|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 24, 2014 12:26:01 GMT -5
I agree sealaw. I didnt mean the process was ironic
What was ironic was that those with lesser EA ratings had to hope to make up ground on the sjt which was a test itself geared to further boost those with the most litigation experience.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 24, 2014 13:39:46 GMT -5
I think that if litigation in this gets off the ground and moves forward that the SJT and WS will prove to have been validly administered and scored.
You can debate ad nauseum about whether the tests were looking for the right things or even if they in fact were valid measures of the desired competencies. But administration and scoring of multiple choice/essay exams are things that are way to easy to prove or disprove. Everybody that developed and administered this process had to know that litigation was a strong possibility and that they would have to be able to defend the outcomes.
Do I think that people who are appealing have a legitimate shot? Absolutely. Would I do it? Absolutely. Do I think that the SJT or WST will provide successful appeals? Sadly no.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 24, 2014 14:29:13 GMT -5
I agree sealaw. I didnt mean the process was ironic What was ironic was that those with lesser EA ratings had to hope to make up ground on the sjt which was a test itself geared to further boost those with the most litigation experience. Abso-funkin-lutely !!
|
|
|
Post by gern on Jun 25, 2014 12:22:36 GMT -5
The message I received after I submitted my appeal included the following paragraph: “Appeals are adjudicated based on the record. The Panel has the authority to affirm, raise, or lower the rating; change a rating from eligible to ineligible and remove an applicant from the register; or remand for further development. The decision of the Panel is final, and exhausts further administrative appeal rights. After all appeals have been adjudicated, applicants will be notified via email of the Panel’s decision.” The killer language is “ fter all appeals have been adjudicated, applicants will be notified.” That can be read more than one way (‘after every appeal is decided, the appellant is notified’ being one), but I read it as ‘after every single appeal has been resolved, the very first notification will be sent out.’
Sub-optimal. I am part of the group that was cut after submission of applications, for want of proper experience. At that time, I had 25 years of litigation and admin practice, which I described in my application. Although nowhere in the questions did they ask for month and year, I did include them for part of my experience which covered ten years of my resume. I did not, however, include month and year for the other fifteen years. My hope is that they will accept the ten years as being in excess of the seven years they require and let me go on. My fear is that failing to list month and year for the rest of my career violates some double-secret rule within the application process, and ends my candidacy. I will not appeal further; I’m not that desperate to take a pay cut.
Obviously, had I found this board before making my application I would never had made that error.
Anyway, the appeal process is clearly set up to be futile. Had appeals been resolved on a rolling basis, I might have rejoined the stream in step with the other applicants. By putting off decisions until long after the end of the rating process, OPM has vitiated the right to appeal. A large amount of jobs have already been filled, and a second cert is likely to clear before appeal results are announced. I’ll go another—a third cert will clear before first-hurdlers, like me, who win on appeal (perhaps not like me) get results from phase two. Heaven help them if they must appeal again.
I’m now proceeding 10% out of hope of getting a position and 90% out of sheer bloody-mindedness. I would have taken the position sixteen months ago; now it would have to be a great fit and a premier location for me to change jobs again. I’m hanging in because I’m curious what my final score would be if I jump all the hurdles, but I don’t know if I would even lay out cash for a trip to DC for interviews just to find out. Probably I would, as I am that bloody-minded. If they test for tenacity, I will score well.
Best of luck to everyone else. I now consider this process to be like golf, rather than marathon racing. We’re competing against the course, not each other.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 25, 2014 12:49:30 GMT -5
Gern, remember that if another load of applicants are added to the Register whether this year or next, it will prolong the necessity of OPM to perform a "refresh", so you may well still be hired from the Register no matter when you are added, just as veterans can take the test without waiting for the next refresh. Besides, once you make the Register you do not have to do the refresh unless you so choose, but you can keep the score you earned without going through the refresh. You would still have good odds for being hired. Right now at the rate of retirement of about 100 or more ALJs every year there will always be a need to add new ALJ positions.
|
|
|
Post by southernlawyer on Jul 7, 2014 17:29:34 GMT -5
A question from something that I gleaned from this thread: What kind of "company" is used by OPM to grade the initial applications? Does anyone have an actual name for this company? I went through this process back in 2009, got lucky and got hired right off the bat - but I always wondered how OPM decided who met the initial qualifications and who did not. And I really wondered after this year. Many qualified people cut in round one, while others who never set foot in a court room are waiting for their call.
As for all the theories - one coworker ("insider") with years of agency experience got cut at level 2 - told me he tried to answer as he thought a judge would answer....I guess that theory didn't work out (btw - insider for entire career...no trial/litigation expereince.)....another friend who is a chief state court judge....was cut at level 2 as well! 25 years on both sides of the bench. Go figure..... 2 friends that both had about 15 years in private practice - basically the majority in the courtroom, but some commercial transaction work - both cut at level 1, deemed not enough experience....And I'm just going to say that the 2 people I know who are waiting for calls....one an "insider", one not. Neither as qualified as the four above who were cut early (in my opinion). But, they both had outside experience in litigation.
