Martin Ingenbrandt IV, CSC Docket No. 2021-529

BackgroundMartin Ingenbrandt IV appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that his position with Department of the Treasury is properly classified as Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems. He seeks an Administrative Analyst 3, Information Systems job classification in this proceeding.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant requested a review of his position as an Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems, the title to which he was regularly appointed on September 15, 2016. His position, located in the Department of the Treasury, Division of Revenue and Enterprise Services, Forms and Software Development, reports to an Administrative Analyst 4, Information Systems, and has no supervisory responsibility. The appellant sought a reclassification of his position, alleging that his duties are more closely aligned with the duties of an Administrative Analyst 3, Information Systems. Agency Services performed a classification review including an analysis of the submitted Position Classification Questionnaire (PCQ) and all other documentation, and a telephone review with the appellant and his supervisor. Based on its review of the information provided, Agency Services concluded that the appellant’s position was properly classified as Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems. Specifically, Agency Services stated that the Administrative Analyst 3, Information Systems title is a lead worker title, and the position has no lead worker responsibilities.

On appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant argues that his is the lead analyst in certain areas of work, as he gathers information, attends conference calls and meetings, develops test data, tests software packages, assigns tests to others to review as necessary, gives permissions in systems, recognizes issues and problems, and reviews data. He argues that he does not “assist” others, as stated in the Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems job specification, but performs the work himself, as indicated in the Administrative Analyst 3, Information Systems job specification, and is assisted by others.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9(e) states that in classification appeals, the appellant shall provide copies of all materials submitted, the determination received from the lower level, statements as to which portions of the determination are being disputed, and the basis for appeal. Information and/or argument which was not presented at the prior level of appeal shall not be considered.

The definition section of the job specification for Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems states:

Under limited supervision of an Administrative Analyst 4, Information

AnalysisSystems, or other supervisory officer in a state department or agency, assists in the analysis and evaluation of internal operations, business practices, methods, and techniques of the organization to determine optimal solutions and/or approaches to satisfy agency information technology (IT) business needs/initiatives. Assists in the evaluation of users’ needs and recommends IT solutions; does other related duties as required.

RuleThe definition section of the job specification for Administrative Analyst 3, Information Systems states:

Under general supervision of an Administrative Analyst 4, Information

AnalysisSystems, or other supervisory officer in a state department or agency, performs the analysis and evaluation of internal operations, business practices, methods and techniques of the organization to determine optimal solutions and/or approaches to satisfy agency information technology (IT) business needs/initiatives; evaluates users’ needs and recommends (IT) solutions; provides recommendations in support of the agency’s business needs and IT goals and objectives; formulates and/or recommends IT policies and procedures; may function as project leader; does other related duties as required.

It is noted that classification determinations list only those duties which are considered to be the primary focus of appellant’s duties and responsibilities that are performed on a regular, recurring basis. See In the Matter of David Baldasari (Commissioner of Personnel, decided August 22, 2006). It is long-standing policy that upon review of a request for position classification, when it is found that the majority of an incumbent’s duties and responsibilities correspond to the examples of work found in a particular job specification, that title is deemed the appropriate title for the position.

There is no dispute that the appellant’s duties involve performing the required work. This position was classified as an Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems on the basis that the appellant does not take the lead over assigned employees. So long as an incumbent functions as a lead worker and meets the other criteria found in the job definition, an Administrative Analyst 3, Information Systems the classification is permitted. A leadership role refers to those persons whose titles are non-supervisory in nature, but are required to act as a leader of a group of employees in titles at the same or a lower level than themselves and perform the same kind of work as that performed by the group being led. See In the Matter of Catherine Santangelo (Commissioner of Personnel, decided December 5, 2005). Duties and responsibilities would include training, assigning and reviewing work of other employees on a regular and recurring basis, such that the lead worker has contact with other employees in an advisory position, mentoring others in work of the title series.

In this case, the position is not responsible for instructing and guiding lower level employees, monitoring staff to see if they follow regulations and procedures, checking the work of lower level employees in the title series for accuracy, or other mentoring tasks. A review of the organizational chart for the unit indicates no lower lever employees in the unit that are in this title series. As such, the appellant is clearly not performing lead worker duties. Also, the audit found that the primary function of the position is to assist the e-file supervisor with developing, designing, revising, implementing, testing and supporting electronic filing applications, and assisting with supporting the tools/applications relating to moving and validating data in the e-file pipeline. Based on the above, the appellant is clearly not performing the duties of an Administrative Analyst 3, Information Systems, and his primary duties can be adequately described by the definition for Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems.

A thorough review of the information presented in the record establishes that the appellant’s position is properly classified as Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems, and he has not presented a sufficient basis to establish that his position is improperly classified.

ORDER

Therefore, the position of the Martin Ingenbrandt IV is properly classified as an Administrative Analyst 2, Information Systems.

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