SUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Eric John Hessler, Eric J. Hessler, Attorney at Law, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs.

William Rembert Henry Goforth, Churita H. Hansell, City Attorney's Office, Charles Ferrier Zimmer, II, Daniel Ernest Davillier, Davillier Law Group, LLC, Donesia D. Turner, Sunni Jones LeBeouf, City of New Orleans, Elizabeth S. Robins, Law Department, City of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant New Orleans City.

Christina Leigh Carroll, Civil Service Commission for City of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant New Orleans City Civil Service Commission.

SECTION: "E" (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

SUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is a motion to remand filed by Plaintiffs Police Association of New Orleans ("PANO"), Michael Glasser, Andrew Weiderman, Paul Johnson, and Beth Reniff (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). Defendant the City of New Orleans (the "City") has filed an opposition. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED .

BACKGROUND

In May 2010, the United States Department of Justice notified the City it was initiating an investigation into the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD") for an alleged pattern or practice of unlawful misconduct, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (recodified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601 ); the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d ; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. On July 24, 2012, the Department of Justice and the City jointly moved for this Court to enter a negotiated Consent Decree. Before the Court approved the Consent Decree, Plaintiffs PANO and Glasser attempted to intervene to defend NOPD officers’ property interests in their employment as protected by Louisiana's civil service laws. The Court denied the motion to intervene but recognized that the then-proposed Consent Decree may make changes to the NOPD promotion procedure. The Court stated that "if the proposed Consent Decree is approved, the Court will consider renewed motions to intervene by ... PANO ... and Glasser during the implementation phase of the Consent Decree if the United States, the City and/or NOPD seek to make changes which may implicate the Civil Service or other legally protected rights afforded to members of ... PANO." PANO and Glasser have not sought to intervene to protect their civil service property interests. This Court approved the Consent Decree on January 11, 2013. For the convenience of the public and the parties, on October 2, 2018, the Court ordered an Amended and Restated Consent Decree be entered onto the record to reflect various amendments to the Consent Decree since its entry in 2013. In the Consent Decree, the Court specifically "retain[ed] jurisdiction over this matter, including but not limited to the right to interpret, amend and enforce the Consent Decree ... until the final remedy contemplated by the Consent Decree has been achieved."

The purpose of the Consent Decree is to "to protect the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve the safety and security of the people of New Orleans, and increase public confidence in the New Orleans Police Department." To achieve this goal, the Consent Decree requires NOPD to "fundamentally change the way it polices throughout the New Orleans Community." Specifically, it requires "the City and the Department to implement new policies, training, and practices throughout the Department, including in the areas of: use of force; stops, searches, seizures, and arrests; photographic lineups; custodial interrogations; discriminatory policing; community engagement; recruitment; training; performance evaluations ; promotions ; officer assistance and support; supervision; secondary employment; and misconduct-complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication." The Consent Decree requires that NOPD's "policies and procedures shall define terms clearly, comply with applicable law and the requirements of this Agreement, and comport with best practices." In particular, under the Consent Decree, NOPD must "incorporate requirements regarding bias-free policing and equal protection into its hiring, promotions , and performance assessment processes , including giving significant weight to an individual's history of sustained bias-related violations, as well as using interviews and other methods to assess the individual's ability to effectively practice bias-free policing."

In Section XIV of the Consent Decree, Performance Evaluations and Promotions, the parties agreed they should ensure officers who police effectively and ethically are recognized through the performance evaluation process and that these officers are identified and receive appropriate consideration for promotion. NOPD's performance evaluations and promotion practices appear in paragraphs 295-305 of the Consent Decree. In order to ensure the promotion of officers who are ethical and effective, NOPD and the City agreed to develop a more holistic model for NOPD promotions that considers a variety of factors, including number of complaints and disciplinary history. NOPD was required to obtain approval from both the Department of Justice and the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor for its new promotion policy related to the Consent Decree. In its 2020 report on NOPD's progress in implementing the Consent Decree, the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor noted that full implementation of the new promotions process was one of the "tasks that are standing in the way of the NOPD achieving full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree."

On August 12, 2020, the New Orleans Chief Administration Office issued a citywide Policy Memorandum No. 143(R), which applies to "promotions for vacancies in commissioned classifications," including NOPD officers. As part of this new promotion procedure, a Promotion Committee in applicable departments must "conduct a holistic review" of applicants based on performance evaluations, disciplinary history, and job history. This evaluation is given equal weight to the applicant's performance on a civil service exam. The applicant with the highest combined score is given the promotion. Policy Memorandum No. 143(R) allows NOPD to "establish department policies to address department-specific needs."

NOPD included its revised promotions and promotions committee policy in Chapter 34.2 of the NOPD Operations Manual, attached hereto as Attachment A. The revised policy was approved by the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor on May 4, 2021, and went into effect on May 23, 2021. Chapter 34.2 lays out how Promotion Committee members are selected and the specific factors they may consider in evaluating promotion candidates. Chapter 34.2 was followed by NOPD in July 2021 by NOPD when determining promotions to the position of police sergeant.

On July 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a petition in Orleans Parish Civil District Court against the City of New Orleans and the New Orleans City Civil Service Commission. Plaintiff PANO is a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to advocate for the rights of its members, who are police officers. Plaintiff Glasser is a police officer and president of PANO. Plaintiffs Weiderman, Jones, and Reniff all are police officers who allege their total scores for promotion to police sergeant were lower under the revised version of Chapter 34.2 than they would have been before. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants from making promotions based on Policy Memorandum No. 143(R).

The City removed this action to this Court on August 6, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, arguing there is no federal question jurisdiction because their state-court petition does not mention the Consent Decree or allege that its terms violate Plaintiffs’ rights. Instead, Plaintiffs argue, their petition raises only questions of state law and should remain in state court.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only the authority conferred upon them by the U.S. Constitution or by Congress. Federal law allows for state civil suits to be removed to federal courts in certain instances. Generally, removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which provides:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

"The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper."

