Responsible voters should take the time to learn everything they can about the candidates running for office.

Paule Villard, for example, is challenging incumbent Marlen Martell for her Group 7 seat on the North “Maimi” Beach City Council.

You’d think that the former City of Miami Police Officer would know how to spell “Miami.”

Then again, you’d also think that a former police officer wouldn’t “steal” another candidate’s platform.

Of course, if Villard had her own platform, she wouldn’t have to practically plagiarize her opponent’s words and claim them for her own.

Councilwoman Marlen Martell is running on the fact that she has kept all her campaign promises from four years ago.

Aside from parroting Marlen’s use of the word “Pledge,” Villard is also hijacking Marlen’s original promises to increase public safety, put the children first, be responsive and responsible to residents, and to be conscious of the budget.

Someone needs to tell Paule that her “New Vision for North Miami Beach” is, like, so four years ago.

It’s already been  accomplished.

Yawn.

But considering Villard’s performance (or lack thereof) record with her former employer, thinking outside the box is hardly her forte.

I previously reported eight incidents for which she received reprimands and/or counseling during her career at the Miami Police Department.

I was also able to obtain additional documents from her employee file, including nine employee evaluations for the period from June 1, 1987 to June 30, 1989, while she was employed as a Public Service Aide, three while in the position of Clerk I, and four more after she was promoted to Police Officer.

As a Public Service Aide, Paule Villard received mostly middle-of-the road ratings of “Satisfactory,” with quite a few “Improvement Needed” marks, mostly in the areas of Quality of Work, Dependability, and Knowledge of Work.  Villard did manage to improve from “Satisfactory” to “Very Good” sporadically over the course of her career.

Her ratings for Appearance, however, were almost always “Above Average.”

In the first report for the period of June 1, 1987 to June 30, 1987, her supervisor noted that she needed “to show improvement in the area of report writing” and had “been advised to obtain a dictionary.”

PSA Villard showed improvement the following month from July 1, 1987 to July 31, 1987, in which her supervisor noted that she “reports to work on time,” “did not call in sick this rating period,” her “report writing skills have improved to the satisfactory level,” and she was “one of the top producers [of reports] in this area.”  Unfortunately, PSA Villard “received a deficiency for neglecting to make a security check after being told to do so.”

By the third evaluation for the period of August 1, 1987 to August 31, 1987, Villard’s Quality of Work “continues to be satisfactory,” but she “received a deficiency this rating period for answering the phone improperly which is a violation of the Standard Operating Procedure.”

On her evaluation for the period of November 1, 1987 to November 30, 1987, Paule actually received her first “Outstanding” ratings in Work Initiative and Co-Operation, even as her Overall Evaluation was still “Satisfactory,” and she continued to “Need Improvement”  for Quality of Work.  Her rater noted, “She should attempt to remedy this deficiency by taking training courses.”  Furthermore, “PSA Villard needs to enhance her English writing skills.  It would be a benefit to her to take free English courses offered to City employees.”

She was, however, rated “Very Good” for her Appearance as noted, “PSA Villard takes pride in her appearance.”

The next month, however, even her Appearance slacked off to “Satisfactory.”  The rater noted, “PSA Villard needs improvement in two key categories that impact on her job responsibilities.”  She apparently showed poor judgment for “leaving her post without advising this supervisor and being gone for 1/2 hour” and “for looking at merchandise that was for sale while on duty behind the counter.”  On the upside, “PSA Villard has improved in the area of grammar usage, however, she has had several kickbacked reports due to incomplete information.”  Overall, “Her minor deficiencies in the area of judgement and dependability can be improved on by more careful thinking.”

As expected, though, “PSA Villard is always neat and well groomed.”

Apparently her thinking wasn’t careful enough because the very next month, for the period of January 1, 1988 to January 31, 1988, Public Service Aide Paule Villard received two Unsatisfactory ratings in Judgment and Dependability for the “Black Purse” incident.  Because of her carelessness, Villard’s Overall Evaluation that month was “Unsatisfactory.”  “If she would have done her job property, this incident would have not have occurred,” the rater noted.

Six months later, her Semi-Annual Evaluation for the period ending June 30, 1988 noted that PSA Paule Villard managed to improve slightly to “Very Good” in most areas, but still “Needed Improvement” in the area of Dependability for “failing to turn in evidence promptly,” and “failing to return to work after a week in Haiti.”

Shortly after that evaluation, PSA Paule Villard received a suspension of “Leave of absence without pay for seven (7) days.”

Six months later, her ratings fell dramatically.

Her Semi-Annual Evaluation for the period ending December 31, 1988 reflected “Improvement Needed” in the areas of Judgment and Cooperation, an “Unsatisfactory” in Dependability, and although an “Average” rating in Work Initiative, the rater noted that Villard “Could do more.”  Her Judgment was rated poorly for not properly “1. handling administrative paperwork; 2. accepting responsibility for her assignments; 3. following directions of a superior.”  Her Dependability was also rated poorly because “On Dec. 25, 1988, Villard came to work 2 hrs. and 10 min. late, and after being directed to complete her tour of duty by a superior, she left her assignment approximately 3 hours early.  In addition to this incident, P.S.A. Villard made no effort to correct ticklers, leaving them in her mail box over five months.”  “Despite directions given and previous counseling, she seems to proceed in the direction she chooses.”  “This is evident in her lack of cooperation and in her following written and oral directions.”

But she was “Always neat and clean.”

