tab58
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by tab58 on Sept 28, 2009 12:53:36 GMT -5
From the ODAR Management Information (A-07-09-29162) August 2009 www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-07-09-29162.pdfODAR’S ABILITY TO ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG Regardless of whether ODAR’s FY 2010 proposals are approved, it appears SSA will achieve the desired pending hearings level by FY 2013, based on the currently projected level of receipts, due primarily to the hiring of additional ALJs. We examined the workload ODAR would need to complete to process projected hearing requests and reduce the number of pending hearings to the desired level of 466,000 by FY 2013. We found that if SSA follows its current ALJ hiring plan, and the current average ALJ productivity level of 2.29 dispositions per ALJ per day remains constant, ODAR’s pending level should fall to about 460,000 by FY 2013. According to the current ALJ hiring plan, SSA is hiring 157 ALJs who will come on duty in June and July 2009.(5) In addition, SSA plans to hire 208 ALJs in FY 2010.(6) The timing of ALJ hiring will impact ODAR’s ability to achieve its desired pending level by FY 2013. The Commissioner has expressed concerns to the OPM Director that the ALJ register has not been updated for SSA to hire the 208 ALJs in FY 2010. SSA should continue to work with OPM to ensure ALJs are hired within the planned time frames.(7) See Appendix C for details on our examination of the workload ODAR would need to complete to process projected hearing requests and achieve its desired pending level. 5 Of the 157 ALJs, 97 will be hired above attrition, and the remaining 60 will replace ALJs SSA estimates were lost due to attrition. The 157 ALJs includes 35 ALJs hired with funds provided to SSA by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Pub. L. No. 111-5, February 17, 2009. 6 Of the 208 ALJs, 148 will be hired above attrition, and the remaining 60 will replace ALJs SSA estimates will be lost due to attrition. SSA hopes to hire 25 to 50 new ALJs in October 2009 with the remainder hired in July 2010. 7 To hire ALJs, SSA submits a request to OPM, which provides a list of eligible candidates. SSA interviews eligible candidates and submits selections to OPM for approval. OPM performs background checks on the candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 28, 2009 18:31:57 GMT -5
7 To hire ALJs, SSA submits a request to OPM, which provides a list of eligible candidates. SSA interviews eligible candidates and submits selections to OPM for approval. OPM performs background checks on the candidates. That's an interesting piece of information. Totally incorrect as far as we know. I'd love to hear more about this!!! I'm unable to open the link because it is internal apparently. But as much as I see here, not totally incorrect as far as is known. It seems to me based on what history I know, opm USED to perform this task. Historically, they got annual fees for testing and maintaining the list. This included reference checks. The reference checks were part of the score. So for anyone who was hired before 07 as an alj, it would be true. When Congress put all that pressure on OPM to take action in 07, OPM somehow convinced ssa to take on the workload and budgetary cost of reference check part of the test. Whether they did it as a concession for moving the certificate more rapidly. Or whether they were able to rid themselves of this resource intensive task and recoup some budget money because no one was paying attention to interagency agreements and past history. This is for us to guess. We can also guess whether the agencies (other than SSA) were aware that the reference check was no longer part of the OPM process or part of the final score that OPM had forwarded to them. On information and belief, OPM will reabsorb this function due to interagency(ies) miffedness at not getting what they paid for. On further information and belief, various applicant legal actions may well now have resulted in OPM taking back what they were supposed to be doing anyway. maybe. depends. or not. |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 29, 2009 9:12:04 GMT -5
I'm unable to open the link because it is internal apparently. But as much as I see here, not totally incorrect as far as is known. It seems to me based on what history I know, opm USED to perform this task. Historically, they got annual fees for testing and maintaining the list. This included reference checks. The reference checks were part of the score. So for anyone who was hired before 07 as an alj, it would be true. When Congress put all that pressure on OPM to take action in 07, OPM somehow convinced ssa to take on the workload and budgetary cost of reference check part of the test. Whether they did it as a concession for moving the certificate more rapidly. Or whether they were able to rid themselves of this resource intensive task and recoup some budget money because no one was paying attention to interagency agreements and past history. This is for us to guess. We can also guess whether the agencies (other than SSA) were aware that the reference check was no longer part of the OPM process or part of the final score that OPM had forwarded to them. On information and belief, OPM will reabsorb this function due to interagency(ies) miffedness at not getting what they paid for. On further information and belief, various applicant legal actions may well now have resulted in OPM taking back what they were supposed to be doing anyway. maybe. depends. or not. SSA has used the background checks as a sword to eliminate many candidates through the three strike process. As I noted in an earlier post, positive references are turned negative by SSA, then used as a basis to reject the candidates. We have actual proff of this device. Without that sword, SSA might not have been able to three strike so many canddiates, and would not have reached its goal of the insider preference. So, I think some at SSA may actually prefer to keep this device in-house. We'll see. I think there is some question between who performs the background check, and who determines the consequences of the background check. The results of the background check will always end up in the hands of the hiring agency. In other words, I don't think it really matters who performs the actual task, because it has always been the hiring agency's prerogative to say, "we don't like this candidate, what do we have in the background check that can be used to justify getting rid of him." The process has always worked this way, no matter who actually did the background check. Its a very old sword Patirotsfan. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Sept 29, 2009 16:35:11 GMT -5
OPM did the first background check, then they are apparently finishing up on the little details now. I got interviewed two weeks ago (to ask about all my internatonal trave), and a cal today because the file had been kicked back to clear up a couple of issues, like where was I in July, and who could verify it. Obviously it is OPM since I was with SSA. I gave him Frank C's number to call, and hope that will satisfy them.