When removal is based on federal question jurisdiction, the removing party must demonstrate the case "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." "[F]ederal-question jurisdiction is invoked by and large by plaintiffs pleading a cause of action created by federal law." However, "in certain cases federal-question jurisdiction will lie over state-law claims that implicate significant federal issues." "Th[is] doctrine captures the commonsense notion that a federal court ought to be able to hear claims recognized under state law that nonetheless turn on substantial questions of federal law, and thus justify resort to the experience, solicitude, and hope of uniformity that a federal forum offers on federal issues." The Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine, exercising federal question jurisdiction over substantial issues of federal law, since the early twentieth century. For example, in Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. , the Supreme Court considered whether an action brought by a bank shareholder challenging the bank's purchase of federally issued bonds raised a federal question. The shareholder brought suit under state law but challenged the authority of the bank on the ground that the bonds had been issued in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In that case, the Supreme Court held that, although the state supplied the cause of action, the principal issue in the case was federal—the constitutionality of the bond at issue. The Court reasoned a state-law claim could give rise to federal question jurisdiction so long as it "appears from the [complaint] that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of [federal law]." Accordingly, because the right to relief turned on the construction or application of federal law, the Court held the lawsuit arose under federal law.

This doctrine developed without a clear test for its application over the twentieth century, leading to differing results and what the Supreme Court described as an "unruly doctrine." For instance, in Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , the Supreme Court took a narrower view of federal question jurisdiction than the broad rule applied in Smith . In Moore , the Court held there was no federal question jurisdiction over a claim under a Kentucky tort statute that incorporated standards from a federal statute as some of its elements.

In an effort to bring clarity to this doctrine, in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing , the Supreme Court condensed its decisions addressing federal question jurisdiction over state-law claims into the following rule: "[T]he question is, does a state-law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities."

In Grable , the Court held a quiet title action, though brought under state law, presented a substantial federal question. The defendant purchased property formerly owned by the plaintiff at a tax sale conducted on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to satisfy the plaintiff's unpaid income tax obligation. The plaintiff brought a quiet title action in state court alleging that the purchaser, the defendant, did not have good title to the property because the IRS had not properly notified the plaintiff of the sale. The defendant removed the quiet title action to federal court on the ground that the case required resolution of a significant question of federal law. The plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court asserting the properly pleaded complaint, on its face, alleged only a state-law cause of action. The Supreme Court held removal was proper because "[w]hether [the plaintiff] was given notice within the meaning of the federal statute is ... an essential element of its quiet title claim, and the meaning of the federal statute is actually in dispute; it appears to be the only legal or factual issue contested in the case." "The meaning of the federal tax provision [was] an important issue of federal law that sensibly belongs in a federal court," and in fact "[t]he Government ... ha[d] a direct interest in the availability of a federal forum to vindicate its own administrative action." "Finally," the Supreme Court stated, "because it will be the rare state title case that raises a contested matter of federal law, federal jurisdiction to resolve genuine disagreement over federal tax title provisions will portend only a microscopic effect on the federal-state division of labor."

In Singh v. Duane Morris LLP , the Fifth Circuit summarized Grable in the following test: federal question jurisdiction exists over a state-law claim if "(1) resolving a federal issue is necessary to resolution of the state-law claim; (2) the federal issue is actually disputed; (3) the federal issue is substantial; and (4) federal jurisdiction will not disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities." On the facts of Singh , the Fifth Circuit found there was no federal question jurisdiction. Singh involved a legal malpractice suit against a lawyer for allegedly failing to introduce evidence that would have established an element of a federal trademark suit. The Fifth Circuit found that, while the federal issue—federal trademark law—was a necessary and disputed element to the trial-within-a-trial characteristic of legal malpractice suits, the federal issue was not substantial and would have upset the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. The court found the issue turned on evidence as applied to trademark law—predominantly a question of fact, not interpretation of law—and legal malpractice has traditionally been the domain of state law. Allowing federal jurisdiction in such a case would bring a flood of legal malpractice suits into federal court.

In Hughes v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. , the Fifth Circuit, applying Grable and Singh , held the district court had federal question jurisdiction over an employee's state-law claims against his employer for withholding his wages. The employer claimed it was required to withhold the wages pursuant to an administrative levy from the IRS. Federal jurisdiction was necessary to the resolution of the state-law claims because "it would be impossible to determine whether the Defendants–Appellees breached their fiduciary duty to him or interfered with his contract without deciding whether their actions were governed by a valid administrative levy issued by the IRS," and "[t]hat question in turn require[d] determining whether the IRS had the authority to issue an administrative levy on [the plaintiff's] unexempted wages, and whether it followed the proper procedures in doing so." Although the plaintiff pleaded only state-law claims, "[a] plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to plead necessary federal questions in a complaint." A federal question was implicated because the plaintiff "clearly dispute[d] the lawfulness of the Defendants–Appellees’ withholding of his wages," which was done "pursuant to an administrative levy." The federal issue was substantial because "[t]he meaning of the federal tax provision is an important issue of federal law." Finally, the Fifth Circuit held the exercise of jurisdiction would not disturb the balance of federal and state judicial power because "determinations regarding federal tax provisions ‘sensibly belon[g] in a federal court.’ "

In the context of a police department consent decree, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles there was federal question jurisdiction over police officers’ claims that police department policies implemented pursuant to a consent decree violated state law and thus exceeded the federal court's authority. In that case, police officers sued the city in state court for implementing a financial disclosure requirement pursuant to a consent decree with the Department of Justice, alleging the financial disclosure requirement violated state privacy laws and the California constitution, including its contract clause. The district court found the lawsuit met all four requirements under Grable and thus posed a federal question. The federal issue was necessary to the resolution of the case because "although the complaint set[ ] forth several state law causes of action, it essentially allege[d] that the inclusion of the financial disclosure provision of the Consent Decree [was] beyond the authority of the Court under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and that it [was] unenforceable in the face of a conflict with allegedly applicable state law." The parties disputed the federal court's authority and whether the financial disclosure implemented pursuant to the consent decree violated state law. The federal issue was substantial as it "raise[d] a significant and important federal question—the scope of the federal court's remedial powers in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 14141." In particular, "the interpretation of section 14141, which relates directly to the scope of the authority of the United States Department of Justice to remedy the systematic violation of federal civil rights by local law enforcement authorities," was "of potential national importance and ... the kind[ ] of issue[ ] most properly resolved in a federal forum." Moreover, exercising jurisdiction would not upset the division of labor between state and federal courts because "it is highly unlikely that federal courts will be presented with numerous pattern and practice lawsuits resulting in judgement [sic] either by way of consent or following litigation or that there will be numerous disputes over the scope and meaning of judgments entered in such cases."

