Psych Test for Leo's. 5% Pass?

[motorman4life]

I understand where you are coming from. The reality is, BI's need to streamline their process as the usual time from initial application to hire date is 4 to 6 months for a lateral and 6 to 10 months for a new hire.

Once an agency is made aware of some skeleton in an applicant's closet, they have an obligation to address it thoroughly and properly. Once they hire that person, they "own" that history/skeleton. If there were say, some allegations of sexual misconduct or use of force/anger management and they look into it and decide to clear the officer and hire them, then some later allegation of similar misconduct comes up, the department will have a heavier burden to deal with in civil court, not to mention the obvious questions from their good citizens (ie.. taxpayers), who will ultimately pay the bill for it in the form of increased insurance rates and a possible downgrading of their bond rating, as a result of a huge payout. One sustained misconduct charge can easily bankrupt a municipality and cause layoffs in departments city wide. I have seen it happen more than once in cases of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, drug use, drunken driving, vehicle safety (accidents and tickets) and use of force. It is a real minefield for the agencies.

For this reason, cities are very careful in their screening and must error on the side of caution. All completed background packets go past the city attorney, who has the final say. If the BI sees a red flag, they are not going to waste their time and the applicants time proceeding.

 

[saizai]

*nod* I certainly understand it, like I said.

I think perhaps a lot more of it is CYA than actual rational decisionmaking per se. Pretty typical for government - but understandable, given the pressures you mention. Too high risk:reward ratio - nobody gets fired if they don't hire a really good but "skeletoned" candidate who would have done well, whereas if they do and by chance he doesn't, it's bad.

Perhaps in private sector, where there's more drive to do as well as possible (rather than just "good enough"), this balance would shift. Part of pretty pervasive (and perverse) setup in govt really. Just not enough benefit for doing 'better', when you can have a safer and just as well-paid path by only going with precedence. (Another example is the budgeting that makes it a win for a govt group to waste money before the end of quarter, so as to protect their continuing allotment. I wonder how much gets wasted annually because of that.)

Didn't know the attorney got a shot at 'em, but I shouldn't be surprised.