Terry Singleton, CSC Docket No. 2025-160

BackgroundTerry Singleton Jr. appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that he was 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 his application, the appellant indicated, in relevant part, that he served provisionally, pending promotional examination procedures, in the subject title from December 2023 through the closing date; as an Assistant Supervising Medical Security Officer from July 2023 to December 2023; and as a Senior Medical Security Officer from February 2011 to July 2023.2 The appellant indicated, in relevant part,

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. Agency records indicate that the appellant received a regular appointment to the title of Medical Security Officer Recruit, effective September 8, 2012; a regular appointment to the title of Senior that as Supervising Medical Security Officer, he collaborated with treatment staff to support and maintain therapeutic and rehabilitation programs; supervised, assigned, and trained security personnel engaged in maintaining facility security; prepared comprehensive written reports for disciplinary actions, training purposes, and daily summation of events during prior shifts and synopsis of current shift expectations. As an Assistant Supervising Medical Security Officer, he oversaw and implemented security regulations and methods to ensure a safe environment; coordinated court appearances for patients and ensured necessary security measures for associated trips; and conducted inspection of wards to ensure a clean and safe environment for patients and security personnel. The appellant indicated that as a Senior Medical Security Officer he diffused confrontational situations to avoid any escalation; maintained the safety and security of patients and staff and provided moral support to patients to promote emotional and mental well-being. Although Agency Services found that he possessed sufficient general experience, it determined that he lacked eight months of the required supervisor experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant argues that he has been employed as a Medical Security Officer for over a decade. He maintains that his duties inherently centers on the care, custody and safety of individuals with psychiatric and medical needs. The appellant further asserts his long-standing experience on the Pro-Active Therapeutic Team (PATT) is a testament to his experience with patients requiring elevated levels of supervision, de-escalation and care within a secure medical environment. The appellant argues that he has demonstrated supervisory duties consistently throughout his tenure with the appointing authority.

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 Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant did not indicate sufficient supervisory experience as of the closing date. While appellant indicated that he served provisionally in the subject title, that only provided him with four months of supervisory experience as of the closing date. In

Medical Security Officer, effective September 7, 2013; a provisional appointment, pending promotional examination procedures, to the title of Assistant Supervising Medical Security officer, effective July 29, 2023; a provisional appointment, pending promotional examination procedures, to the subject title, effective December 30, 2023; and he was returned to his permanent title of Senior Medical Security Officer, effective September 6, 2025.

this regard, none of the additional experience that the appellant listed on his application, nor the information he submits on appeal, had as the primary focus of those positions, supervisory experience in work involving the treatment, care and custody of patients or residents requiring medical security. In order for an appellant to indicate sufficient supervisory experience they would need to demonstrate that they were 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 an Assistant Supervising MSO or as a Senior MSO he was responsible for formal performance reviews of subordinate staff, and as such, the description of the appellant’s duties is more consistent with lead worker duties. 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.

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.