|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 21, 2014 20:37:14 GMT -5
First, I suspect that OPM will give them more than three names on a cert for each city. Nothing says they have to give them only three names. Then, if SSA requests certs for all the cities at once, (which they may already have done) it makes NO sense for OPM to give them the same three, or five, or six names who are the highest scoring people with wide open (or virtually wide open) GALs. OPM is not going to hamstring ODAR that much in trying to fill 90 positions. There has to be some other way they are going about getting names to ODAR, one which I expect is not that different from what they have done before, except that it may restrict where people can be hired for more than before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 20:45:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandparay1 on Mar 21, 2014 20:49:19 GMT -5
Could it be a little smack to s.s.a. for o.p.m.'s belief that s.s.a. has been improperly manipulating the rule of 3?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 21, 2014 20:54:45 GMT -5
There is one Cert for all the cities they want to hire for now. Did you see ALJD's comment above? This suggests a new process. Maybe only in terms of paperwork but no practical effect?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 21, 2014 21:05:41 GMT -5
There is one Cert for all the cities they want to hire for now. Source for this? Just asking. You know something that I don't know. Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't know it. Is the letter that was posted BS? Because this is 180 from it. I mis-spoke, late Friday, situational wine. I described how they worked a list that I had described to me. The use of the word "cert" as quoted above was wrong. Obviously the letter quoted by ALJD is accurate for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 21, 2014 21:07:04 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm the paranoid type. Maybe its nothing. But:
The tension between opm and ssa is well documented. Exhibit A: Ssa fought for years to have their attorney advisers considered eligible and not excluded under the law clerk exclusions. Ssa wins that fight finally and applicants can claim 7 years of administrative law experience to get by the first hurdle. As a result, odar insiders are finally represented on the register in large numbers and were hired in large numbers in 2008, 2009 and thru the last hire from that register. Unable to undo that loss, opm responds by gearing the new test toward litigation experience. while 7 years admin gets you by the first hurdle, without litigation you aren't getting by the new online component. Result? far fewer odar insiders on the register.
Exhibit B: ssa wants a new register and claims what's left on the old one is not enough or has been previously considered. Opm fights that, even going so far as to take the unprecedented step of allowing candidates to expand their gal to force ssa to look at more on the old register. Finally a new test is created and opm agrees to a new register. But it seems to take a long time. So long that ssa begins to express concern they won't have enough time to get their hoped for hire completed by the end of the fiscal. Then, after even more waiting, opm drops the new reg followed by a new, more tedious and less maneuverable cert procedure. A new procedure that appears to hamstring ssa in its ability to maneuver through the register often going around folks opm feels are qualified. Even if ssa could figure new maneuvers, it will require a lot of back and forth with opm. The delays that will cause, along with the already later than expected release of the register, ensures the selections will be more in opm control.
Again, maybe just paranoia, but certainly has the hallmarks of passive aggressive political gamesmanship and turf protection.
|
|
|
Post by robespierre on Mar 21, 2014 21:27:04 GMT -5
ALJD? The person who forwarded you this e-mail ... was he by any chance wielding a lightsaber and muttering about the dark side?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 21, 2014 21:31:26 GMT -5
While OPM is attempting to change the process for SSA, in the end my as*umption is SSA will still pick and choose who they want to fill slots. It will be more difficult, but SSA will figure a way around it.
