Okay, while we wait for whatever happens next (10q's for AFG, CEDAP III, FPS app, etc)....here's my question from last year's SAFER rejection....
We are all volunteer, applied for R & R--no hiring. We have a generous disability/life plan and our members had no (and i mean zero) interest in LOSAP (100% preferred equipment or training) So...our project elements submitted were:
1. Training reimbursement toward additional certifications. Narrative stated that travel & lodging might be reimbursed with department approval. Would serve retention (renewed interest) and recruiting (opportunity, especially for the young).
2. Entry level physicals and mandantory training.
3. Matching t-shirts for all members, uniform pants and shirts (we don't have now) and instituting a special jacket award at 5 years service (suitable for duty) with a plaque at 20 years. Would serve retention (pride and sense of belonging) and recruiting (increased public awareness, visibility, etc).
We had an early "Dear John" citing "inelligible activity". Item 2 seemed fine, so i assumed that #1 was inelligible because of travel and lodging instead of just reimbursing tuition. The R & R section of the PG there was silent on clothing, so i assumed that #3 was okay. Figured it had been a long-shot anyway, and filed it.
Then, when i was reading the '06 SAFER PG, i noticed that under the Hiring project all items of clothing are specifically excluded. There was a similar exclusion under hiring for '05, but no exclusion for articles of clothing under recruitment and retention. I spoke with a couple of DHS employees at FDIC in '05 before the PG was released and they said "be creative", so i thought i was.
Could it be that the specific exclusion on articles of clothing in the Hiring Project caused the "inelligible activity" under Recruitment & Retention" in computer scoring? Or is it possible that the reimbursement for travel & lodging was the culprit after all.
Thanks for the input to a group project and here's hoping others can learn from my error. Speak your minds, i'll not be offended. Let's disect this failure.
earl (wiser now than a year ago. wise enough??)
We are all volunteer, applied for R & R--no hiring. We have a generous disability/life plan and our members had no (and i mean zero) interest in LOSAP (100% preferred equipment or training) So...our project elements submitted were:
1. Training reimbursement toward additional certifications. Narrative stated that travel & lodging might be reimbursed with department approval. Would serve retention (renewed interest) and recruiting (opportunity, especially for the young).
2. Entry level physicals and mandantory training.
3. Matching t-shirts for all members, uniform pants and shirts (we don't have now) and instituting a special jacket award at 5 years service (suitable for duty) with a plaque at 20 years. Would serve retention (pride and sense of belonging) and recruiting (increased public awareness, visibility, etc).
We had an early "Dear John" citing "inelligible activity". Item 2 seemed fine, so i assumed that #1 was inelligible because of travel and lodging instead of just reimbursing tuition. The R & R section of the PG there was silent on clothing, so i assumed that #3 was okay. Figured it had been a long-shot anyway, and filed it.
Then, when i was reading the '06 SAFER PG, i noticed that under the Hiring project all items of clothing are specifically excluded. There was a similar exclusion under hiring for '05, but no exclusion for articles of clothing under recruitment and retention. I spoke with a couple of DHS employees at FDIC in '05 before the PG was released and they said "be creative", so i thought i was.
Could it be that the specific exclusion on articles of clothing in the Hiring Project caused the "inelligible activity" under Recruitment & Retention" in computer scoring? Or is it possible that the reimbursement for travel & lodging was the culprit after all.
Thanks for the input to a group project and here's hoping others can learn from my error. Speak your minds, i'll not be offended. Let's disect this failure.
earl (wiser now than a year ago. wise enough??)
Comment