|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 9:59:10 GMT -5
As we wrap up Phase III testing and wait with baited breath to see where we stack up on the totem pole (the NOR), my imagination runs amok. On a more concrete level, I anticipate alot of retirements this year based largely on the fiasco currently occurring in Washington. Alot of retirement-eligibles are thinking they need to get while the getting is good and retire while we still have a solvent pension system -- understanding that "solvent" is a relative term these days. Its impossible to have exact numbers, so I will hazard a guess of 250 ALJ slots to fill in the next go-round. (There are already 100 ODAR vacancies so far this year before end-of-year retirements). As real estate is about location, the ALJ lotto is about GAL, GAL, GAL. But how does the selection process actually work? Curious minds want to know. I invite the insiders and thinkers on the board to weigh in on this and to share their insights. Here is what I posted on another thread:
I envision these guys (mostly), in a dark room somewhere in a bunker deep underground, probably not far from Huntington, W.Va., saying "o.k., how can we get around these infernal veterans so we can get to our peeps." Or maybe "o.k. all you HOCALJs -- one for you, two for me, 10 for Huntington, W.Va, none for you, New York . . ." Or what could be more likely: "o.k., we have 1100 on the register and 250 slots to fill this round. we anticipate another 250 to fill next year. we have 500 candidates who scored over 70, with wide-open GALs. Therefore, we don't need to reach down into the 60s or below for this round. Lets take the low 70s scorers and put them in the "less desirable" offices. That leaves 100 spots remaining in the 10 most "popular" cities." I'm sure this is off-base, but I'm just curious about the actual horse-trading that I'm sure goes on. If someone scores 110 with a wide-open GAL, technically, they could be assigned to Huntington, W.Va. If the high scorers with wide-open GALs are placed in the "less-desirable" offices, so that other high scorers with narrow GALs have an improved chance in their respective cities, is that fair to the high scorers who "played the ODAR game" by agreeing to a wide open GAL?
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Oct 16, 2013 10:24:18 GMT -5
250 sounds about right - if nothing changes, budget-wise, I would suspect they fill roughly 80 to 100 of those next year - that is a typical number they like to have for a large training class. If there is a loosening of the purse strings, somewhat, they may do ~100 and ~25 in 2014, 2015 and 2016, which will get them back to nearly full strength.
And to your main question - the transfer list will drive a large portion of this - those judges who want to move to the desireable locations will have the opportunity to do so. That is why there are so many "less than desireable" locations available for new hires. That is why a broad GAL is smart, regardless of score - you can't be considered if it is not in your GAL. If you absolutely won't go there, then, regardless of your score, you shouldn't have that city. But in all other cases, if you really want the job - every city should be on your GAL.
As for the "workarounds" - I suspect it is not as nefarious as everyone wants it to be - this is a relatively homogenized population - therefore, everyone who gets the same 10-point/5-point bump are likely to have scores clustered together. If the legend that they group veterans together (FTR - I am a 10-point waiting on NOR just like the rest of the current applicants) really had signficant merit, someone would have blown the whistle by now - there are tons of veterans in Federal civil service and if this discriminatory practice was actually being done - I believe it would have leaked out by now.
Occam's Razor would lead us to conclude that similar people with similar backgrounds will make similar scores on the same test. Likewise, if those people also get a similar bump over the general population, they will cluster at the top and, therefore, be the top scorers at various locations.
The only fact that would suggest otherwise is that it is awfully convenient to have 3 10-point veterans for one spot as you can hire the one you want, without all the fuss about justifying hiring a non-veteran - right? However, that flies in the face of the fact that most Vets get hired AND, they're actually hiring veterans in these supposed "veteran clusters".
