Filed 7/28/17 Choi v. San Diego Civil Service Commission CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



STEVE CHOI,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SAN DIEGO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Defendant and Respondent.
D070429



(Super. Ct. No. 37-2015-00014959-
CU-WM-CTL)


APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gregory W. Pollack, Judge. Affirmed.
Shewry & Saldaña and Christopher C. Saldaña for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Mara W. Elliott, City Attorney, George F. Schaefer, Assistant City Attorney, and Michael James McGowan, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

Steve Choi is a fire engineer with the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department (Fire Department). In 2014, he took an examination for promotion to the fire captain rank. He passed all portions of the examination except for a 45-minute timed written exercise. Based on this failing grade, the City of San Diego's Personnel Department (Personnel Department) did not place Choi on the fire captain promotion list.
Choi then requested the Personnel Department to provide him with certain examination materials, including two documents relevant to this appeal: (1) a document reflecting the graders' raw evaluation of his written exercise (individualized-evaluation document); and (2) a document reflecting the objective criteria used by the graders to score the examinations (grading-criteria document). The Personnel Department denied this request. Choi appealed this decision to the San Diego Civil Service Commission (Commission), arguing (1) the Personnel Department had a legal duty to disclose the two requested documents; and (2) the timed written exercise was not "job-related" and therefore it was not a valid part of the promotion examination. After a hearing, the Commission denied Choi's appeal.
Choi then petitioned for an administrative writ of mandate and/or a peremptory writ requesting the superior court to order the Commission to permit Choi to review the requested materials, and/or to rescore the promotion examination without the written exercise portion of the examination. The superior court found Choi did not meet his burden to establish the Commission's findings were erroneous or unsupported, and entered judgment in the Commission's favor.
Choi appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Background Summary
In about October 2013, the City of San Diego (City) posted a notice for a promotional opportunity for employees to apply for a fire captain position. The notice stated the applicant would be required to take a technical-knowledge test, and if the applicant passed this test, he or she would be required to take assessment examinations, which included a "Written Exercise" examination. The notice stated: "Only those candidates who receive a passing score [on] ALL of the examination components will be placed on the eligible list."
The job announcement described the Written Exercise as follows:
"This test component will measure the ability to write reports, memos, and narratives similar to those required to be completed by a Fire Captain. Factors to be evaluated may include, but are not limited to, the ability to analyze and synthesize information, the ability to identify and interpret policies and procedures, research ability, leadership and supervisory skills, organizational skills, logical reasoning, and written communication skills, including proper grammar, word choice, sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling. Candidates should be familiar with writing requirements specified in the [City's] Correspondence Manual. A copy of the manual will be available for reference during this exercise."

The job announcement also explained that the grading scorers would be experienced and trained in rating procedures, and that each fire captain candidate would receive a feedback report on his or her examination performance.
The City contracted with CWH Research, Inc. (CWH) to conduct the fire captain testing process, including preparing and grading the Written Exercise examinations. In November 2013, the Personnel Department held a candidate orientation at which CWH's president, Christopher Hornick, discussed the Written Exercise examination and the skills that would be assessed on this examination. Choi attended this orientation (although he later claimed he did not remember the subjects discussed at the session). The candidates were given a 41-page manual describing the promotion examinations. This manual is not part of the administrative or appellate record.
About 51 employees, including Choi, applied for the fire captain position. Choi was a fire engineer and had worked for the Fire Department for about 24 years. After Choi passed the technical portion of the examination, in April 2014 he took the Written Exercise examination. On the day of the test, Choi was given a document "telling him what he would be evaluated on," including both content and writing skills, and that he should use appropriate grammar, spelling, word choice, and sentence structure.
Two months later, on about June 6, Choi was notified he did not receive a passing score on the Written Exercise and therefore his name would not be placed on the promotion-eligible list. Only two other candidates (of the 51 candidates) also scored below the necessary percent on the Written Exercise. Choi was given a "candidate feedback report," in which the graders explained their evaluation of Choi's written product. This feedback report was not part of the administrative record and is not part of the appellate record.
About three weeks later, Choi wrote a letter notifying the Personnel Department that he intended to appeal the Written Exercise result, asserting there were inconsistencies in the feedback report. To assist in his intended appeal, Choi requested: a copy of (1) his Written Exercise examination; (2) the City's grading-criteria document (the document containing the objective standards used to score each applicant's Written Exercise); and (3) the individualized-evaluation document (the document containing the graders' raw scores for Choi's Written Exercise examination).
When he did not receive a satisfactory response, Choi wrote again to the Personnel Department, detailing his concerns about his score on the Written Exercise and suggesting that based on the feedback report it appeared the graders had improperly reduced his score.
The Personnel Department referred Choi's letter to CWH, the outside testing contractor. In response, CWH sent a letter stating "[t]here is no formal appeal" based on the scores received or the feedback report and there is no right to review the scoring sheets because this would be unfair to other candidates. CHW's letter continued:
"Two well-trained assessors evaluated your performance in the Written exercise based on benchmarks and criteria specifically developed for that process. The same assessors evaluated all candidates on the same criteria . . . . Thus, it would be impossible for any other person who was not trained in the process and who did not evaluate all candidates to review your exercise meaningfully. CWH does not provide our training material or scoring criteria to anyone outside the process. . . . "

