Wednesday, May 02, 2007

You Have Got To Be Kidding

Fax Message # 071913
Note: The re-test will consist of the same questions administered on Jan. 6,2007. For those taking the re-test on June 23, 2007, the evaluation of the oral portion of Assessment Exercise will be based on your June 23, 2007 performance; your Jan. 6, 2007 performance will not be evaluated. For those that choose not to re-test on June 23, 2007, the evaluation of the oral portion of the Assessment Exercise will be based on your Jan. 6, 2007 performance.

The cynic in us would ask:
Who failed that should have passed?
Well over at Second City Cop they have a different angle. Unreal!


Anonymous said...

"The cynic in us would ask:
Who failed that should have passed?"

Well we know all the Merit hack
juice babies didnt have to worry.

Anonymous said...

This is absolute nonsense. Tell us where we finished on the last test before we decide if we want a do over. If you were lucky or skilled enough to finish high, maybe you would not want to do it again. You could know all that shit, get nervous or forget something that you included last time, and then you slide down the list. In addition, the test was designed to determine if you can think fast and make decisions under "pressure". If you already know the scenarios, where is the spontaneous thinking? What a fucking joke. Also, are we doing the complete second part again, or just the video portion? And how can they not tell us why this is happening. Admit that they screwed it up. They send out that fax with no explanation. It included a phone number to call....a "hotline" and hey guess what? It is the same message thats been on there for 2 months or longer. And heres a surprise-by the time that the notice came out, the PBPA office was closed, the answering service answered. Lets see, test maker screws up the test, no one at the company responds, union does not respond, no explanation from the city or the department. Just a big bowl of hey fuck you people. absofuckinglutely unbelievable.

Is there a commitee sitting someplace that looks for ways to completely screw up morale? As if it wasn't in the shitter already? This one takes the cake.

Anonymous said...

Rumor has it that "The Little one" didn't do so well.

Also, right after the test, I overheard 2 sergeants complaining that they tried to explain to the proctors that they were administering the test wrong. The proctors (some, who looked to be all of 18 years old) went into the hall, came back and told these sergeants they had to proceed...what are you supposed to do?

The exam should have been stopped right then. What a joke....

Anonymous said...

Consider this:

Now that everyone gets a second chance to take the oral exam which, per the lieutenant's exam guide, was designed to see how candidates "think on their feet," the distribution of test scores on the oral portion will be much more narrow. How can it not be? Everyone knows the "think on your feet" questions 7 weeks before the exam. Very few will blow it. Almost everyone will do well - even those who blew it the first time when it was a true "think on your feet" exercise.

Here's the rub - the Department never published how the written assessment exercise and oral assessment exercise will be weighted to arrive at a candidate's overall score. Now that the vast majority of candidates will perform well on the oral exam, a higher percentage of a candidate's overall score can be attributed to the oral portion. This will produce a candidate ranking vastly different from what it would have been based upon the original oral assessment scores. Thus, the Department can play with the relative weights of the written versus oral until the "desired" candidate rankings are achieved. Does this sound fair? You don't think the city would do this, do you?

Does anyone think the Department received and were unhappy with the rankings resulting from the January test scores and decided to manipulate the scoring process under the guise of making it fair for a few candidates that allegedly got screwed by incompetent proctors?

Disgruntled candidates should immediately call: Noelle Brennan, members of the media, and the Sergeant's Association. Demand that the union seek an injuction to stop the the June do-over, at least until the city provides a reason or some facts (there's a crazy notion) supporting their decision to effectively nullify the assessment value of the oral portion of the exam.

It's time for the union to step-up to the plate!!

Anonymous said...

Here is the problem: The city waited until they had the results back and the scores of all of the applicants before deciding that they would administer the re-test. THEY HAD THE SCORES!!!! They didn't have a week or a month's investigation (the enitire process, including the directions which were written and given to us in advance before the test and re-given at the test site in the room, and gone over by the proctor when the Sgt was supposed to read the directions with the proctor, was recorded. They had two tape players. One they started immediately and stayed on the entire time, from identification of the proctor through the directions, through the playback of the other recorder to make sure you were being recorded, to the scenario, to your answers, to the completion of the test. The entire thing was recorded. This investigation should have lasted a week at most and resulted in either a published statement stating, "If you can't read the directions and follow simple clear cut directions, we don't want you as a LT. or They should have immediately thrown out the second portion of the test and discussed a way to rectify the situation with the union, Management and Labor Affairs, and Legal affairs. As far as I know, NONE of them were contacted about this. They waited to get the scores and see where their people or the wanted demographic landed and then decided to do this idiotic thing. This is in no way fair. The bosses already had their after the test groups telling people openly what the city was looking for on test questions. This was supposed to be a spontanious think on your feet excercise so knowing the questions beforehand does not get the wanted result. This is city bullshit, plain and simple. The Meritorious Selection Process now supposedly has federal oversite, they agreed to settle lawsuits to the tune of 12 million so they can't beat the horse anymore. Now they have to find another way to fuck everyone. It wasn't enough to give the chosen people the answers to he first part, but now that those people fucked up the second part, they decide to give everybody another bite at the apple. Just throw out the entire test but give us our scores for my lawsuit....

