|
Post by mikeinthehills on Mar 24, 2015 7:41:01 GMT -5
Maybe someone can straighten me out. My understanding is that SSA requested certs from OPM 2 or 3 weeks ago and that tranfer emails were still going out after. If the transfer list has to be exhausted before hiring, then how can the powers that be know which certs to request? Is it just a SWAG on their part? Rumor last week was that the certs still haven't arrived from OPM yet. Hence the lack of progress. Expect movement as soon as the certs arrive. So hang in there. This explains a lot. I've been puzzling over the last few weeks why SSA would unnecessarily run itself into such tight hiring deadlines by withholding the release of cert emails. In fact, it looks like OPM is causing the delay and it's out of SSA's hands. I imagine they can't be too happy about this in Falls Church.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2015 9:51:02 GMT -5
Rumor last week was that the certs still haven't arrived from OPM yet. Hence the lack of progress. Expect movement as soon as the certs arrive. So hang in there. This explains a lot. I've been puzzling over the last few weeks why SSA would unnecessarily run itself into such tight hiring deadlines by withholding the release of cert emails. In fact, it looks like OPM is causing the delay and it's out of SSA's hands. I imagine they can't be too happy about this in Falls Church. Preparing lists of eligibles for certs subsequent to the first one for a register is fairly complex. We had it on pretty good rumor that the second set of certs took a lot longer for OPM to return than SSA expected. So I'm not prepared to pile on OPM without a lot more facts.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Mar 24, 2015 9:57:00 GMT -5
If this rumor is true, and I am not doubting ALJD, then transfers will still be worked and I think the May class will be filled with folks who were already interviewed. For folks waiting to get on a cert and get an interview, this delay would seem to indicate that a July or September hire is a more likely scenario.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 24, 2015 10:02:16 GMT -5
If this rumor is true, and I am not doubting ALJD, then transfers will still be worked and I think the May class will be filled with folks who were already interviewed. For folks waiting to get on a cert and get an interview, this delay would seem to indicate that a July or September hire is a more likely scenario. Maybe and maybe not, depending if certs can get out this week from SSA. If no certs until next week you are absolutely correct sealaw.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 24, 2015 10:07:39 GMT -5
This explains a lot. I've been puzzling over the last few weeks why SSA would unnecessarily run itself into such tight hiring deadlines by withholding the release of cert emails. In fact, it looks like OPM is causing the delay and it's out of SSA's hands. I imagine they can't be too happy about this in Falls Church. Preparing lists of eligibles for certs subsequent to the first one for a register is fairly complex. We had it on pretty good rumor that the second set of certs took a lot longer for OPM to return than SSA expected. So I'm not prepared to pile on OPM without a lot more facts. I am prepared to do so. They've been the cause of nearly every delay so far, whether it was the six months between testing and the NOR, the multi-week delays between requested certs and receipt of the certs, and the poor folks awaiting appeals after nearly two years. It's been at least two weeks since the certs were requested. Complex or not, two weeks should be ample time to provide 45-50 certs. Since it appears SSA isn't striking anyone, it's simply a matter of adding or pulling names.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2015 10:15:26 GMT -5
Preparing lists of eligibles for certs subsequent to the first one for a register is fairly complex. We had it on pretty good rumor that the second set of certs took a lot longer for OPM to return than SSA expected. So I'm not prepared to pile on OPM without a lot more facts. I am prepared to do so. They've been the cause of nearly every delay so far, whether it was the six months between testing and the NOR, the multi-week delays between requested certs and receipt of the certs, and the poor folks awaiting appeals after nearly two years. It's been at least two weeks since the certs were requested. Complex or not, two weeks should be ample time to provide 45-50 certs. Since it appears SSA isn't striking anyone, it's simply a matter of adding or pulling names. I don't have as much information on how many certs were requested or how long ago certs were requested as you do. However, assuming the 45-50 number is accurate, OPM's task is still quite a bit more complicated than just "adding or pulling names."
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Mar 24, 2015 10:59:51 GMT -5
I am prepared to do so. They've been the cause of nearly every delay so far, whether it was the six months between testing and the NOR, the multi-week delays between requested certs and receipt of the certs, and the poor folks awaiting appeals after nearly two years. It's been at least two weeks since the certs were requested. Complex or not, two weeks should be ample time to provide 45-50 certs. Since it appears SSA isn't striking anyone, it's simply a matter of adding or pulling names. I don't have as much information on how many certs were requested or how long ago certs were requested as you do. However, assuming the 45-50 number is accurate, OPM's task is still quite a bit more complicated than just "adding or pulling names." Just trying to understand your point, gary. How is it more complicated? I understand that there is some calculation of providing an adequate number of names, but shouldn't OPM already have that equation from the earlier certs? Other than the number of names to pull, OPM goes to each city list that SSA wants a cert, and pulls names in score order (potentially skipping a name if SSA says three-struck, omit). It is ministerial. What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Mar 24, 2015 11:05:17 GMT -5
It's not that complicated. 1) Sort Register geographically by GAL, 2) for each city requested, count down the requested number of candidates, 3) send resulting city cert to SSA.
