NJ Civil Service Navigator

MaDonna Morris, CSC Docket No. 2021-1402

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of June 2, 2021, CSC Docket No. 2021-1402: examination eligibility, denied. MaDonna Morris appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Management Assistant (PM2

Commission decisions · Meeting of June 2, 2021

MaDonna Morris appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Management Assistant (PM2136B), Jersey City School District.

Matter
Examination eligibility
Decided
June 2, 2021, item B-12
Outcome
Denied
Title
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
Employer
Jersey City School District
Examination
PM2136B
Chair at the time
Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
Official decision
Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-012 06-02-21 ED.pdf)

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be denied.

Rules this decision applies

The decision

BackgroundMaDonna Morris appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Management Assistant (PM2136B), Jersey City School District.

The subject examination closing date was February 21, 2020. The education requirement was a Bachelor’s degree. The experience requirements were one year of experience performing complex administrative support work which must have included the interpretation, verification and/or application of department/agency rules, regulations, policies and procedures. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute additional experience as indicated on a year for year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. A total of 20 employees applied and six were admitted. The test is scheduled to be administered on May 11, 2021.

On her application, the appellant indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree. Additionally, she indicated that she was provisionally serving in the subject title from August 2013 to the February 21, 2020 closing date, a Clerk 3 from September 2009 to August 2013, and a Records Retrieval Operator from October 2001 to September 2009. Personnel records indicate that the appellant was provisionally serving in the subject title from November 2019 to the February 21, 2020 closing date, a Records Support Technician 2 from December 2015 to

November 2019, a Clerk 3 from March 2015 to December 2015, a Records Support Technician 1 from April 2011 to March 2015, a Records Retrieval Operator from March 2006 to April 2011, and a Clerk 1 from October 2001 to March 2006. Agency Services credited the appellant for her Bachelor’s degree and having four months of experience based on her provisional service in the subject title, but determined that the appellant lacked eight months of the required experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant submits a letter of support from the appointing authority. Further, the appellant describes how she has been performing the required duties since she was appointed as a Records Support Technician 2. She also submits samples of her work to demonstrate that she has been performing the required duties.

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.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) provides that, except when permitted for good cause, applicants for promotional examinations with open-competitive requirements may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy the requirements for admittance to the examination or for credit in the examination process.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides, in pertinent part, that the appellant shall have the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn this matter, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination. The appellant received credit for her Bachelor’s degree and her four months of provisional service as of the February 21, 2020 closing date, but she lacked eight months of required experience. The subject examination requires one years of complex administrative support experience. The appellant presents her experience as a Records Support Technician 2. However, although a Records Support Technician 2’s duties may be considered technical/complex clerical duties, they are not complex administrative support duties. A review of the job specification for that title indicates that incumbents primarily focus on processing and filing records. In order to be accepted as administrative clerical experience, duties performed must be complex and involve frequent exercise of independent judgment. Administrative clerical work extends beyond basic tasks such as opening and sorting mail, recording messages, and routine manual or electronic document preparation. Administrative clerical work requires greater knowledge of a specialized content area. It involves the application of procedures and/or multiple processing steps to complete an assignment or transaction. Incumbents may be responsible for gathering requested data and using automated systems to update, store and retrieve or locate information, and can make determinations on the completeness and accuracy of documents, forms and other information. Administrative clerical work likely involves a variety of related tasks to complete an assignment or transaction. It implies complete responsibility for the specific content area. Some examples include: processing tax liens, delegated executive correspondence, reviewing and processing applications for licenses, permits and other documents, and updating account information. See In the Matter of Julia Tirado (MSB, decided June 8, 2005). Therefore, if the appellant is claiming that she performed the required duties while serving as a Records Support Technician 2, she would be performing out-of-title work, which is generally not applicable for a promotional examination. Additionally, as the list is complete, there is no basis to relax the rules.

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.

Decisions this one cites

  • In the Matter of Julia Tirado (June 8, 2005)

Later decisions that cite this one

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.