In th e M atter of S ilvio Acosta, West N ew Y ork
CSC Docket No. 2013-2670
(Civ il S e rv ic e Co m m i s s io n , d e c id e d No v e m be r 7, 2013 )
Th e Town of West New Yor k a ppea ls t h e a t t a ch ed decision of t h e Division of
Cla ssifica t ion a n d P er son n el Ma n a gem en t (CP M) wh ich or der ed r em ova l of t h e
du t ies per for m ed in t h e Depa r t m en t of P u blic Wor ks (DP W) by Silvio Acost a , a
Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e Ma yor .
Mr . Acost a wa s h ir ed a s a Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e Ma yor on Ma y 27, 2011.
On Oct ober 16, 2012, t h e Division of Cla ssifica t ion a n d P er son n el Ma n a gem en t
r eceived a wr it t en com pla in t fr om Com m u n ica t ion s Wor ker s of Am er ica (CWA)
Loca l 1045, wh ich a lleged t h a t Mr . Acost a wa s per for m in g ou t -of-t it le wor k. On
J a n u a r y 10, 2013, CP M pr ovided t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y wit h a P osit ion
Cla ssifica t ion Qu est ion n a ir e (P CQ) a n d in st r u ct ion s t h a t Mr . Acost a sh ou ld
com plet e it wit h in t wen t y da ys. Th e P CQ wa s r et u r n ed list in g t wo du t ies, a n d wa s
sign ed a n d da t ed by Mr . Acost a a n d t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y on J a n u a r y 29, 2013.
Su bsequ en t ly, in a let t er da t ed F ebr u a r y 27, 2013, F er n a n do J im en ez, E sq.,
t h e a t t or n ey for a West New Yor k Com m ission er , Cou n t Wiley, wr ot e t o t h e Civil
Ser vice Com m ission (Com m ission ) t h a t on Apr il 18, 2012 , t h e Boa r d of
Com m ission er s for West New Yor k im plem en t ed a h ir in g fr eeze, effect ive Apr il 19,
2012. H e st a t ed t h a t , on J u n e 20, 2012, t h e Boa r d of Com m ission er s r est r u ct u r ed
five depa r t m en t s a n d Com m ission er Wiley wa s m oved fr om h is posit ion a s
E xecu t ive Dir ect or of DP W t o a posit ion in t h e Depa r t m en t of P a r ks a n d P u blic
P r oper t y. H e in dica t ed t h a t sh or t ly t h er ea ft er , 11 em ployees fr om t h e Depa r t m en t
of P a r ks a n d P u blic P r oper t y wer e u n ila t er a lly t r a n sfer r ed t o DP W, a n d h e list ed
six fu ll-t im e em ployees a n d five pa r t -t im e em ployees. H e st a t ed t h a t Com m ission er
Wiley wa s wr on gfu lly st r ipped of h is execu t ive power t o r u n h is depa r t m en t
r espon sibly du e t o con st a n t in t er fer en ce by t h e Ma yor , a n d h e sou gh t in t er ven t ion
fr om t h e Com m ission .
In t h e m ea n t im e, pr ior t o issu in g it s det er m in a t ion , a CP M st a ff m em ber
a t t em pt ed t o con du ct a ph on e or in -per son cla ssifica t ion r eview, a n d m a de r epea t ed
a t t em pt s t o con t a ct Mr . Acost a com m en cin g on or a bou t Ma r ch 8, 2013. Mr . Acost a
cou ld n ot be r ea ch ed a lt h ou gh m essa ges wer e left t o con t a ct CP M. F in a lly, t h e st a ff
m em ber n ot ed t h a t West New Yor k’s a t t or n ey, Gilber t o Ga r cia , E sq., in for m ed h er
t h a t , “No on e fr om t he DP W will spea k wit h you , in clu ding Silvio.” In it s Ma r ch 14,
2013 det er m in a t ion , CP M n ot ed t h a t t h e a ppella n t spen ds 15% of h is t im e
pr ovidin g m a n a ger ia l a dvice t o depa r t m en t h ea ds, a n d t h a t h e is a ct in g in a n
a dvisor y ca pa cit y t o t h e Com m ission er of DP W, Ru ben Va r ga s. CP M in dica t ed t h a t
t h e posit ion wa s a ssign ed t o t h e Depa r t m en t of P u blic Sa fet y, bu t sh ou ld be
DP F -439 * Revised 7/95
2
t r a n sfer r ed t o t h e Depa r t m en t of P u blic Affa ir s, wh er e t h e Ma yor is loca t ed, a n d
du t ies wit h in ot h er depa r t m en t s su ch a s DP W sh ou ld be r em oved.
