NJ Owes Thousands Of Corrections Officers Back Pay

Posted on July 26, 2011 by Donald Barbati

 

As reported by nj.com, the state must pay thousands of corrections officers back pay for their participation in a pilot program that last 10 years beyond its experimental phase, a Superior Court judge ruled. If the ruling is allowed to stand, the state will be responsible for millions of dollars in compensation for new corrections officers whom the court said worked under a job title that did not officially exist from 1999 to 2009 during a 14-week training period.   

The dispute centers on a program the state began in January 1998 establishing the pay and training for newly hired corrections employees. Previously, new hires, who were classified as corrections officer recruits, were trained for 14 weeks while they worked at correctional facilities for a regular salary. Under the pilot program, new hires worked under the title student/trainee. The first 12 weeks of training took place at the State Corrections Officer Training Academy in Sea Girt, and the final two weeks were held at a correctional facility.  During that 14-week period, they earned a stipend of no more than $300 a week. That student/trainee title was allowed to exist for 10 years even though the state Department of Personnel did not certify it until 2009.

The corrections officers union, Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 105, five corrections officers sued in 2009, contending that as a pilot program, that arrangement was only valid for a year and after that the state was required to adopt a rule making the arrangement permanent. However, the state claimed it did not have to adopt the pilot program to make it legal beyond its first year. An appellate court panel in 2009 disagreed and permitted the case to continue.

On July 12, Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd ruled the state had breached its implied contract with the union by not formally adopting the program and had to pay up. In a subsequent ruling issued Friday, Hurd said the case could be handled as a class action so that the corrections officers do not have to sue individually.

The pay differential could be from a couple hundred to several hundred per officer because the pay for new hires had increased over the past decade. In 2004, for example, the new hires earned the $300 weekly stipend during those 14 weeks when they should have been paid $766 a week. About 4,300 corrections officers are entitled to the back pay.

Local 105 President Trent Norman said he hopes to see the case resolved soon. “The judge made a wise decision,” he said. “I hope we will prevail a little further. The department (of corrections) has been dealing with this for some time.”

Tags: , , , , ,

Report: NJDOC Too Lenient On Privately Run Halfway Houses

Posted on June 16, 2011 by Donald Barbati

 

As reported by nj.com, New Jersey pumps nearly $65 million a year into a network of privately run halfway houses, but the system is rife with problems, according to a state comptroller report released yesterday. Even when contracts are violated, the state has failed to crack down on security lapses, the report said. Worst of all, it’s unclear whether the programs are actually achieving their chief goal: reducing the number of inmates committing new crimes by preparing them for life outside prison.

Comptroller Matthew Boxer said the state “cannot simply cut these halfway houses a check and hope for the best.” “As a state we have done a poor job of monitoring the program and have made no real attempt to find out what taxpayers are getting for their money,” he said.

The Department of Corrections acknowledged oversight needs to be improved, but said many problems identified in the report have been addressed in new contracts signed last year. However, Corrections spokeswoman Deidre Fedkenheuer would not say whether halfway houses have successfully reduced recidivism.   

Corrections is responsible for overseeing the state’s contracts with eight nonprofits that run 23 halfway houses housing an average of 2,720 residents each day. Low-security inmates can be sent to halfway houses when they are within two years of parole eligibility, giving them access to substance abuse treatment and work release programs. But the comptroller’s report said halfway houses, which sometimes lack perimeter fences, suffer from safety problems. Residents were able to simply walk out the door, and some put dummies in their beds as decoys. Last year, 298 residents walked away from halfway houses and 13 remain missing, the state said.

Problems extended to the contracts themselves as well. Miscalculations by nonprofits led to six years of overbilling that totaled $600,000, the report said. Fedkenheuer said the Department has fixed the errors in the new contracts and is examining whether it can recoup the extra money already paid.

New Jersey has increasingly turned to halfway houses to slow the revolving door of former inmates committing new crimes and returning to prison. Almost 60 percent are arrested again within three years of their release, according to state statistics.

Still, halfway houses have been controversial, particularly among prison officer unions who say rehabilitation programs should be provided in more secure state prisons. Boxer questioned whether halfway houses were worth the money, saying Corrections cannot show they cut the recidivism rate.

