Codes of conduct and police selections

Despite having had my Code of Conduct for South Australian Public Sector Employees for a few months, it was only recently that I gave it a good read. I have written before about the strengths of the SAPOL Code of Conduct and how it can be an instructive read. So it was that this newer Code of Conduct raised issues for me.

Under the title Respect was discussion about Preventing nepotism and patronage. Now nepotism I felt I had had a good handle on – don’t give your family a boost up to the detriment of others. But the idea of patronage has always been more confusing for me. I have read about mentoring programmes and have been convinced they can provide useful balances for workers from minority groups within a workforce, and for the wider workforce. I know there are many good mentoring schemes in public and private practice. I presume that mentoring is not patronage.

To assist my understanding, the new Code of Conduct gives a clarifier: “Do not participate in a work matter if your relatives or people you know are involved, unless your manager has authorised your involvement” (my emphasis). Now here I find myself again questioning SAPOL selection practice and policy. The Selections Policy (1999) also states that there will be no nepotism or patronage and goes further in requiring that: “...where a SAC member has a close personal relationship with an applicant they must advise the selections coordinator.”

What is the construction of a close personal relationship? The usual construction would be around a non-work relationship. But my observation of many working relationships is that they are very personal. Team members often have very close personal relationships with each other in many work areas. Similarly, if my manager thinks I’m a dill, we might have a very close personal relationship, even though it takes a negative form.

I suggest that working relationships between supervisors and those they supervise are close personal relationships, and, if they are not, they should be. Each impacts upon the other, and these relationships might have open communication, including feedback on and assessment of performance, and issues of privacy of information. There may be sharing of tasks, trust in varying forms, and very often sharing of social time through lunch or coffee breaks. Indeed, the SAPOL Code of Conduct requires us to be understanding, patient, sensitive and empathetic to each other. The leadership charter creates even greater bonding potential.

I have had a number of people tell me they wouldn’t get a job because someone on the selection advisory committee “had it in for them”. Now in my view this would be interesting ground for appeals. Section 8 states that: “A SAC member must, as soon as possible, ask to be disqualified if they feel unable to act without bias or prejudice or they believe that the appearance of bias or prejudice will exist.”

Consider Section 7: “The SAC may comprise: the officer in charge of the area where the vacancy exists or that person’s nominee, usually as the chairperson; two or more people, at least one of whom should be from outside the area of the vacancy” (my emphasis).

Now, given that most vacancies will have local members applying for positions, doesn’t this raise an interesting question of bias or prejudice? The process leans toward two locals being on the SAC. Ignore the probable power differentials on the selection committee, but consider the probable bias. How do the two locals dismiss their prior knowledge and act on the paperwork and facts that are formally brought before the SAC? I’m certain that the words “I know a bit about this applicant,” or “Let me give you some background…” never get spoken between the members of the SAC because, if they did, the process would be flawed.

Some time ago I found myself as chair of a SAC when a Welfare vacancy occurred. An applicant met the basic criteria. Now in terms of bias or prejudice I had detailed knowledge of the person, who had worked at Welfare on a secondment. I was the social work supervisor for the person’s tertiary field placement. There was little doubt that there could be an appearance of bias or prejudice. I was in a dilemma and felt I should not be on the SAC. Now as it happened there was only the one applicant and the decision was one of assessing competency, so my knowledge of the applicant assisted me. However, if there was another applicant, how might I have treated the person equitably?

I would submit that these types of biases are occurring in most selections. I do not suggest that there is evil in the intent of all such cases, but how does one exclude existing personal interaction from the process. Some acts are evil. It was recently reported to me that an LSA manager told someone that he need not apply for a position because he was to be the chair of the SAC and he had already picked the person. Sorry – that is not nice. That is bias and prejudice. That is our corruptible selections system.

The selections for all promotional positions must be made by an independent panel if they are to comply with the Commissioner for Public Employment’s Code of Conduct and the Commissioner of Police’s own selection policy relative to bias. Selection advisory committees should make merit selections on the paperwork submitted and on the documented support or otherwise of referees and other interested parties. Local managers are influencing not only selection panels but also putting disincentives in the paths of some applicants and actively encouraging others who they believe fit that manager’s own criteria (patronage).

SAPOL should comply with the codes of conduct or get rid of them. Or perhaps move to a full-time specialist selections group that has the training, independence, time and focus to ensure a fair selection system.