Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 19:21:04 GMT -5
Did I hear somebody say insiders v. outsiders!! All right!!! Where is Funky when I need an insider to pick a fight with on this board. He did just buy me a beer recently and besides, I am an insider NOW! Just joking. Tiger
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 15, 2015 19:26:53 GMT -5
I don't buy the SSA is OPM's customer idea.
They are two separate federal agencies who have to interface to some extent with respect to ALJ hiring. I think they each perform their duties with regard to that function professionally and within the rules as best they can.
From the email tiger shared, OPM solicited responses from the various agencies that hire ALJs as to their projected hiring in FY 2015-17. That projected hiring (it is fair to say mostly by SSA) is larger than expected so they will need more candidates on the Register. The way OPM chose to do that is by letting more of the prior applicants go to DC for the LBMT, WD, and SI.
This method (wholly unanticipated by us) is unprecedented because it is a function of the unprcedented testing system that created the current Register. It has several features to recommend it, including:
1. Skipping past the already conducted preliminary screening;
2. Skipping past the already conducted online components of the testing;
3. Mooting quite possibly a large number of appeals;
4. Leaving it to OPM's discretion to decide whether to allow those currently on the Register to modify their GALs.
All of those are advantages from OPM's point of view. None of them have to do with dissatisfaction at the number of insiders available (SSA's concern if it exists; not OPM's).
In short, I think OPM is operating as an agency independent of SSA in performing its duties to the best of its ability, and it is a mistake to think OPM is carrying SSA's water in the course of performing its duties.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 15, 2015 19:32:43 GMT -5
So are you saying that 60 percent of the board is stupid because they didn't list more cities. I guess I'm in good company. No. That is not what I am saying at all. People make GAL choices for family reasons, financial reasons, all kinds of reasons. Even IF there was a choice to expand the GAL at this point, many would not do so. Sure some would, but if you decided you couldn't go anywhere else except the cities you chose to begin with then that is what you decided. The language in the job announcement was very specific about the choice and they made it clear you could not increase your GAL ... to choose wisely.
IF you were in a position to go anywhere and you knew that you would have a better shot at this specific job if you had a wide open GAL, you would have chosen to do so IF you had done the research in advance. That is all I am saying. It isn't a comment about anyone or their circumstances.
Heck, many people jump into this process not even knowing what the job is like, or that they are even sure they want the job. Many have never even seen or been a part of a hearing at SSA. We see that in the comments all the time. Please do not translate my words in such a manner as to call anyone stupid. I would never do that. Anyone who knows me from this board KNOWS I am an optimistic person who does nothing but encourage people. Nuff said. Edit Note by Pixie: +1
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 15, 2015 19:36:30 GMT -5
I don't buy the SSA is OPM's customer idea. They are two separate federal agencies who have to interface to some extent with respect to ALJ hiring. I think they each perform their duties with regard to that function professionally and within the rules as best they can. From the email tiger shared, OPM solicited responses from the various agencies that hire ALJs as to their projected hiring in FY 2015-17. That projected hiring (it is fair to say mostly by SSA) is larger than expected so they will need more candidates on the Register. The way OPM chose to do that is by letting more of the prior applicants go to DC for the LBMT, WD, and SI. This method (wholly unanticipated by us) is unprecedented because it is a function of the unprcedented testing system that created the current Register. It has several features to recommend it, including: 1. Skipping past the already conducted preliminary screening; 2. Skipping past the already conducted online components of the testing; 3. Mooting quite possibly a large number of appeals; 4. Leaving it to OPM's discretion to decide whether to allow those currently on the Register to modify their GALs. All of those are advantages from OPM's point of view. None of them have to do with dissatisfaction at the number of insiders available (SSA's concern if it exists; not OPM's). In short, I think OPM is operating as an agency independent of SSA in performing its duties to the best of its ability, and it is a mistake to think OPM is carrying SSA's water in the course of performing its duties. Well, SSA has paid OPM the lions' share of the cost of developing the new testing process and assembling the register. They are OPM's customer just like every other federal agency that uses their services. As it pertains to AlJ's, they are a big, important customer.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 15, 2015 19:39:22 GMT -5
Did I hear somebody say insiders v. outsiders!! All right!!! Where is Funky when I need an insider to pick a fight with on this board. He did just buy me a beer recently and besides, I am an insider NOW! Just joking. Tiger Troublemaker. LOL! Are you adjusting to the low key non-adversarial process? I sense a longing for the adversarial nature of trial work. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 15, 2015 19:40:17 GMT -5
We may be premature getting into a kerfuffle over the fairness or unfairness of opening up GALs for modification.
