|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 1, 2009 8:05:08 GMT -5
"So what if your credit sucks? What difference does that make to SSA?"
It doesn't matter as to whether or not they want you. But after they have matched you up with two other candidates for a location, credit issues can serve as their defensible reason to choose a candidate with a lower score than you. If you look like a superior candidate to them, they really won't care about your credit.
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Apr 1, 2009 10:57:58 GMT -5
I am a professional reference for someone on the cert this time and I was called 2 days ago for the reference. I did not receive the email noted above - maybe because they reached me on the first call? The questions were a little different and some were hard to answer adequately and the caller seemed to be writing down the answers. I felt comfortable with my answers when it was done. The person they were calling about will hopefully be picked up as he would make an excellent ALJ.
Good luck to you all. Having been through this process in 2007 and hired last year, I know what you're going through - it's still all too familiar!!!
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 2, 2009 7:50:50 GMT -5
One of my references sent me the "Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judge Reference Document" that SSA sent to him. It contains the following questions, with the asterisks in the original questions:
Candidate's Name:
How long have you known the candidate?
What is the type and frequency of your association?
Based on your knowledge, is the applicant a respected member of the legal community? Why?
How would you describe his/her expertise and professional qualifications?
What in your opinion are his/her strengths and weaknesses?
* What is your understanding of the applicant's typical workload?
What percent of the applicant's work schedule would you estimate is spent in the court room?
* How would you describe his/her interaction with others?
Does the applicant display adherence to professional standards of conduct, reliability and diligence to discharge their professional responsibility?
SSA is looking for an applicant who is ethical, hardworking and knowledgeable about the law and procedure. In your opinion, does the applicant have this capability?
* The position of Administrative Law Judge requires applicant be capable of managing and adjudicating up to 700 cases per year. In your opinion, does applicant have this capability?
Would you recommend this applicant for a position as an Administrative Law Judge? Why/Why not?
Is there any other information which would be helpful to SSA in making a decision on the applicant's qualifications?
|
|
|
Post by fisherwoman on Apr 2, 2009 14:06:37 GMT -5
Thank you Professor for providing the questions. Omniplex just started checking on me. Since I have worked as a solo at times, they wanted to know who could verify that. (In addition to all of the other verifications and references). While I have not yet received an interview call, I know they are checking.
|
|
|
Post by benchsitter on Apr 3, 2009 12:25:45 GMT -5
I have tried to search for the answer to this question, but I cannot seem to find any posts that have addressed the issue. Does anyone know if the background checks are used in the hiring decision? I understand that if something negative shows up, that may reduce one's competitive edge, but what if everything is wonderful; do they combine the interview results with the background information to make their decisions? Forgive me if this has been addressed previously.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 3, 2009 13:58:30 GMT -5
Previous threads and posts a year old have indicated that credit reports, reference checks, etc. are essentially another way for ODAR to weed out undesirables. Maybe they use it as an excuse if they are not favorably impressed from the interview.
Now, there has been a very recent post about a 2008 hire who had a bad credit report--he/she was probably able to adequately explain, assuming it came up. And I would bet that he/she was wanted.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 3, 2009 14:29:51 GMT -5
"So what if your credit sucks? What difference does that make to SSA?" It doesn't matter as to whether or not they want you. But after they have matched you up with two other candidates for a location, credit issues can serve as their defensible reason to choose a candidate with a lower score than you. If you look like a superior candidate to them, they really won't care about your credit. I'm friends with someone who is in the know for hiring for other (non-SSA) federal agencies and she recently told me that at least in her areas, the credit checks are in place to help provide a profile of how susceptible you are to bribery. The worse your financial history is, the higher your indicator of financial weakness rises. I don't have a clue if that's how it works in SSA, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 4, 2009 11:45:05 GMT -5
Here's a little tidbit -- I listed four of the ALJs that I work with as references (the other two were out of the office that week) and two of the four were contacted with the invitation email last week. Yesterday both of them were contacted for answers to the detailed questions I posted earlier. However, the remaining two judges still have not been contacted in any way. Furthermore, only two of my nine non-judge references have been contacted. This makes me wonder whether they're just contacting a few people off the list rather than all of them. And if so, why would they bother asking for so many names?
