Serena Falzini, CSC Docket No. 2022-1723

BackgroundSerena Falzini appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the open competitive examination for Software Development Specialist 2 (S0609C), Statewide.

The subject examination had a November 22, 2021, closing date. The education requirement was a Bachelor’s degree. The experience requirements were two years of programming, systems analysis, or computer analysis experience. Applicants who did not possess the required education could have substituted additional experience on a year-for-year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. A Master’s degree in an Information Technology field could have been substituted for one year of experience. A total of 15 individuals applied and 10 were determined eligible. Certifications OS220039, OS220040, OS220042, OS220077, OS220109 and OS220163 were issued containing the names of nine eligibles and are still outstanding. Certification OS220044 was issued containing nine eligibles and one was appointed. The list expires on January 26, 2025.

On the appellant’s application, she indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree. She also indicated that she was a Software Development Specialist 1 from August 2017 to the November 22, 2021, closing date and a Forms Analyst 2 from May 2016 to August 2017. Personnel records indicate that the appellant was a Software Development Specialist 1 from August 2017 to the closing date, a Forms Analyst 2 from August 2015 to August 2017, a Graphic Artist 2 from May 2012 to August 2015, and a Graphic Artist 1 from April 2004 to May 2012. Agency Services credited her with having met the education requirement, but determined that she lacked two years of the required experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant submits a resume which indicates that as a Software Development Specialist 1 since June 2019, she worked with a group of Webmasters maintaining websites which involved HTML, HTMLS, CSS3, Boostrap and JavaScript coding as needed. Additionally, as a Software Development Specialist 1 from August 2017 to June 2019, she indicates that she oversaw the redesign of a public website using a HTMLS platform (Bootstrap).

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g) provides that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. For example, information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given position that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying and is accepted.

AnalysisInitially, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible as she did not clearly describe how she was performing programming while serving as a Software Development Specialist 1. However, on appeal, the appellant explains that she maintained and developed websites, which involved HTML, HTMLS, CSS3, Boostrap and JavaScript coding, for more than two years. It is noted that a review of the job specification of Software Development Specialist 1 indicates that incumbents in this title may develop web application or websites. Therefore, the Commission finds that the appellant has sufficiently clarified that she has been performing the required duties for more than the required time by the closing date by performing in-title web programming duties as a Software Development Specialist 1, which is the preceding title in the title series for the subject title. See In the Matter of Diana Begley (MSB, decided November 17, 2004). Accordingly, her application should be processed for future employment opportunities.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the 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.