Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disqualifying factors

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Most agencies do have them. Here ours. See where you fit:


    All candidates for, appointees to, and employees in the civil service shall possess the general qualifications of integrity, honesty, sobriety, dependability, industry, thoroughness, accuracy, good judgment, initiative, resourcefulness, courtesy, ability to work cooperatively with others, willingness and ability to assume the responsibilities and to conform to the conditions of work characteristic of the employment, and a state of health, consistent with the ability to perform the assigned duties of the class. Where the position requires the driving of an automobile, the employee must have a valid state driver's license, a good driving record and is expected to drive the car safely. The foregoing general qualifications shall be deemed to be a part of the personal characteristics of the minimum qualifications of each class specification and need not be specifically set forth therein. The board may prescribe alternative or additional qualifications for individual classes and such shall be made a part of the class specifications.

    Section 18935 of the Government Code, which states:

    18935. (a) The department or a designated appointing power may refuse to examine, or after examination may refuse to declare as eligible, or may withhold or withdraw from an eligible list, before the appointment, anyone who meets any of the following criteria:

    (1) Lacks any of the requirements for the examination or position for which he or she applied.

    (2) Has been dismissed from any position for any cause that would be a cause for dismissal from state service.

    (3) Has resigned from any position not in good standing in order to avoid dismissal.

    (4) Has misrepresented himself or herself in the application or examination process, including permitting another person to complete or attempt to complete a portion of the examination on his or her behalf.

    (5) Has been found to be unsuited or not qualified for employment pursuant to rule.

    (b) The remedies provided in this section are not exclusive and shall not prevent the board, department, or appointing power from taking additional actions pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 19680).

    Section 1031 of the Government Code, which states,

    Each class of public officers or employees declared by law to be peace officers shall meet all of the following minimum standards:

    (a) Be a citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien who is eligible for and has applied for citizenship, except as provided in Section 2267 of the Vehicle Code.

    (b) Be at least 18 years of age.

    (c) Be fingerprinted for purposes of search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose a criminal record.

    (d) Be of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation.

    (e) Be a high school graduate, pass the General Education Development Test or other high school equivalency test approved by the State Department of Education that indicates high school graduation level, pass the California High School Proficiency Examination, or have attained a two-year, four-year, or advanced degree from an accredited college or university. The high school shall be either a United States public school, an accredited United States Department of Defense high school, or an accredited or approved public or nonpublic high school. Any accreditation or approval required by this subdivision shall be from a state or local government educational agency using local or state government approved accreditation, licensing, registration, or other approval standards, a regional accrediting association, an accrediting association recognized by the Secretary of the United States Department of Education, an accrediting association holding full membership in the National Council for Private School Accreditation (NCPSA), an organization holding full membership in AdvancED, an organization holding full membership in the Council for American Private Education (CAPE), or an accrediting association recognized by the National Federation of Nonpublic School State Accrediting Associations (NFNSSAA).

    (f) Be found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer.

    (1) Physical condition shall be evaluated by a licensed physician and surgeon.

    (2) Emotional and mental condition shall be evaluated by either of the following:

    (A) A physician and surgeon who holds a valid California license to practice medicine, has successfully completed a postgraduate medical residency education program in psychiatry accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued after completion of the psychiatric residency program.

    (B) A psychologist licensed by the California Board of Psychology who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued postdoctorate.

    The physician and surgeon or psychologist shall also have met any applicable education and training procedures set forth by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training designed for the conduct of preemployment psychological screening of peace officers.

    (g) This section shall not be construed to preclude the adoption of additional or higher standards, including age.



    Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

    Comment


    • Starks11
      Starks11 commented
      Editing a comment
      This is a much better list than the ones I have seen, thanks for sharing it!

  • #17
    Too bad L-1s post was a waste of effort...

