|
Post by st8shooter on Feb 4, 2016 15:03:49 GMT -5
As an AA, I'd start looking for other agencies. I'm sure plenty of AAs do that anyway, but if ALJ isn't the light at the end of the tunnel, what is? HOD? And the only way to get a HOD position (it seems) is through GS which most AAs avoid like the plague. I'm hoping with some of the CARES initiatives (like pre-hearing triage, etc), that possibly SAA positions might open up again (or at the very least, let the existing SAAs do something other than decision writing, it must really steam AAs to know that the SAA sitting next to you gets paid quite a bit more to do the exact same job). YMMV, but in my experience, with over a decade of SA experience and plenty as an AA, I can tell you that the two are not "the exact same job." It is true that with the recent temporary changes to the decision making component of the SA job, the two are much closer in day to day duties. However, I can tell you from experience that like many other positions in the Agency, such as GS and HOD for example, many aspects of the job go unnoticed except by those who perform those functions.
|
|
dwfl
Full Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by dwfl on Feb 4, 2016 15:08:03 GMT -5
I'm not sure a change to the ALJ announcement would make a difference for career AAs. I believe that the scoring of the Experience Assessment eliminates AAs. The big change already happened. Previously, candidates that only had ODAR experience were able to become ALJs. I am not aware of anyone fitting that profile becoming an ALJ under the new standards. I'm not sure anyone has even progressed to an interview. I am happy to be wrong about this, and I would love to hear anecdotal evidence showing otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by defender on Feb 4, 2016 15:50:33 GMT -5
I am confused. I have read previously where some believe an announcement will be made by the first of April allowing new applicants. After reading some of the posts in this thread maybe not. What is the thought now on when a new applicant by be able to join the game?
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 4, 2016 15:55:31 GMT -5
I am confused. I have read previously where some believe an announcement will be made by the first of April allowing new applicants. After reading some of the posts in this thread maybe not. What is the thought now on when a new applicant by be able to join the game? Yes, new applicants will be added to current register. That's what's called a "refresh." People who are on the register at that time remain on it. It's not a repeal and replace.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 4, 2016 16:05:09 GMT -5
dwfl, Au Contraire Mon Ami, I know of one Judge that became a Judge in this last year, 2015, that had 7 years and a few days experience since graduation, almost all Agency and had been a GS for 2 months... But someone wanted her..
|
|
dwfl
Full Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by dwfl on Feb 4, 2016 16:12:30 GMT -5
Bartleby, thank you for your response. I'm glad to be wrong. This is the first example I have heard of, but it is enough to give me hope.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 4, 2016 16:13:24 GMT -5
dwfl, Au Contraire Mon Ami, I know of one Judge that became a Judge in this last year, 2015, that had 7 years and a few days experience since graduation, almost all Agency and had been a GS for 2 months... But someone wanted her.. As Pixie has pointed out, when they want you, obstacles can be overcome. However, i'd love to hear how this person made the initial OPM cut given that litigation experience is a prerequisite.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 4, 2016 16:19:42 GMT -5
dwfl, Au Contraire Mon Ami, I know of one Judge that became a Judge in this last year, 2015, that had 7 years and a few days experience since graduation, almost all Agency and had been a GS for 2 months... But someone wanted her.. As Pixie has pointed out, when they want you, obstacles can be overcome. However, i'd love to hear how this person made the initial OPM cut given that litigation experience is a prerequisite. The qualifying question is this: Do you have a full seven (7) years of experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or reviewing formal hearings or trials involving litigation and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 4, 2016 16:23:07 GMT -5
Thank you tripper. I had not done my homework.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Feb 4, 2016 16:28:38 GMT -5
Recently hearing rumors from ALJs and AAs in other offices that OPM is going to change the ALJ announcement, specifically with regard to qualifying legal experience. These folks are saying that ODAR AA experience will no longer count towards the seven year minimum requirement. Anyone else heard anything like or about this and, more importantly, know where this is coming from? I assumed reading this original thread that the poster is saying the new announcement for April 1(ish) will have a different requirement. I don't think this has anything to do with the current registry people are waiting on.
Selfishly, I like that change cause I have the requisite experience before becoming a DW, so a lot less competition. And more objectively, honestly being a DW is nothing like having a court room centric law experience. But I think you would ideally have both, DW experience and court room experience.
Everyone on the same register needs to have gotten there based on the same criteria. The April applications, if they happen, are to get on the existing register. Can't change qualifications now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 16:31:09 GMT -5
Everyone on the same register needs to have gotten there based on the same criteria. The April applications, if they happen, are to get on the existing register. Can't change qualifications now. I wonder if the rumors they hear could involve the criteria being used behind the scenes to score the interviews or whatever the subjective component of scoring is occurring...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 16:42:03 GMT -5
As Pixie has pointed out, when they want you, obstacles can be overcome. However, i'd love to hear how this person made the initial OPM cut given that litigation experience is a prerequisite. The qualifying question is this: Do you have a full seven (7) years of experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or reviewing formal hearings or trials involving litigation and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level? Exact language from the announcement:
Administrative Law Experience: Qualifying administrative law experience involves cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body and includes: •participating in settlement negotiations in advance of hearing cases; •preparing for hearing and/or participating in trial of cases; •preparing opinions; •hearing cases; •participating in or conducting arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution process approved by the administrative body; or •participating in appeals related to the types of cases above.
