The City of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (http://www.cityofla.org/PER/CIVIL.htm) is meeting today (21 Nov. 2001), and LAPD's pre-employment polygraph screening program is on the agenda.
While I'm not sure what the full implications of these changes are, or what the motivation behind them is, it appears that while the requirement to submit to a pre-employment polygraph "test" is not being dropped, the requirement that the applicant "pass" it is being rescinded.
The following quote is from p. 3 of the agenda for today's meeting:
6. PRE-EMPLOYMENT – POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION PROCESS
In accordance with 21 Days' Notice of Intention given on October 25, 2001:
a. Approve designating the pre-employment polygraph examination as a separate test part
in the POLICE OFFICE/POLICE SPECIALIST examination process;
b. Revise Civil Service Commission Rule 4.22 to state the following:
"The two working days immediately following a candidate's interview, physical abilities
test, or performance test, or pre-employment polygraph test[/u] shall be designated as a
review period during which the candidate may submit a protest against the conduct of
his/her test or the competency of the raters..."
c. Revise Civil Service Commission Rule 4.24 to state the following:
"Unsupported claims of misconduct and all claims against the judgment of the raters in
assigning scores for essay, interview, physical abilities, or performance, or pre-
employment polygraph tests shall not be grounds for a protest under Sec 4.20, 4.22
or 4.23..."
d. Delete from Personnel Department Policy 1.13(b) the following provision:
"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."
e. Add to Personnel Department Policy 1.13(b) the following:
"The polygraph examination shall be conducted by a qualified polygraph operator of the
Los Angeles Police Department or a designee, using standard equipment and
accepted techniques." (Addition is bolded)
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 .
Dear Mr. Weinstein,
Thank you for replying; all viewpoints are welcome here, and you need not worry that your post might be deleted. (While PolygraphPlace.com plays such games, AntiPolygraph.org is committed to uncensored discussion and debate of polygraph issues.)
The headline "LAPD Dropping Requirement to Pass Polygraph?" (with a question mark) refers to item 6.d on the city of Los Angeles Civil Service Committee's agenda for today, which is cited above. The clear implication to me is that the requirement that applicants pass a pre-employment polygraph "test" is being dropped, at least de jure, if not de facto, insomuch as the results of a polygraph "test" shall no longer be grounds for disqualification.
What am I missing here? If the LAPD provided you any details on the reason for this change, and its implications, please share that information here. It was not my intent to mislead anyone, but rather to call attention to, and encourage disusssion regarding, what seems to be a significant policy change.
Quote To double check, I telephoned LAPD and they assured me that no such provision is being consiodered.
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 :D
Fred F. ;)
Quote from: Don Weinstein on Nov 21, 2001, 06:48 PM
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.
How has Mr. Maschke routinely misled people about the polygraph? What comments or observations by Mr. Maschke about polygraphy are misleading? Please be specific.
Quote....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 find it the absolute height of irony that you sir, a purveyor in falsehood and deceit, should make such a spurious accusation. Have you no shame?
QuoteI 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".
Tell me Mr. Weinstein, do you examine the charts produced during your polygraph interrogations with the same level of careful scrutiny as you did the newslink headline you note above? If you gave it a tad more of your attention you would note a
question mark at the end of the actual headline, something you either simply missed or overtly chose not to include in your bloviating above. The posing of a provocative question is a classic tool of the editor, as it invites the reader to decide for himself and may even stimulate
intelligent debate on the subject. Sadly, your comments thus far do not rise to that standard, but I am ever hopeful someone in the 'pro-polygraph' community will someday make it over the bar and actually contribute something other than relentless gratuitous assertions here. (Anyone seen Gordon Barland? Six months and counting on this one (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=150.msg587#msg587).)
Dear Mr. Don Weinstein,
Spoken like a true polygrapher.
;D
Mr. Weinstein,
Please note my response to you on the new thread entitled A Message to Former APA President Don Weinstein (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=358.msg1614#msg1614)
I look forward to your further participation in this forum.
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?
