|
Post by alj on Jun 25, 2009 20:53:47 GMT -5
I haven't seen this reported yet, so I thought I would throw it out for what it's worth.
"Of the 147 judges recently hired, 49 have ODAR experience, 10 have OGC experience and 3 Headquarter experience. New judges will report on June 21 or July 19 in the hearing offices, with training to take place thereafter in Falls Church."
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jun 25, 2009 21:07:52 GMT -5
Do you know how many out of the 62 are current SSA employees vs those with past SSA experiences? What I heard through the grapevine was 52 current employees, and the remainder had prior SSA experience but were working elsewhere when they got hired. But this was a second hand source, so I'm not 100% confident the numbers are dead on.
|
|
|
Post by alj on Jun 25, 2009 21:40:00 GMT -5
No, I don't know the breakdown between current and prior employees. What you heard may well be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 26, 2009 9:10:13 GMT -5
That's 42% and does not include the selectees who may be married to current SSA employees (nepotism), or the selectees who were political appointees (like the last round). I consider that subset to be in the class I so often refer to as "insiders." I won't touch the "political appointee" thing. If that were true and proved, heads would roll, and deservedly so. On the other hand, should we restrict anyone who is the child/parent/spouse of an SSA employee from being hired in any SSA position? Should a state ALJ married to an SSA District Office clerk, who applies for an ODAR ALJ slot, be rejected out of hand?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 26, 2009 11:51:33 GMT -5
It would be one thing if ODAR OCALJ just did their pre-selection quietly and didn't get greedy with choosing their own people. But NOOOOOOOO, they gotta knock off all these high scorers (PF being the best exampkle), JH and a host of folks with scores in the 80's (remember the poll) were denied.
The ends do not justify the means. Maybe they'll get busted, maybe not. Its the arrogance that really gets to me.
Given the situation, the AALJ v. OPM suit makes sense, if not on legal grounds (for there are none), but "power and arrogance" grounds.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 26, 2009 12:21:49 GMT -5
. . .should we restrict anyone who is the child/parent/spouse of an SSA employee from being hired in any SSA position? Should a state ALJ married to an SSA District Office clerk, who applies for an ODAR ALJ slot, be rejected out of hand? Should we restrict anyone who is an ALJ candidate, married to an SSA employee in a specific office, and who restricts their geographic availability to THAT very office, from being rejected out of hand [for that office] ? Yes, even the JER states that the appearance of such favoritism/nepotism should be avoided. Managing the Three Strike Rule to make sure that individual - since they only have a single availability on the record - shows up for that fill under the Rule of Three -- AND GETS THE JOB --- seems to be a patent violation. (And the tragic thing is, there is sooooooooo much more to this particular story....)(Val serves, the 'Hagg returns; Val lobs, the 'Hagg rushes the net.....and the game goes on! Wheeeeeeeeeeeee! )
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 26, 2009 12:39:54 GMT -5
. . .should we restrict anyone who is the child/parent/spouse of an SSA employee from being hired in any SSA position? Should a state ALJ married to an SSA District Office clerk, who applies for an ODAR ALJ slot, be rejected out of hand? Should we restrict anyone who is an ALJ candidate, married to an SSA employee in a specific office, and who restricts their geographic availability to THAT very office, from being rejected out of hand [for that office] ? Yes, even the JER states that the appearance of such favoritism/nepotism should be avoided. Managing the Three Strike Rule to make sure that individual - since they only have a single availability on the record - shows up for that fill under the Rule of Three -- AND GETS THE JOB --- seems to be a patent violation. (And the tragic thing is, there is sooooooooo much more to this particular story....)(Val serves, the 'Hagg returns; Val lobs, the 'Hagg rushes the net.....and the game goes on! Wheeeeeeeeeeeee! ) You're still discriminating against the candidate on the basis of his/her marital status. Other than the allegations of manipulating the process, a similarly situated single candidate wouldn't be restricted. As I noted before, I think there is a difference if the relation involves an SSA official involved in the selection process. In such a case a chinese wall/restriction would be appropriate. On the other hand, one of the favorite laments of the board is, "I wish they would have told me I had no chance from the start." Where in all of the application materials did it state, "You may not apply for this position in an agency employing a family member"?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 26, 2009 12:55:39 GMT -5
