|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2014 13:51:37 GMT -5
Here's a link to the SF39: www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf39.pdfIn 10a SSA will state the number of vacancies for the duty location, which will be specified in 10e. Nowhere does the form ask for how many candidates the requesting agency wishes to be on the Certificate of Eligibles OPM will provide. Of course SSA could request numbers of candidates by other channels, and could even shoehorn such a request into "Remarks" at 20. SSA's request for some number of candidates however is not essential to the process, and based on the numbers reported for the first set of certs is not likely to make much difference to OPM.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Oct 1, 2014 14:42:33 GMT -5
Here's a link to the SF39: www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf39.pdfIn 10a SSA will state the number of vacancies for the duty location, which will be specified in 10e. Nowhere does the form ask for how many candidates the requesting agency wishes to be on the Certificate of Eligibles OPM will provide. Of course SSA could request numbers of candidates by other channels, and could even shoehorn such a request into "Remarks" at 20. SSA's request for some number of candidates however is not essential to the process, and based on the numbers reported for the first set of certs is not likely to make much difference to OPM. Couldn't SSA get more names per cert if they state more vacancies (e.g. 10 vacancies for Crapland)? Nothing says they MUST hire that many at that particular location, but it would increase the likelihood that those names would appear on other certs for other locations. Does the rule that if you're on one cert, you're on them all (if in GAL) still apply?
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 1, 2014 15:05:37 GMT -5
Here's a link to the SF39: www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf39.pdfIn 10a SSA will state the number of vacancies for the duty location, which will be specified in 10e. Nowhere does the form ask for how many candidates the requesting agency wishes to be on the Certificate of Eligibles OPM will provide. Of course SSA could request numbers of candidates by other channels, and could even shoehorn such a request into "Remarks" at 20. SSA's request for some number of candidates however is not essential to the process, and based on the numbers reported for the first set of certs is not likely to make much difference to OPM. Couldn't SSA get more names per cert if they state more vacancies (e.g. 10 vacancies for Crapland)? Nothing says they MUST hire that many at that particular location, but it would increase the likelihood that those names would appear on other certs for other locations. Does the rule that if you're on one cert, you're on them all (if in GAL) still apply? I believe they could overstate the number of hires to obtain more names, but it's also likely that OPM would call their bluff or request some sort of proof if they sought to hire 15-20 folks per location. I believe the rule you referenced is dead since each cert is handled individually with a finite number of names. There were folks that reported having a limited number of cities on their email despite having wide open GALs, which would suggest you only appear on certs where you are one of the top X scores. And I believe that children are the future.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2014 15:19:20 GMT -5
Here's a link to the SF39: www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf39.pdfIn 10a SSA will state the number of vacancies for the duty location, which will be specified in 10e. Nowhere does the form ask for how many candidates the requesting agency wishes to be on the Certificate of Eligibles OPM will provide. Of course SSA could request numbers of candidates by other channels, and could even shoehorn such a request into "Remarks" at 20. SSA's request for some number of candidates however is not essential to the process, and based on the numbers reported for the first set of certs is not likely to make much difference to OPM. Couldn't SSA get more names per cert if they state more vacancies (e.g. 10 vacancies for Crapland)? Nothing says they MUST hire that many at that particular location, but it would increase the likelihood that those names would appear on other certs for other locations. Does the rule that if you're on one cert, you're on them all (if in GAL) still apply? More vacancies would likely mean more candidates. SSA would not be required to hire for all vacancies they state they have, but I do think that they would need to have a legitimate basis for stating they have 10 vacancies if they put that on the form. For example, I don't think they could say they have 10 vacancies if there is no way they will have enough offices or the like. Funky and I kicked this around several months ago, and he disagreed with me. I won't attempt to state his rationale for fear I would misrepresent it--he stated it with his usual eloquence himself if you can find the thread. One thing we did not discuss is whether after spotting SSA inflating the number of vacancies OPM might start cutting the number of vacancies it used in determining how many eligibles to list on subsequent certs. I have no idea whether OPM would do this, but can't rule out the possibility. Candidates will still be on all certs for which they are eligible. As I recall there's an alternative way of doing these where if you are on a pending cert you don't get put on another. I don't think SSA would be pleased to change over to this system since it would limit SSA's flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2014 15:26:28 GMT -5
