Susan L. Gaeb, CSC Docket No. 2020-2171

BackgroundSusan L. Gaeb appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the requirements for the examination for Recreation Supervisor (M0936A), Rockaway Township.

The examination at issue was announced with education and experience requirements which had to be met as of the announced closing date of October 7, 2019. Specifically, all applicants had to possess a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university plus two years of experience in recreation work involving the planning, promotion, development, and supervision of a recreation program. The examination announcement also stipulated that applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience as indicated above on a year-for-year basis with 30 semester credit hours being equal to one year of experience. The examination announcement also stipulated that a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in Recreation or in Park and Recreation Management from an accredited college or university could be substituted for one year of the required experience. Records indicate that an eligible list promulgated on February 20, 2020 containing the name of one qualified applicant.

The appellant filed an application on which she indicated that possessed a Bachelor’s degree in Recreation Administration and experience as a provisional Recreation Supervisor, Recreation Aide, Staff Assistant, and Recreation Specialist. Agency Services concluded that the appellant satisfied the educational requirement, could substitute her Bachelor’s degree in Recreation Administration for one year of experience, and possessed four months of applicable experience as a provisional Recreation Supervisor. None of her remaining positions involved the supervision of a recreation program and, therefore, were not deemed applicable. As a result, 0

Agency Services found the appellant ineligible for the subject examination since she lacked eight months of the required experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant asserts that she satisfies the subject requirements. Additionally, Patricia A. Seger, Business Administrator, Rockaway Township, submitted a letter endorsing the appellant’s experience.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b)2 provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the examination announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:1- 1.2(c) provides that the Civil Service Commission may relax a rule for good cause, in a particular circumstance, in order to effectuate the purposes of Title 11A of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that, except for medical or psychological disqualification appeals, the appellant shall have the burden of proof.

AnalysisAs of the October 7, 2019 closing date, the appellant satisfied the educational requirement, could substitute her Bachelor’s degree in Recreation Administration for one year of experience, and possessed four months of applicable experience as a provisional Recreation Supervisor. The appellant needed a total of eight months of additional experience as of the closing date to satisfy the subject requirements. Accordingly, she was correctly deemed ineligible for the subject examination per Agency Services. However, in the instant matter, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) notes that the appellant continues to successfully serve as a provisional in the subject position, giving her in excess of the eight months of experience she lacks. Additionally, the eligible list is incomplete in that it only contains the name of one qualified applicant. Therefore, this is not a competitive situation. Under these circumstances, the Commission accepts the appellant’s experience gained after the closing date as a provisional Recreation Supervisor, for eligibility purposes only, which will allow her the opportunity to be tested and be considered for a permanent appointment to the subject title.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted.

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