CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CITY OF NEW ORLEANS BRUCE ADAMS, MICHAEL GLASSER, SIMON :5 HEATHER M. KOUTS, BRUCE LITTLE AND FREDERICK MORTON - VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF POLICE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF DEPARTMENT OF POLICE TO PETITION FOR RELIEF BY LISTED CLAIMANTS AND TO DECEMBER 2013 REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL IN RESPONSE TO PETITION NOW COMES the Department of Police, through undersigned counsel, who submits this response to the Petition for Relief filed by the above listed claimants on January 7, 2013', and hereby also responds to the December 2013 ICO Report by the Director of Personnel ("Director")2 submitted to the Commission in response to the Claimants' Petition for Relief. The most egregious omission in this investigation and resulting ICO Report is the failure to reference the United States Department of Justice Report from March 2011, which focused on improving the integrity of the New Orleans Police Department and directly addressed the issue of Integrity Control Officers (ICOs), pointing out the need for these officers to be separated from the individual Districts.3 This comprehensive Report was a basis for the Superintendent's restructuring of the organization, which resulted in the transfer of these six Captains serving as ICOs from individual Districts to a separate unit, identified as the Administrative Support Unit (ASU). The DOJ Report noted that while assigned to Districts, ICOs often functioned as 1 See City Exhibit Claimants' "Petition for Relief from Full--time Dual Assignment and Improper Aliocation of Position" on January 7, 2013 by Brett Pendergast. The petition names the Department of Police as the defendant, but was not served on counsel for NOPD and only provided a year after filing, on Jan. 10, 2014, subject to a pubiic records request made on the Director of Personnel. 2 See City Exhibit December 2013160 Report by Personnel Director, Lisa Hudson. 3 See City Exhibit Department oflustice March 2011 Report; Excerpt regarding iCOs. Page 1 of 20 Assistant District leaving little time for integrity related activities that are the core of their function as lCOs. Additionally, the DOJ Report noted that some ICOS "rarely leave the station and do not, as reqnired by the policy, check off--duty detail locations or attend community meetings." Further, although ICOs were doing some required integrity checks, they were not doing as many or doing them as frequently as required by NOPD Policy In part, as a response to the DOJ 's Report and recommendations, officers serving as ICOs were transferred out of Districts to the Administrative Support Unit This well-- founded--~--and in fact of these six complainants to the ASU to focus their time on core integrity activities is the subject of their Petition for Relief. Specifically, these six ICOs claim that, by being transferred to the ASU from various Districts, they were subjected to dual--assignments in violation of Civil Service Rule Section 5.3, which prohibits "dual assignments" of a classified employee to two different full time positions. The allegation of "dual-assignment" is without merit because these officers acknowledge in their petition that they were transferred to the accordingly, the officers were no longer assigned to their former unit or District. In short, there is no "dual assignment." These officers also claim the position of ICO was improperly allocated to them as Captains, allegedly in violation of Civil Service Rule section 1.3. This claim is also without merit and misunderstands the rule and its application. Rule section 1.3 allows an employee to claim that they have been allotted to an incorrect class or classification. However, these employees are not claiming they were improperly allotted to the classification of Captain, but rather that the ICO duties were improperly allotted. Their claim misrepresents and misapplies the rule. ICO duties are not a classification, therefore an employee is not "allottet" to the classification of ICO, and there camzot be an improper allotment to the classification of ICO. Instead they are alleging that their duties are not the duties Page 2 of 20 of a Captain, which is not a violation of Rule section 1.3, and a careful review of the job description of a Captain demonstrates otherwise. Regardless, the Director's investigation and resulting ICO Report do not address either of the claims raised in the claimants' petition. In fact, neither of the Civil Service Rules cited in claimants' petition are cited or referenced in tlie ICO Report. In fact, the opening sentence of the ICO Report incorrectly states that the complainants believe their assigned responsibilities are not in keeping with their classification and that they have appealed their "reassignment" pursuant to Rule HI, section Not only is this not the claim or Civil Service Rule at issue in complainants' petition, but section 4.l(a) addresses claims in which an employee alleges that they are working out of class, perfonning duties associated with a higher pay grade, and are entitled to be compensated for doing work at a level higher than their assigned pay grade. Accordingly, for this Rule to be at issue, the officers, who are classified as Captains, would have to be claiming that they are doing work normally performed by a classification with a higher pay grade, and that they should be compensated for doing work at a level higher than their assigned pay grade. This quite simply is not their complaint. Further, the should note that those issues are the subject of a federal lawsuit and at least two other matters pending before the Commission. Because this issue will be subject to litigation and fact finding based upon documents and witnesses in other matters, it is not proper to engage in an investigation of this issue when the claimants have not even raised this as an issue. Notably, the ICO Report does not address the claim of a "dual assignment" and does not find that these officers were subjected to a "dual--assignment" in violation of Rule section 5.3. The ICO Report also does not address the claim of iinproper allocation or find that they were "improperly allocatec in violation of Rule HI, section 1.3. The requested relief is that NOPD be Page 3 of 20 ordered by Civil Service to cease and desist from placing these officers in a "dual--assignment" and that they only be give duties coniniensurate with their classification as police captains. Because the ICO Report makes no finding that the officers were subjected to a "dual assignment" and makes no finding that they were "improperly allocated," the relief requested should not be granted, contrary to the recommendations set forth in the ICO Report. In order to respond to the ICO Report, the Department made a public records request, asking for, among other things, a copy of Eric Hessler's request for an investigation regarding six ICOs as referenced in the February 18, 2013 minutes of the Commission business meeting and all documents of any kind that were used, referenced, or relied on in compiling the ICO Report. In response, the Director provided the Jan. 7, 2013 Petition for Relief, a September 6, 2013 Petition for Intervention regarding the Ofice of Secondary Police Employment (filed by Mr. Hessler), and the questionnaire responses of the nine officers incorrectly identified in the ICO Report as complainants. The Department was not provided any request for an investigation by Mr. Hessler related to lCO's. Mr. Hessle1"s Petition, which was provided to the Department, relates to an entirely separate issue that currently is the subject of litigation in federal court, and that Petition should provide no basis for the ICO Report. Accordingly, based on the information and documents produced by the Director, the ICO Report, at most, should only be responding to the claims in Mr. Pendergast's Petition on behalf of the six ICO officers he identified. The ICO Report, however, goes beyond addressing Mr. Pendergast's petition, considering officers and Civil Service Rules never cited or set forth by Mr. Pendergast. Further, the ICO Report issued by the Director of Personnel at the December 2013, business meeting, is inaccurate, misguided and misleading in the following manner: Page 4 of 20 l. The Report begins with "background" information on the alleged restructuring of NOPD, that is inaccurate, niisidentifies the relevant time period, fails to reference any actual organizational charts, and blatantly ignores the March 2011 Report that addressed restructuring, specifically as to the placement of ICO officers; 2. The Report uses improper and unverifiable methodology; 3. The Report does not respond to the Civil Service Rules identified in claimants' petition or their claimed violations; 4. The Report is based on a Civil Service Rule that was not complained of in the complainants' petition; 5. The Report misapplies the Civil Service Rule4 the report is based on; 6. The Report responds regarding officers who were not claimants; 7. The Report relies exclusively on subjective claims of claimants without identifying or relying upon any objective corroborating documentation; 8. The Report references the job specifications for police inajors, captains, lieutenants and sergeants, but grossly misrepresents the substance of thosejob descriptions; 9. The Repoit references NOPD Policy misrepresenting the substance of the policy, reducing detailed duties and responsibilities to inaccurate "one-liners"; and 10. The Report's seven "findings" are not identified as relating to any alleged claim or alleged Civil Service Rule violation made by the complainants in their petition for relief, and, in fact, do not relate to the claims made in the petition at issue. Accordingly, as the ICO Report completely disregarded the DOJ's Report which specifically addressed NOPD's integrity and directly addressed lCOs and their relevant 4 ICO Report claimed to be based on complaint regarding Rule tit, Section which is not complained of in complainants' petition. Page 5 of 20 placement in the organization's structure, failed to address or sustain either of the claims made the comnainants in the etition at issue, res onds to ersons who are not claimants 3 misidentified and misapplied the relevant Civil Service Rules, and employed improper methodology based wholly on subjective information from the complainants without corroborating doctnnentation, the Report as well as its findings are hopelessly flawed, and the recommendations for relief should be denied by the Commission. I. Background on NOPD Structure Inaccurate and Ignores DOJ Guidance The December 2013, ICO Status Report by the Personnel Director, begins with a flawed attempt to compare the organizational structure and staffing of NOPD in April 2010 to that of the department in October of 2013. The time periods of April 2010 and October of 2013 are not relevant to the complaint, which complains of the transfer of six officers to the Administrative Support Unit of the Field Operations Bureau in September of 2012. Most significantly, the ICO Report fails to consider or reference the DOJ's March 2011 Report, which directly impacted the department's organizational structure by that ICOS be moved out of Districts so that their attention would be focused on integrity related issues, giving them time to complete the important integrity checks required by NOPD Policy #85, and so that these core requirements would be addressed with the frequency required by the Depaitn1ent's policy. A. NOPD Structure and Staffing are Inaccurately Portravetl in ICO Report The Report claims the staffing of NOPD, including the number of officers in the Department in April of 2010 as compared to October of 2013, was impacted by the reorganization of the Department by Superintendent Serpas. In reality, there are many issues impacting the number of officers, including the number of qualified applicants applying to the Department, the success of those recruits in completing the academy, and the separation of 5 See City Exhibit Field Operations Bureau Poticy #8-Administrative Support Unit; effective Sept. 23, 2012. Page 6 of 20 officers due to retirement, resignation, or termination for discipline, none of which are impacted by any reorganization of the Department's structure. Furthermore, the complainants' Petition makes no complaint regarding who supervises the ASU, which NOPD Policy indicates comes under the Field Operations Bureau, which is headed by a Deputy Superintendent, not a police captain. The actual structure of the Department, from the Superintendent, to Deputy Superintendents, Commanders of Districts, Divisions and Bureaus, on down through all rank and file inembers, is not portrayed at all in this report, nor is there any reference to or reliance on any actual organizational chart. Additionally, the number of "command level" positions, including the number of commanders, majors, captains and lieutenants, is inaccurate and not relevant to the claims of these six officers that they were allegedly given "dual-assignments" and that the position of ICOs was improperly "allocated" to the class of captains. The identification of commanders as classified positions, similar to the classified positions of major, captain, and lieutenant, is inaccurate, and contradicted by the Commission's ruling in March of 2012, allowing a special, temporary assignment of "commander" to be used by the Superintendent, for the heads of his Districts and divisions, for which the officers would receive special pay in accordance with the Civil Service Pay Plan.6 B. ICO Report Fails To Identify Any Independent Obiective Document in Support of Alleged Structure of NOPD in April of 2010 01' October of 2013 The flawed attempt in the background section to complain about the Department's structure can be directly attributed to the lack of any independent, objective documents properly identifying the Departn1ent's structure. There is not a single reference in the background section 6The Commission issued a report in response to the Petition in Orozfo, confirming that the commander position was not a new classified or unclassified position, but rather a special, temporary assignment designation available to the Superintendent, for officers serving as the head of districts and special divisions or bureaus. Page 7 01?20 to the source of the information provided, nor was there any source documentation provided in response to the Department's public records request, which specifically asked for all documents referenced, relied on, or referred to in completing the investigation directed by the Commission at the February 18, 2013 business meeting. Even more egregious than the flawed "background" section at the beginning of the ICO Report is the improper and unverifiable methodology used in conducting the investigation, which relies exclusively on subjective accounts of the coinplainants without identifying any independent, objective documentation. II. ICO Report Uses Improper and Unverifiable Methodology The ICO Report uses improper methodology, relying almost exclusively on the subjective claims and complaints of the petitioners, without identifying or relying on independent and objective documentation to corroborate the findings and recommendations. In fact, the public records request asked for any documents of any kind, used, referenced, or relied on in compiling the ICO Report? The only documents produced in response to that request, other than the letters and petitions by Mr. Pendergast