CWH also addressed each of Choi's challenges to the feedback report, and denied that the report was inconsistent or that it reflected that the graders had improperly evaluated his Written Exercise. CWH's letter concluded: "Both assessors agreed on [your] score and the feedback they provided. Although you may not agree with the feedback, please understand that the assessors tried to give you feedback so that you would have their perspective. It may not be the same as how you perceived your own performance in the exercise."
Choi then reasserted his request for a copy of (1) his written examination; (2) the grading-criteria document; and (3) the individualized-evaluation document. He argued he had a right to review these documents under the "Personnel Regulations" contained in the City's Personnel Manual (Personnel Manual). As discussed in more detail below, these regulations provide that a job candidate may review "the key for the test" within a specified time, except that "Copyrighted or standardized test materials are not available for key review." (See Personnel Manual, §§ II.A.4, II.A.5., II.B.1, italics added.) Choi additionally argued that the Written Exercise was not job related, and therefore it was not a proper examination under the City's civil service rules.
On October 15, 2014, the Personnel Department granted Choi's request for an opportunity to review his Written Exercise, which consisted of a printout of his written product without any evaluations or marks by the graders. But the Personnel Department denied Choi's request for the individualized-evaluation document and the grading-criteria document, finding they were "standardized test materials" protected from disclosure under the City's personnel regulations.
Choi filed an appeal with the Commission.
Commission Hearing
In February 2015, the Commission held a hearing on Choi's appeal. At the hearing, Choi asserted two contentions: (1) the Personnel Department violated applicable rules by refusing to allow him to view the grading-criteria and individualized-evaluation documents; and (2) the Written Exercise was an improper examination because it was not "job-related."
On the first issue, Choi and his counsel said that Choi sought to review the requested documents for two reasons: (1) to ensure that the Written Exercise was graded correctly because the feedback report did not appear to be accurate; and (2) "to see, where, if at all, he went wrong so that he doesn't do it again." Choi's counsel argued that Choi had the legal right to review these documents under the City's personnel regulations because the requested documents concerned Choi's own examination score and thus were not "standardized" examination materials.
On the job-relatedness issue, Choi presented declarations from eight San Diego fire captains, each of whom opined the timed-writing test was unrelated to the work performed by a fire captain. Seven of the declarations read:
"I do not believe, as a [San Diego Fire] Captain . . . that the written exercise bears any relation to any job criteria. [¶] . . . When we report on loss of life or property, we use pre-established forms and arson investigators write the reports. If we do have to write a report regarding an incident or issue to a Battalion Chief, an FD-7 Inter-Departmental Communications Form is utilized, department policy is that we may have until end of shift or 24 hours to draft such a report, versus the 45 minutes given for the written exercise portion of the promotional examination. [¶] . . . We likewise have extensive periods during which we may create performance evaluations, which are never produced during the time crunch manufactured by the written portion of the Captain's promotional examination. . . . [¶] . . . It is my opinion based on my experience with the Department, that the written portion of the Captain's promotional examination is not based upon anything job-related to the position of Captain within this Department."