Anyway, just my $0.02 and probably not worth that after taxes, fees, interest, inflation, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 10:52:07 GMT -5
And to your main question - the transfer list will drive a large portion of this - those judges who want to move to the desireable locations will have the opportunity to do so. That is why there are so many "less than desireable" locations available for new hires. That is why a broad GAL is smart, regardless of score - you can't be considered if it is not in your GAL. If you absolutely won't go there, then, regardless of your score, you shouldn't have that city. But in all other cases, if you really want the job - every city should be on your GAL. As for the "workarounds" - I suspect it is not as nefarious as everyone wants it to be - this is a relatively homogenized population - therefore, everyone who gets the same 10-point/5-point bump are likely to have scores clustered together. If the legend that they group veterans together (FTR - I am a 10-point waiting on NOR just like the rest of the current applicants) really had signficant merit, someone would have blown the whistle by now - there are tons of veterans in Federal civil service and if this discriminatory practice was actually being done - I believe it would have leaked out by now. The only fact that would suggest otherwise is that it is awfully convenient to have 3 10-point veterans for one spot as you can hire the one you want, without all the fuss about justifying hiring a non-veteran - right? However, that flies in the face of the fact that most Vets get hired AND, they're actually hiring veterans in these supposed "veteran clusters". Anyway, just my $0.02 and probably not worth that after taxes, fees, interest, inflation, etc. Vet's preference is a huge advantage for two reasons, the additional points and the inability to pass over a preference eligible using a non preference eligible. God Bless the vets, they deserve the congressionally mandated affirmative action that is not based on any Title VII category. For attorneys this is about the only position where they get the preferenc in full because it is a purely competitive position. Having said that, I do not believe the vet preference guarantees every attorney vet on the register a job. Like all others some will be deemed to fit the agency requirements and some will not. Those that are a fit for the agency will get picked in a larger pro rata percentage in the first batches of the hirings because the extra points takes them to positions ahead of the pack. For those that do not fit, they wil llikely be passed over using other preference eligibles and that is where the dark room exercise comes in. This is why there are a large number of the ALJ corps who are veterans (same can be said for the federal government as a whole)
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 11:10:02 GMT -5
Ace, I totally agree that vets are getting selected, but I wonder what the selection percentages are when you factor in their final scores. It stands to reason that vets should be heavily represented amongst the high scorers. But if they are "clumping" their GALs around the major metropolitan areas and "retirement cities," this may effectively nullify the vet preference. In other words, vets need to play the wide-open GAL just as everyone else should. The effect of the transfer list also cannot be overstated, as you have observed. ALJ candidates with narrow GALs are, in many cases, competing directly with ALJs on the transfer list.
But this why I come back to the Puzzle Palace, "smoke-filled room" concerns. I know of at least one case in the last hire where a new ALJ was selected for an office when there were ALJs waiting on the transfer list. There have been exceptions made at other times in the hiring process also where commenters on this board simply concluded that "the whole process is a mystery." That being said, there certainly are discernible trends that you allude to, above, e.g., broad GALs, etc. Taking your example of having three 10-point vets at the top of the list and "[hiring] the one you want," I wonder how that process devolves. Is it simply the high scorer amongst the top 3 vets, or can other criteria be used? Whenever a high-scoring ALJ is "moved" to be selected for a less desirable city, it makes room for lower scorers in the more popular cities. That is why I favor a "1st preference, 2nd preference"-type system, which would enable high scorers to get closer to where they want to live.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 11:16:03 GMT -5
Ace, I totally agree that vets are getting selected, but I wonder what the selection percentages are when you factor in their final scores. It stands to reason that vets should be heavily represented amongst the high scorers. But if they are "clumping" their GALs around the major metropolitan areas and "retirement cities," this may effectively nullify the vet preference. In other words, vets need to play the wide-open GAL just as everyone else should. The effect of the transfer list also cannot be overstated, as you have observed. ALJ candidates with narrow GALs are, in many cases, competing directly with ALJs on the transfer list. But this why I come back to the Puzzle Palace, "smoke-filled room" concerns. I know of at least one case in the last hire where a new ALJ was selected for an office when there were ALJs waiting on the transfer list. There have been exceptions made at other times in the hiring process also where commenters on this board simply concluded that "the whole process is a mystery." That being said, there certainly are discernible trends that you allude to, above, e.g., broad GALs, etc. Taking your example of having three 10-point vets at the top of the list and "[hiring] the one you want," I wonder how that process devolves. Is it simply the high scorer amongst the top 3 vets, or can other criteria be used? Whenever a high-scoring ALJ is "moved" to be selected for a less desirable city, it makes room for lower scorers in the more popular cities. That is why I favor a "1st preference, 2nd preference"-type system, which would enable high scorers to get closer to where they want to live. If the top three on a particular city are all vets, any one of them can be chosen. But if the top candidate is a vet and the other two are non vets then the selecting official cannot choose the non vets over the top ranking vet. This is where I believe the horse trading comes in. What other cities is the vet on top? If he is a fit for one of those cities then give the vet that job and he is no longer the top vet at the city where he cannot be passed over. Or Mgt can pass him over once at one such location using another vet preference eligible if this particular vet is not a fit for the agency.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Oct 16, 2013 11:18:04 GMT -5
The Regular Army (at least they used to) has a process where you put your top 10 duty locations, and they try to meet everybody's 1st, failing that, everybody's 2nd and so forth. Needs of the service ultimately dictate, and you cannot decline a transfer, but I think that system could be worked with the ALJs as well.
