Chair staff is ready to floor.

All right.

Um good afternoon.

Welcome to the Monday uh March 16th, 2026, 1 p.m.

meeting of the civil service board.

The meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the role to establish quorum?

Thank you, Chair members.

Please unmute for roll call.

Member Bird?

Here.

Member Gonzalez Soto.

Here.

Member Miola?

Here.

Member Stein?

Here.

And Chair and Manfur.

Here.

Thank you.

We have quorum.

Okay.

I would like to remind members of the public and chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip before the item begins.

After the item is called, we will no longer accept speakers' slips.

You will have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise if you are able to for the opening acknowledgement in honor of the Sacramento Indigenous people and tribal lands.

So the original people of this land, the Nissanan people, the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Miwok, Patwin, Winton peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgments and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Now the land acknowledgement with phonetics balance.

Apologies, it's been rewritten.

Apologies.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Next is the approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

We do not have any speakers on this item.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

That hearing any.

Second.

Move by board member Byrd and second by oh my gosh.

Miola.

Second by board member Miola.

Um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any upstay.

The motion passes with the with the opposition from Commissioner.

No opposition.

No opposition, yeah.

Okay.

Motion passes.

What's this?

Okay.

And now we will now introduce the new commissioner.

Um, who is gonna be a new commissioner here?

I believe Alina Monique Gonzalez Soto.

Pleasure, pleasure, please.

Hi, nice to meet you.

Um, thank you for the welcome, and I look forward to serving with all of you.

Wonderful welcome.

Um we can't ask any questions, yeah, or anything else like that.

But if you have anything you want to share, please feel free to share that now.

Um, and I think we'll now move on to proceed to the discussion calendar.

So we will go to item number one.

I'm sorry, item number two.

Appeal of the disqualification of Wendy Guerrero from the customer service specialist revenue services recruitment.

Is there a staff?

Did we have a process in regards to staff presentations?

Is there a staff presentation?

I thought that we said that we would only request it right.

There's no need to request that.

Okay.

Council, is there clarification on if there's a presentation or if they wave it or how that works?

Um can I can I add in?

Um so I think we we called to see if the appellant is here, and if the appellant is not here, then we agreed to waive the staff presentation and then move forward with any questions or comments.

Thank you.

So I guess we'll go with that order.

Is the appellant here?

Oh, they are here.

And so I believe we may have some staff presentation then.

May we have a staff presentation?

Probably we're not in the apologies.

Uh we had mentioned previously that we would not be doing presentations unless the board explicitly requested one.

Is that something you would like us to do?

So our our process, and I'm sorry to jump in the chair.

Uh our process was absolutely to have a staff presentation if the appellant was present.

The only time we were gonna waive staff presentation, and again, I missed the last meeting, but we were gonna waive staff presentation only when the appellant is not present.

Um I do think it's important to have staff presentation when the appellant is here personally.

So I second that we had uh or I I agree that we had said that.

However, I'm fine in this case to just hear from the appellant, and then if staff wants to respond, I'm fine with that.

Okay, I don't know that we received confirmation that the appellant was attending in advance, so we didn't have an opportunity to prepare the presentation.

I mean, we have the documents, so you know I'd like to hear from the appellant.

That was good.

Uh no problem.

Uh, we may hear from the appellant, I think moving forward, we will discuss and reconsider possibly having the presentation ready.

Um, regardless of the appellate being present.

Um, but then you know it being presented will be based on the appellate actually being physically here.

All right, may the appellant please step up.

Is there a time?

No.

Okay.

Hey, sorry, I have a voice right now, but um I don't just cannot hear you that well.

Oh, leave the mic a little closer to you.

Thank you.

Okay, I wasn't prepared for this either.

I thought I was just sitting and listening.

Okay.

It's up to your discretion whether you want to address it or not.

I mean, I do.

I I I submitted my um letters.

Um to appeal the uh decision that my application was revoked.

Um I also because I received notification that it was it was accepted and then um then denied I have questions board member bird.

So maybe we can just summarize.

I think from the materials that we received, it's the case.

Is it the case that the appellant did not pass the exam portion, so therefore her education was not taken into consideration and experience?

Is that the case?

Um the appellant was disqualified for their minimum qualifications, so this is not the instance where they did not.

Oh, it was the minimum qualifications.

The examination, correct?

Okay.

Number can and I know that you're not prepared, but um, can you maybe just summarize again?

Because I did read this yesterday, and I'm just want you to summarize again what you feel that she failed to present in her application that doesn't qualify her with her qualifications.

Okay, um, I wanted to speak to the appellants um comment regarding their application was accepted and then denied.

So the appellant's application was received, and they received a passing score on the examination, which is the first part.