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Central District of California's exercise of federal question jurisdiction. Focusing on the police officers’ state constitutional contract clause claim, the appellate court found resolution of the federal issues was necessary because, as part of its analysis of the contract clause claim, the court would have to "evaluate the Consent Decree directly" to determine whether the state had a "significant and legitimate public purpose" behind its reforms made necessary by the Consent Decree. The district court also had "wide discretion to amend the decree to include whatever procedures are required for its efficient operation." The federal interest in the case was "substantial" because "the District Court ‘is the principal and proper arbiter [of the Consent Decree] with the responsibility to interpret the decree and oversee the litigation.’ " "Finally, because a federal court has jurisdiction over a facial attack on the Consent Decree, extending jurisdiction to this related case [would] not reasonably disturb ‘Congress's intended division of labor between state and federal courts.’ "

Especially analogous to this case, in Morris v. Police Civil Service Commission for the City of Charleston , the Sixth Circuit held the federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction over purely state-law claims that attacked new police department promotion procedures, which were implemented in accordance with a federal consent decree. Although Moore was decided before Grable , it was based on the same principles Grable affirmed. "The general rule that a federal question must appear in a wellpleaded [sic] complaint for an action to be removable," the court reasoned, "does not prevent removal where the real nature of the claim asserted is federal, irrespective of whether it is so characterized." While, "[o]n its face, Plaintiffs’ complaint purport[ed] to raise only issues of state law[,] ... the subject matter of the complaint was the promotion eligibility list for members of the City of Charleston Police Department, which is governed by a federal decree designed to bring the promotion practices into compliance with federal civil rights laws." The plaintiffs sought an injunction against using these promotion eligibility lists, and "[b]ecause this relief could have a direct effect upon the implementation and enforcement of federal law, the case had a sufficient federal character to support removal."

The Court will now examine whether Plaintiffs’ claims implicate substantial federal issues under the four-part test of Singh .

I. Resolution of a Federal Issue is Necessary to the Resolution of Plaintiffs’ State-law Claims.

The Consent Decree was implemented pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (recodified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601 ), the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This Court specifically "retain[ed] jurisdiction over this matter, including but not limited to the right to interpret, amend and enforce the Consent Decree ... until the final remedy contemplated by the Consent Decree has been achieved." Resolution of a federal issue is considered necessary if "the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law."

Plaintiffs seek to have Policy Memorandum No. 143(R) and the implementation of its promotion procedures enjoined as invalid under the Louisiana constitution's civil service provisions. In compliance with Policy Memorandum No. 143(R) and pursuant to its Consent Decree obligations, NOPD implemented these promotion reforms as Chapter 32.4 of its operations manual. NOPD submitted these reforms to the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor, which approved them. Indeed, compliance with promotions reform is one of the remaining measures standing in the way of the City's full compliance with the Consent Decree.

Plaintiffs’ state-law efforts to prevent the City from implementing reforms ordered by this Court necessarily call into question the Court's power to enforce the Consent Decree under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (recodified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601 ), the Safe Streets Act, and the Civil Rights Act. This federal issue is necessary to the resolution of the case because, although the petition sets forth a state-law cause of action, it essentially alleges the promotions provisions of the Consent Decree were beyond the authority of the Court under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and that these provisions are unenforceable because they conflict with state law. Similar to the Fifth Circuit's holding in Hughes , "it would be impossible to determine whether the Defendants[’]" actions were proper "without deciding whether their actions were governed by a valid" Consent Decree. In analyzing a nearly identical issue to this case—state-law attacks on implementation of a federal consent decree's police department promotion reforms—the Sixth Circuit came to the same conclusion: "[b]ecause [injunctive] relief could have a direct effect upon the implementation and enforcement of federal law, the case had a sufficient federal character to support removal." The Central District of California in Los Angeles Police Protective League held the same, finding a necessary federal issue in state-law challenges to implementation of a consent decree to be whether a "provision of the Consent Decree is beyond the authority of the Court under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and ... is unenforceable in the face of a conflict with allegedly applicable state law." In affirming the Central District of California, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the district court had jurisdiction through its "wide discretion to amend the decree to include whatever procedures are required for its efficient operation."

This Court specifically retained jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the NOPD Consent Decree, which includes determining whether the promotions provision may be enforced due to a lack of federal authority or a conflict with state law. In fact, this Court, specifically noting the Consent Decree's promotions provision, allowed Plaintiffs PANO and Glasser to re-urge their motion to intervene in the Consent Decree case in the event they thought police officers’ civil service rights were violated. They did not do so; instead they attempted to circumvent the Court's jurisdiction by filing state-law challenges in state court. "[A] plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to plead necessary federal questions in a complaint." Accordingly, the Court finds resolution of a federal issue is necessary to the resolution of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

II. The Federal Issue Is Actually Disputed.

The dispute in this case is whether promotion reforms required by the Consent Decree should be enjoined as violative of state law, or whether this Court has authority under federal law to require the implementation of a constitutional promotions process. In Hughes , the Fifth Circuit held the federal issue was actually disputed because the plaintiff "clearly dispute[d] the lawfulness of the Defendants–Appellees’ withholding of his wages," which was done "pursuant to an administrative levy." Similarly, in this case, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the City's use of Policy Memorandum No. 143(R) and the promotion reforms in Chapter 34.2 of NOPD's operations manual. As in Hughes , because Plaintiffs dispute the lawfulness of acts taken pursuant to federal law, the federal issue is actually disputed.

III. The Federal Issue Is Substantial.

A federal issue is substantial if it is significant to the "federal system as a whole." The Supreme Court has found substantial federal issues for several reasons: "because state adjudication would ‘undermine "the development of a uniform body of [federal] law" ’; because the case presents ‘a nearly pure issue of law’ that would have applications to other federal cases; or because resolution of the issue has ‘broad[ ] significance’ for the federal government." In Los Angeles Police Protective League , the Central District of California held the issue of the federal court's authority to enforce a consent decree was substantial because "the interpretation of section 14141, which relates directly to the scope of the authority of the United States Department of Justice to remedy the systematic violation of federal civil rights by local law enforcement authorities," was "of potential national importance and ... the kind[ ] of issue[ ] most properly resolved in a federal forum." Similarly, in affirming the Central District of California, the Ninth Circuit found the federal interest in the case was "substantial" because "the District Court ‘is the principal and proper arbiter [of the Consent Decree] with the responsibility to interpret the decree and oversee the litigation.’ " That reasoning applies equally in this case. This Court's authority to enforce and interpret the NOPD Consent Decree affects the authority of the Department of Justice to enter into consent decrees, and the federal government has a "direct interest in the availability of a federal forum to vindicate its" authority. Moreover, this Court has retained jurisdiction to oversee the implementation of the Consent Decree in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds the federal issue in this case to be substantial.

