|
Post by privateatty on Jan 21, 2010 13:42:02 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? I was not chosen by SSA. Although my interview and background check were all positive, they three-striked me. It is possible that they did so because my high score and GAL was interfering with their ability to hire some of their lower scoring pre-selected candidates, and it was easier to three strike me so that they could reach further down the list. So, in a way, yes, my high score hurt me. However, my high score got me on a cert for other agencies, one of which offered me my current position. So my high score had great value, just not at SSA. I could repeat this verbatim as it is my story too.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 21, 2010 13:43:29 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. They darn well knew who you were at the SSA Interview.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 21, 2010 13:45:46 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. As you know quite well, and has been discussed with you ad naseum in person, this issue has very little to do with SSA's exercise of reasonable discretion in its hiring. This post is either ill-informed, or just oddly off base by someone I know understands the real issues here much better than suggested in the post. Let's not deliberately mislead folks about this process, peejay, as you know quite well that the beef here is not about an agency simply exercising discretion. It is not "judicial" to pretend that something you know is wrong might be right. peejay, please read the citation I gave to the new OPM Regs. I have to agree with patriotsfan, you know better and if you don't, you will after you read the Regs.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 21, 2010 15:54:47 GMT -5
Lets just be clear everybody that each ODAR hiring resulted in at least 60% of the new hires being from outside the agency. Therefore, despite all of the song and dance regarding conspiracies, political motives, nepotism, necrophilia, and a generalized assault upon truth, justice, and the American Way, applying for the ODAR ALJ position from outside the agency is far from a lost cause. This is something we KNOW. Patriotsfan also admits that ODAR people are not at all immune to blackballing.
Lets also be realistic. If you think you have statistically good odds of getting a federal ALJ position, think again. Please enjoy this past assessment of the hiring process that I have posted before...
"If you are thinking about applying for the Federal ALJ job on the OPM website, there are many of us on this board that feel you should have a fair idea of your chances of success. Please read the following Requirements for Success in Pursuing a Federal ALJ Job, to give yourself a fair idea of your chances at success:
Requirements for Success in Pursuing a Federal ALJ Job
1. You have to be aware that OPM has announced that they are hiring ALJs.
2. You have to submit a properly filled out application to OPM during a brief window of time.
3. You have to hope that you have properly translated your resume into the appropriate archaic OPM dialect to make it onto the list of qualified applicants that will make it onto the register.
4. You then have to get yourself to DC on two different occasions to take a written exam and very awkward interview, and then have your performance evaluation on these two activities added into your application evaluation, for your magical OPM score.
5. If your score is below 60, you are most likely screwed.
6. You have to choose locations where you would be willing to go, that you hope will have an opening.
7. If your score is above 60, you have a shot at making a CERTIFICATE.
8. Getting on a CERTIFICATE guarantees you at best a 33% chance of eventual selection as an ALJ, assuming that:
a. You don't blow the SSA interview. b. You don't get stabbed in the back by a reference c. You are not offered a location that you can no longer go to d. You don't find a way to blow your shot not already noted
As you can see, your chances are pretty small even without adding in the other extra-curricular issues that are frequently debated on this board. Even if you can jump through hoops #1-7, you have, at best, a very fragile 33% shot at selection."
Essentially, your chances of getting the job suck, and these same chances are extremely vulnerable to random chance. Agency bias is really one of a candidate's least worries and Patriotsfan's obsession.