That would explain why the qualifying NORs vary so much.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2015 11:53:23 GMT -5
As we are all well aware, each city gets a separate cert. OPM is sending SSA lists of eligibles for certed cities that include reachable, and only reachable, candidates from the register. To get the right candidates on the right lists of eligibles, OPM needs to take into account the GALs and NORs of the candidates on the register. In addition, OPM needs to take into account the considerations that each candidate may have received during earlier rounds of hiring, and how possible hiring in any city may affect who is reachable in all other cities. OPM doesn't know the order in which SSA will be hiring, so it must figure out who is reachable for each location based on the assumption that that location may be the last hired. It is a very complex problem.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 24, 2015 12:14:31 GMT -5
As we are all well aware, each city gets a separate cert. OPM is sending SSA lists of eligibles for certed cities that include reachable, and only reachable, candidates from the register. To get the right candidates on the right lists of eligibles, OPM needs to take into account the GALs and NORs of the candidates on the register. In addition, OPM needs to take into account the considerations that each candidate may have received during earlier rounds of hiring, and how possible hiring in any city may affect who is reachable in all other cities. OPM doesn't know the order in which SSA will be hiring, so it must figure out who is reachable for each location based on the assumption that that location may be the last hired. It is a very complex problem. I think its complicated but the sort of thing that a person who knows how to work Access and Excel really well could set up databases to run. It really ought to be a more or less automated function. I am not an expert at building those kind of databases and spreadsheets but I know people who are and it doesn't take a computer programmer to get it right. Insert number of cities and the cities themselves and a set of spreadsheets (checked against number of considerations) for each city should pop out in a few minutes. I think the more likely hold up is that OPM staff is busy doing something else. The request for certs is probably sitting in somebody's inbox awaiting action.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 24, 2015 12:17:13 GMT -5
As we are all well aware, each city gets a separate cert. OPM is sending SSA lists of eligibles for certed cities that include reachable, and only reachable, candidates from the register. To get the right candidates on the right lists of eligibles, OPM needs to take into account the GALs and NORs of the candidates on the register. In addition, OPM needs to take into account the considerations that each candidate may have received during earlier rounds of hiring, and how possible hiring in any city may affect who is reachable in all other cities. OPM doesn't know the order in which SSA will be hiring, so it must figure out who is reachable for each location based on the assumption that that location may be the last hired. It is a very complex problem. OPM is not concerned about "considerations that each candidate may have received during earlier rounds" UNLESS SSA tells them to leave off all the three struck folks. That's how it worked in the past, and I doubt that has changed. I don't think SSA has asked for that yet, so OPM is just looking at NORs and GALs, and putting enough on each cert to cover all the duplication of names across certs.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2015 12:18:31 GMT -5
As we are all well aware, each city gets a separate cert. OPM is sending SSA lists of eligibles for certed cities that include reachable, and only reachable, candidates from the register. To get the right candidates on the right lists of eligibles, OPM needs to take into account the GALs and NORs of the candidates on the register. In addition, OPM needs to take into account the considerations that each candidate may have received during earlier rounds of hiring, and how possible hiring in any city may affect who is reachable in all other cities. OPM doesn't know the order in which SSA will be hiring, so it must figure out who is reachable for each location based on the assumption that that location may be the last hired. It is a very complex problem. I think its complicated but the sort of thing that a person who knows how to work Access and Excel really well could set up databases to run. It really ought to be a more or less automated function. I am not an expert at building those kind of databases and spreadsheets but I know people who are and it doesn't take a computer programmer to get it right. Insert number of cities and the cities themselves and a set of spreadsheets (checked against number of considerations) for each city should pop out in a few minutes. I think the more likely hold up is that OPM staff is busy doing something else. The request for certs is probably sitting in somebody's inbox awaiting action. They could also have been waiting for SSA to send back the reports made when certs are closed in order to determine which candidates have considerations and how many.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2015 12:19:36 GMT -5
As we are all well aware, each city gets a separate cert. OPM is sending SSA lists of eligibles for certed cities that include reachable, and only reachable, candidates from the register. To get the right candidates on the right lists of eligibles, OPM needs to take into account the GALs and NORs of the candidates on the register. In addition, OPM needs to take into account the considerations that each candidate may have received during earlier rounds of hiring, and how possible hiring in any city may affect who is reachable in all other cities. OPM doesn't know the order in which SSA will be hiring, so it must figure out who is reachable for each location based on the assumption that that location may be the last hired. It is a very complex problem. OPM is not concerned about "considerations that each candidate may have received during earlier rounds" UNLESS SSA tells them to leave off all the three struck folks. That's how it worked in the past, and I doubt that has changed. I respectfully disagree. Considerations affect how many candidates are reachable.
