|
Post by decadealj on Dec 8, 2009 11:34:57 GMT -5
Charles Hall has posted a notice from SSA looking for a contractor to do ALJ background checks. What is interesting is the discription of prospective candidates.
|
|
mle06
Full Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by mle06 on Dec 8, 2009 12:24:36 GMT -5
Charles Hall has posted a notice from SSA looking for a contractor to do ALJ background checks. What is interesting is the discription of prospective candidates. Decadealj, Can you provide a link to the post or let us know where to find it?
|
|
|
Post by milagros on Dec 8, 2009 12:31:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Dec 8, 2009 12:35:27 GMT -5
It's the first link in the "Links to other websites of interest" stickie at the top of the page. The entire post (which in turn came from www.fbo.gov/) reads: The Social Security Administration (SSA) intends to issue an unrestricted solicitation to obtain the services of one experienced company to perform telephone background screenings on potential candidates that could serve as Administrative Law Judges for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). The contractor shall provide staff experienced in conducting background screening of mid- to senior level attorneys (comparable to 6th year associates and above, partners, judges, general counsel, associate general counsel positions, U.S. Attorneys, etc.) Only experience U.S. based telephone interviewers (including Alaska and Hawaii) who speak English clearly may be used.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 8, 2009 14:06:52 GMT -5
Thanks maxlaw- between the arthritis in my wrists and my novice computer skills, publishing the post would take longer than my 15 minute break.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 8, 2009 18:49:49 GMT -5
It's the first link in the "Links to other websites of interest" stickie at the top of the page. The entire post (which in turn came from www.fbo.gov/) reads: The Social Security Administration (SSA) intends to issue an unrestricted solicitation to obtain the services of one experienced company to perform telephone background screenings on potential candidates that could serve as Administrative Law Judges for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). The contractor shall provide staff experienced in conducting background screening of mid- to senior level attorneys (comparable to 6th year associates and above, partners, judges, general counsel, associate general counsel positions, U.S. Attorneys, etc.) Only experience U.S. based telephone interviewers (including Alaska and Hawaii) who speak English clearly may be used. They are performing "screenings"? To me, that means they are making decisions. What kind and how decisive?
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 8, 2009 19:40:09 GMT -5
I have twice participated in these background checks for candidates for whom I was a reference. The interview is totally oriented toward productivity of the candidate-it really is disgusting because there is nothing subtle about it. And the interviewer doesn't appreciate they are asking questions of an ALJ who doesn't believe 700 cases a year is reasonable or ethical. I told the interviewer I didn't share the productivity assessment of a goal of 700 cases was fair but if anyone could do it, the candidate being assessed was the one to get it done. The other thing they are looking for is a "team player" who will blindly apply the Commissioner's policies. The interview is offensive to anyone who believes tje Judicial Cannons or Ethics apply to an ALJ conducting an ODAR hearing which I for one believe is still subject to the provisions of the APA. Folks who have read my posts on this blog for awhile know our difficulties in Region 4 are caused by management officials with no legal education- all of our SAs are now under the control of a high school graduate GS in my office which for me is the last straw since that GS has told the writers to disregard my citations to caselaw.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 8, 2009 19:42:31 GMT -5
I lied- we are in Region 3, 4th Circuit. My bust.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 8, 2009 19:57:15 GMT -5
I have twice participated in these background checks for candidates for whom I was a reference. The interview is totally oriented toward productivity of the candidate-it really is disgusting because there is nothing subtle about it. And the interviewer doesn't appreciate they are asking questions of an ALJ who doesn't believe 700 cases a year is reasonable or ethical. I told the interviewer I didn't share the productivity assessment of a goal of 700 cases was fair but if anyone could do it, the candidate being assessed was the one to get it done. The other thing they are looking for is a "team player" who will blindly apply the Commissioner's policies. The interview is offensive to anyone who believes tje Judicial Cannons or Ethics apply to an ALJ conducting an ODAR hearing which I for one believe is still subject to the provisions of the APA. Folks who have read my posts on this blog for awhile know our difficulties in Region 4 are caused by management officials with no legal education- all of our SAs are now under the control of a high school graduate GS in my office which for me is the last straw since that GS has told the writers to disregard my citations to caselaw. We are all ALJs and subject to the APA. There is no grey area there. SSA cannot opt out of the APA. And not to be too blunt, but if the SA (or AA) ignores your direction, don't sign the Decision. Is that not grievable?
