|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 29, 2009 9:15:21 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. Don't worry, that statement was intended to be dripping with sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by allrise on Sept 29, 2009 11:55:06 GMT -5
Now that PF and some others have data on the hires since 2007, I hope you can answer a few of my questions. 1. In the first new 2007 cert, the guess was that about 400 candidates made the cert. Do you know how many. Do they actually mutiply the potential openings by 3? 2. Can you guess the number of candidates left on the register? 3. If a new cert is requested from OPM without refreshing the list, what will the highest score on the list be after all the 3 strike candidates are removed? 4. What is the lowest score selected for the job? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Sept 29, 2009 12:58:26 GMT -5
1. 450. Yes (required by law--the rule of 3). 2. 650 on original register. 175 hired before register "refreshed" but some, perhaps 12, dropped out of contention and were taken off register. I assume that refreshing the register added approximately 300. Other certs took approximately 200 as hires. So the answer is 575, minus about 100 3-strikers. Leaving approximately 475. 3. No idea. 4. 1, if you are an ODAR insider.
|
|
|
Post by autumn on Sept 29, 2009 13:32:55 GMT -5
Anyone have any sense whether the existing register will actually be scrapped in favor of a whole new application process?
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Sept 29, 2009 15:01:33 GMT -5
By October 2010, if not later, the current register will sunset and a new one will be constructed. Everyone will need to reapply. BTW, expect the process to be a bit different this time since the current register was slapped together by OPM after SSA threw OPM under the bus.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 29, 2009 18:51:43 GMT -5
By October 2010, if not later, the current register will sunset and a new one will be constructed. Everyone will need to reapply. BTW, expect the process to be a bit different this time since the current register was slapped together by OPM after SSA threw OPM under the bus. If it sunsets on 10/10, then wouldn't OPM start the process some reasonable number of months before 10/10. How soon before 10/10 should people be ready, and what should they be ready with?
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Sept 29, 2009 20:03:10 GMT -5
If it sunsets on 10/10, then wouldn't OPM start the process some reasonable number of months before 10/10. You already answered your own question. How soon before 10/10 should people be ready, and what should they be ready with? I'd be ready by next January if I were you. As to what they should be ready with, the KSA, of course. There's no guarantee OPM is going to use the same six questions from 2007 & 2008, but they are unlikely to completely reinvent the wheel. SSA wants OPM to refresh the register EARLY next year, and odds are it will happen.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Sept 30, 2009 8:33:43 GMT -5
I would have a well-written and thorough work history prepared and I would draft thorough responses to the current KSAs. You want to be in a position where the only prep you need to do is to edit down to space limitations (i.e., 14,000 character work history distilled down to 8,000 characters). As pointed out by workdrone, the KSAs may change but likely not too much. I would readdress the existing ones and do some tailoring later if needed. As to when to start--I am working on mine right now. You start whenever you feel like it.
|
|
zag79
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by zag79 on Oct 1, 2009 20:11:57 GMT -5
Anyway as I was starting on a more serious note before I hit the wrong button--It seems to me that depending on their score the 3-strikers may not be in as dire a situation as imagined. It has been established on this board that people that have been on more than three certs have been successful-but then let me see-am I wrong in thinking that there have been four certs to date or have there been five? To my personal knowledge the lowest score actually offered a position has been a 62.5--though there have been people interviewed with a lower score I have not heard truthfully beyond speculation that a lower score than that has actually been offered a position. Interviewedaybe but offered a job? While I can understand the angst of the "3-strikers" having been a no-striker myself-that is not even had the priviledge of an interview-I cannot exactly share in that anxiety-but then there is the assertion on the board that individuals who have been on the cert four times have been "picked up". It also seems that with this whole process we are on fairly virgin soil here as the process being applied now is completely different than that selection process that was applied