George,

Sure, the head of Public Safety Employment Division is Phyllis Lynes (213)847-9717.  I've had several conversations with her in which I tried to explain that the City's over reliance on the polygraph will certainly cause problems.  Specifically, false positives and more importantly false negatives.  She was amazingly uninformed (but then, so was I before my polygraph "failure").  I asked if she believed the polygraph was infallible since the City's polygraph policy doesn't allow for an appeal or independent polygraph, but she just repeated the party line that they're a very useful investigative tool. 

I also told her that my examiner made a de facto admission that the polygraph could be beaten; he asked me if I'd researched how to defeat the polygraph on the interent. (I hadn't.)  I didn't realize it until later, but the only reason he would ask the question was if he was worried about the use of countermeasures.  I asked her if she believed the City could catch everyone using countermeasures and she said "yes."

I reviewed the notes of our conversation and I will have to ammend the figures from my last post.  She said that approximately 66% of applicants are disqualified in the background investigation phase.  From those that are left, over 50% who take the poly fail.  Seems pretty high, doesn't it?  She told me that she believed all those who failed were most certainly liars!  This figure seems to match one I received from my background investigator.  He mentioned that less than 40% are passing.

I also mentioned that it's only a matter of time before a lawsuit is filed.  The fact that an appeals process doesn't exist means the Civil Service Commission and Personnel Department believes the poly is 100% accurate.  (Remember the Police Department only handles the background investigations, Civil Servants actually do the hiring.  This goes back to the 30's when corrupt cops were hiring their corrupt friends.)  

As I mentioned before, anyone who's wrongly been accused of lying should start writing letters to the City Council.  Write Public Safety, Personnel (the General Manager's name is Margaret Whelan) and the Civil Service Commission. Follow up with phone calls.  The City Council committee assignments will be changed on July 1.  After that find out which members are assigned to the Public Safety Committe, Personnel Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee for Police Reform.  Each committee meets regularly and has a public comments period.

If anyone has any other questions, I'd be more than happy to share my experiences.

AMM

George,

Glad you called her.  She may have to change her number.  In one of our conversations I tried to get the same information across.  She's just as naive as I was. I asked her what she thought the pass rate would be if they went back and poly'd all the recruits for the past few years.  She admitted a 50% failure rate applied in that manner was indeed a scary thought.

I will put together a listing of all the addresses I have and post them later.  For anyone who recently failed, you can contact individual City Councilmembers via email as well.  The City of LA has a website that can link you directly. 

If anyone else has been caught up in this mess, please post your story.  Regardless of my background appeal's outcome, I plan to continue writing letters demanding protection from polygraphs for all government applicants.

Part of the problem is they recently instituted this program and are just starting to see the unintended consequences: false positives.  Like other agencies however, they believe that since they get confessions/admissions from people, it MUST be working.  I was told by an assistant to the Civil Service Commission that the Commissioners attended some demo polygraphs and were confident in them.  I'm sure that they were never presented with information that would call the polygraphs validilty into question.  Likewise, I'm sure the examiners were all very nice during the demo's.  My examiner's first question during our pre-test interview was: "When was the last time you were arrested?"  He followed that up with: "If you had to write a check for everything you've stolen, how much would that amount be?" I couldn't believe it!  He was acting like I was a criminal from the get-go.

Hope to see some more posts from other victims; I know you're out there.

AMM

I called Phyllis Lynes a second time on Friday, 15 June, to follow up on the message I had earlier left for her, but I again got her answering machine. I left her a new message informing her about the existence of this website and recommending that she download and read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

AMM, Fred F., and anyone else who may know,

Were you asked/instructed/pressured to sign a consent and/or waiver form before your pre-employment polygraph exams with either LAPD or LASD (as the case may be)? It would indeed be incongruous if an agency with so much faith in the infallibility of polygraph screening that it provides no appeal process for those accused of deception would also demand that those submitting to polygraphic interrogation sign some kind of waiver of rights.

If LAPD and/or LASD are using such forms, I think it would be useful for us to obtain copies under the California Public Records Act and to make them publicly available here, too.

George & Fred,

I tried to get their (LAPD) policy in writing early on in my letter writing campaign, but didn't have any luck.  I asked my background investigator and his supervisor what the policy was and they didn't have a clue.  This isn't really surprising given the recent institution of polygraphs.  

Yes, I was asked/forced to sign a waiver.  I truthfully don't remember much of the text.  However, the polygrapher did mention that he couldn't proceed with the test unless I signed it.  

In addition to the City Council, I would also advise anyone caught up in a similar situation with the LAPD to write a letter to the Civil Service Commission.  They have a web site:www.lacity.org/PER/Civil.htm and their phone number is 213-847-9107.  Currently, the president of the Commission is Ms. Sharon Schuster.  All the Commisioners are private citizens so don't expect to speak with them directly.  The Civil Service Commission is the entity that approved pre-employment polygraph screening back in January.  I would assume they will be the ones that have to be persuaded to modify or end the policy.

I have had some response from several Councilmember deputies, but I would rather not discuss it until my appeal is processed.  I would hate for anyone to discover my identity during such a sensitive time.  This may sound like I don't have any balls, but you can't be too careful when your future is on the line.

Regardless of the outcome though, I will try my best to provide you with as much information as I can assemble.  Keep up the good work gentlemen.

AMM

Dzalez read about my polygraph saga under "let the witchhunt begin" in another section of the forums. I took a polygraph for a major metropolitan southern californian police force as well. Unfortunately your situation is not unique..this is the kind of junk science they are using these days to filter out recruits. I will be brutually honest..you are going to have a very difficult time appealing your failed poly. I've learned that the law enforcement bureaucracy treats the poly like it's infallible proof. A lot of recruits 50-60% have totally failed their poly with LAPD..i'm not sure what the failure rate is with other CA departments but it has to be pretty high as well. Anything that has to do with the poly is pretty arbitrary and subjective on the polygrapher's "whim"
All I can tell you is to reapply with a different department and try to put it behind you. If you really want to try you can attempt to reschedule another poly and see if they let you.

Good luck..






dzalez wrote on May 9^th, 2001 at 12:35am:

John wrote on Jul 20^th, 2001 at 4:50pm:


Obviously only if they need a good polygraphist