PURSUANT TO R. 4:69-1 IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE...

The Law Office of John P. Rowland 830 Radio Road, Suite :B Little Egg Harbor, >New Jersey 08087 (609) 312-3488 Attorneys for Plaintiff

FRANCINE HOVERMANN

Plaintiff,

COUNTY. OF CUMBERLAND, PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

Defendant.

'SUPERIOR COURTOF NEW:JERSEY LAW DIVISION/CIVIL PART CUMBERLAND COUNTY

DOCKET NO

Civil Action

VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS PURSUANT TO R. 4:69-1

Plaintiff Francine HOvermann, an Office Service Manager/Administrative

Secretary employed by the Office of the . Prosecutor, County of Cumberland, State of

New Jersey, says by way of Verified Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs pursuant to

R. 4:69-1 and appeals discipline imposed upon her, against Defendant County of

Cumberland, Prosecutor's Office as follows:

FIRST COUNT

1. Plaintiff, Francine Hovermann ("Hovermannn), a 40-year employee of the

Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office was at all times relevant hereto, a full-time,

Civil Service Employee, employed since 1973 in good standing, by defendant County of

Cumberland, Prosecutor's Office pursuant to N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 et.seq., and protected in

her office from discipline, suspension, and termination except for just cause, pursuant to

NAS.A. 11A:1-1 et. seq., N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.1 and Cumberland County Prosecutor's

Office Manual Chap. 24, et. seq.

2. The County of Cumberland, Prosecutor's Office is a civil-service agency

as defined in N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 et seq.

3. On or about January 11, e2013, the Prosecutor of the County of

Cumberland, Jennifer Webb-McRae, ("Webb-McRae") and Hovermann traveled to

Philadelphia in order to celebrate Hovermann's birthday. Webb-McRae and

Hovermann went to'eat dinner at Spasso's, a Philadelphia restaurant. Both Hovermann

and Webb-McRae were on their own personal time

4. After dinner, Webb-McRae and Hoverrnann went to an upscale adult

boutique store known as Kink Shoppe. Kink Shoppe is owned and operated by

Hovermann's son.

5. While inside Kink Shoppe, Webb-McRae purchased two vibrators.

Hovermann was present and was aware of.the purchases.

6. Webb-McRae's purchase of the vibrators, with a friend, who happens to

be a subordinate, present, was perfectly legal and did not run afoul of the internal rules

and regulations of the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office. Based upon information

and belief, Webb-McRae has consistently asserted that she committed no wrong in

doing so. We agree.

7. On or about February 21, 2013, Hovermann and legal secretary Mary

Kaganzev, thought to be Hovermann's personal friend, • went to lunch at Vito's in

Bridgeton, New Jersey. Hovermann and Kaganzev were on their own personal and

private lunch time.

While out to lunch and during conversation, Hovermann told Kaganzev

that she (Hovermann) and another employee of the office had visited Kink Shoppe,

however, Kaganzev was able to tell that Hoyermann was speaking of Webb-McRae.

9. The conversation between Hovermann and Kaganzev was a personal and

private conversation between friends:while out to lunch.

10, Soon thereafter, Kaganzev complained to the Cumberland County

Prosecutor's Office Professional Standards Unit ("Internal Affairs') that she felt it was

inappropriate for Hovermann to have told her that she (Hovermann) had gone to

Philadelphia on a personal trip with Webb-McRae. Kaganzev reported that she felt it

was inappropriate for Hovermann to have shared the details of Hovermann's personal

trip to Philadelphia whei'e Webb-McRae also purchased vibrators.

11. Based upon information and belief, Webb-McRae and First Assistant

Prosecutor, Harold Shapiro, authorized Internal Affairs Special Agent-in-Charge Ronald

Cuff to initiate an official internal affairs investigation against Hovermann based upon

Kaganzev's complaint that Kaganzev felt it was inappropriate for Hovermann to reveal

to her that Webb-McRae had purchased vibrators.

12. The private discussion between Hovermann and Kaganzev, while out to

lunch, did not violate any internal rule or regulation within the Cumberland County

Prosecutor's Office.

13. Webb-McRae's and Shapiro's utilization of/authorization to use public

resources, ., Internal Affairs, in order to investigate a wholly private and personal

matter is/was an abuse of authority.

3

14. Nonetheless, on , or about March 27, 2013, Hovermann, now named as the

"target" of an official internal affairs investigation, was ordered to answer questions

under the threat of discipline and/or termination about her personal trip to Philadelphia

with Webb-McRae. Hovermann was also questioned about to whom she told the details

of the trip to.

15. Hovermann was qdestioned in the privacy: :of her own office :behind a

closed door.

16. internal Affairs has no jurisdiction or authority to delve into and investigate

the personal, private affairs and conversations of employees which have no bearing on

their duties and responsibilities as employees in the Prosecutor's Office. Kaganzev's

complaint that she felt it was inappropriate for Hovermann to reveal the detail of her

personal trip to Philadelphia does not touch upon any rule infraction whatsoever.

17, Internal Affairs should have immediately advised Webb-McRae that

Kaganzev's complaint was a wholly personal and private matter which in no way related

to or touched upon Hovermann's duties as Office Administrator,

18. During the ordered questioning, Hovermann initially denied telling

Kaganzev about her trip to Philadelphia with Webb-McRae because of the sensitive

nature of the item purchased and by whom it was purchased. The interview ended at

approximately 2:00 p.m.

19. A few hours iater, on or about 6:05 p.m., on that same day, Hovermann

contacted both Detective Jay Pennypacker and S A.C, Cuff. Hovermann sent emails to

both and left voicemail messages on each of their phones stating that she wanted to

4

add/amend her earlier statement. Hovermann spoke on the phone with S.A.C. Cuff that

evening and explained that she wished to amend her statement.

20. Despite Plaintiff Hovermann's, request to amend her statement, no action

was taken by Internal Affairs and no re-interview was scheduled.

21. In May, 2013 In an unrelated Internal Affairs matter,' Plaintiff HoVermann

was interviewed as a "witness" to something by Detective Jay Pennypacker and

Detective (now Chief) Rich Necelis, Said interview , was conducted in the privacy of

Hovermann's office with the door closed.

22. Almost four months after Hovermann's March 27, 2013 questioning, on or

about July 15, 2013, Confidential Secretary to the Prosecutor, Lillian Hernandez,

entered Hovermann's office and showed Hovermann a draft letter prepared by First

Assistant Harold Shapiro, addressed to Hovermann directly. Said letter contained an

advisement that Hovermann would be re-interviewed as a result of,her initial March 27,

2013 statement.

23. On July 17, 2013, Hovermann was finally re-interviewed as part of her

March 27, 2013 statement regarding the "Philadelphia Trip." Det. Pennypacker re-

interviewed Hovermann about the details of Webb-McRae's purchase of vibrators and

who else knew about it besides Kaganzev.

