# Lay off list question



## 13B (Sep 8, 2010)

If a PD is looking to hire full-time officers and they have part-time intermittent officers working for them who were hired from the CS list, can they make the part-timers full time, or do they have to go off the lay off list first? Thank for any info guys/gals.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

lay off list


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

*Recent (and scathing) decision on this in Marshfield. Just Google - marshfield police reemployment - and it's the top one. Good luck.*


----------



## jmac572 (Aug 7, 2007)

Wow, thats good stuff in Marshfield... I was passed up by that department once (I was #1 on the certification with veterans pref.) dont want to go too far into it but it is normal practice of that department to hire off of the PI pool which pretty much means you MUST work for $12.30 an hour for some time if you want any part of a full time career there. I know someone of importance on that department and got a phone call from him telling me that my age scared the department (21 at the time) but not to stop pursuing it just hang tight for a while, and as such I dropped from the P/I academy and prepared to move to Florida to pursue a career there (wasnt going to spend the dime on the P/I academy if it wasnt going to get me squat in Florida), about three weeks later I got a letter from civil service explaining the reasons marshfield gave for not hiring me, one being "The applicant dropped out of the P/I academy which showed a lack of desire for the position" when in actuality, as i said, the reason was my phone call with the person from the department... After reading that it makes me wish I pursued civil service action, which goes right along with the statement that many people are unaware of their civil service rights... KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!


----------



## Bloodhound (May 20, 2010)

Yikes, Marshfield got a hell of a spanking in that decision.


----------



## rireserve (Aug 10, 2006)

The farm team lost that game.


----------



## Edmizer1 (Aug 27, 2006)

rireserve said:


> The farm team lost that game.


The farm team sort of did win, they got hired over the proper candidate. Read the decision as linked by HousingCop. The PIs with little to no experience got background investigations which made them look like super stars while the veteran cop outsider was made to look like a demon. The hearing officer who wrote the decision said that the background investigator "_was beyond sloppy_" in his investigation. I'm sure he is probably a good detective but was probably told who to pass and who to fail. When he found out that he had to actually testify about his invest, he probably wanted to crawl under a rock.

Anyone who reads the decision would immediately know exactly what kind of game was being played by the town. The funny thing is that the CS Commission voted 3-2 for the cop. 2 of the commissioners voted for the town! I'm hearing more and more that the CS Commission is leaning heavily towards the municipalities.


----------



## jmac572 (Aug 7, 2007)

I am curious as to why towns such as Marshfield utilize PIs in this manner (or more so are allowed to)... I know when I was in the hiring process to be a PI, Marshfield was paying $12.30 an hour for cruiser time and you could stay on to do a full 8 hours or more if approved (this was roughly four years ago) obviously this is better for the town budget but it just seems a little odd I guess. I suppose you could have an entire force of PIs making $12.30 an hour and cover every shift technically... talk about saving the town money! (quick someone delete my post before Deval grabs a look!)


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

HousingCop said:


> *Recent (and scathing) decision on this in Marshfield. *





Edmizer1 said:


> The hearing officer who wrote the decision said that the background investigator "_was beyond sloppy_" in his investigation. I'm sure he is probably a good detective but was probably told who to pass and who to fail. When he found out that he had to actually testify about his invest, he probably wanted to crawl under a rock.


That guy was evicerated by that decision, see Findings of Fact 38, 39, and 40. At 15, "I find [the detective] to be a completely unreliable witness. I find his testimony to lack credibility or believability, not due to dishonesty but to sloppy and inept practices."

These decisions are published just like court opinions and are available through Lexis and Westlaw, discoverable through a simple search of the detective's name. That's not good. He could be the greatest investigator in the state when it comes to criminal investigations, but if a trial judge were to allow it, a defense attorney would have a field day in court with that one sentence alone in a criminal case.

Like Ed, I'm sure he's a good detective, but this has the potential to follow him.



Edmizer1 said:


> The funny thing is that the CS Commission voted 3-2 for the cop. 2 of the commissioners voted for the town! I'm hearing more and more that the CS Commission is leaning heavily towards the municipalities.


Maybe you're right about them leaning more towards municipalities as an overall rule, but that wasn't evidenced in this case.

The reason for the split was mainly due to disagreement as to how the specific conclusion should have been written, rather than the actual conclusion's end result for the applicant officer. For example, Commisioner Henderson who was the hearing officer and wrote the whole decision slamming MPD and the detective voted no, most likely because his colleages voted to change a portion of his writing.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

Is he on Marshfield now?


----------

