Deborah Deitz- Slebodnick, CSC Docket No. 2026-1251

BackgroundDeborah Deitz-Slebodnick appeals the removal of her name from the eligible list for Administrative Assistant 2 (PS0279P), Division of State Police (State Police), on the basis that she was not serving in the correct unit scope.

The appellant, a non-veteran, applied for and was admitted to the subject promotional examination, which had a closing date of November 21, 2022 and was open, in pertinent part, to applicants in unit scope P630 (State Police/Office of the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent). The appellant appeared on the resulting eligible list, which promulgated on October 12, 2023. Effective April 1, 2024, State Police underwent a reorganization that created new unit scopes. At that time, the appellant was reassigned from unit scope P630 to unit scope P690 (Employee Relations and Community Outreach), one of the newly created unit scopes. In returning the May 20, 2025 certification (PS250841), the State Police requested the removal of the appellant’s name on the basis that she was no longer employed in unit scope P630.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant requests to remain on the eligible list, arguing that she was qualified and permitted to take the examination.1 The appellant also complains that the employee now serving in the position,

1 The appellant claims that the “posting was Division wide.” However, it appears this is a reference to State Police’s January 25, 2022 vacancy posting for Administrative Assistant 1, a copy of which she provides. Vacancy postings are initiated by the appointing authority, and they are not monitored by this agency. Such postings are used by the appointing authority to generate a list of interested individuals to fill vacant positions. If a

N.C., was also “not in the scope” as she was previously serving in the title Administrative Assistant 2 in the Identification and Information Technology Section. She feels she is being “punished” and argues that the situation is unfair and not in compliance with Civil Service rules. She adds that she paid the application processing fee to take the examination.

Appointing authority's argumentIn response, the State Police maintains that the removal of the appellant’s name was proper, justified, and consistent with guidance received from this agency. Upon return of the certification to this agency for disposition, only two eligibles remained, resulting in an incomplete list. A division-wide posting was subsequently issued to fill the vacant position. This posting was open to State Police employees in any unit scope who met the minimum requirements, including the selected candidate, N.C.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)8 provides that the name of an eligible may be removed from an eligible list following:

Discontinuance of the eligible’s employment in the unit scope to which a promotional examination was limited, except when the eligible has accepted a temporary or interim appointment in another unit scope. An employee who subsequently returns to the unit scope within current continuous service may request, in writing to an appropriate representative of the Civil Service

AnalysisCommission, that his or her name be restored to the promotional list.

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.2 provides that a reassignment is the in-title movement of an employee to a new job function, shift, location or supervisor within the organizational unit. Reassignments shall be made at the discretion of the head of the organizational unit.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.4(e) provides that an employee who is reassigned from one promotional unit scope to another shall retain no promotional rights in the former unit.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-1.5(a) provides that a provisional appointment may be made only in the competitive division of the career service when all of the following conditions are met: (1) there is no complete list of eligibles, and no one remaining on an incomplete list will accept provisional appointment; (2) the appointing authority certifies that the appointee meets the minimum qualifications for the title at the time of the appointment; and (3) the appointing authority certifies that failure to make the provisional appointment will seriously impair its work.

Analysisprovisional appointment, pending promotional examination, results from the posting, the appointing authority must then adhere to Civil Service rules and procedures regarding provisional promotional appointments and promotional examination announcements. Therefore, the requirements set forth in the vacancy posting may not necessarily be those included on the resultant promotional announcement. Here, PS0279P was clearly announced open to applicants in unit scope P630.

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.17(e) provides that the examination application fee is for processing purposes only and does not guarantee admittance to an examination or appointment to a position.

AnalysisN.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b), in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d), provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an appointing authority’s decision to remove her name from an eligible list was in error.

The record reveals that the appellant was properly admitted to the examination because, at that time, she was serving in unit scope P630. Thereafter, the State Police requested the establishment of three new unit scopes to more accurately mirror its organizational structure, which resulted in the appellant’s unit scope being reassigned to P690, effective April 1, 2024. There is nothing in the record that suggests that the reorganization was based on any attempt to “punish” the appellant or otherwise circumvent Civil Service rules. Further, reassignments are at the appointing authority’s discretion. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.2. After the reorganization, the subject certification was issued against a vacancy in the original unit scope. However, at the time of the certification, the appellant was serving in unit scope P690. Therefore, since the appellant was no longer in unit scope P630, the State Police properly removed her name from the eligible list pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)8 and N.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.4(e). Additionally, as the list was left incomplete, the State Police had the discretion to appoint N.C. provisionally, notwithstanding that she may have been assigned to the Identification and Information Technology Section previously. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-1.5(a). Finally, the appellant’s payment of the examination application fee did not preclude the removal of her name from the eligible list. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.17(e). Accordingly, there is no evidence in this matter that Civil Service law or rules have been violated or that the appellant is being “punished.”

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.