In the Matter of Bryan Kopsic, Correction Officer Recruit (S9999K

In the Matter of Bryan Kopsic, Correction Officer Recruit (S 9999K),

Departm ent of Corrections

CSC Docket No. 2011-4314

(Civil Service Commission, decided September 7, 2011)

Bryan Kopsic appeals the attached decision of the Division of State and Local

Operations (SLO), which upheld the removal of his name from the Correction

Officer Recruit (S9999K), Department of Corrections, eligible list due to his

falsification of his employment application.

The appellant appeared on the Correction Officer Recruit (S9999K) eligible

list, which was certified to the appointing authority on J anuary 12, 2009. The

appoin t ing a u t h or ity r equested the r em ova l of the a ppella n t ’s n a me ba sed on his

falsification of his employment application. Specifically, the appointing authority

asserted that the appellant failed to disclose an arrest for fighting on J uly 6, 1986.

In support, the appointing authority enclosed a charge disposition inquiry which

indicated that the appellant pled guilty to Point Pleasant Beach Fighting and

Assault Ordinance 3-29 and was fined $254 plus costs for a total of $275.

However,

in response t o Qu est ion 43 on h is em ployment application, “Have you ever been

arrested, indicted, charged with or convicted of a criminal or disorderly persons

offen se in t h is St at e or any ot h er ju r isdiction?” the a ppella n t a n sw ered “No.”

On appeal to SLO, the appellant stated that he did not commit the offense as

he would have been only two years old at the time of the offense. He submitted his

birth certificate showing his birth date in support of his contention. However, SLO

found that the appointing authority had sufficiently supported and documented its

decision t o r em ove t h e a ppella n t ’s n a m e from t h e eligible list.

On appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant

alleges that he was improperly removed from the eligible list for an arrest that

never occurred. He reiterates that no such incident occurred when he was two

years old. He also submits the results from a search of the Master Fingerprint File

of the New J ersey State Police, Identification and Information Technology Section,

dated April 19, 2011, which did not reveal any criminal record.

In response, the appointing authority reiterates its position and asserts that

an eligible may be denied appointment for other sufficient reasons. The appointing

authority contends that it is imperative that appointed candidates exhibit respect

A review of the record indicates that the appointing authority sent a corrected letter indicating that

the actual date of arrest was July 6, 2006. While the appointing authority issued the corrected

letter, it does not appear that the appellant received it.

Specifically, th e ordin an ce sta t es “Figh tin g is h er eby pr ohibit ed wit hin th e Bor ough of Point

Pleasant Beach, Ocean County. Fighting shall be defin ed as quarreling, brawling or otherwise

misbeh avin g in a disorder ly m an ner a s t o dist ur b t he pu blic pea ce in a public pla ce.”

for the law to ensure effective management of the day-to-day operations of a prison

system a n d t h a t the appellant ’s a ct ions are in cont ra dict ion to t hat expectation .

It is noted tha t a r eview of t h e a ppella n t ’s a pplica t ion indica t es t h a t he

answer ed “Yes” in respon se t o Qu est ion 51 wh ich rea ds, “Have you ever been

arrested or charged with a violation of the Disorderly Persons Offense Act, City or

Loca l Ordina n ce?” The appellant disclosed that he was arrested in J une 2006 by a

Poin t P lea sant Bea ch Police Officer a nd r eceived a “m isbehaving” t icket for

reenacting a movie role. He was found guilty and paid a fine and costs totaling

$275.

Further, it is noted that the Correction Officer Recruit (S9999K) list expired

on J une 9, 2011.

CONCLUSION

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)1, in conjunction with N .J .A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)6, allows the

Commission to r em ove a n eligible’s n a m e from a n eligible list when h e or she h a s

made a false statement of any material fact or attempted any deception or fraud in

any part of the selection or appointment process. Moreover, N.J .A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)1,

in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)9, allows the Commission to remove an

eligible’s n a me from a n eligible list for other sufficient reasons. Removal for other

sufficient reasons includes, but is not limited to, a consideration that based on a

candidat e’s ba ckgrou n d a nd r ecognizin g t h e n a t u r e of t h e posit ion a t issu e, a person

should not be eligible for an appointment. In this regard, it is recognized that a

Correction Officer is a law enforcement employee who must help keep order in the

prisons and promote adherence to the law. Correction Officers, like municipal

Police Officers, hold highly visible and sensitive positions within the community

and the standard for an applicant includes good character and an image of utmost

confidence and trust. S ee Moorestown v. Arm strong, 89 N.J . S uper. 560 (App. Div.

1965), cert. denied, 47 N .J . 80 (1966); S ee also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990).

The public expects Correction Officers to present a background that exhibits respect

for the law and rules. Finally, N.J .A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b), in conjunction with N.J .A.C.

4A:4-4.7(d), provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to show by a

pr epon derance of t he evidence t h a t a n a ppoin t in g a uthorit y’s decision t o remove h is

or her name from an eligible list was in error.

In the instant matter, the appellant is alleging that his name should be

restored to the eligible list because he did not falsify his employment application.

Init ia lly, t h e appointin g a u t horit y erroneously list ed t he da t e of t h e appella n t ’s

arrest for fighting as July 6, 1986 instead of the actual date of J uly 6, 2006. While

it does not appear that the appellant was aware of this error and his arguments on

appeal focus on the date of the offense and his age at that time, he also presents

evidence that he has no criminal record. However, the error would not be clear to

the appellant since he did reveal the 2006 arrest on his employment application.

Specifica lly, t h e appellant a n swered “Yes” t o Quest ion 51 which a sked if h e ha d

“ever been a rrested or ch a r ged with a viola tion of the Disorder ly Person s Offen se

Act, Cit y or Loca l Ordina n ce.” In explan ation, he stated that he received a

“misbehavin g” t icket for reen a ctin g a movie r ole. H e a lso det a iled the dat e, location

and disposition on the offense in the box below the question on his employment

application. The evidence submitted by the appointing authority reveals that the

appellant was arrested for violating Point Pleasant Beach Ordinance 3-29 for

“Fightin g,” pled guilty and wa s ordered t o pa y a t otal fine of $275, a ll of which

ma t ch the a ppella n t ’s descr iption on h is em ploymen t applica tion. It is clear that

the appellant did not falsify his employment application with regard to the

disclosure of the 2006 arrest. Accordingly, the appellant has shown by the

preponderance of the evidence that his name should be restored to the Correction

Officer Recruit (S9999K), Department of Corrections, eligible list.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted and the list for Correction

Officer Recruit (S9999K), Depa rtment of Cor rect ions be revived a nd the a ppella nt’s

name certified at the time of the next certification for prospective employment

opportunities only.

This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further

review should be pursued in a judicial forum.