TODD CHAPMAN, CSC Docket No. 2020-1832

eee

BackgroundTodd Chapman appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that, per the substitution clause for education, he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Program Specialist 3 Social/Human Services (PS0363]), Department of Corrections.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of August 21, 2019. The examination was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date and who were serving in the title Program Specialist 2 Social/Human Services, OR in any competitive title and who met the announced requirements. These requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and three years of experience in planning, monitoring, coordinating, implementing, modifying and/or evaluating a social or human services program. Applicants who did not meet the announced educational requirement could substitute experience as indicated on a year for year basis. 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 could be substituted for one year of experience. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience, per the substitution clause for education. As no candidates were admitted, the examination was cancelled on January 13, 2020.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant indicated that he possessed 26 college credits, which prorates to ten months of experience. Per the substitution clause for education, the appellant was required to possess six years, two months of applicable experience. On his application and resume, the appellant listed experience in four positions, Program Specialist 1 Social/Human Services, Technician, Institutional Trade Instructor 1, Head Cook 3, and Plant Manager with Limpert Brothers, Inc. Official records indicate that, proix to his provisional appointment, the appellant was a Supervising Institutional Trade Instructor, Institutional Trade Instructor 2 Food Processing, Institutional Trade Instructor 1 Food Processing, Institutional Trade Instructor 1 Warehousing, and Head Cook 3. The appellant was credited with eleven months in the first position, and was found to be lacking five years, three months of experience, per the substitution clause for education.

On appeal, the appellant argues that he has accrued applicable experience in his position as a Supervising Institutional Trade Instructor and as a Plant Manager with Limpert Brothers, Inc. Specifically, he provides duties for positions not listed originally on his application, i.e, Supervising Institutional Trade Instructor, Institutional Trade Instructor 2 Food Processing, and Head Cook. He also provides additional duties for his provisional position and his position as Plant Manager.

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 denied admittance to the subject examination since he lacked five years, three months of experience per the substitution clause for education. A review of appellant’s application reveals that this determination is correct. At the outset, it is noted that titles are categorized as professional, para- professional or non-professional. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)1 states that professional titles require at least a Bachelor’s or higher-level degree, with or without a clause to substitute experience. Thus, since the Program Specialist 2 Social/Human Services title requires completion of a Bachelor's degree with a substitution clause, which permits additional experience in lieu of the college credits, as well as relevant experience, it is considered a professional title.

The appellant’s prior-held State titles which he claims provided applicable experience do not require a Bachelor’s degree and therefore are not professional titles. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)3 states that non-professional titles require less than 60 general college credits or less than 12 specific college credits, while NiJ.A.C. 4A:4- 2.5(a)2 states that para-professional titles require at least 60 general college credits or 12 or more specific college credits (but less than a full degree). As such, the title Head Clerk is a non-professional title since no college credits are required.

When a promotion is between the above noted categories, NLA.C. 4A:4- 2.5(c)2 permits the examination to be open to applicants who are permanent in an approved bridge title(s) and/or applicants who meet the complete open competitive requirements. A bridge title is one that is recognized by the Civil Service Commission as related to a higher category title in terms of work performed and knowledge, skills, and abilities required. It is noted that “bridge titles” were established to allow individuals with experience in a given job category (e.g., clerical or paraprofessional) the opportunity to compete in promotional examinations involving a higher-level job category (e.g., paraprofessional or professional). Advancement in some cases was otherwise not possible because the experience acquired in the lower category titles would not technically satisfy the requirements for eligibility in the higher category title. There is no bridge title for Program Specialist 3 Social/Human Services.

In addition, the experience requirements for a professional level title assume professional level experience. For example, for the current title, the work involving the planning, monitoring, coordinating, implementing, modifying and/or evaluating a social or human services program must be professional level work. This cannot be accrued in a non-professional title. The appellant’s experience as a Supervising Institutional Trade Instructor, and his remaining prior-held titles, is not applicable for this reason. Further, his Plant Manager experience was not in a social or human services program.

In that regard, the appellant’s State service is not in a social or human services program either. Rather, the position involves a unique social rehabilitative program involving meat and produce production and processing in a prison. The title under test is one of several variants for Program Specialist 3, and it appears as though the position is misclassified. That is, working with a prison population is not a social service, or a human service, both of which involve the general public. Rather, the duties are specific to social rehabilitative programs for inmates. If the appointing authority wants the appellant to remain in his current position, the appellant should provide a duties questionnaire (enclosed) to Agency Services detailing the duties of the position, along with a completed examination application within 30 days of the issuance of this decision, so that an appropriate provisional title can be assigned, and a pre-qualification determination can be made. Should the appellant be found not eligible for the new provisional appointment, he should be returned to his underlying permanent title at that time. Otherwise, since the appellant has accrued at least one year in his provisional position, but does not meet the minimum qualifications for the title of Program Specialist 3 Social/Human Services, contrary to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-1.5(a)2, he should be returned to his underlying permanent title immediately upon receipt of this decision. The subject examination announcement for the appellant’s provisional position was canceled. In the future, if Agency Services determines that the position is that of Program Specialist 3 Social/Human Services, a new examination can be announced.

The appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since he lacked the minimum requirements in experience per the substitution clause for education. 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 amply 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, and the matter of the appellant’s position classification be referred to the Division of Agency Services for review.

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