|
Post by gottabeme on Jun 22, 2014 8:50:49 GMT -5
It's been a couple of months now. It is my understanding that all appeals from day one through the last NOR all filed appeals at the same time. Has anyone received any response?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 22, 2014 15:12:57 GMT -5
None of my friends and colleagues that were cut at various stages and appealed have heard anything yet GBM.
I'm not positive your info is completely accurate. Seems some of my coworkers that were cut at phase one (ie the initial app/7 years stage) filed their appeals well before the rest of us got our NORs or appeal rights notice emails. I may be wrong on that, but that is my recollection.
I am eternally grateful I dont have to fight the appeal battle and those of you that do have my sympathy.
My guess (and I stress it is a guess) is opm has only recently started looking at appeals. Up till now, the relatively small alj hiring group there has been busy setting this new register and delivering the first cert. Now, until the second round of certs begins, would seem a lull during which they could get moving on what I envision is a certified buttload of appeals.
Good luck
|
|
|
Post by gottabeme on Jun 22, 2014 16:52:27 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but I thought everyone had to wait to appeal until after the final NOR's were released. If this is true, theoretically, there could be thousands of appeals and we all know how "swift" they were in this last round with only an estimated 1200 applicants in the final round. I'll keep praying for that miracle. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 22, 2014 17:29:54 GMT -5
Good luck gottabeme, but I honestly believe decisions on the OPM appeals won't be made until late this year or early next year. The numbers of appeals will be staggering and it will take time to work through them all.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 23, 2014 10:33:46 GMT -5
I only stop by here every other week to see if there's any movement on appeals -- all these other topics are too painful to read. Anyway, haven't heard anything on my end. I'm hoping OPM goes through them before the second cert is issued, but who knows. I'd assume that most of the appeals would fall into a couple of large bins: (1) people who were rejected for bar license issues or poorly-documented years of experience, (2) Phase Two denials (post-SJT), which I can't really see succeeding under any legitimate circumstances, and (3) those of us who were chopped down after the DC portion of the proceedings. I'd think that (3) would be the most time-consuming because most of the people in that group are appealing their WD performance. (3) Also has the biggest potential reward since success there would mean, without further testing, they would do any scoring and computations necessary, give the appellant a rating, and put him/her on the register.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Jun 23, 2014 20:38:12 GMT -5
I only stop by here every other week to see if there's any movement on appeals -- all these other topics are too painful to read. Anyway, haven't heard anything on my end. I'm hoping OPM goes through them before the second cert is issued, but who knows. I'd assume that most of the appeals would fall into a couple of large bins: (1) people who were rejected for bar license issues or poorly-documented years of experience, (2) Phase Two denials (post-SJT), which I can't really see succeeding under any legitimate circumstances, and (3) those of us who were chopped down after the DC portion of the proceedings. I'd think that (3) would be the most time-consuming because most of the people in that group are appealing their WD performance. I really wish you would post more often. I love your picture. Those are dogs, right?
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Jun 24, 2014 4:59:07 GMT -5
I still haven't heard anything, and I am not expecting anything for awhile.
Does anyone know what happened to the fear that the 1st cert would have to happen quickly because there would be an injunction on hiring? My guess is that before the federal courts would be willing to look into a claim the agency would be afforded a chance to conduct their administrative review/appeal process. My question is at what point do we think they have had their chance and they are just sitting on appeals needlessly?
To me this is a little more frustrating than waiting for scores. When we were waiting on scores it wasn't like job opportunities were being taken from candidates who might be qualified. I am assuming that some of us in the appeals process, including some who were knocked out for not having the minimum score, might end up on the register. Some of those individuals might end up high enough on the register that they would have been referred to the first, second, third, etc cert. I hope that OPM is doing all they can to process these appeals.
Anyhow, I'm just checking in. Good luck to everyone who has interviewed and good luck to all of my fellow appellants.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 24, 2014 9:04:10 GMT -5
The Great Wait....
With the change of this process, there are many many new areas of candidate angst. But, I think the largest is the new periods of waiting, hoping and praying. In the past, you submitted your Accomplishment Record and some got invited to DC while some were cut and filed appeals. Those that made DC would make the register and they would wait for their turn on a cert. Just like we on the reg are doing now. Under the old process though, if ssa was hiring 200, somewhere slightly over 600 (approximately 2/3 of the guesstimated register) would make those certs. Now, with the single city cert method, all indications are that only around a third of the reg will make the certs for the 200. Meaning everyone else has more waiting.
Those in the past that had to appeal all came from one group. Those that purportedly "failed" to prove they had the requisite experience. Appeals were, from what I have been told, simple. You requested them to take a second look at your AR. While no one would argue opm did that quickly, it's pretty clear it was a simple process. The vast majority of appellants got a simple response, "we looked and were right the first time. Sorry, better luck next time." But a select few (like those that proved their ARs were graded by the company that just denied everyone) got through.
Now though, there isn't just one pool of appellants with a simple question, it appears there are four distinct groups.