and Mr. Hessler (which petition is wholly irrelevant), were the questionnaire responses by the complainants, which included their subjective, self--serving responses as to tasks they performed and the frequency that the tasks were performed." Further, section 4 of the methodology section of the Report alleges that the job study that Civil Service conducted as the focus of this investigation had as its sources: "supervisors, jobholders, on-site tours, staffing reports, historical documents, job descriptions and other written materials about thejob, including comparing duties with similar positions." Yet, there is no documentation referenced or provided regarding on--site tours, no staffing reports were identified or provided, no "historical documents" were identified or provided, no job 7 See Public Records Request to Lisa Hudson and Ms. Doddie Smith, attached as Exhibit 8 To rely on self-serving responses by complainants who are litigating this issue in multiple forums without reference to objective data wholiy undermines the reliability of the report. Page 8 of 20 specifications were provided, including those for nujors, captains, lieutenants and sergeantsg, or any "other written materials about the job," which would presumably include the NOPD policy detailing the job duties and responsibilities of ICOs, designated as NOPD Policy instead, the section of the questionnaire constructed by Civil Service, including "task statements from police major job specification" and "task statements from police captain job specification," improperly excerpts the example listing of potential tasks, as if it were required assigned duties for all officers in those classified positions, and blatantly disregards the descriptions of the "kind of work" done by an officer of that grade. Similarly, in the section of the Civil Service questionnaire identified as duties and responsibilities" the Report ignores the entire section of NOPD Policy #8 regarding the purpose, requirements, and responsibilities of the Administrative Support Unit and inaccurately reduces the 23 designated duties for ICOs, set forth in detail over 5 pages of the policy, to inaccurate one--liners. Additionally, in examining the frequency with which these important management tasks are completed, the ICO Report relies exclusively on the allegations of the complainants, who claim that they never actually do at least five of their assigned duties, as opposed to the policy which dictates the frequency with which these integrity checks are required to be made. The Report fails to identify any independent and objective documentation to corroborate the complainants' claims regarding what duties they accomplished, the amount of time spent on those tasks, and the frequency with which they completed those tasks. The Report does not consider log books entries or databases indicating assignments made to ICOs, reports, emails, or memos by or to the ICOs documenting work done relative to any of their assigned 23 tasks. All questions in the Civil Service questionnaire provided the complainant lCOs a platform to 9 See City Exhibit in giobo (1) Sgt, (2) Lt, (3) Capt, (4) Major. Page 9 of 20 complain about time spent conducting investigations of officers, similar to work perfonned by the Public Integrity Bureau. Such self--serving statements are wholly irrelevant to the petition at issue, which does not include any complaint that these officers are doing work similar to investigators assigned to PIB, nor is there any claim in the petition that they are being underpaid for the work they are doing. Their petition alleges that the complainants are being subjected to a "dual--assignment" and that the position of ICOs should not have been allotted to police Captains. Instead of conducting any actual investigation of independent, objective documentation, the Report references the heating off1ee1"s findings in Gretitillion, which is still pending before the Cotnmission. Notably, the findings in Gremt'ZIt'on were based on a limited record, which included little more than self-serving testimony of the complainants in that case that they spent the vast majority of their time conducting investigations like those assigned to officers in the Public Integrity Bureau, without a scintilla of evidence in the form of docuinentation to support that claim or to demonstrate that they were handling the more serious and complex investigations resulting in more severe disciplinaiy actions. Moreover, on January 16, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal voided the Commission's judgment in Gremt'lIion, remanding the matter for further proceedings. Additionally, the claim in Greimflion, that ICOS should receive the same additional compensation as PIB investigators is not at issue in the Petition for relief at issue in the ICO Report and reliance on the Gremiilion decision (which is still subject to further review) is wholly misplaced. The methodology is hopelessly flawed because the investigation, although identifying multiple sources, including "supervisors, jobholders, on--site tours, staffing reports, historical documents, job descriptions and other written materials about the job," apparently fails to actually use these documents in conducting the investigation, nor were any of these alleged Page 10 of 20 source documents produced in response to the public records request for all documents used, referenced or relied on in conducting the investigation and compiling the report. In fact, the few "source documents" that are referenced in the questionnaires constructed by Civil Service or in the Report are reduced to incomplete and inaccurate excerpts of the job specifications for major and captain and NOPD Policy #8 as discussed in this Reply, while the majority of the alleged "source documents" are not even referenced in the Report. Given the inaccurate and uncorroborated findings set forth in the ICO Report, and the fact that the Rule violations alleged by the complainants were not even addressed, the recommendations set forth in the Report should not be followed. Although the ICO Report is procedurally improper in that it purports to offer a lay opinion on matters that are in litigation, at a minimum, a new investigation of the issues actually set forth in the Petition conducted using proper methodology and based on independent, objective documentation that is produced along with the Report should be performed. ICO Report Not Responsive to Civil Service Rules Identified by Claimants The January 7, 2013, Petition for relief, filed by Mr. Pendergast 011 behalf of the six ICOS named in the above caption of this Reply, alleges three violations of Civil Service Rule specifically: 1) section 1.3, regarding allocation of an employee to a particular class; 2) section 5.1, requiring prior approval of the Personnel Director before an employee can be placed i11 a dual--assigmnent, and 3) section 5.3, precluding classified employees to be placed in a dual- assignment on a full--time basis. None of these complaints or alleged Rule violations were addressed in the investigation or ICO Report produced by the Director, in response to the Commission's directive that an investigation be conducted in response to the complaints in the Petition. Page 11 of 20 The primary complaint in the January 7, 2013 Petition, alleges that these six ICOS were somehow subjected to a "dual--assign1nent" when they were transferred from other positions within NOPD and assigned to the Administrative Support Unit, which they claim is violation of Civil Service Rule section 5.3 and a violation of Civil Service Rule section 5.1. Yet nowhere in the ICO Report does the Director address this claim regarding "dual- assignments, or the alleged violations of Civil Service Rule Ill, sections 5.1 and 5.3, nor is there any documentation identified or produced relative to the claim of "dual--assignmei1ts." The findings do not address, confirm or support these primary complaints of the Petition at issue, nor is there any recommendation made relative to this primary complaint of the Petition the Director was charged to investigate. The remaining complaint alleges that Rule section 1.3 regarding allocation was violated by the "allocation of the ICO and FOB-ASU position to the class of police captain."l? Not only is this allegation not addressed by the Director in the ICO Report, but also the complainants have misapplied Rule Ill, section 1.3 regarding allocations. Employees are allocated to a specific class or classified position, in this case, that of Police Captain. At any given time, employees in a specific class or classification are assigned to specific duties, or units within their department. In this case, these six captains were at some point transferred to the ASU. Regardless of the unit in which they worked at NOPD, the complainant ICO's were, at all material times, allocated to the class or classification of Police Captain. Accordingly, there was never an improper allocation of the ICO's to a different classification. The allegation misstates and misapplies the Rule because it confuses being allocated to a class or classification (police Captain), with being given a specific assignment within the Departinent. Most important, there was no investigation of this complaint, which is not referenced in the Report, nor is there a 1? See Jan. 7, 2013 Petition for Reiief, paragraph 12, attached as Exhibit Page 12 of 20 finding that this complaint was substantiated, such that the six lCOs were improperly allocated, by being transferred to work in the ASU. IV. The Report Misidentifies and Misapnlies The Civil Service Rule at Issue In the opening paragraph of the report, the Director assets: The following individuals believe that the assigned responsibilities are not in keeping with their job classification, they have appealed this reassignment pursuant to Civil Service Rule Section 4.1 which affords employees the right of classification appeals. In this opening statement, the Director ntisidentified the plaintiffs to the claim, misidentified the complaint and the Rule that the Petition is based upon, which as stated in the January 7, 2013 Petition for relief alleges a violation of Rule 111, sections 1.3, 5.1 and 5.3, rather than Rule 111, section 4.1. Rule section 4.1 states as follows: Subject to the approval of the Director, whenever a regular employee occupying a position in a non-except classification is required by the appointing authority to temporarily perform, on a full--time basis, duties in a vacant full--ti1ne position of another classification having a higher pay grade, the employee shall be entitled to receive additional compensation subject to the following conditions: The position to which the employee is to be assigned must be a budgeted vacancy. A budgeted vacancy is defined as a full--time position which has been authorized by the Chief Administrative Officer and given an official position control number, and in which there is no incumbent in official pay status. This Rule is intended to address complaints by employees that they are performing duties in a vacant position that has a higher pay grade to which the employees claim entitlement. Nowhere in the January 7, 2013 Petition for Relief, do these six ICOS claim a violation by NOPD of Rule 111, Section 4.1, nor do they claim that they are performing duties in a vacant full- time position having a higher pay grade, and that they want to be compensated for such work. In fact, the ICO Report incorrectly states that the complainants allege that their assigned duties as ICOS are "not in keeping with their job classification," which is that of police Captain. A Page 13 of 20 review of the Petition prompting the ICO Report is devoid of any such allegation. The Findings Section of the Report is based on this non--existent allegation by the complainants. in particular, the Director improperly found that the "overall conclusion is that the assigned duties and responsibilities of the appellants are not in keeping with the essential function of their classification." The opening paragraph of the Report and the Findings Section of the Report confirm that the entire investigation and resulting Report wholly failed to address the complaints in the January 7, 20l3 Petition for Relief, of which the Commission specifically directed an investigation. Therefore, the entire premise and focus of the Report is misdirected because the complaints made in the ICO's January 7, 2013 Petition for Relief apparently were not investigated and never analyzed such that any relevant findings were even offered. Additionally, the investigation is flawed, as the methodology relies exclusively on the self--serving responses of the claimants, without any independent, objective corroborating documentation. Similarly, the individual "findings" in the Report, fail to designate what Rule is at issue, or what alleged complaint from the lCO's Petition is being addressed in each finding. Instead, the entire "findings" section is a rehash of complaints that various ICOS (not necessarily these six ICOS) have made in other pending cases, including 0razz'o and Grennflion, or complaints that the Director perceives were presented in the questionnaire responses, none of which address actual complaints or alleged Rule violations set forth in the January 7, 2013, Petition for Relief purportedly at issue in this investigation. V. ICO Report Responds Regarding Officers Who Are Not Claimants The Commission's minutes of the February 18, 2013, business meeting state that Mr. Eric I-lessler had addressed the Commission at its October and November 2012 meetings "on behalf of six ICO officers," and Mr. Pendergast's January 7, 2013, Petition identifies six ICO officers: Page 14 of 20 Bruce B. Adams, Michael Glasser, Simon Hargrove, Heather M. Kouts, Bruce Little, and Frederick C. Morton. Yet the first page of the ICO Report improperly expands the claimants, identifying three additional officers who were not identified in any Petition to the Commission as claimants: Raymond Burkart, William Ceravolo and Joseph Waguespack. The Commission Rules require that any appeal or petition to the Commission be in writing", and the Commission does not consider petitions or clain1s made by or on behalf of a representative class, as the Commission noted in the Orazio case." Mr. Hessler did not submit any written Petition to the Commission related to tl1e ICO's work. Indeed, the response to the Department's public records request proves that Mr. Hessler did not submit a written Petition for consideration. The only Petition submitted was Mr. Pendergast's Petition. Accordingly, the investigation could only properly address the claims of the six individuals identified in writing in that Petition, and any and all claims made by or on behalf of Ray Burkart, William Ceravolo and Joseph Waguespack, who are not claimants in the Petition, and any relief for these individuals, must be disregarded. VI. ICO Report Relies on Claimants' Subiective Claims Instead of Obicctive Documentation The documents produced in response to the public records request seeking all documents referenced, relied upon, or referred to in conducting the investigation or compiling the ICO Report, other than the letters and petitions of Mr. Hessler and Mr. Pendergast, were the self--servin uestionnaires coin leted the corn lainants.I3 Without ant anal sis of 5 11 See Rule II, Section 4.2, Persons appealing to the Commission shalt do so in writing. 