Rudolph Beu, CSC Docket No. 2021-1646

BackgroundThe appeal of Rudolph Beu, Police Chief, Vineland, Police Department, six- month suspension and demotion to Deputy Police Chief, effective February 26, 2020, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Catherine A. Tuohy (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on June 23, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, as well as relevant portions of the testimony, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on September 10, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to reverse the six- month suspension and demotion.

Upon its de novo review of the ALJ’s thorough and well-reasoned initial decision as well as the entire record, including the exceptions and reply filed by the parties, most of which do not require extensive comment, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determinations regarding the charges, as they were predominantly based on the ALJ’s credibility determinations of testimony of the witnesses. In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that the ALJ, who has the benefit of hearing and seeing the witnesses, is generally in a better position to determine the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. See Matter of J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997). “[T]rial courts’ credibility findings . . . are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of the witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record.” See also, In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)). Additionally, such credibility findings need not be explicitly enunciated if the record as a whole makes the findings clear. Id. at 659 (citing Locurto, supra). The Commission appropriately gives due deference to such determinations. However, in its de novo review of the record, the Commission has the authority to reverse or modify an ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004).

In this case, when the matter was initially presented to the Commission at its August 13, 2025, meeting, the Commission expressed no concerns with the vast majority of the ALJ’s findings. However, it did note some concern with the ALJ’s credibility determinations in regard to the incidents involving the appellant and Ronald DeMarchi. As such, the Commission requested staff to present a summary of the relevant portions of the hearing testimony as to those incidents. Upon review of that summary, the Commission finds nothing to discredit the ALJ’s credibility determinations regarding those incidents. Moreover, the Commission finds nothing in the exceptions that persuasively demonstrates that any of the ALJ’s other credibility determinations, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. As such, the Commission adopts those determinations as well as the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

Since the suspension and demotion have been reversed, the appellant is entitled to six months of mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority at his Police Chief pay rate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. He is also entitled to unmitigated differential back pay from August 26, 2020 to the date of actual reinstatement to Police Chief.1 Moreover, as the appellant has prevailed, he is entitled to reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, per the Appellate Division’s decision, Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections, Docket No. A-5581-01T2F (App. Div. Feb. 26, 2003), the Commission’s decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning back pay or counsel fees are finally resolved.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending and demoting the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore reverses those actions and grants the appeal of Rudolph Beu.

The Commission orders that the appellant be granted six month of back pay at his prior Police Chief pay rate, as well as benefits, and seniority. That amount of back pay is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. Proof of income earned, and an affidavit of mitigation shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision. The Commission further orders unmitigated differential back pay from August 26, 2020, to the date of his reinstatement to Police Chief.

1 Although, the appellant’s personnel record indicates that he has been removed on unassociated disciplinary charges, effective August 31, 2023. If that is the case, his unmitigated differential back pay would cease on that date.

Additionally, the Commission orders that counsel fees be awarded to the attorney for the appellant pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12. An affidavit of services in support of reasonable counsel fees shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision.

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:2.12, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay and counsel fees.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay or counsel fees within 60 days of issuance of this decision. In the absence of such notice, the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final administrative determination pursuant to R. 2:2-3(a)(2). After such time, any further review of this matter shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.