Sgt's list is killed

Was anyone surprised by this? Word is that the entire promotional process is going to be changed.

Not surprised, but it was a raw deal for a veteran officer who should have been promoted. The new chief had a chance to correct an injustice by the former chief and he did not do so. I just hope the veteran officer takes the exam again and proves he should have been promoted.

You mean "she"........

I am pleased that they are changing the promotional process. An ape throwing dung at a dartboard is as effective a method of choosing leaders as the last few promotional processes. One of the issues that I have with government, and in the way with that it rewards it's employees, is the lack of rewards for the hard-working or very intelligent.

I am not a snob and there are many sharp, diligent officers in our agency, but there are also many men and women that could easily be replaced by a piece of Samsonite luggage (Samsonite actually paid me to put that in this post).

If this was a Fortune 500 company, some of the officers that we have working for our Department would never make it out of the mail room. However, because of collective bargaining, an officer who does nothing and makes poor decisions is paid the same or more than an officer who is conscientious and works hard.

Somewhere along the road, the wise people who make the rules decided that giving employees a civil service exam was a better way to determine leadership than merit. This is a recipe for getting exactly what we have: about 50% of the promotions making sense and 50% being a detriment to the Department.

I know that the testing and processes seem to be a good way to neutralize the "Good Old Boy" network, but at what cost? How many times does excellent talent die on the vine, because they performed a poor jump going through the hoops of the promotional process?

Incidentally, the matrix is garbage as well. We have about 150 employees that are eligible to attempt transfers. Why do we have an hour interview accounting for 80% of their score? We are not so large that we do not know these people. Do we really need to see how confident they look, when we ask them questions.

I propose that they do away with the whole thing. Start measuring performance. Not stats, real performance. If you want to have a test, let it measure leadership and not one's ability to remember how many decibels have to be reached before you have a code violation.

I invite your attacks and comments. I would guess that very few of us can defend the status quo.

Note: I am not a disgruntled employee and I have received a few of the things for which I applied. This is not about me.

Well said.

Not surprised, but it was a raw deal for a veteran officer who should have been promoted. The new chief had a chance to correct an injustice by the former chief and he did not do so. I just hope the veteran officer takes the exam again and proves he should have been promoted.

who are you talking about++++

Not surprised, but it was a raw deal for a veteran officer who should have been promoted. The new chief had a chance to correct an injustice by the former chief and he did not do so. I just hope the veteran officer takes the exam again and proves he should have been promoted.

who are you talking about++++

I would guess they are talking about Chance Ransom, but he isn't a cop.

Incidentally, the matrix is garbage as well. We have about 150 employees that are eligible to attempt transfers. Why do we have an hour interview accounting for 80% of their score? We are not so large that we do not know these people. Do we really need to see how confident they look, when we ask them questions.

I propose that they do away with the whole thing. Start measuring performance. Not stats, real performance. If you want to have a test, let it measure leadership and not one's ability to remember how many decibels have to be reached before you have a code violation.

I invite your attacks and comments. I would guess that very few of us can defend the status quo.

You make some good points and some valid arguments. However, you provide no solution(s) to any of your perceived problems. If we don't use an interview, what would you propose? You talk about getting away from a "good ole boy" mentality, but without an interview or a test, WHO is detetmining one's level of "performance"? Sure, we all know each other. But many of us have differing opinions of each other. Many supervisors have vastly different opinions of those that they supervise (for example, one sergeant or lieutenant may think I am a great cop, but another might think I'm a slug).

So, your points may be correct, but without a REAL, tangible way to evaluate "performance," I think the statuts quo works just fine.

Incidentally, the matrix is garbage as well. We have about 150 employees that are eligible to attempt transfers. Why do we have an hour interview accounting for 80% of their score? We are not so large that we do not know these people. Do we really need to see how confident they look, when we ask them questions.

I propose that they do away with the whole thing. Start measuring performance. Not stats, real performance. If you want to have a test, let it measure leadership and not one's ability to remember how many decibels have to be reached before you have a code violation.

I invite your attacks and comments. I would guess that very few of us can defend the status quo.


You make some good points and some valid arguments. However, you provide no solution(s) to any of your perceived problems. If we don't use an interview, what would you propose? You talk about getting away from a "good ole boy" mentality, but without an interview or a test, WHO is detetmining one's level of "performance"? Sure, we all know each other. But many of us have differing opinions of each other. Many supervisors have vastly different opinions of those that they supervise (for example, one sergeant or lieutenant may think I am a great cop, but another might think I'm a slug).

So, your points may be correct, but without a REAL, tangible way to evaluate "performance," I think the statuts quo works just fine.

I can accept all of you criticism and points, save one: "the status quo works just fine." I may not have a cure for cancer, but that doesn't mean that cancer is okay. I am also not a proponent of trying just anything to improve the system. To take the cancer analogy one step further, I would not be a proponent of feeding a cancer patient jelly beans as a cure, and then state "it was better than trying nothing," when it doesn't work.

