Susan Teti, CSC Docket No. 2024-1397

BackgroundSusan Teti appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Training Technician (PC3812E), Gloucester County.

The promotional examination at issue was announced with education and experience requirements which had to be satisfied as of the announced September 21, 2023 closing date. Specifically, all applicants had to possess a completed Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university plus one year of experience in employee development and training which shall have entailed the development of appropriate training courses and materials, conducting of orientation, in-service, refresher, and employee development and training courses; or as a teacher or instructor involving the development of a course curriculum or lesson plans and preparation of course materials and the conducting of classes in an adult education, vocational education, job training program, or in an elementary school through college; or combination thereof. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute additional experience on a year for year basis. A total of nine employees applied for the subject promotional examination that resulted in a list of three eligibles with a promulgation date of December 28, 2023, and an expiration date of December 27, 2026. To date, the list has not been certified.

The appellant filed an application on which she indicated that she did not possess the required Bachelor’s degree or any completed college credits. This meant that the appellant would need to possess five years of the stipulated experience to satisfy the subject requirements per the substitution clause for education. The appellant also indicated that she possessed experience as a Public Safety Telecommunicator (PST) (May 2000 to September 2023, the closing date). Agency Services concluded that the appellant possessed two years and two months of applicable experience as a PST (August 2021 to September 2023). None of the appellant’s remaining experience involved responsibilities in the required areas. Consequently, Agency Services found the appellant ineligible for the subject promotional examination since she lacked two years and 10 months of the required experience as of the closing date.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant asserts that she satisfies the subject requirements. In this regard, the appellant argues that she had been reassigned to the Training Unit and possesses two years and five months specifically in training, maintaining training records and conducting continuing education classes related to public safety. The appointing authority submits a letter confirming that the appellant served as an “instructor-trainer” for two years and five months. Additionally, the appellant asserts that, as a PST for 23 years, she also acted as a Certified Training Officer. The appellant included a list of her certifications.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the examination announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that, except for medical or psychological disqualification appeals, the appellant shall have the burden of proof.

AnalysisA review of the appellant’s application reveals that she possessed 23 years of experience as a PST. On appeal, the appellant submitted documentation from the appointing authority that, while a PST, she served as an “instructor-trainer” for two years and five months. The primary focus of a PST is receiving and responding to telephone or other electronic requests for emergency assistance, including law enforcement, fire, medical, or other emergency services and/or dispatches appropriate units to response sites, and experience in his area does not rise to the level and scope of those duties required of the subject position. 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). The amount of time, and the importance of the duty, determines if it is the primary focus. An experience requirement that lists a number of duties that define the primary experience, requires that the applicants demonstrate that they primarily performed all of those duties for the required length of time. Performance of only one or some of the duties listed is not indicative of comprehensive experience. See In the Matter of Jeffrey Davis (MSB, decided March 14, 2007). The development of appropriate training courses and materials, conducting orientation, in-service, refresher, and employee development and training courses; or as a teacher or instructor involving the development of a course curriculum or lesson plans and preparation of course materials and the conducting of classes in an adult education, vocational education, job training program, or in an elementary school was not the primary focus of her remaining time as a PST.1 Accordingly, the record reflects that the appellant did not meet the requirements for the title under test.

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.