THE CHIEF-LEADER welcomes letters from its readers for publication.
Correspondents must include their names, addresses and
phone numbers. Letters should be submitted with the understanding
that all correspondence is subject to the editorial judgment of this
newspaper. Letters can be e-mailed to: RSTEIER@RCN.COM or
mailed to: Richard Steier, Editor, 277 Broadway, Suite 1506, NY, NY
10007.

Letters to the Editor: Watered-Down Fire Standards

Letters to the Editor
Watered-Down Fire Standards

To the Editor:

I am compelled to respectfully disagree with FDNY Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta's assertion that nothing in the proposed written or physical exams will dilute the qualifications to become a firefighter.

While the components of the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT) may be valid, the fact that it will be graded on a pass/fail basis instead of a competitive one is a dramatic reduction in standards.

Even if Candidate A finishes the test two minutes faster than Candidate B, they are considered to have performed equally. In addition, test-takers will get three shots at passing this test as opposed to the longstanding and superior practice of just getting one shot. The three shots are cleverly concealed, so much so that most firefighters I speak to don't realize this fact. Here's how the scam works: candidates are allowed two orientation or practice runs on the test course. After this they get an additional two timed trials within 30 days of the actual test, but if they pass either of the timed trials, that trial counts as the real test and they are in.

What about the written? Well, Commissioner Scoppetta has greater access to facts than I do, but the last I read, no details of the written test had yet been released. Different groups have been applying pressure behind the scenes to affect the details of both the physical and written test ( I refer to this activity as "dueling protected classes"), so the written could take a very interesting form. Since the Justice Department is involved, let's take a look at a recent civil service written test given in our area which it supervised.

The 1996 Suffolk County Police Department exam was such a mess that no one could (or would) even explain how it was scored. The cognitive portion (which most people would recognize as a valid, objective test) accounted for only 25 percent of the final score.

The other 75 percent was comprised of a Personality Profile Portion which was very subjective, as it took into account a candidate's background, beliefs and interests. Examples of these types of biographical data ("biodata") questions included, "What age did you learn to swim?" and a question that was given greater weight if a candidate only had two years of college versus a bachelor's or even a master's degree.

There was no answer key for these biodata questions, no challenges were allowed (in violation of state civil service law) and, incredibly, not all of these questions were used to formulate the final score. What formula was used to arrive at a final score? You guessed it: there was none!

I hope and pray that the Justice Department has been infused with more common sense in the intervening years and we don't see a test like that. But, as I've learned over my civil service career, common sense and logic take a back seat when protected classes claim discrimination.

PAUL D. MANNIX, Battalion Chief, FDNY