KAREEM GREENE, CSC Docket No. 2022-770

BackgroundKareem Greene appeals the decision to remove his name from the County Correctional Police Officer (S9999U), Essex County, eligible list on the basis of falsification of his application.

The appellant took the open competitive examination for County Correctional Police Officer (S9999U), which had an August 2019 closing date, achieved a passing score, and was ranked on the subsequent eligible list. In seeking his removal, the appointing authority indicated that the appellant falsified his application. Specifically, it represented that in response to the question on the application “Have you ever been served with a summons or a subpoena, including traffic violations?” appellant answered “No”. However, and inquiry into the New Jersey Automated Traffic System shows that the appellant has received 16 summonses including, but not limited to, Obstructing Passage of Other Vehicle, Speeding, Using Handheld Cell While Driving, as well as several citations for Unsafe Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Improper Display/Fictitious Plates. Additionally, the appellant failed to disclose three parking tickets and a motor vehicle accident.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that he never intended to try to conceal or falsify his background application but states that he was not made aware of the specific information from the facility, or the investigator assigned to his file as to what was falsified. He presents that if any documents were missing, he should have been notified directly by the investigator so that he could produce these requested documents. Additionally, he indicates that he is aware that he has had traffic tickets in the past such as speeding, parking tickets and a traffic accident. He states that his driving record remains in good standing and has been for some time now per the Motor Vehicle Commission. Additionally, he states that he did not intentionally withhold information that he was clearly not aware of. Moreover, the appellant presents that his name should be reinstated to the certification list based on the appointing authority’s failure to produce material they were instructed to provide to his attention.1 Furthermore, the appellant states that the fact that his integrity has been brought into question is concerning since he held a Civil Service position with Union County Corrections from 2014 to 2019 until he was laid off. He states he is fully aware of the responsibility of this position as he held this type of position in the past.

The appointing authority, despite being given the opportunity, did not respond.

CONCLUSION

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)1, in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)6, allows the Civil Service Commission (Commission) to remove an eligible’s name from an employment list when he or she has made a false statement of any material fact or attempted any deception or fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b), in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d), provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an appointing authority’s decision to remove his or her name from an eligible list was in error.

The primary inquiry regarding the removal of a candidate’s name based on the falsification of his or her employment application is whether the candidate withheld information that was material to the position sought, not whether there was any intent to deceive on the part of the applicant. See In the Matter of Nicholas D’Alessio, Docket No. A-3901-01T3 (App. Div. September 2, 2003).

In this matter, the appointing authority had a valid reason for removing the appellant’s name from the list. Specifically, the appellant failed to disclose incidents in his background history which include 16 summonses including, but not limited to, Obstructing Passage of Other Vehicle, Speeding, Using Handheld Cell While Driving and several citations for Unsafe Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Improper Display/Fictitious Plates. Additionally, he neglected to disclose that he had three parking tickets and a motor vehicle accident. While the appellant may believe that these omissions were not intentional or material, candidates are responsible for the accuracy of their applications. See In the Matter of Harry Hunter (MSB, decided December 1, 2004). Moreover, even if there was no intent to deceive, at minimum, the appointing authority needed this information to have a complete understanding of his background in order to properly evaluate his candidacy. See In the Matter of Dennis Feliciano, Jr. (CSC, decided February 22, 2017). In this regard, it is recognized that a County Correctional Police Officer is a law enforcement employee who must help keep order in the prisons and promote adherence to the law. County Correctional Police Officers hold highly visible and sensitive positions within the community and the standard for an applicant includes good character and an image of utmost confidence and trust. 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). The public expects Police Officers to present a personal background that exhibits respect for the law and rules. The appellant’s failure to fully disclose material information on his application falls short of that expectation.

1 The appellant was provided a copy of the appointing authority’s background submissions in support of its request to remove his name by Commission staff in conjunction with this appeal.

Accordingly, the appellant has not met his burden of proof in this matter and the appointing authority has shown sufficient cause for removing his name from the County Correctional Police Officer (S9999U), Essex County, eligible list.

One final comment is warranted. Per N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(b)1, an appointing authority is required to provide an appellant, upon request, all materials sent to the Commission in support of a request to remove an appellant from a list. In this matter, the appointing authority failed to do so. While its failure to do so was not significantly prejudicial as the appellant was provided the information by Commission staff, the appointing authority is warned to supply such information as required in any future matters. Its failure to do so may subject it to penalties of fines pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:10-1.1 and N.J.A.C. 4A:10-2.1.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

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