IV. Federal Jurisdiction Will Not Disturb the Balance of Federal and State Judicial Responsibilities.

Federal jurisdiction may upset the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities if "the area of law relevant to the plaintiff's claims ‘has traditionally been the domain of state law,’ " such that "the exercise of federal jurisdiction ... would ‘herald[ ] a potentially enormous shift of traditionally state cases into federal courts.’ " Nevertheless, if exercise of federal jurisdiction would only bring the "rare state ... action" into federal court, such exercise does not upset the balance federal and state judicial responsibilities.

In Los Angeles Police Protective League , the Central District of California reasoned that, because of the relative infrequency of consent decrees, "it is highly unlikely that federal courts will be presented with numerous pattern and practice lawsuits resulting in judgement [sic] either by way of consent or following litigation or that there will be numerous disputes over the scope and meaning of judgments entered in such cases." Affirming the Central District of California, the Ninth Circuit stated "because a federal court has jurisdiction over a facial attack on the Consent Decree, extending jurisdiction to this related case [would] not reasonably disturb ‘Congress's intended division of labor between state and federal courts.’ " The Sixth Circuit has similarly held that "[b]ecause ... federal consent decrees, by definition, stem from a matter already within the court's jurisdiction, the district court's exercise of jurisdiction over this matter would not open the floodgates of litigation that might overwhelm the federal courts." The Sixth Circuit explained that "a contrary holding that the district court lacks jurisdiction could allow litigants to use the state courts as a vehicle to undermine a federal court's ability to police its consent decrees." The reasoning of these cases is on point with this case. Moreover, this Court already has jurisdiction to oversee implementation of the Consent Decree, and allowing state courts to adjudicate related state-law attacks will undermine this Court's ability to oversee and enforce implementation. Accordingly, the Court finds the exercise of federal jurisdiction will not disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Because the Court finds that resolution of a federal issue is necessary to the resolution of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, the federal issue is actually disputed, the federal issue is substantial, and federal jurisdiction will not disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, and removal was proper.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand filed by Plaintiffs Police Association of New Orleans, Michael Glasser, Andrew Weiderman, Paul Johnson, and Beth Reniff is DENIED .

New Orleans, Louisiana, on this 19th day of November, 2021.

Attachment A.

NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MANUAL

CHAPTER: 34.2

TITLE: PROMOTIONS AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE

EFFECTIVE: 11/13/2016

REVISED: 05/23/21

PURPOSE

This Chapter establishes the minimum guidelines for promotion within the Civil Service classifications of Senior Police Officer through Police Captain and the responsibilities of the Promotion Committee as they relate to the promotion of commissioned employees within these Civil Service Classifications. POLICY STATEMENT

1. The New Orleans Police Department recognizes that the promotional process within the organization should be one of fairness and one that truly identifies those well-rounded and qualified persons for leadership positions. Actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, housing status, or affiliation with any other similar identifiable group shall not be a motivating factor to any degree in any promotion decision, including the selection or rejection of particular candidates.

2. The Department has established progressive educational and training standards for advancement. The utilization of these standards will increase the level of professionalism, both individually and collectively. The establishment of minimum qualifications for each promotional position was made with careful consideration to ensure that the required educational level matches, as closely as possible, the responsibilities incumbent to the position. By establishing these standards, the Department recognizes and supports the concept and value of lifelong learning.

3. The Department adheres to the practice of giving all qualified officers the opportunity to seek upward mobility within the organization. In assessing the aptitude and suitability of candidates for promotional consideration, a variety of methods may be utilized. These methods may vary from rank to rank and may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following testing/assessment techniques:

(a) Objective Written Tests,

(b) Assessment Center Exercises, and

(c) Candidate Assessment by the Promotion Committee.

4. This Chapter only applies to the Civil Service commissioned classifications of Senior Police Officer through Police Captain. Police Recruit and Police Officer classifications are exempt from these provisions.

5. For the New Orleans Police Department, the cycle of eligible promotional lists for the classifications of Police Sergeant, Police Lieutenant and Police Captain shall allow the opportunity for commissioned members of NOPD, who meet the requirements of the classified position and successfully pass the testing process, to be placed on the promotional list every two years from the closing of the previous list for the same classification.

6. If, for any unplanned and unanticipated reason(s), beyond the control of the City of New Orleans or the NOPD, the test development process conducted by City Civil Service is hampered and a new promotional test or process cannot be completed and in place in time to meet the two (2) year requirement of the Consent Decree and this Circular Memorandum, the Personnel Director shall state the specific reasons and provide an adjusted time-line for the promotional list. This information shall be immediately conveyed to the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Superintendent of Police, in writing.

7. The Personnel Director, in agreement with the Superintendent of Police, may extend the promotional list to a maximum of three (3) years if the requirements of #6 above are met and the Civil Service Commission approve. In no cases shall the list be extended or remain in effect for more than three (3) years from the date of original establishment.

DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms are defined as:

Candidate —An employee of the New Orleans Police Department who has successfully completed the Civil Service requirements for promotion to a commissioned classification higher than the one he/she currently fills in a permanent classification and is under review by the Promotion Committee.

Test Register —a list of employees who already have met the minimum Civil Service requirements for testing for the promotion to the classification. This may, or may not, be the final promotion roster depending on the defined testing process for the classification.

Civil Service Register —A promotional register of a list of employees who already have permanent status in a lower class of positions in the same department who have met the Civil Service requirements for promotion to the classification on the promotional register as well as any Promotion Committee evaluation process.

Deferral —The action of postponing a recommendation on a candidate for promotion by the Promotion Committee. A deferral of a candidate for promotional consideration must be based on an articulable reason.