Tags: , , ,

Removal of Corrections Officer Affirmed

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Donald Barbati

www.state.nj.us/csc/

On July 20, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Latief Dickerson, Hudson County, Docket No.: A-1323-08T2. In the case, Latief Dickerson appealed from a final decision of the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) terminating his employment as a corrections officer with the Hudson County Department of Corrections (“Department”).

On May 5, 2006, the Department served a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action on Dickerson charging him with: (1) incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties; (2) insubordination; (3) conduct unbecoming an employee; and (4) neglect of duty. These charges stemmed from Dickerson’s failure to satisfy mandatory training requirements and to obtain permission for his outside employment, as well as his arrest in Tuxedo, New York for various motor vehicle violations and criminal possession of a firearm.

Following a departmental hearing, Dickerson received a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action on July 19, 2006, finding him guilty of the charges and ordering his removal from office effective immediately. Dickerson contested the decision and requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law. That hearing was held on January 2 and March 12, 2008, before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).

After the hearings, the ALJ determined that the Department failed to sustain its burden in sustaining the charges against Dickerson with the exception of conduct unbecoming a public employee by driving a motor vehicle while unlicensed. However, given Dickerson’s extensive prior disciplinary history, the ALJ ordered that Dickerson be fined 90 working days’ pay.

The Commission, upon its de novo review of the record, disagreed with the ALJ’s decision and upheld the Department’s decision to terminate Dickerson’s employment. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Dickerson argued that the Commission erred in failing to affirm the decision of the ALJ. Specifically, Dickerson contended that the Commission imposed an improper standard of review when it stated that it did not “agree” with the ALJ’s determination. Rather, Dickerson argued the Commission has the authority to modify or reverse the decision of the ALJ if the decision was not supported by credible evidence in the record or was otherwise arbitrary.

After considering Dickerson’s arguments, the Appellate Division affirmed the Commission’s determination and sustained the removal. The Court found the Commission’s decision comported with the applicable law regarding the review of ALJ decisions and was supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. Specifically, the Court found, in rejecting and modifying the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, the Commission stated with particularity the reasons for doing so and made new findings supported by competent and credible evidence in the record.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Termination of Internal Affairs Officer Who Disclosed Pending Investigation Affirmed

Posted on June 2, 2010 by Donald Barbati

On June 1, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Michael Sottilare, Department of Corrections Hudson County, Docket No.: A-4761-08T3. In the case, Michael Sottilare appealed from a Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) decision affirming the Hudson County Division of Personnel’s termination of his employment with the county’s Department of Corrections.

Sottilare, after more than ten years as a corrections officer, received four preliminary notices of disciplinary action arising from events commencing on November 30, 2005 and continuing through December 23, 2005. The final incident resulted in his termination.

While on leave due to an on-the-job injury, Sottilare was videotaped working at a construction site in contravention of Hudson County’s policy requiring persons on leave to remain at home unless they are receiving medical care or purchasing medication. A disciplinary charge of malingering issued as a result. Shortly thereafter, on December 23, 2005, Sottilare made a telephone call to the New Jersey Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 109 office in order to obtain legal representation for the hearing scheduled on the malingering charge and to request a postponement. Officer Shaara Marie Green, then the Vice President of PBA Local 109, answered the phone call.

When Green testified before the Office of Administrative Law, she said she told Sottilare that the union could not provide him with legal representation because the Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) officers were no longer members. Sottilare had been assigned to IAU since 1995 or 1996. Green also told Sottialre to obtain his own attorney, and gave him the name of the person that his attorney should contact in order to request the postponement.

Green also testified that after she told Sottialre that PBA Local 109 could not provide him with counsel, Sottilare informed her that she was under investigation by IAU. Sottialre explained to Green that surveillance was being initiated because she was reportedly living with an ex-inmate in violation of departmental policy. 

Green immediately telephoned Ricardo Alves, Sottilare’s supervisor at IAU, to report the conversation. When Alves testified, he confirmed that he received a call from Green about the complaint that had been filed against her and that Sottilare had told her that she was the subject of an IAU investigation. Deputy Warden David Krusznis confirmed that Green was being investigated and said that disclosure of the existence of a pending IAU investigation is a violation of departmental policies and procedures, as well as of guidelines promulgated by the Office of the Attorney General.

