 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
A LIST WITHOUT MEANING: By H. DAVID ROGERS, Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle, Crystal Lake, IL Query: When is an eligibility list for police and fire applicants meaningless? Answer: When drawn pursuant to Public Act 88-440. Effective August 20, 1993, the legislature amended the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/10-2.1-9) and the Fire Protection District Act (70 ILCS 705/16.07) to require that certified firefighters II and III and paramedics be granted preference points. These credits are awarded after the eligibility list is posted. Unfortunately, the statute is unclear whether the maximum credits awardable are five points or ten points and whether these preference points are in addition to the five preference points awarded to fire and police cadets and veterans pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/10-2.1 and 9. Also, the two statutes (65 ILCS 5/10-2.1-9(b) and 70 ILCS 705/1607(b)) have several subtle inconsistencies which, although apparently meaningless, cause one to wonder as to the differences. For example, if you use a point scale based upon other than 100 points in 65 ILCS 5/10-2.1-9(b), you divide the total point scale by 100. However, in 70 ILCS 705/1607(b). you multiply by .01. A distinction without a difference of course. Nevertheless, why do statutes drafted simultaneously read differently? Confusing matters further, both statutes provide that "A candidate may not receive preference points under this subsection if the amount of points awarded would place the candidate before a veteran on the eligibility list." (65 ILCS 5/10-2-9(b) and 70 ILCS 705/1607(b)) However, neither statute specifies how many preference points are awarded in such cases. Does the applicant lose all preference points or just enough to bring him/her one point below the veteran? Consequently, final eligibility lists cannot be organized in descending order according to score, as preference points are counted in comparing some applicants but not others (i.e., veterans). Considerable care will need to be exercised in preparing your next eligibility list. As before this amendment, because of veteran preferences, your initial list should note that it is preliminary and subject to change based upon the addition of these new preference points. When you prepare the final list, you must first prepare the list in descending order based upon total score, including all preference points. Then you must rearrange the list "leapfrogging" the veterans over applicants appearing above them on the list based solely on preference points. However, the veteran cannot "leapfrog" applicants with higher raw scores. In short, there will be instances where a descending order eligibility list will be impossible to create. For example, suppose three applicants have the following scores: Applicant
Applicant #2 has the highest score, but cannot be chosen over Applicant #1, the veteran. However, Applicant #3 must be chosen over Applicant #1 based on score, but cannot be chosen over Applicant #2 who is allowed his preference points as compared to Applicant #3, but not as compared to Applicant #1. The statute creates an insolvable puzzle where no applicant is preferred over another. Home Rule communities would be well advised to pass their own "preference point" ordinance which resolves the ambiguity in the state statute. Non-Home Rule Communities appear to have little recourse but to make the best of a bad situation. • July 1994 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 17 |
|
|