|
|
|
Post by pm on Apr 4, 2009 11:59:23 GMT -5
They ask for so many so they will be able to make a certain minimum number of contacts. They are ordinarily not going to get statments from everyone on your list.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Apr 4, 2009 23:52:26 GMT -5
"So what if your credit sucks? What difference does that make to SSA?" It doesn't matter as to whether or not they want you. But after they have matched you up with two other candidates for a location, credit issues can serve as their defensible reason to choose a candidate with a lower score than you. If you look like a superior candidate to them, they really won't care about your credit. This is from OPM website Sec. 735.203 What are the restrictions on conduct prejudicial to the Government? An employee shall not engage in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the Government. =========== I don't know if this is the regulation, or whether there were others, but some situations that revealed bad credit could be considered "other conduct prejudicial to the government". In fact, when I was a supervisor with the government, a seasoned government supervisor (20 years more than me at the time) told me stories about employees who were disciplined for having garnishments etc. In fact, I had to engage in a number of counselling sessions and suspensions due to disruptive activity that resulted from debtor/creditor problems. The potential that something might turn into a garnishment is something that could be prejudicial. For instance, there's the potential that you might be spending more time receiving calls from creditors than working. The possibility that the sheriff might show up with various documents to serve on you while the public and staff look on in amazement is another possible problem. Sheriffs also haul people away. Also, beyond just the standards of conduct for government and those that might be specific to the agency - you also have to file a lot of other documents explaining your financial interests. Some issues on one's credit report could create a conflict of interest in the same way a financial holding might. Information from a credit report can be meaningful information in the hiring process. I suspect in today's economy, we view credit problems with greater lenience, but the information therein remains pertitent to the hiring process.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Apr 5, 2009 16:03:46 GMT -5
Today garnishment is a favored method for ensuring timely child support payments and many domestic court judges routinely enter garnishment orders for the parent required to pay. It obviates any problems with the recipient not giving credit for checks received and it also ensures timeliness of payments. Having a support order reduced to a garnishment order is also a standard way of avoiding garnishment by other creditors. If the support order is in place, the percentage of the check that may be garnished under fair debt collections is significantly lessened. I've have well paid doctors use support order garnishments to avoid paying judgments. It no longer has the stigma it once had and in at least one jurisdiction, mine, cannot be the basis for disciplinary action against the subject of the garnishment by the employer. Any hr department of any size routinely processes garnishment orders. Credit checking, in moho, is a bit of big brother snooping. Yeah, it provides interesting information to the prospective employer, but so would a nice chat with the ex.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Apr 5, 2009 22:51:14 GMT -5
Today garnishment is a favored method for ensuring timely child support payments and many domestic court judges routinely enter garnishment orders for the parent required to pay. It obviates any problems with the recipient not giving credit for checks received and it also ensures timeliness of payments. Having a support order reduced to a garnishment order is also a standard way of avoiding garnishment by other creditors. If the support order is in place, the percentage of the check that may be garnished under fair debt collections is significantly lessened. I've have well paid doctors use support order garnishments to avoid paying judgments. It no longer has the stigma it once had and in at least one jurisdiction, mine, cannot be the basis for disciplinary action against the subject of the garnishment by the employer. Any hr department of any size routinely processes garnishment orders. Credit checking, in moho, is a bit of big brother snooping. Yeah, it provides interesting information to the prospective employer, but so would a nice chat with the ex. There are other types of garnishments besides the one you mention. And whether allowed to be served or not, sheriffs still show up to serve and employees still have to fight the rectitude of the action. (Geez I've even had sheriffs show up to serve people with sound alike names. Even that type of process has to be fought in court even though no fault of the employee) The HR department for most field offices isn't any where nearby. Consequently, service of all sorts of process (beyond support payments) doesn't happen at the HR department. It happens at the government field office. Many government agencies have field offices scattered all over, and Social Security more than most. It's certainly not the stigma they care about although that may have been more the case way back when. Irrespective of the precise degree of stigma, low or high, the employer may not want to take on the risk. Whether domestic, tax lien or some other type of creditor. The concern of the employers tends to be that it disrupts the office and eats up company time. It's not an unreasonable factor to weigh in hiring and not anachronistic at all to want to have a productive employee. Sure it, didn't stop them from hiring Geithner but then again, so many other candidates were not hired for similar defaults. And again, there's that potential conflict of interest that a federal tax lien, for instance, might represent. In the meantime, the credit check they are doing at this point is of course only the typical one from a credit bureau. There will be more to come. Once they're done the standard bureau credit report, they also do an FBI check later on in the process (routine for all new hires in the government) And at that time, they may very well end up speaking to the ex spouse.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Apr 6, 2009 0:20:34 GMT -5
