Berlin Borough Police Officer Anthony Anthony M Giannini, who is listed on Gannett's "DataUniverse" site as having made $70,688 in 2009, was suspended for twenty days on March 24, 2010. Giannini was originally dealt a thirty day suspension by Berlin Borough Police Chief Robert L. Carrara on August 26, 2009, but the suspension period was reduced to twenty days by a Superior Court judge who ruled on Giannini's appeal on March 18, 2010. (Giannini v. Borough of Berlin, Docket No. CAM-L-5321-09.) The judge also reduced a six day suspension Giannini received on April 16, 2009 and served in September 2009 to three days. Thus, Giannini was required to serve another seventeen days of unpaid suspension.
The basis for the six-day suspension was set forth in an April 16, 2009 letter Chief Carrara sent to Patrolman Giannini. According to that letter, Carrara, on April 8, 2009, had ordered Giannini to appear before the department's physician for a fitness for duty exam on April 15, 2009 and to telephone Chief Carrara after the exam was completed. After Giannini reportedly failed to appear for the exam and failed to telephone, Chief Carrara filed five charges against him and proposed a three day suspension as a penalty. Giannini rejected the proposal and demanded a departmental hearing. On September 8, 2009, the Borough imposed a six day suspension which was served later that month.
The basis for the thirty-day suspension was set forth in a August 26, 2009 letterChief Carrara sent to Patrolman Giannini. According to that letter, Giannini, during the July 22, 2009 hearing on the other charges, admitted that he had secretly tape recorded an April 20, 2009 meeting that Giannini had with Chief Carrara and Lieutenant Paul Miller.
While being interviewed by Miller on August 7, 2009 regarding the charges arising out of the April 20, 2009 taping incident, Giannini was also found to have been secreting recording that interview. This caused Chief Carrara to state in his August 26, 2010 letter that Giannini's "conduct shows a complete disregard for authority in that you were not only violating Department Policy on April 20th, but again on August 7th after you knew that you what you were being investigated for." Carrara proposed a 30 day suspension and Giannini again rejected it and demanded a departmental hearing.
I have placed the disciplinary records on-line here.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Lawnside Police Sergeant and Patrolman settle discipline suit with Borough
In agreements signed on July 15, 2009, Lawnside Police Sergeant William Plenty and Police Officer Daniel Battista settled a civil suit they had filed in July 2008 against the Borough of Lawnside and several Borough officials.
In their lawsuit (Battista et al v. Borough of Lawnside, et al, Docket No. CAM-2607-08), Plenty and Battista alleged that the Borough suspended them from duty "immediately and without pay" without affording them "an opportunity to be heard why an immediate suspension without pay was necessary." Plenty had been suspended for twenty days and Battista had been suspended for fifteen days. The pair also accused the Borough as having "never properly adopted rules and regulations for the discipline of members of the police department as required by law."
The pair, who were represented in the suit by Christopher A. Gray, Esq. of Helmer, Paul, Conley & Kasselman of Haddon Heights, sought back pay, compensatory damages, attorney fees, a purging of the incident from their personnel files and damages "compensating the Plaintiffs for emotional pain and suffering" caused by the Lawnside officials.
The suspensions arose out of Plenty's and Battista's enforcement of the Borough's curfew ordinance against six juveniles in the early morning hours of January 27, 2008. According to police investigation records, after taking the juveniles to the police station, Plenty inexplicably "grabbed" one of the male juveniles, "and kissed him on his forehead while they were in the hallway of police headquarters." According to police records, the kissing incident was caught on video, which was reviewed by Lieutenant Allison Turner of the Camden County Prosecutor's Office.
The settlement agreements, lawsuit and disciplinary files are on-line here.
Turner found that Plenty's "unwarranted and inappropriate touching" of the juvenile did not warrant criminal charges against Plenty. However, the Lawnside Police Department charged that the kissing incident was "unbecoming of an officer" and "subversive to the good order and discipline of the Department."
Plenty and Battista were also charged with improperly transporting juveniles, releasing the juveniles to people other than their parents or legal guardians (one juvenile had been released to an older sibling) and failing to inform the juveniles' parents or legal guardians that they had been detained.
he pair's lawsuit was settled prior to trial. Both Plenty and Battista accepted a one-day suspension, a letter of reprimand in their files and agreed to take additional trainging regarding the handling of juveniles.