So they received a qualification notice letting them know that they passed the examination and their placement uh of their rank, and then from that point, the application was reviewed for minimum qualifications, and the application did not meet the standards of the classification uh requirements.

And then she gave you supplemental material after the fact.

Was that the case?

In in their appeal, um, they had referenced that their resume.

Okay, that's what it was, right?

And then give me just a second.

Let me clarify.

Um so there was there was an additional step as well.

So there was a disqualification for CalPers.

So we have a requirement at the beginning of the process.

There's a question in the application that um states like are you a CalPers retired or new attendant?

There's additional steps in that process.

So that was part of the confusion with this particular application.

So our process is to deny an application if they're receiving uh retirement benefits.

Um question is sometimes answered in error.

We receive that error notification back from the appellant.

We then forwarded move the application forward in the process.

So I'm hoping that clarifies a little bit on that part of the process.

That was for a previous application that I did for another employment.

So, ma'am, um, Ms.

Guerrero, are you receiving um benefits from Calcutta?

I'm not retired.

Yeah.

When I applied for another position at another time, that question was actually accidentally marked that I was retired, and I made that correction, but that wasn't for this application.

So somehow there was incorrect information in your file.

That that application was that was um an application that I applied for code enforcement.

That that question was um answered incorrectly.

It wasn't for this for this application.

And so then do um is it do you understand that the um when you did provide your qualifications, your education and your employment experience that you had to list that out specifically in the application as opposed to just simply provide a resume?

There was two emails that were sent to me.

Maybe that's where they're confusing it from.

One of the emails was because I was cohabitating with an employee that's a city employee.

That city employee does not work in my department.

I put that on the application that that city employee was with a different department, but I didn't name him.

But I when I re-when I contested that I um included his name along with my sister-in-law's name because my sister-in-law is also a um employee with the city.

But because I didn't name him, that was one of the reasons why that came back.

And then soon shortly after I submitted that, I got another email saying that I didn't qualify.

Okay, understand.

And I'm just asking on the qualifications point.

Um it's uh I'm I'm familiar with the application, which says specifically that you have to not only do you supply a resume, but then you again repeat the qualifications from your resume into the actual form of the application.

Yes.

And is I I uh it appears that in this case that did not happen where you you had your qualifications on your resume, but you didn't actually uh enumerate them on the application.

And if that's the case, that is the standard by which the department um can disqualify somebody because your application isn't complete.

Am I am I being correct on this?

And so I think that is the issue that we're that's before us today related to your application not being complete or not fully um stating all of your requirements in the correct place, even though it's it's maybe seem a little like picky, but that's kind of the way that the process does work.

Um so anyway, I don't know if the staff wants to respond to that, but I I feel like that was where we were headed with this.

Did other people have that sense?

Yes, you're correct.

Uh it has to be stated in the work experience section of the application.

Uh, and the minimum requirements for this classification was two years of progressively responsible journey level experience performing customer service work, responding to customer complaints and inquiries in a public service operation.

Um, and so that would have needed to be demonstrated in the application.

Um, and that journey level experience um we detailed that more in the report as well, if you've already risked uh reviewed it.

Um but the information included in the application was transactional in nature and did not demonstrate the full range of customer service duties.

Okay.

We have comments from board member Gonzalez Oro.

Soto Hi, I have a question.

I noticed on your application you did uh have a title of CSR.

Is that customer service representative?

Yes.

And was that like for the city or county?

For the city.

I've I've been with the city for almost 30 years.

Okay, my next question is for staff.

Um if someone holds a classification or position title that's comparable, does that not count as experience?

We have to evaluate what's in the work experience section of the application, so we can't just base it on the job titles.

Even though it's a city position.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh just for clarity, uh, the city screens over 55,000 applicants.

Not screens, but we review over 55,000 applications annually.

So we have to apply the same standard criteria to all applicants.

So we don't have the ability to look up every individual employee, even if they're an existing city employee to determine what their actual uh job classification is, and we do not screen based on titles because I'm sure you could imagine a supervisor at a McDonald's may not be the same level of a supervisor at the city of Sacramento.

So just because they have a title doesn't necessarily mean it's equivalent or something that we can be used across the board.

Yeah, but it was a title that's from the city of Sacramento, it's not like from another agency.

So I just thought the duties would be like comparable as well.

I I understand.

I absolutely understand what you're saying.

However, it's the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate in the work experience section of their application how they qualify for the job, and that's included as a certification question in the application as well.

So we advise them that that is a requirement in order to be considered for minimum qualifications.

All right, okay, thank you.

Comment from Member Stein.

I have a question for staff.

Does this error and confusion from this instance prohibit the appellant from applying in the future?

No, they can apply at any point.

Thank you.

Are there any additional comments?

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

No, there are no speakers on this item.

Thank you.

Is there a motion and a second?

Oh, sorry.