12 Reference report issued by Commission sometime after September 2012, in response to July 2012 Petition by Ray Burkart on behalf of ICO officers as a class in Orazio, alieging named officers were representative of that class. 13 The ICC Report states that the Department did not respond to certain requests in light of ongoing litigation. Because the investigation and the resulting Report improperly sought to analyze information that is not the subject of the Petition at issue, which issues are being litigated in other forums, the Department justifiably informed the Director that certain matters are in litigation. Page 15 of 20 independent, objective corroborating documentation, the reliability of the resulting Report must be questioned. Many of the statements made by the iCOs in responding to the questionnaire created by Civil Service raise are not relevant to the claims set forth by the six ICOs in their Petition, which the Commission specifically identified as the subject of this investigation. Based upon the issues raised in the Petition, a review of the job duties actually being performed by the ICO's must be examined. Rather than relying on the self--serving statements of the ICO's, a reliable investigation would include an analysis of statistics related to investigations performed by ICO's and other tasks perfonned by ICO's as demonstrated by log books and databases. No such analysis was done. As such, the Report is not reliable or based upon verifiable data. VII. Report Job Specifications for Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains and Majors The questionnaires created by Civil Service grossly misrepresent the substance of the job specifications for Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains and Majors. Specifically, the questionnaire omits the primary sections of the job specifications regarding the "kind of work" done by an officer of that rank, and "distinguishing features of the work," using instead the illustrative list of sample tasks as if it was a list of requirements that must be done by every officer of each rank, regardless of the assignment. For example, the "kind of work" done by sergeants, as indicated in the job specification, is "supervisory police work in providing for the training, development, support and monitoring of subordinate officers on an assigned shift." This is not the kind of work done by ICOs pursuant to NOPD Policy 8 contradicting the complainants' claim in the Petition that ICO tasks are like those of a sergeant. Conversely, the "kind of work" done by Captains, as set forth in the job specification, is "very responsible supervisory police work directing a police district or specialized division, or in administrative or technical duties of Page 16 of 20 comparable responsibility." This very important supervisory work in an administrative capacity is precisely what the ICOs are assigned to do, as confirmed by NOPD Policy 8, and the DO.l's t\/larch 2011 Report. As detailed in NOPD Policy ASU personnel are responsible for monitoring and implementing all Field Operations Bureau directives, policies, and Departmental rules, policies, and procedures to verify the integrity throughout NOPD by ensuring compliance with NOPD rules and regulations. The Report Misrepresents the Substance of NOPD Policy #8 The Report misrepresents the substance, complexity, and importance of the duties and responsibilities of ICOs as detailed in NOPD Policy and relies on the subjective of the complainants for the frequency with which the tasks they are assigned under NOPD Policy are performed. Specifically, the Report relies on the self--serving statements of complainants as "confirming" that the overwhelming majority of their time is spent on internal investigations. The review of data related to the ICO's work proves otherwise. Based upon inaccurate statements, rather than data, the Report concludes that, if PIB investigators are sergeants and lieutenants, then these ASU captains are doing the work more appropriate for sergeants and lieutenants. Of c0urse,.this ignores the other 22 important duties ofICOs, which the DOJ Report identified as "integrity--related" activities at the "core" of the ICO function. NOPD Policy #8 identifies ASU personnel as being responsible for ensuring that accountability and integrity standards are maintained throughout NOPD, which the DOJ Report acknowledges is a critical function at the very core of ensuring the integrity of the Department. IX. The Report's Seven Findings Are Not Based on Complainants' Claims The seven "findings" in this ICO Report are not premised on any complaints at issue in the complainants' Petition for Relief, nor do these findings relate to any Civil Service Rules the Page 17 of20 complainants alleged were violated in their Petition, accordingly, the findings do not comport with the Comniission's directive regarding the investigation. Additionally, the findings are not based on proper and verifiable methodology, and fail to reference independent objective data corroborating the "claims" or the indings" In fact, the "findings" are not findings at all, but rather a representation of ongoing complaints and issues that various ICOs, not necessarily these six ICOs, have made in other cases, including Orazio and Grenziilion, both of which are still pending. The first "finding" claims that the job duties for ICO's listed in the questionnaire, which Civil Service created, are not consistent with the Civil Service job specifications. Notably, the "task" list on the questionnaires only included sample duties set forth in the job specifications and listed these sample duties as if they were required duties. Respondents were asked for their subjective, self-serving response as to whether they were performing these sample tasks. Because most of the claimants alleged that there were not performing these tasks, the Direct concluded that the ICO's were not performing the duties and responsibilities for their assigned classification as Captains. As noted in the Section VII of this Reply regarding the job specifications, the questionnaire misrepresents the substance of the work by skipping over the sections of the job specifications as to the "kind of work" and "distinguishing features of the work." The issue purportedly addressed in the second "finding" is difficult to decipher, as there is no reference to any complaint or alleged Rule violation cited. This "finding" appears to make a similar conclusion as the first finding, that the Captains and majors responding to the questionnaires are doing work once done by lieutenants. Notably, however, the referenced Page 18 of 20 lieutenants did not work in ASU, and there is no corroborating documentation cited to support this "finding." The third "finding," like the previous findings, is not based on any complaint at issue or alleged Rule violation. Like the other findings, it also fails to identify any independent, objective and verifiable docunientation supporting the alleged "finding" related to the justified restructuring of the Department, relative to lCOs, in accordance with recomniendations of the DOJ's March 2011 Report. The fourth "finding" also is not based on any complaint or alleged Rule violation at issue in the Petition for relief. Instead, the Report sets forth a finding related to the complaint of other ICOs made in which simply is not at issue here. The fifth inding" that Captains and majors must supervise one or more lieutenants, is contradicted by the job specification for Captains, a copy of which is attached to this Reply as Exhibit The sixth "finding" regarding the police commander designation and the seventh not relevant findings. Accordingly, as these alleged findings do not relate to the complaints in Petition at issue which the identified as the subject of the investigation, and the Report fails to identify what alleged Civil Service rule violation is being addressed, and fails to identify any supporting independent documentation for the claims or findings, these recommendations should be disregarded. Page 19 of 20 CONCLUSION The ICO Report and the findings section of the Report confinn that the entire investigation and resulting Report wholly failed to address the complaints in the January 7, 2013 Petition for Relief, of which the Commission specifically directed an investigation. Therefore, the entire premise and focus of the Report is misdirected because the complaints made in the ICO's January 7, 2013 Petition for Relief apparently were not investigated and never analyzed such that any relevant findings were even offered. Additionally, the investigation is flawed, as the methodology relies exclusively on the self--serving responses of the claimants, without any independent, objective corroborating documentation. Although the ICO Report is procedurally improper in that it puiports to offer a lay opinion on matters that are in litigation, at a minimum, a new investigation of the issues actually set forth in the Petition conducted using proper methodology and based on independent, objective documentation that is produced along with the Report should be performed. ELIZABETH S. ROBINS #25224 Assistant City Attorney SHAWN LINDSAY, #28466 Assistant City Attorney SHARONDA R. WILLIAMS, #28809 City Attomey 1300 Perdido St., Room SE03 New Orleans, La. 70112 Telephone: (504) 658-9800 Facsimile: (504) 658-9868 Counsel for Superintendent Seipas as Appointing Autliority for NOPD Page 20 of 20 I RETT J. PRENDERGAST . - - -. .. Azrenxy at law 4603 S. Cnrroilton Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 7011.') Phone: (504) 593-9277 Fax: (504) 523-2362 January 7, 2013 I 2 Ms. Lisa Hudson Personnel Director Department of City Civil Service E3 Room 7W03-Gity Hall 1 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans. LA 70112 RE: Raymond Burkart v. Department of Police Dear Ms. Hud-son: 3. itepresent Captains Bruce B. Adams, Michael Glasser, Simon Heather M. Bruce Little and Frederick C. Morton of the New Orleans Police Department. A3 described in detail in the enclosed Petition, these captains have been required by the Department 'to pcrfogn on a full-time basis in a dual assignment in violation of Rule Iii, Section 5.3 of the Service Rules. Adtlitionally, pursuant to Rule HI. Section 1.3, my clients are in the allocation ofthe positions to which they are currently assigned (FOB--ASU) to the 3 . recall I previously filed a petition on behelfof Major Raymond Burkert. jizffins in the protest of the allocation ofhis position to the major class. 3' E3 1 fifoutd appreoiate ifyou would advise as to how tl__)js matter shall beinvestigated by either ym1rsel'l' of the Commission. i "Brett .1. Prendergast I linclosure EXHIBIT . .. I CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CITY OF NEW ORLEANS BRUCE ADAMS, MICHAEL GLASSER, B. HARGROVE, HEATHER M. KOUTS, BRUCE LITTLE AND FREDERICK C. MORTON VERSUS OF POLICE The petition of Bruce B. Adams, Michael Glasser, Simon B. Hargrove. Heather -M. Kouts, Bnree lditfle and Frederick C. Morton, all classified employees ofthe City of New Orleans, with respect represents: Petitioners are all permanent classified captains with the New Orleans Police Department and have been so classified during all petiods relevant to this petition. 2. Prior to April 201 1, petitioner Bruce Adams was the commander DIVISJOI1 of the Department. In April 203 l, Caplatn Adams was designated as on Integrity t;o_oIrol vs Officer and assigned to the District. On or about September 20, 2012, was transferred to the Field Operations Bureatt--/itdniinistrative Support Unit (here?filefier 3.. Prior to April '.1101 l. petitioner Michael Glasser was the commander .I.. . . . Vice Unit of the Department. In April 201 Captain Glasser was designated as an Integrity Control Officer and assigned to the Special Operations Division. On or about September 20. 2012., Captain Glasser was transferred to the Field Ope_ratio_ns Bureau-Administrative Support Unit (hereinafter xii'; Prior to April 20ll, petitioner Simon B. I-Iargove was assigned to the staff of the Management Services Bureaus. In April 2011, Captain Hargrove was designated as an integrity Control Officer and assigned to the District. On or about September 33, 20 2, Captain Hargrove was transferred to the Field Operations Bureau-Administrative Support Unit (hereinafter 5. Prior to October 2012, petitioner Heather M--.- Kouts was the commander of Records. identification and for the Department. On or about October 29, 2012, Captain Kouts was transferred to the ieid Operations Bureaa--Ad1ninistrative Support Unit (hereinafter 6. Prior to April 201 1, petitioner Bruce Little was the commander ofthe Special Investigations Division of the Department. In April 20.1 1 Captain Little was designated as an Integrity Control Oilieer and assigned to the District. was transferred to the Distti ct. still assigned as an ICO. On or about September 20, 2012. Captain Little was transferred to the Field Operations B'tire'au--Administrative Support Unit (hereinafter 7. Prior to April 2012., petitioner Frederiei: C. Morton was the contmandet' trtithc Inspections 1: . .3 cu oiUnit of the Department. In April 201?. Captain Morton was designated as an integrity Control Officer and assigned to the District. On or about September 20, 2012, Captain Morton was transferred to the Field Operations Support Unit (hereinafter AS 8. The Civil Service Class Code for a police captain is 7113 and describes the kind of work of a police captain ass Very responsible supervisory police work directing a police district or specialized division, or in administrative or technical duties of comparable responsibility; and related work as required. Distinguishing features of work are described as: Work involves full responsibility for the supervision of police activities of a major unit of the Department such as a large group of uniformed officers in an assigned district. Work involves the application of seasoned judgment and police skill in meeting work problems, appraising effectiveness of police techniques used, and interpreting departmental policies and regulations. Employee instructs and supervises subordinates in the performance of their duties. Employee meets with the public to determine problems that need to beaddressed and to follow up on request for earlier requests for assistance. General orders are received fromsuperior officers, but employee works with a considerable degree of independence. Examples of the work ofa police captain provided are: As commander of a police district. employee is responsible for the planning and laying out of work for a large group of police and other workers under ills/her supervision, for maintaining continual contact with in the various units or patrols under hisfher supervision, for making work assignments or them, for the checking the quality of their performance ihrough consultation, reviews of reports and personnel inspection. Mttintains a system For reports to ensure that they are completed by the date requested. Subinits COMSTAT and activity reports to the Bureau Chief to demonstrate unit's daily, weekly, and performance. Controls expenditures to ensure that money encumbered' for "the Captain's unit is used properly. Counsel subordinate commanders about performance problems observed personally or brought to attention by other rank. Trains subordinate commanders in the handling of general management problems. Monitors subordinates' protcssional behavior to assess possible personal problems. Takes corrective' action to address subordinates' performance problems. Review and answers written and oral complaints. Serves as a hearing officer in disciplinary hearings by reviewing evidence, analyzing the situation, and making recommendations to the Superintendent. Reviews disciplinary investigations for thoroughness and accuracy; Assigns personnel to needed areas for special events. Determines crime by reviewing QOMSTAT material and crime statistics, and discussing these trends with subordinates. Determines needed resources based on crimereports and/or statistics. Allocates, coordinates, and directs manpower, vehicles, equipment. and supplies to meet the needs of the district unit. Conducts investigations and i'ollows~up on assignments to ensure that they have been completed properly. Monitors performance of subordinates by intermittently listening to the radio, observing behavior. reviewing reports, and studying other statistics to ensure eflicient and effective productivity. t':'nsures the unit is operating, et"fieiently and ct"feoti.vely through scheduled and unscheduled meetings with subordinate cominanders, -L-. u. rvv-w .. -. observing and monitoring activities of the unit, asking specific questions, and reviewing reports. Enforces departmental rules and regulations. Meets with civic, neighborhood, advocacy, and business groups in order to address concerns about community problems. Coordinates NOPD resources and activities when requested by outside agencies. Confers with upper rank informally and through meetings and committees regarding police problems, special events, policies, and crime patterns. Since being transferred into an ICO position andfor then into petitioners have been assigned, on afull-time basis, additional duties and responsibilities ordinarily not embraced by the police captain classification but comprising such different and distinct characteristics that petitioner discernibly functions in the cia.ss'lfication of sergeant. The assignment of these duties fit iliedefinition olmdual assignment" found in Rule 1, Section I, paragraph 2l ofthe City Civil Service Rules. 