|
Post by chinook on Sept 25, 2009 8:25:36 GMT -5
morgullord
I appreciate the breakdown, it is what I expected. Unfortunately many in the government (Including the VA unfortunately) view veterans preference as an annoyance that must be gotten around -- there clearly are some on this board who feel that way. I believe an agency need only report to OPM if they hire a lower scoring non-veteran over a veteran -- but it is not my area of expertise, maybe PF can get some info from JH.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 25, 2009 10:04:48 GMT -5
Don't get touchy. I did NOT belittle the veteran's preference. I have no problem with it and I do believe it is earned, though obviously not quite the same way as a sales bonus or other performance bonuses. However, the preference IS expressed in a mathematical form through the OPM score of the candidates. I would imagine most of the highest scores on the certs are veterans, which would have the consequence of pitting veterans against veterans. Think about it. If the average score of the most experienced candidates, prior to any veteran's preference, in the age 50-60 range is around 75-80, you are creating an artificially high scoring group of candidates in the 85-90 range after the preference is factored in. The rules require that the selecting official pit the three highest scorers against each other. That means there is a good chance that all three of those candidates are going to have veteran's preferences.
At the lower score and experience levels the vets could be getting screwed by their artificially high scores. You could have a younger veteran being compared with other candidates in his score range who have twice the legal experience.
I'm not saying that I agree with any of this, but you can see how the veteran's preference can end up pitting vet against vet, or putting them up against higher levels of competition than the other candidates, BECAUSE of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by govatt on Sept 25, 2009 10:26:54 GMT -5
The way the rule works, is that you usually get three names off the register, depending upon the type of certification, this is usually in rank order. If it is a rank order certificate and one or more of the names is a veteran an agency cannot pass over the veteran to hire someone on the certificate with a lower score without writing a justification. If the veteran is a 10-point veteran the agency must clear passing over the vet with OPM. Once an agency has passed over a veteran three times, they can strike his name and need not continue to justify the pass over.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Sept 25, 2009 11:22:20 GMT -5
Val
If you have anything that shows an age or veterans correlation to high scores, as you are suggesting, I would be interested in seeing it. I expect veterans are spread through the entire range of scores.
|
|
|
Post by happybear on Sept 25, 2009 11:39:27 GMT -5
Thanks Val. I'm totally convinced now that I received all consideration that was due to me under merit selection principles. I was considered 3 times 2 years ago, not selected despite having the highest score, and then not considered against others with lower scores through 3-4 more certificates while led to believe that I was being considered. Some of these selectees were picked without regard to their number of strikes. Please assume that I have done absolutely nothing to this agency to deserve this and am a hard-working attorney with years of agency-specific experience. How would you feel? What would you do?
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Sept 25, 2009 11:48:35 GMT -5
PF - am I to understand you have a list that SSA has compiled and the Agency has said none of these people will ever get a job as an ALJ? Or it that status inferrred by them being considered three times and then not considered again? The list shows who has been "three striked" and thus will not be considered again. There is no question that the list is accurate. Patriotsfan, Isn't your statement -- that the "three striking" of an individual eliminates him or her from further consideration -- inconsistent with another statement you made recently? In particular: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sept 21, 2009, 5:37pm, patriotsfan wrote: Just an aside, but on the April 2009 certificate ... ix people were considered four times before being selected on their 4th try...
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 25, 2009 12:53:44 GMT -5
I'm not trying to say that any of this is necessarily fair, or for that matter, easy to bear. It took me four excruciating tries for success, and the only thing that I can positively say helped my chances was actually staying in the game.
My goal throughout all of this has been to try and discover what, if any, logic has been behind the process. I have seen some on this board begin by approaching the process from the standpoint of a perfect world where all of the choices are rationale and according to the rules. In spite of a brand new process and a serious lack of any data to go by, they were utterly shocked when things didn't add up the way they expected. Next, they approached the process from the narrow standpoint that every decision made was for the sole purpose of selecting a "connected" insider candidate. With this assumption and some new, but incomplete data, the conspiracy theories have run wild.
