Michael Maldonado and Alfonso Reddick, CSC Docket No. 2022-2508, 2022-2509

BackgroundThe appeals of Michael Maldonado and Alfonso Reddick, Police Officers, Newark, Department of Public Safety, six working day suspensions, on charges, were heard by Administrative Law Judge JoAnn LaSala Candido (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on January 18, 2023. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellants and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of February 22, 2023, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions as well as her recommendation to uphold the six working day suspensions.

As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter and finds them unpersuasive in light of the ALJ’s well-reasoned and supported initial decision. As such, most are unworthy of additional attention. Nevertheless, the Commission makes the following comments.

The Commission wholly rejects the appellants’ argument under N.d.S.A. 40A:14-147, the “45-day rule.” N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 states, in pertinent part:

A complaint charging a violation of the internal rules and regulations established for the conduct of a law enforcement unit shall be filed no later than the 45th day after the date upon which the person filing the complaint obtained sufficient information to file the matter upon which the complaint is based. ...

A failure to comply with said provisions as to the service of the complaint and the time within which a complaint is to be filed shall require a dismissal of the complaint.

The plain language of this provision indicates that charges are to be filed “no later than the 45th day after the date upon which the person filing the complaint obtained sufficient information to file the matter upon which the complaint is based. It is generally acknowledged that the person filing the complaint in a law enforcement organization is the highest-ranking officer, their civilian equivalent or their designees. In this matter, the April 2020 incident was apparently investigated by a Risk Analysis Review Board. It was only after the findings of that Review Board, which were dated September 15, 2020, were reviewed that the charges were thereafter brought forth on a September 15, 2020, Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action signed by the Public Safety Director. While the appellants argue that the appointing authority had sufficient information to charge them in April 2020, there is no evidence in the record that the individual who brought forth the charges, the Public Safety Director, had sufficient information to do so any time before September 15, 2020. Thus, no violation of the 45-day rule is evident.

Similar to the underlying charges, Commission’s review of the proper the penalty is de novo. In this matter, it is clear that the six-working day suspensions imposed are appropriate. The appellants’ misconduct regarding a vehicle pursuit is serious, as such an error can and has led to many unfortunate outcomes. A major disciplinary suspension for such an infraction is undoubtedly warranted and should serve as proper and sufficient warning to the appellants that any future misconduct will lead to increasingly more severe disciplinary action, up to removal from employment. It cannot be minimized that the appellants, as Police Officers, by the very nature of their job duties, are held to a higher standard of conduct than other public employees. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.-J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). Their actions in this matter fell below those standards.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspension the appellants was appropriate. The Commission therefore affirms those actions and dismisses the appeals of Michael Maldonado and Alfonso Reddick.

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