Program Specialist 1 (S0082V), CSC Docket No. 2019-1786

BackgroundThe Department of Health requests permission not to make an appointment from the May 14, 2018 certification for Program Specialist 1 (S0082V).

The record reveals that on September 6, 2016, the appointing authority provisionally appointed Michael Johnson, pending open competitive examination procedures, to the subject title. As a result of the provisional appointment, an examination was announced with a closing date of February 8, 2017. The examination resulted in an eligible list of 21 individuals, which promulgated on May 10, 2018 and expires on May 9, 2021. It is noted that Johnson has vacated the position of Program Specialist 1 and there are currently no employees serving provisionally pending open competitive examination procedures in the subject title with the appointing authority. A certification was issued on May 14, 2018. On September 14, 2018, the appointing authority returned the certification and requested an appointment waiver.

Appellant's argumentIn its request for an appointment waiver, the appointing authority indicates that the Community Health and Wellness Unit determined that the Program Specialist 1 title is not appropriate to accomplish activities and deliverables required by their Cooperate Agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Improving the Health of Americans through Prevention and Management of Diabetes and Heart and Stroke. This Federal Funding supports the HDSPP at 100%, to plan and implement clinical and systems-level intervention. Therefore, candidates will need to possess at least a Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited college or university and 3 years experience in a government or private health organization in which primary job responsibilities include health systems design and evaluation and/or health policy development. The subject title does not require candidates to possess these specific experience requirements to establish examination eligibility.

The appointing authority’s request for an appointment waiver was acknowledged, and it was advised that if its request were granted, it could be assessed for the costs of the selection process in the amount of $8,295. Agency records indicate that currently there are no individuals in the subject title with the appointing authority.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with N.J.S.A. 11A:4-5, once the examination process has been initiated due to the appointment of a provisional employee or due to an appointing authority’s request to fill a vacancy, the appointing authority must make an appointment from the resulting eligible list if there are three or more interested and eligible candidates. The only exception to this mandate may be made for a valid reason such as fiscal constraints.

In the instant matter, the examination for the subject title was generated as the result of the provisional appointment of Johnson. However, after a complete certification was issued, the appointing authority requested an appointment waiver due to Johnson no longer serving in the subject title. Therefore, since the provisional is no longer serving in the subject title and there are no employees serving in the subject title with the appointing authority, there is sufficient justification for an appointment waiver.

Although the appointing authority’s petition for a waiver is granted, both N.J.S.A. 11A:4-5 and N.J.A.C. 4A:10-2.2(a)2 state that if an appointing authority receives permission not to make an appointment, it can be ordered to reimburse the costs of the selection process. While administering examinations and providing the names of eligible job candidates to the jurisdictions under the Civil Service system are two of the primary activities of this agency, these costly efforts are thwarted when appointing authorities fail to utilize the resulting eligible lists to make appointments and candidates have needlessly expended their time, effort and money to take these examinations in hopes of being considered for a permanent appointment. However, the Civil Service Commission notes that the list in question will not expire until May 9, 2021 and the appointing authority may be able to use the list in the future. Accordingly, under the particular circumstances of this matter, it would not be appropriate to assess the appointing authority for the costs of the selection process at this time. See e.g., In the Matter of Supervising Administrative Analyst (PS1837I), Department of Corrections (MSB, decided March 22, 2006) (Not appropriate to assess the Department of Corrections for the costs of the selection process since it had indicated its intention to utilize the eligible list prior to its expiration date). Nevertheless, in the event the appointing authority fails to utilize the list by its expiration date of May 9, 2021, this matter can be reviewed at that time to ascertain whether an assessment for the costs of the selection process should be made. See e.g., In the Matter of Supervising Administrative Analyst (PS1837I), Department of Corrections (MSB, decided April 11, 2007) (Costs assessed upon the expiration of the eligible list since the Department of Corrections failed to utilize the eligible list and there was no evidence that it had even attempted to utilize the eligible list).

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the request for the waiver of the appointment requirement be granted and no selection costs presently be assessed.

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