John Pilone, CSC Docket No. 2025-1561

BackgroundJohn Pilone, represented by Dudley Burdge, Senior Staff Representative, CWA Local 1032, appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that he did not meet the education and experience requirements for the promotional examination for Network Administrator 2 OIT (PS7665U), Office of Information Technology (OIT).

The subject examination was announced with a closing date of July 22, 2024 and was open, in pertinent part, to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title and possessed a Bachelor’s degree, including or supplemented by a minimum of 18 semester hour credits in mathematics, computer science, information technology, and/or computer information systems, and four years of professional experience in the development, implementation, and maintenance of multi-network, multi-user Local Area Network (LAN), Metropolitan Area Network, Storage Area Networks (SAN), and/or Wide Area Network (WAN) environments. Applicants needed to attach a copy of their transcripts to their applications. The resulting eligible list of five non-veteran names promulgated on February 6, 2025 with an expiration date of February 5, 2027. A certification of those names issued from the eligible list on February 6, 2025 (PS250186) with three eligibles receiving regular appointments and two being retained. A second certification, consisting of two names, issued on March 26, 2025 (PS250480) and is outstanding.

On his application, the appellant indicated possession of a Bachelor’s degree. He also listed his experience as “Network Administrator 2 OIT” with the OIT from May 2015 to July 2024;1 Systems Engineer with Konica Minolta from November 2013 to April 2015; Technical Support Analyst with SRSSoft from February 2012 to October 2013; Technical Support Specialist with Med-Metrix from May 2008 to January 2012; Network and Computer Systems Analyst with Liberty Consulting and Billing from May 2007 to November 2007; and Computer Technician with the Township of Union Board of Education from June 2005 to April 2007. Agency Services credited the appellant with three years and three months of experience based on his Systems Engineer and Technical Support Analyst positions but did not credit the other listed positions. In that regard, for the “Network Administrator 2 OIT” position, the appellant listed his duties as follows:

Network Service Level Management Team - Providing secure, efficient, and highly available IT Support Services for the State of New Jersey computing platforms located within the NJOIT managed facilities and data centers as well as for all State of New Jersey Executive Branch

Departments and Agencies through the Garden State Network. •

Providing and maintaining Enterprise Network Monitoring and

Application Performance Monitoring Services in support of a highly available and efficiently operating data center and network infrastructure. • Leads and participates in the planning, development, implementation, and maintenance of new hardware device monitoring systems (Cisco Prime Infrastructure, IBM Netcool Omnibus, and Solarwinds). • Acts as a liaison between current department and various state agency representatives regarding their hardware equipment hosted in the Cisco Prime Infrastructure application. •

Generates documentation for new application, upgrades, enhancements and changes to existing infrastructure. Documents changes to critical systems in accordance with the organization’s processes and procedures, change control methods and configuration standards. • Analyzes informational reports, server / application processes, and operational reports to detect monitoring system issues and hosted device issues.

Provides recommendations for and physical environment enhancements as needed.

For the Technical Support Specialist position, the appellant listed his duties as follows:

1 In fact, the appellant lumped three positions together. In this regard, agency records indicate that prior to January 14, 2023, the appellant served in the titles of Information Technology Specialist and Administrative Analyst 3 Information Systems. Effective January 14, 2023, the appellant received a provisional appointment to the subject title. He continues to serve in that capacity.

Domain based network administration of Microsoft Windows Server

2003 and Microsoft Windows Server 2008 environments, server roles including: Active Directory, DHCP, DNS, File Services, Network Policy,

Print Services, and Web Server (IIS). • Hardware and software workstation end-user technical support in Microsoft Windows 7 and

Microsoft Windows XP environments.

For the Network and Computer Systems Analyst position, the appellant listed his duties as follows:

Maintaining and allocation of technology resource budget. • Domain based network administration of Microsoft Windows Server 2003 environment, server roles including: Active Directory, DHCP, DNS,

Network Policy, and Print Services. • Hardware and software workstation end-user technical support in Microsoft Windows XP and

Microsoft Windows 2000 environments.

For the Computer Technician position, the appellant listed his duties as follows:

Hardware and software workstation end-user technical support in

Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows 2000, and Microsoft

Windows 98 environments. • Management of the Township of Union

Public School District employee, teacher, and student accounts in

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 environment using Active Directory services.

Agency Services determined that the appellant’s descriptions of his “Network Administrator 2 OIT,” Technical Support Specialist, and Network and Computer Systems Analyst positions, while including some relevant aspects in terms of the maintenance and support of multinetwork LANs and WANs, did not indicate the development and implementation of multinetwork SANs, LANS, or WANs. Agency Services also determined that the appellant’s description of his Computer Technician position did not reflect the required experience. Agency Services further indicated that there was no transcript available to verify the appellant’s possession of the required specific credits. Therefore, Agency Services deemed the appellant ineligible since he lacked the specific credits and nine months of experience and thus did not meet the education and experience requirements set forth in the announcement.

It is noted that the appellant was admitted to the subject examination for prospective employment opportunities based on earlier appeal filings. Specifically, the appellant supplied a copy of his transcript evidencing his possession of the specific credits and clarified his “Network Administrator 2 OIT” experience. The appellant also listed the three titles in which he served; revised the second set of duties to read, “Providing and maintaining Enterprise Network Monitoring and Application

Performance Monitoring Services in support of a highly available and efficiently operating data center and LAN/WAN network infrastructure;” and added “Manages network based equipment (firewalls, routers, switches) in both the Cisco Prime Infrastructure and Solarwinds network monitoring applications used in LAN/WAN deployments across the state of New Jersey.” However, the appellant maintains that this relief was insufficient and urges that he should be admitted with retroactive effect and the issuance of an amended certification because Agency Services’ determination was erroneous. The appellant argues, among other things, that when he applied, the Online Application System reflected that his transcript was already on file.

CONCLUSION

A review of the appellant’s application reveals that it did not reflect the required experience. 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). Agency Services’ review of the “Network Administrator 2 OIT,” Technical Support Specialist, Network and Computer Systems Analyst, and Computer Technician positions was appropriate for the reasons described above.

Moreover, the appellant’s subsequent admittance to the examination, based on information regarding his experience that he only supplied on appeal, does not establish that Agency Services erred in finding him ineligible on the basis of the information he provided on his application. In this regard, the OAS User’s Guide cautions applicants to carefully review the application to ensure that it is complete and accurate before submitting, and to complete the application in detail. It states that failure to complete the application properly may cause the applicant to be declared ineligible. The instructions under the experience portion of the applications advise applicants to provide all employment information (not just current employment information), and if they have multiple positions, they need to make sure that they provide each one separately. Thus, applicants are provided notice that their failure to provide sufficient detail can result in their being found ineligible. See In the Matter of Matthew Palko (CSC, decided December 16, 2020). In this matter, the appellant did not provide sufficient information regarding his duties on his application. Accordingly, as he was properly deemed ineligible, on the basis of the information he originally provided, there is no basis to provide a retroactive remedy. Thus, as the appellant is not entitled to retroactive relief, it is unnecessary to determine whether Agency Services erroneously determined that he did not meet the education requirement.

ORDER

Therefore, the appellant’s admittance to the Network Administrator 2 OIT (PS7665U), Office of Information Technology examination for prospective employment opportunities is affirmed, and the request for retroactive relief is denied.

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