before 2007. So all the opinions are exactly that-opinions and not fact. I am thinking that some people that had good OPM scores completely botched the SSA interview-I have had that confirmed from some that were involved in the interview process. As has been a concen on the board today about the mental health of applicants-those in the system have actually witnessed some of the gems that made it through the old system and those concerns are ligitimate. But the point I started out to make is this-I truly do not think that having been "3-striked" is in itself an indicator of being rejected-in many cases-despite your shoes-particularly those with scores under 62.5 who had no geographic preference it simply means that someone with a higher score was selected over you--the key point is NO GEOGRAPHIC PREFERENCE-if you limited yourself in that way that is a whole different situation. So if I were one of those 3-strikers with no geographic preference and a score under 62.5 I would be hoping for a new cert (not a new register) because the odds are positive I think--My friends who were interviewers said that people who looked like superstars on paper did self-destruct in the interview. The other thing is because of the nature of the beast and the fact that the current selection process is a new one is that you do start with a clean slate with a new register. Those who think otherwise have not been with the government long enough to realize that the collective memory is about -that long. So do not despair would be my advice-if there is another cert keep your fingers crossed-perhaps you will be competing with me-and with a higher score humble my pie-but with the new register next year comes new opportunity-even though we have no idea-those that is that did not make a cert-we can speculate where we need to beef things up-so take the challenge-if you don't try you take yourself out of the game. I have to think it has as much to do with what you have to put down as it does how you put it down. Like Claims Reps in the DO's the reviewers at OPM can see a smoke screen as clever as some like to think they are with words-not always but BS is BS-and as lawyers we are all masters at BS-admit it. So to those despairing over the three strike phenomenon and a low score and an "I'll go anywhere" attitude-don't cash in your chips yet even tho doing so would help a mut like me.
As Marcia says-Peace Y'all
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 2, 2009 23:13:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry Zag, but now that you have suggested the mere possibility that the selection process is not a massive conspiracy, and that maybe, just maybe, those of us on the board really don't know half of what we think we know of an essentially new process only two years old, you are obviously a management tool.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Oct 3, 2009 7:16:50 GMT -5
I do not understand the emphasis on how "new" the process is. Having watched the ALJ selection process now for considerably more than a decade, it seems to me to be remarkably unchanged. To the extent that OPM may explicitly or implicitly claim that it created a new process [presumably justifying its astonishing slowness in doing whatever it did before coming up with the "new" examination], it is disingenuous, to put it mildly.
As far as SSA manipulation of the process to get candidates it wants, maybe now it is trying to get insiders whereas before it tried to avoid them [and I think that would be inaccurate: if you were the right kind of well-connected and well-liked insider you always had an advantage], but I think any impartial observer with half a brain would always have had strong suspicions of how SSA relied on the rule of three and the three-strikes-you're-out-if-we-feel-like-it reg. It's not a matter of a "massive conspiracy" necessarily; it's more a matter of how good-ole-boys [and maybe in SSA's case the occasional girl] operate if they can get away with it.
|
|
zag79
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by zag79 on Oct 4, 2009 12:03:23 GMT -5
Whirrr-whirrr-whirr, buzzz, buzzz, buzzz-I have been definately called a tool before, but a "management tool"--but actually I am more animated than a tool-more like a management toad-you know hop, hop hop, ribbit, ribbit, ribbit. Seriously I think some people have spent too much time looking on the grassy knoll and not enough in the book depository--conspiracy theories?? The fequency in the changeover in management at the top (the deciders) and the changes in direction with the inevitable swing of the pendulum cause me to think that conspiracy is pretty strong --more likely it is the decision du jour-quality over quantity one day and quanity is paramount with quality be damned the next as far as production is concerned-if you watch the process long enough you get a curious sense of deja vous. Hop, hop, hop. RRRIIIBBBBITTT!!
