Jodi Botlinger, CSC Docket No. 2021-1456

BackgroundJodi Botlinger appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that, per the substitution clause for education, she failed to meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Personnel Officer (PM2285B), Burlington Township.

The subject examination was open, in part, to employees in the competitive division who possessed a Bachelor’s degree and three years of supervisory personnel experience including the review of classification problems and wage studies, handling personnel problems, and coordination of the training needs of the jurisdiction as of the March 23, 2020 closing date. 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. The subject examination was cancelled on April 10, 2021, after the appellant, the only applicant, was deemed ineligible.

On her application, the appellant stated that she possessed a high school diploma or GED. Therefore, pursuant to the substation clause for education she needed to possess seven years of applicable experience. With regard to her experience, the appellant stated that she served as a Principal Payroll Clerk from January 2006 to the closing date (March 2020); as a Principal Account Clerk from July 1996 to January 2006; as a Senior Account Clerk from July 1993 to July 1996; as an Account Clerk from July 1991 to July 1993; and as a Keyboarding Clerk from March 1990 to July 1991. Agency records indicate that the appellant was provisionally appointed to the title of Personnel Officer, effective January 1, 2020. Upon review of her application, Agency Services credited the appellant with three months of applicable experience based upon her provisional service in the subject title. However, Agency Services noted that any applicable duties that the appellant may have performed while serving in the title of Principal Payroll Clerk would be considered out-of-title work. Therefore, she was found to be lacking six years and nine months of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that she has been performing the duties of a Personnel Officer while serving in the title of Principal Payroll Clerk, dating to 2006, including assisting the Township Administrator with job classifications, personnel wages, reviewing and assisting reclassifications, completing certifications on behalf of the appointing authority, entering provisional appointments, and other related duties that are consistent with the title of Personnel Officer. The appellant also proffers that she has completed a Human Resource Management Program offered by this agency.

Appointing authority's argumentThe appointing authority submits a letter of support in which it verifies that the appellant performed the duties of a Personnel Officer while serving in the title of Principal Payroll Clerk.

BackgroundAgency records indicate that the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants must meet all requirements specified in a 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 may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy eligibility requirements.

AnalysisIn this matter, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination because she did not meet the experience requirement as of the March 23, 2020 closing date. A review of the record indicates that the appellant performed applicable duties as a Principal Payroll Clerk. However, any applicable duties she performed while serving in that title would be considered out-of-title work. Ordinarily, the Commission looks to whether or not “good cause” has been established in determining whether to grant or deny appeals involving out-of-title work. Generally, the Commission finds good cause where the record evidences that the examination situation is not competitive, no third parties are adversely impacted, and the appointing authority wishes to effect a permanent appointment and verifies that the appellant has performed the relevant duties which otherwise satisfy the eligibility requirements. See In the Matter of John Cipriano, et al. (MSB, decided April 21, 2004). Here, the appointing authority has confirmed that the appellant possesses six years and nine months of experience performing applicable out-of-title duties while serving in the Principal Payroll Clerk title. Furthermore, the record evidences that the examination situation is not competitive since the examination was cancelled, given that the appellant, the only applicant, was deemed ineligible. Moreover, the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title. As such, good cause exists in this particular case to accept the appellant’s out-of-title work experience, for eligibility purposes only, and admit her to the examination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted, the cancellation of the examination be rescinded and the appellant’s application be processed.

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