Louisiana State Police Commission
PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND REVIEW
FOR DIRECTOR AND COMMISSION EMPLOYEES
20.1 Performance Planning and Review System for Director and Commission Employees; Required Components.
The Commission shall use a performance planning and review system that complies with this Chapter and consists of the following components:
Other components may be incorporated upon prior approval by the Commission
20.2 Rater; Reviewer.
20.3 Performance Factors to be Rated.
(1) The Director and each employee shall be rated on the following performance factors: Work Product; Dependability; Cooperativeness; Adaptability; Communication; Customer Service; and Daily Decision Making/Problem Solving.
(2) The Director and Supervisory employees shall be rated on the following additional performance factors: Work Group Management and Leadership; Accountability; and Performance Planning and Review.
(3) The Director and an employee may be rated on additional performance factor(s) applicable to the employee’s job.
1. Outstanding = 5 points
(1) The rater shall rate the employee on each applicable performance factor, using the following ratings and points:
2. Very Good – 4 points
3. Good = 3 points
4. Needs Improvement = 2 points
5. Poor = 1 point
1. Outstanding = 4.50 – 5.00
(2) The performance factor ratings shall then be averaged and the employee’s overall rating shall be assigned based upon the following scale:
2. Very Good = 3.50 – 4.49
3. Good = 2.50 – 3.49
4. Needs Improvement = 1.50 – 2.49
5. Poor = 1.00 – 1.49
20.5 Performance Planning Session.
20.6 Rating Process.
(1) The rater shall conduct a performance planning session, during which the rater shall discuss with the employee the factors upon which the employee will be rated, and the performance that will be expected during the coming rating period. Thereafter, the rater and the employee shall sign and date the performance planning and review form to document the session.
(2) A performance planning session shall be conducted no later than 30 calendar days after the appointment of a new employee, or the anniversary date of a current employee, or the assignment of an employee into a different position or when the employee is given significantly different duties.
(3) A performance planning session may be conducted when an employee is assigned a new supervisor or when performance expectations change due to changes in work.
(1) The rater shall complete the performance planning and review form and shall provide the form and any documentation to support a rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Poor” to the reviewer. The reviewer, if satisfied, shall sign the form and return it to the rater who shall then give a copy to the employee and discuss the rating.
(2) For new employees, the provisions of subsection (1) shall occur within 45 calendar days prior to the employee’s eligibility for a merit increase.
(3) For current employees, the provisions of subsection (1) shall occur within 45 calendar days before the employee’s anniversary date.
An employee whose official overall rating is “Needs Improvement” or “Poor” shall be re-rated no earlier than 3 nor later than 6 months after the employee’s anniversary date.
20.8 When a Rating or a Re-Rating Becomes Official.
A rating or re-rating becomes official upon the employee’s receipt of the performance planning and review form. Receipt is governed by Rule 12.8(b).
20.9 Employee’s Refusal to Sign Form.
If an employee refuses to sign any part of the form, the rater shall note on the form that the employee was given the form, refused to sign, and the date.
20.10 Effects of “Needs Improvement” or “Poor” Rating or Re-Rating.
20.11 Effects of Absence of Official Rating or Re-Rating.
(1) An employee whose official overall rating or re-rating is “Needs Improvement” or “Poor” is ineligible for merit increases or promotion.
20.12 Record-keeping and Reporting Requirements.
20.13 Review of Ratings and Re-Ratings.
(1) If the Commission neglects to rate the Director or if the Director neglects to rate an employee prior to his/her anniversary date, the Director or employee shall be considered as having a rating of “Good.” If the Commission fails to timely re-rate the Director or if the Director neglects to re-rate the employee rated “Needs Improvement” or “Poor,” the Director or employee shall be deemed to have a re-rating of “Good,” as of six (6) months after the Director’s or employee’s anniversary date.
(2) If a performance rating or re-rating has not been possible because of the excused absence of the Director or employee due to medical reasons, the rating or re-rating shall be delayed until no earlier than 3 nor later than 6 months after the Director or employee’s return to duty on a full time basis. Under such circumstances, the rating existing prior to the Director’s or employee’s absence shall continue in effect in the interim.
Ratings and re-ratings are subject to review as follows:
The request for review must conform to the following:
(1) The Director or an employee who disagrees with and desires a review of an official overall rating or re-rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Poor” must present a written request to the Commission for review of the rating or re-rating.
(2) Upon receipt of a timely request for review, the Commission shall:
1. Include a copy of the Performance Planning and Review Form, and any documentation provided to the Director or employee with the form, to request the review.
2. Attach any other documentation supporting the request for review.
3. List the performance factor ratings that are in dispute and for each factor explain why they believe a higher rating was deserved.
4. Be postmarked or received by the Chairman of the Commission within thirty (30) calendar days following receipt by the Director or employee of the Performance Planning and Review Form.
Last Modified: 01/15/2017