24. Unlike her prior interviews and virtually all Internal Affairs interviews, this

time, the questioning was conducted in an open setting, located at 164 Broad Street,

Bridgeton, New Jersey, in a glass-walled office so that all employees walking by could

see the questioning taking place, including Kaganzev.

25. A few days later, Lillian Hernandez again entered Hovermann's office and

showed Hovermann a draft letter authored by First Assistant Harold Shapiro which was

addressed to Hovermann directly. Said letter was a "letter of counseling" for an

unrelated internal affairs matter.

26. On or about July 31, 2013 Lillian Hernandez again entered Hovermann's

office and showed her a draft letter authored by' First ASsistant Harold Shapiro,

addressed directly to Hovermann. Said lefter contained a warning and admonishment

that Hovermann should cease and desist asking Lillian Hernandez information about the

pending investigation.

27, Upon reading said document, Hoverrnann contacted Webb-McRae

because it was clear that Hernandez had made false statements to Webb-McRae

and/or Shapiro. Hovermann had never approached Hernandez and inquired about any

pending investigation and immediately reported same to Webb-McRae.

28. Based upon information and belief, Webb-McRae, after questioning

Hernandez, either terminated Hernandez's employment and/or accepted an immediate

resignation from her

29. Webb-McRae and Shapiro then caused formal disciplinary charges to be

filed against Hovermann for, amongst other things, breach of confidentiality. Webb-

McRae and Shapiro sought to terminate Hovermann's 40 year career as punishment.

(attached Exhibit 1).

30. On or about August 9, 2013, said discipline was modified from termination

to demotion. (attached Exhibit 2).

31. On September 4, 2013 , Hovermann was issued a written reprimand (the

subject of this appeal) for 'making inappropriate statements to Kaganzev about a trip

with the Prosecutor"; "making inappropriate statements to the Chief of. Investigators

William T. Johnson about the Philadelphia Trip"; and "Lack of Candor." (attached

Exhibit 3).

32. With regard to the written reprimand (the subject of this appeal),

Hovermann was never served with a Preliminary Notice of Discipline.

33. With regard to the written reprimand, Hovermann was never served with a

Final Notice of Discipline as required by N.JA.0 4A::2-2 & 2-3, et. seq. Hovermann is

still awaiting receipt of both the Preliminary and Final Notices of Discipline.

34. On September 20, 2013, Webb-McRae demoted Hovermann two steps to

the position of legal secretary where she has now lost approximately $30,000.00 in

salary per year That matter is currently pending appeal at the Civil Service

Commission. (attached Exhibit 4).

35. Based upon information and belief, soon thereafter, Webb-McRae also

terminated the Chief of Detectives, William Johnson, because he failed to tell Webb-

McRae that he too knew that Webb-McRae had purchased vibrators.

WHEREFORE, Plaintff Francine Hovermann demands Judgment and an Order

of the Superior Court against the County of Cumberland as follows:

Reversing the written reprimand in its entirety entered by the

Defendant against Hovermann, as none of the aforenoted charges were

established by a preponderance of competent and convincing evidence so as to

establish violations of the Rules and Regulations Manual of the County of

7

Cumberland Prosecutor's Office, or so as to establish any other good cause for

any other form of disciplinary action against Hovermann;

Determining that the internal Affairs investigation into the

"Philadelphia Trip" be null, void, and unlawful pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147

and N.J.S.A. 11A:2-13;

c Enjoining defendant County of Cumberland from any further

prosecution on the.foregoing disciplinary charges;

d. Compelling defendant to pay, pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 40A:14-155, and N J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12, attorney fees

by Hovermann in her defense and in the exercise of her statutory.rights;

Any other relief which the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT TWO

(Violation of Hearing Rule Contained with the Prosecutor's Office Manual)

36. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates all previous allegations as if fully set

forth herein.

37. Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office Manual Chapter 24 et.seq.

provides that before any disciplinary action is taken against a permanent employee

serving in the career service the employee "shall be entitled to disciplinary hearings...,"

(attached Exhibit 5)

38. At no time did Hovermann waive her right pursuant to the foregoing, to a

local departmental hearing. Hovermann has yet to be served with any charges and

specifications related to the issuance of this "written reprimand."

N.J.S.A.. 11A:2-22

and costs incurred

39. Indeed, to date no such local departmental hearing has been offered to

Hovermann.

40. The County's actions were, and are, in violation of state law and civil

service regulations.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francine Hovermann demands Judgment and an Order


a. Reversing the written reprimand in its entirety entered by' the

Defendant against Hovermann, as none of the aforenoted charges

were established by a preponderance Of competentand ,convincing

evidence so as to, establish violations Of the Rules and Regulations

Manual of the County of Cumberland Prosecutor's Office, or so as to

establish any other good cause for any other ferm of disdiplinary action

against Hoverrnann;

b. Determining that the internal Affairsinvestigation into the "Philadelphia

Trip" be null, void, and unlawful pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 and

c. Enjoining defendant County of Cumberland from any further

prosecution on the foregoing disciplinary charges;

d. Compelling defendant to pay, pursuant to N.J.S.A. I 1A:2-22, N.J.S.A.

40A:14-155, and N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12, attorney fees and costs incurred

by Hovermann in her defense and in the exercise of her statutory

rights;

e. Any other relief which the Court deems equitable and j ust.

41. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates all previous allegatiOns as if fully set forth

42. As aforenoted, the September 4, 2013 so-called Written Reprimand that

Shapiro signed against and issued to Hovermann was proffered long after the expiration

of the Forty-Five Day Rule, codified at N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147. That statute mandates that

"a complaint charging a violation of the internal rules and regulations established for the

conduct of a law enforcement unit shall be filed no later than the'5th day after the date

on which the person filing the matter upon which the complaint is based.'

43. The Defendant impermissibly sat on the illegal investigation and could

have very easily have had its possession "sufficient information to file the matter upon

which >the complaint is based" when Hovermann asked to be re-interviewed way back

on March 27, 2013.

44. Hoverrnann's written reprimand must be set aside,

45, Defendant, to date, has never filed disciplinary charges against

Hovermann. As such, the matter is well outside the aforenoted 45-day time period, in

gross dereliction of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147;

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francine Hovermann demands Judgment and an Order


a. Reversing the written reprimand in its entirety entered by the

Defendant against Hovermann, as none of the aforenoted charges were

established by a preponderance of competent and convincing evidence so

as to establish violations of the Rules and Regulations

10

T E LAW OFFICE eys for P

OHN P..ROVVLAND

w a Esq.

Manual of the County of Cumberland Prosecutor's Office,

establish any other good cause for any other form of disciplinary action

b. Determining that the Internal Affairs Investigation into the "Philadelphia

Trip" be null, void, and unlawful pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 and

N.J.S.A. 11A:2-13;

c. Enjoining defendant County of Cumberland from any further prosecution

on the foregoing disciplinary charges;

Compelling defendant to pay, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 11A:2-22, N.J.S.A.