It would be one thing if ODAR OCALJ just did their pre-selection quietly and didn't get greedy with choosing their own people. But NOOOOOOOO, they gotta knock off all these high scorers (PF being the best exampkle), JH and a host of folks with scores in the 80's (remember the poll) were denied. The ends do not justify the means. Maybe they'll get busted, maybe not. Its the arrogance that really gets to me. Given the situation, the AALJ v. OPM suit makes sense, if not on legal grounds (for there are none), but "power and arrogance" grounds. The AALJ lawsuit makes no sense because, as amended, it does not even state a cause affecting the members it purports to represent. The public interest thrust of the suit was tossed when it was amended, and as it stands, it only argues on the behalf of outside attorneys getting a fair shake in the process. While ensuring fair play on behalf of the outsiders is a worthwhile claim in itself, it does not affect the membership of the AALJ, besides those members that would like to keep agency attorneys out of the game. If some of you have ever wondered why some of us on the inside find your complaints of bias laughably ironic, this is illustrative.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 26, 2009 13:01:08 GMT -5
You're still discriminating against the candidate on the basis of his/her marital status. Other than the allegations of manipulating the process, a similarly situated single candidate wouldn't be restricted. As I noted before, I think there is a difference if the relation involves an SSA official involved in the selection process. In such a case a chinese wall/restriction would be appropriate. On the other hand, one of the favorite laments of the board is, "I wish they would have told me I had no chance from the start." Where in all of the application materials did it state, "You may not apply for this position in an agency employing a family member"? Noooooo, you are not discriminating against someone on the basis of their marital status. ( Do you DO discrimination work ? I thought not.) If this "hypothetical" candidate is married to a current SSA employee and is hired for that office under the circumstances I described above, then the agency has entered a bias in favor of that employee. Discrimination on the basis of marital status would apply only to the SSA employee, as "relational discrimination" has not made its way to marital status claims. And if a "similarly situated"-but-single employee --- one who was living with the SSA employee but not married to them --- applied for the job and got it under the same circumstances, the agency would still have considered a "non-merit" factor and demonstrated favoritism in prohibition of Ethics Regulations, because what we are talking about here is prohibited nepotism/favoritism. The individual married to the SSA employee appears to had illegal favoritism based on a non-merit factor exercised in their selection: the fact they were married to a current SSA employee and the happy couple did not want to have to move. PF is a poor example. His hearing office slots went to outsiders(well 5of 6 total). . Actually, you would be in error. One of the slots for which PF was considered did go to an insider and another went to our lovely "hypothetical" candidate above.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 26, 2009 13:25:01 GMT -5
I'm not gonna "read it to find argument" - PF got three considerations and three nonselections as he has made clear on this board. He wasn't up for six slots and he didn't compete against 12 other people. He was up for three and actually only competed against five other people. Selectees were outsider, insider, insider. And again, this wasn't just any insider, this was the insider that every major SSA policy change or initiative ran through for most of the last decade. Hey, I knew that!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 26, 2009 14:05:23 GMT -5
It would be one thing if ODAR OCALJ just did their pre-selection quietly and didn't get greedy with choosing their own people. But NOOOOOOOO, they gotta knock off all these high scorers (PF being the best exampkle), JH and a host of folks with scores in the 80's (remember the poll) were denied. The ends do not justify the means. Maybe they'll get busted, maybe not. Its the arrogance that really gets to me. Given the situation, the AALJ v. OPM suit makes sense, if not on legal grounds (for there are none), but "power and arrogance" grounds. The AALJ lawsuit makes no sense because, as amended, it does not even state a cause affecting the members it purports to represent. The public interest thrust of the suit was tossed when it was amended, and as it stands, it only argues on the behalf of outside attorneys getting a fair shake in the process. While ensuring fair play on behalf of the outsiders is a worthwhile claim in itself, it does not affect the membership of the AALJ, besides those members that would like to keep agency attorneys out of the game. If some of you have ever wondered why some of us on the inside find your complaints of bias laughably ironic, this is illustrative. I agree that the AALJ lawsuit is legally indefensible. But there is a bigger issue here. AALJ sees the big change in the