|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 4, 2010 13:38:29 GMT -5
Most of my ALJ class was comprised of ODAR attorneys.
|
|
|
Post by McLovin' on Mar 4, 2010 16:01:53 GMT -5
If you work at ODAR and your HOCALJ hates you, they will get to put in their 2 cents even if not listed as a reference and you are toast. Just curious what you'd think if someone does not work for ODAR but once did and a HOCALJ hates them .
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Mar 4, 2010 16:22:30 GMT -5
Inquisitve said: "With a "certificate of ALJ eligibles" in hand, the SSA then effectively manufactures the groups of 3 pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.404. The SSA does everything it possibly can to assure that certain ALJ candidates end up in a particular group of 3 for a particular ALJ spot for a particular hearing office. Certain ALJ candidates get placed in certain groups of 3 by the SSA to assure those candidates don't get selected. In contrast, certain ALJ candidates get placed in certain groups of 3 to assure those candidates do get hired.
Think of the SSA as Santa Clause. The SSA has its "naughty" and "nice" lists. These "naughty" and "nice" lists are used when the SSA applies 5 CFR Sec. 332.404 to create its groups of 3. And the "naughty" list is used by the SSA to determine -- in its unbridled, sole discretion -- the ALJ candidates that it "three strikes" pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.405.
Once you've been placed on the SSA's "three striked" list in the exercise of the SSA's unbridled discretion pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.405, you're toast. Think of it as similar to being on the TSA's "no fly list." But in contrast, it's easier to get your name off of the TSA's "no fly list" than it is to get your name off of the SSA's "three striked" list. And you'll have better luck finding out why the TSA placed your name on its "no fly list" than you will discovering why the SSA placed your name on its "naughty" list."
I understand the idea of Santa putting congresspersons' offspring on the nice list and Social Security attorneys that they like on the nice list and Social Security attorneys that they don't like on the other list. But why would they have anyone else on either list? For most of us, one would think that SSA has no opinion on us.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitive on Mar 4, 2010 22:20:25 GMT -5
Tricia -
You need to think of ODAR ALJ employment offers from the SSA as Christmas toys. Unlike Santa, the SSA doesn't have enough toys to deliver to all the boys and girls. So the SSA places as many ALJ candidates on its "naughty" list as it can so thereafter it can justify its "selections" from the 5 CFR Sec. 332.404 groups of three.
When asked to justify why Susie received a toy but Johnny and Debbie, both of whom were in the same group of 3 with Susie, didn't receive a toy, the SSA can answer that Johnny and Debbie were both "naughty." Susie gets the ALJ employment offer because she was deemed "nice," whereas Johnny and Debbie were on Santa's "naughty" list. Susie was not pitted by the SSA against Johnny and Debbie by chance.
After getting placed in the first group with Susie, Johnny will be placed in a second group of three with yet another "nice" kid. Johnny won't get selected from that second group of three. And one last time - his third - Johnny will get placed in a manufactured group of three with a "nice" kid. Johnny won't get picked from his third group of three either. Johnny has been placed in a group of three on three distinct occasions, so now the SSA will exercise its unbridled "discretion" to apply 5 CFR 332.405 (aka "the 3 strikes rule") to Johnny. He won't be placed in a 5 CFR 332.404 group of three by the SSA ever again.
Debbie's fate will be the exact same as Johnny's.
Remember, the SSA deliberately manufactures the various groups of three pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.404. While manufacturing a group of three, the SSA does all that it can to assure that two kids it has previously deemed "naughty" get placed in a group of three with one kid it has previously deemed "nice." (The SSA does all that it possibly can to try to avoid placing two "nice" kids in the same group of 3 pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.404.)