In OPM's process, you HAVE to opt in - but most would be best served by your 1st preference, 2nd preference, etc. proposal.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 11:41:32 GMT -5
the Army system was exactly what I had in mind. It worked very well in the military and should be considered by OPM/ODAR here. If we could know that preference ranking would be taken into account, I think it would allow people to consider a more expanded GAL. I might consider having Peoria, IL as a GAL if I know that my choice is either Peoria or nothing. But I would not want to include Peoria if there was a chance I could lose a spot in NY so they could make way for someone with a lower score to take the NY spot.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 16, 2013 11:55:45 GMT -5
Here is a hypo to give my best SWAG on how this works.
1. for simple math, lets say ssa determines it wants to fill just 4 alj slots. One each in Crapland, Not Quite Crapland, Pretty Decent CIty and Popularville.
2. before asking OPM for a cert for those 4 cities, SSA checks the transfer list and, for the sake of this hypo, finds no requested transfers to the open slots. In reality they would have someone wanting at least Popularville most likely and would fill the slot with that transferee thus opening another slot in a less desired locale, but lets keep it simple.
3. ssa then requests a cert and opm sends them the 3 highest scorers for each locale. This doesn't necessarily mean 12 people is the limit or the lowest # possible. For example, lets say one candidate just has Poplurarville on his gal and he is one of the highest scorers for that slot. So, this candidate takes one of the 3 cert positions for only one of the four cities. Meanwhile, a second candidate has a wide open gal and a high enough score that he is in the top 3 for all 4 locales. Thus, this person takes up 1/3 of the total of 12 cert positions.
4. lets throw some hypothetical candidates in the mix. Ann is a vet with a high score and did well on her interview but is only in competition for Popularville due to gal. Bob is also a high scoring with good interview vet and he is in contention for both Popularville and Pretty Decent. Carl is not a vet but has a wide open gal, is in contention for all 4 cities and is a well liked ssa insider. Diane is also an insider that's well liked, but only has Pretty Decent in contention. Ed has the highest score on the cert and a wide open gal, but fouled up his interview. Finally, Fiona is not an insider, but is in contention for all and did well on her agency interview.
5. here's how I suspect it would go down:
Ed: by tanking his interview, ed is just sol. With him tanking the interview, he gets no offer. Whatsmore, with his high score and wide gal he was in contention for all 4 jobs. So, he has now been 3 struckand his chances of ever being an alj are DOA.
Popularville: with ed gone, Pop is between Ann and Bob. Both are vets so pref doesn't matter. What does is gal and how that impacts the other slots. ssa really wants Bob. but with his gal they can only offer him Pop or PD. The prob is, they also really want Diane and her gal is just PD. So, by giving Pop to Bob, they can give PD to Diane. So Ann is cut and sent back to register.
Pretty Decent: welcomes judge Diane
Not Quite Crapland: this job is between insider Carl and outsider Fiona with ed out of the pix. It could go to either. But lets say carls insider status helps him make it known that while he gave a wide open gal, he would really prefer to not go to crapland. so carl get NQC and fiona packs for crapland.
