MaDonna Morris, CSC Docket No. 2019-2843

BackgroundMaDonna Morris appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that she failed to meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Management Assistant (PM1645W), Jersey City School District (JCSD).

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of June 21, 2018. The examination was open to employees who possessed a Bachelor’s degree and one year of experience performing complex administrative support work which must have included the interpretation, verification and/or application of department/agency rules, regulations, policies and procedures as of the closing date. A total of 12 employees applied for the subject examination that resulted in a list of one eligible with an expiration date of March 13, 2022.

On her application, the appellant stated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree and that she served as a Records Retrieval Technician 2 from August 2013 to the closing date of the subject examination (June 2018); as a Clerk 3 from September 2009 to August 2013; and as a Records Retrieval Technician 1 from October 2001 to September 2009. Agency records indicate that the appellant served as a Records Support Technician 2 from November 2016 to the closing date; as a Records Support Technician 1 from April 2011 to November 2016; as a Records Retrieval Operator from November 2006 to April 2011; and as a Clerk 1 from October 2001 to November 2006. Agency Services did not credit the appellant with any applicable experience because it did not appear that the primary focus of her work in any title was complex administrative support work, as required. Accordingly, she was deemed ineligible for the subject examination.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant states that her duties include, in relevant part, supporting the Executive Director of the JCSD Human Resources Department; supervising and training new clerical staff members; preparing special projects as needed for the Executive Director; utilizing policies and procedures to prepare assignments distributed by department heads; conducting research, compiling data and preparing documents for the Executive Director; making travel arrangements and preparing associated forms for the Executive Director; creating and maintaining confidential files; creating requisitions for billing; ordering and maintaining supplies; and reviewing invoices for payment to district vendors. She maintains that these duties correspond to those of a Management Assistant.

Appointing authority's argumentThe appointing authority submits a letter in support of the instant appeal. The appointing authority asserts that the appellant “has been performing duties in line with the title of Management Assistant.” The appointing authority states, in relevant part, that the appellant deals with high-level confidential matters related to investigations of current and prior employees and that she often participates in or leads the research for those processes. The appointing authority also indicates that the appellant manages a time book, sick days and vacation days for employees. It is noted that the appointing authority does not state how long the appellant has been performing such duties.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants must meet all requirements specified in a promotional examination announcement by the closing date. In the instant matter, Agency Services correctly deemed the appellant ineligible for the subject examination. The appellant and the appointing authority maintain that the appellant possessed sufficient applicable experience as of the closing date of the subject examination. However, in order for experience to be considered applicable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). Here, the announcement for the subject examination stated that applicants were required to possess a Bachelor’s degree and one year of experience performing complex administrative support work which must have included the interpretation, verification and/or application of department/agency rules, regulations, policies and procedures as of the closing date. A review of the appellant’s application and appeal fails to demonstrate that the primary focus of her duties in any title was the interpretation, verification and/or application of department/agency rules, regulations, policies and procedures, as required. Moreover, although the appointing authority maintains that the appellant performed duties that were consistent with those of the subject title, it has not stated how long she has been performing such duties and the information in its letter of support does not demonstrate that such duties were the primary focus of her responsibilities in any title. Thus, it was properly determined that she did not possess any applicable experience for the subject examination as of the closing date. Accordingly, the appellant has not met her burden of proof and there is no basis to disturb the decision of Agency Services.

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.