Francis Lay, CSC Docket No. 2020-682

BackgroundFrancis Lay appeals the determination of the Division of the Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that he was below the minimum requirements in experience for a qualifying examination for Administrative Analyst 1, Information Systems.

By way of background, the appellant was appointed provisionally, pending a qualifying examination (PAQ), in the Administrative Analyst 1, Information Systems title effective July 20, 2019. Agency Services processed a qualifying examination for him to determine if he possessed the necessary qualifications for the subject title, which was a lateral action. The requirements are graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor's degree, and one year of work involving the review, analysis, and evaluation of the administrative, business, and/or operational policies, procedures, practices, and processes and/or the technological requirements of an organization for the purpose of revising/enhancing existing information systems and/or developing/acquiring and implementing new IT solutions and services. He failed the examination and Agency Services recommended a classification review of the position. He remains in his PAQ appointment in the subject title.

On his qualifying examination application, the appellant indicated that he possessed a Bachelor's degree, and he listed his positions as an Administrative Analyst 1, Analyst Trainee, and Government Representative 2. For the duties for each position, he wrote “see attachment.” The attachment was a resume on which he listed each title and the dates of employment, and then he gave one list of duties.

In the list of dates of employment, he indicated that he was a Government Representative 2 from March 2012 to June 2017. After the set of duties, he listed a second position as Government Representative 2, with differing duties performed from June 2012 to December 2013, which overlaps with the first position. In its determination dated August 19, 2019, Agency Services determined that the appellant does not possess applicable experience, including his provisional position, thereby lacking one year of required experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant indicates that all other staff who work in his unit have the “Information Systems” variant after their titles and have similar job duties. The appellant states that while in the an Administrative Analyst 1 and Administrative Analyst Trainee titles, he performed the review, analysis and evaluation of operational policies, procedures, business rules, practices and processes of the technical requirements of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services (DVRS) information systems and for implementing new Information Technologies (IT) solutions and services.

More specifically, regarding the case management system created by a vender, the appellant states that while at DVRS, he is responsible and “fully involved” with the AWARE (Accessible Web-Base Activity and Reporting Environment) web-based application, new releases, Application road map and Technology road map. Within the Technology road map, he ensures compatibility with browser requirements, the servers, and databases. The appellant ensures new releases are in line with federal requirements, and utilizes technical tools like RSA- 911 Edit Check for data validation and error free reporting of the RSA-911 federal report. He performed research and used the test environment to determine the most effective ways to address unique situations in the use of the new case management system. The appellant states that he has worked closely with the vendor regarding updates and has completed work orders for changes to avoid the user issues and alleviate errors. Daily, he addresses IT questions as the point of contact/helpdesk. The appellant has recommended improvements, and determined more effective ways to run reports. The appellant advises staff and trains them on these updates and revisions, and is responsible for nine field offices and offers system support for all 18 field offices. The appellant states that he has assisted in creating training documents and presented training on numerous occasions.

CONCLUSION

At the outset, it must be underscored that a “Qualifying Examination” requires the candidate to demonstrate on his qualifying examination application that he possesses the necessary experience for the subject title in order to effect a lateral transfer to the title. Additionally, in order for experience to be considered applicable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided dune 9, 2004). Also, instructions for the employment section stated, “If you do not properly complete your application you may be declared ineligible. 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. 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 fail.”

Agency Services determined that the appellant’s experience in his current and prior-held titles did not have work involving the review, analysis, and evaluation of the administrative, business, and/or operational policies, procedures, practices, and processes and/or the technological requirements of an organization for the purpose of revising/enhancing existing information systems and/or developing/acquiring and implementing new IT solutions and services. It is uncertain if the appellant performed the duties on his application for only during his prior held title or for his entire employment history, outside of the year and a half as a Government Representative 2 when he performs separate duties. Nonetheless, the duties on the appeilant’s application have more to do with maintaining the database system and assisting users than reviewing, analyzing, and evaluating policies, procedures, practices and processes, or technological requirements. For example, he adds and remove staff to AWARE, performs helpdesk operations, assists with or provides reports, maintains inventory, resolves phone issues, orders supplies, tests new developments in AWARE and determines the need for enhancements or new software, extracts information from AWARE for management, captures data, revises forms, and surveys user satisfaction. These dutics include the review, analysis, and evaluation of technological requirements, but that does not appear to be the primary focus of a position(s). On appeal, the appellant enhances these duties, but does not provide additional information that could determine the primary focus, such as the amount of time spent on each. The duties provided for the combined titles does not have as the primary focus the experience requirement, but rather are similar to technical support. The appellant’s remaining experience is not applicable.

As to the classification of the position, the appellant indicates that he addresses IT questions as the point of contact/helpdesk on a daily basis and many of his duties revolve around this issue. Although it is unclear if these duties pertain to his provisional position, or one of his prior titles, or all of them, these duties clearly are not those of Administrative Analyst 1. To return him to his prior title because he failed the qualifying examination would misclassify his position. Thus, the Commission concurs with Agency Services’ determination that the position requires a classification review.

Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant did not pass the subject qualifying examination. Therefore, he has failed to support his burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied. It is further ordered that the appellant should provide a duties questionnaire to the Division of Agency Services detailing the duties of the position, along with a completed examination application within 30 days of the issuance date on this decision.

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