Anne Allen, CSC Docket No. 2020-2522
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of June 3, 2020, CSC Docket No. 2020-2522: examination eligibility, granted. Anne Allen appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that she did not meet the educational requirements for the open competitive examination for Public Health Consulta
Commission decisions · Meeting of June 3, 2020
Anne Allen appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that she did not meet the educational requirements for the open competitive examination for Public Health Consultant 2, Health Education (S0984A), Statewide.
- Matter
- Examination eligibility
- Decided
- June 3, 2020, item B-8
- Outcome
- Granted
- Title
- PUBLIC HEALTH CONSULTANT 2 HEALTH EDUCATION
- Examination
- S0984A
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-008 06-03-20.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be granted.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
BackgroundAnne Allen appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the education requirements for the open competitive examination for Public Health Consultant 2, Health Education (S0984A), Statewide.
The education requirements for the subject examination were a Bachelor's degree supplemented by 30 credit hours in an accredited program in community health education or public health education. The experience requirements were three years of comprehensive professional experience in a large-scale community health and/or public health education program by the October 21, 2019 closing date. A total of 49 individuals applied for the subject examination and eight were admitted. The test date has not yet been set.
On the appellant’s application, she indicated that she possessed a Master’s degree in Public Health. Additionally, she indicated that she was a Public Health Education Coordinator for Metro Plus of NYC Health and Hospital from October 2006 to June 2018. Agency Services credited the appellant for having met the experience requirements but determined that she lacked 30 credits in community health education or public health education.
Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant submits her transcript which shows that her Master’s degree was in community health education and that she has over 30 credits in this area.
CONCLUSION
RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g) provides that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. For example, information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given position that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying and is accepted.
AnalysisInitially, Agency Services correctly determined that Allen was not eligible for the subject examination as although she indicated that her Master’s degree was in Public Health, she did not indicate the area of concentration of public health she was studying or provide a transcript that clearly indicated that she had over 30 credits in community health education. However, on appeal, the appellant provides her transcript that shows that her Master’s degree major was in community health education which consisted of more than 30 credits in this area. Therefore, the Commission finds that Allen has sufficiently clarified that she possessed the required education by the closing date.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the appeals be granted, and Anne Allen’s applications be processed for prospective employment opportunities only.
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.