We have a motion come out of executive session.

Okay.

We're out of executive session.

Amy, uh go through the business meeting agenda.

Okay, good afternoon.

Item number one on the business meeting agenda are the minutes for June 12th, 2026.

Okay.

I'll move to approve.

Second.

I agree well.

So minutes are approved.

Okay, thank you.

Item number two is the ratification of public integrity bureau extension requests.

Has there been any opposition asserted relative to any?

No, we have not received any uh comment calls.

Okay.

I'll move to approve.

Second.

I agree as well.

Approved.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Item number three A under rule amendments is introduction of a proposed amendment to rule seven, section one point one working test periods.

Commissioners, this is an amendment to our current working test periods rule.

Um as you know, the current working test period for all employees for promotions and new hires is one year.

Uh this is an amendment to the working test period rule that would uh give employees in the executive service classifications a two-year working test period.

Um if you recall, uh last year we put in a rule to allow departments um some flexibility to uh compensate the highest of the highest level classified positions.

Uh we deem those the executive service classifications, those are classifications at pay grade one or one oh two or higher.

Um so those uh to give you some examples, um those are some of your higher level engineering positions, personnel director, assistant chief uh administrative officer, director of mosquito control.

So our highest level positions as designated in the civil service pay plan at pay grade 102 or higher, and this would uh give them a two-year working test period.

Um, and what that does when you're talking about the positions at a very high level, um, that allows for the appointing authority to assess, you know, are they through a whole budget cycle, right?

Are they through uh high-level long-term projects?

How do they do?

So it gives some additional time to make an assessment of these very high-level uh positions.

Questions?

These positions are these are typically held by a single individual.

These wouldn't be mostly absolutely with the exception of maybe some of those high-level engineering positions.

There's usually multiple incumbents in uh in those higher level engineering positions, but yes, for the most part, it's going to be uh one incumbent uh positions.

Okay.

And this would not impact current employees in those job classes, it's only prospective, so it would be any new hires or promotions into those job classifications.

Okay, and these are not um, these aren't positions that are tested for in the same way that like a larger applicant pool, like police are fired, take tests in large groups and they're ranked and hired.

This is more like there's still an interview process and people might be scored and ranked, but it's yeah, it's basically you do a rating of training and experience for those high-level positions.

You're looking at their credentials.

So we usually don't do job simulations for those positions.

Okay.

Um again, this is just an introduction.

Uh we'll let this this lie over until the next meeting.

If anybody's interested in receiving a copy of these pro this proposed rule change, they can email us at CSNO at NOLA.gov and we're happy to provide a copy of the of the rule change, and anybody can come to the next meeting and make comments on the proposed.

The justification for the two-year period is that the in this type of work, it might be uh an economist, for example, who it takes a while to find out if their forecasts are useful or competent.

Exactly.

Like yeah, exactly.

Like, and you're talking about an engineer, right?

They're gonna oversee a very large project.

A very large project is gonna take longer than a year to go through to see all their their performance during the various phases of that project.

Okay.

Commissioner Stuper, I move to approve.

Oh, we can't approve at this meeting.

We're gonna let it lie over.

Uh, this is just introduction.

Okay.

I appreciate your enthusiasm.

I love it.

Is there a public comment about this?

No, okay.

All right, okay.

Thank you.

Next one, Amy.

All right, Commissioners.

Item number three B is an introduction of proposed amendments to rule 11 performance evaluation system, rule four merit pay, and rule 12 rule 12 preferred reemployment and rule 12 use of service ratings in layoffs.

Okay.

For the record, Commissioner Monteverdi will be recused from this on economic interest.

Under ethics rules.

Okay, we're ready for the presentation.

And um, I believe we have a representative from the administration to go over the proposed changes.

Whatever wherever you must want.

And again, as with the previous um item, this is just an introduction of the rule change, and it will lie over until the next meeting for commission consideration of approval.

Um if you if anyone in the public would like a copy of the rules, same thing, they can email us at CSNO at NOLA.gov to receive a full copy of the proposed amendments.

And given the fact that uh we we since a commission monitor already has to uh recuse himself, we don't really have a quorum today on this issue.

Well, we've already decided we're gonna have a special meeting uh on July 21 at 10 o'clock, because we want everyone to have a full and fair opportunity to review the proposed rule to come up with any uh comments, suggestions, thoughts relative to that.

