Civil Service Commission – An Overview
The Civil Service Commission is an independent agency of State government with a rich over 100-year history. Originally created in 1885, the Commission now oversees all testing in New Jersey’s public workforce. Since its inception, the Commission’s goal has been to aid and ensure the selection of exemplary public service employees.
The Commission has experienced both challenges and successes. In the late 1800s, Commission administrators realized that there were rampant conflicts of interest in the way individuals were selected to public positions, and abuses of the civil service system. In fact, the supplements to the 1894 New Jersey Constitutional Convention included a proposal to "amend the constitution in reference to the civil service," specifically "to establish the principle that appointments can be made only for merit and fitness in preference to political affiliations." However, it wasn’t until nearly 13 years later, in 1908, that voters approved an amendment providing for a commission to be established and appointed by the Governor.
The State Personnel Act of 1944 and the Civil Service Act of 1971 offered additional developments to the Commission’s ability to serve and protect government employees by adding provisions banning discrimination and whistleblower protection to civil service employees. The 1950 employment stability amendment provided security to employees by mandating that employees that have completed three years of service are not at will , but instead occupy permanent positions. This also allowed employees to appeal any terminations, thus providing job protection and allowing employees to appeal an involuntary termination through a satisfactory level of process.
Most recently, in 2010, a civil service reform act was enacted. The purpose of the act was to reform the State’s civil service system. The act eliminated jurisdictions based on population and instead replaced the system with a "career service" law covering all employees in the State that are not exempt or special." This reform ended up being highly controversial and highly debated. As a compromise, the act also permitted any jurisdiction not currently covered under Civil Service Law to opt-in, and these jurisdictions that opt-in are "special groupes." Such reform allowed for "the State personnel management system to be administered uniformly, relieving the [C]ommission of the many administrative tasks associated with regulating differences in the civil service system on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis."
Today, the State civil service system consists of 11 departments. Each of these departments fall under the legal authority of the State Civil Service Commission in Trenton. However, municipalities are often not covered by the State’s civil service regulations. Most counties, and some municipalities, still have their own Civil Service Commissions administering their civil service laws. Thus it is important to know what laws apply and to what workplace you report to each morning as not all of the laws are uniform.
Rules and Regulations for Civil Service Commission
The Civil Service Commission is primarily governed by the New Jersey Administrative Code, specifically Sections 4A:1-1 to 4A:9-7, which outlines the principles behind civil service for the state. A few key principles include that the judgment of employees is to be relied upon in the hiring process, whereby "in determining merit, a rational recruitment, selection and appointment method is used to identify qualified candidates through assessment of their experience and training." In addition, "all personnel actions are undertaken without unlawful discrimination as guaranteed by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination." Whereby, "vacancy announcements are forwarded to the State’s recruitment program officer, who revises the posting to include areas of contractual responsibility, special licensure, certification, or accreditation requirements not previously included and advises the appointing authority at the time of posting as to which areas are subject to a contract with any bargaining unit."
The New Jersey Administrative Code also governs the job classifications between, "white-collar workers, blue-collar workers, and professional certifications," whereby each classification of a public service worker shall be determined by the "primary duties of the position held." Whereby, "a classification plan shall be developed and revised to reflect the current position titles and classes of positions of the State, State colleges, State universities and the authorities, boards or other agencies within the jurisdiction of the Commission."
The rules also discuss removal or disciplinary action only if a citation with specific facts has been provided to the employee, the employer has followed the established schedule for any and all disciplinary matters, and the employee has been allowed the opportunity to respond. It should be noted that any disciplinary action must be taken with the utmost degree of "just cause" as to regulation and lawful precedent.
Regulations also include dismissal, demotion, suspension, removals, and layoff procedures, to name a few, which allows for the necessary checks and balances on the hiring process, but also allows for the removal of any individual who believes that they have been subjected to an undue systematic process during the decision-making process of a public service employment.
Methods of Recruitment and Employment under Civil Service
The CSC sets forth general rules for recruitment and employment. The CSC shall recruit potential candidates in a manner that will ensure public participation in the selection process. The process must be public, competitive, and based upon merit and fitness demonstrated through examination or otherwise. Under the CSC rules, every appointment to a municipal position must be upon merit and fitness to be ascertained by competitive examination, if practicable.
In addition, within such municipality, positions of employment are to be assigned to specified titles, classes and pay ranges listed in a classified and comprehensive set of uniform job classifications known as the Manual of Classification and Pay Plan. A position may be allocated to only one job classification. Each municipality must establish a Board of Municipal Employment to be composed of five members. Such Board is responsible for making rules to carry into effect the provisions of Civil Service Law and for preparing, maintaining and revising as necessary a Classification Plan and Pay Plan for its municipality in cooperation with the state Board of Municipal Personnel. The five-member Board must be appointed by the Mayor (or a commission created for that purpose).
