Miranda Robinson, CSC Docket No. 2020-2321
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of April 29, 2020, CSC Docket No. 2020-2321: examination eligibility, granted. Miranda Robinson appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the promotional examination f
Commission decisions · Meeting of April 29, 2020
Miranda Robinson appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the promotional examination for Technical Support Specialist 1 (PC1172A), Bergen County.
- Matter
- Examination eligibility
- Decided
- April 29, 2020, item B-20
- Outcome
- Granted
- Title
- TECHNICAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST 1
- Employer
- Bergen County
- Examination
- PC1172A
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-020 04-29-20.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be granted.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
BackgroundMiranda Robinson appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the promotional examination for Technical Support Specialist 1 (PC1172A), Bergen County.
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 Technical Support Specialist 2 OR and 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 who met the announced requirements. These requirements were graduation from an accredited college or university with an Associate’s degree in Data Processing and three years of experience in one or more of the following:
1) data processing systems analysis and programming design; 2) the analysis of work methods and processes; 3) the operation of multi- program or client/server computer systems; 4) the support areas of computer scheduling, input/output control and magnetic data control in the data processing field or; 5) help desk; one (1) year of which shall have been in the technical support area solving user problems in a help desk or related environment or using productivity aids and job control languages.
A Bachelor’s degree in any field may be substituted for the Associate’s degree in Data Processing. A Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in Data Processing could be substituted for one year of experience. As there were no admitted applicants, the examination was canceled on March 13, 2019.
On her application, the appellant indicated possession of a Bachelor’s degree, and therefore met the educational requirement. One her application, she listed one position, Technical Support Specialist 1. She submitted a resume with additional positions, Management Information System Technician (no months given, no hours given, no supervisor information), and Senior Systems Coordinator (no months given, no hours given, no supervisor information). She included two other positions for the same employer, but gave no information for these positions, including duties. As such, they could not be quantified or qualified. Official records indicate that the appellant was a Technician MIS from December 2016 to April 2019, and a Technical Support Specialist 1 from April 2019 to the August 2019 closing date. She was credited with two years, nine months of applicable experience her Technical Support Specialist 1 and Technician MIS positions. As her other Senior Systems Coordinator experience was inapplicable, she was found to be lacking three months of applicable experience.
Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant describes her duties in her Technical Support Specialist 1 and Technician MIS positions, and provides additional duties for Senior Systems Coordinator, and the previously undescribed title of Systems Analyst Consumer Services, although she does not state which duties belong to which title, and gives no dates of service for Systems Analyst Consumer Services.
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:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) states that the Civil Service 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 found ineligible for the subject examination. As N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) specifically provides that examination applications may only be amended prior to the filing date, information regarding additional experience provided on appeal usually cannot be considered. However, in this case, the examination was cancelled, the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the title under test, and she has accrued at least three months of experience as a Technical Support Specialist 1 since her appointment. Based on the circumstances presented, good cause has been established to relax the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) and N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) to accept the appellant’s additional experience in her provisional position and beyond the closing date, and admit her to the examination. The appellant is cautioned to include all employment positions on future applications including all requested information.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted, the examination cancellation be rescinded, 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.
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.