|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 31, 2014 9:48:09 GMT -5
I would assume that the "interested" part means you selected a city (and thus showed an interest in jobs in that city) in your gal selection when given that opportunity. It has been suggested that one shouldn't think of this process as applying to be a judge. You applied for several judge positions, any that are open where you told them you were "interested" by checking that city in your gal. Thanks, funky and observer, this is a logical and reasonable explanation of the term, "interested". |
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 31, 2014 12:32:52 GMT -5
After a little more research, I believe that funky and observer are absolutely correct in saying that the term “interested”—as used in the C.F.R.—refers to an applicant’s GAL. I base this upon the following:
Although it’s not specifically stated within the U.S.C.A. or C.F.R., it does appear in Chapter 6, Section B, of the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook (DEOH) wherein it states, “When a job announcement is posted for multiple geographic locations, applicants should be allowed to apply for all or given a choice to select a specific number of locations. After determining the applicant is qualified, you should certify the eligible to each geographic location selected by the applicant if his/her numerical rating is within reach for certification for that location.”
In Chapter 6, Section A of the DEOH, it states, “The most important information used in creating a Certificate of Eligibles is generated from the criteria you publicized in the job announcement. The criteria that you identify in the job announcement, such as, series, grade, whether the position is temporary or part-time, and duty location(s), are part of the screening process in identifying who will be on the certificate.”
The ALJ Job Announcement clearly states, “Please carefully select the geographical locations where you would be willing to accept an appointment as an ALJ by an agency of the Federal Government. Once this ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement closes, you will not be able to change (i.e, add or remove) your selected geographical location(s) until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period. OPM may announce additional periods during which candidates already on the register may make changes, at OPM’s discretion.”
Now—for the sake of discussion—consider the following:
5 U.S.C. § 3305(b) states, “the Office shall hold an examination for a position to which an appointment has been made within the preceding 3 years, on the application of an individual who qualifies as a preference eligible under section 2108 (3)(C)–(G) [10-point Veteran] of this title. The examination shall be held during the quarter following the application”. This has been understood and interpreted as requiring OPM to reopen the examination/application process for a 10-point Veteran each quarter.
This U.S.C. is followed up by an administrative regulation, 5 CFR § 332.311(a), which states, “A 10-point preference eligible is entitled to file an application at any time for an examination for any position for which OPM maintains a register, for which a register is about to be established, or for which a nontemporary appointment was made in the preceding three years. For the purposes of this paragraph OPM shall hold an examination not later than the quarterly period succeeding that in which the application is filed.”
Therefore, it appears that since a 10-point Veteran—whether on or off the register—is able to open the examination each quarter, they may also be able to add or subtract GALs each quarter, if they are already on the register. I’m not saying this is the case; however, it appears to be a logical interpretation of OPM’s application of U.S.C. and C.F.R.
Also consider this:
The SF 39 (Request for Referral of Eligibles) doesn’t necessarily require a single duty station to be placed in box 10e. Similar to the ALJ Job Announcement, SSA could simply list “multiple” within box 10e. Then in box 10a, SSA could simply list “90” as the number of vacancies it needs to fill. This would explain the following post by redryder:
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 31, 2014 12:40:13 GMT -5
To your last point, dpage, that's how things were fine in the past. However, ALJD's post in the other cert thread indicates the following...
"Please be aware that going forward, we will issue an individual certificate from the ALJ register for each geographic location requested. Accordingly, if an agency is filling vacancies in multiple geographic locations at one time, a separate SF-39, Request for Referral of Eligibles, must be submitted for each individual location."
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 31, 2014 13:33:28 GMT -5
The ALJ Job Announcement clearly states, “Please carefully select the geographical locations where you would be willing to accept an appointment as an ALJ by an agency of the Federal Government. Once this ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement closes, you will not be able to change (i.e, add or remove) your selected geographical location(s) until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period. OPM may announce additional periods during which candidates already on the register may make changes, at OPM’s discretion.”
