Cheryl Boknoski, CSC Docket No. 2022-1627

BackgroundCheryl Boknoski appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Program Specialist, Health Facilities Evaluation and Licensing (PS6224H), Department of Health.

The subject examination’s closing date was September 21, 2021. The education requirement was a Bachelor’s degree. The experience requirements were three years of experience in a government or private agency in the design, implementation, and enforcement of policy and/or procedures regarding the administration, evaluation, licensing or regulation of health care facilities, health programs, or managed health care organizations. Applications who did not possess the required Bachelor’s degree but who have graduated from an accredited school of nursing and possess a license as a Registered Professional Nurse (RN), may substitute two additional years of experience for the Bachelor’s degree. A Master’s degree in a health care profession, public health, public administration, business administration, management, health administration, health planning, health economics, health care administration, or other related field could have been substituted for one year of experience as indicated. A total of four candidates applied and all were deemed ineligible. Therefore, the examination was cancelled due to a lack of qualified candidates.

On her application, the appellant indicated that she had a Bachelor’s degree and was provisionally serving in the subject title from June 2019 to the September 21, 2021, closing date, a Program Specialist 3, Social/Human Services from March

2017 to June 2019, a Family Service Specialist 2 from October 2005 to March 2017, and various positions in the private sector from 1985 to 2004. Personnel records indicate that she was provisionally serving in the subject title from June 2019 to the closing date, a Program Specialist 3 from October 2018 to June 2019, a Program Specialist 3, Social/Human Services from March 2017 to October 2018, a Family Service Specialist 2 from October 2006 to March 2017, and a Family Service Specialist Trainee from October 2005 to October 2006. Agency Services credited the appellant with two years and four months of experience based on her provisional service in the subject title, but found her other experience inapplicable.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, in addition to her provisional service in the subject title, the appellant presents that she was a Program Specialist 3 for the Department of Children and Families. In this position, she explains that she was a program lead for the design of an enhanced structured decision-making tool that evaluated children and family needs including the health programs to be used that focus on improving mental and physical well-being. The appellant states that during her over 16 years of State service, she implemented and enforced policy and procedures regarding the administration of health programs, including behavioral and mental health. She indicates that she implemented procedures regarding the health programs to protect a child’s physical and mental well-being, which involved working with nurses from the Department of Children and Families’ health unit and child health community providers to implement policy and procedure to best assist children and their families. She notes that parents often struggled with substance use disorder and she enforced procedures regarding the administration of substance use services, working directly with Preferred Behavioral Health, the local provider for those services at the time. The appellant also submits a letter in support of her appeal from a Program Manager, Operations and Budget for the Division of Health Facilities Evaluation and Licensing, explaining how the appellant has been performing the required duties while provisionally serving in the subject title and how crucial she is to its operations. Further, the Program Manager believes that the appellant’s experience with the Department of Children and Families should be considered applicable experience because she directly supported the physical and emotional health of family members by providing stable environments.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) states that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) may relax a rule for good cause in order to effectuate the purpose of Title 11A, New Jersey Statutes. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn this matter, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible as she lacked eight months of the required experience by the September 21, 2021, closing date. Specifically, the appellant’s experience as a Program Specialist 3 with the Department of Children and Families was not in a health care facility, health program or managed care organization and her other State service involved social/casework for children. However, the appellant continues to provisionally serve in the subject title and has gained the required experience after the closing date and the subject examination has been cancelled due to a lack of qualified candidates. The 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). Therefore, the Commission finds good cause under N.J.A.C. 4A:1- 1.2(c) to relax the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) and accept the appellant’s experience gained after the closing date, for eligibility purposes only, and admit her to the subject examination.

This determination is limited to the instant matter and does not provide precedent in any other matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appeal be granted, the examination cancellation be rescinded, 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.