You'll soon learn that corruption comes in a variety of forms. Some
forms are obvious while others are subtle and cloaked in altruistic
rhetoric. I cringe when I hear a politician attempt to weaken a civil
service process by saying that merit should be given more consideration
than a civil service examination. What does that politician think a civil
service examination is based on?
You really can't expect politicians to appreciate civil service. True,
politicians passed the laws to create civil service, but they had little
choice. When public service corruption reaches an intolerable level,
even politicians have to do the right thing...to a point.
In chapter six of my book, I mention the weight of civil service
examinations. Let's look at a couple of ways civil service examinations
can be administered by your police department. In the first example, we
have a written examination which consists of 70% of your final score.
The written examination consists solely of multiple choice questions that
measures what you know and what you don't know. Some people
ridicule multiple choice testing, because such questions leave no room
for other points of view. Sorry, an objective examination is not looking
for your subjective point of view.
Okay, you've taken your written examination for police sergeant, and
you've scored well. As a matter of fact, you're number 20 out of the top
100 candidates who made the cut. Now, you're on your way to the oral
interview. You'll have three people interviewing you. The three
interviewers are all police officers of various higher ranks from police
departments outside your jurisdiction. They may introduce themselves
by name and rank, or they may not. You will not introduce yourself,
because these people aren't suppose to know your name. Any oral
interview is tough, but this is as good as it gets.
This time, when you take the test, you score the same position of 20 out
of 100 on the written examination. But, this time, the written portion of
the test is only worth 30% of your final score. This time, your
interviewers for the oral examination are all higher ranking police
officers from within your own police department. There's no need for
them to introduce themselves, because you already know them. They
may, or may not, know you; however, your concern should be how many
of the other 99 candidates they do know.
You see, the politician's idea of a merit promotion is best accomplished
under the second example. Politicians, and those police officers, who
move into the politically appointed higher ranks of police departments
have unflinching faith in their own subjective judgements. Sure, they'll
claim to be objective, but could you really believe them? The truth is,
people frequently need help with objectivity. Whenever a process can be
implemented to ensure maximum objectivity, it's a good thing.
forms are obvious while others are subtle and cloaked in altruistic
rhetoric. I cringe when I hear a politician attempt to weaken a civil
service process by saying that merit should be given more consideration
than a civil service examination. What does that politician think a civil
service examination is based on?
You really can't expect politicians to appreciate civil service. True,
politicians passed the laws to create civil service, but they had little
choice. When public service corruption reaches an intolerable level,
even politicians have to do the right thing...to a point.
In chapter six of my book, I mention the weight of civil service
examinations. Let's look at a couple of ways civil service examinations
can be administered by your police department. In the first example, we
have a written examination which consists of 70% of your final score.
The written examination consists solely of multiple choice questions that
measures what you know and what you don't know. Some people
ridicule multiple choice testing, because such questions leave no room
for other points of view. Sorry, an objective examination is not looking
for your subjective point of view.
Okay, you've taken your written examination for police sergeant, and
you've scored well. As a matter of fact, you're number 20 out of the top
100 candidates who made the cut. Now, you're on your way to the oral
interview. You'll have three people interviewing you. The three
interviewers are all police officers of various higher ranks from police
departments outside your jurisdiction. They may introduce themselves
by name and rank, or they may not. You will not introduce yourself,
because these people aren't suppose to know your name. Any oral
interview is tough, but this is as good as it gets.
This time, when you take the test, you score the same position of 20 out
of 100 on the written examination. But, this time, the written portion of
the test is only worth 30% of your final score. This time, your
interviewers for the oral examination are all higher ranking police
officers from within your own police department. There's no need for
them to introduce themselves, because you already know them. They
may, or may not, know you; however, your concern should be how many
of the other 99 candidates they do know.
You see, the politician's idea of a merit promotion is best accomplished
under the second example. Politicians, and those police officers, who
move into the politically appointed higher ranks of police departments
have unflinching faith in their own subjective judgements. Sure, they'll
claim to be objective, but could you really believe them? The truth is,
people frequently need help with objectivity. Whenever a process can be
implemented to ensure maximum objectivity, it's a good thing.
Police
and
Promotions
and
Promotions
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Manipulation is the Goal |
If I had my way, every police promotional examination would consist
entirely of a written examination. The questions would be multiple
choice, and the wrong answers would not be too obvious. There would be
a lot more than a hundred, or so, questions. Five hundred questions
would be the minimum, and they'd cover every area of knowledge
applicable to the position.
