Katarzyna Kanclerski, CSC Docket No. 2026-794

BackgroundKatarzyna Kanclerski appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the requirements for the Fiscal Analyst (PS0980U), Department of the Treasury (Treasury) promotional examination.

The closing date of the examination was June 23, 2025. As the appellant does not possess any college credits, the applicable requirements were five years of professional experience in the collection, analysis, evaluation, and presentation of financial data used to provide an accurate accounting of administrative and operating costs, and the preparation of reports containing conclusions and recommendations for a private business or government agency. Note: “Professional 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. A total of two candidates applied, the resulting eligible list of one name promulgated on September 18, 2025 and expires on September 17, 2027. Further, the list was exhausted as the only eligible received a regular appointment effective September 18, 2025 from the September 18, 2025, certification (PS251525).

On the appellant’s application, she indicated that she possessed a high school diploma or GED. Additionally, the appellant listed on her application that she was provisionally serving in the subject title from January 2024 to the examination closing date, as a Technical Assistant from June 2022 to April 2023, and as a Clerk Typist from June 2021 to June 2022, with the Treasury. Further, the appellant indicated that she was a Branch Manager for Berkshire Bank from September 2020 to June 2021; an Office Manager for Goldstone Title Agency from June 2019 to September 2020; an Assistant Branch Manager for Berkshire Bank from July 2018 to June 2019; a Head Teller for TD Bank from July 2014 to June 2017; and an Owner/Manager for the Eurotravel Agency from May 2003 to July 2014. Agency Services determined that the appellant lacked five years of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant asserts that she has over 25 years of financial and administrative experience where she has consistently taken on complex responsibilities and delivered high-level results. She presents that for the past two years, she has been serving in Treasury’s Division of Administration-Fiscal and Resources, and she contends that she has been performing the duties in the subject title while effectively managing the workload with accuracy, efficiency and professionalism. Additionally, the appellant indicates that she has been guiding and assisting Senior Fiscal Analysts with their processing tasks. She claims that she has been taking on the tasks of Senior Fiscal Analysts who have left the position. The appellant states that her hands-on experience has allowed her to gain extensive knowledge and expertise in the functions outlined for the Senior Fiscal Analyst role. She believes that her proven ability to successfully execute these tasks demonstrates that her qualifications exceed the requirements. Finally, the appellant asserts that she is confident that her long-standing commitment, skills, and demonstrated performance make her a strong candidate for a Senior Fiscal Analyst position.

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.

AnalysisIn this matter, the experience requirements were five years of professional experience in the collection, analysis, evaluation, and presentation of financial data. As indicated in the announcement, “professional 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. A review of the appellant’s application indicates that while provisionally serving in the subject title and while serving as a Technical Assistant for the Treasury from June 2022 to the subject examination closing date, the appellant’s primary duty was to act as a purchasing agent. Further, while the appellant may have performed some of the required duties in these positions, a review of her application and resume indicates that she was primarily performing administrative and technical tasks regarding the purchasing process and she was not primarily performing professional level analytical, evaluative, and interpretive 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). Therefore, it appears that the appellant’s provisional position is misclassified. Further, even if the appellant was primarily performing the required duties in these titles, it is noted that she only served in these titles for three years and one months by the subject examination closing date, which is less than the required five years.

Regarding the appellant’s prior experience, merely possessing 25 years of financial and administrative experience is insufficient to meet the subject experience requirements, as the duties for an applicable position must primarily focus on the required areas. However, a review of the appellant’s prior experience indicates that she was a Clerk Typist, which is primarily a clerical position, and in various management positions (Branch Manager/Office Manager/Assistant Manager/Owner/Manager) which did not primarily focus on professional analytical, evaluative, and interpretive duties involving financial data as required.

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.