Erika Turner-Byfield, CSC Docket No. 2023-10

BackgroundErika Turner-Byfield appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the experience requirements for the open competitive examination for Supervising Community Program Specialist (S0405D), Statewide.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of April 21, 2022. The examination was open to residents of New Jersey who met the announced requirements. These requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and four years of program delivery experience providing education, habilitative, or social services in programs for people with developmental disabilities, one year of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. Applicants who do not possess the required Bachelor’s degree could substitute additional experience as indicated on a year for year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. A Master’s degree in Social Work, Public or Business Administration, Education, Psychology, Nursing or other related areas could be substituted for one year of non-supervisory experience. The appellant was determined to be ineligible for being below the minimum requirements in experience. Thirty-one candidates were admitted and the examination has not yet been held.

On her application, the appellant indicated possession of a Bachelor’s degree, and a Master’s degree in Public Administration, which could be substituted for one year of non-supervisory experience. She listed five positions on her application: provisional Supervising Community Program Specialist, Quality Assurance

Specialist Health Specialist, Habilitation Plan Coordinator, Behavior Modification Program Technician, and Kiddie Camp Director. Official records indicate that the appellant was an Instructor Counselor for a portion of the time she indicated she was a Behavior Modification Program Technician. The appellant provided a resume with additional positions, however, she did not provide hours worked per week. As such, those positions could not be quantified. She indicated differing months and years of service for her position as Kiddie Camp Director on the application, June 1999 to October 2001, and on her resume, March 2000 to June 2001. The appellant was credited with at least three years of general experience in her positions as Habilitation Plan Coordinator and Behavior Modification Program Technician, and she was found to be lacking one year of applicable supervisory experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that she has a Master’s degree in Public Administration and more than five years of experience in her provisional position, as a Quality Assurance Specialist Health Specialist, and as a Camp Director. She explains her duties for each of these positions.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the open competitive examination announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisThe appellant meets the educational and general experience requirements for the examination and was found to be lacking one year of supervisory experience. The only positions for which the appellant indicated she supervised was as a Kiddie Camp Director and in her provisional position. On her current application, and on two previously submitted applications, the appellant indicated that she supervised five staff in managing daily activities for kindergarten children. On appeal, the appellant claims that the program was for children both with and without developmental disabilities. Nonetheless, she did not indicate that this was program for children with developmental disabilities until she received notification of her ineligibility for the subject examination. On all of the applications in which she included this position, the appellant did not include this element in the description of duties. Based on all of the documents submitted regarding this position, it does not meet the announced requirements. That is, the primary focus was a program for all kindergarteners, and not only for those with developmental disabilities. The experience in this position is not applicable.

On her application, for the duties of her provisional position the appellant listed her duties as:

Develop changes for unit policies and practices. Coordinates staff trainings and agency trainings. Organizes provider meetings for compliance. Coordinates and evaluates work of professional staff.

Interpret rules and federal and state standards. Ensure overall compliance with standards. Knowledge of service delivery and service plans. Evaluate agency for compliance with standards. Supervise implementation of service plans and state and federal rules.

Organizing and conducting staff interviews. Conduct staff meetings monthly. Implement directives and policies.

This experience clearly involves supervision. However, the manner in which these duties are described is closer to quality assurance of a program rather than delivery of a program providing education, habilitative, or social services in programs for people with developmental disabilities. On appeal, the appellant states:

In my current position, I actively supervise 5 DDD staff and oversee programming for DDD Medicaid approved service providers. Since my appointment, I manage staff training and performance, performance measures for service delivery programming for people with autism and other developmental disabilities, oversee the implementation of DDD programs and service requirements as well as monitory and implementing specialized programming for people with autism, Down’s syndrome, and other genetic disorders and developmental disabilities.

Indeed, this additional description does not support that the primary focus of the position involves program delivery. Instead, it validates that quality control of programs is the primary focus. As a result, the appellant lacks one year of applicable supervisory experience, and it appears that the appellant’s position may be misclassified. Accordingly, the appellant should provide a duties questionnaire (enclosed) to Agency Services detailing the duties of the position within 30 days of the issuance of this decision, so that an appropriate provisional title can be assigned.

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date is amply supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied, and the matter of the classification of the appellant’s provisional position be referred to the Division of Agency Services for review.

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