Scott Stahlmann, CSC Docket No. 2019-1136

BackgroundScott Stahlmann appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that he did not meet the experience requirements for the open-competitive examination for Personnel Officer (C0631W), Bergen County.

The subject examination had a closing date of May 21, 2018 and was open to residents of Bergen County who possessed a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, and three years of supervisory personnel experience including the review of classification problems and wage studies, handling personnel problems, and coordination of the training needs of the jurisdiction. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute additional experience on a year for year basis. Two candidates appear on the eligible list, which has been certified twice, but no appointments have yet been made.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant indicated on his application that he possessed a Bachelor’s degree, and he listed four positions on his application and resume: provisional Personnel Officer, Contract Recruiter with MUFG/Union Bank, Director of Talent Acquisition with American International Group, and Manager Talent Acquisition - Team Lead with TIAA-CREF. He was credited with three months of experience for his provisional position and was found to be lacking two years, nine months of required experience.

On appeal, the appellant indicates that he possesses a Master’s Degree in Public Administration, and has 10 years of supervisory experience and over 25 years of experience. He provides a description of his knowledge and abilities, indicated that he was a Commissioner on the Bergen County Board of Elections for four years, and was Vice Chairman of the Northwest Bergen Utilities Authority for four years. He submits a letter from the Director of the Bergen County Board of Social Services in support of his appeal, and a resume with additional positions.

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. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an applicant may amend a previously submitted application prior to the closing date.

AnalysisAt the outset, it is noted that qualifying experience has the announced experience as the primary focus. The appellant was credited for his provisional position as a Personnel Officer. However, his remaining positions did not include duties involving classification problems and wage studies, handling personnel problems, or coordinating the training needs of the jurisdiction. His prior positions had recruitment and talent acquisition as the primary focus, and therefore, this experience is not qualifying experience. Additionally, the appellant’s possession of a Master’s Degree has no bearing as there was no substitution clause of a Master’s Degree for experience.

As to the additional positions submitted on appeal, it is noted that providing the information requested on the application is not a mere formality, but is part of the examination process. The Civil Service Commission (Commission) receives hundreds of thousands of applications a year and test eligibility must be determined from the application in order to meet administrative responsibilities and to establish uniform and fair requirements for all candidates. See In the Matter of Pamela B. Ward (CSC, decided June 7, 1984). Under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g), the Commission can and does accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. However, N.J.A.C. 4A:4- 2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. For example, information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given title that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying and is accepted; however, information about a position not listed on the application is not accepted. As such, even assuming that those positions could be considered, the additional positions submitted on appeal cannot be considered. Nevertheless, a review of the duties indicate that recruitment and talent acquisition was the primary focus of those positions.

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services that appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date is amply supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support his 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.