Jannifer Beasley, CSC Docket No. 2023-1013

BackgroundJannifer Beasley appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not properly complete her application and her eligibility could not be determined, for the promotional examination for Human Services Specialist 4 (PC4888D), Camden County.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of August 22, 2022. The examination was open, in pertinent part, to candidates who possess sixty semester hour credits from an accredited college or university; and three years of experience involved any combination of the following: securing/verifying information and making determinations or recommendations relating to eligibility or qualifications of applicants for loans, insurance, credit, employability, and/or job training services, or entitlement to cash awards, financial benefits, or adjustment and settlement of insurance claims; investigations involving the collection of facts and information by observing conditions, examining records, interviewing individuals, and preparing investigative reports of findings; or investigating, establishing and/or enforcing support obligations in a welfare board or agency, court system, or related agency, one year of which should have been in a lead worker capacity. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience as indicated on a year for year basis, with thirty semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. A Bachelor’s degree could be substituted for two of the three years of experience. Forty-two candidates have been admitted to the examination, which was administered on February 16, 2023.

On her application, the applicant indicated possession of a Bachelor’s degree, and therefore, needed one year of applicable experience. The appellant did not complete the experience section of the application, nor did she provide a resume. In her appeal, the appellant believes there was a “download issue,” and submits a copy of her resume with one position, Human Services Specialist 3, and a transcript.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date.

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4(c) states that the burden of proof shall be on the appellant.

AnalysisThe appellant was found to be lacking one year of applicable experience as she did not provide any duties. Under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g), the Civil Service 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. 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).

On appeal, the appellant submits information regarding a position not originally listed on her application. The job announcement clearly states, “You must complete your application in detail. Your score may be based on a comparison of your background with the job requirements. Failure to compete your application properly may lower your score or cause you to fail.” Also, the on-line application allows an applicant to record as many positions as needed, and does not limit the number to three. The online application process is automated and provides instructions to candidates on how to properly complete their applications. Further, page i of the Online Application System User Guide reminds candidates, “Carefully review your application to ensure that it is compete and accurate before submitting,” and “If supplemental documents are required, please upload them with your application or submit them within five business days of submitting your online application.” Page 18 states, “Provide all employment information (not just your current employment information). If you have multiple experiences, make sure they you provide each one separately.” Page 19 provides instructions on how to save and edit experience, and pages 20 through 22 explain how to submit supporting documentation, either by mail or online. Page 23 demonstrates the area provided to determine needed changes, updates or additions. It also asks candidates if they carefully reviewed each section of the application to make sure that all the information was complete and accurate. It states that, “Please note that once you submit your online application and application fee, you will not be able to go back to the application to add or modify your information.” Page 24 informs candidates that when they click “yes” to proceed to the payment section, they are certifying that the information they have provided in the application is complete and accurate.

These copious instructions regarding the provision of a complete application are given because the application is not a mere formality used to schedule examinations. This agency makes official determinations for eligibility for all prospective candidates for positions in State or local Civil Service jurisdictions, since only those applicants who meet the minimum eligibility requirements are then evaluated through the testing process in order to determine relative merit and fitness. See In the Matter of Daniel Roach (Merit System Board, decided October 20, 2004). On appeal, the appellant provides a resume with a position not listed on her application. Thus, this position is a supplemental position. When the appellant finished her application, it provided the message, “During the application creation process, employment information was not entered into the Experience section.” As such, the appellant was informed immediately upon completion that she did not enter experience on the application. Further, she did not originally provide a resume, either uploaded or mailed. As this is a competitive situation, with 42 eligible candidates, the applicable regulation cannot be relaxed and any supplemental information provided on appeal cannot be considered.

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.

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