Gayle Ferrarini, CSC Docket No. 2021-111

BackgroundGayle Ferrarini appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that, per the substitution clause for education, she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Fiscal Analyst (PC1379A), Bergen County.

The subject promotional examination had a closing date of October 21, 2019 and was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date and who were serving in any competitive title and met the announced requirements. These requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and one year of year of experience in the collection, compilation, analysis, and presentation of data required to provide an accurate account of administrative and operating costs to management in a private business or government agency. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience on a year for year basis. The appellant was found to be ineligible based on a lack of experience per the substitution clause for education. Since the appellant’s application was the only one submitted, the examination was canceled on July 24, 2020.

On her application, appellant indicated that she had 30 college credits, which prorate to one year of experience. Per the substitution clause for education, she was required to possess four years of applicable experience. On her application, the appellant indicated that she held the following positions: 1) provisional Supervisor of Accounts from June 2016 to the October 2019 closing date; 2) Assistant Purchasing

Manager from March 2001 to June 2016; and 3) Human Resource Specialist with Marriott Corporation from February 1980 to July 1990. These were full-time positions. On her resume, the appellant included other positions: Proprietor of Riverview Service Center from 1986 (no months given) to the present (no hours given, overlaps with all three full-time positions); Executive Administrator for Tanne Apparel from 1977 to 1983 (no months given, overlaps with position 3); and Secretary with Aurora Products from 1975 to 1977 (no months given). Official records indicate that the appellant was provisionally appointed to Fiscal Analyst in April 2019, was a Supervisor of Accounts from June 2016 to April 2019, was a Purchasing Assistant from June 2002 to June 2016, and was a Senior Account Clerk from February 2002 to June 2002. The appellant was credited with seven months of experience in her provisional position, and she was found to be lacking three years, five months of qualifying experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant provides a list of duties that she has performed while employed with Bergen County. She states that as a Supervisor of Accounts she “oversaw” income, wages and expenses, supervised five employees, significantly reduced accounts receivable, “coordinated” bond level purchases, set policy and procedure, and was responsible for budgeting. She states that in April 2019, she was responsible for the entire fiscal department with ten divisions and ten employees, she presents the annual budget, makes sound budget judgments and logical determinations on financial data, and knows the department from bottom to top.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisAt the outset, it is noted that the application is utilized to screen the candidate pool to ensure that all applicants, including provisional appointees, meet the minimum experience requirements for each position. Those applicants who meet the minimum eligibility requirements are then evaluated through the testing process in order to determine their relative merit and fitness. See In the Matter of Jennifer Napoli (MSB, decided February 25, 2004); In the Matter of Daniel Roach (MSB, decided October 20, 2004). Further, titles are categorized as professional, para- professional or Non-professional. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)1 states that professional titles require at least a Bachelor’s or higher-level degree, with or without a clause to substitute experience. Thus, since the Fiscal Analyst title requires completion of a Bachelor’s degree with a substitution clause, which permits additional experience in lieu of the college credits, as well as relevant experience, it is considered a professional title.

The appellant’s prior held titles of Supervisor of Accounts and Purchasing Assistant, do not require a Bachelor’s degree and therefore are not professional titles.

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)3 states that Non-professional titles require less than 60 general college credits or less than 12 specific college credits, while N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)2 states that para-professional titles require at least 60 general college credits or 12 or more specific college credits (but less than a full degree). As such, these titles are considered non-professional titles since they do not require completion of any college credits. None of the work in any of these titles is professional work that would meet the level of work required in the announcement. The appellant’s earlier positions do not have the announced experience requirement as the primary focus.

AnalysisThe appellant combined her experience in her provisional Supervisor of Accounts position and her provisional Fiscal Analyst title on her application. She was credited with seven months of experience as a Fiscal Analyst. Any Fiscal Analyst duties she performed while in the Supervisor of Accounts position would be considered out-of-title. Agency Services did not follow up on that as the appellant needed an additional three years, five months of qualifying experience, and she had only two years, ten months as a Supervisor of Accounts. Nonetheless, the appellant’s current provisional position is Fiscal Analyst, which is not a supervisory title, and the appellant indicates that she supervises ten support staff. Her prior provisional title, Supervisor of Accounts, is a supervisory title, yet her duties appear to be greater than clerical. In sum, neither of these titles are appropriate given the duties that the appellant

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of the Division of Agency Services that appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date is amply supported by the record. Appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, appellant has failed to support her 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.