LDEQ employees slam Aurelia Giacometto's leadership in workplace culture survey
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Aurelia Giacometto (right) and Gov. Jeff Landry hold a press conference on July 1, 2024, at the Denka neoprene plant in LaPlace, La., to speak against a new EPA rule they say is unfair to the company. (Photo credit: Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator)
More than three quarters of state employees polled at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality said morale at the agency worsened last year, and nearly half had negative views about LDEQ leadership, according to the results of a workplace culture survey the Louisiana Legislative Auditor published Monday.
Louisiana Legislative Auditor Mike Waguespack surveyed 712 LDEQ employees last July and received responses from 377, or nearly 53%. Waguespack's office initiated the review at the request of state lawmakers. Their directive followed reports of resignations and turmoil at the agency, with some employees complaining of harassment from LDEQ Secretary Aurelia Giacometto.
The survey questions covered the period from January through June 2024, gauging LDEQ's workplace culture during Giacometto's first six months at the helm.
An overwhelming 78.2% of the respondents reported that morale at LDEQ worsened over that six-month period. More than one-third said they work in a 'toxic environment,' and a roughly equal number have personally experienced or witnessed retaliation. Just over half, or 55.7%, reported being satisfied with their job, and less than one-fourth, or 22.3%, agreed or strongly agreed that LDEQ executive leadership treats them with respect and appreciation, according to the report.
Nearly 14% of the sampled employees reported feeling pressured to do something against the law, in violation of department policy or in violation of state Civil Service rules.
Their concerns included being pressured to disregard regulations or policies related to site closures, completing inspections, grant requirements and agency contracts. Some employees also mentioned issues with a temporary directive from Giacometto to not communicate with outside agencies.
When Waguespack's office shared the survey results with Giacometto, she responded with a letter criticizing the auditor's procedures and dismissing the findings outright.
'You have admittedly (and inexplicably) chosen not to abide by Governmental Auditing Standards in issuing the report, and the report contains a lot of data, some of which is not particularly useful or relevant to the operations of LDEQ,' she wrote in the letter, which is included in the report.
Giacometto was referring to a sentence in Waguespack's report that states it is an informational report intended to provide more timely information than standards-based performance audits: 'While these informational reports do not follow Government Auditing Standards, we conduct quality assurance activities to ensure the information presented is accurate.'
Jenifer Schaye, general counsel for the Legislative Auditor's Office, explained in a phone call Monday that government auditing standards do not apply to these kinds of workplace culture surveys. Nevertheless, the auditors went to great lengths to choose the most objective and unbiased questions, Schaye said.
An appendix to the report notes that the auditors met with LDEQ ahead of time to discuss the project and obtain feedback from Giacometto. When they provided draft survey questions and asked for feedback, LDEQ responded that it had none, according to the appendix.
Alongside the digital survey, the auditors personally interviewed a subset of staff from all LDEQ sections and of various job titles and hire dates, ranging from newer employees to those with more experience. Additionally, an independent auditor with specialized training conducted a non-response bias analysis to ensure the respondent sample was representative of LDEQ's staff population, the report notes.
Giacometto noted in her response letter that 'the business community' has rated LDEQ under her leadership 'as good as, and in some cases better' than her predecessor — Chuck Carr Brown, under former Gov. John Bel Edwards.
Louisiana's top environmental official keeps cozy connection with NRA
There are no actual ratings or survey results from the business community. What Giacometto calls 'the business community' was actually five industry stakeholders whom the auditors spoke with to gain their feedback on recent changes at the agency. Her implication that they rated her tutelage of LDEQ comes from a sentence on page 3 of the report that reads, 'Industry stakeholders we interviewed stated that LDEQ performance from their perspective was either as good as, or in some cases better, over the past six months (January through June 2024).'
LDEQ did not answer specific questions about the report when asked for comment Monday, instead providing the letter Giacometto sent to Waguespack.
Among the other survey findings, roughly 47% of the sampled employees indicated that they either disagree or strongly disagree that LDEQ executive leadership models qualities of accountability, professionalism, integrity, respect, empathy and leadership, with a larger share choosing the 'strongly disagree' option. Nearly one-third were neutral, saying they neither agree nor disagree.
The sampled employees had far more positive feelings about their immediate supervisors than they did about LDEQ's executive leadership. More than 75% said they either agree or strongly agree that their managers, supervisors and administrators model those same leadership qualities. Similarly, 76.3% of respondents said their supervisors treat them with respect and appreciation, while only 22.3% said the same about LDEQ's executive leadership.
More than 40% reported having personally seen unprofessional behavior such as yelling, demeaning comments, harassment or intimidation — either sometimes, often or always during the first half of 2024. Another 33.7% reported having personally experienced or witnessed retaliation at LDEQ, and almost 59% of the staff reported they rarely or never personally experienced or witnessed unprofessional behavior.
In concluding her letter to Waguespack, Giacometto indicated she was unswayed by the survey's findings.