There's no need for me to defend ODAR's selections. If I were suspicious of the process, the first thing I would look at is the quality of the selected candidates. I have not heard a peep out of anyone about the quality of the new ALJs from an agency that is notorious about complaining about the quality of its ALJs. Just ask the longer serving ALJs on the board. The hearing offices have actually been reporting that the new ALJs have been of exceptional quality. Before you question the objectivity of the hearing office personnel, I will tell you that the new insider ALJs are working under the tightest scrutiny with the highest expectations. Luckily for ODAR, it appears as though all of our well-connected products of nepotism and corruption are also miraculously competent!
Next, have we seen outsiders, or vets blanked? Nope. There have been plenty of outsider candidates selected. In fact, as discussed before, ad nauseum, outsiders have been selected at least as much as insider candidates. Luckily for ODAR, it appears as though all of our successful outsider pawns, who were only selected as a means to reaching low-scoring insider candidates, are also miraculously competent!
I'm not saying that some candidates have not been individually screwed. Statistically speaking, I'm sure some have. But also statistically speaking, I'm sure that there are some candidates that probably belong on a "do not hire" list. Surely we aren't living in Lake Woebegone, where all of the children are above average. I wish the best of luck to those who shouldn't be blackballed. Attitudes and personnel change, so who knows what the future holds. But to offset Patriotsfan's baseball analogy, just look at the NFL draft. Those 32 teams put way more money and effort into the draft than ODAR could ever contemplate for its ALj selection process. Yet, how uncommon is it to see next year's undrafted probowler clinging to a practice squad, or bagging groceries?
|
|
|
Post by happybear on Sept 25, 2009 13:35:34 GMT -5
I'm going to have to sign off here, but before I go I'd like to point out that, no matter what, SSA knows that once they get a selectee through by whatever means, they will never be unselected by the OPM, MSPB or a court. And no one involved in the process will every be fired or made to pay back their salary for any malfeasance. A person non-selected by whatever means, will never really be made whole in this system -- either through an award of damages, through the satisfaction of seeing those who were appointed improperly being unappointed or through the immense satisfaction it would bring if those responsible for gaming the system lost their jobs. As such, there is no incentive for SSA to do the right thing. The only thing you can do is go through the time, expense and hassle of suing them to ultimately have the displeasure of working for them. Val, my guess is you were a Sr. Atty appointed under HPI who compromised your principles more often than not to rise to a Group Supervisor or HOD position. Keep it up and you could be the CALJ! See you later -- no need to ban me as I have already adjusted myself accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by mertonite on Sept 25, 2009 14:10:44 GMT -5
to pats fan
you said:
I want to repat something once again THE SINGLE MOST DETERMINATIVE FACTOR IN THE SELECTION OF A CANDIDATE FOR AN ALJ SLOT WITH SSA FROM 2007 TO THE PRESENT WAS HIS OR HER RELATIONSHIP TO THE AGENCY.
I say it is not nearly as controlling as having veteran's points was from 1996 - 2005. About half of newly hired [2006 - present] ALJs had agency experience vs. 80 - 90% of ALJs hired from 1996 - 2005 had veteran's points but no agency experience.
Vets deserve our thanks, but the preference was intended to be a "preference" not a controlling factor.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 25, 2009 14:47:57 GMT -5
"Contrary to the agency's belief, and a good number of posters who work for the agency, you ain't exactly splitting the atom over at SSA. It's a disability hearing, folks. A reasonably intelligent college kid could do the job perfectly well, and could crank out the decisions needed if they just agree to do it as the agency instructs them, check the right boxes, and sign the decisions handed them. It is not rocket scientist stuff here and we should never pretend that it is."
I'm sure you're good at what you do Patriotsfan, but if even a smidgen of that demeaning arrogance came across in your interview, you can rest assured that your ODAR non-selection had nothing to do with your background.
