Meeting Minutes Friday April 10, 2026
MINUTES for the
GENERAL SESSION OF
THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN CIVIL SERVICE BOARD GOVERNING THE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION OF POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS
Board Members in Attendance:
John Stribula, Chairman
Maria Brace, Board Member
Walter Felton, Secretary
Daniel Blount, Alternate Member
Board Members Absent:
Yuvette Hailey , Alternate Member
Staff in Attendance:
Joshua Mazin, Solicitor CSB
Luiz Garcia, APD
Madison Schettig, APD
Philip Shedaker, APD
Adam Rosenthal, Deputy Solicitor
Christopher Matthews, FOP
Hiba Khouri, HR Generalist
Stella Oakman, HR Generalist
Call to Order
Chairman John Stribula called the meeting to order at 9:13 a.m. All present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Stribula then asked everyone to remain standing for a moment of silence to honor fallen PA State Trooper Timothy O’Connor.
Stribula also noted for the record that the Board met on March 20th and March 27th to review and discuss the existing rules in addition to personnel matters.
Roll Call
Roll call was conducted. Quorum was established.
Reading of the Minutes:
Stribula noted the minutes from the March 20th and March 27th meetings were not available, but the minutes from the March 10th meeting had been presented for approval.
MOTION: Walter Felton moved that the March 6th minutes be approved as presented. Maria Brace seconded. Motion passed 3-0, with Daniel Blount voting in the affirmative.
Old Business
• Update on rule changes: Stribula again stated the Board met twice - on March 20th and March 27th to review the existing rules and recommend changes. He noted that typically in the past, rule changes would be submitted by the departments (Police and Fire), reviewed by the Board and then submitted to City Council for approval. However, due to the various versions of the rules, the Board has taken on this task. The recommended changes will be submitted to the departments for clarification as needed and review. Then will go to City Council.
o Stribula noted that neither department was present at the meetings. He stated that input from the departments would be beneficial as the Board goes through drafting the updates.
• Sergeant Candidate letter: Detective Luiz Garcia presented his statement of concern regarding the recent Sergeant testing and the overall scoring. He made it clear that he was not contesting his score, but the fairness of the scoring structure
o Currently, the written exam accounts for 705 of the final score and the oral exam is 30%. However, if a candidate scores below 70% on the oral exam, it is a complete disqualifier.
§ Garcia noted the oral exam weighted at 30% effectively carries 100% elimination authority.
o Garcia pointed out that the oral exam should be used as a supplemental step after ranking candidates - not as an elimination mechanism.
§ He presented the appearance of bias - perceived or actual because candidates do not have the ability to verify if panel members have prior familiarity with the interviewee.
o Garcia again reiterated he was not present to revisit his individual result, but to ensure the process is consistent, balanced and based on principles of merit.
o Stribula thanked Garcia for his written statement provided to the Board. He noted that the Board because of updating current rules, had gathered rules from six other cities and found similar processes about scoring among other cities.
o Stribula asked for comments from other Board members. Felton stated he felt the current scoring structure is a disadvantage to a portion of the population and does need to be considered for change.
o Brace stated she disagreed with Felton. She noted it was important to remember the two different exams serve two different purposes: the written is law based (how well does the candidate know and understand the law); while the oral exam is focused on leadership skills (how does the candidate handle making decisions in times of pressure). She stated the candidate needs to show competency in both areas.
o Stribula stated this was a conversation to be had further while reviewing the rules. He again thanked Garcia for bringing the issue to the Board’s attention. No action was taken on this matter - it was for discussion only.
New Business
• Entry Level Patrolman’s list approval
o Hiba Khouri presented the Board with the list of candidates who had recently tested for Patrolman. The list reflected the final scores and banded as per the rules.
§ Khouri noted the list will be exhausted by the next testing cycle.
o Brace asked about keeping the demographic information separate from the candidate name in the future. Khouri stated that can be done.
o Lengthy discussion took place regarding the two pending appeals from the current active list and how those appeals would affect the list presented today.
§ Khouri stated if pending appeals were won by the appellants, then those individuals would be placed at the top of the list presented for signature (should the Board certify the list with today’s date).
§ Phil Shedaker reported that there are still two other candidates from the same list as the appellants that are undergoing the background check.
§ Brace questioned placement of the appellants on the new list and stated it should be based on scoring.
• Shedaker noted that the appellants would go to the placement they were in - he stated the old list is exhausted.
