New Orleans Lieutenant Exam Candidate Review Sessions

On Monday, November 12, 2018, the New Orleans Civil Service Department sent test results from the recent Lieutenants Exam to the test takers. 74 NOPD Police Sergeants took the exam. Out of those 74, 51 passed the exam (69%) and 23 failed (31%). The highest score 94 and the lowest score was 20. The average score was 57 and 53 was the cut-off between pass and fail (the lowest passing score). The Lieutenants List can be found here.

Starting November 14, 2018, the Civil Service Department will begin having candidate feedback sessions with Ms. Bharati Belwalkar. Ms. Belwalkar is the Civil Service Department’s psychometrician who is dedicated to NOPD testing. The intent of this article is to try to give candidates a realistic idea of what to expect in that candidate feedback session.

First, the candidate feedback session is NOT an appeal of your score or a protest of any questions. Your score on the exam will NOT change as a result of the candidate feedback session. The purpose of the candidate feedback sessions is to help the candidate understand their areas of strength and improvement, and to better prepare for the next opportunity to take the exam.

You will NOT see the test questions, your answers, or how they were scored. You will be given information intended to help you focus your studies next time. If you know where your weakest areas were, then you will be able to prepare better next time.

The meeting, which will probably be recorded, will start off by reviewing the 3 main components of the exam: Part 1: In-Basket, Part 2: Structured Interview, and Part 3: Oral Presentation. All three of these components were equally weighted in calculating the candidate’s final score. You will see a graph that looks like this:

The graph shows each component of the exam, the highest score of each component, and the candidate’s score for each component. On the example above (not real test results), the candidate scored 67% on Part 1, 28% on Part 2, and 54% on Part 3. Clearly, the candidate did the best on Part 1 and the worst on Part 2. Ms. Belwalkar will discuss each component in terms of the candidate’s performance on the types of questions covered in it. If any of the raters had specific comments about the candidate’s answers, that information will be shared with the candidate.

Next, Ms. Belwalkar will go through the six competencies tested by the exam. Those competencies followed by the weight assigned to that competency are:

  1. Demonstrating Department’s Values (12%)
  2. Leadership and Supervisory Responsibility (26%)
  3. Operational Effectiveness (25%)
  4. Critical Thinking and Strategic Planning/Problem Solving and Decision Making (18%)
  5. Communicating Orally and/or in Writing (9%)
  6. Partnering with the Community (10%)

You will see another graph that looks like this:

Like the first graph, this graph shows the total percentage weight of each competency and the candidate’s percentage score for each competency. The example candidate profile indicates that the candidate demonstrated about 50% proficiency in every category. Because the competencies are weighted differently, it may be more important to strengthen up those areas, but it appears this candidate needs an equal amount of work across the board. Ms. Belwalkar will work with the candidate to make the information the most useful.

Finally, you will have an opportunity to ask any questions you may have. Remember, you will not have the opportunity to review your test answers, the scoring rubric, or the questions. I guess you can ask, but I would expect the answer to be that it can’t be shared. The reason for this is test security. Sometimes questions are re-used or are changed a little and then re-used. If the questions or answers to the questions were passed around, they would not be able to use any form of those questions again or risk the validity of the exam.

Each candidate’s answer was scored by 3 different raters who used a common rubric to score the exam. The 3 raters then discussed their ratings in order to eliminate error and reach a consensus score.

If you want to schedule a candidate review session, you can sign up for it here. If you have issues accessing this link, contact Ms. Belwalkar at 504-658-3508 or bbbelwalkar@nola.gov. Ms. Belwalkar is New Orleans Civil Service Personnel Administrator for the Test Development & Validation Division, working in the capacity of Senior Psychometrician.

We know that there are going to be at least 23 people who are not pleased with their test scores. Unfortunately, the New Orleans Civil Service Rules do not contain any process for appealing a score or how your exam was graded. When the exam contains a multiple-choice section, the Civil Service Department allows for protests of questions. In those circumstances, the protest is made before the exam is scored and the answer can be validated specifically by reviewing the appropriate text. In the event that a protest reveals a problem, the answer key can be changed or double-keyed to fix the problem. However, there was no multiple-choice section on this exam. The answers, and the scoring rubric, were developed in consultation with subject matter experts (SME’s) from the NOPD. The overall examination and its scoring rubric were reviewed by another group of NOPD SME’s to ensure accuracy and thoroughness. Since the types of questions and answers do not lend themselves to protest, none were allowed. Each exam was graded the same way by 3 different raters. The Civil Service Department has done there absolute best to make sure that everyone had the best chance to succeed.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank Commander Louis Dabdoub for donating his time to help FOP help NOPD officers prepare for the exam. I also want to thank Travers Mackel of WDSU for helping candidates prepare for the exam. As usual, the FOP is dedicated to providing whatever assistance it can to help FOP members succeed.

Advertisements

FOP Legal Plan and NOPD Discipline Part 2 – A Sustained Disposition

In my previous post about the FOP Legal Plan and the NOPD disciplinary system, I reviewed some general things about disciplinary investigations and the FOP’s Legal Defense Plan. I discussed notice, the FOP’s Salary Reimbursement Option, Extension Requests, and a few other things. This time, I am going to assume that the investigation has been completed – you and your FOP attorney have made a statement to the investigator and the investigator is ready to recommend a disposition.

