Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2015 13:57:27 GMT -5
Just took a quick look at USA Jobs Application Manager. For my ALJ application, it says "Minimum Qualifications Not Met" and shows 6/18/2013 as the date of the most recent update. OPM acknowledged receipt of my appeal 8/23/2013. Ugh. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think yours may be a lost cause. Not per se on the merits, but simply "lost". Having dealt with fed agencies, including the notorious VA and IRS, I can honestly say none of them can compare to the OPM in regard to lost filings and difficulty in contact/inquiring status. As you did not meet the initial minimal qualifications and you appealed, and now it is 2 years with no response, do not be surprised that your inital app may have just quietly slipped off a cubicle far far away and into File 13 long long ago. Thus your appeal is just...out there. And since it is literally an appeal of a probably nonexistent file now, it is an appeal that will likely float in lonely cyberspace forever or until the next govt hardrive purge of all the floating lonely bits.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 14, 2015 14:49:39 GMT -5
None of the people who have appealed have reported any headway just yet. So I do not think it is quite a grim as papajudge suggests. But I could be wrong. LOL! Hang in there, at some point, the appeals will be worked.
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on May 14, 2015 14:52:40 GMT -5
PapaJudge, I don't doubt your words. They ring as true as a clear bell. I did pass the first round, and when I belatedly (2-3 days after OPM says my window closed) found this out and asked OPM for a copy of the 2nd-round invitation e-mail, it sent it promptly. Interesting that I got it that time with no problem, eh? Also, in July 2014, I received the following from OPM, the same day I sent in a status-update request: "The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is processing your appeal and the appeals of other applicants. OPM cannot specify a time frame for the completion of an individual’s appeal. However, as stated in both the Appeal Rights and Appeal Acknowledgment messages, please be assured that applicants will be informed of the decision of the Appeal Panel after all appeals have been adjudicated. Sincerely -" So, as you can see, OPM "sincerely" has "assured" me that I "will be informed of the decision" on my appeal!
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 14, 2015 15:11:29 GMT -5
OPM in the email says "that applicants will be informed of the decision of the Appeal Panel after all appeals have been adjudicated."
Those with the simplest, earliest adjudicated appeals must wait until the Appeals Panel adjudicates every single other appeal before they will be informed of the decisions on their appeals.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 14, 2015 15:59:16 GMT -5
In regards to Propmasters above posting, the most recent AALJ Newsletter posted:
Presently, the Agency is seeking removal of an ALJ who it contends failed to comply with the focused review mandates. The case is in the discovery stage before an MSPB administrative law judge. One of the defenses to the removal action is that it is based on the focused review which is no more than a performance appraisal and, as such, violates the APA. The judge’s attorney, as part of his discovery, has requested focused reviews of all judges to show that they are indeed nothing more than unlawful performance appraisals. The Agency objected to the discovery request but the MSPB administrative law judge has required the Agency produce them and other documents related to the focused review. Apparently, he too must believe that they are unlawful performance appraisals.
Apparently we do still have a problem. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and floats in the bathtub, it may or may not respect the APA, while screaming that everyone must respect it... Strange
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 14, 2015 16:04:42 GMT -5
In regards to Propmasters above posting, the most recent AALJ Newsletter posted: Presently, the Agency is seeking removal of an ALJ who it contends failed to comply with the focused review mandates. The case is in the discovery stage before an MSPB administrative law judge. One of the defenses to the removal action is that it is based on the focused review which is no more than a performance appraisal and, as such, violates the APA. The judge’s attorney, as part of his discovery, has requested focused reviews of all judges to show that they are indeed nothing more than unlawful performance appraisals. The Agency objected to the discovery request but the MSPB administrative law judge has required the Agency produce them and other documents related to the focused review. Apparently, he too must believe that they are unlawful performance appraisals. Apparently we do still have a problem. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and floats in the bathtub, it may or may not respect the APA, while screaming that everyone must respect it... Strange That's very interesting. Thanks for posting about it. I wouldn't say that allowing the discovery means the MSPB ALJ necessarily believes the focused reviews are performance appraisals; only that the ALJ is giving the litigant the opportunity to gather evidence that might possibly establish that proposition.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 14, 2015 16:46:45 GMT -5
In regards to Propmasters above posting, the most recent AALJ Newsletter posted: Presently, the Agency is seeking removal of an ALJ who it contends failed to comply with the focused review mandates. The case is in the discovery stage before an MSPB administrative law judge. One of the defenses to the removal action is that it is based on the focused review which is no more than a performance appraisal and, as such, violates the APA. The judge’s attorney, as part of his discovery, has requested focused reviews of all judges to show that they are indeed nothing more than unlawful performance appraisals. The Agency objected to the discovery request but the MSPB administrative law judge has required the Agency produce them and other documents related to the focused review. Apparently, he too must believe that they are unlawful performance appraisals. Apparently we do still have a problem. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and floats in the bathtub, it may or may not respect the APA, while screaming that everyone must respect it... Strange That's very interesting. Thanks for posting about it. I wouldn't say that allowing the discovery means the MSPB ALJ necessarily believes the focused reviews are performance appraisals; only that the ALJ is giving the litigant the opportunity to gather evidence that might possibly establish that proposition. AGREE. Jumping to the conclusion that the ALJ has already made a determination by merely allowing discovery is a bit premature.