Talk about a level playing field. Of course, those who always talk about
the level playing field would be those howling the loudest if anyone tried
to implement such a comprehensive written examination without any
accompanying process more prone to manipulation.
When I first took the examination for police sergeant, the written
portion consisted of 50%; the oral interview was 30%, and you could
receive a maximum of 5 percentage points for seniority. The remaining
15 percentage points came in the form of a commander's rating. The
top eighty (80) candidates from the written test would go on to compete
under the additional criteria.
As then, most departments now permit police officers to take the police
sergeant's promotional examination after three (3) years of service.
Under this system, the three year police officer would immediately lose
two percentage points; a four year police officer one point. At the five
year mark you'd get your five free points. The seniority part could be
overcome if one did exceptionally well on the written and oral portions
of the examination. The first to last candidate on the final list was
rarely separated by more than 3 percentage points. The last thing to
come was the commander's rating. What a crock. Your Commander
had the ability to sink you by simply rating you as excellent with 14
points as apposed to outstanding with the full 15 points.
Now, think about this for a moment. If a written examination
determines who will go on to all the other hoops a process has to
negotiate, why not just expand the written portion to further identify
those who are the most qualified for promotion. After all, what's so bad
about having police officers in leadership positions who actually have the
knowledge to do the job. The tried and tired response to that is, and
always will be, some police officers are just good test takers while others
aren't.
The true response is that promotions in a police department is a very big
deal, and competitive examinations for promotions are okay as long as
there's a way to manipulate the outcome…the more room for
manipulation the better. The simple fact is it's all about power and
consolidation of power. It's okay if a police officer promoted has
knowledge, but it's more important for that police officer to be known,
and acceptable, to those in power.
With the wisdom of hindsight, I can say that promotion to police
sergeant should require a minimum of ten years experience as a patrol
officer. You don't have to worry about that ever happening, because
seniority as a requirement, or benefit, for anything is dead and gone.
Any person, in any organization, who moves up rapidly, faces difficulties
supervising people with more work experience. In police work, those
difficulties are vast and varied and magnified under real crisis situations.
At this point, you simply can't appreciate how many ways you can get
into trouble. As a police supervisor with minimal work experience those
ways are only multiplied by the number of police officers under your
supervision. You're already at some disadvantage since you'll be
entering a police work force loaded with young police supervisors with
limited experience, and that youth and limited experience even extends
into the highest ranks of many departments. Power and patronage can
be just as corrupt when practiced by young leaders as well as by older
ones. It's just that the older ones are more experienced at keeping
corrupt practices under control.
entirely of a written examination. The questions would be multiple
choice, and the wrong answers would not be too obvious. There would be
a lot more than a hundred, or so, questions. Five hundred questions
would be the minimum, and they'd cover every area of knowledge
applicable to the position.
Talk about a level playing field. Of course, those who always talk about
the level playing field would be those howling the loudest if anyone tried
to implement such a comprehensive written examination without any
accompanying process more prone to manipulation.
When I first took the examination for police sergeant, the written
portion consisted of 50%; the oral interview was 30%, and you could
receive a maximum of 5 percentage points for seniority. The remaining
15 percentage points came in the form of a commander's rating. The
top eighty (80) candidates from the written test would go on to compete
under the additional criteria.
As then, most departments now permit police officers to take the police
sergeant's promotional examination after three (3) years of service.
Under this system, the three year police officer would immediately lose
two percentage points; a four year police officer one point. At the five
year mark you'd get your five free points. The seniority part could be
overcome if one did exceptionally well on the written and oral portions
of the examination. The first to last candidate on the final list was
rarely separated by more than 3 percentage points. The last thing to
come was the commander's rating. What a crock. Your Commander
had the ability to sink you by simply rating you as excellent with 14
points as apposed to outstanding with the full 15 points.
Now, think about this for a moment. If a written examination
determines who will go on to all the other hoops a process has to
negotiate, why not just expand the written portion to further identify
those who are the most qualified for promotion. After all, what's so bad
about having police officers in leadership positions who actually have the
knowledge to do the job. The tried and tired response to that is, and
always will be, some police officers are just good test takers while others
aren't.
The true response is that promotions in a police department is a very big
deal, and competitive examinations for promotions are okay as long as
there's a way to manipulate the outcome…the more room for
manipulation the better. The simple fact is it's all about power and
consolidation of power. It's okay if a police officer promoted has
knowledge, but it's more important for that police officer to be known,
and acceptable, to those in power.
