William Harron, CSC Docket No. 2022-3040

BackgroundWilliam Harron appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Administrative Assistant 3 (S0769C), Statewide.

The subject examination’s closing date was December 21, 2021. The education requirement was a Bachelor’s degree. The experience requirements were one year 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 have substituted experience on a year-for-year basis. A total of 46 individuals applied and 13 were determined eligible. Certification OS220262 for Stockton University was issued containing four names and its disposition was due August 2, 2022. Certification OS220341 was issued for the Motor Vehicle Commission containing seven names and its disposition was due September 6, 2022. Certification OS220413 for the Department of Banking and Insurance was issued containing seven names and its disposition is due October 19, 2022. Certification OS220426 was issued for the Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired and its disposition was due October 25, 2022. The list expires on April 27, 2025.

On the appellant’s application, he indicated that he had 100 college credits. He also indicated that he was a Lab Mechanic, Crew Supervisor and a Professional Services Specialist 4, Administrative Services for Stockton University from July 2002 to the closing date, a Lead Carpenter Maintenance Supervisor for Stone Harbor

Public Works from April 2000 to June 2002, and a Sole Proprietor for William J Harron Seaside Maintenance from May 1995 to April 2000. Personnel records indicate that he provisionally serving in the subject title from January 2021 to December 2021, a Professional Services Specialist 4, Administrative Services from July 2013 to January 2021, a Crew Supervisor, Building Maintenance Programs from February 2005 to July 2013, and a Laboratory Mechanic, State Colleges from July 2002 to February 2005. Agency Services credited him with three years and four months of experience based on his college credits, but determined, per the substitution clause for education, that he lacked one year and eight months of experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant submits the subject job specification, classification review requests, Performance Assessment Reviews (PARs), a resume, and various other documents that describe his job duties throughout his career.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g) provides that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. For example, information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given position that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying and is accepted.

AnalysisInitially, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible as he did not clearly indicate that he performed the required duties. However, the documents that the appellant submits on appeal clarify that he has more than five years of experience where coordinating work activities was a primary duty. For example, the appellant submits a PAR for the October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020 rating period that indicates that one of his major goals as a Professional Services Specialist 4, Administrative Services was to work in conjunction with facilities to coordinate deliveries, maintenance of equipment and construction. Similarly, in a May 2017 response to the appellant’s request that his Professional Services Specialist 4, Administrative Services position be reclassified, human resources indicated that one of his primary responsibilities was to act as the liaison with Facilities and Planning, contractors, and vendors coordinating the maintenance and repair of lab equipment and facility infrastructure. Therefore, the Commission finds that the appellant has sufficiently clarified that he has been performing the required duties for more than the required time by the closing date. See In the Matter of Diana Begley (MSB, decided November 17, 2004).

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appeal be granted, and the appellant’s application be processed for prospective employment opportunities only.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.