|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 25, 2014 15:32:57 GMT -5
This whole topic makes my head hurt. We will either know how they plan to do it soon or we may never really know. Doesnt matter. We can't do anything other than give our best interviews and references when given a chance.
Truth is, desite all the process changes, I have to believe this register will be like the others. If you are on it, you will eventually make a cert and get a chance to interview. It may not be the first cert, but over the life of the register you will almost definitely get a shot. Then its up to you. Impress, land a job. Don't, then don't.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 25, 2014 15:47:32 GMT -5
This is essentially how I see it as well. I don't see how there can feasibly be a dramatic change in how the cert process is carried out. In theory, SSA could submit requests for certs for 100 cities, and if the top 3 scorers have wide open GALs, SSA would be given three total names for 100 openings. OPM is going to have to take all requested cities into account and provide diverse enough lists to adequately meet the hiring needs. I would assume we're still looking at 3x the number of openings being interviewed. Instead, it is far easier - and maybe also more in line with a strict reading of OPM's role under the hiring regulations - to just generate a cert for each location with the top XX candidates for that location listed in descending score order (and with any applicable preference codes, of course). Heck, literally the easiest database query (which is all a cert really is, right?) would be to include ALL candidates for that location (and I would not rule out OPM doing just that, although we may not ever know without a well-placed mole at the top of ODAR reporting in).THIS bold statement is exactly what I was thinking they might do when I first read the email. My first gut was oh, they will just list everyone for that city and that is the "cert." But that would mean that basically everyone on the register makes the cert, so that doesn't seem right. I guess the question is how many is "enough" for each city, and does it matter which cities they request first? Is the order important? I think so. Ugh, too many scenarios, not enough fact. Ok, practically NO fact. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 25, 2014 15:48:57 GMT -5
This whole topic makes my head hurt. We will either know how they plan to do it soon or we may never really know. Doesnt matter. We can't do anything other than give our best interviews and references when given a chance. Truth is, desite all the process changes, I have to believe this register will be like the others. If you are on it, you will eventually make a cert and get a chance to interview. It may not be the first cert, but over the life of the register you will almost definitely get a shot. Then its up to you. Impress, land a job. Don't, then don't. Amen Funky.
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Mar 25, 2014 15:51:38 GMT -5
I found this on OPM's website www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-authorities/competitive-hiring/deo_handbook.pdfIt contain the following tidbits: Example of dual certification for positions at multiple geographic locations A job announcement is open for three geographic locations, i.e., San Francisco, Miami, and New York City. An applicant submits an application for all three locations and is qualified for the position with a numerical score of 91. You issue three certificates but you refer the applicant only on the certificates for Miami and New York City because the lowest score reached for both locations was 89. For the San Francisco location, the applicant’s score was not high enough for referral since the lowest score reached for the location was 99. Number of Names Certified After arranging all the eligibles in score order by their entitlement, it is time to consider the number of names that will be referred to the selecting official. Each eligible is entitled to three "bona fide" considerations, and the appointing official is entitled to consider three eligibles for each vacancy. If you have fewer than three eligible names per vacancy to be referred, you should review your public notice and recruitment efforts to determine if they were adequate. You may receive a request from the selecting official for additional names. General rule The general rule for referring the appropriate number of names per vacancy is that you must certify enough names from the highest ranking eligibles to permit the selecting official to consider at least three names for appointment to each vacancy in the competitive service. (5 U.S.C. § 3317) Fewer than three eligibles You may not always have three eligible names to refer to the selecting official. If there are less than three eligibles for a particular position, you may refer the names to the selecting official or readvertise the position to attract additional candidates for consideration. Additional names At your discretion and based on your past experience, additional names may be certified to compensate for eligibles who are within reach for consideration but will decline or fail to respond to an inquiry of availability or interview.
It appears that OPM has the discretion to certify more than three names for each requested Cert, but only enough names to ensure that the selecting official has three names to consider. How many? No idea, but I would assume more than three and much less than every candidate with that specific location listed.
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Mar 25, 2014 15:57:23 GMT -5
Page 150 contains a great visual and explanation to how the "Rule of Three" is supposed to work.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 25, 2014 16:01:47 GMT -5
Page 150 contains a great visual and explanation to how the "Rule of Three" is supposed to work. Thanks! Great info.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 16:05:32 GMT -5
Thank you for posting the document steelrain. It is very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 25, 2014 16:12:24 GMT -5
After reading owl's post, I gotta agree as it makes the most sense. I do however think OPM did this on purpose in the sense that the three striking is an issue. I think Puzzle Palace has got to change its game plan. I know smaller agencies can request a cert for one slot and that it can have up to 10 or 15 names. What if they like no one? The only thing they can do is toss the list back to OPM. It has been reported here that an agency didn't like any of the top three and that is what happened.
