Tina Piliro, CSC Docket No. 2022-768

BackgroundTina Piliro appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Coordinator of Monitoring and Evaluation (PM3302C), City of Camden.

The promotional examination for Coordinator of Monitoring and Evaluation (PM3302C) was announced with specific requirements which had to be satisfied by the June 21, 2021 closing date. Specifically, the announcement required graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and two years of professional experience involving the review, analysis or evaluation of operating programs. It was noted that applicants who do not possess the required education could have substituted, in addition to the required experience indicated above, applicable experience on a year for year basis, with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. Since the appellant did not possess a Bachelor’s degree at the time she applied for the examination, she required six years of applicable experience per the substitution clause listed in the announcement. Two applicants were found eligible for the examination and one certification (PL211123) was issued. No appointments have been made.

On her employment application and resume, the appellant indicated that she possessed 25 college credits. Agency Services credited the appellant with 10 months of applicable experience for her education. The appellant also indicated on the application that she served as a provisional Coordinator of Monitoring and

Evaluation from March 2021 to the June 2021 closing date; as a Technical Assistant, Contract Administration from June 2019 to March 2021; as a Loan Advisor from February 2006 to May 2019; as a Senior Consumer Loan Advisor from August 2001 to June 2004; as an Assistant Consumer Loan Specialist from December 2000 to August 2001; and as a Program Director from June 1998 to June 2000. Agency Services credited the appellant with two years and five months of applicable experience for her provisional work in the subject title and as a Program Director. It noted that the appellant performed relevant out-of-title work while serving as a Technical Assistant, Contract Administration, however, as that experience was unverified, Agency Services could not credit it. As such, Agency Services determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination, as she lacked two years and nine months of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant asserts that she possesses sufficient applicable and out-of-title work experience to meet the subject requirements listed in the announcement to qualify her for the examination. In this regard, she provides further clarification regarding the duties she performed in her various titles.

In support, the appellant provides a letter from Edward C. Williams, Director, Department of Planning and Development, which confirms that the appellant’s duties while serving as a Technical Assistant, Contract Administrator and as a Loan Advisor included streamlining internal procedures, introducing operational changes, providing comprehensive oversight and monitoring for ongoing projects, completing administration and management of the Housing Development Organizations, conducting field and site visits, ensuring that projects met deadlines, managing contracts to ensure that projects were in compliance with federal regulations, participating in conferences with the Community Housing Development Organization and other organizations, negotiating contract terms, working in collaboration with the law department and initiating contracts, ensuring that program activity costs were based on contract terms, processing payment requests, completing amendments to contracts, managing the order process, following up with parties, overseeing Section 8 Housing Assistance, and completing contract renewals. The letter also clarifies that she performed similar out-of-title duties as a Loan Advisor. Marc Riondino, acting Business Administrator, also indicated his agreement that the appellant performed applicable out-of-title duties while serving as a Technical Assistant, Contract Administrator and as a Loan Advisor.

BackgroundOfficial personnel records indicate that the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a)2 provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) provides that, except when permitted for good cause, applicants for promotional examinations with open-competitive requirements may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy the requirements for admittance to the examination or for credit in the examination process. Under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g), the Commission can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. However, N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. 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 for the subject examination. Primarily performing the required duties to establish eligibility for the subject examination would be considered out-of-title work for incumbents in the Technical Assistant, Contract Administrator and Loan Advisor titles. However, the appellant’s supervisor confirms that the appellant performed applicable out-of-title duties while serving in that title as well as while serving as a Loan Advisor. Additionally, the appellant continues to serve as a provisional Coordinator of Monitoring and Evaluation. As such, she has gained an additional nine months of such experience after the closing date. Moreover, the record reflects that the subject list is not competitive, as only two candidates appear on the list. Under these circumstances, good cause exists to accept the appellant’s clarified and verified out-of-title work experience, for eligibility purposes only, and admit her to the examination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted and the appellant’s application for Coordinator of Monitoring and Evaluation (PM3302C) 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.