40A:14-155, and N.J.A.0 4A:2-2.12, attorney fees and costs incurred by

Hovermann in her defense and in the exercise of her statutory rights;

e. Any other relief which the Court.deems equitable and just.

Dated: October 20, 2013

11

Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action. (31-A) Civil Service Commission — State of New Jersey

Instructions for employer: This notice must be served on a permanent employee or an employee serving a working test period in the career service against whom one of the following types of disciplinary action is contemplated; (a) suspension or fine for more than five working days at any one time; (b) suspension or fine for five working days or less where the aggregate number of days suspended or fined in any one calendar year is 15 working days or more; (c) the last suspension or fine where an employee receives more than three suspensions or fines of five working days or less in a calendar year; (d) disciplinary demotion from a title in which the employee has permanent status or received a regular appointment; (e) removal; or (f) resignation not in good standing. A copy of, this notice must be sent to the Civil Service Commission. Subsequent to the hearing by the appointing authority, the employee and the Civil Service Commission must be served with the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action.

Employing Agency Name

Cumberland County Prosecutor

Address/ 43 Fayette Street Bridgeton NJ 08302 Phone Number

(856) 453-0486

Date

08-02-2013

Attorney representing your agency should this matter be appealed Address/Phone number/Email address

First Assistant Prosecutor Harold Shapiro 43 Fayette Street Bridgeton NJ 08302

Employee Name Francine Hovermann

Employee Ide

000094534

ntification Number Permanent Civil Service Title

Office Manager

Pension Num ber Address/ Phone Number 1067 Summer . Road, Minotola NJ 08341

You are hereby notified that the following eharge(s) have been made against you: (If necessary, use additional sheets and attach)

Incident(s) giving rise to the charge(s) and the date(s) on which it/they occurred:

Charges:

See attached Sheet

If checked, charges are continued on attached page.

See attached Sheet

If checked, incidents are continued on attached page.

You are hereby suspended effective Immediately pending outcome of investigation (Check box to indicate if employee is suspended pending final disposition of the matter)

If you desire a departmental hearing before the appointing authority on the above charge(s), notify it within *days of receipt of this form. If you request a hearing it will be held on at (time) at (place of hearing)

*Must be a minimum of five days

The following disciplinary action may be taken against you: ❑ Suspension for working days, beginning and ending

❑ Indefinite suspension pending criminal charges effective (date)

Removal, effective (date)

O Demotion to position of effective (date)

❑ Resignation not in good standing, effective (date)

❑ Fine ain/6" as which is equal to itleltber

(number of working days)

❑ Other Disciplinary Action

Appointing au do ity or aut orized a ns gri.tu a title.

Signa-tu4 Title Cumberland County Prosecutor

This form must e persoply served on the employee or sent by certified or registered mail.

❑ Certified• r Registered Mail ❑ Re umber

pi Date•of personal service a Signature of Server: /

DPF 31A Revised 03-24-11 DIST1:11BUTION:Employee, Union Representative or Attorney, Management, Civil Service Commission. When using a form downloaded from the Internet you still must provide the indicated above number of copies to all parties.

Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (31-A)

Charges:

Violations of Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office Policy Manual

CONFIDENTUALITY

Section 7.1 General Policy

Although the Cumberland County Prosectitor's Office is a "public" organization, the information

contained in our files and records or otherwise obtained by virtue of our employment is strictly

CONFIDENTIAL. Employees are strongly admonished against discussing or providing written or verbal

information on any aspect of a pending or closed case or internal procedures and operations with or to

any person unless such information has previously been disclosed or required to be disclosed in a legally

recognized manner, e.g. a judicial proceeding or a proper request under the Open Public Records Act

(OPRA). Employees are • to share internal confidential information with those employees of the

Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office who have a professional "need to know".

Under no circumstances are employees of the office to provide "inside information" or other

sensitive information to any person outside of the office. Such information may be shared within the

office if the "receiving" employee has a legitimate and professional "need to know."

WORKING CONDITIONS

Section 10.1 Personal Conduct

All Cumberland County Prosecutor Office employees are expected to conduct their professional

and personal lives in a manner which will reflect positively upon the office and their association with this

office. No employee shall engage in illegal or improper behavior or engage in an activity or enter into or

continue a personal relationship which created an appearance of impropriety or may lead to a conflict of

interest. An employee is required to bring to the attention of his or her supervisor any relationship that

may create an appearance of impropriety or may lead to a conflict of interest.

Violations of Code of Ethics for County Prosecutors

Section 4. Duties and Prohibitions: In General

Subsection: L. No county prosecutor or employee of a county prosecutor may knowingly act in any way

that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having

knowledge of the acts that he or she is engaged in conduct violative of the public trust.

Section 7. Disclosure, Reporting and Record Keeping Responsibilities

Subsection: B. It shall be the duty of a county prosecutor or employee of a county prosecutor who is

aware of conduct by himself or herself or any other that violates this Code, or violates State or federal

law to disclose the conduct to the county prosecutor or a person designated by the county prosecutor.

incident(s) giving rise to the charge(s) and the date (s) on which it/they occurred:

During an internal investigation whereby Office Manager Francine Hovermann, was accused of

violations of several office polices, including candor, she was provided with confidential information

regarding the pending investigation and investigative strategies, which she used to her advantage and

failed to report the breach of confidentiality to the Cumberland County Prosecutor. A direct violation of

the Cumberland County Prosecutor Office Policy Manual and Code of Ethics for County Prosecutors.

Page 2 of 2

Elate of personal service,

which is equal (number of working days)

itle Prosecutor

This form m be pers ly served on the employee or sent by certified or registered mail.

❑ Certi or Registered Mail - e ei Number

Signature of Server

❑ Fine

Appointing

Signato

" AEI/ 156 D° Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (31-A)

Civil Service Commission — State of New Jersey

Instructions far employer: This notice must be served on a permanent employee or an employee serving a working test period in the career service against whom one of the following types of disciplinary action is contemplated: (a) suspension or fine for more than five working days at any one time; (b) suspension or fine for five working days or less where the aggregate number of days suspended or fined in any one calendar year is 15 working days or more; (c) the last suspension or fine where an employee receives more than three suspensions or fines of five working days or less in a calendar year; (d) disciplinary demotion from a title in which the employee has permanent status or received a regular appointment; (e) removal; or (f) resignation not in good standing. A copy of this notice must be sent to the Civil Service Commission. Subsequent to the hearing by the appointing authority, the employee and the Civil Service Commission must be served with the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action.

Employing Agency Name

Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office

Address/ 43 Fayette Street, Bridgeton, NJ 08302 Phone Number

85653 0486 X3109 -

Date

09-09-13

Attorney representing your agency should this matter be appealed

Harold Shapiro, First Assistant Prosecutor

Address/Phone number/Email address

43 Fayette Street 856-453-0466 Bridgeton, NJ 08302 [email protected]

Title

Services Mgr.

