|
Post by privateatty on Jan 20, 2010 13:06:01 GMT -5
Private Attorney said: "Yes it makes sense to choose attys with SSA experience, but it isn't legal when you three strike your way through 50 or 75 lawyers to get to "your people"." How is this possible? It happened just last year. It takes alot of patience and deliberation unless the Puzzle Palace has got the software, God forbid.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 20, 2010 13:37:43 GMT -5
Nah- OCALJ has been doing it so long now they could do it in theiir sleep. Now they just want OPMs blessing.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 20, 2010 15:53:45 GMT -5
Private Attorney said: "It happened just last year. It takes alot of patience and deliberation unless the Puzzle Palace has got the software, God forbid. "
Maybe I don't understand the process at all. But let's say you're the Chief ALJ in Function Junction, Iowa, and you have a great Senior Attorney who you want to hire as an ALJ. And let's say that he has a score of 85. So wouldn't you wait until the people with the higher scores had been hired by others, and then invite Mr. 85 and two others who got about an 85 and had FJ on their list, and then hire Mr. 85? What's this about three striking 50 or 75 lawyers to get to "your people"?
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jan 20, 2010 16:21:30 GMT -5
Tricia:
If the senior atty has an 85, you probably would be able to hire him without any problem because he'd be at the front of the pack. The problem comes when you need number 3 and two higher scores stand in the way.
Assuming non-vet status, the higher scores from outside SSA are getting the 3 strikes. Once SSA has put you in three groups of 3, they can, by regulation, ignore you if they choose. If your three groups included three individuals, one in each group, that SSA wanted to hire, they simply don't chose you and chose those persons instead and after three of those, they don't even have to pretend.
You still get put on the cert from OPM because of your score, but SSA would simply put you in the discards from the getgo and move on to the lower scorers which include the coveted in-housers who would be harder to get without 3 striking the higher scores. The high scoring in-housers aren't hard to get to, but the low scoring in-housers are.
That's the theory and PF has proof it was done to several people himself included. There are, of course, scenarios in which the lower scorer is legitimately chosen, i.e. in accordance with the rules, but if you're already predisposed to hire 30 or 50 individuals, it means the two others in each threesome don't really get a fair consideration - only the appearance thereof.
As has been said ad nauseum, it doesn't mean those chosen aren't qualified, only that some of those not chosen weren't properly considered under the rules. They paid their admission fees including the brain damage from the ap and the interviews and written exercises only to be a mechanism so that others can be more swiftly hired.
How about it PF, PA, Val, am I close?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 20, 2010 16:25:50 GMT -5
Tricia: If the senior atty has an 85, you probably would be able to hire him without any problem because he'd be at the front of the pack. The problem comes when you need number 3 and two higher scores stand in the way. Assuming non-vet status, the higher scores from outside SSA are getting the 3 strikes. Once SSA has put you in three groups of 3, they can, by regulation, ignore you if they choose. If your three groups included three individuals, one in each group, that SSA wanted to hire, they simply don't chose you and chose those persons instead and after three of those, they don't even have to pretend. You still get put on the cert from OPM because of your score, but SSA would simply put you in the discards from the getgo and move on to the lower scorers which include the coveted in-housers who would be harder to get without 3 striking the higher scores. The high scoring in-housers aren't hard to get to, but the low scoring in-housers are. That's the theory and PF has proof it was done to several people himself included. There are, of course, scenarios in which the lower scorer is legitimately chosen, i.e. in accordance with the rules, but if you're already predisposed to hire 30 or 50 individuals, it means the two others in each threesome don't really get a fair consideration - only the appearance thereof. As has been said ad nauseum, it doesn't mean those chosen aren't qualified, only that some of those not chosen weren't properly considered under the rules. They paid their admission fees including the brain damage from the ap and the interviews and written exercises only to be a mechanism so that others can be more swiftly hired. How about it PF, PA, Val, am I close? On the money.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 20, 2010 16:53:33 GMT -5
