|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 15, 2015 12:35:26 GMT -5
Yep totally agree. And Judges Bice and Allen did not mention refresh just yet. Only the current process of allowing more applicants to filter to the OPM testing phase (in progress and discussed at length in other threads) and that they are "trying" to get a GAL expansion. A true refresh is an extremely expensive proposition for OPM. They will explore every option before reopening the register to new applicants. Exactly. That's why they are doing all this refiguring. I think a GAL tweak will happen too.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 15, 2015 12:38:12 GMT -5
The answer to this question is "buried" elsewhere. If they do a "refresh" and allow new applicants to enter the race, can individuals with NORs retest, taking the risk of improving their scores? If they get a new NOR, do they get a "do over" on the SSA interview? I'm not sure about the interview part, as the rule has always been one interview per register. Perhaps if there is someone still around who reapplied in 2009 during the life of the old register, they can tell us.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Aug 15, 2015 13:14:07 GMT -5
That's the tree I'm hoping to shake. I was pretty sure I knew the answer to the first part of my question had been batted around in the not too distant past on a slow news day, but I don't recall anyone commenting on the interview.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 15, 2015 13:20:27 GMT -5
That's the tree I'm hoping to shake. I was pretty sure I knew the answer to the first part of my question had been batted around in the not too distant past on a slow news day, but I don't recall anyone commenting on the interview. The other question along these lines would be does a retaker of the test who gets on the Register again start with a clean considerations slate, or do any prior considerations received remain tallied against the retaker?
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Aug 15, 2015 14:03:25 GMT -5
good point
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 15, 2015 14:12:43 GMT -5
The answer to this question is "buried" elsewhere. If they do a "refresh" and allow new applicants to enter the race, can individuals with NORs retest, taking the risk of improving their scores? If they get a new NOR, do they get a "do over" on the SSA interview? I'm not sure about the interview part, as the rule has always been one interview per register. Perhaps if there is someone still around who reapplied in 2009 during the life of the old register, they can tell us. This is the way I have always understood it as well. One SSA interview per register (I specify SSA because I do not know about other agencies on this point). But with all the new elements involved in the new register process (OPM controlled), I am not sure this still applies and SSA may do it differently? Not sure. If the pattern holds, one SSA interview per register regardless if you choose to go along with a refresh (if this is offered... not saying it is). And caution on refresh... yes you have potential to increase your score, but you also have potential to decrease it and you have to keep whatever the new score is once you choose a refresh option (if ever offered and it is rare).
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Aug 15, 2015 15:14:46 GMT -5
I hope you had a good trip home, Judge R.
My take on this -- aside from your accurate recounting of what we were told this past week -- is that ODAR has hiring goals in mind and will do whatever they can to meet them as soon as possible. I got the impression that they won't mind charting new territory in order to get it done, so I don't expect them to stick with the old patterns if they're allowed to try new ones that they think might work better. I was very impressed by the energy and good sense of Terrie Gruber and Donna Calvert when we met them in class and at the reception.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 15, 2015 15:40:08 GMT -5
I hope you had a good trip home, Judge R. My take on this -- aside from your accurate recounting of what we were told this past week -- is that ODAR has hiring goals in mind and will do whatever they can to meet them as soon as possible. I got the impression that they won't mind charting new territory in order to get it done, so I don't expect them to stick with the old patterns if they're allowed to try new ones that they think might work better. I was very impressed by the energy and good sense of Terrie Gruber and Donna Calvert when we met them in class and at the reception. Yep, I totally agree. I see them doing whatever they need to do to get the hires they want. They want to hire and the need is absolutely there. The backlog is crazy with over a million people waiting for a decision. Attrition alone equates to about 100 ALJs a year.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 15, 2015 16:47:38 GMT -5
That's the tree I'm hoping to shake. I was pretty sure I knew the answer to the first part of my question had been batted around in the not too distant past on a slow news day, but I don't recall anyone commenting on the interview. The other question along these lines would be does a retaker of the test who gets on the Register again start with a clean considerations slate, or do any prior considerations received remain tallied against the retaker? Gary: I'm not sure if by "clean considerations slate" you are referring to OPM or SSA. I don't know about OPM but I know TPTB at SSA have a file on all the candidates they have found to be less than satisfactory in the past. They may have a file on all candidates, but I'm not sure about that. So if a candidate was considered unsatisfactory in the past, there is a good chance the same result will apply on a subsequent register. SSA really isn't too concerns about "considerations" unless it is an unsatisfactory candidate it wishes to three strike from further consideration. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 15, 2015 16:54:54 GMT -5
