Caitlin Keenan, CSC Docket No. 2020-1042
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of November 6, 2019, CSC Docket No. 2020-1042: examination eligibility, denied. Caitlin Keenan appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Secretari
Commission decisions · Meeting of November 6, 2019
Caitlin Keenan appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Secretarial Assistant 2, Non-Stenographic (PS9347T), Motor Vehicle Commission.
- Matter
- Examination eligibility
- Decided
- November 6, 2019, item B-10
- Outcome
- Denied
- Title
- SECRETARIAL ASSISTANT 2, NON-STENOGRAPHIC
- Employer
- Motor Vehicle Commission
- Examination
- PS9347T
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-010 11-06-19.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be denied.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
BackgroundCaitlin Keenan appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Secretarial Assistant 2 Non-Stenographic (PS9347T), Motor Vehicle Commission.
The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of March 21, 2019, and was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service in the title Secretarial Assistant 3 Non-Stenographic, OR to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service in any competitive title and met the announced requirements. These requirements included four years of experience in secretarial and administrative clerical work. Successful completion of a clerical training program with a minimum of 700 classroom training hours or 30 semester hour credits in secretarial science from an accredited college or university may be substituted for one year of the experience. It was found that appellant failed to satisfy the experience requirement. One candidate appears on the eligible list, which has not yet been certified.
The appellant listed four positions on her application: provisional Secretarial Assistant 2 Non-Stenographic, Secretary/Travel Agent with Foxmoor Travel (overlaps with positions 1 and 3, part-time 20 hours per week), MVC Technician, and Assistant Team Leader with Liberty Travel. She was credited with six months of experience in her provisional position, and found to be lacking three years, six months of applicable experience.
Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that she meets the minimum requirements for the position. She states that she was performing administrative clerical work in her position as Assistant Team Leader with Liberty Travel and accrued applicable experience as a Secretary/Travel Agent with Foxmoor Travel.
CONCLUSION
RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date.
AnalysisThe appellant was deemed to be ineligible for the subject examination since she lacked the minimum experience. She was credited for six months in her provisional position. Her experience as a MVC Technician was not secretarial, but customer service oriented. As an Assistant Team Leader, the appellant was not performing any secretarial duties. Rather the primary focus of that position was sales of travel services and some bookkeeping duties. As a Secretary/Travel Agent with Foxmoor Travel, the appellant listed both secretarial duties and Travel Agent duties. However, most of duties were aligned with Travel Agent. Even if the appellant clarified this experience, it amounts to one year, seven months of full-time experience and the appellant would not meet the announced requirements.
An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services, that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date, is supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support his 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.
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's monthly archive. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.