Bottom line - it is just a crap shoot. To those who made it so far - good luck. It is a great job as long as you don't pay attention to all the B.S. in Washington. Thanks to a few "outliers" (so tired of that term) and management that turned a blind eye, we are all being portrayed in congress as loony tunes. BTW - Last week's letter was an insult to the majority of us, who are good, professional people who try to do their very best, every day.
Now - can anyone answer that question I have about what kind of company/name of company used to grade those initial applications?
And as follow up - how did people find out and use that as a basis for their appeal?
THANKS!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 8, 2014 15:43:39 GMT -5
Having read this Board for its existance I can say that there has been no postings that indicate OPM has used contractors to score other than in reference checking. We also know that the OPM ALJ team number some seven to nine folks, it was posted but I can't remember the number exactly) but that is ball park.
These last posts indicate the first few cuts were arbitrary or unfair. I submit that they were not. If you didn't follow the instructions with OCD devotion to answering the question or competentcy, then you were rooted out. There was not any mercy shown and the decision was made very quickly given the time restraints the team worked under. Were there mistakes made? Of course, we all make mistakes. But as gern noted, he made a mistake that he probably didn't realize at the time or thought "so what".
Given what OPM has been budgeted and how they must work, I think they do a good job, even though they drove me batty for three years.
|
|
|
Post by gern on Jul 10, 2014 9:58:25 GMT -5
Having been cited, I have to react...
The error I admitted was not in not following directions, but in not having divined the exact terms in which my experience had to be presented. If I had found this group before I applied, I am sure that I would have stumbled across a helpful post from some forum legend making clear that "they don't ask for this, but you have to do it."
This is what the instructions said: When you are describing your experience, it is extremely important that you provide sufficient detail to show that you have completed, in the aggregate, a full seven years of qualifying experience. Therefore, you must quantify the time associated with any claimed experience in terms of the specific dates it was acquired, including the month and year for the start and end dates, such as May 2006-December 2006.
Listing 25 years is sufficient detail to show that you have a full seven years without needing to resort to month and year. If there was any question-- if one had listed 2006-2013 or some such-- month and years would be necessary. It is indeed indicative of OCD to demand month and year to establish a minimum of seven years for someone with experience years in excess of seven.
I am not hopeful of success in my appeal, but not because I think my application was handled correctly. I think OPM played gotcha games with the candidate, if they applied such conditions. If we are going to hold a vote, I would vote that OPM misserved its clients.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jul 10, 2014 11:59:57 GMT -5
Having been cited, I have to react... The error I admitted was not in not following directions, but in not having divined the exact terms in which my experience had to be presented. If I had found this group before I applied, I am sure that I would have stumbled across a helpful post from some forum legend making clear that "they don't ask for this, but you have to do it." This is what the instructions said: When you are describing your experience, it is extremely important that you provide sufficient detail to show that you have completed, in the aggregate, a full seven years of qualifying experience. Therefore, you must quantify the time associated with any claimed experience in terms of the specific dates it was acquired, including the month and year for the start and end dates, such as May 2006-December 2006.
Listing 25 years is sufficient detail to show that you have a full seven years without needing to resort to month and year. If there was any question-- if one had listed 2006-2013 or some such-- month and years would be necessary. It is indeed indicative of OCD to demand month and year to establish a minimum of seven years for someone with experience years in excess of seven. I am not hopeful of success in my appeal, but not because I think my application was handled correctly. I think OPM played gotcha games with the candidate, if they applied such conditions. If we are going to hold a vote, I would vote that OPM misserved its clients. Gern, If you just listed 25 years of experience, then you did not follow the directions. That is not sufficient detail to show that you have completed the requisite 7 years of experience. This is not a gotcha game - this is following the directions to the letter. If I could parse out my 23 years of experience to show I had seven requisite years of "qualifying" experience, then any candidate could too. And no, I did not have the benefit of this board while applying. I wish OPM would 'assume' that a 25 year attorney had 7 years of experience, but it doesn't work that way. They cannot assume anything, basically because the MSPB and OPM rules don't allow them to.
|
|
|
Post by gern on Jul 10, 2014 16:28:03 GMT -5
Sea-
If nothing else, you've convinced me that my appeal has no chance! If people of good will can disagree, OPM is likely to stand by its decision and find against me.
This is where I hang my hat: "During my tenure at XXX from March of 1989 through September 1999, I...." It looks like more than 7 years to me, but I can read it in context as not qualifying. The other 15 years I'm giving up on.
BTW, I did not mean to imply that people who were aware of this board (or were some kind of insider) had an unfair advantage. I only meant that if I had done my research I would have been better situated to get through the hoops. That's always good practice.
