IN THE MATTER OF JOHN VARALLI

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5369-04T15369-04T1

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN VARALLI

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted July 5, 2006 - Decided July 27, 2006

Before Judges Lefelt and Axelrad.

On appeal from a Final Decision of

the New Jersey Merit System Board,

Docket No. CSVO4625-04.

Fusco & Macaluso, attorneys for

appellant, John Varalli (Ciro A.

Spina, III, on the brief).

Brown & Connery, attorneys for

respondent, County of Gloucester

(Ila Bhatnagar, on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent, New Jersey

State Merit System Board (Andrea R.

Grundfest, Deputy Attorney General,

on the statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

The Chief Administrative Law Judge found that petitioner John Varalli, a Gloucester County Correction Officer, had engaged in conduct unbecoming a public official, and that a one day suspension was suitable punishment. The Merit System Board adopted the Chief Judge's finding of unbecoming conduct, but rejected the penalty and imposed a thirty-day suspension. Petitioner appealed.

The Chief Judge found that petitioner allowed an encounter with an attorney, who was visiting an inmate at the jail, "to escalate into a race-based confrontation." The judge found that petitioner expressed surprise that the attorney was actually a lawyer, raised his voice, and failed to apologize or explain that he was challenging the attorney because the attorney had the same name as a former inmate.

The Merit System Board accepted these findings, but rejected the one-day suspension recommended by the Chief Judge. The Board noted that the parties failed to supply the judge with evidence that petitioner had previously received a one-day suspension for other conduct unbecoming a public employee. Furthermore, the Board concluded from the facts found by the Chief Judge that the offense was sufficiently "outrageous" to warrant a thirty-day suspension "as it involved interaction with a member of the public and the instigation of a racial confrontation."

The Board is the ultimate arbiter of the appropriate penalty in public employee disciplinary matters. N.J.S.A. 11A:2-6. On this record, the Board's decision to increase the penalty recommended by the Chief Judge was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and was adequately supported by the record. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). Consequently, the imposition of the thirty-day penalty deserves to be, and is affirmed. See Town of West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500, 519-20 (1962).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5369-04T1

July 27, 2006