|
Post by jersey on Mar 14, 2012 14:15:51 GMT -5
I wanted to hear from people who have been "3 struck," i.e., whose names were considered 3 times and then buried (some call it blacklisting). If you have been selected after being "3 struck", how were you able to be reconsidered? Is there an appeal process to challenge the 3 strikes? I know that some current ALJs were 3 struck and figured out a way to get around the rule. Is the rule applied selectively and do you need to know someone to get off the 3 strikes list?
It seems contrary to the notion of hiring the best qualified if high scorers who were "3 struck" are now being passed over and candidates whose scores were not high enough to be placed on the register originally are now being considered for positions.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 14, 2012 15:15:26 GMT -5
A friend was three struck. Later found out that the friend's interview went fine, and she was recommended in all 14 areas. However, someone later reviews the folder and makes an overall recommendation on it. The friend was "Not Recommended". The friend was on several Certs and was three struck. Evidently the friend was never truly considered and was used as one of the three considered in order to get someone desired in an office. So, just making the Cert does not mean that someone is best or even qualified. It may mean that they are only being used as part of the threesome needed in order to reach someone else.. Am I making any sense here?? (Edit) Obviously, I was not making sense. The point was not that my friend was not necessarily qualified, it was that there may be a lot of people with high scores placed on Certs that may not be truly qualified, due to reasons we are not aware of, however, credit scores, bankruptcies, and numerous other things of which we have no knowledge of and can only guess at, have been mentioned. It would appear that these people may be used by the selecting officials as part of the three struck process to reach people they desire for one reason or another. This is purely conjecture on my part and is an attempt to figure out why some seemingly well qualified applicants are not selected and an attempt to point out to Jersey that high scores does not necessarily relate to best qualified. Sorry if I confused anyone, but I guess that is to be expected when one is attempting to understand a system with very few known parameters. I thought that almost everyone on the board was interested in and attempting to figure out the selecting process of new Judges.. However, JMHO, as usual..
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 14, 2012 17:07:00 GMT -5
I am absolutely certain that ODAR uses the 3 strike excuse and putting veterans together to reach the insiders they want to reach and select. Don't have time to document the evidence but it is so!
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 14, 2012 17:17:21 GMT -5
The way the rule reads, it's entirely optional on the part of the agency. They can choose not to consider someone who has actually been considered three times previously, or can continue to consider them. It isn't three strikes and you are out forever, necessarily. If they did choose to not consider someone for cert X, when cert Y rolls around, the agency can choose to consider that person. That's how they get hired. And, I think it's correct that someone will be struck in order to get to someone else that is preferred for whatever reason... stellar interview, great references, known to people in the agency, whatever. When that motivation no longer exists the next time around, that person may be considered (even if they had three previous "strikes" ) and hired. There's no "appeal process". And, don't mix up "cert" and "register" Many of those on this cert did not make prior ones due to low scores, but we are all on the register.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 14, 2012 18:25:27 GMT -5
Observer53 is pretty much on the money. The agency is not bound by a finding by OPM that a candidate would make an excellent ALJ (a high score). There is a lot of flexibility in hiring, and the three strike rule is one of the options used by the agency.
