My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A - ICMA/PERF Report
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 03/09/05 WS
>
Item A - ICMA/PERF Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:57:10 PM
Creation date
3/2/2005 3:34:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/9/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Discussion: Human Resource Services should be asked to publish a <br /> disciplinary matrix periodically to provide this information. The matrix <br /> should identify only the charge and infraction, and the recommended level of <br /> discipline. This would serve as a guide for every city agency. Currently, the <br /> IA office seeks out this information. When disciplinary recommendations are <br /> being considered at the subject officer's chain of command level, there should <br /> be no reason to involve Human Resource Services. There are too many <br /> concerns by officers that Human Resource Services is over-involved in the <br /> internal investigation and disciplinary process. These concerns can be easily <br /> eliminated by using a matrix. <br /> <br />Performance Evaluation <br /> <br />Almual performance evaluations are officially due for each member of the police <br />department on December 31. The vast majority of supervisors believe they are too <br />time consuming to complete, as they can take approximately four to six hours each <br />to complete. Patrol sergeants complain that with nine or more subordinates, they <br />could potentially spend forty to fifty or more hours on this process. It should be <br />noted that although supervisors have complaints about the system, the evaluation <br />system has not been enforced at all by the police department for the past several <br />years. There is no process in place to ensure supervisors complete the evaluations. <br /> <br />The review team examined a small sample of completed evaluations, and found <br />many of the evaluations were superficially completed with little detail, especially in <br />the case of some of the incarcerated officers. Additionally, many of the commanders <br />who complete evaluations reported a difficulty with being able to directly observe <br />the personnel they were charged with evaluating. This problem is not unique to the <br />EPD as many departments struggle with the evaluation process. Clearly additional <br />upper-level attention is needed to monitor the evaluation process and enforce the <br />protocols already in place. Additionally, the scope of the evaluations and how <br /> <br /> 71 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.