Since you have invited my suggestions for improving the system, I will provide the broad strokes of my plan for your perusal:

1. SCRAP THE TOWN EVALUATION: We are using the same form that is used to evaluate payroll clerks and engineers. We need a law enforcement specific evaluation. All sergeants need to be trained in the rating of employees. Under the "fine" working status quo, sergeants are not given standardized training in the completion of forms - an unacceptable practice. In addition, the scaling from 1 to 5 is a bit narrow, since in most cases, employees receive a rating of 3 or 4. Open it up to a scale of 10, so that not every employee ends up receiving an evaluation score between 3.0 and 4.5.

2. HOLD SUPERVISORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIGH AND LOW SCORES: Under the current system, the annual evaluation is completed by a Sergeant and forwarded through the chain of command. However, due to the structure of the agency, the sergeant's superiors are not in a position to question the sergeant's appraisal. We have many sergeants on each shift. One sergeant could prepare the evaluation, but it could require a consensus of sergeants, before it ascended the chain. Chances are that if all of the sergeants on your shift think you are a slug, you probably are.

3. REVAMP THE MATRIX: As things currently stand your matrix score is based on your attendance, longevity, college education, annual evaluation and interview. You are able to earn a total of five out of a hundred points for perfect scores in the first four categories and eighty points from your interview. To begin with, this is a very narrow range of criteria with which to score eligibility. In addition, the weighting makes no sense. Now that you have a better evaluation system in place (see 1 and 2), start using it. The bulk of your matrix score should come from job performance. The reason that we weight the interview an absurd 80% is because we can't trust the evaluation.

4. NO AUTOMATIC LATERAL TRANSFERS: If we are going to have a system in place to identify talent, then it has to be accessible to anyone who is qualified. Everyone becomes a detective, motorman or K-9 handler the same way. No exceptions.

5. ACTING SERGEANTS: If you have officers on an eligibility list for sergeant, make them the OIC for the city. That doesn't mean to turn them loose without supervision. They would be shadowed by a sergeant or lieutenant and evaluated on how they actually handle the job. I don't think you need to do this with 20 candidates, but since we have the rule of five, let the top five participate for a week. What better way to evaluate what kind of sergeant someone will make than to see them do the job? If they screw it up, the actual sergeant could step in. I'm not confident that this is a good idea, but it could be implemented and cancelled if there were problems.

I'm going to keep it to five as this already pretty long. In summary, the process starts with the Department developing an evaluation system that is specific to police work. If we can then rely on this document, we can start taking measures to ensure an even playing field. I realize that there are crater sized gaps in my plan, but again I didn't want to make this Voltaire's Treatise on the Management of Law Enforcement Agencies in North America. I just wanted to see if we could improve on that fine status quo.

Also, please, excuse my grammar and spelling. This was not written for a college course.

Voltaire has some incredibly vaild points - too bad they won't go anywhere.... I wish someone would stand up and take notice !!!!

1. SCRAP THE TOWN EVALUATION

2. HOLD SUPERVISORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIGH AND LOW SCORES

3. REVAMP THE MATRIX

4. NO AUTOMATIC LATERAL TRANSFERS

5. ACTING SERGEANTS:

1. Why? The evaluation is very basic and is VERY easily adapted to our work.... But, most importantly, you say we need to get away from the "good ole boy" system... Well, how does this solve the "problem" at all?? You're STILL being evaluated by a supervisor that either likes you or doesn't. It's still INCREDIBLY subjective.

Unless you evaluate officers based on something like stats, there's no way to have a COMPLETELY subjective evaluation........ (don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying that our evaluation should be based on stats, just simply making the point.)

2. Ok, so now you'll have everyone having the same scores because Sergeants are going to want to have to justify high or low scores... (It's hard enough to get some bosses to fill out the damn forms now, can you imagine if they have to put some justification into it...????)

So, everyone will get the same numbers and everyone will have the same evalutions..............

3. Based on the "new" evaluation, again, I think there will still be problems with the matrix. If you've been around for a while, you know the origin of the matrix. It was created BY OFFICERS to "solve" the problem of subjective lateral transfers and to give preference to those people who do the things that the department wants you to do (go to college, good attendance, seniority, etc.)....

4. Not sure what you're trying to get at here, but everyone has the ability to put in for any unit now (assuming you've been here long enough). There's no units that are not accessible to anyone who is qualified... Again, you make a statement, but provide no analysis of the problem or any sort of solution to your percevied problem........

5. Do you REALLY think that this would give you an idea of how a guy or girl would act if they get promoted???? C'mon. There's no way to know how someone will be when they're promoted until waiting 'til their off supervisor probation........... This is probably the most silly thing in your post... Giving someone a week to be a boss is NOT going to give you ANY idea how they would act on their own, because they're NOT on their own yet.. They're still trying to impress and BECOME a boss. Just plain silly...

You seem to be an intelligent person, but I really don't see how you could have put any thought into these "solutions" (which really just come down to one thing - revamp the evaluation). Again, I welcome the debate, and please don't take my criticism as demeaning, I just don't think any of these things will make any impact on the status quo.... In fact, I think they might create more problems, in the end..