Carjack said: "Once SSA has put you in three groups of 3, they can, by regulation, ignore you if they choose. If your three groups included three individuals, one in each group, that SSA wanted to hire, they simply don't chose you and chose those persons instead and after three of those, they don't even have to pretend. " Are you saying that SSA would purposely put someone in three groups of three knowing that in each group, there was someone other than you who had already been chosen?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 20, 2010 17:03:19 GMT -5
Tricia: If the senior atty has an 85, you probably would be able to hire him without any problem because he'd be at the front of the pack. The problem comes when you need number 3 and two higher scores stand in the way. Assuming non-vet status, the higher scores from outside SSA are getting the 3 strikes. Once SSA has put you in three groups of 3, they can, by regulation, ignore you if they choose. If your three groups included three individuals, one in each group, that SSA wanted to hire, they simply don't chose you and chose those persons instead and after three of those, they don't even have to pretend. You still get put on the cert from OPM because of your score, but SSA would simply put you in the discards from the getgo and move on to the lower scorers which include the coveted in-housers who would be harder to get without 3 striking the higher scores. The high scoring in-housers aren't hard to get to, but the low scoring in-housers are. That's the theory and PF has proof it was done to several people himself included. There are, of course, scenarios in which the lower scorer is legitimately chosen, i.e. in accordance with the rules, but if you're already predisposed to hire 30 or 50 individuals, it means the two others in each threesome don't really get a fair consideration - only the appearance thereof. As has been said ad nauseum, it doesn't mean those chosen aren't qualified, only that some of those not chosen weren't properly considered under the rules. They paid their admission fees including the brain damage from the ap and the interviews and written exercises only to be a mechanism so that others can be more swiftly hired. How about it PF, PA, Val, am I close? First of all, the HOCALJ of Function Junction has absolutely no influence on the hiring other than giving a thumbs up/down to the reference checker, which of course is a contractor, not an ODAR or SSA person. Local management has input on hiring 13s and below. That's it. Second, I have cautioned before about drawing extreme conclusions regarding the process, such as the idea that a perfectly good candidate from outside the agency would be blackballed just to get to an attractive agency candidate. There is a big difference between skipping candidate x in the first cert, and hiring him later in the second, third, or fourth cert, versus saying we will never hire candidate x. Remember, ther three strikes rule says the agency is not required to consider a candidate after being passed over three times. The rule still allows for consideration after three pass overs if the agency wants to. Trust me, I was three striked in three certs with a score of 67+ and a wide open GAL. Now I'm not saying that some candidates have not been blackballed. To suggest that the register is full of perfect candidates is as ridiculous as suggesting that the agency did not bend any rules in the process to avoid flawed candidates selected by OPM's rigorous, yet hapless process. As usual, I think the truth lies somewhere in between.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 20, 2010 17:16:54 GMT -5
Carjack, by George, I think you've got it! The regulations are 5 C.F.R. § 332.405 (Three Strikes Rule) and § 332.404 (Rule of Three). § 332.404 An appointing officer, with sole regard to merit and fitness, shall select an eligible for: (a) The first vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are available for appointment; and (b) The second and each succeding vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are unselected and available for appointment. § 332.405 An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position. §332.404 seems to suggest that a high scorer remains in the top 3 forever, but §332.405 lets the agency dump the high scorer once the agency "considers" the person three times for a vacancy. SSA, of course, never actually "considers" those it intends to dump, it just dumps them after they are in a top 3 group for three times. If they like you, though, they may give you many more than 3 considerations before selecting you, which SSA has done in multiple cases. The Three Strikes Rule is not mandatory, it is discretionary. However, like all OPM regualtions, it must be applied in a lawful manner, consistent with merit selection principles. Its here that SSA gets off track to say the least. Nice job carjack!! "Fitness" Hmmmm...
