403.005 Accretion

Respondent's actions establishing eligibility, pay, employe benefits and status upon accretion (§§230.28 and .35, Stats.) were upheld. Smith v. DP, 83-0001-PC, 12/22/83; appeal dismissed by Outagamie County Circuit Court, Smith v. Bellman et al., 84-CV-800, 4/2/90

403.023 Carry-over of benefits from unclassified position

An employe who served in the unclassified service for seven years retained permanent status in class from his previous classified position during this period. The definition of "permanent status in class" does not require the employe to be actually serving in a position to have the rights and privileges associated with holding permanent status in class. When the employe reinstated upon the end of his unclassified appointment, the employing agency was required to calculate his starting pay based on having held permanent status in class in the interim. Junceau v. DILHR, 92-0768-PC, 9/30/93

Decision by the respondent denying appellant the carryover of benefits accrued during employment in unclassified position to a project appointment is an abuse of discretion in that it exceeds respondent's authority under §230.27, Stats. Levy v. DP, 78-289-PC, 10/12/79

403.035 Employing unit determination

Where appellant failed to show that respondent erred in concluding, prior to the creation of 8 new employing units, that certain existing personnel practices were no longer sound, respondent's decision to change from 1 to 8 employing units for an agency was upheld. Reliance on the existence of geographically separate offices as a basis for establishing multiple employing units is contemplated by §230.30, Stats., and creation of separate employing units for district offices is consistent with the practice followed in certain other state agencies. WPEC v. DMRS, 95-0107-PC, 4/4/96; rehearing denied, 5/14/96

403.04(1) Prerequisites/announcement

Knowledge of adjudication and the Quality Performance Index as prerequisites for Unemployment Benefit Supv. 6, was job related and, therefore, no violation of §230.16(4) or (5) existed. Lambert v. DILHR & DMRS, 93-0063-PC, 8/23/93

Respondent DMRS did not violate the civil service code by refusing to give retroactive effect to appellant's attempt to amend her employment application form by adding a city for which she wished to be considered but erroneously had failed to check on the form, resulting in appellant's name not being added to a certification for the position in which she was most interested. Respondent's action was sustained on the basis of its legitimate interests in administrative efficiency, certainty and closure, in processing thousands of applications yearly. Respondent's policy of not attempting to extrapolate information from applications to attempt to determine information that may have been omitted erroneously also was upheld. Respondent had no obligation to have altered its policies because appellant was under stress from serving in a dual capacity at work, at the time she filled out the application. Moreau v. DMRS, 93-0043-PC, 8/11/93

Respondent did not violate §230.16(5), Stats., when it did not consider the applicants' resumes and cover letters in screening applicants for admission to the oral portion of the exam, where the applicants were notified that the screening was to be based upon the information provided on a "training/experience questionnaire," there was nothing inherently unfair about relying on the questionnaire and it appeared that all applicants were treated the same. Chaykowski v. DOD & DMRS, 91-0136-PC, 10/17/91

Minimum training and experience requirements do not equate with the qualifications needed to perform the job. Merely because minimum training and experience requirements must be job-related does not mean that an applicant who meets these requirements has to be deemed qualified to perform in the position in question. Stern v. DMRS, 89-0144-PC, 8/8/90

There is no requirement that the announcement set forth all of the criteria that will be considered in grading the exam. Stern v. DMRS, 89-0144-PC, 8/8/90

Section 230.16(5), which provides that a standard for proceeding to subsequent steps in the exam may be established "provided that all applicants are treated fairly and due notice has been given" was not violated where the form letter notifying the appellant of the last step in the exam process did not provide notice that certain qualifications in securities regulation law would be needed in order to pass the exam. Stern v. DMRS, 89-0144-PC, 8/8/90

Where the exam announcement very specifically advised the applicants that they would be screened based upon their application materials and those materials were identified as a letter of application and resume, the announcement clearly informed the applicants that they should put their best foot forward when filing their resume and cover letter. Allen, et al., v. DMRS, 89-0124-PC, 5/17/90; rehearing denied, 6/14/90; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Allen, et al., v. Wis Pers. Comm., 90-CV-2840, 2/28/91

Respondent had the authority to ignore the application deadline it had itself established for taking an examination. Spaith v. DMRS, 89-0089-PC, 4/19/90

