Democrats Advance Bills Lifting Parole Requirements, Job Restrictions For Convicted Felons

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Donald Barbati

 

As reported by nj.com, parole requirements would be eased for some prisoners and job restrictions lifted for convicted felons under a package of bills that Democratic sponsors said Monday would redirect State funds from incarceration to rehabilitation.

The measures, introduced last week amid the start of the new legislative session and an address by the governor, were described by State Senators, Raymond Lesniak and Sandra Cunningham, the sponsors, as a way to revamp the criminal justice system by encouraging drug treatment and removing employment barriers.

One bill, S907, would require the State Parole Board to release inmates when they reached their parole eligibility date unless they had committed a serious infraction while in prison or had not participated in rehabilitation programs. As for the others: S881 would give judges and prosecutors greater discretion on who could be tried in a drug court. S876 would repeal the ban on convicted felons working in places where alcohol is sold. S878 would prohibit public and private employers from automatically disqualifying convicted felons from jobs.

The measures differ from the proposal put forward by Governor Chris Christie in his State of the State address, which called from mandatory drug treatment for nonviolent offenders. Lesniak said his legislation would not require drug treatment for those who did not want it because that would be counterproductive and costly.

Lesniak said the changes in parole requirements proposed by him and Cunningham could reduce the prison population by 2,300 inmates a year, saving about $100 million that could instead go toward preparing inmates for release by helping find jobs, housing, counseling, and other services. He also said he would like to see a 50 percent increase in drug court participation by giving judges and prosecutors more latitude in deciding who could be admitted.

Drug courts, started more than a decade ago, divert offenders from prison as long as they complete drug treatment programs. But the current program does not admit people who have committed several offenses even if they are not considered violent.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

BOROUGH'S PROMOTIONAL PROCESS UPHELD

Posted on November 10, 2008 by Frank Crivelli

 

In the matter of Paul Weber v. Borough of Glen Rock, A-1079-07T3, Plaintiff, Paul Weber, appealed from two trial court orders: (1) an order dated May 3, 2006 dismissing some of his claims; and (2) an order dated September 5, 2007 granting summary judgment to defendants on the balance of the claims. After reviewing the contentions raised on appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determinations. 

Weber is a member of the Glen Rock Police Department. After joining the Department as a patrolman in 1978, he was promoted to the rank of sergeant in 1985. Since 1985, there have been four occasions when there was an opening within the Department for a member to be promoted to the rank of lieutenant. Weber applied for this promotion on each occasion and was unsuccessful. 

In 2004, the successful applicant was Garret Merselis, who was promoted from sergeant to lieutenant. In 2005, a vacancy developed for the position of captain. Thereafter, Merselis, the only lieutenant on the Glen Rock force at that time, was promoted to the rank of captain. The promotion of Merselis to captain created a vacancy for the position of lieutenant. Plaintiff applied, as did three other members of the Department. On this occasion, Frederick Stahman was selected for promotion to the rank of lieutenant.

Plaintiff, who had more seniority than did either Merselis or Stahman at the time of their respective promotions, filed suit contending that the promotional process was flawed. Specifically, he sought to reopen the process relating to the most recent promotional opening. In support, Weber contended: (1) the Borough was required to administer examinations to those applying for promotion and not rely exclusively on interviews; and (2) the Borough, in passing him over for promotion, did not comply with N.J.S.A. 40A:14-129. 

The Court rejected both of Weber’s assertions. The Borough is not a civil service municipality and followed its own two-step promotional process, a written test followed by interviews, until 1992 when, under the new police chief, only interviews were used to select a candidate for promotion to lieutenant. The Court found that where all members of the committee participated in the interviews of all the candidates, the process employed by Glen Rock does not suffer from the same deficiencies criticized in Rox v. Dep’t of Civil Service, 141 N.J. Super. 463, 467 (App. Div. 1976). In Rox, different panels interviewed the various candidates and used different criteria in making promotional decisions. This was not the situation in this case.

Moreover, the Court held that seniority, in and of itself, is not determinative of promotion. The Court indicated seniority is merely an additional factor to be considered on the merits of the evaluation of individuals for promotion and not a mechanical rule which guarantees promotion to a senior employee. In this case, it was established Weber’s seniority was considered. That is all he was entitled to; he was not entitled to have it treated as controlling.          

         

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,