Disciplinary Action and Procedure under Civil Service Commission
The Civil Service Commission employs a number of disciplinary measures that are designed to ensure the accountability of civil servants and the integrity of the public service. These measures are carried out with the aim of maintaining the highest standards of professional behavior among civil servants.
The Civil Service Commission relies on the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act 2003 (FPSLRA), the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and the standards as outlined in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector to embody the core values and expectations of civil servants.
More specifically, the Civil Service Commission enforces the discipline of a civil servant when they are deemed to be unsuitable for their position based on criteria established by civil service boards. Furthermore, the duty of any public servant is to comply with the laws, and thus those civil servants that are found guilty of treachery are punished accordingly.
The process for discipline is fairly straightforward, in that an investigation is conducted, after which a notice will be given, and meetings will be held. If the Board of Inquiry requires further information, it will issue a request for further particulars. If the case is too complex for the Board of Inquiry, it can be referred to the Civil Service Tribunal, which will make a final decision. The process must adhere to the legal principles of natural justice and fairness, as well as all legal duties under the FPSLRA.
The Canadian Public Sector has gone to great lengths to represent their values in their legal statutes and practices, and the Civil Service Commission does everything in its power to comply with these policies. In keeping with the structure of civil service organizations in Canada, almost all legal documents are publicly available through the public registry system.
Appeals and Redress of Grievances in Civil Service
A large number of cases filed with the Commission involve the process of appealing a grievance or disciplinary action taken by the agency against a member. As previously discussed, the Commission has limited jurisdiction over what is appealable under the circumstances. Nevertheless, for those cases appealed to the Commission, there is a due process, public hearing with witnesses, exhibits, and cross-examination. Hearings are open to the public.
Grievances are a product of a collective bargaining agreement and may not be appealed as a result of an unsatisfactory evaluation. For those cases that may be appealed the Commission usually sits as a three-member panel to hear the matter.
The standard for review by the Commission is whether the action taken by the agency was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Also, time limitations apply to the filing of a grievance. If the written grievance is not timely filed, that is a preclusive ground for refusing to consider the grievance on the merits. An appeal of an unlawful termination may be won if the record supports a conclusion that the agency acted in a discriminatory manner or did not follow their own rules.
For example, in Ramos v. City of Phila., the Commission reversed a suspension of a municipal employee because the agency failed to follow its own rules in determining the period of the suspension. Philadelphia’s charter specifically states that for infractions only, different time limitations apply, as follows: "(a) for violations of the Philadelphia Code for which the penalty is a suspension or wage inquiry: (1) when the employer is not required to give the employee notice of the time limit, notice shall be within 30 days of discovery of the violation and. (2) any such limitation shall not begin to run until any criminal proceedings initiated based on the violation are concluded.
(b) for violations of the Philadelphia Code for which the penalty is anything other than a suspension or wage inquiry, notice shall be within 180 days of discovery of the violation."
In Ramos the employee was charged with violation Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for 180-day disciplinary time limitations and violation No. 3 was charged under subsection (a), for suspensions. The Commission concluded that the suspension charges were governed by subsection (b) because the charges were for conduct both in the workplace and outside of the workplace. Thus, the limitations period for the suspension was 180 days from the date of the conduct. However, at the hearing, the agency’s attorney conceded that the actions were outside of the 180-day limitation period and the grievant was exonerated.
In another favorable outcome Ramos involved a police officer on probation being terminated for alleged unauthorized absences during the probationary period. The Police Disciplinary Board approved the termination and the police commissioner agreed. However, at the Public Hearing before the Commission , testimony was taken that the grievant never received a rating which was required in order to discharge him during the probationary period. The Commission overturned the discharge because the officer was not properly evaluated as directed.
In Cicisi v. City of Camden, the Commission overturned a termination of a law enforcement officer on the basis of a violation of the Uniform Investigatory Techniques Act ("I.G.T.A."). The grievant was a patrol officer who was accused of off-duty misconduct and subject to a command level investigation by the Camden Chief of Police. Prior to the initiation of the investigation, the grievant, through his attorney, provided a witness statement to the Chief. The investigatory statement was provided voluntarily and outside of the investigation. The grievant was subsequently terminated for violation of the I.G.T.A., specifically N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147, which prohibits an employee of a law enforcement agency from revealing information pertaining to internal affairs investigations.
