IN THE MATTER OF DANIEL COLLINS, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF (PM0130V) CLIFTON (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4619-17T3
IN THE MATTER OF
DANIEL COLLINS,
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF (PM0130V),
CLIFTON
______________________________
Submitted September 11, 2019 – Decided September 19, 2019
Before Judges Haas and Mayer.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2018-187.
Weiner Law Group LLP, attorneys for appellant Daniel
Collins (Joshua I. Savitz, of counsel and on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Civil Service Commission (Melissa Dutton
Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Steven Michael Gleeson, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Daniel Collins appeals from a May 2, 2018 final decision of the Civil
Service Commission (Commission) denying his appeal and finding the
promotional examination for the Deputy Fire Chief position in the City of
Clifton was properly scored. We affirm.
Collins sat for a promotional examination to become the Deputy Fire
Chief. He passed the examination and ranked fourth on the list of eligible
candidates for the position. Based on his ranking, Collins challenged the scoring
of the examination.
Questions for the promotional examination covered various topic areas.
The candidates' responses to the questions were evaluated based on scoring
criteria developed by an expert panel. Specifically, Collins challenged the
scoring of candidates' responses to the examination question related to "Incident
Command – Non-fire scenario."
The scenario for this question involved a freight train derailment, leaking
flammable chemicals in a location with residential and commercial uses. In
response to this question, Collins indicated the area should be evacuated. His
answer received partial credit as a correct response. However, the Commission
noted Collins' answer failed to include establishing monitoring stations, which
was an additional action required in response to the question.
In his appeal to the Commission, Collins contended the removal of
railroad workers in the area, one of the answers he supplied in response to the
A-4619-17T3
2
question, should have been deemed a mandatory response. He requested the
responses given by the other candidates be reviewed to ensure each candidate
provided the required mandatory responses. Collins cited a promotional
examination issued in Irvington, involving a similar factual scenario as depicted
in the Clifton examination, which found the response to evacuate the area not
sufficiently specific to receive full credit as a correct mandatory response.
In rejecting Collins' argument, the Commission explained, "Each
examination is separate, and the scoring criteria for one examination cannot be
used to score a different examination. It is simply not psychometrically
appropriate to score candidates for an examination using the scoring criteria for
a different examination." In addition, the Commission noted the factual scenario
in the Irvington promotional examination was different from the scenario
presented in the Clifton promotional examination and thus the mandatory
responses to the examination questions were not interchangeable. Therefore,
the Commission declined to rescore the examination responses and denied
Collins' appeal.
On appeal, Collins raises the following arguments:
POINT I
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION'S FINAL
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SHOULD BE
A-4619-17T3
3
REVERSED UNDER THE APPLICABLE
STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW.
POINT II
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION'S DECISION
SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS
ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, UNREASONABLE
AND/OR LACKING IN FACTUAL BASIS.
Our review of a final agency decision is limited. Stein v. Dep't of Law &
Pub. Safety, 458 N.J. Super. 91, 99 (App. Div. 2019) (citing In re Stallworth,
208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). We will affirm an agency's final action unless the
decision is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or lacks fair support in the record
as a whole. J.B. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 229 N.J. 21, 43 (2017) (quoting In re
Hermann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007)). A strong presumption of reasonableness
attaches to final agency decisions. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App.
Div. 2001). Moreover, a court is "oblig[ated] to give due deference to the view
of those charged with the responsibility of implementing legislative programs."
In re Reallocation of Prob. Officer, 441 N.J. Super. 434, 444 (App. Div. 2015)
(quoting In re N.J. Pinelands Comm'n Resol. PC4-00-89, 356 N.J. Super. 363,
372 (App. Div. 2003)).
We affirm for the reasons expressed in the May 2, 2018 Commission
decision. The Commission's findings are supported by the record and are
A-4619-17T3
4
entitled to our deference. The Commission's determination regarding acceptable
mandatory responses for the promotional examination was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. We add only the following comment.
Pursuant to the Civil Service Act, N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 to 12-6 (Act), the
Commission has the power to "devise a fair, secure, merit-based testing process
by which candidates are selected for employment and promotion." Brady v.
Dep't of Personnel, 149 N.J. 244, 254 (1997). The Commission is charged with
the "administration of examinations which shall test fairly the knowledge, skills
and abilities required to satisfactorily perform the duties of a title or group of
titles." N.J.S.A. 11A:4-1. Courts have a "limited role in reviewing the
[Commission's] determinations regarding civil-service testing processes." In re
Police Sergeant (PM3776V) City of Paterson, 176 N.J. 49, 58 (2003). "[C]ourts
will defer to an agency's grading of a civil-service examination except in the
most exceptional of circumstances that disclose a clear abuse of discretion."
Brady, 149 N.J. at 258. We "conduct only a limited review of the reasonableness
of a grading system and determine simply whether the testing and grading were
clearly arbitrary." Ibid. A reviewing court should not "routinely review the
contents of civil-service examinations and answers" to determine "whether the
A-4619-17T3
5
questions were 'well or poorly answered.'" Ibid. (quoting Lavash v. Kountze,
604 F.2d 103 (1st Cir.), aff'g, 473 F. Supp. 868 (D. Mass 1979)).
We are satisfied that the Commission's administration of the promotional
examination in this case comported with the requirements of the Act and Collins
failed to demonstrate that the testing process was arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-4619-17T3
6