Post by jagghagg on Aug 13, 2009 5:41:58 GMT -5
The ignore function , and the decision to dump WWW at the same time, both without input from members, delivered a very strong message from ALJD, which was – in my opinion and that of a few others --- "I don't want controversy on my Board." Add to that what ALJD seems to indicate is the function of these boards: "I think this board has achieved some amount of credibility as the place to be for people interested in ALJ hiring,.." and it is clear that I need to leave the boards.
Now, now, Val, Graace – stop singing “Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead!” That’s just not nice.
I had thought about just heaving a heavy sigh and just deleting my profile as some others have done. I admit, posting this does seem a little Sarah Bernhardt on my part. Eh, my mother always accused me of thus. Nontheless I think I will tell you what I know, from the evidence I have seen, what I beieve that means, and then leave. I can’t give you the evidence; a portion of it is under seal. Some of you will think I’m falsifying; those people will have already punched the “ignore” button by my screen name. Some of you will accept what I say as true.
‘Sup to ya’ll.
I’ve noted, in the past, that I tend to joust with windmills. I have my whole life. It is of more interest to me to make sure the right thing is done rather than the “right” result is reached. I have been concerned that the process through which the SSA does it’s hiring of ALJs is an aberration of what it should be. The main debaters in this have been Val, PM – Graace over on the WWW when it was deigned to live – along with Morgullord, PA, me, and my good friend, PatriotsFan. One side says that what SSA does and how they do it is all fine and dandy and that it’s okay to bend the rules when the rules just are designed for what the SSA is doing (and no matter HOW you slice that, this is a “the-end-justified-the-means” argument). The other side – my “side” says, no – there are rules and reasons for the rules and bending those rules violates merit principles which are mandatory in the federal government and works, therefore, to the detriment of everybody.
In short, just because you got yours doesn’t mean that the process is valid. Nor does the fact that I didn’t “get mine” mean the process works.
So let me tell you what I know, and a few things I believe, before I go.
• I know that the SSA top tier management has repeatedly and consistently asked OPM and Congress for the authority to hire their own personnel as ALJs.
• I know that agency-specific experience is not a validated merit factor for hiring administrative law judges in the federal sector and I know that using it as such is a violation of merit principles.
• I know that, in the hiring process, ODAR emphasized and noted references for candidates received from sitting SSA ALJs.
• I know that ODAR managed, in the course of one cycle of hiring, to raise their hire of those with SSA-specific experience from a single digit percentage to over 42%.
• I know that the current COSS stated he was happy with the number of internal hires accomplished by ODAR but was not pleased that ODAR had “gone off the reservation” for the rest.
• I know that unless candidates with SSA-specific experience comprised 50% of the candidates considered in the selection process, that it is statistically impossible for that >42% to be random.
• I know that 50% candidates on the two Certificates of Eligibles and the supplement thereto did not have SSA-specific experience.
• Therefore, I know that the hire had to be reverse engineered to reach and hire those candidates with SSA experience.
• I know that this reverse engineering worked to the detriment of some very qualified candidates. For example, on the second cert, the #1 candidate was nonselected in favor of a candidate almost 100 slots below him. I find it difficult to believe that such a nonselection was not engineered to reach the lower ranking candidate, given that candidate’s affiliation with the office to which s/he went.
• I know that structured interviews are measurement tools and that using them to rank candidates is strictly controlled by the Office of Personnel Management, and the use of them for the merit-based selection of ALJ candidates requires a job analysis and crediting plan as stated in 5 CFR 300.103.
• I believe that the SSA did not conduct a certified job analysis nor do I believe that it has a crediting plan in place to validate its use of structured interviews to test “core competencies” as the regulations clearly require.
• I know that it is OPM’s responsibility, and not that of the SSA, to conduct background checks on ALJ candidates selected for hire.
• I believe, therefore, that the SSA background investigations and structured interviews of candidates which results in agency scores which, in turn, factors into an overall agency rating violates the basic requirements of 5 CFR 300 et seq.
• I know that the SSA required some candidates to demonstrate core competencies but failed to impose the same requirement on others.
• I know that the “Rule of Three” and the “Three Strike Rule” are valid as they are written, independent of application.
• I know that there is no requirement that currently exists that requires an agency to fill slots in any rational or recognizable fashion.
• I also know that the use of a facially valid rule or process to reach a prohibited result (such as the use of agency-specific experience as a merit factor) is a violation of law, rule and regulation.