|
|
|
Post by cinnaboin123 on Oct 5, 2009 15:45:30 GMT -5
I have a score in the high 70's. many years of experience with ssa law. stakeholders getting selected are management, union, and litigators from private sector. been on every cert, no notification as to whether considered. rule of three has many "versions" of the truth, no sure answers forthcoming from any agency personnel. Wide geographic area, most of the country in fact, was left on every cert. last round, was told agency tried to keep things local, but the local office near me went to an outside hire who had to relocate. foia is a good idea since there has been no transparency forthcoming, although promised under new administration. no trouble maker here, no bad referenced, just simply no direct connections or political favors owed on my behalf. looking at others not selected, it appears that this is the case for most. it still seems to boil down to who you know and who knows you.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Oct 5, 2009 17:45:57 GMT -5
I have a score in the high 70's. many years of experience with ssa law. stakeholders getting selected are management, union, and litigators from private sector. been on every cert, no notification as to whether considered. rule of three has many "versions" of the truth, no sure answers forthcoming from any agency personnel. Wide geographic area, most of the country in fact, was left on every cert. last round, was told agency tried to keep things local, but the local office near me went to an outside hire who had to relocate. foia is a good idea since there has been no transparency forthcoming, although promised under new administration. no trouble maker here, no bad referenced, just simply no direct connections or political favors owed on my behalf. looking at others not selected, it appears that this is the case for most. it still seems to boil down to who you know and who knows you. You said you were on every cert. I cant help but wonder whether with that high score, and wide geographic area, didn't you also get called by any of the other agencies? For those telling of such nonselection stories, haven't you served the other agencies with FOIA requests and so on?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 6, 2009 8:18:41 GMT -5
I have a score in the high 70's. many years of experience with ssa law. stakeholders getting selected are management, union, and litigators from private sector. been on every cert, no notification as to whether considered. rule of three has many "versions" of the truth, no sure answers forthcoming from any agency personnel. Wide geographic area, most of the country in fact, was left on every cert. last round, was told agency tried to keep things local, but the local office near me went to an outside hire who had to relocate. foia is a good idea since there has been no transparency forthcoming, although promised under new administration. no trouble maker here, no bad referenced, just simply no direct connections or political favors owed on my behalf. looking at others not selected, it appears that this is the case for most. it still seems to boil down to who you know and who knows you. Obviously much of this has been discussed ad nauseum. However, the local offices never have any influence on who is selected for their particular office. They are not even notified that they are getting a new ALJ until the GALs come out. Also, there has never been any attempt to hire by location. Candidates used to get the opportunity to provide a short list indicating location order of preference, but that was last done well over ten years ago. If you are currently working for ODAR the best thing you can do is apply for the training cadre and get yourself "known." There is no sucking up required, you just do your job and exhibit that you aren't a social misfit. I have noticed amongst all of these posts that there does not seem to be a long-term conception of time within the ALJ selection process. I was fortunate enough to be selected on my fourth cert, two years into the process, but I honestly was not really expecting much luck until maybe three to five years of certs. There was a significant amount of in-house talent that built up while the process was closed. These are solid people who had proven themselves over and over as go-to people, not suck-ups. It neither surprised nor angered me to see these people selected before me. There is too much of a thought process on this board of, "he was selected instead of me," rather than "he was selected before me."
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 6, 2009 12:53:26 GMT -5
Obviously much of this has been discussed ad nauseum. However, the local offices never have any influence on who is selected for their particular office. They are not even notified that they are getting a new ALJ until the GALs come out. Also, there has never been any attempt to hire by location. Candidates used to get the opportunity to provide a short list indicating location order of preference, but that was last done well over ten years ago. If you are currently working for ODAR the best thing you can do is apply for the training cadre and get yourself "known." There is no sucking up required, you just do your job and exhibit that you aren't a social misfit. I have noticed amongst all of these posts that there does not seem to be a long-term conception of time within the ALJ selection process. I was fortunate enough to be selected on my fourth cert, two years into the process, but I honestly was not really expecting much luck until maybe three to five years of certs. There was a significant amount of in-house talent that built up while the process was closed. These are solid people who had proven themselves over and over as go-to people, not suck-ups. It neither surprised nor angered me to see these people selected before me. There is too much of a thought process on this board of, "he was selected instead of me," rather than "he was selected before me." I think much of what Val says here is probably accurate, in that