NJ Civil Service Navigator

Donald Fantasia, CSC Docket No. 2026-397

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of September 24, 2025, CSC Docket No. 2026-397: examination eligibility, granted. Donald Fantasia appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services, which found that he did not meet the requirements for the promotional examination for Police Lieutenant

Commission decisions · Meeting of September 24, 2025

Donald Fantasia appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services, which found that he did not meet the requirements for the promotional examination for Police Lieutenant (PM2837G), West Milford.

Matter
Examination eligibility
Decided
September 24, 2025, item B-3
Outcome
Granted
Title
POLICE LIEUTENANT
Employer
West Milford Township
Examination
PM2837G
Chair at the time
Allison Chris Myers, Acting Chairperson
Official decision
CSC's PDF

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be granted.

Rules this decision applies

The decision

BackgroundDonald Fantasia appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services, which found that he did not meet the permanent service requirement for the promotional examination for Police Lieutenant (PM2837G), West Milford.

As background, the appellant appeared as the third ranked eligible on the Police Sergeant (PM4671C), West Milford eligible list, which promulgated on October 20, 2022 with seven names and expires on October 19, 2025. On December 13, 2023, a certification (PL232363) issued from the eligible list, and the first ranked eligible received a permanent appointment, effective January 3, 2024. On December 30, 2024, a second certification (PL242032) issued from the eligible list, and, in relevant part, the appellant received a permanent appointment, effective January 8, 2025. The County and Municipal Personnel System (CAMPS) also reflects that the appellant received a provisional appointment to the title of Police Sergeant, effective April 17, 2024. Subsequently, the subject examination was announced open to employees in the competitive division who were currently serving in the Police Sergeant title and had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the August 31, 2025 closing date in that title. The appellant was deemed ineligible for the subject examination as he did not possess one year of continuous permanent service in the Police Sergeant title as of the closing date.1

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant contends that April 17, 2024, not January 8, 2025, was in fact his date of permanent appointment as a Police Sergeant, and this gives him the required time-in-grade to be admitted to the subject examination. In support, the appellant submits the Police Chief’s letter of support; a personnel action form indicating the appellant’s “New Title” as “Sergeant,” effective April 17, 2024; and his April 17, 2024 “Official Oath of Public Office” to “faithfully, impartially and justly perform all the duties of SERGEANT of the West Milford Police Department . . . .” It is noted that the Police Chief states that the appellant’s “permanent” appointment to Police Sergeant became effective April 17, 2024, and the required time-in-grade calculation needs to be made based on that date. It is further noted that the appointing authority supports the appellant’s request for an April 17, 2024 retroactive date of permanent appointment.

Background1 The appellant was conditionally admitted to the subject examination, pending resolution of this matter.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a)1 provides that applicants for promotional examinations must have one year of continuous permanent service for an aggregate of one year immediately preceding the closing date in a title or titles to which the examination is open. Aggregate service shall be calculated in the same manner as seniority as set forth in N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.15.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-1.10(c) provides that when a regular appointment has been made, the Commission may order a retroactive appointment date due to administrative error, administrative delay or other good cause, on notice to affected parties.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, the record establishes that the appointing authority intended to promote the appellant to Police Sergeant effective April 17, 2024, as evidenced by the personnel action form; the appellant’s having taken his oath of office at that time; and the Police Chief and appointing authority’s support for the appellant’s request for a retroactive date of permanent appointment. However, for reasons that are not entirely apparent from the record, there was no request for a certification to coincide with the planned appointment date. Nevertheless, had a certification been requested at that time, the appellant would have been listed in the second position and reachable for appointment. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.8(a)3. Further, based on the entering of the appellant’s provisional Police Sergeant appointment into CAMPS and the supporting documents provided on appeal, there is sufficient evidence in the record that the appellant has been satisfactorily serving as a Police Sergeant since April 17, 2024. Accordingly, good cause exists to provide the appellant with a retroactive date of permanent appointment, effective April 17, 2024.

Finally, as the appellant was permanent in the Police Sergeant title as of April 17, 2024, he should be admitted to the subject examination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted and the permanent appointment of Donald Fantasia to the title of Police Sergeant, effective April 17, 2024, be recorded.

Additionally, it is ordered that he be admitted to the promotional examination for Police Lieutenant (PM2837G), West Milford.

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

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.