|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 7, 2009 14:56:39 GMT -5
I don't know nuttin' about math, but the Agency does not have to stack much as far as numbers go. They have to line up three candidates and can pick any of the three, even the lowest scoring one. ... I think the only exception is that if a vet is among the three candidates, they have to select the vet, select a higher scoring candidate, or explain to OPM why a lower scoring candidate was selected. Seems like that is where the gerrymandering gets tricky. I think this is true only if the Vet is the top scorer, or two vets are the top two scorers, but the agency wishes to pick #3. This is all correct. The Rule of Three requires the agency to select from the three top scorers who are geographically available for a location. And VA preference requires them to select the candidate who is a preference-eligible vet if they are one of those three. In a vet situation, the agency can select a non-vet with a higher score, or a preference-eligible vet with a lower score, but they cannot select the non-vet with a lower score. Just which candidates are in the group mandated by the Rule of Three remains a manipulated mystery. (Cue the music to "The Twilight Zone"....) Regretfully, I must offer a minor disagreement your analysis. It is possible to pick a candidate with a lower score than the vet, the agency just has to prepare a written justification with legitimate business reasons for doing so and submit that justification to OPM. And frankly, with a multi location cert, there are other easier ways to deal with the issue. No Twilight Zone music needed Interestingly, I think I finally have grasped the understanding of this principle, which was so hard for me to get last year. I had all the facts, but it was never quite explained in a way that resonated with me. I wondered, "how could they have 'not gotten low enough' for me?" if there were three people put up per city. Now I get it (or do I?). Someone correct me if I'm wrong (and everyone ignore me if I'm redundant): Let's assume 5 cities (named A, B, C, D, and E), for whom 15 people (named, conveniently, 1-15) are sent over from OPM, whose scores (also conveniently) are 1-15 respectively (with 15 the highest). 5, 10, and 15 are ten-point veterans. Even numbers picked all five cities, prime numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13) picked only cities C, D, and E, and everyone else (9, 15) picked only E. If the appointing agency fills A-E, always taking the highest person, they will appoint 14, 12, and 13 in A, B, and C, and only then will 10 (considered three times (10, 12, 14 in A; 8, 10, 12 in B; and 10, 11, 13 in C)) be removed from consideration for the next city. D would have 7, 8 and 11 under consideration, so 11 would be picked. E would have 7, 9, and 15 under consideration, so 15 would get picked. Thus, the final five appointees would be 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 - as you'd expect. 10's elimination is consistent with scores and process overall, despite being a veteran. If the appointing agency fills in the reverse order - E through A - again taking the top scorer, it looks like: E - 15 appointed & 14 and 13 not D - 14 appointed & 13 and 12 not C - 13 appointed & 12 and 11 not (11's only chance this time) B - 12 appointed & 10 and 8 not A - 10 appointed & 8 and 6 not So this way, 10 gets appointed instead of 11, despite taking the highest scorer under both methodologies. But notice that 1 through 5, despite making the cert, are never under any kind of consideration. Now let's assume the agency wants the insiders (which I am not saying they definitely do, this is an exercise). For this purpose, let's say 5 through 9 (inclusive) are insiders. How could they get to some of them? The key would be to take low scores while burning high scores in rule of three territory. Here's a way to do some of that: A - 10 appointed & 12 and 14 not B - 8 appointed & 12 and 14 not E - 15 appointed & 13 and 14 not (14 is OUT) D - 13 appointed & 11 and 12 not (12 is OUT) C - 7 appointed & 6 and 11 not This gives 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 the appointments (2 insiders). 12 and 14, who chose all locations, are not selected, while 7, with a limited geographical choice, made it. HOWEVER, 1 through 5, despite making the cert, still had no chance at all. 6 could have been selected over 7 if they liked him/her better. 14 was basically not selected because they needed 10 to be gone before 8 was up against a higher scoring veteran. If 10 was not a veteran, 14 could have been chosen for city A (or 12 could have been chosen) and 10 and 12 (or 14) would still be 'out' before C was chosen. (9's limited geographical choice puts him/her out of contention, pretty much) I think I finally understand how this works, and worse, why, no matter what they think of me or want to do with/to me, I have no mathematical chance of being appointed unless the entire hiring system is structured to make sure that the last city chosen is one for which I am among a minority of people wishing to be appointed and all of the people above me are either hired elsewhere or considered a lot and eliminated for the express purpose of getting me in the top three somewhere. An unlikely scenario (I'm not THAT great). This explains Pixie's comment about the thirty insiders that just "can't be reached." If anyone can think of a way to get number 4 (or even 5?) appointed anywhere in my above scenario, it would make me feel a lot better ... |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Apr 7, 2009 15:24:12 GMT -5
Way to simple- consider the arithmatic machinations possible when you mulitply the set of 5 and 15 by 12!
