|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 14:48:24 GMT -5
"They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5." Why not? Is there a reg that stops them from doing so? So long as they have the three highest candidates for a spot, I would think they could do what they like. What's confusing to me is why the previous method of cert filling was necessary if the current method will provide enough candidates. It doesn't really matter anymore, but it makes me scratch my head. When SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles it completes an SF39 form. On that form, they indicate, inter alia, the duty location and the number of vacancies. On that same form where OPM issues the certificate, it states, "This Certificate of Eligibles is valid only for the position(s), grade(s), and duty location(s) shown above." So if SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles for Valparaiso, IN, for 3 vacancies, they cannot switch one of those to Grand Rapids, MI and hire there on the then current set of certs. In addition, the language on the Request for Certificate of Eligibles is for the "Number of Vacancies." I think SSA would be hard pressed to justify that it had say 10 vacancies for each of 44 duty locations on its 44 requests for Certificates of Eligibles. I doubt that they could even point to 10 vacant ALJ offices in all of those locations to begin to attempt to justify saying they had all those vacancies, what to say of not having anywhere near that much room in their budget, which I would think they would need to be able to justify such a set of requests, even if their intent was to actually hire for only 90 of the slots.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 6, 2014 14:48:51 GMT -5
Yes, mpd, that is the only requirement I see. If SSA wanted to hire 7 ALJs for one location, they'd only need a 9-person cert to achieve the goal, though. I think OPM's certs give them enough names and flexibility to add an ALJ or two more than initially anticipated.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 14:54:23 GMT -5
Yes, mpd, that is the only requirement I see. If SSA wanted to hire 7 ALJs for one location, they'd only need a 9-person cert to achieve the goal, though. I think OPM's certs give them enough names and flexibility to add an ALJ or two more than initially anticipated. If SSA were to be allowed full three-striking on a single location cert for 7 ALJs they would need a 13-person cert. If they three-struck no one 9 would be sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 14:56:48 GMT -5
"They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5." Why not? Is there a reg that stops them from doing so? So long as they have the three highest candidates for a spot, I would think they could do what they like. What's confusing to me is why the previous method of cert filling was necessary if the current method will provide enough candidates. It doesn't really matter anymore, but it makes me scratch my head. When SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles it completes an SF39 form. On that form, they indicate, inter alia, the duty location and the number of vacancies. On that same form where OPM issues the certificate, it states, "This Certificate of Eligibles is valid only for the position(s), grade(s), and duty location(s) shown above." So if SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles for Valparaiso, IN, for 3 vacancies, they cannot switch one of those to Grand Rapids, MI and hire there on the then current set of certs. In addition, the language on the Request for Certificate of Eligibles is for the "Number of Vacancies." I think SSA would be hard pressed to justify that it had say 10 vacancies for each of 44 duty locations on its 44 requests for Certificates of Eligibles. I doubt that they could even point to 10 vacant ALJ offices in all of those locations to begin to attempt to justify saying they had all those vacancies, what to say of not having anywhere near that much room in their budget, which I would think they would need to be able to justify such a set of requests, even if their intent was to actually hire for only 90 of the slots.There is nothing preventing SSA from stating in the number of vacancies spot on the SF-39 form as: 3 to 5 vacancies depending upon quality of candidates after interviews and background checks.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 6, 2014 14:58:55 GMT -5
