Thomas Valente West Milford, CSC Docket No. 2022-913

Thomas Valente, Police Lieutenant, West Milford, Police Department, removal, effective October 4, 2021, on charges, was before Administrative Law Matthew G. Miller (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on February 28, 2022. 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 attached ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply filed in this matter, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on April 6, 2022, did not adopt the ALJ’s determination that the appeal should be dismissed pursuant to a settlement entered into between the parties.

DISCUSSION

The Commission thoroughly reviewed the ALJ’s initial decision, as well as the exceptions and reply filed in this matter. The Commission regularly acknowledges settlements where such settlements are in compliance with Civil Service law and rules. In this regard, the policy of the judicial system strongly favors settlement. See Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465 (1990); Honeywell v. Bubb, 130 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 1974); Jannarone v. W.T. Co., 65 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 1961), cert. denied, 35 N.J. 61 (1961). This policy is equally applicable in the administrative area. A settlement will be set aside only where there is fraud or other compelling circumstances. See Nolan, supra. In this matter, the Commission finds compelling circumstances. Specifically, the purported settlement was apparently entered into by the appellant’s previous attorney via e-mail and telephone communications prior to a departmental-level hearing being held. Nevertheless, the appointing authority subsequently held the departmental hearing, sustained the charges and issued a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action. These actions by the appointing authority cut against its argument that a valid settlement had been reached as there would be no need for such a hearing if there was truly a settlement. Additionally, while the appellant’s prior attorney may have had the authority to settle the matter, there is no indication that the appellant ever signed any document memorializing the terms of the settlement. While the lack of a signature is not dispositive, given the appointing authority’s contrary actions described above, to dismiss the appellant's appeal on this basis would be inequitable. Accordingly, the Commission remands the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing on the merits of the charges. The Commission notes, however, that this determination does not foreclose the parties from further agreeing to settle the matter.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission remands the appeal of Thomas Valente to the

Office of Administrative Law for a hearing.