MORAL:
1. don't flub the agency interview 2. the wider the gal the more jobs you are in competition for and the more likely you are to win one 3. if ssa wants you they will get you even if it means cutting other higher scorers to do it
All of the above is purely the speculation of funkyodar based solely on hearsay and extrapolations from reading this board, talking to current aljs and drinking heavily.
Please correct any glaring fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 11:58:33 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the last register, 400 aljs were hired over a 4 year period. The current SSA filing backlog is currently growing and expected to peak in 2016. ODAR ALJs are retiring at the fastest rate in 20 years and over half of all SSA ALJs will be eligible to retire by 2016. Am I being overly optimistic or does this bode well for increased ALJ hiring for 2014 - 2017?
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 12:06:01 GMT -5
Here is a hypo to give my best SWAG on how this works. 1. for simple math, lets say ssa determines it wants to fill just 4 alj slots. One each in Crapland, Not Quite Crapland, Pretty Decent CIty and Popularville. 2. before asking OPM for a cert for those 4 cities, SSA checks the transfer list and, for the sake of this hypo, finds no requested transfers to the open slots. In reality they would have someone wanting at least Popularville most likely and would fill the slot with that transferee thus opening another slot in a less desired locale, but lets keep it simple. 3. ssa then requests a cert and opm sends them the 3 highest scorers for each locale. This doesn't necessarily mean 12 people is the limit or the lowest # possible. For example, lets say one candidate just has Poplurarville on his gal and he is one of the highest scorers for that slot. So, this candidate takes one of the 3 cert positions for only one of the four cities. Meanwhile, a second candidate has a wide open gal and a high enough score that he is in the top 3 for all 4 locales. Thus, this person takes up 1/3 of the total of 12 cert positions. 4. lets throw some hypothetical candidates in the mix. Ann is a vet with a high score and did well on her interview but is only in competition for Popularville due to gal. Bob is also a high scoring with good interview vet and he is in contention for both Popularville and Pretty Decent. Carl is not a vet but has a wide open gal, is in contention for all 4 cities and is a well liked ssa insider. Diane is also an insider that's well liked, but only has Pretty Decent in contention. Ed has the highest score on the cert and a wide open gal, but fouled up his interview. Finally, Fiona is not an insider, but is in contention for all and did well on her agency interview. 5. here's how I suspect it would go down: Ed: by tanking his interview, ed is just sol. With him tanking the interview, he gets no offer. Whatsmore, with his high score and wide gal he was in contention for all 4 jobs. So, he has now been 3 struckand his chances of ever being an alj are DOA. Popularville: with ed gone, Pop is between Ann and Bob. Both are vets so pref doesn't matter. What does is gal and how that impacts the other slots. ssa really wants Bob. but with his gal they can only offer him Pop or PD. The prob is, they also really want Diane and her gal is just PD. So, by giving Pop to Bob, they can give PD to Diane. So Ann is cut and sent back to register. Pretty Decent: welcomes judge Diane Not Quite Crapland: this job is between insider Carl and outsider Fiona with ed out of the pix. It could go to either. But lets say carls insider status helps him make it known that while he gave a wide open gal, he would really prefer to not go to crapland. so carl get NQC and fiona packs for crapland. MORAL: 1. don't flub the agency interview 2. the wider the gal the more jobs you are in competition for and the more likely you are to win one 3. if ssa wants you they will get you even if it means cutting other higher scorers to do it All of the above is purely the speculation of funkyodar based solely on hearsay and extrapolations from reading this board, talking to current aljs and drinking heavily. Please correct any glaring fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 12:11:18 GMT -5
Now it all seems perfectly clear to me and that's scary. No one does it like funkyodar. Turning to Ann's case, this is where expression of geographic preference would have permitted a more fair outcome.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 12:27:00 GMT -5
Funky's hypothetical seems to indicate that had Ed not fouled up the interview, and notwithstanding the double-whammy of having a wide-open GAL and the highest scorer, he likely could only expect to get NQC -- sobering.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 16, 2013 14:33:58 GMT -5
