Marva Coke Medical Security Officer 3 (PS5107H), CSC Docket No. 2024-2606

BackgroundMarva Coke appeals the determinations of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that they were not eligible for the promotional examination for Medical Security Officer 31 (PS5107H), Ann Klein Forensic Hospital.

By way of background, the Medical Security Officer 3 (PS5107H) examination was announced with a closing date of March 21, 2024, and was open, in relevant part, to applicants who possessed three years of experience in work involving the treatment, care and custody of patients or residents requiring medical security, one year of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. It is noted that 19 of the 42 applicants were admitted to the written examination which was held on January 16, 2025. The resulting eligible list of 17 names, promulgated on April 3, 2025 and expires April 2, 2027. Seven appointments were made from the one certification that was issued, and seven eligibles currently remain active on the PS5107H eligible list.

In her application, the appellant indicated that she served as a Senior Medical Security Officer from April 19972 to the closing date; as a Community Options Assistant Supervisor from April 1994 to December 1997; and as a contract driver from June 2005 to January 2015. The appellant indicated that as a Senior Medical Security Officer, she serviced as a “third-shift blotter clerk.” She maintains that she

The title name changed from Supervising Medical Security Officer to Medical Security Officer 3, effective February 21, 2026. The new title will be used in this decision. 2 Agency records indicate that the appellant received a regular appointment to the title of Senior

Medical Security Officer, effective December 4, 1999.

served “in a supervisory capacity, overseeing tasks such as completing supervisor reports, managing the daily officer schedule, assigning lunch breaks, ensuring precaution switches, and collaborating with the scheduling department to maintain proper officer coverage.” The appellant indicated that as a Community Options Assistant Supervisor, she was an assistant supervisor of a group home, where she prioritized the safety and welfare of residential patients and staff; played a key role in scheduling and staffing for each shift; prepared necessary reports; and provided transportation for patients to programs and appointments as required. Finally, as a contract driver, she indicated that she provided supervision for a team of five drivers; she planned daily routes, ensured the safe delivery of payroll to diverse commercial businesses; and oversaw the hiring and training of carriers. Based on the foregoing, Agency Services noted that for her service as a Senior Medical Security Officer, she failed to indicate that her responsibilities included work involving the care and treatment of patients or residents requiring medical security. Therefore, Agency Services determined that she lacked three years of applicable experience, which included one year of the required supervisor experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Commission, the appellant asserts that she possesses sufficient experience. The appellant also asserts that she was previously determined eligible for a Medical Security Officer 3 examination in 2007 and challenges the assertion that she is no longer eligible for the title. In this regard, she argues that the qualifications for the position have not changed and she should therefore have even more experience. The appellant explains that as a “third shift blotter clerk,” she continues to carry out and complete supervisory responsibilities daily. She maintains that she has far more experience than some of the supervisors in the position currently.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) requires applicants to possess all the requirements specified in an announcement for a promotional examination by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a)2 provides, in pertinent part that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional announcement by the closing date N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisInitially, it is noted that a review of the appellant’s application, and the information she submits on appeal, reveals that she possesses sufficient general experience. However, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant did not indicate sufficient supervisory experience as of the closing date. In this regard, the appellant’s supervisory experience as Community Options Assistant Supervisor and contract driver, does not meet the announced requirement, as there is no indication that her supervisory experience in those positions was focused on the treatment, care and custody of patients or residents requiring medical security. See

In the Matter of Karen Conti (CSC, decided April 19, 2017) (Commission noted that an experience requirement in an announcement that lists a number of duties which define the primary experience, requires that the applicants demonstrate that they primarily performed all those duties for the required length of time. Performance of only one or some of the duties listed is not indicative of comprehensive experience).

Moreover, with regard to the appellant’s experience as a Medical Security Officer, there is no indication that this position was supervisory in nature. In order for the appellant to indicate sufficient supervisory experience she would need to demonstrate that she was responsible for ensuring that tasks that were assigned to subordinates were efficiently accomplished; independently assign and distribute work to subordinate employees; provide oral or written task instructions and maintain the flow and quality of work within a unit in order to ensure timely and effective fulfillment of objectives. Supervisors are also responsible for making available or obtaining materials, supplies, equipment, and/or plans necessary for particular tasks. They provide on-the-job training to subordinates when needed and make employee evaluations based on their own judgment. They have the authority to recommend hiring, firing, and disciplining employees. Leading lower-level staff is not equivalent to supervisory duties, which involve not only being in a leadership position, but responsibility for overseeing the work of other staff, and composing and administering formal performance reviews for subordinates. Training and ensuring that assigned tasks are completed efficiently would only be considered part of supervisory functions and more consistent with that of a lead worker. See In the Matter of Phillip Beesley, et al. (MSB, decided March 27, 2001) and In the Matter of Vincent Gimmelli (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). In this matter, the appellant has failed to indicate that as a Medical Security Officer she was responsible for formal performance reviews of subordinate staff, and as such, the description of the appellant’s duties does not qualify as supervisory experience. Accordingly, the record reflects that the appellant did not meet the requirements for the title under test, and there is no basis to disturb the determination of Agency Services.

Addressing the appellant’s concern regarding that she had been previously admitted to a Supervising Medical Security Officer’s examination, it must be noted that eligibility is determined on the basis of each discrete announcement. If an applicant does not meet the requirements for the current announcement, the fact that the applicant was admitted to a prior examination for the same title does not provide the applicant with an entitlement to eligibility in the instant matter. See In the Matter of Anthony Lombardy, Docket No. A-3616-96T5 (App. Div. July 6, 1998)

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.