In the Matter of James Wilkes, CSC Docket No. 2022-837

BackgroundJames Wilkes, Jr., appeals the scoring of the Maintenance Supervisor, Grounds (PC3324C), Union County promotional examination.

By way of background, the subject examination’s closing date was June 21, 2021. The examination was administered as an evaluation and scoring of each candidate’s applicable work experience. The scoring standard was that eligibles received full credit for experience in the care and maintenance of grounds as a lead worker or in an assistant supervisor capacity. Half credit was awarded for general experience in the care and maintenance of grounds. Only experience within the past 10 years of the closing date was considered for scoring purposes. A total of three employees applied, including the appellant, and all three were determined eligible. The first and second ranked eligibles are non-veterans, and the appellant, the third- ranked eligible, is a veteran. The list expires on September 29, 2024.

On the appellant’s application, he indicated that he was a Maintenance Worker 3, Grounds from May 2017 to the June 21, 2021 closing date, but did not indicate any other experience. Personnel records indicate that he was a Maintenance Worker 3, Grounds from May 2017 to the June 21, 2021 closing date, a Maintenance Worker 1, Grounds from December 2011 to May 2017, a Recreation Maintenance Worker from December 2006 to December 2011, a Laborer 1 from September 1997 to December 2006, a Building Maintenance Worker from January 1997 to May 1997, and a Laundry Worker from March 1996 to January 1997. The Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) credited him with four years and two months of experience based on his Maintenance Worker 3, Grounds experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that he is a Navy veteran and served in the Persian Gulf War. He indicates that he has been in the Parks and Recreation Department since 1997, with increasing responsibility, and he worked for a County Hospital from 1995 to 1997. He describes his experience as an assistant supervisor in detail.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.8(a)3ii provides that upon a receipt of a certification an appointing authority shall appoint one of the top three interested eligibles (rule of three) from a promotional list, provided that if the eligible who ranks first on a promotional list is a veteran, then a non-veteran may not be appointed

N.J.A.C. 4A:5-2.2(b) provides that a list of eligibles who have passed a promotional examination shall appear in the order of their scores regardless of veteran or nonveteran status. However, when scores are tied, the names of veterans shall be listed first within each rank.

N.J.A.C. 4A:5-2.2(d) provides that when a single vacancy is to be filled from a promotional certification headed by a nonveteran, any reachable eligible may be appointed in accordance with the “rule of three.” See N.J.S.A. 11A:4-8.

AnalysisUnder N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g), the Civil Service Commission (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. However, any documentation indicating work in a setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. Thus, the Commission can only consider information provided on appeal regarding the positions listed on the appellant’s original application. See In the Matter of Diana Begley (MSB, decided November 17, 2004).

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn this matter, the first ranked candidate indicated on his application that he was a Maintenance Worker 3, Grounds from May 2017 to the June 21, 2021 closing date (full credit) and a Maintenance Worker 1, Grounds from December 2011 to May 2017 (half credit). His other experience was more than 10 years old. The second ranked candidate indicated on his application that he was a Maintenance Worker 3, Grounds from May 2017 to the June 21, 2021 closing date (full credit) a Maintenance Worker 1, Grounds from June 2013 to May 2017 (half credit), a Building Maintenance Worker from June 2012 to June 2013 (no credit), a Maintenance Worker 1, Grounds from December 2011 to June 2012 (half credit), and a Recreation Maintenance Worker from October 2007 to December 2011 (five months half credit). His other experience was more than 10 years old. As indicated above, the appellant only indicated his Maintenance Worker 3, Grounds experience.

On appeal, the appellant indicates experience that was not indicated on his application. However, the Commission cannot consider this additional experience for scoring purposes as this is considered an amendment. Since the application for the announcement is considered the “test paper,” it is no more subject to later amendment than any other type of examination. Accordingly, additional experience not included on original test papers cannot be considered in the appeal process. See In the Matter of Alex Westner (Commissioner of Personnel, decided August 11, 1997). Therefore, a review of the candidates’ applications, i.e. the test papers, indicates that all the candidates had the same full-credit Maintenance Worker 3, Grounds experience, but the first and second ranked candidates had additional half-credit experience based on their applications, which was also confirmed by personnel records. Therefore, the record indicates that the candidates’ scores and ranks were correct. It is noted, as there are only three eligibles on the list and the first ranked candidate is a non- veteran, under the Rule of Three, the appointing authority can appoint any of the three eligibles.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

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