Those cut at phase one appear to be the the most similar to the old process appellants. I would expect they will have a similar success rate. And what does success get you? More waiting. If they say you can go forward you get to try and get past the online component, if get through there you wait. Then there is DC where you again have to get by a cut and you wait for NORs. These poor folks have already been waiting since, what May of 2013? Thats almost 14 months. Those that successfully get all the way thru probably wont get on the register for at least another year. By then you may see a refresh.
The phase two cuts are an enigma to me. It is my understanding opm didnt give them any score breakdown so they know where they allegedly came up short or even any indication of how short they were. And how are those appeals even considered? If your experience assessment was short, sure have someone else regrade. But short of some failure by opm to grant a requested accommodation, or maybe a technology failure, how does one contest the results of an objective test like the SJT? And your winnings if your appeal is granted? You get to walk the next level of the minefield and wait.
In my mind, the third group is those that were cut due to the SI. How does opm review that? You dont get a second shot to interview. They didnt video or audio tape it so some new panel can reevaluate your answers. All they have are the notes of your original panelists and those are the very folks that said you didnt make the grade. Short of an issue like SBB's that goes to the fundamental fairness of yours versus others or if there was a math error on your score sheet.....I dunno how one makes a winning argument on this issue or even how opm would consider such.
The last group are those that were cut due to the WD. This, to me, seems the easisest issue on opm's plate. Just have it regraded by someone else. If its still short, deny the appeal. If not, easy enough to slide them into the reg. And they can wait with the rest of us.
I say all this to say, I dunno what the hold up is. I suspect part of it is them not fully knowing how to work the appeals from these various different phases. If it was funky's factory, I'd start with the wd and si groups so successful appellants would get on the reg quickly and not miss too many opportunities. I would then do phase 1. If they follow precedent, most of those wont make it. The ones that do can be mixed in with the ten pointers that have applied to test and get the process cranked up.
The second phase cuts? I'm not exactly sure how I'd handle those.
I wish everyone appealing good luck. Everytime I think I cant go another day without knowing something I thinkof my friends in reality and in this virtual community that are mired in the appeals process and think "there but for the grace...."
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on Jun 24, 2014 9:05:45 GMT -5
A friend of mine pointed out that this year's schedule is looking awfully similar to the hiring schedule in 2012. It seems that earlier reports of a mid-August class are not supported any longer and the training classes are scheduled for mid-September and mid-October. If that can be used as a road map, calls aren't likely to be made for another 4 to 6 weeks. I know that many of you don't want to wait that long, but I can imagine that it will take SSA some time to complile the information they have gathered and make some choices. Perhaps that will mean sufficient time for decisions to be made from the appeals process.
Again in 2012, they went through the process of selection and made hiring decisions before the winter holiday and the class was scheduled for training in January 2013. Thus, if SSA intends to hire another 110 by the end of the calendar year as the most recent Email suggests, it is possible for this to be done.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 24, 2014 9:45:32 GMT -5
To add to funky's thoughts, in the old days you generally had maybe 1000 that would would appeal (if that many) after the AR and/or the WD/SD if you didn't like your score. If we're assuming that there were roughly 5800 that applied and a register of only 900, you're looking at close to 5000 potential appellants, and as funky noted, there are various stages being appealed.
I feel for those folks that are awaiting appeals without any idea of a timeline for when the appeals could be decided and hope you get some sort of result in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jun 24, 2014 10:07:06 GMT -5
I'm most interested in learning how they address the stage 2 appeals. When you have a step where no score is given, there is a large incentive/possibility to use improper methodology to remove applicants. I'm sorry but there were just way too many insiders cut at this step to believe that this step was assessed appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 24, 2014 10:32:38 GMT -5
I'm most interested in learning how they address the stage 2 appeals. When you have a step where no score is given, there is a large incentive/possibility to use improper methodology to remove applicants. I'm sorry but there were just way too many insiders cut at this step to believe that this step was assessed appropriately. I don't think the fact that too many "insiders" were cut at Stage Two tells us anything about whether it was assessed properly or not. The testing this time was more addressed to litigation knowledge than to SSA knowledge. Hence, the fact that a lot of SSA "insiders" lacked litigation experience was a downfall especially in the SJT at Step Two. I don't think we should throw out a blanket statement like "I'm sorry but there were just way too many insiders cut as this step to believe that this step was assessed appropriately." I am willing to assume the testing was set up fairly and graded fairly until it is proven otherwise. OPM tests for many federal agencies, although SSA is their largest user of services. Hence, let's wait to see where the appeals go and how they are assessed prior to making blanket statements about the testing being assessed inappropriately.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 24, 2014 10:38:57 GMT -5
Do we know what percent of all insiders who passed phase 1 were cut at phase 2? And for comparison, do we know the percent of all outsiders who passed phase 1 only to be cut at phase 2?
