| December 2, 2007 |
Merit based Promotions? |
|
|
After watching the politicians, Mayor
Stratton and District Attorney Carney, at the recent press conference
regarding the Grand Jury report on the Curtis matter, I wanted an
opportunity to respond to some of their criticisms of the police
contract. It has now become commonplace for the politicians to use the police contract as a shield to hide their own shortcomings. The City’s response to the Grand Jury report was no exception. Rather than take responsibility for inept management, the politicians waived the police contract in front of the press and the public to deflect blame. The Mayor has asked the public to read the Grand Jury report and I join him in that request. The Grand Jury report is a detailed 31-page document which does not even mention the police contract until page 29. The bulk of the report is comprised of Findings of Fact and Recommendations regarding: 1. Improvements in the handling of evidence; 2. Changes in the implementation of drug testing; 3. Stricter policies for dealing with confidential informants; 4. Improvement to case management; and 5. Recommended changes in management and supervision. It is important to note that the contract in no way prevented the City from previously addressing these issues. In fact, over the last couple of years the PBA has requested improvements and changes to the drug testing procedure and increased supervision in the Vice Unit. The City’s administration responded by denying our requests on both of these matters. Specifically, the City abolished the Vice Lieutenant position in the Vice Unit in the face of vocal requests from the PBA not to do so. The Vice Lieutenant was the individual in charge of the Vice Unit and was in the process of working on more effective and efficient evidence handling procedures when the Assistant Chief of the Bureau along with the Chief and Mayor decided to abolish his position over the PBA’s objection. Lo and behold, the Grand Jury report reveals the gravity of that misguided decision. We can only guess what problems with evidence handling would have been avoided if the City had not abolished that position. The PBA also requested changes to the drug/alcohol policy in an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the policy. Once again, the City ignored the PBA. The PBA had no other avenue to fight either decision once the City refused both requests. Perhaps District Attorney Carney and Mayor Stratton would like to explain how the police contract is to blame for this. At the recent press conference, District Attorney Carney and Mayor Stratton both incorrectly stated that promotions are made by seniority. The Mayor continued to state at Monday’s City Council meeting, “The City should demand a change in the contract so that officers can be promoted by merit instead of seniority. That needs to change. We need a promotion system that gets the best people into supervisory positions.” This is an example of the Mayor either demonstrating his lack of knowledge on how promotions are made within the Police Department, or him once again using the contract to deflect criticism for promotions which are ultimately his responsibility. The New York State Civil Service Law, not the contract, governs how promotions are made. Promotions are made based upon merit-based examinations. The City selects from among the top three candidates on the civil service list. This is the same system used by all state and local governments for promotions. The contract has nothing to do with promotions within the Schenectady Police Department. Finally, I would like to state publicly how job assignments as opposed to promotions are filled within the Department. Under our seniority system, every officer is given the same opportunity to bid for an assignment with seniority being a “major factor” in obtaining an assignment. Regardless of seniority, the contract requires that the police officer be qualified to perform the duties either before or after receiving on-the-job training. The “vaunted” seniority provision of the contract is not as draconian as the Mayor has led the public to believe and is as follows: The City is in accord with the
principle that seniority should be the major factor in filling work
assignments by superior officers, unless the senior employee is not
qualified to perform the duties required. Provided that if he so
requests, the senior officer shall be given an on-the-job training
course in said duties and, if he fails to qualify for the job within a
reasonable period, he may then be passed over. The determination of
qualification after the training period shall be made by the Mayor or
his designee. However, it is recognized that the public safety must not
be jeopardized through artificial constraints resulting from the
application of the principle of strict seniority. |
||
| As it appeared in the Daily Gazette 12/2/2007 |
 |
|
 |
||