Respondent violated §230.16(4), Stats., when it required either a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) or certification as an Engineer in Training (EIT) for admission to the Civil Engineer 1 transportation exam where an individual can perform engineering duties under the direct supervision of a licensed professional engineer regardless of whether he or she has been certified as an EIT and a Civil Engineer 1 does not perform any engineering duties without the direct supervision of a professional engineer. By statute, a person can become a licensed professional engineer without either a BSCE or EIT certification. The respondent's requirements would act to exclude such an engineer, notwithstanding that he or she is demonstrably qualified for such employment. Heikkinen v. DOT & DMRS, 90-0006-PC, 3/9/90

Respondent violated §230.16(l)(a), Stats., by denying appellant permission to compete in an examination, where respondent established a reasonable deadline for the filing of applications for the exam, appellant's application failed to include the job classification code and civil service title of the position in question but, as to incomplete applications filed on or before the application deadline, respondent does not enforce the deadline consistently and there was no rational basis for the inconsistency. Escalada-Coronel v. DMRS, 86-0189-PC, 11/26/86

Respondent did not violate §230.16(l)(a), Stats., requiring persons to file applications "a reasonable time prior to the proposed examination" when it prevented appellant from taking an examination which had an announced application deadline of February 28 and respondent received the appellant's examination on March 3 and respondent has a uniform policy of not processing late job applications. Marxer v. DMRS, 86-0070-PC, 8/20/86

403.04(1.5) Recruitment

Respondent did not violate §230.14(2), which only permits recruitment outside the state when there has been a determination that there is a critical shortage of residents, when the retiring incumbent for the position mailed copies of the announcement to educational institutions located out-of-state. The retiring incumbent's action could not be attributed to respondent, which neither authorized it nor was aware of it at the time. The unauthorized mailing was essentially similar to word of mouth or other informal means of communication. Smith v. DMRS, 90-0032-PC, 8/3/95; explained further in ruling on request for reconsideration, 1/5/96; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court; Smith v. Shaw et al., 90 CV 5059, 96 CV 283, 12/10/96

Individual who received appellant's telephone call, the purpose of which was to inform respondent that appellant wished to participate in a new recruitment, and who failed to properly inform her superiors of the call, was not shown to have willfully attempted to defeat, deceive or obstruct the appellant from participating in the recruitment. Therefore, §230.43(l)(a), Stats., was not violated. Nelson v. State Public Defender & DP, 79-27-PC, 11/19/81

403.04(2) Exam content, job-relatedness

Where the resume screen criteria for filling a vacancy at the Department of Public Instruction as School Administrator Consultant-Private Schools were developed so as to recognize experience and knowledge in either public or private school operations, even though the position description required knowledge in both public and private school operations, the criteria were upheld in light of the appellant's failure to establish that the criteria were not job-related. The appellant had established that an applicant experienced in only home-based educational programs would score poorly under the criteria. Taylor v. DMRS & DPI, 90-0279-PC, 9/19/91

Where the appellants failed to offer any evidence to show that the resume screen process is viewed as unreliable by persons in the field of test development and did not point to any language or principles embodied in the civil service code as requiring verification of the information on resumes, the Commission rejected the appellants' contention the resume screen process was inherently unreliable. Allen, et al., v. DMRS, 89-0124-PC, 5/17/90; rehearing denied, 6/14/90; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Allen, et al., v. Wis Pers. Comm., 90-CV-2840, 2/28/91

The respondent's decision to use a resume screen process rather than another examination alternative was upheld where the respondent offered various reasons in support of the use of the resume screen and all of the various techniques were shown to have their trade-offs. Allen, et al., v. DMRS, 89-0124-PC, 5/17/90; rehearing denied, 6/14/90; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Allen, et al., v. Wis Pers. Comm., 90-CV-2840, 2/28/91

The use of a resume screen process as part of the exam for a supervisory classification was upheld where the appellants failed to offer any expert testimony which placed into question the conclusions of validity testified to by respondent's personnel specialist and failed to call the exam raters in an effort to establish some rating impropriety. The Commission was unwilling, on the record before it, to second guess the judgment of the job experts who adopted scoring levels which were logical and were all clearly related to five evaluation criteria. Allen, et al., v. DMRS, 89-0124-PC, 5/17/90; rehearing denied, 6/14/90; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Allen, et al., v. Wis Pers. Comm., 90-CV-2840, 2/28/91

In the absence of testimony from the job experts who developed the exam scoring system and those who applied it, the scoring system used in a resume screen process was not ridiculous nor did it offend common sense, applying the standard adopted in York v. DP, 78-PC, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80.

