# Panel dismisses complaints on police promotion



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

By Maria Cramer

Globe Staff / March 14, 2009

The state Civil Service Commission has dismissed complaints by several police unions that the state unlawfully overhauled a system that forces supervisors to promote officers based on their scores on the civil service exam.

DiscussCOMMENTS (5)

The commission voted 3-2 Thursday not to investigate complaints that officials at the Human Resources Division violated state law when they decided to group officers together by the range in which they scored, for example, 93 to 100.
The change, which state officials announced to departments in February, gives police supervisors a much larger pool of candidates to choose from. Chiefs have argued that they need leeway to consider a broader range of criteria when choosing commanders, like leadership skills and work ethic. Many department supervisors have also complained that the civil service exam was an obstacle for minority-group members trying to move up.
"Frequently, reliance on test scores alone does not result in selection of the most able candidate," wrote commission chairman Christopher Bowman.
The commission also rejected the unions' argument that the state was required by law to hold public hearings on the change, which will be used to assess the score of the roughly 1,700 officers who took the exam for sergeant, captain, and lieutenant five months ago.
Thomas Nee - president of the Boston Police Patrolman's Association, which was one of the complainants - vowed to appeal to superior court.
Promoting officers could now become "too subjective," Nee said.
The change "would give enormous discretion to appointing authorities," said Alan Shapiro, the unions lawyer. "I think it would give so much discretion it probably . . . just violates the law itself."
For many rank-and-file officers, the system was a reassurance that favoritism would not play a part in police promotions. Now that reassurance could be gone, said one of the complainants, John Solis Scheft, an Arlington lawyer who has trained officers for the exam. "It's really the death of civil service."
The dissenting commissioners, Daniel M. Henderson and John E. Taylor, said the change should have been announced months before the October exam, so that officers could have chosen not to take the test.
The change, the commissioners wrote, "probably also violates the purposes behind the civil service system, including the recruiting, selecting, and advancing of employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge, and skills."

Civil Service Commission won't investigate police unions' complaints - The Boston Globe


----------



## trueblue (Jan 21, 2008)

The promotional tests have become a complete waste of money and time.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

While I don't agree, is the change really going to make a difference? Appointing authorities are often given total leeway by civil service in anything less than 5-8 point gaps in candidates anyway, which is easily articulated by doing an "assesment center" or by just saying they thought one candidate had more training an expierience (which is a BS excuse because the points for T&S are already included in the test score.)


----------



## fra444 (Nov 23, 2008)

It absolutely makes a difference Obs. Now for acting time I may have to sit and patrol instead of getting that acting time for a person who is in my, "Bracket" that scored lower than I did. Then above and beyond that CS has told my job in the past that they had to promote a guy that they passed who, again with this scoring system may have been in the same, "Bracket". 

The Assessment Centers that you mentioned are not used by everyone. Part of this banding thing they are doing some believe is to try to get the Assessment Centers to become the new way of testing.

If I piss off the higher ups, (as I have already done, they refuse to move me to anywhere but patrol) I can be passed over and they wont even have to try to justify it!!!

I DECLARE SHENANIGANS!!


----------



## Hawk19 (Jan 9, 2009)

OfficerObie59 said:


> While I don't agree, is the change really going to make a difference? Appointing authorities are often given total leeway by civil service in anything less than 5-8 point gaps in candidates anyway, which is easily articulated by doing an "assesment center" or by just saying they thought one candidate had more training an expierience (which is a BS excuse because the points for T&S are already included in the test score.)


Obie, does that included education, or is that a non-factor in promotions?


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

OfficerObie59 said:


> or by just saying they thought one candidate had more training an expierience (which is a BS excuse because the points for T&S are already included in the test score.)


That was reversed years ago.

Prior to this banding, they had to justify why they bypassed somebody and not why they thought someone else was a better candidate.

In larger departments this opens up a big political can of worms since you could easily have a dozen guys in one band get bypassed for political reasons.

They turned what was once a tied score into a band and expanded it greatly.

Everyone in that band is considered to have the same exact score. That's not right.

Promotions will become synonymous to getting hired with the sheriffs department.


----------



## robodope (Aug 31, 2003)

This is a complete farce...If your not drinking the kool aid..You will get banded out with no resolution


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

Interesting update on the banding debacle...

http://www.ledimensions.com/images/stories/2009_injunction_update.pdf


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

I wonder if Scheft forecasts any issues arising with banding of the entry level exam as well.


----------