Obviously, AA/DWs say they participate in preparing opinions to get their seven years experience. Even though technically, they prepare "decisions" not "opinions"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 17:04:20 GMT -5
soldack: forgive me what is the difference between an opinion and a decision? I don't think there really is a difference, but technically ALJs don't issue opinions they issue decisions. Maybe a real legal scholar knows the differences. I found this... •A decision is a loose term for the set of opinions that accompany an order, combined with that order. There may be more than one case associated with a particular decision. •An opinion is a general term describing the written views of a judge or judges with respect to a particular order. Not all orders--including important orders, and including in both the district courts and the courts of appeals--have opinions. A single order by a court might produce a zero or more majority opinions, zero or more concurring opinions, zero or more dissenting opinions, and zero or more opinions that concur in part and dissent in part. It is also possible that a decision produces other documents that are not opinions -- for example, a syllabus, appendix, or summary describing all the other documents related to the decision. But I think I was kinda of being funny because we had a training about the difference in State agency "determinations", ALJ "Decisions" and AC "Actions"(?)
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 4, 2016 18:08:28 GMT -5
I certainly hope the OP is wrong. As others pointed out, this would be a refresh of the current register, not a new register. Or so we think anyway. Not to freak anyone out, but I for one was quite surprised that the budget bill had the requirement for opening the ALJ process again, and I suppose it is possible that, since the "take II" that occurred earlier in 2015 (and the subsequent fall 2015 WD/SIs)occurred before this bill passed, maybe they are willing to scrap everyone on the current register? I honestly can't see SSA being on board with that since they want to hire 200+ judges this year, but SSA isn't OPM. FWIW, the only thing I have heard along these lines is that they are looking for more "diversity" in the applicants. I suppose that could mean they are sick of getting insiders. I'd be interested to know how well placed the OPs sources are. I guess if he's right the "light" at the end of the tunnel for career AA/SAAs would be becoming an AAJ, which is similar pay as an ALJ, but only doing AC reviews, and soon, maybe overpayments (where's that "smiley face eating a gun" emoji?) not to mention having all that extra pay eaten up by having to live in DC/Baltimore (and having to live in DC/Baltimore for the rest of your career, which would eviscerate my interest in the position right there). As to Group sup being the "easiest" GS-13 in government - lololololololol, no. That'd be SAA. I think the words you were looking for were "frustrating" or "least rewarding," although YMMV depending on your personality and the personalities of those you manage. I don't see HOD as much of an improvement, but I am admittedly not the management type. And yes, being an insider all your life won't give you much experience in being an ALJ for agencies with adversarial hearings, but seems like it would be pretty darn apropos to doing non-adversarial hearings on the subject matter you've been dealing with your entire career; though I concur that experience on the inside and outside would be optimal - but my feelings are somewhat skewed by the fact that I fit that description
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 4, 2016 18:14:38 GMT -5
Bartleby, thank you for your response. I'm glad to be wrong. This is the first example I have heard of, but it is enough to give me hope.
Bartleby is correct, I know a few (though they had may 2-3 years doing something else before ODAR).
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 4, 2016 18:48:00 GMT -5
SSA is most definitely NOT "tired of getting insiders." While the issue of whether an insider or outsider is the better candidate is a raging debate, whether or not the Administration wants insiders is not up for debate. In my experience and opinion, anyway. More than a few of the PTB (and by that I mean all) I have spoken to have made it expressly clear that the biggest problem they have with the testing has been its focus on litigation leading to fewer insiders being on the register.
And, I know that there is hope this second group, which were previously cut at phase 2 where the Experience Assessment rewarded litigators and hindered those with only agency experience, will contain many more insiders.
Given the budget language I have seen seems to put the power to demand a refresh at SSA'S disposal, I highly doubt there will be any change that further hinders insider candidates.
All my opinion, of course.
Funk
|
|
|
Post by Radoy Knuf on Feb 4, 2016 19:08:39 GMT -5
All my opinion, of course. Funk ¡Me lo llevo! Rado
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Feb 4, 2016 19:21:52 GMT -5
Wow! Talk of ALJFAQ in one thread and now Radoy Knuf! Bringing out all the old ghosts! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 4, 2016 20:00:41 GMT -5
I have wondered about this for awhile now, but have always been afraid of asking a question that others see as having an obvious answer.
Here is the quote about administrative law experience as posted by Soldack above:
"Administrative Law Experience: Qualifying administrative law experience involves cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body and includes:
. . . ."
What does the bolded language actually mean? Or, more specifically, what is a formal procedure within the above context? Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by minny on Feb 4, 2016 20:21:40 GMT -5
I have wondered about this for awhile now, but have always been afraid of asking a question that others see as having an obvious answer. Here is the quote about administrative law experience as posted by Soldack above: "Administrative Law Experience: Qualifying administrative law experience involves cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body and includes: . . . ." What does the bolded language actually mean? Or, more specifically, what is a formal procedure within the above context? Pixie. A formal administrative [adjudicative] procedure would include things like appeals of license revocations, appeal of penalties for violating regulations, etc. Most administrative bodies also have informal procedures that do not involve trial-like presentations of testimony and evidence.
|
|