|
|
|
Post by grandparay1 on Mar 21, 2014 21:43:30 GMT -5
Upon further reflection, I think this could be a game changer. Considering the recent change in position description for O.D.A.R A.L.J.'S and the additional burden to hire maybe O.D.A.R. does away with A.L.J.'S. Instead they go around O.P.M. and hire administrative judges directly without A.P.A. protection. I read an article a few days ago regarding S.S.A. budgets over the past few years. It was reported that the acting commissioner had more money for field employees and hearing officers. I wish I could remember the publication (I read it on line). I think it came from Chicago. Initially I thought the term "hearing officers" was a mistake and really should have been "hearing offices." I hope I'm just being paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Mar 21, 2014 22:12:34 GMT -5
First, I suspect that OPM will give them more than three names on a cert for each city. Nothing says they have to give them only three names. Then, if SSA requests certs for all the cities at once, (which they may already have done) it makes NO sense for OPM to give them the same three, or five, or six names who are the highest scoring people with wide open (or virtually wide open) GALs. OPM is not going to hamstring ODAR that much in trying to fill 90 positions. There has to be some other way they are going about getting names to ODAR, one which I expect is not that different from what they have done before, except that it may restrict where people can be hired for more than before. These were my thoughts also upon reading the email. The pertinent section of the rule states "containing the names of a sufficient number of eligibles to permit the appointing officer to consider three eligibles in connection with each vacancy". It does not require that only three names be submitted. To do so would mean multiple meaningless certs with one or two high scoring candidates with wide open GALs. It would be absurd for OPM to intend that ODAR engage in the time-wasting process of requesting a new cert for each city each time a job placement deprived those cities of one of their "3 person certs." In fact, in order to obey the language of the rule, OPM has to submit more than three names for most cities, because with large GALs, that would be required to be certain that it provided a "sufficient" number of eligibles. No, I think there is no fundamental change in the system. The cert may be organized a little differently than in the past--by city--but ODAR will be able to compare the candidates, and by filling the vacancies in a certain order accomplish three strikes where desired.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 21, 2014 22:15:29 GMT -5
First, I suspect that OPM will give them more than three names on a cert for each city. Nothing says they have to give them only three names. Then, if SSA requests certs for all the cities at once, (which they may already have done) it makes NO sense for OPM to give them the same three, or five, or six names who are the highest scoring people with wide open (or virtually wide open) GALs. OPM is not going to hamstring ODAR that much in trying to fill 90 positions. There has to be some other way they are going about getting names to ODAR, one which I expect is not that different from what they have done before, except that it may restrict where people can be hired for more than before. In fact, the quote from DD above says they can give more than three names: 332.402 says "When OPM receives a request for certification of eligibles, it shall prepare a certificate from the top of the appropriate register containing the names of a sufficient number of eligibles to permit the appointing officer to consider three eligibles in connection with each vacancy." This may be the answer. They can ask for enough names for each vacancy to allow alternates to move up as higher names are used up. Hence, maybe not a big difference from the current system, just more lists to juggle for the deciders.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 21, 2014 22:19:04 GMT -5
Sandiferhands, all I can say is "Great minds think alike!"
|
|
|
Post by MoStateALJ on Mar 21, 2014 22:20:09 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm the paranoid type. Maybe its nothing. But: The tension between opm and ssa is well documented. Exhibit A: Ssa fought for years to have their attorney advisers considered eligible and not excluded under the law clerk exclusions. Ssa wins that fight finally and applicants can claim 7 years of administrative law experience to get by the first hurdle. As a result, odar insiders are finally represented on the register in large numbers and were hired in large numbers in 2008, 2009 and thru the last hire from that register. Unable to undo that loss, opm responds by gearing the new test toward litigation experience. while 7 years admin gets you by the first hurdle, without litigation you aren't getting by the new online component. Result? far fewer odar insiders on the register. Exhibit B: ssa wants a new register and claims what's left on the old one is not enough or has been previously considered. Opm fights that, even going so far as to take the unprecedented step of allowing candidates to expand their gal to force ssa to look at more on the old register. Finally a new test is created and opm agrees to a new register. But it seems to take a long time. So long that ssa begins to express concern they won't have enough time to get their hoped for hire completed by the end of the fiscal. Then, after even more waiting, opm drops the new reg followed by a new, more tedious and less maneuverable cert procedure. A new procedure that appears to hamstring ssa in its ability to maneuver through the register often going around folks opm feels are qualified. Even if ssa could figure new maneuvers, it will require a lot of back and forth with opm. The delays that will cause, along with the already later than expected release of the register, ensures the selections will be more in opm control. Again, maybe just paranoia, but certainly has the hallmarks of passive aggressive political gamesmanship and turf protection. Funky, why do you think people without litigation experience were cut during the online portion? I have over 20 years of administrative law experience and no real litigation experience (except for A few months of appellate work) and I received a score.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 21, 2014 22:27:41 GMT -5
I'd say you are most likely an outlier. and one that probably did well on the sjt, despite lacking "litigation" experience.
