|
Post by saintsfan on Jan 28, 2010 1:33:35 GMT -5
I received my notification as well, and have to fax documentation plus my GAL (47 locations). I think that confirms I have not been three striked!! Thanks y'all for the info, especially PF...and good luck to all candidates..."Who Dat" says those Saints are not going to win the Superbowl...
|
|
|
Post by saintsfan on Jan 28, 2010 1:44:33 GMT -5
By the way, my email from Bob Gehlken today said that he expects to have people... "enter on duty during the spring of 2010; the exact dates have yet to be determined."
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Jan 28, 2010 6:18:59 GMT -5
... I think that confirms I have not been three striked!! I sincerely hope that you have not been 3-striked, but the way I read the old threads, showing up on a cert is no proof that one hasn't been. I believe that many 3-struck types continue to appear on cert after cert, and get invited to update their GAL, etc, without any notice that the fix is in. Best of luck to you, and the Saints.
|
|
|
Post by username99 on Jan 28, 2010 8:38:59 GMT -5
with the caveat that I'm certainly not a statistician, here's what I've extrapolated from the most recent transfer list as compared to the cities on the GAL. While I have tried for accuracy, no guarantees are made.
Offices on GAL for current Cert, with number of potentially open ALJ positions (Jan. 2010 transfer from list minus individuals wanting to transfer to location—net equals positions listed below. ) 02 Albany NY 1 02 Buffalo NY 1 02 New York NY 02 Newark NJ 2 03 Charleston WV 4 03 Huntington WV 2 03 Morgantown WV 5 03 Roanoke VA 03 Wilkes Barre PA 2 04 Atlanta GA 04 Atlanta (North) GA 04 Birmingham AL 04 Columbia SC 04 Greensboro NC 04 Hattiesburg MS 1 04 Jackson MS 3 04 Mobile AL 04 Nashville TN 04 Tupelo MS 5 05 Chicago(South) IL 1 05 Cleveland OH 2 05 Detroit MI 5 05 Evansville IN 05 Milwaukee WI 3 05 Oakbrook IL 05 Oak Park MI 05 Orland Park IL 1 06 Fort Smith AR 06 Fort Worth TX 06 Metairie LA 1 06 San Antonio TX 07 Creve Coeur MO 07 Omaha NE 1 07 St. Louis MO 07 West Des Moines IA 08 Fargo ND 09 Fresno CA 09 Los Angeles (W) CA 09 Oakland CA 09 Orange CA 09 San Bernardino CA 3 09 San Jose CA 09 San Rafael CA 09 Tucson AZ 10 Eugene OR 10 Seattle WA 10 Spokane WA
Possible Vacancies NOT appearing on the GAL list, but that resulted from the transfer from/to calculation—also, does NOT include any of the as yet unopened Hearing Offices:
Hartford, CT 2 Ponce, PR 1 San Juan PR 2 Dover, DE 3 Harrisburg, PA 2 Johnstown, PA 2 Florence AL 2 Jacksonville, FL 2 Louisville, KY 1 Memphis, TN 2 Montgomery, AL 5 Paducah, KY 2 Savannah, GA 3 Cincinnati, OH 3 Fort Wayne 2 Lansing, MI 2 Minneapolis, MN 1 Peoria, IL 2 Alexandria, LA 5 Houston 3 Houston (DT) 4 New Orleans 1 Shreveport, LA 4 Wichita, KA 2 Los Angeles (DT) 1 Phoenix, AZ 1 Sacramento 4 San Bernadino 3
|
|
|
Post by backtoeden on Jan 28, 2010 10:25:26 GMT -5
username99,
Thank you for analyzing the info. It may not be exact because I suppose there is no way to know how many will get their transfers granted, but it does indicate where the agency will likely have to fill positions, as well as the cities in "demand."
Also, is it safe to assume that if you did not list a city, e.g. Orlando, that there is no potential vacancy under your analysis?
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jan 28, 2010 11:06:07 GMT -5
... I think that confirms I have not been three striked!! I sincerely hope that you have not been 3-striked, but the way I read the old threads, showing up on a cert is no proof that one hasn't been. I believe that many 3-struck types continue to appear on cert after cert, and get invited to update their GAL, etc, without any notice that the fix is in. Best of luck to you, and the Saints.I think maxlaw is correct. OPM doesn't three-strike you and they don't coordinate the three-strikes with SSA. SSA just receives your name again and you aren't considered - although you still have to submit all the info and they go through the motions. That said, you can't be appointed if you don't play, so you have to submit your stuff and hope this time it works.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jan 28, 2010 11:13:17 GMT -5
Looking at username 99's info, it seems like there are some toxic locales. I think WV and MS and some cities have multiple openings on every cert.
Do ALJ's just accept these places to get an appointment and then leave as soon as they can or are these places really expanding?
