Galen Baker, CSC Docket No. 2023-2166

BackgroundThe appeal of Galen Baker, Senior Public Safety Telecommunicator, Monmouth County, Police Radio Department, return to previously held permanent title at the end of the working test period (WTP), effective March 2, 2023, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Michael R. Stanzione (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on October 20, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply 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 and reply, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on November 26, 2025, accepted and adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions and his recommendation to uphold the return to the appellant’s previously held permanent title at the end of the WTP.

The Commission makes the following comments. The ALJ’s initial decision was thorough, comprehensive and legally correct. In this regard, the decision was substantially based on the ALJ’s determination of the credibility or the witnesses, where he found the appellant’s testimony “less persuasive” than the appointing authority’s witnesses. Specifically, the ALJ stated that “[g]iven the absence of compelling evidence supporting the appellant’s assertions, his testimony is afforded less weight than that of the appointing authority’s witnesses.” The Commission acknowledges that the ALJ, who has the benefit of hearing and seeing the witnesses, is generally in a better position to determine the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. See Matter of J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997). “[T]rial courts’ credibility findings . . . are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of the witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record.” See also, In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)). Additionally, such credibility findings need not be explicitly enunciated if the record as a whole makes the findings clear. Id. at 659 (citing Locurto, supra). The Commission appropriately gives due deference to such determinations. However, in its de novo review of the record, the Commission has the authority to reverse or modify an ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). While the ALJ’s credibility determinations are not expansive, the Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record or the appellant’s exceptions to demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or his findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

Regarding the ALJ’s finding that the appellant did not satisfy his burden of proof that the WTP was not effectuated in good faith, the ALJ stated:

Here, upon examination of the facts and evidence presented, the appellant failed after a period of three months to show improvement in performing his duties or to apply his training. His absences during the third portion of the working period led to insufficient time to observe him performing the roles of the OIC or the backup position. The appellant consistently failed or was unable to demonstrate an ability to perform the essential job functions and expectations of the senior PST position as they were outlined during his working test period.

The Commission agrees with the above assessment, and, finding nothing persuasive in the appellant’s exceptions, affirms the recommendation to deny the appellant’s challenge to his return to his previously held permanent title at the end of the WTP.

One final issue to address is the appellant’s argument that since he was not timely served with his notice of release and under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.1(c), he should be granted permanent status. The Commission rejects this contention. The rule above states that: “The notice shall be served not more than five working days prior to or five working days following the last day of the working test period. A notice served after this period shall create a presumption that the employee has attained permanent status” (emphasis added). Even assuming, arguendo, that the appellant was not timely served the required notice, this does not conclusively establish that his working test period was conducted in bad faith. Moreover, as the ALJ, and the Commission in this matter have not otherwise found bad faith, the presumption would be considered rebutted.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in returning the appellant to his previously held permanent title at the end of the working test period was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Galen Baker.

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