Stephen Imperiale and Robert Shulby, CSC Docket No. 2019-2880, 2019-2881

BackgroundStephen Imperiale and Robert Shulby appeal the decisions of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that the proper classification of their positions with Atlantic County is Network Administrator 1. The appellants seek a Network Administrator 2 classification. Since these appeals concern similar issues, they have been consolidated herein.

The record in the present matter establishes that at the time the appellants filed their request for a classification review, they were serving in the title of Network Administrator 1. The appellants sought classification reviews contending that their positions would be more appropriately classified as Network Administrator 2. The appellants’ positions are located in the Department of Administrative Services and they report to Brian Ruh, Assistant Director of Information Technology.1 In support of their requests, the appellants submitted Position Classification Questionnaires (PCQs) dated October 1, 2018, detailing the different duties that they perform. Agency Services reviewed all documentation supplied by the appellants. Based on its review of the information provided, including an organizational chart and interviews with the appellants and their supervisor, Agency Services concluded on March 7, 2019 that the proper classification of the appellants’ positions was Network Administrator 1.

1 The County and Municipal Personnel System (CAMPS) indicates that Imperiale is currently serving in the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office, effective July 1, 2019.

On appeal, Shulby and Imperiale assert, among other things, that they report directly to the Assistant Director of Information Technologies. Further, they maintain that they are performing lead worker duties, and their duties include training “helpdesk” and other staff; updating networks and servers; creating policies; advising staff; monitoring servers, switches, routers, and microwave communication equipment; assisting IT staff with endpoint security software; and reviewing problems and recommending solutions. Imperiale adds that he is the contact person with his peers and he oversees the redundant data center that enables service to be restored within 15 minutes between the production and recovery sites as a part of the disaster recovery program.

Appointing authority's argumentIn support, the appointing authority asserts that the appellants are performing lead worker duties. Specifically, the appointing authority contends that the appellants’ duties include overseeing employees,2 assisting the “help desk” with network and server issues, managing the call center, and training staff. It adds that their assignments include addressing problems with respect to circuits, outages, security alerts, network performance, and new technology; reviewing communication systems and internal controls; and installing software. Further, the appointing authority states that the appellants are responsible for maintaining the IT infrastructure, performing metric and growth planning, completing security log review, and using server performance data. The appointing authority adds that the appellants assignments include handling vendor issues and communications with employees with respect to outages and upgrades. The appointing authority argues that such duties are consistent with the lead worker duties currently being performed by a Network Administrator 2 in their unit. Moreover, the appointing authority asserts that the appellants report to the Assistant Director of Information Technology, and they are currently serving provisionally in the title Network Administrator 2.3

CONCLUSION

RuleThe definition section of the job specification for Network Administrator 2 states:

Under direction performs professional work, which includes development, implementation, and maintenance of multinetwork, multiuser Local Area Networks (LAN),

Metropolitan Area Networks (MAN), and/or Wide Area

Appointing authority's argument2 The appointing authority asserts that the appellants oversee employees serving as a Computer Service Technician, a Senior Technician, Management Information Systems, and a Technical Assistant, Management Information Systems. It adds that they also oversee employees in other units, including the Communications unit. 3 Official personnel records do not reflect that the appellants are serving provisionally in the title

AnalysisNetwork Administrator 2.

Networks (Wan); maintains and/or supervises maintenance of centralized, decentralized, and remote network services;

maintains and/or directs consultations and recommendations to infrastructure managers as required to troubleshoot and resolve network problems, monitor overall performance, and conduct upgrades as required; takes the lead in planning upgrades, capacity, and communication requirements; does other related duties.

RuleThe definition section of the job specification for Network Administrator 1 states:

Under direction performs professional work, which includes development, implementation, and maintenance of multinetwork, multi-user Local Area Networks (LAN),

Metropolitan Area Networks (MAN), and/or Wide Area

AnalysisNetworks (WAN); maintains centralized, decentralized, and remote network services; maintains network security and data integrity; provides consultations and recommendations to infrastructure managers as required to troubleshoot and resolve network problems, monitor overall performance, and conduct upgrades as required; may be assigned to the administration of

Storage Area Networks (SANs), does other related duties.

In the instant matter, the appellants did not provide any substantive information or documentation that would change the outcome of the March 7, 2019 classification determinations. A review of the records reveals that the classification determinations were based on a review of all of the appellants’ duties and responsibilities listed in their October 1, 2018 PCQs, the organizational chart for their unit, and interviews with the appellants and their direct supervisor. Over 50% of the duties listed on Imperiale’s PCQ include participating in the planning, installation, and maintenance of the WAN in a multi-user environment with gateways to the State; maintaining virtual machine (VM) environments to include monitoring storage and resources; virtualizing physical servers, updating VM environments, maintaining and testing site recovery manager as part of the disaster recovery plan; monitoring the health of servers, networks, and telecommunications equipment; maintaining CISCO firewalls Cisco Stealth watch, Cisco Umbrella, Cisco Intrusion Prevention and Detection, anti-virus, spam, and malware prevention; and configuring procedures for network servers and equipment. Additionally, over 50% of the duties listed on Shulby’s PCQ include supporting private microwave, and wire multi-path wired network and telecommunication services with area sites, agencies network equipment and connection to network infrastructure; troubleshooting network devices including printers, servers, workstations, and scanners; maintaining WANs, LANs, and

MANs in a multiuser environment; implementing hardware upgrades; installing software updates; and patching CISCO operating systems, server operating systems, and server based applications and workstations.

Additionally, a review of the organizational chart for the appellants’ unit reveals that there is an employee serving as a Network Administrator 2 and an employee serving as a Network Administrator 1. The record shows that the Network Administrator 2 is performing the lead worker duties in the appellants’ unit. Accordingly, the organizational chart for the appellants’ unit does not support their appointment as a Network Administrator 2.

With respect to the appellants’ and the appointing authority’s arguments that they are performing lead worker duties, they did not list such information on their PCQs. An incumbent in a lead position refers to persons whose titles are non- supervisory in nature, but are required to act as a leader of a group of employees in titles at the same or lower level than themselves on a regular and recurring basis and perform the same kind of work as that performed by the group being led. See In the Matter of Catherine Santangelo (Commissioner of Personnel, decided December 5, 2005). Clearly, the majority of the appellants’ duties as described on their PCQs and on appeal do not establish that their primary function is that of a lead worker. In this regard, being the contact person or training employees is not sufficient to show that an employee is acting as a leader of other employees on a regular and recurring basis.

Additionally, the fact that some of an employee’s assigned duties may compare favorably with some examples of work found in a given job specification is not determinative for classification purposes, since, by nature, examples of work are utilized for illustrative purposes only. In this regard, it is not uncommon for an employee to perform some duties which are above or below the level of work which is ordinarily performed. 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. In making classification determinations, emphasis is placed on the definition section to distinguish one class of positions from another. Moreover, the examples of work portion of a job description provides typical work assignments which are descriptive and illustrative and are not meant to be restrictive or inclusive. See In the Matter of Darlene M. O’Connell (Commissioner of Personnel, decided April 10, 1992).

Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the determinations of Agency Services that the appellants’ positions are properly classified as a Network Administrator 1.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these appeals be denied.

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