On Apr il 23, 2013, CWA Loca l 1045 wr ot e a let t er t o t h e CP M st a ff m em ber
list in g t en wa ys t ha t Mr . Acost a h a d in t er fer ed wit h h u m a n r esou r ce issu es a n d
a ct ion s wit hin DP W t o t h e det r im en t of t h e em ployees .
In a let t er da t ed Apr il 24, 2013, CP M r espon ded t o West New Yor k t h a t it
h a d a dopt ed t h e Wa lsh Act for m of gover n m en t in 1931. It in dica t ed t h a t a ccor din g
t o N .J .S .A. 40:72-6, t h e Boa r d of Com m ission er s design a t es on e Com m ission er t o be
t h e dir ect or of ea ch depa r t m en t . Addit ion a lly, t h e designa t ion s m a y be ch a n ged
wh en ever it a ppea r s t h a t t h e pu blic ser vice wou ld be ben efit ed by t h e ch a n ge.
Accor din g t o t h e st a t u t e, it would t a ke a n a ct ion of t h e Boa r d of Com m ission er s t o
t r a n sfer on e of it s m em ber s t o h ea d a differ en t depa r t m en t . CP M in dica t ed t h a t t h e
Ma yor pr esides over t h e m eet in gs of t h e Boa r d of Com m ission er s, bu t h a s n o
st a t u t or y power t o vet o a n y m ea su r e. It st a t ed t h a t t h e Ma yor su per vises a ll
depa r t m en t s a n d r epor t s t o t h e t own cou n cil for a ct ion s r equ ir in g it s a t t en t ion , bu t
t h a t a Com m ission er is n ot elect ed t o a specific depa r t m en t by vot er s of t h e t own .
Ra t h er , a Com m ission er is design a t ed by a m a jor it y vot e of t h e Com m ission boa r d
m em ber s t o a specific depa r t m en t , a n d t h e design a t ion m a y ch a n ge by vot e of t h e
Boa r d of Com m ission er s wh en it is det er m in ed t h a t it is for t h e good of t h e pu blic.
On a ppea l of CP M’s Ma r ch 14, 2013 det er m in a t ion, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y
wr it es t h a t it does n ot object t o t r a n sfer r in g Mr . Acost a ’s posit ion t o t h e
Depa r t m en t of P u blic Affa ir s, a n d h e h a s been t r a n sfer r ed. Never t h eless, t h e
a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y object s t o t h e r equir em en t t h a t Mr . Acost a ’s du t ies sh ou ld n ot
in clu de pa r t icipa t ion in t h e decision -m a king pr ocess of ot h er depa r t m en t s. It st a t es
t h a t a s a n Aide t o t h e Ma yor , h e is per m it t ed a n d a llowed t o en ga ge in da ily
oper a t ion s of t h e en t ir e t own . It a r gu es t ha t t h e t it le of t h e posit ion t r a n scen ds a n y
depa r t m en t , a n d h a s t h e a bilit y t o over see a n d com m en t on a ct ion s in ot h er
depa r t m en t s. It in dica t es t h a t Mr . Acost a a ssist s t h e DP W on a n a s -n eeded ba sis a t
t h e r equ est of t h e Ma yor a n d t h e Com m ission er of DP W.
Gilber t o Ga r cia , E sq., West New Yor k’s a t t or n ey, st a t es t h a t CP M’s fin din gs
wer e er r on eou s a s “t h e wh ole descr ipt ion of Mr . Acost a ’s du t ies … is com plet ely
in a ccu r a t e.” H e st a t es t h a t Mr . Acost a a ids t h e Com m ission er of DP W, Ru ben
Va r ga s, wit h m a na ger ia l t a sks a n d pr ovides a dvice, a t t h e dir ect ion of t h e Ma yor.
