Marjorie Ortiz, CSC Docket No. 2019-1993

BackgroundMarjorie Ortiz appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that, per the substitution clause for education, she did not meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Program Specialist 1 Social/Human Services (PS7280H), Ancora Psychiatric Hospital (Ancora), Department of Health.

The subject examination was announced with a closing date of April 23, 2018 and was open to employees who possessed a Bachelor’s degree and one year of experience in planning, monitoring, coordinating, implementing, modifying and/or evaluating a social or human services program. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute, in addition to the required experience, applicable experience on a year for year basis, with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. One applicant was admitted to the subject promotional examination.

In her application materials, the appellant did not indicate possession of a Bachelor’s degree. Therefore, pursuant to the substitution clause for education, the appellant needed five years of substitutable experience. The appellant indicated possession of an Associate’s degree, consisting of 65 credits, from Camden County College. She also listed, in pertinent part, her experience as a provisional Program Specialist 1 Social/Human Services from April 2017 to the closing date and as a Head Clerk from June 2013 to April 2017, both with Ancora. Agency Services credited the appellant with the equivalent of two years and two months of experience for her Associate’s degree. None of her listed experience was credited.

Therefore, Agency Services deemed the appellant ineligible since she lacked two years and 10 months of experience, per the substitution clause for education, and thus did not meet the experience requirement set forth in the announcement.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission, the appellant maintains, in pertinent part, that her duties since June 2013 is applicable experience and should be credited. In support, the appointing authority concurs that the appellant performed applicable duties during that timeframe. Specifically, it indicates that as a Head Clerk, the appellant was in charge of the Health Information Management Section under an Associate Hospital Administrator’s supervision and coordinated the administrative work involving the Print Shop (Patient Group Program) to ensure compliance with various document printing and development projects and forms and materials utilized throughout Ancora. The appointing authority indicates that this program involved patients who are taught a skillset that is valuable to Ancora and can benefit the patient after discharge to obtain employment.

BackgroundAgency records indicate that the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) provides that, except when permitted for good cause, applicants for promotional examinations may not use experience gained as a result of out-of- title work to satisfy eligibility requirements.

AnalysisInitially, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination because she lacked the requisite amount of creditable experience as of the April 23, 2018 closing date. On appeal, the appellant states that she performed applicable duties while serving in the title of Head Clerk from June 2013 to April 2017. Although the appellant’s performance of applicable duties during that timeframe would be considered out-of-title work, the appointing authority confirms her performance of these duties. This represents approximately four years of additional applicable experience. Moreover, the record evidences that the examination situation is not competitive since only one applicant was admitted to the examination. Further, the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title. As such, good cause exists in this particular case to accept the appellant’s out-of-title work experience, for eligibility purposes only, and admit her to the examination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted and the appellant’s application be processed for prospective employment opportunities.

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