• I know that, in 2008, the SSA applied the Three Strike Rule to 39 candidates from the first certificate and did not consider them on the second certificate in spite of the fact they had availability for geographic locations being filed.
• I know that the SSA did not apply the Three Strike Rule to 12 others, but instead granted them repeated considerations – up to 10 times before hiring them.
• I know that the SSA carried a specific single candidate for 13 considerations in various geographic locations in spite of the fact that candidate’s record, resume, references, and interview all recommended against this candidate's hire. I know that this candidate was not hired.
• I believe, with regard to the foregoing, that the only reason this person with such an abysmal candidate folder was carried through so many considerations was to act as “filler” and artificially create a group of three under the Rule of Three which allowed the Agency to select a favored candidate.
• I know that this application and nonapplication of the Three Strike Rule, carrying some candidates multiple times while eliminating others after 3 considerations, combined with a studied placement of vacancies for fill, resulted in the particularized (and I believe, preferred) creation of groups of three candidates under the Rule of Three. I believe this to be a prostitution of the entire concept underlying the Rule of Three and, as such, a violation of the merit system rules.
• I know that at least 12 individuals in the last hire in 2009 were already SSA attorneys and were hired for their exact same duty location. I do not believe that such a result can take place without reverse engineering given the competition we acknowledge exists for these slots.
• I know that 3 out of the 4 slots at the same location in the first hire in 2008 were filled by candidates with agency-specific experience. I know that one individual was offered a position at that location accepted and then, later, turned it down and then, in the second hire, was offered (and accepted) a slot in the same city but a different office. I have my doubts that such a result is random.
• I know that turning down a location under OPM’s regulations means that you cannot be considered for that location again in the future. I know that THAT prohibition was clearly not applied to the candidate referred to immediately above. I suspect but do not know that OPM was not informed that the candidate turned down an offer.
On the basis of the foregoing – and quite a bit more that I cannot share on this board – I believe that the SSA, although doing so because they want to serve the public and reduce the backlog and fulfill the agencies mandates and responsibilities, violates law, rule and regulation in their hires of Administrative Law Judges.
I believe the process the SSA has created works to the detriment of many a good candidate and because the SSA cadre is the main source of applicants for positions advertised for sitting ALJs, with other agencies the SSA is choosing the majority of ALJs for the entire federal government, thus this misuse of the hiring practices mandated in the public sector works to the detriment of all federal agencies which hire ALJs.
<<sigh>>
Well, there’s my heavy sigh.
Good luck to you all!
The ‘Hagg
Now, now, Val, Graace – stop singing “Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead!” That’s just not nice.
I had thought about just heaving a heavy sigh and just deleting my profile as some others have done. I admit, posting this does seem a little Sarah Bernhardt on my part. Eh, my mother always accused me of thus. Nontheless I think I will tell you what I know, from the evidence I have seen, what I beieve that means, and then leave. I can’t give you the evidence; a portion of it is under seal. Some of you will think I’m falsifying; those people will have already punched the “ignore” button by my screen name. Some of you will accept what I say as true.
‘Sup to ya’ll.
I’ve noted, in the past, that I tend to joust with windmills. I have my whole life. It is of more interest to me to make sure the right thing is done rather than the “right” result is reached. I have been concerned that the process through which the SSA does it’s hiring of ALJs is an aberration of what it should be. The main debaters in this have been Val, PM – Graace over on the WWW when it was deigned to live – along with Morgullord, PA, me, and my good friend, PatriotsFan. One side says that what SSA does and how they do it is all fine and dandy and that it’s okay to bend the rules when the rules just are designed for what the SSA is doing (and no matter HOW you slice that, this is a “the-end-justified-the-means” argument). The other side – my “side” says, no – there are rules and reasons for the rules and bending those rules violates merit principles which are mandatory in the federal government and works, therefore, to the detriment of everybody.
In short, just because you got yours doesn’t mean that the process is valid. Nor does the fact that I didn’t “get mine” mean the process works.
So let me tell you what I know, and a few things I believe, before I go.
• I know that the SSA top tier management has repeatedly and consistently asked OPM and Congress for the authority to hire their own personnel as ALJs.
• I know that agency-specific experience is not a validated merit factor for hiring administrative law judges in the federal sector and I know that using it as such is a violation of merit principles.
• I know that, in the hiring process, ODAR emphasized and noted references for candidates received from sitting SSA ALJs.
• I know that ODAR managed, in the course of one cycle of hiring, to raise their hire of those with SSA-specific experience from a single digit percentage to over 42%.
