Last-minute changes to city’s hiring rules raises questions
10th November 2014 · 0 Comments
The Civil Service Commission unexpectedly approved two changes to city hiring rules without warning Monday after a closed-door executive session, The Lens reported last week. Perhaps more perplexing was the refusal of commission members to explain the rationale for the approved changes or to identify the members who voted for the personnel changes. On the surface, the changes appear to address issues raised in a lawsuit against the CSC, which contends that sweeping changes to hiring rules in August violated the state constitution.
Although the CSC indicated it would meet privately to discuss the lawsuit, which is allowed by Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law, the two changes to the agenda were added without explanation, according to The Lens. Although late changes are allowed under state guidelines, public boards and commissions are expected to explain why late changes were necessary and could not be anticipated by board pro commission members.
While the CSC usually takes public comments for 30 days before making changes to the city’s personnel policies, on November 3 only 30 minutes were allotted for discussion before commission members voted on the recommended changes.
Adding to the public angst and confusion was CSC members’ refusal to respond to repeated requests from members of the public that were made during the public-comment portion of Monday’s proceedings before voting on the changes.
The speed with which the vote was taken and the refusal of CSC members to answer residents’ questions about the changes prompted some to whether commissioners of members of the Landrieu administration were privy to the changes. The Lens reports that Cherrell Simms, a lawyer in the City Attorney’s Office, confirmed that the Landrieu administration supported the rule changes even though she and other members of the public had only a few minutes to read them before voting on the changes.
The new rules deal with hiring, promotion and reinstatement for employees who were either laid off or left voluntarily. They appear to be an attempt to rectify changes made in August, as part of the Landrieu administration’s Great Place to Work Initiative, that have since faced a legal challenge from the city’s two largest police officers’ association and the firefighters union.
“It was an attempt, I’ll say that,” s attorney Claude Schlesinger, who represents the Fraternal Order of Police, told The Lens in a phone interview. Schlesinger tad The Lens that the changes don’t adequately address the issues raised in the lawsuit.
One change addresses the so-called “rule of three,” which, until August, required the City of New Orleans’ personnel director to give hiring managers only the top three candidates — ranked by exam scores and job status. The August change removed any reference to three candidates, instead requiring the personnel director to forward all names of candidates who passed the exam.
During a heated discussion of the proposed changes this summer, NOFD officials accused Deputy Mayor Andy Kopplin and the Landrieu administration of feigning interest in expanding opportunities for residents of color for political gain. During that debate, Kopplin said that the “rule of three” practice placed Black applicants at a disadvantage.
A lawsuit filed by the Fraternal Order of Police — since joined by the Police Association of New Orleans and the firefighters union — noted that the “rule of three” used similar language to the Louisiana Constitution. Therefore, removing it entirely would be unconstitutional, the suit alleges. In testimony and written analyses presented to the commission before the August vote. Civil Service Department staff members also said they thought the change might violate the constitution.
The Nov. 3 measure uses language directly from the constitution, but instead of setting three as a maximum number of finalists, the new rule uses the number as a minimum. It also eliminates language requiring hiring managers to consider top candidates first when hiring or promoting.
With the change on Monday, “They can just go from anywhere on the list,” Schlesinger told The Lens.
He and attorney Ted Alpaugh said that the Fraternal Order of Police is awaiting a December hearing on the lawsuit, which will determine if any of the changes — made in August or on Monday — are legal.
A second change made Monday would return a preference for military veterans when reinstating workers who left their jobs voluntarily or were laid off. It also mandates that managers take length of service to the city “into consideration” for appointments and promotions. The Fraternal Order of Police’s lawsuit brought up both points.
It was initially unclear what the changes did when the commission took a vote. Commission Chairwoman Michelle Craig declined to address comments and questions from the public about what the changes accomplished.
She instead just referred attendees to the written proposals, a one-page document heavy with legal language, made available to the audience given without any supplemental written explanation. The document did not include language from the existing rules as a comparison; typically, proposed changes include highlighted additions and deletions.
“This seems like a booby trap,” Schlesinger said to the board during the public comment portion of the meeting. “The appropriate thing is to put it on the regular agenda and allow people to comment on it.”
The head of the Concerned Classified City Employees group, which is also suing over the Great Place to Work Initiative, also asked the commission for time to review the changes.
“You need to give us some time to look at this because everything you do is going to have a real long-term impact,” Randolph Scott said. “We need to have a thorough explanation. And we’re not getting anything?”
Approached by reporters after the meeting ended, Craig and other commissioners declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
Landrieu spokeswoman Garnesha Crawford declined to comment on the vote, writing in an email that the city doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
But The Lens’ questions were related to Monday’s votes and whether the administration had knowledge of the two Civil Service Rule changes prior to the meeting, not the lawsuit. And Chief Administrative Officer Andy Kopplin, who was attending city budget hearings at City Hall, declined to comment about today’s meeting.
The commissioners would not even clarify how they voted on the changes. It was unclear if the voice votes were 4-to-0 or 3-to-1, with Joseph Clark, who represents city employees on Commission, dissenting. The Rev. Kevin Wildes was not present for Monday’s votes. Civil Service Department staff members did not immediately respond to a public-records request for meeting minutes.
This article originally published in the November 10, 2014 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.
