Caryn Bridgewater, CSC Docket No. 2023-1317

BackgroundCaryn Bridgewater appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that she did not meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Office Supervisor (PS8055I), State Parole Board.

The subject examination was announced with a closing date of March 21, 2022 and was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title and possessed five years of experience in clerical work, three years of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. The examination was cancelled as the appellant was the sole applicant.

On her application, the appellant listed her experience as “Office Manager” with the State Parole Board in March 20221 performing such duties as overseeing the daily operations of the Parole Communication Center; receiving records and disseminating incidents for the home confinement program; maintaining and upgrading all Electronic Monitoring file folders when electrical failure; assisting the Department of Corrections Special Investigation Fugitive Unit and the Parole Fugitive Unit with National Crime Information Center (NCIC) research; writing and preparing internal management procedures for supervisor review and enforcement;

1 Agency records indicate that the appellant received a provisional appointment to the subject title effective July 31, 2021. She continues to serve in that capacity.

answering a large influx of incoming calls from parolees and administration that require possible emergency assistance; screening calls from parolees and locating their appropriate Parole Officers; receiving calls from Parole Officers and transferring them to telephone numbers or relaying messages to be given to other officers, police departments, inmates, and clients; receiving and transmitting radio messages to and from Corrections and Parole Officers; performing radio base station checks with requesting officers; responding to emergencies from Parole Officers in the field; dispatching local police and emergency personnel; maintaining and establishing warrants of escapees and parole violators using the NCIC; locating and running inquiries on absconders and escapees; sending teletypes to different agencies worldwide (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and various police agencies) confirming or negating warrant status; receiving and recording institutional counts and census, i.e. officers, supervisors’ sick calls, court trips, and detained inmates; and supporting Electronic Monitoring, Interstate Services, Juvenile Justice Commission, and Intense Supervision programs after normal business hours and on holidays. Agency Services credited the appellant with nine months of supervisory experience based on her provisional service in the subject title from July 2021 to March 2022. Therefore, Agency Services deemed the appellant ineligible since she lacked two years of nonsupervisory experience and two years and three months of supervisory experience, and thus did not meet the experience requirement set forth in the announcement.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission, the appellant maintains that she is eligible. In support, she provides a copy of the Notice of Vacancy to which she responded prior to being appointed provisionally in the subject title. The Job Description section of the Notice of Vacancy includes the following note:

Reporting to the District Parole Supervisor, this position will serve within the [State Parole Board]’s electronic monitoring unit in the newly created Communications Center. This position will oversee the operations of this center which will consist of 21 Communication

Operators and will act as the primary point of escalation of all exigent/emergency situations upon notification from the field.

The job description reveals that an individual in the title of Office Supervisor supervises and coordinates the clerical programs and staff of a medium to large clerical unit.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a)2 provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisA review of the appellant’s application reveals that she did not possess the required experience. In order for experience to be considered applicable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). The amount of time, and the importance of the duty, determines if it is the primary focus. An experience requirement that lists a number of duties that define the primary experience, requires that the applicants demonstrate that they primarily performed all of those duties for the required length of time. Performance of only one or some of the duties listed is not indicative of comprehensive experience. See In the Matter of Jeffrey Davis (MSB, decided March 14, 2007). In the instant matter, the position of Office Supervisor as described by the appellant and on the Notice of Vacancy to which she responded, does not have, as the primary focus, clerical work. Accordingly, the record reflects that the appellant did not meet the requirements for the title under test.

Finally, the appellant is presently serving in the title of Office Supervisor. N.J.S.A. 11A:3-1 and N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.1(a) provide that each position in the career and unclassified services shall be assigned to a job title. N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.3(d) provides that positions in the career, unclassified, and senior executive services shall be subject to job audit to ensure accurate classification and compliance with Titles 11A and 4A. Moreover, N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.4 provides that no person shall be appointed or employed under a title not appropriate to the duties to be performed nor assigned to perform duties other than those properly pertaining to the assigned title that the employee holds. However, the primary focus of the appellant’s duties, as noted above, would not be classified as being clerical work. Therefore, it is appropriate that this matter be referred to the Division of Agency Services for a classification review of the appellant’s position.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied. It is further ordered that the classification of the appellant’s position be referred to the Division of Agency Services.

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