Civil Service Merit Board defers vote on rule amendments after public concerns about counsel independence and testing changes

The Civil Service Merit Board moved on Tuesday to delay a final vote on a package of proposed amendments to its civil service rules after public comment and board discussion highlighted questions about legal counsel independence and testing thresholds.

Chair Bill Lyons opened the meeting’s public hearing portion and said the single public item was proposed revisions to the civil service rules and regulations. A member of the public told the board that moving the board’s "primary, legal representation for the board" to the city law department — an office whose head is appointed by the mayor — could ‘‘create a potential conflict’’ and asked whether the board had historically used the law department as its primary counsel or relied on outside counsel.

Devin Lyons, who presented the draft changes, described the package as largely housekeeping and said he had incorporated feedback from the law department and HR. He outlined a set of targeted edits: clarifying definitions (removing holdover language and specifying that ‘‘days’’ exclude observed city holidays), adding ‘‘or designee’’ in several procedural sections so the executive secretary or an authorized designee may carry out notice and consultation tasks, simplifying veterans preference language so all eligible veterans receive equal consideration, and adding a new section to pause and resume probationary periods for employees called to military service in accordance with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). On disciplinary appeals, he proposed specifying acceptable service methods (personal delivery, city email PDF, or mail to the employee’s address of record), making clear that an employee’s refusal to accept or sign a statement does not invalidate service, and adding that verbal or written counseling/reprimands are not themselves appealable disciplinary actions.

Board discussion returned repeatedly to two items flagged in public remarks: who provides the board’s legal advice and the test‑scoring and referral rules. A public commenter said "this board was designed to be separate from any political affiliation," arguing that assigning primary counsel from the city law department could harm perceived independence. Devin Lyons and the chair explained that the city charter and code centralize appointment of city attorneys with the law director; under the proposed language, the board may request outside counsel through the law director when a conflict arises.

On testing procedures, staff and a public commenter urged reconsideration of two interlocking proposals: a proposed passing score of 65 for promotional tests and expanding the referral list from a rule of five to a rule of ten. Civil service staff explained they recommended 65 based on past score distributions and said a larger referral list would reduce repeated re‑referral work for staff.

Given those concerns and to allow additional review by employee representatives and absent board members, Board member Jackie Roberts moved to delay voting on the package until the October meeting; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The board did not adopt any of the proposed rule changes at this meeting and will revisit the draft amendments at its next scheduled meeting.

The board also discussed procedural clarifications for meeting notices and internal citation corrections across Rules 18 and 19 that staff said were intended to reflect current city practice. The meeting was adjourned after the board concluded its business.