Isaac Toney, CSC Docket No. 2022-442

BackgroundIsaac Toney, Jr. requests reconsideration of In the Matter of Isaac Toney, Jr. (CSC, decided August 4, 2021), where the Civil Service Commission (Commission) determined that he did not meet the experience requirements for the open competitive examination for Customer Service Representative (M0585B), Trenton.

By way of background, the subject examination’s closing date was August 21, 2020, and was open to residents of Trenton who possessed one year of experience in the receiving and handling of customer complaints and inquiries. On Toney’s application, he indicated that he was a Training Technician/Human Services for the Mercer County Board of Social Services from October 2012 to the examination closing date1, a Senior Research Representative/Customer Service Representative for Cenlar FSB from September 2009 to October 2012, a Client Services Representative for Quest Diagnostics, Inc. from July 2009 to September 2009, a Credit Specialist for Verizon Communications from April 2007 to November 2008, a Customer Service Representative for CASCI from November 2006 to January 2007, a Customer Service Representative/Certification Specialist/Financial Counselor for Princeton Healthcare System from June 2002 to July 2006, a Customer Service Representative for New Jersey CAR from August 2000 to August 2001, and a Customer Service

Personnel records indicate that for the Mercer County Board of Social Services, he was a Training Technician from November 2015 to January 14, 2021, when he was removed due to disciplinary action, a Human Services Specialist 2 from December 2013 to November 2015, and a Human Services Specialist 1 from October 2012 to December 2013.

Representative/Workflow Coordinator/Support Specialist from August 1998 to August 2000. The Division of Agency Services did not credit him with having any experience because he did not indicate on his application and/or resume that was submitted with his application that the primary focus on any of his positions were to receive and handle customers complaints and/or inquiries. Thereafter, the Commission denied his appeal for the same reasons.

Appellant's argumentIn Toney’s request for reconsideration, he describes his customer service experience handling complaints and inquiries in various positions that he has held. He also presents that he submitted a Post-Conviction Relief petition to the Administrative Law Judge2 for his current appeal as well as to the Governor’s Office to accompany his pardon application.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(b) provides that a petition for reconsideration shall be in writing signed by the petitioner or his or her representative and must show the following:

1. The new evidence or additional information not presented at the original proceeding, which would change the outcome and the reasons that such evidence was not presented at the original proceeding; or

Analysis2. That a clear material error has occurred.

In this matter, a review of the Toney’ application and resume that was submitted with his application indicates that he did not clearly indicate that he performed the required duties, specifically handling customer complaints, in any position as a primary focus. 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). Moreover, instructions for completing the application state “[s]ince your application may be your only test paper, be sure it is complete and accurate. Failure to complete your application properly may cause you to be declared ineligible, lower your score, or possibly cause you to fail.” See In the Matter of Michael Gelesky (CSC, decided July 26, 2017) and In the Matter of Matthew Palko (CSC, decided December 16, 2020). Therefore, the Commission correctly determined in the prior decision that he did not meet the eligibility requirements. Further, as there is no new evidence or additional information that was not presented at the original proceeding that would change the outcome or a demonstration that the Commission made a clear material error, Toney has not met the standard for reconsideration.

ORDER

Agency records indicates that his appeal of his removal as a Training Technician with the Mercer County Board of Social Services was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case, and the matter is still pending.

Therefore, it is ordered that this request be denied.

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