Yes, I move that we waive formal rules for conducting the hearing pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 411 C 7 and adopt the director's findings and determinations and decision of disqualification in the appeal of Wendy Guerrero for the customer service specialist revenue services recruitment pursuant to civil service board rule 4.11 or 4.11 C six.

And the second need a second.

I'll second.

All right, so we have a motion by Commissioner Miola as second by Commissioner Byrd.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed any abstain?

I I'm abstaining.

Oh, we have two obsessions.

To abstain?

Clerk?

Um are we with this?

Is it enough to pass?

Commissioner Manfort, I don't know if you voted.

If you voted in the positive, then it is enough to pass.

Uh that is true.

I forgot about that.

Okay.

Uh apologies.

Um I vote aye.

Yes.

It's adopted.

Thank you, Chair.

So yes, this motion passed with two abstentions from member Gonzalez Soto and Member Stein.

Thank you.

All right.

Now we'll now proceed uh to agenda item number three.

Did I have to did I have to repeat the motion in summary or no?

You've already done it right.

No, I did.

Okay, perfect.

All right, so we're gonna move to agenda item number three, appeal of disqualification of Reyes Ayon from the senior code enforcement officers recruitment.

Um is there uh hearing that we didn't have a staff presentation, I would only assume that maybe or they may not be.

But um is the appellant here.

No.

All right, so we can waive the staff presentation.

Um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

There are no speakers on this item.

Thank you.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

All right, hearing none.

Uh we'll move on to um either hearing if there's a motion or a second.

All right, Mr.

Chair, can we just put into the record whether or not the appellant was in fact informed of this hearing?

Yes, to go on the record, the appellant was not.

Oh, was the appellant informed of this hearing?

Yes, the appellant was informed via email March 11, 2026.

Thank you.

All right, um, is there a motion and a second?

Um sorry, can I just uh jump in here for a moment?

So are in our packet, yes, the appellant was informed, but they were informed on January 20th, 2026 that the hearing would be today, March 16th.

There's no further update.

Um updated appeal in the packet that we received.

Was there a subsequent motion or email that was sent out on March 11th, 2026?

Yes, when the agenda was released, I emailed them individually, letting them know that the meeting will be held and their um appeal would be on the calendar for them to either either want to speak on their behalf.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying that.

So just to rehash that, we just wanted to confirm that the appellant had a subsequent follow-up um outreach in regards to this, and you just confirmed it.

So I think are we in a place to be able to move on to a motion and second commissioners?

Do I hear a motion and a second?

Yes.

Uh I move that we weigh formal rules for conducting the hearing pursuant to civil service board rule 411 C7 and adopt the director's findings, determination and decision of disqualification in the appeal of Reyes Anon for the senior code enforcement officer recruitment pursuant to civil service board rule 4.11 C6.

And is there a second?

A second.

Thank you.

So we have a motion.

Uh motion by commission commissioner Miola, uh seconded by Commissioner Stein.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstain?

I also am in motion in uh in support.

So the motion passes with the opposition from no the motion passes.

Um should I reread the clerk?

Can you I have to reread it?

Yeah, just um that the motion passes.

Unanimously.

Unanimously.

Okay, so the motion passes unanimously.

Um and now we will adjourn to closed session.

And Beth, can I please get 30 seconds to restart the video stream?

Chair staff is ready when you are.

Thank you.

Um we're now returning back to open session.

Um I will now read the verdict uh from our closed session.

Um and so in pursuant to government code section 54957.1A5 and civil service board rule 12.10 D1.

The board in a vote of four to zero uh vote with one abstention, passed a motion to set aside its prior decision and reconsider the case in the light of the post-determination letter.

Second vote was by a vote of four to zero with one abstention.

Passed the motion denying appellants request to augment the record to consider the brief that were filed by both parties to the superior court, and the third vote was uh by a vote of three to one vote with one abstention, passed the motion adopting the arbitrator's proposed decision in a disciplinary case of a police officer.

No, are there the minutes should reflect who voted which way?

Um, but board counsel does have that information.

I have the information, thank you.

I mean we can sorry.

Then the um the minutes need to reflect how each board member voted, but I don't think that there's any need to identify specifically right now.

Um board council does have that information.

Thank you.

All right.

Um do we have any can we do public comments?

Do the public comments for this.

Um thank you, Chair.

There are no speakers on this item.

Okay, now we can move on to the last item.

I don't think there's anything else on the agenda item.

Um we have any member comments, ideas, and questions.

Yes, recognizing I had one comment for staff.

If we could, we just wanted to make sure we got things in a timely manner, and that when board requests additional information that it was it be sent to them.

Thank you.

Any additional comments from board members?

Are there any public comments?

Matt is not on the agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

There are no speakers for not on the agenda.

All right.

I don't believe our meeting can be adjourned.