David Chasmer and Michael Kisfalvi, CSC Docket No. 2019-2921, 2019-2922

BackgroundDavid Chasmer (PM2036W), Union City; and Michael Kisfalvi (PM2019W), Passaic; request reconsideration of the final administrative determination in Jn the Matter of Mark Moskal, et al., Police Liewtenant (CSC, decided February 20, 2019). A copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

As provided in the original decision, the subject examination was administered on October 11, 2018, consisting of 80 multiple choice questions. Question 77 the Citizen Ride-Along Program provided in the test booklet. The question indicated that while reviewing the packet that the Clerk forwarded you concerning Nolan Matthews’ request to participate in the citizen ride-along program, you notice that the Citizen Observer Ride Request and Waiver is missing Nolan’s signature. You contact Nolan and inform him that he will need to come back to your Department’s headquarters to sign his Citizen Observer Ride Request and Waiver. Nolan is upset and says he does not have time to come back to headquarters and that it should not matter whether his signature is there or not. He says that if he is approved, then he can just sign the Citizen Observer Ride Request and Waiver before his ride-along begins. The policy does not allow for that, however. The question asks for the statement that would be most appropriate to say to Nolan in response. The keyed response was option b, “I understand that coming back to headquarters is inconvenient for you, but your request for a ride- along cannot be approved unless your Citizen Observer Ride Request and Waiver contains a signature.” Chasmer and Kisfalvi argued that option d, “The Clerk was supposed to review your completed Citizen Observer Ride Request and Waiver before you left headquarters, so it was his mistake, not yours, but I will need you to fix this.” They referred to the program under the section, “III. Application Procedures,” which provides, “Before the citizen leaves headquarters, the Clerk will verify that the form is completely filled out and signed, and that the photo ID is valid. The Clerk will make a photocopy of the ID. The applicant will be contacted at a later time regarding whether or not he/she has been approved for the ride- along.” Specifically, Chasmer maintained that “by merely apologizing for the inconvenience but telling the citizen they need to come in, the blame is transferred to the citizen... [The keyed response] places the failure of the clerk to adhere to the policy on the citizen and essentially covers up the department’s failure.” Kisfalvi claimed that option d “was the best possible answer [since] the clerk failed to review, which was in the policy.” The Commission noted that Michael Carpenter and Roger Fulton, Law Enforcement Management: What Works and What Doesn't (2010), indicate that “when in a position of leadership, everything that occurs is your responsibility, even the errors. You job is to minimize the damage, correct the problem, and assure that it doesn’t happen again. Placing blame on others shows you are a weak commander.” The Commission determined that option b neither placed blame on the citizen! for failing to sign the form nor on the Clerk for failing to ensure it was signed. Rather, the keyed response addressed the core issue, i.e., the form must be signed, from a neutral and professional stance. The Commission further determined that given that option d publicly places the blame on a member of your staff, it was not the best response.

Appellant's argumentIn his request, Chasmer contends that “there was no clear-cut answer in the listed options, and the instructions were clear that no other information could be used to determine the best answer. The use of the management book in bolstering this decision is not fair, because it directly contradicts the instructions. Had I known that I could use Carpenter and Fulton’s opinion as a source in this section, I would have answered otherwise.” He presents that he understood the directions “to mean that my understanding of the policy was being tested, not my ability to recognize the most professional response, in light of my personal professional beliefs, or that of the management book.” He argues that he “felt [that he] had to choose between the answer that ‘sounds the best’ and only acknowledges one issue (Option B), and the answer that admittedly ‘threw the clerk under the bus,’ yet shows [a] more complete understanding of the policy was being tested, and this is why I chose the latter.”

Kisfalvi presents that “the instructions were to answer the questions for the Citizen Ride-Along Program based on the policy, not based on Carpenter and Fulton. Therefore, the best possible answer based solely on the Citizen Ride-Along Program Policy would be option (d), which was written in the policy.”

! See e.g., option c, “It was your responsibility to fill out the Citizen Observer Ride Request and Waiver correctly and completely . . .”

CONCLUSION

N.J.A.C. 4A4:2-1.6(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 burdens of proof in this matter.

The Citizen Ride-Along Program provides, in pertinent part:

III. Application Procedures

A. All requests for ride-alongs must be made by the interested citizen in person at police headquarters between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., any day of the week. Requests by phone or email will not be accepted.

B. Adults seeking to go on a citizen ride-along, or the parent/guardian of a minor child seeking to go on a citizen ride-along, should see the Desk Officer (Clerk), who will provide them with a copy of the Citizen Observer Ride Request and Waiver. They will be asked to read and sign the waiver of liability and completely fill out the “Rider Information” portion of the Citizen Observer Ride Request and Waiver. This must be filled out while at police headquarters. The citizen will then present the signed form with the Rider Information filled out and valid photo identification (ID) to the Clerk.

C. Before the citizen leaves headquarters, the Clerk will verify that the form is completely filled out and signed, and that the photo ID is valid. The Clerk will make a photocopy of the ID. The applicant will be contacted at a later time regarding whether or not he/she has been approved for the ride-along.

Thus, pursuant to the above policy section, while the Clerk has a responsibility to verify that the form is filled out and signed, the interested citizen has a responsibility to complete and sign the requisite forms. Thus, the appellants’ “understanding of the policy” is flawed since option d “only acknowledges one” of the responsible parties. Accordingly, the appellants they have failed to demonstrate how option d “shows [a] more complete understanding of the policy [that] was being tested.”

As noted in the original decision, the core or main issue presented by the question is that the citizen, Nolan Matthews, must sign the form. However, it is noted that the policy does not directly address the situation presented in the question. Thus, as a result, despite Chasmer’s contention, candidates were not only required to be aware of the provisions of the policy? but they also had to analyze the situation and apply professional judgment. Again, as noted in the original decision, option b neither places blame on the citizen for failing to sign the form nor on the Clerk for failing to ensure it was signed and thus, resolves the core issue from a neutral and professional stance. While the reference to Carpenter and Fulton, supra, was used to reinforce what was presented in the keyed response, it did not supplant the Citizen Ride-Along Program provided in the test booklet.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these requests be denied.

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