In his own statement, Choi argued at length that the Written Exercise was unfair because the candidates had not been given any specific training on the computer used for the examination; the examination appeared to be primarily a "typing test"; he would have performed much better if he had been permitted to handwrite his answer; and the 45-minute time limitation did not appear to be related to the work required of fire captains.
In response to Choi's appeal, the City's deputy personnel director, Douglas Edwards, argued the City's civil service rules and personnel regulations do not require it to disclose the requested documents because these documents are considered protected "standardized test materials." Edwards said the requested documents contain information about specific evaluation standards, including "[w]hat constitutes a high score, an average score, or a poor score," and "[i]f we were to give this to Mr. Choi, it really would be an unfair advantage to the other people who perhaps haven't taken the test yet . . . ."
Edwards also said that Choi was given substantial information about the grading criteria and the reasons for his failing grade:
"Mr. Choi has had ample opportunity to learn what he is going to be evaluated on. On November 13th, 2013, he went to a candidate orientation where Dr. Chris Hornick provided, at length, details on what they would be assessed on. They also were given a 41-page manual on what they would be tested on. And the day of the test, on April 4th 2014, he was also given a one-page document telling him what he would be evaluated on in terms of this written assessment.

"And then on June 6th, when he received his candidate feedback, it explained very clearly why he was scored [and] how he was scored. It talked about the things that he did right and things that he could have improved [o]n. . . . It's not to explain how he necessarily got the score, but a tool for him to do better in the future."

On the issue of job relatedness, the Personnel Department presented the testimony of Fire Chief Javier Mainar, who stated in relevant part:
"A fire captain is the first supervisory level within the fire rescue department. I think like all industries, ours has become far more technically advanced over the years . . . to the extent now where many things that we used to do manually, by writing in logs or in booklets, are all done by computer.

"For example, about 87 percent of the emergency responses we go to are for medical assistance. And in all of those cases, an iPad is used to capture the information on patient care provided. And within that iPad, are free-form narrative fields that can be completed for a variety of different documentation purposes.

"On the fire engines, as you're going to an emergency call, mapping is provided on the screen over what we call a mobile data computer. Essentially, a hardened laptop that sits in the cab in each one of our apparatus. And there are entries that need to be made following fires as to what was found at the fire, small narratives there. [¶] In addition, in the fire station, there are desktop computers provided because of the extensive writing that . . . fire captains have to do to document daily activities within the fire station."

Chief Mainar also identified various other fire-captain tasks that require narrative writing, including performance reviews, missing equipment documentation, and large-emergency event reports. The Chief concluded:
"I feel very, very strongly, as does my management team, that writing competency is important. I understand that there may be individuals within the [Fire Department] who do not hold that same belief. I certainly could find a number . . . who would argue very vocally that writing skills are significant and important.

"Just to . . . put this in the context of the taxpayer . . . , these positions pay in excess of $80,000 a year. It seems reasonable to me that someone who is being paid that amount of money and given custody of three other lives of emergency responders, in charge of an $800,000 apparatus, would at least write to the level that we're judging in this particular evaluation process.

"And I would say that the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of candidates who take these exams are successful in passing them. So I do not believe that it is an artificial barrier that has been put in place."

