Susan Catlett-Oxendine, CSC Docket No. 2020-2474

BackgroundSusan Catlett-Oxendine appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that her position with the Department of Labor and Workforce Development is correctly classified as Technical Assistant 3. She seeks a Contract Administrator 2 classification in these proceedings.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant requested a review of her position as a Technical Assistant, Contract Administration. In her request, she asserted that the proper classification of her position was Contract Administrator 2. Her position is located in the Division of Business Services, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, reports to a Chief of Business Services, and has no supervisory responsibility. Agency Services reviewed all documentation supplied by the appellant including her Position Classification Questionnaire (PCQ), Performance Assessment Review (PAR), organizational chart, and statements of the appellant and her supervisor. Based on its review of the information provided, Agency Services determined that the proper classification for her position is Technical Assistant 3.

On appeal, the appellant argues that Business Service Representatives submit their work to her for “approval” before it moves forward, she receives, assigns, reviews and approves their work including monitoring the status of grants and contracts, she performs “management-level duties” in the status tracking database, she updates the annual Notice of Grant Opportunity (NGO), and she provides technical assistance and reviews grant process actions. In support, her supervisor states that the appellant works in tandem with Business Service Representatives. The appellant asserts that she reviews their work and advises them of needed corrections, then she converts their work into processed invoices or advances it up the executive approval chain.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9(e) states that in classification appeals, the appellant shall provide copies of all materials submitted, the determination received from the lower level, statements as to which portions of the determination are being disputed, and the basis for appeal. Information and/or argument which was not presented at the prior level of appeal shall not be considered.

The definition section of the job specification for the title Technical Assistant 3 states:

Under the general supervision of a supervisory official in a State department, institution, or agency, takes the lead over the technical and/or clerical staff and has responsibility for work programs of an identifiable technical unit responsible for reviewing, monitoring, and processing specific actions requiring the application of rules, regulations, policies and/or procedures, or independently, under general supervision, reviews, analyses, and makes effective recommendations for actions involving a specific element of regulatory or administrative program requiring the application of rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and or technical concepts: does other related duties as required.

The definition section of the job specification for the title Contract Administrator 2 states:

Under the general supervision of a supervisory official, administers and exercises review and/or approval authority over various contracts and/or grants; provides technical assistance in contract and/or grant preparation, control, monitoring, amendment, and/or evaluation; as appropriate, exercises controllership and approval rights and responsibilities in the area of contract and/or grant administration;

Analysisand/or processes contracts for multiple divisions, projects and/or programs, may be assigned to review the work of lower level contract administration and support staff; does other related duties.

In this matter, it is clear that the appellant’s position is properly classified as Technical Assistant 3. The position has the following duties: acts as first point of contact and liaison, provides technical information, and answers questions about the grant program; monitors grant processes by ensuring that grantees are assigned to a Business Service Representative, verifying the completeness and accuracy of applications, contracts, letters, and billings, tracks the contract phase in the database, ensures correct funding sources are setup and modifications are made, reviews invoices for correctness, and processes payment vouchers; schedules staff meetings and prepares agendas, schedules panel meetings and provides information regarding grant programs and applicants; creates forms for processes and makes recommendations for improvement on policies and procedures; updates the NGO each fiscal year and makes recommendations regarding technical information to be included in the NGO; prepares detailed reports, compiles data, prepares a supplemental summary report at different stages of the grant process, and prepares correspondence; investigates the issues and problems in the grant process and recommends resolutions; and, maintains files and records.

Agency Services found that the position is not responsible for exercising control and approval authority in the administration of grants and contracts. Rather, the position is responsible for monitoring the status of grants and contracts, providing technical assistance, and reviewing various actions ensuring that the grant process complies with rules, regulations, policies and procedures. During the audit, Agency Services found that she reviews and processes of the work of the Business Service Representatives, but does not approve the grants. Additionally, her supervisor did not say that she approves the work of the Business Service Representatives or grants in his letter. Thus, the position does not have the level of authority required for a Contract Administrator 2 classification.

A thorough review of the information presented in the record establishes that Susan Catlett-Oxendine’s position is properly classified as Technical Assistant 3 and she has not presented a sufficient basis to establish that her position is improperly classified.

ORDER

Therefore, the position of Susan Catlett-Oxendine is properly classified as Technical Assistant 3.

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