In their lawsuit (Battista et al v. Borough of Lawnside, et al, Docket No. CAM-2607-08), Plenty and Battista alleged that the Borough suspended them from duty "immediately and without pay" without affording them "an opportunity to be heard why an immediate suspension without pay was necessary." Plenty had been suspended for twenty days and Battista had been suspended for fifteen days. The pair also accused the Borough as having "never properly adopted rules and regulations for the discipline of members of the police department as required by law."
The pair, who were represented in the suit by Christopher A. Gray, Esq. of Helmer, Paul, Conley & Kasselman of Haddon Heights, sought back pay, compensatory damages, attorney fees, a purging of the incident from their personnel files and damages "compensating the Plaintiffs for emotional pain and suffering" caused by the Lawnside officials.
The suspensions arose out of Plenty's and Battista's enforcement of the Borough's curfew ordinance against six juveniles in the early morning hours of January 27, 2008. According to police investigation records, after taking the juveniles to the police station, Plenty inexplicably "grabbed" one of the male juveniles, "and kissed him on his forehead while they were in the hallway of police headquarters." According to police records, the kissing incident was caught on video, which was reviewed by Lieutenant Allison Turner of the Camden County Prosecutor's Office.
The settlement agreements, lawsuit and disciplinary files are on-line here.
Turner found that Plenty's "unwarranted and inappropriate touching" of the juvenile did not warrant criminal charges against Plenty. However, the Lawnside Police Department charged that the kissing incident was "unbecoming of an officer" and "subversive to the good order and discipline of the Department."
Plenty and Battista were also charged with improperly transporting juveniles, releasing the juveniles to people other than their parents or legal guardians (one juvenile had been released to an older sibling) and failing to inform the juveniles' parents or legal guardians that they had been detained.
he pair's lawsuit was settled prior to trial. Both Plenty and Battista accepted a one-day suspension, a letter of reprimand in their files and agreed to take additional trainging regarding the handling of juveniles.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Monmouth police dispatcher appeals suspension
Monmouth County emergency dispatcher Robert C. Donatelli, who is listed on Gannett's "DataUniverse" site as having made $53,952 in 2008, was suspended for 6 days for allegedly flubbing a 911 call he received from a woman at Monmouth Regional High School who reported that a person she had a restraining order against was coming near her. Instead of dispatching the police, Donatelli reportedly gave her the police department's telephone number, which turned out to be the incorrect number.
I have placed the disciplinary notices on-line here.
The hearing on the matter will be heard by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV192-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org
For similar postings on other government officials, see my blog. http://njpublicemployeediscipline.blogspot.com/
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
I have placed the disciplinary notices on-line here.
The hearing on the matter will be heard by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV192-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org
For similar postings on other government officials, see my blog. http://njpublicemployeediscipline.blogspot.com/
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
Mercer Corrections Officer appeals 30 day suspension
Mercer County Corrections Officer Lewis Harvey who is listed on Gannett's "DataUniverse" site as having been in public service for 10 years and having made $72,532 in 2008, was suspended for thirty days for sleeping on duty on March 18, 2008.
I have placed the Final Notice of Discipline on-line here.
The hearing on the matter will be heard by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV194-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
I have placed the Final Notice of Discipline on-line here.
The hearing on the matter will be heard by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV194-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
Newark cop, arrested in 2008, appeals suspension
Newark Police Officer Victor Lopez-Quiros who is listed on Gannett's "DataUniverse" site as having been in public service for 10 years and having made $86,384 in 2008, was suspended from December 4, 2008 and December 28, 2008 for allegedly being involved in two domestic violence incidents involving his wife Lucia Espinosa.
According to the charges, Lopez-Quiros was arrested on December 16, 2008 for aggravated assault and weapons possession. The arrest apparently was related to an incident "approximately three or four years prior to" December 2008 when Lopez-Quiros allegedly pointed his city-issued service revolver at his wife and fired a shot into their mattress as she got out of bed. In another reported incident, Lopez-Quiros allegedly allegedly threatened to kill Espinosa on November 26, 2008 after she told him that she wanted a divorce.
According to the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action issued on December 29, 2008, Lopez-Quiros returned to duty on December 29, 2008.
I have placed the Final Notice of Discipline on-line here.