The NOPD requires that the investigator issue NOPD Form 308 to the accused officer as the last step in the investigation before sending the case up the chain of command for review. NOPD Form 308 bears the title Notice to Accused Law Enforcement Officer Under Investigation of Completed Investigation. While the title of this form has changed a number of times over the years, the purpose has not. As I mentioned in the prior post, La. R.S. 40:2531(b)(7) requires that an investigation be completed within 60 days (120 days max). The statute says that the investigation will be considered complete upon notice to the law enforcement officer under investigation of a not sustained or unfounded disposition or notice of a pre-disciplinary hearing. NOPD Form 308 purports to cover all of these circumstances, thereby marking the end of the investigation. The investigator completes this form without approvals up the chain of command. Therefore, the disposition(s) can change.

NOPD Form 308 includes dates for a Pre-Disposition Conference and a Pre-Disciplinary Hearing, as well as each charge that was alleged and the disposition recommended by the investigator for that charge. Since the investigator does not know who is going to hold either of these hearings or the content of the hearing officer’s calendar, these dates are simply made up. As of this date, I have not seen a pre-disposition conference or a pre-disciplinary hearing held on the dates found on NOPD Form 308.

If the disposition on all charges is Not Sustained, Unfounded, or Exonerated (or any combination thereof), there will not be any type of hearing to come. I have had a number of questions in that regard lately. The NOPD does not conduct a pre-disposition conference or a pre-disciplinary hearing on any case with no sustained allegations.

If there is an allegation with a sustained disposition, then there will be at least one, and maybe two, hearings that follow. Depending on who conducted the investigation, the accused officer will receive either a Notice of Pre-Disposition Conference or a Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Hearing, or both.

If someone assigned to PIB conducted the administrative investigation and the potential penalty is not severe, then PIB will conduct the Pre-Disposition Conference and the Bureau to which the accused officer is assigned will conduct the Pre-Disciplinary Hearing. In that case, the accused officer will be issued a Notice of Pre-Disposition Conference by PIB at least 5 days prior to the hearing. If at the conclusion of the Pre-Disposition Conference there are still sustained allegations, then the accused officer will receive a Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Hearing a few weeks after the Pre-Disposition Conference either from the Division where the accused officer is assigned.

If the investigation is conducted by someone from the accused officer’s Bureau (usually the same Division) and the potential penalty is not severe, then the Pre-Disposition Conference and the Pre-Disciplinary Hearing will be conducted by the accused officer’s commander. These two hearings will be conducted together.

If the potential penalty for any sustained violation is severe (usually a 30-day suspension or greater), then the Pre-Disposition Conference and the Pre-Disciplinary Hearing are conducted together by a Superintendent’s Disciplinary Committee. A Superintendent’s Disciplinary Committee is chaired by the accused officer’s Bureau Chief and consists of the accused officer’s Bureau Chief and two (2) other Bureau Chiefs.

Pre-Disposition Conference

The purpose of a Pre-Disposition Conference is to finalize the investigator’s recommended disposition. The accused officer should be given notice of what alleged violations were sustained and why they were sustained. This notice would be found on the Notice of Pre-Disposition Conference. It is not on NOPD Form 308. The purpose of this hearing is to give the accused officer an opportunity to respond to the allegations sustained against him or her and, hopefully, eliminate any mistaken sustained allegations. At this hearing, the accused officer has the chance to explain why the sustained charges should not have been sustained.

It is important to note that the accused officer has the option of waiving the Pre-Disposition Conference. Commonly, the Notice of Pre-Disposition Conference is emailed along with a form which can be used to waive the Notice of Pre-Disposition Conference. If the accused officer waives the Pre-Disposition Conference, then all of the charges that were recommended sustained by the investigator will remain sustained. DO NOT WAIVE THIS PRE-DISPOSITION CONFERENCE WITHOUT CONFERRING WITH COUNSEL. I have seen where accused officers have inadvertently waived the Pre-Disposition Conference. Make sure you read what you are signing before signing.

Pre-Disciplinary Hearing

If, at the conclusion of the Pre-Disposition Conference, there are still sustained violations, the accused officer will have to attend a Pre-Disciplinary Hearing. The purpose of the Pre-Disciplinary Hearing is to give the accused officer the opportunity to give any mitigating factors and for the accused officer’s commander to recommend a penalty to the Superintendent. The disposition of the alleged violations cannot be changed at this hearing. The penalty is derived from the penalty matrix found in NOPD Chapter 26.2.1, which contains a presumptive penalty, a penalty with mitigating factors, and a penalty with aggravating factors. The penalty recommended by the accused officer’s commander can only be implemented by the Superintendent and is occasionally (not too often) altered by someone up the chain of command.

Superintendent’s Disciplinary Committee

If the potential penalty includes a suspension in excess of 30 days, demotion, or dismissal (termination), then the hearings are conducted together by a Disciplinary Committee. A Superintendent’s Disciplinary Committee is chaired by the accused officer’s Bureau Chief. Two other Bureau Chiefs will fill out the three-member committee. At that hearing the accused officer is given the opportunity to explain why the charges should not be sustained, as well as the opportunity to offer mitigating factors that might influence the disposition or penalty. It is possible for an allegation which has relatively minor potential penalties to be heard via Superintendent’s Disciplinary Committee if there is another accused officer with potentially severe penalties.