Beech Trees, Gino, et al
Lets hope that Mr. Weinstein accepts our invitation to discuss the issues of polygraph accuracy.
It is always good to have spirited debate from both sides and perhaps Mr. Weinstein may provide us with answers to our queries with documentation to back his statements.
Mr. Weinstein, we await your responses. I hope that you take the time to read Dr. Barland's posts and posts from other polygraphers who have joined in on this site.
Fred F. ;)
The meeting of the L.A. Civil Service Commission (http://www.cityofla.org/PER/CIVIL.htm) 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 (http://www.cityofla.org/PER/), 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.
The report (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/whelan-memo-16-10-01.shtml) to which I referred in the previous message is now available on-line. (Click on the link to read it.)
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 (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-019.pdf).) 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.
c.c. past American Polygraph Association President Donald Weinstein, via email at donmarine@aol.com
Dear Mr. Weinstein,
Will you be addressing the questions posed to you, brought about by your inflammatory and seemingly gratuitous assertions about the site owners and authors at antipolygraph.org? Specifically, will you be addressing the following:
- How has Mr. Maschke routinely misled people about the polygraph?
- What comments or observations by Mr. Maschke about polygraphy are misleading?
You've had almost two weeeks to compose a reply, and yet you have failed to support your accusations. As a major figure in the 'science' of polygraphy and past president of the American Polygraph Association, I would think you would be delighted at this opportunity, yet no answer has been forthcoming.
Should you fail to reply in a timely manner to thsese questions brought about by your assertions (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=339.msg1527#msg1527) at URL
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=339.msg1527#msg1527
I shall infer that they are indeed specious, baseless and wholey without merit and I will include that fact in an editorial.
Good day to you sir,
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. ;)
George:
Your letter to the Los Angeles Board of Civil Service Commissioners was (as usual) right on the mark. While your concise and persuasive argument should give the Board something to think about, I doubt they will reverse their policy since they undoubtedly rely on information provided to them by polygraphers. My experience with LAPD's background investigation unit and Public Safety Employment Division seems to indicate they have almost complete faith in the polygraph's accuracy and their examiners ability to detect countermeasures. I truly believe if they knew how applicants were being treated, they would have a very different opinion of both the hiring process and the polygraph.
For anyone reading this post that isn't familiar with my situation, I am currently an applicant for the Los Angeles Police Department. Earlier this year, I was falsely accused of deception on my pre-employment polygraph. I was completely dumbfounded by the allegation since I knew I had told the truth. (Like most applicants, I thought all I had to do was tell the truth and get ready for the academy.) I disputed the "exam" results, appealed my removal from the hiring process, and armed myself with information from Antipolygraph.org and Doug Williams manual "How to Sting the Polygraph." Most recently, I was asked to take a second polygraph "exam" apparently to dispel any lingering doubts the City might have about me. Not wanting to be a false positive for a second time, I employed countermeasures to ensure my passing. I followed the behavioral countermeasures described in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector," and the cardio/breathing countermeasures described by Doug Williams. They worked exactly as advertised and I passed without any problems. (This, by the way, positively refutes Public Safety Employment Division's claim they would be able to catch anyone using countermeasures.) I would recommend to anyone scheduled to take a pre-employment polygraph to study as much information about the polygraph as possible and to employ effective countermeasures to ensure passing.
AMM
QuoteMost recently, I was asked to take a second polygraph "exam" apparently to dispel any lingering doubts the City might have about me. Not wanting to be a false positive for a second time, I employed countermeasures to ensure my passing. I followed the behavioral countermeasures described in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector," and the cardio/breathing countermeasures described by Doug Williams. They worked exactly as advertised and I passed without any problems.
AMM,
CONGRATULATIONS !!!
Glad to see that you were successful in your endeavor. Lets just hope that the rest of your pre-employment process goes smoothly and they don't try to haunt you with the earlier "False Positive".
A couple of questions for you, did the second polygrapher give you any problems in relation to the first test or was it a mute issue?
Did you have a post test "interrogation"?
