WDs - Can we talk

[redryder]

My experience was not exactly the same as that reported by Chinook. I made the register 3 years ago and got inquiries from 2 agencies other than SSA. I was not interested in one and called about the other. It was for a position like that Chinook described--adversarial hearings, sometimes multi-day or week long. I declined the job because that agency had no transfer policy. But I did ask the chief judge how many people were on the cert and where I place on it out of curiosity. I was told the cert for this one slot had 10 names, not 3. The hearing office was in San Francisco and whoever was appointed was expected to stay there even though this agency has other offices in the country.

[sealaw90]

I'm not quite sure why there is all this secrecy, weren't the jobs posted back in 2010? As another candidate that has my eyes on another agency besides SSA, it would be interesting to know.

[privateatty]

Jul 22, 2013 14:38:17 GMT -5 sealaw90 said:

I'm not quite sure why there is all this secrecy, weren't the jobs posted back in 2010? As another candidate that has my eyes on another agency besides SSA, it would be interesting to know.

The likely answer: probably because the respective CJ of the Agency's ALJs wants it that way. How they pick Judges is no one's business except theirs (in their eyes).

chinook's point verifies why no one I know agrees with SSA's OCALJ that litigation experience is not needed to be a successful candidate. It is a story I have heard before.

[goldenticket]

Litigation experience is not needed for a successful candidate for 90% or more of the positions that come open. It is sad to have the tail wag the dog when there is a solution where every agency can get candidates they desire. That solution is yet to be utilized, although I am sure someone with knowledge and a little creative thinking has already come up with one. However, political pressures prevail in causing a pendulum swing instead of a good compromise.