application criteria in 2007 (i.e., that agency experience will count as litigation experience) and a short window that OPM afforded the applicants in terms of applying through USA jobs as affecting them. Why? Because, AALJ smells a rat. ODAR and OPM may well be talking behind their back and probably did. ODAR wants their people in ALJ slots and this is the best way to do it. OPM makes sure that agency employees can get past the heretofore insurmountable AR hurdle and that only the most diligent will be able to meet the three or four day application window. So while we all argue the four-day window and whether or not it favored insiders, the reality is it did, to a greater extent admitted. And having applied with the old pre-2007 application, I know for a fact that many in the upcoming class and in last year's class would've found that mustard a bit thick to cut. So the Union knows it has to do something, but goes about it all wrong. They unintentionally strengthened OPM, at least in the eyes of the DC Circuit, which in my opinion is the greatest sin.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Jun 26, 2009 18:57:00 GMT -5
The AALJ lawsuit makes no sense because, as amended, it does not even state a cause affecting the members it purports to represent. The public interest thrust of the suit was tossed when it was amended, and as it stands, it only argues on the behalf of outside attorneys getting a fair shake in the process. While ensuring fair play on behalf of the outsiders is a worthwhile claim in itself, it does not affect the membership of the AALJ, besides those members that would like to keep agency attorneys out of the game. If some of you have ever wondered why some of us on the inside find your complaints of bias laughably ironic, this is illustrative. I agree that the AALJ lawsuit is legally indefensible. But there is a bigger issue here. AALJ sees the big change in the application criteria in 2007 (i.e., that agency experience will count as litigation experience) and a short window that OPM afforded the applicants in terms of applying through USA jobs as affecting them. Why? Because, AALJ smells a rat. ODAR and OPM may well be talking behind their back and probably did. ODAR wants their people in ALJ slots and this is the best way to do it. OPM makes sure that agency employees can get past the heretofore insurmountable AR hurdle and that only the most diligent will be able to meet the three or four day application window. So while we all argue the four-day window and whether or not it favored insiders, the reality is it did, to a greater extent admitted. And having applied with the old pre-2007 application, I know for a fact that many in the upcoming class and in last year's class would've found that mustard a bit thick to cut. So the Union knows it has to do something, but goes about it all wrong. They unintentionally strengthened OPM, at least in the eyes of the DC Circuit, which in my opinion is the greatest sin. It has been more than 15 years since I read the ALJ application from the 90s. I have heard this statement on this board at least once, that administrative/agency experience could be substituted for litigation experience. I think someone on Wild Wild West provided a similar but different interpretation arguing that there was no need to demonstrate litigation experience. I wanted to try and find a copy of the old test to verify my memory of it, but I think you are both wrong. I could swear the old test was very similar to the new one in one respect. Not the KSAs or whatever they called them this time. The old KSAs were similar but not identical. But there was some point in the old application that asked you to illustrate what adminitrative and OR litigation experience you had. In other words a total of 7 of either or and. I think you had to demonstrate the experience on that old form -- I have since forgotten the number - that they used in lieu of resumes in those days. 72 or 75 or something like that. By contrast, on this application, you had to provide a resume (somethng not previously requested) AND there was a portion before the ksas that resembled the instructions for filling out that old form I am talking about. On this application, you had to fill out all your job experience that was litigation and or administrative. And where you worked less than full time at either of those tasks you had to provide percentages. The processes seemed nearly identical to me. And in both the old and current applications, this was the part that they used to develop the first score you got that allowed you to go on to the written and interview stage. And it was scored by OPM nonlawyers then and now, and the scores were as helter skelter then as they were this time. But then and now, the part that was similar was that if you didn't clarify the percentage of time that you worked at the various tasks, to show how much was administrative or litigation, then they down graded you assuming the worst case scenario. Does anyone out there care enough to look at the old test wording to compare it to this new test to see how close or far apart they are, whether the old test really was ONLY for litigators (doubtful)
