Susan Catlett-Oxendine, CSC Docket No. 2021-15

Appellant's argumentSusan Catlett-Oxendine requests reconsideration of the attached decision rendered on May 20, 2020 which upheld the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that her position is properly classified as Technical Assistant 3.

BackgroundBy way of background, the petitioner requested Agency Services review her position, alleging that she had been performing the duties and had the responsibilities of a Contract Administrator 2. Agency Services conducted a detailed analysis of her Position Classification Questionnaire (PCQ) and other documents, and found that the petitioner’s duties were those of a Technical Assistant 3. The petitioner appealed Agency Services’ determination to the Civil Service Commission (Commission) which found that her position is properly classified as Technical Assistant 3. In so doing, the Commission indicated that Agency Services found that the position is not responsible for exercising control and approval authority in the administration of grants and contracts. The position is responsible for monitoring the status of grants and contracts, providing technical assistance, and reviewing various actions ensuring that the grant process complies with rules, regulations, policies and procedures. During the audit, Agency Services found that the petitioner reviews and processes the work of the Business Service Representatives, but does not approve the grants. Additionally, her supervisor did not say that she approves the work of the Business Service Representatives or grants in his letter.

On reconsideration, the petitioner argues that a clear, material error has been made. Specifically, she states that the Commission erred in not explaining that the Business Service Representative title is professional, and she takes the lead over these individuals. Further, she states that her supervisor indicated that she is the lead staffer who converts the work of Business Service Representatives into invoices for the accounting unit or a contract if she advances it up through the executive approval chain. The petitioner maintains that converting this work is approving it for payment or approving it at the unit level prior to submission for executive approval by the Commissioner. She states that she indicated on her PCQ that she approved invoices and payment vouchers for grantees, and her supervisor agreed. The petitioner argues that she should not have to approve work, but only that she reviews the work of lower level contract administration and support staff, in this case, Business Service Representatives. Her supervisor, the Chief of Business Services, states that the appellant reviews the work of Business Service Representative 2s, a title in a higher class code, and advises them of needed corrections. She then converts the work submitted into processed invoices, or advances it up the executive approval chain if a contract is warranted. He states that the requested title is not supervisory, but is a coordinator, and that the appellant exerts control in the business process as the coordinator of the unit.

Appellant's argumentAs to new evidence, the petitioner argues that in January 2020, after submitting her classification appeal, she took on additional duties due to a leave of an incumbent Program Coordinator. She states that although this individual has returned, she retains the duties of acceptance and review of program applications, creation and approval of contracts, approval of reimbursement to employers, technical assistance to employers, and final closeout of contracts.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(b) sets forth the standards by which the Civil Service Commission may reconsider a prior decision. This rule provides that a party must show that a clear material error has occurred, or present new evidence or additional information not presented at the original proceeding which would change the outcome of the case and the reasons that such evidence was not presented at the original proceeding.

AnalysisAt the outset, the petitioner has not met the reconsideration criteria. She has not shown a clear material error or presented new evidence or additional information not presented at the original proceeding which would change the outcome of the case.

The first part of the definition of the requested title includes, “administers and exercises review and/or approval authority over various contracts and/or grants.” The petitioner has opined that approving invoices or submitting a grant for approval is the same. The petitioner does not contest that her position is responsible for monitoring the status of grants and contracts, providing technical assistance, and reviewing various actions ensuring that the grant process complies with rules, regulations, policies and procedures. Her supervisor has described the position as a coordinator of grants. However, the duties of the position do not rise to the level and scope of professional work. Professional work is predominantly intellectual in character, as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical or physical work, and it involves the consistent exercise of judgment. It is basically interpretive, evaluative, analytical and/or creative, requiring knowledge or expertise in a specialized field of knowledge. This is generally acquired by a course of intellectual or technical instruction, study and/or research at an institution of higher learning or acquired through an in-depth grasp of cumulative experience. However, there must be thorough familiarity with all the information, theories and assumptions implicit in the chosen field. Persons involved in professional work should be able to perceive, evaluate, analyze, formulate hypothesis, and think in the abstract. Positions are considered professional when the work requires application of professional knowledge and abilities, as distinguished from either the desirability of such application or the simple possession of professional knowledge and abilities.

The Contract Administrator 2 title is professional, requiring a Bachelor’s degree, while the Technical Assistant titles are para-professional, requiring an Associate’s degree or allowing for the possession of an Associate’s degree in lieu of experience. Job specifications are descriptive and illustrative of the general nature and scope of functions that may be performed and are not meant to be restrictive or inclusive. Moreover, it is not uncommon for an employee to perform some duties which are above or below the level of work normally performed. Examples of work of a Contract Administrator 2 include developing and administering contracts; conducting solicitation or RFP bidding process, drafting and negotiating contract language, and developing contract evaluation criteria; participating in the development of policy and procedure manuals containing financial and administrative contract/grant application guidelines; ensuring compliance with grant policies and procedures, and regulations; conducting contract award meetings; initiating, reviewing and finalizing scope of work and/or specification development documents for those projects requiring architect or engineer services; and collecting and analyzing data to prepare reports.

In contrast, the appellant’s duties were as follows: acts as first point of contact and liaison, provides technical information and answers questions about the grant program; monitors grant processes by ensuring that grantees are assigned to a Business Service Representative, verifying the completeness and accuracy of applications, contracts, letters, and billings, tracks the contract phase in the database, ensures correct funding sources are setup and modifications are made, reviews invoices for correctness, and processes payment vouchers; schedules staff meetings and prepares agendas, schedules panel meetings and provides information regarding grant programs and applicants; creates forms for processes and makes recommendations for improvement on policies and procedures; updates the NGO each fiscal year and makes recommendations regarding technical information to be included in the NGO; prepares detailed reports, compiles data, prepares a supplemental summary report at different stages of the grant process, and prepares correspondence; investigates the issues and problems in the grant process and recommends resolutions; and, maintains files and records. The appellant’s duties are technical or paraprofessional in nature. Persons in this group perform some of the duties of a professional, but as an aide, in a supportive role. The primary focus of the petitioner’s work is not at a professional level which would warrant the requested title.

The petitioner is now claiming that she performs additional duties as a Program Coordinator, assigned after Agency Services’ determination. As indicated in the prior decision, duties which were not initially presented and were not reviewed by Agency Services cannot be considered in a classification appeal to the Commission. Furthermore, a petition for reconsideration is not the forum to submit a new set of duties to be considered.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request be denied.

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