X3109

Employee Identification Number

000094534

Employee Name Francine Hovermann

Permanent Civil Service

Administrative Secretary/Office

Address/ Phone Number 1067 Summer Road, Minotola, NJ 08341

Pension Number

you are hereby

Charges:

notified that the following charge(s) have been made against yeti: (If necessary, use additional sheets and attach)


See Attached Sheet for Specification of Charges. See Attached Sheet +

4A2-2.3(a)(1) - Incompetency; Inefficiency; or Failure to Perform Duties;

4A:2-2.3(a)(6) - Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee;

4A:2-2.3(a)(12) - Other Sufficient Cause.

0 if checked charges are continued on attached page. If checked, incidents are continued on attached page.

You are hereby suspended effective effective Monday, 8/12/13 without pay. (Check box to indicate if employee is suspended pending final disposition of the matter)

If you desire a departmental hearing before the appointing authority on the above charge(s), notify it within five (5) *days of receipt of this form. If you request a hearing it will be held on 8/18/13 at (time) 1 :30 Pm at (place of hearing) the Cumberland County Administration Building

*Must be a minimum of five days The following disciplinary action may be taken against you:

❑ Suspension for working days, beginning and ending


❑ Removal, effective (date)

El Demotion to position of Legal Secretary

• Resignation not in good standing, effective (date)

DPF,TIA Revised 03-24-11 DISTRIBUTION: Employee, Un Representative or Attorney, Management, Civil Service Commission. When using a form downloaded the interned you still must provide the indicated above number of copies to all parties.

effective (date) August 19, 2013

❑ Other Disciplinary Action

Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (31-A)

Charges:


CONFIDENTUALITY

Section 7.1 General Policy

Although the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office is a "public" organization, the information


CONFIDENTIAL. Employees are strongly admonished against discussing or providing written or verbal




(OPRA), Employees are to share internal confidential information with those employees of the

Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office who have a professional "need to know".

Under no circumstances are employees of the office to provide "inside information" or other

sensitive information to any person outside of the office. Such information may be shared within the

office if the "receiving" employee has a legitimate and professional "need to know,"

WORKING CONDITIONS




office. No employee shall engage in illegal or improper behavior or engage in an activity or enter into or


interest. An employee is required to bring to the attention of his or her supervisor any relationship that

may create an appearance of impropriety or may lead to a conflict of interest





knowledge of the acts that he or she is engaged in conduct violative of the public trust.

Section 7. Disclosure, Reporting and Record Keeping Responsibilities

Subsection: B. it s_ hall be the duty of a county prosecutor or employee of a county prosecutor who is

aware of conduct by himself or herself or any other that violates this Code, or violates State or federal


1ncident(s) giving rise to the charge(s) and the date ts) on which it/they occurred:

During an internal investigation whereby Office Manager Francine Hovermann, was accused of





Page 2 of 2

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JENNIFER WEBB-MCRAE

CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR

Harold B. Shapiro William T, Johnson First Assistant Prosecutor Chief of Investigators

43 Fayette Street Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302

Telephone (856) 453-0486 Fax (856) 451- 1507

September 4, 2013

Francine Hovermann 1067 Summer Mill Road Minotola, New Jersey 08341

RE: Case #IA-13-0006 Complainant, Mary Kaganzev,. Paralegal Specialist Subject, Francine Hovermann, Office Administrator

DETERIVIINATION AND LETTER OF REPRIMAND

Dear Ms. Hovermann:

As I believe you are aware, the Prosecutor has recused herself in this matter. I am therefore responsible to make the determination, which is as set forth. This letter constitutes my determination.

There are seven discrete allegations which were identified by the Professional Standards Unit (hereinafter "PSU") as a result of the complaint made against you by Mary Kaganzev (hereinafter "Kaganzev").

These allegations, along with my deteimination on each, are listed hereinbelow:

1. Use of an obscene gesture, referred to as the "Italian F_ _ _ You" gesture, during a March 11, 2013 staff meeting is Not Sustained.

2. Derogatory statement about employees with paralegal degrees during the staff meeting is Not Sustained.

3. Causing Kaganzev to cry during the staff meeting is Not Sustained.

4. Disparaging comment concerning the transcription abilities of a Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office (hereinafter "CCPO") employee is Not Sustained.

5. Improperly accessing an internal affairs report (IA-2009-0001) is Not Sustained.

6. Making comments intended to embarrass Kaganzev when Kaganzev and you had lunch at Vito's Restaurant (in the context of checking out whether male customers present were wearing wedding rings) is Not Sustained.

7. Making inappropriate statements to Kaganzev about a trip with the Prosecutor to your son's store in Philadelphia, in violation of CCPO Office Policy 10.2, is Sustained. Additional collateral issues came to light relating to the Philadelphia Trip during the course of the investigation, which require additional findings. These are: Making inappropriate statements to Chief of Investigators William T. Johnson about the Philadelphia Trip, in violation of Section 10.2, is Sustained; and, Lack of Candor when questioned under Administrative Advisement concerning the Philadelphia Trip (including, but not limited to, denying that you told Kaganzev the Prosecutor went with you) is Sustained.

Please note that the findings which were not sustained, as set forth above (in #s 1-6), were determined based upon the available documentation and third party interviews; as such, those matters Not Sustained were based upon evidence developed, separate and apart from and not including your denials of these charges.

With respect to those allegations which are sustained, under #7 above, more detailed discussion is set forth. Prior to the commencement of your March 27, 2013 interview in this matter, pursuant to the applicable CCPO approved form, you signed an Administrative Advisement pursuant to which you acknowledged that you "may be subject to agency discipline ... for not answering truthfully."

A review of your March 27, 2013 interview by PSU documents of record that you made the following untruthful statements, with respect to the Philadelphia Trip:

1. In your lunch discussion with Kaganzev, you "never mentioned the Prosecutor."

2. You stated that "me and somebody else from the office took a ride up there [to your son's store in Philadelphia]." [By context the reference to "somebody else" is clearly to somebody other than the Prosecutor.]

3. In the context of responding to Kaganzev's complaint that you specifically told Kaganzev you went to Philadelphia with the Prosecutor, you stated "I would never mention the Prosecutor's name."

You repeated the statement referenced in #2 above, stating "me and somebody else from the office took a ride up there [to my son's store in Philadelphia]."

5. When asked in the context of the Philadelphia trip, how many other people would have information above the trip, you answered "[nobody would have]."

6. When asked if you were positive that you did not tell Kaganzev the Prosecutor was with you, you responded "[a]bsolutely."

7. You repeated the substance of the statements made in #'s 2 and 4 above, stating "me and ... somebody else from the office went up there to check it out, we had dinner, went and checked it out."