    Comment


    • #18
      These comments make the case for what I originally suggested. Departments should make their disqualifiers more reflective of what law enforcement communities like this one here believe. If a 20 year old or arrest makes one an unreliable witness or of questionable character then should not the disqualifiers state: “no drug use, no arrests suggesting use ever?” Why the no narcotic use in 10 other drugs in 5, when it’s a bunch of nonsense? Again I’m ssuming this community here actually reflects wider law enforcement and I’m not convinced it does

      Comment


      • #19
        Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
        These comments make the case for what I originally suggested. Departments should make their disqualifiers more reflective of what law enforcement communities like this one here believe. If a 20 year old or arrest makes one an unreliable witness or of questionable character then should not the disqualifiers state: “no drug use, no arrests suggesting use ever?” Why the no narcotic use in 10 other drugs in 5, when it’s a bunch of nonsense? Again I’m ssuming this community here actually reflects wider law enforcement and I’m not convinced it does
        It's because there are too many potential disqualifying thins to list, so instead, general categories of disqualifying conduct are created such as lack of integrity, honesty, sobriety, dependability, industry, thoroughness, accuracy, good judgment, initiative, resourcefulness, courtesy, ability to work cooperatively with others, or willingness and ability to assume the responsibilities and to conform to the conditions of work. Then, each life event can be looked at and a determination made as to whether it falls within one of those disqualifiers.

        As an example, thoroughly and accurately completing the Personal History Questionnaire (PHS) is very important. It's a PITA to do, but thoroughness and accuracy saves the background investigator a lot of work. I had applicants who barely made an effort to complete it, made little effort to find the requested information, or guessed at the answers, many of which came back as incorrect when compared to what was found in the background. We don't have Incomplete PHS as a disqualifier on our list. Instead, by their conduct these applicants demonstrated they either lacked the required traits of dependability, industry, thoroughness, accuracy, good judgment, initiative and resourcefulness, or they lied on their PHS. It didn't really matter which it was, any of those things made them a DQ.

        Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

        Comment


        • Starks11
          Starks11 commented
          Editing a comment
          You have what sounds like an awesome job. I actually take the test for Néw Orleans in early June. Awaiting to see if a get a conditional offer from DOC as well. My father made it thru but decided to stick to retirement (he was a judge). He didn’t find it too difficult a process. He actually had a pot arrest from college but was ok. Does New Orleans have a reputation for being difficult or less so? My background is in teaching, still have active license, two masters degrees, one 8 year old case that was nolle prossed

      • #20
        You have what sounds like an awesome job. I actually take the test for Néw Orleans in early June. Awaiting to see if a get a conditional offer from DOC as well. My father made it thru but decided to stick to retirement (he was a judge). He didn’t find it too difficult a process. He actually had a pot arrest from college but was ok. Does New Orleans have a reputation for being difficult or less so? My background is in teaching, still have active license, two masters degrees, one 8 year old case that was nolle prossed.

        Comment


        • #21
          Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
          Ya because ALL cops tell the truth ALL the time and ALL arrests have integrity. And NO cop has committed perjury. What a joke
          So... because some officers are dishonest, we're supposed to let MORE dishonest people wear a badge and gun?

          How does that make things better?

          Departments should make their disqualifiers more reflective of what law enforcement communities like this one here believe.
          There are too many to list. Some things are automatic DQs everywhere, like a felony conviction... others are taken in context of the whole applicant. Education, experience, work history, self-improvement since the incident... ownership and accountability for the incident.

          one 8 year old case that was nolle prossed.
          You keep saying that like it matters.

          Again I’m ssuming this community here actually reflects wider law enforcement and I’m not convinced it does
          Then why are you here?
          Last edited by tanksoldier; 05-23-2021, 06:19 AM.
          "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

          "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

          Comment


          • #22
            I’m here because I’m always interested in hearing what people have to offer. Mostly was hoping for some advice and useful feedback. Some provided that and and some insight. Others seem to be here only to say they are superior because “they made it.” That seems unhelpful. Fact is, there clearly exists a huge range of opportunities in law enforcement, some more forgiven than others perhaps out of urgent need. That reality isn’t reflected well in this community.
            But to be honest the tone of this dialogue is exactly what I expected before I ever posted after looking at what others experienced: superciliousness, lack of kindness, unwelcoming. But we know y’all made it!

