Effective Examiner, or the Story of an Annulled Exam

I have written many times about the application of corporate-style methods to examiners in order to increase their so-called work efficiency, which in short boils down to practically forcing higher turnover. I appealed back then that we stop this rat race and work according to the rules of the trade and our own conscience. I pointed out that conducting a dozen or more practical exams in an eight-hour working day is neither normal nor possible, and that it distorts the very idea of our work.

Introduction

The director, the manager, the supervising examiner, or the voivodeship marshal himself will not help you or appreciate your pseudo-efficiency if, in this rush, you stumble and make a significant error, whether consciously or not. Such a situation recently took place at the driving test center in Łódź. It was a sweltering July day, seemingly just an ordinary day. Someone was on vacation, someone else fell ill, someone had other duties—of course, in the superiors’ view, an unforeseen, random situation impossible to predict. The only question is: can a situation that occurs practically every day be called a random unforeseen event? Is it a random occurrence when a single examiner is assigned over a dozen exams per day? Is the excessive scheduling of examinations to be conducted by a single examiner an unforeseen event? The result was that on a day when the air temperature hovered around 30 degrees Celsius, 15 minutes before the hypothetical end of the working day, over a dozen people were still waiting for their exam in the waiting room. Emotions and fatigue among examiners were running high, but everyone somehow tried to perform their tasks diligently. The day probably would have ended as usual—overtime work and the employer’s excessive expectations would likely have been met—if not for one significant event. The head of the examination department, who was also an examiner himself, appeared on the center’s maneuver yard, after which he handed us written inquiries indicating that, as a result of an audit he conducted, he found, quote: “extended exam times” and demanded written explanations in this regard. Uproar erupted among the examiners, but there was no time for discussion.

The aforementioned manager also bravely rushed to help and decided to set an example personally by conducting one exemplary examination. This exam concluded with a positive result, and the overjoyed candidate left the center with a smile on her face. Everything was pleasant and nice. However, doubts among other examiners were raised by the duration of this exam; considering the conditions under which it was conducted, in their assessment there was no possibility that the exam tasks required by relevant regulations could be completed under even the most favorable circumstances in less than about 50 minutes. Meanwhile, the manager along with the examined person returned to the maneuver yard in less than 24 minutes, which, as we all know, constituted at least a violation of the rules in itself. Thus, an official memo from one of the examiners regarding this matter landed on the center director’s desk.

Extended Exam Times

We reasoned that if “extended exam times” (whatever that means) cause concern for our superiors, why should it be any different in the case of an evidently shortened exam duration (which already has a statutory basis)? The memo, along with other documents, was forwarded to the supervisory authority—namely the voivodeship marshal—who, by decision No. 10/2018 (case reference: IFI.1510.37.2018.GK), annulled the examination in question and noted, among other things, that the candidate had not performed the following mandatory exam tasks required by the regulations:

1. driving on two-way single-carriageway roads with various numbers of designated and non-designated traffic lanes, featuring straight sections and curves, ascents and descents, and reduced and increased speed limits;
2. driving on two-way dual-carriageway roads with various numbers of designated and non-designated traffic lanes, featuring straight sections and curves, ascents and descents, and reduced and increased speed limits;
3. driving on one-way roads with various numbers of designated and non-designated traffic lanes;
4. passing through equal-priority intersections (three-way and four-way).

As the supervisory authority rightly observed, the selected examination tasks consist of several elements, and the execution of all component elements of a task is the basis for its evaluation and, consequently, for recognizing it as completed.

Additionally, the supervisory authority determined that the exam lasted less than 24 minutes, while the examiner’s explanations indicated that he took as the start of the on-road exam the moment the command was issued to perform the task specified in item 1 of Table No. 7 in Annex No. 2 to the Regulation (Journal of Laws 232 of 2016, as amended), and as the end the moment the engine was switched off in the exam vehicle. In the authority’s assessment, however, driving time in road traffic should be counted from the moment of leaving the maneuver yard and joining the traffic flow until the moment of leaving road traffic by entering the center grounds. In the reasoning for the decision, the voivodeship marshal also cited an excerpt from the judgment of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Bydgoszcz of October 11, 2016, case ref. II SA/Bd 371/16, namely, quote: “there is no significant doubt as to the possibility of annulling a driving test in a situation where the required duration of the practical exam was significantly shortened by the examiner or when not all mandatory activities, maneuvers, or exam tasks required by the regulations were performed during its course”.

An Evident Error?

Naturally, the question arises in the mind of any thinking person at this point: could an experienced examiner with over a dozen years of service, acting as a department head at the center, who for many years was also a supervising examiner, make such obvious mistakes? Could he not know what elements comprise the mandatory exam tasks? Could he not know that the minimum duration of an exam in road traffic is 40 minutes, and the condition for a candidate to obtain a positive result is the correct execution of all exam tasks? Any examiner would surely consider this unlikely, as the strict statutory requirements imposed on examiners rule out such a possibility. What then happened during the examination in question? Why did the examiner expose both himself and the center to a loss of public trust? For how else can one describe a situation in which the supervisory authority is forced to annul an exam due to the fact that it was conducted contrary to regulations? How can one describe a situation where an examined person, after several months of holding a driving license, learns that their exam was annulled by the supervisory authority? Only the examiner in question knows the answer to these questions, and perhaps the prosecutor conducting an investigation into abuse of power or failure to perform duties by a public official during a state exam (an offense under Art. 231 § 1 of the Penal Code) will also obtain it, quote:

“A public official who, exceeding their powers or failing to perform their duties, acts to the detriment of public or private interest, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 3 years.”

