THE Civil Service Commission and the Department of Public Safety have asked the Superior Court to deny and dismiss Police Sgt. Peter Raymond Camacho’s administrative appeal.
Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja scheduled a hearing for April 17, at 9 a.m.
Camacho, through his attorneys Robert T. Torres and Oliver Manglona, filed an administrative appeal in Superior Court regarding the commission’s final decision that dismissed his grievances against DPS.
Camacho said the commission decided to unanimously dismiss his grievances after deliberating in executive session away from the public and in violation of the CNMI Open Government Act.
“Because the Commission’s deliberation of Sgt. Camacho’s grievances was held in secrecy and the record produced by the Commission does not contain the meeting minutes or records of the Commission’s deliberation, Sgt. Camacho is unaware of the basis supporting the Commission’s decision,” Camacho’s appeal stated.
As for DPS, the appeal stated that the department violated Camacho’s substantive due-process rights by “precluding him from applying for the merit-based salary increase in DPS’ Examination Announcement Nos. 20-017 and 20-025 when he is a top qualifying candidate under those announcements and is an active, permanent civil service employee in the government.”
Specifically, DPS “selected ineligible and unqualified candidates for announcement Nos. 20-017 and 20-025 who did not meet the qualification requirements under those announcements and in doing so violated the open competitive selection policies of the Civil Service’s Personnel System Rules and Regulations,” the appeal stated.
Camacho said DPS retaliated against him for filing a grievance against the department.
He also alleged the following:
• DPS failed to issue his annual performance rating report in a timely manner, which affected his ability to be equally and fairly considered for the employment positions he applied to.
• The Office of the Attorney General improperly commandeered the formal grievance process by injecting itself in the preliminary stages of the grievance process.
• DPS hired and selected candidates ineligible for employment under certain examination announcements. In addition, DPS relied on the faulty certification of those candidates by the Office of Personnel Management.
Failure to assert a claim
CSC, through Assistant Attorney General Gregory Cenac, asked the court to dismiss Camacho’s second claim of violation of due process, and fourth claim requesting for de novo review of petitioner’s grievances for failure to assert a claim upon which relief can be granted.
CSC did not violate petitioner’s right to substantive due process, Cenac said. He added that the “petitioner does not have a fundamental right to public employment, priority standing for merit-based salary increases, or to protest unlawful personnel action as a civil service employee.”
According to Cenac, the CSC board unanimously voted to deny Camacho’s appeal during a portion of the meeting that was “open to the public.”
“Furthermore, the executive session did not deprive petitioner of notice as to the basis for which CSC concluded its decision to deny his appeal. Rather, CSC unanimously concurred with the administrative decision and order, and denied petitioner’s appeal. The administrative decision and order provided a basis for the denial of petitioner’s appeal, and the CSC Board’s concurrence therewith was an adoption of that basis,” Cenac said.
He said the Open Government Act does not require personal notice of a special meeting to interested persons.
“Rather, the OGA only requires that (A) all interested persons are afforded an opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, in writing, and to present oral testimony, on any agenda item, pursuant to 1 CMC § 9904; and (B) written notice of the special meeting will be delivered personally or by mail to each member of the governing body, and to each local newspaper of general circulation and to each local radio or television station, or cable television station, which has on file with the governing body a written request to be notified of such special meeting or of all special meetings, at least 24 hours before the time of the special meeting as specified in the notice, pursuant to 1 CMC §§ 9910(a),” Cenac said.
DPS, through Assistant Attorney General Charles P. Reyes Jr., said: “Petitioner has wrongly joined DPS, an improper party, because DPS itself issued no order adjudicating his grievance.”
“DPS cannot be a proper party for petitioner’s constitutional due process claim and DPS should be dropped as a party to that claim in this proceeding. The court should either dismiss DPS from this case or remand this matter…to DPS for a proper order,” Reyes said.
