Martin Antelo, CSC Docket No. 2020-2566

Appellant's argumentMartin Antelo requests that he be permitted to amend his application after the closing date for the Entry Level Law Enforcement Examination (S9999A). It is noted that appellant passed the subject examination with a final average of 99.950 and a rank of 969.

BackgroundBy way of background, the subject examination was announced on July 1, 2019 with a closing date of August 31, 2019. A review of the record finds that the appellant filed an application for the subject test on July 2, 2019, on which he indicated a Ridgefield address and a residency code (0250).

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, Antelo presents that he has resided in for over 20 years and has served as a Special Law Enforcement Officer in North Bergen for the past two years. He explains that after renting a home in for many years, he and his mother purchased a home in in June 2019. He anticipated that his mother would move into the home after scheduled renovations were completed while he searched for living arrangements in North Bergen. However, “due to the fact that I was unable to afford rent by myself, the possibility of me having to relocate to , at least temporarily, became likely. To ensure that I made the most of my Civil Service exam score, I called the Civil Service Commission to ask which residence I should have put on my application.” He asserts that he was advised that he “should use when I register[ed] for the exam.” He further explains that “due to complications along the way, the home we purchased in is not ready for move in” and he has remained in North Bergen. In support of his appeal, Antelo provides additional documentation including: a sworn statement dated July 28, 2020 in which Antelo presents that the address he indicates on appeal address) has been his legal residence continuously since 2006; a notarized statement dated July 26, 2020 from Ana Gonzalez in which Gonzalez indicates that Antelo “has resided at [the address] since 2006. They have occupied and continue to presently occupy the . . . dwelling owned by myself . . .”; letters dated March 26, 2018, January 2, 2019 and January 2, 2020 from Allen Pascual, Commissioner of Public Safety, Township of addressed to the address indicating Antelo’s appointment as a Class II Special Law Enforcement Officer for the Township of ; a copy of his driver’s license issued May 24, 2019 indicating the North Bergen address; copies of his health insurance statements, including those dated May 7, 2019 and August 17, 2019, addressed to the address; and copies of his credit card statements, including those dated for the periods July 14 to August 13, 2019 and August 14 to September 13, 2019, addressed to the address.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) permits an applicant to amend a previously submitted application prior to the filing closing date. As noted previously, the announcement indicated that the closing date was August 31, 2019.

AnalysisIn the present matter, the appellant indicates that he used a residency code on his application as he believed he would be relocating to a home there. However, he explains that he remained in and remains there to date. In addition, the appellant has provided documentation, as indicated above, to demonstrate his residency in as of the August 31, 2019 closing date. Furthermore, the appellant has submitted a signed sworn statement that he has lived continuously in since 2006. The Commission is willing to accept that if the appellant is prepared to make a statement under oath, understanding all its implications and consequences, then the Commission will accept the appellant’s statement that he was living in as of the August 31, 2019 closing date.

The Commission emphasizes that it is not making a determination of the appellant’s residency but rather that the appellant made a request to change the residency code on his application. In this regard, it is noted that each jurisdiction has its own residency requirement, which must be met by the closing date. The Civil Service Commission does not have authority over the establishment of this requirement. Some jurisdictions only require candidates to be residents as of the closing date, while others also require that residency be maintained up to the date of appointment. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.11(c). The appointing authority may, at its discretion, investigate the appellant’s residency as part of a background check conducted prior to making any appointment.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request be granted and the appellant’s application be amended to indicate a residency code and the appellant be considered prospectively for future appointment opportunities.

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