Wednesday, June 1, 2005 | ||
Bad Links? | For years, thumbs down for Fville cops?By BEN NELMS Good scores on job performance evaluations for Fayetteville police officers for years were routinely refused by retiring Chief Johnny Roberts, a fired officer alleges in a letter to Mayor Kenneth Steele. Roberts would approve job evaluations only after the performances of even good officers were downgraded to lower scores, according to former Major Harold Simmons. The lower scores would remain on the officers records and would reflect their job performances when they were considered for promotions or demotions later. I contend this is a common practice, that supervisors are persuaded into altering evaluations after they are turned in for approval, Simmons letter charged. The supervisors distaste for Roberts practice resulted in a lieutenant being demoted for objecting to the downgrading, Simmons charged. Simmons said he experienced the practice on an estimated 40 to 50 occasions, both as the supervisor completing evaluations and as the approving supervisor who signed off after a lower ranking supervisor would pass it along to him for approval. Steele and other city officials have declined to comment on the latest charges. Efforts to reach Roberts, still officially on city payroll until his August retirement, were unsuccessful. Simmons letter, previously unreleased but obtained by The Citizen using the states Open Records law, is the latest in a series of controversies that have wracked the Fayetteville law enforcement agency. The first public notice of trouble within the Fayetteville Police Department surfaced in April when Simmons filed two complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Since that time other former officers have weighed in with claims of a hostile work environment in the department. Then, on May 19, the City Council announced the retirement of Chief Johnny Roberts and the resignation of Maj. Steve Ledbetter. Simmons and others insisted that work conditions under Roberts were suspect. An example of Simmons assertion was included in his Feb. 10, 2005, letter to Mayor Steele, obtained under the Georgia Open Records law. In the letter, Simmons charged that supervisory officers were compelled to downgrade scores on subordinates performance evaluations. During his tenure with the department, Simmons held various ranks under Roberts, including officer, lieutenant, captain and major. In all those years, I never submitted an evaluation that went through the first time without having to change the numbers and I never had an occasion where I was told that the scores were too low, he said. I was told that I needed to go back and rethink the (higher scoring) numbers., Simmons wrote. The reason I say that is because from a personal standpoint, as being the one who walked the evaluations into Chief Roberts office, as being the one who is closer to the officers on a daily basis, the one who talked with their supervisors on a daily basis, I had more of an understanding of what officer was doing what and how they were performing. Chief Roberts didnt, Simmons said. Evaluations would go up, and youre not told directly you will change this number, Simmons wrote. What happened is the evaluation is put before you and if youve got an above standard (score) in one category youre told, you need to rethink that above standard (score). Simmons said scores on performance evaluations in the police department must be justified in writing as evidence for the score given. He said Roberts subtle but effective practice of not signing off until scores were lowered produced an obvious result. So it comes down to the point of you taking an officer who you know for a fact is doing an outstanding job and you feel comfortable with the evaluation that the officers supervisor has put into your hands, Simmons wrote. They initial off on it, you initial off on it, then you take it into Roberts office and you are told, No, Im not signing off on that. I dont agree with it. So you walk out of his office blinded because you know indirectly what that means, Simmons said. You look at the eval, you dont see anything youve missed. So you get somebody else to look at it. There is only one high mark on the evaluation, so you go back and you change it. You change a 5 to a 4 or change a 4 to a 3 to bring it down to a range where it would fit. You dont have to change the wording, you just change the (scoring) number and he wont find anything wrong with it. Itll get approved. Simmons contended that he was not the only supervisor that experienced the necessity of altering performance evaluations to get them approved. In his Feb. 10 letter to Steele, Simmons cited another supervising officer that got into a heated argument before he took a demotion from the rank of captain to the rank of lieutenant because he was told to alter several evaluations that he had completed. Simmons said this and other examples of a hostile working environment will come to light if officers are ever called to testify about their knowledge of the inner workings of the department. Whether current or former officers, the fear of retribution will not extend to the witness stand. Under oath, said Simmons, an officer will always tell the truth. Steele did not respond to Simmons Feb. 10 letter. The Citizen called but was unable to reach Roberts for comment. The city of Fayetteville has a June 15 deadline to respond to EEOC regarding Simmons complaints. |
|
Copyright 2004-Fayette Publishing, Inc. |