After considering all the available testimony, which included testimony by Sottilare refuting Green’s version of events, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found Green to be more believable, persuasive, and more credible than Sottilare. Based on this testimony, the ALJ found Sottilare disclosed a pending investigation. Since this was a serious violation of his job responsibilities, the ALJ concluded that removal was the appropriate penalty for his conduct. After the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s determination, this appeal ensued.

On appeal, Sottilare argued that even if Green’s testimony is credited and he breached the applicable confidentiality rules, termination was too severe a penalty. The Appellate Division rejected this argument and affirmed the Commission’s decision to remove him. According to the Court, Sottilare’s breach of confidentiality displays a fundamental lack of trustworthiness, thereby warranting his removal. As indicated by the Court, termination is warranted whenever the employee’s conduct is unbecoming to the employee’s condition or renders the employee unsuitable for continuation in the position. Consequently, the Court determined that Sottialre’s conduct made him unsuitable to continue in his employment as an IAU officer.
Tags: , , , , , ,

Removal of Corrections Officer Sustained

Posted on May 19, 2010 by Donald Barbati

On May 18, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Linda Reid, Riverfront State Prison, Docket No.: A-3145-08T2. In the case, Linda Reid appealed from the final determination of the Civil Service Commission sustaining the charges of: (1) conduct unbecoming a public employee; and (2) filing a false report; and the sanction of removal from her position as a Senior Corrections Officer at Riverfront State Prison.

Reid began working as a corrections officer at Riverfront State Prison on July 26, 2002. As a result of an incident occurring on August 6, 2005, she was charged with assaulting an inmate and filing a false report in which she represented she had been the victim. The charges were sustained at a departmental hearing and on April 25, 2007, she was removed from employment. Following an appeal, the contested case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, wherein a hearing was conducted on April 30, 2008.

Testimony and evidence were presented by Captain Tommy Stahl regarding the internal affairs investigation, which concluded that Reid had assaulted an inmate and misrepresented that she was the victim; Officers Cherril Davis and Dyshella Kee who were eyewitnesses to the incident and reported that the inmate used profanity towards Reid but did not strike her, and that Reid beat the inmate and falsely claimed he assaulted her; and nurse Evelyn Mamuyac who observed only a slight swelling on Reid’s right cheek and lower lip. Reid testified on her own behalf stating that the inmate used profanities indicating he had to use the restroom after which an argument ensued and the inmate pushed her and hit her in the face, causing swelling to the right side of her face and lip and resulting in a scar under her right eye. She further testified to her exemplary performance assessment review from June 15, 2004 through June 15, 2005.

On November 14, 2008, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial decision, making express credibility assessments and finding Reid engaged in the charged conduct. Based on several inconsistencies in Reid’s testimony, the ALJ discredited her version of the events as self-serving. In determining the appropriate sanction, the ALJ considered Reid’s status as a Senior Corrections Officer, which “subjects her to a higher standard of conduct and responsibility than is required of other public employees.” Consequently, the ALJ found this conduct so egregious as to warrant removal despite the absence of a disciplinary history. On January 16, 2009, the Commission issued a final determination adopting the ALJ’s initial decision as to the charges and the sanction of removal. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Reid challenged the agency’s determination on the charges as not based on sufficient credible evidence in the record. She further contended the penalty of removal is not reflective of progressive discipline and, as such, the sanction should be reduced.

The Appellate Division, given its limited standard of review and the deference afforded an administrative agency, concluded Reid’s arguments were without merit. Specifically, the Court found that the ALJ clearly articulated her reasons for finding the testimony of the other witnesses as credible and disbelieving Reid’s testimony. Therefore, the Court determined that the Commission’s decision to sustain the charges was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and was neither arbitrary, capricious not unreasonable. 

Moreover, the Court affirmed the decision to remove Reid from employment. The Court found Reid’s conduct was both violent and dishonest and, therefore, removal was warranted considering that the Department of Corrections and her colleagues could no longer trust her to tell the truth or behave appropriately as a corrections officer.
Tags: , , , , , ,