|
|
|
|
Post by benchsitter on Apr 7, 2009 16:02:10 GMT -5
Propmaster, I'm hoping (maybe because I'm in denial) that your analysis does not account for the potential impact of the interview and background check. Because my score would closely associate me with 1-5 in your analysis, my only chance is that the interview and the background information will overcome a low score.
I haven't heard or read anywhere that SSA must choose the person with the highest score for any particular location.
I'm at least telling myself that I still have a chance if I do well at the interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 7, 2009 16:28:15 GMT -5
Way to simple- consider the arithmetic machinations possible when you multiply the set of 5 and 15 by 12! I understand it's more complex, but doesn't math indicate that there is a certain maximum depth they can go down the list, given a number of people and a number of cities? There will always be three times as many people as cities. It will always take three considerations of a person (at least) to knock them out of the running. So the first two cities, at the very least, will have four people off the bottom of the list (barring single-city-choosing cert members in those two cities who are not chosen) who will never be considered for any cities. And after the third city filled, the most that can be knocked off the list is two people who were considered thrice and rejected. Thus, three cities, representing nine spots on the cert, result in (at best) disposition of five people. Another three cities, another five people (so, 10 people out of 18 cert spots disposed of - 6 appointed and four permanently rejected this go-around). Geographical limitations will have an effect, but in general, the bottom 1/3 of whatever sample is unlikely to have a chance, except through quirks of geographical preference, veteranism, and/or SSA's favorable gerrymandering. Being in that bottom third, I am not trying to discourage anyone. The same way I hold out a small hope when I buy a lottery ticket, I hold out some hope that SSA will want me enough to actually "pay attention" to my position on the list. My main concern in this thread was just verifying that the mechanics I used above are accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokey on Apr 7, 2009 16:30:50 GMT -5
I can conceive of two ways candidates may be divided up among positions.
The first is as propmaster describes, with moving lists as the process goes on. That is, assuming 1-15 (1 is highest), and all chose all locations and the highest was selected it would go: 1,2,3 then 2,3,4, then 3,4,5. If that is the case, by the time you got five offices selected, you would not get below 7 for consideration. The other 8 would never be considered unless someone in the top 5 was rejected for some reason.
The second is that there is a list of 5 cities and each of the selectees is assigned a city. In that case, all 15 candidates are considered. However, this may be a violation of veteran's preference. If 1, 2, and 3 are the only veterans, they only get one bite at the apple. Arguable, 2 and 3 should be considered after the first selection.
I am pretty sure that SSA will go with the first way. If that is the case, the odds of someone below, say the 45 percentile of scores on the list is pretty small. However, if SSA does the selections with the most popular offices first (i.e. major cities), then it may be able to cull out many of the high scorers and the others that have a wide area of availability might have a chance.
I am not sure this is the way it goes, either. Two collegues of mine had a relatively low score and ended up in relatively nice cities.
It would be interesting to know how candidates are assigned and to know how ODAR chooses the order of locations for selections.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Apr 7, 2009 16:44:46 GMT -5
Propmaster's analysis appears to assume, in several of its hypothetical formulations, that the top scorer will be selected among the group of three considered for a particular location. Do we have any reason to believe that this is the case?
