|
Post by lildavey on Oct 16, 2013 15:07:23 GMT -5
Do ODAR offices with larger backlogs get priority in hiring?
|
|
|
Post by bhappy on Oct 16, 2013 15:25:38 GMT -5
In July 2012, those on the registry were allowed to expand their GALs. At that time, the registry had been picked over and, apparently, the new testing procedures were being developed. OPM had a depleted registry due to hires in prior years and no ready source of candidates due to development and implementation of the new testing given this summer/fall. I surmise that OPM allowed for the GAL expansion to maximize candidates that remained on the registry because the upcoming registry (which we hope to make) was expected to be 18 months into the future. Until a registry is depleted, I doubt we will see the opportunity to expand GALs. Rather than allow GAL expansion, OPM could reopen (the new) testing and terminate the then existing registry. Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 16, 2013 15:29:03 GMT -5
observer, you're right that we don't know if or when they will reopen the GAL selections. But since they just did that last year, I will at least consider the possibility. I am glad to know that ODAR "liking" or "wanting" you can derive from the ODAR interview itself or from your qualifications, in general. Good to know that its possible for non-ODAR insiders to achieve that. They did it in 2011 (or 2012, time flies) because the register had had several certs drawn from it already, had been described as picked over, etc. Because more people expanded than contracted their GALs, it had the effect of adding more "potential hires" to the register without adding a single person. There is NO such motivation to do that with a brand new register. Might they do it a few years down the road? Sure, for the same reason. Before next summer? No, don't see that happening If and when they "refresh" this register, the register doesn't terminate. Anyone who is eligible to reapply and wants to can, everyone can change their GAL while applications are open.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 15:40:12 GMT -5
observer, you're right that we don't know if or when they will reopen the GAL selections. But since they just did that last year, I will at least consider the possibility. I am glad to know that ODAR "liking" or "wanting" you can derive from the ODAR interview itself or from your qualifications, in general. Good to know that its possible for non-ODAR insiders to achieve that. They did it in 2011 (or 2012, time flies) because the register had had several certs drawn from it already, had been described as picked over, etc. Because more people expanded than contracted their GALs, it had the effect of adding more "potential hires" to the register without adding a single person. There is NO such motivation to do that with a brand new register. Might they do it a few years down the road? Sure, for the same reason. Before next summer? No, don't see that happening If and when they "refresh" this register, the register doesn't terminate. Anyone who is eligible to reapply and wants to can, everyone can change their GAL while applications are open. If Zebra is correct and there is a large chunk of those on the register with limited GALs because they are not part of the usual suspects it might be in OPMs and SSA's interest to allow for a GAL refresh. Especially if SSA feels that the candidates they are getting on the cert are not neccesarily those with the highest scores. A lot of impressive people at the testing site--some of whom had limited GAL (or at least claimed they did).
|
|
|
Post by bhappy on Oct 16, 2013 15:48:44 GMT -5
Observer, you articulated my points more succinctly. The bottom line is that an opportunity for GAL expansion is well into the future, if ever.
