Roger McLarnon, CSC Docket No. 2020-1954

BackgroundRoger McLarnon appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that he did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the promotional examination for Zoning Officer (PM1180A), Margate.

The subject examination had a closing date of August 21, 2019 and was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in the title Assistant Zoning Officer OR to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title and who met the announced experience requirements. These requirements included three years of experience in the preparation and revision of building construction plans and specifications or in the inspection and enforcement of zoning and/or building construction laws and regulations. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience. As he was the sole applicant, the examination was cancelled on February 6, 2020.

The appellant listed one position on his application, Planning Aide from January 2016 to August 2019. Official records indicate that the appellant was a Planning Aide from January 2016 to January 2017, when he was promoted to Senior Planning Aide. Agency Services found that the position had some aspects of the required experience, but that it was not the primary focus. He was found to be lacking three years of required experience. On appeal, the appellant explains that he is a licensed engineer and planner, and can sign and seal documents. He refers to prior experience, although he does not quantify or qualify these positions by providing the information required on an application. In support, the appointing authority states that the appellant was involved with building specifications, construction, inspections, and all building construction laws and regulations.

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. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) provides that except when permitted for good cause, applicants for promotional examinations may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy eligibility requirements. N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) states that the Commission may relax a rule for good cause in particular situations, on notice to affected parties, in order to effectuate the purposes of Title 11A, New Jersey Statutes.

AnalysisInitially, the appellant was correctly deemed to be ineligible for the subject examination since he lacked the minimum requirements in experience as his description did not have the announced experience requirement as the primary focus. The online application process is automated and provides instructions to candidates on how to properly complete their applications. Also, the application states that, by clicking “yes,” the applicant certified that the employment history was complete and accurate. The On-Line Application System User’s Guide cautions applicants to carefully review the application to ensure that it is complete and accurate before submitting, and to complete the application in detail. It states that failure to complete the application properly may cause the applicant to be declared ineligible. The instructions under the experience portion of the application advise applicants to provide all employment information (not just current employment information), and if they have multiple positions, they need to make sure that they provide each one separately. The appellant should follow these instructions and properly complete any future applications for examinations by including all of his experience.

Nonetheless, the appointing authority has indicated that the appellant performed out-of-title duties while in the titles Planning Aide and Senior Planning Aide from January 2016 to the closing date. With the acceptance of this out-of-title work, the appellant possesses the required three years of experience. The examination was cancelled, and based on the documentation submitted and under these circumstances, good cause exists to accept the appellant’s out-of-title work experience to satisfy the requirements for the Zoning Officer examination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted, and the appellant’s application be processed.

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