Hornick (CWH's president) also explained the relevance of the Written Exercise to the fire captain job. He said he has worked in the field of public safety job promotions for 35 years, and that writing skills are routinely tested for comparable positions. He said the writing test assessment is standardized and that CHW has numerous controls to ensure the grading is objective, including extensive training of the graders, the use of objective grading criteria, and the requirement that two graders agree on every test score.
In response to the Commissioners' questions, the Personnel Director confirmed there were no copyright issues with respect to the requested documents because the City owns the test materials.
On the final vote, three of the four Commissioners voted to deny Choi's appeal.
Superior Court Proceedings
Choi petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate and/or a peremptory writ seeking an order directing the Commission to set aside its decision to deny (1) his request to review the grading-criteria and individual-evaluation documents; and (2) his request for a finding that the Written Exercise was "unlawful as applied to him because it was not reasonably tethered to 'job-related criteria.' "
In his briefing, Choi argued the Personnel Department had a "ministerial duty" to provide access to the testing materials, and/or the Commission's rejection of his two contentions was "not supported by the evidence" or by "competent evidence." In opposition, the Commission argued there were no applicable ministerial duties pertaining to the requested information, and the Commission did not abuse its discretion because there was substantial evidence (primarily the testimony by the Fire Chief and Hornick) supporting that the Written Exercise was job related, and that the documents sought were standardized test materials that would provide Choi with an "unfair advantage" if he had the opportunity to view them.
After a hearing, the court denied the petition and entered judgment in the Commission's favor. Choi appeals from this judgment.
DISCUSSION
I. Review Standards
Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the state's administrative mandamus provision, governs our review of this case. (Young v. City of Coronado (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 408, 418 (Young).) Under this statute, a court's review of an administrative agency's decision " 'extend[s] to the questions whether the [agency] has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the [agency] has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.' [(Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).)]" (Ibid.)
A trial court's review of an adjudicatory administrative decision is subject to two possible review standards depending on the nature of the right involved. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c).) If the administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right, the trial court must exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, and is not bound by the agency's factual findings. (Young, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 418.) However, if the administrative decision neither involves nor substantially affects a fundamental vested right, the trial court's review is limited to determining whether the administrative findings are supported by substantial evidence. (Ibid.)
In this case, the trial court applied a substantial-evidence standard in reviewing the Commission's rulings. Choi contends this was error because the Commission's decision affected his fundamental vested rights embodied in the City's civil service rules and personnel regulations providing that his promotion examination would be job related and that he would have the opportunity to review the scores on his promotional examination.
Choi forfeited his right to assert this argument because he never raised the issue in the court below. In his trial court briefs, Choi argued there was "no competent evidence" to dispute the facts he presented at the Commission hearing showing the Written Exercise was unrelated to the job, and there was "no evidence . . . presented" supporting that he would have an unfair advantage if he was given the requested materials. The Commission responded by contending the evidence supported the administrative rulings. In reply, Choi again challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, without suggesting an independent-judgment test applied. At the hearing, the trial court responded to Choi's counsel's arguments by stating the Commission's decision "was supported by the evidence. It wasn't the only conclusion that could have come from the evidence. I hear what you're saying. You bring up good points. But that's not the standard by which the Court judges the agency as it does here." Choi's counsel responded: "Understood."
On this record, Choi cannot for the first time challenge the court's application of the substantial-evidence review standard. (North Coast Business Park v. Nielsen Construction Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22, 28.) "A party is not permitted to . . . adopt a new and different theory on appeal. To permit him to do so would not only be unfair to the trial court, but manifestly unjust to the opposing litigant." (Ernst v. Searle (1933) 218 Cal. 233, 240-241; DiCola v. White Brothers Performance Products, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 666, 676.) " 'The law casts upon the party the duty of looking after his legal rights and of calling the judge's attention to any infringement of them. If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be careful to be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the test of an appeal.' " (Sommer v. Martin (1921) 55 Cal.App. 603, 610.)
Additionally, we are satisfied the court applied the correct review standard. Whether an administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right must be determined on a case-by-case basis. (Saraswati v. County of San Diego (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 917, 926.) A right is generally "deemed fundamental ' "on either or both of two bases: (1) the character and quality of its economic aspect; [or] (2) the character and quality of its human aspect." [Citation.] "The ultimate question in each case is whether the affected right is deemed to be of sufficient significance to preclude its extinction or abridgement by a body lacking judicial power. [Citation.]" ' " (Id. at pp. 926-927, italics omitted; Wences v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 305, 313-315.)
The rights at issue concern the opportunity to view certain grading evaluations and testing criteria, and the right to enforce a personnel rule that promotional examinations be job related. The San Diego Municipal Code provides the Personnel Director with discretion in applying the rules and regulations governing these rights. (San Diego Mun. Code, §§ 23.0403, 23.0405.) Choi does not have a vested fundamental right that the Personnel Department will exercise its discretion in a particular manner when administering qualifying examinations in the promotion process. Further, the Commission's challenged rulings did not substantially interfere with Choi's employment opportunities. Decisions regarding the promotional examination process do not implicate a fundamental right in the same manner as a disciplinary action, such as an employment termination or demotion decision. (See Melkonians v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1167; Jackson v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 899, 902; Valenzuela v. Board of Civil Service Comrs. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 557.) On this record, the court properly applied the substantial-evidence review standard.
