Marielena Rodriguez, CSC Docket No. 2024-413, 2024-414

BackgroundMarielena Rodriguez appeals the determinations of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the Compliance Officer 1 MVC (PS0620T) (Compliance Officer 1) and Compliance Officer 2 MVC (PS0621T) (Compliance Officer 2) promotional examinations. These appeals have been consolidated due to common issues presented.

The closing date of the examinations was January 23, 2023. The education requirements for both examinations were possession of an Associate’s degree or 60 college credits. Further, it was noted that to receive credit for foreign college credits the foreign degrees/transcripts needed to be evaluated by a recognized evaluation service. The experience requirements were three years of experience for the Compliance Officer 2 examination and two years for the Compliance Officer 1 examination in a governmental or private organization involving the review and analysis of varied operations to determine compliance with existing laws, rules, regulations, or procedures. Applicants who did not possess an Associate’s degree or have the required college credits could have substituted additional experience on a year-for-year basis with 30 college credits being equal to one year of experience. A total of 75 candidates applied for the Compliance Officer 1 promotional examination and 10 were admitted. Also, a total of 15 candidates applied for the Compliance Officer 2 promotional examination and 12 were admitted. The tests for both examinations have not yet been administered.

On the appellant’s applications, she indicated that she possesses nine college credits from a foreign institution. Additionally, she indicated that for the Motor

Vehicle Commission, she was a Safety Specialist 2 from June 2019 to the closing date and a Technician MVC from January 2006 to May 2019. Personnel records indicate that for the Motor Vehicle Commission, the appellant was a Safety Specialist 2 MVC from June 2019 to the closing date, a Technician MVC from July 2010 to June 2019, a Customer Service Representative 4 from August 2006 to July 2010, and a Customer Service Representative Trainee from January 2006 to August 2006. Agency Services did not credit her college credits as she did not submit an evaluation of her foreign transcript. Further, per the substitution clause for education, Agency Services determined that the appellant lacked four years of experience for the Compliance Officer 2 examination and three years of experience for the Compliance Officer 1 examination.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that she has four years of experience as a Safety Specialist 2 and 13 years of experience working for the Edison Motor Vehicle agency. Therefore, she believes that her 17 years of experience meets the eligibility requirements for the Compliance Officer 1 and 2 examinations.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides 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.

AnalysisIn this matter, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant lacked the required experience for the Compliance Officer 1 and 2 examinations. Initially, Agency Services correctly did not credit the appellant for any college credits since she did not submit an evaluation of her foreign transcript. Further, Agency Services correctly did not credit her for any experience as the appellant’s application, resume and appeal do not clearly indicate that her primary duty in any position involved review and analysis of operations as her work primarily involved assisting customers. 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). Simply having 17 years of experience with the Motor Vehicle Commission is insufficient. Accordingly, the appellant has not satisfied her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these appeals be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.