Paul Bass Photo
Cavaliere: “Here we go” again.
An upcoming exam to fill five vacant police captain positions faces a possible delay in the face of charges of favoritism.
The charges come from several top-ranking cops who objected to a training course that two of the aspiring captains attended.
The exam is scheduled for next Thursday.
“There’s a strong possibility” the exam may be postponed by a challenge based on the training course, Assistant Police Chief Anthony Campbell said Thursday.
“There’s not a lot of merit to what’s being said” about alleged favoritism, based on an opinion from the city’s corporation counsel, Campbell argued. He said he and other top officials are in ongoing conversations with some of the aspiring captains to “make sure everyone’s on the same page and the process is transparent.” He argued that the course has no relevance to the captain exam.
The issue surfaced over the past week when Police Union President Lou Cavaliere Jr., acting on complaints from members, objected to a decision by the city to pay for two lieutenants signed up for the captain exam to attend a “Leader Skills for Police Supervisors” seminar organized by Yale. The course, taught by former Hartford Assistant Chief Bill Reilly, bills itself as “designed primary for corporals, sergeants, and lieutenants and its content is appropriate for seasoned supervisors as well as those just starting down the supervisory path.” (Reilly also makes him available for personal training.)
Cavaliere said the course may be giving the two attendees an advantage in the upcoming exam. “Everyone should do or nobody should go,” he said.
In response to Cavaliere, the department withdrew the offer to pay for the course for the two lieutenants or to give them time off to attend it. Assistant Chief Luiz Casanova said the department originally agreed to pay for the two lieutenants and five sergeants to attend the course to help them become better supervisors. The five sergeants and two lieutenants had signed up for the course, responding to a notice that had been posted within the department for all supervisors months before the captain exam. The department proceeded with paying for the five sergeants to attend, Casanova said. He said the lieutenants ended up attending the course on their days off and shelling out the $350 apiece out of their own pockets to pay for it.
It was too late for other applicants for the captain exam to get into the course.
Now, Cavaliere said, a couple of his members are considering pursuing legal action to delay the exam.
“Here we go — another civil service test with problems. It could have been fixed easily,” Cavaliere said. “I feel kind of terrible. I want to see everybody go up through the ranks. They feel it hasn’t been done fairly.”
Read on for excerpts from email correspondence in recent days about the issue involving city personnel chief Noelia Marcano and police Lts. Rebecca Sweeney Goddard, Patricia Helliger, and Joseph Witkowski.
From: “Rebecca Sweeney”
Date: Sep 8, 2014 6:03 PM
Subject: Captain’s Test
To: “Noelia Marcano”
Hello Noelia. I imagine that you are aware of the ongoing controversy at the PD regarding a 3 day course offered at the Yale PD to only a select few. I believe this reeks of favoritism with the Captains test only a week away. I brought this to the attention of our union last week who was informed that no Captain applicants would be attending. It was with great dismay that upon arriving at work today I was advised that two Captain applicants were indeed attending. I assumed we had learned from our past mistakes in promotional exams and were on the path to a more fair and ethical selection process. Apparently the two applicants were told to use their own vacation time but the class was still paid for by the city. Please advise on how to proceed. This class obviously gives the applicants a clear advantage over those of us not in attendance and not offered the opportunity. I can provide additional information if necessary on the class and its similarities to the upcoming test. Thank you. Rebecca Goddard
From: “Noelia Marcano”
Date: Sep 10, 2014 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Captain’s Test
Hello Rebecca,
The training you reference is not sponsored by either the City or the test consultant and has nothing to do with the upcoming Captain’s examination. In fact, if you review the test consultant’s Applicant Manual distributed during the candidate orientation which you attended, he expressly cautions that any materials or presentation from someone not affiliated with his company may reflect biases or misconceptions that could actually undermine test performance. The City certainly does not view this three day course as giving candidates for this examination any advantage in the testing process. The Dept did agree to refrain from sending candidates participating in the upcoming testing process so as to avoid the appearance of favoritism, not because such training would actually give them any advantage. That some candidates have elected to attend such training on their own time and at their own expense is of no import to the City, nor a violation of the process. (The Dept is actually paying for three Sergeants to attend the training at Yale). Candidates for any examination are free to seek out experiences that they feel will enhance their own test performance based on what they perceive as areas in their own skill sets that they believe they need to strengthen. The City has neither the responsibility nor ability to monitor such.
