Court Opinion

ID: 9628988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:35:26.926183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:13.992249
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent upon the ground that the “group performance” test, as used in this case, is beyond the scope of competitive examinations authorized by article XYI, § 10, of the Seattle city charter, which provides, in part:
“The Commission shall by its rules provide, that whenever possible vacancies shall be filled by promotion; on the basis of service credit and standing upon written competitive examination, except where tests of manual or professional skill are necessary. ...” (Italics mine.)
I agree with that portion of the majority opinion which states
“ . . . that only when it is necessary to discover a professional skill is an oral examination permissible under the charter.”
*411Those taking part in the oral “group performance” test, under survey in this case, were graded upon voice and speech, ability to present ideas, comprehension of problems, judgment, emotional stability, self-confidence, diplomacy, and co-operation. These are intangible qualities of personality. They vary with each individual. They are no more an attribute of “professional skill” of a fireman than they are an attribute of a successful “pitch” man at a carnival. While these characteristics might well be considered by the appointive power in making appointments and promotions, they are not “professional skills” upon which a grade can be given in establishing civil service ratings.
In addition, the “group performance” test was inept and noncompetitive.
In a written examination, the grade can be reviewed without reviewing the grader or examiner. On a test of “professional skill” (oral or written), the grade can be compared with an accepted professional standard. In this “group performance” examination, however, the grade cannot be reviewed without reviewing the grader or observer, for they were instructed:
“Each man as he appears before you is measured against your ideal employee.
“Each rater [observer] should have clearly in mind what he thinks these qualities mean.” (Italics mine.)
There was no accepted norm, other than the thoughts and experiences of the examiners (which probably varied as much as the characteristics of those being observed), by which the results could be tested. The impressions, conclusions, and recommendations of the observers might be most helpful when making appointments; but they are, to my mind, outside the realm of the oral examinations authorized by the city charter.
I share the same judicial reluctance, found in many of the decided cases, to interfere with the orderly process of civil service as established by any legislative authority; but, in the instant case, I feel that the procedure adopted has *412gone beyond the charter provisions by which the system was established for the city.
The judgment should be reversed.
Grady, C. J., and Donworth, J., concur with Weaver, J.