Couldn't SSA get more names per cert if they state more vacancies (e.g. 10 vacancies for Crapland)? Nothing says they MUST hire that many at that particular location, but it would increase the likelihood that those names would appear on other certs for other locations. Does the rule that if you're on one cert, you're on them all (if in GAL) still apply? I believe they could overstate the number of hires to obtain more names, but it's also likely that OPM would call their bluff or request some sort of proof if they sought to hire 15-20 folks per location. I believe the rule you referenced is dead since each cert is handled individually with a finite number of names. There were folks that reported having a limited number of cities on their email despite having wide open GALs, which would suggest you only appear on certs where you are one of the top X scores. And I believe that children are the future. Something to bear in mind is that it does you no good to be put on certs on which you are not reachable. It would do SSA no good either since they will have had the opportunity to interview you for the cert(s) you made and they couldn't reach you on the other certs.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 1, 2014 15:45:59 GMT -5
Couldn't SSA get more names per cert if they state more vacancies (e.g. 10 vacancies for Crapland)? Nothing says they MUST hire that many at that particular location, but it would increase the likelihood that those names would appear on other certs for other locations. Does the rule that if you're on one cert, you're on them all (if in GAL) still apply? More vacancies would likely mean more candidates. SSA would not be required to hire for all vacancies they state they have, but I do think that they would need to have a legitimate basis for stating they have 10 vacancies if they put that on the form. For example, I don't think they could say they have 10 vacancies if there is no way they will have enough offices or the like. Funky and I kicked this around several months ago, and he disagreed with me. I won't attempt to state his rationale for fear I would misrepresent it--he stated it with his usual eloquence himself if you can find the thread. One thing we did not discuss is whether after spotting SSA inflating the number of vacancies OPM might start cutting the number of vacancies it used in determining how many eligibles to list on subsequent certs. I have no idea whether OPM would do this, but can't rule out the possibility. Candidates will still be on all certs for which they are eligible. As I recall there's an alternative way of doing these where if you are on a pending cert you don't get put on another. I don't think SSA would be pleased to change over to this system since it would limit SSA's flexibility. gary, you are over-assuming OPM's involvement here. OPM has made a big re-adjustment to how SSA/Puzzle Palace hires by virtue of the multiple cert city requirements in 2014. Beyond that, what I know of OPM shows that they would give SSA/Puzzle Palace and any other agency, for that matter, a reasonably wide berth in terms of the number of eligibles requested for a slot. redryder is right, 10 or even 15 to widdle down to the final three for each slot is not unheard of--but it may well not be what SSA/ODAR is doing now--I certainly don't know. If OPM was as involved in this as you envision I would bet SSA/Puzzle Palace would howl.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Oct 1, 2014 15:48:50 GMT -5
I believe they could overstate the number of hires to obtain more names, but it's also likely that OPM would call their bluff or request some sort of proof if they sought to hire 15-20 folks per location. I believe the rule you referenced is dead since each cert is handled individually with a finite number of names. There were folks that reported having a limited number of cities on their email despite having wide open GALs, which would suggest you only appear on certs where you are one of the top X scores. And I believe that children are the future. Something to bear in mind is that it does you no good to be put on certs on which you are not reachable. It would do SSA no good either since they will have had the opportunity to interview you for the cert(s) you made and they couldn't reach you on the other certs. hopefalj -- I agree about the future, and I also hope for world peace.
Gary -- I disagree. If you are on a cert, you are reachable because of the re-shuffling that goes on every time an offer is accepted in another location. Getting on the cert is half the battle (the other half being not barfing on the interviewers, so I am told).
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2014 15:54:12 GMT -5
The way I view it, the involvement I described for OPM is just OPM doing what OPM is supposed to be doing in this process. I suspect the best we can do on this is to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2014 15:58:42 GMT -5
Something to bear in mind is that it does you no good to be put on certs on which you are not reachable. It would do SSA no good either since they will have had the opportunity to interview you for the cert(s) you made and they couldn't reach you on the other certs. hopefalj -- I agree about the future, and I also hope for world peace.
