Are there any um is this look at it?

All 60 days all sixty chair number on my back in this commission, do we have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Do we have a second?

Any abstentions or objections?

Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Item number three A under rule amendments is an introduction of an amendment to rule two sections 4.9, 4.11, A and B, 5, 11.1 relative to the alternative dispute resolution process.

Do you want to take this?

This is um related to item number eight.

Um so if we want to talk about that uh along with the proposed rule amendments, this might be a good thing.

Okay.

Uh basically we had a meeting yesterday of the subcommittee, and uh this was a very very productive meeting.

Uh, a couple of the people are on the subcommittee are here.

Aaron, Ashley, and Will talk about it, but I I greatly appreciated everyone being there.

We were discussing how we might be able to use alternative dispute resolution going forward.

Uh we're always we as a commission always cognizant of trying to uh work with the parties so that our process and procedures are as efficient as effective as possible, cognizant of the rights of the parties.

So we had a really good open discussion as to how we might be able to use alternative dispute resolution uh going forward.

Uh one of the things that came out of the subcommittee meeting was the thought that we as a commission or the subcommittee was going to propose to the commission uh changes to our rules that deal with ADR, and uh that's what is before you, and I'm gonna let Christy who is part of the subcommittee who did an excellent job yesterday kind of uh right after the subcommittee meeting putting together the proposed changes.

So uh Christie, why don't you uh explain and then if Aaron or Ashley or Will wanted to comment about the subcommittee meeting, I I welcome their comments too.

And just as a reminder, this is the introduction of these rule changes, and so they will lie over until the next commission meeting where they'll be considered for approval.

So if anyone would like copies of the rules, please email us at CSNO at NOLA.gov.

We're happy to provide um copies of the proposed changes and take any any uh public member of the public's feedback on the proposed changes.

Okay, the general outlines of what the rules are intended to do is to allow parties to elect to have an alternative dispute resolution with no review by the commission and no review by the fourth circuit, and but you get in the hearing room with um what we've called an arbiter that um either one of our hearing officers or a commissioner, and you get a decision and it's over.

So there's no six-month or um process, and so that's what um these changes are meant to do, and also it's amended to reflect that any sort of discipline can go through ADR.

Um we will expect both parties to acknowledge that they're giving up those appeal rights.

That's the main thing.

But um if you see 4.11, it has to be done within 30 days and before the first hearing date.

Um they the parties also talked about pre-hearing conferences, so while we're at it, I put something in there saying that they could conduct a pre-hearing conference.

Um I also added subsection C because it's the current practice for um the hearing examiner reports to contain legal analysis and citations to the record, and so they need the transcript or the briefs.

Um so that rule was kind of outdated.

So while we're making changes to 4.11, uh um put in there that it's tied to the briefs or the transcripts.

So that's 4.11.

What's next?

Okay, 11.1.

Just adds that um the decision by the arbiter is the final decision.

So that had to be changed 4.9 or 8.1.

Okay.

So we're getting 4.9 up.

Um we also talked about having a union representative authorized to basically act in the role as the law of the lawyer in this ADR procedure.

And so that's in 4.9.

Um and also I I didn't print out a copy of five, but that's really the whole procedure.

This just recognizes that the union representative can attend the the formal hearing, but and to advise the employee, but can't represent the employee in that hearing.

Yeah.

I'll send you that.

Okay.

Um so this is the whole thing that says that we're amending the ADR procedure that we currently have.

So we took out the um application to only you know suspensions of 10 days or less.

Um, and we put a deadline in.

We say that you must pick the arbiter from our current hearing officers or commissioner, they have to agree to the to who the arbiter is.

And um you can see in 5.5, we say that a union representative may um represent the employee and to give the appointing authority um the same like relaxed rule.

I said that a human resources person could represent the appointing authority in ADR.

I don't know how we didn't really discuss that at the subcommittee hearing.

Um those are the the highlights.

I think I've covered it.

So Christy, procedurally, um just a refresher.

Will the um party still be go before the commission and then agree, or do they need to ask permission to go into ADR, or would they agree prior to the hearing to go to ADR, like procedurally, just kind of how is this woven?

Okay, hearings are usually set 60 days from when the appeal is filed, and so we've we've put a deadline of 30 days, so within 30 days after the appeal is filed, the appointing authority and the employee have to agree that we're gonna do ADR.

And then it's they pick an arbitrate, they pick an arbiter, they sign an agreement, they schedule the hearing, they have the hearing, and then the arbiter issues a decision within five days.

Okay, and so it's just like a fast track.

You know, we think there's a really narrow issue that's that's not complicated, we we just want to get this finished.

Um the union representatives who were present said that they knew of current appeals that might be appropriate for this because the deal with our ADR procedure is that nobody ever uses it, so it's not helping us, it's not helping from an efficiency standpoint.

And the key is once the parties agree to go to this uh form of ADR, the commission is out of it.

I mean, there's no appeal to the commission, it's a binding final decision, which is the key because otherwise, as our normal process, it goes to us, then it goes potentially to the Fourth Circuit, it could result in a whole year despite everyone's best intentions.

But it the main thing is it's we're proposing these rule changes, which will ultimately be voted on by the commission in January, but then it's up to the parties, it's up to the uh the classified employee and the appointing authority to decide which cases they wit.

We're not gonna put any pressure on anybody.

They don't want to use it, it's fine if they want to use it, then we're gonna work with them to make it as easy as possible, and we're gonna make it as effective as possible.

That's that's where we are, but it's it's really we're trying to help with the process, but it's it's up to the appointing authority and the employees to make it work.