Also, while the rule of three lets an agency terminate consideration of someone who has thrice been considered and rejected, is it the case that a high scorer has to be considered three times on a particular certificate? In other words, would any rule be violated if the agency considered the top three scorers for city 1, the next highest 3 scorers for city 2, scorers 7 through 9 for city 3, etc.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 7, 2009 16:48:21 GMT -5
Propmaster's analysis appears to assume, in several of its hypothetical formulations, that the top scorer will be selected among the group of three considered for a particular location. Do we have any reason to believe that this is the case? I don't think there is any reason to assume this. I only am trying to verify the accuracy of the mechanics, and I used "taking the top scorer" to show that the order of cities matters even if the plan is to always take the top scorer. I am not trying to predict SSA's plans or methods, only the rule of three and how it affects when and how someone might get put up for a city or cities. That's why I also used a "aim for the middle" methodology to see what could be legally accomplished. |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 7, 2009 16:57:18 GMT -5
I am still pursuing trying to come up with a formula into which I can plug various assumptions to determine a maximum and minimum range of potential depth onto the cert consideration would go under various conditions. For example, if everyone had picked every city and no one was a veteran, the range is from (33.33% + 2 people) to 55.55% for any sample size. If, on the other hand, everyone chose one city (and assuming that OPM makes sure that there are at least three people (in this case exactly three people) per city on the cert) the depth reached would be 100% for consideration.
Reality is somewhere in between. I think it is safe to say two things: the lowest scoring person has very little chance, and we don't know who the lowest scoring person is (probably not on this board, frankly).
[Is it true, by the way, that OPM makes sure there are three people per city? Assume a large number of people up for two spots, each in a different city. Most pick one city only and three people with very low scores pick the other. Will OPM send those three and the top scorers from the other? Or does it send the top six for the combined list of the two cities?]
|
|
|
|
Post by okeydokey on Apr 7, 2009 16:57:27 GMT -5
SSAer,
Your scenario might violate the veteran preference laws. Otherwise, I do not think there is a violation. That is, if SSA clears the list of veterans, it likely can do whatever it likes with respect to populating the certificates for each location (and may even be able to consider more than three applicants for each position).
I cannot fathom that SSA would be able to clear the veterans, but anything is possible.
I may be wrong and probably am.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 7, 2009 17:07:23 GMT -5
Also, while the rule of three lets an agency terminate consideration of someone who has thrice been considered and rejected, is it the case that a high scorer has to be considered three times on a particular certificate? In other words, would any rule be violated if the agency considered the top three scorers for city 1, the next highest 3 scorers for city 2, scorers 7 through 9 for city 3, etc.? I think this is the point of the rule of three. If the hiring agency did not have to keep considering the top scorers, there would be no need for a rule. The rule is not a maximum, it is a minimum. Someone CAN be plugged in to the selection process at every city (if, for some reason, the agency wanted to), but high scorers are guaranteed at LEAST three looks before the hiring agency moves down the list. Otherwise, the rule is not a rule. I eagerly stand to be corrected, since your way is better for me (and all other low scorers). |
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Apr 7, 2009 17:31:00 GMT -5
Also, while the rule of three lets an agency terminate consideration of someone who has thrice been considered and rejected, is it the case that a high scorer has to be considered three times on a particular certificate? In other words, would any rule be violated if the agency considered the top three scorers for city 1, the next highest 3 scorers for city 2, scorers 7 through 9 for city 3, etc.? I think this is the point of the rule of three. If the hiring agency did not have to keep considering the top scorers, there would be no need for a rule. The rule is not a maximum, it is a minimum. Someone CAN be plugged in to the selection process at every city (if, for some reason, the agency wanted to), but high scorers are guaranteed at LEAST three looks before the hiring agency moves down the list. Otherwise, the rule is not a rule. I eagerly stand to be corrected, since your way is better for me (and all other low scorers). I think you are correct. See § 5 CFR 332.404: Order of selection from certificates.
An appointing officer, with sole regard to merit and fitness, shall select an eligible for:
(a) The first vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are available for appointment; and
(b) The second and each succeding vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are unselected and available for appointment.And 5 CFR § 332.405: Three considerations for appointment.