What if, under the new one-cert-per-city scenario, applicants aren't given the opportunity to remove cities from their GAL prior to interviews? |
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 31, 2014 14:03:20 GMT -5
To your last point, dpage, that's how things were fine in the past. However, ALJD's post in the other cert thread indicates the following... "Please be aware that going forward, we will issue an individual certificate from the ALJ register for each geographic location requested. Accordingly, if an agency is filling vacancies in multiple geographic locations at one time, a separate SF-39, Request for Referral of Eligibles, must be submitted for each individual location." I think you are correct, hopefalj. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 31, 2014 14:03:31 GMT -5
The ALJ Job Announcement clearly states, “Please carefully select the geographical locations where you would be willing to accept an appointment as an ALJ by an agency of the Federal Government. Once this ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement closes, you will not be able to change (i.e, add or remove) your selected geographical location(s) until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period. OPM may announce additional periods during which candidates already on the register may make changes, at OPM’s discretion.”
What if, under the new one-cert-per-city scenario, applicants aren't given the opportunity to remove cities from their GAL prior to interviews? Baglady the assumption would be SSA still would like to find out who is or isn't interested in a city listed on a cert prior to scheduling interviews or making offers. It is highly unlikely that only 3 names would be given for any cert (even if one position or city at a time), so there are likely to be a few extra fillers just in case someone has changed their mind and no longer wants a position in "city x", when in the past he or she was interested in that city. |
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 31, 2014 14:04:32 GMT -5
The ALJ Job Announcement clearly states, “Please carefully select the geographical locations where you would be willing to accept an appointment as an ALJ by an agency of the Federal Government. Once this ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement closes, you will not be able to change (i.e, add or remove) your selected geographical location(s) until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period. OPM may announce additional periods during which candidates already on the register may make changes, at OPM’s discretion.”
What if, under the new one-cert-per-city scenario, applicants aren't given the opportunity to remove cities from their GAL prior to interviews? Then a large selection of GALs could backfire. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 31, 2014 14:09:37 GMT -5
What if, under the new one-cert-per-city scenario, applicants aren't given the opportunity to remove cities from their GAL prior to interviews? Then a large selection of GALs could backfire. Not necessarily dpk because someone with a large GAL may be willing to take a position anywhere it is offered. You could be right regarding a few of those with larger GALs who have since changed their minds where they are willing to relocate. It is still a crapshoot as to whether it affects those with a large GAL or not. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 31, 2014 14:10:27 GMT -5
The ALJ Job Announcement clearly states, “Please carefully select the geographical locations where you would be willing to accept an appointment as an ALJ by an agency of the Federal Government. Once this ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement closes, you will not be able to change (i.e, add or remove) your selected geographical location(s) until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period. OPM may announce additional periods during which candidates already on the register may make changes, at OPM’s discretion.”
What if, under the new one-cert-per-city scenario, applicants aren't given the opportunity to remove cities from their GAL prior to interviews? First, I don't know if we will be told which city's cert (s) we are on. Either way, I can't imagine why you would still not be given the opportunity to take yourself out of consideration for a city you don't want. ( That's why I think there could be WAY more than three names on each cert.) The difference will be if you aren't on a cert for another city that does match your GAL but your score doesn't get you on it, will you have the opportunity to take that city off your GAL for future certs. We may still get the same list we've always received before, asking us to confirm which cities on the cert and our GAL we still want to be considered for. |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 31, 2014 14:23:22 GMT -5
Just added a new poll (I may have an addiction) to get a feel for peoples plans concerning striking cities.
