Melissa Soto, CSC Docket No. 2023-1427

BackgroundMelissa Soto appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Supervisor 1, MVC (PS8980T), Motor Vehicle Commission.

The examination at issue was announced with specific requirements which had to be met as of the June 21, 2022 closing date. The requirements were five years of experience applying, disseminating, interpreting and analyzing regulatory information, one year of which must have been as a lead worker performing one or a combination of the following functions: review and analysis of driver records; driver testing; damage and/or insurance claim evaluations or adjustment work; receipt, review, analysis/evaluation and/or response to customer inquiries and/or complains; vehicle safety/compliance inspection, performing varied vehicle inspections; or other similar work areas related to the administration of motor vehicle regulations. It was noted that an Associate’s degree or 60 course credits from an accredited college or university could have been substituted for two years of the above noted experience, which shall not be applied to meeting the lead worker requirement. The resulting eligible list promulgated on February 16, 2023 and expires on February 15, 2026, containing the names of 91 eligibles. Twenty-six certifications have been issued and 60 appointments have been made.

A review of the appellant’s application reveals that she served as a Senior Technician from April 2019 to the June 2022 closing date. She described her duties as reconciling registers; counting money; handling customer complaints; processing title registrations; auditing and scheduling; completing inventory; and supervising employees. Agency Services credited her with three years and three months of applicable experience for that work. The appellant did not provide any additional information on her application, or a resume with the application. Accordingly, Agency Services determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination, as she lacked one year and nine months of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant provides a resume indicating additional experience that was not listed on her application. Specifically, the resume indicates, in relevant part, that she served as a Motor Vehicle Technician from October 2004 to April 2014; and as a Pharmacy Technician from September 1997 to October 2004. She describes her duties as a Motor Vehicle Technician as processing titles, registrations, permits, and licenses; training employees; and addressing customer inquiries.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.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:4-2.1(f) provides that any supplemental information received after the closing date cannot be considered.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, other than her experience as a Senior Technician from April 2019 to June 2022, the appellant did not list any other work experience on her application or provide a resume with the application indicating any additional work experience. As such, Agency Services could not credit her with any other applicable experience. Although the appellant now submits a resume on appeal indicating additional work experience, pursuant to the above listed rule, supplemental information received after the closing date cannot be considered. Moreover, the directions for filing the online application clearly indicate that the appellant was required to fully complete the application, including listing information regarding her employment history. In this regard, the online application process provides instructions to candidates on how to properly complete their applications, and a link to submit supporting documents with the application, such as a resume. The guide also indicates that supporting documents can be submitted by mail. Although the appellant could have supplemented her application by submitting additional information by mail, she did not do so until she filed the appeal in this matter. Since the appellant did not follow instructions by providing her requisite experience on the subject application or provide a resume with the application, she did not meet the experience requirements. Moreover, the record reflects that, as there are currently 28 eligible candidates remaining on the subject eligible list, the list is considered complete. As such, there is no basis to relax the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f).

A thorough review of all material presented indicates that Agency Services’ determination that the appellant did not meet the eligibility requirements by the closing date is amply supported by the record. 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.