Also there was a score at phase 2, since it was the higher scoring subgroup that moved on to the DC testing. We just don't know what the scores were at that point.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 24, 2014 10:43:58 GMT -5
I'm most interested in learning how they address the stage 2 appeals. When you have a step where no score is given, there is a large incentive/possibility to use improper methodology to remove applicants. I'm sorry but there were just way too many insiders cut at this step to believe that this step was assessed appropriately. That's a pretty big analytical leap. A presumably large chunk of the score was the EA, and if you want to argue that portion severely handicaps insiders or is inherently unfair to them, then I would agree (although mpd sets forth the reason used by OPM and argued by the AALJ for that portion). But I will again note that while a significant number of insiders were cut along the way, including many from the previous register, so were a significant number of outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jun 24, 2014 10:58:12 GMT -5
All I can speak to is my anecdotal evidence. I know 30 insiders who applied. All 30 made it past step 1. Only 1 made it past step 2. Clearly 96% of outsiders weren't cut at step 2 . Even if just 25% made it to round 3, I wouldn't be making this argument. But when considering the varied backgrounds of all the people I know, the fact that only 1 made it strikes me as very suspect. In my heart I will always believe that OPM set a cap of say no more than 5% of insiders can make it through. When the system is such that they won't reveal what score was needed to pass step 2 or what score you obtained, it's very shady.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 24, 2014 11:09:56 GMT -5
You could be right prescient, however I don't believe that OPM has ever disclosed individual test scores or the scores needed to make it on to the next step or register at any time in the past. Hence, because OPM doesn't release needed test scores or individual test scores doesn't mean it is shady, but much like an attorney's notes on a client's case is part of their "work product" and you don't have a right to see someone's "work product", it stands to reason that OPM's individualized testing is part of their "work product". You do indeed show good anecdotal evidence of possible problems, but still without more concrete results we are left with scratching our heads in trying to determine whether it was fair or not. I cannot say for certainty whether there was or is a problem or not.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jun 24, 2014 11:44:02 GMT -5
It seems that earlier reports of a mid-August class are not supported any longer and the training classes are scheduled for mid-September and mid-October. If that can be used as a road map, calls aren't likely to be made for another 4 to 6 weeks. I know that many of you don't want to wait that long, but I can imagine that it will take SSA some time to complile the information they have gathered and make some choices. If we were considering this first cert in isolation, there would be no talk of this. There are no credible reports of new judge training in August - only Pixie said that training was scheduled and she couldn't confirm August was new judge training. The best evidence we have now is that the training in mid-late August will be ALJ refresher training. The mid-late August date, for purposes of this certificate, has been, credibly, only for a report date for those attending the September new judge's training. Unless I've completely misread the intelligence we've developed over the past few months...
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 24, 2014 11:49:07 GMT -5
I dont think opm had and hard set percentage or number of insiders they were going to cut, I think the mass cut of insider candidates at phase 2 was purely a function of the test focusing on litigation.
I imagine (read full on guess with no evidentiary support whatsoever) that if you rated yourself some level on the EA and failed to support that rating you were essentially cut then. That is I suspect you got no points for the EA and couldnt make the "higher scored subgroup" without those points. And I suspect that had an inordinate impact on insiders. Under the old process one had to rate themselves one to five in multiple categories. Advice from sitting aljs, at least in my office, was to always rate yourself the highest. The theory was, if you rated yourself a 5 and the graders found you a 4, you would get credit for a 4. But if you rated yourself a 4 and the graders thought you were a 5 all they could give you was a 4. Essentially the self rating was a ceiling. Now, I suspect they made it a floor as well. If so, and many insiders followed the old conventional wisdom, many may have been cut on that basis.
Also, it only makes sense that those with higher supported EA ratings could do worse on the sjt and still make the higher scored subgroup. Ie, someone that got full level 5 points on the EA could make the cut with a lower sjt score than someone who got a 3 on the EA. Ironically, those with the most litigation experience and thus the highest EA scores probably also did the best on the sjt.
Remember, it wasnt a minimal score to advance like on the SI and WD. Instead you had to be one of the top 1200 or 1500 or whatever. Insiders would I would guess on average have a 3 on the EA. So the vast majority of them went into the sjt already behind the curve. And then the sjt was geared to further support those most comfortable with litigation.
So, I dont think there was some nefarious plot by opm to cut insiders at phass 2. Instead, the new process with its focus on litigation had that natural culling affect. And unfortunately, ssa either endorsed that process or at least capitulated to its use. I really suspect the ssa folks didnt realize the decimating affect the new process would have on insider candidates and I do think they regret it. But it's too late now.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 24, 2014 11:59:22 GMT -5
The unstated hypothesis in this discussion is that perhaps the EA, SJT, and the poor forgotten WS did what they were supposed to do and, for the most part, identified the best candidates to move on in the process.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 24, 2014 12:12:58 GMT -5
..."Ironically, those with the most litigation experience and thus the highest EA scores probably also did the best on the sjt."
Funky, I do not think it is ironic at all. This was completely by design. OPM wanted candidates with litigation experience. I do agree that SSA may not have realized the overall effect of agreeing to these new tests, or they may had no choice but to accept this new testing process. Either way, there is no conspiracy to keep 'innies' outside of the ALJ ranks.
I do understand the frustration of being cut, and the need to appeal the cut. I am confident some of you will win on your appeal. And don't worry, your dream job in Crapland did not evaporate because someone is getting hired off this first cert of names. That crapland location, or one several miles down the road, will be open again. And again, and again. There's a fairly constant pattern of the same offices in play. JMHO.
|
|