We don't want to make make this something where people weren't prepared.

So I'm not trying to preclude anyone from making a comment today, but I would appreciate uh people really taking a look at this and come prepared on July 21 with their comments because today it's just the rule is being introduced, there's not gonna be any action taken, and since we really don't have a quorum, we don't want to get into a discussion about the issues.

So with all respect everyone who was here about this rule, nothing uh is going to happen other than the introduction of the rule.

Um and if if someone cannot make it on July 21, by all means we welcome their written comments.

We don't want anyone's voices to not be heard on this, and we're gonna we felt like this is an important issue.

We want to make sure we give it full attention, and that's why I was setting up for a special meeting on July 21.

Right.

The uh go ahead, you can the uh online submission.

Uh Amy, maybe you can mention that.

Yes, and so we do accept online submission.

Um, there are instructions on our website on NOLA.gov, the civil service portion, and there's a form and instructions on submission there.

Okay, all right, okay.

Um, go ahead.

If you uh introduce yourself for the record and tell us what your present position is and welcome back.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh, and thank you, Commissioners, for taking the time to hear this proposal today.

My name is Jonathan Whisby.

I am the chief innovation officer for the city.

Uh, and what I bring to you today is really the cumulative uh effort of several months of work between the chief administrative office and uh its staff and the Louisiana legislative auditor.

Uh, as everyone I think knows the city is facing considerable financial difficulties this year.

Um, and what this really comes out of is a frustration that we've heard from both employees and supervisors on the existing performance evaluation process in an effort to try to align that more closely with some of the practices of the state civil service system, while also putting in place um some structures to ensure that the merit pay that is awarded goes to those highest performers uh and is not sort of culturally accepted as a uh benefit as opposed to a uh a performance metric to strain for.

Um what this really encompasses are what I would boil down to four major changes.

Uh the first change is moving from a three rating option option system, which currently exists, allows you to rate employees as exception as uh sorry, exceeds expectations, um, uh meets expectations and does not meet expectations to a five rating system uh standard that is uh adopted from the state civil service system uh reforms that were put in place in 2024 at the state.

Uh those five being exceptional at the top, exceeds expectations, second, satisfactory third needs improvement fourth, and unsatisfactory fifth.

Um and then the other change aligned with that would be authorizing merit pay for the exceptional rating rather than for the first two ratings.

Uh that those changes regarding merit pay would not go into effect until the 2027 observation year, which is paid out in approximately June 2028.

Um the other couple of major changes that we would propose here is one, a reduction of evaluation categories.

The feedback that we heard a lot was that the number of categories, I believe there were seven previously, um, and the definitions of those categories were very unclear.

And what we're trying to do is streamline that a bit to make sure that it is more aligned with the actual expectations of employees.

What that would include would be eliminating uh competencies, person role fit, overall placement, and clarifying that the supervision and guidance requirements uh category only apply to supervisors.

Uh and we think that that will make it a lot easier for us to focus on the remaining categories and will increase the importance of those.

Uh so before performance goals was only one out of seven categories you can be rated on.

Going forward, if you are not a supervisor, it'll be one out of three categories, so that prices a greater weight on the individual work the supervisor does to uh create that goal setting with the employee.

Uh also remaining would be work tasks in behavior expectations, quality and completeness of work, and again, for supervisors to supervision category.

Um the last two changes that we're proposing are what I would consider um uh you know, sort of tweaks to existing rules.

So there is an existing requirement in the rules right now that the city budget 2% of department budgets for merit pay.

That I believe is a holdover from when merit pay was a 2% award.

And so what we're changing, what we're we're recommending that language be changed to now uh would be a requirement to budget appropriately, so that the city still has a requirement to budget and cannot say, hey, listen, we can't pay this, we didn't budget it, but that it isn't aligned with an old standard and allows the city the flexibility to align that with whatever the current standard and civil service rules are for merit pay.

Uh the final uh uh edit that's being suggested, uh I believe the commission uh a few years ago changed uh a rule that had been initially implemented, which gave the the administration in the CAO in particular the authorization to effectively at their discretion eliminate merit pay um if there were difficult economic circumstances, and I think that was the result of the administration effectively using that discretion in years where we may not have had apparent significant economic uh uh headwinds.

What we would like to do instead to ensure that there isn't discretion on the part of the administration, but that merit pay is still tied to the uh fiscal health of the city is to provide that power to the commission and effectively say in any given year where the commission has approved furloughs for employees, that merit pay will not be paid out.

And what that does is it prevents us from running into a situation like we face this year, where the city expended enough money in merit pay that it overcame the savings that it realizes from furloughs, and effectively we're furloughing people in order to pay merit pay, which I think is not how the system was originally designed to work.

And I think the the city would probably be better off if employees had been not furloughed but had not been paid merit pay.

So I think what this is an attempt to do is to really connect those two concepts and protect the city fiscally while also ensuring that power is not abused by future administrations.

Uh so though those are the content of the edits that Amy suggested we have introduced, and what I would like to say is during that period until the special meeting, I do welcome all entities or individuals that have input to these edits to send those ideas of me and arrange meetings when available, and I'll make do my best to accommodate those so that we can get all of that input and see if there are edits that we would suggest in advance of that meeting to uh to reach a place where we can be all in agreement on the changes for it.

So I appreciate the opportunity to present this, and I look forward to that uh debate continuing over the next couple of weeks.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Whisby.

Amy, you have anything to add?

No.

So we just have a couple of speaker cards.

All right, okay.

Uh Amanda Fallis represent an apps meet 2349.

Morning, Amanda.

Uh good morning, commissioners.

Good morning, um, Amy.

Uh so um obviously, as a representative of the city employees, we're always very concerned about any changes to merit pay.

Um depending on what these rules are based off what we just heard, the underlying issue is still not addressed.

The underlying issue is and always has been there not being any clear rubrics in any departments for employees to meet or strive towards for the betterment of city workings.

Sounds like those still are not being proposed.

What does sound like is being proposed is a reversion to something fairly similar to the previous system, which was well, we don't anticipate furloughs happening all the time, I hope.

And we do hope to always have commissioners that will make the right decisions about whether to agree to furloughs proposed by the administration at appropriate times.

Um that's not always a guarantee for long-standing employees of the city.

Uh additionally, expanding it back to five categories, which is what it was when I started in 2012.

Once again, still allows people to without a clear rubric, without a requirement for clear rubrics, without any way to approve rubrics, without any way to share rubrics with clarity with employees, still allows people to pick favorites.

And as it stands, these changes, in our opinion, as they stand, just don't address the underlying issue that may have led to too many merit pays this past year.

Or as I hear from all the employees that were excluded, tons of favoritism.

Nobody ever has to explain why somebody gets exceeds expectations or whatever the highest level is gonna be now.

Nobody ever has to explain it.

They just sign their perform and say, yeah, you did great.

And so I stuck.

Thank you, Manda.

And you know, let me say to those points is that that's not something that the commission is tasked with, right?

The department directors decide what the priorities of the departments are, set the work for the supervisors and the employees of those departments, and they need to tell us what success looks like in their actual departments.

And so we rely on them to say and work with their supervisors and their managers about what the work product is, what documentation is success looks like in their departments, because we don't set the culture and the expectations in the individual departments.

We provide a form for people to document that.

Amy, are those aligned with the city goals and objectives?

They should be.

I I guess my mind is I'm thinking, and I was listening to the other comments.

I just I just it seems like there's some some sort of a disconnect.

Like I'll just give you a really simple example to say like everybody really should be evaluated on customer service.

Everybody, because you want good results in dealing with people of the public.

Right.

So that's what I mean when I say a really through line, so everybody will be evaluated for something that the city really wants to do for us, the constituents.

Yes.

Yeah, historically, we have not received any information top-down.

Okay.

I understand what Amy's saying uh with each department has different cultural needs and and how they would uh meet those expectations or exceed those expectations.

But could the commission mandate each department create a rubric of concrete um objectives to meet to meet those different criteria?

I mean, each department would have their own, but could they mandate the creation of that rubric in each department so everybody knows to make it easier?

Sounds like you have a suggestion for John for uh an edit to the code.

Yeah, we're not gonna get into that today, but uh we'll get into that July 21.

But any suggestions you have, Aaron, talk to uh uh Jonathan.

See because what we want to do is to if there is issues that need to be discussed before July 21, you know, I'm all in favor of you all doing that so that when you come on July 21st, you say we've gotten together.

And it's it's no perfect system, but we take it into account everyone's concerns, etc.

And this is what we feel collectively is the best way to go.

That's that's always the best uh way to approach things.

So I I invite uh that type of dialogue.

Aaron, did you have anything else to say?

You have a speaker card.

You you good okay.

Uh and then Benjamin Quimby.

Um good morning, everyone.

I just wanted to say that um I look forward to being able to review those changes um and prepare comments for uh the 21st.

Um I think given all the reasons that have been stated, yeah.

We want time to be able to review those changes and suggest improvements.

Um yeah, thank you for that clarification.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Yep, that's good.

All right, thank you, everyone.

Let's go to the next item on the agenda.

Item number four A under recruitment and selection matters is the approval of examination announcements 11534 to 11561.

Commissioners, you have copies of those announcements, and we're still heavy just on sewage and waterboard, airport, things that are non-genal fund funded uh at this time.

Need a motion to approve, move to approve.

Okay, I'm in favor as well, so it's approved.

Okay, thank you, Commissioners.

Item number four B is a request from the police department to extend the eligible list for police sergeant.

Uh commissioners, as you recall from the past, when we establish uh eligible list for public safety promotions, um, under our rules, I can extend the eligible list up to three years.

Anything that's beyond three years but up to five can be extended by commission action.

Um we did establish a sergeant's list in August of 2023, and it'll hit three years on August 31st.

Um, there is still a valid existing list, and we were unable to administer an exam this year because that was one of the items that was cut from our budget due to uh the fiscal constraints.

And so uh we uh reached out to the police chief, and she is in agreement.

Um we'd like to request to extend the current list um to March 31st, 2027, and we'll reassess also at that time to see what that looks like if we need to extend it further, or if we've been budgeted for an exam, what that looks like.

So we're requesting approval of the uh extension of the current police sergeant's promotional eligibleist through March 31st, 2027.

We have a motion to move to approve second.

I'm in favor as well, so it's approved.

Okay, thank you, Commissioners.

Item number four C is a request from the fire department to extend the eligible list for fire captain.

So, same scenario.

Uh, we created this eligible list in September 2023, it's set to expire September 30th of 2026.

Uh, there is currently an active eligible list, but we were unable to uh administer a new exam this year.

So same thing.

We're uh requesting uh the fire chief wanted to request the same thing, extend it through March 31st, 2027, and we'll make another assessment at that time.

Second, I approve as well.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Item number four D is a request from the fire department to extend the eligible list for fire district chief.

And I understand that uh Commissioner Monteverdi is actually on this eligible list.

Uh so he'll be excused.

Uh, Mr.

Monaverty accused from this as I'm on the list.

So we'll defer this item until uh future meeting, likely on our special meeting.

Uh, but same thing, we have some time, it's not set to expire until September 30th, so we anticipate being able to take care of that at a future meeting.

Right.

I I would think of the same thing.

Let's put it on the agenda for July 21.

Great.

So there's really no delay because we don't have a regular meeting in August.

So we'll do.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners.

Item number five A is a report on the 2025 performance evaluations.

Um Commissioners, as you recall, uh, we do this report every year.

We provide you with information in uh in terms of a breakdown by departments, in terms of completion rate, in terms of the uh the ratings for the different departments.

Um wanted to just call your attention really to the overall information.

So uh what based on the 2025 observation year, and this also includes sewage of water waterboard employees because they're under our umbrella.

We had 71% of employees who were rated as exceeds expectations, 28% as meets expectations, and 1.5% as does not meet expectations.

We can continue to see a very high completion rate in terms of uh the ratings being made, 97.82% completed.

Um there still issues here and there with departments and individuals not completing it in a timely manner, um, but much less than there have been in in few in previous years.

Um just just to show you like the trend.

Um you can add the first chart is uh completion rate from 2021 to 2025, and it's very obvious when the commission changed the rules to put merit pay back in because the completion rate uh went back up.

Um but you'll see also sort of where it hits that same mark where uh exceeds expectations and meets expectations sort of crisscrossed in terms of the number of employees receiving those ratings uh at that time as well.

So you know, you sort of you have intended consequences and unintended consequences, and so um I think this is part of of why there are proposed changes to the to the merit pay rule and the evaluation rule to sort of to re-examine whether whether or not this sort of how it shakes out now is this compared to the prior year?

Uh to the to the prior year, uh it's it's definitely up.

Uh I don't have the data points on this chart, but you'll see 2024 right here, it looks like it's up by about 10% in terms of uh in terms of a rating for exceeds expectations.

And do you have and that was largely due actually from the fire department?

The fire department had a pretty good shift uh last year, a lot more of their employees were rated as meets expectations uh than this year.

And that was my question.

You have those broken down by departments.

Yes.

Yes, that's uh that's in your report.

You know, you have variants in terms of departments, you have departments, so like chief administrative office has 78% exceeds, but the city council has 94.

Um finance department has 86, but fire has 66.

Um the police department uh had 94% of employees were rated as exceeds expectations.

Um in some categories, by some departments, there's a greater than 100% completion rate?

And that's due to uh people who did not uh weren't required to receive ratings, they still rated them in the system, so they were included.

It's we can't tease those individuals out of that data without going through one by one.

But so it's like if you were um if you started after the beginning of the year, or if you were an unclassified employee that is on leave from the classified service, they still do your rating in there, it just doesn't count as an official officially uh in that data.

So in other words, they were catching all employees, but not all of them were due to be rated for one reason or another.

Gotcha.

Amy, I I know this is gonna be something discussed more fully at the July 21 special meeting, but just so it's clear, what role do we as commissioners have and use civil service department director uh in regard to evaluating the evaluations that have been done?

Gotcha.

So what we look at is the objective criteria, right?

Were they done were they done on time, was a rated rating made, were they submitted that sort of thing?

Um we do not police the content of you know, we receive four or five thousand evaluations.

We don't we don't police that content, you know, the supervisor and then the second level supervisor both are required to sign off on that evaluation, and so they're supposed to ensure that the documentation to support that rating is required in that evaluation.

So we can't micromanage, did you write seven sentences or attach three documents or you know that sort of thing?

Um it's up to the departments to the supervisor and second-level supervisor to police whether or not they're being completed in terms of the content.

And the only thing we do is make sure objectively what it's submitted timely and that there's goals and that sort of thing in the in the evaluation.

I think it's important because sometimes uh it's misunderstood as to what the role of the commission is, and we have certain uh ability, certain jurisdiction, but in other matters we don't have jurisdiction over.

And uh I think that that's gonna be important when we get into the discussion on July 21.

There's only certain things we can really take up, and I I know as you always do a great job uh to guide us into those areas that we should be in and to make sure we don't stray into areas that we shouldn't be in.

Right, exactly.

Exactly.

So you know, our role is to to provide the tool and to do training on the tool, but in the end, it's up to this the supervisors to execute on that tool that tool.

It's up to the department directors to say what the work product and the priorities of their department are, and then have that translate down into the individual requirements for each of the employees.

Just two questions.

I'm just curiosity.

Are these performance evaluations electronic?

Yes.

And my second question is does the city use like press gaining or what what type of information is the city getting from the consumer who could somewhat validate these.

So we use we use NeoGov for the evaluation.

So we use uh NeoGov, a module of NeoGov, which is our human resources suite that we use in civil service.

Um one of the great things about the system is it links to our learning management system, so our supervisors can tie in the evaluations to to different trainings and require trainings to to address deficiencies, those sorts of things.

Um but it's just it's it's an electronic system that we've used for a number of years now.

We can run reports, the departmental HR officers can run reports in terms of the ratings.

Um we could do batches of the evaluations, those sorts of things.

I get I guess where I'm coming from with this is say, like in in the world of medicine, press gaining does a lot of what the consumer thinks about their health care.

Ah, okay.

So if I'm just saying, if there's a department and everybody got exceeds expectations, but the data comes back from what the consumers think is like that's horrible.

Like there's a disconnect.

Exactly, there's no correlation.

Yeah.

You know, in our training.

Somebody spoke, I'm sorry.

I apologize, but someone spoke about that's fine.

Everybody getting uh, you know, exceeds expectations and some what could be favoritism, what have you?

That's kind of a way to really, really deal deep dive into okay, why do we have all of these exceeds expectations?

If the consumer doesn't think they're much out there, exactly.

And one of the features of our system is it allows for journal entries where the supervisors are supposed to log behavioral incidents, and that includes things like customer feedback, right?

Uh citizen complaints or citizen letters of thanks, those sorts of things.

