Ryan Rosado, CSC Docket No. 2020-1493

BackgroundRyan Rosado, Sr. appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Painter (PS0002H), Ancora Psychiatric Hospital.

The experience requirements for the subject examination were three years of experience in work involving the painting and repairing of the interior and exterior of buildings and structures by the July 22, 2019 closing date. A total of five employees applied for the subject examination and two were found eligible. Certification PS191778 was issued containing the names of the two eligibles and its disposition is due March 31, 2020. The list expires on November 27, 2022.

Personnel records indicate that the appellant was provisionally serving in the subject title from January 2019 to the July 22, 2019 closing date, a Senior Repairer from April 2015 to January 2019, a Repairer from July 2005 to April 2015 and an Institutional/Building Support Services, IFPTE from August 2004 to July 2005. Agency Services did not credit the appellant with any experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant explains that he worked in the appointing authority’s Paint Shop performing the required duties from 2004 to 2007 and from 2018 to the present.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g) provides that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. For example, information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given position that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying and is accepted.

AnalysisIn this matter, initially Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination as he copied the job specifications from the Painter definition to indicate his experience instead of describing his duties using his own words. 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 would meet the requirements for an examination. 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). However, on appeal, the appellant explains that he performed the required duties while working in the appointing authority’s Paint Shop from 2004 to 2007 and from 2018 to the present. Therefore, the Commission finds that the appellant has sufficiently clarified that he has been performing the required duties for more than the required time by the closing date. See In the Matter of Diana Begley (MSB, decided November 17, 2004). The Commission notes, however, that when applying for future examinations, the appellant should not copy the job specifications when describing his experience, and instead, ensure that his application completely describes his job duties in his own words so that Agency Services can properly evaluate it. Further, the Commission warns the appellant that his failure to do so may lead to his ineligibility in future examinations.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appeal be granted, and the appellant’s application be processed for prospective employment opportunities only.

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