I think Funky has hit the nail on the head. I think there may be some sun behind the clouds for the people who only want to work in Popularville. The transfer list may not fill all the vacancies in said land of milk and honey. It appears that SSA is not (or at least under a previous contract was not) obligated ( to fill all the slots with the transfer list before hiring in. They are obligated to run the list once. This means that in the event of a mass exodus from Popularville a lot of potential transfers may be left sitting at the altar while a newbie strolls in and begins living the life that only a few can dream of in Popularville. I also thought I read somewhere but maybe I am imagining it that the agency had the right to refuse to transfer someone if they could show it was "for the good of the service". If that is the case it could further limit the ability of people to get blocked by the transfer list. Here is an old thread I dug up while trying to figure the transfer list out. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/1882/transfer-list?page=1
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 14:55:52 GMT -5
I think Funky has hit the nail on the head. I think there may be some sun behind the clouds for the people who only want to work in Popularville. The transfer list may not fill all the vacancies in said land of milk and honey. It appears that SSA is not (or at least under a previous contract was not) obligated ( to fill all the slots with the transfer list before hiring in. They are obligated to run the list once. This means that in the event of a mass exodus from Popularville a lot of potential transfers may be left sitting at the altar while a newbie strolls in and begins living the life that only a few can dream of in Popularville. I also thought I read somewhere but maybe I am imagining it that the agency had the right to refuse to transfer someone if they could show it was "for the good of the service". If that is the case it could further limit the ability of people to get blocked by the transfer list. Here is an old thread I dug up while trying to figure the transfer list out. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/1882/transfer-list?page=1thanks for the thread cross-reference Gaidin. What a gold mine of information. I like the one comment stating that she had "an imaginary GAL!" that's just how I feel sometimes. Another fella said he was on OPM registers for 13 years before he received an offer! Patience is a virtue, but I could be dead by then! Jeeezzz. I'm reading and re-reading Funky's textbook analysis above. there's alot of wisdom in there but your caveat about how the transfer list actually operates, provides a little light at the end of the narrow GAL tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 18:50:15 GMT -5
Here is a hypo to give my best SWAG on how this works. 1. for simple math, lets say ssa determines it wants to fill just 4 alj slots. One each in Crapland, Not Quite Crapland, Pretty Decent CIty and Popularville. 2. before asking OPM for a cert for those 4 cities, SSA checks the transfer list and, for the sake of this hypo, finds no requested transfers to the open slots. In reality they would have someone wanting at least Popularville most likely and would fill the slot with that transferee thus opening another slot in a less desired locale, but lets keep it simple. 3. ssa then requests a cert and opm sends them the 3 highest scorers for each locale. This doesn't necessarily mean 12 people is the limit or the lowest # possible. For example, lets say one candidate just has Poplurarville on his gal and he is one of the highest scorers for that slot. So, this candidate takes one of the 3 cert positions for only one of the four cities. Meanwhile, a second candidate has a wide open gal and a high enough score that he is in the top 3 for all 4 locales. Thus, this person takes up 1/3 of the total of 12 cert positions. 4. lets throw some hypothetical candidates in the mix. Ann is a vet with a high score and did well on her interview but is only in competition for Popularville due to gal. Bob is also a high scoring with good interview vet and he is in contention for both Popularville and Pretty Decent. Carl is not a vet but has a wide open gal, is in contention for all 4 cities and is a well liked ssa insider. Diane is also an insider that's well liked, but only has Pretty Decent in contention. Ed has the highest score on the cert and a wide open gal, but fouled up his interview. Finally, Fiona is not an insider, but is in contention for all and did well on her agency interview. 5. here's how I suspect it would go down: Ed: by tanking his interview, ed is just sol. With him tanking the interview, he gets no offer. Whatsmore, with his high score and wide gal he was in contention for all 4 jobs. So, he has now been 3 struckand his chances of ever being an alj are DOA. Popularville: with ed gone, Pop is between Ann and Bob. Both are vets so pref doesn't matter. What does is gal and how that impacts the other slots. ssa really wants Bob. but with his gal they can only offer him Pop or PD. The prob is, they also really want Diane and her gal is just PD. So, by giving Pop to Bob, they can give PD to Diane. So Ann is cut and sent back to register. Pretty Decent: welcomes judge Diane Not Quite Crapland: this job is between insider Carl and outsider Fiona with ed out of the pix. It could go to either. But lets say carls insider status helps him make it known that while he gave a wide open gal, he would really prefer to not go to crapland. so carl get NQC and fiona packs for crapland. MORAL: 1. don't flub the agency interview 2. the wider the gal the more jobs you are in competition for and the more likely you are to win one 3. if ssa wants you they will get you even if it means cutting other higher scorers to do it All of the above is purely the speculation