Queeniqueka Parish, CSC Docket No. 2022-2685

BackgroundQueeniqueka Parish appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Administrative Analyst 2, (PS7386U), Department of the Treasury.

The subject promotional examination announcement was issued with a closing date of December 21, 2021 and was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date and were serving in the title Administrative Analyst 1, or had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title and met the announced requirements. Those requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and two years of experience in work involving the review, analysis and evaluation of budget, organization, administrative practices, operational methods, management operations or data processing applications, or any combination thereof, which shall have included responsibility for the recommendation, planning, and/or implementation of improvements in a business or government agency. Possession of a Master’s degree in Public Administration, Business Administration, Economics, Finance or Accounting from an accredited college or university could be substituted for one year of the work experience. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute additional experience on a year for year basis. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience. Four candidates have been admitted to the examination which has not yet been held.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree, and she listed experience in the following positions on her application: provisional Administrative Analyst 2, Investment Technician, and Clerk. The appeallant was credited with one month of experience in her provisional position, and she was found to be lacking one year, eleven months of qualifying experience.

On appeal, the appellant provides a revised resume, and states that her experince as an Investment Technician should make her eligible. She states that her responsibilities included recommending improvements for operational processes such as travel and Request for Proposals (RFP). For example, recommendations offered included updates to the webpage pertaining to RFPs. She states that in her provisional position in the subject title, she is involved in administrative and operational practices, which include assisting in the development of procedures. She assists the Assistant Director with investigating and identifying issues to determine proper procedures for several fiscal activities, is the Liaison to Fiscal Staff, and is the main point of contact for information passed between Fiscal Managers and their staff and the Assistant Director.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a)2 states that applicants for promotional examinations must meet all requirements by the announced closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) provides in pertinent part that applicants for promotional examinations may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy the requirements for admittance to the examination or for credit in the examination process, unless good cause is shown for an exception.

AnalysisThe appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since she lacked one year, eleven months of qualifying experience. In order for experience to be acceptable, it must mirror the experience required in the examination announcement. In addition, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004).

The appellant was found to be performing applicable duties in her provisional position. Nonetheless, as an Investment Analyst, the appellant listed her duties as:

Assisted with the Request for Proposal process. Served as technical adviser on Request for Proposal Committees. Prepared Evaluation

Committee Memos for Request for Proposal. Answered calls on the main line and Director’s phone line. Managed Division’s calendar;

Books meeting requests for the Division. Assisted Chief of Staff with the quarterly travel plan, ad-hoc projects, and other tasks. Supported

Director and Deputy Director with any additional projects.

Coordinated domestic and international travel arrangements Manually input securities in INDATA as required. Knowledge of stock splits, corporate actions and bond trades to be inputted into INDATA.

Maintains NYFIX connections for order routing and ensure data flow and connectivity between NYFIX, INDATA, and the trading desk.

Knowledge in the transmission/processing procedures for sending trade files to the Division’s custodian banks. Transmits correct and timely data files to the Division’s custodian(s) - State Street and

Franklin Templeton. Ran reconciliation report and reviews report for exceptions (errors). Conferred with accountants regarding exceptions on reconciliation report. Computed and input daily stock trades for various funds. Aided in building portfolio and securities files.

Clearly, these duties do not have as the primary focus the review, analysis and evaluation of budget, organization, administrative practices, operational methods, management operations or data processing applications. If she recommended improvements for RFPs, this was an ancillary task to the primary focus of the position, which was work with investments. Her experience as a Clerk is clearly inapplicable.

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.