Proposition 51K2009

Projet de loi modifiant certaines règles de base de l'évaluation des membres du personnel des services de police.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Sept. 29, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

staff assessment police

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 2, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

My report will be very short.

I have chosen to make this report because the bill that is subject to our review aims to simplify the evaluation procedures for members of police personnel, including CALogs. Thousands of people will therefore be affected by the changes we are going to adopt today.

Simplification is already an objective in itself, since it allows to free the staff from certain administrative tasks and thus to strengthen their operational capacity, an old wish that we repeat throughout the parliamentary year whenever we address police issues.

This is how it is seen that the arrangement fixed in the "Mammuth Decree" and in the statutory law never came into force because it was heavy on the level of procedures.

The proposed text ⁇ ins the assessments, which of course remain indispensable, but ensures better involvement of staff throughout the procedure, which is a plus in terms of management.

The assessment will focus on three dimensions: the individual skills of the staff member, police values and collective and individual goals.

The assessment must result in one of three possible statements: insufficient, sufficient or good.

The objective pursued is obviously to enable staff to evolve, but without omitting that these assessments have an impact on careers and promotions just as they can, in the long run, result in a definitive dismissal if, four times, the mention is negative.

This proposal was unanimously adopted by the Commission.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, as already stated during the examination of this draft in the committee, we agree with the starting point of this draft law, namely to create a working instrument in which an evaluation system effectively contributes to the functioning of staff members and that in addition gives them sufficient guarantees.

That this should be possible within a framework that also keeps in mind the goal of the maximum operational employability of the staff, thus without loss of capacity and without heavy bureaucratic procedures, is for us also beyond doubt and we can only welcome.

However – it was already said in the discussion – we fear that, despite the good intentions of the draft, the evaluation in practice will still remain a fairly logged procedure. Each evaluation period begins with a planning interview, ends with an evaluation interview and during the course of the procedure there are one or more functional discussions. Of all this, the necessary reports must be drawn up.

In order to avoid accumulation of conversations and the corresponding administration, in practice, an evaluation interview for a past period may also be concluded with a planning conversation for the next period. We all hope that.

We also fear an accumulation of appeals in the case of insufficient appeals, both in the case of the final responsible, i.e. the first appeal body on evaluation, and in the case of the appeal board to be established. We know from experience in other public sectors how paralysing such successive procedures can be for the operation of a service. Therefore, we strongly urge the establishment of clear deadlines for the handling of such appeals.

I personally continue to wonder why the evaluation was cancelled with reservation. I have heard from you that that provision with reservation would not be motivating. Nevertheless, I believe that the reservation also gives the staff member the opportunity to know in which aspects he needs to make progress. A reserve evaluation is more motivating than a negative evaluation. So let’s just hope that evaluators won’t act faster on an insufficient one since there is no possibility of reservation anymore.

Mr. Minister, we hope that this bill - finally - leads to the introduction of a good and working system. Two attempts have already been made. The Mammouth Act in 2001 and the Exodus Act in 2003 already laid the basis for an evaluation system, which, however, was subsequently – in our right opinion – judged as too busy, too labor-consuming and thus as not feasible.

Hopefully the third time will be the right time. Meanwhile, 2001 has been behind us for a long time, especially against the date when a first real evaluation will be able to continue. As you announced, an initial evaluation in 2007 will only be a type of pilot evaluation and therefore will not have any consequences. Their

You have rightly emphasized that the importance of a functional evaluation cannot be underestimated. Positive guidance and coaching are indispensable in the current personnel policy. Recent events have reminded us of this. Their

In summary, this bill is, in our opinion, to remain in our own terms, satisfactory. According to the text of the bill, this should motivate you more to set up a well-functioning system than if it had been assessed as sufficient.