of funkyodar based solely on hearsay and extrapolations from reading this board, talking to current aljs and drinking heavily. Please correct any glaring fallacies. Incredible and succinct analysis Mr. Funkyodar. I would just like to add that what if Ann and Bob both tank their ssa interviews and because they are good test takers and have vet points they both sit on top of a couple of locations. Now how does the Agency get rid of them by three striking them? I submit that SSA always asks for a cert with many many cities (whether there will be filling all of them is another matter). The only way they can get rid of these two is to either not fill the position where they are the number one candidate or pass them over using other veteran preference eligibles so that they can be three struck. I believe this is where a lot of the horse trading takes place.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 16, 2013 19:27:54 GMT -5
Incredible and succinct analysis Mr. Funkyodar. I would just like to add that what if Ann and Bob both tank their ssa interviews and because they are good test takers and have vet points they both sit on top of a couple of locations. Now how does the Agency get rid of them by three striking them? I submit that SSA always asks for a cert with many many cities (whether there will be filling all of them is another matter). The only way they can get rid of these two is to either not fill the position where they are the number one candidate or pass them over using other veteran preference eligibles so that they can be three struck. I believe this is where a lot of the horse trading takes place. I'd say you are absolutely right ssaogc. They will certainly take steps like asking for more than they actually intend to fill to give them more pawns to move around the board. Worst case they could just choose not to fill the position on that particular cert if they don't like any candidate given them at that time. One question for those that know more about the vet pref than I. I know they are instructed to choose the vet over any nonvet candidate. But, I thought I read somewhere that they could choose the nonvet over a vet if they had a justifiable reason and submitted that reason in writing. Is that not so? If it is the case, what would bea justifiable reason? Would it include "better fit" based on agency interviews?
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Oct 16, 2013 19:54:12 GMT -5
One question for those that know more about the vet pref than I. I know they are instructed to choose the vet over any nonvet candidate. But, I thought I read somewhere that they could choose the nonvet over a vet if they had a justifiable reason and submitted that reason in writing. Is that not so? If it is the case, what would be a justifiable reason? Would it include "better fit" based on agency interviews? In theory, yes. An agency can provide justification to OPM to skip a vet for a non-vet (check out SF62 on the OPM website). However, in reality, I doubt any agency would be dumb enough to even make such a request in the context of ALJ hiring for the reasons below. First, CW has it that OPM doesn't approve such a request in most circumstances, so it's a fool's errand. Second, just by making such a request, it is likely to expose the agency up to significant liabilities. It's impossible to keep such an action secret due to the way vet preference laws are written. Once aware, pretty much any ALJ candidate that got passed over like that will raise a stink, and the agency action will become public knowledge very quickly. Once the info becomes public, any vet candidate that the agency doesn't/didn't hire could point to the request as a prima facia evidence of the agency's intent to discriminate against vets. Query which federal agency would like to be accused of discriminating against a vet because of his/her veteran status? Additionally, how would you like to see that as a newspaper headline and may be a bonus Congressional hearing by a vet friendly congressman? So on the litigation risk management front, as well as on the PR and political side, this route is extremely unwise. Much easier to just use the rule of three. That way, a good number of veterans get hired, no justification needs to be provided to the ones that get bumped, and everyone is content except those left on the cutting room floor. And just to make it clear, I have no inside knowledge on this issue. Merely an educated guess based on years of swimming in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 20:13:30 GMT -5
One question for those that know more about the vet pref than I. I know they are instructed to choose the vet over any nonvet candidate. But, I thought I read somewhere that they could choose the nonvet over a vet if they had a justifiable reason and submitted that reason in writing. Is that not so? If it is the case, what would be a justifiable reason? Would it include "better fit" based on agency interviews? In theory, yes. An agency can provide justification to OPM to skip a vet for a non-vet (check out SF62 on the OPM website). However, in reality, I doubt any agency would be dumb enough to even make such a request in the context of ALJ hiring for the reasons below. First, CW has it that OPM doesn't approve such a request in most circumstances, so it's a fool's errand. Second, just by making such a