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Dec 8, 2009 20:43:00 GMT -5
Decadealj-
I hope you did not do your friends a disservice. By debating with the reference checkers, you may have left them with the impression that your views should be attributed to the candidates you had been asked to vouch for. That is not the forum for that type of debate.
You should recognize that this is a game constructed by idiots. There is no sense debating the rules during the game. You learn the rules, figure out how to use them to your advantage and then play to win. The interviewers have no policy making authority. Arguing with them wastes your time and theirs.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 8, 2009 22:22:45 GMT -5
I didn't argue with them- I've been around long enough to tell them what they want to hear and I think I am pretty good at that. But the interviewer also needs to know the context of the answer and in both cases the interviewer indicated that no one had ever clarified the context of their answer. I learned long ago not to try and jest with anyone soliciting information; clarify the question and then tell them what you know they want to hear
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 9, 2009 16:28:20 GMT -5
Gee PF- tell us how you really feel about the process. But from my observations, I can't argue with your conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 9, 2009 19:58:42 GMT -5
Of course, if SSA does not want to hire you, they are not going to hire you, even if your reference says you walk on water, you are blindly loyal, and you will do absolutely anything the Comissh says. In my case, having now seen the reference package that was part of my non-selection, I can tell you that all of my references checked out very strongly. The summary, however, stated that "more than one reference described candidate as 'agressive.'" It was an interesting summary, given that only one reference used the term "agressive" and it was in the positive context of how I handled my workload, i.e., doing a lot of cases. Just like other candidates with glowing references, SSA flipped them on their head as a justification for their actions. It was clear that the summary was intended to turn excellent, nearly flawless references of a superb candidate on their head to later justify a non-selection. If you knew the level and calibre of the references, you too would be indignant that they were summarized in such a way, and it showed to me that the process is, as I have always suspected, complete bullsh&t. I scored too high, and was in the way of candidates who were connected to the agency, and they needed to bump me to get to them. Its that simple. So don't fret too much about what this reference said, or how your interview went, because if they want to hire you for whatever reason (and usually it involves an agency connection), they will do so. Remember, there are exceptions to the "insider rule" and not everyone selected had a connection to the agency, so don't give up all hope if you are not a current ODAR, not married to a current ODAR, have not had a Congressman weigh in on your behalf, or if you don't happen to pal around with the powers that be, all of which have been used as hiring criteria thus far. About half of the jobs will go to people who have no connection to SSA at all, and are opresumably qualified without the need for connections. So everytime someone posts a number here of "they plan to hire X" assume that the hiring is actually 1/2X and you will get an idea of your real shot at the job. Just don't have too high a score, or you may find yourself in the way of the chosen. And finally don't expect or anticipate that this process even slightly resembles merit selection or fairness. It does not. Forget merit. Forget fairness. This is a shi^^y process run by a bunch of gutless, soulless, immoral cowards who think their sh*t doesn't stink. There is not an honest or decent person involved in the selection process, and the fish rots from the head. Good luck PF PF The Canons require that attorneys zealously represent their clients. Aggressiveness comes in many forms, even the quiet, white hot flame of determination. Would you hire an attorney who did not have an aggressive streak?
