Erika Negron, CSC Docket No. 2022-2437
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of May 18, 2022, CSC Docket No. 2022-2437: examination eligibility, granted. Erika Negron appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the open-competitive examination fo
Commission decisions · Meeting of May 18, 2022
Erika Negron appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the open-competitive examination for Maintenance Superintendent (C0671C), Camden County.
- Matter
- Examination eligibility
- Decided
- May 18, 2022, item B-24
- Outcome
- Granted
- Title
- MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT
- Employer
- Camden County
- Examination
- C0671C
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-024 5-18-22 EG.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be granted.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
BackgroundErika Negron appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the open-competitive examination for Maintenance Superintendent (C0671C), Camden County.
The subject examination had a closing date of November 22, 2021 and was open to residents of Camden County who possessed five years of supervisory experience in work involving a variety of maintenance and repair tasks. The appellant was found to be ineligible based on a lack of experience. One candidate appeared on the eligible list, which was certified, but as the certification was incomplete, it was returned with no appointments.
The appellant was credited with eight months of experience as a Maintenance Superintendent with Camden County, the one position listed on her application, from April 2021 to the November 2021 closing date. As such, she was found to be lacking four years, four months of experience.
Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant responded with two additional positions. She was a Maintenance Supervisor with Prichard Industries from July 2016 to October 2018, and a Maintenance Supervisor with Meridian Services from 2013 (no month given) to June 2016. She indicated that she supervised staff in both positions and she provided applicable duties involving a variety of maintenance and repair tasks.
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:1-1.2(c) states that the Commission may relax a rule for good cause in particular situations, on notice to affected parties, in order to effectuate the purposes of Title 11A, New Jersey Statutes.
AnalysisA review of the appellant’s application reveals that the decision by the Agency Services, denying the appellant’s admittance to the subject examination since she does not possess the required experience, was correct. She received credit for the experience listed on her application, and could not receive credit for experience not provided with her application. For any future positions in which she might be interested, the appellant is cautioned that she should complete her application and provide all requested information. While the appellant failed to follow basic instructions in filling out her application, the list is incomplete with one eligible, the appellant is still serving as a provisional appointee, and she has indicated that she had the required amount of applicable experience prior to the November 2021 closing date. Based on the circumstances presented, good cause has been established to relax the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) to accept the appellant’s additional experience and admit her to the examination.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted, and the appellant’s application be processed.
ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's monthly archive. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.