Sharonda Brewer, CSC Docket No. 2022-2710

BackgroundSharonda Brewer appeals her rank and score for the promotional examination for Clerk 4 (PC5037C), Essex County.

The subject examination had 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 in the title Clerk 3 and Clerk 3 Bilingual in Spanish and English. Six candidates appear on the eligible list, which has been certified once, but no appointments have yet been made.

This examination was processed as an unassembled examination (UE), i.e., candidates were ranked on the eligible list based on an evaluation of their education and experience as listed on their applications. The unassembled examination standard conferred a base score of 70.000 for all eligible applicants. Full credit was awarded for 10 years of experience in clerical work at or equivalent to the Clerk 3 level. Half credit was awarded for general clerical experience. It is noted that no credit was given for experience gained more than 10 years prior to the examination closing date, in this case, January 2012, or for education.

The appellant received an unassembled examination score of 79.340, and a seniority score of 74.830, for a final average of 77.990, and ranked sixth on the resultant eligible list.1 The appellant received full credit for the one position she listed on her application, Clerk 3 from April 2017 to November 2021. She did not provide a resume with her application.

1 It is noted that initially the appellant received a score of 74.203. However, this was corrected to 74.830 per the official record, and the appellant received her corrected score.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that she has the same qualifications as all the other candidates, and the first ranked candidate received a provisional appointment to Clerk 4 on the same date as she did. She inquiries how all the other candidates could rate higher than her, and she believes her rank should be second. She provides a resume which she requests be added as a revision to her initial submission. She also notes that she experienced problems while filing her application which “may have led to some errors in the sending or receipt of information that was required to properly determine my ranking.” She also states that she set up a second account and her “submitted documents” were not accessed.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date for filing applications.

AnalysisThe on-line application system provides clear instructions to candidates. The announcement states, “You must complete your application in detail. Your score may be based on a comparison of your credentials with the job requirements. Failure to complete your application properly may lower your score or cause you to fail.” The application states, “You may be declared ineligible or you may not receive proper credit for scoring purposes if you do not properly complete your application. If you held different positions with the same employer, list each position separately. Make sure you give full dates of employment (month/year), indicate whether the job was full or part time, and the number of hours worked per week. If you are currently employed in this position, enter the current month and year in the Employed To section. Since your application may be your only test paper, be sure it is complete and accurate. Failure to complete your application properly may cause you to be declared ineligible, lower your score, or possibly cause you to fail.” This information is repeated on page 18 of the New Jersey Civil Service Commission (Commission) Announcement and On-Line Application User Guide. As such, the appellant was on notice of the possibility that her application could be considered her test paper.

Further, on the Commission’s website in the section entitled Job Announcements and Testing Information, there are links to the Online Application System User Guide, which is available to all candidates. This guide essentially mirrors the information above. Additionally, when candidates submit their applications, they certify that it is complete and accurate.

On appeal, the appellant provides a copy of her resume listing additional positions that were not listed on the application. Since the application for the subject announcement is the test paper, it is no more subject to later amendment than a multiple-choice test answer sheet. See In the Matter of Alex Westner (Commissioner of Personnel, decided August 11, 1997). Thus, the appellant cannot be credited with experience in positions submitted after the closing date. The appellant infers, but does not directly state, that she submitted her resume with the application, or at least attempted to do so. In that regard, the Online Application System indicates that the appellant filed her application on December 3, 2021. If she had any difficulties submitting her application, she could have followed the instructions on the application to call for technical support and customer care. There is no evidence that the appellant attempted to submit her resume online or by mail. No error in scoring is evident in the record and the appellant’s application will not be amended after the closing date to include the changes she submits on appeal.

A thorough review of the record indicates that the decision of the Division of Agency Services is amply supported by the record, and appellant provides no basis to disturb that decision. The appellant has failed to meet 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.