NJ Civil Service Navigator

FRANK PANICA AND JASON SNELLBAKER, CSC Docket No. 2022-116, 2022-125

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of September 1, 2021, CSC Docket No. 2022-116: request for enforcement, granted. Frank Panica and Jason Snellbaker appeal the determinations of the Division of Agency Services which found that they were below the minimum requirements in education for the promotio

Commission decisions · Meeting of September 1, 2021

Frank Panica and Jason Snellbaker appeal the determinations of the Division of Agency Services which found that they were below the minimum requirements in education for the promotional examinations for Chief, Bureau of Law Enforcement (PS4033G), Department of Environmental Protection.

Matter
Request for enforcement
Decided
September 1, 2021, item B-55
Outcome
Granted
Employer
Environmental Protection
Examination
PS4033G
Chair at the time
Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
Official decision
Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-055 09-01-21 EG.pdf)

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that these appeals be granted.

Rules this decision applies

The decision

BackgroundFrank Panica and Jason Snellbaker appeal the determinations of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that they were below the minimum requirements in education for the promotional examinations for Chief Bureau of Law Enforcement (PS4033G), Department of Environmental Protection.

The examination at issue was announced with a closing date of November 23, 2020. The examination was open to employees in the competitive division serving in the titles of Supervising Conservation Officer and Conservation Officer 1 who meet specific educational requirements. In this regard, applicates were required to possess a Bachelor’s degree in Biology or Natural Resource Management, including or supplemented by 18 semester hour credits in Fisheries Science and/or Wildlife Science. A total of four employees applied for and two were deemed eligible to compete in the subjection examination that has not yet been conducted.

On their applications, the appellants indicated that they possessed a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. Upon its review, Agency Services determined that they did not possess the required degree in Biology or Natural Resource Management.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellants state that their Environmental Studies degree qualified them for service in the Conservation Officer title series. However, the educational requirements for subject title do not “fall in line” with the Conservation Officer series. As such, they maintain restricting the degree requirements to Biology or Natural Resource Management to the Chief title unreasonably restricts the ability of many in the Conservation Officer title series an opportunity for advancement. In support of these appeals, the appointing authority states that the job specifications for Conservation Officer Recruit up through Conservation Officer 1 allow for a degree in twenty subject areas. The job specification for Supervising Conservation Officer allows for a degree in four subject areas, and the one for Chief, Bureau of Law Enforcement (EP) accepts only two degrees. The appointing authority explains that this stalls the career path and is unfair to employees who have worked their way up this title series and qualify for the Chief position in all other respects. Additionally, the appointing authority notes that it is currently working with Agency Services to revise the job specifications for the Supervising and Chief titles to include the same degree areas as the lower titles. However, since this may be a lengthy process, the appointing authority supports a rule relaxation to allow the appellants to be admitted to the subject examination.

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) provides that a rule may be relaxed for good cause in a particular circumstance in order to effectuate the purpose of Title 11A, New Jersey Statutes.

CONCLUSION

Initially, Agency Services properly determined that the appellants did not meet the announced education requirements as of the closing date since they did not possess a Bachelor’s degree in either Biology or Natural Resource Management. However, as noted by the appellants and the appointing authority, the educational requirements of the Conservation Officer title series, a series which promotes to the Chief, Bureau of Law Enforcement title, permit utilization of the Environmental Studies degree. Further, the appointing authority has indicated that it is working with Agency Services to review and make possible revisions to the job specifications and requirements of the subject title, Moreover, the subject examination is not competitive as only two applicants were admitted to the examination. The Civil Service Commission notes that the dual purpose of the Civil Service system is to ensure efficient public service for State and local governments and to provide appointment and advancement opportunities to Civil Service employees based on their merit and abilities. These interests are best served when more, rather than fewer, individuals are presented with employment opportunities. See Communications Workers of America v. New Jersey Department of Personnel, 154 N.J. 121 (1998). As such, under these unique circumstances, good cause exists to accept the appellants Bachelor’s degrees in Environmental Studies and admit them to the subject examination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these appeals be granted, and the appellants’ applications be processed for prospective employment opportunities only.

Decisions this one cites

  • Communications Workers of America v. New Jersey Department of Personnel 154 N.J. 121

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.