By the next Semi-Annual Evaluation on June 30, 1989, PSA Paule Villard obviously continued “to proceed in the direction she chooses.”  She received six “Improvement Needed” ratings out of nine categories.  She “used poor judgment this rating period, which resulted in a reprimand, a suspension, and numerous memos to her file.”  She also had a “documented problem with getting to work on time.  She was late 4 times this rating period.”  Her Quality of Work was poor due to a “reprimand with a two day suspension during this rating period for neglect of duty.  She also has a memo in her file for being disruptive and failing to follow directions.”  She also “Needed Improvement” in Co-operation, as noted, “P.S.A. Villard has a tendency to be argumentative and defiant with supervisors and fellow employees.”  “PSA Villard has fallen below expectations during this rating period, improvement is needed.”

Her Appearance, however, was rated as “Very good.”

While employed as a Clerk I, Paule Villard’s Performance Appraisal Form for the period of June 1, 1991 to June 30, 1991, reflected that she rated “Above Average” in all areas except for Discipline.  “It was pointed out by this supervisor that all employees must be at their assigned position and ready to work at the appointed time scheduled.”  She was given copies of the Records Handbook and Departmental Orders, and was notified that she “will be monitored closely in order that the rules are kept.”

Unfortunately for Villard, there was no category for Appearance on this particular form.

The very next month’s Performance Appraisal Form noted improvement in Quality of Results, for which she received an “Outstanding” rating.  Her Discipline rating also improved from “Needs Improvement” to “Satisfactory.”

The following month of August, 1991, reflected that Ms. Villard’s Discipline rating slipped back down to “Needs Improvement” and her “overall average has dropped during this month because of an infraction for parking her vehicle in the 15 minutes parking zone from 0800-1300 to 1400-1415 hours.  For this she was counseled and given an infraction.”

After all these average … to mediocre … to poor … ratings, Paule Villard was still  hired as a Police Officer on December 21, 1993.

Scary, huh?

Police Officer Paule Villard’s Performance Appraisal Form for the period February 1, 1994 to February 28, 1994 was less than stellar.  Out of seven categories, she rated “Satisfactory” in all but one.  She “Needed Improvement” in Job Knowledge.  The rater noted, “Officer Villard has difficulty taking control of situations where assertiveness and voice commands are crucial.  She received supplementary training (4 hours) during this rating period in order to sharpen this deficient and extremely critical area.”  Even so, “As it is her first month on the street, Officer Villard was not faced with any unusual problem-solving situations.”

By the period from April 1, 1994 to April 30, 1994, Officer Villard improved to “Satisfactory” in all areas, and even to “Above Average” in two of them – Interpersonal Skills and Discipline.

Hope sprung eternal.

The next month, May 1, 1994 to May 31, 1994, Paule Villard was back down to “Satisfactory” across the board.  “For her short tenure on the Department, Officer Villard has demonstrated adequate  decision-making skills.”

And, finally, Officer Villard’s annual “Performance Appraisal Form” for the period December 21, 1995 to December 21, 1996, again reflected ratings of “Satisfactory.”  However, her appraiser commented, “In the latter months of Officer Villard evaluation period, she displayed some deficiencies in some areas.”  With respect to Quality of Results, “Officer Villard has received several report kick-backs due to lack of information or missing reports in the latter months of her evaluation period.  She was counseled and advised improvement is needed.”  This report also noted that Villard received a reprimand on March 2, 1996 for “Being absent from duty without permission.”  In addition, there were several incidents for which Villard was counseled.  On October 12, 1996, she “and her partner allowed a 6 month pregnant female to escape from their custody due to improper judgment by Officer Villard.”  On October 16, 1996, Villard failed “to notify State regarding her absence” from Court, and on November 19, 1996, she failed “to contact CIS desk reference cancelling stolen vehicle message” for two days, “advising this supervisor that her work day had become too busy, therefore, she forgot.”  She did, however, receive two shout-outs for assisting “in the apprehension of Robbery offender” and controlling a person during “battery on P.O., Resisting Arrest w/violence.”

In other words, she got Participation Trophies for doing her job.

YAY!

In all fairness, in her 21 years as a City of Miami Police Officer, Paule Villard did receive six, count ’em, six Commendations for outstanding police work, as follows:

• On October 29, 1997, for … coordinating the local NFL/Gatorade Punt, Pass & Kick Tournament.
• On October 16, 1998, for … helping to organize the department’s 2nd Annual “Senior Talent Show.”
• On April 8, 1999, for … planning the first of three elementary school talent shows, which she planned on her own initiative.
• On April 23, 2003, for … reading stories, singing songs and talking about safety and the responsibility of being a police officer, during National Library Week.
• On July 30, 2003, for … helping organize the department’s “Take Your Daughters/Sons to Work Day.”
• On February 18, 2004, for … visiting Morningside Elementary School.

Wow.

I had no idea police work was so … so … fraught with danger.

Yeah, hats off.

Based on the history of her lackluster career in law enforcement, during which “Above Average” was a fleeting condition and “Satisfactory” was the top of her game, what expectations can voters have for this candidate should she win the election?

Since basic character traits are usually inherent, there’s always the chance, however remote, that Paule Villard would provide “adequate” representation.

At best.

Paule Villard is a person who has a history of showing up late, when she shows up at all, and could go AWOL without notice.

Gee, that sounds familiar.  Right Frantzie?

It’s quite possible she’d continue to use poor judgement, be disruptive, fail to follow directions, and have a tendency to be argumentative and defiant.

She might even park illegally.

But, on the plus side, she could organize a talent show!

And, she’ll always be neat and well groomed.

There you go, folks.  Another dubious recruit for your city council, brought to you by none other than the Spork Weasel of NMB, L’il Frantzie P.

Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”