            Comment


            • #23
              Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
              These comments make the case for what I originally suggested. Departments should make their disqualifiers more reflective of what law enforcement communities like this one here believe. If a 20 year old or arrest makes one an unreliable witness or of questionable character then should not the disqualifiers state: “no drug use, no arrests suggesting use ever?” Why the no narcotic use in 10 other drugs in 5, when it’s a bunch of nonsense? Again I’m ssuming this community here actually reflects wider law enforcement and I’m not convinced it does
              You obviously do not understand the difference between hard disqualification and permissive disqualification.

              We can instruct you (or explain to you) until we are blue in the face but we can't make you understand. THAT is on you.
              I could easily post the text of the Iowa Administrative Code section 501 which governs hiring of LE officers in my state. But it wouldn't do any good as you are really not interested in hearing cold hard truth

              ALSO we don't care what you think of our answers. If you are not happy being a member here and getting the answers of well know experienced Law Enforcement officers................you are always free to leave using the same door you came in.

              A quick addition of known experience shows that you are getting advice from around 140 yrs of experience with at least 60 of them in supervisor or managerial positions.
              My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

              Comment


              • #24
                Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post

                You obviously do not understand the difference between hard disqualification and permissive disqualification.

                We can instruct you (or explain to you) until we are blue in the face but we can't make you understand. THAT is on you.
                I could easily post the text of the Iowa Administrative Code section 501 which governs hiring of LE officers in my state. But it wouldn't do any good as you are really not interested in hearing cold hard truth

                ALSO we don't care what you think of our answers. If you are not happy being a member here and getting the answers of well know experienced Law Enforcement officers................you are always free to leave using the same door you came in.

                A quick addition of known experience shows that you are getting advice from around 140 yrs of experience with at least 60 of them in supervisor or managerial positions.

                Comment


                • #25
                  I get it, hard vs permissive. No problem! And I do appreciate answers but not accusations and unfounded nonsense. Thanks

                  Comment


                  • #26
                    They’re NOT unfounded.
                    Don’t try and BS The Badge.

                    Comment


                    • #27
                      Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
                      I do appreciate answers but not accusations and unfounded nonsense. Thanks
                      If us telling you the truth is making your lower lip stick out like that, then you're probably not cut out for this line of work- we are subjected to things MUCH worse than hearing the truth, on a daily basis. But no matter what comes out of an offender's mouth, we cannot land one more punch than the absolute minimum required to achieve our lawful objective...

                      Comment


                      • #28
                        Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
                        Given the cost and time involved in filtering out candidates, why don’t police and corrections departments make the list of disqualifiers more reflective of where they really stand? In other words, most I see say a felony conviction within last 10 years or drug use in last 10 is disqualifying or something to this effect. But reading this forum leads me to believe this is mendacious information and really any felony arrest (never mind conviction) or narcotic use in one’s life at any time is disqualifying. So why waste time and resources on these candidates?’Why not a more transparent list of disqualifying factors?
                        Well this differs from agency to agency, but most have disqualifiers that fall in to one of two categories

                        Automatic Disqualifiers - These are hard DQs that cannot be explained, mitigated, or waived in any form. These are usually the ones that are listed on an agency's website, hiring pamphlet, etc. In essence they are there to let applicants know if they fall into any of these categories they may as well not even test as they will never pass background.

                        Possible Disqualifiers - These are DQ's that can in some cases be explained, mitigated and/or are time limited. They are often based on individual/situational circumstances and are often not listed because they cannot be completely evaluated without further investigation. The problem with most applicants is they want to walk in the door, give an abbreviated version of their life history/circumstances, and with a degree of certainty, be guaranteed they will pass background. As with anything in police work, there is a reason a complete investigation is performed and we do not rely on cursory (and often unverifiable) information.
                        Last edited by dream34; 05-25-2021, 11:31 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #29
                          Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
                          I get it, hard vs permissive. No problem! And I do appreciate answers but not accusations and unfounded nonsense. Thanks
                          You’re dealing with people who detect lies for a living.
                          "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                          "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                          Comment


                          • #30
                            Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post

                            You’re dealing with people who detect lies for a living.
                            And some of us who have been doing it for decades
                            My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 2602 users online. 186 members and 2416 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X