Disciplinary Letters

The Louisiana Constitution requires that any disciplinary action taken against a permanent, classified civil service employee be with “cause expressed in writing.” As such, the disciplinary process is not completed until either the Superintendent signs off on dispositions of Not Sustained, Exonerated or Unfounded, or the accused officer is issued a disciplinary letter from the Superintendent. If the accused officer is dismissed (terminated), then the accused officer will be given the disciplinary letter the same day. If there is any other penalty assessed other than termination, then the accused officer will be required to sign for a disciplinary letter some time later. It could be 6 months later or longer. The disciplinary letter will indicate when the imposed discipline must be served. Since the disciplinary letter constitutes the end of the disciplinary process, any appeals to the Civil Service Commission must follow issuance of the letter. An accused officer has 30 days from the date typed on top of the disciplinary letter to file an appeal. Since the Civil Service Commission has original and sole jurisdiction over these matters, disciplinary actions taken in accordance with Civil Service Rule IX can only be appealed to the Civil Service Commission. The disciplinary letter further serves to limit any subsequent proceedings to the grounds specified in the letter.

As you can see, there is a lot to the disciplinary process. For FOP members who do not deal with the disciplinary process every day, it can be a lot to take in. Most officers simply aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of the process because they don’t often have to interact with it. In addition, it has been my experience that most officers who are quick to explain how the system works provide as much misinformation as they do quality information. Fortunately, the FOP provides attorneys to help its members navigate the tricky waters of the disciplinary process. Pick up the phone and call. That’s all you have to do and I will be more than happy to help.

Next time… Critical Incidents and Criminal Investigations.

 

The FOP Legal Defense Plan and NOPD Discipline

The FOP Legal Defense Plan provides legal representation to its members for any criminal or civil action resulting from the performance of your duty as a law enforcement officer. The FOP Legal Plan also provides representation for any administrative investigation. Administrative investigations include disciplinary investigations, Accident Review Board cases, or Rule IX Hearings. In addition, the administrative coverage includes appeals to the Civil Service Commission, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, or the Louisiana Supreme Court, if needed.

The NOPD keeps hiring new officers and running academies on a regular basis. This means that there are always new officers coming out of the Academy who have not had any experience with the NOPD’s disciplinary system. I usually have the opportunity to introduce myself to soon-to-be Academy graduates at the Academy. I have a limited amount of time to introduce myself and explain a few things about the Legal Plan. This is my opportunity to explain a little more in depth. As always, you are welcome to call me if you have any questions.

The Consent Decree entered into by the City of New Orleans and the Department of Justice contains 13 pages that apply to disciplinary investigations. The one thing that has impacted the disciplinary system the most is the requirement that the NOPD investigate all complaints based on the allegation as opposed to the anticipated outcome. The NOPD has interpreted this to mean that they are going to investigate any complaint, regardless of its facial merit. The Consent Decree also formalized the NOPD policy to accept all complaints, whether they are in person, anonymous, from third parties, via email, etc. I had one case where someone in Australia didn’t think that an officer treated someone right based on an episode of a television show he saw. Finally, the Consent Decree limits the cases that can be disposed of as NIM (No Investigation Merited).

The Consent Decree initially led to an increase in the number of disciplinary investigations. However, with the use of body worn cameras, and tools such as Non-Disciplinary Counseling, Negotiated Settlement, and Mediation, the number of disciplinary investigations looks to have topped off and dropped a little the past few years. That being said, there are still more than 700 PIB Control numbers used every year.

First and foremost, I have a lot of people call and say “I hate to bother you with something this stupid…” Nothing is that stupid. Stupid things are stupid because 1) someone did something stupid and there is no explaining it away, or 2) someone made an allegation that is so ridiculous that you can’t possibly imagine it being sustained.

In the first case, where someone does something stupid – made a simple mistake or error – and there is nothing that can explain it away, there is certainly good reason to call. The FOP offers a benefit known as the Salary Reimbursement Option. No other organization offers anything like it. Here is how it works:

Salary Reimbursement Option (SRO)

The FOP Legal Defense Plan provides legal representation to its members so that they can defend themselves from accusations that constitute a violation of rules and regulations. This representation includes appeals, if necessary. However, sometimes you are accused of something that you did. For example, maybe it was one of those days and by the time the tenth person has lied to your face, you had enough and uttered a string of profanities. This string of profanities was recorded on your body worn camera. Now, you are accused of violating the NOPD’s rule on Courtesy (Rule 2, Paragraph 2). The complaint will be sustained.

Your FOP attorney will argue on your behalf. If there is a way out, we will explore that. If there is no way out, then we will argue for the least possible penalty. This is when the Salary Reimbursement Option comes into play.

IF you are represented by an FOP attorney and the penalty involves a suspension, you and your FOP attorney will have the opportunity to discuss your options moving forward. You probably have an option to appeal. However, IF you are represented by and FOP attorney AND you and your attorney agree that your chances of success on appeal are slim, then the FOP will reimburse you for any suspension days at $150/day for up to 5 days. That’s right – if you get a suspension for something that you did and you are not going to prevail on appeal, you can get a check for $150 per suspension day from the FOP in lieu of appeal. In short, instead of wasting money appealing a suspension you are not going to win, you have the option of cutting your losses and, hopefully, getting back to even. YOU MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AN FOP ATTORNEY DURING THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SALARY REIMBURSEMENT OPTION. You can only be represented by an FOP attorney for a disciplinary investigation if you pick up the phone and call.

If you aren’t calling because the allegation is stupid and there is no possible way it could be sustained, you should know that plenty of stupid allegations have led to sustained violations. Additionally, it keeps your options open for the Salary Reimbursement Options.

Do they need to notify you of a pending complaint?

No. The NOPD is not required to notify you that you are the subject of a complaint. Some investigators do notify the accused officers.

Many people find out about pending investigations when they receive a notice from the Civil Service Department of an upcoming hearing. The letter states that the Department has request an extension of time in pursuant to Civil Service Rule IX, Sec. 1.4. If you get one of those notices, then you are an accused officer in a formal disciplinary investigation.

