|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 11, 2015 7:00:30 GMT -5
So, we may not have accounted for a few people in our polls, if this intell is correct. It seems that a few non-Board members are now receiving offers for which we can't account for in the process. However, the polls are giving us at least a great glimpse of what is happening and in what cities.
|
|
tpm
Full Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by tpm on Jun 11, 2015 7:46:11 GMT -5
So, we may not have accounted for a few people in our polls, if this intell is correct. It seems that a few non-Board members are now receiving offers for which we can't account for in the process. However, the polls are giving us at least a great glimpse of what is happening and in what cities. Captured 31 out of 45 right? 29 votes, minus one unconfirmed, plus 3 starting from previous offers.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jun 11, 2015 7:59:16 GMT -5
So, we may not have accounted for a few people in our polls, if this intell is correct. It seems that a few non-Board members are now receiving offers for which we can't account for in the process. However, the polls are giving us at least a great glimpse of what is happening and in what cities. Captured 31 out of 45 right? 29 votes, minus one unconfirmed, plus 3 starting from previous offers. that seems like a really low percentage captured, compared to all of the other hires this FY. I wonder if the 45 is accurate
|
|
|
Post by stephanbell on Jun 11, 2015 9:06:13 GMT -5
I just received my offer letter and was mistakenly told my first day would be August 10. So, keep believing. It looks like that is the next start date.
The letter also stated no training had yet been scheduled, so that may be why no deferments to that start date.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 11, 2015 9:16:17 GMT -5
Thanks Stephanbell for that information. It helps clarify the next start date for candidates.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 11, 2015 9:24:22 GMT -5
Captured 31 out of 45 right? 29 votes, minus one unconfirmed, plus 3 starting from previous offers. that seems like a really low percentage captured, compared to all of the other hires this FY. I wonder if the 45 is accurate I have heard it confirmed again. I think it is possible we missed as many as 5 people who were hired in April for June. I don't know what to make of that large a discrepancy because we haven't been missing by anywhere near as much previously.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 11, 2015 9:28:35 GMT -5
Also I think we have more than enough confirmation on August 10 at this point.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 11, 2015 9:31:07 GMT -5
I agree Gaidin as you have seemed to be capturing most of the candidates up until now with your polls. It could be as we get lower in NOR scores we will capture less and less of the offers because they may not be Board members. I don't know for sure if this is the reason, but it is a reasonable conclusion as to why we missed so many this time.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 11, 2015 9:37:58 GMT -5
I agree Gaidin as you have seemed to be capturing most of the candidates up until now with your polls. It could be as we get lower in NOR scores we will capture less and less of the offers because they may not be Board members. I don't know for sure if this is the reason, but it is a reasonable conclusion as to why we missed so many this time. Mrs. G's theory is that there was a large percentage of people with very small GALs hired and that those people are least likely to be on the board. Interestingly enough even though we apparently missed a higher number of hires I think we got almost 100% confirmations on the hires we did see. The only exception being the wild Columbia which I am not sure I think is legit. That is much higher than we had seen previously.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 11, 2015 10:29:57 GMT -5
I agree Gaidin as you have seemed to be capturing most of the candidates up until now with your polls. It could be as we get lower in NOR scores we will capture less and less of the offers because they may not be Board members. I don't know for sure if this is the reason, but it is a reasonable conclusion as to why we missed so many this time. Mrs. G's theory is that there was a large percentage of people with very small GALs hired and that those people are least likely to be on the board. Interestingly enough even though we apparently missed a higher number of hires I think we got almost 100% confirmations on the hires we did see. The only exception being the wild Columbia which I am not sure I think is legit. That is much higher than we had seen previously. I agree Gaidin we received 100% of those confirmations that we know about! (Just kidding my friend)
|
|
|
Post by coolmom on Jun 11, 2015 10:50:12 GMT -5
I agree Gaidin as you have seemed to be capturing most of the candidates up until now with your polls. It could be as we get lower in NOR scores we will capture less and less of the offers because they may not be Board members. I don't know for sure if this is the reason, but it is a reasonable conclusion as to why we missed so many this time. I'm not so sure. I have a very small GAL but a NOR score much higher than the scores indicated by the poll of this last round of hiring. I wonder if it could be more of an insider/outsider issue.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 11, 2015 10:54:05 GMT -5
It could also be a sampling error rather than a trend. We should have a better idea of which it is after the next class or two are hired.
|
|
|
Post by zepplin on Jun 11, 2015 12:26:39 GMT -5
Dear Bob: August 9 is my birthday. Just sayin'....in case that helps tip the scales my way.... : )
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 11, 2015 12:29:30 GMT -5
Dear Bob: August 9 is my birthday. Just sayin'....in case that helps tip the scales my way.... : ) It didn't for me. Bob is immune to sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 11, 2015 12:37:30 GMT -5
I agree Gaidin as you have seemed to be capturing most of the candidates up until now with your polls.. Mrs. G's theory is that there was a large percentage of people with very small GALs hired and that those people are least likely to be on the board. Interestingly enough even though we apparently missed a higher number of hires I think we got almost 100% confirmations on the hires we did see. The only exception being the wild Columbia which I am not sure I think is legit. That is much higher than we had seen previously. I think you should agree with Mrs. G because that theory makes the most sense and, well, she's your spouse, so we know how that goes:) At this point, capturing between 67 - 74% is about right. The most engaged applicants have either been hired and/or still participate on this board. They actively want this job. But we could have as many as 250 folks who applied 2 years ago and don't give this job or process much thought. They may or may not know or participate on this board, and they don't vote in the polls. I'm good with that. Finally, I also agree with Gary. Confirmation of our fear that lack of participation / ignorance of the board/ whatever caused the drop in participation (zombies??) can better be determined after the next round of hires.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Jun 11, 2015 13:53:21 GMT -5
Don't forget that some of the cities don't end up on the poll. It can't be zombies because Richmond has not been on any certs recently.
|
|
|
Post by zepplin on Jun 11, 2015 15:59:25 GMT -5
And didn't a lot of people with 70's scores want Philly but no one has been hired? I think? In addition to my birthday, my daughter starts college in Philly, soooooo. ...
|
|
|
Post by ironmanlawyer on Jun 11, 2015 20:13:45 GMT -5
Now that offers are being made, is there any new insight of when the unlucky ones can modify the GAL?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 11, 2015 21:27:35 GMT -5
Now that offers are being made, is there any new insight of when the unlucky ones can modify the GAL? That may never happen. In the past, it was extremely rare for those on the register to modify the GAL and I think it only happened once. But who knows, this new register process has shown us that all kinds of new things are possible. Very hard to say what OPM will do! I would think it would be a very cheap way of allowing more people to get into cities that they need. But then again, that would be logical and cost effective.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 11, 2015 21:32:39 GMT -5
I agree Gaidin as you have seemed to be capturing most of the candidates up until now with your polls. It could be as we get lower in NOR scores we will capture less and less of the offers because they may not be Board members. I don't know for sure if this is the reason, but it is a reasonable conclusion as to why we missed so many this time. I'm not so sure. I have a very small GAL but a NOR score much higher than the scores indicated by the poll of this last round of hiring. I wonder if it could be more of an insider/outsider issue. VERY few insiders have been in each class. I do not know if that is because there are few insiders on the register to begin with or what, but it is clear there are less in each class than in prior registers/classes. Plus, there are several insiders who are still on the register and who have been on each certificate round, so being an insider is NOT a guarantee at all.
|
|