Alexis Greenberg, CSC Docket No. 2019-3732

BackgroundAlexis Greenberg appeals her rank and score for the promotional examination for Program Specialist 3 (PS4610K), Department of Human Services. The appellant received an unassembled examination score of 81.890, a seniority score of 5.000, and 1 point for her PAR rating, for a final average of 87.890, and ranked fourth on the resultant eligible list.

The subject examination had a closing date of September 21, 2018, and was open to applicants in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in one of four specific titles. The appellant was admitted as she was permanent in one of the titles. Nine candidates appeared on the eligible list, which has been certified once, but no appointments have yet been made.

This examination was processed as an unassembled examination (UE), i.e., candidates were ranked on the eligible list based on an evaluation of their education and experience as listed on their applications. The unassembled examination standard conferred a base score of 70.000 for all eligible applicants. Additional credit was awarded for ten years of experience in planning, monitoring, coordinating implementing, modifying and/or evaluating a social or human services program. It is noted that no credit was given for experience gained more than ten years prior to the examination closing date, in this case, October 2008. Also, two points were given for possession of a Master’s degree in a Social/Human services specialty area, Public or Business Administration, Child Advocacy and Policy, or Child Advocacy and Policy with a concentration in Public Child Welfare.

The appellant listed seven positions on her application: provisional Program Specialist 3; four positions as a Habilitation Plan Coordinator; Admissions Officer; and Veterans Entitlement Officer. As to scoring, the appellant did not receive credit for her provisional position, as she mainly copied examples of work from the job specification as her duties. She received full credit for three of her positions as a Habilitation Plan Coordinator, and credit to October 2008 in the fourth Habilitation Plan Coordinator position. The remainder of her experience was gained more than ten years prior to the closing date. Thus, her UE score was 81.890 which reflected time from October 2008 to August 2017, when she was provisionally appointed to the subject title.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant reiterates her duties as a Habilitation Plan Coordinator, and states that a Master’s degree can be substituted for one year of experience for eligibility purposes.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date for filing applications.

AnalysisRegarding the appellant’s provisional position, simply quoting the duties contained in the job specification on an application is not a sufficient basis on which to determine if a candidate’s specific duties matches the experience requirements of a title. For eligibility purposes, candidates must demonstrate that the duties they perform qualify them for admission to the examination. See In the Matter of Maxsine Allen and Vivian Stevenson (MSB, decided March 10, 2004). Similarly, experience which mimics the job specification cannot be credited in an unassembled examination. An applicant who mimics a number of the characteristic tasks verbatim from the job specification does not establish that she is primarily engaged in or has experience in that type of work. As such, this information cannot be considered, and the appellant is cautioned to complete any future job applications in her own words. Her remaining experience up to ten years prior to the closing date was included in scoring. It is noted that the appellant did not indicate possession of a Master’s degree on her application. No error in the appellant’s score is evident.

A thorough review of the record indicates that the decision of the Division of Agency Services is amply supported by the record, and appellant provides no basis to disturb that decision. The appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof in this matter.

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.