10. Rule ill, Section provides: "Tito prior approval of the l-3ersonnel Director is required before any designation ofduties constituting a dual assignment is permitted." With respect to the designation of duties to petitioner complained of herein, no such prior approval was requested or giiren. Rule Section 5.3 proifitles, in pertinent part: employee shall perform in a dual assignment on a litllatime basis." Since their assignment as and/or then transfer 1.1; 1:1. - -.- .. . the Police Department has required petitioners to serve in a dual assignment on a full--time basis. 12. Additionally, pursuant to Rule Section 1.3, petitioners protest the allocation of the ICO and FOB-ASU positions to the class of police captain and request that the Personnel Director conduct surqh special hearings to determine this matter. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that, after due proceedings had, the Police Department be ordered to cease and-desist requiring, petitioner to perform in a dual assignment and instead be given duties only consistent with his classification as a police captain and further that the allocation of the ICO and FOB--ASU positions be reviewed and for all otherjust and equitable relief. ilespectfully submitted, 4603 s. Ctirrollto twee New Orleans, Louisiana 701 19 (504) 593-9277 Item: 3 Status Report of a Request from Police Association of New Orleans regarding Classification status of Employees assigned to the Field Operations Bureau/Administrative Support Unit The following individuals believe that the assigned responsibilities are not in keeping with their job classification, they have appealed this reassignment pursuant to Civil Service Rule 111, Section 4.1 which affords employees the right of classification appeals. Name: Classification: Current Assignment: Bruce Adams Police Captain Administrative Support Unit Raymond Burkart Police Major Administrative Support Unit William Ceravolo Police Captain Administrative Support Unit Michael Glasser Police Captain Administrative Support Unit Simon Hargrove* Police Captain Communications Heather Kouts Police Captain Administrative Support Unit Bruce Little Police Captain Administrative Support Unit Frederick Morton Police Captain Adininistrative Suppoit Unit Joseph Waguespack Police Captain Administrative Support Unit *Formerly assigned to the Administrative Services Unit. The Civil Service requested that the staff conduct an investigation of this matter following an official request from PANO and from Mr. Brett Prendergast on behalf of his clients at the February 18, 2013 Commission meeting. The Civil Service staff has completed its review . and its findings and recommendations are outlined in this report. I: Background: As the result of a departmental reorganization of the NOPD by the Superintendent of Police, the reporting structure was impacted as follows: Police Department Staffing Comparison From: April 2010 To: October 2013 (1,860 Employees) (1,447 employees) 108 Command Rank Level Positions: 93 Command Rank Level Positions: 0 Special Pay Commanders 16 Special Pay Commanders: (1l\/iajor, 9 Captains, 6 Police Lieutenants) 13 Police Majors 1 Police Major i ASU Major) 24 Police Captains 1 1 Police Captains (includes 6 ASU Captains) 71 Police Lieutenants 55 Police Lieutenants In conjunction with this reorganization, the Superintendent created a new unit, the Adrninistrative Support Unit or ASU. The unit is responsible for the investigating, monitoring and compliance of NOPD field and operation policies. It was staffed with senior ranking employees which included a Police Major and Police Captain positions. These positions were placed under the direction of a Police Captain, who the Superintendent assigned a Commander designation with a special rate of pay. II: Job Study Appeal Methodology Step 1: Requested preliminary job information. Based on the employee petition for a job study appeal, staff sent out a Job Study Information Questionnaire for employees to complete for us to understand the actual job responsibilities including how work is assigned, reporting relationships and overall job requirements. A supplemental questionnaire was also submitted to address concerns relative to the unique working conditions of the positions assigned. The Superintendent and his staff reviewed both documents and provided input. Step 2: Reviewed completed job study questionnaire We compared duties as explained on the questionnaire with the ciass specification for the employee's official classification. in this step, we made note of task statements and other information on the questionnaire that was unclear, ambiguous and needed to be refined during the field study. This included areas where it appeared that there were discrepancies between the 2 job specification and thejob questionnaire. Step 3: Conducted employee interviews and toured works site. We first arranged interviews with the appellants to get an overall picture of the processes, procedures and working conditions now required of the jobs in order to understand why they believed they were incorrectly assigned. Subsequently, staff met with two of the Superintendent's deputies as well as NOPD's liaison to the Department of Justice's Consent Decree to gain management's perspective in this matter. Note that the Superintendent was unable to attend this meeting although we did receive his written feedback relative to the information contained in the questionnaire as formerly stated. Note when answers to the following questions were requested, the law department responded that the questions related to active and open litigation currently pending before the Commission and that it would be premature for him to respond to these matters until that litigation is concluded. I . How do you distinguish between the classifications of Police Major, Police Captain and Police. Lieutenant? Are there variances between criteria for positions within Police Aa'mim'stration positions and positions within Police Districts? 2. How many Police Captain and Police Major vacancies do you believe you now have? Please include non--bndgeiea' Police Majors and Police Captains as well. 3. Did you model the cez-iiralizecl ICOXASU unit on any other Police Department? If so which ones? Step 4: Consolidated and weighed all job information. The consolidation phase of the job study involves piecing together all available data obtained from several sources: supervisors, jobholders, on-site tours, staffing reports, historical documents, job descriptions and other written materials about thejob including comparing duties with similar positions. Relevant Finding_: Our overall conclusion is that the assigned duties and responsibilities of appellants are not in keeping with the essential function of their classification and we agree that they are working out oftheirjoh classification based on the findings that follow: Finding 1: Job duties listed in the appeliant's questionnaires are not consistent with the official Civil Service classification specification. The two checklists summarize the comparison between actual assigned responsibilities as indicated in thejob study questionnaire and the job specification. Does Appelia nt Perform Directs office and field activities of a major Poiice division. N0 Personally participates in major investigations or speciai assignments. N0 Instructs and advises subordinates on procedures, policy, and regulations. No Directs ail activities of the district stations. No Prepares plans for regular and emergency police operations. N0 Directs office and field activities of traflic police officers. N0 Maintains discipline, coordinates activities, and enforces departmental regulations within hisfher unit. No Supervises the assembly of data and the writing and of reports. N0 Supervises communications, and the maintenance of budgets and accounting records. No Assessment based upon information included in the job questionnaires. Captain Job Specification: Does Appellants Perform Task* As commanding officer of a police district, employee is responsible for the planning and laying out of work for a large group of police and other workers under hisfher supervision}, for maintaining continual contact with officers in the various units. or patrols under his/her supervision, for making work assignments to them, for checking the quality of their performance through consultation, reviews of reports, and personal inspection. N0 Maintains a tracking system for reports to ensure that they are completed by the date requested. No Submits COMSTAT and activity reports to the Bureau Chief to demonstrate unit's daily, weekly, and performance No Controls expenditures to ensure that money encumbered for the Captain's unit is used properly. No Counsels subordinate commanders about performance problems observed personally or brought to attention by other rank No Trains subordinate commanders in the handling of general management problems. No Monitors subordinates' professional behavior to assess possible personal problems. No Takes corrective action to address subordinates' performance problems. No Reviews and answers written and oral complaints. Yes Serves as a hearing officer in disciplinary hearings by reviewing evidence, analyzing the situation, and rnaking recommendations to the Superintendent. No Reviews disciplinary investigations for thoroughness and accuracy. No Assigns personnel to needed areas for special events. No Determines crime trends/patterns by reviewing COMSTAT materials and crime statistics, and discussing these trends with subordinates. N0 Determines needed resources based on crime reports and/or statistics. No Allocates, coordinates, and directs manpower, vehicles, equipment and supplies to meet the needs of the districtlunit. N0 Monitors performance of subordinates by intermittently listening to the radio, observing behavior, reviewing reports, and studying other statistics to ensure efficient and effective productivity. NO Ensures the unit is operating efficiently and effectively through scheduled and unscheduled meetings with subordinate observing and monitoring activities of the unit, asking specific questions, and reviewing reports. No Enforces departmental rules and regulations. Not Directly Meets with civic, neighborhood, advocacy, and business groups in order to address concerns about community problems. yes Coordinates NOPD resources and activities when requested by outside agencies. N0 Confers with upper rank informally and through meetings and committees regarding police problems, special events, policies, and crime patterns. Yes Conducts investigations and follows-up on assignments to ensure they have been completed properly. es Assessment based upon information included in the job questionnaires. Finding 2: The responsibilities assigned to the Police Captains and the Police Major in this study were assigned to Police Lieutenants prior to the creation of this new unit. Please see the list below: Name: Assigned to: Lt. Frank Bivens Captain. Ricky Laviolette 1st District Lt. Ronald Lapolte Captain Bruce Adams District Lt. Louis Gaydosh Captain Norvel Orazio District Lt Bradley Toffelson Captain Bruce Little District Tt Kimberly Lewis--Williams Captain Tami Brissett District Lt. Joseph Lorenzo Captain Rose Duryea 6th District Lt. Grafton Saivant Captain William Ceravolo District Lt. Derick Fricke Captain Simon Hargrove District Lt. Troy Savage Captain Michael Glasser Special Operations Finding 3: The reorganization has blurred the lines of the distinguishing characteristics of the assigned duties, reporting relationships and the supervision exercised by the Police Major, Police Captain and Police Lieutenant classifications. For example, first, a Police Major in the Administrative Support Unit is performing the exact same work as the other Captains in the unit. The Police Major reports to a Police Captain who receives "Commander" Special Assignment Pay. This special assignment, which is not an officiai Civil Service job classification, actually impacts the officers' uniform insignia, span of control and individuais in this special assignment represent themselves of a higher rank with a different "working" title. Finding 4: The Captains and Majors in ASU perform a similar investigatory role as the Sergeants and Lientenants assigned to the Public Integrity Bureau. Questionnaire input from Police management responded that in addition to investigatory duties, employees are assigned 22 other responsibilities beside internai investigations (see attached Field Operation Policy #821- Administrative Support Unit and checklist that follows). However, appellants' questionnaire and input confirmed that internal investigation constituted the overwhelming majority of their work. 1. Primary investigator on all internal investigations 2. Conduct profile of officers being transferred 3. Attend Community meetings with District Commanders . Audit cognizance cards in Districts are Maintained . Audit overtime usage . inspect at least 5 paid detail sites per week . Critiques all vehicle pursuits 4 5 6 7. Audit vehicles are in the appropriate area 8 9 . Critiques all use of force reports 10. Review platoon staffing 11. Review stop and frisks assigned by the Commander 12. Review narcotic arrests made by FOB units 13. Review summons, tickets and affadavits 14. Inspect bi--yearly Files of FOB commands and notes deficiencies 15. Conducts at least 9 ICO satifaction surveys 16. Conducts 1 periodic on-scene observation Ensure all ernpioyee evaluations are completed 18. Complete weekly COMSTAT report 19. Monitor officers are acknowledging court suboenas and report deficiencies 20. Confirm Lieuenants are conducting three satisfaction surveys on crimes 21. Ensure LA victim notification forms are properly collected 22. Review one car camera video daily. 