NJ Civil Service Navigator

Angela Medrano- Sanchez, CSC Docket No. 2021-901

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of March 24, 2021, CSC Docket No. 2021-901: examination eligibility, denied. Angela Medrano-Sanchez appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services, which found that she was below the minimum requirements in experience for a qualifying examination fo

Commission decisions · Meeting of March 24, 2021

Angela Medrano-Sanchez appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services, which found that she was below the minimum requirements in experience for a qualifying examination for Executive Assistant 1. file:///C/Users/rwolinsk.NJCSC/Desktop/meetings/meetings/minutes/032421m.html[12/16/2024 12:48:11 PM] Civil Service Commission | Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2021

Matter
Examination eligibility
Decided
March 24, 2021, item B-23
Outcome
Denied
Chair at the time
Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
Official decision
Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-023 03-24-21 QED.pdf)

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

Rules this decision applies

The decision

BackgroundAngela Medrano-Sanchez appeals the determination of the Division of the Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that she was below the minimum requirements in experience for a qualifying examination for Executive Assistant 1.

By way of background, Agency Services processed a qualifying examination for the appellant, to determine if she possessed the necessary qualifications for the subject title. The requirements for Executive Assistant 1 are graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and two years of experience in program management with responsibility for planning, organizing, coordinating, staffing, reporting, and budgeting, or in assisting an executive with program development and implementation. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute additional experience on a year for year basis. A Master’s degree in Public Administration, Business Administration, Management, or other closely related field could be substituted for one year of experience.

On her qualifying examination application, the appellant indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree, and therefore, she met the educational requirements. On her application, the appellant listed positions as Family Service Specialist 2; Family Service Specialist Trainee; Commercial General Liability Analyst (also referred to as Claims Analyst) for Zurich North America; Behavioral Health Mental Health Assistant for Bergen Regional Medical Center; Administrative Assistant for ADP Corporate Headquarters; and Market Research for The Wats Room. No out-of- title work was found. Therefore, since the appellant lacked two years of applicable program management or assistance with program development and implementation experience she did not pass the qualifying examination for the subject title.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that all her experience as a Behavioral Health Mental Health Assistant for Bergen Regional Medical Center, and as an Administrative Assistant for ADP Corporate Headquarters should be accepted.

CONCLUSION

At the outset, it must be underscored that a “Qualifying Examination” requires the candidate to demonstrate on her qualifying examination application that she possesses the necessary experience for the subject title to affect a lateral transfer to the title. Additionally, 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).

A review of the appellant’s application reveals that she does not meet the experience requirements for Executive Assistant 1. When an applicant indicates extensive experience in titles established under the State Classification Plan, it is appropriate to utilize the job specifications to determine the primary focus of the duties of incumbents serving in career service titles. Additionally, N.J.A.C. 4A:4- 2.5(a)1 states that professional titles require at least a Bachelor’s or higher level degree, with or without a clause to substitute experience. Thus, since the Executive Assistant 1 title requires completion of a Bachelor’s degree with a substitution clause, which permits additional experience in lieu of the college credits, as well as relevant experience, it is considered a professional title. As such, the experience requirement is at a professional level, which is accrued after completion of a Bachelor’s degree.

A review of the appellant’s history reveals that her experience as a Behavioral Health Mental Health Assistant for Bergen Regional Medical Center, and as an Administrative Assistant for ADP Corporate Headquarters, was accrued prior to completion of her Bachelor’s degree. Also, the primary focus of her Behavioral Health Mental Health Assistant position was communication with patients, families and employees, data collection, and document preparation, which is technical or clerical work. As an Administrative Assistant, the appellant conducted research, prepared statistical reports, handled information requests, prepared correspondence, received visitors, arranged conference calls and scheduled meetings and events, managed calendars, updated data, and answered calls. The primary focus of this position is clerical work. Neither of these positions has work that rises to the level and scope of the required experience.

The appellant’s experience as a Claims Specialist, Family Service Specialist 2, and Family Service Specialist Trainee is clearly inapplicable. To warrant an Executive Assistant 1 classification, the position should focus on program management with responsibility for planning, organizing, coordinating, staffing, reporting, and budgeting, or in assisting an executive with program development and implementation. The appellant’s current and prior held positions’ duties do not match the required duties.

Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant did not pass the subject qualifying examination. Therefore, she has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request 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 Bashkim Vlashi (June 9, 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.