If Pixie was still offering up her insights on this topic, she would confirm the above. The analogy is so close to being dead on that it is scary.
|
|
rep2
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by rep2 on Mar 4, 2010 22:47:40 GMT -5
I've been with ODAR for quite some time and, to my knowledge, have never made any enemies. To the contrary, I've been encouraged to apply by a number of Judges for whom I've worked. I just can't seem to get OPM to allow me to test. I had my offer to test retracted in 2007 (after getting confirmation emails of dates and time), and just got the notice that I am not among the most qualified candidates. I've worked with a lot of AAs with roughly the same qualifications who have ALL now taken the WD and SI - some are sitting ALJs and some are not. I just want a chance to take the tests!! It is frustrating. Any thoughts? Just bad luck??
|
|
jcse
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by jcse on Mar 4, 2010 23:33:04 GMT -5
"I understand the idea of Santa putting congresspersons' offspring on the nice list and Social Security attorneys that they like on the nice list and Social Security attorneys that they don't like on the other list. But why would they have anyone else on either list? For most of us, one would think that SSA has no opinion on us."
Tricia, at the risk of sounding paranoid, ODAR is alot like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI: ..they know who you are; if they don't know who you are, they have ways of finding out..if you represent SSA claimants, all it takes is a few calls to the HOCALJ to find out if you're "naughty" or "nice", if you're capable or if you're not..if you're a trouble-maker, one to challenge/criticize judges, speak up, or to speak your mind..alas, your fate is sealed. If you don't do SSA cases, they probably still have ways of "profiling" you..so...do not trust anyone!
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Mar 5, 2010 0:07:43 GMT -5
I've been with ODAR for quite some time and, to my knowledge, have never made any enemies. To the contrary, I've been encouraged to apply by a number of Judges for whom I've worked. I just can't seem to get OPM to allow me to test. I had my offer to test retracted in 2007 (after getting confirmation emails of dates and time), and just got the notice that I am not among the most qualified candidates. I've worked with a lot of AAs with roughly the same qualifications who have ALL now taken the WD and SI - some are sitting ALJs and some are not. I just want a chance to take the tests!! It is frustrating. Any thoughts? Just bad luck?? If you have never been invited to take the WD and SI, you need to remember that things that are really important in life (like your professional reputation, the scope of you work experience, anything that has anything to do with your quality level as an attorney) have not yet been considered. Two things have been measured by HR clerks: the number of years you have with work experience in litigation or administrative law and your ability to spout off key words on a mystery scoring list in your KSAs. They may have looked at your resume to count to 7 years expereince, but no one has scored or evaluated your resume. In fact, no one is going to look at the big picture of you and your experience until your name is certified to a hiring agency. I know it is hard not to say "I was a hard core litigator for 30 years" or "But my resume is about the same as XXXXX" but it does not matter. If you have not mastered the art of hitting magic buzz words, you won't get a ticket to proceed. Having been there is 2007, I know it is hard - VERY HARD - not to take it personally, but you have to remember that no one with any legal expertise has looked at your application in any meaningful way. And think about the rest of the process. The WD measures your ability to type fast, set up a document in a clear format, and hit buzz words likely to be scored by more HR clerks. No one is being evaluated on quality of legal analysis, just formatting and phrasing. The SI measures your ability to dress approrpriately, remain calm, and think on your feet in a bizarre, stilted atmosphere. None of which gets to the heart as to whether one has the experience or the temperment to be a good ALJ for a particular agency. Heck of a way to rack and stack ALJ candidates.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 5, 2010 9:53:20 GMT -5
All of the posts since Val's late night assessment of SSAs leadership efforts to shape the force are right on. Val's post only confirms the point that PF and many others have stressed- ODAR has crafted a process that emphasizes the selection of folks it believes will march to the cadence of its drummer.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Mar 5, 2010 10:55:55 GMT -5
So, is the general concensus that it is hopeless if you're not an SSA insider? Have all the recent hires been insiders?
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 5, 2010 11:16:53 GMT -5
tricia- you have been a regular on this blog for a long time and there certainly have been many "SSA outsiders" selected as ALJs. I think the best consensus is that if you are listed as one of the 3 to compete with an "ODAR Favorite" your chances of selection are severely diminished and in many cases its the luck of the draw.