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Jun 26, 2009 18:59:29 GMT -5
And since I was being snarky to Val, I suppose I should answer the question. Nepotism is nepotism. Princeton University - which I would think we can all accept as a relatively trustworthy source - defines "nepotism" as "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." So let's just keep that definition in mind. Now if the person selected is selected in a legitimate process, and happens to be the most qualified person for the position, then he/she should not be excluded, unless some other regulation(s) prohibits their appointment. Of course, when was the last time in federal government that some dude's relative was the most qualified person? I think it was Bobby Kennedy as AG in 1961. But since Val offered a hypothetical, I have one, too, because hypotheticals are fun, and sometimes they can turn out to be true. Let's just say for example that I am at a rather high rank of two digits on the certificate - we'll go with Candidate "XX" here, and my wife works for SSA in the Hartford CT office, just to make up an office, any old office. But let's use Hartford, because I like Hartford, and it’s such an interesting office, and it has interesting people who work there, and some of whom are even married to each other, just like my hypothetical example here. And let's say that as #XX I am placed against, oh for fun we will say the #1 scorer on the certificate. Now, all things being equal, if candidate #XX is more qualified than candidate #1, he gets the job, right? But let's say that in the course of candidate #XX's background check, it is revealed at least one employer had negative things to say about him, and let's even say candidate #XX didn't come through the SSA structured interview with flying colors. Conversely, given that candidate #1 has a clean background check, and a recommendation from the interview panel as an acceptable candidate, which candidate, in your opinion, should get the position? Should it be the candidate with highest score, the clean background check, and the OK from the interviewers, .... and no relatives at the Hartford office, or should it be candidate #XX, with the clouded background check, and the not-so-good recommendation from the SSA interview, but with the wife who works in the exact same SSA office for which he is being considered? If you picked applicant #XX, then you win, because that is what SSA did. So who is this crummy person in Hartford that SSA hired of which you speak of
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Jun 26, 2009 19:05:21 GMT -5
And since I was being snarky to Val, I suppose I should answer the question. Nepotism is nepotism. Princeton University - which I would think we can all accept as a relatively trustworthy source - defines "nepotism" as "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." So let's just keep that definition in mind. Now if the person selected is selected in a legitimate process, and happens to be the most qualified person for the position, then he/she should not be excluded, unless some other regulation(s) prohibits their appointment. Of course, when was the last time in federal government that some dude's relative was the most qualified person? I think it was Bobby Kennedy as AG in 1961. But since Val offered a hypothetical, I have one, too, because hypotheticals are fun, and sometimes they can turn out to be true. Let's just say for example that I am at a rather high rank of two digits on the certificate - we'll go with Candidate "XX" here, and my wife works for SSA in the Hartford CT office, just to make up an office, any old office. But let's use Hartford, because I like Hartford, and it’s such an interesting office, and it has interesting people who work there, and some of whom are even married to each other, just like my hypothetical example here. And let's say that as #XX I am placed against, oh for fun we will say the #1 scorer on the certificate. Now, all things being equal, if candidate #XX is more qualified than candidate #1, he gets the job, right? But let's say that in the course of candidate #XX's background check, it is revealed at least one employer had negative things to say about him, and let's even say candidate #XX didn't come through the SSA structured interview with flying colors. Conversely, given that candidate #1 has a clean background check, and a recommendation from the interview panel as an acceptable candidate, which candidate, in your opinion, should get the position? Should it be the candidate with highest score, the clean background check, and the OK from the interviewers, .... and no relatives at the Hartford office, or should it be candidate #XX, with the clouded background check, and the not-so-good recommendation from the SSA interview, but with the wife who works in the exact same SSA office for which he is being considered? If you picked applicant #XX, then you win, because that is what SSA did. So who is this crummy person in Hartford that SSA hired of which you speak of ALSO? So are you saying that your references from the Kennedy's didn't help with SSA ?
