Personnel Supervision, Discipline, and Evaluation
Personnel Supervision, Discipline, and Evaluation
This domain tests how a sergeant evaluates performance, corrects conduct, and uses the Department's disciplinary system without confusing training, counseling, and formal charges.
Core rules
- Performance evaluation should be based on documented observations, not personality.
- Minor deficiencies are addressed through counseling, training, or a performance improvement plan; misconduct may require a complaint, charges and specifications, and formal process.
- The Department Advocate prosecutes; the Deputy Commissioner of Trials conducts hearings; the Police Commissioner retains final disciplinary authority.
- Civilian complaints may be investigated by the CCRB; the sergeant preserves evidence and ensures cooperation.
- Document contemporaneously; use objective language; avoid conclusory labels.
Worked example
An officer is repeatedly late and has missed radio calls. The sergeant reviews attendance and radio logs, counsels the officer, and sets a written improvement expectation. If the conduct continues, the sergeant documents the pattern and forwards it through the chain of command. If the officer discloses a medical or personal crisis, the sergeant considers referral to EAP and fit-for-duty procedures rather than treating everything as discipline. The reasoning: the response must match the problem; discipline without documentation is weak, and counseling without follow-up is ineffective.
Traps
- Relying on memory instead of records.
- Treating a single informal conversation as formal discipline.
- Ignoring due-process and representation rights.
- Applying different standards to similarly situated officers.