As for a registry termination, I understand that those on the current registry (not the upcoming one) receive periodic emails from OPM to the effect that the registry will terminate and that they will need to reapply to remain on the registry.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 16, 2013 16:04:21 GMT -5
I like the thought that the 2 week open app period means more people that may have been "low info" applicants and thus have very limited gals. Makes me, with my wide gal, feel better about my chances and it has the benefit of being true. Unfortunately, ssaogc's point is also true. Those high info folks that have been waiting to pounce on the first hint of an open app period also applied. Whats more, those applicants had undoubtedly did their homework on the app process, gals and the like. I would contend that, despite the changes in the testing, knowing what I did about the past processes helped me get to this point. I had recieved a forwarded email from opm that the new app period was about to open almost a month before it did. Some easily done internet research quickly revealed the inquiries in the old Accomplishment Record and there was ample suggestions on how to write one. Expecting a very short open period, I went ahead and put together my accomplishment record like was required in apps past. When it finally opened, I kind of felt punked when I saw the open period was two weeks and the uber long accomplishment record was replaced with a comparably short experience assessment. Still, the exercise of doing the accomp rec made it quite easy for me to do the experience assessment and write it in the necessary gov speak to get by the 7 years requirement. I know many applicants with outstanding credentials that didn't get by the simple step of proving they had 7 years of litigation experience. The only justification that makes logical sense is that those folks didn't know how to express themselves in opmese. Thankfully, my high info pursuit gave me that insight. So, while I agree that the new process and long open period undoubtedly drove many low info applicants to apply, I imagine those that actually made it past phase 1, thru phase 2 and where we all sit now is predominantly those that had high info on the job and the process. Just maybe not the impact of gal selections on chances
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 16:11:11 GMT -5
yes, Observer. I lived through all that. But if its all the same to you, I will keep reconsidering my GAL options no matter when it is updated. I agree with ssaogc and others who advise "stetching" with the widest possible GAL even if you have to decline at the "pulling the cert." stage. I think it is a sound strategy, but the GAL selection process is obviously a highly individualistic decision that can ebb and flow with life's changes. That's where I'm at. I just hope I don't have to wait 13 years like one observer commented!
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 16, 2013 16:14:28 GMT -5
Observer, you articulated my points more succinctly. The bottom line is that an opportunity for GAL expansion is well into the future, if ever. As for a registry termination, I understand that those on the current registry (not the upcoming one) receive periodic emails from OPM to the effect that the registry will terminate and that they will need to reapply to remain on the registry. Well, we've already been notified that the current register will terminate when scoring for the new one is done, so we had to reapply this time around if we wanted to stay on. When the new one is up and running, it will have some theoretical expiration date, but it's more likely to be refreshed a couple of years down the road, and the expiration date, like with this current register, becomes a moving target. There are going to be places to put the high scorers with small GALs, who, after the ODAR interviews and other screening, are on the "yes" pile. OPM ia not going to expand GALs right off the bat. That's a precedent they don't want to get into. I imagine that first cert will have A LOT of cities on it, with not anywhere near all of them actually in the plans to get filled. But, that gives ODAR a BIG group of people to screen, which would include high scorers with small GALs.
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Oct 16, 2013 17:24:53 GMT -5
The usual number of suspects who were waiting to pounce on the job announcement pounced on it as in prior years. The only difference is that this time they have additional company. The usual suspects should be well represented in the resulting register and the majority of these individuals should have wide GALs as in prior years/registers. Yes the pouncers would most likely have a wide GAL (say 2500). But in two weeks open there were 6000+. A number of those 3500 extra made it to DC with no knowledge of the importance of a wide open GAL. I'm stunned there an estimated 5,000+ applicants. So the DC invitees are in the top quartile? That's like a Columbus Day present !
