|
|
Post by aljsouth on Oct 26, 2009 19:42:10 GMT -5
These are NOT in stone and is only the best current estimate of ODAR. Weather, whims of construction crews, incompetence of GSA can all delay these openings. So could a change in the expected budget.
The current plan is at a more certain time to open these sites up on the transfer list for current ALJ's. I expect some new hires for some of these locations as well as to the sites from which ALJ's transferred.
New Hearing Offices, tentative ALJ staffing, tentative opening dates:
Akron, OH 12 ALJ’s June
Anchorage, AK 2 ALJ’s January
Auburn, WA 10 ALJ’s September
Covington, GA 9 ALJ’s May
Fayetteville, NC 9 ALJ’s June
Livonia, MI 10 ALJ’s June
Madison, WI 6 ALJ’s June
Mt. Pleasant,MI 12 ALJ’s July
Phoenix, AZ 8 ALJ’s June
St Petersburg, FL 11 ALJ’s May
Tallahassee, FL 5 ALJ’s July
Toledo, OH 10 ALJ’s June
Topeka, KS 5 ALJ’s June
Valparaiso, IN 12 AlJ’s August
Satellite Offices, tentative ALJ staffing, tentative opening dates:
Boise, ID 2 ALJ’s June
Fort Myers, FL 3 ALJ’s March
Harlingen, TX 3 ALJ’s June
|
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Oct 26, 2009 21:22:42 GMT -5
Since these locations are new and not on the transfer list, how would the agency know who was interested by looking at the transfer list?
|
|
|
|
Post by vacuum on Oct 27, 2009 6:28:49 GMT -5
Wasn't Moreno Valley, CA on the list of new offices? If so, has this office been cancelled or is there no scheduled opening date?
|
|
|
|
Post by vacuum on Oct 27, 2009 6:33:48 GMT -5
Please ignore my previous post. It appears that the Moreno Valley office is/was on a list for new offices for 2011.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Oct 27, 2009 8:33:14 GMT -5
Since these locations are new and not on the transfer list, how would the agency know who was interested by looking at the transfer list? The agency will post these sites to the transfer list and ALJ's may add their names to those sites. There is a provision in Article 20 of the Master Agreement on this between the agency and the union. |
|
|
|
Post by baseball6 on Oct 27, 2009 10:11:22 GMT -5
I read the Article 20. Is the agency adding names to the register for the new offices this way instead of just asking for applications because by putting them on there this way, they wont have to pay for transfer like they would if just asking for applications to be sent in for the new offices?
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Oct 27, 2009 11:20:18 GMT -5
I read the Article 20. Is the agency adding names to the register for the new offices this way instead of just asking for applications because by putting them on there this way, they wont have to pay for transfer like they would if just asking for applications to be sent in for the new offices? I believe that agency is doing this because it is required to do so. Article 20, section 4 states: When there are no qualified Judges on the register for a new or existing hearing office and the Agency has decided to reassign Judges to that office, a posting period of fifteen (15) working days will be established. Any Judge who wishes to be reassigned to that office must submit his or her written request to volunteer to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge with a copy to the AALJ President or designee and the request must bear a U.S. Postal Service postmark within the specified period. All requests from Judges for reassignment received during this posting period shall be deemed to have been received on the same date. Therefore, ranking on the listing for the posted local hearing office will be determined by the procedure set forth above in Section 2(F). The qualified Judge with the earliest determined date using the tie breaking procedures shall normally be reassigned and if not, the provisions of Section 2(G) shall apply. Section 2(F) states in relevant part: In the event two or more Judges have the same request date on the register for a particular hearing office, the Judge with the earliest appointment date as a Judge shall be considered for selection. In the event that two or more Judges have the same appointment date, then the one with the earliest federal service computation date shall be considered for selection. In the event there are two or more qualified Judges with the same federal service computation date, then the selection shall normally be determined by a random selection made by the Chief Administrative Law Judge or his or her Deputy. When a random selection is required the AALJ President will be notified. Should the AALJ President or his or her designee elect to be present for the random selection all costs incurred shall be at AALJ expense. I also note the provision of IV of Article 20: IV. Payment of Expenses Nothing in this Article shall preclude the Agency from paying expenses related to a reassignment when it is made in the best interest of the government consistent with law. You may be proven right about the agency cheaping out. It certainly has the reputation for doing so. Still I do believe it is required to allow sitting judges a chance to put their names on the list for new offices. |
|
|
|
Post by baseball6 on Oct 27, 2009 12:33:27 GMT -5
ALJ south.....I am currently a judge. In your opinion, when will the agency add the new offices to the transfer list and invite names to be submitted to the list (as mentioned above in your Article 20 requirements)? I wanted to apply for one of the cities you mentioned. How (do you think) will I know when it is ok to send in the request as mentioned in Article 20?
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Oct 27, 2009 15:14:02 GMT -5
ALJ south.....I am currently a judge. In your opinion, when will the agency add the new offices to the transfer list and invite names to be submitted to the list (as mentioned above in your Article 20 requirements)? I wanted to apply for one of the cities you mentioned. How (do you think) will I know when it is ok to send in the request as mentioned in Article 20? Agency will make an announcement, usually in email. It also will tell the union. |
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Oct 27, 2009 20:52:58 GMT -5
With the housing market what it is, how many ALJs could afford to transfer, pay for the move, and pay two house payments? The salary is not bad, but it is finite!
