Personnel Development and Movement

Order 517 establishes the procedures JSO uses to manage positions and employee development. The policy covers staffing, position classifications, career development, training, work-alongs, lateral transfers, ancillary assignments, promotions, annual performance evaluations, division files, Performance Improvement Plans, and probationary employees.

A large portion of the policy concerns how employees move through JSO. It determines how employees receive training, apply for assignments, compete for promotions, and are evaluated by supervisors.

The policy uses several formal processes. JSO maintains position records, training records, promotional eligibility lists, annual evaluations, Performance Improvement Plans, and probationary evaluations. These records can later be used to determine how a personnel decision was made.

However, several important decisions remain within the discretion of supervisors and command staff. This creates an important distinction throughout Order 517: some personnel decisions are highly structured, while others can be made with relatively little explanation.

One of the strongest parts of Order 517 is the amount of documentation it requires.

JSO maintains a Position Management System showing authorized positions, their location within the agency, and whether they are filled or vacant. The Budget Division also prepares a Position Control Reconciliation Report at least once each month. These records provide a way to compare authorized staffing with actual staffing.

The corrections staffing requirements are particularly detailed. The policy establishes a method for calculating staffing needs and requires sufficient staffing to supervise inmates, maintain security posts, and provide emergency assistance.

Training is also well documented. Required specialized training must be identified for each position, lieutenants are responsible for making sure employees complete that training, and the Training Academy maintains the training records.

The formal promotional process contains several useful safeguards. Employees are told the eligibility requirements, testing components, scoring weights, study materials, and examination schedule. Employees may also review examination materials and challenge contested examination questions.

Annual evaluations contain another level of review. The employee's immediate supervisor completes the evaluation, while the supervisor above that person reviews and approves it. Employees may also add comments and document disagreement with the evaluation.

Performance Improvement Plans provide another strong documentation requirement. When an employee's performance becomes unsatisfactory, the supervisor must identify the problem, establish goals for improvement, provide the plan to the employee, and monitor the employee's progress.

Probationary police and corrections officers are also evaluated monthly. When deficiencies are identified, the supervisor must document them and provide remedial training. This creates several opportunities to identify problems before an employee receives permanent status.

Finally, the policy requires supervisors to notify Information Systems Management when an employee transfers so that access permissions can be changed to reflect the employee's new assignment. This creates a clear responsibility for removing access that is no longer necessary.

The largest weakness in Order 517 is that some of its most structured procedures can be avoided through command discretion.

The clearest example involves lateral and ancillary assignments. JSO establishes a formal selection process that can include vacancy announcements, minimum qualifications, interviews, practical exercises, work-history reviews, and Human Resources oversight.

However, a lieutenant may skip the formal selection process with approval from the division chief or higher authority.

The policy does not limit this exception to emergencies or unusual circumstances. It also does not require JSO to document why the formal process was skipped.

As a result, the policy creates a relatively transparent method for filling assignments but does not require JSO to use it.

Similar concerns appear elsewhere.

Advanced training decisions are based on agency needs, employee career goals, performance, leadership, and budget limitations. Work-along requests are based on staffing, performance history, disciplinary history, and perceived benefit. These may all be reasonable factors, but the policy does not explain how they should be weighed or require supervisors to explain why one employee was selected while another was denied.

The promotional process is highly structured until the eligibility list is created. The Sheriff or designee may then use the Rule of Three when making the final selection. Order 517 does not explain within the policy why one eligible candidate may be selected over another.

The employee evaluation system also has limitations. Performance is generally classified as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. This provides very little distinction between different levels of acceptable performance.

More importantly, supervisors “should” maintain performance information throughout the year. The policy does not say that they “shall” do so. Therefore, the final annual evaluation is mandatory while much of the documentation used to support that evaluation is not written as a strict requirement.

Division files have a similar problem. Supervisors must maintain a division file, but the policy states that the file may contain work examples, meeting notes, counseling records, and other performance information. It does not establish a consistent minimum set of records that must be maintained for each employee.

The workload-assessment process is also relatively infrequent. Most divisions or sections only require a formal assessment once every four years. The policy does not require a new assessment when workloads change substantially before the next scheduled review.

Finally, several decisions are assigned to senior officials without much explanation of the standards they must use. The Undersheriff makes final decisions concerning potential family conflicts. Department directors make final decisions concerning probationary termination. JSO may also decide whether to suspend an employee's probation because of leave or limited-duty status, while expressly stating that it is not required to provide that suspension.

Several relatively small changes could make Order 517 more consistent without eliminating management discretion.

The formal selection process could be made the default for primary and ancillary assignments. When JSO decides to waive the process, the approving official could be required to document why the waiver was necessary and identify how the employee was selected.

JSO could also require written selection criteria for advanced training, work-alongs, lateral assignments, and other competitive opportunities. When an employee is denied an opportunity, the decision could be documented using the same criteria.

The Rule of Three could remain available while requiring a written explanation of the final selection. This would preserve management's ability to choose among eligible candidates while creating a record showing why the decision was made.

Supervisors could be required, rather than merely encouraged, to maintain performance information throughout the year. Division files could also have a minimum set of required records so that documentation does not vary substantially from one supervisor to another.

Workload assessments could be required sooner than four years when staffing, workload, inmate population, call volume, or unit responsibilities change significantly.

Finally, discretionary decisions concerning family conflicts, probation suspensions, and probationary termination could require written findings identifying the reason for the decision and the policy criteria used.

The main concern raised by Order 517 is not that JSO lacks personnel procedures. In many areas, the agency has created detailed procedures and extensive documentation.

The concern is that the amount of structure changes depending on the type of decision being made.

Employees taking promotional examinations operate under published eligibility requirements, testing procedures, scoring rules, and review procedures. Employees competing for certain assignments may receive those same protections if JSO chooses to use a formal selection process. However, JSO may also decide not to use that process.

This matters because career opportunities can affect one another. Disciplinary history may affect eligibility for assignments. Assignments may provide experience that later helps an employee obtain specialized training or promotion. Supervisor documentation can affect annual evaluations. Annual evaluations can then affect future applications.

Therefore, a discretionary decision made early in an employee's career can potentially affect later opportunities.

The central accountability concern in Order 517 is whether employees in similar circumstances receive similar opportunities, evaluations, and treatment—and whether JSO maintains enough documentation to determine when they do not.