The hearing on the matter will be heard by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) in early 2009. The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV1757-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey---
(Added 05/15/09)
In order to find out more information about the Lopez-Quiros matter, I have submitted the following records requests to the City of Newark today. I will post the results, when received, on this blog.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
--Text of Records Request
Background:
A recent check of civil service appeals reveals that Newark Police Officer Victor Lopez-Quiros appealed from two periods of suspension from duty—one from December 4, 2008 through December 16, 2008 and one from December 16, 2008 through December 29, 2008. The Final Disciplinary Notice that related to the first period of suspension is numbered “CAP 2008-264/IOP2008-795” and the Final Disciplinary Notice that related to the second period of suspension is numbered “CAP 2008-275/IOP2008-850.” Both matters, on appeal, have been assigned Docket No. CSV-1757-09 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law.
CAP 2008-264/IOP2008-795 asserted three charges against Lopez-Quiros that arose out of two “specifications,” both of which referred to incidents occurring on November 26, 2008. According to the charges, Lopez-Quiros on that date was a) arrested “for acts of Domestic Violence; Terroristic Threats, committed against his wife,” and b) “threatened to kill his wife . . . after she told him she wanted a divorce.”
CAP 2008-275/IOP2008-850 asserted five charges against Lopez-Quiros that arose out of three “specifications.” The first specification charges that Lopez-Quiros was arrested again on December 16, 2008 for Domestic Violence, specifically Aggravated Assault and Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose.” The second and third specifications refers to an incident “three or four years ago” where Lopez-Quiros allegedly pointed his city-owned service weapon at his wife and “fired one round into their mattress” as she got out of bed.
Both Final Notices of Discipline state that Lopez-Quiros was returned to duty on the day of his suspension hearing: December 16, 2008 and December 29, 2008, respectively. I have difficulty understanding how the Newark Police Department could return an officer to duty after a period of suspension of less than a month’s duration if it was true that he threatened, apparently more than once, to kill his wife, pointed a firearm at her and discharged a round into a mattress.
My difficulty is compounded by the fact that in another disciplinary case currently under appeal the Newark Police Department fired Detective Moraima Medina for having a urine sample that tested positive for marijuana. (See CAP 2008-211/IOP2008-546, OAL Docket No. CSV1487-09). It seems incongruous to me that the Newark Police Department would treat an officer who discharged his service weapon during a domestic violence incident less harshly than a detective who has used a prohibited substance.
Thinking that perhaps the charges and specification don’t reveal the full story, I would like to learn more about the incidents surrounding Lopez-Quiros so that I can better understand what happened.
Records Requested:
1. Any and all CDR-1, CDR-2 or other form of complaints that were filed against Lopez-Quiros arising out of the November 26, 2008 and December 16, 2008 arrests.
2. Any police reports, arrest reports or other writings that relate to the November 26, 2008 and December 16, 2008 arrests.
3. Any records on file that show whether or not the criminal charges filed against Lopez-Quiros have been resolved or dismissed.
4. The complete appeal filing that Lopez-Quiros made to the Department of Personnel/Merit System Board from the two Final Notices of Discipline cited above. (I have only the Final Notices of Discipline and specifications/charges. My thought is that Lopez-Quiros or his attorney may have included other documents in this appeal paperwork that will provide more context).
5. Any responses or replies filed by or on behalf of the City of Newark in this appeal.
Basis for Request:
I request the above records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), the Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act and the common law right of access.
--end
According to the charges, Lopez-Quiros was arrested on December 16, 2008 for aggravated assault and weapons possession. The arrest apparently was related to an incident "approximately three or four years prior to" December 2008 when Lopez-Quiros allegedly pointed his city-issued service revolver at his wife and fired a shot into their mattress as she got out of bed. In another reported incident, Lopez-Quiros allegedly allegedly threatened to kill Espinosa on November 26, 2008 after she told him that she wanted a divorce.
According to the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action issued on December 29, 2008, Lopez-Quiros returned to duty on December 29, 2008.
I have placed the Final Notice of Discipline on-line here.
The hearing on the matter will be heard by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) in early 2009. The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV1757-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey---
(Added 05/15/09)
In order to find out more information about the Lopez-Quiros matter, I have submitted the following records requests to the City of Newark today. I will post the results, when received, on this blog.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
--Text of Records Request
Background:
A recent check of civil service appeals reveals that Newark Police Officer Victor Lopez-Quiros appealed from two periods of suspension from duty—one from December 4, 2008 through December 16, 2008 and one from December 16, 2008 through December 29, 2008. The Final Disciplinary Notice that related to the first period of suspension is numbered “CAP 2008-264/IOP2008-795” and the Final Disciplinary Notice that related to the second period of suspension is numbered “CAP 2008-275/IOP2008-850.” Both matters, on appeal, have been assigned Docket No. CSV-1757-09 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law.
