ALJ Help desk email - how to respond?

[gunner]

Did anyone else get this?

****

ALJ Application Help Desk


Dear [REDACTED]

We have received your recent message addressed to the ALJ Application Help Desk and are working on a response.

The Description box below shows the information you gave us, our comments so far (if any), and any questions we may have for you. You will receive a message like this one every time you write to us, and every time we update the status of your ticket, so you always know the status.

When we believe we have fully responded to your question or issue, we will close your ticket. If you reply to a closed ticket, your reply will reopen the ticket. A survey may be sent to you each time the ticket is closed.

If you have more information to provide, you can simply reply to this message. Be sure to type above all text in this message, and do not change the subject line.

Thank you.
The ALJ Application Team


Description

Entered on 04/01/2014 at 12:22:04 EDT (GMT-0400) by [REDACTED]:

Dear [REDACTED]

This is an update regarding your appeal for the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) examination, Job Opportunity Announcement, ALJ2013-847661. The ALJ Appeals Panel (Panel) will be convened after the appeal submission deadline, as noted in your Appeal Rights message. The Panel has the authority to affirm, raise, or lower the rating; change a rating from eligible to ineligible and remove an applicant from the ALJ register; or remand for further development. Appeals are adjudicated based on the record. The decision of the Panel is final, and exhausts further administrative appeal rights. After all appeals have been adjudicated, applicants will be notified via email of the Panel’s decision.

Due to the number of appeals we have received regarding the scoring of the Written Demonstration (WD), The Administrative Law Judge Program Office has convened an ALJ Pre-Appeals Panel Review Panel (APAPRP) to review the scoring of the WD. You may elect to have your appeal diverted to the APAPRP in advance of the ALJ Appeals Panel review of your appeal. APAPRP review is not mandatory and may only be obtained by replying to this message. APAPRP review will not constitute an individual review of your appeal, but may result in a change to your WD score. However, if your score changes you will be issued an updated Notification of Results (NOR) and your appeal will be considered moot. If you receive a new NOR, you will be notified by a separate message of your appeal rights, if any.

Sincerely,

Administrative Law Judge Program Office

Entered on [REDACTED]:
[REDACTED]



Ticket Information

The Subject of your message to us when opening this ticket was:

[REDACTED]
Ticket Number: [REDACTED]

Last edited: 04/01/2014 at 12:22:04 EDT

Status of Ticket: Appeals, OMGWDWTF

Ticket Created: [REDACTED]

List of attached files, if any:

Email address: [REDACTED]

[funkyodar]

Wow. If I'm reading that right it appears they may have added an express lane for appeals of the wd minimum score issue. Thats very interesting.

Why not take advantage?

[hopefalj]

Jiminy criminy, could there be any better example of bureaucracy than creating a special panel called the "ALJ Pre-Appeals Panel Review Panel?"

[71stretch]

If you do take advantage, and they don't change the scoring METHOD, then your appeal goes forward and they look at your actual WD?
If they change your score because they changed the method, and it's still not high enough, then you get to appeal again.

If they find something wrong with the scoring method, will they rescore EVERYONE (including those who have scores) and issue new NORs to everyone?

[funkyodar]

This, to me, seems to bolster the theory that the minimum score detail was only supposed to catch a few (as reported by ALJD's source) but somehow, in its application, caught way more than expected.

I think the perceived delay in getting scores out was due to them trying to figure out how to cope with that. Looks like they finally said screw it, release the nors then we will deal with it on appeal. They are dealing with it by essentially regrading those cut due to the wd and appeal. And apparenty fast tracking it to try and lessen the negative impact of the screw up.

As always, just my opinion.

[funkyodar]

Opm really needs to hire some folks that can write better explanations. sheesh

[moopigsdad]

I don't think you have anything to lose by taking advantage of it gunner. You will still have your normal appeal rights. I agree observer53, if they find an overall scoring error in the WD will they raise everyone's NOR? Very interesting and will they freely admit such a scoring error occurred. Of course not, especially since it is April 1st. LOL!

[sealaw90]

[owl]

It's a trAPAPRP!

[Apologies to DD for swiping his intellectual property.]

