|
Post by gary on Aug 27, 2015 19:03:24 GMT -5
Hello all. I'm 59 years old, a highly experienced litigator (state and federal), and my score was well over 70. I lived in Tupelo for 13 years and it's on my GAL. I'm also a non-veteran outsider. I've been on the current registry since the beginning. Am I not qualified for an ALJ slot in Tupelo??? Klinger. You didn't state whether you have made the cert for Tupelo, or how many times you did. You certainly sound qualified, and assuming you have made a cert and interviewed and all your references have checked out, I agree that you would be a great fit for Tupelo. But I have to ask, with a name like Klinger, don't you want to go to Toledo?? Or Seoul.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 27, 2015 19:06:09 GMT -5
I thought he might have chosed the name because of all the leotard comments!
|
|
|
Post by klinger77 on Aug 27, 2015 19:42:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the encouragement, friends. Gary, I made the certification for Tupelo each time since I interviewed last November. As I recall, there were 3 of them. Is that a bad sign? I presently live in Connecticut but enjoyed living in Tupelo so I wouldn't mind relocating there once again. No Toledo or Seoul for me. As for the moniker "klinger77," it was totally random but I am a child of the 70's!
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 27, 2015 20:19:45 GMT -5
Since Tupelo is not on my GAL, I wholeheartedly wish you luck that you get a call in the next few days. I saw a Toledo Mud Hen game last week, so I couldn't resist! Good luck to everyone, I can't wait to hear from the lucky ones and I hope to be joining you in ODAR. Here's to tomorrow!
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Aug 27, 2015 20:58:32 GMT -5
Apologies if this has been brought up before - I used the search function but nothing hit - I thought this language from an SSA Document commenting on the FY16 Budget was appropriate for this thread in terms of "Interesting Times": Addresses Increasing Wait Times for a Disability Appeal Decision. The Budget calls for hiring of additional Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). SSA’s workloads continue to increase as the baby boom generation enters its most disability-prone years. SSA was able to reduce the wait time down to a ten year low in 2011 and 2012, but due to years of funding constraints, the wait time has again begun to grow and is anticipated to rise to 470 days in 2015. Currently there are over one million people waiting for a disability appeals hearing decision from an ALJ. The Budget commits increased resources to hire more ALJs. But resources alone will not be enough. The process for hiring ALJs has not operated as efficiently as needed to fill vacancies even when funding is available. Therefore, the Administration is creating a workgroup led by the Administrative Conference of the United States and the Office of Personnel Management, along with SSA, the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget to review the process of hiring ALJs and recommend ways to eliminate roadblocks, which may include proposing administrative reforms or legislative changes. Of particular note for me was that list bit about the Administration creating a workgroup led by ACUS, OPM, SSA, DOJ and OMB to "review the process of hiring ALJs and recommend ways to eliminate roadblocks, which may included proposing administrative reforms or legislative changes." Anyone have any info on this? Talk about potential changes . . . . Again sorry if this has been brought up before. I hadn't heard of this before now, but it is certainly not surprising. Given the number of stakeholders mentioned, it will probably take a full year just to get the workgroup stood up, and I it will probably be an eternity before they can come to a consensus on what changes they want to propose. I believe I heard of this group last year and met some of the members. They have been meeting and supposedly briefing the WH. I haven't heard about it for a while except for the president's FY16 budget called for money to be allocated for improving SSA's ALJ hiring process. From the meeting I was at, they know the current hiring process is broken.
|
|
|
Post by ibnlurkin on Aug 28, 2015 9:02:37 GMT -5
I hadn't heard of this before now, but it is certainly not surprising. Given the number of stakeholders mentioned, it will probably take a full year just to get the workgroup stood up, and I it will probably be an eternity before they can come to a consensus on what changes they want to propose. I believe I heard of this group last year and met some of the members. They have been meeting and supposedly briefing the WH. I haven't heard about it for a while except for the president's FY16 budget called for money to be allocated for improving SSA's ALJ hiring process. From the meeting I was at, they know the current hiring process is broken. Wow... open rebellion ...in the years since the application process began I've heard many descriptions of the process.....many seem to be oddly protective of the torturous process .... as if to say we do have a monster in the kitchen but he's our monster and he's kinda cute.... Its becoming increasingly evident that the monster is eating the cookies as soon as they come out of the oven....I wonder if the end of the fiscal year will even yield a net positive number of judges after attrition....