When the trial court applies a substantial-evidence test on a challenge to an agency's decision, " ' "we review the administrative decision, not the superior court's decision." ' " (Young, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at pp. 419-420.) Our role is limited to "examining whether the findings support the agency's decision and whether substantial evidence supports the findings in light of the whole record." (Dore v. County of Ventura (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 320, 327.) We may not "reweigh the evidence," and we must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and indulge in all [supporting] reasonable inferences . . . ." (Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 517, 531.)
The petitioner has the burden to establish the agency's decision was invalid and that " 'there is no substantial evidence whatsoever to support the [agency's] findings . . . .' " (Young, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 419.) "[O]ur review is not designed to rectify an imprudent decision by an administrative agency. Administrative mandamus is not to be used to control the discretion of an administrative body, but only to ensure that it was not abused. . . ." (Ibid.)
II. Written Exercise Was Job Related
The San Diego Municipal Code provides: "Examinations shall be conducted under the direction of the Personnel Director. Examination content shall be based on job-related criteria and the methods used to assess requisite job skills shall be determined by the Personnel Director." (San Diego Mun. Code, § 23.0403, italics added.)
Relying on this Municipal Code section, Choi contends the Written Exercise was an improper examination because it tested skills unrelated to the fire captain job.
The record contains substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings that the Written Exercise was job related, and was an appropriate method to assess whether the candidates were qualified for the Fire Captain position. The Fire Chief explained that writing skills are essential for the fire captain job, and that the public would reasonably expect an employee who is making in excess of $80,000 and is responsible for protecting lives in emergency situations, would be able to effectively respond in writing to a question involving firefighting operations and responsibilities.
Choi does not challenge these facts, but argues there was no evidence to show a timed 45-minute examination is job related. He asserts that most of the fire captain's writing duties can be completed in a longer period and therefore a timed test did not relate to the Fire Captain's actual duties.
The argument is without merit. The record supports that a timed-writing test shows more than whether a person can prepare a written document in the same time as the test. A timed-writing test can reflect whether a job applicant knows how to budget his or her time, organize his or her thinking, synthesize facts in a time-pressure situation, use word processing equipment, and understand the need to communicate clearly and concisely. The evidence showed the two experienced graders were aware of the limited time for the test and considered this fact in grading the tests. The testing director explained that the assessors were not expecting a "sophisticated document," and were merely "looking for basic writing skills. Can you put a complete sentence together? Can you use proper spelling and punctuation? Can you convey your thoughts and do it in an organized way? And can you address the outline of what we're requesting you to write."
Further, without a time limitation on a writing test, there is no practical way to administer the same test. Choi argues that the fire captains' declarations show they generally have 24 hours to prepare required reports. However, allowing an individual 24 hours to take a writing test would convert the nature of the test to a take-home examination that would test different skills, including reading, research, and editing abilities. The Commission had a reasonable basis to conclude that a timed test would appropriately test a fire-captain applicant's ability to prepare a written product efficiently and under pressure, and that these tasks are well within the fire captain's job description.
The fact that eight current fire captains had opinions different from the Fire Chief does not mean the Commission erred. On a substantial evidence review of an agency decision, "[w]e are required to accept all evidence which supports the successful party, disregard the contrary evidence, and draw all reasonable inferences to uphold the [agency's order]. . . . [T]he testimony of a single witness, even that of a party, is sufficient to provide substantial evidence to support a finding of fact [citation]." (Doe v. Regents of University of California (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1073-1074.) The Commission had a reasonable basis to accept the opinions of the Fire Chief and the experienced testing contractor over the contrary opinions of the current fire captains.
III. No Legal Right to Requested Test Materials
Choi contends the Commission erred by refusing to order the Personnel Department to release (1) the individualized-evaluation document, and (2) the grading-criteria document.
A. Applicable Municipal Code Sections and Personnel Regulations
The San Diego Municipal Code contains civil service rules pertaining to the release of job applicant examinations. These rules provide that "When deemed appropriate by the Personnel Director, candidates may review the answer key of examinations. Objections to questions may be submitted to the Personnel Director, who may make such alterations as deemed justified." ( San Diego Mun. Code, § 23.0405, italics added.) Additionally, candidates "may review their examination papers after receiving notice of the result of the examination," but the "scoring by the examiners shall be deemed prima facie correct." (San Diego Mun. Code, §§ 23.406, 23.408(a), (b).)
The City's personnel regulations implementing these civil service rules are contained in sections A and B of the "Examination Review" portion of the City's Personnel Manual. (Capitalizations omitted.) Examination Review section A provides that candidates may review "the key for the test" within a specified time, except that "Copyrighted or standardized test materials are not available for key review." (Italics added.) Examination Review section B states:
"1. Within thirty days of receipt of final examination results, candidates may review their written test papers, test key (excluding copyrighted or standardized test materials) and examination scores.