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 16, 2013 20:11:59 GMT -5
They did it in 2011 (or 2012, time flies) because the register had had several certs drawn from it already, had been described as picked over, etc. Because more people expanded than contracted their GALs, it had the effect of adding more "potential hires" to the register without adding a single person. There is NO such motivation to do that with a brand new register. Might they do it a few years down the road? Sure, for the same reason. Before next summer? No, don't see that happening If and when they "refresh" this register, the register doesn't terminate. Anyone who is eligible to reapply and wants to can, everyone can change their GAL while applications are open. If Zebra is correct and there is a large chunk of those on the register with limited GALs because they are not part of the usual suspects it might be in OPMs and SSA's interest to allow for a GAL refresh. Especially if SSA feels that the candidates they are getting on the cert are not neccesarily those with the highest scores. A lot of impressive people at the testing site--some of whom had limited GAL (or at least claimed they did). I don't think OPM cares about the candidates' GAL, and SSA won't necessarily know all the score ranges. In fact, it might be more advantageous for SSA from their perspective not to open up the GAL so they can more easily reach those they want. Based upon the past history, SSA doesn't really care about scores.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 20:21:45 GMT -5
If Zebra is correct and there is a large chunk of those on the register with limited GALs because they are not part of the usual suspects it might be in OPMs and SSA's interest to allow for a GAL refresh. Especially if SSA feels that the candidates they are getting on the cert are not neccesarily those with the highest scores. A lot of impressive people at the testing site--some of whom had limited GAL (or at least claimed they did). I don't think OPM cares about the candidates' GAL, and SSA won't necessarily know all the score ranges. In fact, it might be more advantageous for SSA from their perspective not to open up the GAL so they can more easily reach those they want. Based upon the past history, SSA doesn't really care about scores. I agree that OPM has no reason to care about the GAL choices made by the candidates. They have refreshed the register and allowed GAL Changes because SSA has asked them too in order to get to look at different people for different locations. If SSA did not care about scores and wants to easily reach those they want why was there a need for candidates to be allowed to revisit their GALs? Supposedly they were not happy with the candidates who were showing up on the cert for the locations they wanted filled. By allowing an updated GAL they surely knew they would be getting candidate whose scores were higher than the ones they were not satisfied with, not candidates with lower scores because such lower scoring candidates would not make the cert over the candidates that they has already found to be unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by usnrcwo on Oct 16, 2013 21:11:46 GMT -5
Whole hell of a lot of speculative math going on here today. But, hey, according to the current vote count in the House, i'm going to get paid tomorrow. yeah!
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 17, 2013 10:08:47 GMT -5
I don't think OPM cares about the candidates' GAL, and SSA won't necessarily know all the score ranges. In fact, it might be more advantageous for SSA from their perspective not to open up the GAL so they can more easily reach those they want. Based upon the past history, SSA doesn't really care about scores. I agree that OPM has no reason to care about the GAL choices made by the candidates. They have refreshed the register and allowed GAL Changes because SSA has asked them too in order to get to look at different people for different locations. If SSA did not care about scores and wants to easily reach those they want why was there a need for candidates to be allowed to revisit their GALs? Supposedly they were not happy with the candidates who were showing up on the cert for the locations they wanted filled. By allowing an updated GAL they surely knew they would be getting candidate whose scores were higher than the ones they were not satisfied with, not candidates with lower scores because such lower scoring candidates would not make the cert over the candidates that they has already found to be unacceptable. Yes, eventually they will reopen the register, which will allow everyone to change their GALs as well as allow new candidates to play the game. However, I wouldnt hold my breath on that happening any time soon. I believe everyone on the last register that had not been three struck made the last cert regardless of score, and it wasn't necessarily the highest scores that were selected. It's entirely possible that they allowed GAL expansion to allow desirable folks the opportunity to list an office with an opening.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 17, 2013 10:38:01 GMT -5
I agree that OPM has no reason to care about the GAL choices made by the candidates. They have refreshed the register and allowed GAL Changes because SSA has asked them too in order to get to look at different people for different locations. If SSA did not care about scores and wants to easily reach those they want why was there a need for candidates to be allowed to revisit their GALs? Supposedly they were not happy with the candidates who were showing up on the cert for the locations they wanted filled. By allowing an updated GAL they surely knew they would be getting candidate whose scores were higher than the ones they were not satisfied with, not candidates with lower scores because such lower scoring candidates would not make the cert over the candidates that they has already found to be unacceptable. Yes, eventually they will reopen the register, which will allow everyone to change their GALs as well as allow new candidates to play the game. However, I wouldnt hold my breath on that happening any time soon. I believe everyone on the last register that had not been three struck made the last cert regardless of score, and it wasn't necessarily the highest scores that were selected. It's entirely possible that they allowed GAL expansion to allow desirable folks the opportunity to list an office with an opening. That was certainly part of the motivation, as part of allowing more potential hires to be on the register without actually adding any names. High scorers, middle scorers and low scorers all improved their options if they expanded their GALs.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 17, 2013 11:11:39 GMT -5
HOPEFALJ: I believe everyone on the last register that had not been three struck made the last cert regardless of score, and it wasn't necessarily the highest scores that were selected.
