Eboni Lee, CSC Docket No. 2023-260

BackgroundEboni Lee 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 Senior Personnel Assistant (M0521D), Newark School District.

The subject examination had a closing date of May 23, 2022 and was open to residents of Newark and New Jersey who met the announced requirements. These requirements included possession of a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, and two years of technical experience in personnel work. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience on a year for year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. Also, possession of a Master’s degree in Personnel Administration or other related field from an accredited college or university could be substituted for one year of required experience. The appellant was found to be ineligible based on a lack of experience. Seventeen candidates have been admitted, but the examination has not yet been held.

On her application, the appellant indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree and she listed three positions: provisional Senior Personnel Assistant, Interim Director of Operations with ASun Star Consulting, and Operations Specialist with Crum & Forster Insurance. She was credited with nine months of experience in her provisional position and found to be lacking one year, three months of required experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant provides detailed duties for her position of Interim Director of Operations with ASun Star Consulting.

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.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, the appellant met the educational requirement and was credited with her experience in her provisional position. The appellant described her duties for Interim Director of Operations as:

[I] initial[ly] started my tenure with ASun Star as a Senior

Administrative Coordinator. Within this role I provided quality metric checks to new and existing clients. Through this task utilization to business income reports were generated and presented to executive staff. The secondary function was to implement new workflows that resulted in improved client profiles and insurance billing cycles. The applications and software used to accomplish these task[s] were the following: 1. Google Application: Google Doc, Sheets, Slides, Forms and

Drive. 2. Microsoft Applications: Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook

3. Naomi: Client and staff profile manager 4. Monday.com: Task and project manager. 5. Insurance billing systems such as United

Healthcare, Aetna, Wellcare, Horizon and more. After supporting the organization in this capacity over a course of time I was promoted into the Interim Director of Operations. This included tasks listed above along with the following responsibilities: 1. conducting monthly fire inspection drills. 2. Ensuring company licenses and credentials were valid. 3. Performed regular building compliance and regulatory assessments.

With regard to this description, the online application process is automated and provides instructions to candidates on how to properly complete their applications. Eligibility for a given examination is determined based on the information provided on the application. The announcement 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 complete your application properly may lower your score or cause you to fail.” To proceed to the payment section, candidates must certify that their application is complete and accurate. The appellant’s description of duties refers to two positions, Senior Administrative Coordinator, and Interim Director of Operations. As there are no dates for each, neither can be quantified. Nonetheless, the duties provided are not technical experience in personnel work.

On appeal, the appellant provides additional duties, although she does not assign them to one of the titles, so again, they cannot be quantified. The appellant states that in those positions she recruited, selected, oriented and trained employees; ensured a safe, secure and legal work environment; developed personal growth opportunities; communicated job expectations, planned, monitored and appraised job results, coached, counseled and disciplined employees; developed, coordinated and enforced systems, policies, procedures and productivity standards; established goals; accomplished financial objectives; maintained quality services; and conducted meetings, completed paperwork, and crafted plans of action. It is noted that qualifying experience has the announced experience as the primary focus. The duties that the appellant provided on appeal look to be a completely different set of duties than those provided on the appellant’s application.

In order to clarify the issue, the appellant’s prior application was reviewed. For an examination for Administration Assistant 3, the appellant filed an application in September 2020. On that application, the appellant titled her position as Senior Administrative Coordinator/Office Manager. She described her duties as:

1. Oversee over 100 clinical providers to assure all proper documentation is submitted in a timely fashion. 2. Monitor the amount of revenue generated in the agency’s monthly recordings. 3. Maintain professional relationships with families and state staff that support families. 4. Create and monitor task workflow for staff to ensure agency’s operations are productive. 5. Conduct disciplinary hearings and generate performance improvement plans. 6. Oversee the hiring for new staff.

At this point it appears that the appellant had three titles while working for this employer for one year, three months: Interim Director of Operations, Senior Administrative Coordinator, and Office Manager. This description has some aspects of technical personnel work, but it does not appear to be the primary focus. The descriptions of the position given prior to the appellant’s notification of ineligibility do not qualify her for the examination. The appellant tailored a description on appeal to meet the announced requirements after receipt of a Notification of Ineligibility. This description is less convincing as it is significantly different from the description on the application. In sum, the Civil Service Commission cannot find that these positions provided qualifying experience. Finally, as an Operations Specialist, the appellant provided no duties in technical personnel work.

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of the Division 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.