NJ Civil Service Navigator

Ana Bernard Ocasio, CSC Docket No. 2022-3222

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of July 19, 2023, CSC Docket No. 2022-3222: examination eligibility, granted. Ana Bernard Ocasio appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the requirements for the promotional examination for Clerk 3 (PC3782D),

Commission decisions · Meeting of July 19, 2023

Ana Bernard Ocasio appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that she did not meet the requirements for the promotional examination for Clerk 3 (PC3782D), Essex County.

Matter
Examination eligibility
Decided
July 19, 2023, item B-10
Outcome
Granted
Title
CLERK 3
Employer
Essex County
Examination
PC3782D
Chair at the time
Allison Chris Myers, Acting Chairperson
Official decision
CSC's PDF

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be granted.

Rules this decision applies

The decision

BackgroundAna Bernard Ocasio appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the requirements for the promotional examination for Clerk 3 (PC3782D) Essex County.

By way of background, the promotional examination for Clerk 3 (PC3782D), Essex County was open to, in pertinent part, employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service and possessed two years or clerical experience, with one year at the Clerk 2 level, as of the closing date of March 2, 2022. The resultant list, containing 13 eligibles, promulgated on September 8, 2022 and expires on September 7, 2025. A review of personnel records indicated that the appellant had not received a regular appointment to the competitive division Keyboarding Clerk 2 title as of the closing date. As such, Agency Services determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination since she was not permanent in a competitive division title as of the closing date.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that she has been employed with Essex County since October 2011. She states that she was promoted to Keyboarding Clerk 2 on September 18, 2017, in a permanent capacity. In support of her appeal, she has provided documentation including a copy of a Personnel Action Form which was submitted to reflect her promotion to Keyboarding Clerk 2 in 2017.

BackgroundA review of the record finds that the last certification of the eligible list for Keyboarding Clerk 2 (PC1867R) was issued to Essex County on May 11, 2017 (PL170593) with the names of six eligibles, including the appellant and was returned on November 2, 2017. In disposing of the certification, Essex County did not record the appointment of the appellant or Kanisha Mickens.

Upon contacting Essex County regarding this matter, the County indicates that “due to a communication error on the part of the County,” the appellant and Mickens “were not appropriately recorded on the Certification of Eligibles when the list was sent to Civil Service for disposal.” The County indicates that it “had sought to amend the date of disposal of November 2, 2017, but failed to adequately record the correct disposal information.” The County adds that the appellant and Mickens “have completed their probationary periods and according to their department heads have been and continue to be exemplary officers.” The County requests that “their service time be correctly recorded to allow them to revive the list and appoint them appropriately.”1

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-3.4 provides, in pertinent part, that an expired eligible list may be revived to correct an administrative error.

AnalysisAs noted previously, the appellant and Mickens appeared on the certification for Keyboarding Clerk 2 (PC1867R) (PL170593). However, due to administrative error, their appointments were not recorded when Essex County returned the certification. Furthermore, the County indicates that these individuals have successfully completed their respective working test periods and continue to serve as exemplary employees.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is appropriate to revive the list for Keyboarding Clerk 2 (PC1867R), Essex County, and to grant retroactive dates of permanent appointment to the appellant and Mickens, effective September 18, 2017.

With respect to eligibility for the promotional examination for Clerk 3 (PC3782D), Essex County, this examination was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service and met the experience requirements as of the closing date of March 2, 2022. As noted previously, the appellant and Mickens have been performing the duties of Keyboarding Clerk 2 in Essex County since 2017 and, by virtue of the above, have been afforded permanent appointments in that title as of September 18, 2017. Thus, as of the March 2, 2022, closing date, they had met the requisite eligibility requirements.

1 Mickens, who applied for the subject test, did not appeal the issue of her eligibility.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the eligible list for Keyboarding Clerk 2 (PC1867R), Essex County, be revived and Ana Bernard Ocasio and Kanisha Mickens be recorded as permanently appointed to the Keyboarding Clerk 2 title effective September 18, 2017. It is also ordered that Ana Bernard Ocasio and Kanisha Mickens be admitted to the Clerk 3 (PC3782D), Essex County, promotional examination for prospective employment opportunities only.

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

About this page

Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's PDF. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.

Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.

The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.

To report an error on this page, use the contact form.