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 26, 2009 20:39:08 GMT -5
So who is this crummy person in Hartford that SSA hired of which you speak of S/He Who's Name Must Not Be Spoken Look, the issue, with "us" - be it Val or me, or PM or PF - is not and never has been the quals of the hires. They are qualified. The issue is the process and its adherence to merit principles.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 27, 2009 8:52:25 GMT -5
But you must agree that *legally* SSA had the right do do what they hypothetically did. They could select any of the names on the cert for that position, provided they did not pass over someone with veterans preference (which in this case they did not) for someone with a lower score. If they chose the hypothetical selectee *because* he was related to somebody, then there would be a legal issue, but that would very difficult to prove. Actually, no - I don't agree that, given the parameters of the hypothetical, an agency would have the legal right to engage in nepotism and hire the candidate married to the current agency employee. If said hypothetical candidate were NOT married to the agency employee, then the agency could hire them, but if the candidate were married to the agency employee then even if the hire was set up and conducted IAW with the appropriate law, rule and regulation applicable under 5 CFR 300 et seq, it would violate 5 CFR part 310. Suppose they made their hypothetical selection on the basis that the highest scorer with the clean background check and good recommendations was too outspoken and they anticipated that he would rock the boat? There would be no legal issue there.. I think more than a few nonselections were made on that basis and - if our hypothetical nonselected candidate were --- oh, I dunno, someone like PatriotsFan (clean background check, good recommendations, outstanding agency structured interview...) but a firebrand destined to rock the boat and there were no other legal infirmities regarding the selectee ( like being married to an agency employee within the office) - then yes, with regard to nepotism, there would be no legal issue.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 27, 2009 18:45:43 GMT -5
Okay, gentlemen. You win.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 28, 2009 9:32:22 GMT -5
In our poll there were 4 votes with scores above 80, multiply that by 3 (since we guess we are a third of the population--and when it comes to polls that guess may be way low) and you see that there were probably at least 15 folks with scores above 80 who did not get picked.
I was one of them--with 38 cities and vets preference--10 points worth--and that means that ODAR is supposed to report to OPM if they chose someone with a lower score than me. How much you want to bet there is no report to OPM with my name on it? And I had stellar references and a credit score above 700.
No, they didn't choose me probably because like PF, my 25+ years of litigating could not be hidden in an interview. Yeah, we're boat-rockers and proud to be so! We are also very good lawyers who are proud to be ALJs and will do a stellar job for our respective agencies, as you are.
But peejay, there is NO way ODAR/OCALJ did not violate the law. Puleeze! And as I said in another post, a grab here and there that may have been very questionable may not have gotten our ire to the degree its raised. But 12-15 people with scores above 80? Other agencies picked you, me and PF up because we had high scores--and that's the way its supposed to work. What about all our brothers and sisters who are on the cutting room floor? What do you say to them, my friend? That ODAR/OCALJ has the right to break the law to justify their perception that they MUST have insiders to fix the backlog? Do the ends justify the illegal means?