Extension Request Hearings

The Louisiana Police Officer Bill of Rights, La. R.S. 40:2531(b)(7), provides that administrative disciplinary investigations have to be completed within 60 days. It also gives investigators the option of requesting up to another 60 days, for a maximum of 120 days to complete the investigation. The investigator needs to show good cause for the extra time.Unfortunately, just about any excuse serves as cause for the extension. The letter says that you have to attend. However, if you call me, I can handle that hearing for you. These hearings can be good opportunities to learn some information. You can also agree to the extension. There are times when agreeing to the extension may be in your best interest.

There are many other ins and outs to the disciplinary system. There are statements, disposition notices (NOPD Form 308), Pre-Dispositions Conference Hearing Notices, Pre-Disciplinary Hearing Notices, Pre-Dispositions Conferences, Pre-Disciplinary Hearings, Penalty Matrices, Disciplinary Letters, Civil Service appeals, other appeals, etc. I will cover those in the next post.

 

NOFD Promotion Case and New Orleans Civil Service Rules

There has been a bit of talk lately about “Astroturfing.” For those of you who aren’t familiar with the idea of astroturfing, it is when advocates for a certain issue or matter solicit people who aren’t really interested in the issue to appear and give the appearance that there is more support for or opposition the issue at hand. It recently came to light with regard to Entergy’s use of paid actors to appear before the New Orleans City Council to advocate for a new Entergy power plant. The article linked here is about the City Council investigating the use of paid actors by Entergy.

You may be asking yourself what this has to do with the New Orleans Civil Service Commission’s recent decision about whether the New Orleans Fire Department complied with the Civil Service Rules and the Louisiana Constitution. This decision by the Civil Service Commission was in response to the NOFD’s “appeal” of the New Orleans Personnel Director’s decision in appeals by NOFD employees who took the Captain’s test and felt as though they had been improperly passed over for promotion pursuant to Civil Service Rule VI, Sec. 6.1. The Civil Service Commission couldn’t actually act in an appellate capacity, so they conducted an investigation of the NOFD promotions and whether those promotions complied with Civil Service Rules and the Louisiana Constitution. So, the Civil Service Commission’s decision did not overrule the Personnel Director’s decision.

The Personnel Director’s decision held that the NOFD botched promotions in almost every conceivable way. She held that NOFD violated Civil Service Rule VI, Sec. 2.1, 2.3, and 3.1. The Personnel Director also held that NOFD violated the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. The Personnel Director went on to recommend that some of the people passed over should be promoted and that the rules should be modified to prevent the types of overreaches by the NOFD.

The Civil Service Commission tried their best to decide that the NOFD did nothing wrong. However, given the facts, that was impossible. So, the Civil Service Commission’s decision held that NOFD complied with the Civil Service Rules but they did not comply with the requirements of Louisiana Constitution Art. X, Sec. 7, which requires that promotions be made after consideration of merit, efficiency, fitness, and length of service, as ascertained by examination, which should be competitive. They concluded that since so much time passed between filing appeals and the decisions that followed that there wasn’t much they could do except pledge to put safeguards in place to prevent this from happening again.

I know there is still no connection to astroturfing. Here are my thoughts on that: The Civil Service Commission goes out of its way to cite a number of individuals and groups who testified in support of the Great Place to Work Initiative (GPTWI) when it was being discussed before being passed. For those who don’t know, GPTWI is where we lost some protections like the rule of 3 as it pertains to promotions. I suggest that GPTWI is where we lost competitive promotions in the City of New Orleans. It is also where many city employees lost all faith in the overall fairness and transparency of the promotional process. Anyway, the decision cites Andy Kopplin, who was CAO at the time, Dr. Charlotte Parent, the Director of the Department of Health at the time, as well as NOFD Superintendent Timothy McConnell, and other Mayoral appointees. The decision also cites the Bureau of Governmental Research and Bright Moments — more cheerleaders for former Mayor Landrieu.

When the public comments on the GPTWI began, it was quickly obvious that the Civil Service Commission’s meeting room would be insufficient to hold the people who wanted to comment on the proposed rule changes. The Commission moved the meeting to the City Council Chambers to accommodate the larger-than-average audience. The first day in the City Council Chambers didn’t disappoint. The Chambers were full of employees and former employees who were lined up to speak out against the proposed rule changes. You could count the number of people speaking in favor of the GPTWI on one hand and those people clearly had an incentive to speak up — they held positions appointed by the Mayor.

It was pretty obvious that some phone calls were made after the poor showing on day 1 in the Chambers. On day 2, a few more people showed up to testify in favor of GPTWI. The Bureau of Governmental Research and a few other groups, or at least some leaders from those groups, came to testify in favor of the GPTWI.

This is just another form of astroturfing. The Mayor lined up people who were indebted to him in one fashion or another and solicited their support for an issue they had little to no real interest in. These folks testified before the Commission and gave media interviews in support of Mayor Landrieu’s initiative. My guess is that if the records have not already been destroyed that a public records request would probably reveal emails, phone calls, and meetings with the folks that appeared in favor of the initiative soliciting their appearance. The most disturbing part of all this is that after overwhelming comment in opposition to the GPTWI combined with the lackluster commitment shown by those who actually testified in favor of the rule changes, the Civil Service Commission still voted to enact the “reforms” with little, if any, discussion. The only difference between this type of astroturfing and the type of astroturfing used by Entergy is that Landrieu’s people only needed to give the appearance of influencing the Commissioners. The real influencing had already been done.