8. You repeated the substance of the statement made in #3, stating, "I wouldn't mention the Prosecutor's name."

Prior to the commencement of the July 17, 2013 re-interview, you were provided and given a fair opportunity to review my July 15, 2013 memo to you and a transcript of the March 27, 2013 interview excerpt (relating to the Philadelphia Trip). My memo clearly advised that an issue had arisen considering a lack of candor in your March 27, 2013 statement. The memo further advised that you were being given the opportunity to change, correct, modify and/or to alter your original statement. That memo followed a preliminary (but not final) assessment that Kaganzev's allegations against you (based upon the receipt of detailed information from Kaganzev as to the name of the store and a description of the items purchased, with the amount spent by the Prosecutor during the

2

- Philadelphia Trip) appeared credible, based upon the detail she presented. More important, third party corroboration obtained from the person with whom you went to Philadelphia confirmed the details provided by Kaganzev. The candor issue therefore could not be ignored. It is noted that the July 15, 2013 memo was officially presented to you by Detective Pennypacker on July 17, 2013. (Parenthetically, it appears that you had more than a fair opportunity to review the 7/15/13 memo prior to the 7/17/13 interview, as it was determined on August 1 and 2, 2013 that you reviewed in advance a copy of it from a co-worker; this is the subject of a separate PSU matter (Case#IA-13-0018), which is not considered or taken into account concerning the findings made in the captioned matter or the discipline imposed.)

During the course of the July 17, 2013 re-interview you acknowledged that when you denied divulging to Kaganzev the presence of the Prosecutor with you during the Philadelphia Trip, your denials (which the record reflects were repeated, see Denial #s1-8) were untruthful.

A transcript of the July 17, 2013 re-interview has been made, which is referred to hereinbelow. (A copy of the transcript is attached.) As previously noted, you were, prior to the March 27, 2013 original interview, given an Administrative Advisement which specifically advised that you "may be subject to agency discipline ... for not answering truthfully." During the July 17, 2013 re-interview, you referenced your candor responsibility under the original March 27, 2013 Administrative Advisement when you stated: "I knew I wasn't being truthful and that you can't be, because you're on a statement." (See 7/17/13 Tr. at 9)

You were advised by way of my memo of July 15, 2013 that an issue of lack of candor had arisen as a result of the original interview. When re-interviewed on July 17, 2013 you acknowledged a number of times, as noted, that you had been untruthful when you originally stated to PSU detectives on March 27, 2013 that you had not told Kaganzev that you went to your son's store in Philadelphia with the Prosecutor.[Emphasis added] (See 7/17/13 Tr. at 4,6-land 9-11) By way of illustration only (and not setting forth each separate acknowledgement of untruthfulness) when questioned about not mentioning the Prosecutor's name, you admitted on (July 17, 2013) "that was not the truth." (See 7/17/13 Tr. at 4) You stated further: "there was a lack of candor in that statement... I knew I wasn't telling the truth." (See 7/17/13 Tr. at 10, referencing the March 27, 2013 statement).

Additionally, the re-interview determined that, contrary to your original statement that nobody else would have any information about the Philadelphia trip, you had in fact told Chief of Investigators, William Johnson. (See 7/17/13 Tr. at 9-10). This has been independently corroborated both by Chief Johnson and SAC E. Ronald Cuff, Jr. To your credit you did communicate and correct to Agent Cuff on the evening of March 27, 2013 that you had told Chief Johnson, which was contrary to item #5 in your recorded statement (given under Administrative Advisement). However, you gave two different and contradictory statements concerning your communication to SAC Cuff: first inferring that SAC Cuff would have perceived that you were talking about not having been truthful when you stated on March 27, 2013 that the Philadelphia Trip did not involve the prosecutor (7/17/13 Tr. at 10); second, confirming that while you told SAC Cuff that you had mentioned the Philadelphia Trip to Chief Johnson, you "never [said] to [SAC Cuff] during that conversation, I wasn't truthful about that [referencing your March 27, 2013 untruthfulness re the Prosecutor going to Philadelphia with you]." To complete the analysis, SAC Cuff has confirmed that you did not admit or even infer that you had been untruthful during the earlier interview with respect to the Prosecutor going with you to Philadelphia.

The re-interview also addressed the underlying allegation, i.e that it was inappropriate, pursuant to Office Policy 10.2,, for you to share details of your Philadelphia trip with the Prosecutor to Kaganzev, a co-employee. You acknowledged that it was inappropriate. (See 7/17/13 Tr. at 8)

The CCPO Office Policy Manual provides, under Section 10.2, Interaction with Co-Employees and Public, in pertinent part:

[A] 11 employees of the [CCPO] are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which reflects a personal respect for other people. Every employee will treat each person with whom ... she has contact, be it a fellow employee ... [etc.] with the courtesy and respect necessary for a professional and cordial relationship.

3

The Manual further provides, under Section 10.1, Personal Conduct, in pertinent part that "[a]l" [CCPO] employees are expected to conduct their professional and personal lives in a manner which will reflect positively upon the office and their association with the office."

The complaint made by Kaganzev to PSU was that she felt it was inappropriate for you to share details of your Philadelphia Trip with the Prosecutor with her. I have, as noted, deliberately omitted from the determination letter any detailed discussion of the nature of the trip. Suffice to state here that I reviewed documentation with respect to the nature of the items purchased at your son's ,store. Your disclosure to Kaganzev did not reflect "personal respect" for Kaganzev or for the Prosecutor. Nor did the disclosure of personal information involving the Prosecutor to Kaganzev "reflect positively upon the office." Therefore, the violation of Section 10.2 is sustained. Section 10.1 is cited as above for background, although given the Section 10.2 finding, no finding as to Section 10.1 is required. An additional finding of inappropriate disclosure is made concerning your disclosure to Chief Johnson about the Philadelphia Trip. Your disclosure to Chief Johnson did not reflect, at the very least, "personal respect" for the Prosecutor.

Please allow me to explain why discipline for your violation of Office Policy 10.2, Interaction with Co-employees and Public, is required. As Office Administrator, you were familiar with this policy, which applies to all CCPO employees. Section 10.2 requires all employees to treat all those with whom they come in contact, including co-employees, with personal respect. This policy was twice violated when you divulged to Kaganzev and Chief Johnson personal information about the Prosecutor. (Parenthetically, Chief Johnson has indicated that he did not interpret your disclosure to him as intending to debase or embarrass the Prosecutor; notwithstanding that the disclosure was inappropriate, this is taken into account and mitigates, to some extent, the discipline imposed for the two Section 10.2 violations.) Therefore, a concern with respect to the requirement of confidentiality and the necessity of maintaining confidences arises. As Office Administrator, you were, during the relevant time period, a member of the Prosecutor's Executive Team and had access to information of the most sensitive nature involving the County Prosecutor and her Office. Your violation of Office Policy 10.2 cannot therefore be ignored.

