Alba Aquino, CSC Docket No. 2019-648

BackgroundAlba Aquino petitions the Civil Service Commission (Commission) for reconsideration of the attached final administrative decision, rendered on July 18, 2018, in which the Commission found that she was below the minimum requirements in experience for the promotional examination for Human Services Specialist 1 (PC2741V), Hudson County.

By way of background, an examination for Human Services Specialist 1 (PC2741V), Hudson County was announced with an education requirement of possession of 60 semester hour credits from an accredited college or university. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience on a year for year basis. The experience requirement was securing/verifying information and making determinations or recommendations relating to eligibility or qualifications of applicants for loans, insurance, credit, employability, and/or job training services, or entitlement to cash awards, financial benefits or adjustment and settlement of insurance claims; investigations involving the collection of facts and information by observing conditions, examining records, interviewing individuals, and preparing investigative reports of findings; or investigating, establishing, and/or enforcing support obligations in a welfare board or agency, court system, or related agency. In reviewing the petitioner's application, the Division of Agency Services determined that none of her work experience was applicable. On appeal, the petitioner argued that she possessed the required experience for the subject examination. The Commission found that while the petitioner claimed to have performed some applicable work, it was clear that the primary focus of the positions she listed was not in the securing/verifying of information and making determination or recommendations or investigations or establishing and/or enforcing support obligations. Therefore, the Commission demed the appeal.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, the petitioner reiterates that she has sufficient experience to be eligible for the subject examiniation. She adds that her duties include being allowed to make determiniations on individual eligblities as to whether the case is approved, sanctioned, denied, suspended, closed or on application status. Further, she contends that she did not submit all her job expereince in the prior appeal because she assumed it was not necessary as she alleges that she was told that after one year of expereince as a Human Services Aide, she would automatically be entitled to take the subject examination. In this regard, it is noted that the petitioner made the same argument in her prior appeal.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(b) sets forth the standards by which a prior decision may be reconsidered. This rule provides that a party must show that a clear material error has occurred or present new evidence or additional information not presented at the original proceeding which would change the outcome of the case and the reasons that such evidence was not presented at the original proceeding.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, the appellant argues that she did not provide all of her job experience as she thought it was not necessary. However, a review of the file in this matter, including the materials submitted in her prior appeal, reveals that the petitioner made the same argument in the previous appeal. Thus, the petitioner has not sufficiently explained why she did not include all of her job experience in the original proceeding. Further, while the petitioner added examples of the eligibility determinations she makes, this addition does not persuade the Commission to change its prior determination that primary focus of the positions she listed were not congruous with the experience requirements for the subject examination. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not presented any new evidence or persuasive arguments that the Commission erred in its prior decision and her request for reconsideration is denied.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the request for reconsideration be denied.

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