Lori Hiltz, CSC Docket No. 2022-1020

BackgroundLori Hiltz 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 Office Services Manager.

By way of background, the appellant was appointed provisionally, pending a qualifying examination (PAQ), in the Office Services Manager title, effective January 1, 2021. Agency Services processed the qualifying examination for the appellant to determine if she possessed the necessary qualifications for the subject title, and it determined that she did not possess such qualifications. As such, the appointing authority removed the appellant from the provisional position and returned her to her underlying permanent position of Administrative Clerk, effective October 13, 2021. The requirement for the Office Services Manager title is five years of experience in the supervision of two or more office services functions involving records management, printing or duplication of services, mail and messenger services, equipment maintenance and repair, procurement and supply, or other related functions in support of office operations and services. It is noted that five years of experience in the analysis, evaluation, development, and improvement of office practices, methods, and procedures could have been substituted for the above noted experience requirements.

On her September 13, 2021, application for the qualifying examination, the appellant listed that she served as a provisional Office Services Manager from January 2021 to September 2021, as an Administrative Clerk from January 2018 to

December 2020, and as a Data Entry Machine Operator from January 1999 to December 2017.1 Agency Services credited her for 10 months of experience for her provisional service as an Office Services Manager. However, it did not credit her with any other experience. Accordingly, Agency Services determined that the appellant did not pass the qualifying examination for the subject title, as she lacked four years and two months of experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant provides an explanation of the duties she performed while serving provisionally in the subject title and in her underlying permanent positions. Specifically, the appellant contends that her duties included overseeing records management; determining if records should be destroyed; coordinating with vendors; obtaining quotes; overseeing purchase order submissions; verifying purchase order submissions are ready for payment; maintaining service schedules and inventory records for equipment; coordinating with vendors pertaining to purchase orders with respect to floor plans and furniture office equipment; submitting purchase order information to her supervisors for approval; distributing orders to employees with respect to repairs; scheduling non-priority repairs; and maintaining records pertaining to annual reports, operating expenses, salary and wage budgets, payroll, utility costs and accounts payable, and office services. 2

CONCLUSION

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.6(c) and N.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.8(c) provide that an employee who fails the qualifying examination shall be restored to their permanent title, unless disqualified for further employment. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

1 The appellant described her duties on the subject application as, “managing the administrative office for buildings and grounds; overseeing the processing of invoices; resolving problems as consistent with policy and procedure; coordinating the preparation of annual operating budget, coordinating the preparation of annual salary and wage budget; completing accounts payable; tracking balances of availability of funds; working with supervisors to ensure that employee time is correct; updating FMLA leave and disability cases; managing the requisition process; gathering documentation for new hires and promoted employees; using Kronos time system; verifying sick and vacation time; managing the work order system, responding to user requests, prioritizing level of urgency, preparing workflow, directing requests to the appropriate trades; generating work orders for service requests; using the E-maintenance system; closing work orders; maintaining work order files according to retention schedules; overseeing records management, determining if records should be destroyed; preparing documents for destruction; scheduling removal of destroyed records; maintaining spreadsheets; preparing utility usage reports; preparing purchasing bids; completing administrative tasks; delegating routine clerical duties; acting as computer liaison to information technology unit; ensuring software updates are completed; coordinating schedules for computer related training for employees; and serving as liaison to Office of Risk Management for insurance reimbursement.” 2 Such information was not indicated on the appellant’s application for the subject title.

At the outset, a “Qualifying Examination” requires candidate to demonstrate on the application for the subject examination that he or she possesses the necessary experience for a particular title in order to effectuate a lateral or demotional title change to the title with permanent status. In this matter, based on the information provided on her application for the subject title, Agency Services properly determined that the appellant was not qualified for the examination. A review of the information submitted by the appellant in this matter does not show that Agency Services improperly determined that she is not qualified for the subject examination, or substantiate her claims on appeal that she is qualified for the examination. Moreover, the information indicated on her application is essentially equivalent to responses on a multiple-choice, or an “assembled” examination, and is considered the “test papers” that would potentially result in the appellant’s appointment if found eligible for the subject examination. However, as noted above, the appellant has not presented any information in this matter to show that an error was made with respect to the scoring of the qualifying examination based on the information presented on her application for the subject examination. Moreover, the appointing authority did not provide any information in support of the appellant’s application for the subject examination, nor any arguments or information in this matter in support of the appellant’s appeal.

Moreover, the duties the appellant provides on appeal do not demonstrate that she meets the listed requirements. In this regard, on her application, other than her provisional experience, did not demonstrate that she, as a primary focus, supervised two or more office programs or had applicable experience in the analysis, evaluation, development and improvement of office practices, methods and procedures. In this regard, applicable experience must have as its primary focus, full-time duties and responsibilities required for the title under test. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). Moreover, there is not basis to accept the information the appellant now submits on appeal with respect to her duties, as it would be considered an inappropriate amendment of the subject application. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f). Accordingly, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant did not pass the subject qualifying examination. Therefore, she has failed to support his 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.