|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 3, 2014 7:41:04 GMT -5
Funky's credentials are good as gold. He qualifies. I think that there may be something a lot of outsiders are not aware of. For a long time insiders were not given any credit for their work at SSA and were thereby not allowed to become Judges. That was changed and SSA experience counted for the application process. A group of sitting ALJ's got together and sought an injunction that SSA attorneys should nopt be allowed to be hired as ALJ's. This went over like a lead balloon, needless to say. There was much debate over the legitimacy of the action as it was supposedly based upon the fact that SSA attorneys just didn't have whatever to do the job. Behind the curtain, the rumor was that the ALJ Corp was scared to lose their best writers. Anyhow, this had a chilling effect in the OHA offices at the time and battle lines were drawn. At the time, even SSA attorneys with both inside and outside experience were being slighted, which was ridiculous. Then the pendulum swung and SSA attorneys were valued for their inside knowledge and the idea that they had already drunk the production kool aide and would toe the line. Now, OPM has gotten involved and it appears harder for the Agency to reach insiders, but we won't know for sure until the hiring is complete. Remember, ODAR does as ODAR wants to do, so there still may be a large hiring of insiders. Or not... I don't disagree Bart, but funky's fight was that most of the AAs should have qualified and it is this point I have an issue with. Funky is head and shoulders above most applicants with his skills and knowledge, like many of the Board members. I don't take issue with my brother at all regarding his skills, I take issue with his complaint that AAs should have not been cut at all or in very low numbers. A competitive process of testing is just that competitive for all, not just those in a particular line of work. I don't disagree that AAs/SAAs have a lot of skills and knowledge, but I don't think that alone should automatically qualify them for an ALJ position. Most AAs and SAAs are not dealing with the public in representation nor arguing in court. Those are skills that an ALJ needs as well. However, with today's SSA so focused on numbers and less on other things, it is likely that some of those people skills are needed less. If I had my magic wand I would allow everyone a NOR and let the rest be sorted out by SSA as to who they want to hire.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 7:50:17 GMT -5
Never said most AAs shouldn't be cut. Certainly never said all shouldn't.
Hard to debate someone that refuses to get by their own assumptions.
did the old process work? Did it get us good judges? Weren't they a good mix of insiders and outsiders? Didn't it appear to value admin expereince on the same level as lit experience? Didn't it give insiders a chance for advancement but still make them prove themselves on competitive testing while asking the same of outsiders?
seems to me the only people that had a problem with the old method were these small hiring agencies that wanted more lit experience folks. Opm buckled to them at the expense of what was better for ssa. And how has that worked? Wonderfully obviously, I mean clearly these other agencies are so pleased they are running to fill their slots with folks from this new register. Oh, wait. They still won't hire from the register. They still prefer to hire from ssa experienced judges? The ones brought in from the old process?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 3, 2014 7:55:35 GMT -5
Funky, why don't you think the AAs and SAAs have a real shot? For phase 1, decision writing is considered part of the 7 years litigation experience. My understanding of phase 2 and 3 is that it is graded based upon the merits of the answers given. While there may have been a lot of insiders who ultimately didn't make the cut, there may have been a same percentage of outsiders who also didn't make the cut who otherwise would have. gg, I agree the tests were tough on everybody. I mean, damn, like 25% were cut AFTER the DC round. But its pretty obvious the process redesign was most harsh to people without litigation experience and most in that category were career agency folks. you're right, 7 years of lit OR admin gets you by phase 1. But, by striking the old AR experience sections that gave you points for admin experience at phase 2 in favor of the new EA process that only awarded points based on litigation experience, one who got past phase 1 with the admin experience path and had little or no lit experience clearly had a bigger hurdle on the online components than litigators. If you got no or minimal points on the EA it only stands to reason you had to blow the SJT out of the water to make the "higher scored subgroup." from appearances, some adminners did that, but they are clearly the exceptions. All you have to do is look at the percentage of insiders that made it to DC and on this reg compared to the percentage of insiders on the old reg to see the effect. Again, not saying all insiders should have made it (or all litigators, I made a pretty good living when in private practice off the fact that there are plenty of stupid litigators out there). But there can be no question the new litigation centric process has completely or nearly completely closed the alj door for career admin folks. Are there exceptions, the state aljs and insiders with previous lit experience? sure. But if the door is shut to someone who went into public service out of lawschool, spent 20 years doing a great job