BTW, the guy who interviewed me spent most of the time complaining about OPM!
|
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 29, 2009 18:33:39 GMT -5
I'm unable to open the link because it is internal apparently. But as much as I see here, not totally incorrect as far as is known. It seems to me based on what history I know, opm USED to perform this task. Historically, they got annual fees for testing and maintaining the list. This included reference checks. The reference checks were part of the score. So for anyone who was hired before 07 as an alj, it would be true. When Congress put all that pressure on OPM to take action in 07, OPM somehow convinced ssa to take on the workload and budgetary cost of reference check part of the test. Whether they did it as a concession for moving the certificate more rapidly. Or whether they were able to rid themselves of this resource intensive task and recoup some budget money because no one was paying attention to interagency agreements and past history. This is for us to guess. We can also guess whether the agencies (other than SSA) were aware that the reference check was no longer part of the OPM process or part of the final score that OPM had forwarded to them. On information and belief, OPM will reabsorb this function due to interagency(ies) miffedness at not getting what they paid for. On further information and belief, various applicant legal actions may well now have resulted in OPM taking back what they were supposed to be doing anyway. maybe. depends. or not. SSA has used the background checks as a sword to eliminate many candidates through the three strike process. As I noted in an earlier post, positive references are turned negative by SSA, then used as a basis to reject the candidates. We have actual proff of this device. Without that sword, SSA might not have been able to three strike so many canddiates, and would not have reached its goal of the insider preference. So, I think some at SSA may actually prefer to keep this device in-house. We'll see. Be careful what you wish for. It's too late for you as you say you are an ALJ. So be careful what you wish on other people. Some may remember the "10 most significant cases" part of the reference check process. When asked to list these cases, the applicant had to include contact info for the opposing counsel and judges in those matters. OPM would send out reference letters to those individuals. Those individuals got letters with categories and a grading metric. Most such opponents and judges trashed the letters. Sometimes, some really mean opponents, and even some so called friends, sent back ratings that did not accord with said applicant's perception of their own qualifications. So be careful what you are wishing on the rest of the future alj applicant pool. |
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 29, 2009 18:40:56 GMT -5
OPM did the first background check, then they are apparently finishing up on the little details now. I got interviewed two weeks ago (to ask about all my internatonal trave), and a cal today because the file had been kicked back to clear up a couple of issues, like where was I in July, and who could verify it. Obviously it is OPM since I was with SSA. I gave him Frank C's number to call, and hope that will satisfy them. BTW, the guy who interviewed me spent most of the time complaining about OPM! Are you sure you aren't referring to the FBI background check rather than the reference check. The refence check I have been talking about is the one that opm used to do in the pre 2007 process. It was part of your score. They abdicated that part of the process. SSA then hired a contractor to do the combo reference and background check. The SSA reference check now included questions like "can the applicant do 5-700" cases a year. I believe the OPM check you refer to now is more in the line of the completion of the FBI background investigation that every government employee must undergo, no matter who no matter what job. It's very much more along the lines of a low level security clearance than a suitability for alj check. |
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 29, 2009 18:48:10 GMT -5
SSA has used the background checks as a sword to eliminate many candidates through the three strike process. As I noted in an earlier post, positive references are turned negative by SSA, then used as a basis to reject the candidates. We have actual proff of this device. Without that sword, SSA might not have been able to three strike so many canddiates, and would not have reached its goal of the insider preference. So, I think some at SSA may actually prefer to keep this device in-house. We'll see. I think there is some question between who performs the background check, and who determines the consequences of the background check. The results of the background check will always end up in the hands of the hiring agency. In other words, I don't think it really matters who performs the actual task, because it has always been the hiring agency's prerogative to say, "we don't like this candidate, what do we have in the background check that can be used to justify getting rid of him." The process has always worked this way, no matter who actually did the background check. Its a very old sword Patirotsfan. BUT HE SAID HE HAD PROFF!!!! IT MUST BE TRUE!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by diceman on Sept 30, 2009 9:50:09 GMT -5
Lawmaker - Try opening the link again. I did it and I'm the furthest thing from techno-savvy there is!
|
|
