Thomas Scott, CSC Docket No. 2024-2637

BackgroundThomas Scott appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that he did not meet the experience requirements for the Senior Investigator Parole and Secured Facilities (PS5735I), Department of Corrections promotional examination.

The subject examination was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service in the Investigator Secured Facilities title as of the March 21, 2024 closing date; or to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service in any competitive title and met the following requirements: six years of professional experience in either the custodial field which included investigations of violations of rules, regulations, standards, and laws by adult inmates, juveniles and/or employees working within a secured facility; or in parole casework; or possession of a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university and two years of the above-noted professional experience. It is noted that of the 20 individuals who applied, 15 were admitted to the subject exam.

On his application, the appellant indicated that he worked as a Senior Investigations Division Investigator with the Department of Corrections from May 2008 to September 2022. However, it is noted that a review of the appellant’s employment record finds that he served as a provisional Senior Investigator Parole and Secured Facilities from December 2023 to the closing date; as an Investigator

Secured Facilities from June 2023 to December 2023; as a provisional Investigator Secured Facilities from January 2021 to June 2023; as a Senior Correctional Police Officer from May 2009 to November 2021; and as a Correctional Police Officer from May 2008 to May 2009. Since the appellant did not possess a year of continuous permanent service in the Investigator Secured Facilities title as of the closing date or the possession of a Bachelor’s degree, he needed six years of the above noted professional experience. Agency Services found that the appellant possessed two years and four months of applicable experience as a provisional Senior Investigator Parole and Secured Facilities, and as an Investigator Secured Facilities. However, Agency Services did not credit him with any other applicable experience. Accordingly, Agency Services determined that he lacked three years and eight months of the requisite experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that he meets the subject requirements “due to completing sixteen years of service with the [New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC)] as a [Senior Correctional Police Officer (SCPO)] and a S[enio]r Investigator. As an SCPO I investigated violations of the rules and regulations within the prison and issued administrative charges to incarcerated persons. As a Senior Investigator, I have issued numerous Criminal Complaints Summons and Warrants to individuals who have violated the NJ Criminal Code 2C. I also have over sixteen years of professional experience, [and] completed two accredited Police Training Commission academies . . .” The appellant further presents that “approximately twenty investigators that were hired after me with the NJDOC/SID have applied for this title and . . . I am the only one that was notified of being ineligible.” In support of his appeal, he provides additional documentation including: a copy of his resume; a copy of a certification of completion dated February 22, 2024 for the course, “Dirty Money: Investigating Financial Crimes,” issued by the Bloodgood Law Enforcement Training Group; a copy of a certification of completion dated October 19, 2023 for the October Training Seminar “Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Trend” and “Motorcycle Related Title 39” issued by the New Jersey narcotic Enforcement Officers Association; a copy of a certificate of achievement dated August 14, 2023 for completion of the independent study course, “Introduction to Incident Command System, ICS-100” issued by FEMA; a copy of a certification of completion dated August 14, 2023 for “NJCJIS Terminal Operator Two Year Certification Test” issued by the New Jersey State Police; and a copy of a certification of completion dated August 8, 2023 for “Mobile Detect 101” issued by Detectachem Training; and a certificate of completion for law enforcement based gang training on June 13 and 14, 2023 issued by the Morris County Sheriff’s Office.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) requires applicants to meet all of the requirements specified in an announcement for a promotional examination 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.

AnalysisRegarding the appellant’s assertion that he conducted investigations as a Senior Correctional Police Officer, it is noted that for experience to be acceptable, 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 related aspects of the duties listed is not indicative of comprehensive experience. See In the Matter of Jeffrey Davis (MSB, decided March 14, 2007). In this regard, the primary focus of a Senior Correctional Police Officer is the care and custody of inmates rather than investigations of violations of rules, regulations, standards, and laws by adult inmates, juveniles and/or employees working within a secured facility or in parole casework as required. As such, this position cannot be credited. As noted previously, the appellant possessed two years and four months of applicable experience. Thus, the appellant did not meet the requirements for the title under test as of the announced closing date.

With regard to the appellant’s claim that “approximately twenty investigators that were hired after me” were admitted to the subject test but only he was found ineligible, as noted above, a total of 20 applications were received for the subject test and five were found ineligible. It is noted that the appellant does not provide the names of those individuals whom he believes were incorrectly admitted. Without this information, the Commission cannot pursue this matter further.

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.