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 28, 2015 10:39:43 GMT -5
Am I the only one who sees "legislative changes" and "more efficient hiring" as "we need to replace ALJs with AJs or HOs"?
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Aug 28, 2015 10:45:56 GMT -5
I'm not saying that's what it actually means, but it is a reasonable interpretation, if one wants to see it.
|
|
|
Post by intothewild on Aug 28, 2015 13:06:11 GMT -5
Am I the only one who sees "legislative changes" and "more efficient hiring" as "we need to replace ALJs with AJs or HOs"? How likely is it that SSA will try to replace ALJ with AJ positions?
|
|
|
Post by lonestar on Aug 28, 2015 13:30:01 GMT -5
I doubt it. This would create a two tier system and result in endless appeals.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 28, 2015 14:05:52 GMT -5
I don't believe it would create a two tier system if SSA chose to convert from ALJ to AAJ adjudicators. The judges in the Appeals Council are not ALJs but are AAJs and make the same pay.
Going back to Klinger77's question as to why he was not picked, there are two possible scenarios. Feel free to pick the one you like the best.
1. Scenario 1: The "rule of three" still applies to these selections. You may be in the top three of the candidates but you are not number 1. The person in the slot above you is a veteran who cannot be passed over (for whatever reason). ODAR does not want that vet and decides it would be better not to fill the slot from the current certificates.
2. Scenario 2: ODAR is following the president's instructions on selection which does away with the rule of three,so all best qualified candidates are considered for the vacancy. ODAR has decided that you are not among the best qualified,or even if you are, ODAR is not inclined to offer you the job.
You will never know the reasons no offer has been made to date.
I repeat what I posted earlier. There are always more candidates than there are jobs. Yes, that message is a buzz-kill, but getting an offer never has been a sure thing. Sometimes I think when people are going through this, they need that person who would whisper in Ceasar's ear to beware the ides of March. You have to keep grounded in reality and not invest so much in the desire to be an ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by odarSAA on Aug 28, 2015 14:11:28 GMT -5
My office has been a revolving door. Five in, five out within 12 months (usually much sooner). We are a 12 judge office but only have 5 that are longtimers, and we opened in 2010. That said, we are not on the list. Word is, we do a good job training newbies, so I will take that for whatever it may mean. I guess we are close enough to metro Chicago that we get enough interest. Those on the list seem remote or very chilly.
|
|
|
Post by lonestar on Aug 28, 2015 16:44:42 GMT -5
I don't believe it would create a two tier system if SSA chose to convert from ALJ to AAJ adjudicators. The judges in the Appeals Council are not ALJs but are AAJs and make the same pay. Going back to Klinger77's question as to why he was not picked, there are two possible scenarios. Feel free to pick the one you like the best. 1. Scenario 1: The "rule of three" still applies to these selections. You may be in the top three of the candidates but you are not number 1. The person in the slot above you is a veteran who cannot be passed over (for whatever reason). ODAR does not want that vet and decides it would be better not to fill the slot from the current certificates. 2. Scenario 2: ODAR is following the president's instructions on selection which does away with the rule of three,so all best qualified candidates are considered for the vacancy. ODAR has decided that you are not among the best qualified,or even if you are, ODAR is not inclined to offer you the job. You will never know the reasons no offer has been made to date. I repeat what I posted earlier. There are always more candidates than there are jobs. Yes, that message is a buzz-kill, but getting an offer never has been a sure thing. Sometimes I think when people are going through this, they need that person who would whisper in Ceasar's ear to beware the ides of March. You have to keep grounded in reality and not invest so much in the desire to be an ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by lonestar on Aug 28, 2015 16:45:59 GMT -5
