Judy Bellamy, CSC Docket No. 2022-828

BackgroundThe appeal of Judy Bellamy, County Correctional Police Officer, Mercer County Corrections Center, 25 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Edward J. Delanoy, Jr. (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on June 23, 2023. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on August 2, 2023, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions and his recommendation to uphold the 25 working day suspension.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter and finds most do not require extensive comment. Nevertheless, the Commission makes the following comments. In her exceptions, the appellant argues that the charges should be dismissed as she alleged that the appointing authority did not follow the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures as required at the departmental level. Essentially, the appellant argues that these violations deprived her of due process and thus, the charges should be dismissed. The Commission rejects this argument. Even assuming, arguendo, the accuracy of the appellant’s contentions, there is no basis to procedurally dismiss the charges. In this regard, procedural deficiencies at the departmental level which are not significantly prejudicial to an appellant are deemed cured through the de novo hearing received at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). See Ensslin v. Township of North Bergen, 275 Nd. Super. 352, 361 (App. Div. 1994), cert. denied, 142 N.J. 446 (1995); In re Darcy, 114 N.J. Super. 454 (App. Div. 1971). In this case, any such alleged deficiencies are not significantly prejudicial as the appellant had the full opportunity to defend herself against the proffered charges at the OAL hearing.

Similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is also de novo. Prior to making its penalty determination, the Commission notes that it is not bound by the appointing authority’s penalty schedule in determining the proper penalty. See In the Matter of Gregory McDaniel, Docket No. A-5583-02T2 (App. Div. May 24, 2004); In the Matter of Leonard Wilson (MSB, decided April 6, 2005); In the Matter of Patricia Everingham (MSB, decided March 18, 2003); In the Matter of George Roskilly (MSB, decided November 20, 2002). Further, in addition to its consideration of the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission also utilizes, when appropriate, the concept of progressive discipline. West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (1962). In determining the propriety of the penalty, several factors must be considered, including the nature of the appellant’s offense, the concept of progressive discipline, and the employee’s prior record. George v. North Princeton Developmental Center, 96 Nf. AR. 2d (CSV) 463. It is settled that the theory of progressive discipline is not a “fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question.” See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N..J. 474 (2007). In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a County Correctional Police Officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian public employee. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), ceri. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See alse, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990).

Clearly, the appellant’s misconduct in this matter warrants the suspension imposed. The appellant in this case was insubordinate and disrespectful to a superior officer. Such conduct cannot be tolerated in a paramilitary organization and is worthy of a major disciplinary suspension. Moreover, the appellant has a significant history or discipline, including major discipline, for similar and other types of employment issues. This history also supports the imposition of the 25 working day suspension. The appellant’s actions in this matter fall well short of what is expected of a law enforcement employee and the penalty imposed, given the appellant’s history of discipline, is neither disproportionate to the offenses nor shocking to the conscious.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeals of Judy Bellamy.

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