There are a lot of judges serving today who have been passed over 3 or more times. And there are some who have been passed over 3 times who will never be extended an offer. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by altomomatic on Mar 16, 2012 11:22:47 GMT -5
I have been "3 struck" from the current SSA cert. I have a decent score (low 70s), though somewhat restricted GAL. My biggest liability judging from reviewing past hires? I do not work for SSA... So far as I'm concerned, and from the buzz I've heard from ALJs in my agency, this is SSA's way of reaching folks who won't work for them the minimum amount of time, then jump ship.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 16, 2012 13:19:20 GMT -5
The fundemental reason SSA is looking for SSA folks to be ALJs is a proven track record (productivity and skillset) or lack thereof. It is just too difficult to get rid of an ALJ once apppointed and quite frankly many ALJs with non SSA backgrounds are turned-off by the body-count mentality of ODAR management. And as some old, retired guys have noted, it ain't getting any better! Sorry Pix- hope I am not misbehaving.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 16, 2012 17:47:34 GMT -5
The fundemental reason SSA is looking for SSA folks to be ALJs is a proven track record (productivity and skillset) or lack thereof. It is just too difficult to get rid of an ALJ once apppointed and quite frankly many ALJs with non SSA backgrounds are turned-off by the body-count mentality of ODAR management. That is the exact reason the agency prefers the agency lawyers--a known quantity. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Mar 16, 2012 20:02:26 GMT -5
8-)Yes, we know that Pixie, as I'm sure decade knows also. But as I've told others, having gone on the website, disabilityjudges.com, the company judges are not hewing to the line. Their reversal rate is even more than mine, "giveaway" Givens They better teach them right. The trust fund is in danger.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 16, 2012 20:59:11 GMT -5
Deltajudge, The new judges are not anymore or less lenient than you all were in the past, The Agency makes it harder and harder to deny anyone. We are constrained by the Regulations of an Agency that is at war with itself (not my words, although I wish I could lay claim to them). Besides bearing the responsibilty for developing a case, allowing claimants to pick their quorum, by moving anywhere anytime, letting them choose between in person or video, changing unprepared Reps, 3-4 times, never closing the record, so evidence can slip in anytime, allowing, almost even encouraging fraud with no consequences for claimant/rep actions, which encourages claimants to get into overpayment situations, pushing numbers of disposition to 2 and 3 times what was expected of your group (which, by it's nature encourages pay instead of deny), to an Appeals Council that doesn't have a clue, to OGC attorneys that roll over instead of fighting for us, up to Federal Courts that mock us and don't have a clue that 3 1/2 hours to handle a case from first sight to signing and out the door may lead to some comical errors because some poor ALJ mistakenly trusted his writing staff to be able to follow his instructions that he had 10-15 minutes to draft and since he had to attend a mandatory staff meeting or an IVD training on the intranet meant he didn't have the time to edit before signing.. But, I digress.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Mar 16, 2012 21:54:44 GMT -5
:oWow, bartelby, didn't expect that reply. As I told Pixie, I'm backing out of this, I really don't need to be putting myself into this, I was a dinosaur before I retired, and am one now. Y'all work it out. You are all professionals, but but the agency will never recognize that. Good luck dealing with a bunch of idiots.
|
|
|
Post by bindi on Mar 17, 2012 0:42:41 GMT -5
jersey - what you really want to find out is how many people have been three struck and then hired. the process that goes into being unthreestruck involves a phone call from one higher up to another. this falls outside of the law, by providing additional "process" to some candidates outside of the laws and regulations in the form of an additional "interview" or "reference" ("hey joe is a good guy, you should put in a call for him"), carried out by folks with the highest integrity. but these folks won't ever talk to you because they are now judges and should know how they got there. instead, try litigation. not at the mspb but in federal court. try a writ of mandamus (choose your law carefully - a rifle shot, not a shotgun blast) and writ of prohibition (no hiring until settled). that will get their attention. these folks don't like real federal court, because most have never seen the inside of one. just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Mar 17, 2012 8:35:39 GMT -5
8-)Yes, we know that Pixie, as I'm sure decade knows also. But as I've told others, having gone on the website, disabilityjudges.com, the company judges are not hewing to the line. Their reversal rate is even more than mine, "giveaway" Givens They better teach them right. The trust fund is in danger. Just scanning through the 75 judges with the most denials (ie. roughly the top 5% in denials issued) I see quite a few "insiders" hired in the past four years.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 17, 2012 9:27:04 GMT -5
jersey - what you really want to find out is how many people have been three struck and then hired. the process that goes into being unthreestruck involves a phone call from one higher up to another. this falls outside of the law, by providing additional "process" to some candidates outside of the laws and regulations in the form of an additional "interview" or "reference" ("hey joe is a good guy, you should put in a call for him"), carried out by folks with the highest integrity. but these folks won't ever talk to you because they are now judges and should know how they got there. instead, try litigation. not at the mspb but in federal court. try a writ of mandamus (choose your law carefully - a rifle shot, not a shotgun blast) and writ of prohibition (no hiring until settled). that will get their attention. these folks don't like real federal court, because most have never seen the inside of one. just my 2 cents. No, it doesn't necessarily involve a phone call at all. If OPM sends everyone who has a qualifying score over (ie, NOT what they did this time) the agency can look at all the names and can make an independent decision (remember, it isn't always the exact same people doing this selection) of who to hire and who not to. Some may not even look at the three strike list. NOTHING in the regulation says they have to. Do I think there are lots of issues with this whole process? Sure, not necessarily in violation of law, either, but if someone wants to take them to court, have at it.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 17, 2012 12:54:12 GMT -5
bartleby- awsome! Digress, digress!
