How are hiring decisions made?

[bowser]

I found myself wondering about the actual process by which 120-some ALJs are about to be selected.

Is a panel of some size formed? Do they meet in person or is it done through phone and e-mail? (If in person, you would think travel arrangements might suggest when the decisions are being made.) Do the HOCALJs in the hiring offices have a say? How long does the process take?

I assume no one with actual knowledge will reply, so feel free to offer your serious or humorous guesses and/or experience.

[maquereau]

I understand that HOCALJs do not have any input as to those being selected in their offices.

[chinook]

Here is the true way SSA makes the hiring decision. They rent a pasture and divide it into squares, one for each person on the cert. (whose name is placed in the square). They also rent some cows and when cow pies have been deposited in the number of squares equal to the number of openings, they have picked who will be the next class of ALJs. (Just like cow pie bingo) Now it is a simple process of matching people to cities. I am not going to raise the analogy of SSA management depositing cow pies on ALJs.

[71stretch]

The reference checker told one of my references the information he was gathering would be passed on to "a panel". But I like the cow pie bingo idea. Sort of reminds me of law school, when we speculated that one professor graded his exams by throwing them down the stairs all at once, and the ones that traveled the farthest got the highest scores.

[kingfisher]

That is correct, Maquereau. In fact, I have been informed that the RCALJ has no say either. Both the HOCALJ and RCALJ are informed by Headquarters that a new ALJ is coming on board shortly before it happens.

[bowser]

Jul 14, 2010 11:20:34 GMT -5 kingfisher said:

That is correct, Maquereau. In fact, I have been informed that the RCALJ has no say either.

I guess I don't know enough about ODAR staffing/hierarchy, but if the RCALJs/HOCALJs have no say in the matter, who is left to constitute the hiring panel and make the decisions?

[71stretch]

They may use HOCALJS from offices that are NOT on this cert, I suppose; and, there's I think at least one whole region that isn't on this cert as well. Or, they use people from the HQ there in DC for the panel.

[lostinspace]

I believe it is headquarters people, a small group of people, locked in a room that make the decisions for all the hearing offices. What input or factors they use, I have no clue. Perhaps all those folks involved in prior litigation know. I don't think the small group of people includes HOCALJs or ROCALJS but I could be wrong.

I have been wondering about something though, is it possible that all contacts with the candidates and even the decisions are made region by region? Are the folks who heard first (calls to schedule interviews or reference calls) in regions 1, 2, 3... and the folks who hear later in the highest numbered regions (8, 9)? There must be some systemic way of handling all the candidates and this is the only one that would make sense considering all the interview and reference calls were prior to the actual decision making.

[kingfisher]

Jul 14, 2010 12:17:26 GMT -5 lostinspace said:

I believe it is headquarters people, a small group of people, locked in a room that make the decisions for all the hearing offices. What input or factors they use, I have no clue. Perhaps all those folks involved in prior litigation know. I don't think the small group of people includes HOCALJs or ROCALJS but I could be wrong.

I have been wondering about something though, is it possible that all contacts with the candidates and even the decisions are made region by region? Are the folks who heard first (calls to schedule interviews or reference calls) in regions 1, 2, 3... and the folks who hear later in the highest numbered regions (8, 9)? There must be some systemic way of handling all the candidates and this is the only one that would make sense considering all the interview and reference calls were prior to the actual decision making.

Your speculation about the small group in a room is very astute. I learned from a very sweet lady involved in the process, back when I was a candidate, that there was a small group who had all the locations up on a board and they began reviewing candidates with the highest scores for each location. After that point, she was unable to really describe the dynamics of the process, just that it was fluid. At that time, if person #1 (highest score) declined a location, they called person #2 (second highest score) for that location. From comments on this board, it sounds like that may have changed.

[71stretch]

It does seem that the process has changed, and that seems to me to be too bad. If they are really concerned about reducing the backlog and keeping things moving, and they've gone to the considerable expense of interviewing this many people, getting as many positions filled out of this cert as possible would seem to make sense.

I know, what makes sense is not always what happens, in this scenario and elsewhere.

[odarite]

OK, to the best of my knowledge there is a small panel, usually headed by the Deputy Chief ALJ (a position currently open and filled by an Acting), one or more Associate Chief ALJs, one or more RCALJs, HOCALJs and or who knows who. They go into the small room where there is a large chart as described by kingfisher. After that, there is much debate about whether darts, quarters, or wine (oops! not wine. federal property) or one of those machines you used to see on cheap lotteries or your average bingo parlor are part of the process.

[roggenbier]

I heard quija boards.

[Propmaster]

I have found out through a source the actual methodology:

1) The candidates' reference checks are compiled by the contractor by question and then stripped of any identifying information in order to preserve integrity of the process. This generates a string of anonymous reference responses.

2) Resumes are stripped of identifying information and graded on the basis of overt reference to the core abilities sought by SSA for the job. The grading panel is comprised only of individuals who do not work directly with ALJs but who nonetheless have very specific ideas about what ALJs should be. The individuals are chosen by random rotation from a list of eligible reviewers maintained by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Inadvertency and Satire.