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 28, 2010 11:19:20 GMT -5
I sincerely hope that you have not been 3-striked, but the way I read the old threads, showing up on a cert is no proof that one hasn't been. I believe that many 3-struck types continue to appear on cert after cert, and get invited to update their GAL, etc, without any notice that the fix is in. Best of luck to you, and the Saints. I think maxlaw is correct. OPM doesn't three-strike you and they don't coordinate the three-strikes with SSA. SSA just receives your name again and you aren't considered - although you still have to submit all the info and they go through the motions. That said, you can't be appointed if you don't play, so you have to submit your stuff and hope this time it works. It's important to remember that you can be "3-striked" and still be appointed later. Maybe you got 3-striked because you're "poison," or maybe it was simple expediency the first few times you were up for consideration. In a new crop of candidates to consider, your previously "3-striked" profile might be a winner. So don't give up. (Unless you know you're poison).
|
|
|
Post by username99 on Jan 28, 2010 13:59:17 GMT -5
As I stated, none of the new hearing offices including Orlando, were included.
|
|
|
Post by junebug on Jan 28, 2010 14:48:34 GMT -5
Anchorage, Alaska, a new hearing office, is on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 28, 2010 15:19:08 GMT -5
Here's a small-scale explanation. There are five ALJ openings and OPM certifies 15 names to SSA for consideration.
SSA considers the top three candidates for the first opening and dislikes two of them. The third is chosen.
For the second opening, SSA must consider the first two names again (the ones they don't like) and a 3rd (the fourth highest score (assuming all applicants are available for all openings)). If they truly dislike the first two, they choose the new one (the 4th highest scorer).
For the third opening, they again must consider the two remaining top scorers, as well as the 5th highest - who in this hypothetical, they choose.
For the fourth opening, the top two scorers have been "considered" three times and need not be considered again. SSA can consider the 6th, 7th, and 8th highest scorers for the 4th opening, and let's assume number 6 is also someone they dislike; so they choose #7.
[EDIT: I messed up how many people SSA hired! I had to redo a lot of this post past this point, sorry all]
For the fifth opening, they choose candidate #8 (out of 6, 8, and 9)
Now that cert is done.
Three months later, 4 more slots open up and a new certificate is taken. Scorers 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are all certified again to the certificate, along with the 16th and 17th highest scorers overall to bring it to 12 certified names.
SSA still doesn't like 1, 2, or 6, the three highest scorers on their list. Luckily (for SSA), scorers 1 and 2 are "3-striked" and need not be considered. The first opening, they look at 6, 9, and 10 - and choose 9, thereby giving #6 his or her third strike. The second opening they look at 10, 11, and 12, and choose 12 (let's say she's a veteran) .
For opening 3, SSA considers 10, 11, and 13 and chooses 13 (let's say he's also a veteran). 10 has three "strikes" because he or she has been considered 3 times, but SSA has no animosity toward him or her as a candidate.
For opening 4, SSA could consider 10, 11, and 14 or SSA could consider 11, 14, and 15. Only if they preferred 10 to 15 would they do the former. Let's say 15 is attractive to SSA for some reason and so they choose the latter method and select candidate 15. Now 11 also has "3 strikes."
Thus ends cert 2.
Now SSA wants another cert. If they open, for example, one slot, they will have to choose between 1, 2, and 6, the highest scorers left according to OPM, meaning SSA would have to take someone they didn't like. However, usually the number of slots open will be greater - let's assume three slots for the third cert.
Scorers 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17 and for the first time 18 make the certificate. Numbers 16 and 17 have been on the certificate before, but not been "considered" for an opening because their scores are too low. Scorers 1, 2, 6, 10, and 11 are 3-striked and need not be considered. If we assume that SSA has nothing against #10, but he or she just happened to get 3 strikes, he or she is eligible for selection this time. Patriotsfan points out that this does not seem to be the way it works, meaning that anyone SSA wants who is up for consideration three times will be placed somewhere (which is conceivable when you are dealing with the much larger and more complicated calculus of 100+ slots and 300+ candidates).
nonetheless, in our example, I am going to say that #10 does, in fact, get appointed because there is nothing prohibiting SSA from appointing him or her. But let's say #11 is iffy and not considered again. So #10 is appointed for slot one (out of 10, 14, and 16), and #16 for slot two (out of 14, 16, and 17). This gives 14 three strikes.
Now SSA has one slot left, and candidates 1, 2, 6, 11, 14, 17, and 18. All except 17 and 18 have three strikes; but SSA could make any combination of "consideration" to take one of them, or partner any one of them up with 17 and 18 to take either 17 or 18 for the third available slot. The more certs with the same register, the more freedom SSA develops as they see the same names over and over.