using the law, facts and evidence to support alj decisions and knows the applicable rules and regs better than any alj in his office...? Sorry, but I don't see where adding a murder defense 20 years ago or a few hundred dui prosecutions 10 years ago makes that guy a better choice than he already is. I understand private,s position that litigation experience helps you know how to control a courtroom. But, if all the great litigators that made it envision themselves working for ssa and "cross examining the claimant" or "ruling on trial objections" or disallowing hearsay and all but the "best evidence"....well, you are in for some sad realizations. just check out the aalj newsletter someone posted. There is a sectionon bias complaints and what the agency did with them. From appearances, nothing the judges did would be improper in litigation, but in an ssa hearing? improper. When I came to odar and sat in on a hearing I was a bit shocked. if you have never seen one, don't imagine a trial. Its most akin to a deposition. Hell, there are good judges that have good disposition numbers and AC agreement rates that never ask a qauestion if the claimant is repped. They just let the rep lead the claimant thru their statements. To me, litigation experience is most helpful in teaching you to ask the right, targeted questions. But that skill, just like the rules and regs, can be learned. I mean damn, the new electronic bench book being phased in comes complte with scripts for the judges to read and suggested qauestions. I know we weren't just applying for odar judgeships and litigation is more important in some agencies. But with odar having 90% of all aljs and litigation skills being not so important for them, its just a calamity waiting to happen. Ssa already wants supervisory control of its judges. They appear to be gradually claiming that. It appears they'd love nothing better than turning their judges into "hearing examniers" or AJs without APA protection and to have the ability to discipline or terminate at will. By crafting the new testing process in a way that undoes odars past gains that got a healthy number of insiders on the reg and focusing alj qualifications on skills that have only mild impact on what odar does, opm has created a morale problem within ssa that will, sooner or later, negatively impact odars mission. That's just another justification for odar to push for doing its own hiring of hearing examiners without APA protection. That would suck for the judges and the claimants. It would also suck for wannabes. How would you like it if 90% of the jobs we are all competing for disappeared to a process that's internal and offers almost no hope to an outsider? Again, I don't see a clear fix. But there needs to be one. Having a register light on odar insiders coupled with low morale from the troops over the lack of advancement opportunities and a register consisting of people with skills odar doesn't value all that much is playing right into the hands of those that want to turn aljs at ssa into hearing examiners. Well said funky. I do agree with almost everything you stated here. I, like you, do not know the solution, but the system probably needs tweaking to make it more friendly to insiders, so it isn't so litigation-centric. I think changes will be coming along. If the intent is to push for "Hearing Examiners" the one way SSA can do that is hire only from within as those AAs and SAAs have no APA protections and would be happy to move up in pay and position. The litigators would fight to keep those APA protections as well as all existing ALJs, yet I believe a lot of AAs and SAAs would be willing to accept the title of "Hearing Examiner" without a fight. So, we differ as to what route will lead to "Hearing Examiners" versus keeping full blown ALJs. P.S. - One more thing if anyone only has one kind of experience (SSA) since law school in his or her background they are not as well-rounded as someone with other experiences and opportunities in the law or other occupations. I do agree that most people should have at least a working knowledge of SSA law and regulations, if they expect to work for SSA. However, I am sure many of those who may have made the Register based solely upon their litigation experience don't have that SSA knowledge and may likely not get a "highly recommend" by the SSA interviewers.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 3, 2014 8:06:17 GMT -5
Never said most AAs shouldn't be cut. Certainly never said all shouldn't. Hard to debate someone that refuses to get by their own assumptions. did the old process work? Did it get us good judges? Weren't they a good mix of insiders and outsiders? Didn't it appear to value admin expereince on the same level as lit experience? Didn't it give insiders a chance for advancement but still make them prove themselves on competitive testing while asking the same of outsiders? seems to me the only people that had a problem with the old method were these small hiring agencies that wanted more lit experience folks. Opm buckled to them at the expense of what was better for ssa. And how has that worked? Wonderfully obviously, I mean clearly these other agencies are so pleased they are running to fill their slots with folks from this new register. Oh, wait. They still won't hire from the register. They still prefer to hire from ssa experienced judges? The ones brought in from the old process? Alright, I took some license with your original post which stated: "But, the new process leading to much fewer insiders even on the register sucks. When a person takes a job, the list of considerations is generally