[quote]Sheriff’s Department hired officers with histories of misconduct
Despite background investigations that revealed wrongdoing, incompetence, or poor performance, the department still hired dozens of problem applicants in 2010, internal records show.
The department made the hires in 2010 after taking over patrols of parks and government buildings from a little-known L.A. County police force. Officers from that agency were given first shot at new jobs with the Sheriff’s Department. Investigators gave them lie detector tests and delved into their employment records and personal lives.
The Times reviewed the officers’ internal hiring files, which also contained recorded interviews of the applicants by sheriff’s investigators.
Ultimately, about 280 county officers were given jobs, including applicants who had accidentally fired their weapons, had sex at work and solicited prostitutes, the records show.
For nearly 100 hires, investigators discovered evidence of dishonesty, such as making untrue statements or falsifying police records. At least 15 were caught cheating on the department’s own polygraph exams.
Twenty-nine of those given jobs had previously had been fired or pressured to resign from other law enforcement agencies over concerns about misconduct or workplace performance problems. Nearly 200 had been rejected from other agencies because of past misdeeds, failed entrance exams or other issues.[/quote]
Best pay attention next time you’re in Los Angeles County.[/quote]
So, if you think the hiring standards aren’t stringent enough, what would you recommend they do differently? Very easy to complain, not so easy to come up with workable solutions.
BTW, which other jobs, outside of govt work (direct or indirect) require a person to go through a process as stringent as the one currently in place in these departments?[/quote]
Stringent? Perhaps… but largely ignored.
This is a great example of the “good ol boy” network.