I can accept all of you criticism and points, save one: "the status quo works just fine." I may not have a cure for cancer, but that doesn't mean that cancer is okay. I am also not a proponent of trying just anything to improve the system. To take the cancer analogy one step further, I would not be a proponent of feeding a cancer patient jelly beans as a cure, and then state "it was better than trying nothing," when it doesn't work.

Oh, and I do see your point here. Perhaps my statement should have been, "The status quo is not creating big enough problems to justify change..."

If there were only a few people in the world with cancer, it probably wouldn't justify spending billions of dollars to create a cure (unless YOU were one of the few). So, likewise, I don't think the status quo has big enough problems to justify a huge change just for the sake of change... (No offense, Obama).

I don't want to beat the cancer analogy to death when I have so many other anologies that are even more worthy of beatings, but we are not talking about one or two times that there has been a problem. I would say that the promotions and lateral transfers have approximately a 50% success rate. In otherwords, about half of the sergeants, lieutenants and detectives that we make are truly deserving and effective.

If you disagree with my ratio, I can meet you half way and say that there are enough paper tigers to justify my search for a cure. Also, I am not advocating a tremendous allocation of resources to fix this. However, if we are seeking the most fair and efficient agency that we can produce, then we can't accept the status quo, just because it isn't bad enough. That would mean that we were being lazy and complacent.

Even though you don't think it is a substantial problem, I am curious to know whether or not you think that any of my suggestions would make it better. If not, then why wouldn't they? Come on, you challenged me to come up with some answers. Now I'm asking you to either shoot holes through them or come up with better ones.

Also, could you please come up with a cool name from the Age of Enlightenment like mine, so we could look like a couple of real intellectuals verbally sparring? I think it would impress the guys. You could be Locke.

Would you people please leave me alone.

My Dear Monsieur Locke:

I am an idiot. I didn't see your first post and inadvertently skipped down and answered the last on the page. I apologize to all of our readers for this oversight.

Since you did attack my suggestions on a point by point basis, I will defend them in kind. However, I will say that the source of my angst comes from watching mediocrity rewarded and talent ignored. These are not isolated incidents. However, I am not going to enumerate these events on here, because I don't want to damage anyone.

1. You think that this vague evaluation that seems to be almost universally accepted as inadequate. Without going item per item I can assure you that in my multiple years, I have never "forecast the consequences of my decisions with great accuracy," not have I ever been able to figure out a way to reduce the waste of organization resources/supplies. Aside from the ridiculous categories (anything that has the word "conceptual in it, is also stupid), are the comments. Supervisors are frequently instructed to paraphrase the comments made on page 3, instead of writing original content that would be useful to the agency and the officer.

2. You state that there is some difficulty in getting "some bosses to fill out the darn forms." Isn't that support to my premise that they may have promoted some of the wrong people. If there was a greater scale you might be able to really tell the difference between two officers’ scores. An officer with a score of an 8 stands out from a group of 5's and 6's. It's not so much the overall score that I'm concerned about. It is the wiggle room in different categories.

3. I am not opposed to a matrix. I am opposed to our matrix. If you max out all of the non-interview points, you get a full 20. This is easily negated by a panel during the interview by awarding the favored candidate a higher score that can wipe out those 20. Getting a four year degree is a hell of a lot harder than coming to work every day for a year, so let's award the points accordingly. The bottom line is that 80% of your score should not come from how you have performed during 30-45 minutes in front of a panel.

4. Your statement is true. Everyone has the ability to put in for a unit[/quote]if the position is posted and opened. More than once, they have transferred someone from one specialized unit to another without posting the position. In those cases, not everyone was able to put in for the unit in question. You mentioned that I had no analysis for this point. I will be specific then. A CIU Detective transferring to SIU, a bicycle cop transferring to motors. A detective going to IA. Creation and dissolution of K-9 Sergeant positions. If they don't post the position and administratively move a person to the unit, it denies everyone else of that opportunity. It shouldn't be that you interview once and then you have a lifetime pass to slide from unit to unit without interviewing. Also my solution was listed: Stop doing this. Have an interview for everything. If I am in CIU, I should be able to interview for SIU...along with everyone else.

5. I wasn't sure about this one to be honest. I agree that you wouldn't get an accurate read as to the temperament of the sergeant candidate. The only thing that I can think of that would be less accurate is to give them a civil service test on mostly erroneous information. Follow that up with a somewhat mysterious process where you don't preannounce the dates and times, where the candidates can practice writing memos and talk to strangers about sexual harassment. While I don't thing a trial period would tell you everything, it's bound to show you something. We could do it longer than a week.

In conclusion, Monsieur Locke, I am an intelligent person, as you seem to be. I came up with my plan in approximately 20 minutes. I am quite sure that it is flawed. In addition, I don't find your criticism demeaning. I have an odd sense of etiquette. I find it rude when you don't argue back. Thank you for your input.

Also, buy Camel Cigarettes, kids. A proud sponsor of our debate. Camels. They're faster!

Where are you, my friend?