NJ Civil Service Navigator

Laura Flynn, CSC Docket No. 2019-1034

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of January 16, 2019, CSC Docket No. 2019-1034: examination eligibility, granted. Laura Flynn appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the experience requirements, per the substitution clause for education, for

Commission decisions · Meeting of January 16, 2019

Laura Flynn appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the experience requirements, per the substitution clause for education, for the open-competitive examination for Senior Community Program Specialist (S0361W), Statewide.

Matter
Examination eligibility
Decided
January 16, 2019, item B-44
Outcome
Granted
Title
SENIOR COMMUNITY PROGRAM SPECIALIST
Examination
S0361W
Chair at the time
Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
Official decision
Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-044 01-16-19.pdf)

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be granted.

Rules this decision applies

The decision

BackgroundLaura Flynn appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the experience requirements, per the substitution clause for education, for the open-competitive examination for Senior Community Program Specialist (S0361W), Statewide.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of April 4, 2018, and was open to residents of New Jersey who possessed a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university and two years of program delivery experience in providing education, habilitative, or social services in programs for the developmentally disabled. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute additional experience on a year for year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. Also, a Master’s degree in Social Work, Education, Psychology, Nursing, or other related areas could be substituted for one year of required experience. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience requirements, per the substitution clause for education. Fifty-two candidates appeared for the examination and the results are not yet available.

On her application, the appellant indicated that she possessed 89 credits, which prorates to two years, eleven months of experience. Therefore, based on the substitution clause, she was required to have three years, one month of substitutable experience. She listed two positions on her application, Senior Community Program Specialist and Charge Nurse, and she was credited with two years, eleven months of experience in these positions, from May 2015 to March

2018. On her resume, the appellant listed an additional position, Supervisor at BJ Stores, Inc., which was inapplicable. Thus, the appellant was found to be lacking two months of required experience per the substitution clause for education. On appeal, the appellant provided a narrative of her employment history with the State, and a few of her duties in various positions. In support, her Case Management Unit Director submitted a letter indicating that she believes that the appellant qualifies to take the examination. She also provided a copy of her transcript from Western Governors University. She had listed this education on her resume, but did not include any college credits. Her transcript reveals that she accrued six college credits at this University prior to the closing date.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the open competitive examination announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisInitially, the appellant was correctly denied admittance to the subject examination since she did not indicate on her application that she met the announced requirements. Nonetheless, the appellant has sent in clarifying information regarding the possession of an additional six college credits accrued prior to the closing date, which prorates to two months of experience. The appellant included the University on her initial submission, and as such, good cause exists to accept the appellant’s clarification of education and to allow her to take a make-up examination for prospective appointment. However, this remedy is limited to the facts of this situation and may not be used as precedent in any other proceeding.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted, and the appellant be provided a make-up examination for prospective appointment only.

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

About this page

Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's monthly archive. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.

Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.

The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.

To report an error on this page, use the contact form.