Scott Dinardo, CSC Docket No. 2023-373

BackgroundScott Dinardo appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that, per the substitution clause for education, he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Administrative Supervisor of Social Work (PC4183D), Union County.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of June 21, 2022. The examination 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 the title Assistant Administrative Supervisor of Social Work, OR 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 who met the announced requirements. These requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree supplemented by a Master’s degree in Social Work, Psychology, Sociology, Guidance and Counseling or other field related to social work or social service, and four years of experience in social work involving obtaining social information from clients, determining their needs, and planning and carrying out treatment plans based on needs of individual clients, two years of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. Applicants who do not possess the required Bachelor’s degree could substitute additional experience as indicated on a year for year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. Applicants who do not possess the required Master’s degree may substitute one additional year of experience. The appellant was determined to be ineligible for below minimum requirements in experience per the substitution clause for education. Seven candidates have been admitted, but the examination has not yet been held.

On his application, the appellant indicated possession of a Bachelor’s degree, but not a specific Master’s degree. As such, he was required to possess five years of required experience. He listed three positions on his application: provisional Administrative Supervisor of Social Work, Social Work and Social Worker. He was credited with three months of general and supervising experience in the first position, and over ten years of general experience in the third position. As such, he was found to be lacking one year, nine months of qualifying supervisory experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that he accrued applicable experience in his position as Social Work Supervisor when he directly managed seven workers and indirectly managed the “sanction work” of all Social Workers, a team of almost 20 people. He states that he created procedures to track and submit sanctions and medical deferrals, and developed and coordinated communication and work flow between clericals, Social Workers, and Employment Specialists. The Director of the Division of Social Services verifies the appellant’s time in grade in his titles. The Assistant Director states that, as a Social Work Supervisor, the appellant created protocols and dictated the protocols to Social Workers.

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.

AnalysisThe appellant received credit for general and supervisory experience in his provisional position, and general experience in his Social Work position, and his remaining positions are inapplicable for supervisory 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). For his Social Work Supervisor position, the appellant listed the following duties:

Create spreadsheets to track all sanctions and medical deferrals -

Submit monthly sanction reports - assist in resolving disputes between workers and clients - complete reconciliation projects when there are payment issues - work with income maintenance department to process and approve cases.

This experience was not accepted as the appellant did not explain that he was planning and carrying out treatment plans based on needs of individual clients. These duties appear to be out-of-title. The duties that the appellant and the Assistant Director provide on appeal do not establish that the appellant was performing applicable duties while in his Social Work Supervisor position. In sum, the appellant lacks 1 year, 9 months of applicable supervisory 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.