Please also allow me to explain why discipline for your Lack of Candor is required. In order for the Prosecutor's Office to fulfill its mission, trust and honesty are basic requirements, which were compromised by your lack of candor. Contrary to your obligation to cooperate in the internal affairs investigation being conducted, your untruthfulness acted as a hindrance to the investigation. Your .lack of candor unnecessarily complicated the investigation. This complication caused an extensive supplemental investigation and review by PSU detectives and the undersigned and caused essential CCPO resources to be diverted from the primary mission of our Office, the investigation and prosecution of crimes.

In determining the appropriate discipline for both the Section 10.2 violations and the lack of candor findings sustained herein, please note that I have accessed documentation concerning other lack of candor findings made by the CCPO within the past six years. In two sustained cases involving detectives, each detective received a suspension without pay (and in one of the cases a substantial financial penalty). In one sustained case involving a non-lawyer civilian employee, a written reprimand was imposed; As you signed that discipline as the Office Administrator it may fairly be inferred that you knew or should have known, as of March 27, 2013, that lack of candor and untruthfulness could, if sanctioned, erode the core essence of this Prosecutor's Office.

In mitigation of discipline, I have considered that when re-interviewed on July 17, 2013 you acknowledged your lack of candor and inappropriate behavior. Also, on the evening of March 27, 2013 you corrected one of the untruthful statements to SAC Cuff relating to your having told Chief Johnson about the Philadelphia Trip. Therefore, I find some insight and responsibility on your part with respect to your lack of candor. (In this regard I have not considered the events which came to light on August 1 and 2, 2013; see IA-13-0018). Significantly, I am unaware of any documented discipline during your long tenure with the CCPO. Accordingly, I have determined that the Written Reprimand (which this letter shall constitute) is sufficient discipline. The Written Reprimand is imposed separately and independently for the two violations of Office Policy 10.2 Sustained and separately and independently for the lack of candor finding, also Sustained. [Emphasis added]. (Parenthetically, please note that

4

this measure of discipline was previously tentatively dote mined by me to be appropriate, but was not finalized on paper, prior to August 1, 2013.)

This Letter of Reprimand shall become a permanent part of your personnel file.

Respectfully yours,

Harold B. Shapiro First Assistant Prosecutor

Sustained Charges:

Administrative: NJAC 4A:2-2.3(a)(1) Incompetency; Inefficiency or

Failure to Perform

NJAC 4A:2-2.3(a)(6) - Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee;

NJAC 4A:2-2.3(a)(12) - Other Sufficient Cause

Departmental:Section 7.1 General Policy


Section 4 Duties Prohibitions; In General

Section 7 Disclosure, Reporting, and Record Keeping

Responsibilities, Subsection B.

El If checked, charges are continued on attached page.


See Attached Sheet.

El If checked, incidents are continued on attached page.

Fin,_ Notice of Disciplinary Action ki 1-B) Civil Service COM M iSS1011 — State of New Jersey

Instructions for employer: This notice must be served on a permanent employee or an employee serving a working test period in the career service after a Departmental hearing (if one is requested) if one of the following types of disciplinary actions is taken: (a) suspension or fine for more than five working days at any one time; (b) suspension or fine for five working days or less where the aggregate number of days suspended or fined in any one calendar year is 15 working days or more (c) the last suspension or fine where an employee receives more than three suspensions or fines of five working days or less in a calendar year (d) disciplinary demotion from a title in which the employee has permanent status or received a regular appointment; (e) removal; or (1) resignation not in good standing, If the employee does not request or does not appear at the Departmental hearing, this notice must be served as the final action. A copy of this notice must be sent to the Civil Service Commission and served on the employee by personal service or by certified or registered mail.

Employing Agency Name Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office

Address/ 43 Fayette St., Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Phone Number 856 -453-0486

Date 09-20-13

Attorney representing your agency should this matter be appealed

Theodore Baker, Esq.

Address/Phone number/Email address

790 E. Commerce Street

Bridgeton, NJ .08302`08302 856-453-2167

Employee Name

Francine Hovermann

O.

Permanent Civil Service Title

Administrative Services/Office Services Mgr.

Employee Identification Number

000094534

Address/ Phone Number 1067 Summer Road, Minotola, NJ 08341

Pension Number

On 8-9-13 you were served with a Preliminary Notice of. Disciplinary Action (31A) and notified of the pending disciplinary action.

You requested a hearing which was held on ending 9/4/13 ❑ j You 'did not request a hearing

❑ You requested a hearing and did not appear at the designated time and place

The following disciplinary action has been taken against you: ❑ Suspension for working days, beginning and ending


❑ Removal, effective (date)

Legal Secretary September. 23,X013 Demotion to position of effective (date)

❑ Resignation not in good standing, ective (date) ❑ Other Disciplinary Action

❑ Fine ap , unt

which is equal t• n tuber

(number of working days )

r

Appointing auftiolity or auth•rizeda. e ' s tj n . r; En"

':— / .111.J/ ,./j 1. ...1 ,..,

s 4 ai Title I / i q AO Signature I C5

This form mus . be perso ally served on the employee or sent by certified or registered mail.

❑ certified or Registered Mail

❑ Receipt Number

El Signature of Server 0 Date of personal service

APPEAL PROCEDURE TO THE EMPLOYEE: You have the right to appeal within 20 days from receipt of this form. All appeals must include a copy of this form. Pursuant to P.L. 2010, c. 26, effective July 1, 2010 there is a $20.fee for disciplinary appeals. Please include the required $20 fee with your appeal. Payment must be made by check or money order only, payable to NJ CSC. Persons receiving public assistance pursuant to P.L. 1947, c.156 (C.44:8-107 et seq.), P.L.1973, c. 256 (C.44:7-85 et seq.), or P1.1907, c.38 (C.44:10-55 et seq.), and veterans as defined by N.J.S.A.11A:5-1 et seq. are exempt from this appeal fee. Appeals should be addressed to the Civil Service Commission, P.O. Box 312, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0312.. Any appeal postmarked after the 20 days statutory time limit will be denied. ino recommend sending your appeal by certified mail to prove your filing in the event of lost or misdirected mail. Do not give your appeal to your personnel office for forwarding to the Civil Service Commission.

For more information on the rules that govern Major Discipline and the appeals process, please visit our website at: www.state.nj.usicso.

DISTRIBUTION: Employee, Union Representative orAttorney, Management, Civil Service Commission.

Fi tJ L Notice of Disciplinary Action (31-6)

-Charges:


Although the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office is a 'public" organization, the information


CONFiDENT1AL. Employees are strongly admonished against discussing or providing written or verbal




(OPRA). Employees are to share internal confidential information with those employees of the

Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office who have a professional "need to know'',

Under no circumstances are employees of the office to provide "inside information' or other

sensitive information to any person outside of the office, Such information may be shared within the

office if the "receiving" employee has a legitimate and professional "need to know."