An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position. |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokey on Apr 7, 2009 17:39:19 GMT -5
SSAer, I may have been wrong. The relevant statute seems to be 5 U.S.C. 3318 [(a) The nominating or appointing authority shall select for appointment to each vacancy from the highest three eligibles available for appointment on the certificate furnished under section 3317 (a) of this title, unless objection to one or more of the individuals certified is made to, and sustained by, the Office of Personnel Management for proper and adequate reason under regulations prescribed by the Office. However, if a person is not a veteran and an agency does not properly apply the rule of three, I do not believe there is much recourse (it might be possible to file suit in federal district court or the court of claims, but the MSPB will not assume jurisdiction). |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 7, 2009 17:56:02 GMT -5
And 5 CFR § 332.405: Three considerations for appointment.
An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position.This is interesting. That means some high scorers who are undesirable from the last certificates and were skipped over at least thrice can be ignored this time, too. This would seem to change my above calculus, since there could be 40-50 people in the upper echelons of scoring who SSA does not want for some reason (and hence, did not take last time(s) through). It sounds like they get to make a kind of a "blacklist" that can carry over from cert to cert. SSAer, this is the happiest legal citation I've seen today! I wonder if this resets with a new register? Otherwise, almost all high scoring people could eventually be considered to have been up three times, which gives SSA a lot of leeway, and new applicants a better chance than old ones. |
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Apr 7, 2009 18:26:01 GMT -5
[(a) The nominating or appointing authority shall select for appointment to each vacancy from the highest three eligibles available for appointment on the certificate furnished under section 3317 (a) of this title, unless objection to one or more of the individuals certified is made to, and sustained by, the Office of Personnel Management for proper and adequate reason under regulations prescribed by the Office. This might clear up a little mystery regarding why OMHA got more than 3 names for what I was told was just one vacancy in Miami. I don't believe any of us have ever been considered by them, so there's no 3 strikes issue. But OMHA might have some wiggle room to plead to OPM: "Candidates 1-5 are just AWFUL. Please let us choose Candidate 6." The regulation doesn't seem to dictate how many candidates the agency asks to be certified over. It just limits the agency's choice to the top 3 (unless it can give a good reason). |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Apr 7, 2009 19:28:05 GMT -5
And 5 CFR § 332.405: Three considerations for appointment.
An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position.This is interesting. That means some high scorers who are undesirable from the last certificates and were skipped over at least thrice can be ignored this time, too. This would seem to change my above calculus, since there could be 40-50 people in the upper echelons of scoring who SSA does not want for some reason (and hence, did not take last time(s) through). It sounds like they get to make a kind of a "blacklist" that can carry over from cert to cert. SSAer, this is the happiest legal citation I've seen today! I wonder if this resets with a new register? Otherwise, almost all high scoring people could eventually be considered to have been up three times, which gives SSA a lot of leeway, and new applicants a better chance than old ones. With regard to your intial question, you do and you don't. Theoretically low scorers such as 4 and 5 can be reached in a much more complex scenario involving multiple cities and some cities with large numbers of hires and low numbers of high scorers. You really do need to forget about 5 CFR § 332.405. It gives flexibility to eliminate someone but DOES NOT require the elimination of a single soul. SSA can use it to eliminate a good candidate on this cert to get to some favored person but then refuse to use it on that person on the next cert. It gives SSA a liitle flexibility and that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokey on Apr 7, 2009 19:35:02 GMT -5
Please define "connections."
Does this mean people actively agitating for selection?
Does this mean having good references from HOCALJ's and RCALJs?
Does this mean being a HOD or GS?