universal. While some may list salary first, others benefits or quality of life or working environment, all those factors come to play to some degree. Included in that is upward mobility. While it may not be as big a deal to some as to others, its definitely a concern. When someone takes an AA job with odar they know its a grind, there is no excitement and its a high burnout type gig given the neverending tide of hearing requests and dispositions. Being a gov job, the security is excellent and the benefits are great. The salary isn't private sector caliber, but neither is the stress. The trade off generally works, if you go into with your eyes open. The one area that's deficient without much trade off is advancement. Someone who has taken an AA job, dedicated their career to public service and done very well in meeting all expectations ought to have at least a chance at advancement. You don't get raises for superior work and bonuses and awards can't come close to matching private sector incentives. You should at least be able to dream of moving up a rung." I apologize for misstating you, but as I said again I will agree to disagree with you on the testing. However, I will say I wouldn't mind if more insiders were included in the process. As has been stated previously, just because you are an insider doesn't mean you will be a "Highly Recommended" by SSA or your HOCALJ or RCALJ. I think we can both agree that the OPM testing process needs tweaking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 8:07:02 GMT -5
P.S. - One more thing if anyone only has one kind of experience (SSA) since law school in his or her background they are not as well-rounded as someone with other experiences and opportunities in the law or other occupations. I do agree that most people should have at least a working knowledge of SSA law and regulations, if they expect to work for SSA. However, I am sure many of those who may have made the Register based solely upon their litigation experience don't have that SSA knowledge and may likely not get a "highly recommend" by the SSA interviewers. Even though you began your last sentence with "I am sure," and you conditioned it with "may likely," would you agree with me that you don't have a freakin' clue who will and will not get a "highly recommend" by the SSA interviewers? If you cannot do that, will you please tell the jury your qualifications, and the basis of the expert opinion you gave?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 8:11:03 GMT -5
Well said and true mpd.
I'm just amazed that those that are so adamantly pro this new process can't see the forest for the trees.
They seem to so hate the idea that ssa may prefer insiders (and as outsiders they have an interest in that not being allowed) and fear that ssa would just "promote" insiders if more were available. So they are all for a process that devalues insider experience in favor of outside lit experience. I get it. Its a competition and you want the board set in a way that best fits your pieces. Hell, on a selfish note and from a purely personal perspective, I love the new process. I had the lit experience to get thru with a decent score but also have insider status on a reg where that's a rarity.
But, you are blind if you can't see that a process that essentially precludes all but the rarest of insiders will ultimately lead to the exact fear you have being realized. Ssa wants hearing examiners instead of judges. All they need is a congress that has a distaste for the program (midterms anyone?) and a few good reasons to jump ship. This process and its resulting odar morale suck gives them just one more reason. Then they get their hearing examiners pr9moted from within and the support of the staff when they make the change because those staffers see no other way to advance. Then the aljs stand alone. Theyll be ok though, they got the aalj. Those guys did a great job on the PD change.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 3, 2014 8:16:12 GMT -5
P.S. - One more thing if anyone only has one kind of experience (SSA) since law school in his or her background they are not as well-rounded as someone with other experiences and opportunities in the law or other occupations. I do agree that most people should have at least a working knowledge of SSA law and regulations, if they expect to work for SSA. However, I am sure many of those who may have made the Register based solely upon their litigation experience don't have that SSA knowledge and may likely not get a "highly recommend" by the SSA interviewers. Even though you began your last sentence with "I am sure," and you conditioned it with "may likely," would you agree with me that you don't have a freakin' clue who will and will not get a "highly recommend" by the SSA interviewers? If you cannot do that, will you please tell the jury your qualifications, and the basis of the expert opinion you gave? Common sense my devildog friend tells me that SSA will be looking for those with SSA experience over those without SSA experience. Does it mean those without SSA experience never get a highly recommend? Of course not, but someone with SSA experience who can espouse it during the SSA interview is likely much better off than the litigator talking about his/her criminal defense work during the interview. Think about it, you are a SSA interviewer who is a HOCALJ or RCALJ and you are given two nearly equal candidates, one with SSA experience and knowledge and one without. Besides that all other things are pretty equal, who are you going to highly recommend for hiring, if you can only do it for one of the candidates?
