Authorizes Jonathan Montalvo to be placed on the eligible list for employment for the state university of New York police.
Summary
A08684 is a narrow, person-specific civil service bill that would allow Jonathan Montalvo to be placed on the eligible list for appointment as a full-time university police officer with the State University of New York (SUNY) police. The bill overrides the age-related eligibility restrictions in Civil Service Law section 58 and any other conflicting law, but only for this individual and only for purposes of being considered for the position, contingent on his civil service exam score.
The measure does not directly appoint Montalvo to the job or waive the merit-and-fitness requirements that govern SUNY police hiring. Instead, it preserves the normal civil service process while creating a special exception so he can compete for appointment despite not meeting the standard age criteria. The bill takes effect immediately if enacted.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would create a one-time exception to Civil Service Law section 58 for Jonathan Montalvo, allowing him to be added to the eligible list for SUNY police employment despite the usual age limits. It would not broadly change the law for other applicants, but it would establish a precedent for individualized legislative relief from civil service eligibility rules. The affected parties are Montalvo, SUNY police hiring authorities, and the civil service system governing university police officers.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably and without recorded opposition in committee, passing the Assembly Ways and Means Committee 31-0 and the Assembly Rules Committee 28-0. With no committee transcript available, there is no evidence of substantive debate in the provided materials, but the unanimous votes indicate general support for the measure. The bill appears to have been treated as a routine special-eligibility authorization rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
The main point of contention, if any, is the bill’s departure from standard civil service age requirements by granting an individualized exemption. Supporters would likely view this as a limited fairness measure that allows a qualified candidate to compete, while critics of such bills generally argue that person-specific exceptions can undermine uniform civil service standards and invite preferential treatment. No specific objections are recorded in the provided committee materials.