Professional Standards - Queries & Concerns

[Super_]

Hey everyone,

Hope you are all doing well. After getting inspiration from @GamingPeach 's thread about Patrol, I thought I would gather some of the community's opinions on Professional Standards and it's sub-division Internal Affairs.

As most of you will know for nearly 3 months now, I am the current Head of Professional Standards: meaning that I am responsible for running the Complaint Committee, making sure Internal Affairs and its command team are operating smoothly as well as keeping tabs on administrative issues that may arise in other divisions, such as Advanced Background Checks, approving changes to a division's disciplinary policies, etc.

Recently, I've noticed that there hasn't been much talk or discussion about topics regarding Professional Standards so I have been interested in finding out if that there are any queries or concerns that the community may still have that I may not necessarily be aware of - especially since over the last year or so, there was a lot of constructive criticism about the PD which, as far as I'm aware, a lot of that was addressed with the changes made to the PD over that period.

While I am aware that there are further plans to change the PD's structure which includes making some changes to Professional Standards that are currently being discussed and drafted with the rest of SMT, (which may even address some concerns when these changes are settled on and are made public by the Chiefs) I'll try my best to respond to any of your questions or concerns that you may have about the current state of Professional Standards.

Cheers!

 

[Bert]

I think what would help loads is a more clear cut way for disciplinary appeals. Recently I tried appealing a warning, and because of my recent record and activity it wasn’t removed. Even though I haven’t had disciplinary action in 2+ years and have been active.
I think it would go a long way to post requirements to have disciplinary action removed, and give the department more information on how this happens.

 

[Super_]

Hello Bert,

I agree that the Disciplinary Action & Appeals policy is a bit vague in terms of displaying what criteria is needed to be met for a WW appeal to be accepted. There is an internal PS resource for WW appeals which I will share below:

This was primarily utilised back when PS used to have command members before the decision to downsize was made by the CoDs, however, as displayed, a removal request is pretty much up to my discretion. I wouldn't be against updating this to be more clearer or alternatively, updating the Disciplinary Action & Appeals policy to include some criteria for an appeal to be accepted.

If you would like to discuss the details of your appeal as to why it was denied, feel free to inbox me.

 

[Cal Heller]

Policy Board is consistent with I think only one person and that's you?

I would love to be more of a 'Professional Standards' officer, but I don't think there are any jobs there other than IA and CC? I thought there was one position in PSD that wasn't one of those two...

PSD doesn't really have a uniform or detail on their police uniform in-game, which I think could be a nice touch, kind of like high-vis, but much more subtle.

 

[Mim]

Policy board is a group of command members, me included where we discuss any policy suggestions pros and cons etc.

 

[Cal Heller]

Wouldn't be able to rate in this thread anyways.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Devon Stewart since when?

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Devon Stewart no lol since when did i ask

 

[nutrient10]

The Policy Board consists of 12 members as of current, I don't think in-game additions would benefit anybody whatsoever, especially minor details like this, seems like a massive waste of time when developers can be focusing their time on much more pressing issues. Besides, I think @Super_ was mainly looking for any questions or concerns that people have.

Although I do agree that another PSD Member might be quite useful as just one might cause rare issues now and then

 

[Sam]

@Super_

Hi!

So for the third time (I think) I will ask the same question, hopefully you will be able to give me me answers as the others (unnamed) were not willing to.

• How is it appropriate for PSD to run Complaint Committee, when PSD are tasked with directly overseeing Internal Affairs? The investigative body and deciding body should be totally separate. Also, why would IA even be allowed to participate in meetings? IA Command are directly overseeing the investigations under them, this is like having the the jury consist of the cops investigating you. Don't you think?

I do have a second question, directed towards you rather than PSD, What changes would you implement to make the PD Command Team smaller, and remove unnecessary administrative tasks and positions? This is something the PD was tasked with a while back, but lately nothing has really happened. Rather the opposite, previous decisions were overturned as can be seen by your appointment to Major, and A1Ls appointment to Captain. And the former head of dispatches appointed to Lieutenant.

 

[Double J]

Policy Board is consistent with I think only one person and that's you?

This is not the case. It's quite big for what it is. The only people who are not in it are myself, Kenty, Aquaa(?).

I would love to be more of a 'Professional Standards' officer, but I don't think there are any jobs there other than IA and CC?

PSD contains quite confidential information, which also means you'd have to have specific permissions set. This won't happen.
IA and CC and 2 different things.
CC is for LT+ if they wish to be. IA is already quite confidential as it stands. You can live with just a role in Internal Affairs Investigator.

I thought there was one position in PSD that wasn't one of those two...

I had spoken to super when I was denied for IA command in regards to if a position in PSD would open, then reply I received, which I agree with, stated: "at this time, there is no need for another PSD member."
Not much is happening at the moment, and even then, I'm sure super is capable to handle his workload, if he wasn't he would have opened a position.

 

[Tyla Jai]

The only issue I have is the fact it takes so long to come to a conclusion on whether somebody's done something wrong or not. I have had several applications rejected e.g. for Sergeant because I have an open complaint on me. I was only accepted this time because Collier and McGlinchy could see it was taking the piss and reviewed the complaint for me. In order to fix this you can either come to a decision quicker or just stop rejecting people for positions because they have an open complaint. I heard a good saying once; "you aren't doing your job properly if you're not getting complaints".

 

[Super_]

Hi Alyt,

That is a good point you and a few other members from Command have brought up which I can definitely see how this stops officers progressing in the department and how it is frustrating which is an issue that will hopefully be addressed real soon. The Policy Board is currently discussing a proposed amendment to 5.3 of Role Fairness & Equal Opportunity and Rank Changes which could rectify this issue to where if a complaint is pretty much highly unlikely to be sustained (so exonerated, not sustained, etc.) then the officer recommended for promotion can receive this promotion. I'll let you know how this turns out

 

[Double J]

Good to see that Suggestions are getting looked at like this one! Wonder where this one came from

 

[Collier]

Changes to PSD are on the way but removing the major rank to simply move all Command Members' ranks down by 1 won't solve the number of command positions held

IA will be seperated from CC and the head of the line will not be the Chairman of the CC nor will they attend CC meetings, their role in CC will simply to see to it that the Chairman runs them frequently

 

[Sam]

Why would this not solve the total amount of command in the PSD "tree"? I am a bit confused.
Right now,
PSD "tree": Major, Captain, Lieutenant

If Major is removed,
PSD "tree": Captain, Lieutenant

Right now - If Major is removed = 1 command spot removed.

 

[Collier]

I was more referencing your suggestion to make division heads Lt.'s and "Line" heads Captains. The PSD tree is being changed, though.

 

[Sam]

@Collier Oh, that makes sense then cuz I got pretty confused there. I am unsure where I have suggested that all division heads should be LT tho? I am pretty sure I have only stated that I think some divisions should be led by a LT due to the low amount of actual work. Patrol for example definitely needs a Captain + 1 LT.

 

[Mim]

@Samuel Me and @GamingPeach have literally identical workloads?

 

[Collier]

Yeah I kind of misread the list in your post, I see now that it was not for all heads

woops