NJ Civil Service Navigator

MARC RISPOLI, CSC Docket No. 2025-64

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of November 27, 2024, CSC Docket No. 2025-64: discipline, sent back to the office of administrative law. Marc Rispoli, Police Officer, Bergenfield, Police Department, 10 working day suspension, on charges of violating departmental policy and procedures.

Commission decisions · Meeting of November 27, 2024

Marc Rispoli, Police Officer, Bergenfield, Police Department, 10 working day suspension, on charges of violating departmental policy and procedures.

Matter
Discipline
Decided
November 27, 2024, item A-8
Outcome
Sent back to the Office of Administrative Law
ALJ's recommendation
Dismiss the appeal for failure to appear.
Penalty appealed
10 working day suspension
Title
POLICE OFFICER
Employer
Bergenfield Borough
Chair at the time
Allison Chris Myers, Acting Chairperson
Official decision
CSC's PDF

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission remanded the matter to the Office of Administrative Law.

The decision

BackgroundThe appeal of Marc Rispoli, Police Officer, Bergenfield, Police Department, 10 working day suspension, on charges, was before Administrative Law Judge Andrea Perry Villani (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on October 31, 2024. 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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of November 27, 2024, did not accept the recommendation to dismiss the appeal for failure to appear. Rather, the Commission remanded the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).

The record shows that neither the appellant nor his attorney phoned in for scheduled prehearing conferences on four occasions. Additionally, the ALJ indicated that she did not receive any explanation from the attorney regarding the most recent failure to appear. As such, she recommended dismissing the appellant's appeal.

In the appellant's exceptions, the appellant's attorney indicates that the first three failures to phone in were based on a series of miscommunications between the OAL and his staff. He indicates the fourth occurrence was based on the fact that he had a family medical emergency. The appointing authority's reply argues that the ALJ's determination was correct as neither the appellant nor the attorney appeared on four occasions.

Upon its de novo review, while the Commission is concerned with the somewhat self-serving nature of the explanations provided, it is loathe to dismiss matters procedurally, especially where the record provides that such dismissal is

About this page

Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's PDF. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.

Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.

The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.

To report an error on this page, use the contact form.