Ron Dehnam, CSC Docket No. 2022-2836

BackgroundRon Dehnam appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Senior Engineer, Traffic (PS7382T), Department of Transportation.

The subject examination’s closing date was December 21, 2021. The education requirement was a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering. The experience requirements were two years of experience in traffic engineering work which shall have included the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data in connection with highway design and/or traffic operations. A total of 80 employees applied and 43 were admitted. The test was scheduled to be administered on June 4, 2022. Therefore, the list has not yet promulgated.

On the appellant’s application, he indicated that he possessed a Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering. He also indicated that he was an Assistant Project Manager from May 2017 to the December 21, 2021 closing date, and he worked for Dynamic Home Remodeling from January 1997 to February 2016. Personnel records indicate that he was an Assistant Engineer, Transportation from May 2018 to the December 21, 2022, closing date and a Civil Engineer Trainee from May 2017 to May

2018.1 Agency Services credited him with having met the education requirement, but determined that he lacked two years of experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that, in addition to performing his project management tasks, which includes traffic engineering design plan and traffic management, he has been assigned to the Roadway Design – Group 1, which is a unit that is responsible for most in-house designs. Regarding his design experience, he presents that he has been involved in multiple guiderail, highway drainage and junction realignment projects. The appellant indicates that these projects were based on design manuals and sample plans provided by the appointing authority and these projects required traffic analysis and traffic engineering. He asserts that he wants to expand his experience and provide better service as an Engineer. The appellant states that he wants to gain more experience in traffic engineering and he believes that his exposure in Roadway Design and Project Management meets the experience requirements.

Additionally, the appellant explains that his daily duties can include, among other duties, the calculations which are used in pavement and geometric designs. Further, during the lifetime of each project, he indicates that careful analysis of provided data is required to tailor the best solution for the specific problem. He states that since his unit is the lead unit in project delivery, after corresponding with subject matter experts, his unit makes the final decision. The appellant presents that choosing a design that provides the best possible attributes are all subjects discussed, and in many cases, his unit’s input, which is based on analysis and interpretation of collection data, is needed to satisfy the needs of the project. Moreover, he presents that he needs to comply with existing rules and regulations from different government agencies and he emphasizes that knowledge is the key to this process.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn this matter, a review of the appellant’s application, resume, and appeal indicates that Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination. Specifically, the appellant’s application and resume indicate that his primary duty is project management. Further, while the appellant may perform the required duties some of the time, the appellant’s appeal does not clearly indicate that his primary focus of his duties is in the required areas. In order for experience to be considered applicable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the

1After the closing date on March 12, 2022, the appellant was provisionally appointed to Senior Engineer, Transportation.

Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). It is noted that the appellant’s appeal has not clearly articulated that he is primarily performing the required duties. Applicants are required to unambiguously indicate relative experience on the application. It is impractical, given the thousands of applications reviewed by this agency each year, as well as likely to create inequities in the initial screening process, for reviewers in Agency Services to infer every logical relationship of an applicant’s duties to those announced in the requirements. Thus, although it is not unreasonable to assume performance of the required duties, applicants are required to clearly demonstrate that their experience matches that required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Marcella Longo (MSB, decided November 4, 2004) and In the Matter of Rui Reguinho (MSB, decided October 6, 2004).

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.