A new process for Bermuda Police Service promotions could be open to abuse, it has been claimed.

Two sources familiar with the process, who asked not to be named, said they feared that having members at all levels of the service rank those seeking promotion — rather than a more formal interview process with a small senior management panel — might lead to votes being organised to favour certain officers.

However, Darrin Simons, the Commissioner of Police, said any officer found to have colluded to promote a colleague would be fired immediately.

The commissioner said the new process would ensure more informed and fairer decisions and was introduced after a “truly unprecedented” level of internal consultation.

Mr Simons said: “Simply put, gone are the days of promotions being decided by a small interview panel alone, especially given there is an opportunity to consider a candidate’s performance, or lack thereof, over a long period of time.

“Past performance will always be the best indicator of future performance and this new process emphasises that.”

Sergeant Anton Gilbert, the chairman of the Bermuda Police Association, which represents officers from cadets up to chief inspectors, said there was very little pushback during a three-month consultation on the changes before they were implemented.

He said the new process was seen by some as potentially being fairer, adding that if issues arose there was a grievance process that candidates could embark on with the BPA’s backing.

Under the new process, structured interviews have been replaced with a selection panel of 15 to 20 employees from across the BPS.

Panellists are given resumes and statements and watch ten-minute presentations by candidates.

The presentations for those seeking promotion to superintendent took place before a panel last week and presentations for lower ranks will follow.

The first source claimed: “We have a promotion policy, and it says in it that assessors will be trained. None of the panel are trained to be assessors.

“They watch the presentation and then go away and vote, ranking the candidates one, two, three, and so forth.

“It’s not necessarily based on skill or asset to the organisation, it’s based on ‘do I like them or not’. It’s a popularity contest.”

The source said they were worried panellists would discuss the candidates and how they intended to vote, with friends and associates backing one another rather than voting on merit.

The second source claimed: “You only get through if you score well. It’s going to benefit only certain people, based on affiliations.

“How does the commissioner prevent people organising the vote?

“I think it has the potential for corruption, because if people organise around certain individuals, then they can get through.”

Mr Simons said: “To strengthen the integrity of the process, every panel member is required to sign a non-conflict and anti-collusion declaration.

“The consequence to officers for breaching this trust is unequivocal — dismissal from the service. It's a zero-tolerance stance that underscores the seriousness of the task being performed and our professional standards. Our community and our officers deserve no less.”

The commissioner said the process is merit-based and equitable, ensuring that the most capable officers with a recognised history of good performance are selected when compared with one another.

He added: “Only the aggregate results are shared, not the individual panel members’ rankings. This is similar to most panel-based promotion processes.

“Providing only the aggregated results is a step to protect the integrity of the selection process and to minimise undue influence.

“Panel members are free to make their determinations without pressure, ensuring that their choices are based on professional judgment rather than external factors.”

Sergeant Gilbert said the BPA accepted that Mr Simons has the authority to bring in the changes and agrees there was extensive consultation.

He said the BPA encouraged members to write in during the consultation with concerns, adding: “We didn’t receive a lot of comments at all.”

Sergeant Gilbert said though the new process could be seen as “somewhat of a social vote”, it could also be argued that selecting a cross-section of employees from across the service as panellists would make it less biased.

He added that there were a lot of promotions in the pipeline, and the new process would be swifter.

“I know some prefer a more rigid process with grading and some prefer a more social process,” Sergeant Gilbert said. “You can’t please everybody, but at any point somebody could challenge it by filing a grievance.”

A Court of Appeal judgment from March criticised police communications about promotions. The case, brought by an officer who claimed he was unfairly passed over for a chief inspector post, involved an affidavit in support of the action from another inspector who alleged that “decisions about who to promote were not based on … competence or performance but, rather, corrupt practices”.

The affidavit cited WhatsApp messages written by Assistant Police Commissioner Martin Weekes, which the appeal panel concluded were “potentially revealing … of a prejudiced mindset”. Mr Simons said he would address the issue and ensure there was no repeat of it.

Mr Weekes is now on restricted duties after being accused of gross misconduct.