WORKING CONDITIONS

Section 10,1 Personal Conduct



office. No employee shall engage in illegal orimproper behavior or engage in an activity or enter into or


interest. An employee is required to bring to the attention of his or her supervisor any relationship that •

may create an appearance of impropriety or, may lead to a conflict of interest.





knowledge of the acts that he or she is engaged in conduct violative of the public trust

Section 7, DiSclosure, Reporting and Record Keeping Responsibilities

Subsection: B. It shall be the duty of a county prosecutor or employee of a county prosecutor who is

aware of conduct by himself or herself or any other that violates this Code, or viblates State or federal


incident(s) giving rise•to the charge(s) -and the date (s) on which it/they occurred:

During an internal investigation whereby Office Manager Frandne Hovermann, was accused of





Page 2 of 2

Fly gN

4-;115YOre °u-A,,,

kz,,bp 0.

=3 -

, 4- 4

Ki,.. m .,-,

*

c.v.I. ,

. 4

Cumberland. County Prosecutor's Office

Office Policy Manual Chapter:

Twenty-four

Subject:

Discipline, Discharge And Grievance Effective Date:

01/04/10

Apprv'd

/s/ R.J.C. Revises/Rescinds Version Last

Issued On: December 23, 2009 Section(s) Revised/Rescinded:

24.6

24.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

It is the policy of the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office that all employees are subject to discipline. The County Prosecutor shall not be limited in the exercise of his statutory management functions. The County Prosecutor retains the right to hire, terminate, direct and assign the work force and to plan, direct and control operations including the option to discontinue, reorganize or combine any section.

24.2 STATUS OF ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS

All Assistant Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the County Prosecutor. They are "at-will" employees subject to removal at any time. Procedures addressing progressive discipline, notice and hearing, removal and termination at the end of a working test period, set forth herein shall not apply to Assistant Prosecutors.

243 STATUS OF COUNTY INVESTIGATORS/DETECTIVES

All discipline, discharge and grievance proceedings applicable to County Investigators will be conducted in accordance with applicable law, valid collective bargaining agreements and other Prosecutor's Office directives notwithstanding any provision herein that may conflict with such law, agreements or directives.

24.4 STATUS OF MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION DIVISION

Clerical staff are bound by the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between their union and the County Prosecutor or the County of Cumberland. All discipline, discharge and grievance

** CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION **

proceedings applicable to members of the Administration Division will be conducted in accordance with the terms set forth in that agreement along with any applicable law, Civil Service regulations and other directives issued by the Prosecutor notwithstanding any provision herein that may conflict with such agreement, law, regulations and directiv'es.

24.5 SUPERVISORY LEADERSHIP

Constructive discipline depends upon supervisory leadership. Supervisors must be aware of the dual objectives of preserving the interests of the organization and protecting the rights of the employee. It is the responsibility of supervisors to communicate with employees and to encourage and reinforce compliance with the requirements of each employee's position.

24.6 PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE

Subject to the statutory and common law rights of all employees as well as the terms of any collective bargaining agreements in effect, the County Prosecutor shall have authority to impose disciplinary sanctions upon any employee. The County Prosecutor shall determine the level of discipline to be imposed.

Sanctions may be imposed for any employee misconduct, including but not limited to violations of office policies and/or procedures, state or federal laws, Attorney General Guidelines or Directives or the Code of Ethics for County Prosecutors. Sanctions may include a reprimand (either verbal or written), suspension (with or without pay), demotion and or termination.

The Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office shall establish and enforce a system of progressive disciplinary action modeled after that established by Cumberland County Government. Progressive discipline shall consist of the following:

I. DEFINITIONS

ORAL REPRIMAND

Page 2 of 9 Chapter Twenty-four

Discipline, Discharge And Grievance

** CONFIDENTIAL --NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION '

A verbal explanation of the nature of the inappropriate conduct or behavior involved with a discussion of how such conduct or behavior may be avoided in the future and the consequences of subsequent similar behavior or conduct with the employee in question. Documentation of an oral reprimand shall be prepared and placed in the relevant internal affairs investigation file and noted on the applicable index.'

WRITTEN REPRIMAND

A written explanation of the nature of the inappropriate conduct or behavior involved with a discussion of how such conduct or behavior may be avoided in the future and the consequences of subsequent similar behavior or conduct with the employee in question. Written reprimands shall be placed in the employee's personnel file.

SUSPENSION

A temporary removal from a position of employment. The length of a suspension will vary depending upon the nature and circumstances of the violation. A suspension may be with or without pay.

REMOVAL

Termination of a position of employment. When violations continually occur despite progressive disciplinary action or a single occurrence of inappropriate conduct or behavior is sufficiently egregious, removal may be necessary.

2. TYPES OF DISCIPLINE

The following discussion concerning categories of discipline (major and minor) is applicable only to Prosecutor's Office employees subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act and Civil Service Commission Regulations.

MINOR DISCIPLINE

Minor discipline is a formal written reprimand or a suspension or fine of five

1 Revised 01/04/2010




working days or less.

MAJOR DISCIPLINE

Major discipline includes removal, disciplinary demotion, suspension or fine for more than five working days at any one time, suspension or fine for five working days or less where the aggregate number of days suspended or fined in one calendar year is 15 working days or more; the last suspension or fine where an employee receives more than three suspensions or fines of five working days or less in a calendar year.

3. GENERAL CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE

An employee may be subject to discipline for any of the following reasons:

A. Incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties.

B. Insubordination.

C. Inability to perform duties.

D. Chronic or excessive absenteeism or lateness.

E. Conviction of a crime.

F. Conduct unbecoming a public employee.

G. Neglect of duty.

H. Misuse of public property, including motor vehicles.

I. Discrimination, including sexual harassment that affects equal employment opportunity.

J. Violation of federal regulations concerning drug and alcohol use by and testing of employees who perform functions related to the operation of commercial motor vehicles.



' CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION **

K. Other sufficient cause.

4. LIMITATION OF SUSPENSIONS AND FINES

A. No suspension or fine shall exceed six months except for suspensions pending criminal complaint or indictment.

B. Suspensions may be with or without pay.

C. A fine may be imposed as follows:

1) In the form of restitution

2) In lieu of suspension when the department head establishes that a suspension of the employee would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.

3) Where the employee has agreed to a fine as disciplinary action.

D. An employee may pay a fine of more than five days salary in a lump sum or through installments. Unless otherwise agreed to by the employee, an installment may not be more than 5% of the gross salary per pay for a fine under $500.00; 10% of gross salary per pay period for a fine of between $500.00 and $1000.00; or 15% of gross salary per pay period for a fine over $1000.00.

5. OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING

A. County Investigators shall be entitled to disciplinary hearings, including appropriate notices thereof in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2A:157-10.1 through 10.8, any other applicable law and relevant provisions contained in valid applicable collective bargaining agreements.

B. Employees assigned to the Administration Division shall be entitled to disciplinary hearings including appropriate notices thereof in accordance with applicable law, Civil Service Commission regulations and

Page 5 of 9 Chapter Twenty-four Discipline, Discharge And Grievance

** CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION **

relevant provisions contained in valid applicable collective bargaining agreements.

