Thanks for the info. BTW, I will submit a summary of my experiences regarding the hiring process to the New York Times (I queried them about it and the op editor told me he would be glad to at least take a look at it. I'm even going to go one better and contact the legislators, as you suggest. Here are the real concerns I have: With the federal deficit the way it is, I am astounded (appalled is more like it) regarding the enormous amount of money, time and manpower the FBI is expending on their hiring process. People that are applying for a job with the FBI are actually becoming victims because of the way the process is being managed. All of it, unnecessary, because the hiring process can easily be changed to avoid a lot of the problems, which from my standpoint are simple to fix, and are primarily that of good communication. For example, start with the FBI’s website. If you read through the information, it gives a good general synopsis of the process. But it is misleading because it does not give you the additional information that the applicants need to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to participate in the hiring process. It is possible to be fully qualified and suitable for employment with the FBI. But that isn’t good enough. And the website doesn’t really emphasize this part. What I mean is that people who apply that have a lot of baggage in their past or skeletons (like me) do not have a good chance at all of ever getting hired, even though the past issues have been resolved long ago. What I mean is, the FBI, in addition to security and qualification considerations, they have another consideration that they do not emphasize in their hiring guidelines. That is one of image. Public Relations play a big part in the hiring process. If someone is otherwise suitable and qualified, but say, might have resolved past personal issues, a strong possibility exists that you won’t get hired. Because the FBI doesn’t want to take the risk of hiring someone that might not look good if they were hired, or would possibly embarrass the bureau. What I mean is, say someone has had problems with alcohol in the past but resolved the problem through treatment and therapy (no DUI’s or any other issues or arrests) , the FBI will most likely not want to take the risk of hiring you, if for nothing else but appearances. The rationale is that the person may have a problem adhering to rules and regulations in the future). Remember, the image the FBI wants to project is one that is “squeaky-clean” (almost like a zero-defect mentality). J. Edgar Hoover had a saying “Never embarrass the bureau." I am going to go out a limb here and say that from what I have already experienced and from what I have read about other people’s experiences, the FBI does have some serious managerial and communication issues. Nothing new either. The whole reason 9-11 happened had a lot to do with the FBI’s failure to act. (Having said that, I believe that the FBI was not the only organization to screw it up – certainly the CIA and NSA, along with the National Security Council and White House dropped the ball too). But that’s another story. The issue of the polygraph used as a hiring tool is only one part of this whole dysfunctional, inefficient and at times, corrupt process. As I have previously stated, multiply my experience (which is not as bad as others have had) and the government waste in financial and manpower resources is astronomical. Then look at what it has done to countless honorable, honest Americans looking to serve their country, who are unknowing participants in a dehumanizing, discrediting and slandering hiring/vetting process. Instead of letting this experience bring me down, I have decided to voice my concerns, which I believe are legitimate, to people who have the opportunity and means to change it.
|