23. Insure car cameras are being randomiy reviewed by lieutenants. Our findings confirm and substantiate the recent Commission decision below: "The complainants provided exhaustive, unrefuted testimony supported by reliable evidence that they spend a vast majority of their time conducting internal investigations. in fact, the Complainants provided ample evidence that they actually conduct more internal investigations than those individuals assigned to By concentrating all internal investigations that were once spread throughout the districts and bureaus into the hands of a few individuals, (NOPD) has created a job assignment that is indistinguishable from those functions performed by During supervisory interviews, the Deputy Superintendents communicated to us that the assignments given to the employees assigned to the ASU unit could be expected to be performed by all ranking personnel and that the ASU unit is in keeping with the needs of the organization. Finding 5: All other Police Captain and Police Major positions are expected to supervise one or more Lieutenants and are responsible for the overall management of a bureau or district. ASU's Police Captains and Police Major do not have such supervisory responsibilities. Name: Rank: I Command Assignment: Robert Bardy Police Captain/Commander District Commander Tami Brisett Police Captain/Commander Public Integrity Bureau Henry Dean Police Captain/Commander Investigations Ernest Demma Police Captain Training Academy Hargrove Police Captain Communications Unit Edwin Hosli Police Captain/Commander MSB Records and 1D Bernardine Kelly Police CaptainlCoinmander Commander-- ~Rannie Mushatt Police Captain/Commander Criminal Investigations Robert Norton Police 1st District Commander Michael Pfeiffer Police Captain Crime Lab James Scott Police Captain Special Operations Division James Treadaway Police Major/Commander Chief of Staff john Thomas Police Captain/Commander 3rd District Commander Brian Weiss Police District Commander "Note that that there are a total of 16 positions which include 6 Police Lieutenants, 9 Captains and 1 Major positions who are receive the special "Commander Assignment" pay. Finding 6: A Police Commander designation has not been approved for the supervisor of the Administrative Services Unit nor has a request been made to change the approved assignments that are presently in the current pay pian which foilows below: (8) --District Commanders (1) -Commander, Chief of Staff (1) Commander, Special Operations Division (1) --Commander, Criminal Investigations Division (1) --Commander, Crime Lab and Evidence Division (1) Commander, Specialized Investigations Division (1) -Commander, Academy and Recruit Division (1) -Commander, Records and identification and Support Services (1) --Commander, Public integrity There is no special assignment pay for Commander, ASU. Finding 7: The classification of Police Captain is exempt under the Civil Service Pay Plan. Based upon staffs application of the administrative duties test we do not agree that these employees should be exempt from overtime pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act for it appears that the assigned responsibilities to the employees of the ASU may not be consistent in meeting the requirements for an adzninistrative exemption and this is illustrated in applying the following test: Checklist: Is the employee paid not less than $455 a week Yes _ls the employee paid on a salary basis Yes Is the employee's "primary duty" work directly related to the No management or general business operations of the employer (Factors under consideration) Employees who perform police work e.g. crime prevention, investigations, apprehending suspects, interviewing witnesses, etc) on a regular basis are less likely to be considered exempt. The job study information indicated that employees perform direct investigatory responsibilities more than 50% of the time. The more direct police work involved the less likeiy the employee will be considered exempt. These employees do not have the discretion to determine when or where their assistance is needed. Their job responsibilities are very defined and they do not have the discretion to determine their own involvement, hence they are more Iikeiy to be considered non--exernpt. Res the employee have a primary duty that includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of No significance (Factors of Consideration) Appeilants do not evaluate performance of employees under their supervision no subordinates) Appeliants do not enforce and impose penalities for violations of rules/regulations only make recommendations) Appellants do not make recommendations as to hiring, promotion, discipiine or termination no subordinates) Appellants do not coordinate and impiement training programs. Appeliants do not Maintain payroll and personnei records Whereas appeilants may investigate community complaints, all investigations are referred to internal affairs or others for further investigation and action Appeliants do not ensure operational readiness through supervision and inspection of personnel, equipment and quarters. Appeliants do not decide how and where to aliocate personnel Appeilants do not manage the distribution of equipment Appeliants do not maintain inventory of supplies and property Appellants do not direct operations at a crime scene including deciding whether additional personnel are needed Appellants must meet the four criteria above to be bona fide administrative employees under the Department of Labor's exemption regulations. Although appellant employees meet the first two criteria of the exemption status test, the failure of assigned responsibilities to meet the and requirement of the test may lend itself to a possible overtime claim. 10 IV: Staff Recommendation Based upon the findings listed above, the staff does not believe that the employees are performing work consistent with their current Civil Service job classifications of Police Captain and Police Major. The work performed is more consistent with the rank of Police Lieutenant; therefore, we are recommending that the Commission order the following: 1. The employees should be assigned work consistent with the rank of Police Captain in accordance with the official Civil Service job specification and consistent with the assignments given to other employees with that rank. In lieu of this recommendation, the Police Superintendent could consider the following: 2. Another alternative would be for the Police Superintendent to demote the employees to Police Lieutenant, if the Superintendent believes that the employees are either unwilling or unable to perform the duties of a Police Captain or Police Major. However, each appellant has permanent status and could appeal the demotion to the Civil Service Commission. In addition, the staff is recommending the following: 3. The Pay Plan provides for 16 Commander assignments. he staff is requesting that the special rate of pay is removed from the assigned Commander position designated to the Administrative Support Unit if and until the pay plan can be amended. This would require approval from the Commission and the City Council. 11 IV. Discriininatcry Policing 31 -- A. Legal Standards 32 - 1. Fourteenth Amendment ..- 32 2. Safe Streets Act ..- 33 - 3. Title VI 33 - B. Findings 34 - 1. Discriminatory Policing on the Basis of Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT Status ..- 34 -- 2. National Origin Discrimination: Failure to Provide Police Services to Persons with Limited English Proficiency 40 - 3. Gender-Biased Policing: Failure to Investigate Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence 43 - i V. Recruitment ..- 51 -- VI. Training ..- 54 -- A. Deficiencies in Developing and Delivering Training ..- S4 - 1. Inadequate Development of Priorities and Goals ..- 54 - 2. Weaknesses in Curricula, Lesson Plans and Presentation ..- S5 - B. Deficiencies in Staffing, Facilities, and Recordkeeping ..- 56 - 1. Failure to Develop Criteria for Instructor Selection and Review ..- S6 - 2. Inadequate Training Facilities ..- 57 - 3. Lack of Effective Record Management ..- 57 -- Inadequate Recruit, Field, and In-Service Training 58 - 1. Problems in Recruit (Academy) Training 58 - 2. Deficiencies in Field Training Program 58 - 3. Failure to Provide In-Service Training ..- 59 - VII. Field Supervision 60 - A. Deficient Field Supervision Policies ..- 61 B. Deficient Field Supervision in Practice ..- 63 - 1. Failures Supervision 63' -- 2. Reliance on Integrity Control Officers .. 64 - 3. Ineffective Alternative Mechanisms for Supervision ..- 64 -- C. Implementing Effective and Accountable Field Supervision ..- 65 1. Appropriate Span of Control and Staffing Allocation ..- 66 - 2. Unity of Command ..- 66 -- 3. Systems to Support Field Supervision ..- 67 -- Paid Details ..- 69 -- itst 2. Reliance on Integrity Control Officers in many respects, NOPD relies on ICOs to conduct direct supervision duties. ICOs, for instance, are charged with conducting periodic on?scene observations to "monitor the quality of NOPD services;" checking summons issued by District personnel daily for errors; and talking with citizens about their experiences with NOPD officers. Officers' direct supervisors should be conducting such tasks in the first instance, and NOPD should not have to rely on ICOs for such duties. A similar example is NOPD's initiation of an "audit procedure" in which "field supervisors will randomly visit the scenes of calls to NOPD where the original officer recorded the disposition as Necessary Action Taken, Unfounded, or Gone on Arrival." Such supervisory response to calls, especially calls that are more complicated or prone to problems, should be a routine part of field supervision rather than part of a special "audit." While ICOs and similar oversight mechanisms serve important functions, we found that NOPD's overreliance on these entities to perform functions that should be part of direct supervision leads to a number of problems. First, the surrogate supervision provided by these other mechanisms is too often ad hoc or random, and insufficient in scope or amount. We found that ICOs are the widely acknowledged but unofficial Assistant Commander for each District, as well as the Administrative Lieutenant for the District Commander, creating duties that are sufficient for at least one full time job. Consequently, ICOs spend relatively little time on direct, integrity~related activities that are, by policy, the core function of their assignment. We found that some ICOs rarely leave the station and do not, as requiredby policy, check off-duty detail locations or attend community meetings. Nor do ICOs conduct the document-based integrity checks as required by policy. Ops. Bureau Policy #8 requires that ICOs review at least two in- car camera videos each day and make two random citizen 'call--backs each day, completing a Daily Citizen Call Form for each. Our review of ICO COMSTAT weekly and year-to-date statistics made clear that ICOs, while reporting hundreds of call--backs and in-car camera video reviews over the year, are not keeping up with this requirement. ICO weekly reports routinely indicated between 2-5 citizen call-backs or in-camera videos reviewed per week, and sometimes these duties did not occur at all during the week. Although required by policy, we found that some Districts did not report their integrity related duties for COMSTAT, and we saw no evidence that integrity related work is ever discussed or evenreferenced during Department-wide COMSTAT meetings. It is clear that ICOs are not able to complete even the integrity related duties as required by policy. Not surprisingly, we found they are not effectively performing the additional direct supervision duties they have been assigned.-' 3. ineffective Alternative Mechanisms for Supervision Other units assigned direct supervision-type duties are similarly unable to provide sufficient or consistent oversight. For instance, "A-case officers" are assigned to each District and are meant to act as a liaison between the District and the DA's office to ensure that arrest reports articulate probable cause and thus form a strong basis for prosecution. We found that this assignment had become largely moribund, although the DA's office reports recent attempts to revive the role of A-case officers. This is a good step but, even if performing as contemplated, -54- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2013 The regular meeting of the City Civil Service Commission was held on Monjgl'ay, February at 1340 Poydras Street, ?Su'it.e. 900.. Present. were SJ ., lComrr'fissiene17s Joseph L. and Absent was Vice-Ghainnan Dana Douglas. 1?hc' Cha'iFfn1;an =the.m.eetiI1g at 1-0308 =a.1n. The Cor1j1rni'ssit'>t1 -W the 'socket portion of the '1neeti'ng~at 151,: 05. am. and began tl:i_ei1' recess. The L,_nsi_nes,s Me convened a at a.In. -'I3fh'e firs: item was the Dc_"eembey 17, 210.12. meetings. minutes: were. ea sand 'seic'ond'e.d by' Commiissionet' Eilarle on the agenda wag,_a request from the Police Association of New Orleans to address issues i1eg'ardingIntegi'ity Control Officers within the Police Department, Mr. E_fie'Hej_ss1er, 'r_ep1'esenting the Police A-ssociation of New 'Or.lc'ans (BANG), the Comrni-ssion that he addressed them in October' on behalf cf six Integpity G003) and they conduct an 'investifgg'ati_ei1 eoneernin a. xiielatiion o'f'the Charter. He lire-i to t'a'_1teiractien'atfthat i'iie'et'ita'g7_ and that he again addressed them at the No'\t'eitibe1' 2012 meeting requesting that they reconsider the denial. At that meeting, the Commission agreed to take the matter under conside1'ation. 