Allen, et al., v. DMRS, 89-0124-PC, 5/17/90; rehearing denied, 6/14/90; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Allen, et al., v. Wis Pers. Comm., 90-CV-2840, 2/28/91

An exam was upheld where the exam sought information which was job-related and sought skill and knowledge relating to certain areas which were not inconsistent with the job announcement. Nash v. DNR & DMRS, 88-0117-PC, 11/18/88

Where the benchmark answers were developed by a panel of well qualified job experts and were not clearly ridiculous or offensive to common sense, they could not be found to be invalid, and it is immaterial whether they accord with the Commission's own ideas of program management. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

When a benchmark for a question was worded so that a candidate could give exactly the same answer and receive either a 6 or a 7, it was not an appropriate measuring device, but there was no indication that that aspect of the benchmark resulted in a low reliability figure for the question or adversely affected the overall exam reliability. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

In evaluating an examination to determine whether it complies with statutory requirements, the entire process must be evaluated. Minor defects in limited portions of the exam may not lead to a finding of invalidity. In this case, there was expert opinion that the exam was developed and administered in accordance with professional testing standards, and mathematical analysis established the reliability of the questions. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

Where changes in the relative weights of various parts of the exam were made by a specialist from the Division of Personnel, and there was no evidence of collusion or manipulation, but it was argued that manipulation was possible, it was held that there was no violation of §230.16, Stats. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

The exclusion of certain items from an exam was upheld where well-qualified job experts had good reasons for eliminating certain items prior to the exam and the items eliminated after the exam had been determined by statistical analysis to have been unreliable, and the exclusion of the various items contributed to the validity of the exam. It was not erroneous not to have removed from the exam booklet the items previously selected for exclusion where there were sufficient logistical reasons for not doing so and there was plenty of time allowed to complete the entire exam. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

403.04(3) Scope of competition

Respondent's refusal to enforce §230.16(2), Stats., in reliance on an attorney general's opinion calling the statute unconstitutional, had the practical effect of an administrative invalidation of a legislative act. Therefore, respondent's action of permitting an out-of-state resident to compete and be certified for a vacancy was illegal and arbitrary and, to the extent that the concept of abuse of discretion was applicable, the action also constituted an abuse of discretion. Respondent had failed to conclude that a critical need existed for employes in that specific classification or position. Smith v. DMRS, 90-0032-PC, 8/3/95; explained further in ruling on request for reconsideration, 1/5/96; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court; Smith v. Shaw et al., 90 CV 5059, 96 CV 283, 12/10/96

Where the appellant failed to show 1) that any of the factors considered by respondents in deciding to conduct an agency-wide rather than service-wide promotional competition were inappropriate under §ER-Pers 6.01, 2) that respondent's characterization of the factual situation existing at the time of the decision was inaccurate or misleading or 3) that the respondents did not reach the proper conclusions upon application of such factors to the factual situation, the respondents' action was affirmed. Augustin v. DMRS & DOC, 90-0254-PC, 10/3/91

In deciding on the scope of competition, the respondents had to exercise their discretion in the attempt to strike a balance between the general imperative of the widest possible scope of recruitment and "sound personnel management practices." There was no basis on which to conclude that the respondents' had violated the civil service code where the record merely showed that both appellants and respondents could identify significant interests that were or would have been affected by the decision as to scope of competition. It was undisputed that while the appellants were qualified candidates, opening competition to a service-wide basis, in order to have included the appellants, could be expected to result in a large increase in the number of unqualified candidates. Heldt et al. v. DOC & DMRS, 90-0092-PC, etc., 7/25/90

As indicated by §§230.14(1) and 230.19(2), Stats., the general preference of the civil service code is for the broadest possible base of recruitment to fill vacancies, consistent with "sound personnel management practices," except that promotional competition is favored where the best-qualified candidates are available within the service and it is not necessary to go outside the classified service for affirmative action purposes. The statutes indicate that competition can also be limited to agency-wide or employing unit-wide recruitment for various reasons so long as the makeup of the resultant applicant pool is representative of the state labor pool. Flottum v. DMRS, 90-0155-PC, 5/10/90

