The good news is I have heard they might not promote Grijalva. The bad news is that now they won’t promote anyone else on the list, this means the department will have a leadership vacuum until the next test is finished, sometime after January 2025. They will blame the city, but the truth is, they could create spots if they wanted to. I don’t want to play favorites, but there is a female sergeant that is very humble but didn’t score that well on the test as she could have. If they skipped Grijalva, she might make it, she’s the last female sergeant on the list. They can skip someone if they really want to, but they won’t. They would rather let good sergeant’s die on the list then promote those that deserve it. The problem is, they are hesitant to skip Grijalva, and she actually might be the last person to promote. They definitely won’t promote Camp, so the list will die.
If you ask around, you can find out who the good sergeants on the list are. Not all of them are perfect, but the list does have some sergeants that work for their officers.
I love the department, but like others I want transparency. I want to know what’s going on, because the decisions made in the Chief’s office affect all of us. If they aren’t going to punish Lt. Surface, then tell us why. Instead, it appears as if he gets to stay home and collect a check until he retires. I have never worked for Surface, I don’t know him personally, but there is supposed to be a zero-tolerance policy toward sexual harassment. I’m not saying to make him walk through the streets while we peg him with vegetables, but make the punishment transparent, or lack thereof, and explain why the action was taken.
For the sergeants, and officers, that have gotten DWIs, they are offered the same opportunities for pre-trial diversion as civilians, and they get it. This shouldn’t be an automatic disqualifier from being an officer, but it should be taken into consideration for being promoted. It shows poor judgement. I think it takes a choice to go drinking to excess without having a plan to get home safely. Failing to do so, shows poor leadership skills. For those that sell test answers for sex, it is unethical and is another example of failing as a leader. The charges may have been dropped, but this doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Instead of going after the people personally, I think you should focus on the instances where they failed as a leader.
Show why the behavior has failed the department. Show why the actions indicate these people set a poor example. You have the policies, mission statement, and core values. Just match the behavior to the violation and ask why these actions have not had consequences that have improved the department.
The good news is I have heard they might not promote Grijalva. The bad news is that now they won’t promote anyone else on the list, this means the department will have a leadership vacuum until the next test is finished, sometime after January 2025. They will blame the city, but the truth is, they could create spots if they wanted to. I don’t want to play favorites, but there is a female sergeant that is very humble but didn’t score that well on the test as she could have. If they skipped Grijalva, she might make it, she’s the last female sergeant on the list. They can skip someone if they really want to, but they won’t. They would rather let good sergeant’s die on the list then promote those that deserve it. The problem is, they are hesitant to skip Grijalva, and she actually might be the last person to promote. They definitely won’t promote Camp, so the list will die.
If you ask around, you can find out who the good sergeants on the list are. Not all of them are perfect, but the list does have some sergeants that work for their officers.
I love the department, but like others I want transparency. I want to know what’s going on, because the decisions made in the Chief’s office affect all of us. If they aren’t going to punish Lt. Surface, then tell us why. Instead, it appears as if he gets to stay home and collect a check until he retires. I have never worked for Surface, I don’t know him personally, but there is supposed to be a zero-tolerance policy toward sexual harassment. I’m not saying to make him walk through the streets while we peg him with vegetables, but make the punishment transparent, or lack thereof, and explain why the action was taken.
For the sergeants, and officers, that have gotten DWIs, they are offered the same opportunities for pre-trial diversion as civilians, and they get it. This shouldn’t be an automatic disqualifier from being an officer, but it should be taken into consideration for being promoted. It shows poor judgement. I think it takes a choice to go drinking to excess without having a plan to get home safely. Failing to do so, shows poor leadership skills. For those that sell test answers for sex, it is unethical and is another example of failing as a leader. The charges may have been dropped, but this doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Instead of going after the people personally, I think you should focus on the instances where they failed as a leader.
Show why the behavior has failed the department. Show why the actions indicate these people set a poor example. You have the policies, mission statement, and core values. Just match the behavior to the violation and ask why these actions have not had consequences that have improved the department.