'Hcs'sler statedthat he-had not received an answer from "the Commission and asked if a' decision had been rend_cr_cd. Director Hudson then addressed the Commission stating that she had received a request from attorney Brett asking-'that she, in accordance with Civil Service rules, conduct an investigation of the individuals working out of their -j ob classifications. -She explained that as a result of this request', she sent out to the reporting as ICOs and that She-is awaiting their responses'. Chai'I'Inan Wi-ldcs asked Director Hudscn to consolidate the two requests and subinit her findings and recommendations to the Commission. . Ex.' . Item #3 on the agenda was a request from the Fraternal Order of Police to address the Commission regarding provisional appointments at the Police Department in conjunction with promotional registers and future promotional testing. Mr. Donovan Livaccari, representing the Fraternal 'Order of Police (FOP), the Commission that there has not been any funding for promotional examinations within the New Orleans Police Depattmerit (NOPD) since 2009. He stated that currently there is no promotfio_na1_ register flog -Policie Sergeant or Captain, He fixrtherf Stated that there is; a list: Lienicnaiit and that there are vacancies for this position, howev.er,. promotions are not he.ing made from the tier. Mr. Livaeteafi urged the sion to: enaouraoge the Qounci_1 to fiJ.n;d% testing for the New Or1;eans' 'Police De ;artm'ent and to also encourage the P.oI'ice_ Deparhnen-t to make promotions from the list that is currently availiable. Mr. ljtaymond re re's'e'ntin"g also asked. the @tommissi'on -to-'work with the to: -funding for examinations to ensure Fthetdcapa' in eat has'-the best for -the 'citizens of-this city. Mr; Eric Hassles, fefiresefitififg the A-ssoc'ia't'i'on (PANO), expressed his agreement with the concerns of the Police (F OP), Iteifi #14" on the a'g'errda was Glas'sifte"atio'n and Item #4 was a -1'eiqfi'eS_t- :from New 0r1'eans Tra'=ffii'c an Corn_ptro'_l'ler- position. Judge Robert Jones, Traffic Court Judge, a'ddf'esse'tl the Gorninisslioi-1 by first giving background informat-'ion ion Treiffio-Court. explahaed thatthere is a vacancy in Traffic Court' for its Chi'ef'Financial Officer =pos'i"ti'on, which was originally created in liv?bruary 201'? and later vacated in- 20:12. Judge Jones stated "that the posltioii was filled? in -the unc'l_'assifi_'ed service and made reference to all judicial appoin'tmen't's being in the unclassified Co1_1_u,n_issione1* Glovinsky asked for the characterizing. the p*csiti;ongas Ia jufdieial a1a.p"ointInent, Judge ones s.tated; that all judicial 'are 'it is questioned whe,th_er. or not this PQ.Sitii'on would be a judicial app'ointment.. He i_nifonn_eC1'; the Conuxiission that there is an ordinance that has been introduced to the? Council by Guidry that is beingdebated on the structure of Traffic _Court- andthe' fact th'a't this position falls under the direction of the Judicial Admini'strato'r-, which is 'an uncles-sified position. Mr. Hagmann exp'laine_d that staff is in a'gre'ejII1e'n't with a position being created, however, based on the' duties and of .tli'e.positi'on, as well as the November 201 1 Inspector Gene'ral's performance. reidew of Traffic Court, staff recommends the use of the current classified position of Finance Operations Manager. Mr. Hagmann explained that Traffic Court would be allowed to hire above the minimum salary for a new employee, based on the candidate having superior qualifications. After some discussion of Councilrnernber Guidryordinance, Commissioner Glovinsky moved to accept staff' recommendation to approve the classified position of Finance Operations Manager. Th_e motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and was approved unanimously. Item #4 was a request. from Office of ITI for a salary 'increase for 311 positions. Director explaiited to the .C_ommission that this has been a recuriring item on the agendezand that it has been deferred each time. She asked for Commis'si'o'n approval to*remo}ge this item from the agenda until something con'c1'et'e- is subm'iltte'da'thy IITL. Th'e=Go1nmissi'on approved Director Hudson's request to remove this item from the agenda. Item #4 (.6) was a status report on a survey related to Rule on emergency ovetjtiine pay. I Mia Robert Administrator, addressed the Comniissiidn them that staff proposed an amendment' to this rule a'i'the- December meeting-and "that-staff was asked to review how other jurisdi-dtlons h_an_d,le emergency oyeiltime. He explained that staff sent out surve.-ye teitstate and local tpastidihants en:1e1=gency sweatheryi events as .Ne}.w Saree of ace; of East Baton Retiges, leffersetl. Lafeurche, *71??1at1ue1nit1;eos; and as well as I;1etional ch as, ililibufitfln-, and Tampa. He expIaiih'e.d that the pr_eli'minary findings indicate that the; pay practices are div_ers'e. Mr. Hagrhahn stated that staff hopes to present a of emergency pay rule changes as well as a summary oftihe surveys results at the March Commission meeti-ng. that have an update on the' change based upon to be best Chairman Wfldes asked if staff could submit the finding-s and re'eo_mme_n'dations_ to the Commission in advance. Item 4 was the proposed ainen*dment'*toe Rule "Section 10 related to the Family .Me'dica1 .-Act Hafgmann explained that staff introduced an amendment to this mole "at'tl"1'e Com'missi"o'n meeting. He explained that the amendment isein keeping with changes to -federal law and asked for Commission approval>>; on motion of Commissioner Glovinsky and seconded by Commissioner Neveu, the rule amendment was approved unanimously. Item #4 was the proposed amendment to Rule related to Veteranfis Preference. Mr. Hagmann explained that this rule amendment was introduced at the December Commission meeting and that it is in keeping with Article X, Section 10 of the Louisiana State Constitution. Staff asked for Commission approval of this rule amendment. The rule amendment was approved unanimously on motion of Commissioner Neveu and seconded by Commissioner GlovinskyItem #5 on the agenda was Recruitment matters. Item was approval of the Extension of Provisional Appointments in accordance with Rule VI, Section Director Hudson explained that provisional appointments are granted when Civil Service is unable to administer an exa1n'ination and that these appl0lfntInent's.a1ffr good for one year unless they are extended by the Coimmission. She linformeid the Commission that there are currently 55 employees s'erv7injg in _pro"visi'onal appointments where. reg'ular ex'am~inations are not 111 employees in provisional appo'in'tment's Where" regu'l'a1' exarniilations She explainedi that the Commission-"approves =th.e of provi,siion_a1 appointments annually and asked that tliese extensions On motion of Comrnissioner and sec"onde'd by C1orgn;fijs;sier1eyCs1sarle, of a provisional appointments was approved unaidiinouslyr. Elton). it-:5 wastes; to V, Sedation 25' related to posting job Commission dratetlrei mile regltfires to post anno'uneem'e'n'ts boaftl in 'tit' near the oftiee. She ihfonned them that since the department relocated, Ethere 31:6 not enoughs bulletin boarded to post all of the announcements. Hudson amend the rule to allow the depastment to use .o.th'erimeans' of p*osging that are ac;ces__sjb;1e to the publio, suoh ;as-on website. On motion of Cemmissi'one1+ and s'eepndea by C'omrn'iS's'i_pner Neveu, 'the amendment to Rule V, Sieetion was approved (G) was Examination Announcements -#8800 through #.-8805. On motion of TCom1n'i's'sioner 'Netfeu_, seconded b_y Commissioner Clark, the announcements were approved unanimously. Item on the agenda was the Public Integrity Bureau 60-day extension '1The'He_aring_ Officeris recomrnendations on these requests were approved unanimously on motion of Commissioner Glovinsky' and seconded by Commissioner Item #7 on the agenda was an arnenclment to the Civil Service Commission Procedures related to the location of Commission meetings. Director Hudson explained that, due to the department's relocation, this amendment is to update the location of the Commission meetings in its procedures. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the amendment to the procedures on motion of Commissioner Glovinsky and seconded by Commissioner Clark. Item #8 on the agenda was Communications. Item #8 was an update on ADP Payroll/Human Resources conversion and Director Hudson informed the Commission that staff has c'o'nti'nued' to work on this: project with the administration two to three times a Week and th'at'tl'1"e comIe1'sion is expected to be completed in August. Item #8 was an update from staff on the i IG time .p.oliey. Direeter Hudson reported that Civil Service had? re_e'ei1ze_d Boxes ofififennafion fiom the Inspector General's office re_g__arding their compensatory Sjh_e inforined the >>Cqmmissiont that sstaff is. continuing to sort through the infonnation and hopes to have a report atthe 3116 also informed the Commission that a copy of the. report would be them in advanced. Item #78 (0) was a report from staff on the relocation of?thei Civil Sfiefiviee Department. Director Hudson reported that the rie1ecatio11=-Lofithe? Department has presented a lot of challenges. She the Recruitment Division is working without nfefw.e1'k but that the City is work?in on hiring an 'outlets. Director Hudson noted that there were no .1"e ;eeifl_sid_'er. On motion of Commissioner Glotrinsky, seconded by Commi'ssi0ne_1'~ Claik, the Commission voted unanimously to "adjourn the meeting; at 1=Zze3'6 -psm. . . . iK;evi'n Wildessifi I .4: 1 . . .. I 4- Elizabeth S. Robins From: Elizabeth S. Robins Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 9:45 AM To: Lisa M. Hudson; Doddie K. Smith Cc: Germaine Bartholomew; Erica E.Burl>-12-2 of the Code of the City of New Orleans relative to the payment of police officers, through the Office of Police Secondary Employment, for secondary opportunities or private detail work, to establish fee schedules and officer pay schedules for time-based iobs and otherwise to provide with respect thereto SECTION 1. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HEREBY ORDAINS that Sections 90421 and 90422 of the Code of the 'City of -New Orleans be and the same are hereby amended and rcordained to read as follows: "Section 90-12}. Payment of police officers for secondary employment or private details. Definitions. The following terms, when used in this article, shall have the meanings assigned in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherivise. (1) Secondary employment means security or police-related work performed for compensation by an NOPD officer or employee during his or her off-duty hours. Formerly known as "paid details," or simply "details." (2) means those secondary employment opportunities that require a person, place, or thing to be secured for a known or estimated duration or period of time. This includes but is not necessarily limited to facility or area security jobs, such as retail, neighborhood patrol, race route security, and special events. Fee and officer pay sohcduie for time-based jobs: (3) (4) Major Special Events shall include any event held at the Ernest N. Moria} Convention Center, Fair Grounds Race Course, Mahaiia Jackson Theater, New Orleans Arena, Saenger Theater, Superdome, and UNO Lakefront Arena with an expected attendance of at least 2,000 persons. This shall not limit the authority of the City Council or any other authorized entity to declare special events for the purpose secondary employment; Holiday Premium means a flat rate paid in addition to an offioer's hourly rate ofpay for time--based secondary work and to be effective on Specified Holidays and Days of Officer High Demand. Officers will earn the hourly Holiday Premium for all hours of every continuous shift that begins on a Specified Holiday, even if the ghifi barrios over past midnight. Shifis that begin before midnight the day before a Specified Holiday and carry over past midnight into the holiday will not be eligible for the Holiday Premium. This prem'iun1_ applies to all officers regardless of rank, and does not incur any administrative fee -for the A. customer. Speagfied Holidays are: i. New Year's Day ii. Martin Luther King's Birthday in Mardi Gras iv. Good Friday Memorial Day vi. Independence Day vii. Labor Day Veterans Day ix. Thanksgiving Day X. Cliristmas Day Days of0_[fleer High _Derm:znda1'e: i. Lundi Gras ii. Friday ttfter'Thenksgiv,ing Christmas Eve ii? -..-itfap iv. New Yearper hour _*Admln Fee' pays per. 5' L: . 4 '3 hour non- at 53 411. vis role additional amount of per officer per hour, regardless of the rank of the 62 officer, shall be added to the eustomer's hourly price and passed on fully to the 63 oifflcer working that shift on Specified Holidays as well as on Days of Oflicer 64 High Demand. The Holiday Premium will only be paid for shifts beginning on 65 a Specified Holiday not an alternate or observed holiday -- or Day of Officer 56 High Demand. 67 (2) The Office of Police Secondary Employment may charge the customer an 68 administrative fee not to exceed 145% of the hourly rate or whichever is 59 less. No other fee may be charged to the officer for secondary employment. 70 (3) Any fees collected in excess ofthe amount actually required for operation of 71 the Office of Police Secondary Employment shalt be proportionally refitnded 72 to the officers annually. If a surplus is collected, the Office of Police 73 Secondary Employment shall reduce the administrative fee to the percentage 74 that would have provided sufficient funding, rounded up the nearest whole 75 percentage. 76 (4) The administrative fee may be waived by ordinance of the City Council. 77 (5) Exceptions to the pay schedule may be approved by ordinance of the City 78 Council. 79 (6) Secondary employment assignments that are required in order to so an order or requirement put in place by the City of New Orleans shall not be G:lDo cswAoMnonoiNANcEsioao subject to the standard pay schedule. (7) Assignments requiring specialized certificates beyond that required of all police officers shall not be subject to the pay schedule. Rates shall be determined based on the level ofcertifioation. (8) For any pre--existing, single-officer details that are paid at a rate lower than the schedule rate, officers may elect to continue working the assignment at the lower rate. Section 90-122. - Use of funds collected. All fees charged for services pursuant to Section 90-121 hereinebove shall be payable to the City of New Orleans and shall be collected by the Department of Finance and deposited, pursuant to City Code Seotlon '70-41-5,-245, into the Police Secondary Employment Fund and used to fund operations of the Office of Police Secondary Bmployrnent." ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS QUGUST 8, 2Q13 Ll lB;l0LAel 80.; mom came comm DELIVERED TO THE MAYOR ON we 72 1e. APPROVED: MITCHELL J, LANDRIEI1 MAYOR RETURNED BY THE MAYOR ON AUGUST L3, 2013 AT 3:15 P.M. RA V. JOHNSON INTERIM CLERK OF COUNCIL ROLL CALL vom YEAS: Cantrell, Clarkson, Gislescn Palmer, Gray, Guidry, Head, 7 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 0 FOREGOING .- -- . . ts. 1 ii ORDINANCE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS CITY HALL: March 7, 2013 CALENDAR NO: 29,471 A Q3 MAY on cooncn. some in "rm. BY: ooUm'2ILwmM;eEn SON (BY AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Article 111 of Chaotcr 70 of the Code of the City of New Orleans to add a new Division, designated as Division 31, to be codified ln Sections 70-415.244 through 70-415.246 thereof, to create a, new fund to be designated as the Potioe Secondary Employment Fund for the support of the operations of the Office ot'Poiice Secondary Empioyment; and otherwise to provide with respect thereto. SECTION 1. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HEREBY ORIJAINS that Article of Chapter 70 of the Code of the City of New Orleans he and it is hereby amended and reordeined to add a new Division thereto, designated as Division 31, codified in Sections 70-415.244 throogh 70-415.246 thereof, creating a new fund, designated as the Police Secondary Employment Fund for the support of the operations of the Office of Police Secondary. Employment, to read as follows: i it it "C}ia}5tez' 70. Finance 11' Ii! Funds. -a Divisicn 31. Police Secondary Employment Fund Section 70-415.244. Fund created. A special fund is established in the Department under the provisions of Section 6-207 of the Home Rule Charter, to be known as the "Poilce Secondary Employment Fund". Section 70-415.245. Funding and Purpose. 