Mr . Ga r cia a r gu es t h a t t h er e wa s n o r ea son t o or der Mr . Acost a ’s t r a n sfer fr om t h e
Depa r t m en t of P u blic Sa fet y t o t h e Depa r t m en t of P u blic Affa ir s sin ce t h a t t r a n sfer
a lr ea dy occu r r ed by r esolu t ion . 1 H e a lso a r gu es t h a t t h er e is n o jeopa r dy t o a ny
ca r eer ser vice posit ion u n der “Tit le 11,” a n d Mr . Acost a is n ot per for m in g du t ies
belon gin g t o a ca r eer ser vice posit ion .
H e su ggest s t h a t t h e Com m ission
1
H e st a t ed t h a t t h e r esolu t ion wa s a t t a ch ed t o t h e let t er , h owever , t h e r esolu t ion wa s n ot a t t a ch ed.
3
over r ea ch ed it s ju r isdict ion a l a u t h or it y by a ssu m in g t h a t Mr . Acost a is n ot
per for m in g u n cla ssified du t ies in DP W.
Mr . Ga r cia fu r t h er a r gu es t h a t a Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e Ma yor m u st
m a in t a in t h e flow of in for m a t ion bet ween t h e Ma yor , t h e com m u n it y, a n d va r iou s
depa r t m en t s in t h e m u n icipa lit y, a n d t her efor e ca n n ot be ba r r ed fr om pr ovidin g
a dvice t o depa r t m en t s wit h in t h e m u n icipa lit y. H e a r gu es t h a t in Wiesel v. H ook s,
277 N .J . S u per. 78 (Ch . Div. 1994), t h e Cou r t fou n d t h a t a “Con fiden t ia l Secr et a r y”
t o t h e Ma yor ’s du t ies a r e t o u n der t a ke t h ose fu n ct ion s in r ela t ion t o t h e flow of
in for m a t ion , wh et h er by wr it in g, speech or per son a l visit , t o a n d fr om t h e Ma yor ’s
office, t h a t t h e Ma yor wa n t s t h e Secr et a r y t o per for m . Th e Con fiden t ia l Aide is a
polit ica l a ppoin t m en t , n ot su bject t o cla ssifica t ion ju r isdict ion wit h in “Tit le 11,” a n d
is pr ivy t o cr it ica l policy m a kin g decision s wit h a ccess a nd exposu r e t o t h e
policym a ker s. It is a posit ion of t r u st a n d is a kin t o a h igh level ca bin et officer wit h
a ccess t o a ll a r ea s.
Mr . Ga r cia con t en ds t h a t CP M did n ot descr ibe Mr . Acost a ’s du t ies a s
viola t in g Civil Ser vice r u les, n or does it specify fu n ct ion s per for m ed by h im t h a t
sh ou ld be per for m ed by a ca r eer ser vice t it le. H e st a t es t h a t in dica t in g t h a t a ll
du t ies per for m ed in ot h er Depa r t m en t s sh ou ld cea se is in a ppr opr ia t e. H e con t en ds
t h a t policym a kin g procedu r es of t h e Ma yor in clu de a ssist in g t he Com m ission er of
DP W, a n d h e m a in t a in s t h a t Mr . Acost a is sen t by t h e Ma yor t o depa r t m en t s t o
a ssist a n d pr ovide a dvice.