|
|
|
Post by karaj on Dec 9, 2009 22:24:03 GMT -5
Folks who have read my posts on this blog for awhile know our difficulties in Region 4 are caused by management officials with no legal education- all of our SAs are now under the control of a high school graduate GS in my office which for me is the last straw since that GS has told the writers to disregard my citations to caselaw. No way! How can a non-attorney GS tell the writers to disregard your instructions? Not to get off the subject, but it is time this issue was addressed. Our office is in the same situation. Why individuals with no college background are being promoted to the same level as Senior Attorney, while Staff attorneys remain GS-12s, is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that the job can be done by a Senior Attorney. Where did this system go wrong? With HPI? But we know HPI was a joke...so why does it continue? It's been 10 yrs. since HPI. Why has there been no oversight since then?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Dec 10, 2009 8:39:37 GMT -5
I have twice participated in these background checks for candidates for whom I was a reference. The interview is totally oriented toward productivity of the candidate-it really is disgusting because there is nothing subtle about it. And the interviewer doesn't appreciate they are asking questions of an ALJ who doesn't believe 700 cases a year is reasonable or ethical. I told the interviewer I didn't share the productivity assessment of a goal of 700 cases was fair but if anyone could do it, the candidate being assessed was the one to get it done. The other thing they are looking for is a "team player" who will blindly apply the Commissioner's policies. The interview is offensive to anyone who believes tje Judicial Cannons or Ethics apply to an ALJ conducting an ODAR hearing which I for one believe is still subject to the provisions of the APA. Folks who have read my posts on this blog for awhile know our difficulties in Region 4 are caused by management officials with no legal education- all of our SAs are now under the control of a high school graduate GS in my office which for me is the last straw since that GS has told the writers to disregard my citations to caselaw. Lets not forget that the interview question is regarding the candidate's ability to put out " 500-700 cases per year." I would agree that 700 is about the high end of quality decisionmaking capacity, and anything over would be suspect.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Dec 10, 2009 9:50:04 GMT -5
Of course, if SSA does not want to hire you, they are not going to hire you, even if your reference says you walk on water, you are blindly loyal, and you will do absolutely anything the Comissh says. In my case, having now seen the reference package that was part of my non-selection, I can tell you that all of my references checked out very strongly. The summary, however, stated that "more than one reference described candidate as 'agressive.'" It was an interesting summary, given that only one reference used the term "agressive" and it was in the positive context of how I handled my workload, i.e., doing a lot of cases. Just like other candidates with glowing references, SSA flipped them on their head as a justification for their actions. It was clear that the summary was intended to turn excellent, nearly flawless references of a superb candidate on their head to later justify a non-selection. If you knew the level and calibre of the references, you too would be indignant that they were summarized in such a way, and it showed to me that the process is, as I have always suspected, complete bullsh&t. I scored too high, and was in the way of candidates who were connected to the agency, and they needed to bump me to get to them. Its that simple. So don't fret too much about what this reference said, or how your interview went, because if they want to hire you for whatever reason (and usually it involves an agency connection), they will do so. Remember, there are exceptions to the "insider rule" and not everyone selected had a connection to the agency, so don't give up all hope if you are not a current ODAR, not married to a current ODAR, have not had a Congressman weigh in on your behalf, or if you don't happen to pal around with the powers that be, all of which have been used as hiring criteria thus far. About half of the jobs will go to people who have no connection to SSA at all, and are opresumably qualified without the need for connections. So everytime someone posts a number here of "they plan to hire X" assume that the hiring is actually 1/2X and you will get an idea of your real shot at the job. Just don't have too high a score, or you may find yourself in the way of the chosen. And finally don't expect or anticipate that this process even slightly resembles merit selection or fairness. It does not. Forget merit. Forget fairness. This is a shi^^y process run by a bunch of gutless, soulless, immoral cowards who think their sh*t doesn't stink. There is not an honest or decent person involved in the selection process, and the fish rots from the head. Good luck PF PF You know, I think the Deputy Commissioner for Dishonesty and Cowardice lifted my wallet during the baby-torturing session of training in Falls Church. Only 40% of the last training class was from the Agency, so an outsider's chances are historically statistically better than PF's histrionic statistics. The class was a diverse group with a noticable lack of egomania. Everyone should know that for every candidate selected on her first try, there are several others who needed the patience to make it after several tries, and others that never made it. The process was like that before 2007, and has continued to go that way now. It really should be no surprise. Kind of like the old rule that you just might not get every job you apply for no matter how much you want it or feel qualified for it. "It was clear that the summary was intended to turn excellent, nearly flawless references of a superb candidate on their head to later justify a non-selection. If you knew the level and calibre of the references, you too would be indignant that they were summarized in such a way..." Other than an arbitrary OPM score, what made this candidate any more "superb" than the other candidates? Do we know the excellence, flawlessness, level, and calibre of the references of the other candidates? For that matter, at what point does the "level and calibre" of one's references reach the level of "powers that be?" Were one of those references at the "level" or "calibre" of "Congressman?"