|
|
rep2
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by rep2 on Mar 5, 2010 15:16:34 GMT -5
Barkley, Thank you for the genuinely helpful and informative reply.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 5, 2010 15:17:33 GMT -5
So, is the general concensus that it is hopeless if you're not an SSA insider? Have all the recent hires been insiders? Yes Tricia, as the old, embittered and scorned have told you, there is no way in hell that you are going to be hired as an ODAR ALJ if you aren't an ODAR insider, that is, unless you have something in common with the majority of the hires, who are not agency insiders. Overall, the new hires seem to be competent, have normal size egos, treat coworkers with at least basic courtesies, follow rules and regs, and aren't overwhelmed with managing their own cases and dockets electronically. You know, in other words they're all a bunch of incompetent suck-ups. Oh my, it appears as though my sarcasm is showing again. My apologies to the members of the "Consensus!" Come Mr. Poochkins! We mustn't be late for our appointment at the Ministry of Propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 5, 2010 16:03:15 GMT -5
All of the posts since Val's late night assessment of SSAs leadership efforts to shape the force are right on. Val's post only confirms the point that PF and many others have stressed- ODAR has crafted a process that emphasizes the selection of folks it believes will march to the cadence of its drummer. What he said. Folks can reveal alot about themselves here--in all kinds of ways.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 5, 2010 18:26:33 GMT -5
All of the posts since Val's late night assessment of SSAs leadership efforts to shape the force are right on. Val's post only confirms the point that PF and many others have stressed- ODAR has crafted a process that emphasizes the selection of folks it believes will march to the cadence of its drummer. What he said. Folks can reveal alot about themselves here--in all kinds of ways. So true. I think I'm going to start a new poll, "Should Valkyrie be gone?" (dramatic swoon)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2010 22:56:53 GMT -5
All of the posts since Val's late night assessment of SSAs leadership efforts to shape the force are right on. Val's post only confirms the point that PF and many others have stressed- ODAR has crafted a process that emphasizes the selection of folks it believes will march to the cadence of its drummer. No one here denies this. SSA knows what it wants and it's not the current old school entitlement mentality wanna be article 3 judge minimal understanding of the program I expect O Yea's as I enter the hearing room threaten contempt of court sanctions even though I don't have that power and not used to those newfangled computers and e-files ALJ's. The question on whether ssa has the latitude to select who it wants will be decided by the courts. There is wiggle room in all the selection regs. Only time will tell if SSA went beyond the wiggle room into legal violation territory.
|
|
|
Post by oldjag on Mar 5, 2010 23:15:12 GMT -5
I have been reading with some interest the posts of PF and Privateatty about the "blacklist" of candidates that OPM has deemed qualified to be an ALJ. I have done this job for a bit, and I have interviewed a few candidates for ODAR. I can say from personal experience that there were "insiders" and "outsiders" who obviously could not do the job.
This is a high volume job--we have a lot of very frail people who need a fair decision and as soon as possible. Unlike the regulatory agency ALJs, we do not have long, detailed, hearings on complex issues in an adversary setting. So some of those who OPM finds eligible can not effectively operate in a high-volume operation such as ODAR--and vice versa. I would not do well at all at the SEC.
I know of some ODAR employees whose name had been on several certs who have not--and probably never will be--selected. I have met many "outsiders" who are non-vets who have been selected and are great judges. On the other hand I have met some from both groups who were selected who just cannot handle the work--and it is the claimants who suffer for it.
Given the APA's protections that we need to protect the judge's ability to make an independent decision, great care must be taken in the selection. Once a person is hired, terminating a person who cannot do the job is difficult to say the least. I think the tendency is to chose with great caution. There have been many ODAR employees that would make good judges who have not been selected even with strong recommendations from manager judges.
So let's all take a deep breath, step back and consider that we are here to decide cases for people who need a fair, timely decision. We aren't considering the complex issues of the SEC, we need to make disability decisions well and quickly. We have 600,00 people waiting for us to decide the case we are working upon so that we can decide theirs. Considering the about 60% of those applications will be allowed, the need for timely action is evident. Would any of you want your disabled family member have to wait extra months because a person the OPM found qualified to be an ALJ couldn't make a decision, or demanded multiple re-writes of a decision, or who wouldn't do more than 20 cases a month?