Good Luck with the rest of your processing
Fred F. ;)
Fred:
Thanks for the congrats. It's been a while, hasn't it?
As for your questions:
Amazingly, my second examiner (a polygrapher working under the LAPD/USIS contract) didn't really seem to care about my first exam. We talked about what appeared to be areas of concern, but he was extremely professional. I must say his demeanor made me suspect, but the experience was completely different from my first.
Following the "in-test" phase I was mentally preparing myself for an interrogation, but it never came! It's possible that I produced charts so "truthful" that he didn't feel the need. I will send you a copy of an email I sent to George that goes into a little more detail.
R,
AMM
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Certainly I have given former American Polygraphers Association President Don Weinstein every opportunity to back up his gratuitous assertions in this thread with facts. Since he is either unable or unwilling to do so, I think it's safe to say he cannot, and thus his post may be dismissed as yet another childish attack from the pro-polygraph community.
BT
::) All I got to say is this jack-ass who is so pro-polygraph is probably Fat short and bald and takes it in the shitter. People who belong to associations to test people that lie have no life. Most of them need to get a life! :P
Has there been any update on LAPD's Polygraph?
The changes to the Civil Service Commission rules discussed above were adopted by the Commission (apparently without comment) on 6 December 2001. You'll find this noted in the minutes for that meeting:
http://www.lacity.org/per/011206.pdf
The two working days immediately following a candidate's interview, physical abilities test, or performance test, or pre-employment polygraph test shall be designated as a review period during which the candidate may submit a protest against the conduct of his/her test or the competency of the raters...
Two days to file a complaint, ok....
Unsupported claims of misconduct and all claims against the judgment of the raters in assigning scores for essay, interview, physical abilities, or performance, or preemployment polygraph tests shall not be grounds for a protest under Sec 4.20, 4.22 or 4.23...
It would appear that they have an air-tight 'out', as any claims of polygraph interrogator misconduct, or the fallibity of the testing instrument, may be summarily dismissed as 'unsupported'.
Quote from: beech_trees on Feb 15, 2002, 11:03 AM
It would appear that they have an air-tight 'out', as any claims of polygraph interrogator misconduct, or the fallibity of the testing instrument, may be summarily dismissed as 'unsupported'.
Bada bing, bada boom.
What ever happened to that guy who was the head of the Polygraph Dept. for LAPD who was accused of changing the results of peoples tests and failing people who passed and passing people who failed. Could this bum still have a job? Wouldn't this be a great news story for the Press or electronic media?
It certainly would be interesting. This thread confirms my suspicions that the poly is a 'weed out tool' used to cut back on the number of applicants. All the more reason to use every countermeasure and come in under the radar.
The threat of the polygraph when you walk in to your written test causes many to fess to using drugs, etc., that would otherwise not show up on a drug test, thereby forcing applicants to weed themselves out.
More and more, I realize that the so-called lie detector is really a russian-roulette game to weed out applicants and intimidating them into incriminating themselves. Fair employment hiring practices indeed!!
What was the result from this meeting? Can you still fail a polygraph and be hired with LAPD?.......... I have heard of two cases now that a applicant has failed there plygraph, but has still been hired.
Quote from: gorgikla22 on Apr 18, 2007, 02:57 PMWhat was the result from this meeting? Can you still fail a polygraph and be hired with LAPD?.......... I have heard of two cases now that a applicant has failed there plygraph, but has still been hired.
My understanding is that while applicants are required to pass the polygraph in order to be hired, failing the polygraph does not result in a permanent bar to LAPD employment (as it had once done). I believe that those who fail the LAPD polygraph may re-apply after one year.
Quote from: Don Weinstein on Nov 21, 2001, 06:48 PMMr. 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 .
Sir, the deletion of the requirement that a polygraph be passed is in effect, a recision of that requirement. George has not lied.
It's all bull****, it's ridiculous that they even base anything off of the poly. I've passed some, and failed others on the exact same questions. It's pretty much up to the person giving the exam whether you pass or fail, don't think too much of it.