CON CLU S ION
Th e issu e in t h is m a t t er is n ot wh et h er Mr . Acost a is a ppr opr ia t ely cla ssified,
bu t wh a t du t ies a r e a llowa ble u n der t h e t it le. Th e Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e Ma yor
is a n u n cla ssified t it le per m it t ed for a n in cu m ben t t h a t r epor t s dir ect ly t o t h e
Ma yor of a m u n icipa lit y. No job specifica t ion for t h is t it le exist s. N .J .S .A. 11A:3-5
(P olit ica l su bdivision u n cla ssified ser vice) pr ovides for on e secr et a r y a n d on e
Con fiden t ia l Assist a nt t o ea ch Ma yor . “Uncla ssified Ser vice” m ea n s t h ose posit ion s
a n d job t it les ou t side of t h e sen ior execu t ive ser vice, n ot subject t o t h e t en u r e
pr ovision s of Tit le 11A, New J er sey St a t u t es or t h e r u les codified in Tit le 4A of t h e
New J er sey Adm in ist r a t ive Code u n less ot h er wise specified.
Wh en t h e a ppella n t sign ed h is P CQ, he cer t ified t h a t h e h a d r ea d t h e
in st r u ct ion s a n d t h e en t r ies m a de a bove wer e in h is own wor ds a n d, t o t h e best of
h is kn owledge, wer e a ccu r a t e a n d com plet e. Th er e wer e t wo du t ies. F or 85% of t h e
t im e, t h e a ppella n t wr ot e: “Advise Ma yor r ega r din g t h e per for m a n ce of t h e P u blic
Affa ir s Depa r t m en t , in clu din g bu t n ot lim it ed t o em ployees, even t s a n d pa yr oll.
Advise Ma yor a n d im plem en t pr ogr a m s a n d idea s r ega r din g t h e P u blic Affa ir s
Depa r t m en t a n d ot h er issu es r ega r din g t h e gover n in g body im plem en t a t ion of
r egu la t ion s.” F or t he r em a in in g 15% of t h e t im e, t h e a ppella n t wr ot e, “Wh en
4
in st r u ct ed t o do so or r equ est ed by a Dir ect or of a Depa r t m en t – a s is t h e ca se h er e,
Mr . Acost a pr ovides m a n a ger ia l a dvice t o depa r t m en t h ea ds. In t h is in t h e ca se of
DP W, Mr . Acost a h a s been a dvisin g – a ct in g in a n a dvisor y ca pa cit y –
Dir ect or /Com m ission er Ru ben Va r ga s on t h e a ffa ir s of DP W.” F r om t h e wor din g of
t h e secon d du t y, it a ppea r s a s t h ou gh t h e P CQ wa s n ot com plet ed by Mr . Acost a .
Th is cou ld n ot be confir m ed or den ied a s Mr . Acost a wou ld n ot com m u n ica t e wit h
CP M, a n d Mr . Ga r cia den ied CP M a ccess t o Mr . Acost a a n d a ll ot h er st a ff.
On a ppea l, Mr . Ga r cia st a t es t h a t CP M’s fin din gs wer e er r on eou s a s “t h e
wh ole descr ipt ion of Mr . Acost a ’s du t ies … is com plet ely in a ccu r a t e.” In fa ct , t h e
du t ies list ed in CP M’s fin din gs a r e pr a ct ica lly wor d for wor d fr om t h e P CQ. In it s
det er m in a t ion , CP M in dica t ed t h a t “a ll du t ies wit hin ot h er depa r t m en t s, su ch a s
t h e Depa r t m en t of P u blic Wor ks sh a ll be r em oved.” Th e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y
disa gr ees a n d believes t h a t a Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e Ma yor is “per m it t ed a n d
a llowed t o en ga ge in da ily oper a t ion s of t h e en t ir e t own .” This is in cor r ect . An
in cu m ben t in a n u n cla ssified t it le h old s t h a t posit ion by st a t ut e or ot h er r ea son
wh ich m a kes it n ot pr a ct ica ble t o det er m ine m er it a n d fit n ess for a ppoin t m en t in or
pr om ot ion t o t h a t t it le by exa m in a t ion , a n d t h a t it is n ot a ppr opr ia t e t o m a ke
per m a n en t a ppoin t m en t s t o t h e t it le. In t h is ca se, wh ile t h e Ma yor h a s t h e
flexibilit y t o a ssign du t ies or issu e or der s a s h e sees fit , t h is does n ot cou n t en a n ce
a n u n cla ssified posit ion per for m in g du t ies ot h er wise belon ging t o ca r eer ser vice