"2. This review allows candidates the opportunity to identify their individual areas of high and low performance and to assure themselves of the accuracy of scoring and computations. Any scoring or computation errors should promptly be brought to the attention of the Personnel Department staff.

"3. Candidates who wish to discuss their written test, performance test or interview results may do so by arranging an appointment with the assigned analyst.

"4. As an opportunity to file comments or objections on exam items is provided during the key review period, no objections to exam material will be accepted at this time." (Italics added.)

B. Analysis
Although there was some question below regarding the meaning of a "test key," both parties agree that under the City's Municipal Code and personnel regulations, the Personnel Department was not required to disclose "standardized test materials." They disagree, however, whether the requested documents (the grading-criteria and individualized-evaluation documents) are "standardized test materials." We determine the Commission had a reasonable basis to conclude the requested documents were standardized test materials within the meaning of the City's rules, and therefore were not required to be disclosed.
With respect to the grading-criteria document, the record shows this document contained information that had been used, and would continue to be used, by graders on the City's writing-assessment tests, and that it would be detrimental to the City's examination process and unfair to other current and future applicants to disclose this criteria to Choi. This evidence was sufficient to support the Commission's discretionary decision that the document fell within the definition of "standardized test materials" protected from disclosure under the City's personnel regulations. (Personnel Manual, Examination Review, §§ II.A.4., II.B.1.)
With respect to the individualized-evaluation document, the record shows this document contains the standard grading criteria and the graders' application of these factors to Choi's specific Written Exercise examination. Thus, by disclosing the individualized-evaluation document, the Personnel Department would essentially be required to disclose the protected grading criteria. The City's personnel regulations allow the Personnel Department to withhold these materials, and therefore the Commission acted within its discretion in denying Choi's request.
In reaching these conclusions, we recognize that the City's personnel regulations require that job applicants be given the opportunity to review their examinations, challenge scoring errors, and obtain information pertaining to "their individual areas of high and low performance." (Personnel Manual, Examination Review, §§ II.B.2.) If the Personnel Department had provided Choi only with his written examination (with no scoring marks or evaluations), we would be concerned whether these personnel regulations were satisfied. But Choi was also given the feedback report, which provided him with detailed information about his written product, including information pertaining to Choi's "areas of high and low performance." (Ibid.) Additionally, before the examination, Choi was given substantial information about how the Written Exercise would be graded and the relevant factors in the grading process. This information was communicated in several ways, including in an orientation meeting, in the written job announcement, and on a document given to the applicants at the time of the test.
Based on the disclosure of information regarding the relevant grading criteria, the feedback report, and the opportunity to view a printout of his Written Exercise examination, Choi had all the information necessary to challenge his failing score. But he did not do so. Instead, he focused his challenge on obtaining documents containing standardized test materials. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in concluding Choi had no right to these documents, and substantial evidence supported the Commission's conclusions.
DISPOSITION
Judgment affirmed. Appellant to bear respondent's costs on appeal.


HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:




MCCONNELL, P. J.




AARON, J.