Parents who pay child support should be honored, not stigmatized.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Apr 6, 2009 8:43:12 GMT -5
Some new child support orders automatically provide with an income deduction order - sort of like a garnishment, where the pay comes straight out of the wages.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Apr 6, 2009 9:30:13 GMT -5
Honored? A parent should support their children, without the need for a court order, regardless of how they feel about the other parent. Failure to do so should be highly criticized, but payment should not be honored any more than another parent's provision of basic support for their kids. That being said, if someone has such a garnishment, it should not be viewed negatively, so long as payments are current. That may not be how it is in the real world, but it is how it should be. In today's world of divorce and 1 parent families, garnishment orders are very common. Agreed. Child support garnishment should not be viewed as a negative. But to say parents who are up to date on their child support payments "should be honored" is a bit over the top. After all, what about the rest of us who are still married with kids and paying a lot more than the court madated child support amount? Taking care of your own kids is just a part of life, none of us should be "honored" for it anymore than we should be honored for taking a shower and brushing teeth in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by semipa on Apr 6, 2009 20:47:19 GMT -5
I hear ya workdrone. Many years ago as a young parent I complained to my wife about having to "babysit" our children. She quickly straightened me out about my responsibilities as a parent, and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Apr 14, 2009 19:20:36 GMT -5
for those of us still curious about this issue I thought this nlj.com article might be of interest
Texas appeals court revokes attorney's license for failing to repay student loan, other debts
Leigh Jones / Associate editor
April 14, 2009
An appeals court in Texas has revoked the license of Houston attorney for failing to repay his students loans and other debts.
The 3d Court of Appeals decision issued on April 10 noted the "serious consequences likely to befall" attorney Frank P. Santulli III following the revocation, but it nevertheless affirmed a ruling by a trial court that followed a recommendation from the Texas Board of Law Examiners to pull his license.
The three-court appeals panel in Austin found that because Santulli, a Houston solo practitioner, did not adhere to a previous order requiring him to pay his debts, he lacked the trustworthiness necessary to represent clients.
Santulli, a 1998 graduate of Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law, said in a telephone interview that the decision set a bad precedent for the board of law examiners' "unfettered power" over practicing attorneys. He said that he plans to file for a rehearing and, if necessary, appeal the decision. He said his loan debt was about $67,000.
The Texas Board of Law Examiners declined to comment on the case.
The decision in Santulli v. Texas Board of Law Examiners, No. 03-06-00392-CV, stems from a probationary license the board granted Santulli in 2001, on the condition that he repay a "substantial amount of student loan and personal debt" under a plan with the Consumer Credit Counseling Service.
The board held another hearing in December 2002 and determined that Santulli had not complied with the previous order, according to the recent decision. The board expressed concern at the time that because of the debt he was carrying, Santulli would be tempted to "short-shrift" his clients or "convert money" from his clients to cover his debt.
However, it granted him a six-month extension on his probationary license with the understanding that he would either pay the debt or discharge some of it through bankruptcy.
A year later, the board found that he had not taken care of his debt and recommended the revocation of his license. A trial court later affirmed the decision.
In arguing against the revocation of his license in the appeals court, Santulli asserted that the initial court ordering requiring him to make "suitable arrangements" to repay his debt was arbitrary and capricious and that the revocation was not supported by substantial evidence. He further argued that the board erred in finding that he lacked good moral character. The appeals panel was not persuaded. "We agree with the trial court that substantial evidence supported the board's determination that there is a clear and rational connection between Santulli's lack of trustworthiness or reliability in carrying out responsibilities and the likelihood that he will harm a client, obstruct administration of justice or violate the disciplinary rules."
Santulli, who represented himself, said that he plans to hire a lawyer to appeal the decision.
|
|
|
Post by notherapp on Apr 17, 2009 11:18:18 GMT -5
Have any "carryover candidates" (those who were unsuccessful candidates last year who are being considered again this year) had their references checked?
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Apr 17, 2009 12:07:03 GMT -5
I'm carryover and my references have been checked.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 17, 2009 12:28:45 GMT -5
Ditto with Chieftain.
|
|