Sorry for the long post, I just couldn't stand by any longer.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 5, 2010 23:47:43 GMT -5
I have been reading with some interest the posts of PF and Privateatty about the "blacklist" of candidates that OPM has deemed qualified to be an ALJ. I have done this job for a bit, and I have interviewed a few candidates for ODAR. I can say from personal experience that there were "insiders" and "outsiders" who obviously could not do the job. This is a high volume job--we have a lot of very frail people who need a fair decision and as soon as possible. Unlike the regulatory agency ALJs, we do not have long, detailed, hearings on complex issues in an adversary setting. So some of those who OPM finds eligible can not effectively operate in a high-volume operation such as ODAR--and vice versa. I would not do well at all at the SEC. I know of some ODAR employees whose name had been on several certs who have not--and probably never will be--selected. I have met many "outsiders" who are non-vets who have been selected and are great judges. On the other hand I have met some from both groups who were selected who just cannot handle the work--and it is the claimants who suffer for it. Given the APA's protections that we need to protect the judge's ability to make an independent decision, great care must be taken in the selection. Once a person is hired, terminating a person who cannot do the job is difficult to say the least. I think the tendency is to chose with great caution. There have been many ODAR employees that would make good judges who have not been selected even with strong recommendations from manager judges. So let's all take a deep breath, step back and consider that we are here to decide cases for people who need a fair, timely decision. We aren't considering the complex issues of the SEC, we need to make disability decisions well and quickly. We have 600,00 people waiting for us to decide the case we are working upon so that we can decide theirs. Considering the about 60% of those applications will be allowed, the need for timely action is evident. Would any of you want your disabled family member have to wait extra months because a person the OPM found qualified to be an ALJ couldn't make a decision, or demanded multiple re-writes of a decision, or who wouldn't do more than 20 cases a month? Sorry for the long post, I just couldn't stand by any longer. Nicely put Oldjag. I tried using reason about 200 posts ago, but the tone obviously continued downhill. Mr. Poochkins and I hope you have more success than we did.
|
|
|
Post by alj on Mar 6, 2010 8:50:59 GMT -5
I believe Pixie told us a couple of years ago that the agency had the right to hire whomever it pleased, irrespective of scores, as long as the rules are followed. Of course I realize the determinative phrase is, ". . . as long as the rules are followed." Whether the rules have, in fact, been followed will be decided at some point in the future. Really does us no good to keep beating this poor horse. He has been dead so long the vultures have quit picking his bones.
Let's put this controversial topic behind us and move on to something more productive. In due course we will know the selection protocol followed by the agency, and how the federal courts view that process.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 6, 2010 8:52:52 GMT -5
I have been reading with some interest the posts of PF and Privateatty about the "blacklist" of candidates that OPM has deemed qualified to be an ALJ. I have done this job for a bit, and I have interviewed a few candidates for ODAR. I can say from personal experience that there were "insiders" and "outsiders" who obviously could not do the job. This is a high volume job--we have a lot of very frail people who need a fair decision and as soon as possible. Unlike the regulatory agency ALJs, we do not have long, detailed, hearings on complex issues in an adversary setting. So some of those who OPM finds eligible can not effectively operate in a high-volume operation such as ODAR--and vice versa. I would not do well at all at the SEC. I know of some ODAR employees whose name had been on several certs who have not--and probably never will be--selected. I have met many "outsiders" who are non-vets who have been selected and are great judges. On the other hand I have met some from both groups who were selected who just cannot handle the work--and it is the claimants who suffer for it. Given the APA's protections that we need to protect the judge's ability to make an independent decision, great care must be taken in the selection. Once a person is hired, terminating a person who cannot do the job is difficult to say the least. I think the tendency is to chose with great caution. There have been many ODAR employees that would make good judges who have not been selected even with strong recommendations from manager judges. So let's all take a deep breath, step back and consider that we are here to decide cases for people who need a fair, timely decision. We aren't considering the complex issues of the SEC, we need to make disability decisions well and quickly. We have 600,00 people waiting for us to decide the case we are working upon so that we can decide theirs. Considering the about 60% of those applications