NJ Civil Service Navigator

K.L., CSC Docket No. 2019-744

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of October 23, 2019, CSC Docket No. 2019-744: removal from an eligible list, denied. K.L. appeals his rejection as a Campus Police Officer Recruit candidate by Rowan University and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for Campus Police Officer Re

Commission decisions · Meeting of October 23, 2019

K.L. appeals his rejection as a Campus Police Officer Recruit candidate by Rowan University and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for Campus Police Officer Recruit (PS6966J) on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position.

Matter
Removal from an eligible list
Decided
October 23, 2019, item B-4
Outcome
Denied
Stated ground
Psychological evaluation
Title
CAMPUS POLICE OFFICER RECRUIT
Examination
PS6966J
Chair at the time
Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
Official decision
Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-004 10-23-19.pdf)

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be denied.

The decision

BackgroundK.L. appeals his rejection as a Campus Police Officer Recruit candidate by Rowan University and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for Campus Police Officer Recruit (PS6966J) on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position.

This appeal was brought before the Medical Review Panel on July 16, 2019, which rendered its report and recommendation on July 16, 2019. No exceptions were filed by the parties.

The report by the Medical Review Panel discusses all submitted evaluations. The Panel concluded that the test results and procedures and the behavioral record, when viewed in light of the Job Specification for Campus Police Officer Recruit, indicate that the candidate is psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of the position sought, and therefore, the action of the hiring authority should be upheld. Accordingly, the Panel recommended that the applicant be removed from the eligible list.

CONCLUSION

The Job Specification for Campus Police Officer Recruit is the official job description for such State positions within the Civil Service system. According to the specification, a Campus Police Officer Recruit provides foot and vehicular patrol to detect security problems, safety hazards, and to provide surveillance for an entire college/university/university campus or portion thereof. These Officers must strictly follow rules, regulations, policies and other operational procedures of that institution. Examples of work include: learning to take necessary measures to safeguard the lives and property of all members of the college/university community and of visitors to the campus; learning to take appropriate steps to respond to crime, disaster, medical or disturbance scenes and secure as necessary; learning to take appropriate steps to rescue people from life threatening and/or serious injury circumstances (e.g. from drowning, burning building, snow storms, floods, etc.); learning to investigate criminal, civil, and other complaints (including those of motor vehicle violations) committed by or against the college/university and community, and observes established regulations and policy in such work; learning to coordinate initial effort with public agencies and incident/crime scene; learning to preserve evidence/contraband by tagging, marking, and/or sealing for safekeeping and, if necessary, transport evidence to court to assist with judicial proceedings; learning to enforce traffic and parking regulations on campus and cooperates with and assisting municipal, county, and State Police in traffic control as required; and providing general assistance to all persons on the campus, including information regarding campus locations, special events, campus regulations, provisions of the law, and other matters.

The specification notes the following as required knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform the job: knowledge of legal requirements governing arrests, search, seizure and evidence; knowledge of the legal rights, responsibilities and liabilities of college/university employees, students, and campus visitors as well as the legal rights of the apprehended and their families; knowledge of the proper police procedures to be used in dealing with people and safeguarding buildings and property; the ability to understand, remember and carry out oral and written directions and to learn quickly from written and verbal explanations; the ability to remain calm and decisive in emergency situations and to retain emotional stability; the ability to give clear, accurate and explicit directions; and the ability to prepare clear, accurate and informative reports of significant conditions and actions taken.

The Civil Service Commission has reviewed the job specification for this title and the duties and abilities encompassed therein and found that the psychological traits, which were identified and supported by test procedures and the behavioral record, relate adversely to the appellant’s ability to effectively perform the duties of the title. Having considered the record and the Medical Review Panel’s report and recommendation issued thereon and having made an independent evaluation of same, the Civil Service Commission accepted and adopted the findings and conclusions as contained in the Medical Review Panel’s report and recommendation.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the appointing authority has met its burden of proof that K.L. is psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of a Campus Police Officer Recruit and, therefore, the Commission orders that his name be removed from the subject eligible list.

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.