Egregious or serious act of misconduct —Any act which has an offense range where the penalty is a Level E or greater as articulated in Chapter 26.2.1 – Disciplinary Matrix .

Pending disciplinary action —Refers to a misconduct investigation that has not been concluded because the investigation is ongoing, the disciplinary penalty has not been assessed and/or the penalty has not been served and completed.

Open investigation —A misconduct investigation that has not been concluded with a formal disposition (see Chapter 52.1.1 – Complaint Investigation ).

Permanent Status —An employee of the Department in a classified civil service job who is in active status for at least one year prior to the end of the annual review period and has completed the performance evaluation process becomes eligible for, and may be granted, permanent status in that job classification, provided that the appointing authority (Superintendent of Police) has determined his/her performance merits it.

Promotion —A change of an employee in the classified service from a position in one class to a position in another class for which a higher pay grade is provided in the pay plan.

Subject matter expert —A member of the New Orleans Police Department deemed to be an authority in a particular area or topic. Necessary skillsets may include, but are not limited to, education; experience; proficiency; and/or professional certifications that demonstrate the member is above average for assessing a like or similar position. The subject matter expert assists Civil Service in the background, research, preparation, evaluation, assessment or presentation of all or part of a structured promotional examination.

Sustained —The disposition of a misconduct investigation or disciplinary hearing that determines, by a preponderance of the evidence that alleged misconduct occurred. For purposes of this Chapter, a finding that a violation is sustained requires a letter confirming the disposition from the Superintendent of Police as the final, appointing authority. SENIOR POLICE OFFICER PROMOTIONS

8. Through the Department of Civil Service, the classification of Senior Police Officer has been established within the New Orleans Police Department.

9. There shall be no supervisory authority for the Senior Police Officer class. Authority of a Field Training Officer over a trainee shall be set forth by guidelines established within the framework of the Field Training Program (see Chapter 33.4.3 – Field Training Program ).

10. Promotions to Senior Police Officer class shall be made by the Superintendent of Police from a listing of eligible candidates published by the Department of Civil Service. Eligibility for promotion shall not be based on the assignment of the officer seeking promotion.

(a) Qualifications for promotion shall be based on each candidate successfully completing a training program specific to the Civil Service Class of Senior Police Officer. The training program shall be developed by the Education & Training Division. The tenure requirements must be met prior to attending a police officer promotional class. The candidate must have attained Permanent status as a Police Officer and four years of combined experience as a Police Recruit and Police Officer.

PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS (POLICE CORPORAL THROUGH AND INCLUDING POLICE CAPTAIN)

11. The Department of Civil Service shall prepare and administer any required promotional examinations covering the positions of Police Corporal through Police Captain. The Department of Civil Service will announce requirements, sign-up periods, study materials, testing date(s), etc.

12. Employees of the Department of Civil Service are responsible for preparing promotional examinations for the above-listed commissioned positions. The Department of Civil Service may request permission from the Superintendent of Police to contact various ranking officers of the Police Department to obtain subject matter for inclusion in promotional testing. Ranking officers may be contacted and requested to act as subject matter experts (SME) to formulate questions for the test or explain the correct answers for questions included by Department of Civil Service employees.

13. The subject matter experts may be suggested by the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Chiefs based on their current or past job duties, specialized training or skills and educational background. The Department of Civil Service is responsible for vetting the backgrounds, skills and knowledge base of the candidate SMEs.

14. NOPD members selected or requested to act as subject matter experts shall cooperate with the Civil Service Department, supplying all relevant information requested.

15. Members assigned to assist the Department of Civil Service in the preparation of, or reviewing of promotional examination material, shall not be eligible to participate in any aspect of a promotional test as a candidate for a promotion or discuss the test development with any member who does participate in the test development. (i.e. a Deputy Chief whose permanent classified rank is Police Lieutenant taking a promotional test for Police Captain or above cannot participate in any way in the development, review or discussion of the test nor speak to others, including subordinates who assisted or have knowledge of the test development process.)

16. Designated members assigned to assist the Department of Civil Service in the preparation of, or reviewing of promotional examination material, shall not impart any testing material, background material or knowledge of testing material to any other member of the Police Department, especially those employees who may be eligible for the promotional examination. The members shall not discuss the nature of the material, questions, examples or any information related to, discussed by or submitted to the members of the Department of Civil Service engaged in any aspect of the test preparation or validation with anyone not already involved in the test preparation or validation until the promotional process has been completed. This confidentiality must be maintained, or the testing process could be compromised and invalidated. Any breach of confidentiality may be handled as a disciplinary violation.

17. Members who have assisted the Department of Civil Service in the preparation of, or reviewing of promotional examination material, shall not be allowed to assist possible applicants in preparing for the examination. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Holding classes or acting as instructors/tutors for possible candidates;

(b) Supplying study material;

(c) Formulating scenarios, or providing responses to scenarios submitted to them by possible candidates;

(d) Providing answers to questions posed by possible candidates, whether or not the question provided is part of the examination; and

(e) Suggesting to possible candidates that particular material be studied prior to the examination.

18. Members who have assisted the Department of Civil Service in the preparation, or reviewing, of promotional examination material, who are required to provide written correspondence covering testing material, shall not keep copies of the correspondence, any testing material, background material or knowledge of testing material either electronically or printed, anywhere it may be accessible to other members of the Police Department. Security of any material or correspondence between the Department of Civil Service and the member assisting shall include maintaining the items under the member's exclusive control at all times. Any breach of security over materials attributable to the assisting member, even if unintentional or accidental shall be construed as a breach of confidentiality and subject to the disciplinary process.

PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR POLICE SERGEANT AND ABOVE

19. The Promotion Committee will be composed of no fewer than three Deputy Superintendents. The Deputy Superintendent of Management Services shall be responsible for scheduling Promotion Committee meetings, collecting employee recommendation forms, recording the "minutes" of the Promotion Committee, and notifying the Superintendent of the recommendations made by the Committee. The Chairperson shall be named by the Superintendent of Police.

20. The promotion review process will begin with Civil Service providing the test register of candidates that pass all portions of the promotional exam to NOPD's Human Resources Department.