Puzzle Palace can't do that. What if they don't like one of the top three for E. Crapland? You've got to believe that with 90 slots and maybe 80 cities its going to happen.
What are they going to do? The only answer is hold their nose or not hire for that city. They are not going to be happy.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 25, 2014 16:52:45 GMT -5
Note that in chapter 6 of that handbook, on the topic of dual certification (ie a candidate is up for more than one geographic locale) opm has the option of putting the candidate on all certs or they can choose to just put them on one (ie one city, if I am reading that correctly) and hold to a rule of you can only be on one cert at a time.
No clue if they would or how that would impact...but it def gives them an out in regard to one candidate appearing in too many top 3s.
Also, earlier in that chapter it mentions that in cases where there are an abundance of qualified candidates, opm can make a candidate reduce the number of jobs they can be referred for (ie gal) to a "reasonable number."
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 25, 2014 17:39:26 GMT -5
Note that in chapter 6 of that handbook, on the topic of dual certification (ie a candidate is up for more than one geographic locale) opm has the option of putting the candidate on all certs or they can choose to just put them on one (ie one city, if I am reading that correctly) and hold to a rule of you can only be on one cert at a time. No clue if they would or how that would impact...but it def gives them an out in regard to one candidate appearing in too many top 3s. Also, earlier in that chapter it mentions that in cases where there are an abundance of qualified candidates, opm can make a candidate reduce the number of jobs they can be referred for (ie gal) to a "reasonable number." OMG... Reduce to a "reasonable number" .... let the abyss of SWAGs begin......time for wine.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 25, 2014 17:49:35 GMT -5
Note that in chapter 6 of that handbook, on the topic of dual certification (ie a candidate is up for more than one geographic locale) opm has the option of putting the candidate on all certs or they can choose to just put them on one (ie one city, if I am reading that correctly) and hold to a rule of you can only be on one cert at a time. No clue if they would or how that would impact...but it def gives them an out in regard to one candidate appearing in too many top 3s. Also, earlier in that chapter it mentions that in cases where there are an abundance of qualified candidates, opm can make a candidate reduce the number of jobs they can be referred for (ie gal) to a "reasonable number." OMG... Reduce to a "reasonable number" .... let the abyss of SWAGs begin......time for wine. And situational bourbon, for those who prefer stronger stuff. A glass of either, and reading just a few pages of that tome from OPM, should put anyone out cold.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 25, 2014 19:53:17 GMT -5
OMG... Reduce to a "reasonable number" .... let the abyss of SWAGs begin...... time for wine. Way ahead of ya...
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Mar 25, 2014 22:40:45 GMT -5
Note that in chapter 6 of that handbook, on the topic of dual certification (ie a candidate is up for more than one geographic locale) opm has the option of putting the candidate on all certs or they can choose to just put them on one (ie one city, if I am reading that correctly) and hold to a rule of you can only be on one cert at a time. No clue if they would or how that would impact...but it def gives them an out in regard to one candidate appearing in too many top 3s. Also, earlier in that chapter it mentions that in cases where there are an abundance of qualified candidates, opm can make a candidate reduce the number of jobs they can be referred for (ie gal) to a "reasonable number." Wow. If this is true, then there are no true "rules." There are enough conflicting rules, regulations, exceptions and variances that OPM can do practically anything it wants. I fear we have all been wasting our time trying to analyze this as a predictable, rule-driven process.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 26, 2014 6:42:46 GMT -5
Note that in chapter 6 of that handbook, on the topic of dual certification (ie a candidate is up for more than one geographic locale) opm has the option of putting the candidate on all certs or they can choose to just put them on one (ie one city, if I am reading that correctly) and hold to a rule of you can only be on one cert at a time. No clue if they would or how that would impact...but it def gives them an out in regard to one candidate appearing in too many top 3s. Also, earlier in that chapter it mentions that in cases where there are an abundance of qualified candidates, opm can make a candidate reduce the number of jobs they can be referred for (ie gal) to a "reasonable number." Wow. If this is true, then there are no true "rules." There are enough conflicting rules, regulations, exceptions and variances that OPM can do practically anything it wants. I fear we have all been wasting our time trying to analyze this as a predictable, rule-driven process. I do agree sandiferhands that the OPM Handbook gives a lot of "conflicting rules, regulations, exceptions and variances", which allow it to do as it almost pleases. The one constant is that 10-point vets are supposed to be at the top of any list of eligible candidates given on a certificate. However, they can be bypassed by a hiring agency in certain circumstances, too. Hence, the rules are made to be broken and can be used to achieve any end that one wishes to achieve IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Mar 26, 2014 8:14:24 GMT -5
Should your score get you on one or more certificates for SSA, you will receive a request from SSA to identify those cities you would actually accept. The OPM GAL is not the same as the SSA GAL. First, the OPM GAL lists offices in cities where there are no SSA/ODAR offices. Second, the SSA GAL will list offices where there should be an opening (assuming it was not filled by a transfer). It is at this point that the stakes are even higher. You will have to look at your score and decide it is high enough that you can limit your SSA GAL, or do you keep all options open? The unknowns when you do this are (1)where your score actually puts you on the certificates (top 3 or not), (2)the order in which vacancies will be filled, and (2) if there really is a vacancy in every city you picked.
My OPM GAL was unlimited, but I limited my SSA GAL. When I did, I knew my score was in the top 10% based on the polls from this board. Had my score been in the large group in the mid-70's I probably would have kept it wide open.
At this point, you have your scores and again there is nothing you can do but wait to see what develops next. Rather than focusing on what is to come, try living in the now and enjoying the fact that you made it through the testing process and received a score. You can worry when you get the invitation to interview with an agency. Until then you are spending a lot of time and energy on something over which you have no control.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 26, 2014 8:35:43 GMT -5
Until then you are spending a lot of time and energy on something over which you have no control. LOL. If it weren't for the worrying about things we can't control, there would probably only be 15 pages of threads over the last 6+ years. Fretting about what may or may not happen is what we do best.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 26, 2014 9:35:21 GMT -5
Until then you are spending a lot of time and energy on something over which you have no control. LOL. If it weren't for the worrying about things we can't control, there would probably only be 15 pages of threads over the last 6+ years. Fretting about what may or may not happen is what we do best. Truest post ever.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj on Mar 26, 2014 9:53:46 GMT -5
I have a practical question. Assuming I am invited to Falls Church for an interview, is it possible to extend the trip if this doesn't cost ODAR money? I'd like to stay a few days extra on my own dime and think the airfare would be the same.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 26, 2014 10:11:40 GMT -5
I have a practical question. Assuming I am invited to Falls Church for an interview, is it possible to extend the trip if this doesn't cost ODAR money? I'd like to stay a few days extra on my own dime and think the airfare would be the same. I think you could arrange for that if the airfare comes out the same. Might depend on the days of the week you are traveling. Ttalk to the travel people if you do get a call for an interview, and they can tell you whether you might need to have a separate hotel bill for the nights they will reimburse you for, or whether you can just have one bill and put in the reimbursement claim for the one or two nights they will allow you.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Mar 26, 2014 13:41:49 GMT -5
Wow. If this is true, then there are no true "rules." There are enough conflicting rules, regulations, exceptions and variances that OPM can do practically anything it wants. I fear we have all been wasting our time trying to analyze this as a predictable, rule-driven process. I do agree sandiferhands that the OPM Handbook gives a lot of "conflicting rules, regulations, exceptions and variances", which allow it to do as it almost pleases. The one constant is that 10-point vets are supposed to be at the top of any list of eligible candidates given on a certificate. However, they can be bypassed by a hiring agency in certain circumstances, too. Hence, the rules are made to be broken and can be used to achieve any end that one wishes to achieve IMHO. I think the OPM rules are only one part of the equation. If I recall correctly, when I worked for an agency and we used OPM to fill a vacancy, we would request that OPM send us all qualified candidates (I think we could even request all candidates, not just those OPM deemed qualified) and we'd weed through that. (And I am guessing an agency could request something in-between, e.g., give us [some number] of candidates.) I remember having issues when OPM sent a traditional cert (per its rules) and we'd find out well-qualified people who surprisingly didn't make it, so we wanted to avoid that. But that has been over a decade ago and my personnel specialist was the real whiz with that OPM/agency stuff. I sure wish she worked for SSA now... Also, I completely understand that hiring for one vacancy/one location is completely different than multiple vacancies/multiple locations. But I think the bottom line is that OPM does its work for the agency's benefit, so some things really depend on the agency and can change based upon what the agency wants (thus all the exceptions and variances to OPM's rules, including OPM can include an unspecified number of extra names beyond the top 3).
|
|