Jennifer Morgan, CSC Docket No. 2022-17

BackgroundJennifer Morgan appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for the “dual” title Administrative Secretary/Office Services Manager (PC2972B), Cumberland County. A dual title is a title that combines two separate titles into one classification; applicants need to meet the minimum requirements of both titles in order to be declared eligible.

The subject examination announcement was issued with specific requirements which had to be met as of the December 21, 2020 closing date. The examination was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title, and who met the announced requirements of five years of experience in the capacity of a secretary to an executive or administrative official in a public or private organization AND five years of experience in the supervision of two or more office services functions involving records management, printing or duplication services, mail and messenger services, equipment maintenance and repair, procurement and supply, or other related functions in support of office operations and services. Successful completion of a two-year program in secretarial science at an accredited college or university could be substituted for two years of experience in the capacity of a secretary to an executive or administrative official in a public or private organization. Also, five years of experience in the analysis, evaluation, development, and improvement of office practices, methods, and procedures could be substituted for five years of experience in the supervision of two or more office services functions involving records management, printing or duplication services, mail and messenger services, equipment maintenance and repair, procurement and supply, or other related functions in support of office operations and services. The examination was canceled on June 28, 2021 since the appellant was the sole applicant.

The appellant listed four positions on her application, provisional Administrative Secretary/Office Services Manager, Keyboarding Clerk 3, Keyboarding Clerk 2, and Keyboarding Clerk 1. She was credited with four months of experience supervising office services functions in her provisional position. As such, she was found to be lacking four years, eight months of experience in the supervision of two or more office services functions, and five years of experience in the capacity of a secretary to an executive or administrative official.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant explains that while in the title Keyboarding Clerk 2, she was the secretary to the County Planning Director, who was the Department Head, and she supervised office functions. She states that the prior incumbent in this title retired in July 2020, at which time she took over the additional duties related to development review process, the Planning Board, and administrative and secretarial duties. She provides a list of duties for her provisional position that include solely examples of work from the Administrative Secretary portion of the job specification.

CONCLUSION

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:4-2.6(c) provides, in pertinent part, that applicants for promotional examinations with open competitive requirements may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy the requirements for admittance to the examination or for credit in the examination process, unless good cause is shown for an exception.

AnalysisIn this matter, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination. It is noted that qualifying experience has the announced experience requirement as the primary focus of the position. That is, the announced experience should be the main duty of the listed position. On her application, the appellant listed the following duties for her Keyboarding Clerk 3 position: purchase orders, payment of bills, compiling the county directory, recording secretary for Cultural & Heritage Commission, Tourism Advisory Council the Recreation Commission, attending and organizing county events, and handling of public information calls and requests. For Keyboarding Clerk 2, the appellant listed her duties as: handling of public information requests, compiling the county directory, payment of bills, purchase orders, organizing and participating in events, and recording secretary for Cultural & Heritage and Tourism Advisory County. For

Keyboarding Clerk 1, the appellant listed her duties as: public information secretary, compiling of the county directory, recording secretary for the Tourism Advisory Council, and organizing and assisting with events. For each of these positions, the primary function is clerical, not secretarial. Her Keyboarding Clerk 1 duties are insufficiently described to conclude that the appellant was serving in the capacity of a secretary to an executive or administrative official while in that position, and she provides no secretarial duties for either of the other positions. Lastly, the appellant indicated that she supervised staff in all three titles, although she listed no supervisory duties, and these are not supervisory titles. As such, any supervision would be out-of-title. Experience in these positions meets neither of the experience requirements.

The appellant described the duties of her provisional position as: payroll, purchase orders, overseeing professional and support staff with events, payment of bills, recording secretary for Recreation Commission, Tourism Advisory Council, Development Review and Planning Board, and processing plans that needed to be reviewed by the Development Review Committee. This description does not include any secretarial duties to an executive or administrative official. While the appellant claims to perform those duties on appeal, she merely copied Examples of Work verbatim from the job specification. Simply quoting the duties contained in the job specification on an application is not a sufficient basis on which to determine if a candidate’s specific duties would meet the requirements for an examination. Candidates must demonstrate that the duties they perform qualify them for admission to the examination. See In the Matter of Maxsine Allen and Vivian Stevenson (MSB, decided March 10, 2004). Duties that appear to mimic the required duties listed on the job specification rather than describe actual responsibilities while serving in a particular position, in the absence of any corroborating information, is not acceptable. Of the duties listed in her own words, the majority were office services functions in nature. The appellant lacks four years, eight months of experience in the supervision of two or more office services functions, and five years of experience in the capacity of a secretary to an executive or administrative official.

At this point, it appears that the appellant’s provisional position may be misclassified. Therefore, the appellant and appointing authority should complete the attached Position Classification Questionnaire (PCQ) and Application for Qualifying Examination (Request for Pre-Appointment Evaluation) and submit them Agency Services within 30 days of the issuance date on this decision. If the appellant is found to be performing the duties of an Administrative Secretary/Office Services Manager, another examination can be announced. If it is determined that the appellant’s provisional position should be reclassified, should the appellant be found not eligible for the new provisional appointment, she should be returned to her regular prior-held title at that time.

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date is amply supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied, and the appellant’s position undergo a classification review.

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