|
|
|
Post by notajudgeyet on Jan 20, 2010 18:33:58 GMT -5
Carjack, by George, I think you've got it! The regulations are 5 C.F.R. § 332.405 (Three Strikes Rule) and § 332.404 (Rule of Three). § 332.404 An appointing officer, with sole regard to merit and fitness, shall select an eligible for: (a) The first vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are available for appointment; and (b) The second and each succeding vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are unselected and available for appointment. § 332.405 An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position. §332.404 seems to suggest that a high scorer remains in the top 3 forever, but §332.405 lets the agency dump the high scorer once the agency "considers" the person three times for a vacancy. SSA, of course, never actually "considers" those it intends to dump, it just dumps them after they are in a top 3 group for three times. If they like you, though, they may give you many more than 3 considerations before selecting you, which SSA has done in multiple cases. The Three Strikes Rule is not mandatory, it is discretionary. However, like all OPM regualtions, it must be applied in a lawful manner, consistent with merit selection principles. Its here that SSA gets off track to say the least. Nice job carjack!! Anyone: In the following sentence- "An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position." what does the phrase "same position" mean? Does it mean the same job title? Or does it mean the same opening in the same city? I know how ODAR is probably interpreting it, but does anyone know the actual meaning?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 20, 2010 21:58:21 GMT -5
Carjack, by George, I think you've got it! The regulations are 5 C.F.R. § 332.405 (Three Strikes Rule) and § 332.404 (Rule of Three). § 332.404 An appointing officer, with sole regard to merit and fitness, shall select an eligible for: (a) The first vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are available for appointment; and (b) The second and each succeding vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are unselected and available for appointment. § 332.405 An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position. §332.404 seems to suggest that a high scorer remains in the top 3 forever, but §332.405 lets the agency dump the high scorer once the agency "considers" the person three times for a vacancy. SSA, of course, never actually "considers" those it intends to dump, it just dumps them after they are in a top 3 group for three times. If they like you, though, they may give you many more than 3 considerations before selecting you, which SSA has done in multiple cases. The Three Strikes Rule is not mandatory, it is discretionary. However, like all OPM regualtions, it must be applied in a lawful manner, consistent with merit selection principles. Its here that SSA gets off track to say the least. Nice job carjack!! Anyone: In the following sentence- "An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position." what does the phrase "same position" mean? Does it mean the same job title? Or does it mean the same opening in the same city? I know how ODAR is probably interpreting it, but does anyone know the actual meaning? In the spring of 2009 they stacked me twice for two different cities, having stacked me once in 2008 for a third (or first) city. Same job, three cities. And val, your story about being so brutally three-striked and then defending the process, well, hmmmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by tenacious on Jan 20, 2010 23:10:50 GMT -5
Val's posting that a candidate may be passed over 3 times and then picked up in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th cert sounds all well and good but can he cite any specific instances of that happening? And for those candidates who are the unfortunate ones to get passed over, it's like being in Limbo.
|
|
|
Post by statman on Jan 20, 2010 23:41:16 GMT -5
I talked to somebody who appeared to have been in on the hiring process. Based on what he told me. it seems there was little manipulation of the hiring process.
It appears that you could hurt yourself at the SSA interview, but are unlikely to help yourself much. I really think that this person was accurate in what he described. Basically, your score mattered most.
