+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
 

Thread: Deja Vu

  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Deja Vu

    It happens again. We put another rookie in a specialized unit. I guess time in the department does not matter if you are going to SRO or K-9. Disappointment has another name and thy name be Sheriff Johnson.

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Randy, I heard the judges talking crap about you. Worry about them for a while.

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    By “rookies”, you’re referring to the guys that each have 16+ years of law enforcement experience?! What is your definition of a veteran law enforcement officer?

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    He is a rookie to this agency. Is he still on probation? How many years has he been with this agency? This "Sheriff" has hired from outside this agency and put people straight into K-9 and SRO. Now he is putting new officers straight into specialized units. I guess going through FTO and spending a few months on the road covers the time needed to go to the "DOG SHOW". This is not the deputies fault. This is on the admin.

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Who put in for k9?

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Read your e-mails

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    New to this agency, yes. You should read the policy as it pertains to experience in the eligibility section of each "specialized unit" vacancy. No policy violation. The admin's selection was based on what is best for the agency. More experienced and qualified individuals took those positions. Sounds like logical and common sense choices were made.

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Those policies were rewritten. It hasn't always been that way. Just because it is within policy does not make it right. What are the other standards for specialized units?

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    New to this agency, yes. You should read the policy as it pertains to experience in the eligibility section of each "specialized unit" vacancy. No policy violation. The admin's selection was based on what is best for the agency. More experienced and qualified individuals took those positions. Sounds like logical and common sense choices were made.
    When an agency changes it's standards to fit an applicant you degrade the process. The experience and eligibility section was changed so the admin would not look bad when they decided to go against the set standard. This is the trend in this agency. Rewrite policy to fit the applicant. Why have a year of probation if you are just going to circumvent it? When you lower your standards where do you draw the line? Is stealing and lying ok, how about falsifying time sheets? Don't piss on me and tell me it is raining with your it's within policy bs.

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    When an agency changes it's standards to fit an applicant you degrade the process. The experience and eligibility section was changed so the admin would not look bad when they decided to go against the set standard. This is the trend in this agency. Rewrite policy to fit the applicant. Why have a year of probation if you are just going to circumvent it? When you lower your standards where do you draw the line? Is stealing and lying ok, how about falsifying time sheets? Don't piss on me and tell me it is raining with your it's within policy bs.
    What about the policy for "investigate all complaints" hmmmmm???

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •