New Orleans Civil Service Commission Meeting - June 22, 2026
New Orleans Civil Service Commission Meeting - June 22, 2026
The New Orleans Civil Service Commission convened on June 22, 2026, at 4:00 PM CT to address a range of personnel and policy matters, including approvals of minutes, routine extensions, introductions of proposed rule amendments, and a report on 2025 performance evaluations. A special meeting was scheduled for July 21, 2026, to further discuss major rule changes due to the lack of a quorum on one item.
Consent Calendar
- Meeting Minutes: Approved the minutes from the June 12, 2026 meeting.
- Ratification of Public Integrity Bureau Extension Requests: Approved unanimously with no opposition asserted.
- Examination Announcements (11534–11561): Approved. Announcements continue to be heavy on Sewerage and Water Board and airport positions (non-General Fund funded).
- Police Sergeant Eligible List Extension: Approved a request from the police department to extend the current sergeant's promotional eligible list (established August 2023) from its three-year expiration (August 31, 2026) through March 31, 2027. The extension was needed because budget cuts prevented administering a new exam this year.
- Fire Captain Eligible List Extension: Similarly approved a fire department request to extend the current fire captain eligible list (set to expire September 30, 2026) through March 31, 2027.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Amanda Fallis (representing AFSCME 2349, city employees) expressed concern about proposed changes to merit pay and performance evaluations. She argued that the underlying issue—lack of clear rubrics in departments—remains unaddressed. She stated that expanding rating categories back to five, without mandatory rubrics or approval processes, still allows managers to "pick favorites" and does not prevent favoritism. She urged mandating departmental rubrics with concrete objectives.
- Benjamin Quimby (public commenter) stated he looks forward to reviewing the proposed rule changes and preparing comments for the July 21 special meeting, agreeing that time is needed for review and suggestions.
Discussion Items
- Introduction of Proposed Amendment to Rule 7, Section 1.1 (Working Test Periods): Staff presented an amendment to extend the working test period from one year to two years for employees in executive service classifications (pay grade 102 or higher, e.g., high-level engineers, personnel director, CAO, director of mosquito control). The change would be prospective only, applying to new hires or promotions. Justification: higher-level positions often involve long-term projects (budget cycles, major engineering efforts) that require more than a year to fully assess performance. The rule was introduced only and will lie over until the next meeting for public comment and commission action.
- Introduction of Proposed Amendments to Rules 11, 4, and 12 (Performance Evaluation, Merit Pay, Preferred Re-employment, and Use of Service Ratings in Layoffs): Commissioner Monteverdi recused himself due to an economic interest. Staff from the CAO (Chief Innovation Officer Jonathan Whisby) presented the cumulative effort of several months' work with the Louisiana Legislative Auditor. Four major changes were outlined:
- Move from a three-rating option system (exceeds expectations, meets expectations, does not meet expectations) to a five-rating system (exceptional, exceeds expectations, satisfactory, needs improvement, unsatisfactory), mirroring state civil service reforms from 2024.
- Authorize merit pay only for the "exceptional" rating (not the top two as currently), effective for the 2027 observation year (paid out around June 2028).
- Reduce evaluation categories from seven to three (or four for supervisors), eliminating competencies, person-role fit, and overall placement, and clarifying that supervision/guidance requirements apply only to supervisors. This places greater weight on performance goals.
- Modify the requirement that city budget 2% of department budgets for merit pay to a requirement to budget "appropriately," and change the mechanism for suspending merit pay in difficult fiscal years: instead of CAO discretion, the power would go to the commission—merit pay would not be paid in any year the commission has approved employee furloughs. This aims to prevent situations like the current year where merit pay costs exceeded furlough savings. The rule was introduced and will lie over until the special meeting on July 21, 2026, due to lack of a quorum. Written comments are accepted via email or the civil service website.
- Report on 2025 Performance Evaluations: Staff presented an annual report. For the 2025 observation year (including Sewerage & Water Board employees):
- 71% of employees rated as "exceeds expectations," 28% as "meets expectations," and 1.5% as "does not meet expectations."
- Completion rate: 97.82%.
- Trend data showed a sharp increase in "exceeds expectations" ratings since merit pay was reinstated. In 2025, that percentage was up about 10% from 2024. Breakdown by department varied: e.g., Chief Administrative Office 78% exceeds, City Council 94%, Finance 86%, Fire 66%, Police 94%.
- Questions from commissioners addressed: the inability to police content of evaluations (only timeliness and submission), the electronic system (NeoGov), use of journal entries for behavioral incidents, and enforcement of supervisor compliance. Staff acknowledged that checking whether supervisors met deadlines for subordinates is partly dependent on departmental HR reporting, which can be inconsistent.
- Fire District Chief Eligible List Extension: Deferred to the July 21 special meeting because Commissioner Monteverdi is on the list and recused himself. The list does not expire until September 30, 2026, so no delay is anticipated.
Key Outcomes
- Approvals: All routine items (minutes, extension requests, examination announcements) were approved unanimously where votes were taken.
- Rule Introductions: Two sets of rule amendments (working test periods and performance/merit pay) were introduced and will lie over for public comment and commission action at a special meeting on July 21, 2026, at 10:00 AM.
- Deferral: The fire district chief eligible list extension was deferred to the July 21 special meeting due to a recusal.
- Next Steps: Written comments on proposed rule changes may be submitted to CSNO@NOLA.gov or through the civil service website. The special meeting on July 21 will include discussion and potential action on both rule amendments and the deferred list extension.
- Farewell: The commission recognized Commissioner Dr. Ruth Davis for her service, as her term concludes in a few weeks. Commissioners expressed appreciation for her conscientiousness and contributions.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com