VANESSA KELLY, CSC Docket No. 2025-229

BackgroundThe appeal of Vanessa Kelly, a County Correctional Police Sergeant with Monmouth County, Department of Corrections and Youth Services, of her demotion and six-month suspension, effective July 1, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Mamta Patel (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on April 7, 2026. Exceptions were filed by the appellant, and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply filed by the parties, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) at its meeting of May 20, 2026, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and her recommendation to uphold the demotion and six-month suspension.

Regarding the charges, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determinations, which were substantially based on her assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses. In this regard, 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. Jd. 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 v. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission finds nothing in the record to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

The Commission adds the following comments regarding the exceptions. As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter. Upon that review, it finds that the exceptions do not persuade the Commission that the ALJ’s findings and conclusion or her recommendation to uphold the penalties should be reversed. The appellant contends that the protocol she did not follow was not an order and that the security protocols did not apply to her because she did not remove the inmate from his cell. These semantic arguments are unconvincing. The appellant’s suggestion that she was merely acting in good faith to enforce a housing rule is similarly unconvincing as the Commission finds it particularly egregious that the appellant prioritized removing a light cover instead of returning the inmate to his cell. The appellant further cannot be absolved of responsibility for the inmate’s subsequent destruction of the tour gun. As persuasively argued by the appointing authority in its reply, that event was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the appellant’s failing to secure the inmate first before ordering his cell door to be opened. Further, as properly concluded by the ALJ, credible evidence supports that the appellant violated policy by manipulating an officer into making an inaccurate report and by writing an inaccurate report herself. Finally, there is no compelling reason to grant the appellant’s request to remand her appeal “for a new and unbiased review” as the ALJ’s decision was thorough and well-reasoned.

Regarding the penalty, similar to its review of the underlying charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is de novo. In addition to considering the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission 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 N.J.A.R. 2d (CSV) 463. However, it is well established that where the underlying conduct is of an egregious nature, the imposition of a penalty up to and including removal is appropriate, regardless of an individual’s disciplinary history. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980). It is settled that the theory of progressive discipline is not a “fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question.” Rather, it is recognized that some disciplinary infractions are so serious that removal may be appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N.J. 474 (2007). Moreover, the Commission emphasizes that a County Correctional Police Sergeant, as a supervisory law enforcement officer, is held to a higher standard than a civilian public employee. 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).

Administrative Law JudgeIn recommending that the charges be sustained and that the penalties be upheld, the ALJ noted that the appellant’s disciplinary history showed a previous 45 day suspension for similar conduct involving her misinterpretation or failure to follow orders. See In the Matter of Vanessa Howard, Monmouth County, Department of Corrections and Youth Services (CSC, decided April 8, 2026). The ALJ further stated:

Where, as here, the charges and established infractions “go to the heart of [a police officer’s] capacity to function appropriately,” and considering the [appointing authority]’s “need to maintain order and discipline” within its facility, | CONCLUDE that [the appellant] be suspended for six months. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. [19, 34 (2007)]. Additionally, [the appellant]’s failure to demonstrate her ability to supervise officers, including guiding [Brian] Perry[, County Correctional Police Officer], a new officer, to omit and misstate facts in his report, or to have the judgment to prioritize the safety of other officers, staff, and inmates, and deliberately making false statements in her own report and to [William]

AnalysisBeckenstein[, then an Investigator Secured Facilities], indicate that she lacks the attributes needed in a leader. Such conduct can disrupt and destroy order and discipline in a prison. Henry v. Rahway State Prison,

81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980). Therefore, 1 CONCLUDE that [the appellant] should be demoted from [County Correctional Police Sergeant] to

[County Correctional Police Officer].

Therefore, it is clear that as a supervisory law enforcement officer, who, per above, is held to a higher standard, the appellant’s misconduct was improper and worthy of significant disciplinary penalties. As such, the Commission finds the penalties of a demotion and six-month suspension neither disproportionate to the offenses nor a shock to the conscience.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the actions of the appointing authority in demoting and suspending the appellant were justified. The Commission, therefore, affirms those actions and dismisses the appeal of Vanessa Kelly.

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