With the wisdom of hindsight, I can say that promotion to police
sergeant should require a minimum of ten years experience as a patrol
officer. You don't have to worry about that ever happening, because
seniority as a requirement, or benefit, for anything is dead and gone.
Any person, in any organization, who moves up rapidly, faces difficulties
supervising people with more work experience. In police work, those
difficulties are vast and varied and magnified under real crisis situations.
At this point, you simply can't appreciate how many ways you can get
into trouble. As a police supervisor with minimal work experience those
ways are only multiplied by the number of police officers under your
supervision. You're already at some disadvantage since you'll be
entering a police work force loaded with young police supervisors with
limited experience, and that youth and limited experience even extends
into the highest ranks of many departments. Power and patronage can
be just as corrupt when practiced by young leaders as well as by older
ones. It's just that the older ones are more experienced at keeping
corrupt practices under control.
| They Call It, "Reform" |
"Thousands of
federal managers
are about to find out
what it's like to be
free from the
constraints of civil
service rules."
federal managers
are about to find out
what it's like to be
free from the
constraints of civil
service rules."
| by Brian Friel |
| A return to the "Spoils System" is well underway... |
Look... I know the last thing on your mind right now is how
bureaucratic corruption will affect your police career. But, at some
point in your police career, you'll probably become a victim of that
corruption, and you'll wonder why you didn't see it coming.
bureaucratic corruption will affect your police career. But, at some
point in your police career, you'll probably become a victim of that
corruption, and you'll wonder why you didn't see it coming.
Civil Service, and its protections, is
under assault from the top down. The
Article, "Unshackled," to which I've
provided you a link to the left, provides
an excellent description of what's
happening. The writer does a good job of
setting forth the details in an unbiased
manner. However, once politicians have
a shot at complicating an uncomplicated
issue, even the most talented writer is
challenged to describe their convoluted
reasoning.
under assault from the top down. The
Article, "Unshackled," to which I've
provided you a link to the left, provides
an excellent description of what's
happening. The writer does a good job of
setting forth the details in an unbiased
manner. However, once politicians have
a shot at complicating an uncomplicated
issue, even the most talented writer is
challenged to describe their convoluted
reasoning.
Politicians would like to convince everyone that civil service is the
reason why things are screwed up at every level of government. They
ignore the years of continual dilution and manipulation of civil service
by corrupt and politically motivated practices as the real reasons for
incompetence and inefficiency within the systems of government.
reason why things are screwed up at every level of government. They
ignore the years of continual dilution and manipulation of civil service
by corrupt and politically motivated practices as the real reasons for
incompetence and inefficiency within the systems of government.
Instead of calling for a strengthening of civil service rules based on real
measures of merit, their goal is the total elimination of competitive
competition in favor of their superior subjective evaluations of people.
measures of merit, their goal is the total elimination of competitive
competition in favor of their superior subjective evaluations of people.
If you think it's difficult now being hired as a police officer, imagine
what your chances would be like under a totally, or near total, subjective
process. I love the part of the article that talks about a system where
you'd be classified as "unqualified," "qualified," highly qualified,"
"most qualified." Do these terms sound familiar? United States
Supreme Court Justice nominees receive similar ratings from the
American Bar Association. But, of course, everybody knows that
politics has nothing to do with those ratings.
what your chances would be like under a totally, or near total, subjective
process. I love the part of the article that talks about a system where
you'd be classified as "unqualified," "qualified," highly qualified,"
"most qualified." Do these terms sound familiar? United States
Supreme Court Justice nominees receive similar ratings from the
American Bar Association. But, of course, everybody knows that
politics has nothing to do with those ratings.
What a joke; although, funny it's not. "Unqualified" is obvious to any
idiot. "Qualified" and "highly qualified" are superfluous and useless
terms since "most qualified" is obviously the only term that counts. Of
course, you do need a couple of "feel good" categories to put everyone
who never had a shot in the first place.
idiot. "Qualified" and "highly qualified" are superfluous and useless
terms since "most qualified" is obviously the only term that counts. Of
course, you do need a couple of "feel good" categories to put everyone
who never had a shot in the first place.
This is a true story...
A police sergeant was awaiting his promotion to lieutenant.
His position on the final scored civil service list ensured his
elevation on the first round of promotions. However, the
police chief had the authorization to skip a certain number
of people for promotion, and the sergeant found himself to
be a victim of the chief's arbitrary and capricious use of a
power for which he wasn't even required to provide an
explanation.
