Lynnette Hunt, CSC Docket No. 2018-3230

BackgroundLynnette Hunt appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Supervising Community Program Specialist (PS3797K), Department of Human Services.

The subject examination was announced with specific requirements that had to be met as of the October 23, 2017 closing date. The requirements were graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and four years of program delivery experience providing education, habilitative, or social services in a program for the developmentally disabled, one year of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. Applicants that did not possess the required education could have substituted additional experience as indicated above on a year-to-year basis. A total of 17 employees applied for the subject examination which resulted in a list of nine eligibles with an expiration date of August 22, 2021. One certification was issued and no appointments have been made.

A review of the appellant’s application and resume reveals that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree and served as an Administrative Analyst 3 from August 2010 to October 2017, and as an Administrative Analyst 4 from February 2005 to August 2010. Upon review of her application and resume, Agency Services did not credit the appellant with any applicable experience. Accordingly, Agency Services determined that she lacked four years of applicable general experience including one year of supervisory experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues, among other things, that she possesses eight years of experience serving in the Community Care Waiver Unit while serving in her position as an Administrative Analyst 3, and as such, she meets the requirements of the announcement. The appellant explains that the Community Care Waiver program is a Medicaid Home and Community Based Services waiver program for developmentally disabled service recipients of the Division of Developmental Disabilities. The appellant states that, as an Administrative Analyst 3, she served as the Waiver Coordinator, and her primary responsibilities included providing education to regional staff, agency providers, and families who have been assessed in the community to avoid institutionalization. The appellant adds that her responsibilities include assigning work to three Senior Community Program Specialists, and applications for service recipients are sent to Legal Guardians. The appellant contends that she evaluates such applications to determine if they have been completed, and she offers suggestions pertaining to how to meet Medicaid eligibility. Moreover, the appellant states that she oversees the preparation of correspondence to families from various employees and divisions.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisAgency Services correctly determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination. In this regard, Agency Services correctly found that none of the appellant’s experience was applicable. The primary focus of the appellant’s duties as an Administrative Analyst 3 and an Administrative Analyst 4 did not include experience in program delivery providing education, habilitative, or social services in programs for the developmentally disabled. In order for experience to be considered applicable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). Rather, the primary duties performed by the appellant, as indicated on her application and on appeal, included among other things, reviewing and processing applications. As such, the appellant’s experience is not applicable to satisfy the duties required to establish eligibility for the title under test. Moreover, the appellant did not indicate on her application that she supervises employees or that her duties include completing employee evaluations. Supervisory experience is defined in the appropriate job specifications for supervisory titles as supervising work operations and/or functional programs and having responsibility for employee evaluation and for effectively recommending the hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, and/or disciplining of employees. See In the Matter of Sadie Hamer, et al. (MSB, decided February 22, 2006)

A thorough review of all material presented indicates that Agency Services’ determination that the appellant did not meet the eligibility requirements by the closing date is amply supported by the record. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.