Please provide a brief response to the following post. It is meant to encourage and add to the conversation. Thank you!
Post:
Choose an incident, report or case study relevant to hiring, termination, compensation or professional development practices.
For anyone that has worked with a state agency, the hiring process can be extremely drawn out. When I initially applied for employment with the state of Arkansas, it was November 2003. I was substitute teaching in my current school district at the time, as I had just graduated from college the previous Spring and had been unable to find full-time employment. I received a call in December 2003 for an interview with the Arkansas Department of Community Correction for the position of Probation Officer I. After the initial interview, I ended driving back and forth a total of 4 times, over the course of about three months before I was officially hired in March 2004. During my 14 year career with the agency, I was witness to several new hires, and several terminations/resignations, some of which did not end well. I will focus on one termination, that almost resulted in a wrongful termination lawsuit being filed. Now, with the nature of the business, there were certain rules in place for the protection of employees, clients and any other persons who entered our facility. There were weapons always present, either on the officer, or secured in a lockbox. On this occasion, it was the weekend and a new supervisor had been in the office, along with her mother and mother-in-law. At no time are visitors to be left unattended. The supervisors’ mother somehow ventured into another officers office where she discovered a weapon that was unsecured. The next few days were rough, as the agency terminated the officer, effective immediately. Ok, we understand that the weapon was to be secured, but how the discovery occurred was what drummed up attention. The terminated officer understood the reasoning behind his being fired, but he made a valid point with the review board that had the supervisors mother-in-law not been left unattended to roam the building freely, it would have never been noticed, especially not by someone who was not employed with the agency. He retained an attorney and was through the mediation process when the termination was reversed. His argument was that the supervisor should have also been reprimanded because she had also not followed policy when she left her visitors unattended. He was reinstated but ended up resigning about one month later. He has never really said why he resigned but I would gather as much to think he was working in a hostile environment due to the supervisor still being there and as far as we know, she was not reprimanded for not following policy.
Critique of the policies based on personal experiences and research
I could go on all day about policy and procedure and how often it was not followed or adhered to, and how the actions were noticed, but minimal, or no corrective actions were taken. And we all know- policy does not always apply to everyone. I was one who tried to do everything in line with policy for several reasons: I did not want to be privy to a visit from Internal Affairs, I wanted no part of anything legal (personally), and I wanted to come home to my family every night. Some people think that if you can take a shortcut or bypass a few bumps here and there that everything is ok, but those things can come back to haunt you in the long run. I did not have any instance during my employment where I felt that any actions that I took on a case were called into question. In dealing with businesses or really any entity or individual, there are possible liability issues. They are rampant in the field of corrections. Inmates, residents, and free-world clients can at any point decide that want to file a grievance, for anything. Often, the claims were unfounded, but for the five that were not, there were ten that were. The policy was revised on a yearly, or as-needed basis, so that was a good thing. But they were only revised on an as need basis because something happened, and they were trying to head it off at the pass. They do not like making the news, and unfortunately, that happens quite often. The public backlash and outcry from whatever event took place to become front and center, only to try and save face. They always say they will back you up if you followed policy, but when it came down to it- the first thing they did was throw you under the bus. There was a saying that went if it is not in the system, it didnt happen, so documentation was everything to cover yourself. If I had a question about something that I had researched policy on and still was not clear, I would take it to the supervisor, and depending on what I was told, I would follow instruction, but I would be sure to note in my entries per assistant area manager so that I was covered just in case anything came back to bite me in the rear. I also made it a habit to print physical copies of those entries because there were times that information would just seemingly disappear, and only management had the authority or access to go into the system to delete recorded information. The only gripe I had about the policies was that they did not apply to everyone. You are supposed to follow the chain of command if you have an issue: it went from you to the assistant area manager, from the assistant area manager to the area manager and so on and so forth. But how do you resolve an issue that reaches the area manager when it is sent back down to the assistant to handle, but your issue is the assistant?
Summarization of current regulations
They of course are required by law to follow the EEOC, ADA, FMLA, and minimum wage laws. Because it is a state agency, it is not covered by OSHA, but are covered by OHS Act Protections if you are in a state or territory that has an OSHA-approved state program. (United States Department of Labor). There was a lawsuit filed in 2017 by an inmate claiming that his rights had been violated per the Americans with Disabilities Act. He filed the lawsuit without the help of an attorney which is likely one of the reasons the case was dismissed without prejudice.
How do these regulations affect decisions?
I do not think the agency has a problem with any of the regulations because they comply. I do not recall ever having heard of any investigations or legal proceedings (with merit) due to violation. And Im sure that they would make any revisions necessary to remain congruent to any removal or addition of changes in any of the acts.
What mandates do they require a training department to address?
The training requirements are different depending on the department of the agency you work in. Correctional officers and field officers are required to attend a six- week training program where they are required to pass a physical fitness test where you must complete a two-mile run(timed), engage in close-quarter combat (CQC) defensive tactics training, and qualify at law enforcement level certification to be issued a firearm. They are very good at adjusting training needs as necessary, hence the addition of the two-mile run, and CQC. There was always an element of defense that was taught, but CQC and the run were introduced about five years ago. Training is a huge thing because they want to prevent anything that could shed a negative light on the agency. Properly trained officers tend to not make mistakes.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]
