Thomas Connelly, CSC Docket No. 2022-1994

BackgroundThomas Connelly appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that he did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the open-competitive examination for Assistant Director of Security (C0515C), Cape May County.

The subject examination had a closing date of October 21, 2021 and was open to residents of Cape May County who possessed four years of supervisory experience in planning, organizing, and directing security and protective service activities involving the protection/security of persons and property. The appellant was found to be ineligible based on a lack of experience. Four candidates applied, and one candidate appears on the eligible list, which has not yet been certified.

On his application and resume, the appellant listed five positions: Assistant Director of Communications and Security from December 2020 to October 2021; Security Guard with Cape May County from May 2019 to December 2020; Police Sergeant with Cape May City from June 2001 to May 2019; Police Officer with Cape May City from May 1994 to June 2001; and County Correctional Police Officer with Cape May County from December 1992 to December 1993. Official records indicate that the appellant was a provisional Assistant Director of Security from December 2020 to the closing date, a Police Sergeant from June 2002 to February 2019, a Police Officer from January 1994 to June 2002, and a County Correctional Police Officer from July 1993 to January 1994. The appellant was credited with eleven months of applicable experience in the first position and was found to be lacking three years, one month of required experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that he should be eligible as he has applicable experience as a provisional in the title, as a County Correctional Police Officer, and as a Police Sergeant.

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.

AnalysisInitially, it is noted that Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination. However, the appellant has sixteen years, eight months of experience as a Police Sergeant supervising up to ten Police Officers in patrol duties, gathering of investigation information at crime scenes, monitoring and investigating suspicious persons and situations, mediating domestic disturbances and protecting victims, responding to alarms, directing and controlling crowds, and searching for evidence and stolen property, among other duties. Although the appellant’s duties as a Police Sergeant do not precisely mirror the requirements listed on the announcement, the Civil Service Commission is satisfied that the totality of his experience warrants his admission to the subject examination. The list is incomplete with one eligible and the appellant remains in his provisional position. Based on the totality of the circumstances in this matter, good cause exists to permit the appellant’s application to be processed.

The remedy provided herein is limited to the facts of this case and may not be used as precedent in any other matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this 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.