• I know that the current COSS stated he was happy with the number of internal hires accomplished by ODAR but was not pleased that ODAR had “gone off the reservation” for the rest.
• I know that unless candidates with SSA-specific experience comprised 50% of the candidates considered in the selection process, that it is statistically impossible for that >42% to be random.
• I know that 50% candidates on the two Certificates of Eligibles and the supplement thereto did not have SSA-specific experience.
• Therefore, I know that the hire had to be reverse engineered to reach and hire those candidates with SSA experience.
• I know that this reverse engineering worked to the detriment of some very qualified candidates. For example, on the second cert, the #1 candidate was nonselected in favor of a candidate almost 100 slots below him. I find it difficult to believe that such a nonselection was not engineered to reach the lower ranking candidate, given that candidate’s affiliation with the office to which s/he went.
• I know that structured interviews are measurement tools and that using them to rank candidates is strictly controlled by the Office of Personnel Management, and the use of them for the merit-based selection of ALJ candidates requires a job analysis and crediting plan as stated in 5 CFR 300.103.
• I believe that the SSA did not conduct a certified job analysis nor do I believe that it has a crediting plan in place to validate its use of structured interviews to test “core competencies” as the regulations clearly require.
• I know that it is OPM’s responsibility, and not that of the SSA, to conduct background checks on ALJ candidates selected for hire.
• I believe, therefore, that the SSA background investigations and structured interviews of candidates which results in agency scores which, in turn, factors into an overall agency rating violates the basic requirements of 5 CFR 300 et seq.
• I know that the SSA required some candidates to demonstrate core competencies but failed to impose the same requirement on others.
• I know that the “Rule of Three” and the “Three Strike Rule” are valid as they are written, independent of application.
• I know that there is no requirement that currently exists that requires an agency to fill slots in any rational or recognizable fashion.
• I also know that the use of a facially valid rule or process to reach a prohibited result (such as the use of agency-specific experience as a merit factor) is a violation of law, rule and regulation.
• I know that, in 2008, the SSA applied the Three Strike Rule to 39 candidates from the first certificate and did not consider them on the second certificate in spite of the fact they had availability for geographic locations being filed.
• I know that the SSA did not apply the Three Strike Rule to 12 others, but instead granted them repeated considerations – up to 10 times before hiring them.
• I know that the SSA carried a specific single candidate for 13 considerations in various geographic locations in spite of the fact that candidate’s record, resume, references, and interview all recommended against this candidate's hire. I know that this candidate was not hired.
• I believe, with regard to the foregoing, that the only reason this person with such an abysmal candidate folder was carried through so many considerations was to act as “filler” and artificially create a group of three under the Rule of Three which allowed the Agency to select a favored candidate.
• I know that this application and nonapplication of the Three Strike Rule, carrying some candidates multiple times while eliminating others after 3 considerations, combined with a studied placement of vacancies for fill, resulted in the particularized (and I believe, preferred) creation of groups of three candidates under the Rule of Three. I believe this to be a prostitution of the entire concept underlying the Rule of Three and, as such, a violation of the merit system rules.
• I know that at least 12 individuals in the last hire in 2009 were already SSA attorneys and were hired for their exact same duty location. I do not believe that such a result can take place without reverse engineering given the competition we acknowledge exists for these slots.
• I know that 3 out of the 4 slots at the same location in the first hire in 2008 were filled by candidates with agency-specific experience. I know that one individual was offered a position at that location accepted and then, later, turned it down and then, in the second hire, was offered (and accepted) a slot in the same city but a different office. I have my doubts that such a result is random.
• I know that turning down a location under OPM’s regulations means that you cannot be considered for that location again in the future. I know that THAT prohibition was clearly not applied to the candidate referred to immediately above. I suspect but do not know that OPM was not informed that the candidate turned down an offer.
On the basis of the foregoing – and quite a bit more that I cannot share on this board – I believe that the SSA, although doing so because they want to serve the public and reduce the backlog and fulfill the agencies mandates and responsibilities, violates law, rule and regulation in their hires of Administrative Law Judges.
I believe the process the SSA has created works to the detriment of many a good candidate and because the SSA cadre is the main source of applicants for positions advertised for sitting ALJs, with other agencies the SSA is choosing the majority of ALJs for the entire federal government, thus this misuse of the hiring practices mandated in the public sector works to the detriment of all federal agencies which hire ALJs.
<<sigh>>
Well, there’s my heavy sigh.
Good luck to you all!
The ‘Hagg