversight of technical employees performing building inspection work.
OR
Completion of 21 units of college level courses in building inspection, construction, electrical, plumbing, carpentry or mechanical architecture, design, plan permitting, code enforcement or other related areas and three years of experience performing at least 50% of the equivalent essential duties of a Building Inspector with the City of Sacramento for another municipality or county government agency in which one year of the three years of work experience included lead or supervisory oversight of technical employees.
III. Appellant Warriner’s application demonstrated they met the high school diploma education requirement and possessed two years of experience performing duties as a Building Inspector with the City of Sacramento. However, the application did not demonstrate any experience providing lead or supervision of technical employees performing building inspection work while working in the capacity of a Building Inspector at the City of Sacramento.
Additionally, Appellant Warriner’s application demonstrated 21 units of college level courses in building inspection, construction, electrical, plumbing, carpentry or mechanical architecture, design, plan permitting, code enforcement or other related areas, but did not demonstrate performing duties comparable to a Building Inspector in another municipality or county government agency. While the application did demonstrate lead work for a private organization it could not be considered as it was not in a municipality or county government agency.
IV. While the appellant did include duties relating to the lead or supervision of technical employees that are performing duties related to building inspection 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 Warriner 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 Warriner’s work experience provided in their appeal could not be accepted or considered because this information was submitted after the final filing deadline of August 03, 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.”
VI. Based on the work experience provided on the application, Appellant Warriner 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 Warriner 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 Warriner 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.
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 the information provided with Appellant Warriner’s application, Appellant Warriner 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