Jamie Morris, CSC Docket No. 2022-1583

BackgroundJamie Morris appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Classification Officer 2 (PS3210I), Department of Corrections.

The promotional examination was announced with specific requirements which had to be satisfied by the August 23, 2021 closing date. The requirements were graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, including or supplemented by 24 semester hour credits in a combination of any of the following areas: criminal justice, legal research, law, sociology, psychology or other related areas of behavioral or social sciences, and three years of experience in program delivery or development in providing education, habilitative, or social services for persons with emotional, social or behavioral problems, or, experience in the review of records and classification of inmates which shall have included providing recommendations for vocational and other rehabilitative programs, and/or probation or parole work with inmates of a penal or correctional facility. It was noted that applicants who successfully completed the 24 semester hour credits in the fields listed above but did not meet the remaining education requirement could have substituted additional experience as indicated above on a year-for-year basis, with 30 semester hour credits being equal one year of experience.

Agency records indicate that the examination was processed as a ranked, unassembled exam, where candidates were scored based on their education and experience. The resulting eligible list of four names promulgated on December 23, 2021. One certification (PS220242) containing all four names issued on March 15, 2022. However, the certification has not yet been returned for disposition.

As the appellant did not possess a Bachelor’s degree, he needed the equivalent of seven years of credits/experience per the substitution clause. On his application and resume, the appellant listed that he possessed 58 college credits, including 24 in the required fields. Agency Services credited him with one year and 11 months of applicable experience for his education. The appellant also indicated that he served provisionally in the subject title from November 2019 to the August 2021 closing date, as a Technical Assistant, Classification from March 2015 to November 2019, as a Technical Assistant 3 from May 2014 to March 2015, and as a Classification Officer 1 from November 2012 to May 2014.1 Agency Services credited the appellant with one year and seven months of applicable experience for his work as a Classification Officer 1. As such, Agency Services determined that the appellant was ineligible for the examination, as he lacked three years and six months of applicable experience per the substitution clause.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant maintains that he has sufficient applicable experience to qualify for the examination, including providing recommendations for vocational and other rehabilitative programs, and parole work with inmates while serving as a Classification Officer 1 and as a Technical Assistant, Classification.2

BackgroundAgency records indicate that the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title. Additionally, the record reflects that a January 9, 2020 classification determination recommended that the appropriate classification of the appellant’s position is Classification Officer 2.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6 provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g) provides that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) states that the Commission may relax a rule for good cause in order to effectuate the purposes of Title 11A, New Jersey Statutes.

Analysis1 Official personnel records reflect that the appellant served as a provisional Classification Officer 2 from November 2019 to the closing date, as a Technical Assistant, Classification from August 2018 to October 2019, as a Technical Assistant 3 from May 2014 to August 2018 and from December 2002 to November 2012, and as a Classification Officer 1 from November 2012 to May 2014. 2 The appellant’s provisional Classification Officer 2 appointment was based on a classification review while he was serving as a Technical Assistant, Classification. The appellant indicated he performed the higher level duties beginning in March 2015.

In the present matter, the appellant should be admitted to the subject examination. Although the appellant’s experience in his positions of Technical Assistant, Classification and Technical Assistant 3 would normally be considered at too low a level for the current title, the Commission is satisfied that the totality of his experience, including the additional 10 months of applicable experience as a provisional Classification Officer 2, satisfies the announced requirements. In this regard, the classification determination found that the proper classification of the appellant’s position is Classification Officer 2, and the appellant indicates that he performed such duties since March 2015. The Commission has no reason to not accept the appellant’s assertions in that regard. Under these circumstances, the appellant’s experience in the titles of Technical Assistant, Classification and Technical Assistant 3 since March 2015 should be accepted, for eligibility purposes,3 and he should be admitted to the examination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted and the appellant’s application be processed for prospective employment opportunities only.

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