The fact that the multiple areas of experience that were once asked about in the old accomplishment record were whittled down to one experience assessment concerning litigation experience pretty clearly demonstrates the intent.
you are commended and congratulated for beating the odds and a game rigged against you my friend. I can personally attest to multiple very experienced odar administrative law only applicants that fell into the designed trap.
|
|
|
Post by MoStateALJ on Mar 21, 2014 22:34:15 GMT -5
I'd say you are most likely an outlier. and one that probably did well on the sjt, despite lacking "litigation" experience. The fact that the multiple areas of experience that were once asked about in the old accomplishment record were whittled down to one experience assessment concerning litigation experience pretty clearly demonstrates the intent. you are commended and congratulated for beating the odds and a game rigged against you my friend. I can personally attest to multiple very experienced odar administrative law only applicants that fell into the designed trap. Perhaps my experience as a state ALJ helped me squeak through.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj on Mar 21, 2014 22:34:33 GMT -5
I want to believe the new theory, but if they view each location as a separate certificate, then a few names per certificate would be sufficient for that certificate. The problem arises by filling multiple certificates at the same time. If they pull from the top for each certificate, they are going to provide the same high scoring open GALS applicants for most certificates. If they somehow decide people can only be put on one certificate in the batch, it seems that even the last three people pulled would have a 1/3rd chance because they would be competing for the last certificate pulled. And the top scorers would similarly only be considered once and have a 1/3rd chance, rather than being considered for multiple locations as they work down the list.
|
|
|
Post by MoStateALJ on Mar 21, 2014 22:38:07 GMT -5
I'd say you are most likely an outlier. and one that probably did well on the sjt, despite lacking "litigation" experience. The fact that the multiple areas of experience that were once asked about in the old accomplishment record were whittled down to one experience assessment concerning litigation experience pretty clearly demonstrates the intent. you are commended and congratulated for beating the odds and a game rigged against you my friend. I can personally attest to multiple very experienced odar administrative law only applicants that fell into the designed trap. Perhaps my experience as a state ALJ helped me squeak through. I would love to hear if any other applicants who received a score also lack significant litigation experience.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 21, 2014 22:38:35 GMT -5
I'd say you are most likely an outlier. and one that probably did well on the sjt, despite lacking "litigation" experience. The fact that the multiple areas of experience that were once asked about in the old accomplishment record were whittled down to one experience assessment concerning litigation experience pretty clearly demonstrates the intent. you are commended and congratulated for beating the odds and a game rigged against you my friend. I can personally attest to multiple very experienced odar administrative law only applicants that fell into the designed trap. Perhaps my experience as a state ALJ helped me squeak through. I doubt you needed to squeak through. Undoubtedly judicial experience was deemed on par or to trump litigation experience. not so for most purely admin lawyers though. Best of luck
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 21, 2014 22:42:52 GMT -5
Perhaps my experience as a state ALJ helped me squeak through. I would love to hear if any other applicants who received a score also lack significant litigation experience. There was a poll (on page 2 in polling palace) asking phase 3 Iinvitees what they rated themselves on the EA (which was entirely about lit experience). Of the 94 voters only 9 rated their experience at 2 or lower.
|
|
|
Post by MoStateALJ on Mar 21, 2014 22:44:09 GMT -5
Thanks, Funky. I hope to read soon that you received an offer to a much-desired location. You will do a great job.
|
|