21. The Director of Human Resources in the Management Services Bureau will forward the names of eligible candidates to all members of the Promotion Committee. Based upon a pre-determined cut-off score, the highest performing candidates on the Civil Service examination will then be invited to submit a promotional packet, similar to the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities packets required for transfers to specialized assignments and/or units These promotional candidates will then be invited to an in-person interview with the promotional committee. A review of each listed candidate's resume’ and cover letter, latest performance evaluations and Employee Summary Report in INSIGHT will be conducted by the Promotion Committee. The results of the review will include all training, complaints, discipline, awards/commendations, secondary employment, an examination of sustained violations of misconduct and any open investigations of complaints of misconduct and all uses of force. A summary report on each candidate's review shall be documented by the Promotion Committee.

22. Once the Committee has reviewed all eligible candidates KSA-style packet and interviews are conducted, they will, as a group, assess each candidate's background and qualifications to determine the order of the promotional list, based upon the best qualified candidates. The recommendations of the Committee will be forwarded, in writing, to the Superintendent of Police for consideration.

23. Any candidates for promotion that have been deemed "ineligible" by the Committee, as a group, will be documented, in writing, indicating the reason for ineligibility and signed by the Chairman for the Committee.

24. Any candidates for promotion that have been recommended for "deferral" by the Committee, as a group, will be documented, in writing, indicating the reason for deferral and signed by the Chairman for the Committee.

25. The Committee shall meet as often as workload requirements necessitate through determination made by the Deputy Superintendent of Management Services or as directed by the Superintendent of Police.

26. The Superintendent of Police is the Appointing Authority and has the discretion to overrule any recommendations made by the Promotions Committee. No promotions are effective until approved, in writing, by the Superintendent of Police.

PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR POLICE CORPORAL

27. The process for convening a Promotion Committee and scoring for the rank of Police Corporal will be the same as Sergeants through Captains, however, the committee will be composed of one member of the rank of Captain or above from each Bureau and three from the Field Operations Bureau, selected by the respective Bureau Chief. The Committee member assigned to Management Services shall be responsible for scheduling Promotion Committee meetings, collecting employee recommendation forms, recording the "minutes" of the Promotion Committee, and notifying the Superintendent of the recommendations made by the Committee. The Chairperson shall be named by the Superintendent of Police. The minimum number of members to constitute a quorum shall be five named members.

28. The Committee shall meet as often as workload requirements necessitate through determination made by the police Commander assigned to Management Services or as directed by the Superintendent of Police.

29. The Superintendent of Police is the Appointing Authority and has the discretion to overrule any recommendations made by the Promotions Committee. No promotions are effective until approved, in writing, by the Superintendent of Police.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER FOR PROMOTION

30. The Promotion Committee will consider the following factors when assessing a candidate's promotional eligibility:

(a) Effective use of community-policing strategies;

(b) Number of sustained and non-sustained complaints;

(c) Number and circumstances of uses of force, including any found to be out of policy and use of force complaints.

(d) Disciplinary history.

(e) Problem-solving skills;

(f) Interpersonal skills;

(g) Education;

(h) Specialized training;

(i) Support for departmental integrity measures.

(j) Attendance record for the past two years, including leave balances; and

(k) Annual performance evaluations for the previous two years.

31. Additional factors may be considered but must be published in writing, to all candidates at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the promotional review process by the Promotion Committee.

DEFERAL CONSIDERATIONS / INELIGIBILITY

32. Sustained complaints of misconduct that have resulted in an assessed penalty greater than a Letter of Reprimand or failure to meet or comply with departmental attendance policy, may be grounds for a deferral.

33. Candidates with sustained complaints of discrimination, retaliation, excessive use of force or an egregious act of misconduct shall be deemed ineligible for promotion for no less than a period of three years following the completion date of the assessed penalty.

34. Candidates with an open investigation or pending disciplinary action in a matter alleging egregious or serious acts of misconduct where the presumptive penalty is dismissal shall be ineligible for promotion.

35. Military leave will not be considered a lapse in eligibility for promotions.

NOPD CONSENT DECREE MONITOR NEW ORLEANS , LOUISIANA

May 4, 2021

Deputy Superintendent Otha Sandifer

Compliance Bureau, New Orleans Police Department

714 Broad Street New Orleans. LA 70119

Dear Deputy Superintendent Sandifer:

This letter constitutes confirmation that the Office of Consent Decree Monitor ("OCDM") has reviewed and provided comments on Chapter 34.2 – Promotions and Promotion Committee. The OCDM has no objection to the policy as written.

We believe that Chapter 34.2 – Promotions and Promotion Committee, incorporates all requirements of the Consent Decree and sets forth clear and appropriate rules to guide officer conduct. We will continue to assess the adequacy of this policy following its implementation. If we identify any concerns following implementation, we will present those concerns to you and the Department of Justice. Additionally, we note that, pursuant to the Consent Decree, NOPD has agreed to review and revise policies and procedures as necessary upon notice of a significant policy deficiency. We also note NOPD's obligation to review this policy after a year of implementation to ensure it "provides effective direction to NOPD personnel and remains consistent with the Agreement, best practices, and current law." Consent Decree at ¶ 8.

We appreciate your team's effort, cooperation, and responsiveness throughout this process.

Very truly

Very truly yours,

/s/ David L. Douglass

David L. Douglass

For SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

2099 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 100

WASHINGTON , DC 20006

CC: HONORABLE SUSIE MORGAN ( VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL )

JUDE VOLEK , DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL )

SUNNI LEBEOUF , CITY ATTORNEY ( VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL )

Attachment B.

NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MANUAL

CHAPTER: 34.2

TITLE: PROMOTIONS AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE

EFFECTIVE:

REVISED:

PURPOSE

This Chapter establishes the minimum guidelines for promotion within the Civil Service classifications of Senior Police Officer through Police Captain and the responsibilities of the Promotion Committee as they relate to the promotion of commissioned employees within these Civil Service Classifications.

POLICY STATEMENT

1. The New Orleans Police Department recognizes that the promotional process within the organization should be one of fairness and one that truly identifies those well-rounded and qualified persons for leadership positions. Actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, housing status, or affiliation with any other similar identifiable group shall not be a motivating factor to any degree in any promotion decision, including the selection or rejection of particular candidates.

2. The Department has established progressive educational and training standards for advancement. The utilization of these standards will increase the level of professionalism, both individually and collectively. The establishment of minimum qualifications for each promotional position was made with careful consideration to ensure that the required educational level matches, as closely as possible, the responsibilities incumbent to the position. By establishing these standards, the Department recognizes and supports the concept and value of lifelong learning.

