Recruitment Policy poll

[McGlinchy]

@Momo Its much more likely to happen as a personal bias if it’s a chief that makes the decision “because policy let’s them”
There is always a small chance of common bias in meetings but wouldn’t that also be the case in any other meeting that happens like Complaint Committee.
I don’t believe it’s fair at all to say that promoting them because you’re chief is the same as pushing them through the normal system with risk of bias

 

[Momo]

@McGlinchy I believe I already addressed most of these issues. This also why I am in favour of us having to justify using this policy as “because policy let’s them” kinda still applies but obviously wont work out well.

 

[McGlinchy]

@Momo What's to stop you making up some excuse of how they're a great officer etc etc

Who can argue against that?

 

[Momo]

@McGlinchy 1 imo the relevant command team should be involved, it should preferably even be their idea not mine or colliers. 2 I believe it will be pretty obvious if a reason is actually justifiable, just saying someone is a good cop won't do it. 3.

 

[McGlinchy]

@Momo If the command team should be involved, what happens when they disagree with you?
What's an example of a good reason? (Don't just reuse zac again that was the old people, give one you think is suitable)

 

[Momo]

@McGlinchy If they disagree it shouldn't happen. Zac is an example I think is suitable, and one I believe is a great example. See no reason in wasting my time thinking up hypothetical situation, specially since a big point of the policy is so we won't have to do that

 

[Imperial Watch]

bro if i was the chief of department i wouldnt rely on these monkey-brained community members to say where the problems were!
i'd use my brain and relate to the problems regarding the policies and make changes from there
#ImperialWasSnubbed
#BeforeThisWasDeleted

 

[Super_]

Being as I'm applying for the Head of PSD and one of my proposed changes would be to alter this policy in some form, what I personally think should happen with this policy is either one of two options:

A) Entirely remove Section 7.2 of the Rank Requirements, Role Fairness & Equal Opportunities And Rank Changes policy (and other similar sections e.g 5.5)
B) Alter Section 7.2 to where SMT is required to be involved in this decision making.

Now before we dive in, we need to look at the reason as to why this Section of that policy exists in the first place in order to understand its purpose. When this policy was introduced, this section was originally known as Section 5.2 but is now known as 7.2 which states: "Within certain circumstances, it may be requested from the Chief of Department to disregard this policy". Now from what I understand after reviewing the policy and listening to what previous Chiefs have said, the purpose of this section is so that an officer who best met the criteria for a role/rank but didn't necessarily meet the requirements for that role. An example of this would be about Sir Zac's promotion to the Head of Dispatch which @Momo has explained above. However, the problem with 7.2 of this policy in my personal opinion was the "within certain circumstances" bit. What exactly are the "circumstances" that justified promoting someone that didn't meet the necessary requirements? Due to the vagueness of this wording - coupled with there being no public examples of this, it can be quite easily abused. And if we are being realistic and honest here, it's without question that this has been abused in the past but I won't go into detail here.

So, 7.2 of this policy was designed originally with good intentions but it's still a questionable part of the policy so this is where my proposed ideas come in.

We'll start with A: Removing 7.2 entirely.
Arguably this could be considered to be the simplest solution to the problem as it completely removes the Chief's power to promote anyone who doesn't meet requirements - meaning only those who actually meet the rank requirements can apply for the role/rank and those who don't will have to wait until they do meet the requirements; however long that may be. Therefore, it's fair game to all candidates.
However, while this can solve the problem that 7.2 creates, in doing so removing the policy would also create another issue which links back to the example Momo provided: if 7.2 didn't exist, then Sir Zac who was considered to be the most suitable candidate for the position for his dedication to Dispatcher wouldn't have been promoted as he would have also had been required to meet the rank requirement as well. So instances where there are suitable candidates for roles who don't necessarily meet the requirements would have to not be considered at all.

So with 7.2 being removed potentially causing another problem, what I personally believe to be the most sensible compromise would be idea B: Altering 7.2 to where SMT is required to be involved in the decision making.
Since the Senior Management Team is a core part behind a lot of decisions regarding the future of the PD and other administrative matters, why not make the SMT become a part of the decision to promote an officer than doesn't necessarily meet requirements? That way, it demonstrates that there has been proper discussion and debate on decisions such as these so that way it is done within the best interests of the PD.

But overall, I personally believe that the best course of action here would be to modify Sections like 7.2 to where it requires proper debate and discussion from both the CoDs and SMT before a bypass can be authorised as there are some benefits to having clauses around - despite them being misused previously so adding safeguards such as this could be beneficial.