The other question along these lines would be does a retaker of the test who gets on the Register again start with a clean considerations slate, or do any prior considerations received remain tallied against the retaker? Gary: I'm not sure if by "clean considerations slate" you are referring to OPM or SSA. I don't know about OPM but I know TPTB at SSA have a file on all the candidates they have found to be less than satisfactory in the past. They may have a file on all candidates, but I'm not sure about that. So if a candidate was considered unsatisfactory in the past, there is a good chance the same result will apply on a subsequent register. SSA really isn't too concerns about "considerations" unless it is an unsatisfactory candidate it wishes to three strike from further consideration. Pixie An agency does not have to consider a candidate who has been thrice considered for the same position without being hired. I was referring to this procedure. I think maybe for the same Register (i.e., the situation of a candidate who successfully retested on a refresh), a candidate likely continues to carry any prior considerations she/he had received during the life of the Register, but I don't know that for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Gram Pop on Aug 15, 2015 16:58:50 GMT -5
I hope you had a good trip home, Judge R. My take on this -- aside from your accurate recounting of what we were told this past week -- is that ODAR has hiring goals in mind and will do whatever they can to meet them as soon as possible. I got the impression that they won't mind charting new territory in order to get it done, so I don't expect them to stick with the old patterns if they're allowed to try new ones that they think might work better. I was very impressed by the energy and good sense of Terrie Gruber and Donna Calvert when we met them in class and at the reception. Yep, I totally agree. I see them doing whatever they need to do to get the hires they want. They want to hire and the need is absolutely there. The backlog is crazy with over a million people waiting for a decision. Attrition alone equates to about 100 ALJs a year. And lets not forget those of us longing for a transfer! Any and all new ways to expedite that process would make many judges (both old and new) very happy. And a happy judge is a highly productive judge.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 15, 2015 17:03:54 GMT -5
Gary: I don't think it really makes much difference as a practical matter. If a candidate does get a fresh start on a subsequent register, and she is one previously considered unsatisfactory by SSA, all the agency needs to do is to consider her three times again. If once unsatisfactory, forever unsatisfactory is probably the way the agency sees most candidates.
And a candidate should never think that she has been three struck just because the agency has considered her three times without making an offer. A three strike is not mandatory but is optional with the agency. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 15, 2015 17:19:58 GMT -5
Gary: I don't think it really makes much difference as a practical matter. If a candidate does get a fresh start on a subsequent register, and she is one previously considered unsatisfactory by SSA, all the agency needs to do is to consider her three times again. If once unsatisfactory, forever unsatisfactory is probably the way the agency sees most candidates. And a candidate should never think that she has been three struck just because the agency has considered her three times without making an offer. A three strike is not mandatory but is optional with the agency. Pixie. It probably only very rarely would make a practical difference, and then the difference would be for the agency and not the candidate. However, I'm not one to let practicality interfere with musing. The rest of what you say I agree with one hundred percent.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Aug 15, 2015 18:00:20 GMT -5
**And lets not forget those of us longing for a transfer! Any and all new ways to expedite that process would make many judges (both old and new) very happy. And a happy judge is a highly productive judge. ** At the risk of hijacking the thread, I must concur with my esteemed colleague. There's got to be a way to do it better. In the absence of a transfer, even working at two locations would be better, now that we have the capacity to do virtual work in other locations.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 18, 2015 13:25:50 GMT -5
As for the GAL expansion, the only word about that was in this thread based on Judge Bice's statement that they were pushing for one. Honestly at this stage I am not sure how big a difference that will make. While a few of the users here want a chance to expand their GAL, I think for the register at large most will have an unchanged or even smaller GAL. The people actively posting and following this board are the most invested in being an ALJ and being an ALJ for SSA and for everyone here who wants to expand their GAL you will find someone who is drastically decreasing their's. I suspect many people who originally applied back in 2013 were only really considering one city and/or one agency, and that probably hasn't changed for many. I think you're wrong about how many folks would expand their GAL. Below is the poll on this topic and it shows a huge preference for expansion. The reality is that many people (particularly outsiders) had little to no idea how the GAL would affect the outcomes in hiring. The large number of outsiders who have really small GALs is a product of this ignorance. I would agree that in the general population of the register a GAL expansion would have a relatively small impact BUT if even 40 or 50 more people were available for Tupelo, Cincinnati, Middlesboro, etc. It would be a huge boost for the longevity of the register not to mention the many many more people who would add a few cities here or there because their personal situation has changed so dramatically in the intervening years. I recognize that some perhaps many people would also reduce their GAL if given that opportunity. However, those people were already going to do that when they got certed. All OPM would be doing is getting a better picture of those people's actual availability. I don't know whether OPM will actually do it or not but unless there is some huge unknown cost in time they are shooting themselves in the foot not to. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3383/expand-gal-given-opportunity
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 18, 2015 13:35:54 GMT -5
As for the GAL expansion, the only word about that was in this thread based on Judge Bice's statement that they were pushing for one. Honestly at this stage I am not sure how big a difference that will make. While a few of the users here want a chance to expand their GAL, I think for the register at large most will have an unchanged or even smaller GAL. The people actively posting and following this board are the most invested in being an ALJ and being an ALJ for SSA and for everyone here who wants to expand their GAL you will find someone who is drastically decreasing their's. I suspect many people who originally applied back in 2013 were only really considering one city and/or one agency, and that probably hasn't changed for many. I think you're wrong about how many folks would expand their GAL. Below is the poll on this topic and it shows a huge preference for expansion. The reality is that many people (particularly outsiders) had little to no idea how the GAL would affect the outcomes in hiring. The large number of outsiders who have really small GALs is a product of this ignorance. I would agree that in the general population of the register a GAL expansion would have a relatively small impact BUT if even 40 or 50 more people were available for Tupelo, Cincinnati, Middlesboro, etc. It would be a huge boost for the longevity of the register not to mention the many many more people who would add a few cities here or there because their personal situation has changed so dramatically in the intervening years. I recognize that some perhaps many people would also reduce their GAL if given that opportunity. However, those people were already going to do that when they got certed. All OPM would be doing is getting a better picture of those people's actual availability. I don't know whether OPM will actually do it or not but unless there is some huge unknown cost in time they are shooting themselves in the foot not to. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3383/expand-gal-given-opportunityExactly. They would not be wanting OPM to allow a GAL expansion if it would not make a significant difference. ODAR knows who has a limited GAL since they see the cert lists and they have asked for this to happen. It does not mean OPM will comply but they(ODAR) are trying to get this to happen.
|
|
|
Post by willsdad on Aug 18, 2015 14:06:31 GMT -5
I, for one, am an outsider who was completely unfamiliar with the process before March 2013, and I would love the opportunity to expand my GAL. It's been a few years, so my memory may not be accurate, but I seem to remember that selecting the GAL cities was one of the first things I did - even before the online testing. I knew where I wanted to be, so I selected the few cities in the area that would get me close. Now that I have infinitely more knowledge of the process - thanks solely to this Board - I would select many more cities that would also work for me and my family. No newbie should ever be entrusted with a GAL selection! Gaidin's point also makes sense: candidates can effectively reduce their GAL by declining cities after being certed. So, on balance, a GAL expansion would give ODAR and us more options for placement.
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Aug 18, 2015 14:10:02 GMT -5
JudgeRatty, just found this thread and sincere congrats to you and your classmates on the completion of your training! The takeaway from your info for me is hope that the GAL expansion occurs. I won't allow the potential decrease in hiring from what was anticipated to bother me just yet since there's so much uncertainty anyway. Actually, if OPM is willing to try new approaches, which is what the message of the past couple of months seems to have been, maybe those of us lucky enough to get offers will come by them more quickly. (I must remind myself that I have yet to make the register!)
Thanks for the intel and kudos to you for making sure it was OK with the powers that be to do so!
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 18, 2015 15:31:56 GMT -5
I, like everyone else am not pleased to hear the drop in anticipated hire numbers. I've been out of pocket for a while and simply wonder what, if any, underlying issue(s) are at play assuming the intel is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it is). The strange process just continues to get stranger, day, by day, by....... The Intel came straight from those in charge so it is accurate. This response is adorable, but it is not accurate. However, please keep your innocence as long as possible! Mine lasted several years.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 18, 2015 17:20:13 GMT -5
The Intel came straight from those in charge so it is accurate. This response is adorable, but it is not accurate. However, please keep your innocence as long as possible! Mine lasted several years. LOL! Hey, anytime I can get a comment with adjectives such as "adorable" and "innocence" directed at me or anything I say... I will take it! But I will say, the intel referenced was directly from our very own Chief ALJ Bice and Judge Allen. Last time I checked, they qualify as "in charge" and in the know. But hey, what do I know. LOL!
Ok, time for movie and an adult beverage. Hey funkyodar Pass me one of those beers, even the Keystone! The Billy Beer comment made me crack up. Yes, I remember those.
|
|