3. The Department adheres to the practice of giving all qualified officers the opportunity to seek upward mobility within the organization. In assessing the aptitude and suitability of candidates for promotional consideration, a variety of methods may be utilized. These methods may vary from rank to rank and may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following testing/assessment techniques:

(a) Objective Written Tests,

(b) Assessment Center Exercises, and

(c) Candidate Assessment by the Promotion Committee.

4. This Chapter only applies to the Civil Service commissioned classifications of Senior Police Officer through Police Captain. Police Recruit and Police Officer classifications are exempt from these provisions.

5. For the New Orleans Police Department, the cycle of eligible promotional lists for the classifications of Police Sergeant, Police Lieutenant and Police Captain shall allow the opportunity for commissioned members of NOPD, who meet the requirements of the classified position and successfully pass the testing process, to be placed on the promotional list every two years from the closing of the previous list for the same classification.

6. If, for any unplanned and unanticipated reason(s), beyond the control of the City of New Orleans or the NOPD, the test development process conducted by City Civil Service is hampered and a new promotional test or process cannot be completed and in place in time to meet the two (2) year requirement of the Consent Decree and this Circular Memorandum, the Personnel Director shall state the specific reasons and provide an adjusted time-line for the promotional list. This information shall be immediately conveyed to the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Superintendent of Police, in writing.

7. The Personnel Director, in agreement with the Superintendent of Police, may extend the promotional list to a maximum of three (3) years if the requirements of #6 above are met and the Civil Service Commission approve. In no cases shall the list be extended or remain in effect for more than three (3) years from the date of original establishment.

DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms are defined as:

Candidate —An employee of the New Orleans Police Department who has successfully completed the Civil Service requirements for promotion to a commissioned classification higher than the one he/she currently fills in a permanent classification and is under review by the Promotion Committee.

Test Register —a list of employees who already have met the minimum Civil Service requirements for testing for the promotion to the classification. This may, or may not, be the final promotion roster depending on the defined testing process for the classification.

Civil Service Register —A promotional register of a list of employees who already have permanent status in a lower class of positions in the same department who have met the Civil Service requirements for promotion to the classification on the promotional register as well as any Promotion Committee evaluation process.

Deferral —The action of postponing a recommendation on a candidate for promotion by the Promotion Committee. A deferral of a candidate for promotional consideration must be based on an articulable reason.

Egregious or serious act of misconduct —Any act which has an offense range where the penalty is a Level E or greater as articulated in Chapter 26.2.1 – Disciplinary Matrix .

Pending disciplinary action —Refers to a misconduct investigation that has not been concluded because the investigation is ongoing, the disciplinary penalty has not been assessed and/or the penalty has not been served and completed.

Open investigation —A misconduct investigation that has not been concluded with a formal disposition (see Chapter 52.1.1 – Complaint Investigation ).

Permanent Status —An employee of the Department in a classified civil service job who is in active status for at least one year prior to the end of the annual review period and has completed the performance evaluation process becomes eligible for, and may be granted, permanent status in that job classification, provided that the appointing authority (Superintendent of Police) has determined his/her performance merits it.

Promotion —A change of an employee in the classified service from a position in one class to a position in another class for which a higher pay grade is provided in the pay plan.

Subject matter expert —A member of the New Orleans Police Department deemed to be an authority in a particular area or topic. Necessary skillsets may include, but are not limited to, education; experience; proficiency; and/or professional certifications that demonstrate the member is above average for assessing a like or similar position. The subject matter expert assists Civil Service in the background, research, preparation, evaluation, assessment or presentation of all or part of a structured promotional examination.

Sustained —The disposition of a misconduct investigation or disciplinary hearing that determines, by a preponderance of the evidence that alleged misconduct occurred. For purposes of this Chapter, a finding that a violation is sustained requires a letter confirming the disposition from the Superintendent of Police as the final, appointing authority.

SENIOR POLICE OFFICER PROMOTIONS

8. Through the Department of Civil Service, the classification of Senior Police Officer has been established within the New Orleans Police Department.

9. There shall be no supervisory authority for the Senior Police Officer class. Authority of a Field Training Officer over a trainee shall be set forth by guidelines established within the framework of the Field Training Program (see Chapter 33.4.3 – Field Training Program ).

10. Promotions to Senior Police Officer class shall be made by the Superintendent of Police from a listing of eligible candidates published by the Department of Civil Service. Eligibility for promotion shall not be based on the assignment of the officer seeking promotion.

(a) Qualifications for promotion shall be based on each candidate successfully completing a training program specific to the Civil Service Class of Senior Police Officer. The training program shall be developed by the Education & Training Division. The tenure requirements must be met prior to attending a police officer promotional class. The candidate must have attained Permanent status as a Police Officer and four years of combined experience as a Police Recruit and Police Officer.

PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS (POLICE CORPORAL THROUGH AND INCLUDING POLICE CAPTAIN)

11. The Department of Civil Service shall prepare and administer any required promotional examinations covering the positions of Police Corporal through Police Captain. The Department of Civil Service will announce requirements, sign-up periods, study materials, testing date(s), etc.

12. Employees of the Department of Civil Service are responsible for preparing promotional examinations for the above-listed commissioned positions. The Department of Civil Service may request permission from the Superintendent of Police to contact various ranking officers of the Police Department to obtain subject matter for inclusion in promotional testing. Ranking officers may be contacted and requested to act as subject matter experts (SME) to formulate questions for the test or explain the correct answers for questions included by Department of Civil Service employees.

13. The subject matter experts may be suggested by the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Chiefs based on their current or past job duties, specialized training or skills and educational background. The Department of Civil Service is responsible for vetting the backgrounds, skills and knowledge base of the candidate SMEs.

14. NOPD members selected or requested to act as subject matter experts shall cooperate with the Civil Service Department, supplying all relevant information requested.

15. Members assigned to assist the Department of Civil Service in the preparation of, or reviewing of promotional examination material, shall not be eligible to participate in any aspect of a promotional test as a candidate for a promotion or discuss the test development with any member who does participate in the test development. (i.e. a Deputy Chief whose permanent classified rank is Police Lieutenant taking a promotional test for Police Captain or above cannot participate in any way in the development, review or discussion of the test nor speak to others, including subordinates who assisted or have knowledge of the test development process.)