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 3, 2014 8:46:50 GMT -5
Let me say something, coming from over a decade of litigation experience and a decade of insider experience. The litigation experience is almost meaningless with what we as Judges do. When reporting to my first duty station, I was told by my non-litigation HOCALJ to be careful as "the Reps will test you". I thought "are you nuts"? Having been a litigator, I knew that no one and I mean no one wants to challenge or upset the Judge in front of them, especially if they plan on seeing that same Judge again. Our Reps see us day after day and they do not want to have a bad reputation with the Judges. The hearings are informal and if a Rep gets out of line I will ask him/her to stay after the hearing for a minute and I will "school" them. This happens very, very seldom. There is no cross exam to speak of. There are no rules of evidence. Probably some of the worst Judges I have seen are ex-D.A's and Solicitors that seem to forget that not everyone is lying to them all of the time. The reason insiders do better is that we are Regulation driven and they are familiar with the Regulations. Although it is not rocket science, there are nuances with each and every case that can be quite complex. Flame Suit on.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 3, 2014 10:08:11 GMT -5
I don't see true "litigation experience" as mattering that much in ODAR proceedings, which are non adversarial. For those agencies who have adversarial hearings and whose positions constitute a very small percentage of ALJs that come from this register, it's more important. After my almost twenty years of conducting adversarial hearings with a relatively small community of lawyers, I can say bartleby is correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 10:33:54 GMT -5
All I've ever done is carry a rifle and litigate, so I guess for the good of this nation I need to pull out now just in case I miraculously make it to the top three and am in the way of a person that currently works at ODAR?
Wish I had known this sooner.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 3, 2014 10:43:43 GMT -5
All I've ever done is carry a rifle and litigate, so I guess for the good of this nation I need to pull out now just in case I miraculously make it to the top three and am in the way of a person that currently works at ODAR? Wish I had known this sooner. You are too funny devildog. Due to your vet status you are probably golden. Your knowledge and posts on this Board tell me you have little to worry about in the process. However, if you wish to drop out don't let me stop you. (Of course the last statement was said with tongue in cheek my friend.)
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 11:17:03 GMT -5
Utterly ridiculous mischaracterization of what has been said DD and you know it. No one, certainly not me, has said insiders desrve preference over people with experience like yours.
I just fail to see how giving preference for litigation experience over administrative makes any more sense than vice versa. Especially when the odar jobs in particular call for more of that administrative experience than litigation.
Everyone on this register earned their spot and obviously have what it takes to be a good judge. But whether your litigators ego will let you admit it or not there are tons of good folks that don't have that litigation experience that could do this job. And do it very well. Many have the job now and are some of the best.
You guys and gals are all worthy, accomplished, well educated and experienced attorneys. If your only response to my position is to misapply it and grossly mischaracterize it into an argument that all insiders should get an alj gig or that outsiders arent worthy....well, none of you can possibly be that poor at reading comprehension and have made it this far. Thus, the only explanation is you can't counter the position and rather than recognize something that slaps your ego you try and shift the debate by painting the opposition into a farcical position.
I appreciate the competitve nature of the process. I also recognize the tendency in such situations to hew to stoic positions of self interest. But for funks sake, at least recognize the process changed, to the detriment of one class of candidate without much logical support. Recognize that and its a pretty easy step to see that such a move, when it involves a whole class of staffers, won't be real good for agency morale.
It shocks me how many just seem to not care or to openly disdain committed public servants that will one day make the difference if you succeed or fail. I don't think anybody that made this register should give up their slot to an insider. Dont be ridiculous. But maybe some ought to look really hard at what they are about to embark on. Get rid of the "I'm a great litigator and gonna rule my courtroom from the bench" mentality. At odar you are a member of the team. An important member but just a member. See how successful you are with scts that don't care if the file is ordered properly, writers that won't catch those post alleged onset earnings you missed or staff that thinks your an arrogant douche.
this is a BIG deal among the attorney staff. Maybe some need to step back, look beyond their own interest in landing the job and give some consideration to what its gonna be like to have the job. A little humility and understanding can go a long way.
Soap box over. I'm not gonna respond to anymore attempts to frame my postion in the ridiculous. No one here is stupid enough to really believe I think only insiders should get the gig or that all or even most insiders should get it.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 3, 2014 11:43:37 GMT -5
Once again funky I never meant to say that was your opinion about the process. If I did, I apologize again. I don't think we are that far apart in the process and what the new process has done to possible morale at SSA. I think we both believe the new process needs tweaking to make it more fair to insiders. So, don't try to frame me as a "flamer" of your position because I am not. We just disagree on some minor details. This will be my last word and post on this topic, too. I love you my Board brother. You are a true team player and colleague and I hope to some day meet up with you over a beer.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 11:54:23 GMT -5
There's ample room for reasoned disagreement my fine friend. And always room for beer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 12:02:21 GMT -5
I get where you are coming from. I was just being obnoxious. If I was right where you are I'd be at least curious about it myself.