Time Is Money

At present, we can only guess that the examiner in question probably fell victim to the examination centers’ pursuit of profit. He had heard many times from his superiors that exams must be conducted quickly and efficiently; he had repeatedly convinced his subordinates—the examiners—of this, until finally he believed it himself.

The purpose and value of conducting exams took a back seat. Part of the examiners, instead of diligently and impartially performing their duties, began running their own policy in this field. Public expectations are that exams should end with a positive result; at the same time, supervisory authorities for understandable reasons are reluctant to inspect and annul such exams. On the other hand, the examiner’s employer expects them to conduct as many of these exams as possible. The attempt to reconcile all these demands often boils down to precisely this method of examining: above all, fast—which will make the employer happy—and at the same time, for the examiner to be safe, it is best if the exam ends with a positive result. The examined person is satisfied, so they will not file a complaint—why would they? The supervisory authority usually gives such exams a wide berth, so theoretically it is an ideal situation for everyone. The only question is: is it really? Is this how our work should look? Does this not adversely affect road traffic safety? Detailed guidelines on conducting examinations assume verifying the qualifications of the person being examined, i.e., performing basic maneuvers on the road. Does a person who obtains a positive result without their skills being properly verified guarantee safe driving on the roads? I believe this is a purely rhetorical question. Proper preparation of a driver candidate, followed by correct verification of their qualifications during the state examination, gives a glimmer of hope that such a driver will navigate our roads independently and safely. Of course, I agree that certain skills are acquired through practice—every kilometer driven on the road refines a driver. There is no better method of learning than practice. I believe, however, that to safely transition to independently honing vehicle driving skills, a candidate must first learn and master the basics. Such basics are and should be required, among other things during the practical part of the state exam. One cannot agree with theories that examination requirements are excessive. The ability to drive on various types of roads and maneuver a vehicle constitutes a foundation without mastering which no driver should drive independently, as they will pose a threat to themselves and others. Likewise, the popular explanation that numerous failures during exams are merely the result of stress rather than a lack of skills holds no ground. Any psychologist will tell you that stress acts as a motivator for a person, provided it is not excessive, and such excess occurs precisely in situations where qualifications are lacking. The level of stress is inversely proportional to one’s skills. Stress is therefore a normal phenomenon that accompanies many everyday situations and can even be motivating, provided the situation is not simply overwhelming—meaning that we are properly prepared for it. Moreover, I believe that every reasonably thinking examiner can distinguish a candidate’s mistake resulting from nervousness from an ostensibly identical one resulting from a genuine lack of skills.

The Examiner – A Profession of Public Trust

An examiner is one of the cogs in the training and testing system for driver candidates. It is understandable that they are also human and have their own feelings and reactions. Assessing others is not an easy task. Therefore, we should work above all according to our own conscience, as well as in accordance with the applicable legal framework. Let us not allow ourselves to be manipulated and let us not strive to pander to expectations. We do not provide services on a free market; we do not operate, or at least should not operate, in competitive market conditions. The pursuit of money by certain groups with whom we must cooperate in our environment, as well as certain expectations of persons taking the exams, have led to a pathological situation in which some of our colleagues have lost the core purpose of our work. Working at the whim of the expectations of our superiors and exam candidates distorts the very meaning of our mission.

Our profession is a profession of public trust; it is we who guarantee to society that the person collecting their driver’s license at the administrative office holds the proper qualifications to drive a vehicle independently. It is our assessment that translates into safety on our roads. Otherwise, exam results could just as well be determined at random.

Examiner Efficiency – A Grim Joke

The presented situation should never have happened. Why did it happen? Because it was the only way to at least partially curtail the pathology within the system. It cannot be that examiners working in a reprehensible manner lecture others who work diligently. It cannot be that such examiners are the highest paid, recognized, and rewarded on account of their so-called efficiency. It cannot be that they are held up as role models because we are told that we are responsible for the center’s financial result, that we must generate profit for the center because the center has financial obligations. In Łódź, we said enough is enough; we do not consent to fueling a spiral of death on our roads. We do not agree to people driving on our roads without proper preparation, nor to individuals possessing the required qualifications receiving negative results simply because an examiner had to make up for a delay resulting from an excessive workload scheduled for the day. Financial matters of examination centers cannot be the examiners’ problem. If centers genuinely generate losses, as is presented to us, it means they are simply poorly managed, and the responsibility for that certainly does not lie with examiners. Our duty is to conduct exams diligently and impartially, and their scheduled number should be tailored to our capacity, never the reverse. Directors of some examination centers gladly speak of them in business terms, call themselves managers, call examinees customers, explain to us what immense responsibility they bear, etc. Thus, it is within their scope of duties to take care of the proper financial result; they are held accountable for it and rewarded in connection with it. In many WORDs, however, over the past 20 years of their existence, responsibility for finances has been cleverly shifted onto examiners, which represents a peculiar absurdity of which the examiner conducting the exam in question fell victim. Today, unfortunately, he no longer has support among superiors—quite the opposite. The center director decided that his existing employment contract terms should be terminated due to a loss of trust after more than 10 years of cooperation. Simultaneously, the prosecutor is conducting an investigation into the matter, which means that in an extreme scenario, the examiner’s conduct carries a penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. Today, the examiner has been left to fend for himself. The question is therefore: is it worth taking such risks? Is it worth treating exams as center business at the expense of testing quality? Every examiner must answer this question for themselves.

Jacek Łęgocki