'I, as Secretary, am very proud of the hard working employees of the LDEQ and their dedication to the mission,' she wrote. 'And I am not going to allow some disgruntled employees to undermine the great work of this agency.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Louisiana state employees could lose jobs under Civil Service amendment
Louisiana Senate chambers during the close of the 2023 legislative session on June 8, 2023. (Photo credit: Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) Louisiana lawmakers are trying to change the state constitution to wrestle power away from the Civil Service Commission to eliminate state worker protections and allow for the quick firing of thousands of employees for any reason, creating fear among critics that some dismissals could be politically motivated. Senate Bill 8, sponsored by Sen. Jay Morris. R-West Monroe, is nearing final passage in the Louisiana Legislature, though voters will get the final say on a constitutional amendment on a ballot that could have significant consequences for how state government operates. Morris' proposal would give state lawmakers power that currently rests with the Civil Service Commission, a seven-member independent review panel that oversees the hiring and firing of 28,000 'classified' state workers. The commission hears complaints from classified employees and appeals from any who want to contest their dismissal or demotion, affording them due process when it comes to discipline and terminations. In an interview Tuesday, Morris said his bill would let lawmakers 'unclassify' state employees, removing them from the oversight of the commission. An unclassified employee does not have Civil Service protections and can be fired 'at will' for no reason. The bill's current version would also apply to local civil service workers such as municipal police and firefighters, but Morris said he intends to change his measure to exclude them and restrict it to only state employees. 'If you believe in democracy or republicanism — [because] we're a republic — then the Legislature should have some ability to alter how our civil service system works,' Morris said. 'Right now we can't do anything because the constitution prevents it.' Some Democrats have taken issue with the latest iteration of the ballot language in Morris' bill because it doesn't explicitly mention classified employees and could mislead voters into thinking the amendment doesn't affect those state workers who are currently protected under Civil Service. When asked about the proposal following Tuesday's meeting of the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure, Rep. Wilford Carter, D-Lake Charles, said the ballot language doesn't align with what's in the bill. The ballot language states: 'Do you support an amendment to allow the legislature to remove or add officers, positions, and employees to the unclassified civil service?' Critics have pointed to other issues that have not been addressed or debated in any of the committee hearings on Morris' proposal. One of those is the vague use of the word 'remove,' which could be interpreted to mean 'fire' or 'terminate,' said Peter Robins-Brown, who opposes the bill on behalf of Louisiana Progress, which advocates for low and middle-income people. He said lawmakers have not drafted any kind of companion measure that would establish statutes or regulations to implement the specific necessary changes. 'No one has really been paying attention to the details,' Robins-Brown said. 'I'm not sure how the average voter will be able to figure it out, especially when the bill doesn't have a statutory companion to prove the goal of this exercise.' Gov. Landry fails to remove civil service protections from 900 state jobs Rep. Nicholas Muscarello, R-Hammond, who chairs the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure, said the intent of the amendment is to give lawmakers the power to unclassify state employees, not fire employees. Hiring and terminating decisions would be left up to the executive branch, he said. The Civil Service Commission, a nonpartisan entity, has taken a neutral position on Morris' proposal. When asked about it Wednesday, commission administrators said they assume 'remove' means the act of changing an employee's classification status, but they pointed out the word is not actually defined in the bill. State Civil Service Director Byron Decoteau said Morris' civil service amendment amendment, if adopted, could technically allow lawmakers to simply 'remove' an unclassified job position with no intention of classifying it, leaving a current employee in a limbo with neither a classified nor unclassified status. Sherri Gregoire, Civil Service general counsel, said the lack of a clear definition invites different interpretations, including that the amendment gives lawmakers the power to remove governor's staff members, and creates a situation that would certainly end up in court. The more likely course of events, if voters decide to approve the amendment, would be that the legislature designates all future hires as unclassified employees — a move that would eventually end the classified civil service system altogether, Gregoire said. The Civil Service Commission, itself, would still exist under the constitution but would effectively become pointless because it would no longer have anything to oversee. 'Eventually you won't have any classified employees, so why do you need a commission?' Gregoire said. Morris said he doesn't yet have a vision for how lawmakers would exercise their new power if voters approve the amendment. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has tried repeatedly to exert authority over the commission. In February, he tried unsuccessfully to revoke civil service classifications from 900 state jobs, mostly positions for engineers, shortly after President Donald Trump made a similar move at the federal level. The state Civil Service Commission rejected Landry's request in a 4-2 decision in February. Because unclassified workers can be subject to political punishment and coercion, removing such a large number of engineers from the classified service could create ethical conflicts and unnecessary risks to the public, the commissioners said. A similar version of Morris' bill stalled on the House floor last year, but some Republicans who likely would have supported the bill were absent when the final vote took place. Morris' bill is expected to earn final passage before the regular session ends June 12 and will be placed before voters on the Nov. 3, 2026, statewide election ballot. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Yahoo
Civil Service spends £27m on diversity in a year
