|
|
Post by lilbump1980 on Jun 2, 2008 12:45:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Jun 2, 2008 13:59:55 GMT -5
That must mean LaBella got his hands on an advance copy of the test.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 2, 2008 14:10:02 GMT -5
Hahaha! Always the cynic, eh? I was thinking that it meant the state refused to pay into the mayor's corrupt banter. But I guess it could mean that labella has an "advanced" copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Jun 2, 2008 14:12:01 GMT -5
Usually, it's the simple explanation that is closer to the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by lilbump1980 on Jun 2, 2008 15:28:46 GMT -5
Honestly, I think that they know what people were saying and that Labella just figured he would say that because there is no way the state would allow that to happen.. I dont think the UNION would either.. (the fact that roefaro could pick anyone he wanted)
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 2, 2008 15:43:40 GMT -5
Anyone see wktv's poll question? It asks whether a permanent police chief should have to pass a civil service exam. I voted yes, but the poll results won't display.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted-Daily on Jun 4, 2008 9:35:58 GMT -5
It's going to be aired on the TV news. I don't remember what day.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jun 4, 2008 14:28:58 GMT -5
Is it still up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 4, 2008 16:36:53 GMT -5
I have no idea. I gave up when it would not show the results.
|
|
|
|
Post by golden on Jun 4, 2008 20:25:56 GMT -5
It showed 96% wanted it a civil service position when I voted 2 days ago. Does wktv even matter though??
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 4, 2008 22:05:13 GMT -5
I guess not, I was just curious to see whether the media could accurately portray the public's opinion
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Jun 13, 2008 15:59:32 GMT -5
Serious question: what benefit to the average citizen is civil service rating for a government position?
Does it guarantee quality or qualifications?
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jun 14, 2008 5:50:45 GMT -5
No garantees.
The theory is that it will improve the odds of getting someone who is minimally qualified compared to the system of appointing someone's nephew or high school buddy.
If the person doing the hiring is spending other people's money, productivity is seldom the first priority. It is supposed to be different in private industry, where maximizing profit should be the driving concern. Sometimes that works.
With my crew of Russians, I usually asked them for a recommendation whenever we had an opening. They didn't want anyone working with them who wouldn't carry his share of the load. It usually ended up being a brother, cousin or neighbor. After a short interview, my job was to convince HR not to extend the search. The one mistake they made they took care of themselves. Basically, they told the guy who didn't work out to leave. No fuss, no work improvement sessions.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Jun 15, 2008 9:40:32 GMT -5
Agreed. Nepotism is not always bad. As long as there is accountability. And who better to kick my ass if I'm lazy than my brother or cousin?
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 15, 2008 9:54:25 GMT -5
The theory is that it will improve the odds of getting someone who is minimally qualified compared to the system of appointing someone's nephew or high school buddy. Originally, yes, but then they started to screw with it by giving points for various things. I remember hearing about extra points for being a vet, which it is hard to criticize, but were there more? |
|