My reading of the email tiger shared and the Job Announcement we all responded to is that OPM will not be required to allow candidates on the Register to modify their GALs but will retain the discretion to allow it. We don't know at this time whether or not OPM will be exercising that discretion in conjunction with the new expansion of the DC testing.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 15, 2015 19:41:21 GMT -5
I don't buy the SSA is OPM's customer idea. They are two separate federal agencies who have to interface to some extent with respect to ALJ hiring. I think they each perform their duties with regard to that function professionally and within the rules as best they can. From the email tiger shared, OPM solicited responses from the various agencies that hire ALJs as to their projected hiring in FY 2015-17. That projected hiring (it is fair to say mostly by SSA) is larger than expected so they will need more candidates on the Register. The way OPM chose to do that is by letting more of the prior applicants go to DC for the LBMT, WD, and SI. This method (wholly unanticipated by us) is unprecedented because it is a function of the unprcedented testing system that created the current Register. It has several features to recommend it, including: 1. Skipping past the already conducted preliminary screening; 2. Skipping past the already conducted online components of the testing; 3. Mooting quite possibly a large number of appeals; 4. Leaving it to OPM's discretion to decide whether to allow those currently on the Register to modify their GALs. All of those are advantages from OPM's point of view. None of them have to do with dissatisfaction at the number of insiders available (SSA's concern if it exists; not OPM's). In short, I think OPM is operating as an agency independent of SSA in performing its duties to the best of its ability, and it is a mistake to think OPM is carrying SSA's water in the course of performing its duties. Well, SSA has paid OPM the lions' share of the cost of developing the new testing process and assembling the register. They are OPM's customer just like every other federal agency that uses their services. As it pertains to AlJ's, they are a big, important customer. Agree. And I do think there is influence from SSA since they are the ones who footed the bill for the new register.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 15, 2015 19:42:23 GMT -5
We may be premature getting into a kerfuffle over the fairness or unfairness of opening up GALs for modification. My reading of the email tiger shared and the Job Announcement we all responded to is that OPM will not be required to allow candidates on the Register to modify their GALs but will retain the discretion to allow it. We don't know at this time whether or not OPM will be exercising that discretion in conjunction with the new expansion of the DC testing. True dat.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 15, 2015 19:46:35 GMT -5
I don't buy the SSA is OPM's customer idea. They are two separate federal agencies who have to interface to some extent with respect to ALJ hiring. I think they each perform their duties with regard to that function professionally and within the rules as best they can. From the email tiger shared, OPM solicited responses from the various agencies that hire ALJs as to their projected hiring in FY 2015-17. That projected hiring (it is fair to say mostly by SSA) is larger than expected so they will need more candidates on the Register. The way OPM chose to do that is by letting more of the prior applicants go to DC for the LBMT, WD, and SI. This method (wholly unanticipated by us) is unprecedented because it is a function of the unprcedented testing system that created the current Register. It has several features to recommend it, including: 1. Skipping past the already conducted preliminary screening; 2. Skipping past the already conducted online components of the testing; 3. Mooting quite possibly a large number of appeals; 4. Leaving it to OPM's discretion to decide whether to allow those currently on the Register to modify their GALs. All of those are advantages from OPM's point of view. None of them have to do with dissatisfaction at the number of insiders available (SSA's concern if it exists; not OPM's). In short, I think OPM is operating as an agency independent of SSA in performing its duties to the best of its ability, and it is a mistake to think OPM is carrying SSA's water in the course of performing its duties. Well, SSA has paid OPM the lions' share of the cost of developing the new testing process and assembling the register. They are OPM's customer just like every other federal agency that uses their services. As it pertains to AlJ's, they are a big, important customer. SSA cannot go to some alternative ALJ Mart. There's no competition OPM needs to meet to keep SSA as a "customer." Nor can SSA bring hiring of ALJs in-house without OPM's approval and without following OPM's rules for testing, etc. The metaphor doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by alrifle on May 15, 2015 19:49:38 GMT -5
"I do not think there is any leap frogging here. Each component has to be processed and passed to move on to the next step. This is merely lowering the bar for those who did not pass that first round due to whatever cut off they chose. Now, those people will still have to go on to the next phase and PASS that phase. So no one is jumping over anyone here. Maybe I misunderstand your set of facts, if so, please elaborate.
Now, if someone who was not qualified, and who is now qualified due to a change in the pool/ score they set, and they move on to take the SI, LBMT, and written demonstration ... and they nail it, getting a high score because they do so well on that portion... then yes, they would end up "leap frogging" over those with lessor total NORs."