it applies only to candidates who are current SSA employees. [Though I think she blithely dismisses the importance and effectiveness of being a total suck up in the process.] I will still question how many of this "in house talent" were actually any better than the very talented outside people with real life, courtroom experience who were often bypassed to reach this "in house talent" who labored in the SSA trenches for their entire career waiting for their "promotion" to ALJ. I repeat, an ALJ slot is not a promotion for SSA employees and should never be viewed as one, thus while I think Val's advice is probably accurate, it really illustrates in a major way the problem with the process as it is currently viewed by insiders. It's that myopic view that SSA people are entitled to SSA ALJ slots because they worked for SSA that defeats the concept of an independent ALJ under the APA, and has been repeatedly rejected by Congress. SSA experience is simply not a merit factor -- never has been and never will be -- and it cannot be used as a selection tool under the regulations. If that gets your collective panties in a bunch, talk to Congress not me. But I digress. The one main objection I have to the above is the statement: "Also, there has never been any attempt to hire by location. Candidates used to get the opportunity to provide a short list indicating location order of preference, but that was last done well over ten years ago."I am not sure if this is what Val meant about that, exactly, but we do know that in the April 2009 round of hiring, 12 insiders were hired for the exact location where they were currently employed as attorneys. That's a very high number of people who got the ALJ job at their own office. That makes me wonder how the local office was NOT involved in pushing a particular candidate. And it certainly looks like "hiring by location" to me, but what do I know? I repeat, hearing office local management are not even notified if their office will be getting a newly hired ALJ until after the selection are made. The only way they find out ahead of time is when a candidate shares a GAL list with them. "Gee Boss, look. Kalamazoo is on the GAL, looks like we're hiring a new ALJ!" But yes, what do you know? Most likely as much as I would know if I were to walk into the Wyoming Department of Environmental Protection to clean up their iffy attorney hiring process. After all, I got turned down for a job there once. Its kind of like staying at a Holiday Inn Express. For your 12 in-house local office hires, did they have competitive scores, what did their GALs look like, and what particular offices were they hired to? Should you really be surprised if a candidate in the Fargo, ND office, with a score of 75 and a GAL limited only to Fargo, were to be offered a slot in Fargo? You're right PF, I'm the one with the overly developed sense of entitlement. And you are correct, SSA experience can never be a merit factor, because after all, no matter how much skill, talent, or knowledge the work requires, it can't be a merit factor because it is SSA experience. Just ask Congress, who coincidentally just issued a press release yesterday praising SSA and ODAR for the great work we're doing cutting down the backlog.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 6, 2009 13:13:19 GMT -5
Breathe Val you got your job. As I said, let's not get our panties in a bunch! To Pot: Ditto! From Kettle
|
|
|
Post by statealj on Oct 6, 2009 16:40:11 GMT -5
Bravo to you, patriotsfan, for having the courage as well as the compassion to bring light into this process for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Oct 6, 2009 21:36:03 GMT -5
As for Agency attorneys getting hired for the same office they were working in - over half of those selected for their offices listed the office as their sole geographic preference. Further, more than a few Agency attorneys selected in the April 2009 had litigation experience prior to working for the Agency - a fact many do not even want to think about. With the advent of flexiplace, the bad economy and perhaps just general unwillingness to upset family life, many people are not willing to move for these jobs anymore - it is difficult to give up two or three days per week at home, wind up owing money on a house and hope your spouse can find a job in whereever you might wind up - or hope you get a hardship transfer home - all these factors make moving to a new location very unattractive... I too found it amazing that every time certain posters brought the issue up, they'd mention the SSA attorney in a context that suggested that it was impossible they'd have had any other work experience, whether litigation or otherwise. My experience - limited though it may be - suggests that many ssa attorneys have worked in a variety of legal fields, including ones that exposed them to a variety of litigation and administrative law experiences. It's almost as if certain posters feel that an attorney with only litigation and/or administrative law experiences is somehow supposed to score higher than an attorney who has this PLUS SSA experience. It's an attempt at forwarding a self serving argument. Kanye West though says that Beyonce had the highest score and it doesn't make sense that she isn't an ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Oct 7, 2009 19:38:27 GMT -5
PF Concerning your remark: "That makes me wonder how the local office was NOT involved in pushing a particular candidate." You may have learned a lot about how SSA/ODAR operates. However, to anybody who has worked in a hearing office, the idea that what the "local office" thinks about anything makes any difference to anybody making decisions in Falls Church or Baltimore is completely beyond belief. Whatever reasons [or lack of reasons] there may have been for insiders getting picked for offices in which they already worked, you can rest assured that the desires or interests of the local offices had nothing to do with it. To think otherwise shows a rather charming naivete about how ODAR/OHA works.
|
|