|
Post by brpesq on Mar 26, 2014 10:47:06 GMT -5
I filed my appeal and got back a note from the HELP desk stating that they received my question...that doesn't sound like a confirmation of receipt of my appeal...anyone else get that? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by brpesq on Mar 26, 2014 10:53:40 GMT -5
FYI - THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE APPEAL EMAIL I've seen a few appeals that people have sent to OPM and people were putting "1C20APPEAL1D20" in the subject line of the email. I couldn't figure out why until I checked the email that went out from OPM, and sure enough, the email version says to put "1C20APPEAL1D20" in the subject of the email. But the correctly-formatted letter (the version that should have been sent to you via Application Manager) just says to put "APPEAL" in the subject. Apparently, in converting the letter to email format, the quotation marks turned into "1C20" and "1D20." The result is that emails with 1C20APPEAL1D20 have been routed to the general ALJ application inbox and not the appeals inbox, so OPM will need to make a fix to correct that problem. I think the error in the appeal email is simply more proof that the online component was flawed. It seems to me that the entire "new and improved???" process implemented last year was rushed without sufficient vetting of problems. I did not get past phase 2 and my appeal includes 14 specific errors/issues beginning with the introduction of the Appeal Rights email stating that we can appeal IF we believe our rating was in error....I didn't get a rating to begin with! It also states that once the FINAL ratings are assigned to all applicants, an appeals panel will convene....just what is that supposed to mean? - Is that when the REAL evaluation of our already disqualified applications takes place? Does it mean that those of us who didn't get a rating can't appeal? Believe me, this is not a sour grapes issue, it comes down to OPM not handling this application process properly, and leaving the process open for so long that they became inundated with applications that made it impossible to give everyone a fair shake. Given that so many qualified people were out early on and after the DC stage, it only reinforces my belief that the entire process is questionable. Having said that, I am humbled to have been in the company of so many qualified, interesting, and nice people on this board and I wish all the best of luck.
|
|
|
Post by brpesq on Mar 26, 2014 10:54:37 GMT -5
Does anyone think there is the possibility of litigation because of the improprieties we are finding in the process?
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Mar 26, 2014 10:59:17 GMT -5
What "improprieties" have you found?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 26, 2014 11:05:00 GMT -5
Does anyone think there is the possibility of litigation because of the improprieties we are finding in the process? What "improprieties" are there? The numbers in the email that were discussed are evidently formatting codes that are only present in the emails, but the true copy in the USAjobs notice is intact without the formatting codes. I am not sure that is anything improper about that. Maybe that is not what you meant. But yes, of course there will be litigation after all administrative appeals/remedies have been exhausted. There is always litigation especially when dealing with an all attorney population.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 26, 2014 11:06:16 GMT -5
I think the error in the appeal email is simply more proof that the online component was flawed. It seems to me that the entire "new and improved???" process implemented last year was rushed without sufficient vetting of problems. I did not get past phase 2 and my appeal includes 14 specific errors/issues beginning with the introduction of the Appeal Rights email stating that we can appeal IF we believe our rating was in error....I didn't get a rating to begin with! It also states that once the FINAL ratings are assigned to all applicants, an appeals panel will convene....just what is that supposed to mean? - Is that when the REAL evaluation of our already disqualified applications takes place? Does it mean that those of us who didn't get a rating can't appeal? Believe me, this is not a sour grapes issue, it comes down to OPM not handling this application process properly, and leaving the process open for so long that they became inundated with applications that made it impossible to give everyone a fair shake. Given that so many qualified people were out early on and after the DC stage, it only reinforces my belief that the entire process is questionable. Having said that, I am humbled to have been in the company of so many qualified, interesting, and nice people on this board and I wish all the best of luck. Okay, slow down a little. Let a bit of common sense prevail. Your "rating" was the determination that you did not qualify to get past stage 2. As of the issuance of the NORs on 3/13, final ratings have been issued, and they will convene the appeals panel to look at all the appeals. Lots of people feel they were incorrectly evaluated or disqualified on a technicality. Some will be determined to be correct. This was a new ball game for everyone, including those of us who have been through the old process. It will be interesting to see what the results of the various administrative appeals are. As far as "litigation", administrative remedies need to be exhausted first.
|
|
|
Post by basileia on Mar 26, 2014 11:43:53 GMT -5
I filed my appeal and got back a note from the HELP desk stating that they received my question...that doesn't sound like a confirmation of receipt of my appeal...anyone else get that? Thanks There is a nearly immediate auto reply that acknowledges your email. They later send a confirmation of the appeal. I sent a question awhile back that said it was not an appeal and got an appeal confirmation 6 days later. I replied to that, stating again that it was not an appeal. Then I sent my appeal separately five days ago. I am still waiting for confirmation of that.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 26, 2014 12:04:26 GMT -5
Let's say there are four or five folks over at OPM's ALJ Office (someone had posted the list of personnel assigned and I think the number of clerical and quasi-clerical staff equal that). How many appeals are there? 1,000? 2,000? More? How long is it going to take each person to evaluate each one, alone do a summary for a panel--assuming that that is what they do. I dunno, for sure, but it sounds reasonable. The point I'm trying to make is that by allowing more people to intitally apply and not the 1200 as before, OPM really opened their inbox and have created a ton more work for themselves, may two tons. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but I could see this process taking a year or more.
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Mar 26, 2014 12:19:05 GMT -5
I am back on this site for the first time in a while. I was one of the unlucky ones who passed the first round but did not get an e-mail advising me accordingly. I waited until May 14 last year to e-mail OPM and that was too late - I was told I'd missed the boat BY FOUR DAYS and the fact that I didn't get the second round e-mail was on me, not on them. (By the way, even though I followed up on my May 14 contact with OPM three more times, it wasn't until mid-June that I got the "too late" response.) From March 6, 2013, the day I applied, forward, I had checked my e-mail and my spam folder every day, I had provided correct information, and there were no other filters on my end which would've prevented me from receiving the message. OPM claimed that the e-mail advising me to proceed to the second round had been sent April 2. So - in mid-June, 2013, I submitted my appeal, receipt of which promptly was acknowledged. However, I have not heard a word since then. Any advice? Any thoughts? I need the guidance of those of you who know more about this system than I do. Thanks - Its a bummer your e-mail did not show up and that by the time you realized you had been invited to Phase II it was four days past the deadline to complete the online testing. OPM prepared for this type of issue. They specifically stated in the announcement that they were not going to be responsible for e-mail issues. I suspect they have a record of all the e-mails they sent out and if they have your e-mail address correct then they are going to deny your appeal by saying "we sent the e-mail but are not responsible for it getting lost in cyber space." Like you I checked my folder every day but I also checked this board every day and the board went crazy when they sent out the invitations. It sounds like you did not check or were unaware of the board when those notices went out. There will be a next time so just be prepared to apply when they announce the test again.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 26, 2014 12:24:18 GMT -5
Let's say there are four or five folks over at OPM's ALJ Office (someone had posted the list of personnel assigned and I think the number of clerical and quasi-clerical staff equal that). How many appeals are there? 1,000? 2,000? More? How long is it going to take each person to evaluate each one, alone do a summary for a panel--assuming that that is what they do. I dunno, for sure, but it sounds reasonable. The point I'm trying to make is that by allowing more people to intitally apply and not the 1200 as before, OPM really opened their inbox and have created a ton more work for themselves, may two tons. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but I could see this process taking a year or more. I don't know who is going to comprise this appeal panel, and how many, if any, will be from outside OPM, and what their process will be. In any event, though, this is going to be a long process. They(or the OPM staff on their behalf) may categorize the appeals as they work through them to get some resolved more quickly (the bar membership DQs come to mind) but you are absolutely right about the time this is going to take (and a lot depends on the number of appeals actually filed). Even under the old system, with far fewer appeals, it took a long time
|
|
|
Post by brpesq on Mar 26, 2014 12:43:13 GMT -5
What "improprieties" have you found? Mea culpa! Poor choice of the word "improprieties", at least at this point in time. There were a lot of issues and I laid them out in my 14 points appeal. If even one or two get through then I would suggest that there are improprieties.
|
|
|
Post by mightykj on Mar 26, 2014 12:46:07 GMT -5
I was eliminated after phase 2 and filed my appeal asking for my scores and the rating criteria. Here is the response I received:
We are unable to provide the information you requested. OPM does not release testing and examination materials or other information that could compromise the objectivity of the testing process. This includes individual applicant information. We also do not wish to give one applicant an unfair advantage over others by disclosing protected test and scoring information.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Mar 26, 2014 14:05:41 GMT -5
Thanks, moopigsdad. I have been paying attention to the Board since the beginning and feel like I will be as prepared as I can be if I get lucky enough to get a second chance. If not I will apply again. The information here has been invaluable and It's really nice to see folks so supportive of members who haven't been as lucky as some to get on the register this go around.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 26, 2014 14:16:06 GMT -5
Thanks, moopigsdad. I have been paying attention to the Board since the beginning and feel like I will be as prepared as I can be if I get lucky enough to get a second chance. If not I will apply again. The information here has been invaluable and It's really nice to see folks so supportive of members who haven't been as lucky as some to get on the register this go around. You are welcome aurora, as this Board should be supportive to all its members no matter where they are in the process or whatever position they hold. It's about dissemination of information to those seeking such information. Some of it is guesswork, some of it is fact and some of it is somewhere in-between. Just enjoy the company of fellow Board members who are dealing with similar issues. I know at times there are tiffs and issues between members, but as a whole we try to be very supportive of all those on the Board. ALJD does an excellent job of moderating and keeping us in line, if we stray. Welcome again to the Board and please continue to add your voice to the mix when you can.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Mar 26, 2014 14:38:00 GMT -5
Thanks, moopigsdad. I have been paying attention to the Board since the beginning and feel like I will be as prepared as I can be if I get lucky enough to get a second chance. If not I will apply again. The information here has been invaluable and It's really nice to see folks so supportive of members who haven't been as lucky as some to get on the register this go around. You are welcome aurora, as this Board should be supportive to all its members no matter where they are in the process or whatever position they hold. It's about dissemination of information to those seeking such information. Some of it is guesswork, some of it is fact and some of it is somewhere in-between. Just enjoy the company of fellow Board members who are dealing with similar issues. I know at times there are tiffs and issues between members, but as a whole we try to be very supportive of all those on the Board. ALJD does an excellent job of moderating and keeping us in line, if we stray. Welcome again to the Board and please continue to add your voice to the mix when you can.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Mar 26, 2014 14:41:47 GMT -5
For a process that feels so shrouded in secrecy at this point I'd welcome information even it came by way of smoke signals.
|
|
|
Post by quesera on Mar 27, 2014 14:52:40 GMT -5
I was eliminated after phase 2 and filed my appeal asking for my scores and the rating criteria. Here is the response I received: We are unable to provide the information you requested. OPM does not release testing and examination materials or other information that could compromise the objectivity of the testing process. This includes individual applicant information. We also do not wish to give one applicant an unfair advantage over others by disclosing protected test and scoring information. Does this mean all the people cut at phase two need to file FOIAs to get our scores? What exactly is the reason for that? Can you imagine any other kind of system where we have to accept not being told your score at all?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 27, 2014 14:56:54 GMT -5
I was eliminated after phase 2 and filed my appeal asking for my scores and the rating criteria. Here is the response I received: We are unable to provide the information you requested. OPM does not release testing and examination materials or other information that could compromise the objectivity of the testing process. This includes individual applicant information. We also do not wish to give one applicant an unfair advantage over others by disclosing protected test and scoring information. Does this mean all the people cut at phase two need to file FOIAs to get our scores? What exactly is the reason for that? Can you imagine any other kind of system where we have to accept not being told your score at all? Even if you file a FOIA, from what I understand there are likely exceptions to FOIA that OPM will rely on to avoid disclosure. Don't let your appeal time run filing a FOIA request. They wouldn't give the score breakdown to someone who made the register and wanted to know how their score broke down, either.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 27, 2014 16:40:40 GMT -5
My Buddies FOIA ended up with him getting the CERT with his name on it but with everyone else's redacted, but he could still see scores and cities, just not names. He was 16 from the top with a 92.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 27, 2014 16:44:26 GMT -5
My Buddies FOIA ended up with him getting the CERT with his name on it but with everyone else's redacted, but he could still see scores and cities, just not names. He was 16 from the top with a 92. Once the cert is out, getting that info makes sense. Getting anything about OPM's processes leading up to that score on the cert is a different standard under FOIA.
|
|