|
|
|
|
Post by wclj on Mar 31, 2014 14:31:00 GMT -5
I suppose I made the mistake of believing that the Federal system would work the same or similarly to the process in state government. I work as a WCLJ in Buffalo, NY. But, when I was under consideration for this job, I would receive canvas letters from Civil Service for openings all over the state, including NYC. While NYS asks your preferences about where you would like to work, you are not excluded from openings outside your preferred areas. They formulate the list of candidates from those who respond positively to the canvas letters. I didn't realize that the Feds put so much emphasis on the GAL and that those choices are pretty much carved in stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 31, 2014 14:39:10 GMT -5
I suppose I made the mistake of believing that the Federal system would work the same or similarly to the process in state government. I work as a WCLJ in Buffalo, NY. But, when I was under consideration for this job, I would receive canvas letters from Civil Service for openings all over the state, including NYC. While NYS asks your preferences about where you would like to work, you are not excluded from openings outside your preferred areas. They formulate the list of candidates from those who respond positively to the canvas letters. I didn't realize that the Feds put so much emphasis on the GAL and that those choices are pretty much carved in stone. Sorry, but the instructions that came with the application made the purpose of the GAL, and the rules for it, pretty clear. It is not like state service at all, for sure. It's a much bigger area, obviously. They (OPM and the hiring agency) are not going to go to the trouble of screening/testing applicants, putting a certificate together, and ultimately selecting someone for a job (not just an ALJ job, others have GALs) and have that person turn them down because they don't want to move across the country, or even across the state line. |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 31, 2014 15:28:47 GMT -5
Oh, I subscribe to the theory that the cert list will resemble those in the past insofar as size, and that the names will be listed on each cert for which that candidate indicated interest. So, the top 270-300 names who have any of the cert cities on their GAL will make it, and they will be listed on each cert that matches their GAL. Of course, ranking on each list will differ depending on how many others share that city/cert. Once a candidate is hired or three-struck, s/he comes off any certs on which s/he appears and everyone moves up accordingly. I limited my GAL to include only those places I would be willing to move, and took that language for face value--that I would not have the opportunity to add or remove cities until the next open period. I was just, you know, playing the "what if" game . . . so many other things have changed this time around, what if this changed, too? Just food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 31, 2014 15:48:55 GMT -5
Oh, I subscribe to the theory that the cert list will resemble those in the past insofar as size, and that the names will be listed on each cert for which that candidate indicated interest. So, the top 270-300 names who have any of the cert cities on their GAL will make it, and they will be listed on each cert that matches their GAL. Of course, ranking on each list will differ depending on how many others share that city/cert. Once a candidate is hired or three-struck, s/he comes off any certs on which s/he appears and everyone moves up accordingly. I limited my GAL to include only those places I would be willing to move, and took that language for face value--that I would not have the opportunity to add or remove cities until the next open period. I was just, you know, playing the "what if" game . . . so many other things have changed this time around, what if this changed, too? Just food for thought. That's why it's good that you do have an opportunity to remove cities on the cert from your GAL if you make a cert. Think about it... people who went on the register in 2007 could have had as many as eleven chances to prune their GALs, if they showed up on all the certs and made other changes in June 2012. Those of us who saw the writing on the wall (or the Board) and went way wide this time may have many opportunties to prune if we decide to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 31, 2014 17:00:13 GMT -5
Is it not true that only the top scorers for each city will be considered? Oh, I have seen the posts about how Puzzle Palace will be three striking and we all know that they will, but as has been demonstrated in other posts, the choice will be made rather quickly--not by Puzzle Palace's desires, but due to the mechanics if you will. If that is the case, pruning your GAL with a middlin' score may well mean no call from Bob.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 31, 2014 17:16:58 GMT -5
Is it not true that only the top scorers for each city will be considered? Oh, I have seen the posts about how Puzzle Palace will be three striking and we all know that they will, but as has been demonstrated in other posts, the choice will be made rather quickly--not by Puzzle Palace's desires, but due to the mechanics if you will. If that is the case, pruning your GAL with a middlin' score may well mean no call from Bob. It will be interesting to see if we know what cert(s) we are on when we get the notice. If we don't, and you get the usual list of cities on the cert to confirm your interest in. then you are right... you could pick the wrong city to remove. You can go through the process, and if you get an offer for a city you have decided you just could not abide living in, then turn it down, or remove the cities you just can't stomach up front. The lady or the tiger?  It's a bit unclear how it's going to work this time around. |
|
|
|
Post by MoStateALJ on Mar 31, 2014 20:49:52 GMT -5
Oh, I subscribe to the theory that the cert list will resemble those in the past insofar as size, and that the names will be listed on each cert for which that candidate indicated interest. So, the top 270-300 names who have any of the cert cities on their GAL will make it, and they will be listed on each cert that matches their GAL. Of course, ranking on each list will differ depending on how many others share that city/cert. Once a candidate is hired or three-struck, s/he comes off any certs on which s/he appears and everyone moves up accordingly. I limited my GAL to include only those places I would be willing to move, and took that language for face value--that I would not have the opportunity to add or remove cities until the next open period. I was just, you know, playing the "what if" game . . . so many other things have changed this time around, what if this changed, too? Just food for thought. Of course, where an applicant was willing to move in March 2013 may be different in March 2014, let alone in 2015 or later. Life happens; things change. |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 31, 2014 20:54:04 GMT -5
Tru dat.
|
|