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Mar 24, 2015 12:40:00 GMT -5
Update:
The union confirmed for me that the current contract spells out an obligation for management to fully work the reassignment list for each office before hiring new Judges. That seems like the end of the matter -- good for current ALJs AND, long term, those candidates with broader GALs who would be trying to get back to less-popular locations. (I still find it odd that my HOCALJ thought otherwise, but I guess that information can travel slowly.)
Best of luck to everyone waiting for the next certificate! HOCALJ's are not good source. The confusion may come from the provision about vacancies created by judges leaving an office. It says that if, for example, Toledo loses Judge A who tranfers then the agency has to use the transfer list to fill the slot created Judge A's transfer. If Judge B, also of Toledo, also transfers in the same round of hirring then the agency will use the transfer list to fill that open slot. If Judge C, also from Toledo, transfers during the same round of hirings then the agency does not have to use the list. This applies only to vacancies created by judges transfering under the transfer provisions in one office. This is NOT the same as filling openings already existant. The agency must use the "affirmed" transfer list to fill such slots. My apologies to Toledo, it was an example only. I have never been there. I suspect there are few times an office loses more than two judges in a round of hirings and that they ALSO have other people still on the transfer list to that office.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Mar 24, 2015 13:08:27 GMT -5
So if ODAR does not have certs from OPM for the cities they asked for, there should still be movement on transfers this week. Has anyone heard of any so far, or has transfer activity stopped?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 24, 2015 15:49:41 GMT -5
OPM is not concerned about "considerations that each candidate may have received during earlier rounds" UNLESS SSA tells them to leave off all the three struck folks. That's how it worked in the past, and I doubt that has changed. I respectfully disagree. Considerations affect how many candidates are reachable. I was still "reachable" and was placed on certs, after I was technically three struck, until SSA told ODAR not to put the three strikers on the list any more. So, I'm speaking from experience. OPM knows SSA can still hire someone they've considered three times. Or, am I just not understanding what you are saying?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2015 16:24:17 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. Considerations affect how many candidates are reachable. I was still "reachable" and was placed on certs, after I was technically three struck, until SSA told ODAR not to put the three strikers on the list any more. So, I'm speaking from experience. OPM knows SSA can still hire someone they've considered three times. Or, am I just not understanding what you are saying? My point was not about who can be hired but rather about who OPM needs to put on its lists of eligibles. A reachable candidate is one who could possibly land in a top 3 for a location by some possible sequence of hiring decisions made by SSA for that or other locations. SSA can hire a candidate who has been thrice-considered for a position when that candidate is on the relevant list of eligibles. However, SSA need not consider again a thrice-considered candidate for any position until SSA reaches a position for which it wants to hire that thrice-considered candidate. In order to supply a sufficient list of eligibles to cover any way in which SSA might hire, the list must include not only the thrice-considered who are qualified for it, but also enough other candidates so that SSA will always have three to consider even if SSA never considers any thrice-considered candidate for any position. In addition, OPM needs to take into account the candidates who have one or two considerations since with only one or two more considerations they will join the ranks of the thrice-considered.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 24, 2015 16:36:34 GMT -5
I don't think they have to do any of that before they put names on a cert who are eligible by GAL and NOR, if SSA has not asked them to leave the three struck off. And, they've put filler on certs before, they still do, to get enough names on each one to cover all the duplications and other contingencies.
