Darlington Henry, CSC Docket No. 2020-757
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of October 23, 2019, CSC Docket No. 2020-757: examination eligibility, denied. Darlington Henry appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services, which found that he was below the minimum requirements in experience for a qualifying demotional examinat
Commission decisions · Meeting of October 23, 2019
Darlington Henry appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services, which found that he was below the minimum requirements in experience for a qualifying demotional examination for Supervisor of Motor Pool.
- Matter
- Examination eligibility
- Decided
- October 23, 2019, item B-24
- Outcome
- Denied
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-024 10-23-19.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be denied and the matter of the appellant’s position classification be referred to Agency Services for further review.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
BackgroundDarlington Henry 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 demotional examination for Supervisor of Motor Pool.
By way of background, the appellant was appointed provisionally, pending a qualifying examination (PAQ), in the Supervisor of Motor Pool title effective July 1, 2019. Agency Services processed a qualifying examination for the appellant, to determine if he possessed the necessary qualifications for the subject title and he failed. The requirement for Supervisor of Motor Pool is three years of experience in coordinating a large scale fleet of motor vehicles which entailed responsibility for the maintenance and servicing of vehicles as well as the leasing or assignment of vehicles to individuals. The appellant has not yet been returned to his permanent title, Senior Mechanic.
On his qualifying examination application, the appellant indicated two positions with Cumberland County, Mechanic and Senior Mechanic, and one position with the Fort Dix Armory, Head Mechanic. He was credited was two years, two months for his experience as a Head Mechanic, and found to be lacking ten months of required experience. As he did not meet the minimum requirements, he did not pass the qualifying examination for the subject title.
Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant indicates that he has two years, two months of experience as a Senior Mechanic where he supervised another Mechanic and was required to maintain and service a large scale fleet of motor vehicles. He planned and scheduled the daily workload, maintained records, updated data, ordered and updated parts, scheduled services and repairs, inspected motor vehicles, recommended replacements, supervised the storage and safekeeping of vehicles, and made arrangements for the registration and State inspections of vehicles. In support, the appointing authority indicates that the appellant has worked for the county for 15 years. He plans and schedules daily workloads, schedules service and repairs, and ensures that the Department of Public Works is in compliance with rules and regulations. Also, the former Supervisor of Motor Pool indicates that, as a Senior Mechanic, Henry was responsible for scheduling maintenance, repair and service of motor vehicles and equipment, interacted with vendors to order parts and schedule services, contacted outside repair facilities for quotes, and handled registration and inspections, in addition to other tasks.
CONCLUSION
RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.8(c) provides, in pertinent part, that if the nature of the work, education and experience qualifications of both titles are dissimilar for a demotional title change, then the employee shall be appointed pending examination.
N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.
AnalysisAt the outset, it must be underscored that a “Qualifying Examination” requires candidate to demonstrate that he or she possesses the necessary experience for a particular title in order to effect a lateral or demotional title change to the title with permanent status. Since a determination of eligibility equates to a candidate passing this type of examination, and generally results in the candidate’s appointment, pending a qualifying examination, being changed to a permanent appointment, it is imperative that the candidate unambiguously indicates his or her experience on the application. This information is crucial, because it is essentially equivalent to correct responses on a multiple-choice, or “assembled” examination. Thus, the Commission must primarily focus on the “test papers,” i.e., the original application materials presented to Agency Services for review, and determine if an “error” was made in the “scoring” of the test or other noncompliance with Civil Service law and rule.
A review of the appellant’s application reveals that he does not meet the experience requirements for Supervisor of Motor Pool. In his positions with Cumberland County, the appellant was maintaining and servicing vehicles. While the duties listed on the application, on appeal, and in the letters of support are consistent, they do not include coordinating a large scale fleet of motor vehicles including the leasing or assignment of vehicles to individuals. For this reason, it appears that the appellant’s position is misclassified. A Supervisor of Motor Pool is responsible for supervising and coordinating the activities of a unit involved in scheduling the use, assignment, and maintenance of motor vehicles. The primary focus should include supervising the scheduling and assigning motor vehicles to authorized personnel on a priority basis, in addition to the maintenance of motor vehicles. Since this type of examination is performed in support of a demotional title change, it is necessary not only to have the requisite experience for the title, but for the title to be utilized to be appropriate for the position. In other words, it is questionable if the title is appropriate for the appellant’s position. The appellant is not eligible for the subject position and the appellant’s position appears to be misclassified as a Supervisor of Motor Pool. Under these circumstances, the matter of the appellant’s provisional position classification is referred to Agency Services for 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 request be denied, and the matter of the appellant’s provisional position classification be referred to Agency Services for review
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.