Lissette Adames, CSC Docket No. 2022-1908

BackgroundLissette Adames appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the experience requirements, per the substitution clause for education, for the open competitive examination for Supervisor Information Technology (M0254C), Newark School District.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of August 23, 2021, and was open to residents of Newark City, and New Jersey, who met the announced requirements. These requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and five years of experience in an Information Technology Operational Support unit for a large public or private information processing facility, including at least three years of experience with an information technology operational support unit supporting a multiplatform Client Server LAN or WAN environment or Mainframe operation. There were two substitution clauses of experience for education: additional experience as described could be substituted for the four-year education requirement on a year-for-year basis; OR training hours approved by this agency could be substituted for the education requirement where sixteen contact hours equals one semester credit hour. There were also two substitution clauses of education for experience: thirty semester hour credits in Information Technology could be substituted for one year of experience; OR a Master’s degree in Information Technology or related studies could be substituted for one year of experience noted above. The appellant was found to be below minimum requirements in experience. There were 12 candidates on the eligible list, which has been certified once, but no appointments have yet been made.

The appellant did not, either with her application or on appeal, provide a transcript of other evidence of her training to verify the course of study and the number of hours in training. Therefore, she cannot receive credit for this training as a substitution for education. As the appellant did not possess any college credits, she was required to possess nine years of qualifying experience, which shall have included three years of specific experience. The appellant listed one position on her application, provisional Supervisor Information Technology from August 2015 to the August 2021 closing date. Accordingly, Agency Services credited her with six years, one month of applicable experience in this position, and was found to be lacking two years, eleven months of qualifying experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that she graduated after three years from Cittone Institute in June 1992 from a program in Computer Robotics/Science, and has worked in the field for 35 years. In 1990, she was a Systems Engineer for Centurylink, Inc. for 25 years, and has had training in the areas of system, networking (LAN/WAN), and software (Microsoft, Peoplesoft, Kronos, etc). As a Systems Engineer she built servers and networks, and organized the build of data centers, information systems management, and software deployment. The appellant states that she worked as a consultant for the appointing authority as a project Manager for 18 years, designing, building, organizing and implementing their Enterprise Systems Software and managing a team of 5 members while implementing these applications. She directed, trained and supervised staff to maintain accurate and up to date systems for the customer. In August 2015, she states that she was hired by the appointing authority as a Manager for Enterprise Applications. In this capacity, the appellant states that she provides manages, designs, builds, organizes and provides continued support of the appointing authority’s Enterprise Systems Software. She manages a team of five while planning, developing, testing, implementing and maintaining software and systems for the technology area supervised. The appellant also indicated that she takes the lead in complex application, working with systems and data communication, and has done performance evaluations. She indicates that her title was changed in July 2020 to Supervisor Information Technology, but she continues to operate in that capacity and continues to manage, work with vendors and manage a budget to conform with guidelines set by the Director. She works with internal departments managers and users to provide the support required by their departments.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the open competitive examination announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, based on the information available to Agency Services, it appropriately found that the appellant was not qualified for the subject title based on her failure to meet the experience requirements. The appellant listed one position, Supervisor Information Technology, on her application and received credit for that position. Under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g), the Commission can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. However, N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. 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. However, any documentation indicating work in a setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. Thus, the Civil Service Commission can only consider information provided on appeal regarding the positions listed on the appellant’s original application. See In the Matter of Diana Begley (MSB, decided November 17, 2004). The positions the appellant indicated on appeal were not included with her original application. As such, they cannot be considered in the adjudication of this appeal. Additionally, even if the Commission could consider that information, the appellant did not provide all necessary information for her supplemental positions, and therefore, the positions cannot be quantified or qualified. The appellant is cautioned to properly complete any future applications and include all relevant positions and transcripts.

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.

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