But I based on our discussion yesterday, I think everyone's of a mind to give it a shot and see how it goes, and then we'll tweak it as we go along and uh whatever.

And this still this includes all current routes of appeal or manners of appeal that everybody would normally appeal, right?

It's not just one, everything's included, Mark.

Everything is included before it was limited to we couldn't have more than 10 days expension, whatever.

It could be any case, it could be a termination case, or it could be any case.

It could be discipline harassment, whatever one of these anything we usually consider.

Okay.

Anything.

Right.

Anything.

And I think Aaron, you were the uh the one that really proposes and put this in place many, many years ago, but unfortunately, who knows?

It's really never been used and whatever.

So uh we're trying to give some life to this and see if we can uh make it effective for everyone.

Thanks, Mark.

Um, I really appreciate all of the subcommittees who um participants who worked on this.

It looks like a great path forward, and we keep talking about like civil service evolving and just kind of growing and changing with uh you know just the times, and I think this is a great way to start.

So just want to thank everybody, Mark, uh, for the good work on this.

This is really great.

And I want to thank people on the subcommittee and people that are here today uh for the work that they did.

It was was really a good open discussion.

So we look forward to continued discussions on that.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Item number three B is the introduction of an amendment to rule two, section eight point one relative to applications for the issuance of subpoenas.

So our scheduling letter and our rule differed about the time period for subpoenas.

This is also in rule two, so while we're making changes in rule two, um, somebody um had informed us that it was inconsistent, and so we know that internally um Stacey Joseph is able to turn those around pretty quickly, and so there's really no reason to have a 15-day um lead time, and also at one time we could go to the sheriff's office and they would serve subpoenas for free for us, and they will no longer do that.

So the onus is on the person requesting the subpoena to take it to the sheriff.

So the only subpoenas we really handle are current employees, and so the practice of the office is to email those out, and those are complied with so I just changed the deadline to 10 days to comply with what we tell um the parties that that in order for us to process it, we need it 10 days before the hearing.

But then our rule said that if you didn't request the subpoena 15 business days before the hearing, then you know it was subject to being quashed.

Okay, and that's again just an introduction, and the con uh commission will consider that for approval at its next meeting.

Item number four A under classification and compensation matters is a request from the sewage and water board for a pay grade change to the classification of water purification manager.

At the uh last civil service commission meeting, uh the commission approved two new job series for the surgeon water boards, department of operations.

Um this change today is a slight change to maintain supervisory relationships with that new series.

Uh this would increase the grade of the water purification manager from pay grade 86 to pay grade 88.

Um this is basically a five percent increase raising the uh base pay from 78,000 to 81,000.

Um also relative to this change.

Uh staff is recommending a pay policy uh to guarantee that the the employees in that job classification would receive a five percent pay increase as a result of this grade uh increase.

Any questions?

No questions.

I'd make a motion to approve.

Okay.

Commissioners, we have a motion to approve.

We have a second, any abstentions or objections?

Okay, all in favor, please say aye.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Item number five A under recruitment and selection matters are the approval is the approval of examination announcements 11454 to 1145.

Again, it's a much smaller amount of announcements than y'all are used to because we're currently under a hiring phrase.

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions?

Do we have a motion?

Moved.

Okay, we have a motion and a second motion.

Second, second.

Okay.

Any abstentions or objection?

Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Item number six is a request from the police department to transfer the grounds transportation, parking and towing units from the public works to the police department in accordance with rule three, section eight, transfer of a functional unit.

Uh, commissioners, we did receive an email from police, uh, the police department uh this morning asking to defer this item.

Uh the chief was triple booked and could not attend.

So we'll ask uh we'll just get that deferred until we'll put it on the agenda for January.

Um item number seven is a request from the police department to change the classification of Kenny Graves' injury from workers' compensation to injured on duty.

Commissioners, as you recall, uh our rules require that the department uh receive a report from the injured uh employees department within 30 days of the date of the injury.

Um that report was received on the 31st day, so it's not in keeping with the rules.

Um police is here to ask for an exception.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Please state your name for the record.

Okay, thank you.

Due to administrative oversight, the submission was not completed uh timely in a timely manner.

So we are actively refining our internal process to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

So you're asking for us to grant an exception in this.

Yes, ma'am.

Um commissioners, do we have any questions?

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm not for my confusion.

If you've been here before, I apologize.

You guys are here on behalf of the appointing authority.

Yes.

Well, we are the persons that really are the gatekeepers for the first report of injuries.

We are the persons that handles the process for the first report of interest that go through the approval process for the chain of command.

So they work for NOPD.

So we work for NOPD, yes.

HR staff.

Yeah, HRs.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

So in other words, we're trying not to penalize an employee because a process may have been not correct.

That's exactly correct.

Okay.

Amy, what is the position of uh your department?

We recommend approval exactly for the reason Commissioner Richardson stated um we don't want the employee to suffer.

It's the difference between that person being made whole for an injury they sustained at work versus receiving uh two-thirds of a day of pay, and so we don't want the employee to suffer based on an administrative error on the part of um HR or another entity at any point.

I move that the request be approved.

I'll second that.

Thank you.

Do we have any abstentions or objections?

No.

Hearing none, all in favor, say aye.

All right, aye.

Thank you.

Commissioners.

And item number eight was that report on the activities of the commission's disciplinary appeals process subcommittee, and that was covered because item number three A was an out uh cropping of that.

Uh that was the work product of that committee meeting.

So and um that's all the business that we have before you today.

So we need a motion to adjourn.

So move.

Oh, all right, everyone.

Okay, commissioners, happy holidays.

Happy holidays to everyone.