That would be interesting given there is no love lost between the ALJs and the AC! timestamp="1440798282"] I don't believe it would create a two tier system if SSA chose to convert from ALJ to AAJ adjudicators. The judges in the Appeals Council are not ALJs but are AAJs and make the same pay. Going back to Klinger77's question as to why he was not picked, there are two possible scenarios. Feel free to pick the one you like the best. 1. Scenario 1: The "rule of three" still applies to these selections. You may be in the top three of the candidates but you are not number 1. The person in the slot above you is a veteran who cannot be passed over (for whatever reason). ODAR does not want that vet and decides it would be better not to fill the slot from the current certificates. 2. Scenario 2: ODAR is following the president's instructions on selection which does away with the rule of three,so all best qualified candidates are considered for the vacancy. ODAR has decided that you are not among the best qualified,or even if you are, ODAR is not inclined to offer you the job. You will never know the reasons no offer has been made to date. I repeat what I posted earlier. There are always more candidates than there are jobs. Yes, that message is a buzz-kill, but getting an offer never has been a sure thing. Sometimes I think when people are going through this, they need that person who would whisper in Ceasar's ear to beware the ides of March. You have to keep grounded in reality and not invest so much in the desire to be an ALJ. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 29, 2015 15:31:39 GMT -5
I don't believe it would create a two tier system if SSA chose to convert from ALJ to AAJ adjudicators. The judges in the Appeals Council are not ALJs but are AAJs and make the same pay. Going back to Klinger77's question as to why he was not picked, there are two possible scenarios. Feel free to pick the one you like the best. 1. Scenario 1: The "rule of three" still applies to these selections. You may be in the top three of the candidates but you are not number 1. The person in the slot above you is a veteran who cannot be passed over (for whatever reason). ODAR does not want that vet and decides it would be better not to fill the slot from the current certificates. 2. Scenario 2: ODAR is following the president's instructions on selection which does away with the rule of three,so all best qualified candidates are considered for the vacancy. ODAR has decided that you are not among the best qualified,or even if you are, ODAR is not inclined to offer you the job. You will never know the reasons no offer has been made to date. I repeat what I posted earlier. There are always more candidates than there are jobs. Yes, that message is a buzz-kill, but getting an offer never has been a sure thing. Sometimes I think when people are going through this, they need that person who would whisper in Ceasar's ear to beware the ides of March. You have to keep grounded in reality and not invest so much in the desire to be an ALJ. From what I have seen Puzzle Palace would love legislation that would allow them to adjudicate their cases with AJs. MSPB does it as does EEOC, but these I understand are federal employee claims. I am sure that there are additional agencies that allow AJ adjudications--Immigration and VA are a few more that come to me. But I don't think Congress will play ball. As to Klinger's plight, you have my sympathy. The subject has been beaten to death in a plethora of threads. Suffice to say I could come up with a whole lotta more scenarios and reasons that redryder, but why bring Klinger down? He was always so cheerful on MASH. And lastly, easy for redryder to say not to invest in the process. While I agree with the advice, its almost impossible for a lawyer to contribute all this time, energy and $ in this process and not be invested. Realpolitik...
|
|
|
Post by Loopstok on Aug 29, 2015 18:42:57 GMT -5
So. ALJs are being beset on all sides. Some folks want us down-converted from ALJs, to AJs or even HOs. Other folks want us term-limited.
Of these various propopsals, some are not yet more than Wall Street Journal op-ed pieces written by ill-informed libertarian activists. Others are building ever louder in the echo-chamber of the far right-wing's policy engine.
Almost all of the stuff that the ALJ corps is being blamed for, has nothing to do with the ALJ corps itself. So watching our position be attacked or weakened, is maddening.
But, if any or all of these changes do happen... are they intended to be prospective (i.e. only applying to new hires)... or retroactive (affecting every single sitting ALJ, including me, the newbie)?
I'm curious to know how much of my nervous energy should be devoted to worrying about needing to find another job, so soon after I got what I figured was a lifetime appointment that would take me through retirement?
|
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Aug 29, 2015 19:01:58 GMT -5
To remove the ALJ position will require an act of Congress.
See the following statement from the U.S. General Accounting Office:
"The ALJ position in federal agencies, originally called Hearing Examiner, was created by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Public Law 79-404. The purpose of the act was to ensure fairness and due process in federal agency rulemaking and administrative adjudication proceedings and provide those whose affairs are controlled or regulated by federal government agencies an opportunity for a “formal” hearing on the record before an impartial hearing officer or ALJ. The act sought to ensure the ALJs’ judicial capability and objectivity by precluding agencies from evaluating the ALJs’ performance and by assigning responsibility for determining their qualifications, compensation, and tenure to the U.S. Civil Service Commission, later the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Within OPM, that responsibility resides within the Office of Administrative Law Judges."
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Aug 29, 2015 19:05:33 GMT -5
So. ALJs are being beset on all sides. Some folks want us down-converted from ALJs, to AJs or even HOs. Other folks want us term-limited. Of these various propopsals, some are not yet more than Wall Street Journal op-ed pieces written by ill-informed libertarian activists. Others are building ever louder in the echo-chamber of the far right-wing's policy engine. Almost all of the stuff that the ALJ corps is being blamed for, has nothing to do with the ALJ corps itself. So watching our position be attacked or weakened, is maddening. But, if any or all of these changes do happen... are they intended to be prospective (i.e. only applying to new hires)... or retroactive (affecting every single sitting ALJ, including me, the newbie)? I'm curious to know how much of my nervous energy should be devoted to worrying about needing to find another job, so soon after I got what I figured was a lifetime appointment that would take me through retirement? I don't think it's time to panic but these proposed changes certainly bear watching. I personally think we would be grandfathered as ALJ's if those changes were made. But even if we were not, after the recent 7th Cir decision I am not sure what protection, from a practical standpoint, ALJ's get from it.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Aug 29, 2015 21:30:06 GMT -5
There is an agency in NYC called the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. For a long time, it employed a handful of full-time ALJs who heard cases involving municipal employees.
During the Bloomberg years, an administrative hearings czar was hired on. He began to build an empire by consolidating administrative hearings from all the various agency tribunals into OATH. Those agency administrative tribunals were staffed by per-diem hearing officers who were treated rather badly and had no benefits or pensions. By June of this year, OATH was hearing Health Dept, Taxi and Environmental Control Board cases.
On July 1st, hearings at the Department of Consumer Affairs were also handed over to OATH. The DCA hearing officers were full-timers with pension, benefits and a union. So what did OATH do with the full-time staff at DCA? Fired them, of course. It's cheaper to run hearings with per-diem staff who don't get benefits. It's also a lot easier to keep those attorneys under your control that way.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 30, 2015 10:20:31 GMT -5
There is an agency in NYC called the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. For a long time, it employed a handful of full-time ALJs who heard cases involving municipal employees. During the Bloomberg years, an administrative hearings czar was hired on. He began to build an empire by consolidating administrative hearings from all the various agency tribunals into OATH. Those agency administrative tribunals were staffed by per-diem hearing officers who were treated rather badly and had no benefits or pensions. By June of this year, OATH was hearing Health Dept, Taxi and Environmental Control Board cases. On July 1st, hearings at the Department of Consumer Affairs were also handed over to OATH. The DCA hearing officers were full-timers with pension, benefits and a union. So what did OATH do with the full-time staff at DCA? Fired them, of course. It's cheaper to run hearings with per-diem staff who don't get benefits. It's also a lot easier to keep those attorneys under your control that way. Thanks for the info, Liz. This is why we have AALJ and FALJC and that its better for all of us to the degree that we keep an eye out for the wolves who would come to the door. The other point is that NYC can get away with this kind of thing when they do it by calling it something else--when and if they are found out. Consollidation, trimming City fat and pensions, etc. stc. While they are not federal ALJs, one presumes that they enjoyed decisional independence as the State of NY ALJs do. At the end of the day, the litigant now runs the real risk of not having a fair and impartial forum.
|
|