Tucker Brown, CSC Docket No. 2019-2817
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of August 14, 2019, CSC Docket No. 2019-2817: examination scoring or administration, denied. Tucker Brown requests that his residency be changed after the closing date for the eligible lists produced from the examination for Fire Fighter (M9999W).
Commission decisions · Meeting of August 14, 2019
Tucker Brown requests that his residency be changed after the closing date for the eligible lists produced from the examination for Fire Fighter (M9999W).
- Matter
- Examination scoring or administration
- Decided
- August 14, 2019, item B-21
- Outcome
- Denied
- Title
- FIRE FIGHTER
- Examination
- M9999W
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-021 08-14-19.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this request be denied.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
Appellant's argumentTucker Brown requests that his residency be changed after the closing date for the eligible lists produced from the examination for Fire Fighter (M9999W).
BackgroundThe examination had a closing date of August 31, 2018, and consisted of a written portion, and a physical performance portion which is pass/fail and is administered after list issuance. The appellant passed the written examination and received a final average of 89.730. On his application, the appellant used a Clinton Township residency code, and an Annandale, New Jersey address. Annandale is located within Clinton Township, in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Instructions to candidates were that the residency code should reflect where the candidate actually resides. Candidates were told that since eligibility needs to be established as of the closing date of the announcement, the residency code cannot be changed after the closing date, August 31, 2018, even if the residence address or mailing address is changed.
Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant stated that he lives in Jersey City, and he mistakenly used his old address in Annandale, New Jersey on his application. He provided a phone bill dated March 18, 2019, a voter registration registered on October 15, 2018, and a driver’s license was issued October 15, 2018. The appellant was advised that this documentation does not substantiate his residency at the address in Jersey City on or before the August 31, 2018, closing date. The appellant responded by submitting a copy of a lease which indicated that his landlord was a family member and he was renting a unit in Jersey City from May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2020. When asked to provide two more proofs of residency, he did not respond.
CONCLUSION
RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.11(e) states that, unless otherwise specified, residency requirements shall be met by the announced closing date for the examination.
AnalysisThe closing date was August 31, 2018, and the appellant indicated on his application that he resided in Clinton Township. After receiving his examination results, the appellant maintains that he is a resident of Jersey City, and he sent a copy of his lease. He was asked to provide two other common sources of identification for residency on or before August 31, 2018, and he did not produce those documents. He provided three proofs, each issued after the closing date, and the lease. As such, there is insufficient proof of residency to substantiate a residency code change for this application.
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 a judicial forum.
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's monthly archive. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.