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Oct 28, 2009 11:07:39 GMT -5
With the housing market what it is, how many ALJs could afford to transfer, pay for the move, and pay two house payments? The salary is not bad, but it is finite! Agreed. I saw more turn downs of offered transfers last round than I have ever seen. Will this continue? Will the agency hire more this year or wait until next year when it has a budget? I simply do not know. But it is clear the agency plans to hire more ALJ's and open more offices. Candidates should stay alert. |
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Oct 28, 2009 12:34:05 GMT -5
In the case of reassignment to one of the new offices opening, does anyone know if the move will be on the dime of the employee, as it is with transfers to existing offices, or will the expense be paid by the government, as when the reassignment is considered "in the best interest of the government" under Article 20, Section IV? In reading the contract, and taking Article 20, Section IV into account, the agency seems to have some leeway in these things.
Unless I'm missing something, which is very possible, it is unclear at the moment how it will work with the new offices.
It is a massively important point, with thousands of dollars in moving and real estate expenses at stake.
For example, if a hypothetical judge was offered a regular transfer to an existing HO, but a new HO in the same geographic area the judge is trying to get to is scheduled to open soon, should the judge decline the transfer to the existing HO with the expectation that the expenses of the reassignment to the new HO will be paid by the government?
Any input would be appreciated. And best of luck to everyone trying to get where they and their families need to be. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Oct 28, 2009 13:03:55 GMT -5
One of our union ALJs just made copies of AALJ's letter announcing the offices for transfer. Maybe someone like LB can edit it and post it.
|
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Oct 28, 2009 17:19:50 GMT -5
Moving for your job or for a job is generally a tax-deductible expense, although it goes without saying that having someone else pay now is preferrable to deducting it later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Oct 29, 2009 8:20:25 GMT -5
October 26, 2009
NEW OFFICES
Last week, the Labor Management Committee met with its management counterparts in Falls Church. Many subjects were covered and will be more fully reported to you in next week's newsletter. However, I did want to share with you information with respect to new hearing offices and the projected opening dates of those offices to give you sufficient notice since you may be interested in transferring to those offices. The Agency informed the LMC that it would be adding these new offices to the transfer register and requesting that judges who have an interest in transferring to these offices to submit their names. The procedure for adding your name to the transfer register is set forth in Article 20 of our collective bargaining agreement. Please do not submit your name to the Chief Judges office until the Agency officially announces the opening of the offices and the creation of the new transfer lists.
New Hearing Offices, tentative ALJ staffing, tentative opening dates: Akron, OH 12 ALJs June
Auburn, WA 10 ALJs September
Fayetteville, NC 9 ALJs June
Madison, WI ALJs June
Phoenix, AZ 8 ALJs June
Tallahassee, FL 5 ALJs July
Topeka, KS 5 ALJs June
Anchorage, AK 2 ALJs January
Covington, GA 9 ALJs May
Livonia, MI 10 ALJs June
Mt. Pleasant, MI 12 ALJs July
St. Petersburg, FL 12 ALJs July
Toledo, OH 10 ALJs June
Valparaiso, IN 12 ALJs August
Satellite Offices, tentative ALJ staffing, tentative opening dates: Boise, ID 2 ALJs June
Ft. Myers, FL 3 ALJs March
Harlingen, TX 3 ALJs June
|
|
|
|
Post by baseball6 on Oct 29, 2009 16:26:15 GMT -5
Sounds like once the agency places these new cities on the transfer list, then once it is opened for application and request to transfer, the ALJ will have to pay his or her way there to the new city. Am I right???
|
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Oct 29, 2009 16:48:38 GMT -5
If the agency decides in its own wisdom that its "in the best interest of the government" they may offer to cover relocation expenses. The agency has never opened new offices up on this scale before so who knows what they will do. I suppose one indicator might be whether relocation expenses were offered when the Seven Fields office opened last year (or the year before?) but that was before my time as a judge...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 29, 2009 19:10:26 GMT -5
In the case of reassignment to one of the new offices opening, does anyone know if the move will be on the dime of the employee, as it is with transfers to existing offices, or will the expense be paid by the government, as when the reassignment is considered "in the best interest of the government" under Article 20, Section IV? In reading the contract, and taking Article 20, Section IV into account, the agency seems to have some leeway in these things. Unless I'm missing something, which is very possible, it is unclear at the moment how it will work with the new offices. It is a massively important point, with thousands of dollars in moving and real estate expenses at stake. For example, if a hypothetical judge was offered a regular transfer to an existing HO, but a new HO in the same geographic area the judge is trying to get to is scheduled to open soon, should the judge decline the transfer to the existing HO with the expectation that the expenses of the reassignment to the new HO will be paid by the government? Any input would be appreciated. And best of luck to everyone trying to get where they and their families need to be. . . Shadow, never turn down a transfer in the hand for one in the bush with the hope the agency will pay expenses. First of all you may not get the transfer to the new office. Secondly, the agency may not pay expenses if you do. Also know that the new office may be filled from the get go by judges from the established office in the same area who have more senority than you. Your situation is similar to that in which a friend of mine found herself back in high school. She was asked to a big and important (at least in our minds) party by a very respectable guy. She turned him down. She was sure another guy (BMOC) she had her eye on was going to ask her; he didn't. She spent a nice Saturday night at home with her parents and her 10 year old pesky brother. Just don't try and outsmart the government. You will more than likely end up outsmarting yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Oct 30, 2009 6:25:45 GMT -5
Thanks Pixie, must be good advice, I've now got it from two people.
I suspect a lot of people are in the same boat with the hypothetical judge I described, hopefully your advice will save some grief for folks down the road. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Oct 30, 2009 9:08:15 GMT -5
But of course, we have to consider whether the hypothetical judge has transferrable skills for the new office.
(Sorry - a little ODAR humor here.)
|
|
