Follow Us:

Title

Promotional Survey Snapshot - August 2017

Jerretta Sandoz

Body

As promised, here are some of the responses from the “Promotional System Survey.” Next month’s article will highlight some solutions our members had to improve this system. With everything, we must rally all stakeholders and work together to make this system as fair as possible. Like the discipline system, some things die slowly! Persistence!

Question No. 2: In your experience, do you think the current LAPD advanced paygrade opportunities are fair?
Sandoz-1_350_0.jpg
78.8 percent of the participants responded “No,” while 21.12 percent responded “Yes.”
Snapshot of some of the “No” responses:
• The “system” was unfair due to being subjective in terms of “who you know” versus actual competence. Several replies acknowledged for certain classes to be promoted, these individuals required “sponsors” within the Department.
• “Promotions being based on popularity, favoritism and/or politics.”
• “Certain promotional positions being ‘predetermined’ outside of the pool of applicants prior to the process.”
• “These promotions are NOT based on merit, and a 20-minute oral interview trumps the overall qualifications of a candidate.
• “The five-year rule is still alive and well on the LAPD.”
• “The paygrade advancement opportunities are not merit-based.”
Snapshot of some of the “Yes” responses:
• [it] utilizes past job performance, experience and knowledge.
• [of] multiple ways to evaluate the best candidates and multiple reviews/evaluations by various personnel.
• It causes people to work for and to improve performance.
• Everyone has the same opportunity to prepare and participate in exams and opportunities to advance.

Question No. 4: In your experience, do you feel the civil service promotional examination process is fair?
Sandoz-2_350.jpg
53.66 percent of the participants responded “No,” while 46.34 percent responded “Yes.”
Snapshot of some of the “No” responses:
• It was expressed that the process was used more to disqualify certain candidates than evaluating them.
• Participant expressed “it has not evolved in 20 years,” while others expressed that written test questions favor officers in administrative positions who have time/ability to “research/study” this information (i.e. “regulations in old manuals”).
• Many participants stated that the process was too subjective.
• One participant stated, “get rid of all Jacobs promotional system,” another restated that peer feedback should be included in candidate package.
• Suggestion (like the last question) to make years of experience equivalent to bypass educational requirement.
• Some questions are irrelevant: “How far must an aircraft land from a school?” Which he felt was inappropriate. Multiple participants after stated command staff is aware written exam is a “deselector.”
• Some questions are leaked and afternoon group has an [unfair] advantage.
• Some participants felt there should be oversight of the written test questions. There are mistakes on the tests that fly under the radar and can change the meaning of the question, which interpreted by a candidate will undoubtedly change their response to the question (i.e. some participants referred to these as “double worded questions”).
• At least two participants expressed awareness of “secret probation” that isn’t stated in manual of five years from the last complaint.
• Response 703 stated, “One’s institutional knowledge of Policy and Procedure is important.”
• Response 761 suggested, “The examination should be written by people who currently hold the position that employees are testing for, not by command staff or civilians.”
Several participants of this question felt written test should not be pass/fail. It should be scored. Also in response to the previous question, at least two participants suggested a debrief/review of process test scores for candidates who weren’t selected to improve their chances in the future.
Snapshot of some of the “Yes” responses:
• Some officers felt that Civil Service process is fairer than the advanced paygrade selection system. “At least in the promotional exam system, you’re removing prejudice, personal agendas and favoritism while objectively verifying a functional level of an individual’s subject-related knowledge.”
• “I think it’s the only way to ensure that a candidate meets all the requirements.”
• “Perfect examination process.”
• “Nobody on the board knows who the candidate is sitting across the table from them.”
• “It has a written exam and, most importantly, the oral interview process has a civilian on the board who, for the most part, is motivated by finding the best candidate.”
• “There is no preselection going on in full view for all to see.”

