Mr. Maschke, First and foremost, so there is no confusion, I am pro-polygraph, a long term member of the American Polygraph Association, it;s past President and now Chairman of the Board.  I have often read your comments on your web site and simply passed them off, which now in retospect was probably a mistake on my part.  You have rountinely mislead people about the polygraph and the time for it to stop has come.  You certainly have the right to state your beliefs, and I will defend to the death, your right to state them....but I think it only fair that what you say should at the very least be truthful.  When you purposely mislead people, I think you have gone too far.  If you want to have any credibility at all, then tell the truth.  I am of course referring to your statement that was posted on 21 Nov where you use your web site headline to proclaim "LAPD Dropping Requirement to Pass Polygraph".  I read your page numerous times and no such statement is there.  Granted you state that "it appears...." giving yourself some "wiggle room", but your statement is patently false.  First, no where in the statement does it say that such a requirement is being considered......to even think so would be ludicrous.  In the portions to which I presume you are referring, the comment is made that "unsupported claims of misconduct.....shall not be the grounds for a protest....". Mr. Maschke, nowhere in that statement could it possibly be inferred that a requirement to pass a polygraph is being dropped.  To double check,  I telephoned LAPD and they assured me that no such provision is being consiodered.  What this comes down to is that your statemernt is false, you know it is false, and all you are trying to do is to bait someone to believe what you are syaing is the truth and that your comments wil somehow undermine the profession of polygraph.  I doubt seriously if you will permit this posting to be shown to your readers, but nonetheless, I have had my say and you and those who blindly follow your lead know that what you have said is a lie .

Quote:


George,

Gee does LAPD always give out information over the phone, especially regarding something so "important"  as the polygraph procedure? 

Maybe Mr. Weinstein will be interested in providing us with the scientific evidence of polygraphs accuracy?

We welcome your input Mr. Weinstein


Fred F.    

Dear Mr. Don Weinstein,

Spoken like a true polygrapher.

You know, the more times I read this ad hominem attack on Mr. Maschke by a supposed expert and leader in the polygraph 'community', the more angry I become.

I see a continuity of immaturity coming from that side of the fence, what with the emails posted here from Skip Webb and my personal experiences with polygraphers and now this. Cutting and running rather than supporting their gratuitous assertions is so damn declasse, yet it is standard modus operandi for even the leaders in the field. Is it not totally transparent to all who read this?

The meeting of the L.A. Civil Service Commission that had been scheduled for 21 Nov. 2001 was cancelled, and consideration of the agenda items for that meeting has been postponed until the Commission's next meeting on 6 December 2001. (Note that LAPD hiring policies are the responsibility of the Civil Service Commission, not the LAPD itself.)

Meetings of the Civil Service Commission are open to the public, and members of the public are given the opportunity to briefly speak on issues of concern. If you would like to address the Commission regarding polygraph policy, you might wish to call ahead at (213) 847-9107 to confirm.

I've spoken with Gail Thomas of the city of L.A. Personnel Department, who drafted a report to the Civil Service Commission recommending the proposed polygraph policy changes and explaining the reasons for them. I expect to receive a copy of Ms. Thomas' report soon.

I asked Ms. Thomas what would be the practical effect of the deletion from Personnel Department Policy 1.13(b) of the stipulation "A candidate shall be considered for disqualification on the basis of the results of the polygraph examination if the candidate's polygraph examination results were either deceptive or inconclusive due to the use of countermeasures, or the candidate failed to cooperate during the course of the examination."

If the Commission adopts the recommendation, LAPD applicants will still need to pass a pre-employment polygraph "test" in order to be hired, however, they will not be permanently disqualified. Applicants would be able to apply again the following year (and would be required to submit to another polygraph "test"). In addition, the Personnel Department (to which the Civil Service Commission has delegated authority over polygraph appeals), will, on a case-by-case basis, grant "re-tests" to applicants who contest their polygraph results. Ms. Thomas explained that the Personnel Department has already granted some re-tests in cases where an applicant was able to prove that he/she was taking a prescription medecine or going through emotionally difficult times.

While this may be something of an improvement, it remains less than satisfactory. I won't be able to attend the meeting of the Civil Service Commission in person, but I do plan on faxing a memorandum to the Commission regarding LAPD polygraph policy in general and the agenda items in particular. I encourage those who are in a position to attend the 6 Dec. meeting and address the Commission in person to do so.

I've faxed a letter to the Los Angeles Board of Civil Service Commissioners (BOCSC) regarding the polygraph items on the agenda for their meeting on Thursday, 6 Dec. (To download a copy in PDF format click here.) If you would like to get a letter to the BOCSC before Thursday's meeting, it would be best to fax it. The number is (213) 847-9110. To confirm receipt of your letter, you can call the Civil Service Commission's main number at (213) 847-9107.

George,

The letter to the BOCSC really hits true to the point. I certainly hope that at least some of the boards staff members take the time to visit this website and discoverThe Lie Behind The Lie Detector. Your statement speaks volumes to those of us who have been victimiized by the pseudo-science of polygraphy.

The numbers you present really reflect the absurd nature of polygraphy.  Roughly 50% of the examinees were accused of "deception", but then again the APA says that the polygraph is roughly 98% "accurate" too. 

To everyone on this site who ever tested for LAPD and got DQed from the poly, let the BOCSC people know who you are. If they see that many honest people are being called liars by guys who may or may not be college educated and have only 8 weeks of "training" to be a professional "lie detector", you may get a chance to prove yourself with a re-test. Most importantly readThe Lie Behind The Lie Detector and GET EDUCATED, because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

Stand up and be heard.


Fred F.