Thomas Lackaye, CSC Docket No. 2025-2834

BackgroundThomas Lackaye appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that he did not meet the experience requirements for the Assistant Budget Officer (PM2024G), Hamilton Township promotional examination.

The closing date of the examination was February 21, 2025. The applicable requirements were a Bachelor’s degree and four years of professional experience in the development, evaluation, analysis, and revision of budgetary control systems and in budget preparation and presentation, one year of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. The appellant was the only applicant. Thus, the examination was cancelled due to a lack of qualified candidates.

On the appellant’s application and/or resume, he indicated that he possessed a Bachelor’s degree. Additionally, the appellant listed that he was provisionally serving in the subject title from October 2024 to the examination closing date, a Senior Payroll Clerk from January 2023 to October 2024, a Payroll Clerk from January 2021 to January 2023, a Staffing Manager for Robert Half AccountTemps from January 2019 to December 2020, a Salesperson for SRS Distribution from June 2017 to January 2019, and various internships in the private sector from June 2013 to August 2016. Agency Services credited the appellant for his Bachelor’s degree and five months of general experience based on his provisional service in the subject title but determined that he lacked three years and seven months of general experience and one year of supervisory experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that as a Staffing Manager for Robert Half, he managed and supervised a sales team of six employees, which included daily reviews and progress reports to help staff meet daily goals. In this position, he also indicates that he was responsible for managing the finance and accounting budget for temporary hires, ensuring that clients did not overspend.

As a Payroll Clerk, the appellant states that he was responsible for analyzing payroll-related budget accounts and tracking expenditures. He provides that he worked with the directors to develop solutions and procedures to ensure that they stayed within budgets. Further, the appellant highlights that he assisted the Budget Officer by creating budget reports that tracked spending patterns and helped evaluate what was needed for the proceeding budget year.

As a Senior Payroll Clerk, the appellant indicates that he was assigned additional responsibilities and prepared budgetary research to assist the administration. He states that he highlighted budget-related issues, such as over- expenditure. The appellant explains that this research allowed the administration to determine if more attention needed to be focused on specific accounts and to properly track spending patterns. Additionally, the appellant notes that he was responsible for supervising payroll timekeepers to process an accurate and timely payroll.

The appellant asserts that his knowledge and experience as a Payroll Clerk and his assistance with the Municipal Budget played a key role in his provisional appointment in the subject title. He also explains how he performs the required general duties in his provisional position.

Additionally, the appellant submits a letter of support from the Hamilton Township Business Administrator. The Business Administrator highlights how the appellant performs the required general duties in his provisional position. Further, the Budget Administrator states that the appellant’s Senior Payroll Clerk and Payroll Clerk responsibilities provided him with experience in managing financial accounts, preparing salary and wage data for budget development, and producing reports used to guide administrative decisions regarding the budget. The Business Administrator notes that as a Senior Payroll Clerk, the appellant supervised payroll timekeepers, and as a Financial Staff Manager with Robert Half, the appellant supervised six employees. The Business Administrator presents that the appellant possesses a Bachelor’s degree in Business Finance and Administration, which included coursework and training in public budgeting, fiscal management, and fiscal reporting. The Business Administrator asserts that the totality of the appellant’s education and experience provides him with the background to successfully perform the duties of the subject title.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) requires applicants to possess all the requirements specified in an announcement for an open competitive 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.

AnalysisInitially, it is noted that although the appellant and the Business Administrator highlight the duties that the appellant performed as a Senior Payroll Clerk and Payroll Clerk that were related to the general required duties, i.e. budget development, evaluation, analysis, these are clerical positions, and the appellant’s application indicates that the appellant primarily performed clerical duties in these positions. Similarly, the appellant’s application indicates that as a Staffing Manager for Robert Half, he primarily performed sales-related duties. 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).

Regardless, even if it was determined that the appellant primarily performed the required general duties in these positions out-of-title, or good cause was found to relax the rules and accept the totality of the appellant’s background as meeting the general required duties, the record indicates that the appellant does not have the required supervisory experience nor is the appellant performing the required supervisory duties of incumbents serving in the subject title. Specifically, the subject examination required one year of experience supervising subordinate personnel who developed, evaluated, analyzed, and revised budgetary control systems and budget preparation and presentation. However, as a Senior Payroll Clerk, the appellant supervised payroll timekeepers, i.e. staff performing clerical duties, and as a Staffing Manager, the appellant supervised sales staff. Mere supervisory duties were insufficient as the supervision had to be in the required areas.

Similarly, the job specification for the subject title indicates that incumbents:

Under direction, assists the Budget Officer in planning, coordinating, and supervising the preparation, review and analysis of the budget; does related work as required.

However, a review of the appellant’s application, resume, and appeal, as well as the Business Administrator’s support on appeal, does not indicate that the appellant assists with supervising the preparation, review and analysis of the budget. In other words, as indicated in the subject title’s examples of work, there is no indication that the appellant is assigning and reviewing the work of subordinate personnel who prepare, review, and analyze the budget. Therefore, it appears that the appellant’s provisional position is misclassified.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied. It is further ordered that the matter of the proper classification of the appellant’s position be referred to Agency Services for a classification review. Upon determination as to the appellant’s appropriate title, a corresponding announcement for an examination for that title shall be issued.

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