# Romney getting rid of Civil Circus!!



## union1 (Sep 18, 2002)

I herd on WB Last night, Romney was erradicating the Civil Circus (Ahh Hem Civil Service, NOT for Fire/Police. Can anyone confirm this? 

Hoefully this is a start to ridding the state of this (Fat) Department.

John, MDC Rangers, idea loved that job, my fishing rod woulda been carried to work every day. What more can someone ask for!!


----------



## T-Cop4Life (May 4, 2002)

Lets hope they don't get rid of civil service. Just because you can't get a job through it doesn't mean its bad. Civil Service is there to protect people. I'm sure if you ever get hired by a civil service department you won't be whining about it


----------



## shifty (Jul 13, 2002)

YA, I hope civil service protects that ding dong that killed that pedestrian while on duty driving his own car around.


----------



## Coops320 (Aug 6, 2003)

Romney needs to reform civil service not get rid of it. The fundamentals of civil service are right on, but the plan as is now is horrible.


----------



## Capt. Kirk (Nov 21, 2002)

One of the original reasons behind civil (circus) was to prevent patronage hires. This state would be worse off if it got rid of it... I for one want to get on because I am right for the job and scored well on the exam... If they got rid of it, the only people getting jobs would be the one's with BIG FAT DIMES!!! Which way would be the circus then :?:


----------



## Coops320 (Aug 6, 2003)

I have two problems with civil service:

One, being that veterans and disabled veterans go directly to the top of the candidates list. I think that's ridiculous. The fact that someone has served in the military during a time of war will not, and does not make for a better police officer; and therefore they should not go to the top of the candidate list. I do understand giving veterans a point or two on the civil service test.

Two, being the current state of residence preference. I think that preference should give an extra point or two to a candidate for their home town and not others. Example if I scored a 98 and live in Andover my score for Andover should be a 100 and all other towns I choose should be a 98. On the last test I took I scored 100 and was number 76 on the candidate list in Lawrence, my second choice...just plain sick! Lawrence happened to hire 8 police officers over the course of those two years and went down to a score in the low 90's to hire their eighth officer. So because I live in a smaller town that didn't hire in those two years I never got a job.

The idea behind civil service is great the protection it offers police officers is great, but the system is flawed and desperately needs to be addressed.


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

Coops320,

I agree. Civil Service has it's purpose. Keeps the "hack jobbers" out and protects the Officers from overzealous chiefs. But like you said it has its flaws. People should not be given preference because they served in the Military or go to the top of the list because of residency. I like the idea of giving an extra point or 2 for the resident, but just because you live in town and scored a 92, you should NOT be given preference over candidates with a 98.

Right on coops320!


----------



## dimen24 (Sep 25, 2003)

Those of us who have served, especially in time of war, have shown a great deal of responsiblity, loyalty, and the ability to function in the face of adversity. Regardless of whether they pumped gas or held the line. Bullets and bombs don't discriminate. These qualities outright don't make for better police officers, but they are certainly common qualities of good police officers. This is VETERAN'S Pref.

Those of us who chose not to serve or could not serve have had the time to get to know the area in which they live, and the people in those areas. Residents have had the time to serve their community and also become involved with public service. This is RESIDENCY Pref.

A point system such as the suggested 2 pts. for VT's and 2 pts. for RES seems fair.

MASS defines a veteran as anyone who has served 180 days or more active duty days consecutive with one day being in war time.. Servicemen and women I believe that means you have to have received the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (or equivalent in your branch) to be granted Vt's Status.. I also have heard the National Defense Medal is equal.. Anyone got anymore info on this?


----------



## tomahawk (May 1, 2002)

Dimen,

I would have to say that your definitions of 'preference' are very reasonable, maybe it will finally quiet down the debate... :roll: 

Also, you receive Civil Service vet preference if you served at least 90 days active duty since 8/2/90; no campaign medal is required.

-Mike


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

tomahawk said:


> Dimen,
> 
> Also, you receive Civil Service vet preference if you served at least 90 days active duty since 8/2/90; no campaign medal is required.
> 
> -Mike


 :uc:


----------

