NJ Civil Service Navigator

Rome Smith Cumberland County, CSC Docket No. 2021-342

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of May 3, 2023, CSC Docket No. 2021-342: discipline, penalty modified. Rome Smith, Senior Juvenile Detention Officer, Cumberland County, Department of Corrections, removal, effective September 15, 2020, on charges of conduct unbecoming a public employee and other

Commission decisions · Meeting of May 3, 2023

Rome Smith, Senior Juvenile Detention Officer, Cumberland County, Department of Corrections, removal, effective September 15, 2020, on charges of conduct unbecoming a public employee and other sufficient cause.

Matter
Discipline
Decided
May 3, 2023, item A-12
Outcome
Penalty modified
ALJ's recommendation
Modify the removal to a six-month suspension.
What the Commission did with it
Adopted the ALJ's recommendation
Penalty appealed
removal
Penalty after the decision
suspension
Title
SENIOR JUVENILE DETENTION OFFICER
Employer
Cumberland County
Chair at the time
Allison Chris Myers, Acting Chairperson
Official decision
CSC's PDF

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission affirmed the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.

Rules this decision applies

The decision

CSC published this decision as a scanned image. The text below was recognized by OCR, read twice and checked against the meeting minutes, but OCR can misread a word. The official document is the record.

BackgroundThe appeal of Rome Smith, Senior Juvenile Detention Officer, Cumberland County, Department of Corrections, removal, effective September 15, 2020, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Judith Lieberman (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on March 23, 2023. No exceptions were filed.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on May 3, 2023, the Commission adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions and her recommendation to modify the removal to a six-month suspension with the addition of workplace and public demeanor, and social media training.

Since the removal has been modified, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated with mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C, 4A:2-2,10 from six months after the first date of separation until the date of actual reinstatement. However, he is not entitled to counsel fees. N.dfA.C. 4A:2-2.12(a) provides for the award of counsel fees only where an employee has prevailed on all or substantially all of the primary issues in an appeal of a major disciplinary action. The primary issue in the disciplinary appeal is the merits of the charges. See Johnny Walcott v. City of Plainfield, 282 N.J. Super. 121,128 (App. Div. 1995): In the Matter of Robert Dean (MSB, decided January 12, 1993); In the Matter of Ralph Cozzino (MSB, decided September 21, 1989). In the case at hand, although the penalty was modified by the Commission, charges were sustained, and major discipline was imposed. Consequently, as appellant has failed to meet the standard set forth at N.JA.C. 4A:2- 2.12, counsel fees must be denied.

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, in light of 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 are finally resolved. In the interim, as the court states in Phillips, supra, if it has not already done so, upon receipt of this decision, the appointing authority shall immediately reinstate the appellant to his permanent position.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore modifies that action to a six-month suspension. The Commission further orders that the appellant be granted back pay, benefits, and seniority from six months after the first date of separation to the actual date of reinstatement. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N.d.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. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay. However, under no circumstances should the appellant’s reinstatement be delayed pending resolution of any potential back pay dispute.

Counsel fees are denied pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

The Commission further orders that the appellant, upon his reinstatement, shall undergo and satisfactorily complete workplace and public demeanor, and social media training.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay 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.

Decisions this one cites

  • Johnny Walcott v. City of Plainfield 282 N.J. Super. 121,128
  • In the Matter of Robert Dean (January 12, 1993)
  • In the Matter of Ralph Cozzino (September 21, 1989)
  • Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections Docket No. A-5581-01T2F (February 26, 2003)

About this page

Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's PDF. The text above was extracted from it by OCR 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.