Bonnie Dube, CSC Docket No. 2022-2957

BackgroundBonnie Dube appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the experience requirements, per the substitutional clause of education, for the promotional examination for Administrative Assistant 2 (PS6948J), Rowan University.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of November 22, 2021, and was open to employees in the competitive division who were serving in any competitive title and who met the announced requirements. These requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and two years of experience in a business or government agency providing administrative support services and/or coordinating work activities. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience on a year for year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. Seven candidates were admitted to the examination, which has not yet been held. The appellant was found to be below minimum requirements in experience per the substitution clause for education.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant indicated on her application that she possessed nine college credits, which prorates to three months of experience. As such, she was required to possess five years, nine months of qualifying experience. The appellant listed one position on her application, “Glassboro NJ” from September 2002 to November 2021, and she provided one list of duties. Also, she provided a resume with five titles for that same time period and included duties for each: Assistant to the Registrar, Transfer Credit Evaluation, Scheduling Coordinator, Technical Assistant and Office Cashier. She added two other positions, Bankruptcy Representative and Human Resource Generalist, with Alliance Data Systems. Official records indicate a different employment history. These records indicate that the appellant was an Agency Services Representative 4 from March 2018 to the November 2021 closing date; Head Clerk from December 2009 to March 2018; Technical Assistant 3 from May 2007 to December 2009; Principal Audit Account Clerk from December 2004 to May 2007; Senior Clerk Typist from February 2003 to December 2004; and Clerk Typist from September 2002 to February 2003.

The announced requirements are out-of-title for an Agency Services Representative 4 and were not credited. While the appellant was in the Head Clerk title for eight years, four months, from December 2009 to March 2018, this time overlaps with several of the appellant’s listed positions, each of which has different duties. As an Assistant to the Registrar, the appellant’s duties were applicable, so the appellant was credited with one year, six months for this position. The appellant’s duties as a “Transfer Credit Evaluation” were not applicable. The appellant’s duties as a Scheduling Coordinator were applicable, and she was in the Civil Service titles Head Clerk and Technical Assistant 3. The announced duties would be out-of-title for a Technical Assistant 3, and the appellant was credited with two years, nine months of this experience while in the title Head Clerk. The duties of her remaining positions did not match the experience requirements. In sum, the appellant was credited with four years, three months while doing applicable duties in the title Head Clerk, and was credited with three months of experience for nine college credits. Thus, she was found to be lacking one year, six months of applicable experience per the substitution clause for education.

On appeal, the appellant states that her experience from March or April 2016, and as a Bankruptcy Representative and Human Resource Generalist, should be accepted.

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 that except when permitted for good cause, applicants for promotional examinations may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy eligibility requirements.

AnalysisAt the outset, 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 Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). The amount of time, and the importance of the duty, determines if it is the primary focus. The appellant’s experience from March or April 2016 forward has already been explained as above. As the examination is competitive, with seven admitted candidates, there is no basis to accept out-of-title work.

The appellant described her duties as a Bankruptcy Representative as “Filed claims with court system on behalf of customers. Maintained contact thru attorneys for processing of funds received. Handled payments for Consumer Counseling Service customers and all correspondence from creditors.” As a Human Resource Generalist, the appellant “Administered basic skills testing. Conducted benefits meetings. Performed initial interviews and background checks.” Neither of these descriptions has providing administrative support services and/or coordinating work activities as the primary focus. The appellant lacks one year, six months of applicable experience.

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.