NJ Civil Service Navigator

Rashad Maxwell, CSC Docket No. 2021-1562

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of July 21, 2021, CSC Docket No. 2021-1562: examination eligibility, denied. Rashad Maxwell appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services which found that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Principal Custodia

Commission decisions · Meeting of July 21, 2021

Rashad Maxwell appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services which found that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Principal Custodian (PM2141B), Jersey City School District.

Matter
Examination eligibility
Decided
July 21, 2021, item B-14
Outcome
Denied
Title
PRINCIPAL CUSTODIAN
Employer
Jersey City School District
Examination
PM2141B
Chair at the time
Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
Official decision
Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-014 07-21-21 ED.pdf)

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

Rules this decision applies

The decision

BackgroundRashad Maxwell appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Principal Custodian (PM2141B), Jersey City School District.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of February 21, 2020 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 in the titles Custodian or Senior Custodian OR to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title and who met the announced requirements. These requirements included three years of experience in work involving the heating, inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of furniture, offices, and buildings and the reconditioning, care, and maintenance of grounds, one year of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. The appellant was found to be below minimum requirements in experience. There are 11 candidates on the eligible list, which has been certified once, but no appointments have yet been made.

The appellant listed one position on his application, Night Boiler Operator from November 2005 to October 2019. The appellant indicated that he supervised six staff members in this position. However, the appellant’s County and Municipal Personnel System (CAMPS) record indicate that he was regularly appointed as a Boiler Operator on July 21, 2009 and that he was provisionally appointed to the title under test on November 12, 2019. Prior to that, the record indicates that he was a

Custodial Worker from August 1998 to October 1998. Although the appellant indicated that he supervised six support staff in his Boiler Operator position, this would be considered out-of-title work. The appellant met the general experience requirement, but was found to be lacking one year of supervisory experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that he is a Principal Custodian and he provides a list of duties of he has performed since his November 2019 provisional appointment. He also indicates that he was an “acting” Principal Custodian for four years prior to his provisional appointment and provides another list of duties. In support, the Director of Maintenance Services states that the appellant was hired on November 2018, and was an acting Principal Custodian for three years prior to that date. He provides no specific duties and responsibilities.

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 in pertinent part that 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, unless good cause is shown for an exception. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date.

AnalysisAt the outset, it is noted that the appellant did not properly complete his application. The appellant did not include his provisional position as a Principal Custodian from November 2019 to the February 2020 closing date on his application. Next, he indicated that he was employed from November 2005, when in fact he was appointed on July 21, 2009 to the title Boiler Operator. The appellant is cautioned to properly complete any future applications. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f), information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given title that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying and is accepted. However, any documentation indicating work in a setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. See In the Matter of Diana Begley (MSB, decided November 17, 2004). This supplemental information regarding his provisional appointment was received after the closing date and cannot be accepted. Assuming arguendo that it could be accepted, it would only provide him with five months of the required in-title supervisory experience and he would need an additional seven months of supervisory experience to qualify for the examination. Regardless, since the examination is competitive with 11 eligible candidates, there is no basis to relax this requirement in the instant matter.

In his appeal, the appellant states that he performed supervisory duties while in the title Boiler Operator for four years. Generally, the Civil Service 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 permanent appointments and verifies that the appellants have performed the relevant duties which otherwise satisfy the eligibility requirements. See In the Matter of John Cipriano, et al. (MSB, decided April 21, 2004). Further, the documentation of out-of-title work did not come from the appointing authority and does not delineate any duties. Regardless, as noted earlier, the examination is competitive and there is not a basis on which the Commission can relax N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) to accept any asserted out-of-title work. As a result, the appellant was correctly determined to lack one year of required supervisory experience.

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision 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 his 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.

Decisions this one cites

  • In the Matter of Diana Begley (November 17, 2004)
  • In the Matter of John Cipriano, et al. (April 21, 2004)

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.