Untitled Document
The city of Springfield faces another lawsuit, this
one challenging its methodology for promoting firefighters. Springfield
firefighter Mark Dyment, who is on the current promotional list for
battalion chiefs, filed suit in Sangamon County Circuit Court in August
seeking “judicial review” of the Springfield Civil Service
Commission’s refusal to award him “veterans preference
points.”
Both the city and its Civil Service Commission are
named as defendants. Dyment, a 44-year-old captain who joined the
Springfield Fire Department in 1989, currently ranks seventh on the list
— high enough that he is likely to receive a promotion with or
without veterans preference points. However, Dyment says he’s pushing
for a ruling not just for himself but also for the ever-growing number of firefighters and
law-enforcement personnel who will contend with this same issue in the near
future. “They keep telling me I’m gonna make
battalion chief whether I get this or not, but that’s not the
point,” Dyment says. “There’s 70 guys behind me who are
going to have the same deal.”
When Dyment began the testing process for promotion,
he didn’t foresee any problem with his veterans points. Like the
other candidates for the rank of battalion chief, he participated in an
oral exam known as an “assessment center” in March and took a
written test in May. The scores of these two exams were then run through a
series of calculations involving means and medians and weighted to give the
written test 65 percent of the total score and the assessment center 35
percent. Candidates’ scores were further tweaked to reflect seniority
and — where applicable — veterans points.
Early in this months-long process, Dyment noticed that
his written score had been miscalculated and that he was ranked higher than
his rightful place. He immediately notified city officials of the error and
insisted on having his name bumped down from fifth place to seventh. He had
two reasons for making this correction: “Right’s right and
wrong’s wrong,” he says bluntly, “plus I didn’t
think it was any big deal because I knew when I got my veterans points I
would move back up to number four.”
In 1983, Dyment joined the Air National Guard and was
subsequently sent to Keesler Air Force Base, in Biloxi, Miss., for 14
months of training as an electronic warfare systems specialist, according
to his military discharge form, called a DD-214. Yet when he submitted this
document, city officials said he didn’t qualify for veterans points.
Frank Martinez, the assistant corporation counsel who
handles employment issues, cited a federal code that defines “active
duty” in such a way as to exclude National Guard (and Air National
Guard) service. However, the same code Martinez cited defines “active
service” to specifically include National Guard duty. Furthermore, in
2006 the city adopted a state code that broadens eligibility for veterans
points to anyone who spent at least a year in “active military or
naval service” and earned an honorable discharge.
Dyment then filed a protest with the Civil Service
Commission, which heard his case during its regular August meeting. Greg
Akers, the vice chair who presided over that meeting, declined to talk to a
reporter,
saying Dyment’s case is a personnel matter. An e-mail
sent to the city’s director of communications, Ernie Slottag, brought
the same response. However, one member of the Civil Service Commission
says such conflicts about veterans points have been a constant source of
debate on the panel. Commissioner and attorney Kent Gray, who did not
attend the August meeting, says he can’t speak to Dyment’s case
in particular but questions the legal argument put forth by city officials.
“I have a difference of opinion with the Davlin
administration,” Gray says. “I don’t know why they
wouldn’t err on the side of giving veterans preference points to
people who have served this country.”
Contact Dusty Rhodes at drhodes@illinoistimes.com.
This article appears in Sep 27 – Oct 3, 2007.