If you listen carefully, that's the sound of ODAR's clientele breathing a collective sigh of relief that their fate is not resting in your hands. They have enough problems without you on the bench.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 25, 2009 14:52:56 GMT -5
I'm going to have to sign off here, but before I go I'd like to point out that, no matter what, SSA knows that once they get a selectee through by whatever means, they will never be unselected by the OPM, MSPB or a court. And no one involved in the process will every be fired or made to pay back their salary for any malfeasance. A person non-selected by whatever means, will never really be made whole in this system -- either through an award of damages, through the satisfaction of seeing those who were appointed improperly being unappointed or through the immense satisfaction it would bring if those responsible for gaming the system lost their jobs. As such, there is no incentive for SSA to do the right thing. The only thing you can do is go through the time, expense and hassle of suing them to ultimately have the displeasure of working for them. Val, my guess is you were a Sr. Atty appointed under HPI who compromised your principles more often than not to rise to a Group Supervisor or HOD position. Keep it up and you could be the CALJ! See you later -- no need to ban me as I have already adjusted myself accordingly. Keep guessing Happybear. Next time you're in DC stop by HQ and I'll take you up to Eichmann's office and show you where ODAR buried the Lindbergh baby!
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 25, 2009 15:05:02 GMT -5
Val If you have anything that shows an age or veterans correlation to high scores, as you are suggesting, I would be interested in seeing it. I expect veterans are spread through the entire range of scores. This was actually explained to me by a veteran. The vets' scores will be spread throughout the cert, with the exception of the concentration at the top tier of scores. Below the top tier, assume three candidates, only one of whom is a vet, all with a score within a point of 65. The vet has the experience and background of a candidate with a 55, but the vet preference rule is forcing him into a comparison with candidates who got a 65 purely through background and experience. This could potentially represent an experience difference of up to ten years. Which candidate is going to look more attractive to a selecting official? Again, I think the vets are entitled to a preference, but the methodology used by the rule actually ends up putting them in a bad spot regardless of the intent.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 25, 2009 15:18:09 GMT -5
"Contrary to the agency's belief, and a good number of posters who work for the agency, you ain't exactly splitting the atom over at SSA. It's a disability hearing, folks. A reasonably intelligent college kid could do the job perfectly well, and could crank out the decisions needed if they just agree to do it as the agency instructs them, check the right boxes, and sign the decisions handed them. It is not rocket scientist stuff here and we should never pretend that it is."I'm sure you're good at what you do Patriotsfan, but if even a smidgen of that demeaning arrogance came across in your interview, you can rest assured that your ODAR non-selection had nothing to do with your background. If you listen carefully, that's the sound of ODAR's clientele breathing a collective sigh of relief that their fate is not resting in your hands. They have enough problems without you on the bench. Atta girl Val! I knew you'd never let that one slide without a comment. But you gotta admit, even if it kills you, I'm right aren't I? And you would be very surprised when you meet me, and one day I have no doubt we will meet, I'm actually not all that arrogant at all. Confident, yes, but arrogant, nope. Rather pleasant actually. Good sense of humor, and a fair golfer. You might actually like me! PF Never fear. I do like you, but you assume far too much for someone with so little experience in the subject matter, other than the hiring process for one particular job description (is that arrogance or overconfidence?). We have ALJs at ODAR who probably aren't arrogant when they leave the office, and come to think of it, at home they can probably perform some tasks within the capacity of an intelligent college kid.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 26, 2009 6:48:03 GMT -5