Noelia
From: “Rebecca Sweeney”
Date: Sep 10, 2014 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Captain’s Test
To: “Noelia Marcano” “Patricia Helliger” , “Holly Wasilewski”
Thank you for your response. I respectfully disagree. I am not sure if you are aware of the way the training happened? I brought it to the attention of the Union on Thursday. At this time both applicants were given training days to attend and it was paid for by the city. Assistant Chief Campbell advised the Union that no Captain applicants would attend based on his complaint. The applicants were then advised to use their own time off. (To circumvent our complaint.) The class was and still was paid for by the city. This reeks of inappropriate tactics. I assume that you have read the agenda? “It has been designed to mirror competencies measured in many promotional oral boards and assessment centers. ” (fourth paragraph.) Please also see in the agenda Day 1- communicating effectively, leading a team. That is our test scenario on Saturday September 20 which is referred to as a community meeting. Also in the agenda is Day 2, “Influencing” which focuses on communicating expectations, considering discipline, etc. Again, that is our assessment on Saturday. And lastly please focus on Day 3, ” Acheiving, ” which is setting and achieving goals, solving problems, and delegating effectively. That is clearly our “in basket scenario.” Please let me know if you require any additional information to correct this inappropriate advantage that was given to only two of the 8 applicants. I am available at any time. It also should be noted that the two applicants were white males. I assumed we no longer operated in this way. Rebecca Goddard
From: “Joseph Witkowski”
Date: Sep 10, 2014 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Captain’s Test
To: “Noelia Marcano”
Cc: “Louis Cavaliere” , “Patricia Helliger”
Noelia, I must agree with Lt. Goddard’s concerns over the manner that this training is affecting the promotional process. I think it is clear that the material presented in this training is relevant and applicable to the promotional process. The fact that the City is paying for employees to attend on City time IS a sponsorship of the training. Once the Department “did agree to refrain from sending candidates participating in the upcoming testing process so as to avoid the appearance of favoritism”, the ethical and appropriate thing would have been for those candidates not to attend the training. Their attendance, whether paid by the City or not, now gives the appearance of impropriety. The underlying issue is that the initial opportunity to attend this training at the city’s expense was never offered to all candidates in the Police Department. If it has not been done already, I would recommend that this situation be reviewed by the City’s Corporation Counsel.
From: Patricia Helliger
To: Noelia Marcano
Cc: Joseph Witkowski , Louis Cavaliere , Rebecca Sweeney
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:53:30 ‑0400
Subject: Re: Fwd: Captain’s Test
Noelia:
I also agree with Lt. R. Goddard and Lt.J. Witkowski. They have both eloquently express my sentiments regarding this entire captain’s exam. This is not the way I believe the city should administer such an important and highly competitive exam. I am very disappointed that this entire issue was not taken more seriously by the city.
Noella Marcano and the city are obvious back peddling to try to cover their butt. Lt. Goddard tired to be polite and point out the obvious and Marcano replied with hopes of changing reality with her distorted perception hoping others would believe her. Goddard found the paperwork that the city was hoping would be overlooked. If it looks like a duck.. it's probably a duck!
Once again, the city loves to delay progress with a good possibility of using the taxpayers money to pay off another lawsuit.
If the city just offered and paid for all eight eligible lieutenants it would have saved them much time and money. Instead we have another circus act to watch (as I hear circus music in the background).