§ Brace asked if anyone has been hired yet from the old list - Shedaker replied that no one has.
o Chris Matthews stated that this is an unprecedented situation in at least a decade, as the lists had never been exhausted until recently.
o Stribula reminded everyone that the Board has the power to certify or void the list.
o More discussion took place regarding all steps involved once a list is certified and why it can take several weeks to bring a new patrolman on board.
§ Rosenthal and Shedaker pointed out that conditional offer letters are sent to candidates after the testing process and that begins the numerous steps of background checks, psych evaluations, pre-employment drug screening, and other processes before the candidate goes through orientation.
§ Brace asked if the two appellants had received such a letter. Khouri acknowledged they had.
o With no further questions or discussion, the Board signed and certified the list as presented effective April 10th, 2026.
• Appeal scheduling and update:
o Appeals are scheduled for Friday, April 17th, 2026 at 9:00 am and 10:00 am in the 5th floor conference room at City Hall.
• Solicitor Update
o Mazin reported that based on the meetings held March 20th and March 27th, he researched some items the Board wanted clarification on. NOTE: one of the items (Selective Service Registration) is related to an appeal scheduled for April 17th. The report provided by Mazin is noted here for record purposes only.
§ Mazin reported there is no case law in PA that mandates registration for Selective Service; so this requirement could be eliminated from the rules.
• It was noted that failure to register is a federal felony, with a statute of limitations of five (5) years after the age of 26.
• Khouri informed the Board of the recent news that registration will be automatically done based on federal data as of July 2026.
§ Discussion took place about potential rule changes and if failure to register is willful (who determines that), who makes decision to disqualify candidate and how would department know if candidate did not register.
• Mazin and Rosenthal cautioned the Board and others to keep discussion in general terms.
• Shedaker noted that per the current rules, failure to register is an automatic disqualification.
o Veteran’s Preference Points - Mazin reported that his research found that other than the creation of points for a veteran themselves, other points allowances (residency, bi-lingual, for example) were absent. This could create a challenge for the Board at some point.
• Mazin noted that points can’t be stacked - points for something other than veteran status (residency, bilingual) cannot exceed a total of nine (9) points - thereby always being less than the ten (10) allowed by law for veteran status.
o Mazin stated Philadelphia has similar type of points system (veterans, residency, etc). He noted he could not find any evidence of court challenges.
o Involvement of City Council
§ Mazin reported that per the Third Class City Code, section 14406, the Board is required to present a list of initial appointments to city council for approval.
§ He noted that this only pertains to initial appointments.
§ Stribula noted that the current rules state the Board should bring appointments to city council but that the Fire Department does not do this.
§ Brace stated both departments need to be consistent.
o Certification of Eligibility List, Selection and Appointment Procedure
§ Mazin reported that on page 5 of the current rules, under the Police portion, Rule II, Section 1, item (b), a question was asked by the Board during the rules review meetings about the “board may extend the list”.
• Mazin stated that per the Third Class City code there is no allowance for discretion beyond the two years.
§ Discussion took place about how lists are affected if one name (or multiple names) becomes part of a new list.
• Matthews stated that this becomes an issue because how can a name be shown on a list that is recertified as eligible when the same candidate wasn’t eligible for that list to begin with.
§ After further discussion, the Board agreed to look at eliminating this section from the rules.
ALLENTOWN FIRE DEPARTMENT
o Khouri reported the Fire Agility exams were held on April 8th and April 9th. Out of thirty (30) candidates, there were eight no-shows, one withdrawal and one was deferred due to military deployment.
o The Assistant Chief of Fire Prevention was reposted.
o Interviews for Deputy Chief are scheduled for April 29th, 2026. Chief Agosto sent request for third-party panel interviewer to other chiefs from the Third Class City listing.
ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT
o Khouri informed the Board she had spoken with Aspirant and will schedule a meeting with the on April 24th, 2026 (before the Board meets for the rules review) via video to go over scoring, process and reporting.
o Brace noted the Board needs to stress the need for a scoring of 1-5 with half-point increments.
o Matthews asked about the chance of the oral interview score of less than 70% being eliminated.
o Khouri is meeting with Purchasing regarding the creation of a long-term RTP for future testing on May 5th, 2026.
There being no further business to discuss - MOTION: Felton moved to adjourn the meeting. Brace seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
Next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 1st, 2026 at 9:00 am in the 5th Floor Conference Room.
Submitted by: Stella Oakman