|
Post by Pixie on Feb 4, 2016 20:36:10 GMT -5
In the examples you gave, it appears the agency initiated the action, as contemplated by the language of the definition.
I understand about formal procedures, but when coupled with the language ". . . initiated by a governmental administrative body . . . ." doesn't that seem to contemplate that the agency takes the initial action to start the process? In the examples you gave the agency would have initiated the action, such as license revocation, assessment of penalties, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Feb 4, 2016 20:45:18 GMT -5
In the examples you gave, it appears the agency initiated the action, as contemplated by the language of the definition. I understand about formal procedures, but when coupled with the language ". . . initiated by a governmental administrative body . . . ." doesn't that seem to contemplate that the agency takes the initial action to start the process? In the examples you gave the agency would have initiated the action, such as license revocation, assessment of penalties, etc.? I can give examples. However, I think we would be getting close to providing an unfair advantage. Let the applicant figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 4, 2016 21:03:21 GMT -5
In the examples you gave, it appears the agency initiated the action, as contemplated by the language of the definition. I understand about formal procedures, but when coupled with the language ". . . initiated by a governmental administrative body . . . ." doesn't that seem to contemplate that the agency takes the initial action to start the process? In the examples you gave the agency would have initiated the action, such as license revocation, assessment of penalties, etc.? I can give examples. However, I think we would be getting close to providing an unfair advantage. Let the applicant figure it out. Oh, I see.... thanks!
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 4, 2016 21:05:41 GMT -5
In the examples you gave, it appears the agency initiated the action, as contemplated by the language of the definition. I understand about formal procedures, but when coupled with the language ". . . initiated by a governmental administrative body . . . ." doesn't that seem to contemplate that the agency takes the initial action to start the process? In the examples you gave the agency would have initiated the action, such as license revocation, assessment of penalties, etc.? "Formal Procedures" seems far broader than "Formal Hearings." Arguably, getting your license revoked is a "formal procedure" even if it did not involve notice and a hearing. Looks like I have speeding to do!
|
|
|
Post by ba on Feb 4, 2016 21:11:42 GMT -5
In the examples you gave, it appears the agency initiated the action, as contemplated by the language of the definition. I understand about formal procedures, but when coupled with the language ". . . initiated by a governmental administrative body . . . ." doesn't that seem to contemplate that the agency takes the initial action to start the process? In the examples you gave the agency would have initiated the action, such as license revocation, assessment of penalties, etc.? It can involve an internal agency process of enforcement. Some federal agencies engage in such processes and seek to resolve the dispute before moving to proceed against a party in federal court.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 4, 2016 21:59:03 GMT -5
Ok, now your all freaking me out. It now sounds like an ICE deportation hearing counts, but an EEOC/MSPB hearing wouldn't count because they are initiated by the employee. Now that not only makes no sense, but would disqualify many practitioners. Anyone who has fully litigated an EEOC or MSPB case is a litigator the same way a JAG with courts-martial experience is.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 4, 2016 22:12:10 GMT -5
So, can any of you see where I am going with this? I think SeaLaw is beginning to get it. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Feb 4, 2016 22:26:49 GMT -5
I could argue that the setting of a hearing by an agency, whether on its own or at the request of a party, is the "initiation" of a "formal procedure". I've spent the majority of my career doing work that would fit that definition.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 4, 2016 22:53:51 GMT -5
The opening in April is a refresh. Those of us on the register got notice in December the register was extended until December 2018.
The previous register was refreshed several times before it was allowed to expire after I believe 7 years.
The idea that they would spend tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands testing people in the Fall to then close it out and open a new register in April is beyond belief.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 4, 2016 23:31:24 GMT -5
I could argue that the setting of a hearing by an agency, whether on its own or at the request of a party, is the "initiation" of a "formal procedure". I've spent the majority of my career doing work that would fit that definition. Yes, we could make that argument, but is it really the initiation of a formal procedure, or is the setting of a hearing a reaction to the initiation of the request for a hearing?