will be allowed, the need for timely action is evident. Would any of you want your disabled family member have to wait extra months because a person the OPM found qualified to be an ALJ couldn't make a decision, or demanded multiple re-writes of a decision, or who wouldn't do more than 20 cases a month? Sorry for the long post, I just couldn't stand by any longer. OPM doesn't have a black list, SSA/ODAR/OCALJ does. And I suspect that black list consists of those insiders whom they would never hire and those who either had a reference say something that rang one of their bells or who did badly in the interview ("Oh yeah, whew, that WD was tough--I shoulda stayed awake in my high school typing class..."). And pf and I do advocate that SSA/ODAR/OCALJ should choose whom they want. We just want them to do it legally. And here we go again because val and nonamouse and perhaps oldjag believe they do. Fine, time will tell. Frankly, I don't think that the process of three-striking would pass any smell test, but there you have it. The competitive process that uses the Rule of Three was enacted to give the job to those who had the highest OPM score, not the SSA score given after the later's interview. There are some on this Board, those that got hired with scores in the fifties and sixties who would never have been picked up by SSA absent the leap-frogging SSA/ODAR/OCALJ did over well-qualified higher scorers to get to them. Not surprisingly, they defend this process. Before 2007, alot of them would be on the Register until it expired. A large percentage of this group are former SSA AAs and SAs. Some of those folks have no business going anywhere else but SSA or possibly OMHA because they have no trial experience. And oldjag has well-described the guiding arrogance of SSA/ODAR/OCALJ: we have a huge backlog and thus whether what we do is "kosher" or not is irrelevant: we need to hire qualified folks who we, in our best estimate, believe will produce 500-700 decisions a year. They hire 95% of all ALJs who are hired off the Register and who gives a you-know-what if some of them have no trial experience and are not qualified to transfer? They won't anyway... Further, I expect that this process is working in their eyes. Writers who have seen their salaries double and have quenched the fires of resentment in seeing ALJs take their work product and call it their own for so many years are eternally grateful--and are less likely to join the Union, thank you very much. They are working hard and getting it done. Their numbers are often better than these trial type outsiders (like me) who think they are writing amicus briefs or whatever and not a SSA Disability Decision with templates. However, I also suspect that there are lot of outsiders whom SSA/ODAR/OCALJ took a chance on and it was a good bet as they are getting it done to. In other words, hiring ALJs is a bit of a crap shoot and you can hedge your bets only so much. There are scores of outsiders and insiders (the latter having had the kiss of death planted on them by a bad reference, a jealous HOD or a cranky HOCALJ) who got high scores, got three-striked and will never, ever be ALJs. Some of you are reading this and to you, please accept my unwavering sympathy. I was you until I got rescued by a very small cert--and helped by this Board. In defending this process, y'all got alot of backing and righteous affirmation to back you up. And until the DC or 4th Circuit puts the kebosh on it (if they ever do), SSA/ODAR/OCALJ will go on taking those whom they believe are "their own"--to the largest extent possible. I have no dog in this hunt other than my belief that the ALJ Corps is better served by following the letter of the law rather than subverting it. You think its not a subversion of the law, but rather utilizing Regulatory "wiggle room", fine. In closing I think its the character of the candidate that ultimately decides what kind of Judge they will be and that their work ethic will decide their numbers. SSA/ODAR/OCALJ does a workmanlike job (through contractors mostly) to discern this. Bad fish slip through the net and good fish get tossed back into the ocean. No one likes to see a net that isn't uniform so that someone's "big fish" can slip through.
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Mar 6, 2010 13:39:05 GMT -5
I believe Pixie told us a couple of years ago that the agency had the right to hire whomever it pleased, irrespective of scores, as long as the rules are followed. Of course I realize the determinative phrase is, ". . . as long as the rules are followed." Whether the rules have, in fact, been followed will be decided at some point in the future. Really does us no good to keep beating this poor horse. He has been dead so long the vultures have quit picking his bones. Let's put this controversial topic behind us and move on to something more productive. In due course we will know the selection protocol followed by the agency, and how the federal courts view that process. Concur. This dead horse has been beaten to a pulp, buried, dug up, and re-beaten so often in the last three years. I know the newbies need to know their odds. But please, let's not re-fight the Trojan war every six months. Whoever gets the winning judgment at the end can come back and say "I told you so!".
|
|