Question No. 5: As it relates to civil service promotions, do you feel that the oral interview, which holds 100 percent weight, is fair?
Sandoz-3_350.jpg
75.68 percent of the participants responded “No,” while 24.32 percent responded “Yes.”
Snapshot of some of the “No” responses:
• Some feel that favoritism tends to cloud the rankings.
• Many participants answered “too subjective.”
• A few participants expressed concern that this process was not consistent and, therefore, not fair (in the previous question, some participants felt giving different candidates different oral panels was inconsistent, as different people have very different standards).
• Several officers expressed that the process is unfair because two out of three panelists on oral board have similar work experience and favor a candidate who shares similar work history.
• Several participants felt written test and oral interview should be 50/50. Many others felt candidates’ final determination whether to promote should be a combination (equal worth of each) of written test, package review and oral interview.
• Several participants suggested that some individuals can give a good oral interview but aren’t always who they seem, so weight should be taken off the oral and, to account for this, more weight should be added to peer feedback, and/or written exam results and/or experience (i.e. response 242 stated, “Great cops can have bad interviews and bad cops can give good interviews.”).
• Some participants felt unfair advantage for candidates who had access to questions prior to oral and felt process encourages the promotion of “sponsored” candidates.
Snapshot of some of the “Yes” responses:
• While the questions may be different, they are similar in nature in each category. Just phrased differently.
• You are selling yourself to people who do not know you.
• It gives the board the ability to grade the best-qualified individuals for the job. It also allows the applicants a reason to perform their best and prepare.
• The ability to interact is the best way to find out about a candidate.
• Study and pass means you studied for the position! One can’t pass a test based on training and experience.

Question No. 7: Do you believe that one command staff officer from an outside agency should replace one of the LAPD command staff officers on the panel for the oral interview before the civil service commission for promotions? NOTE: Currently, one civilian and two sworn members of the LAPD command are panelists.
Sandoz-4_350.jpg
53.07 percent of the participants responded “Yes,” while 46.93 percent responded “No.”
Snapshot of some of the “No” responses:
• “Other agencies are not to the level of knowledge of our department.”
• “LAPD knows what is needed to do the right job, not outside agencies that don’t know the protocol.”
• “Outside agency is not the answer.”
• One respondent stated, “The outside agency officer must feel and honestly believe his/her input is just as important as the inside officers. And this would have to be made very clear to the others. Otherwise, the perception would be the outsider will go along with whoever the Department person wants, as he/she has ‘no dog in the fight’ so to speak, whereas the Department person is going to have to live with the outcome.”
• “It is better to have someone on the board who is familiar with the job position and duties than someone who has no idea what the job and position entail.”
• “LAPD is capable of handling their own promotions. Only command staff should have a vote.”
Snapshot of the “Yes” responses:
• Broader-based experience, not just limited to the LAPD way, which isn’t necessarily the best. Too incestuous in the process otherwise.
• Several responses said more civilians (i.e. two and one command staff), as they may interpret candidates’ qualities/shortcomings more in-depth than in-house panelists.
• Several participants said all external panelists would bring no bias.
• Other responses said sworn command only because outsiders aren’t as familiar with departmental policies/procedures/culture, response 417 stated possibly all sworn from outside agency.
• Several responses indicated adding a panelist from personnel currently employed in the position being sought.
• Numerous participants responded “one civilian, one command and one outside staff office provides an equal playing field.”
• Some officers felt that the “city should do away with civilian board member and bring in an outside agency member.”
• Bringing in another civilian would contribute to the neutrality of the board/ panel.
• May help to alleviate the potential for pre-judging the candidates.
• [It] would be fair and balanced.
• An outsider may see the qualities and shortcomings way beyond the in-house reviewers.
• Ensures that there’s no inside influence.
• Would offer transparency.
• It seems to work in other agencies.
• Other agencies use our personnel to help with promotional interviews.
• Other positive replies suggested the additional external command staff would have no bias or agenda, would make the board more balanced/ more objective/more impartial and add a layer of independence.

As always, if there is ever anything I can do to better support you, do not hesitate to reach out to me at [email protected] or call me at (213) 545-4903. Be safe.

Related News