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 5, 2016 0:04:04 GMT -5
I could argue that the setting of a hearing by an agency, whether on its own or at the request of a party, is the "initiation" of a "formal procedure". I've spent the majority of my career doing work that would fit that definition. Yes, we could make that argument, but is it really the initiation of a formal procedure, or is the setting of a hearing a reaction to the initiation of the request for a hearing? Is it the specific formal procedure being initiated (i.e. the hearing request) or the broader view of formal procedure (i.e. SSA creating the hearing process)?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Feb 5, 2016 0:11:39 GMT -5
In any event, I've never had trouble meeting the requirement. I think it's not as technical as we, or they, are making it sound.
|
|
|
Post by queenie262 on Feb 5, 2016 7:58:26 GMT -5
I'm no administrative law expert but I think hopefalj is correct. I think it means administrative law to which formal APA procedures apply.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 5, 2016 14:17:20 GMT -5
The beauty of it is that it means nothing. The job announcements are not written by lawyers and (even if they were, but especially since they are not) cannot be parsed for specific meaning. Next you will be wanting to understand internal inconsistencies in HALLEX, LOL.
I have noticed that often people add words to things to make them sound better, not to add meaning. The job description, as we have often told each other, is not for SSA ALJs and is written by people who have job descriptions from a variety of sources and strive to make an overall position description. It is meant to mean the 'common meaning' of a formal procedure (which is a procedure with established rules about how it proceeds, as opposed to an informal telephone conference). 'At the initiation of the agency' probably came from a particular agency describing what it wanted, but when OPM used it is probably intended to limit the scope of administrative proceedings qualifications to formal proceedings in front of an agency with the responsibility for making the rules governing the proceeding. In other words, they initiated the procedures - as opposed to, for example, engaging in community activism round-table discussions with the representatives of the EPA.
In any event, SSA AA experience reviewing records and drafting decisions for ALJs has ben held to count for many years, and there is no reason to think it would suddenly stop counting without a new testing procedure.
|
|
|
Post by mertonite on Feb 5, 2016 15:57:54 GMT -5
Those of us AAs and Sr AAs who have worked outside ODAR absolutely LOVE our jobs....
OK, we love our ODAR jobs after we remind ourselves of the joys of private practice such as 60 - 70 hour weeks without OT, no paid vacation, overhead, clients who stiff us, or call 24/7, or both.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 5, 2016 19:12:11 GMT -5
Those of us AAs and Sr AAs who have worked outside ODAR absolutely LOVE our jobs.... OK, we love our ODAR jobs after we remind ourselves of the joys of private practice such as 60 - 70 hour weeks without OT, no paid vacation, overhead, clients who stiff us, or call 24/7, or both. Absolutely. If any AAs/SAAs start to despair about their jobs, I recommend you do some piddly pro bono litigation. Go to the courthouse. See the attorneys working their butts off for maybe as much pay and no real vacation. Ask them how often they get to work at home or how much OT they get (lololololol). Last time I did this, I realized I made more than the judge. I do this from time to time, and it really puts things in perspective.
I remember becoming an AA and having the first real vacation since I graduated law school. When you litigate, there is no off time. I have settled cases and done oral arguments over the phone from a bathroom in Disneyland, an alley in Vegas, and a balcony in Jamaica. Now, if only these kids would grow up, I could go back to some of those places and enjoy them (well, not Disneyland, been there too many times, and it sucks whether you are working or not).
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on Feb 5, 2016 19:32:21 GMT -5
Hi there! I've been lurking for a while but thought I'd chime in on this discussion. My friends who are still in litigation practically pass out when I tell them I work at home three days a week. I miss the public contact that I got in private practice, but working for SSA is great... Especially when you have small children. When I was in private practice, I actually had to write a trial brief in the hospital after giving birth to my child. Haha! A "higher up" told me that the agency will likely hire more SAAs this year. I love my job and would encourage all AAs to keep their eyes peeled. It's a great job to have while playing the ALJ lottery.
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on Feb 5, 2016 20:05:39 GMT -5
Good point! Sorry for directing my thoughts to AAs only. I know some SAAs who were group supervisors prior to being a SAA. I think I remember my job announcement said that the job was open to agency employees only, but it has been a while.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 6, 2016 10:36:01 GMT -5
Is the only path to SAA through AA? I don't remember the job prerequisites, but as a practical matter no HOCALJ/HOD is going to select a senior attorney who has not spent a considerable amount of time as an attorney adviser, and who has done an excellent job in that position.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 6, 2016 11:35:11 GMT -5
Is the only path to SAA through AA? I don't remember the job prerequisites, but as a practical matter no HOCALJ/HOD is going to select a senior attorney who has not spent a considerable amount of time as an attorney adviser, and who has done an excellent job in that position. I believe you need one year as an AA-12 within SSA to apply for the Senior Atty position. no current SAA openings that i am aware of.
|
|