Donald Hundt, CSC Docket No. 2023-429

BackgroundDonald Hundt, Jr., appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that he did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the open competitive examination for Storekeeper 3 (S0403D), Statewide.

The subject examination had a closing date of April 21, 2022 and was open to residents of New Jersey who met the open competitive requirements of four years of experience in work involving receiving, storing, safeguarding, and recording parts, materials, equipment, and supplies of varied types in an organized storeroom. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience. There are six candidates on the eligible list, which has been certified once, but no appointments have yet been made.

The appellant listed one position on his application, Storekeeper 3 from March 2022 to April 2022. As he did not indicate that he was receiving parts, materials, equipment, and supplies, this experience was not accepted, and he was found to be lacking four years of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that he has accrued applicable experience in the titles Assistant Storekeeper and Storekeeper 2, and he provides a description of duties, although he does not indicate which in which title or titles he performed each duty. He also provides some duties he performed in his provisional position. As we as a resume which lacked the hours worked per week, but included a brief description of his duties for Assistant Storekeeper and Storekeeper 2. In support, the Business Manager of Bayside State Prison states that the appellant has 19 years of experience as an Assistant Storekeeper and Storekeeper 2, and indicated that he intermittently performed the duties of a Storekeeper 3 while serving as a Storekeeper 2.

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. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an applicant may amend a previously submitted application prior to the closing date.

AnalysisInitially, it is noted that eligibility for a given examination is determined based on the information provided on the application. The application states, “You may be declared ineligible or you may not receive proper credit for scoring purposes if you do not properly complete your application,” and “Since your application may be your only ‘test paper,’ be sure it is complete and accurate. Failure to complete your application properly may cause you to be declared ineligible, lower your score, or possibly cause you to fail.” The published announcement also clearly specifies the relevant time frames for filing and amending applications. Also, for experience to be acceptable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. The amount of time, and the importance of the duty, determines if it is the primary focus. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004).

Other than his provisional service in the title under test, the appellant did not indicate any of the required experience in his other positions. The application is not a formality used to schedule examinations as this agency makes official determinations for eligibility for all prospective candidates for position in State or local Civil Service jurisdictions since only those applicants who meet the minimum eligibility requirements are then evaluated through the testing process in order to determine relative merit and fitness. See In the Matter of Daniel Roach (MSB, decided October 20, 2004). Thus, the application is utilized to screen the candidate pool to ensure that applicants meet the minimum experience requirements for each position. Provisional appointees are not exempt from this screening process. Those applicants who meet the minimum eligibility requirements are then evaluated through the testing process in order to determine their relative merit and fitness. Even if the experience on the one position on the application were to be accepted, the appellant would have been credited with two months of experience, and found to be lacking three years, 10 months of required experience. Moreover, as the list is complete with six eligible candidates, there is no basis to relax the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) and accept supplemental positions.

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