Saturday, June 23, 2007

Lt’s Promotion Exam: UPDATE 22 June 07; 1215hrs.

The Illinois Appellate Court has DECLINED our appeal to issue an injunction against the City enjoining the City from administering the retest of the oral assessment portion of the promotional examination scheduled for 23 June 2007.


John Pallohusky
Chicago Police Sergeants’ Association


Anonymous said...

Thanks Pookie. You tried....

Anonymous said...

Firstly, I don't know if the "51" have been notified that their test was not recorded properly or if they had "technical issues". I will assume, since no one seems to know who they are, that they have not been notified. The city has given all the original test takers the opportunity to retake this portion of the test, but, they have not made it mandatory. So, let's say your one of the "51" and you don't know it and you decide not to retake the test. The original portion of your first test is messed up so how can it be fairly graded or graded at all? Now, when the grades come out, do you get a zero because your test did not record? If this is the case, the only fair way the city could have conducted this retest was to have made it mandatory for all test takers. The sergeants were told that if they decided not to retake the test, their grade would rely on their first effort, yet there is a possibility that their first effort was not recorded at all. In other words, members of the "51" who do not retake the test will have been cheated out of a fair testing process because they thought their grade would have defaulted to their first effort but in reality they have no first effort. Valid lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Another joke. Proctors still don't know how to work tape recorders. I actually screwed this one up, knowing what the questions were.. I think I did better on the first one...
Oh well, another 8 years as a Sgt....

Anonymous said...

What the fu** was this retest about! They held us in the auditrium like we were going to tell the next group the answers to the test. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooHahahahahahahahahahah

Anonymous said...

Bush's qualifications to be a judge:

Illinois State Board of Education, Assistant Legal Counsel, 1979 - 1991

Private Practice, 1978 - 1979

Legal Service Corporation, Attorney, 1977 - 1979

Anonymous said...

I want to report the following inconsistency. While in the library we were given a sheet of materials which included a list of 7 scenarios. We were also given a package of materials that were to be used in answering scenario #1. Lastly we were given a white sheet for notes marked notes for scenario #1. I used ten minutes to prepare my answers to scenario #1 and the last ten minutes to list points I wanted to use for scenarios 2-7. Once in the testing room, I viewed scenario #1 and responded. The proctor then collected my notes. I objected stating that my notes for scenarios 2-7, that I had made while in the library were on the sheet. He then produced a yellow sheet marked notes for scenarios 2-7 and said that this is for the rest of the scenarios. I objected and said I had spent half of my alloted time making notes for scenarios 2-7. I further argued that if the City did not want me to make notes on scenarios 2-7 then why did they give me that first sheet of paper with the scenarios listed on them. I requested the proctor call his boss and after reading his instructions the two of them agreed that these notes were meant to be collected after scenario #1. While sitting in the theater , I spoke to several of the other testing sergeants and learned that not everyone's notes were collected after scenario #1. A way to check this now is to open everyone's gray envelope and see who did and didn't take notes on the yellow paper. If the white sheets are checked you can see who made notes in regards to the other scenarios. I believe this to be a major issue as half of my alloted time was spent on taking notes that I could not keep and this procedure was not by any way uniform.

Anonymous said...

It was nice to see the union come out swinging in this case against the city, even though most of us thought it to be a lost cause. I was happy to see my elected union reps and my dues at work. To all those at the Sergeants' Association who worked on this case, THANK YOU, for all your efforts, it was very much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

My proctor only remembered to record one of the tapes-and again, I'm sure I wasn't the only one to have it happen on Saturday. When I asked for a photocopy of the incident log recording my own incident-first I was told I could have one-then I was told I could not.

Same old bullshit- do you think the CPSA will actually do the smart thing and have this looked at in federal court?

Don't hold your breath!

Anonymous said...

Sun Jun 24, 02:36:00 PM

Please, quit your crying. It was in the instruction sheet that this was going to happen. Did you forget the answers, you meritorious hack...

Anonymous said...

Remember to bring your vaseline and knee pads...make those phone calls.

Anonymous said...

regardless of what the instructions said it was not uniformly enforced and that is the point. if those sgts. complaining were meritorious then they wouldn't have to worry, now would they?

leomemorial said...

Who is the CPD Officer suing for being passed over due to clout, merit, etc.?

She has some brass ones [compliment]

Anonymous said...

SO . . .

The bottom line is it sounds as though there might have been a number of screw-ups on THIS RE-Test.. Perhaps notification should be made to LT. Lyle MYERS in Personnel and the SGTs Association. MYERS was the one who gathered all the To/Froms for all the beefs from the January test

. . . here we go again! Screw this damn city ! !

Anonymous said...


- From the Sgts website:

Lt’s Promotion Exam: UPDATE 26 June 07
We are, along with our attorneys still evaluating what options are available to us to address several unresolved issues. Prior to the re-test on 23 June 07 our attorneys did inform the Court Appointed Federal Overseer of our concerns regarding this examination process.

We have been informed that 415 applicants participated in the re-test conducted on Saturday 23 June 2007.

Several of our members who participated in the re-test conducted on Saturday 23 June 2007 have expressed concerns about equipment malfunctions, technical problems and procedural problems while taking the test.

Any sergeant who believes they have an issue that needs to be addressed is encouraged to once again, do the following:
Prepare a DETAILED To / From Report stating what the problem was. Vague or general issues cannot be evaluated properly.

Forward TWO (2) copies to:
Lt. Lyle Myers
Personnel Division – Unit 123
Once received, Lt. Myers will forward one copy to the Human Resource Division. The second copy will be date and time stamped and returned to the initiating sergeant for their record.
PLEASE do not delay in submitting your To / From Report.
In addition, please forward a copy to the C.P.S.A.


Inter-Dept Mail:
Unit 545

U.S. Mail:
1616 W. Pershing Rd.
Chicago, Il 60609

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