They can attach all that information, we encourage them to attach and document that.

And when you go to make the person's rating in the system, it actually pulls up all those journal entries in a column to the right, and so you can see this sort of history of what you documented throughout the course of the observation year in terms of okay, what do what kind of feedback do we get?

Do we get complaints?

Do we get praise?

Uh, do we get a mix?

Um the problem is it's only as good as the data that the supervisors put in.

And so if they don't put anything in there, then there's nothing for them to rely on.

Yeah, I get it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Like, what's the maximum?

Is there a maximum number of people that a supervisor has to rate?

Like, is there a No, there's no standard span of span of control.

You have departments where someone may supervise one person and they may supervise 20 people in the system.

It really just depends on the individual department and how their span of control is set up.

Um so, like, I don't know if it was a year or two ago, then CAO Montaño came in, we had a big meeting because that year there had been a massive case of supervisors that were not appropriately completing um evaluations in time.

Everybody remembers that, right?

We talked about at that time that um I can't remember if this went into the rules, but I remember we talked about it, that in the future, a supervisor, first, second, or higher up that failed to complete their uh subordinates ratings in time would then not be eligible themselves for Merit Pay.

Does this commission or the department have any review over that when it happens?

Because I hear from people that it happens, and my question is are we relying on appointing authorities to handle that themselves and deal with it within the evaluation of that supervisor, or does the department or the commission, and if they don't, maybe we could look at a way to reconcile where that doesn't happen if it's happening.

So what we do is we send a spreadsheet to the departmental HR officers, and one of the columns on the spreadsheet says, if this person is a supervisor, did they fulfill all of their supervisory requirements by the deadlines?

And they're supposed to tell us, yes, that person, that person set all the goals and made the ratings for all their subordinates by the deadline, or no, they did not.

And if they put no, they did not, even if they receive and exceeds expectations in the system, we do not pay out merit for that individual.

Now, again, just like everything else in city government, we have some uh HR managers that do a beautiful job of that, and they give us the the information and it's correct, and we have other ones that uh put every single person in their department that was a supervisor, did everything in a timely manner.

And I know when we go in the system and reject evaluations because they're late, that that's not correct.

So we we attempt to solicit that information from the the department HR folks and it's hit or miss in terms of correct.

For the moment we're relying on taking them at their word, though, in other words, no, we also we check we check up on it.

Okay, and if that and if you so just so I'm clear, if it turns up that there were discrepancies where a supervisor at one level or another did fail to do this, and thereby created a situation where the people beneath them didn't receive Merit Pay or an evaluation that they otherwise deserved.

The staff will go back and make sure that that supervisor doesn't work.

When we speed in the system, yes.

We can and what we do, we usually reach out to the department and say, was this the person responsible for that?

And they'll tell us yes, and then we won't put them on the code.

Is there any like report on that that we could find out what the compliance is from the supervisor level to make sure that they're not just okay?

Okay.

Anything else in that audio?

Okay, that is the end of our agenda.

Well, before we end, uh I'd like to just take a couple minutes, and one of our commissioners will be finishing her term in a few weeks, Dr.

Ruth Davis.

And she has been an unbelievable commissioner.

She has been exceptional in so many ways.

I've had the pleasure personally of working with her, and she's very conscientious.

She's been extremely uh devoted to helping the city advance in so many different ways.

And our city really uh has benefited significantly by having Ruth on this particular commission.

And uh I mean it's it's been to see her work and to see her conscientiousness and the the way she uh devotes her attention to the issues and the way she goes about doing her work, it's been a pleasure.

And we've had some difficult issues to deal with with the commission, and uh our commission has been able to work together in a in a really in my view, an excellent way, and I I give a lot of credit to that to Ruth because she has always added very valuable comments, valuable insights, and we're gonna really truly miss her on this commission, and whoever comes in to take her place, uh has some, as they say, some big shoes to fill, but she is uh extremely well liked and loved by everyone on this comic commission, and I hope those of you who have worked with us for the last three years that she's been on this commission will join me in thanking her and congratulating her for her tremendous service to this commission.

So, Ruth.

Thank you.

It's been my pleasure.

Thank you.

Maybe we can get a picture.

So and with with that, we will end our meeting, but that's the best way to end this meeting, and thanking someone like Ruth.

Well, thank you all.