Laserfiche WebLink
service board or a single promocional examinacion. <br />In this case there are 34 ertplcyers, each with individual <br />hiring needs and philosophies. Over the years some Minnesota <br />cities have decided that those needs and philosophies -\re served by <br />using the MPRS testing process. However, the membership of the <br />MPRS has continuously changed over time as cities have decided, on <br />the basis of cost, hiring needs, hiring philosophies and other <br />factors, whether the MPF.S testing process was consistent with their <br />needs. Some cities which have used the MPRS testing process are <br />no longer members and are not defendants in this suit. Others have <br />joined since this suit was commenced and have not used the process <br />which was declared unlawful by the Court's Order of October 5, 1994 <br />for any hiring decisions.Still others have discontinued <br />membership since this lawsuit was commenced. <br />Those cities which have used the MPRS testing process for <br />hiring decisions and which are also defendants in this suit acted <br />in good faith on the assumption that the MPRS testing process was <br />a lawful, 30b related selection device. If it is the decision of <br />this Court that the MPRS testing process, even with the changes <br />described earlier in this Memorandum, is not lawful, they should be <br />free, as they always have been, to select any lawful examination <br />which meets their needs. <br />The defendant cities have limited financial resources. The <br />riginal MPRS validation study, developed at a cost of $238,000 in <br />1978 dollars, was financially feasible only because it was paid for <br />by a federal grant. Any cost for development of a new testing