Respondent's decision to limit competition for the Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisors 2 and 3 exam was properly limited to employes of the Department of Health and Social Services, where past experience showed that the overwhelming majority of people who passed the exam came from within DHSS. One effect of the decision was to exclude the appellant who had previously worked for DHSS but was currently employed by another agency. Flottum v. DMRS, 90-0155-PC, 5/10/90

403.04(5) Sex classification in hiring

An examination was upheld where there were no significant differences in the scores of the male and female examinees and there was no statistically significant difference in the scoring of the raters on the basis of their sex and the sex of the examinees. Butler et al. v. DILHR & DER, 79-138-PC, 9/29/80

403.04(8) Exam administration and scoring

Where appellant did not dispute that the examination content was job-related nor did he dispute the standard for proceeding to subsequent steps in an examination but contended the exam results were unreliable because one of the graders had not attained permanent status in the class for which the exam was being conducted, there was insufficient evidence to shift the burden of persuasion to respondents where appellant failed to articulate what matters were unknown to the grader and how such a lack of knowledge could or did impact on the grader’s ability to objectively grade the exam. Sutton v. DOC & DMRS, 96-0155-PC, 6/4/97

Respondent's use of three general brackets, each of which had a three point range of numerical scores, and giving the exam graders discretion in deciding on the exact scores within these brackets was upheld where there was no evidence that the procedure conflicted with the requirement that respondent use "appropriate scientific techniques and procedures" in grading examinations or that there was any unreliability in the exam outcome. Smith v. DMRS, 90-0032-PC, 8/3/95; explained further in ruling on request for reconsideration, 1/5/96; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court; Smith v. Shaw et al., 90 CV 5059, 96 CV 283, 12/10/96

Even though one rater's understanding of how certain experience might be scored was in conflict with the understanding of the other raters and the respondent's personnel specialist who oversaw the exam process, the scoring was upheld where appellant failed to point out how the misunderstanding affected the scoring or the overall reliability of the exam. Smith v. DMRS, 90-0032-PC, 8/3/95; explained further in ruling on request for reconsideration, 1/5/96; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court; Smith v. Shaw et al., 90 CV 5059, 96 CV 283, 12/10/96

Where appellant alleged one part of the questionnaire was unclear but presented no evidence other than his own opinion that the exam was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the civil service code, respondent's actions were affirmed. Krueger v. DOA & DMRS, 92-0196-PC, 5/22/92

Respondent's decision to remove the appellant's name from a register was upheld where the appellant was an exam proctor, had agreed not to be a candidate for any exam for which she was a proctor and took the exam in question in the kitchen of another proctor. Anglin v. DMRS, 91-0193-PC, 5/1/92

Even though up to 37 of the 54 resumes reviewed by the second rater in a resume screen procedure included markings made by the first rater, there was still no evidence tending to support a conclusion that the second rater's independence was compromised by the markings made by the first rater where the raters had a much higher percentage of disagreement between their scores for the 37 applications with markings on them than for the 17 applications which had no markings. Allen, et al., v. DMRS, 89-0124-PC, 5/17/90; rehearing denied, 6/14/90; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Allen, et al., v. Wis Pers. Comm., 90-CV-2840, 2/28/91

Respondent's policy for providing make-up examinations was found not to be arbitrary and capricious where appellant was unable to take an examination due to a temporary illness and the sole make-up opportunity was provided three days later in one location rather than in each local examination center. Cole v. DMRS, 84-0013-PC, 4/25/84

Where the instructions for an oral exam included the statement that applicants "... will each have a total of 20 minutes to respond to our questions," this language was found not to be misleading, and the use of the word "our" did not imply that the oral board would be in control of the exam in the sense of asking the next question when it decided that it was appropriate, as opposed to when the examinee finished the preceding question. It was not illegal, given the appellants' complaints following their examination, to add additional instructions to attempt to clarify the point that they found confusing, the Commission noting that there was no statistical basis for a finding that the examinees on the third day did better than the examinees on the first two days. Zanck & Schuler v. DHSS & DP, 80-380-PC, 81-12-PC, 12/3/81