"They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5." Why not? Is there a reg that stops them from doing so? So long as they have the three highest candidates for a spot, I would think they could do what they like. What's confusing to me is why the previous method of cert filling was necessary if the current method will provide enough candidates. It doesn't really matter anymore, but it makes me scratch my head. When SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles it completes an SF39 form. On that form, they indicate, inter alia, the duty location and the number of vacancies. On that same form where OPM issues the certificate, it states, "This Certificate of Eligibles is valid only for the position(s), grade(s), and duty location(s) shown above." So if SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles for Valparaiso, IN, for 3 vacancies, they cannot switch one of those to Grand Rapids, MI and hire there on the then current set of certs. In addition, the language on the Request for Certificate of Eligibles is for the "Number of Vacancies." I think SSA would be hard pressed to justify that it had say 10 vacancies for each of 44 duty locations on its 44 requests for Certificates of Eligibles. I doubt that they could even point to 10 vacant ALJ offices in all of those locations to begin to attempt to justify saying they had all those vacancies, what to say of not having anywhere near that much room in their budget, which I would think they would need to be able to justify such a set of requests, even if their intent was to actually hire for only 90 of the slots.Gary, your first statement definitely prevents SSA from trying to cross-pollinate certificates, but I see nothing in there that indicates they can't go deeper and hire additional names of a city's cert. For instance, if they requested names for three vacancies in Valpo and three in Mt. Pleasant, where does it say they can't change their minds to only hire one from the Valpo cert and five from the Mt. Pleasant cert instead of the initial plan so long as they have the minimum number of names for Mt. Pleasant? We've already seen that SSA doesn't fill some of the requested offices in the past, so they're not locked into their requested vacancy numbers.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 15:00:00 GMT -5
"They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5." Why not? Is there a reg that stops them from doing so? So long as they have the three highest candidates for a spot, I would think they could do what they like. What's confusing to me is why the previous method of cert filling was necessary if the current method will provide enough candidates. It doesn't really matter anymore, but it makes me scratch my head. When SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles it completes an SF39 form. On that form, they indicate, inter alia, the duty location and the number of vacancies. On that same form where OPM issues the certificate, it states, "This Certificate of Eligibles is valid only for the position(s), grade(s), and duty location(s) shown above." So if SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles for Valparaiso, IN, for 3 vacancies, they cannot switch one of those to Grand Rapids, MI and hire there on the then current set of certs. In addition, the language on the Request for Certificate of Eligibles is for the "Number of Vacancies." I think SSA would be hard pressed to justify that it had say 10 vacancies for each of 44 duty locations on its 44 requests for Certificates of Eligibles. I doubt that they could even point to 10 vacant ALJ offices in all of those locations to begin to attempt to justify saying they had all those vacancies, what to say of not having anywhere near that much room in their budget, which I would think they would need to be able to justify such a set of requests, even if their intent was to actually hire for only 90 of the slots.But Gary, nothing in that means they have to fill every slot they tell opm they are considering filling. Don't think of it as shifting a slot from one city to another. Let's say the original plan was to hire 2 in each of GR and Valpraiso. But they want more names and more flexibility so they tell opm they are considering hiring 4 in each location. It would be perfectly within the rules for them to ultimately decide to not fill Valpraiso at all and hire the 4 judges they intended to hire all for GR. And the certificate's references to "vacancies" has nothing to do with office space. Many agencies don't have that consideration as high as odar does. It just means slots you want to fill. Further, I doubt opm gives one bit about whether odar has the spaceor budget to hire 10 per locale. That's odars problem. Opm's job is just to form the register and give the agencies enough qualified candidates for consideration for each "vacancy" they have, whether that's 1 or 100 in one city or 44.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 15:10:57 GMT -5
When SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles it completes an SF39 form. On that form, they indicate, inter alia, the duty location and the number of vacancies. On that same form where OPM issues the certificate, it states, "This Certificate of Eligibles is valid only for the position(s), grade(s), and duty location(s) shown above." So if SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles for Valparaiso, IN, for 3 vacancies, they cannot switch one of those to Grand Rapids, MI and hire there on the then current set of certs. In addition, the language on the Request for Certificate of Eligibles is for the "Number of Vacancies." I think SSA would be hard pressed to justify that it had say 10 vacancies for each of 44 duty locations on its 44 requests for