Perhaps 'leapfrog' is the wrong word to use, but you confirmed for me my thoughts on this latest item. I don't claim to have any facts at all really - just the prospect that those who did not pass a round are now going to be found to have passed (without actual adjudication of their appeals). It sounds like OPM could have done the same thing just as easily for those who did not pass the WD, AND it wouldn't require further testing.
I am left to think OPM thinks very little of those of us who failed the WD, so much so that they are going to retroactively change the scoring requirements (something not contemplated in the job announcement) to benefit another group, to the detriment of those of us with low WD (or SI) scores.
|
|
|
Post by floss on May 15, 2015 19:57:42 GMT -5
I dare say that this new approach will be problematic and will cause lots of issues unless everyone feels that they are being treated fairly.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on May 15, 2015 20:02:05 GMT -5
I have half a dozen offices on my GAL. (I can't move for family reasons.) My score is in the mid-70s and I am not a veteran. Five people have already been hired for one office on my GAL. Several other offices on my GAL are now in play for the first time. What this news said to me was that I and others already on the register are not the flavor of the year at SSA and they want more choices.
Thank you for letting us know. Sometimes I try to imagine having gone through this totally in the dark. I very much appreciate the information and the pleasure of everyone's company.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 15, 2015 20:05:37 GMT -5
"I do not think there is any leap frogging here. Each component has to be processed and passed to move on to the next step. This is merely lowering the bar for those who did not pass that first round due to whatever cut off they chose. Now, those people will still have to go on to the next phase and PASS that phase. So no one is jumping over anyone here. Maybe I misunderstand your set of facts, if so, please elaborate. Now, if someone who was not qualified, and who is now qualified due to a change in the pool/ score they set, and they move on to take the SI, LBMT, and written demonstration ... and they nail it, getting a high score because they do so well on that portion... then yes, they would end up "leap frogging" over those with lessor total NORs." Perhaps 'leapfrog' is the wrong word to use, but you confirmed for me my thoughts on this latest item. I don't claim to have any facts at all really - just the prospect that those who did not pass a round are now going to be found to have passed (without actual adjudication of their appeals). It sounds like OPM could have done the same thing just as easily for those who did not pass the WD, AND it wouldn't require further testing. I am left to think OPM thinks very little of those of us who failed the WD, so much so that they are going to retroactively change the scoring requirements (something not contemplated in the job announcement) to benefit another group, to the detriment of those of us with low WD (or SI) scores. I think the way they are doing this is to merely lower the "threshold" score to move on. There is no need to adjudicate the appeal, if the reason you did not move on to the next step was because the threshold score was not met. And now moving that threshold line... you move on. There is no "failing" here, not with this circumstance. They are not changing the overall scoring system. They have not said that at all. If you have a 45 and the threshold to move on is 50, you didn't move on. You got notice you did not meet the minimum preliminary requirements. Now, if they move that line to 40, now you meet the preliminary requirement and you get to move to the next step. Does that change your overall score? No. Your 45 will add into what you make at the next step just like everyone. This is at least how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 15, 2015 20:08:17 GMT -5
I read this earlier but wasn't in a place where I could post.
First, thanks for the intel @tigerlaw this is indeed bombshell news.
B, GAL expansion: My thought is that this is coming between certs. As the Fat Controller would say it would cause confusion and delay to allow GALs to be modified while an open set of certs is with an agency. After the open certs are filled but before new certs are sent back to ODAR they could open GALs heck they could do that part without notifying ODAR if they wanted to.
3rd, there is nothing that says how much lower they are cutting the SJT and writing score but assuming its low enough to create a pile of new ALJs - FWIW I imagine that a change of even a very few points could allow a fairly large number to move forward. If they can clear out even 1/3 of the appeals by doing that then they can get to everybody else's appeal much faster.