I expect to see a decision in the NOPD promotion appeals soon. It should be close to the NOFD decision. The only real way to remedy this problem is to change the Rules. A change reinstating the Rule of 3 and the banding system in use before GPTWI would restore some confidence in the promotional system in New Orleans. More importantly, it would protect our public servants, and the public, from the favoritism, discrimination, political interference, etc. that are the inevitable consequence of giving each appointing authority an unlimited amount of discretion.

2017 in Review

At the beginning of the year, I like to review and compare the prior year’s activity with other years. In addition, since there have been so many new hires at NOPD, it always helps to give some context to the system that most officers don’t come into contact with often enough to be familiar with.

The FOP continues to provide the best legal assistance for law enforcement officers through its Legal Defense Plan. The Legal Defense Plan offers its members legal representation for any administrative disciplinary proceeding, civil defense resulting from on-the-job actions, and criminal allegations. There is no judgment involved. If a member requests legal services, they get it.

There is no situation which is too big or too small. The Legal Plan is set up to be able to handle situations that garner national attention. At the same time, we recognize how much law enforcement officers value their service record and we treat the most minor of circumstances with the same attention.

It is most beneficial to everyone when an officer who finds themselves involved in any way in one of the covered types of events contacts us as early as possible. I got a call from someone recently who had resigned under pressure to do so and felt like it shouldn’t have gone that way. I can’t argue with that – I don’t think anyone should be pressured into resigning without at least having the opportunity to meet with counsel. However, this person didn’t call until after he had resigned. As much as I would have loved to be able to help, the act of resigning eliminates almost every avenue of redress. So, call early and stay in touch.

My brother-in-Law, Corey Lloyd, was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in 2017. He had been helping me with Civil Service appeals while he was in law school. Since he is now a certified member of the Bar, he is now available to assist in situations which call for more than one attorney or when calendar conflicts prevent me from being somewhere. It is always nice to have another attorney committed to helping FOP members. He has also been helping FOP members with Family Law issues. The FOP offers a $400 (4 hrs at $100/hr) benefit per year to each member for Family Law issues.

2017

In 2017, I represented 410 individual officers in one capacity of another. That is up a little from 2016’s 398 officers. For those 410 officers, I appeared with FOP members at:

  • 103 disciplinary hearings (up from 83 in 2016)
  • 251 Statements (up from 228 in 2016)
  • 102 Civil Service Extension Request Hearings
  • 17 Accident Review Board Hearings (down from 36 in 2016)
  • 13 Civil Service Appeal Hearings (down from 23 in 2016)
  • 2 Officer Involved Shootings

In addition, I assisted FOP members with:

  • 85 Notary Service
  • 31 Personal Legal Needs
  • 10 Negotiated Settlements

While it appears that complaints were down a little from 2016-2017, it was still a busy year. Improvements were made to the disciplinary system in the penalty matrix and the use of BWC’s to clear complaints. Civil Service appeal hearings are down primarily because more Civil Service appeals were settled amicably before a hearing was necessary. The Personal Legal category refers to legal needs of members that are not covered by the Legal Defense Plan. The FOP offers each member a benefit of 2 hours of legal services per year for things outside of the Legal Defense Plan. This might include wills, living wills, successions, etc. It is separate from the Family Law benefit. Notary services are available to FOP members at no cost. I also continue to serve as Employee Representative for Crescent City Lodge members, helping them to address almost any employment related issues with NOPD.

At Livaccari Law, we also represent officers who have been involved in automobile or motorcycle accidents on a regular basis. My father, Tony Livaccari, heads up that aspect of the practice with more than 30 years of experience. Anyone who has worked with Tony knows that he looks out for FOP members.

I cannot stress enough the importance of picking up the phone and calling. I will respond to the scene of officer involved shootings. We can’t help when we don’t know a member is in need of help. In addition, as noted above, sometimes things happen which preclude our helping in any meaningful way. So, as I stated above, call early on. Nothing is too trivial and I’m not too busy to talk, even if I have to call you back – you can always text.

As I have stated numerous times, I feel as though I am blessed to be able to represent FOP members. I was admitted to the Louisiana Bar after serving 11 years with NOPD. I started representing law enforcement officers, primarily in New Orleans, in 2008 when I retired from NOPD. I still spend the majority of my time representing NOPD members. I do represent FOP members in other jurisdictions in Louisiana and do work for both the Crescent City Lodge and the Louisiana State Lodge. I look forward to doing more of the same in 2018. Additionally, the addition of Corey Lloyd to available counsel will make it easier to do this job better. So, thank you to the FOP Crescent City Lodge, particularly Jimmy Gallagher, who got me involved with the FOP back in 2004. Thanks to Darrell Basco, President of the Louisiana FOP, for allowing me to represent the over 6,000 FOP members in Louisiana. Finally, thanks to you, the FOP members for keeping me on your speed dial.

Assessment Center Prep

The Fraternal Order of Police will be having two classroom training dates to help members of the NOPD prepare for the December 20, 2017 Sergeants Exam Assessment Center.

On December 9 and December 16, 2016, NOPD Commander Louie Dabdoub will be teaching his successful assessment center methodology on behalf of the FOP.

The December 9 class will be held at the NOPD Academy and will begin at 3:00 pm.

The December 16 class will be held at Lakeview Presbyterian Church, located at 5914 Canal Blvd. and will begin at 3:00 pm.

It is likely that both of these classes will last several hours.