Of course, just like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play, and the more tickets you buy, the greater your chances of winning.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 21, 2010 16:14:38 GMT -5
Lets just be clear everybody that each ODAR hiring resulted in at least 60% of the new hires being from outside the agency. Therefore, despite all of the song and dance regarding conspiracies, political motives, nepotism, necrophilia, and a generalized assault upon truth, justice, and the American Way, applying for the ODAR ALJ position from outside the agency is far from a lost cause. This is something we KNOW. Patriotsfan also admits that ODAR people are not at all immune to blackballing. Lets also be realistic. If you think you have statistically good odds of getting a federal ALJ position, think again. Please enjoy this past assessment of the hiring process that I have posted before... "If you are thinking about applying for the Federal ALJ job on the OPM website, there are many of us on this board that feel you should have a fair idea of your chances of success. Please read the following Requirements for Success in Pursuing a Federal ALJ Job, to give yourself a fair idea of your chances at success: Requirements for Success in Pursuing a Federal ALJ Job 1. You have to be aware that OPM has announced that they are hiring ALJs. 2. You have to submit a properly filled out application to OPM during a brief window of time. 3. You have to hope that you have properly translated your resume into the appropriate archaic OPM dialect to make it onto the list of qualified applicants that will make it onto the register. 4. You then have to get yourself to DC on two different occasions to take a written exam and very awkward interview, and then have your performance evaluation on these two activities added into your application evaluation, for your magical OPM score. 5. If your score is below 60, you are most likely screwed. 6. You have to choose locations where you would be willing to go, that you hope will have an opening. 7. If your score is above 60, you have a shot at making a CERTIFICATE. 8. Getting on a CERTIFICATE guarantees you at best a 33% chance of eventual selection as an ALJ, assuming that: a. You don't blow the SSA interview. b. You don't get stabbed in the back by a reference c. You are not offered a location that you can no longer go to d. You don't find a way to blow your shot not already noted As you can see, your chances are pretty small even without adding in the other extra-curricular issues that are frequently debated on this board. Even if you can jump through hoops #1-7, you have, at best, a very fragile 33% shot at selection." Essentially, your chances of getting the job suck, and these same chances are extremely vulnerable to random chance. Agency bias is really one of a candidate's least worries and Patriotsfan's obsession. Of course, just like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play, and the more tickets you buy, the greater your chances of winning. Thanks val, for putting this gauntlet in persective. Gosh knows its accurate. pf has an obsession about the law and his passion leads me to my point below. I would add what I've said before, having a fire in your belly IMO, helps.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 21, 2010 16:19:13 GMT -5
Point taken re: clarity. I have a tendency to think that if I know what I mean, everybody else does too. To be perfectly clear: I was (1) waxing philosophical about how unfairness might, just possibly, make someone see illegality that isn't there, and (2) making a pedestrian point about litigation risk. I freely admit to knowing less about the facts and the law than you or PA do. (Although I note that PA's link is to a regulation that was not in effect at the time of the certificate that is the subject of the only litigation that I know of.) Based on what I've read here, and on what we have discussed off the board, all of which is less than you know, I think it's a hard case to show that SSA acted illegally. I do think that their practice is wrong, and I think that there need to be changes to the OPM regulations to prevent it. The link to the Reg and its effective date was because the Reg was drafted, well, why do you think?
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jan 21, 2010 17:03:27 GMT -5
Of course, just like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play, and the more tickets you buy, the greater your chances of winning. That's why I applied using three different SSN's - now my chances should be at least 100%. ;D
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Jan 21, 2010 17:46:41 GMT -5
I feel sorry for those with SSA experience that end up on PatriotsFan OPM interview panel. Nah. Speaking generally, a process wonk is exactly the kind of person you want for this sort of thing. They tend to be aware of their biases (and we all have them) and bend over backwards to avoid unfairly expressing them.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 21, 2010 18:09:16 GMT -5
I won't rise to Val's bait on this one. The evidence, in my opinion, is quite clear. No matter how loud those who have personally profited from the agency's violations of the regulations and unlawful practices may protest, facts are stubborn things. SSA does what it does, and folks like Val and others personally benefit from that. Who knows if she would have been chosen as an ALJ if SSA had played by the rules? Just like Mark Maguire's teammates got the benefit of his steroid use in the form of a victory, folks who got their job by the agency's abuse of the process will always defend it, they have to, or otherwise someone might question their qualifications, or perhaps they question it themselves, and come to ths Board and defend it because they secretly believe they are not qualified. I'm not a psychiatrist, so I'll leave the analysis to others. You are all smart people. Consider the source. Weigh the personal interest of the person making the argument, and make your own decision. I hope that I have adequately explained SSA's violations of the regulations so that everyone understands them. I don't mind that Val and others think I'm some sort of delusional pathological liar, or just obsessed about SSA. Just remember, I have nothing personal to gain by exposing SSA's unlawful practices, but those who benefitted - like Val - have everything to lose if the truth comes out. You decide who might have more credibility on the issue. Its my hope that someday I'll be able to publish the evidence on this forum, including all the names involved, so that everyone can see what I have