Does this mean working for SSA and getting good references?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 7, 2009 20:08:59 GMT -5
You would think I would know better than to wade into this discussion. First, the propmaster analysis is correct as far as it goes. However, SSA created their groups of three artificially, not organically. They knew who they wanted (say #5), then they grouped folks in a way that permitted them to reach #5 in a particular group of three (usually as the lowest scorer in the group) then selected #5. It was relatively easy for SSA to reach down as far as they did in the last two certs, because they were extremely aggressive with the use of the three strikes rule, eliminating a number of high scorers, and opening up potential for their pre-selected folks with low scores. Once SSA "considered" a top scorer three times, that opened up a new slot on the cert for a lower scorer. By pre-selecting their favorites, SSA could then manipulate the order of selection, eliminating multiple folks along the way, and reaching further and further down the cert. Once a pre-selected candidate reached the bottom of potential selectees, they were placed into a group of 3, and immediately selected on their first consideration, which is how Candidate #100 was selected over Candidate #1 in a particular group of 3 in the last certificate. My point is that SSA WILL REACH the low scorers on this certificate whom they pre-select. Many high scorers and vets WILL BE BYPASSED. That's how they do it. As I have said before, if you are a low scorer but have inside connections, you have an excellent chance at being selected. Conversely, if you are a high scorer or vet without connections, you will likely be bypassed. And, for the 800th time, folks bypassed were not bypassed because they drooled in the interview or had child porn on their computer any more than low scorers scored low because they did not know what end of the pencil to write with. They were bypassed because they were unlucky. They did not have a connection, or they got stuck in a group of 3 with an SSA insider. The same thing will apply in this certificate, so brace yourself. There really is not much you can do about it other than understand that the fix is in. You MIGHT get selected without knowing a soul, and without having any connection to SSA, it happens. If you do, congratulations, you were lucky. However, this is a game for insiders, so if you are not SSA, prepare yourself for disappointment. Thx pf, for your informative post. It saddens me, it truly does.  There's alot of truly deserving folks, according to you, who don't get to be ALJs because they aren't insiders. Does the backlog dictate this? Do the ends justify the means? Of course there are posters here who say there's lots of outsider folks who get hired. Would they condone your scenario of reaching insiders? |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Apr 7, 2009 20:35:30 GMT -5
You would think I would know better than to wade into this discussion. First, the propmaster analysis is correct as far as it goes. However, SSA created their groups of three artificially, not organically. They knew who they wanted (say #5), then they grouped folks in a way that permitted them to reach #5 in a particular group of three (usually as the lowest scorer in the group) then selected #5. It was relatively easy for SSA to reach down as far as they did in the last two certs, because they were extremely aggressive with the use of the three strikes rule, eliminating a number of high scorers, and opening up potential for their pre-selected folks with low scores. Once SSA "considered" a top scorer three times, that opened up a new slot on the cert for a lower scorer. By pre-selecting their favorites, SSA could then manipulate the order of selection, eliminating multiple folks along the way, and reaching further and further down the cert. Once a pre-selected candidate reached the bottom of potential selectees, they were placed into a group of 3, and immediately selected on their first consideration, which is how Candidate #100 was selected over Candidate #1 in a particular group of 3 in the last certificate. My point is that SSA WILL REACH the low scorers on this certificate whom they pre-select. Many high scorers and vets WILL BE BYPASSED. That's how they do it. As I have said before, if you are a low scorer but have inside connections, you have an excellent chance at being selected. Conversely, if you are a high scorer or vet without connections, you will likely be bypassed. And, for the 800th time, folks bypassed were not bypassed because they drooled in the interview or had child porn on their computer any more than low scorers scored low because they did not know what end of the pencil to write with. They were bypassed because they were unlucky. They did not have a connection, or they got stuck in a group of 3 with an SSA insider. The same thing will apply in this certificate, so brace yourself. There really is not much you can do about it other than understand that the fix is in. You MIGHT get selected without knowing a soul, and without having any connection to SSA, it happens. If you do, congratulations, you were lucky. However, this is a game for insiders, so if you are not SSA, prepare yourself for disappointment. Thx pf, for your informative post. It saddens me, it truly does. :-[ There's alot of truly deserving folks, according to you, who don't get to be ALJs because they aren't insiders. Does the backlog dictate this? Do the ends justify the means? Of course there are posters here who say there's lots of outsider folks who get hired. Would they condone your scenario of reaching insiders? PA, you shouldn't let fiction affect your mood that way. |
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Apr 7, 2009 20:53:59 GMT -5
If you think you understand it, you don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 8, 2009 0:35:01 GMT -5
Thx pf, for your informative post. It saddens me, it truly does. :-[ There's alot of truly deserving folks, according to you, who don't get to be ALJs because they aren't insiders. Does the backlog dictate this? Do the ends justify the means? Of course there are posters here who say there's lots of outsider folks who get hired. Would they condone your scenario of reaching insiders? PA, you shouldn't let fiction affect your mood that way. pm, how do you know it to be fiction? |
|