CAP 2008-264/IOP2008-795 asserted three charges against Lopez-Quiros that arose out of two “specifications,” both of which referred to incidents occurring on November 26, 2008. According to the charges, Lopez-Quiros on that date was a) arrested “for acts of Domestic Violence; Terroristic Threats, committed against his wife,” and b) “threatened to kill his wife . . . after she told him she wanted a divorce.”
CAP 2008-275/IOP2008-850 asserted five charges against Lopez-Quiros that arose out of three “specifications.” The first specification charges that Lopez-Quiros was arrested again on December 16, 2008 for Domestic Violence, specifically Aggravated Assault and Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose.” The second and third specifications refers to an incident “three or four years ago” where Lopez-Quiros allegedly pointed his city-owned service weapon at his wife and “fired one round into their mattress” as she got out of bed.
Both Final Notices of Discipline state that Lopez-Quiros was returned to duty on the day of his suspension hearing: December 16, 2008 and December 29, 2008, respectively. I have difficulty understanding how the Newark Police Department could return an officer to duty after a period of suspension of less than a month’s duration if it was true that he threatened, apparently more than once, to kill his wife, pointed a firearm at her and discharged a round into a mattress.
My difficulty is compounded by the fact that in another disciplinary case currently under appeal the Newark Police Department fired Detective Moraima Medina for having a urine sample that tested positive for marijuana. (See CAP 2008-211/IOP2008-546, OAL Docket No. CSV1487-09). It seems incongruous to me that the Newark Police Department would treat an officer who discharged his service weapon during a domestic violence incident less harshly than a detective who has used a prohibited substance.
Thinking that perhaps the charges and specification don’t reveal the full story, I would like to learn more about the incidents surrounding Lopez-Quiros so that I can better understand what happened.
Records Requested:
1. Any and all CDR-1, CDR-2 or other form of complaints that were filed against Lopez-Quiros arising out of the November 26, 2008 and December 16, 2008 arrests.
2. Any police reports, arrest reports or other writings that relate to the November 26, 2008 and December 16, 2008 arrests.
3. Any records on file that show whether or not the criminal charges filed against Lopez-Quiros have been resolved or dismissed.
4. The complete appeal filing that Lopez-Quiros made to the Department of Personnel/Merit System Board from the two Final Notices of Discipline cited above. (I have only the Final Notices of Discipline and specifications/charges. My thought is that Lopez-Quiros or his attorney may have included other documents in this appeal paperwork that will provide more context).
5. Any responses or replies filed by or on behalf of the City of Newark in this appeal.
Basis for Request:
I request the above records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), the Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act and the common law right of access.
--end
Newark Detective appeals termination
Newark Police Detective Moraima Medina who is listed on Gannett's "DataUniverse" site as having been in public service for 14 years and having made $86,376 in 2007, was fired in December 2008 for having a urine sample that tested positive for marijuana.
I have placed the Final Notice of Discipline on-line here.
The matter has been referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV1487-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
I have placed the Final Notice of Discipline on-line here.
The matter has been referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV1487-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
Irvington Police Lieutenant appeals 10 day suspension
Irvington Police Lieutenant Walter Young, Jr., who is listed on Gannett's "DataUniverse" site as having been in public service for 15 years and having made $113,152 in 2008, was suspended for 10 days for alleged incompetency and insubordination. The facts aren't clear, but it appears that Young allegedly lied to Sergeant Collura and Captain Oliviera by not telling them that he was "going to write Sergeant Collura up for insubordination."
I have placed the Final Notice of Discipline on-line here.
The matter is being handled by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV1753-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
I have placed the Final Notice of Discipline on-line here.
The matter is being handled by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has assigned Docket No. CSV1753-09 to the case, and, unless it settles, the matter will eventually be heard by an administrative judge, who will make a recommendation to the Department of Personnel affirming, modifying or reversing the discipline imposed.
----------------
ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS.
I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level.
As part of my work, I routinely check administrative Civil Service appeal dockets. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because these appeals and the underlying disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent.
John Paff
Somerset, New Jersey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)