Jeffrey Rapciewicz, CSC Docket No. 2023-2680

BackgroundJeffrey Rapciewicz appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that he did not meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Records Technician 2 Motor Vehicles (PS0258T), Motor Vehicle Commission.

The subject examination was announced with a closing date of November 21, 2022 and was open, in pertinent part, to employees who possessed two years of experience in the review/analysis of driver records for the purpose of ensuring that laws, rules, regulations, or policies have been interpreted properly or in a public/private agency involved in processing, evaluation, and/or adjustment of damage claims or other insurance claims evaluation and adjustment work. The resulting eligible list of 40 names promulgated on October 26, 2023 and expires on October 25, 2026. The list has not yet been certified.

On his application, the appellant listed his experience as a provisional Records Technician 2 Motor Vehicles with the Motor Vehicle Commission from October 2022 to November 2022, for which the appellant was credited with two months of experience. Per the Online Application System, the appellant did not upload a resume or any other attachment with his application. Therefore, Agency Services deemed the appellant ineligible since he lacked one year and 10 months of 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 acknowledges that he “messed up on the application . . . and didn’t list everything.” However, he insists that he is eligible and highlights his provisional appointment to the subject title. In support, the appellant submits his resume, which includes positions other than the sole position he had listed on his original application.

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:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. That is, any documentation indicating work in any setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. See In the Matter of Joann Burch, et al. (MSB, decided August 21, 2003) and In the Matter of Rolanda Alphonso, et al. (MSB, decided January 26, 2005).

AnalysisInitially, it is noted that Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination. The appellant was required to possess two years of applicable experience. However, a review of the appellant’s application reveals that he did not possess the required experience. While the appellant, on appeal, provides information regarding employment in positions other than the sole position he had listed on his original application, N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. That is, any documentation indicating work in any setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. See Burch, supra. Therefore, since the appellant did not list these positions on his application, the information he provides on appeal related to these positions would be considered an amendment. Additionally, it should be noted that the appellant’s provisional appointment to the subject title did not create a presumption of eligibility. See, e.g., In the Matter of Jennifer Napoli (MSB, decided February 25, 2004) (This agency makes official determinations of eligibility for all prospective candidates for State employment who are also required to pass a competitive examination and be certified in order to be considered for permanent employment in the competitive division of the career service). Moreover, as there are currently 40 eligible candidates 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).

The appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since he lacked the minimum requirements in experience. 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 his 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.