Numbers don't lie, peejay, only bureaucrats do.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 28, 2009 17:29:37 GMT -5
S/He Who's Name Must Not Be Spoken Look, the issue, with "us" - be it Val or me, or PM or PF - is not and never has been the quals of the hires. They are qualified. The issue is the process and its adherence to merit principles. Actually, that's not what you and many others on the board imply. There is a running theme that if you are an insider, you are almost automatically deficient in some respect. And I decided to respond since many of us who read this board personally know the people selected for PF's locations. And since I'm posting right now, a response to the hypothetical posed by patsfan and you regarding the hartford office. Even given the scenario regarding nepotism(which I don't accept), he was also placed against an outsider who got picked ahead of him. Outsider v. outsider. No conflict there, right? Then, as you say you know, he was also placed against probably the most qualified insider SSA could offer. Not some gs-13 senior attorney, but as you say you know, a person with over 20 years of experience that was involved in just about every major policy change or initiave by the agency for almost a decade. Are you both saying an insider with those credentials isn't an appropriate selection when placed against PF? I think that's a perfectly valid selection. Then on top of all that, the other three selections for his locations(1 hartford, 2 portland) went to outsiders. I don't accept your nepotism allegation, but even considering it, plenty of outsiders were hired for those locations and overall PF got a fair shot in this process. I think the particular candidate highlighted here is representative of a large class of candidates who have caused a statisitical anamoly that has led to the high level of suspicion of insider preference. Overall statistics for the hiring process would indicate that the 2008 hires were the first class to ever even suggest a hiring preference for insiders. Prior to 2008, insiders trickled in at best. The primary reason for the low numbers of insiders was the basic hiring criteria that limited candidates to those with significant litigation experience. The glaring difference between past apps and the recent ones has been the option to base one's app on litigation or administrative law experience. This created a situation not unlike opening a professional sport up to previously segregated african americans, (this is purely a statistical comparison, not one of injustice). During the period that african americans were not allowed to play in the pros, they only lacked opportunity, rather than ability. Therefore, there was a large, untapped talent pool just waiting for the opportunity. I think we are seeing the same situation in this hiring process. The pool of high quality agency insider candidates has been building for a long time with only a deminimus number being selected until 2008. The heavy increase in the number of insider hires is a result of an obstacle being removed from a large and heavily qualified talent pool, not as a result of a crudely run affirmative action campaign. Jagghagg and Patriotsfan have admitted that they do not have a problem with the qualifications of the insider candidates hired, and the candidate described by Nutsorter would likely be one of, if not the best candidate on the cert. While it would likely require a large study to determine the overall effectiveness of insider candidates vs non-insider candidates, limiting the study to candidates with the same experience levels as Patriotsfan's nemesis in Hartford would almost certainly prove an overwhelming positive result. Patriotsfan had the rotten luck to have a minimal GAL and be matched with this candidate. The candidate spent so much time and effort in his location that he/she actually married someone in the office, which is not particularly surprising. With that level of committment, the candidate most likely limited his/her GAL to the location. New hypo. Lawyer at a large private firm markedly out-performs all of her inhouse competition at the associate level for several years, in spite of having a lackluster record at a no-name law school. She spends so much time succeeding at the firm that she eventually marries another associate. Would anyone really consider it nepotism if she made partner before the rest of her competition, even the ones with ivy league pedigrees, law review articles, and moot court trophies?
|
|
|
Post by civilserpent on Jun 29, 2009 8:52:41 GMT -5
For what it is worth, the old selection process had problems within the now abolished OPM Office of ALJ. Written demonstrations were being graded by "guest" lawyers of other agencies, and even at times by clerical staff. This practice was admitted by the head of the OPM ALJ office during a deposition taken in relation to a MSPB challenge of a score. (At one time, I had a copy of the deposition in my possession) Some WD's were "misplaced" and scores were made up. This and more gave rise to the Azdell litigation. On the issue of insiders being favored, I hope that outsiders take heart, as you are more likely to be picked up by agencies whose work involves contested hearings. Those of you who have spent your careers doing litigation would soon become frustrated by ODAR's approach to adjudications. No due process, no hearing control, etc. I often have said that as an ODAR ALJ (for one year only), my sole power was to make people wait.
|
|