To answer the question, though, OPM will always send the highest scores to SSA, no matter SSA's history of consideration for prior openings.
Scorers 1, 2, and 6 will continue to make certs until they pull all their hair out, but will not be appointed unless a logjam of undesirables accumulates at the top of the list, the cert is small, and they are the least undesireable of the bunch.
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jan 28, 2010 16:59:52 GMT -5
Propmaster,
One question about your example. It is my understanding that there is a difference between being "three striked" and being considered three times.
In your example, SSA dislikes 1, 2, and 6. They have to "consider" them three times, but then can't they put a check by their name and say "We ain't gonna considered them no more." ? OPM may send the name, but SSA does not have to put them in the slot hopper because they are just required to "consider" someone three times. Hence the term "three striked."
Candidate 10 was considered three times and not selected but also not "three striked." There were just people SSA liked better. So when 10's name pops up again, he is considered and selected. It is possible to be passed over and considered many times, as long as you are not "three striked."
Makes a huge difference. And as long as the pool keeps getting refreshed, it is unlikely SSA would ever HAVE to take 1, 2 or 6.
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jan 28, 2010 17:12:07 GMT -5
"I've always strived to be the least undesireable in the bunch!" I think I said that in my SSA interview...
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 28, 2010 17:20:43 GMT -5
Propmaster, One question about your example. It is my understanding that there is a difference between being "three striked" and being considered three times. In your example, SSA dislikes 1, 2, and 6. They have to "consider" them three times, but then can't they put a check by their name and say "We ain't gonna considered them no more." ? OPM may send the name, but SSA does not have to put them in the slot hopper because they are just required to "consider" someone three times. Hence the term "three striked." Candidate 10 was considered three times and not selected but also not "three striked." There were just people SSA liked better. So when 10's name pops up again, he is considered and selected. It is possible to be passed over and considered many times, as long as you are not "three striked." Makes a huge difference. And as long as the pool keeps getting refreshed, it is unlikely SSA would ever HAVE to take 1, 2 or 6. I don't think we disagree. I think that is semantics. I don't believe (PF can and will correct me if I'm wrong) there is an "official" "3 strikes" classification applied to condidates, it is just a record of having been considered at leat three times. Whatever it is called, 1, 2, 6, and 10 are in the same boat; in whatever way SSA considered them in the past, they may consider them again in the future. As PF (and some common sense) indicates, that is unlikely to happen spontaneously (i.e. without external influence or changed circumstances), but in my example, for #10, it is just as you said. When you say "as long as you are not 'three striked'," I think you are applying a mystical power to those words that does not exist. (I may be wrong). Also, I tried to illustrate, as you described, 1, 2, and 6 making the subsequent certificates and not being considered anymore due to prior consideration for at least three slots. So, again, I think we are in agreement, and I hope your comments and this answer have clarified what i meant for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by imiram1372 on Jan 28, 2010 20:30:23 GMT -5
Propmaster -- Thank you so much for clarifying the "3-strike rule." It has been talked about here many times and I had a general idea of what it was but your explanation really helped me understand the process. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by hal3000 on Jan 29, 2010 7:12:52 GMT -5
Hi, I'm new, thanks for the great but overwhelming site-- I submitted a complete app and never got an email at all yet-- what does that mean? It says 'awaiting results-- you will be notified' on usajobs. Should I have heard something by now? Does it mean something that I have not been notifed? Are there others who have heard nothing yet?
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Jan 29, 2010 10:32:28 GMT -5
Actually, I think Propmaster's post (as cleaned up ) is good enough to go into the newbie explanation section. Maybe add a reference to 5 CFR 332.405 and it probably would help a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by alj2009 on Jan 29, 2010 11:43:21 GMT -5
But with all these considerations going on, my question is still -- under what circumstances would my references be called again? My references were called the last time around. Now I am on the new cert and I am wondering why they want my references again? None of my references have changed. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 29, 2010 11:56:46 GMT -5
Hi, I'm new, thanks for the great but overwhelming site-- I submitted a complete app and never got an email at all yet-- what does that mean? It says 'awaiting results-- you will be notified' on usajobs. Should I have heard something by now? Does it mean something that I have not been notifed? Are there others who have heard nothing yet? If you mean you just applied during the recent opening, you are fine; there has been no mass notification of testing dates (or who moves on). Watch this board and you will see exclamations from people as they find out they are going to do the SI and WD. When those die down (and only then) you can start to worry. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 29, 2010 11:58:01 GMT -5
But with all these considerations going on, my question is still -- under what circumstances would my references be called again? My references were called the last time around. Now I am on the new cert and I am wondering why they want my references again? None of my references have changed. Thanks I have no inside information on this, but from experience I would say that the contractor is going to recontact your references. Who knows what mischief you've been up to in the last year?
|
|