This was actually explained to me by a veteran. The vets' scores will be spread throughout the cert, with the exception of the concentration at the top tier of scores. Below the top tier, assume three candidates, only one of whom is a vet, all with a score within a point of 65. The vet has the experience and background of a candidate with a 55, but the vet preference rule is forcing him into a comparison with candidates who got a 65 purely through background and experience. This could potentially represent an experience difference of up to ten years. Which candidate is going to look more attractive to a selecting official? Again, I think the vets are entitled to a preference, but the methodology used by the rule actually ends up putting them in a bad spot regardless of the intent. The vet with the lower score or less experience gets the job regardless of his OPM score if he is currently an SSA employee in good favor with management. The other candidates, while clearly more qualified, will be three striked because they don't have any friends at SSA. The candidate with the actual score of 55, whose wife works for SSA, will get selected against the candidates who scored in the 80's, who you admit are more qualified, because the vet with the 55 is married to the SSA official. And on and on and on. chinook, don't expect a viable explanation of why vets have been bypassed so frequently. Remember only this: THE SINGLE MOST DETERMINATIVE FACTOR IN THE SELECTION OF A CANDIDATE FOR AN ALJ SLOT WITH SSA FROM 2007 TO THE PRESENT WAS HIS OR HER RELATIONSHIP TO THE AGENCY. Nothing else matters. Veteran's preference, OPM score, interview ability, background check, experience outside ODAR, are all irrelevant to the selection. It doesn't mean you might not get a job even without the relationship, it happens occasionally, but the only preference in operation at SSA is Agency Preference. All else is moot. And anyone telling you otherwise is blowing smoke up your skirt, and Val blows more smoke than anyone! Puff puff! Excuse my smoke! Please listen to Patriotsfan. He's a 10 point veteran who has been working closely with ODAR since 1943, and he knows everything there is to know about ODAR and the ALJ hiring process! All kidding aside Patriotsfan, you can't have it both ways. I didn't bring up the quality of the selected candidates as a justification or as an insult to anyone not selected. You have argued that the only criteria that ODAR has used to select any outsider is whether it will create a permutation leading to an opportunity to select a "coveted" insider, (friends, spouses, political cronies, mobsters, foreign agents, child molesters, etc.). For that matter, you seem to suggest that unconnected agency peons such as myself were only hired as a method of reaching a coveted insider. Lets assume you're right! Obviously the quality of the coveted insiders would not be assured, since connections, rather than quality was the basis for the selection. Similarly, everyone else selected was only chosen on the basis of a numeric that would get the coveted insiders selected, not quality. Now, can we also assume that we are living in reality, and that the very thorough and scientific OPM process is not perfect, and that at least some clunkers got through their scoring system. Also, we are all attorneys, and so you can assume that there is a certain range of mental illness, particularly personality disorders, that afflicts a decent percentage of the cert candidates. So now we have established that there is a candidate pool on the certs that is likely imperfect, (wow, what a concession). You would have everyone believe that through some miracle, using a selection process as scientific as "lets hire our poker buddies," ODAR has managed to select some of the best quality classes in years. Amazing! Little did all of the HR departments in the world know that all along the secret to great recruiting is cronysim and nepotism, mixed into the byzantine OPM/ODAR ALJ hiring process! This could change the world! We've been over this before. There has probably been some manipulation, but you are just going way over the top and taking other people with you. Don't think that I wasn't tempted to drink your Koolaid when I lost out to people with lower OPM scores in the first three certs. My inner bitterness was calling, and it was pretty seductive. The process could be done better in so many ways that could be more friendly to the candidates, but in the end its just a job application, not a conspiracy movie. That smoke coming out of my skirt came from using it to put out the fire on the back of your shirt as you ran from the office screaming: "THE SINGLE MOST DETERMINATIVE FACTOR IN THE SELECTION OF A CANDIDATE FOR AN ALJ SLOT WITH SSA FROM 2007 TO THE PRESENT WAS HIS OR HER RELATIONSHIP TO THE AGENCY!"They're digging up Charleton Heston to play your part in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Sept 26, 2009 10:52:02 GMT -5
There is no doubt in my mind that the agency is trying to reach known producers- the whole mantra is numbers, numbers, numbers. Only problem is I have known too many productivity fanatics who make lousy ALJs. Why? They can't make a decision- they want to send it out for another CE, interrogatories, or just plain sit on it hoping it will get easier. It won't- make your best call and get it out the door. The only experience from which you can predict productivity for ALJs is as a judge, adjudicator or other decision maker.