Whitehall spent £27 million on diversity in a single year, the first ever audit of bureaucracy 'wokery' has revealed. An internal report from the Cabinet Office, commissioned by the last Conservative government, reveals there are 380 'equality, diversity and inclusion' (EDI) staff in the Civil Service. They are paid £53,000 a year on average and their salaries cost taxpayers £20 million overall. EDI staff in departments have been criticised for promoting contested theories such as that there is a spectrum of genders and that people can be guilty of microaggressions towards other people based on their race, gender or sexuality. Gender-critical feminists have also claimed it can make them reluctant to speak openly about their views but proponents claim they ensure minority communities are treated fairly. The cost of activities, including learning and development sessions, added up to £4.9 million in departments and £700,000 cross-government. Another £800,000 was spent on 'external benchmarking' and membership of EDI organisations such as the controversial LGBT charity Stonewall. And £700,000 went towards diversity and inclusion staff networks. This comes to a total of £27.1 million in just one year. This amount would pay for the winter fuel payments of 135,000 pensioners, or would fund the employment of more than 1,000 nurses. The report found that the equivalent of 350 people within departments worked full time in EDI roles, along with 30 in cross-governmental functions. It also said there are 570 'diversity staff networks' in government departments. These networks, with 2,965 committee members, represent different minority groups, and some Civil Service members spend half their weeks running them. The report came as it emerged the Government is planning to get rid of around 50,000 Civil Service posts – one in 10 – to get the size of Whitehall down to pre-Brexit levels. Last night, one Right-leaning think tank called on Labour to go further and sack a half of human resources staff and two in three communications roles to help save £5 billion a year. Meanwhile, Reform UK has made slashing diversity and inclusion roles a key part of its policy platform. The document, Civil Service EDI Expenditure Review Data, appeared on the Cabinet Office website on Thursday afternoon. A total of 19 ministerial departments and 45 arm's-length bodies responded to the government review. The research also looked at how much was spent on EDI in the big five departments – Department for Work and Pensions, Home Office, HM Revenue and Customs, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Justice. In 2023-24, the total spent in these five departments was £12.8 million. A government spokesman said the £27 million equated to 0.006 per cent of Civil Service spend. 'This spending took place under the previous government,' she said. 'We are absolutely focused on ensuring every pound spent of taxpayer money delivers for the public – ending hospital backlogs, putting police back on the beat and securing our borders.' Meanwhile, the Policy Exchange think tank called on the Government to go further and reduce the Civil Service by 80,000. Within this, the report proposes halving the size of the senior Civil Service, the policy profession and the HR profession and a 70 per cent reduction in communications staff. Commenting on the report, a former Treasury second permanent secretary said: 'Whether you believe in a big or a small state, we should all want one that is efficient and effective. 'An over-resourced administrative machine inevitably generates ever more process for itself and slows itself down.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Forbes
29-05-2025
- Forbes
Federal Job Applications Will Soon Have Essay Questions About Trump's Executive Orders And Government Efficiency
Essay questions about government efficiency and President Donald Trump's executive orders will soon be included in federal job applications, the Office of Personnel Management announced Thursday, adding new requirements for civil service job seekers that could gauge their political leanings. The questions were listed in a Thursday memorandum from the Office of Personnel Management. (Photo ... More by) The questions will apply to applications for positions GS-05 and above, a federal pay grade with annual rates as low as $34,454, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management. Four essay questions will be added with a limit of 200 words per answer, with applicants required to certify that they did not use a consultant or artificial intelligence for their answers. The Office of Personnel Management said the questions are being added as part of Executive Order 14170, which Trump signed in January and seeks to make the federal hiring process more efficient. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here. 1. How has your commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States inspired you to pursue this role within the Federal government? Provide a concrete example from professional, academic, or personal experience. 2. In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced costs, or improved outcomes. 3. How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired. 4. How has a strong work ethic contributed to your professional, academic or personal achievements? Provide one or two specific examples, and explain how those qualities would enable you to serve effectively in this position. The new questions do not explicitly ask applicants about their political preferences, which is prohibited under federal law. However, Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, told Bloomberg, which first reported on the job application questions, that the new inquiries were 'deeply problematic' and an 'almost partisan and ideological overlay without understanding the responsibilities they're hiring for.' When exactly the new questions will begin appearing on federal job applications provided by USAJobs, the official employment site for the federal government. The Office of Personnel Management did not immediately respond to Forbes' request for comment. Trump signed Executive Order 14170 with the stated goal of streamlining and making the federal hiring process more transparent. He also signed Executive Order 14173 to curb diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in federal hiring, claiming the initiatives, which are intended to accommodate marginalized groups in the workplace and in the hiring process, are 'illegal, demeaning, and immoral.' Last month, The Washington Post reported some 280 employees working on environmental justice and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives for the Environmental Protection Agency resigned from the agency themselves or were told they would be fired. The president's goal to reform federal hiring has been pushed alongside the firing of hundreds of thousands of federal employees, which has been done to 'enhance accountability, reduce waste, and promote innovation,' according to the president. However, some of the layoffs have been reversed by the Trump administration or blocked by courts. Federal Government Layoff Tracker: State Department Reportedly Cutting 15% Of U.S. Staff, EPA Firing DEI Workers (Forbes)