Since the assessment center is just a few weeks ago, we decided to post a video of the introductory lecture here for officers to review. Download the two-page method steps here. You will need it.

Feel free to watch these videos as many times as you need. At the classroom sessions, Commander Dabdoub will apply these steps to actual scenarios and give feedback on answers given by the class.

Part 1 of 2

Part 2 of 2

Click here to download the Civil Service Department’s NOPD Sergeant Work-Sample Test.

The Sewerage & Water Board, the New Orleans Civil Service Commission, and the Media Attention

The following is the entirety of my post regarding the NOLA.COM story entitled Sewerage & Water Board, not Civil Service, to blame for hiring delays.

The Civil Service Commission Chairman is right that the Sewerage & Water Board asked that the ability to hire people be delegated to the Sewerage & Water Board. At that time, I stood up and argued against that delegation on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police. It was not that the request to delegate that authority directly impacted the police department, but that it adversely impacted the civil service system in general.

The Civil Service Commission Chairman correctly states that the Sewerage & Water Board has failed in hiring new people, not the Civil Service Department. What she fails to state is that in spite of these failures, the Civil Service Commission has not revoked that delegation of authority and continues to facilitate weakening Civil Service.

As the article points out, the Landrieu administration has attempted to “reform” the Civil Service Commission since 2010. The “reforms” they have instituted are antithetical to the purpose and goals of the Civil Service system. The Civil Service Commission has been complicit in these “reforms” since Mayor Landrieu began replacing Commissioners on the Civil Service Commission with people who are inclined to give the Mayor what he wanted in spite of the basic tenets of any merit-based system of employment.

As I stated above, I argued against delegating hiring authority to the Sewerage & Water Board. What they have done is reduce funding and staffing for the Civil Service Department and then complain about how the Civil Service Department is unable to meet the needs of various departments and then used this to justify decimating the Civil Service system in New Orleans. The other “reforms” the Landrieu administration and the Civil Service Commission have implemented are as much of a failure as the Sewerage & Water Board hiring delegation. Unfortunately, those failures do not result in street flooding or maybe they would have gotten some media attention. So, while we are on the subject of Civil Service, let’s talk about some other stuff.

The Mayor’s Great Place to Work Initiative, which was the greatest part of the “reforms” implemented by Landrieu, changed the way promotions were made. In effect, employees seeking a promotion take a test and all persons who pass the test are eligible to be promoted. Unfortunately, Louisiana Constitution Article X, Section 7 reads as follows:

“Permanent appointments and promotions in the classified state and city service shall be made only after certification by the appropriate department of civil service under a general system based upon merit, efficiency, fitness, and length of service, as ascertained by examination which, so far as practical, shall be competitive. The number to be certified shall not be less than three; however, if more than one vacancy is to be filled, the name of one additional eligible for each vacancy may be certified. Each commission shall adopt rules for the method of certifying persons eligible for appointment, promotion, reemployment, and reinstatement and shall provide for appointments defined as emergency and temporary appointments if certification is not required.

Promotions under the Great Place to Work are not competitive and the test is not used to determine merit, efficiency, fitness, or length of service, as the Constitution requires. In addition to these recently acquired deficiencies, the Civil Service Rules on promotions prior to the Great Place to Work Initiative were the product of a consent decree in the matter of Larry Williams v. City of New Orleans, 725 F2d 1554 (5th Cir. 1984). The consent decree in the Williams case set out to eliminate discrimination in the promotional process.

The Williams consent decree developed the use of banding test scores to allow the NOPD greater flexibility in choosing promotional candidates to ensure racial equity while maintaining the Louisiana Constitution’s requirements of assessing merit, efficiency, fitness, and length of service through competitive testing. In addition the usage of banding allowed the Civil Service to reduce the error inherent in testing, making test results more accurate. The Williams consent decree, and the resultant banding system, was the result of a number of expert psychometricians and experts from other relevant fields under the oversight of a federal judge. The Great Place to Work Initiative undid the changes implemented by the those experts via the Williams consent decree. The Great Place to Work Initiative re-opened the door to discrimination, favoritism, nepotism, and other ism’s. The Great Place to Work Initiative was not compiled by experts in the field, but it negated changes that were made by experts.

The Great Place to Work Initiative has also led to morale problems. Employees are now uncertain about what it takes to get promoted. Given that uncertainty, it is nearly impossible to resist the conclusion that promotions are being made on the basis of who you know instead of what you know or your ability to perform the job. None of this inspires confidence in the system or the department’s leadership.

In addition to the changes made to the promotional system, the Civil Service Commission has recently added 16 unclassified positions to the New Orleans Police Department. These 16 unclassified positions were previously held by classified employees. The Civil Service Commission approved this request in spite of objections by the Civil Service Department and arguments presented by myself and others. Simply put, the addition of these unclassified positions was contrary to the Civil Service Rules and the underlying notion of the merit-based system of employment. Unclassified positions are the exception to the rule and the addition of these unclassified system effectively denies classified employees a promotional opportunity because they have effectively replaced the classified position of Police Captain.

This just skims the surface of what is wrong with the Civil Service Commission now and the problems caused by the Great Place to Work Initiative. The New Orleans Fire Department has experienced many of the same problems as the NOPD. I am sure there are issues I am unaware of. Deputy Mayor Andy Kopplin, CAO at the time, once told me that the Civil Service Department was too overly concerned with fairness. Maybe in private enterprise an employer can place other things ahead of fairness. However, in public service, fairness is the cornerstone of a healthy Civil Service system.