Edit: Oh, and also, I lost a big trial yesterday, so my big litigator ego is bruised just a little. I'm sitting in my office today staring at the wall saying things to myself like "high-risk, high-reward," and "make sure your witnesses are sober," and "even a dog knows when he's been tripped over and when he's been kicked."
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 3, 2014 12:06:10 GMT -5
In all fairness, I'm reading your posts and hearing, "They thought they could take a dead-end GS-12 job, work at it for 7 years, and have a leg up on making the jump to ALJ. Now the process has changed and they perceive it to be to their detriment and without much logical support. They are pissed, and going forward they won't care about the quality of their work."
The problem for me is that in my personal and professional life, not all of my decisions have worked out as planned. Sometimes the rules changed and I lost out. Sometimes I jigged when I should have jagged. But I still picked myself up, dusted myself off, and forged ahead. And I took enough pride in my profession, my career, and my reputation to be the best damn lawyer I could be, despite setbacks. Life is not fair, and there are no guarantees. I'm thankful that right now, at this moment, I made some decisions that have given me the knowledge and experience to be on this register. But if I don't get the job, I will forge ahead and find out what really is next for me.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 12:07:55 GMT -5
I think this whole discussion has proven one thing clearly. The absolute, undeniably indisputable best choice for the gig is a candidate with say 10 to 12 years mega litigation experience doing class actions, mass tort and felony defense coupled with say 5 years as an insider AA and SAA. Even better if they have a wide open gal. Now, just where to find someone that fits that bill......
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 12:13:51 GMT -5
In all fairness, I'm reading your posts and hearing, "They thought they could take a dead-end GS-12 job, work at it for 7 years, and have a leg up on making the jump to ALJ. Now the process has changed and they perceive it to be to their detriment and without much logical support. They are pissed, and going forward they won't care about the quality of their work." The problem for me is that in my personal and professional life, not all of my decisions have worked out as planned. Sometimes the rules changed and I lost out. Sometimes I jigged when I should have jagged. But I still picked myself up, dusted myself off, and forged ahead. And I took enough pride in my profession, my career, and my reputation to be the best damn lawyer I could be, despite setbacks. Life is not fair, and there are no guarantees. I'm thankful that right now, at this moment, I made some decisions that have given me the knowledge and experience to be on this register. But if I don't get the job, I will forge ahead and find out what really is next for me. Good points and a great perspective on life baglady. Your outlook, perseverance and willingness to roll with the punches is envious and I'd wager very rare. Most people that pick a career with the idea and assurances that they can at least compete to a better job only to find out after 7 years or more doing it they don't have that shot would be a bit pissed. Maybe even have some contempt. good to see you wouldn't be one of them. Lets see how you feel after 10 years as a judge and the agency tells you that you are now a "hearing examiner." Its coming, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 3, 2014 12:20:21 GMT -5
The only thing I know for certain is that life is full of uncertainty. There are the things I can control, and then there's everything else. All I can do is make the best decision at any given time and hope it's the right one. And if I get more of them right than wrong, well good on me!
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Apr 3, 2014 12:20:31 GMT -5
I don't see true "litigation experience" as mattering that much in ODAR proceedings, which are non adversarial. For those agencies who have adversarial hearings and whose positions constitute a very small percentage of ALJs that come from this register, it's more important. After almost twenty years of conducting adversarial hearings with a relatively small community of lawyers, bartleby is correct. I agree - I'm a NODAR who got the ALJ gig - you don't need litigation experience for this job, what you need is an ability to use technology, review and understand medical records quickly, make a decision, and work well with others. You also incidentially need good eyesight, nimble hands to type with, and an ability to sit for long periods of time as well. If you don't know how to frame a question, no biggie, ebb has all the questions already laid out for you - just read the script. Don't know how to question a VE? Well, there is a script for you as well. I'm still grasping and grappling with the law, but will eventually get to the level of knowledge I need to be. The majority of the decision writers in my office could do my job - I'm just the "lucky" one that got through the process and got to dance to the ODAR beat.
|
|