Tuesday, June 26, 2007


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


John Pallohusky
Chicago Police Sergeants’ Association


Anonymous said...

Off topic. Anyone know what legitimate number the department went up to on the current Lt's list?

Anonymous said...

depending on who you talk to- up to 131 or 137...

5 million dollars to hire 137 people-what a waste of taxpayer's money...the last list went up to 240 somthing...

Anyone else heard these same numbers?

Anonymous said...

The Dept isnt legitimate so it doesnt matter.They just pick who they want like always.

Anonymous said...

I think the legitimate number is 138. A friend of mine was in the last class and they admitted a guy one day late. He said his number was 138. Isn't it a shame that we have to find out everything like this. Why doesn't the city just let us know?????

Anonymous said...

. . " He said his number was 138. Isn't it a shame that we have to find out everything like this. Why doesn't the city just let us know?????"


In this corrupt state, the city/agencies don't have to tell you by law what everyone placed on an exam.

If you go to Bernstein's website:

He posts/brags how people placed on an exam who took his study group; for instance the Captains test in New Jersey: his people placed #1,#3,#4,#8 and so on..

New Jersey and Ohio are states that by law must post what everyone finished. There are no damn secrets.


Anonymous said...

It is a shame. Maybe the PBPA and the FOP can draft legislation that would require the city to publish the rank order/test scores of candidates? Shouldn't be that tough to pass-how could Republicans or Democrats argue against an open testing procedure?

Anonymous said...

didn't your lawyers file an injunction to stop the process untill the lawsuit can be handled?????

Anonymous said...

The last number in the most recent class was 134. There were two sergeants with that score. Newer tests don't have multiple people with the same score, they use seniority for the tiebreaker.

That list had an error, but the city covered it up. Even though the two sergeants had the same score, the less senior sergeant was listed higher. The city screwed up and promoted him first (the less senior sergeant). When the error was discovered, they added one more sergeant to the class, the one that was wrongly passed over.

A mistake was made and the city covered it up.

Sounds like a good arguement for having the actual list published-everyone can check it for errors.

Otherwise, we have to rely on the city being honest.

Anonymous said...

134? Is this off the latest test? I thought they are only promoting 50 sgts at a time less 30% merit. That would be 35 off the list.

Anonymous said...

They haven't promoted anyone off the latest list-there isn't even a list yet. The current list is about 3-4 years old. They've gone to 134 on that list which comes to about 160, counting clout (merit).

Anonymous said...

134? Is this off the latest test? I thought they are only promoting 50 sgts at a time less 30% merit. That would be 35 off the list.

Shut up P.O. ... We're talking about Sgts promoted to LT off the 2001 LTs exam.

Anonymous said...

Two sergeants with the same rank score? Someone's feeding you crap.

That could possibly happen with a raw score but they would not have the same rank/order number.

They rank you according your score and then, if that's identical (two sergeants having the same raw score), you are ranked according to the amount of service put in and if the score and the amount of service are the same, date of birth (age) becomes the method of determining rank. Just like the department figures out rank/seniority for everything else.

So it is highly unlikely two sergeants would both be ranked at 134.

Think of the odds against two people having the same score, same amount of time on the job and then having the same birthdate down the time of day they are born...nearly impossible.

It's much more possible that 134 and 138 had the same raw score but years of service and age seperated them. And since we don't know who has retired, resigned or turned down the offer of promotion, we could speculate all day on what happened to 135, 136 and 137.

I think poster Friday, 28 June, 080900 am is probably right on target.

Anyone know how many complaints about the June retest the PBPA has received?

Anonymous said...

Anyone hear anything from the union on this exam other than referring everyone to the city's guy for help?

Anonymous said...

Assuming none of the 'merit' lts were in the top 200...

if the last number is 134, then 191 people have been promoted:

134/7 X 10 = 191

if the last number is 138, then a total of 197 have been promoted:

138/7 X 10 = 198

Anyone know the total number of lts promoted from the 2001 list?

Anonymous said...

to 9:05

Unfortunately, you're wrong. That's one of the problems when the city won't show the list. There's shit going on that they don't want you to know about

It's no longer done that way with current tests, but on that one it was. If 2 people got the same raw score, they were given the same number. The next number was empty. Example: there were 2 at 134 and no one with the number of 135.

In fact, in that last class, there were 2 at 124, (no 125), 2 at 128 (no 129) and 2 at 134.

Ask someone that was in that class, they'll tell you. As in most classes, they all got together, supplied their number and compiled the actual list. Lots of people have that list.

To 11:17

Your numbers are close. However, not everyone on the list was promoted. About 10% either declined, didn't have the college or retired before their number came up.

Anonymous said...

supplied their number to who?

Anonymous said...

The odd thing is that this is the first time I've seen the two candidates with the same rank number information.

If is done this way, why the only mention in the posts after this last last class?

All the more reason to make the list public!

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