Hannah Steinmeyer Program Analyst (M0464G), CSC Docket No. 2026-564

BackgroundHannah Steinmeyer appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that she did not meet the experience requirement for the open-competitive examination for Program Analyst (M0464G), Atlantic City.

The subject examination was announced with a closing date of May 21, 2025, and was open, in relevant part, to applicants who possessed a Bachelor's degree and one year of professional experience in the review, analysis and evaluation of operating programs in an agency or organization. The examination announcement noted that “‘[p]rofessional experience’ refers to work that is analytical, evaluative, and interpretive; requires a range of basic knowledge of the profession’s concepts and practices; and is performed with the authority to act and make accurate and informed decisions.” The announcement further explained that the subject title “is intended to classify positions responsible for the evaluation of operating programs, not computer programs,” and that “[e]xperience in the analysis of computer programs [could not] be considered toward meeting the experience requirement.” The subject eligible list, containing one name, promulgated on August 14, 2025, and expires on August 13,

2027. Certifications from the subject eligible list were issued on August 18, 2025, (OL251068)1 and March 13, 2026, (OL260316).2

On her application, the appellant indicated that she possessed Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Criminal Justice from Stockton University. The appellant also indicated that she had served provisionally in the subject title since January 2024,3 as a part-time Research Assistant at Stockton University from September 2023 to December 2024; as a part-time Legal Assistant at the Law Office of Kathleen M. Dotoli from April 2021 to August 2021; as a part-time Teaching Assistant at Drexel University from April 2020 to September 2020; and as a part-time Shift Leader at Dunkin’ from September 2018 to January 2024. The appellant indicated, in relevant part, that as a provisional Program Analyst, she was responsible for tracking and logging major crimes throughout Atlantic City, cleaning and maintaining data sets, preparing biweekly statistical presentations for command staff, assisting officers with their reporting for the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and preparing data requests for various entities, including colleges and universities. She stated that as a Research Assistant, she was, in relevant part, responsible for gathering and analyzing data related to research on victimology, victim services, and crime prevention. She further presented that as a Legal Assistant, she was, in relevant part, responsible for intake and interview of clients, gathering facts, authoring correspondence, conducting factfinding and legal research, and referring clients to social services when necessary. Furthermore, she indicated that as a Teaching Assistant, she, in relevant part, supported and created lessons for a professor, facilitated discussions on criminal justice and public safety topics, and gave presentations on service opportunities. Finally, she stated that as a Shift Leader, she, in relevant part, prepared food and drink orders, worked the cash register, and trained new employees.

Agency Services credited the appellant with possession of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. However, Agency Services did not credit any of appellant’s indicated experience, as it found that all of her listed experience was unrelated to reviewing, analyzing, or evaluating operating programs. Agency Services further determined that her positions as a Research Assistant and as a Teaching Assistant could not be credited because they were done for college credit. Therefore, Agency Services deemed the appellant ineligible for the subject examination because she lacked the required one year of applicable experience.

1 The OL251068 certification was disposed of on October 24, 2025. Since this certification contained only the name of a single eligible, it was considered incomplete and the appointing authority exercised its authority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.2(c)2 not to make a permanent appointment from the incomplete certification. The appointing authority continued to retain the appellant provisionally in the subject title following the disposition of the OL251068 certification. 2 A new open-competitive examination announcement for Program Analyst (M1571G), Atlantic City was issued on December 1, 2025, with a closing date of December 22, 2025. The M1571G eligible list, containing two names, promulgated on March 12, 2026, and expires on March 11, 2028. It is noted that the appellant did not apply for the M1571G examination. The OL260316 certification contains the names of the lone eligible on the M0464G list and the two eligibles on the M1571G list, and it has not yet been disposed of. It is further noted that the appointing authority has requested an appointment waiver for the OL260316 certification and that the request is currently under review. 3 Although the appellant stated on her application that her provisional service in the subject title began in January 2024, her County and Municipal Personnel System (CAMPS) record indicates that the effective date of her appointment was January 27, 2025.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant maintains that her positions as a provisional Program Analyst, as a Research Assistant, as a Legal Assistant and as a Teaching Assistant should be credited. She states that as a provisional Program Analyst, she collected, compiled, and interpreted data to create reports and presentations to support the strategic goals of the Atlantic City Police Department. She indicates that during her time as a Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant, she worked with multiple operating systems to support data analysis and tools, and to improve policy compliance and workflow. She further presents that in her role as a Teaching Assistant, she implemented new tools to manage course content and assignments, and facilitated communication between students and instructors. Likewise, she proffers that as a Legal Assistant, she improved the firm’s client management information system and legal billing methods. She further states that her work as a Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant were not internships and were not done for college credit. In support, she submits an updated resume.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the open competitive examination 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, because Agency Services correctly credited the appellant’s Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, per the examination announcement, the appellant needed to demonstrate that she possessed one year of applicable professional experience as of the closing date and could not substitute her education for this experience requirement.

On appeal, the appellant argues that her provisional service in the subject title, along with her experience as a Research Assistant, as a Legal Assistant, and as a Teaching Assistant, should be credited. 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). Here, Agency Services correctly found that none of her listed experience had, as its primary focus, professional experience in the review, analysis and evaluation of operating programs in an agency or organization. In this regard, although the appellant maintains that she performed relevant duties in the subject title and in her prior positions, it appears that the operating programs she is describing as “evaluating and improving” are not government programs, but rather computer operating systems and workflow procedures. Significantly, it is noted that with her provisional service in the subject title, the appellant acknowledges performing some of the duties of the Program Analyst title, including gathering and analyzing data and preparing reports. However, the totality of the information she has submitted in her application and on appeal indicates that she has been serving primarily in a supportive role, rather than directly analyzing and evaluating operating programs. Moreover, a review of the record does not indicate that the primary focus of her work in this position included the authority to act or to recommend changes in departmental programs. Similarly, her duties in her previous positions did not involve the analysis or evaluation of the effectiveness of any university or firm programs, or the authority to act based on such an analysis. As such, she was properly deemed ineligible. Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for the subject examination and has not sustained her burden of proof.

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.