Stephen Rice, CSC Docket No. 2022-3079

BackgroundStephen Rice appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Analyst Grant Applications/Program Monitor (C0581C), Morris County.

The subject examination’s closing date was November 22, 2021. The education requirement was a Bachelor’s degree. The experience requirements were two years of experience in the review, analysis, and evaluation of the operations of business or governmental operations. A total of 11 individuals applied and three were determined eligible. Certification OL220609 was issued containing the names of the three eligibles and two were appointed and one was removed. The list expires on May 18, 2025.

On the appellant’s application, he indicated that he possessed a Bachelor’s degree. He also indicated that he was provisionally serving in the subject title from July 2021 to the closing date, a Senior International Accountant for Weichert Workforce Mobility (Weichert) from January 2017 to April 2021, a Resale Accountant for Weichert from April 2011 to January 2017, and a Project Accountant for Hitachi Power Systems America (Hitachi) from May 2007 to January 2010. Agency Services determined that he lacked two years of experience as it did not credit him for any experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant asserts that he gained 13 years of the required experience while working for Hitachi and Weichert. He states that while serving provisionally in the subject title, he reads grant contract terms for new and amended contracts, reviews and approves payment vouchers and invoices for grant expenditures, and ensures support included in reimbursement reports is relevant and accurate. As a Senior Accountant for Weichert, the appellant indicates that he reviewed profit and loss statements, balance sheets, client contract terms to monitor their rebate programs, employee expense claims for reimbursement, and accounts payable for international offices among other things. He states that he reviewed both finances for entities and the work submitted by a direct report. Additionally, as a Resale Accountant, the appellant reviewed closing documents and disbursement information to ensure billings were accurate before sending them to clients.

Concerning his analysis experience, while provisionally serving in the subject title, the appellant analyzes data and evaluates what it means and how it should be used. The appellant presents that he must understand what is on the financial ledgers and determine what the items represents for analyzing the grant. He states that grant programs can overlap fiscal years as there are often grant types that range from federal to State to matching accounts, and it always needs to be analyzed against the budget to ensure proper financial activity is being identified in the correct grant. As a Senior Accountant, he asserts that it was imperative that he became familiar with ledger activity for multiple international subsidiaries, which required analytical work to be able to identify and rectify any issues that arose from unanticipated or incorrect operational activity. The appellant indicates that sometimes this required complex analysis to ensure proper accounts were used and proper amounts were recorded to limit impact on any individual segment within the business. He asserts that when dealing with thousands of lines of data, a strong analytical process is required, and the work needed to be done without procedural precedent. Additionally, the appellant provides that this work needed to be timely and easy for upper management to understand.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b)2 requires applicants to possess all the requirements specified in an announcement for an open competitive examination 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 and appeal indicates that Agency Services correctly determined that he was not eligible for the subject examination. Concerning the appellant’s provisional service in the subject title, the appellant described his duties on his application as preparing federal and State grant reimbursement reports, reviewing and approving vouchers for grant related payments, reviewing and applying grant related cash receipts to appropriate receivable accounts, maintaining consistent communication with departmental level grant coordinators, maintaining folders for assigned grant accounts, preparing and submitting Chapter 159, account re-class, and cancellation resolutions in MinuteTraq for County Commissioner review and approval, and collecting salary and expenditure data to prepare monthly and quarterly journal entries to be included in reimbursement reports. As such, the record indicates that the appellant is primarily performing accounting duties and not reviewing, analyzing, and evaluating the operations of business or governmental operations. Similarly, the appellant’s application indicates that he primarily performed accounting duties while serving in Accounting titles priory to his employment with the appointing authority. While the appellant’s duties may have some involvement 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 Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). Accordingly, as it is unclear if the appellant’s provisional position is appropriately classified, the classification of the appellant’s position is referred to Agency Services for review.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied. Further, the classification of Stephen Rice’s position is referred to the Division of Agency Services for review.

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