[BagLady]

Well played, gunner.  Well played.

[sandiferhands (old)]

My favorite two parts of that email:

1. ALJ Pre-Appeals Panel Review Panel (APAPRP)

and

2. Status of Ticket: Appeals, OMGWDWTF (which is, coincidentally, what many said when they got their WD results.)

[BagLady]

The OMGWDWTF had me LOL.

[sealaw90]

Apr 1, 2014 12:52:28 GMT -5 funkyodar said:

This, to me, seems to bolster the theory that the minimum score detail was only supposed to catch a few (as reported by ALJD's source) but somehow, in its application, caught way more than expected.

I think the perceived delay in getting scores out was due to them trying to figure out how to cope with that. Looks like they finally said screw it, release the nors then we will deal with it on appeal. They are dealing with it by essentially regrading those cut due to the wd and appeal. And apparenty fast tracking it to try and lessen the negative impact of the screw up.

As always, just my opinion.

I agree Funky.  If there was only one ALJ who reviewed your WD, and they failed you, and it turned out that 300 people 'failed' the WD because one or two curmudgenly ALJs didn't like your WD, then it would make perfect sense from a due process standpoint to get a second review of a person's WD, BUT only if you ask for it.

Gunner, I say you and anyone else in similar shoes should accept the re-evaluation of the WD.

[sealaw90]

[sandiferhands (old)]

Apr 1, 2014 13:52:07 GMT -5 sealaw90 said:

Apr 1, 2014 12:52:28 GMT -5 funkyodar said:

This, to me, seems to bolster the theory that the minimum score detail was only supposed to catch a few (as reported by ALJD's source) but somehow, in its application, caught way more than expected.

I think the perceived delay in getting scores out was due to them trying to figure out how to cope with that. Looks like they finally said screw it, release the nors then we will deal with it on appeal. They are dealing with it by essentially regrading those cut due to the wd and appeal. And apparenty fast tracking it to try and lessen the negative impact of the screw up.

As always, just my opinion.

I agree Funky.  If there was only one ALJ who reviewed your WD, and they failed you, and it turned out that 300 people 'failed' the WD because one or two curmudgenly ALJs didn't like your WD, then it would make perfect sense from a due process standpoint to get a second review of a person's WD, BUT only if you ask for it.

Gunner, I say you and anyone else in similar shoes should accept the re-evaluation of the WD.

I have to, in the most stringent terms possible, hope you are both incorrect.

If there was an identifiable "curmudgeon" effect, then those individuals affected should have their scores voluntarily re-calculated by OPM, without the necessity of appeal. But if there is a perception that the cuts went too deep, and that that needs to be corrected, then it is deeply unfair to those who aren't appealing for points to be added to the WD for those who do appeal, in order to correct a system-wide scoring defect. The proper remedy there is to add points to ALL WDs; otherwise, those who appeal will get an advantage (possibly even jumping in rank) those who didn't appeal.

Appeals should determine whether there was a particular problem related to that individual candidate, and correct it. Corrections applied for system-wide problems should be applied to all.

[queenie262]

um, this is an April Fool's joke, right? OMGWDWTF

[gary]

Apr 1, 2014 14:19:48 GMT -5 queenie262 said:

um, this is an April Fool's joke, right? OMGWDWTF

I think so too.

[funkyodar]

Apr 1, 2014 14:22:25 GMT -5 gary said:

Apr 1, 2014 14:19:48 GMT -5 queenie262 said:

um, this is an April Fool's joke, right? OMGWDWTF

I think so too.

Crap. Hook, line and funker.

[ok1956]

Apr 1, 2014 14:24:11 GMT -5 funkyodar said:

Apr 1, 2014 14:22:25 GMT -5 gary said:

I think so too.

Crap. Hook, line and funker.

I've been in and out on the thread and laughing because there are a couple of posts from members (baglady being one) who appear to see it as an April Fool's joke right off the bat. Then there are others, not just you funky, who don't see it as a joke. And I'm laughing because I didn't jump on either band wagon because I figured "who knows?!?" maybe, maybe not. But if it is, definitely well played gunner!

[gunner]

Thanks for playing everyone! Hope you LOLed.