Amy Turcich, CSC Docket No. 2021-419

BackgroundAmy Turcich appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the promotional examination for Program Specialist 2 Social Human Services (PS0997H), Department of Health.

The subject examination had a closing date of December 23, 2019 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 title Program Specialist 1 Social Human Services 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 graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and two years of experience in planning, monitoring, coordinating, implementing, modifying and/or evaluating a social or human services program. Applicants who did not meet the announced educational requirement could substitute experience as indicated on a year for year basis. A Master’s degree in a Social/Human services specialty area, Public or Business Administration, Child Advocacy and Policy, or Child Advocacy and Policy with a concentration in Public Child Welfare could be substituted for one year of experience. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience. Three candidates appear on the eligible list which has been certified twice, and one has been appointed.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in Human Nutrition, which could substitute for one year of experience. Therefore, the appellant was required to possess one year of applicable experience. She listed the following positions on her application and resume: Clinical Nutritionist, Clinical Dietician, Clinical Nutritionist and LTC Clinical Dietician, per diem Dietitian, Clinical Dietician, Clinical LTC Dietitian, Clinical Nutrition Supervisor, Clinical Staff Dietician, Nutrition Care Manager, Registered Dietician, and a Graduate Assistant position. The appellant was credited with seven months of experience as a Clinical Nutrition Supervisor, and she was found to be lacking five months of applicable experience. On appeal, the appellant argues that she has 27 years of experience as a registered Dietician and Clinical Nutritionist, and she provides some duties she has performed.

CONCLUSION

A review of the appellant’s application reveals that the decision by Agency Services, denying the appellant’s admittance to the subject examination since she does not possess the required experience, was correct. She received credit for her experience as a Clinical Nutrition Supervisor, however, she could not receive credit for her remaining experience, as the experience did not have the announced requirements as the primary focus of the positions. Rather, aside from her Graduate Assistant position which was clearly inapplicable, her current position and remaining prior positions have casework in involving individualized nutrition plans for clients as the primary focus. A Clinical Nutritionist does not plan, monitor, coordinate, implement, modify and/or evaluate a social or human services program, but is responsible for evaluation of the nutrition status of assigned clients and develops nutrition care plans. This title performs the work of the program, and the appellant did not indicate out-of-title duties for her positions in this title. Therefore, she lacks five months of applicable experience.

The appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since she lacked the minimum requirements in experience. An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services, that the appellant does not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date, is amply supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her 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.