Ronald DePasquale, CSC Docket No. 2022-907

BackgroundRonald DePasquale appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Management Information Systems Coordinator (PC3328C), Morris County.

The subject examination had a June 21, 2021, closing date. The education requirement was a Bachelor’s degree. The experience requirements were five years of experience in the analysis and development of management information systems, two years of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity with responsibility for the coordination and/or planning, and/or implementation of data processing systems. The appellant was the only applicant and the examination was cancelled due to a lack of qualified candidates.

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 February 2021 to the June 21, 2021 closing date, a Senior Systems Analyst from October 2017 to February 2021, a Systems Analyst from April 2014 to October 2017, and a Public Safety Telecommunicator from April 2013 to December 2013.1 Agency Services credited the appellant with having met the education and general experience requirements, but determined that he lacked two years of the required supervisory experience.

1 Personnel records indicate that the appellant was a Public Safety Telecommunicator Trainee from

April 2013 to November 2013.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that while serving a Senior Systems Analyst, he was responsible for the training and supervision of two staff members. Further, since he was provisionally appointed to the subject title, he indicates that a third staff member was added to his team and asserts that he now has four years of supervisory experience. He presents that two staff members that he supervises are Systems Analysts, which is a professional title, and one staff member is a Data Processing Programmer Trainee, which is a para-professional title. Moreover, the appellant describes in detail how he performs the required supervisory work while overseeing the three staff members.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g) provides that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. 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.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) states that the Commission may relax a rule for good cause in order to effectuate the purpose of Title 11A, New Jersey Statutes. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisInitially, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible as he only indicated on his application that while provisionally serving in the subject title and as a Senior Systems Analyst, he supervised “support staff.” Further, he did not describe any supervisory duties on his application. Therefore, his application did not clearly articulate that he was performing the required supervisory duties. However, on appeal, the appellant clarifies that he supervises two professionals and one para-professional, and he describes how he has performed the required supervisory duties for the required time. It is noted that the appellant’s “supervision” of staff while serving as a Senior Systems Analyst would be out-of-title work as this is a lead worker title. Further, he has provided no evidence that he signed the performance evaluations of the staff that he oversaw while serving as a Senior Systems Analyst and performance evaluation of subordinates, and its myriad of potential consequences to the organization, is the key function of a supervisor which distinguishes him or her from a “lead worker.” See In the Matter of Alexander Borovskis, et al. (MSB, decided July 27, 2005). Therefore, the record indicates that the appellant served as a lead worker as a Senior Systems Analyst and was not a supervisor as defined above. However, it cannot be ignored that the appellant led staff with responsibility for the coordination and/or planning, and/or implementation of data processing systems for the required time. Moreover, the appellant continues to successfully provisionally serve in the subject title and the examination was cancelled due to a lack of qualified candidates. The Commission notes that the dual purpose of the Civil Service system is to ensure efficient public service for State and local governments and to provide appointment and advancement opportunities to Civil Service employees based on their merit and abilities. These interests are best served when more, rather than fewer, individuals are presented with employment opportunities. See Communications Workers of America v. New Jersey Department of Personnel, 154 N.J. 121 (1998). Therefore, the Commission finds good cause under N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) to relax the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6 and accept the appellant’s clarified lead worker experience as well as his supervisory experience gained after the closing date, for eligibility purposes only, and admit him to the subject examination. Finally, the appointing authority is directed to ensure that the appellant, if he is not already doing so, should be signing the performance evaluations of the staff he supervises.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appeal be granted, the examination cancellation be rescinded, and the appellant’s application 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.