Gary -- I disagree. If you are on a cert, you are reachable because of the re-shuffling that goes on every time an offer is accepted in another location. Getting on the cert is half the battle (the other half being not barfing on the interviewers, so I am told).
They have to be able to maneuver you into the top three for a vacancy at the location of the cert. If they can, you are reachable. If there is no possible way to do this, you are not reachable. I believe if you would not be on a cert but for a rule putting you on all certs if you are on any cert, you would not be reachable for the cert in question.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 1, 2014 16:38:22 GMT -5
One other wrinkle to this subject is the following:
Your score was high enough to land you on the cert for City A but not for City B. If they put you on the cert for City B, they will also have to add to City B's cert anyone on the register who has a score equal to or greater than yours whose GAL includes City B, and all of you will be unreachable.
|
|
|
Post by orchid on Oct 2, 2014 9:40:03 GMT -5
Is today second cert day? Here's hoping:)
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 2, 2014 9:45:59 GMT -5
Checks spam folder for the 3rd time today...... Sigh......
|
|
|
Post by bikingnut on Oct 2, 2014 10:58:39 GMT -5
Checks spam folder for the 3rd time today...... Sigh...... I wonder if you could apply for SSD benefits based on a disability caused by stress from the ODAR ALJ hiring process.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 2, 2014 11:01:47 GMT -5
Checks spam folder for the 3rd time today...... Sigh...... I wonder if you could apply for SSD benefits based on a disability caused by stress from the ODAR ALJ hiring process. If it will take you off the register you'll get a lot of support from Board members.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Oct 2, 2014 11:19:47 GMT -5
I wonder if you could apply for SSD benefits based on a disability caused by stress from the ODAR ALJ hiring process. If it will take you off the register you'll get a lot of support from Board members. If you are under that much stress and angst over this, it might be better if you stepped off the ledge and removed yourself from the register - do it now before your name gets sent over to SSA.
|
|
|
Post by WhereIsTheFrontDoor on Oct 2, 2014 11:39:22 GMT -5
I seem to remember a discussion stating certs usually go out on Fridays. The last one did. But I am all for them bucking tradition and rolling them out today.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Oct 2, 2014 11:55:13 GMT -5
I seem to remember a discussion stating certs usually go out on Fridays. The last one did. But I am all for them bucking tradition and rolling them out today. My recollection is also that Friday seems to be the chosen day ... I wouldn't translate that into this Friday, although that would be a nice thing!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 2, 2014 11:56:58 GMT -5
Checks spam folder for the 3rd time today...... Sigh...... My approach is different. I'm not compulsively looking at my spam folder--probably won't look there until someone on the Board reports getting a certs email. Of course, if nobody else is looking at their spam folders and all the emails go to people's spam folders, or if everyone keeps it a secret, then I'm screwed. Still, if one of the precious emails winds up in my spam folder, I like my chances of finding it in time.
|
|
|
Post by bikingnut on Oct 2, 2014 14:42:36 GMT -5
Checks spam folder for the 3rd time today...... Sigh...... My approach is different. I'm not compulsively looking at my spam folder--probably won't look there until someone on the Board reports getting a certs email. Of course, if nobody else is looking at their spam folders and all the emails go to people's spam folders, or if everyone keeps it a secret, then I'm screwed. Still, if one of the precious emails winds up in my spam folder, I like my chances of finding it in time. I picture Bob drinking a beer and laughing his butt off right now.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Oct 2, 2014 15:12:01 GMT -5
Nah, he's over at OPM offices right now asking them for the certs he requested and couldn't care less that OPM is scheduling testing 2 weeks from now.
"Can't you walk and chew gum at the same time? I did that on my way over here"
Seriously though - has anyone heard of an ALJ who has been asked to conduct interviews on October 14 - 16? I would hope if someone hears anything, they'd let us know.
|
|