Danielle London, CSC Docket No. 2019-2151

BackgroundDanielle London appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that her position with Trenton is properly classified as Clerk 4. She seeks a Senior Administrative Analyst job classification in this proceeding.

By way of background, the appellant was a permanent Principal Payroll Clerk and received a provisional appointment to Senior Administrative Analyst on May 25, 2016. In In the Matter of Danielle London, Senior Administrative Analyst, (PM1919U), Trenton, (CSC, April 18, 2018), the Civil Service Commission (Commission) found that the appellant was not eligible for the examination, and that the majority of duties indicated by the appellant for her provisional position on her application did not match the announced experience requirement. Therefore, and the Commission ordered a classification review of her position.

The position is assigned to the Department of Public Works, Administrative Office of Trenton Water Works, is supervised by an Assistant Director of Public Works, and has supervisory responsibility over five clerical staff. Agency Services conducted a review of her position including a review of her Position Classification Questionnaire (PCQ), and other documents, and determined that this position was properly classified as Clerk 4, and assigned it an effective date of March 14, 2018. Germane to the matter at hand, in its January 18, 2019 determination, Agency Services determined that even though her position has supervisory responsibility, the appellant does not take the lead over one or more Administrative Analysts, and the primary responsibility is not analyzing and evaluating administrative procedures, practices, and organizational structure to provide information and recommendations to management on ways to improve administrative functions and managerial control of operational activities. The appellant’s permanent title, Principal Payroll Clerk, was not applicable as payroll functions were not the primary function as well. A more appropriate classification was the supervisory title Clerk 4.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that she has 27 years of experience and works above the level of Senior Administrative Analyst. Her supervisor and the Director of Public Works provide a letter of support. They indicate that the appellant reports directly to the Assistant Director of Public Works, as a Chief Administrator of Administration, Human Resources and Purchasing. They provide an organizational chart dated November 1, 2018 which differs from the one provided for the audit. In the new chart, the appellant supervises a vacant Supervisor of Administration and Human Resources position (not a Civil Service title), a vacant Executive Assistant position, a temporary Account Clerk position, an Assistant Supervisor Public Works, and a Maintenance Repairer. They indicate that this is the true organizational structure which was not reflected in the submitted organizational table. They highlight her duties of developing several Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and tracking Requests for Proposals (RFPs). They believe that she meets the requirements of the requested title.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9(e) states that in classification appeals, the appellant shall provide copies of all materials submitted, the determination received from the lower level, statements as to which portions of the determination are being disputed, and the basis for appeal. Information and/or argument which was not presented at the prior level of appeal shall not be considered.

The definition section of the job specification for Clerk 4 states:

Under direction, supervises, plans and coordinates the activities of one or more clerical unit(s) involved in the processing of documents in a variety of functions; performs highly responsible and varied clerical work; does other related duties as required.

The definition section of the job specification for Senior Administrative Analyst states:

Under direction, performs the more responsible and complex work involved in analyzing and evaluating administrative procedures, practices, and organizational structure to provide information and recommendations to management on ways to improve administrative functions and managerial control of operational activities and/or takes the lead over one or more administrative analysts in the performance of such work; does other related duties as required.

AnalysisA thorough review of the information presented in the record establishes that the appellant’s position would not be properly classified as Senior Administrative Analyst based on her duties and responsibilities. Incumbents in the Senior Administrative Analyst title have bifold duties, as they may either work as lead workers or handle independent work of considerable complexity and importance. In the present case, the appellant has no responsibility of a lead worker by advising and assisting other Administrative Analysts. Thus, the gravamen of the classification is whether she handles independent work of considerable complexity and importance regarding analyzing and evaluating administrative procedures, practices, and organizational structure, and making recommendations. In any event, it is clear that the requested title is not at a supervisory level, and would be inappropriate for that reason alone.

Nevertheless, it is noted that titles are categorized as professional, para- professional or non-professional. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)1 states that professional titles require at least a Bachelor’s or higher-level degree, with or without a clause to substitute experience. Professional work is predominantly intellectual in character, as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical or physical work, and it involves the consistent exercise of judgment. It is basically interpretive, evaluative, analytical and/or creative, requiring knowledge or expertise in a specialized field of knowledge. This is generally acquired by a course of intellectual or technical instruction, study and/or research at an institution of higher learning or acquired through an in-depth grasp of cumulative experience. However, there must be thorough familiarity with all the information, theories and assumptions implicit in the chosen field. Persons in professional work should be able to perceive, evaluate, analyze, formulate hypothesis, and think in the abstract. Positions are considered professional when the work requires application of professional knowledge and abilities, as distinguished from either the desirability of such application or the simple possession of professional knowledge and abilities.

Also, how well or efficiently an employee does his or her job, length of service, volume of work and qualifications have no effect on the classification of a position currently occupied, as positions, not employees are classified. See In the Matter of Debra DiCello (CSC, decided June 24, 2009). For purposes of determining the appropriate level within a given class, and for overall job specification purposes, the definition portion of the job specification is appropriately utilized.

The Senior Administrative Analyst title is professional, requiring a Bachelor’s degree, and is not a “super-clerical” or paraprofessional title. It is also not a supervisory title. The focus of the duties of a Senior Administrative Analyst is to analyze activities and provide recommendations to management for improvements. Typically, classification determinations list only those duties which are considered to be the primary focus of an employee’s duties and responsibilities that are performed on a regular, recurring basis. See In the Matter of David Baldasari (Commissioner of Personnel, decided August 22, 2006).

It is noted that the appellant’s PCQ was not completed properly. The PCQ requests the incumbent to describe the detail of the work, make clear descriptions so that persons unfamiliar with the work could understand exactly what is done, and provide a percentage of time and the order of difficulty for each of the duties. The percentages of time should add up to 100%, which accounts for all work time. The appellant listed 17 duties, 8 of which she indicated she performed 20% of the time, and 9 of which she performed 20% of the time. The order of difficulty for each of the duties should have been from 1 to 17. The appellant gave each either the order 3, 5, or 10. As a result, the amount of time she performed each duty, and the difficulty of each duty could not be analyzed.

Nonetheless, the majority of the appellant’s duties do not involve analyzing and evaluating administrative procedures, practices, and organizational structure. While a few may be included in the duties listed, such as those involving SOPs and RFPs, the majority involve supervising, planning and coordinating the activities of the Accounts Payable, Payroll and General Administration units, as well as overseeing budgets, cleaning operations contracts, and security. Regardless of her supervisors’ opinions, the Commission already evaluated the appellant’s qualifications for the requested title in London, supra, and found that she did not meet them.

As to a revised organizational chart, the foundation of position classification, as practiced in New Jersey, is the determination of duties and responsibilities being performed at a given point in time as verified by this agency through an audit or other formal study. As previously noted, information which was not initially presented and was not reviewed by Agency Services cannot be considered in a classification appeal to the Commission. While the new organizational chart is dated November 1, 2018, it was not the one submitted to the Auditor, but was provided after Agency Services’ determination was issued in January 2019. As such, it cannot be considered.

One final issue is of concern. On March 11, 2019, less than two months after receipt of Agency Services’ determination in this matter, the appellant was appointed to the title Management Specialist, a non-supervisory title, from an open competitive eligible list, and there is no indication in the file that her supervisory duties have been removed. Rather, the revised organizational chart shows supervisory responsibility over three employees. Therefore, Agency Services should re-review the classification of the appellant’s position to determine if it would be more appropriately classified by a supervisory title in the career service.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied, and Agency Services review the classification of the position encumbered by Danielle London consistent with this decision.

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