16. Designated members assigned to assist the Department of Civil Service in the preparation of, or reviewing of promotional examination material, shall not impart any testing material, background material or knowledge of testing material to any other member of the Police Department, especially those employees who may be eligible for the promotional examination. The members shall not discuss the nature of the material, questions, examples or any information related to, discussed by or submitted to the members of the Department of Civil Service engaged in any aspect of the test preparation or validation with anyone not already involved in the test preparation or validation until the promotional process has been completed. This confidentiality must be maintained, or the testing process could be compromised and invalidated. Any breach of confidentiality may be handled as a disciplinary violation.

17. Members who have assisted the Department of Civil Service in the preparation of, or reviewing of promotional examination material, shall not be allowed to assist possible applicants in preparing for the examination. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Holding classes or acting as instructors/tutors for possible candidates;

(b) Supplying study material;

(c) Formulating scenarios, or providing responses to scenarios submitted to them by possible candidates;

(d) Providing answers to questions posed by possible candidates, whether or not the question provided is part of the examination; and

(e) Suggesting to possible candidates that particular material be studied prior to the examination.

18. Members who have assisted the Department of Civil Service in the preparation, or reviewing, of promotional examination material, who are required to provide written correspondence covering testing material, shall not keep copies of the correspondence, any testing material, background material or knowledge of testing material either electronically or printed, anywhere it may be accessible to other members of the Police Department. Security of any material or correspondence between the Department of Civil Service and the member assisting shall include maintaining the items under the member's exclusive control at all times. Any breach of security over materials attributable to the assisting member, even if unintentional or accidental shall be construed as a breach of confidentiality and subject to the disciplinary process.

PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR POLICE SERGEANT AND ABOVE

19. The Promotion Committee will be composed of no fewer than three Deputy Superintendents. The Deputy Superintendent of Management Services shall be responsible for scheduling Promotion Committee meetings, collecting employee recommendation forms, recording the "minutes" of the Promotion Committee, and notifying the Superintendent of the recommendations made by the Committee. The Chairperson shall be named by the Superintendent of Police.

20. The promotion review process will begin with Civil Service providing the test register of candidates that pass all portions of the promotional exam to NOPD's Human Resources Department.

21. The Director of Human Resources in the Management Services Bureau will forward the names of eligible candidates to all members of the Promotion Committee. Based upon a pre-determined cut-off score, the highest performing candidates on the Civil Service examination will then be invited to submit a promotional packet, similar to the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities packets required for transfers to specialized assignments and/or units These promotional candidates will then be invited to an in-person interview with the promotional committee. A review of each listed candidate's resume’ and cover letter, latest performance evaluations and Employee Summary Report in INSIGHT will be conducted by the Promotion Committee. The results of the review will include all training, complaints, discipline, awards/commendations, secondary employment, an examination of sustained violations of misconduct and any open investigations of complaints of misconduct and all uses of force. A summary report on each candidate's review shall be documented by the Promotion Committee.

22. Once the Committee has reviewed all eligible candidates KSA-style packet and interviews are conducted, they will, as a group, assess each candidate's background and qualifications to determine the order of the promotional list, based upon the best qualified candidates. The recommendations of the Committee will be forwarded, in writing, to the Superintendent of Police for consideration.

23. Any candidates for promotion that have been deemed "ineligible" by the Committee, as a group, will be documented, in writing, indicating the reason for ineligibility and signed by the Chairman for the Committee.

24. Any candidates for promotion that have been recommended for "deferral" by the Committee, as a group, will be documented, in writing, indicating the reason for deferral and signed by the Chairman for the Committee.

25. The Committee shall meet as often as workload requirements necessitate through determination made by the Deputy Superintendent of Management Services or as directed by the Superintendent of Police.

26. The Superintendent of Police is the Appointing Authority and has the discretion to overrule any recommendations made by the Promotions Committee. No promotions are effective until approved, in writing, by the Superintendent of Police.

PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR POLICE CORPORAL

27. The process for convening a Promotion Committee and scoring for the rank of Police Corporal will be the same as Sergeants through Captains, however, the committee will be composed of one member of the rank of Captain or above from each Bureau and three from the Field Operations Bureau, selected by the respective Bureau Chief. The Committee member assigned to Management Services shall be responsible for scheduling Promotion Committee meetings, collecting employee recommendation forms, recording the "minutes" of the Promotion Committee, and notifying the Superintendent of the recommendations made by the Committee. The Chairperson shall be named by the Superintendent of Police. The minimum number of members to constitute a quorum shall be five named members.

28. The Committee shall meet as often as workload requirements necessitate through determination made by the police Commander assigned to Management Services or as directed by the Superintendent of Police.

29. The Superintendent of Police is the Appointing Authority and has the discretion to overrule any recommendations made by the Promotions Committee. No promotions are effective until approved, in writing, by the Superintendent of Police.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER FOR PROMOTION

30. The Promotion Committee will consider the following factors when assessing a candidate's promotional eligibility:

(a) Effective use of community-policing strategies;

(b) Number of sustained and non-sustained complaints;

(c) Number and circumstances of uses of force, including any found to be out of policy and use of force complaints.

(d) Disciplinary history.

(e) Problem-solving skills;

(f) Interpersonal skills;

(g) Education;

(h) Specialized training;

(i) Support for departmental integrity measures.

(j) Attendance record for the past two years, including leave balances; and

(k) Annual performance evaluations for the previous two years.

31. Additional factors may be considered but must be published in writing, to all candidates at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the promotional review process by the Promotion Committee.

DEFERRAL CONSIDERATIONS / INELIGIBILITY

32. Sustained complaints of misconduct that have resulted in an assessed penalty greater than a Letter of Reprimand or failure to meet or comply with departmental attendance policy, may be grounds for a deferral.

33. Candidates with sustained complaints of discrimination, retaliation, excessive use of force or an egregious act of misconduct shall be deemed ineligible for promotion for no less than a period of three years following the completion date of the assessed penalty.

34. Candidates with an open investigation or pending disciplinary action in a matter alleging egregious or serious acts of misconduct where the presumptive penalty is dismissal shall be ineligible for promotion.

35. Military leave will not be considered a lapse in eligibility for promotions.