seen. And I hope that the litigation reaches the stage that a more public discussion of the facts can occur, and all involved can see the truth. In the meantime, I'll continue to post what I know, and spar with those who disagree, in the hope that the discussion clarifies a bit of the process to those involved, and makes all of you realize and prepare for an unfair, unlawful selection process that begins this spring. Finally, I'd love it if Val's idea that you "at best" have a 33% chance of selection when you get on a certificate. That would almost be fair. But its sadly way, way, way off statistically. Your chances of selection are already in place, even before you get your OPM score. If you are connected to SSA, your chances are much higher than if you are not, and your OPM score won't matter. Its that simple. I never said it was impossible to land an SSA ALJ position without ever having step foot into an SSA office, I just said its unfairly (and unlawfully) difficult for those who lack the agency connection to get the job, and unfairly and unlawfully easier for those with an SSA connection to get an appointment. Its a fact. If half the positions have been set aside for SSA folks already chosen, and they have, your chances as an outsider just got cut in half before you even got a chance. That's not legal, it just is SSA's practice. If someone defends it, maybe its because they can't hack the competition of an even playing field. That's why the Mark Maguires of the world take steroids. I'd never want to win by cheating, but some folks are cool with cheating if it benefits them personally. Everyone has to look themselves in the mirror. Some are just better at squinting than others. You were saying something about not rising to my bait? I can't really hear you because of the big fat hook and worm in your mouth. I'll go ahead and take a nibble at your bait all the same. My OPM score was high enough that I have never really been concerned about being assisted by any agency bias, since, if anything, I was concerned I had been blackballed by the agency! I've never really been concerned about my qualifications either, since I've been doing 90% of the same job for the past 13 years anyway, and I feel like I have taken to my newly added responsibilities quite nicely. PF, your arguments can all be thrown right back at you in terms of Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Believe it or not your bitterness over not being selected by ODAR comes across much more plainly than any sense of justice. Rather than tilting windmills ala Don Quixote, your posts feel much more like the boiling rabbit in Fatal Attraction. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I would hate to see any candidates scared off by your posts. At this point, realisitically, the number of agency attorneys without significant outside experience that are interested in the ALJ position and meet the basic qualifications has dropped considerably. Between boomer retirements and the hires, there has been significant turn-over in the ODAR attorney ranks, to the point that I would not be surprised if the percentage of attorneys that are hired in the next certs goes down.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jan 22, 2010 11:30:22 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I would hate to see any candidates scared off by your posts. Anyone who is scared off because of what PF posts probably needs to change professions. Yes his posts give us pause to think but so does footage of the latest carnage on the highway. Who wasn't warned off law school as an expensive and unsure and very competitive venture that is skewed in favor of the judge's daughter? Who didn't have that first year prof (one who never practiced law but who only 'taught') who never stopped telling the class that a large number didn't belong in law school? We all made it through that. Then the bar exam - ooooo!!! scary! Then interviewing for a job and trying to please senior attorneys with the people skills of mold. The only feedback is what you've done wrong. Anybody know a judge or ALJ or magistrate or hearing officer who think everybody in the free world should know and memorize their personal quirks and rules of court? We've all had them. Then we learn about the ALJ position and think that it sounds like it might be a good fit - but we're scared off because somebody tells us the process is flawed? The Supreme Court threw out 100 years of settled law yesterday telling me that Scamco has the same inalienable rights as I do - the whole system is flawed, and scary. You either grow a pair or go home and alphabetize the spice rack. I'm sure that those who've made it through and been appointed, youself included, would say the brain damage we suffer during the process is worth it and probably not out of scale with other 'character building experiences' we've had while practicing law.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 22, 2010 16:11:58 GMT -5
Its sorta of a shame. If val and pf got together at a Judge's conference they would argue and argue over a few beers. It would be nothing short of a spectacle.
Many of us, present company included, would be glad to supply the beer...
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 22, 2010 21:55:29 GMT -5
As you know, I prefer wine. And Val would actually have to join FALJC and part with the $120 dues, which she has yet to do! I stand corrected. I'll buy the wine. Val?
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 23, 2010 12:27:53 GMT -5
Now that would be a real love fest, no?
|
|
|
Post by coloradoman on Jan 23, 2010 18:10:39 GMT -5
I will supply the tequila shots.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 25, 2010 12:22:53 GMT -5
As you know, I prefer wine. And Val would actually have to join FALJC and part with the $120 dues, which she has yet to do! I stand corrected. I'll buy the wine. Val? Whiskey please.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 25, 2010 13:20:18 GMT -5
I stand corrected. I'll buy the wine. Val? Whiskey please. Heck, I'd buy you Johnny Walker Black or Maker's Mark to get you there. On second thought, name your precise poison and I'll bring a bottle. ;D
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on Jan 27, 2010 19:06:42 GMT -5
Bureaucracies like people they're familiar with. It's safe not efficient. Opinion writers are law clerks, something I did 25 years ago. That is not to say there are good people who before they became law clerks if they had litigation experience. Put another way, if I was a state trial Judge'. Law clerk, I wouldn't meet minimum standards, but if I was an AA for SSa, I would.
|
|