At the Public Hearing before the Commission, the Chief testified in support of his termination of the grievant alleging that the grievant disclosed information contained in the copious Internal Affairs investigation. On cross-examination, the chief admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the witness statement offered by the grievant prior to the investigation. The Chief further admitted that he never interviewed the grievant after he submitted the witness statement and asked him to provide a statement relative to the witness statement.
The Commission concluded that the off-duty witness statement, voluntarily supplied, prior to the initiation of an investigation by the agency was not the basis of the aggrieved party’s dismissal. In the Commission’s view, such a statement was completely outside the investigative scope of the Civil Service statute or regulations.
In its findings of fact the Commission stated that the other basis for the termination was based upon a late notice to the Chief that a criminal charge would be brought. The Chief testified that he could not ascertain whether the grievant had been indicted or not in the time allowed. The Commission concluded that the Chief’s testimony regarding the charge, that the grievant was going to be indicted, was unsupported. Additionally, the Commission found that the Chief’s conclusion that the grievant was indicating a lack of candor was based upon unfounded assumption that the agency was going to be indicted.
In affirming the Commission’s decision finding just cause for the grievant’s removal from the Chief’s employment, the Appellate Court found that the agency did not violate the I.G.T.A. when it terminated the Police Chief for disorderly persons offense when apprehended by another law enforcement department while off duty. The Commission ruled that the Chief’s termination did not violate the prohibitions of the I.G.T.A. because his disclosure of information was involuntary.
Effects of Civil Service Commission Reform
Recently, there have been some reforms to civil service rules. The trend has been towards making the civil service hiring and promotion process simpler, leaner and more efficient. In districts that have adopted these changes, the process from application to employment can be completed in as little as 90 days. The State Civil Service Commission has adopted rules which eliminate several steps in the hiring process, such as the individual oral interview, as part of its overall reform package. This is intended to make it easier for companies doing business with the state to hire employees, but has resulted in heated debate at hearing with state employee organizations like CSEA. The unions argue that removing the individual interview means that clients will be unable to assess the personality and temperament of prospective employees. Employers and other civil employees argue that the oral interview is costly, time-consuming and should be limited to high-level appointments such as initial appointments to professional engineering vacancies and upward movement into professional engineer or environmental facilities specialist 3 classes.
Comparison to Selected Countries
Civil Service Commission rules are employed in various forms across the globe. The United States’ system bears some resemblances to those in other countries, but there are also key differences in how they operate that impact the lives of government employees.
Much of the structure of the United States civil service is derived from the recommendations of the Report of the U.S. Commission on the Organization of the Federal Executive, which was submitted to the U.S. Congress in 1903. This report largely established the framework for the modern civil service in the federal government, and many state and local governments adopted similar regulations for their public employees in the subsequent years.
In the United Kingdom, Scotland, Canada and New Zealand, the civil service is a network of central government departments, agencies and offices that implement the Government’s policies and deliver public services. Like the United States, the rules around the operation of the civil service are detailed in a set of regulations. However, each of these other nations has a unique structure and process for implementing its civil service rules.
Most of the UK’s career civil servants are appointed on merit based on open competition, and most of them are subject to uniform standards of employment. In some areas, recruitment is centralized and managed by the Civil Service Commission, and some members of smaller groups of civil servants (like scientists, medical workers and Border Force officers) are not entitled to certain aspects such as promotion or pension benefits. Approximately 10 percent of civil servants are subject to different arrangements at the discretion of individual departments , but the foundation of the civil service is described in the Civil Service Management Code for the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Three separate entities manage the civil service for the three different governments of the country of Canada: the Public Service Commission for the federal government; the Ontario Public Service Commission; and the Commission de la fonction publique for the Quebec provincial government. Like the UK and United States Civil Service Commission rules, the entities in Canada are responsible for implementing and maintaining an impartial civil service free from political influence. While most public servants within the Canadian government are appointed and dismissed on the basis of merit, approximately 10 percent of the civil service does have the option to opt out of the regular statutes and be governed by distinct civil service legislation, like those in the UK, New Zealand and the United States. Those who retain the option for civil service legislation include scientists, medical professionals, academic professionals and law professors.
New Zealand’s civil service works slightly differently from those of the countries mentioned in that it has a number of regularly appointed executives. A Civil Service Commissioner is responsible for ensuring compliance with public service general principles and is responsible for appointment and oversight of the Chief Executives of 35 departments. The general principles include maintaining integrity and impartiality of the public service and ensuring political neutrality in the public service and professionalism of public servants. Total remuneration for the public service is capped.