C. An employee may be suspended prior to a disciplinary hearing:

I) where it is determined that the employee is unfit for duty or is a hazard to any person if permitted to remain on the job, or that immediate suspension is necessary to maintain safety, health and order or effective delivery of services; or

2) when the employee is formally charged with a crime of the first, second or third degree or a crime of the fourth degree that directly relates to the job.

D. Where an immediate suspension without pay is necessary, the County Prosecutor shall first advise the employee either orally or in writing as to why an immediate suspension is sought, the charges and the general evidence in support of the employee with a "Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action" either in person or by certified mail within five days following the immediate suspension.

E. An employee shall have five days upon receipt of a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action to request a departmental hearing. If no request is received within that time, the departmental hearing shall be considered to have been waived and a "Final Notice of Disciplinary Action" may be issued.

F. If requested the departmental hearing shall be held within 30 days of the Preliminary Notice unless waived by the employee.

6. HEARINGS

A. An employee may be represented by an attorney and/or authorized Union Representative at the hearing.

B. The parties shall have the opportunity to review the evidence supporting the charges, to present evidence and to examine witnesses.

Page 6 of 9 chapter Twenty-four Discipline, Discharge And Grievance

CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION **

C. The employee shall not be required to testify, but an employee who does testify is subject to cross-examination.

D. Within 20 days of the hearing, the employee shall be served by personal service or certified mail with a "Final Notice of Disciplinary Action."

E. The documentation involving the disciplinary action shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file at the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office (or at County Personnel and Human Resources).

F. Employees may be represented by an authorized Union Representative at any step in the progressive discipline process. Those employees who do not want Union Representation shall sign a form stating

same.

24.7 GRIEVANCES

Union employees shall present grievances in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement pertaining to their bargaining unit. Non-union employees shall present any written grievance to his or her immediate supervisor, the Office Administrator and the County Prosecutor. A non-union grievance shall be responded to within ten (10) working days.

24.8 REMOVAL

A. The Cumberland County Prosecutor may remove (terminate) an employee when it is determined that there is just cause and where progressive discipline is determined to be inappropriate or ineffective.

B. A permanent employee in the classified service or a person serving a working test period may be removed for just cause upon written charges.

C. A provisional or temporary employee may be terminated for just cause at the discretion of the department head. Provisional or temporary employees have no right of appeal to the State Department of Personnel.




D. Except as provided elsewhere herein, employees who are being removed (terminated) will be served with notice and are entitled to an opportunity for a departmental hearing.

24.9 RESIGNATION

A. RESIGNATION IN GOOD STANDING

Any permanent employee may resign in goad standing by giving the County Prosecutor at least 14 days written notice unless the County Prosecutor consents to a shorter notice. The resignation shall be considered accepted by the County Prosecutor upon receipt of the notice. A request to rescind the resignation prior to its effective date may be consented to by the County Prosecutor. The resignation shall be forwarded to the County Personnel and Human Resources Office within three (3) working days.

B. RESIGNATION NOT IN GOOD STANDING

Any employee who is absent from duty for five or more consecutive work days without the approval of the County Prosecutor or his designee shall be considered to have abandoned his or her position and shall be recorded as a resignation not in good standing. An employee who has not returned to duty for five or more consecutive work days following a leave of absence shall be considered to have abandoned his or her position and shall be recorded as a resignation not in good standing.

Employees that have resigned not in good standing shall be served with a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action and given an opportunity for a hearing. Following any hearing, a final Notice of Disciplinary Action shall be issued within the appropriate time frame. The County Prosecutor may amend the resignation not in good standing to an appropriate penalty or to a resignation in good standing.

24.10 TERMINATION AT END OF WORKING TEST PERIOD

The working test period for employees covered under the Civil Service Act who are newly hired or promoted to a higher title is three months. The

Page 8 of 9 Chapter Twenty-four Discipline, Discharge And Grievance


probationary period for newly hired County Investigators is one year.

Employees shall be given every opportunity to satisfactorily perform the duties and responsibilities of their title while serving any applicable working test period or probationary period. Employes covered under the Civil Service Act shall be provided with progress reports during working test periods and a final report at the end of such periods in accordance with Civil Service Commission rules. County Investigators, serving during a probationary period, shall be evaluated in accordance with applicable Investigation Division written directive(s). However, in order to provide the most efficient and effective services to residents of Cumberland County, those employees who do not satisfactorily perform their duties and responsibilities during such working test period or probationary period shall be separated from that title or employment.

Any County Investigator who is terminated during or at the end of his or her probationary period shall be provided with written notice of such termination. Any employee covered under the Civil Service Act who is terminated from service or returned to his or her former permanent title at the conclusion of the working test period due to unsatisfactory performance shall be given a written notice in person or by certified mail by the County Prosecutor. The notice shall inform the employee of the right to request a hearing before the Civil Service Commission within 20 days of receipt of the notice.. The notice shall be served on the employee not more than five (5) working days prior to or five (5) working days following the last day of the working test period.



** CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION **

Rowlan

THE L OFFICE OF JOHN P. ROWLAND to A for Plain

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO R. 1:5-3

Pursuant to R. 1:5-3, I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the date noted

below, I delivered and filed an original and four (4) copies of the within Verified

Complaint to the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of Cumberland County, Law

Division, 60 West Broad Street, Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302.

I, the undersigned, hereby further certify that I mailed a copy of the within Verified

Complaint and Case Information Statement by regular mail to:

Theodore Baker, Esq. Harold Shapiro, 1st Asst. Prosecutor Cumberland County Counsel

43 Fayette Street

790 East Commerce Street

Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302 Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302

I certify that the foregoing statements made by made by me are true. I am aware

that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to

punishment.

Dated: October 20, 2013

THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN P. ROWLAND 830 Radio Road, Suite B Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey 08087 (609) 312-3488 Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION/CIVIL PART CUMBERLAND COUNTY

DOCKET NO.

Civil Action

CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS PURSUANT TO R. 4:69-1

FRANCINE HOVERMANN

Plaintiff,

V.

COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, PROSECUTORS OFFICE

Defendant.

I, JOHN P. ROWLAND, of full age, hereby certify as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New Jersey and am a

principal in THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN P. ROWLAND.

2. We represent the plaintiff, Francine Hovermann, in the above-entitled action.

3. We have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.

4. I make this Certification in support of plaintiff's Verified Complaint in Lieu of

Prerogative Writs.

5. The exhibits attached hereto, if not the original documents themselves, are true

and exact copies of the original documents.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any

of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

THE LA OFFICE OF JOHN P. ROWLAND A for Plaint

DATED: October 20, 2013

2

PURSUANT TO R. 4:69-1 IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE...

Documents

Transcript of PURSUANT TO R. 4:69-1 IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE...