Vicente Perez, CSC Docket No. 2020-2727

BackgroundVicente Perez appeals his rank and score for the promotional examination for Senior Employment Specialist (PC1452A) Essex County. The appellant received an unassembled examination score of 70.000 and a seniority score of 83.444, for a final average of 74.040, and ranked 13th on the resultant eligible list.

The subject examination had a closing date of October 21, 2019, and was open to applicants in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in the titles Employment Specialist and Employment Specialist Bilingual in Spanish and English. The appellant was admitted as he was regularly appointed to Employment Specialist on May 15, 2006. Thirteen candidates appeared on the eligible list, which has not yet been certified.

This examination was processed as an unassembled examination (UE), i.e., candidates were ranked on the eligible list based on an evaluation of their education and experience as listed on their applications. The unassembled examination standard conferred a base score of 70.000 for all eligible applicants. Additional credit was awarded for a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s degree in Psychology, Education, Social Work, Counseling, or related fields, and ten years of experience assessing education and training needs and providing referrals for work experience and training services or in manpower development and training, job placement, education or vocational counseling, or a combination thereof. It is noted that no credit was given for experience gained more than ten years prior to the examination closing date, in this case, November 2009.

The appellant listed one position on his application, Assistant Director with United Community Corporation from May 1982 to June 2002. This position was occupied more than ten years prior to the closing date, and did not have assessing education and training needs and providing referrals for work experience and training services or in manpower development and training, job placement, education or vocational counseling as a primary focus. Credit can only be awarded when an applicant meets full open-competitive requirements in positions less than ten years prior to the closing date. Thus, his UE score was 70.000.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that he ranked fourth on a prior test, and has the same education and more experience. He provides a copy of his resume with additional positions.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date for filing applications.

AnalysisThe on-line application system provides clear instructions to candidates. The application states, “You may be declared ineligible or you may not receive proper credit for scoring purposes if you do not properly complete your application. If you held different positions with the same employer, list each position separately. Make sure you give full dates of employment (month/year), indicate whether the job was full or part time, and the number of hours worked per week. If you are currently employed in this position, enter the current month and year in the Employed To section. Since your application may be your only test paper, be sure it is complete and accurate. Failure to complete your application properly may cause you to be declared ineligible, lower your score, or possibly cause you to fail.” This information is repeated on page 18 of the New Jersey Civil Service Commission Announcement and On-Line Application User Guide. As such, the appellant was on notice of the possibility that this could be an unassembled examination.

On its website in the section entitled Job Announcements and Testing Information, there are links to the Online Application System User Guide, which is available to all candidates. On page i, this guidance instructs candidates to carefully review the application to ensure that it is complete and accurate before submitting. It also states that applications must be completed in detail, and your score may be based on a comparison of your background with the job requirements. Failure to complete your application properly may cause you to be declared ineligible or may lower your score if your application is your test paper. Further on in the guide, there are more instructions on how to properly complete an application, and more warnings about completing it in detail. Additionally, when candidates submit their applications, they certify that it is complete and accurate.

On appeal, the appellant provides a copy of his resume listing additional positions that were not listed on the application. Since the application for the subject announcement is the test paper, it is no more subject to later amendment than a multiple-choice test answer sheet. See In the Matter of Alex Westner (Commissioner of Personnel, decided August 11, 1997). Thus, the appellant cannot be credited with experience in positions submitted after the closing date. The minimum requirements for the position were a Bachelor’s degree and two years of applicable experience. As the appellant did not meet these requirements based on the information submitted on his application, a score of 70.000 is applicable. No error in scoring is evident in the record and the appellant’s application will not be amended after the closing date to include the changes he submitted on appeal. The appellant’s seniority score is correct based on his regular appointment to Employment Specialist on May 15, 2006. The appellant’s score on another examination has no bearing on this determination, as each examination is scored independently.

A thorough review of the record indicates that the decision of the Division of Agency Services is amply supported by the record, and appellant provides no basis to disturb that decision. The appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

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