posit ion s. S ee In th e M atter of J oseph in e S m ith , Docket Nos. A-2420-88T2 a n d A1804-89T2 (App. Div. Apr il 15, 1991); In th e M atter of E llen B loom , Docket No. A3562-86T8 (App. Div. J a n u a r y 28, 1988). In B loom , t h e Cou r t st a t ed t h a t wh ile t h e
Com m ission “h a s n o a u t h or it y t o r egu la t e wh a t goes on in a n u n cla ssified posit ion ,
it s fu n ct ion s in en for cin g t h e Civil Ser vice Act m u st be liber a lly a n d br oa dly
in t er pr et ed in or der t o a llow it t o pr oper ly br in g pu blic em ployees wit h in it s r ea ch
t o effect u a t e it s a n n ou n ced pu r pose.” Th e Cou r t con fir m ed t h a t t o a llow a loca l
a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y u n r egu la t ed discr et ion r ega r din g u n cla ssified posit ion s “wou ld
be t o r en der u n su per vised t h e a bilit y of su bor din a t e gover n m en t a l u n it s t o pla ce a
job posit ion in t o a n u n cla ssified posit ion a n d wit h im pun it y, fr u st r a t e t h e
con st it u t ion a l m a n da t e t h a t per son s com pet e t o ga in posit ion s pr oper l y cla ssified a s
su bject t o t h e civil ser vice syst em .” S ee also, S tate Dept. of Civil S ervice v. Clark , 15
N .J . 334, 341 (1954); B ow ser v. S tate Dept. of Civil S ervice of N .J ., 108 N .J . S u per.
132 (App. Div. 1970); Follari v. S tate Dept. of Civil S ervice, 102 N .J . S u per. 598
(App. Div. 1968).
CWA a r gu es t h a t t h e Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e Ma yor h a s ch a n ged em ployee
job du t ies, t it les a n d h ou r s, t r a n sfer r ed a n d fir ed em ployees, m a de det er m in a t ion s
on va lidit y of em ployee sick lea ve, den ied lea ve or r equ est ed lea ve ch a n ges, t icket ed
em ployees for viola t ion s of pu blic wor ks policies (su ch a s t icket in g ca r s in t h e wa y of
sweeper s a n d pu t t in g ou t lea ves), a n d ch a n ged t h e loca t ion of wh er e em ployees
sign ed in . If even on e or t wo of t h ese a llega t ion s a r e cor r ect , M r . Acost a h a s
st epped ou t t h e bou n da r ies of h is t it le. An y a ct ion s r ega r din g em ployees a r e wit h in
5
t h e pu r view of t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y, a nd t h e defin it ion of “a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y”
is a per son or gr ou p of per son s h a vin g power of a ppoin t m en t or r em ova l . S ee
N .J .A.C. 4A:1-1.3.
In a ddit ion t o a ppoin t m en t s, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it ies’
r espon sibilit ies in clude a ssign m en t s, disciplin a r y a ct ion s, ch a n ges t o wor k st a t u s,
la yoffs, dem ot ion s, pr om ot ion s, a ppr ova l of lea ves, r em ova ls, sa la r y decision s,
t er m in a t ion s, t r a n sfer s, a n d ot h er per son n el a ct ion s. F or West New Yor k, wh ile t h e
Ma yor is t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y, t h er e is a lso a Town Adm in ist r a t or , J oseph
DeMa r co, wh ose fu n ct ion it is t o ca r r y ou t t h e per son n el a ct ion s a s dir ect ed by t h e
Ma yor . Th er e is n o n eed for t h e Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e Ma yor t o u su r p t h ese
du t ies a n d t a ke per son n el a ct ion s.
Wh ile t h er e is n o job specifica t ion for Com m ission er , a Dir ect or of P u blic
Wor ks, u n der dir ect ion , pla n s, or ga n izes, a n d dir ect s t h e pr ogr a m s a n d a ct ivit ies of
a com pr eh en sive pu blic wor ks depa r t m en t . Wh ile it is a ppr opr ia t e t o r ela y
in for m a t ion a n d pr ovide com m u n ica t ion wit h t h e Ma yor ’s Office, t h e Con fiden t ia l
Aide t o t h e Ma yor , a n d h is su bor din a t es, sh ou ld n ot be “a ssist in g” wit h t h ese du t ies.