Anonymous said...

PBPA its time to earn those dues. Get into court and force the vendor to run a new oral test with new questions at their own expense. Insist on impartial monitors to be appointed to audit the process.

Anonymous said...

My primary concern with this would be the timing of the announcement. If there was in fact an issue with the exam on 06 January, why did it take five months for them to correct it? It will be difficult for the city to defend this action if they received the results and then decided that they needed to offer the oral portion again. It gives the appearance, if not the reality, that the results did not look like what the city hoped they would. Again, if this was a known problem from the start, why wait so long to take steps to correct it? And second, an excellent point was raised earlier, that being that this portion was designed to determine how one would think on their feet in a situation. How accurate can that goal be if the questions are given ahead of time? Third and last, there were many complaints about the written, I estimate far more than complaints about the oral. Why is that portion not also being offered again? It is amazing that the city is trying to go through with this. I hope our union dues are not wasted and that the union at least puts forth an effort to stop this.

Anonymous said...

God I can't wait to retire

Anonymous said...

Don't we have any lawyers on retainer for PBPA? They should jump in right now and ask for injunctive relief. If they don't, it's time to decertify.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with 09:02:00 PM. Where is the union on this? Our dues are paid, so lets get on it. Don't wait to be asked, get into court and find out the following;

1. Get us our scores and where we are on the list. We cannot, repeat cannot make an informed decision without all of the pertinent information. Everyone will probably take the re-test anyway, but why not provide the info?

2. Find out how many test takers have made complaints and who they are. Get everything out in the open.

3. Have the test administrators admit their fault and make them pay for any future testing, litigation etc.

Also, there have been posts and conversations about tossing the oral part and using the scores from the first test portion. I say bullshit to that. All we were required to do was pass the first part, to get to the oral. Using those scores would be even more unfair. Yes, I did not do so good on the first part, but I did good enough. Thats all that was required.

PBPA, this is your time to show what you have. Are you a golf outing, easter egg hunt, fishing trip organizer or are you our representatives? Step up goddamn it.

Anonymous said...

ok, I just went to our Sgt's association's website and didn't see any comments regarding this issue. Interesting

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Yesterday, I called the Sergeant's Association to inquire about what is being done to address the do-over exam. I was told that they are currently discussing our legal recourse with their attorneys. Also, the call-taker related that whatever action they intend to take should be posted on the Sergeant's Association website by Friday.

I hope this is true. Already there's clamor about dunping PB&PA if the ball is dropped on this one.

If you took this exam, please call our Union and apply pressure. If we let the City get away with this nonsense, who knows what it will try next.

Anonymous said...

The PBPA is a joke!! They are without doubt completely unconcerned about YOUR problems. I recently learned that my ongoing grievance was DROPPED because it was "too old" (only because the law firm HIRED AND PAID FOR with my and your dues let it sit for an inexcusable long period) and I had no recourse.

They are liars and self serving 'ass hats' (to quote the other guys)!!!!

Anonymous said...

If in fact your grievance became stale due to the attorney's inattention, and you have been harmed why not sue him for malpractice? OR QUIT THE CRYING!

Anonymous said...

Give another 75- 100 question test. Give scores out when you walk out, best man/woman wins.
Fuck this oral portion, too subjective and truly unfair since it is not the same proctor for everyone.

Enough of the bullshit, stop playing with numbers. We all know the city was upset with the final outcome and now they are trying to put the fix in. FEDS are you listening???? We need our UNION to demand fair promotional tests. The city already has the 30% merit to get the politcical/clout babies in. Just give us the RAW scores from ONE test and promote off those scores. amen.

Anonymous said...

We pay the highest monthly dues of any rank in this city. Time to collect some service on those dues. Enough Said!

Please keep in mind that this is an open blog
that can and is read by people other than Chicago Police Officers.