Although it was a marginal situation, it was not illegal to have used on the oral board a supervisor of one of the examinees, where the statistical analysis of the exam scores showed no evidence of a bias on the rater's past, the Commission noting the difficulty in assembling an appropriate oral board for a three day examination. Zanck & Schuler v. DHSS & DP, 80-380-PC, 81-12-PC, 12/3/81

Where there were two exam monitors for a 20 minute oral exam and one stopped the exam at the end of 20 minutes while the other allowed one or two minutes to some examinees to permit them to finish answers, and where a member of the panel gave a warning five minutes before the end of the exam to some but not all examinees, there were significantly unequal testing conditions, and this conduct constituted a violation of §230.16, Stats. Zanck & Schuler v. DHSS & DP, 80-380-PC, 81-12-PC, 12/3/81

Where a member of an oral exam panel provided non-verbal feedback in response to examinees' answers, this constituted a significant deviation from a standardized exam format and a violation of §230.16, Stats. Zanck & Schuler v. DHSS & DP, 80-380-PC, 81-12-PC, 12/3/81

The selection of raters was upheld even though each rater recognized the achievement history questionnaire of the appellant as well as other candidates, where the raters were able to evaluate the responses objectively and were selected in conformance with the staffing manual guidelines. Ring v. DP, 79-49-PC, 11/19/81

In evaluating an examination to determine whether it complies with statutory requirements, the entire process must be evaluated. Minor defects in limited portions of the exam may not lead to a finding of invalidity. In this case, there was expert opinion that the exam was developed and administered in accordance with professional testing standards, and mathematical analysis established the reliability of the questions. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

Where changes in the relative weights of various parts of the exam were made by a specialist from the Division of Personnel, and there was no evidence of collusion or manipulation, but it was argued that manipulation was possible, it was held that there was no violation of §230.16, Stats. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

Where one of the two raters failed to assign a numerical score to one of the appellant's essay questions, and the person recording the scores recorded the other rater's numerical score for this question by interpolation, this was determined not to be erroneous where mathematical analysis showed a high degree of correlation between two raters and the rater who had failed to record a numerical score had written down a comment which was consistent with the interpolated score. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

The exclusion of certain items from an exam was upheld where well-qualified job experts had good reasons for eliminating certain items prior to the exam and the items eliminated after the exam had been determined by statistical analysis to have been unreliable, and the exclusion of the various items contributed to the validity of the exam. It was not erroneous not to have removed from the exam booklet the items previously selected for exclusion where there were sufficient logistical reasons for not doing so and there was plenty of time allowed to complete the entire exam. York v. DP, 78-42-PC, 7/18/80

403.04(10) Certification (including veterans points)

A conclusion that an appointment was made outside the 60 day period referenced in §230.25(2)(b), Stats., would not result in an order voiding the certification or the appointment. Seitter v. DOT & DMRS, 94-0021-PC, 3/9/95

Multiple certifications and an appointment were neither illegal or an abuse of discretion, even though the ultimate appointment occurred more than 60 days after the initial certification as provided in §230.25(2)(b), Stats., where an initial appointment, made within the 60 day period was invalidated because the successful candidate was certified based upon receiving veterans preference points to which he was not entitled, where the appointing authority then worked with DMRS to obtain additional certifications and the appointing authority at least implicitly requested an extension of the 60 day period or a new 60 day period that was implicitly granted. DMRS did not abuse its authority when it did not order the appointing authority to make an appointment within the initial 60 day period, from the group of interested candidates who remained interested in the position, because to do so would have been inconsistent with additional time implicitly granted by DMRS and would have forced the appointing authority to forego the opportunity to have a full slate of certified candidates from which to choose. The reasoning process of DMRS which resulted in a conclusion, some time after the initial appointment was invalidated, that a vacancy had been created which required a new appointment and that a reasonable time to complete this was 60 days, was not an abuse of discretion. Seitter v. DOT & DMRS, 94-0021-PC, 3/9/95

Where the respondent failed to promulgate criteria for participating in the Handicapped Expanded Certification program as administrative rules, the failure rendered the criteria invalid as they did not fit within any of the rule-making exceptions found in §227.01(13). Schaub v. DMRS, 90-0095-PC, 10/17/91

