NJ Civil Service Navigator

Lionel Borden, CSC Docket No. 2022-1625

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of April 27, 2022, CSC Docket No. 2022-1625: examination eligibility, granted. Lionel Borden, Sr. appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Customer Service In

Commission decisions · Meeting of April 27, 2022

Lionel Borden, Sr. appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Customer Service Information Specialist 3 (PS6319T), Motor Vehicle Commission.

Matter
Examination eligibility
Decided
April 27, 2022, item B-56
Outcome
Granted
Title
CUSTOMER SERVICE INFORMATION SPECIALIST 3
Employer
Motor Vehicle Commission
Examination
PS6319T
Chair at the time
Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
Official decision
Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-056 04-27-22 EG.pdf)

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

Rules this decision applies

The decision

BackgroundLionel Borden, Sr. appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Customer Service Information Specialist 3 (PS6319T), Motor Vehicle Commission.

The subject examination was open to, in pertinent part, applicants in the competitive division who possessed three years of experience in disseminating, verifying and providing information to the public as of the September 21, 2021 closing date. A total of 21 applicants applied for the subject examination and 12 were determined eligible. The examination was held on April 21, 2022, and the list has not yet promulgated.

A review of the appellant’s application and resume reveals that he provisionally served in the subject title from March 2020 to the September 21, 2021 closing date, and as a Technician, MVC from July 2011 to March 2020. Agency Services did not find any of the appellant’s experience applicable, as he did not adequately describe his experience on his application. Accordingly, Agency Services determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination, as he lacked three years of experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant maintains that he is qualified for the examination, and he provides a further clarification of his duties on appeal. Specifically, the appellant states that his duties included verifying, processing and issuing documents and duplicate information; completing permit, license, title, and registration applications; administering the oral and written driver examinations; completing vision tests; validating permits; finalizing license plate surrenders; verifying customer information and identification; using COMP computer system; processing payments; disseminating information; maintaining knowledge of policies and procedures; sorting documentation, and interacting with customers.

BackgroundOfficial personnel records indicate that the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the announcement by the closing date. Under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g), the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals.

AnalysisInitially, Agency Services properly did not credit the appellant with any applicable experience based on what was presented in his application. However, the appellant provides clarifying information on appeal with respect to his duties as a provisional in the subject title and as a Technician, MVC. Based on this clarification, the Commission is satisfied that such experience satisfies the announced requirements. In this regard, that experience involved the disseminating, verifying and providing information to the public. Under these circumstances, the appellant 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.

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.