Ryan Andrick County Police Officer (S9999U), CSC Docket No. 2018-1794

BackgroundRyan Andrick appeals the removal of his name from the eligible list for County Police Officer (S9999U), Camden County due to his failure to appear for an interview.

The subject eligible list (S9999U) promulgated on March 29, 2017. In disposing of the April 10, 2017 certification, the appointing authority requested that the appellant’s name be removed due to his failure to appear of his interview. In support of its request, the appointing authority provided a copy of a certified letter dated April 27, 2017 addressed to the appellant indicating he must appear for an interview on one of the dates listed in the letter. The appellant did not appear for his interview therefore his name was removed from the eligible list.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant maintains that he was away at a Class II Special Law Enforcement Academy at the Cape May County Police Academy and had temporarily relocated to a friend’s residence during the training. Therefore, he did not receive the appointing authority’s letter regarding the scheduled interview. The appellant also states that he is currently serving as a Special Law Enforcement Officer Class 1 for the Gloucester Township Police Department.

Appointing authority's argumentIn response, the appointing authority indicates that a letter dated April 27, 2017 was sent to the appellant which stated that he should call or email them at the link indicated in the letter to set up his interview as well download the complete application in its entirety for his interview. Since the appellant did not appear for his interview, the appointing authority maintains he was properly removed from the above eligible list.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)3 provides, in pertinent part, that the name of an eligible may be removed from an eligible list for inability, unavailability or refusal of an eligible to accept appointment. Additionally, N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b), in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d), provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an appointing authority’s decision to remove the appellant’s name from an eligible list was in error.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, the record demonstrates that a letter dated April 27, 2017 was sent to the appellant notifying him of the dates he could schedule for interviews. The appellant indicates that he was not at the address where the letter was sent and stated that he was at a Class II Special Law Enforcement Training Academy. There is no indication that he notified the appointing authority of the temporary change to his address. Moreover, there is no indication he made arrangements while temporarily away from his address to pick up his mail. Accordingly, the appellant has not met his burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in the judicial forum.