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 10, 2009 10:10:58 GMT -5
Valkyrie- there was no question as to 500- the interviewwer wanted to know if the candidate could do 700 cases a year period. That is what prompted me to clarify because my understanding was 500-700 as you state. I don't want to encourage or open pandora's box on the "insider" issue again- well I guess PF already did- but there are alot of new folks tuning in for information in to what looks like a couple of big classes upcoming. They are entitled to the views and opinions of those who have been subjected to the "process". PF was selected as an ALJ by another agency which is no small feat and has the documentary evidence to justify his "histeronics" or whatever. Anyone looking at this evolution through rose-colored glasses has a rude awakening in store!
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Dec 10, 2009 11:00:05 GMT -5
Valkyrie- there was no question as to 500- the interviewwer wanted to know if the candidate could do 700 cases a year period. That is what prompted me to clarify because my understanding was 500-700 as you state. I don't want to encourage or open pandora's box on the "insider" issue again- well I guess PF already did- but there are alot of new folks tuning in for information in to what looks like a couple of big classes upcoming. They are entitled to the views and opinions of those who have been subjected to the "process". PF was selected as an ALJ by another agency which is no small feat and has the documentary evidence to justify his "histeronics" or whatever. Anyone looking at this evolution through rose-colored glasses has a rude awakening in store! My references indicated that they were asked about "500-700." Also, in the recent training, 500 was the number that was used all the time, and it was suggested that 700+ would be pushing the limit. I think the general understanding of the entire class based upon all the various speeches, etc, was that nobody is going to bother an ALJ putting out 500 per year. Lets face it, there are plenty of ALJs out there putting out less than 400 who will likely be getting the attention.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Dec 10, 2009 11:12:12 GMT -5
Speaking of blind loyalty to the agency, welcome back Val! No discussion here would be complete without your full-throated defense of a warped, unlawful system that landed you an ALJ slot! To all who are in the hunt, new and old, understand that many insiders benefitted from the bastardization of the merit system. Val is perhaps the classic poster child for that group. You must read her posts -- and their snarky put downs (which I love BTW) -- through the prism of a person who unlikely would be an ALJ today had the system not been hijacked from its merit selection basis to the current insider preference that exists. She will always blindly defend the indefensible, as is her right, and apparently her calling, but remember, the system is fixed as I described, and you are better off with that knowledge. Keep your expectations as low as you can to stave off the disappointment that may follow, and if you get through, fantastic! No one was happier for Val than me. I have no doubt she will excel at SSA given her experience. Whether or not she, and the many other insiders selected as SSA ALJs could excel anywhere else is another question. It is also part of the problem. Keep the faith, such as it is. Good luck. Learn what you can here. Glad to be back PF! I got an early shuttle from the Death Star today, along with an upside down copy of the APA and an "Article III Wannabe" T-shirt.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 10, 2009 15:29:05 GMT -5
So nice to see you two kiss and make-up.
|
|