I am not writing this to take any sides, just to pass on information which I believe is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by notajudgeyet on Jan 21, 2010 0:25:08 GMT -5
I talked to somebody who appeared to have been in on the hiring process. Based on what he told me. it seems there was little manipulation of the hiring process. It appears that you could hurt yourself at the SSA interview, but are unlikely to help yourself much. I really think that this person was accurate in what he described. Basically, your score mattered most. I am not writing this to take any sides, just to pass on information which I believe is accurate. Unfortunately we have ample evidence from this forum that your score matters very little. But let's ask an expert. Hey PF, what do you think, is your score the most important factor?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 21, 2010 7:06:02 GMT -5
Val's posting that a candidate may be passed over 3 times and then picked up in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th cert sounds all well and good but can he cite any specific instances of that happening? And for those candidates who are the unfortunate ones to get passed over, it's like being in Limbo. As I indicated in my prior post, I am a specific instance of being passed over three times through multiple certs, but I was eventually picked up. I maintained a wide open geographic availability throughout my time on the register and the certs, and in the first three certs candidates with scores up to at least five points below mine were selected. Those lower scores could not have been selected for all of those different cities unless I had been knocked off three times first. Did I enjoy getting shot down that many times? No, not really. It kind of reminded me of Prom. On the other hand, it was bearable because all of the people that I knew who were being selected, with lower scores than mine had better experience than me and honestly should have been selected before me. If anyone would like to track down my earlier posts, I was saying the same thing back around the first and second certs, before I finally got my date to the Prom.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 21, 2010 7:24:45 GMT -5
I talked to somebody who appeared to have been in on the hiring process. Based on what he told me. it seems there was little manipulation of the hiring process. It appears that you could hurt yourself at the SSA interview, but are unlikely to help yourself much. I really think that this person was accurate in what he described. Basically, your score mattered most. I am not writing this to take any sides, just to pass on information which I believe is accurate. Unfortunately we have ample evidence from this forum that your score matters very little. But let's ask an expert. Hey PF, what do you think, is your score the most important factor? Pixie told us in '07 that scores mattered very little. Historically you needed a 63+ to have a hope of a pick up. It was the SSA rank or score that was assigned to you after the SSA Interview that mattered. But you never know what that is.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 21, 2010 7:27:05 GMT -5
I talked to somebody who appeared to have been in on the hiring process. Based on what he told me. it seems there was little manipulation of the hiring process. It appears that you could hurt yourself at the SSA interview, but are unlikely to help yourself much. I really think that this person was accurate in what he described. Basically, your score mattered most. I am not writing this to take any sides, just to pass on information which I believe is accurate. With all due respect it isn't. I know of 7 people (including val) who got three-striked. Look at her post! Now if three-striking in the manner outlined here is not manipulation, then fine, I can agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 21, 2010 10:58:42 GMT -5
The difficulty, of course, is that there is a certain amount of discretion written into the hiring process, and whenever discretion is allowed, it will be perceived by some to have been used unfairly. Unfairness isn't necessarily illegality. I could see a court holding that "fitness" (which is, in the regulation, a different concept from "merit") includes an assessment of agency-specific experience. Litigation may therefore result in the upholding of SSA's practices, a result that I suspect PF and others here would abhor, while still others may support. No, that's not what the Regs envision: See: edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-15184.htmWhen you read this you will see that OPM retains the right to determine fitness and that the "current practices" fly in the face of the intention: that the Agency select from the highest scorers. decadealj had it right. SSA has been doing this for a long time. People are having to litigate to put an end to this.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 21, 2010 12:49:16 GMT -5
What do I get for being a "highly regarded insider"? I already own a handsome ten-year pin!
I'm pretty confident that nobody in the Regional or National headquarters ever knew who I was before I met them during ALJ training in October. I have never done any national or regional details and have spent my entire time in my local office. I never caused any trouble and I always did my job, which I guess makes me a suck-up management stooge.
|
|
|
Post by imiram1372 on Jan 21, 2010 13:14:06 GMT -5
I applied for the first time in November 2009 and I have been reading the information in these threads since that time (although I have never before posted anything). I just felt compelled to comment now to say thank you to patriotsfan for the information you have provided above. I am not an "insider" and the information you have provided has really been helpful to me in going through this process. Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 21, 2010 13:18:16 GMT -5
Patriots Fan said: "As for the person who said score was most important, that is ENTIRELY inaccurate. Again, unlike everyone else posting here, having seen the actual certificates, with the names and the scores of the people selected and non-selected, I can assure you, in no uncertain terms, that OPM score was virtually meaningless, which many including Pixie have repeatedly stated, and which is absolutely accurate. People with very high OPm scores were pitted against insiders with very low OPM scores, and the low scorer was always selected. "
Well, a lot of this makes no sense to me at all. Patriots Fan, I seem to remember that when I was first coming to his board in 2007, while I was hopefully appealing my being tossed out with the trash after having failed to state on the application the date that I was first licensed, that you had an almost-ridiculously high score. People were congratulating you in advance and giving you virtual high-fives. Are you now saying that having a very high score worked against you?
|
|