Certificates of Eligibles. I doubt that they could even point to 10 vacant ALJ offices in all of those locations to begin to attempt to justify saying they had all those vacancies, what to say of not having anywhere near that much room in their budget, which I would think they would need to be able to justify such a set of requests, even if their intent was to actually hire for only 90 of the slots.But Gary, nothing in that means they have to fill every slot they tell opm they are considering filling. Don't think of it as shifting a slot from one city to another. Let's say the original plan was to hire 2 in each of GR and Valpraiso. But they want more names and more flexibility so they tell opm they are considering hiring 4 in each location. It would be perfectly within the rules for them to ultimately decide to not fill Valpraiso at all and hire the 4 judges they intended to hire all for GR. And the certificate's references to "vacancies" has nothing to do with office space. Many agencies don't have that consideration as high as odar does. It just means slots you want to fill. Further, I doubt opm gives one bit about whether odar has the spaceor budget to hire 10 per locale. That's odars problem. Opm's job is just to form the register and give the agencies enough qualified candidates for consideration for each "vacancy" they have, whether that's 1 or 100 in one city or 44. I think it means SSA has to legitimately have the number of vacancies it is claiming at the particular duty location for which a cert is sought. I do not think that the form contemplates just filling in a number chosen in order to get a Certificate of Eligibles that has as many names as they want, nor does it in my opinion contemplate stating there are more vacancies than the agency plans to fill at a duty location in order to have flexibility in deciding where to hire people. But of course, I could be wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 15:19:35 GMT -5
You are probably right, Gary, but I don't see anything that expressly restricts it.
From what I have heard, odar was caught very off guard by the change in cert procedures. They reportedly spent much time trying to figure out how they could still work the certs to get to who they want.
Sure they still have 3 strikes, but that's not the flexibility they once had. I'm just theorizing they could be doing this and it would give them close to the same abilities they once had.
Nothing about it appears against the rules. They have always had cities on certs they didn't fill. They don't even really care where the new aljs go as long as they get plugged in and churn out 500 to 700 a year. If not hiring in one of the 45 cities where they don't like their options means they can hire one or two more they like in another city...why wouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 15:29:13 GMT -5
You are probably right, Gary, but I don't see anything that expressly restricts it. From what I have heard, odar was caught very off guard by the change in cert procedures. They reportedly spent much time trying to figure out how they could still work the certs to get to who they want. Sure they still have 3 strikes, but that's not the flexibility they once had. I'm just theorizing they could be doing this and it would give them close to the same abilities they once had. Nothing about it appears against the rules. They have always had cities on certs they didn't fill. They don't even really care where the new aljs go as long as they get plugged in and churn out 500 to 700 a year. If not hiring in one of the 45 cities where they don't like their options means they can hire one or two more they like in another city...why wouldn't they? One of the interesting things about the law is that there can often be reasonable dispute over what is allowed and what is not. I do think it would be against the rules, but that is only my interpretation and takes nothing away from the legitimacy of your interpretation that it would not be against the rules. They may well be able to accomplish under my interpretation much of what they want over the course of multiple rounds of certs by not hiring for all the vacancies on the certificates and by doing a subsequent round of certs that redistributes the vacancies, which of course is not as efficient. I am sure after a couple of sets of certs they will figure out how to get as much flexibility as possible out of the process.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 15:31:00 GMT -5
And with that I Am Legend. Not so legendary as Funky and the other Legends on here, but enough of a legend that I think I need to go out and buy a blue ox.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 16:54:47 GMT -5
When SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles it completes an SF39 form. On that form, they indicate, inter alia, the duty location and the number of vacancies. On that same form where OPM issues the certificate, it states, "This Certificate of Eligibles is valid only for the position(s), grade(s), and duty location(s) shown above." So if SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles for Valparaiso, IN, for 3 vacancies, they cannot switch one of those to Grand Rapids, MI and hire there on the then current set of certs. In addition, the language on the Request for Certificate of Eligibles is for the "Number of Vacancies." I think SSA would be hard pressed to justify that it had say 10 vacancies for each of 44 duty locations on its 44 requests for Certificates of Eligibles. I doubt that they could even point to 10 vacant ALJ offices in all of those locations to begin to attempt to justify saying they had all those vacancies, what to say of not having anywhere near that much room in their budget, which I would think they would need to be able to justify such a set of requests, even if their intent was to actually hire for only 90 of the slots.There is nothing preventing SSA from stating in the number of vacancies spot on the SF-39 form as: 3 to 5 vacancies depending upon quality of candidates after interviews and background checks. If they can justify the statement that they have 5 vacancies I see no reason they can't put that in their request. And if they only want to hire 3 I see no reason they would have to hire more.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 16:59:13 GMT -5
When SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles it completes an SF39 form. On that form, they indicate, inter alia, the duty location and the number of vacancies. On that same form where OPM issues the certificate, it states, "This Certificate of Eligibles is valid only for the position(s), grade(s), and duty location(s) shown above." So if SSA requests a Certificate of Eligibles for Valparaiso, IN, for 3 vacancies, they cannot switch one of those to Grand Rapids, MI and hire there on the then current set of certs. In addition, the language on the Request for Certificate of Eligibles is for the "Number of Vacancies." I think SSA would be hard pressed to justify that it had say 10 vacancies for each of 44 duty locations on its 44 requests for Certificates of Eligibles. I doubt that they could even point to 10 vacant ALJ offices in all of those locations to begin to attempt to justify saying they had all those vacancies, what to say of not having anywhere near that much room in their budget, which I would think they would need to be able to justify such a set of requests, even if their intent was to actually hire for only 90 of the slots.Gary, your first statement definitely prevents SSA from trying to cross-pollinate certificates, but I see nothing in there that indicates they can't go deeper and hire additional names of a city's cert. For instance, if they requested names for three vacancies in Valpo and three in Mt. Pleasant, where does it say they can't change their minds to only hire one from the Valpo cert and five from the Mt. Pleasant cert instead of the initial plan so long as they have the minimum number of names for Mt. Pleasant? We've already seen that SSA doesn't fill some of the requested offices in the past, so they're not locked into their requested vacancy numbers. Those are separate certs. They could hire only one for Valpo but they are not authorized to hire for more than three positions in Mt. Pleasant. They don't have to hire for all the vacancies on a cert but they can't shift unfilled vacancies from one cert to another.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 6, 2014 17:13:08 GMT -5
Gary, your first statement definitely prevents SSA from trying to cross-pollinate certificates, but I see nothing in there that indicates they can't go deeper and hire additional names of a city's cert. For instance, if they requested names for three vacancies in Valpo and three in Mt. Pleasant, where does it say they can't change their minds to only hire one from the Valpo cert and five from the Mt. Pleasant cert instead of the initial plan so long as they have the minimum number of names for Mt. Pleasant? We've already seen that SSA doesn't fill some of the requested offices in the past, so they're not locked into their requested vacancy numbers. Those are separate certs. They could hire only one for Valpo but they are not authorized to hire for more than three positions in Mt. Pleasant. They don't have to hire for all the vacancies on a cert but they can't shift unfilled vacancies from one cert to another. There's nothing in the regs or otherwise that supports that interpretation. If there are at least three candidates on a cert, they can make a hire. OPM doesn't control the number of hires that can be made beyond providing the list of names to SSA. They can't hire 5 judges off a 6-person cert, but I've yet to see a reason why they can't hire 4 from a 6-person cert even if they only got the 6 names by requesting names for 2 vacancies. While a cert only provides names for a specific position (ALJ), grade (ALJ-03), and location (Mt. Pleasant), it makes no mention of being specifically limited to the number of requested vacancies. All of this said, I doubt this situation ever occurs. My guess is they usual request the max names for the max offices in a given location just in case.
|
|