Michael Kelly, CSC Docket No. 2025-2400

BackgroundThe appeal of Michael Kelly, a former Police Sergeant with Jackson Township, Department of Law and Public Safety, of his removal, effective July 3, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Mamta Patel (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on May 20, 2026. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant, and a reply to the exceptions 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 on July 1, 2026, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and the recommendation to uphold the removal.

The Commission makes the following comments. As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appellant in this matter. The Commission finds the exceptions unpersuasive as the ALJ’s findings and conclusions in upholding the removal were based on her thorough assessment of the record and are not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or legally incorrect. Concerning the appellant’s assertion that it was a conflict of interest for Ocean County to investigate its own office and the investigator failed to question members of the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office who approved the appellant’s paperwork, resulting in the record being incomplete and thereby inappropriately shifting the burden of proof to him, as stated by the ALJ:

White testified that, as the investigator, he determined that the documents he reviewed during the investigation, as well as Kelly’s own admissions during the investigation, were sufficient to sustain his findings. It is routine for law enforcement to conduct internal investigations of its own members; therefore, the fact that Kelly named

OCPO members who may have known of Kelly’s DRE activities did not preclude the OCPO from conducting the investigation.

Administrative Law JudgeFurther, the ALJ found that the testimony of the appointing authority’s witnesses was credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. 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 v. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). Therefore, the appointing authority satisfied its burden of proof.

AnalysisRegarding the appellant’s argument that since the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office concluded its investigation on February 27, 2023, the 45-day rule was violated, the ALJ noted that:1

The plain language of 40A:14-147 clearly states that the forty-five day time limit for bringing charges does not commence until the person filing the complaint obtains sufficient information to file the matter. Here,

Kunz, the chief of Jackson and the appointing authority under which

Kelly is employed, received notification of the sustained charges against

Kelly on May 28, 2024. Kelly was served with the PNDA on July 3, 2024, thirty-six days after Kunz became aware of the sustained charges Kelly.

Consequently, the ALJ appropriately dismissed the appellant’s argument that the charges should be dismissed due to a violation of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 (the 45-Day The appellant was also charged with violations of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a). However, the 45 day time limitation contained in N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 only expressly applies to charges related to violations of departmental rules and regulations, and not to administrative charges.

Rule).

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). Further, 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 principle 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 is appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N.J. 474 (2007). Even when a Police Officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense occurring in the environment of a correctional facility may, nevertheless, warrant the penalty of removal where it compromises the safety and security of the institution, or has the potential to subvert prison order and discipline. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a Police Officer is a law enforcement officer who, by the very nature of his job duties, is held to a higher standard of conduct than other public employees. 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). Moreover, the Commission is also mindful that:

The appraisal of the seriousness of [the appellant’s] offense and degree to which such offenses subvert discipline . . . are matters peculiarly within the expertise of the corrections officials. The appraisal is subject to de novo review by the

[Commission], Henry v. Rahway State Prison, supra, but that appraisal should be given significant weight. Bowden v. Bayside State Prison, 268 N.J. Super. 301, 306 (App. Div.

1993), cert. denied, 135 N.J. 469 (1994).

Administrative Law JudgeIn the instant matter, in upholding the removal, the ALJ noted that the appellant’s “dishonesty is deeply troubling, as honesty and integrity are crucial traits for any officer, whether an officer or a supervisor.” The ALJ found that despite the appellant’s 22 years of service, “Kelly knew or should have known better than to certify information as accurate, that he knew was incorrect.” Accordingly, given the appellant’s egregious behavior, removal is clearly the appropriate penalty.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Michael Kelly.

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