Robert Jackson, CSC Docket No. 2021-1972

BackgroundRobert Jackson appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Agency Services Representative 3 (PS4325K), Division of Developmental Disabilities.

The subject examination’s closing date was January 21, 2021. The experience requirements were three years of experience providing information and support to customers or clients, responding to technical inquiries and/or complaints regarding products, services or programs, or collecting payments in a government or office setting. A total of two employees applied for the subject examination and both were determined ineligible. Therefore, the examination was cancelled due to a lack of qualified candidates.

On his application, the appellant indicated that he was provisionally serving in the subject title from November 2019 to January 2021, and a Technical Assistant from July 2013 to November 2019. Personnel records also indicate that he was a Senior Clerk from September 2010 to July 2013, a Clerk from January 2004 to September 2010, and a Support Services CWA from July 2003 to January 2004. Agency Services credited him with one year and three months of experience based on his provisional service in the subject title, but determined that he lacked one year and nine months of experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant clarifies that as a Technical Assistant for the Department of the Treasury, he provided support and information in response to technical inquiries regarding tax collections or claims.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g) provides that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. For example, information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given position that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying and is accepted.

AnalysisInitially, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible as he did not clearly articulate on his application that he provide information and support in response to technical inquiries as a Technical Assistant. However, on appeal, the appellant clarified how he performed the required duties while serving as a Technical Assistant for over six years. Therefore, the Commission finds that the appellant has sufficiently clarified that he has been performing the required duties for more than the required time by the closing date. See In the Matter of Diana Begley (MSB, decided November 17, 2004). The appellant is cautioned to, in the future, fill out any applications completely, accurately and as indicated in the instructions. Failure to do so will result in his ineligibility for future examinations.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appeal be granted, the cancellation of the examination be rescinded and the appellant’s application be processed for prospective employment opportunities only.

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