22 the operation of the Office of Poilce All revenues collected by the Department of Finance fro Secondary Employment shalt be deposited into the Police Secondary Employment Fund. Expenditures from the fiind sh all be used to fund operations ofthe Office of Police Secondary Employment. Secfiflfl Repoffs. The Director of the Department of Finance shall keep detailed a the fund and shall make reports to the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Council, giving a ties and expenditures of the fund annually as part of the annual city audit." I ceurate books in the administration of complete of reven 331-'. OF THE CITY OF NEW . - warn e. euaxsew PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AUG '[19 2013 DELIVERED THEEMAYOR .. MAYOR RETURNED BYTHEMAYOZR on .. AUG 1.3 2013 H, |fifi|'fij" fl :4 ROELCALLVOTE Cantrell, Clarkson, Gisleson Palmer, Gray, Guidry, Head, YEAS: Hedge-Morrell - 7 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 0 THE FOHEGOINQ jg DEPARTMENT OF POLICE INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE T0: Field Operations Bureau Personnel DATE: September 20, 2012 Darryl J. Albert, Deputy Superintendent FROM: Field Operations Bureau Field Operations Bureau Policy Administrative Support Unit (ASU) SUBJECT: Effective September 23, 2012; Reseinds Replaces: District ICO Duties 8: Responsibilities Field Operations Bureau Policy #8 (Last Revised: April 12, 2011) Purpose To ensure a reliable system of monitoring compliance with departmental and Field Operations Bureau policies there shall be created a Field Operations Bureau -- Administrative Support Unit (FOB--ASU). FOB-ASU will be a staff unit under the direct supervision of the Deputy Superintendent in command of the Field Operations Bureau. Effective immediately, District and Special Operations Division Integrity Control Officers shall be assigned to FOB-ASU under the leadership and direction of the Police Commander assigned to the Field Operations Bureau staff. The Police Commander shall be the principle manager of the unit. Personnel assigned to the FOB--ASU are considered senior level administrative staff personnel. Personnel assigned to FOB-ASU shall be responsible for monitoring and implernenting all Field Operations Bureau directives, policies and Departmental rules, policies and procedures, as well as, other related duties assigned by the Deputy Superintendent of Field Operations or his/her. designee. In accordance with the "Letter of Expectations dated August 1, 2010", FOB-ASU personnel shall have as their regular work week a customary five day work week of Monday through Friday, with each regular work day consisting of any eight consecutive hours between SAM a11d 6PM. Any requested changes to regular work hours must be submitted for prior approval to the Deputy Superintendent of FOB or his/her designee. Holiday time will comply with existing Departmental Policy or Procedure and Operation Orders. All hours worked, including those during the regular work week as well as those outside the regular week shall be documented in the TRIP payroll system as per existing Policy or Procedures. Any requested and approved change in work status, including both Annual and Sick leave, or any other authorized leave status, shall be documented in the TRIP system. Any request to use time off during the regular work week, or the regular work day, in return for equal hours worked beyond the normal work day or normal work week shall be submitted via email or Form 105 and have prior approval from the Deputy Superintendent of Field Operations or his/her designee. Any and all hours must be documented in the TRIP system, including an explanation in the remarks section. District personnel will continue to report to his/her individual District/SOD Police Commander and through the FOB--ASU. The Police Commander assigned to the FOB-ASU will have authority to create internal policies and procedures to ensure that the duties and responsibilities assigned to the FOB--ASU are completed in an accurate and timely manner. Although not exhaustive, the following is a list of duties that will be typically assigned to personnel assigned to the FOB--ASU. Requirements/Resp onsibilities FOB-ASU personnel are responsible for ensuring accountability and integrity standards are maintained in protocols, policies, rules, and procedures that govern NOPD operations. The following requirements/responsibilities are intended to help evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of performance factors in compliance with agency objectives and procedures: The FOB-ASU shall be responsible for perfornrinrr, following duties and functions: 1. personnel shall be the primary investigator on all internal investigation (including NIMS) cases assigned to the FOB by the Public Integrity Bureau and be responsible for completing and submitting cases as outlined in departmental policies and procedures. The FOB--ASU shall not delegate this responsibility. Any investigation of this type shall be forwarded by the FOB--ASU for approval through the F.O.B. Police Commander, as directed, for processing in accordance with existing NOPD policy. Persomiel assigned to the FOB- ASU remain responsible for compliance to all existing NOPD Rules, Policies and Procedures regarding the conducting and documenting of PIB cases. 2. Conduct confidential disciplinary and eniployrnent history profile of officers assigned to or being transferred to' District/Division and reporting this information to District or SOD as appropriate. The information gathered from any analysis shall only be exchanged between FOB--ASU and the Police of the units involved with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. 3. Attend community meetings with District at the direction of the FOB Police Commander or his/her designee, to establish a relationship with community leaders and citizens and respond to issues or complaints as discovered. The OB--ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recomniendation to remedy as appropriate with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB--ASU will conduct periodic reviews of District and SOD units to ensure that cognizance cards are properly maintained by platoon/unit supervisors and regulations are issued in a timely manner. The FOB--ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB--ASU will monitor all categories of overtime for compliance with departmental regulations including payroll entries of FOB assigned Districts, Divisions or Units, etc. The OB--ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU assigned personnel shall monitor and personally inspect at least five (5) paid detail sites, per week, as directed by the Police Commander of the while officers are working at detail sites. Check for compliance with departmental regulations such as uniform violations, etc. Enter the inspected details, and required information, into the ASU Database The OB--ASU shall notify the District Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall monitor AVL (Automatic Vehicle Locator) to ensure all FOB equipped vehicles are in the appropriate area. The shall notify the District Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall review and prepare a formal written critique of all vehicle pursuits and make recoimnendations as to compliance to the District Commander. The FOB--ASU as part of this review shall also review any in-car camera videos that may be related to vehicle pursuits and note it in his/her report. The FOB-ASU as part of this review shall also review the tape of the incident to see if it corresponds with the use of force report. The FOB--ASU shall notify the DistrictfSOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB--ASU shall review and prepare a formal written critique of all use of force reports and make as to compliance to the District!SOD Police Commander and the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU as a part of this review shall also review any in--car camera videos, Taser videos that may be related to the use of force and note it in his/her report. The FOB-ASU as a part of this review shall also review the communications recording of the incident to see if it corresponds with the use of force report. The FOB-ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander'. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. The FOB--ASU shall review platoon staffing across all districts to ensure compliance with current FOB policies, and notify the District Police Commander and the FOB Police Commander in writing when found in violation of Operations Bureau Policy The OB- ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate. The FOB-ASU shall review field interview/stop and frisks as assigned by the F.O.B. Commander to ensure they are conducted in accordance with chapter 41.30. The FOB-ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recominendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall review narcotics arrests made by FOB units (referencing NOPD ITEM number), evidence submitted to and subsequent prosecutions (particularly self- generated cases) to identify issues relating to training, corruption, arrest procedures, etc. Review at least one (1) report daily from each District and SOD and document that review in a weekly summarizing memo to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall notify the District}SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recoimnendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall review summons, tickets and affidavits (referencing NOPD ITEM number) made by FOB units to ensure compliance with depaitment rules and regulations. Review at least one (1) of the above daily activities per district or division or unit and document that review in a weekly summarizing memo to the District/S OD Police Commander. The FOB--ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing' of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall inspect District, Division and Unit files of FOB commands, bi-yearly (January and June) and document that review in a memo to the District/SOD Police Commander. The FOB--ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Comniander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB--ASU shall conduct at least nine (9) ICO satisfaction surveys for each police district, and enter them into the ICU Database, ensuring that all nine (9) contacts are successfully completed and logged in the ICO database before the 25th of each month. The FOB--ASU shall notify the District Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. The FOB--ASU shall conduct periodic on-scene observations (referencing NOPD ITEM number) in each district to monitor the quality of NOPD services, at least one (1) per day. Checks shall be logged into the ASU Database. FOB- ASU shall notify the District Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall ensure all employee evaluations are completed and submitted as per department policies and Civil Service Rules. The FOB-ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written reconrnnendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. FOB-ASU personnel shall complete a weekly FOB-ASU COMSTAT report which shall be submitted to the FOB Deputy Superintendent with a copy to the PIB Deputy Superintendent, the Chief of Staff and the Superintendent (See attached form. The NOPD IT group will work to create an electronic submissi@ The FOB--ASU shall monitor all FOB units to ensure officers are acknowledging court subpoenas. The FOB-ASU shall notify the District/SOD Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Deputy Superintendent. The OB--ASU shall confirm Platoon Lieutenants are conducting weekly at least three (3) "face to face" satisfaction surveys on non--UCR and UCR crimes, (Example: GOA, NAT) and ensure that Districts are entering those survey results into the ICO Database. .citvofno.com/. The FOB--ASU shall notify the District Police Commander of any non-compliance. The FOB--ASU shall notify the District Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall ensure across all FOB units that the LA Victim Notification Forms are being properly collected by officers and delivered d_ai_ly to ISB~Victi1n Witness Assistance Unit. The FOB-ASU shall notify the District Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. The FOB-ASU shall review at least one (1) in car camera video daily, from each of the police districts and SOD documenting those reviews in a weekly summarizing memo to the FOB Police Commander, noting any deficiencies in a memo to the District Police Commander'. Randomly review district platoon logs to ensure officers are using the equipment correctly and the supervisors are reviewing the videos. The FOB--ASU shall notify the District Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. 23. The FOB--ASU shall review the District System Administrator Responsibilities log book to ensure they are conducting random reviews of recordings, which are being documented in accordance to chapter 17.06 Mobile Cameras. The FOB--ASU shall notify the District Police Commander in writing of any deficiency observed or suspected, and provide written recommendation to remedy as appropriate, with a copy to the FOB Police Commander. Darryl J. Albert Deputy Superintendent Field Operations Bureau Administrative Support Unit /Administrative Support Officer Report Weekly COMSTAT Report DistrictlDivision: Week(s): COMSTAT Week Year to Date Community meetings attended Reviewed paid detail requests (Including Detail Request Review Forms) Inspection of paid detail sites in the district (logged into the ICO Data base) Critique of vehicle pursuit Critique of use of force reports Reviewed platoon staffing Reviewed field interview I stop frisk Reviewed narcotics arrest reports, and subsequent prosecutions Reviewed summons, tickets and affidavits ICO satisfaction surveys completed (logged into the ICC Data base) 0n~scene observations of NOPD services (logged into the ICO Data base) Review of subpoena log Review of platoon lieutenants weekly "face to face" satisfaction surveys in-car camera videos reviewed Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) checks PIB Investigation Status Date Received Date Case" Initiated Date Due Status Date of Extension Date of Heafing Submitted by: Signature of Administrative Support Officer POLICE SERGEANT CLASS CODE 71 Reports to: Police Lieutenant or higher ranking police officer. Status: Non-exempt Job Family: Law Enforcement KIND OF WORK Supervisory police work in providing for the training, development, support, and monitoring of subordinate officers on an assigned shift, or in performing specialized police work in an assigned unit, and related work as required. DISTINGUISHMG FEATURES OF WORK This is supervisory police work entailing responsibility for the appearance, efficiency, and proper conduct of officers on an assigned shift, although some employees may be assigned to non--supervisory work of equal responsibility. Employees in this class are expected to provide feedback, instruction, and coaching to ensure that subordinates are motivated and have the knowledge to perform their duties. They are expected to monitor performance by observing officers' behaviors in responding to incidents and in dealing with the public, by reviewing reports and forms, and by conducting performance appraisals; and they are expected to initiate corrective disciplinary actions when necessary. This work requires the interpretation of existing police regulations, and the ability to explain orders and changes in policies and procedures. Employees are given specific work instructions by ranking officers on new assignments but work independently in performing regular duties. Work is reviewed by oral and written reports to superiors. EXAMPLES OF WORL (Note: These examples are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work performed in positions allocated to this class.) . Schedules officers' regular and/or special assignments based on available personnel, and reads assignments off the daily lineup during roll call. Presents prepared material during roll call to train officers and to improve their job performance. issues and explains written