Edwin Gonzalez, CSC Docket No. 2024-2672

BackgroundEdwin Gonzalez appeals the promotional examination for Sheriff’s Officer Captain (PC4270E), Hudson County.

The subject examination was administered on May 23, 2024 and consisted of 50 multiple-choice items and an essay portion.

AnalysisAn independent review of the issues presented under appeal has resulted in the following findings:

Question 16 refers to an excerpt from the Willisburg County Sheriff’s Department Code of Conduct provided to candidates in their test booklets. The question indicates that Officer Johansen and his wife went to a local diner for breakfast and received a 25% discount off of their meal. The question asks, based on the Willisburg County Sheriff’s Department Code of Conduct, for the true statement. The keyed response is option d, “More information is needed to determine whether or not there was a violation of the Willisburg County Sheriff’s Department Code of Conduct.” The appellant maintains that option b, “The Willisburg County Sheriff’s Department Code of Conduct was violated,” is correct. The appellant asserts that “the code of conduct is clear on its position regarding the acceptance [of] discounts and other benefits just for being a law enforcement officer. It also makes it clear under Subsection iii that discounts for himself or others (his wife) is prohibited. The policy is written in such a way to guide officers to avoid these potential problems by prohibiting them out right.” It is noted that the Willisburg County Sheriff’s Department Code of Conduct provides, in pertinent part:

IV. ABUSE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OR POSITION

A. Prohibited actions:

1. Officers may not accept goods, services, or discounts of value not available to the general public.

2. Officers shall not use their authority or position:

...

iii. to barter, solicit, or accept any goods or services, such as gratuities, gifts, discounts, rewards, loans, or fees, whether for themselves or others.

Given that the question does not indicate whether the discount was available to the general public or whether Officer Johansen used his authority or position to obtain the discount, more information is needed to determine whether the policy was violated. As such, the question is correct as keyed.

CONCLUSION

A thorough review of appellant’s submissions and the test materials reveals that the appellant’s examination score is amply supported by the record, and the appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter.

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.