This is what I don't get. If the scores can be ignored, what is the point of having them? Isn't this tremendous appeal fodder?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 17, 2013 11:40:27 GMT -5
HOPEFALJ: I believe everyone on the last register that had not been three struck made the last cert regardless of score, and it wasn't necessarily the highest scores that were selected. This is what I don't get. If the scores can be ignored, what is the point of having them? Isn't this tremendous appeal fodder? They aren't ignored, the rule of three is still there, and applicants still have to be ranked. If they didn't, there would be no "striking", and any agency could just pick off the list. That said, we know they asked for a larger list than the positions they planned to fill would require. They may well have asked OPM to just send the balance of the non-three struck register, and get a look at people they may not have had the opportunity to see before. Which people they could actually reach, (or wanted to, after the interview) given their score, depended on how the selections played out, in what order, etc.
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Oct 17, 2013 11:51:58 GMT -5
The ALJ announcement we applied under describes hiring by the Rule of Three (Note: Rule of Three and Three Strikes are different rules).
I think that using the Rule of Three for hiring(which then allows use of the three strike rule) is great appeal fodder. The rule put out by the 2010 Executive Order is that all federal hiring will be by Category Rating (which does away with the three strike rule). Those having a better chance at getting hired under Category Rating and those that are three struck have very good appeal grounds for OPM not following the 2010 EO.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 17, 2013 12:16:40 GMT -5
The three strike rule and the rule of three are two completely different things. Getting rid of having to look first at the top three scores (and I have no idea what the status/effect of that EO really is) doesn't change the rule about only having to give an applicant bona fide consideration three times for the same job.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 17, 2013 12:17:31 GMT -5
From what I have been able to glean from the board, the view that the score hierarchy and the rule of threes is strictly adhered to, is controversial at best. The NOR Countdown thread contains funkyodar's excellent hypothetical of how the scoring hierarchy might be easily, and "legally" circumvented. There is also an excellent comment by Privateatty in a 2010 thread, that also contains more than just perfunctory, "inside the box" thinking. I cannot speak for others, all of this gives me a better understanding of the possibilities. I also agree with Zebra51 that potential appeal issues might be taken into account here. Privateatty's observation was:
"And pf and I do advocate that SSA/ODAR/OCALJ should choose whom they want. We just want them to do it legally. And here we go again because val and nonamouse and perhaps oldjag believe they do. Fine, time will tell. Frankly, I don't think that the process of three-striking would pass any smell test, but there you have it.
The competitive process that uses the Rule of Three was enacted to give the job to those who had the highest OPM score, not the SSA score given after the later's interview. There are some on this Board, those that got hired with scores in the fifties and sixties who would never have been picked up by SSA absent the leap-frogging SSA/ODAR/OCALJ did over well-qualified higher scorers to get to them. Not surprisingly, they defend this process. Before 2007, alot of them would be on the Register until it expired. A large percentage of this group are former SSA AAs and SAs. Some of those folks have no business going anywhere else but SSA or possibly OMHA because they have no trial experience."
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Oct 17, 2013 12:27:40 GMT -5
The three strike rule and the rule of three are two completely different things. Getting rid of having to look first at the top three scores (and I have no idea what the status/effect of that EO really is) doesn't change the rule about only having to give an applicant bona fide consideration three times for the same job. I agree that they are different. I disagree that Category Rating "doesn't change the rule about only having to give an applicant bona fide consideration three times for the same job." OPM policy on Category Rating specifically states "(4)The “three consideration” rule embodied in 5 CFR 332.405 does not apply in category rating." www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/human-capital-management/hiring-reform/reference/categoryratingpolicytemplate.pdfThose having a better chance at getting hired under Category Rating and those that are three struck have very good appeal grounds for OPM not following the 2010 EO.
|
|