Indera Persaud, CSC Docket No. 2021-1773

BackgroundIndera Persaud 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’s closing date was February 21, 2021. The education requirements were 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 do 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 was administered on May 11, 2021, and two applicants were initially found eligible.1 Certification PL210662 was issued containing the names of the two eligibles and its disposition is due October 6, 2021. The list expires on June 30, 2024.

On her application, the appellant indicated that she had 24 college credits. She also indicated that she was a Principal Clerk from October 2018 to the

1 Agency Services has since indicated that one of the eligibles was incorrectly allowed to sit for the test and has now removed that applicant from the list.

February 21, 2021 closing date, a Principal Account Clerk from September 2013 to October 2018, a Principal Clerk from November 2005 to September 2013, a part- time Teacher - Business Classes from September 2001 to January 2007, a Senior Clerk from December 2001 to November 2005, and a Clerk from March 1997 to December 2001. Agency Services credited the appellant with nine months of experience based on her 24 college credits, but per the substitution clause determined that she lacked four years and three months of experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that as a Clerk 1, per State guidelines she reimbursed, created purchase orders, processed payments, assisted in bids, kept inventory, assisted in reporting, and provided customer service. Further, as a Clerk 2, she indicates that she followed State laws and guidelines regarding budget constraints and ensured bids went to those authorized. Also, the appellant states that she kept up on State law and used the online purchasing system. Additionally, she presents that as a Clerk 3, she followed State and department guidelines for payroll, which included checking, processing, and making payment and was involved in various functions in the payroll departments. The appellant also indicates that she assisted the Purchasing Assistant by gathering information from departments for bids, advertised bids, collected bid packets from bidders, and helped open bids at meetings. Subsequently, as a Principal Clerk and a Principal Account Clerk, she states that she reconciled and closed accounts, corrected invoices from vendors, and performed various tasks related to the transportation department’s 20 million dollar budget.

The appellant also questions how two specifically named individuals were admitted to the subject test, where she believes that she was more qualified than these individuals. She wonders if these applicants “mocked up” their applications to appear qualified. The appellant highlights how one of these individuals mainly worked in a school setting as a school clerk. Further, she indicates that these two individuals do not have college experience. She emphasizes her 24 years working independently in various positions as her supervisors just signed off on her work. The appellant asserts that she has worked in various departments performing difficult tasks and believes that she is more than qualified to sit for the subject test.

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

AnalysisIn this matter, a review of the appellant’s application, resume and appeal indicates that Agency Services correctly determined that she did not possess the required experience. In order for work to be accepted as administrative clerical experience, the 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). See also In the Matter of MaDonna Morris (CSC, decided June 2, 2021). Therefore, although there may have been some elements of the required duties in the appellant’s experience, her primary focus was performing clerical duties. In order for experience to be considered applicable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004).

Concerning the appellant’s comments about two specific individuals who sat for the subject test, a review indicates that Agency Services had determined that these two individuals were ineligible for the subject examination. However, due to administrative error, these two individuals were allowed to take the subject test and Agency Services indicates that their names are no longer on the eligible list.

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.