Consider this hypothetical. A new governor takes office along with a substantially new legislature. On day one, the governor fires hundreds of attorneys, engineers and other state employees. Most of those dismissed are longtime classified government workers who have developed expertise in matters related to state contracts, procurement, administrative procedure and, in the case of engineers, road and bridge design and construction practices. All of the new employees hired to replace them are paid substantially more than their predecessors. Most have made campaign contributions to the governor or well-placed legislators.
Far-fetched? Improbable? Unlikely? Not if Amendment 1 on the May 16 ballot is passed by voters statewide.
Currently almost 90% of state employees are classified and cannot be removed at the whim of an elected official. They cannot engage in political activity either. This is a fair trade-off. Unclassified employees, on the other hand, are “at will” workers answerable only to the official appointing them. They can be politically active. Many typically support the political campaigns of the individuals for whom they work. They also generally are paid a higher wage than their classified counterparts.
Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that it is too difficult to fire bad employees and that the state has difficulty attracting good talent. The latter is often true, but it will not be remedied by passage of this amendment.
It is correct to say that there is a process for firing a classified worker. It can take more time than firing an unclassified employee and it certainly takes documentation, but this is precisely what managers must do. They must manage their workforce, provide counseling when needed and properly record deficiencies that ultimately may justify termination.
I spent almost 20 years running three departments of state government: the Secretary of State’s office; the Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism and the Division of Administration. I was authorized to hire a limited number of unclassified employees and supervised thousands of classified employees, the vast majority of whom were hard working, dedicated public servants. I also fired a number of individuals, some unclassified but most classified.
Jay Dardenne
Provided photo
Under the regimes of Huey Long, Earl Long and others, there was no classified civil service system. This changed with reform governors such as Sam Jones and Bob Kennon. During the latter’s single term, the Department of Civil Service obtained constitutional status. Gov. Jones implemented early vestiges of a civil service program only to see it repealed during a subsequent Earl Long term. Until Gov. Kennon made it a focal point of his 1952 campaign and saw it enshrined in the state constitution, political spoils were the order of the day. The civil service system created an opportunity for workers to obtain employment with the security of knowing that they could not be fired, without cause, for political reasons.
In 2025, Gov. Jeff Landry sought to reclassify 394 attorney slots and 506 engineer positions from classified to unclassified. The proposal would not have affected any current employees. However, if those positions had been reclassified, the door would be opened for politics to inevitably impact the hiring process. The constitutionally created Civil Service Commission, which is the human resource entity for state government, properly refused this request. Thereafter, this proposed constitutional amendment passed the Legislature.
State employees are subject to pay scales that allow for advancement and raises, but they typically earn far less than comparable positions in the private sector. This is as it should be. State employees are protected from political abuse and benefit from a strong retirement system and benefits package. Numerous studies have been undertaken to make state pay more competitive, but it will never nor should it exceed that in the private sector. It is inconceivable that well paid professionals will leave the private sector to enter unprotected employment with the state unless unclassified salaries go up dramatically.
The ballot language is deceptively simple:
“Do you support an amendment to allow the legislature to remove or add officers, positions, and employees to the unclassified state civil service?”
Without any details identifying potential next steps, it will be left to a majority of the Legislature to provide the proverbial “devil in the details.”
The passage of Amendment 1 would be a huge step backward for h at a time when we need many forward steps to improve our overall economy and to make government more responsible and efficient. Converting classified jobs to unclassified jobs will not do so.