|
|
|
Post by marciabrady1977 on Sept 26, 2009 11:03:46 GMT -5
Numbers, numbers, numbers. Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!! Who really knows what is going on except those inside the Star Chamber. How do you explain the "outside hires" who are struggling to keep up with production demands? Blah blah blah. So, I'm thinking...the new ALJs gather for training...HOW ABOUT A GATHERING OF THE "REJECTS" ? I'm game...it would be fun to meet everyone (or not). We all have at least 2 things in common: we are attorneys AND we have not been selected for ALJ positions!!! And many of us have fabulous senses of humor!!! Come on...it would be a blast!!!! I don't believe in revenge at all but what is the old saying? "Living well is the best revenge" or something like that!!!! PEACE. I'm outta here for a fun and busy weekend with beautiful weather...time with my precious daughters (high school juniors)...time with my globe trotting sister who flew home for a little time in town...and handsome company with my gentleman friend (who has absolutely NO idea of this ALJ stuff...government workers don't really understand it so it is almost impossible to explain to an "outsider" plus I don't want to waste my time talking about this deal when we have much more enjoyable things to discuss)!!!!!!! Stay cool everyone! Have peaceful thoughts. Just remember...you have to seek peace to find it and it is out there...I promise!!!! And, think about a get together!!! Marcia Brady
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 26, 2009 11:09:17 GMT -5
Wow. Fascinating. That's a lot of smoke there Val. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the facts, or the documentary evidence (or as you call it Kool-Aid), that violations clearly occurred. Try not to take this so personally. I realize that its a threrat to your legitmacy if I continue to question the process that landed you in an ALJ job. Insiders hit a home run in this process. To use the baseball analogy, if you hit a home run, but you were using steroids, the home run still counts, but are you an all-star? I did not place that cloud over your head, the agency did. So try not to take it out on me and others who question the use of steroids in this game. We are just trying to keep the game honest. And using steroids, like SSA did, is breaking the rules. I know you benefitted from that, but let's not try to make everyone who thinks steroid use is wrong to be delusional. The rules are the rules. They got broken and you benfitted. When someone loses, someone else benefits, that the way it works. I'll continue to tilt at windmills here, and exercise my independent judgment as directed by Congress and the APA, and I'll continue to question your agency's actions when they violate the principles set forth in the merit selection process. Try not to take it so personally, you are not SSA, even though you have sworn your allegiance to them. I hope the other athletes will admit that using steroids is wrong. I do hope someday, when you are proven to have defended something illegal, you have enough self confidence to say, PF I was wrong. I'm looking forward to hearing it. I think the more appropriate analogy is a pass interference call where the ball was thrown into the stands. Uncatchable, no penalty. Really, it reminds me of the college games where the fans are just sure their team would have won if it weren't for that crappy call in the first quarter, of the eventual 48-3 loss. I assure you that I am not the one who has taken any of this personally. I don't recall leaving the board in a huff at the mere thought that board members might just have the temerity to choose to ignore me! I just think it would be sad if some candidates were to throw in the towel too early because of your histrionics. We need more well-qualified ALJs, and I would hate to see the talent pool decreased unnecessarily. Tell you what, when ALJ-gate makes the front page of the Post and shakes DC to its very foundations, I'll admit I'm wrong. BUT, every time someone from outside ODAR gets selected, maybe you could apologize to them for suggesting that he/she is just a clueless shill for some newly robed ODAR management mistress. Did I mention that my Hawaiian birth certificate has some curious irregularities...
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Sept 27, 2009 11:19:02 GMT -5
Just to keep things in perspective - if you are a SSA attorney, you can probably work enough overtime where you will make more money than the newbie judges.
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Sept 27, 2009 22:13:34 GMT -5
PF said: [/quote] Cetrificate #1 occurred in the Fall of 2007. It was the first hire off this register. Certificate # 2 is the large 2008 hire. Certificate #3 is the spring 2009 large hire.[/quote]
Point of clarification: the first hiring was done in late Feb.2008, with those hired reporting to duty in April, May, or June 2008. The second hiring was later in 2008, for one class reporting to duty in July 2008. That brings us to the 2009 hire earlier this year, and then the folks just notified last month.
(The register re-opened in May 2007; the new register came out in late Oct. 2007; interviews were held in FC in Jan & poss Feb 2008; and for the first hire, a large one, each person offered a job was sent an email the same day/time in late Feb.2008.)
|
|
|
Post by extang on Sept 28, 2009 15:58:55 GMT -5
"can we also assume that we are living in reality, and that the very thorough and scientific OPM process is not perfect"
I hope the characterization of the "OPM process" is not meant seriously? Anybody who thinks the ALJ selection process is "thorough and scientific" would probably believe that the agency "goal" of 500-700 decisions per year per ALJ was arrived at by a "thorough and scientific" process, or for that matter that ODAR came up with the "psychiatric review technique" after a "thorough and scientific study" of job requirements. It insults science to associate it with either OPM or ODAR.
|
|