request, it is likely to expose the agency up to significant liabilities. It's impossible to keep such an action secret due to the way vet preference laws are written. Once aware, pretty much any ALJ candidate that got passed over like that will raise a stink, and the agency action will become public knowledge very quickly. Once the info becomes public, any vet candidate that the agency doesn't/didn't hire could point to the request as a prima facia evidence of the agency's intent to discriminate against vets. Query which federal agency would like to be accused of discriminating against a vet because of his/her veteran status? Additionally, how would you like to see that as a newspaper headline and may be a bonus Congressional hearing by a vet friendly congressman? So on the litigation risk management front, as well as on the PR and political side, this route is extremely unwise. Much easier to just use the rule of three. That way, a good number of veterans get hired, no justification needs to be provided to the ones that get bumped, and everyone is content except those left on the cutting room floor. And just to make it clear, I have no inside knowledge on this issue. Merely an educated guess based on years of swimming in this forum. Workdrone is on target with his point that the way around a veteran who is not a fit for the Agency is to use the one in three rule using other vets. This is the path of least resistance for an agency to take, especially one like SSA who may have more than a few vets that they deem to not be good fits for the Agency. Disqualifying a vet requires the Agency to go to OPM, in cases where the vet is a disabled vet with more than 30% rating requires notification to the vet and the vet has a chance to refute the reasons given for the proposed passover. Why go through all this when you can just pass over the vet using the one and three rule? Here is a summary of the OPM rules: Preference in Competitive Examinations Preference eligibles who are qualified for a position and achieved a passing score have 5 or 10 extra points added to their numerical ratings depending on which of the previously described categories of preference they meet. This means the highest possible rating is 110 (a disabled veteran who earns a score of 100 has 10 extra points added). Names of eligible applicants are placed on lists, or registers of eligibles, in the order of their ratings. Competitor inventories are established from which selections will be made over a period of time and for case examining in which a register is used to fill a single position or a group of positions and is closed after the needed selection(s) is made. For scientific and professional positions in grade General Schedule (GS) - 9 or higher, names of all qualified applicants are listed on competitor inventories in order of their ratings, augmented by veteran preference, if any. For all other positions, the names of 10-point preference eligibles who have a compensable, service-connected disability of 10 percent or more (CP and CPS) are listed at the top of the register in the order of their ratings ahead of the names of all other eligibles. The names of other 10-point preference eligibles, 5-point preference eligibles, and other applicants are listed in order of their numerical ratings. A preference eligible is listed ahead of a nonpreference eligible having the same final rating. 5 U.S.C. 3309, 3313 and 5 CFR 332.401 and 337.101 Back to Top Filling a Position Through the Competitive Examining Process Announcing the Vacancy To fill a vacancy by selection through the competitive examining process, the selecting official requests a list of eligibles from the examining office. The examining office must announce the competitive examining process through USAJOBS. OPM will notify the State employment service where the job is being filled. Subsequently, the examining office determines which applicants are qualified, rates and ranks them based on their qualifications, and issues a certificate of eligibles, which is a list of eligibles with the highest scores from the top of the appropriate register. A certificate of eligibles may be used for permanent, term, or temporary appointment. Category Rating Category rating is an alternative ranking and selection procedure authorized under the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Title XIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002) and codified at 5 U.S.C. § 3319. Category rating is part of the competitive examining process. Under category rating, applicants who meet basic minimum qualification requirements established for the position and whose job-related competencies or knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) have been assessed are ranked by being placed in one of two or more predefined quality categories instead of being ranked in numeric score order. Preference eligibles are listed ahead of non-preference eligibles within each quality category. Veterans' preference is absolute within each quality category. For more detailed information on Category Rating please visit Chapter 5 of the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook. The "Rule of Three" and Veteran pass overs Selection must be made from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are available for the job--the "rule of three." However, an agency may not pass over a preference eligible to select a lower ranking nonpreference eligible or nonpreference eligible with the same or lower score. Example: If the top person on a certificate is a 10-point disabled veteran (CP or CPS) and the second and third persons are 5-point preference eligibles, the appointing authority may choose any of the three. Example: If the top person on a certificate is a 10-point disabled veteran (CP or CPS), the second person is not a preference eligible, and the third person is a 5-point preference eligible, the appointing authority may choose either of the preference eligibles. The appointing authority may not pass over the 10-point disabled veteran to select the nonpreference eligible unless an objection has been sustained. Category Rating Category rating is an alternative ranking and selection procedure authorized under the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Title XIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002) and codified at 5 U.S.C. § 3319. Category rating is part of the competitive examining process. Under category rating, applicants who meet basic minimum qualification requirements established for the position and whose job-related competencies or knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) have been assessed are ranked by being placed in one of two or more predefined quality categories instead of being ranked in numeric score order. Preference eligibles are listed ahead of non-preference eligibles within each quality category. Veterans' preference is absolute within each quality category. For more detailed information on Category Rating please visit Chapter 5 of the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook. Disqualifications of Preference Eligibles A preference eligible can be eliminated from consideration only if the examining office sustains the agency's objection to the preference eligible for adequate reason. These reasons, which must be recorded, include medical disqualification under 5 CFR Part 339, suitability disqualification under 5 CFR Part 731, or other reasons considered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or an agency under delegated examining authority to be disqualifying . OPM must approve the sufficiency of an agency reason to medically disqualify or pass over a preference eligible on a certificate based on medical reasons to select a nonpreference eligible. Special provisions apply to the proposed disqualification or pass over for any reason of a preference eligible with a 30 percent or more compensable disability. See Disqualification of 30 Percent or more Disabled Veterans below. Agencies have delegated authority for determining suitability in accordance with 5 CFR Part 731. The preference eligible (or his or her representative) is entitled on request to a copy of the agency's reasons for the proposed pass over and the examining office's response. An appointing official is not required to consider a person who has three times been passed over with appropriate approval or who has already been considered for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position. But in each of these considerations, the person must have been within reach under the rule of three and a selection must have been made from that group of three. Further, the preference eligible is entitled to advance notice of discontinuance of certification. 5 U.S.C. 3317, 3318 and 5 CFR 332.402, 332.404, 332.405, 332.406, and Parts 339 and 731 Disqualification of 30 Percent or More Disabled Veterans The following special provisions apply to disabled veterans with a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more: If an agency proposes to pass over a disabled veteran on a certificate to select a person who is not a preference eligible, or to disqualify a disabled veteran based on the physical requirements of the position, it must at the same time notify both the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the disabled veteran of the reasons for the determination and of the veteran's right to respond to OPM within 15 days of the date of the notification. The agency must provide evidence to OPM that the notice was timely sent to the disabled veteran's last known address. OPM must make a determination on the disabled veteran's physical ability to perform the duties of the position, taking into account any additional information provided by the veteran. OPM will notify the agency and the disabled veteran of its decision, with which the agency must comply. If OPM agrees that the veteran cannot fulfill the physical requirements of the position, the agency may select another person from the certificate of eligibles. If OPM finds the veteran able to perform the job, the agency may not pass over the veteran. OPM is prohibited by law from delegating this function to any agency. 5 U.S.C. 3312, 3318 source: www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/veterans-services/vet-guide/
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 16, 2013 21:41:10 GMT -5
Thanks workdrone and ssaogc. The combined knowledge on this board is outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 17, 2013 8:33:35 GMT -5
the wise words of privateatty in March 2010 from the thread "is there a blacklist from OPM to ODAR?" that are apropos here:
15pm oldjag said: 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
|
|