Senior Account Clerk (M1316F), CSC Docket No. 2025-1714

BackgroundBeachwood, represented by Armand Riccio, Esq., requests permission not to make an appointment from the November 12, 2024 certification for Senior Account Clerk (M1316F), Beachwood.

The record reveals that Beachwood provisionally appointed Larissa Santiago, pending open competitive examination procedures, to the subject title effective November 1, 2023. An examination was announced with a closing date of September 23, 2024, that resulted in a list of four eligibles promulgating on November 7, 2024 and expiring on November 6, 2026. It is noted that Santiago has been subsequently separated from her provisional position. Additionally, there are currently no employees serving provisionally pending open competitive examination procedures in the subject title with the appointing authority.

The appointing authority returned the subject certification and requested a waiver of the appointment requirement, stating that although it has had a valid residency ordinance in place since 1995 (Ordinance No. 95-19), it was discovered that the ordinance was never filed with the Civil Service Commission (Commission). In this regard, the Borough explains that the employee who was responsible for filing the ordinance had passed away before the ordinance could be properly filed. Therefore, when the subject examination was requested, it was announced open to residents of New Jersey, rather than to residents of Beachwood. As a result, the resultant subject eligible list included candidates that resided outside of Beachwood and the provisional appointee, who is a resident of Beachwood, was unreachable for appointment. Thus, the appointing authority requests to dispose of the current certification without making an appointment. Additionally, Beachwood intends to request that the examination be reannounced in accordance with the residency requirement.

The appointing authority’s request for an appointment waiver was acknowledged, and it was advised that if its request were granted, it could be assessed for the costs of the selection process in the amount of $2,048. Despite the opportunity, the appointing authority did not provide any additional information for the Commission to review.

CONCLUSION

Initially, in examining the legislative history of N.J.S.A. 11A:4-5, in Local 198 of I.A.F.F. v. Atlantic City, Docket No. A-855-88T1F (App. Div. June 14, 1989), the court stated that this agency is required to issue a certification automatically where there is a provisional appointee or a vacancy. Moreover, the court concluded that N.J.S.A. 11A:4-5 unambiguously stated that once the examination process has been initiated due to the appointment of a provisional employee, the appointing authority must make an appointment from the eligible list if there is a complete certification. Additionally, the court found that this agency was correct in interpreting N.J.S.A. 11A:4-5 to find that it was a clear legislative response to pervasive violations of Title 11A, and that non-compliance with this statute is not a mere technical violation, but rather it undermined the purpose and intent of the constitutionally-based merit selection system. The court found that in circumstances such as these, it was appropriate to order the appointing authority to make an appointment. Thus, there is no doubt that the appointing authority must make an appointment from this list if there is a complete certification, that is, one containing the names of at least three interested and eligible candidates. Moreover, the Commission is specifically given the power to assess compliance costs and fines against an appointing authority, including all administrative costs and charges, as well as fines of not more than $10,000, for noncompliance or violation of Civil Service law or rules or any order of the Commission. N.J.S.A. 11A:10-3; N.J.A.C. 4A:10-2.1(a)2. See In the Matter of Fiscal Analyst (M1351H), Jersey City, Docket No. A-4347-87T3 (App. Div. February 2, 1989).

Therefore, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 11A:4-5, once the examination process has been initiated due to the appointment of a provisional employee or due to an appointing authority’s request to fill a vacancy, the appointing authority must make an appointment from the resulting eligible list if there are three or more interested and eligible candidates. The only exception to this mandate may be made for a valid reason such as fiscal constraints.

In the instant matter, the examination for the subject title was generated based on the appointing authority’s appointment of a provisional employee. However, after a complete certification was issued, the appointing authority requested an appointment waiver, indicating that the subject examination was announced open to residents of New Jersey, rather than to residents of Beachwood, as its residency ordinance had not been filed with the Commission. As a result, the provisional appointee, who is a resident of Beachwood, was unreachable for appointment. Therefore, in conjunction with the fact that there are no provisionals currently serving, there is sufficient justification for an appointment waiver.

Although an appointment waiver is granted in this matter, both N.J.S.A. 11A:4-5 and N.J.A.C. 4A:10-2.2(a)2 state that if an appointing authority receives permission not to make an appointment, it can be ordered to reimburse for the costs of the selection process. While administering examinations and providing the names of eligible job candidates to the jurisdictions under the Civil Service system are two of the primary activities of this agency, these costly efforts are thwarted when appointing authorities fail to utilize the resulting eligible lists to make appointments and candidates have needlessly expended their time, efforts and money to take these examinations in hopes of being considered for a permanent appointment. In this case, the appointing authority did not take any action to obviate the need for the examination at the time of the announcement or prior to its processing. Therefore, although an appointment waiver is granted, it is appropriate that the appointing authority be assessed $2,048 for the costs of the selection process.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that a waiver of the appointment requirement be granted. Additionally, the Commission orders that the appointing authority be assessed for the costs of the selection process in the amount of $2,048 to be paid within 30 days of the issuance of this order.

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