The Civil Service Commission was right to point the finger at the Sewerage & Water Board regarding these hiring problems. But, the Civil Service Commission needs to look a little closer to home regarding the Great Place to Work Initiative. Maybe they can avert the inevitable disaster that will result from this wanton destruction of the Civil Service Rules.

The Great Place to Work Initiative needs to be repealed. There is nothing wrong with implementing changes to improve the efficiency of the Civil Service Department. However, wholesale changes to a system which was the biggest reform to public service this country has ever seen is a tremendous mistake — a mistake which has already been made.

Donovan Livaccari, Spokesman
Fraternal Order of Police
Crescent City Lodge #2

#NOPD 2017 Pay Plan Initiative

The New Orleans Police Department announced new pay increases on July 5, 2017. Since then, I have been approached with numerous questions about this pay plan. The following is my appreciation for the plan as it exists now. The plan has to go before the Civil Service Commission and the City Council for approval, but that seems like that won’t be a problem. During recent discussions of a proposed special rate of pay for Homicide Detectives, the FOP suggested that the NOPD needed to examine all special rates of pay and advocated for a bold pay initiative to help with recruitment and retention. This plan, which was put together by the NOPD’s Deputy Chief of Staff, is a step in the right direction. We made some additional suggestions and there are a few questions about this plan that remain unanswered. The following is the plan as it exists today. Salaries below do NOT include state pay or millage. 

Police Recruit salaries will remain unchanged at $40,391.84. Our suggestion was that NOPD increase this and all other salaries by an additional 5% so new hires also benefit from the round of increases.

Police Officer I will become Police Officer and the base salary will increase to $46,885.00, a 10.45% increase.

Police Officer II, III, and IV will be consolidated as Senior Police Officer. The base salary for Senior Police Officer would be $51,783.84, a 16.08% increase over P/O II, 10.45% over P/O III, and 5.09% over P/O IV. Anyone who is a P/O II, III, or IV will automatically become a Senior P/O at the time the plan is implemented. The FOP is encouraging the department to allow P/O II promotions prior to the implementation of the plan to maximize the number of officers who are eligible to become Senior P/O. 

A new classification titled Master Police Officer would have a base salary of $57,194.53. The Master Police Officer position would be unlike Senior Police Officer insofar as there will be a limited number of Master P/O positions available and the test will be a competitive test. Everyone who qualifies to be a Senior P/O will become a Senior P/O. Master P/O’s would be selected in much the same way Sergeants are selected now (which, frankly, is a mystery to me). Master P/O’s will be limited by assignment. For example, each district may have one Master P/O per platoon. Master P/O’s may also have some supervisory responsibility. There will probably not be an educational requirement for Master P/O.

Police Sergeant will have a base pay of $63,170.56. This represents an increase of 16.08%.

Police Sergeant will have a base pay of $69,771.01. This represents an increase of 19%.

Police Captain will be increased to $77,061.11, an increase of 10.45% and Police Major will be increased to $80,987.01, an increase of 6.41%. Of course, we are operating under the belief that there won’t be any new Captains or Majors any time soon.

The plan also includes 4 detective “positions.” Detective would be the effective equivalent of Senior Police Officer. Lead Detective will be the effective equivalent of Master Police Officer. Detective Sergeant would be the effective equivalent of Police Sergeant and District Detective Lieutenant would be the effective equivalent of Police Lieutenant.

I do not think that a decision has been made about whether the detective positions would be actual classifications, some type of sub-classification, or a special rate of pay. Based on the administration’s recent addition of unclassified commanders and an overall assessment of the department’s current philosophy about various positions, it is my belief that the department will want to be able to un-make a detective easily. In order to be able to un-make a detective easily, the detective’s positions has to either be a special rate of pay or some type of sub-classification. Any change of classification which results in a reduction in actual pay (not a special rate of pay) is a demotion. Demotions must be supported by cause expressed in writing and are disciplinary actions. It is my belief that the department wants to be able to make and un-make detectives much like they can make and un-make Commanders now. We will see how this shakes out, but I think we can count on detectives making 10% more than their effective equivalent. Of course, this is speculation.

So, the questions that remain are things like:

  1. How much time in grade will be required for Senior P/O? I believe the answer will end up being 3-4 years.
  2. How much time in grade will be required for Master P/O? I believe the answer will likely be the same as for Police Sergeant.
  3. Will the minimum requirements for Police Sergeant change? I don’t think so.
  4. How will the detective positions shake out? It may not be a true career path.

If there are questions, feel free to ask. I don’t know if I have the answer, but I will try. Also, any NOPD employees who have thoughts or suggestions about the foregoing, feel free to share. A copy of the proposal can be downloaded here (.pdf).

Unclassified Positions and Reform in the #NOPD

IMG_0153

Recently, I wrote about the New Orleans Police Department’s request to the New Orleans Civil Service Commission for the creation of 16 new unclassified jobs in the NOPD.  The NOPD made its pitch at the February 20, 2017 meeting of the Civil Service Commission and it received some media attention here and here.  The Civil Service department opposed the creation of these unclassified positions, referring to the request as “unprecedented.”  After hearing from the NOPD, myself, on behalf of the FOP, Capt. Mike Glasser, PANO, Lt. Keith Joseph, BOP, and a few others, the Civil Service Commission took no action to allow the Civil Service Department to complete its work and put the matter on the agenda for the March meeting (March 20 if anyone wants to accompany me on behalf of the FOP).