Issu es su ch a s ch a n gin g t h e loca t ion of wh er e em ployees sign in , or decidin g wh o
get s t icket s, is t h e r espon sibilit y of t h e Dir ect or of DP W, 2 wh o is a ccou n t a ble for
t h ese a ct ion s. Th e Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t he Ma yor h a s n o a u t hor it y t o m a ke t h ese
t ypes of decision s. Wh ile t h e Ma yor h a s t h e a u t h or it y over t h e Town , t h e
Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e Ma yor does n ot . H e is pr ivy t o cr it ica l policy m a kin g
decision s wit h a ccess a n d exposu r e t o t h e policym a ker s: h owever , h e sh ou ld n ot be
per for m in g t h e du t ies of t h e Ma yor , t h e Adm in ist r a t or or t he Dir ect or s a s h is
fu n ct ion is t o aid th e M ayor wit h con fiden t ia l issu es. Th e Con fiden t ia l Aide t o t h e
Ma yor ca n com m u n ica t e wit h t h e Dir ect or s of ot h er depa r t m en t s, bu t is n ot en t it led
t o m a ke decision s for t h em , a n d sh ou ld n ot be a ssist in g ot h er Depa r t m en t s wit h
per son n el a ct ion s or a ct u a l wor k per t a in in g t o t h ose depa r t m en t s. Mr . Acost a m u st
cea se per for m in g wor k in depa r t m en t s ot h er t h a n t h e Depa r t m en t of P u blic Affa ir s
a n d focu s h is a t t en t ion on t h e Ma yor a n d t h e Depa r t m en t of P u blic Affa ir s. Mr .
Va r ga s h a s t h e a u t h or it y t o per for m t h e du t ies of h is posit ion , a nd h e sh ou ld r ely on
Mr . DeMa r co t o a ssist wit h per son n el issu es.
F in a lly, t h e m a t t er of in cor r ect Cou n t y a n d Mu n icipa l P er son n el Syst em
(CAMP S) r ecor ds in West New Yor k m u st be r esolved. Mr . Acost a ’s r ecor d wa s
in cor r ect t o st a r t , a n d Mr . Va r ga s’ r ecor d is in cor r ect cu r r en t ly. Also, Mr . J im en ez
poin t ed ou t t h e t r a n sfer of 11 em ployees fr om t h e Depa r t m en t of P a r ks a n d P u blic
P r oper t y t o t h e DP W in J u n e 2012, bu t a list in g of em ployees in DP W does n ot
in clu de a n y of t h ose n a m es. As su ch , CP M sh ou ld wor k wit h Mr . DeMa r co t o
en su r e t h a t em ployee r ecor ds in CAMP S a r e u pda t ed a n d cor r ect ed.
2
Ru ben Va r ga s a n d Cou n t Wiley a r e bot h list ed in Civil Ser vice Com m ission r ecor ds a s
Com m ission er s in t h e Depa r t m en t of P a r k s a n d P u blic P r oper t y, wh ile t h er e is n o Com m ission er
list ed for DP W. As su ch , CP M sh ou ld cor r ect Mr . Va r ga s’ CAMP S r ecor d a n d list h im a s t h e
Com m ission er of DP W.
6
A t h or ou gh r eview of t h e in for m a t ion pr esen t ed in t h e r ecor d est a blish es t h a t
it is in a ppr opr ia t e for t h e a ppella n t t o per for m du t ies in depa r t m en t s ot h er t h a n t h e
Depa r t m en t of P u blic Affa ir s, a n d t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y h a s fa iled t o m a in t a in
it s bu r den of pr oof in t h is m a t t er .
ORD ER
Th er efor e, it is or der ed t h a t t h is a ppea l be den ied.
Th is is t h e fin a l a dm in ist r a t ive det er m in a t ion in t h is m a t t er . An y fu r t h er
r eview sh ou ld be pu r su ed in a ju dicia l for um .