PD Probes Police Appointee Controversy

From First Page

In the test the polygrapher noted a deceptive response to the question, "Have you smoked more than five reefers in the last year." He was also deceptive on the question about undetected crime.

THE POLYGRAPHER wrote:

"It is the opinion of this examiner that subject has committed undetected crime and has used marijuana more than five times in the last year."

Noting also that the applicant was dirty and unkempt and showed “no desire to be a policeman," the polygrapher reported he should not be considered for appointment."

Not taken into account in Gerity's recommendation was the psychologist's report which said the man was an "excellent" candidate. Directly opposing the polygrapher, the psycholo'gist said the man had "high motivation" to become a policeman, and was "keenly aware of personal and community relations as well as current public attitudes towards police."

McManamon said psychologists' reports were not given to the police department.

The psychologist rates each applicant in seven categories according to a five point scale running from 'excellent' to 'very poor." The categories are physical appearance, communicative ability, mental alertness, judgment, social adjustment, adaptability to police work and over-all fitness for the job. The psychologist also adds a personal comment to the rating.

In each disputed case McManamon had the candidate's entire file reviewed by a psychiatrist. In some cases, the psychiatrist also interviewed the candidate.

IN THIS CASE the psychiatrist reviewed the file and wrote, "Past record is good. The material about undetected crime is vague. Acceptable."

=

Two obvious weaknesses are apparent in the procedure. Chief Gerity does not have the advantage of seeing the psychologist's report. Director McManamon relies heavily on a psychiatrist's report that is often nothing more than a record check.

A Plain Dealer study of 53 disputed cases revealed the following causes for Gerity's disapproval:

15 cases of homosexual acts.

11 cases of experience with marijuana.

• 13 cases of petty theft. Some other causes were poor work records, police and traffic records, laughter during polygraph test, surly attitudes and low results on IQ tests.

The most controversial issue was homosexuality. In all but one of the 15 cases in dispute, the homosexual act

involved only one incident.

MCMANAMON argues that such isolated experiences do not make a man a homosexual. The psychiatrists apparently agree with him. One wrote of a particular case:

"Rejected because of admission of homosexual acts at 17 years of age. At this phase of development such transient episodes have no lasting clinical significance. What is important in making the judgment of homosexuality is his preference now as a man. Nowhere is it stated that he now prefers male sexual partners.'

""

This is a contradiction to Gerity's reasons for rejection.

The police department's report on one man said:

"Poor work record, admitted thief, homosexual acts at age 18 (passive).”

The "thievery," according to the polygrapher's report, was of "things like rags, wrenches and a micrometer from his employer.”

Questioned later by a psychiatrist& the candidate said he had been only 16 when he had an experience with a homosexual and had had none since.

HIS WORK record was better than most applicants, including many who were appointed without dispute.

He had worked at the same job the last four years. His employer reported his attendance and work average, with no disciplinary or personality problems. He had previously held two other jobs for short periods. In one his employer described his work as average. In the other, a job he quit after two weeks, he worked only 10 hours the first week and 8 hours the week he quit. His employer scored him for poor attend-

ance.

The criteria used for excluding applicants appeared to be used inconsistently. Compare the above work record with the following:

A 22-year-old, he had been on his most recent job since the summer of 1968. Before that he was fired after three months from a machine shop. He had missed 33 days of 85.

BEFORE THAT he was fired after six months on a job for absenteeism and a bad attitude. Before that he was fired after five months for tardiness and lack of diligence. Before that he was fired after four damage accidents to his delivery truck. But this candidate, whose father is a Cleveland policeman, was appointed without dispute.

In many cases petty thefts were listed as a reason for rejection but were ignored in others.

One man was rejected by the police department for "immaturity, indicated by his attitude during polygraph examination. Laughed throughout exam.

The polygrapher had actually reported that the candidate laughed “during much of the exam" and "appears very inmature."

occurred when the candi. But both psychologist and

date was a teen-ager. Most

psychiatrist called him a

good candidate. The psychologist noted that he was rather talkative.

ANOTHER candidate was rejected for unfavorable employer recommendations and "sympathy and possible affiliation with subversive groups." The report noted a relative "with SDS and other reactionary groups."

The psychiatrist called the rejection "nonsense. The psychologist described him as very intelligent, emotionally stable and a good-to-excellent candiate.

Another man who had formerly been a patrolman in a smalltown was rejected because the town's police chief would not recommend him.

This man is a college graduate who scored well with both psychologist and psychiatrist. The psychiatrist wrote that "after an exhaustive inquiry into his work experience . .it becomes very clear that his poor recommendation reveals more about the nature

of interpersonal relationships in small towns and the fact that the applicant was the only member of the force who had attended college as well as the youngest member of the force.”

MARIJUANA also appeared to be a sensitive issue. A number of candidates admitted trying marijuana at least once. Several said they had used the drug while in the service in Vietnam. In some cases, where there were no other marks against the candidate, the marijuana was ignored. In others, it was grounds for rejection.

The three most sensitive issues, drugs, theft and homosexually came up most exclusively through the polygraph interviews.

When a candidate had an ambiguous or deceptive response to a key question, the polygrapher was forced into the position of amateur psychologist.

Several polygraphy reports in the disputed cases

included comments such as "appears immature," "slow to respond to directions" and "poor candidate for pressurized police work."

IN EFFECT, the police department was put in the position of making psychological judgments without the psychologist's reports.

On the other hand, the psychiatrists, whose reports were used by McManamon to decide disputed cases, appeared to be too often guilty of rather cursory inspections.

All psychiatric reports of one of the professionals simply said, "Record reviewed. Recommendation accept-

able."

The three most sensitive issues, drugs, theft and homosexuality, came up almost exclusively through the polygraph interviews.

When a candidate had an ambiguous or deceptive response to a key question, the polygrapher was forced into the position of amateur

nove