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.
