Clarification on the rule regarding the dismissal of Government Employees

[Deleted member 1235]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add: Make 4.10 more clearer when it comes to firing government employees.

Your version of the rule: The Mayor and/or the Police Lieutenant may only demote another player from a job if they believe that the player(s) are hindering/causing deliberate and obvious disruption within the government and/or are violating any of the Paralake Laws. When firing a employee, the LT/mayor should seek the advice and opinions of his/her sergeants or Mayor provided there is one. Talking to the person(s) should be attempted first before dismissal.



Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited: (Be extensive and descriptive)
I came up with this idea last night after reviewing the recent ban request concerning Luke Person and the dismissal of the medic for "Misuse of Government equipment". Despite the rules stating that Rules are NOT open to interpretation, the idea that someone "has not properly performed their duties;" is worded in a way that will always be interpreted as the quality of duties for government personal are to the interpretation of the LT on duty. It seems all to easy now to dismiss a LT to think of a simple mistake and fire someone from their job, which in reality would not happen. I think there should be some more strict guidelines when it comes to taking away someone's job and should not just be down to one person to interpret whether a job has or has not been done properly.

tl;dr: More strict guidelines when it comes to firing government employees to prevent exploitation and making up of fake laws such as "misuse of government radio" and to make sure demotions are just and fair and not dictated by one person who may have a personal grudge.

Please add your opinions and reconsiderations guys!

**EDIT**
Can close this for now, thanks to @Swiper The Fox for introducing the supervisor complaints and for @Chrissy for telling me. This rule won't need to be changed/implemented as we now have a check and balance on supervisors/LT's

 

[Trande]

I completely agree with you. For example: a police officer shouldn't be demoted for running a red light by accident, but it happens quite often, even without having a quick chat with he officer in question.

+ support - Would give LTs clear law guidance in those cases.

 

[Luke]

the dismissal of the medic for "Misuse of Government equipment".

The Paramedic was not demoted for that reason - the paramedic was demoted as he had been detained pending criminal charges, including, but not limited to: multiple demonstrations of dangerous and reckless driving, failure to stop for the Police while in control of a vehicle, failure to give way to emergency vehicles, failure to report a crime, feeling the scene of a vehicle accident, failure to stop for Police while on foot, failure to cooperate with LEOs, resisting arrest, attempting to evade Police custody, etc.

The video that was posted on that ban request does NOT include these charges, it only shows what he was charged with when he was detained, which was the misuse of government equipment, specifically relating to the misuse of a government vehicle when used to commit several criminal acts.

The rule could be expanded, but does not need to be as a result of that situation.

 

[QualityLolz]

+SUPPORT even if I was a supervisor I would for example watch them first instead of a straight dissmissal

 

[Deleted member 1235]

The Paramedic was not demoted for that reason - the paramedic was demoted as he had been detained pending criminal charges, including, but not limited to: multiple demonstrations of dangerous and reckless driving, failure to stop for the Police while in control of a vehicle, failure to give way to emergency vehicles, failure to report a crime, feeling the scene of a vehicle accident, failure to stop for Police while on foot, failure to cooperate with LEOs, resisting arrest, attempting to evade Police custody, etc.

The video that was posted on that ban request does NOT include these charges, it only shows what he was charged with when he was detained, which was the misuse of government equipment, specifically relating to the misuse of a government vehicle when used to commit several criminal acts.

The rule could be expanded, but does not need to be as a result of that situation.

I understand what you mean. I was just using this as an example to show that there is confusion/debate when it comes to dismissal. I'm not recommending a change just because of that particular event. However better clarification and expansion on the rule would mean that there's not always a BR or complaints whenever someone has been demoted.

 

[Chrissy]

The problem is, "not performing your duties" is a nice catch all. Perhaps "within reason" would be better as I fear that tightening the rules would only let quality fall. At the moment, the Lt fills a nice gap between mayors who don't often demote people and the staff team, who don't like to get involved in in character decisions (ever been told to "resolve it IC"?). I'm sure we can all agree that some retard talking over others on the radio is actively hindering others from performing their duties and is simply a waste of a cop. My worry is that if the rules are tightened in the exact manner you are suggesting, this balance will be lost. Sure, people do get demoted unecessarily but this is a separate issue to do with their decision making skills and reason rather than the rule itself.

EDIT: perhaps this solves this issue entirely?
https://perpheads.com/threads/complaint-information-and-format.7948/