部门处罚准则
洛圣都警察局
A. 处罚指南. 洛圣都警察局对警员的个人素养及要求非常严格，而《处罚指南》中提到的处罚行为，旨在协助洛圣都警察局更好的践行自己的部门标准，该指南将写明每次受到处罚后的处理情况，并写明再次违规后该如何处理。
随着时代的变化，纪律也会灵活地改变以满足警察局当前的期望，《处罚指南》将定期更新，并接受指挥官、专业标准局和警察局长的审查
Managers and employees must recognize that a penalty matrix cannot address the entire realm of potential misconduct. As such, the Department is calling on commanding officers to consider the facts unique to each case and make reasonable assessments.
The matrix is meant to serve as a guide or starting point for assessing the appropriate level of discipline and should not be employed in a mechanical fashion. Proper administration of discipline requires a careful balance of factors relative to each situation and employee. As a result, employees may receive different penalties for similar conduct.
An offense is considered a first offense when it is formally documented that the Department attempted to correct the employee's undesirable conduct. An offense should be considered a second or third offense only when it is of the same general nature as the previous misconduct. The offences need not be identical.
Consideration should also be given to the time elapsed since prior similar offenses and the seriousness of the offense. In cases of minor misconduct, a new offense which occurs more than five years two months after the last offense of a similar nature generally would be considered a first offense.
B. Penalty Assessment Factors. To determine appropriate and reasonable penalties, commanding officers should give thoughtful consideration to each set of circumstances for each employee and make individual assessments. A penalty should be based on the totality of circumstances rather than solely on the specific charges, including incorporating both mitigating and aggravating factors.
If there are multiple allegations that fall within the same or multiple classifications, the intent of the guide is not to total the penalties, but not consider the case as a whole, derive the appropriate penalty and provide their rationale. Depending on the seriousness and number of the specific allegation, it may be appropriate to consider a penalty above the recommended range for the most serious allegation.
The following factors should be considered when recommending employee disciplinary action:
- 1. The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee's duties, position and responsibilities.
2. The employee's job level and type of employment, including supervisory or fiduciary role, contacts with the public and prominence of the position. Due to being held to a higher standard, more severe penalties are appropriate for supervisors and employees in advanced paygrade positions.
3. The employee's past disciplinary record.
4. The employee's past work record, including length of service, performance on the job, ability to get along with fellow workers and dependability.
5. The effect of the offense on the employee's ability to perform at a satisfactory level and its effect upon supervisors' confidence in the employee's work ability to perform assigned duties.
6. Consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar offenses.
7. Consistency of the penalty with the Department's Penalty Guide.
8. The impact of the offense on public trust and the Department's reputation.
9. The clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were violated in committing the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in question.
10. The potential for the employee's rehabilitation. Consider whether the employee has accepted responsibility for his/her actions,. expressed remorse and/or restored confidence the conduct will not be repeated.
11 Mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense such as unusual job tensions, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved in the matter.
12. The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct in the future by the employee or others.
It is essential that public confidence be maintained in the ability of the Department to investigate and properly adjudicate complaints. Commanding officers must carefully balance this obligation with the needs of the organization and employee.
[justify][center][lspdlogo=225][/lspdlogo][/center]
[center][b][size=175]部门处罚准则[/size]
[size=125]洛圣都警察局[/size][/b][/center]
[b]A. 处罚指南.[/b] 洛圣都警察局对警员的个人素养及要求非常严格，而《处罚指南》中提到的处罚行为，旨在协助洛圣都警察局更好的践行自己的部门标准，该指南将写明每次受到处罚后的处理情况，并写明再次违规后该如何处理。
随着时代的变化，纪律也会灵活地改变以满足警察局当前的期望，《处罚指南》将定期更新，并接受指挥官、专业标准局和警察局长的审查
Managers and employees must recognize that a penalty matrix cannot address the entire realm of potential misconduct. As such, the Department is calling on commanding officers to consider the facts unique to each case and make reasonable assessments.
The matrix is meant to serve as a guide or starting point for assessing the appropriate level of discipline and should not be employed in a mechanical fashion. Proper administration of discipline requires a careful balance of factors relative to each situation and employee. As a result, employees may receive different penalties for similar conduct.
An offense is considered a first offense when it is formally documented that the Department attempted to correct the employee's undesirable conduct. An offense should be considered a second or third offense only when it is of the same general nature as the previous misconduct. The offences need not be identical.
Consideration should also be given to the time elapsed since prior similar offenses and the seriousness of the offense. In cases of minor misconduct, a new offense which occurs more than five years two months after the last offense of a similar nature generally would be considered a first offense.
[b]B. Penalty Assessment Factors.[/b] To determine appropriate and reasonable penalties, commanding officers should give thoughtful consideration to each set of circumstances for each employee and make individual assessments. A penalty should be based on the totality of circumstances rather than solely on the specific charges, including incorporating both mitigating and aggravating factors.
If there are multiple allegations that fall within the same or multiple classifications, the intent of the guide is not to total the penalties, but not consider the case as a whole, derive the appropriate penalty and provide their rationale. Depending on the seriousness and number of the specific allegation, it may be appropriate to consider a penalty above the recommended range for the most serious allegation.
The following factors should be considered when recommending employee disciplinary action:
[list=none][b]1.[/b] The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee's duties, position and responsibilities.
[b]2.[/b] The employee's job level and type of employment, including supervisory or fiduciary role, contacts with the public and prominence of the position. Due to being held to a higher standard, more severe penalties are appropriate for supervisors and employees in advanced paygrade positions.
[b]3.[/b] The employee's past disciplinary record.
[b]4.[/b] The employee's past work record, including length of service, performance on the job, ability to get along with fellow workers and dependability.
[b]5.[/b] The effect of the offense on the employee's ability to perform at a satisfactory level and its effect upon supervisors' confidence in the employee's work ability to perform assigned duties.
[b]6.[/b] Consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar offenses.
[b]7.[/b] Consistency of the penalty with the Department's Penalty Guide.
[b]8.[/b] The impact of the offense on public trust and the Department's reputation.
[b]9.[/b] The clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were violated in committing the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in question.
[b]10.[/b] The potential for the employee's rehabilitation. Consider whether the employee has accepted responsibility for his/her actions,. expressed remorse and/or restored confidence the conduct will not be repeated.
[b]11[/b] Mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense such as unusual job tensions, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved in the matter.
[b]12.[/b] The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct in the future by the employee or others.[/list]
It is essential that public confidence be maintained in the ability of the Department to investigate and properly adjudicate complaints. Commanding officers must carefully balance this obligation with the needs of the organization and employee.
[/justify]