It may also be worthwhile to just simply include a note on an officer's profile that a promotion was authorised under Section 5.5 and 7.2 of Rank Requirements, Role Fairness & Equal Opportunities And Rank Changes or make a public post saying that Officer "Name" was promoted under said section of policy.

 

[Daigestive]

@Sir Zac has done more than youve done with RTU in a year

 

[Daigestive]

@Collier I mean I couldnt care less that im the only one complaining im trying to be constructive and it's not because I'm salty. With such accualsations you failed to take appropriate actions as IA do with suspensions rather than promoting him with such accusations. I do not promote noncery in this community.

 

[Sam]

I'm going to ask the same thing as @Daigestive before his reply got removed... Just going to rewrite it so mad staff don't remove.

As you are applying for Head of PSD I would assume that you are happy to answer community questions.
I would personally say that the picking of Head of PSD is more important than the Chiefs appointment, I am sorry to say this but I dont think we will ever have better PSD/IA heads than @Momo and @Brinch . With them I could always get a honest opinion and they always did what was right, even if it could result in them getting shit.

Most people are aware of your inactivity on the server, apparently you almost got dismissed from the PD last month even. Why should you be allowed to be Head of PSD? If you can't follow the activity policy.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

This is a post on behalf of someone else,

They're wondering as you're applying for Head of PSD,

"What exactly is happening with your in-game activity, as can be seen before daigestive brought it up about that you've been inactive and you're applying for a role that should be active in-game, unsure why his post was deleted when it's a valid point that you're applying when you're not really active. Will you become more active as far as I can see I haven't seen you in a bit really, and what makes it different that you may go inactive when you get the position"

 

[Deleted member 5577]

Seeing as I am also applying for head of PSD I'd like to outline what I'd do;

This policy is very vague and has a clause for it to be completely ignored altogether, in my opinion, we need to be bringing talent from all areas of the PD, and giving a lot more people the opportunity to apply for positions would be the best way to do this. Maybe something that could be looked at instead of a dead set policy which outlines all the requirements for an officer there be put in place guidelines and an appointments committee, this would bring morality into the equation and allow for people who previously couldn't really be considered under the policy such as Sir Zac to be considered and be promoted fairly with a review on a case by case basis. I understand this could be a lot of work so there are definitely other options that need exploring. Really what we need to be aiming to do is ending the "circle jerk" and building a fairer PD for everyone.

 

[Super_]

Firstly, thank you both for addressing the activity concerns. Yes, activity hasn't exactly been great due to some IRL commitments that were occurring which I personally felt weren't significant enough to warrant an inactivity notice and believed I would be able to meet the hours; which I unfortunately misjudged. However further inactivity issues shouldn't arise as I am taking measures to ensure activity requirements are met for next month and months to come as I still do enjoy policing in-game and doing administrative work such as running the Complaint Committee, etc..
As for those wondering why am I applying for Head of PSD, the reasoning behind it is that I have been serving as a Lieutenant within PSD for around 2 years now which has allowed me to see a lot of the inner workings of the division and how it's progressed throughout these past few years - and with working alongside Momo for so long, I believe I have gained a lot of valuable experience and understanding of how the division operates and have made contributions towards the PD such as changes to the General Policies, Handbook, Internal PSD Policies, etc.,- which I personally feel having this experience and knowledge is critical when taking on a role such as the Head of PSD. And with being a part of this division for so long, I feel as if I personally am ready for the challenge of stepping up to take on this role.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

I respect that, but I personally feel PSD needs a fresh face, not more of the same which is effectively what you're offering as someone with as you say experience in the department.

 

[Aquaa]

@LilChicken I disagree, @Super_ has plenty of experience and a fresh face would only be nice to said fresh face. I have seen a few of his ideas and he is more than competent and able to handle the position

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Aquaa in essence it would just be a continued version of this death box system we're seeing which is just not healthy for the PD. Someone new and dedicated is needed to move PSD forward into the new decade

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Aquaa but it can be completely ignored in theory anyway. I get this and thats why I am advocating for someone new

 

[Daigestive]

You should add that the majority of your experience in handling complaints comes from the ones sustained against you

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Daigestive I haven't, to my knowledge, had any accepted on me. I try my absolute best and do stick to policies hence why all the IAs I did have open on me have been closed with no action taken. I do have experience making IAs quite a lot of which get sustained, although this is a broken system it's the only one we have for correcting officers behaviour, where possible I try to speak with the officer to get them to understand what they did wrong and how they can improve next time which is more like what IA should be doing.