3) Each resume is given a number corresponding to a random reference check response entry for each question. This ensures that no one can "game" the system by telling their references what to say.

4) A separate panel evaluates and rates the reference responses on a scale of 1 to 3. In order to give a two or a one, the reviewer must hand-write an explanation, which must be approved by the Deputy Commissioner for I&S. If the DCIS does not get this done prior to the selection being completed, the individuals with 1s or 2s are ineligible for selection. This panel is comprised solely of individuals who have previously applied to be ALJs but are no longer on the register.

5) The results of the SSA interview are evaluated by having the reviewers act out the interview in front of a special committee appointed by the DCIS to rate individuals without meeting them. This mirrors the state DDS physician role in a disability application, which ensures the innate fairness of the interviews. This takes the longest, since each interview skit must be seen by the same committee. The committee consists of fifteen community college drama professors and four actuaries. Each interviewee is rated on three scales of 1 to 2: presentation, fashion, and ability to stay awake throughout the interview. Anyone receiving a score of 1 on any scale is disqualified from consideration for appointment, although they may be used as one of the three in consideration for a slot.

6) At this point, each individual's personal information and interview score are reassociated with his or her resume and randomly assigned reference check score.

7) Once the resumes, references, and interview are scored, the totals are multiplied by 17 to obtain a final SSA score of 170 to 340. Then veterans' preference points are added.

8) DCIS then calculates the mean and the standard deviation. Any scores more than one standard deviation above or below the mean are adjusted upwards or downwards until they are exactly one standard deviation from the mean. This ensures consistent competency among all candidates.

9) Each component of the Social Security Administration can then exercise veto power to remove any one name from the SSA preferred register list; except that if any component other than ODAR exercises this power, they must allow ODAR to use their budget codes for training travel purposes. Thus, historically, only ODAR has been seen to exercise this veto power.

10) At this point, SSA's Office of Phrenology, Metoposcopy, Prognostication, and Shamanism provides horoscopes for each candidate designed to highlight the candidate's likely production numbers over the next ten years. OPMPS also provides fortune cookies to the committees for snacks.

11) Using the GALs and the SSA scores of 170 to 350 (including vet preference points), DCIS prepares BINGO cards. On each card, the center square represents an available slot. So, for instance, if there are 125 slots, they make 125 BINGO cards. The other squares have an assortment of candidates, each of whom has included the center slot on his or her GAL. Those candidates earlier excluded are not put on the cards. The higher scorers appear on more cards.

12) The BINGO cards are taken to a nursing home with an active BINGO activity period and given out as if they were normal bingo cards. Using the horoscope ratings, candidates' numbers are called out and the nursing home residents cover the numbers on their cards. Whenever a resident has only one number remaining, she (or he) calls out "Bingo!" and the remaining, uncovered number on the card gets the slot in the center. The winning Bingo player receives written assurance that his or her benefits will not be reduced before his or her death.

13) If a single candidate comes up on more than one card at the same time using this system, all remaining cards are cleared and the game begins again.

14) Once all ALJs to be appointed are chosen, the cards are arranged in descending order of the appointee's OPM score and each is assigned the highest OPM-scoring two available non-selectees to round out the rule of three.

That's it. Simple, efficient, fair, and guaranteed to maintain the ALJ corps at its current, high standards.

(I hope I get put on card #106 - Bessie's a mean BINGO player...)

P.S. ;D

[flatlander]

Propmaster: wow.
Finally ... Well thought out, cogent, insightful answers.
Thank you .

[maxlaw]

Thanks for making me smile P-master. You should write those April Fool's stories for Wikipedia; you have a gift. ;D

[privateatty]

Well done, Prop-man!

I'm glad you have dispelled the rumor that had been posted long ago of a huge dart-board in the ODAR/DCALJ's office.

[71stretch]

Propmaster-

Your writing talents should not be limited to dry legal opinions; you have gifts of creativity and humor that need to be shared!

Thanks from me, too, we DID need this!

[Well]

Crap had me hook line and sinker until the skits, only thing that tipped me off was that it would take too long

[hilltopper]

Dang,

And I had banked on it being the stair-toss method.

I had scoped out SSA HQs on the date of interview, selected the most likely stairwell and had installed a mag-lev system. (My ALJ Candidate History form was faxed from a magentic transduction fax machine. That way when they tossed them down the stairs, mine would glide the farthest.)

Guess I received bad info.

... The best laid plans of small rodents and such.

[Well]

Jul 17, 2010 21:02:05 GMT -5 hilltopper said:

Dang,

And I had banked on it being the stair-toss method.

I had scoped out SSA HQs on the date of interview, selected the most likely stairwell and had installed a mag-lev system. (My ALJ Candidate History form was faxed from a magentic transduction fax machine. That way when they tossed them down the stairs, mine would glide the farthest.)

Guess I received bad info.

... The best laid plans of small rodents and such.

Off-topic, but are you a Western Ky fan?