October 17, 2001
Elimination of Performance Banding System
At the urging of the PBA, the Department at long last, has agreed to eliminate the “Performance Banding System,” effective immediately.
As you may recall, in 1998, the Department promulgated Interim Order 12, which set forth a new performance rating system based on the concept of performance banding, which required supervisors to place our members in one of three performance bands (lower 25 %, middle 50 % and top 25%), whether or not their performance so dictated. At the time, the PBA believed that the program would negatively affect our members by unjustly labeling 25% of officers as low performers, which would significantly impact on their ability to seek career program assignments, transfers, and promotions.
In response, on April 29, 1998, the PBA filed an improper practice petition with the Board of Collective Bargaining (“BCB”), which alleged that the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) violated the New York City Collective Bargaining Law (“NYCCBL”) when it unilaterally changed its performance evaluation process without bargaining over the proposed changes.
The BCB disagreed with the PBA, finding that banding was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. The BCB dismissed the PBA’s improper practice charge thereby permitting the Department to proceed with the implementation of the new banding system. From its inception, this procedure was considered unfair and divisive by our membership and further undermined morale in the police department.
Over the past year, we had several meetings with Commissioner Kerik and expressed our concerns about the fairness of the banding system and called for its elimination. Commissioner Kerik listened to and was persuaded by our arguments and ultimately agreed to eliminate the program.
The PBA-initiated procedural change has effects that are far reaching for our members. No longer will supervisors be required to rate members low for the sake of fulfilling a pre-determined mandatory grading curve. Therefore, police officers who may otherwise have had their reputations and careers unjustly tarnished by the banding system will have a far greater opportunity to be fairly assessed based on the merits of their performance. We are happy to abolish this unpopular and ill-conceived program that was harming our members.
Fraternally,
Patrick J. Lynch
President