Where the appellant, while employed as an Officer 1 in DHSS, had taken the Officer 3 competitive promotional exam in 1989 and had been placed on the resulting register, he was ineligible for promotion to a position within DOC in 1990 because DOC had been made a separate department in the interim and the appellant's position had remained as part of DHSS. DMRS's decision to remove the appellant's name from the certification list in 1990 in light of his failure to meet a preliminary requirement for appointment was upheld. Augustin v. DMRS & DOC, 90-0254-PC, 10/3/91

Respondent's action of using an Instrument Shop Supervisor employment register to certify applicants for vacant Engineering Technician 5 positions was upheld where it was consistent with the requirements of §ER-Pers 12.04(2) and there was no showing that respondent had failed to investigate the factors listed in §ER-Pers 6.01 or failed to properly analyze and balance the information obtained from this investigation. Ochalla et al. v. DMRS, 90-0011-PC, 5/31/91

Respondent violated §230.25, Stats., when it failed to certify the appellant for a specific vacancy as a consequence of a processing error. Rose v. DHSS & DMRS, 89-0035-PC, 10/25/89

The policy not to supply exam scores and rankings along with the names of the certified eligibles does not violate the civil service code, specifically §230.15(1), Stats., which refers to making appointments "only according to merit and fitness, which shall be ascertained so far as practicable by competitive examination." Thompson v. DMRS & DNR, 87-0204-PC, 4/28/89

403.07 List of eligibles (registers), including removal of names

Respondent DMRS did not violate the civil service code by refusing to give retroactive effect to appellant's attempt to amend her employment application form by adding a city for which she wished to be considered but erroneously had failed to check on the form, resulting in appellant's name not being added to a certification for the position in which she was most interested. Respondent's action was sustained on the basis of its legitimate interests in administrative efficiency, certainty and closure, in processing thousands of applications yearly. Respondent's policy of not attempting to extrapolate information from applications to attempt to determine information that may have been omitted erroneously also was upheld. Respondent had no obligation to have altered its policies because appellant was under stress from serving in a dual capacity at work, at the time she filled out the application. Moreau v. DMRS, 93-0043-PC, 8/11/93

Where safe lifting and repositioning of residents is one of the primary responsibilities of the position in question, where respondent's physicians concluded that appellant's four surgeries significantly limited appellant's ability to lift and reposition residents in a safe manner, where a physical examination is required of every candidate for the position and where other candidates with physical limitations similar to appellant's have not passed such examination, the respondents' conclusion that appellant failed to satisfy one of the preliminary requirements of the position did not violate either §230.17(1), Stats., or §ER-Pers 6.10(1), Wis. Adm. Code. Chadwick v. DMRS & DHSS, 91-0177-PC, 8/26/92

Respondent's action of removing appellant's name from the register of eligible candidates for the position of State Patrol Trooper/Inspector (Enforcement Cadet) was upheld where appellant failed to disclose 12 convictions including drunk driving, battery and theft and he suffered from a hearing loss that exceeded the previously established standard for the position. Section ER-Pers 6.10(1), Wis. Admin. Code, which allows for removal from a register for failure to meet "preliminary requirements established for the position," does not require advance notice of a preliminary requirement before it may be applied to preclude further consideration of a candidate. Hoefs v. DMRS, 91-0244-PC, 7/22/92

Respondent's decision to remove the appellant's name from a register was upheld where the appellant was an exam proctor, had agreed not to be a candidate for any exam for which she was a proctor and took the exam in question in the kitchen of another proctor. Anglin v. DMRS, 91-0193-PC, 5/1/92

Where the appellant, while employed as an Officer 1 in DHSS, had taken the Officer 3 competitive promotional exam in 1989 and had been placed on the resulting register, he was ineligible for promotion to a position within DOC in 1990 because DOC had been made a separate department in the interim and the appellant's position had remained as part of DHSS. DMRS's decision to remove the appellant's name from the certification list in 1990 in light of his failure to meet a preliminary requirement for appointment was upheld. Augustin v. DMRS & DOC, 90-0254-PC, 10/3/91

Respondent's action of using an Instrument Shop Supervisor employment register to certify applicants for vacant Engineering Technician 5 positions was upheld where it was consistent with the requirements of §ER-Pers 12.04(2) and there was no showing that respondent had failed to investigate the factors listed in §ER-Pers 6.01 or failed to properly analyze and balance the information obtained from this investigation. Ochalla et al. v. DMRS, 90-0011-PC, 5/31/91

