LISA DAVIS, CSC Docket No. 2022-1947

BackgroundLisa Davis appeals her score on the promotional examination for Assistant Administrative Supervisor of Income Maintenance (PC4776C), Gloucester County Board of Social Services.

The subject examination was announced with specific requirements that had to be met as of the November 22, 2021 closing date. All applicants had to possess a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, plus two years of experience examining, adjusting, determining, or authorizing eligibility or entitlement for cash awards or benefits in a public or private financial assistance program, one year of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience as indicated on a year-for-year basis. Additionally, a Master’s degree in public or business administration could be substituted for one year of the non-supervisory experience.

Eight applicants were admitted to the promotional examination which was processed as a “ranked unassembled” examination involving the evaluation of education, training and/or experience as set forth on the candidates’ examination applications. For this type of examination, only experience gained in the 10-year period immediately preceding the closing date is rated. The scoring criteria for Assistant Administrative Supervisor of Income Maintenance provided that eight points were awarded for a completed Bachelor’s degree and incomplete degrees were awarded one point for every 15 credits up to a maximum of 105 credits. Full credit (two points per year) was awarded for supervisory experience in examining, adjusting, determining, or authorizing eligibility or entitlement for cash awards or benefits in a public or private financial assistance program. Half credit (one point per year) was awarded for examining, adjusting, determining, or authorizing eligibility or entitlement for cash awards or benefits. No other education, training, or experience was rated. All candidates received a base score of 70.000 for satisfying the eligibility criteria and then credit for education and experience as indicated for up to the 10-year cut-off for rating such experience. Seniority points were then factored into the final score.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant indicated on her application that, in addition to her Bachelor’s degree, she possessed experience as a Human Services Specialist 4 (July 2018 to the closing date), “Out-Of-Title” Human Services Specialist 41 (July 2017 to June 2018), Human Services Specialist 3 (August 2014 to June 2017), Human Services Specialist 2 (April 2012 to July 2014), Human Services Specialist 1 (October 2010 to March 2012), and some unrelated private sector experience. The appellant received the maximum allowable credit for her Bachelor’s degree, plus full credit for her experience as a Human Services Specialist 4 (July 2018 to the closing date), and half credit for her experience as a Human Services Specialist 3 (September 2014 to June 2018). The appellant’s experience as a Human Services Specialist 1 and 2 was not rated. The appellant’s final average score was 84.070 and she was ranked as the number six non-veteran eligible on the resulting promotional eligibility roster.2

On appeal, the appellant asserts that she should have been ranked higher on the subject examination. In this regard, the appellant argues that, other eligible applicants with less seniority achieved higher scores and she believes her score should have been higher. The appellant contends that she would have preferred to have taken a written civil service examination, on which she had always done well previously. The appellant believes that she should have ranked number three on the subject promotional list.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.S.A. 11A:4-1 provides considerable discretion to the Civil Service Commission (Commission) in the development and scoring of examinations for positions in the career service. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that, except for medical or psychological disqualification appeals, the appellant shall have the burden of proof.

AnalysisIn the present matter, the examination was conducted as a ranked unassembled examination in which applicants were rated based on a description of their education and experience as described on the applications they submitted. The appellant was awarded credit for her Bachelor’s degree, full credit for her supervisory experience as Human Services Specialist 4, and half credit for her experience as a Human Services Specialist 3. The appellant received no credit for her experience as a Human Services Specialist 1 and 2, notwithstanding that some of this experience fell within the 10-year period. The Commission is puzzled by the decision of Agency Services since, by definition in each of the relevant job specifications, incumbents in each of these titles are responsible, in pertinent part, for the collection, recording and evaluation of data, to include the employability, the medical status and the physical or mental health of applicants/clients, for the purpose of determining applicants’/clients’ eligibility for program services, duties which clearly fall under the half credit designation.

1 Civil Service records indicate the appellant’s actual title for this period was Human Services Specialist 3. Out-of-title work experience is not rated for promotional examinations. 2 The list has not yet been certified.

While it is true that individuals serving as Human Services Specialists 1 and 2 work under a closer degree of supervision than the higher levels in the series, the Commission notes that there are no such distinctions made in the half credit award criteria. Under the “list the major duties” section of her application, the appellant quoted the job specification, which clearly spells out the subject half credit experience. The Commission finds it reasonable that the appellant would be performing the duties as listed in the job specification definition of the title she holds and to quote this definition when describing her duties. Quoting the job specification on an application when describing the duties of a title one holds does not necessarily constitute a legitimate reason to not credit such duties unless there is some indication that the eligible did not perform those duties. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the appellant should also be awarded half credit for her experience as a Human Services Specialist 1 and 2 from November 2011, the 10- year cut-off, to July 2014.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted, that the appellant’s experience as a Human Services Specialist 1 and 2 be awarded half credit, as described above, and that her score and rank be adjusted accordingly.

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