and oral orders to officers concerning duties that must be performed. Responds to the scene of major incidents g. major felonies, house to house searches, chases, evacuations, etc.) in order to direct the placement of cars, preserve the crime scene and evidence, assign and supervise personnel, and determine if cars from other districts are needed. Supervises the gathering of evidence and provides technical advice to officers to ensure that evidence is properly handled. Identifies errors and deficiencies in written reports and provides feedback and instruction. Assists in the investigation of major crimes and ensures that investigations are thoroughly and property completed . Ensures that all officers have returned to the station safely at the end of the shift, and debriefs officers to gather information for the next shift. Investigates disciplinary problems and writes the appropriate information in the subordinates personnel files. Reprimands officers to correct inappropriate behavior, outlines expectations, and initiates disciplinary action when necessary. Creates reports and presents them to superior officers. NECESSARY KNOWLEDGES. SKILLS AND ABILITIES (At time of appointment) Good knowledge of the NOPD operations manual. Good knowledge of pertinent federal and state laws and city ordinances. Good knowledge of applicable Civil Service Rules. Good knowledge of the geography of the city and the location of important buildings. Extensive knowledge of investigative procedures, including how to handle and document evidence, and how to conduct interrogations and interviews. Skill i_n the use of fire arms. Physical agility and the ability to react quickly and calmly in emergency situations. Keen powers of observation and the ability to remember names, faces, and details of incidents and places. Ability to understand and execute oral and written instructions. Ability to interact effectively with a wide variety of people, including subordinates, supervisors, co-workers, citizens, and the media. Ability to assign, instruct, and review the work of subordinates. Ability to write clear and comprehensive reports. Ability to identify problems, make decisions, prioritize, and solve problems. Ability to recognize crime patterns and to use crime statistics. DESIRABLE PREPARATION FOR WORK Any combination of experience and (mining wlzicli would indicate possession of the knowledge, skills, and abilifies listed above. An example ofan acceptable combination is: Four years of experience with the New Orleans Police Department in any combination of the following classes: Police Recruit, Police Officer I, Police Officer Ii, Police Officer ill, and Police Officer IV. Class established: 3/1 1/43 Specification written: 2/43 Specification revised: 7/ 1 0/98 OF Class Code 7ll2 RQLICE LIEUTENANT rvisory police work as second in command of a district sory police work of equal responsibility echnical or administrative character; and Responsible supe police station, or nonsupervi in special assignments of a related work as required. In supervisory_positions in this class incumbents are second in command of a large police division or precinct, relieving the commanding officer of supervisory details, taking active charge of officers on an assigned watch and acting in his/her capacity when the commanding officer is absent. Such positions also involve the performance of special police duties such as investigation, training, or disposition of more serious complaints where supervision exercised is,a less important part of work, and investigations made require the use of considerable discretion. Work involves personnih danger and-the use of judgment and police skill in interpreting orders and rules and in leading officers; particularly under emergency conditions. Work is laid out in the form of oral and written instructions, established routines and through general staff orders by a ranking officer who reviews work through observation, inspection, andeevaluation of reports submitted by the employee. These examples are intended only as illustrations or WORK (Hots: ork performed in positions allocated to this class.) of the various types of Assumes command of district station in_absence of Captain. Supervises activities of a police patrol including sergeants, officers, and others; makes necessary inspection of employees, and evaluates the quality of performance of employees under his/her supervision. Plans, lays out, and gives assignments to police officers which include deplpy-- ment of the forces of his/her platoon; gives officers instructions as to methods of correcting minor faults noted while on tour of inspection. Conducts field inspection of crime conditions, and assists in apprehending offenders. May perform special work, such as being assigned to Superintendent's office to make confidential and special investigations. Reports to superior officers of duty or inefficiency on part of subordinates. Keeps records and checks and reviews those kept by subordinates. (At time of appointment) Good knowledge of approved principles, practices and procedures of modern police work. Good knowledge of federal and state laws and city ordinances. Good knowledge of the geography of the city and the location of important buildings. (over) Working knowledge of first aid methods and techniques. Some knowledge of police methods and organization of other large cities. Familiarity with cri prehension, arrest, and prosecution of persons. Skill in the use of firearms and other police equipment. Ability to lead and direct subordinates, and to explain laws, or~ dinances, and rules to them. Ability to remember names, faces, places, an and keen sense of observation. Ability to understand and execute difficult ora tions. Ability to deal firmly but courteously with the public. Ability to react quickly and calmly in emergency conditions. Ability to work long hours and to withstand the physical strain of" police work. minal law with particular reference to ap-- details of incidents and written direc- Any combination of experience and 'traifiing which wouId"indicate"possession.of the knowledges,,skills, SPECIAL. and abilities listed above. An example of an acceptable combina- tion isu Education equivalent to completion of a standard high school curriculum, preferably supplemented by college level training in Criminology, Crim~ inal Law, and the Social Sciences. Supervisory level experience in police work. 0 meet.suCh medical, Candidates for Police Lieutenant may be required including height and age, and physical standards as may be prescribed, weight Class Established: 3/11/43 'Specification Bast Revised: 6%26/81 "313" ,1 D: POLICE CAPTAIN (Class Code 7113) Reports to: Police Major or Assistant Superintendent of Police Status: Exempt Job Family: Law Enforcement KIND OF WORK Very responsible supervisory police work directing a police district or specialized division, or in administrative or technical duties of comparable responsibility; and related work as required. DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF WORK Work involves full responsibility for the supervision of police activities of a major unit of the Department such as a large group of uniformed officers in an assigned district. Work involves the application of seasoned judgment and police skill in meeting work problems, appraising effectiveness of police techniques used, and interpreting departmental policies and regulations. Employee instructs and supervises subordinates in the performance of their duties. Employee meets with the public to determine problems that need to be addressed and to follow up on results of earlier requests for assistance. General orders are received from superior officers, but employee works with a considerable degree of independence. EXAMPLES OF WORK (Note: These examples are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work performed in positions allocated to this class.) As commanding officer of a police district, employee is responsible for the planning and laying out of work for a large group of police and other workers under his/her supervision, for maintaining continual contact with officers in the various units or patrols under his/her supervision, for making work assignments to them, for checking the quality of their performance through consultation, reviews of reports, and personal inspection. Maintains a tracking system for reports to ensure that they are completed by the date requested. Submits COMSTAT and activity reports to the Bureau Chief to demonstrate unit's daily, weekly, and performance. Controls expenditures to ensure that money encumbered for the Captain's unit is used properly. Counsels subordinate commanders about performance problems observed personally or brought to attention by other rank. Trains subordinate commanders in the handling of general management problems. Monitors subordinates' professional behavior to assess possible personal problems. Takes corrective action to address subordinates' performance problems. Reviews and answers written and oral complaints. Serves as a hearing officer in disciplinary hearings by reviewing evidence, analyzing the situation, and making recommendations to the Superintendent. Reviews disciplinary investigations for thoroughness and accuracy. -2- I Cikq Assigns personnel to needed areas for special events. Determines crime trends/patterns by reviewing COMSTAT materials and crime statistics, and discussing these trends with subordinates. Determines needed resources based on crime reports and/or statistics. Allocates, coordinates, and directs manpower, vehicles, equipment and supplies to meet the needs of the district/unit. Conducts investigations and follows-up on assignments to ensure they have been completed properly. Monitors performance of subordinates by intermittently listening to the radio, observing behavior, reviewing reports, and studying other statistics to ensure efficient and effective productivity. Ensures the unit is operating efficiently and effectively through scheduled and unscheduled meetings with subordinate commanders, observing and monitoring activities of the unit, asking specific questions, and reviewing reports. Enforces departmental rules and regulations. Meets with civic, neighborhood, advocacy, and business groups in order to address concerns about community problems. Coordinates NOPD resources and activities when requested by outside agencies. Confers with upper rank informally and through meetings and committees regarding police problems, special events, policies, and crime patterns. NECESSARY KNOWLEDGES, SKILLS. AND ABILITIES (At time of appointment) Thorough knowledge of modern approved principles, practices, and procedures of police work, including crime detection. Thorough knowledge of legal issues including knowledge of Municipal Code, Louisiana Criminal Code, Federal Code, Police Officer Bill of Rights, and Constitutional law. Thorough knowledge of NOPD rules, policies, chapters, sections, ASOPS, SOPS, and General Orders. Knowledge of applicable sections of the Civil Service Rules and Fair Labor Standards Act. Knowledge of local geography and location of important buildings. Ability to recognize crime patterns and problem areas by reviewing and analyzing crime statistics. Ability to supervise, direct, and discipline subordinates in a fair and consistent manner. Ability to conduct and supervise criminal investigations. Ability to administratively coordinate, direct, and aliocate personnel resources and activities. Ability to deal with the public and media firmly and courteousiy and establish and maintain effective public relations. Ability to effectively engage in written and verbal communication. Ability to write and review reports so that they are clear and comprehensive. Ability to act quickly and calmly in emergency situations. Skill in the use of firearms and other police equipment. -3- DESIRABLE PREPARATION FOR. WORK Any combination of experience and training which would indicate possession of the knowledges, skills, and abilities listed above. An example of an acceptable combination is: Education equivalent to completion of a standard high school curriculum, preferably supplemented by college level training in Criminology, Criminal Law Management and the Social Sciences. Considerable supervisory level experience in police work. Permanent status as a Lieutenant. Class Established: 3/1 1/43 Specification Last Revised: 6/09/00 Class Code 7122 POLICE MAJOR KIND OR WORK Highly responsible administrative police work in directing, coordinating, and controlling the activities of a major division of the Police Department; and related work as required. DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF WORK This work involves administrative responsibility for the conduct of one of the major divisions of the Police Department, such as traffic, criminal investigation, operations, districts. All work is performed with considerable independence but subject to the plans, policies, and objectives as set down by superiors. It provides opportunities for considerable use of discretion, judgment, and initiative. Supervision over subordinates is exercised by oral and written instructions. An officer in this class may make frequent inspections and investigations to determine the activities of his command unit. EXAMPLES OF WORK (Note: Theses examples are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work performed in positions allocated to the class.) Directs office and field activities of a major Police division. Personally participates in major investigations or special assignments. Instructs and advises subordinates on procedures, policy, and regulations. Directs all activities of the district stations. Prepares plans for regular and emergency police operations. Directs office and field activities of traffic police officers. Maintains discipline, coordinates activities, and enforces departmental regulations within his/her unit. Supervises the assembly of data and the writing and filing of reports. Supervises communications, and the maintenance of budgets and accounting records. NECESSARY KNOWLEDGES, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES (At time of appointment) Extensive knowledge of modern approved principles, practices, and procedures of police work. Thorough knowledge of departmental regulations. Extensive knowledge of criminal law with particular reference to apprehensions, arrests, and prosecutions. Extensive knowledge of federal and state laws and city ordinances. 05-, Pl airy, Ci) -2- Thorough knowledge of the geography of the city's principle streets, streets plans, and traffic hazards. Ability to maintain discipline and high morale. Ability to plan, assign and supervise the work of a large number of subordinates. Ability to deal firmly but courteously with public. DESIRABLE PREPARATION FOR WORK Any combination of experience and training which would indicate possession of the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed above. An example of an acceptable combination is: Education equivalent to completion of a standard high school curriculum, supplemented by college training in the Social sciences, Criminology, Criminal Law, and Management. Extensive supervisory and administrative experience in police work. NECESSARY SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS Candidates for the position of Police Major may be required to meet such medical, age and physical standards as may be prescribed, including height and weight standards. Class Established: 03/11/43 Specification Last Revised: 06/26/81