His position on the final scored civil service list ensured his
elevation on the first round of promotions. However, the
police chief had the authorization to skip a certain number
of people for promotion, and the sergeant found himself to
be a victim of the chief's arbitrary and capricious use of a
power for which he wasn't even required to provide an
explanation.
The sergeant requested a meeting with the chief. To the
sergeant's surprise, and the chief's credit, the chief
accepted the sergeant's request. The sergeant had prepared
extensive documentation detailing his qualifications for
promotion which he presented to the chief. The chief did a
perfunctory review of the documentation feigning interest;
after which, the sergeant simply ask the chief, "Why did
you skip me for promotion?" Although the sergeant was
seated, he nearly fell from his chair when the chief
answered, "Nobody spoke up for you."
sergeant's surprise, and the chief's credit, the chief
accepted the sergeant's request. The sergeant had prepared
extensive documentation detailing his qualifications for
promotion which he presented to the chief. The chief did a
perfunctory review of the documentation feigning interest;
after which, the sergeant simply ask the chief, "Why did
you skip me for promotion?" Although the sergeant was
seated, he nearly fell from his chair when the chief
answered, "Nobody spoke up for you."
It took a few seconds for the sergeant to verify to himself
he'd heard the chief correctly. The sergeant then ask,
"Who is nobody?" The chief went on to explain his process;
wherein, his colonels made the determination who would be
skipped for promotion. The sergeant then ask, "Who spoke
against me?" This time the sergeant was firmly seated in
his chair when the chief replied that no one had spoken
against him.
he'd heard the chief correctly. The sergeant then ask,
"Who is nobody?" The chief went on to explain his process;
wherein, his colonels made the determination who would be
skipped for promotion. The sergeant then ask, "Who spoke
against me?" This time the sergeant was firmly seated in
his chair when the chief replied that no one had spoken
against him.
The sergeant, remaining calm and respectful, stated his
disbelief of a process wherein a person is "blackballed
through silence." The chief, taking on the tone a "Dutch
Uncle" said, "Look, Sarge, you've got to understand that
everyone that high on the list is equal." The sergeant
couldn't believe the unadulterated nonsense he was hearing.
However, the sergeant theoretically accepted the chief's
premise that everyone was equal. The sergeant then
pointed out that the mathematical ranking of candidates,
provided by the Civil Service Commission, ensured fairness
to all of the "equally qualified" candidates.
disbelief of a process wherein a person is "blackballed
through silence." The chief, taking on the tone a "Dutch
Uncle" said, "Look, Sarge, you've got to understand that
everyone that high on the list is equal." The sergeant
couldn't believe the unadulterated nonsense he was hearing.
However, the sergeant theoretically accepted the chief's
premise that everyone was equal. The sergeant then
pointed out that the mathematical ranking of candidates,
provided by the Civil Service Commission, ensured fairness
to all of the "equally qualified" candidates.
Needless to say, that chief never again met with anyone he would skip
for promotion. This instance demonstrates what little protection already
exists for fair and qualified advancement even under civil service. The
simple truth, in this instance, is that there were a finite number of
lieutenant positions available, and friends, or friends of friends of the
colonels were farther down on the list.
for promotion. This instance demonstrates what little protection already
exists for fair and qualified advancement even under civil service. The
simple truth, in this instance, is that there were a finite number of
lieutenant positions available, and friends, or friends of friends of the
colonels were farther down on the list.
| History of the Federal Civil Service Merit System Principles Civil Service Act of 1883 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 1789 to 1883 Ninety-six Pre-merit Years 1883 The Merit System is Born 1883 to 1938 The First Fifty-five Years 1938 to 1958 The Beginning of Modern Personnel Administration 1958 to 1977 From Administration to Management 1977 to 1979 The Second Civil Service Reform 1979 to Present Post Reforms: Gains, Losses, and Constant Change |
A large majority of
government jobs,
including police and
fire, are filled through
the competitive civil
service exam process.
Here you will find
original articles
designed to give you a
tactical and strategic
advantage during the
civil service exam
process. We provide
valuable information
on the civil service
exam process for both
hiring and promotion.
government jobs,
including police and
fire, are filled through
the competitive civil
service exam process.
Here you will find
original articles
designed to give you a
tactical and strategic
advantage during the
civil service exam
process. We provide
valuable information
on the civil service
exam process for both
hiring and promotion.
| Civil Service Articles from LAPD Authors.com |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |