|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Jul 13, 2018 12:33:52 GMT -5
I've followed this board for a couple of years and I don't think I've ever read a post from someone who thought the OPM selection process was the best method for selecting ALJs. Well, I think the OPM method was the best mankind ever devised to uncover the absolutely most outstanding candidates to serve as ALJs - and this opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I somehow Forrest Gumped my way into an ALJ gig because of it!! I made it through the OPM marathon, too, and I am ALJ. However, what stood out to me during that process was the fact that the testing did not address, find, discover, elicit, or accurately grade the main "customer's" (SSA) needs in an ALJ. Hence, SSA not caring one whit what your OPM score was (other than as a requisite to get to meet you). I realize the test was set up so that anyone who received a numerical score could work for any agency that needed ALJs, and I agree a solid background in litigation is a huge benefit in this position. However, most Agencies did not hire from the Register. SSA did, and covered the cost of that testing in recent times. (Luckily, that was not a YUGE waste of funds, sarcasm intended.) Perhaps at least the meetings and the hiring of psychologists in preparation of developing a "new" test will not also be a huge waste of funds and SSA can use that as groundwork for their new application process.
|
|
|
Post by gazoo on Jul 13, 2018 12:39:03 GMT -5
I've followed this board for a couple of years and I don't think I've ever read a post from someone who thought the OPM selection process was the best method for selecting ALJs. That process is gone, and now I'm getting the sense that many on this board expect the new system will put lots of unqualified people on the bench. I'm also seeing lots of comments about how insiders will have an advantage because they'll have connections to the hiring authorities. I'm not here to argue any of that because I don't have any facts to say those concerns won't be proven to be true. If the old system was bad, and the new (as yet undefined) system is bad, how should ALJs be selected? If you could design a selection process and the criteria that should be relied upon for an ALJ (and let's limit it to SSA ALJs), what would it look like? I went through a typical hiring process to be a state ALJ. I didn't have any political connections and I didn't make any campaign contributions to get the job. I had many years of experience in litigation, and I had appeared before the administrative tribunals scores of times, representing both sides in the contested hearings. I've been impartial in the thousands of cases I've heard. I'd like to think the feds will use a process that brings in ALJs who have proven experience and can remain impartial, but who knows how it will play out? I'm sure there's no perfect plan. I don't have the answer to that. But I have to hope that SSA keeps those judicial competencies in mind as they develop their process. I'm guessing SSA will (not inappropriately) add some sort of substantive disability-related competency in the mix, but I don't think that should be the deciding factor. Substantive knowledge is important, but shouldn't outweigh the skills and ability needed to be an effective adjudicator. And those skills and abilities aren't necessarily shown in most insider attorney jobs.
That being said, there's no denying the benefit of hiring folks with known work ethics and deep experience with the subject matter. I absolutely believe that AAs and SAAs have, can, and will make great ALJs. I just hope insider hiring is truly based on ability, and not rest on favoritism or connections.
Hopefully, OPM (or some supposedly neutral third party) will still have a role in reviewing and evaluating applicants.
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Jul 13, 2018 21:49:50 GMT -5
It’s been 72 hours so maybe this will be a response, as intended, rather than a reaction. I’m a 10-point vet. I served as a JAG. I’ve been a lawyer the entire time I have been a veteran. My military service is my only federal gig. I have no other affiliation. I’m an outsider.
Through the years, I’ve seen how the federal employment process goes. When I served, my office hired some civilian employees, and I was involved a few times, even supervised some civilian employees.
Sometimes federal hiring is what it appears to be on the surface, and other times it is a ruse to hire the person that the hiring authority wants to hire. It was my perception that the system dismantled on Tuesday was different.
It was my perception that an outsider had an equal shot with an insider at getting the gig. I considered this a good thing.
As a lawyer, this was the only hiring opportunity I’d ever seen where my vet preference mattered. I considered this a good thing, too.
It was my understanding that the system was created to make those things true, with the purpose of giving our citizens the opportunity for a fair hearing where the decision-maker was not affected by the agency for whom the decision-maker worked. I considered this the best thing of all.
Signs point to these things no longer being true.
Even the retired fortuneteller sees it. This is a sea change.
I’m deeply saddened and disappointed.
My grief is for myself, yes, and everyone else going through the hiring process, but also for the loss to our system. Maybe I read too many briefs in Lucia talking about our founding principles and the reason for the Administrative Procedures Act, or maybe I read the Lucia opinion too many times, but I firmly believe that the independence of the administrative judiciary is important to our nation.
This is a diminution to our system that grieves me deeply.
|
|
|
Post by chicagoirish on Jul 17, 2018 12:09:27 GMT -5
It’s been 72 hours so maybe this will be a response, as intended, rather than a reaction. I’m a 10-point vet. I served as a JAG. I’ve been a lawyer the entire time I have been a veteran. My military service is my only federal gig. I have no other affiliation. I’m an outsider. Through the years, I’ve seen how the federal employment process goes. When I served, my office hired some civilian employees, and I was involved a few times, even supervised some civilian employees. Sometimes federal hiring is what it appears to be on the surface, and other times it is a ruse to hire the person that the hiring authority wants to hire. It was my perception that the system dismantled on Tuesday was different. It was my perception that an outsider had an equal shot with an insider at getting the gig. I considered this a good thing. As a lawyer, this was the only hiring opportunity I’d ever seen where my vet preference mattered. I considered this a good thing, too. It was my understanding that the system was created to make those things true, with the purpose of giving our citizens the opportunity for a fair hearing where the decision-maker was not affected by the agency for whom the decision-maker worked. I considered this the best thing of all. Signs point to these things no longer being true. Even the retired fortuneteller sees it. This is a sea change. I’m deeply saddened and disappointed. My grief is for myself, yes, and everyone else going through the hiring process, but also for the loss to our system. Maybe I read too many briefs in Lucia talking about our founding principles and the reason for the Administrative Procedures Act, or maybe I read the Lucia opinion too many times, but I firmly believe that the independence of the administrative judiciary is important to our nation. This is a diminution to our system that grieves me deeply. Prrple, I'm with you. I'm a JAG turned-federal civilian. I've been involved in the hiring process for civilians both on the DoD and non-DoD side. I've seen the good, bad, and the ugly. I've had Army CPAC (for those who don't know, sort of like the OPM for Army civilian hiring) send me lists of candidates that came nowhere near meeting the job description requirements yet screening out well-accomplished folks with superior credentials, whether insiders or outsiders/
From my standpoint, the best way to leverage our vet status, given the loss of the ten point bump, is to keep up on hiring news / SSA insider info, etc. from our many fellow vets who are already ALJs. I know I'll be using some of those very folks as references and asking them to make calls on my behalf if there are openings under whatever new system replaces OPM's.
People sometimes bemoan hiring based on "connections," but as someone who as worked my tail off everywhere I have been while treating others with dignity and respect (as well as helping others get a foot in the door), I view it as a legitimate competitive advantage, and one that vets can put to good use.
After all, hiring a federal employee is a big decision and hiring authorities want to minimize any risk. I would hope that having our fellow vet ALJs go to bat for us will help give the hiring authorities the "warm and fuzzy" they need to pull the trigger (no pun intended) on hiring outsiders like us.
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Aug 14, 2018 10:08:47 GMT -5
Six months ago today, I was giddy with excitement at being added to the register. It felt like I'd achieved a milestone. I was optimistic it would lead to appearing on a cert, and getting interviewed.
[sigh....]
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 14, 2018 13:48:39 GMT -5
This latest turn of events reminds me how little control I have over my future. I can make the best plans and do everything to try to enhance the chances of those plans coming to fruition. But in the end, I cannot always achieve the outcome I want.
But as so many have counseled over the years on this board when people received disappointing scores or were passed over on certificates and not chosen, what matters most is how I handle that disappointment. Do I blame others for my misfortune? Do I become immobilized and do nothing but lament my fate? Do I seek other options and opportunities? And I am not just talking about job opportunities. Some times we need the jobs we are in. But we can change other aspects of our lives, seeking satisfaction or reward through other outlets.
I grieve for those of you who have been chasing that golden ticket to be an ALJ. It has been a great opportunity for me from a professional and financial standpoint. In this world of insecurities, it has been nice to know that I get paid on time and have great benefits. This chapter of my life will be closing in a few short months. And I can tell you that I have tried to plan my future, it is no less frustrating than your seeking this job. I cannot tell you the number of plans I have drawn and redrawn, calculations I have done and redone. What to hold onto and what to let go. But I do not intend to stand stuck at this crossroads. I will make choices and take the consequences, hopefully learning from the positives and negatives that result.
There will be hiring of judges in the future. How it will be done and when? Who knows? If you still believe this is a path you want to follow, be persistent. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by chicagoirish on Aug 14, 2018 14:35:15 GMT -5
If ever interviewed for OHO, I'm going to give the equivalent of Morgan Freeman's parole hearing speech from Shawshank Redemption. It's probably the best chance of getting hired. They don't want good judges. They want to know you have been broken. That's the way to land the job.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 14, 2018 16:28:28 GMT -5
Dear If1: I confess that I have not followed the full thread and perhaps I am missing something, but what makes you think OHO does not want good judges? OHO did not devise the OPM testing methods or grade the results. OHO did not declare the ALJ is an excepted position.
This change in plans was thrust upon OHO management who now have to figure out how to proceed. Like how to fund the new hiring process that will place new demands of the staff who handle HR and score applications. How vacancies will be advertised. How the number of applications for a vacancy can be controlled. Now that the job is excepted service, it is better to develop a career ladder from entry-level attorney to ALJ versus the open process that was used via OPM?
It will time to resolve these issues. But saying that OHO does not want good judges sounds spiteful and mean. I take the comment personally because before I became an ALJ, I was part of management and know that the managers out there are just like any other sector in OHO. There are some who are not worth spit, but by and large, the majority are dedicated to the mission of this agency and want good, fair, impartial judges.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 14, 2018 16:29:53 GMT -5
Sorry for the grammatical errors. Please read "is it better to develop..." and "It will take time..."
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Aug 14, 2018 16:48:11 GMT -5
If ever interviewed for OHO, I'm going to give the equivalent of Morgan Freeman's parole hearing speech from Shawshank Redemption. It's probably the best chance of getting hired. They don't want good judges. They want to know you have been broken. [deleted video for the sake of the thread's length] That's the way to land the job. That's laugh out loud funny.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 15, 2018 12:31:35 GMT -5
I've followed this board for a couple of years and I don't think I've ever read a post from someone who thought the OPM selection process was the best method for selecting ALJs. That process is gone, and now I'm getting the sense that many on this board expect the new system will put lots of unqualified people on the bench. I'm also seeing lots of comments about how insiders will have an advantage because they'll have connections to the hiring authorities. I'm not here to argue any of that because I don't have any facts to say those concerns won't be proven to be true. If the old system was bad, and the new (as yet undefined) system is bad, how should ALJs be selected? If you could design a selection process and the criteria that should be relied upon for an ALJ (and let's limit it to SSA ALJs), what would it look like? I went through a typical hiring process to be a state ALJ. I didn't have any political connections and I didn't make any campaign contributions to get the job. I had many years of experience in litigation, and I had appeared before the administrative tribunals scores of times, representing both sides in the contested hearings. I've been impartial in the thousands of cases I've heard. I'd like to think the feds will use a process that brings in ALJs who have proven experience and can remain impartial, but who knows how it will play out? I'm sure there's no perfect plan. Count me as your lone dissenter. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” -Winston Churchill I apply that maxim to OPM. I appreciate your experience and how it shaped your views. However, we would be politically naive to think that the process you went through (and all of us here to date) will be repeated. Oh, I'm sure that the "plan" is to come up with appointments that are apolitical. However, these jobs are just too good for TPTB to let slip through their fingers. Doesn't anyone remember Alberto Gonzalez and how Immigration Judges were selected? I've had a big uptick in cynicism of late. I'm hoping it will not last more than a few years.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 15, 2018 12:43:01 GMT -5
Here is the point. With the "silly" graded exam, which all recent ALJ applicants took, every exam taker was on an equal footing with attorney insiders. While veterans got 5 or 10 extra points, depending on if they were disabled or not, an attorney off the street and an attorney who worked for Social Security for 20-years were scored equally on the exam. Now, there is no exam. The winners are attorneys who want to become ALJs who also currently work at the agency seeking ALJs. The losers are those of us who do not currently work for the US government. The biggest losers are the 10-point disabled veterans who also don't currently work for the federal government. Instead of an actual preference, they get a meaningless lip service preference. So let's not pretend that Trump's EO didn't create winners and losers. And let's not dismiss the losers' complaints by mischaracterising them as being about some mythical nepotistic cabal. I don't think anyone is saying that the EO didn't create winners and losers. As an outsider who was on the register, I know I feel like a loser in this particular game. But can we step back for a second? If you were starting from scratch, why would you implement a system that makes it _more_ difficult to hire people who are steeped in the law of the agency where they want to be an ALJ and are known to the people who would be hiring them? The point of the process isn't the fair distribution of plum jobs; it's finding the best people to perform the job. Are there outsiders who would be great at the job? Sure [raises hand immodestly]. But did it ever really make sense to hamstring the agency from hiring talented people who would need less training? Because you get all favorite sons and daughters and no outsiders. As a litigant at ANY agency ask yourself this question: If my entire future/company/10 million dollars are on the line, whom do you want to decide your case between you and the agency--a favorite son or daughter or an ALJ who has actually scraped dumpsters and doesn't owe anyone a dime? And yes, left to their own devices of course the agency will hire those whom require no training. They only care about production and a known quantity (i.e., no problem hires).
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 15, 2018 15:15:58 GMT -5
There are pressures on management to devise a selection system that will get good qualified candidates, be they insiders or outsiders. No federal agency operates in a vacuum and especially not SSA. Ask any staffer in a congressional field office to name the agency that generates the most inquiries/complaints from constituents. If it is not SSA, SSA is a close second. And while these do not result in the complainer getting a faster hearing or an award of benefits, they do generate enough interest to provoke congressional hearings or OIG investigations. No one in Falls Church or Baltimore wants to go to the hill to be raked over the coals. If the quality of the ALJ corps deteriorates, there will be an accounting.
Did no one notice after the last OIG report that gave SSA a black eye for letting the support staff numbers drop that OHO was suddenly hiring writers? Maybe it was a coincidence. But maybe not. Those in management who are political appointees and the Senior Executive Service have a vested interest making their ultimate overseers at Congress happy.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 15, 2018 18:58:33 GMT -5
alj10028, I was being whimsical and (perhaps poorly), trying to make a point. Which is, I think that for the ALJ Corps to truly succeed (as it has these 71 years) you need a mix of all types of lawyers with varied experiences. Insiders with different agencies, outsiders who have worked for Legal Aid and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
Just hiring insiders with the particular agency will destroy consumer confidence. Look at the press pre-Lucia: the SEC Judges were "in-house" adjudicators...
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Aug 15, 2018 22:36:30 GMT -5
It feels like this convo has gotten off the rails a bit, so I’ll jump in...
As an insider and someone who has seen both insiders and outsiders hired as ALJs, as you would expect, there are good and bad apples. As an example, despite a good work ethic and obvious litigation experience, we have a newer ALJ who has had a string of unusual cases, and in doing so has had to have supplemental hearings in several of them because he mishandled the issue. He has been an ALJ several years so it’s no surprise that he hasn’t dealt with these issues, but attorneys in our office—who were both on the register and who were deemed not to have seven years experience—had dealt with these situations and were able to steer him right. But it cost extra time and money. It’s not ineptitude, it’s a matter of efficiency.
Which brings me to the bigger point: to me, the known quantity in hiring an insider instead of an outsider has to deal with quicker full productivity. Assuming that two candidates have the EXaCT same level of competence and work ethic, an insider already knows the system and can be up to speed faster, and can avoid issues like the ones above. This has to appeal to a management who see that they will have fewer ALJ hires in the upcoming years, so they have to be well placed... especially if that means losing supes, sr attys, and regular old attorney advisors into the ALJ Corp. Getting the most from the least is the only way the backlog will dwindle, and it’s clear that SSA will continue to be asked to do more with less.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 17, 2018 13:22:38 GMT -5
In the OHO field offices there are the harangues to move the cases and we get the reminders about the aged cases. But when I read the above comment about doing more with less, I thought I would look at the Case Analysis Reports and see what the numbers say. First, receipts are down. Through 7/2018 the receipts were 473,411 and look like they have been running about 40,000 per month. That is about 70,000 less than the receipts of 620,977 for the last fiscal year. The pending cases (backlog) has dropped by 151,000 cases so far. But the more interesting numbers to me are those related to the ALJ corps. In October 2017 there were 1,687 warm bodies with 1,487 counting as on duty when work-time is adjusted for time off or spent on other duties than the line judge job, and learning curve for new judges. In July 2018 there were 1,617 warm bodies but 1,503 on duty. Some of this is because the last hires are now fully counted. So while we have fewer judges, we have more on duty. Consequently the caseload per ALJ has dropped from 624 to 559 cases, and after a period when the processing time was going up, it has reversed and is coming down again.
Yes, OHO will have to hire more judges but it does not appear the pressing need that it once was. We may actually see more relief in the field with additional support staff to help get the cases ready for hearing, scheduled, written and closed out. What these tea leaves tell me is that the management should have the time to decide how to proceed with future hiring. There is no imminent disaster if they take their time in making these plans.
Finally congratulations to all of you on the board who are OHO employees. These production numbers do not occur in a vacuum and are not attributable to one component alone. It takes everyone working together to do this.
|
|
|
Post by usmccol on Sept 16, 2018 14:40:31 GMT -5
To All Ships and Stations:
I voted in the poll with the NOR I received this week. Not sure if it includes the 10-point veteran's preference. The email was precisely ambiguous on that count. The email did confirm the feds commitment to hiring vets and indicated that my name would be forwarded to agencies hiring ALJs, no consent asked for or given.
Any other vets get a NOR?
Col
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2018 17:57:28 GMT -5
To All Ships and Stations: I voted in the poll with the NOR I received this week. Not sure if it includes the 10-point veteran's preference. The email was precisely ambiguous on that count. The email did confirm the feds commitment to hiring vets and indicated that my name would be forwarded to agencies hiring ALJs, no consent asked for or given. Any other vets get a NOR? Col I did. Congrats to you.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 16, 2018 22:06:40 GMT -5
To All Ships and Stations: I voted in the poll with the NOR I received this week. Not sure if it includes the 10-point veteran's preference. The email was precisely ambiguous on that count. The email did confirm the feds commitment to hiring vets and indicated that my name would be forwarded to agencies hiring ALJs, no consent asked for or given. Any other vets get a NOR? Col Good to hear from you Colonel. Desert2Beach also got the NOR. Unfortunately, now that the two of you have made it, the register, or list, is now but a shadow of its former self. Good luck moving forward. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Sept 17, 2018 6:08:38 GMT -5
To All Ships and Stations: I voted in the poll with the NOR I received this week. Not sure if it includes the 10-point veteran's preference. The email was precisely ambiguous on that count. The email did confirm the feds commitment to hiring vets and indicated that my name would be forwarded to agencies hiring ALJs, no consent asked for or given. Any other vets get a NOR? Col I did. Congrats to you. Five-pointer here. I got a numerical score last week.
|
|