And frankly, there ARE judges out there who NEED to make a career change or retire. Not everyone is meant to be an ALJ and every single job in the world has some kind of standard expectation. Workplace expectations are not de facto violations of the APA. Who knows, maybe this ALJ completely resisted any guidance whatsoever. Maybe this was an ALJ who never gave writers the bare minimum instructions. We simply do not know what the facts are, but I bet in time we will once this all progresses to that point. In the meantime, I see this as a good thing. I think the agency is long overdue policing up some of the rogue ALJs who have been utterly disrespectful to management, staff, etc. and who have outright refused to follow policy. Just my opinion.
EDIT: Although this topic is important, I think it is way off the path of this thread. Not sure if Pixie can help put it somewhere more appropriate? I think it starts with prop's response and it merged into my comment. I apologize for hijacking the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on May 14, 2015 21:39:38 GMT -5
Hijacking a thread? Has that been done on this forum before? If you have someplace better for it to be, I will put it there. Otherwise, I guess it can rest here for awhile. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on May 15, 2015 8:18:00 GMT -5
Apparently appeals will be processed in 6-9 months
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on May 15, 2015 8:25:00 GMT -5
Hi Prescient - May I ask how you obtained this info? And, if you know, does this mean "processed" (as in decisions made and communicated) 6-9 months from around today? Thanks -
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on May 15, 2015 11:51:04 GMT -5
Ditto, I think everyone has the same "due date" whatever it means. It means we're all having 26 month babies... Just saw this comment about 26-month babies...LOL. Reminds me of what we called law school: "The three-year pregnancy."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 13:13:38 GMT -5
Apparently appeals will be processed in 6-9 months Just heard the same thing, presumably from the same place.
|
|
|
Post by dwNOT2balj on May 15, 2015 17:13:37 GMT -5
Thank you for the update. I wish OPM would consider lowering the "passing" scores for the SI and WD. This would allow them to easily add more people to the Register without the need, expense, or time to go through all the testing in DC again.
I am certainly biased as one who passed the SI but not the WD. But, from the people that got rejected throughout the process it would seem that the quality of the people on the Register would not change by this maneuver.
Again, I have a dog in this fight, so take my comments for what they are worth.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 15, 2015 17:56:00 GMT -5
Thank you for the update. I wish OPM would consider lowering the "passing" scores for the SI and WD. This would allow them to easily add more people to the Register without the need, expense, or time to go through all the testing in DC again. I am certainly biased as one who passed the SI but not the WD. But, from the people that got rejected throughout the process it would seem that the quality of the people on the Register would not change by this maneuver. Again, I have a dog in this fight, so take my comments for what they are worth. You never know, this may be part of the plan if this first go round does not yield enough new names for the register. But I see your point too starting at your end. This whole thing is new and we might see all kinds of variations. Hang in there!
|
|
|
Post by Malice Aforethought on May 15, 2015 18:56:45 GMT -5
I heard 6-9 months, too.
|
|
|
Post by keepsake on May 22, 2015 17:34:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on May 26, 2015 15:21:16 GMT -5
Has anyone noticed a change in their status in either USAJobs or Application Manager after they filed an appeal? (other than hope2balj who just received his decision). I received a notification of receipt of my appeal, but the status in USAJobs has never changed from "Closed." Just wonder if this is something I need to be concerned about and maybe email OPM given that we are hearing that they may be expanding the pool of applicants (either with successful appeal determinations and/or changing the score threshhold). Sorry if this topic has been covered before. Like many of my fellow hopefuls I had put my appeal in the "longshot" category but seeing things move ahead a little I want to be sure they know I am still am very interested in pursuing the position.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 26, 2015 15:32:09 GMT -5
I think USAJobs is referring to the application period (March 5 to 15, 2013) is "closed." IE, this is not an active job listing on USAJobs and OPM is not accepting new applications.
Again, USAJobs and the Application Manager (which word has that OPM is not using anymore) are NOT the best indicators. They seem to change well after the fact, if at all. Check your email. Call if you need to clarify something, but don't think that USAJobs is going to have a real-time status for you.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on May 26, 2015 17:32:41 GMT -5
I think USAJobs is referring to the application period (March 5 to 15, 2013) is "closed." IE, this is not an active job listing on USAJobs and OPM is not accepting new applications. Again, USAJobs and the Application Manager (which word has that OPM is not using anymore) are NOT the best indicators. They seem to change well after the fact, if at all. Check your email. Call if you need to clarify something, but don't think that USAJobs is going to have a real-time status for you. Thanks, luckylady2. I am definitely checking email daily.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jun 8, 2015 16:28:34 GMT -5
Some appeal results were emailed today. Someone in my office appealed a determination that she was not qualified and just received an email that they denied her appeal.
|
|