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Mar 17, 2012 13:01:21 GMT -5
Jersey, I am a complete outsider, so I know very little except what I read on this Board. I just want to point out to you that before following Bindi's advice to litigate in federal court, you should do a search on the Board for previous discussions of possible litigation tactics. Some people who know far more about this process than I do have concluded that it would be futile. By the way, I made the 2011 cert, but not the current year's. I am one of the new three-struck in one cert marvels. (The conjecture is that other people have been three-struck in one cert before, but for some reason, SS put them on a new cert, making them think that they had not been three-struck.) What will be interesting to see is, if there is another cert from this register, whether any of us previously three-struck people will be un-struck.
|
|
|
Post by milo on Mar 17, 2012 19:30:01 GMT -5
tricia - when you were three struck it involved a process, which now (probably illegally) makes you not even show up on a certificate created by OPM NOT SSA. that process is described in law. when others are un-three struck it also involves a process. that process (a second interview with a three struck person, another reference) is not described in law and, more importantly, is more process than you received. therefore it is illegal. imagine if all the world worked this way, more process for some than others. maybe it sort of does.
observer - i can't remember if you made it thru to alj or not but guessing you did. that rationalization of yours is not based on a single shred of fact, just a wish that it were so. when a person is hired after being three struck it is because someone very high up made a phone call. period. i've seen it happen twice already in my local office and about to be three times. and it aint pretty...
i don't know what anyone does about it. hope that it gets better and don't burn your bridges is one approach. as an alternative to litigation, you could try getting a second "interview" and "reference" from one of these high ranking people if you have access. or you can sue. if you do that, do it in federal court. OPM, SSA and MSPB are all administrative brothers and sisters who reach a result, rather than worry about the deets. they will back down in federal court because they hate precedents that reign them in.
again, just mine and bindi's opinion and we are only cats.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 18, 2012 1:17:18 GMT -5
What "second interview with a three struck person"? Care to share some details of exactly how that happens, and at what stage of the process?
There is NOTHING illegal about any agency considering a person it has considered and rejected three times before. The regulation is entirely permissive, not mandatory. If someone calls on his or her behalf, and that enters into a decision to consider that person again, that's not per se illegal either... it happens, I'm sure, with all sorts of candidates, including those who have not been three struck.
While there may be cases where someone made a phone call on behalf of a three struck person, I know three strikers who have been hired who have no such connections. So, don't make it sound like that's the only way it happens. It's not going to happen on this cert, as you suggest it is going to, because no one who has been ACTUALLY three struck is ON this cert. Lots of people think they have been three struck when they have actually never been actually considered three times. Being "filler" on a cert doesn't count. I doubt very much that someone who is not on this cert is going to get hired for April or May, as you seem to be suggesting.
I do think the process used by SSA this time to keep the three strikers from even being on the list was, at best, outside the norm. I am not familiar enough with all the applicable provisions of the CFR to know if it was contrary to the regulations. Perhaps you can share the citations you have in mind.
If you and your fellow guest think going to federal court is such a promising option, go for it.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Mar 19, 2012 13:15:24 GMT -5
Observer, I don't think that there has ever been a posting on this board from someone who knew that he or she had been three-struck (when the evidence was from the list that someone got) and then got a second interview, right? Hasn't it been established that you only get a second SS interview if your first one was x years ago?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 19, 2012 13:39:29 GMT -5
Observer, I don't think that there has ever been a posting on this board from someone who knew that he or she had been three-struck (when the evidence was from the list that someone got) and then got a second interview, right? Hasn't it been established that you only get a second SS interview if your first one was x years ago? I think the "guests" are talking about some sort of nefarious under the table interview. As I understand it, you are right, it's one interview per register (for SSA, anyway, I suspect) which in this case is up to about five years now since the first interviews on this register were done.
|
|