JOHN GEOGHEGAN, CSC Docket No. 2018-306

ee

BackgroundJohn Geoghegan requests reconsideration of the attached final administrative determination in In the Matter of County Correction Captain (PC1189P) and County Lieutenant (PC1202P), Hudson County (CSC, decided June 7, 2017).

The facts of this matter are thoroughly discussed in the attached decision and will not be reiterated herein. It is noted that subsequently, Geoghegan received a regular appointment to the County Correction Captain title effective October 2, 2017.!

Appellant's argumentIn his request, the appellant argues that he should not have been returned to the County Correction Lieutenant title as he “was the only person to take and pass the exam for County Correctio{n] Captain (PC2530T) [on the original test administration date].” He explains that since he was aware that the PC1189P and PC1202P announcements were under appeal, he applied for the PC2530T test “despite already holding the position” and he was the only eligible on the PC2530T list when it promulgated on November 17, 2016. He contends that the Civil Service Commission’s (Commission) decision in In the Matter of County Correction Captain

| The first certification from the County Correction Captain (PC2530T) eligible list was issued effective September 1, 2017 (Certification No. PL171075) which contained the names of all four eligibles, in rank order: Michael Conrad and Christopher Yurecko (who tied at rank A), Thomas Burke, and John Geoghegan. In disposing of the certification. the appointing authority appointed all four individuals effective October 2, 2017.

(PC1189P) and County Lieutenant (PC1202P), Hudson County. supra, “erroneously omitted the fact that I had applied for, taken, passed, and [was] the only eligible on this list (PC2530T).” He argues that while the Commission noted in its decision that the County had “propos[ed] ‘keep[ing] [Mr.] Geoghegan in the post of captain’ . . . the Commission “chose not to quote [the County's] statement in its entirety [which continued,] ‘in light of his position as the only candidate on a subsequently issued eligibility list for the position of captain.” He argues that the County’s letter also noted, eg., that “all eight Applicants. who were deemed ineligible by the Appellate Court have satisfactorily performed the functions and duties required in their promotional rank.” He maintains that the Commission should have “exercise([d] its authority under [N./.A.C.] 4A:4-4.1(b) .. . to appoint me to the title of County Correctio[n] Captain from the current eligible list (PC2530T)” for the above noted reasons.

In a separate submission, the appellant presents that he was “promoted again to the rank of County Correctio[n] Captain from the current eligibility list (PC2530T) on September 29, 2017 .. . If the appointing authority (Hudson County) were to call for a promotional examination for the rank of Deputy Warden which would have a presumed closing date of November 21, 2017, then my eligibility to take that examination would rest on the [CJommission’s determination on my petition for reconsideration.”

CONCLUSION

N.J.A.C. 44:2-1.6(b) sets forth the standards by which the Commission may reconsider a prior decision. This rule provides that a party must show that a clear material error occurred or present new evidence or additional information which would change the outcome of the case and the reasons that such evidence was not presented during the original proceeding.

In the present matter, the appellant has failed to meet the standard for reconsideration. The appellant does not present new evidence or additional information which was not presented at the original proceeding which would change the outcome of the original decision, nor has the appellant proven that a clear material error has occurred in the original decision. Accordingly, based on the record presented, the appellant has failed to support his burden of proof in this matter.

With respect to the appellant’s claims that the Commission “erroneously omitted the fact” that he was the only eligible on the PC2530T list, and failed to cite the entirety of the County’s letter, the Commission, as part of its determination process, reviewed all available records and was fully aware that the appellant had been, at the time of the June 7, 2017 decision, the only eligible on the PC2530T eligible list. Moreover, although the entirety of the County's letter was not cited in

In the Matter of County Correction Captain (PC1189P) and County Lieutenant (PC1202P), Hudson County, supra, the Commission reviewed the correspondence and duly considered its contents in making its determination.2 In this regard, as noted in that decision, “the Appellate Division did not mandate the appointment of the appellants or any other individuals. Rather, the Appellate Division only ordered the removal of the above noted individuals from the PC1189P and PC1202P promotional lists.”

Furthermore, the appellant maintains, in essence, that he should be granted an advantage over similarly situated individuals since he “was the only person to take and pass the exam for County Correctio[n] Captain (PC2530T) [on the original test administration date].” It is noted that following the Appellate Division decision, the Commission thoroughly evaluated all of the affected individuals’ circumstances. As a result of that evaluation, the Commission determined that the affected individuals “should have the opportunity to be on [the PC2530T or PC2556T] eligible lists,” respectively. As such, given the potential for a reranking of the PC2530T list as the result of any make-ups, the Commission ordered certification holds placed on the PC2530T and PC2556T lists pending the scoring of any make-up examinations. As noted above, Geoghegan did not retain his position as the only and/or first ranked individual on the PC2530T eligible list and thus, he may not have been reachable for appointment. However, as indicated above, all four eligibles on the PC2530T list received the same regular appointment date of October 2, 2017.

With regard to Deputy Warden, it is noted that that Hudson County has not, to date, “call[ed] for a promotional examination for the rank of Deputy Warden.”

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request be denied.

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

? Similarly, while the entirety of the appellant's instant request has not reproduced herein, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the appellant’s submissions.

4 Since the appellant had taken the PC2530T test on the original test administration date, May 12, 2016, he was not required to file a new application and he was not given a make-up test.