I suppose people can believe that people who always quantify their experience with month and year make better judges. Perhaps they do. If nothing else, reading this board has given me perspective, if not made the process understandable. It was fun watching the board's big figures move on: make us first-hurdlers proud!
-Gern
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Jul 10, 2014 16:33:15 GMT -5
Gern, don't give up. Go look up old threads about how many people appealed for the heck of it, and are now judges (and good ones at that).
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jul 11, 2014 8:02:51 GMT -5
Sea- If nothing else, you've convinced me that my appeal has no chance! If people of good will can disagree, OPM is likely to stand by its decision and find against me. This is where I hang my hat: "During my tenure at XXX from March of 1989 through September 1999, I...." It looks like more than 7 years to me, but I can read it in context as not qualifying. The other 15 years I'm giving up on. BTW, I did not mean to imply that people who were aware of this board (or were some kind of insider) had an unfair advantage. I only meant that if I had done my research I would have been better situated to get through the hoops. That's always good practice. I suppose people can believe that people who always quantify their experience with month and year make better judges. Perhaps they do. If nothing else, reading this board has given me perspective, if not made the process understandable. It was fun watching the board's big figures move on: make us first-hurdlers proud! -Gern Sorry to burst your bubble on your appeal. I didn't take any offense or detect anger in your post. While I do support a certain level of indignation towards the sometimes arcane, almost byzantine way the government hires folks (I've gotten 'screwed' out of opportunties too) it is the way it is, and this is a system you cannot fight. Once you are on the inside - then there may be battles to fight and hopefully win. Actually, if you wrote what you say you wrote, you might have a chance. Some folks who did not list the month and year, but only the year, did not follow directions. It looks like you did follow the directions, so don't give up!
|
|
|
Post by cheesy on Jul 11, 2014 8:39:04 GMT -5
Never, ever, ever give up...
or perhaps more appropriately...
"Engage the enemy more closely!" - Lord Nelson, 21 Oct 1805
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 11, 2014 9:10:01 GMT -5
The other issue that may have come up is if you included experience that was determined to be non-qualifying legal experience (handled firm business matters, managed three employees, etc.), you had to assign a percentage of time for those activities, or that entire period could be deemed non-qualifying experience.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 11, 2014 10:02:45 GMT -5
The other issue that may have come up is if you included experience that was determined to be non-qualifying legal experience (handled firm business matters, managed three employees, etc.), you had to assign a percentage of time for those activities, or that entire period could be deemed non-qualifying experience. I agree. I recall breaking out my time by litigation and the other responsibilities of having my own practice. They don't know if the boss still litigates, or if the boss is delegating litigation duties because of responsibility for all firm management, advertising, rainmaking, etc.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 11, 2014 10:15:21 GMT -5
Never, ever, ever give up... or perhaps more appropriately... "Engage the enemy more closely!" - Lord Nelson, 21 Oct 1805 First, be sure you are prepared to pay the price. Lord Nelson engaged the enemy more closely and lost the sight in his right eye, lost his right arm, and lost his life.
|
|
|
Post by cheesy on Jul 11, 2014 11:20:11 GMT -5
Never, ever, ever give up... or perhaps more appropriately... "Engage the enemy more closely!" - Lord Nelson, 21 Oct 1805 First, be sure you are prepared to pay the price. Lord Nelson engaged the enemy more closely and lost the sight in his right eye, lost his right arm, and lost his life. Yes, that day the Admiral sailed into immortality. However, it is unlikely that an encounter with an OPM appellate review authority could prove similarly lethal. Unless they start arming them with muskets. In this case, I think the worst that can happen is they say 'no' again.
|
|
davef
Full Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by davef on Jul 30, 2014 16:18:27 GMT -5
Since I don't check this much, thought I would reply while I'm on here. Haven't heard anything as far as the appeal goes. Though, my "appeal" was more of a complaint. The testing process was so secretive that I don't think it allows for people who need reasonable accommodations to make an informed request as to what accommodations are needed. I didn't ask for a remedy in my appeal, so I don't really expect anything to come out of it. It would be nice if the process for reasonable accommodations was improved for future test takers. Good luck all, I'm sure I will check in again in another couple moths. And congratulations to those who have recently received offers!!!
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jul 31, 2014 19:28:00 GMT -5
Great news SBB. Good luck
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Dec 29, 2014 19:07:28 GMT -5
Pixie or anyone in the "know" can you advise if any appeals pending with OPM on this current 2013 ALJ announcement have been adjudicated or advanced? I filed an appeal on my NOR in May 2013 and have sent emails in December 2013, June and December 2014 to OPM requesting a status update on my pending appeal with no courtesy of a reply ever being received from OPM. Just curious if a delay of almost 2-years on a timely filed appeal is standard operating procedure with OPM these days.
|
|