I guess we can agree to disagree. The certs will show up when they show up, I can't get worked up about what's going on at OPM.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Mar 24, 2015 19:29:42 GMT -5
I was still "reachable" and was placed on certs, after I was technically three struck, until SSA told ODAR not to put the three strikers on the list any more. So, I'm speaking from experience. OPM knows SSA can still hire someone they've considered three times. Or, am I just not understanding what you are saying? My point was not about who can be hired but rather about who OPM needs to put on its lists of eligibles. A reachable candidate is one who could possibly land in a top 3 for a location by some possible sequence of hiring decisions made by SSA for that or other locations. SSA can hire a candidate who has been thrice-considered for a position when that candidate is on the relevant list of eligibles. However, SSA need not consider again a thrice-considered candidate for any position until SSA reaches a position for which it wants to hire that thrice-considered candidate. In order to supply a sufficient list of eligibles to cover any way in which SSA might hire, the list must include not only the thrice-considered who are qualified for it, but also enough other candidates so that SSA will always have three to consider even if SSA never considers any thrice-considered candidate for any position. In addition, OPM needs to take into account the candidates who have one or two considerations since with only one or two more considerations they will join the ranks of the thrice-considered. Here is the link to the relevant OPM handbook. See Chapter 6, section B, at page 137 et seq., but the relevant sections are at p. 143 ("After arranging all the eligibles in score order by their entitlement, it is time to consider the number of names that will be referred to the selecting official. Each eligible is entitled to three 'bona fide' considerations, and the appointing official is entitled to consider three eligibles for each vacancy." And, "The general rule for referring the appropriate number of names per vacancy is that you must certify enough names from the highest ranking eligibles to permit the selecting official to consider at least three names for appointment to each vacancy in the competitive service. (5 U.S.C. § 3317)[.]" Also, "At your discretion and based on your past experience, additional names may be certified to compensate for eligibles who are within reach for consideration but will decline or fail to respond to an inquiry of availability or interview.") Here is 5 U.S.C. 3317, the statutory section re certs. It requires that "preference eligibles" who will be not considered on certs (three-struck) get advance notice. ("(b) When an appointing authority, for reasons considered sufficient by the Office, has three times considered and passed over a preference eligible who was certified from a register, certification of the preference eligible for appointment may be discontinued. However, the preference eligible is entitled to advance notice of discontinuance of certification.") (My emphasis; Haven't heard of that notice happening yet.) "Preference eligibles" is defined at 5 U.S.C. 2108, link here, which includes, among others, everyone with vet's points. And there is 5 C.F.R. § 332.405: "Three considerations for appointment. An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position." But the C.F.R. cannot override the U.S.C. provision (it expands the three-strike rule beyond preference eligibles in the statute to all candidates) -- if the appointing authority is not going to consider a preference eligible, the preference eligible has to be notified. Thus, SSA would have to tell OPM to omit the name, not just refuse to consider the name, particularly of a preference eligible, once OPM presented the name on the cert and it lands in the top 3. But I have provided the relevant sections (including as a starting place for research) so someone can convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2015 20:59:20 GMT -5
My point was not about who can be hired but rather about who OPM needs to put on its lists of eligibles. A reachable candidate is one who could possibly land in a top 3 for a location by some possible sequence of hiring decisions made by SSA for that or other locations. SSA can hire a candidate who has been thrice-considered for a position when that candidate is on the relevant list of eligibles. However, SSA need not consider again a thrice-considered candidate for any position until SSA reaches a position for which it wants to hire that thrice-considered candidate. In order to supply a sufficient list of eligibles to cover any way in which SSA might hire, the list must include not only the thrice-considered who are qualified for it, but also enough other candidates so that SSA will always have three to consider even if SSA never considers any thrice-considered candidate for any position. In addition, OPM needs to take into account the candidates who have one or two considerations since with only one or two more considerations they will join the ranks of the thrice-considered. Here is the link to the relevant OPM handbook. See Chapter 6, section B, at page 137 et seq., but the relevant sections are at p. 143 ("After arranging all the eligibles in score order by their entitlement, it is time to consider the number of names that will be referred to the selecting official. Each eligible is entitled to three 'bona fide' considerations, and the appointing official is entitled to consider three eligibles for each vacancy." And, "The general rule for referring the appropriate number of names per vacancy is that you must certify enough names from the highest ranking eligibles to permit the selecting official to consider at least three names for appointment to each vacancy in the competitive service. (5 U.S.C. § 3317)[.]" Also, "At your discretion and based on your past experience, additional names may be certified to compensate for eligibles who are within reach for consideration but will decline or fail to respond to an inquiry of availability or interview.") Here is 5 U.S.C. 3317, the statutory section re certs. It requires that "preference eligibles" who will be not considered on certs (three-struck) get advance notice. ("(b) When an appointing authority, for reasons considered sufficient by the Office, has three times considered and passed over a preference eligible who was certified from a register, certification of the preference eligible for appointment may be discontinued. However, the preference eligible is entitled to advance notice of discontinuance of certification.") (My emphasis; Haven't heard of that notice happening yet.) "Preference eligibles" is defined at 5 U.S.C. 2108, link here, which includes, among others, everyone with vet's points. And there is 5 C.F.R. § 332.405: "Three considerations for appointment. An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position." But the C.F.R. cannot override the U.S.C. provision (it expands the three-strike rule beyond preference eligibles in the statute to all candidates) -- if the appointing authority is not going to consider a preference eligible, the preference eligible has to be notified. Thus, SSA would have to tell OPM to omit the name, not just refuse to consider the name, particularly of a preference eligible, once OPM presented the name on the cert and it lands in the top 3. But I have provided the relevant sections (including as a starting place for research) so someone can convince me otherwise. See Lackhouse v MSPB, 773 F. 2d 313 (Fed Cir 1985).
|
|