I do not intend to re-post my argument against the creation of the unclassified positions, but for those who have not had the chance to read this article or my letter to the Civil Service Commission in this regard, the Civil Service Rules, which have the force and effect of law, require that in order for a position to be considered unclassified, the job’s responsibilities are not appropriate for anyone in the classified service and should not be performed by anyone in the classified service.  Furthermore, someone serving in an unclassified position must have policy-making authority which is not subject to further review or modification.  Finally, the Civil Service Commission is required to audit the position regularly to make sure that it is still not fit for the classified service.  As both Superintendent Harrison and myself made a point of saying, unclassified positions are the exception to the rule in a merit-based system of employment like Civil Service.

Currently, there is no “Commander” position, really.  There is a “Commander” assignment.  The Commander assignment, which must be filled by someone holding the rank of Police Lieutenant or higher, comes with a special rate of pay.  While I am unaware of anyone actually pushing this particular issue, the NOPD stated that one of the reasons we need to reconsider this special rate of pay is that a special rate of pay does not confer any grant of authority.  So, the question is does a Police Lieutenant in the position of Commander have the authority to issue orders to a Police Major?  While I am unaware of anyone pushing this issue, there are reasons to reconsider the use of a special rate of pay for commanders.  The majority of people assigned to Commander positions are in the rank of Police Lieutenant.  Police Lieutenants are non-exempt employees.  That means they should make overtime like all other non-exempt personnel under the FLSA.  However, they do not get overtime.  They are currently being treated as exempt employees.  While their pension is controlled by their actual rate of pay, terminal leave is paid to these individuals based on their Civil Service classification.  Finally, it is just an abuse of the special rate of pay provisions.  This special rate of pay scheme was put in place in 2011 after the Civil Service Commission told then Superintendent Serpas that he could not have 16 unclassified Police Colonel positions.

So, if the positions were not fit to be unclassified in 2011, what has changed that would make them appropriate today?  Well, while not answering the preceding question, Superintendent Harrison said that Department of Justice report which led to the current Consent Decree indicted the prior leadership “had largely acquiesced to wide-spread abuses by officers at all ranks.”  Superintendent Harrison went on to praise the accomplishments of individuals currently in the position of Commander.  Finally, the Superintendent insisted that it was critical that he be able to “swiftly replace leaders who are not performing to standard.”

What is exceedingly clear from the arguments made by Superintendent Harrison is that the NOPD has some good leaders in the position of Commander and that Commanders are performing the jobs previously held by officers in the classified service and that Commanders do not have the type of policy-making authority that is not subject to further review or modification.  What is clearly lacking is any logical connection between the existence of the Commander special rate of pay and any of the accomplishments of the folks holding those positions.

During the meeting, Commissioner Stephen Caputo, the newest member of the Civil Service Commission, noted that on several instances in my letter to the Commission I stated the position of Commander had been historically held by Police Captains and Police Majors.  He then asked if I was advocating for the status quo, or doing things as they have always been done.

My response was that I was not arguing for the status quo, but that the Civil Service Rules require that the job responsibilities be unfit for performance by anyone in the classified service.  History shows us that prior to 2011, the job responsibilities were performed by employees in the classified service.  Nothing has changed to make the jobs unfit for the classified service.

That does not mean that we have to maintain the status quo.  For example, the NOPD has the longest working-test period for employees.  Working-test periods, otherwise known as probationary periods, are set at 6 months in the Civil Service Rules with a maximum of 1 year.  The NOPD has 1-year working-test periods across the board.  That means that if someone is promoted to the rank of Police Captain and is unable to meet expectations, they can be demoted to their prior classified position — for just about any reason.  Generally speaking, if someone is incapable of performing a job, that incompetence will reveal itself within a year.  My point is that before we go shopping for a new toolbox, maybe we should make sure that we are making the best use of the tools we already have.

Civil Service Commission Chair Michelle Craig said that the Commission wanted the opportunity to examine best practices.  While the idea of “best practices” aggravates me to no end, I was fascinated by Superintendent Harrison’s reply that NOPD was re-writing the best practices and, therefore, what they are doing is the de facto best practice.

In today’s environment of instant gratification, we have to be able to point out real-time problems to demonstrate why these ideas that run contrary to the civil service philosophy should be avoided.  That is an impractical demand.  However, make no doubt about it, it is coming.  There will be a discriminatory application of the “Great Place to Work Initiative,” if there hasn’t been one already.  The creation of 16 unclassified Commander positions, would eventually prove problematic.

The first merit-based civil service system can be traced back to Imperial China and Emperor Wen of Sui (AD 605).  It wasn’t until the 1940’s that Louisiana embraced the civil service system.  Even then, it was repealed in 1948 and re-established in 1952.  Since then, more than a few changes have been made to how civil service systems are administered.  However, the idea of a merit-based system of employment utilizing objective standards and competitive testing has persisted.

So, while I am not advocating doing things as we did them in 1992, I am advocating the maintenance of the underlying set of guiding principles which have served us well for a long time.  We don’t have to throw the baby out with the bath water.  We don’t ditch democracy just because there is a more efficient way to administer the Department of Education.  The New Orleans Civil Service Commission has taken some steps recently which are downright scary.  The “Great Place to Work Initiative” dismissed important civil service principles relating to promotions and competitive exams.  Of course, the NOPD would point to successes of newly promoted sergeants or lieutenants as if that is the result of the new system in some way.  If you are thinking they wouldn’t do that, that is exactly what they are doing with the Commander position.  Granting the NOPD 16 unclassified positions to replace the special rate of pay for Commanders would be counter to the underlying fundamentals of the civil service system.  Does that mean it has to be done the old way?  No.  It just means it shouldn’t be done the way the NOPD has proposed.