Respondent's action of removing the appellant's name from a register was upheld where the appellant admitted that he reviewed materials that he had brought with him in his briefcase during the period after he had received a copy of the interview questions immediately prior to an oral exam and where the instructions provided to the candidates were not vague or ambiguous in prohibiting such review. The respondent was not required to show that the appellant acted with intent to practice fraud or deception. Kelley v. DMRS, 88-0151-PC, 1/31/89

Respondent was justified in removing the appellants' names from a register where the greater weight of the credible evidence supported respondent's conclusion that the appellants talked and exchanged answers during the exam Dugan & Fisher v. DMRS, 88-0043, 0044-PC, 1/13/89

In deciding whether to remove an applicant's name from an employment register, DMRS is justified in accepting as accurate the information provided by the applicant's references. Moss v. DMRS, 87-0015-PC, 10/7/87

The respondent properly removed appellant's name from an employment register where, based on information from each of appellant's references, he had been fired, did not have a positive relationship with co-workers and had poor work performance and where the appellant made false statements of material facts on his application and practiced deception in his application. Moss v. DMRS, 87-0015-PC, 10/7/87

The administrator's decision not to submit appellant's name as eligible for a vacant Accountant 4 - Supervisor position was upheld where pursuant to a prior settlement agreement, appellant's name had been placed on the transfer list for a different classification but the appellant had never requested transfer to the Accountant 4- Supervisor classification. The Commission also found there was no violation of the policy provisions of §230.01(2), Stats. Wing v. DMRS & DPI, 85-0013-PC, 9/23/87

The respondent violated §230.03(4m), Stats., when it decided to use expanded certification after comparing the proportion of minority incumbents in the ISD-1 classification to the proportion of minorities in the state population as a whole rather than to the percentage of minorities from amongst all those persons who were "qualified and available" for hire in the ISD-l classification. Respondent also violated §§230.01(2) and .03(4m), Stats., when it made a work force analysis based upon job category ("Officers and Administrators") rather than a classification (ISD-1). Therefore, the resulting decision to appoint someone whose name appeared on the list of candidates due to expanded certification was illegal. Paul v. DHSS & DMRS, 82-156-PC & 82-PC-ER-69, 6/19/86

DMRS did not constructively decertify the appellant where a DMRS employe advised an agency that if they wanted to hire a certified applicant other than the appellant, they should do so without requesting decertification due to the effort and time that would be involved. Pflugrad v. DMRS & DHSS, 83-0176-PC, 6/6/85

Respondent's decision to remove appellant's name from a register of eligible candidates for a certain classification due to an unsatisfactory work record (§Pers 6.10, Wis. Adm. Code) was upheld where appellant's record included three terminations for unsatisfactory performance from three different state agencies and a reprimand, a suspension and an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. The administrative rule does not provide for the administrator to go beyond the work record to hold a hearing to determine whether the actual facts concerning applicant's employment are as reflected in his or her record. Pflugrad v. DP, 82-207-PC, 3/17/83

The respondent's decision to extend an employment register on two occasions within three years was upheld where the action was authorized by §230.25(3), Stats., and there was no suggestion of impropriety. Pullen-Algee v. DILHR, 81-84-PC, 5/12/82

Respondent's decision to establish a new register rather than extending the existing register was justified where some of the top candidates had been eliminated from the original register due to its active use and where the original register was small enough that it could not have provided a full certification list for all of the positions that had to be filled. Nelson v. State Public Defender, 79-27-PC, 11/19/81

Reactivation of a register after six months have elapsed since its creation is a decision that is within the administrator's discretion. Reactivation was determined to have been reasonable where 1) the register had been created for two specific positions and one position remained unfilled; 2) some candidates on the register had only been competing for the unfilled position; 3) the register was large enough to complete a certification for the unfilled position; 4) the examination that had been used was still job related to an unfilled position; 5) reactivating the register was more efficient and economical. Thomas v. DILHR & DP, 80-298-PC, 10/29/81

Respondents did not violate the civil service code by establishing a new register based on a new examination and by not integrating the new register with previously created registers. Pullen v. DILHR & DP, 79-197-PC, 10/2/81