Richard Ramos, CSC Docket No. 2019-2535

Richard Ramos,! Daniel Brizek and Thomas Miller request reconsideration of the final administrative determination in In the Matter of Nicolas DeLeon, Police Lieutenant (PMO694V), Bergenfield (CSC, decided February 6, 2019). A copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

As provided in the original decision, the subject announcement was issued on July 1, 2017 with an application filing deadline of July 21, 2017, and indicated that the subject test was tentatively scheduled to be administered in October 2017. Notices dated September 24, 2017 informed candidates that the subject test was to be administered on October 5, 2017. In his make-up request, DeLeon indicated that he would be on an overseas trip on the exam administration date. In support of his request, he provided a copy of his airline confirmation which indicated a ticket purchase date of January 26, 2017, a departure date of October 3, 2017 and a return date of October 17, 2017. The Commission noted that Examination Information Alert Police Promotional Schedule (2017) (EIA) issued by the Division of Test Development and Analytics in April 2017 and available on the Commission website, indicated that announcements for Police Lieutenant were to be issued on July 1, 2017 and the tentative test administration date would be in October 2017. The subject announcement, as noted above, was issued on July 1, 2017, and indicated that the test was tentatively scheduled to be administered in October 2017. In addition, the Civil Service Commission Public Safety Testing Law Enforcement Status Report July/August 2017, which was available on the Commission website, indicated that the next announcements for Police Lieutenant were expected to be issued on July 1, 2017, Bergenfield was one of the anticipated jurisdictions and the test was anticipated to be held in early to mid-October. The Commission further noted that the earliest that candidates were on notice that the subject exam would be administered in October 2017 was July 1, 2017. The Commission indicated that DeLeon was unable cancel his vacation plans or make arrangements to return to New Jersey solely for the purpose of taking the test. Thus, the Commission determined that although the information presented by DeLeon did not technically meet the criteria for a make-up pursuant to N.A.C. 4A:4-2.9(b), good cause existed to relax the controlling regulation given the unique circumstances presented and ordered that he be provided with a make-up for the subject examination.

Background1 On April 30, 2019, staff was contacted telephonically by Robert Manetta, Esq., who indicated that he would be representing Ramos. However, it is noted that no further information was received from Manetta. In addition, in a submission filed July 9, 2019, Ramos indicated that Manetta would “not be sending over any further documents.”

In their requests, Ramos, Brizek and Miller contend that “Mr. De{L]eon has used the appeal process on several occasions throughout his career in order to obtain an unfair advantage.? He is also aware that promotional examinations are usually given during the month of October and all supervisors are advised to make sure you do not plan vacations around this time, due to vacations not being a valid excuse for a make-up date... [W]e believe Mr. DefLJeon planning a vacation, and being provided an addition[al] 1 year to take a promotional exam is an unfair advantage for a simple reason of, he did not believe he was eligible to take the exam ... Mr. De[LJeon has stated to us on numerous occasions, he does not take exams when the Civil Service Commission wants, but he takes them when he wants to.” In support of his request, Ramos submits “similar appeals that were heard and denied:” In the Matter of Daniel Pereira, Fire Captain (PM1046V), Newark (CSC, decided May 23, 2018); In the Matter of Eugene Mara, County Correction Sergeant (PC2080U), Middlesex County (CSC, decided April 18, 2018); In the Matter of Robert Morse, Police Lieutenant (PM1405U), Elizabeth (CSC, decided May 3, 2017); and In the Matter of Steven Dixon, Police Lieutenant (PM1419U), Keyport (CSC, decided January 18, 2017).

? The appellants do not provide any additional information regarding this claim. However, it is noted that a review of the record finds that the appeal underlying this reconsideration request is the only appeal received by the Commission from DeLeon.

' Even assuming the accuracy and/or veracity of this claim, a review of the record finds that of the two Civil Service promotional examinations that DeLeon applied for and was admitted, he was only provided with a make-up examination for the PMOG9AV test. In addition, it is noted that the Civil Service Commission does not require individuals who may be eligible for a promotional announcement to submit an application. Rather, the decision as to whether or not to apply for a promotional examination rests with the individual.

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 appellants have failed to meet the standard for reconsideration. The appellants do 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 have the appellants proven that a clear material error has occurred in the original decision. Accordingly, based on the record presented, the appellants have failed to support their burden of proof in this matter.

It is noted that the appellants do not explain or provide any evidence of how the make-up examination conferred “an unfair advantage” to DeLeon. Moreover, despite their claim that “all supervisors are advised to make sure you do not plan vacations around [October],” the appellants have not provided any further information. In this regard, they do not indicate who advised “all supervisors” or when “all supervisors” were advised of the promotional examination for Lieutenant. Furthermore, they do not submit any evidence of such notice, e.g., a departmental email or memorandum, being issued prior to January 26, 2017, the date on which DeLeon purchased airline tickets, to all eligibles for the PM0694V test.

In regard to the Commission decisions submitted by Ramos, a review of these matters finds that In the Matter of Eugene Mara, supra, and In the Matter of Steven Dixon, supra, involve make-up requests based on illness or injury. As such, it is neither clear how these matters are relevant nor does Ramos explain their relevance. While the make-up requests in Jn the Matter of Daniel Pereira, supra, and In the Matter of Steven Dixon, supra, were based on travel plans, the appellants in both of those matters, unlike DeLeon, were on notice of the tentative test dates prior to making their vacation plans.

A thorough review of the record indicates that the appellants have failed to support their burden of proof in this matter.

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.