And another thing, there is nothing that says this is the last expansion they will make.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 15, 2015 20:09:35 GMT -5
"I do not think there is any leap frogging here. Each component has to be processed and passed to move on to the next step. This is merely lowering the bar for those who did not pass that first round due to whatever cut off they chose. Now, those people will still have to go on to the next phase and PASS that phase. So no one is jumping over anyone here. Maybe I misunderstand your set of facts, if so, please elaborate. Now, if someone who was not qualified, and who is now qualified due to a change in the pool/ score they set, and they move on to take the SI, LBMT, and written demonstration ... and they nail it, getting a high score because they do so well on that portion... then yes, they would end up "leap frogging" over those with lessor total NORs." Perhaps 'leapfrog' is the wrong word to use, but you confirmed for me my thoughts on this latest item. I don't claim to have any facts at all really - just the prospect that those who did not pass a round are now going to be found to have passed (without actual adjudication of their appeals). It sounds like OPM could have done the same thing just as easily for those who did not pass the WD, AND it wouldn't require further testing. I am left to think OPM thinks very little of those of us who failed the WD, so much so that they are going to retroactively change the scoring requirements (something not contemplated in the job announcement) to benefit another group, to the detriment of those of us with low WD (or SI) scores. I think the way they are doing this is to merely lower the "threshold" score to move on. There is no need to adjudicate the appeal, if the reason you did not move on to the next step was because the threshold score was not met. And now moving that threshold line... you move on. There is no "failing" here, not with this circumstance. They are not changing the overall scoring system. They have not said that at all. If you have a 45 and the threshold to move on is 50, you didn't move on. You got notice you did not meet the minimum preliminary requirements. Now, if they move that line to 40, now you meet the preliminary requirement and you get to move to the next step. Does that change your overall score? No. Your 45 will add into what you make at the next step just like everyone. This is at least how I see it. This!
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 15, 2015 20:15:41 GMT -5
OR perhaps they decided that a mere GAL expansion would not yield the number needed to add to the register. Maybe they have learned that those who have small GALs made that determination for reasons that have not changed and although some have changed circumstances, it was not enough to yield the numbers they really need. Perhaps a poll is in order here Gaidin.
This poll locks tonight: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3378/2015-gal-size?page=3After it locks I will create a GAL expansion poll tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by saaao on May 15, 2015 20:49:26 GMT -5
We may be premature getting into a kerfuffle over the fairness or unfairness of opening up GALs for modification. My reading of the email tiger shared and the Job Announcement we all responded to is that OPM will not be required to allow candidates on the Register to modify their GALs but will retain the discretion to allow it. We don't know at this time whether or not OPM will be exercising that discretion in conjunction with the new expansion of the DC testing. We probably shouldn't even get into a kerfuffle over the fairness or unfairness at all, because OPM is going to do whatever they want to do for whatever reason they want to do it and any arguments that occur here are not going to change that. And for those who desperately want to expand their GAL, but don't have experience with ODAR proceedings, I would strongly encourage you to seek out an ODAR ALJ and ask them for a detailed account of what their job actually entails. It is very very different from the normal courtroom environment. You don't want to move to some backwater on the other side of the country just to get a judgeship and then find out that the judgeship you got is not the kind of judge you had in mind when you got into this. I just say this, because I think a lot of us here are falling into sunk cost thinking. If your concern is that you put all this work in and you have to have something to show for it, you should stop and take a breath. You could end up with a job you don't like in a city you hate, with a very long wait on a transfer list to get to where you want to end up. Just my advice.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 15, 2015 20:54:03 GMT -5
Did I hear somebody say insiders v. outsiders!! All right!!! Where is Funky when I need an insider to pick a fight with on this board. He did just buy me a beer recently and besides, I am an insider NOW! Just joking. Tiger I have noticed a very distinct pattern to when offers start. There has been a preceding event, a throw down of sorts, prior to every offer commencement. In that spirit, and to do nothing more than to inspire the powers that be to get on with it and get the calls moving, I state the following:
1. Everyone with a small GAL is stupid.
2. Insiders are superior to outsiders.
3. Vet points are ridiculous.
4. Anyone who gets on the register at this point is an interloper.
5. Polls are never right.
6. Only 50% or less of the people on the register know about the board.
And that should be enough for now. Grenade ... pull, throw, take cover.....
|
|
|
Post by alrifle on May 15, 2015 21:01:05 GMT -5
I thank you sincerely for your thoughts and for taking the time to respond, sratty. But I fear you are missing my primary point (and I don't expect you or anyone here to have the answer): if OPM is going to lower any threshold, why not lower it where it makes more sense - at the WD-SI level; there won't be need for further testing AND you are drawing from higher scorers at the online level. I say this acknowledging that I have several friends and associates who did not pass the online test; they are bright, hard-working and worthy and I will wish them only the best going forward with this new chance.
I do have to ask is there really a difference between what I called 'retroactively changing the scoring requirements' and what you call 'lowering the threshold score"?
And you are right - there is no need to adjudicate the appeal if this is how OPM proceeds. However, there would be a need to adjudicate appeals if OPM was faithful to its own job announcement.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 15, 2015 21:05:07 GMT -5
Did I hear somebody say insiders v. outsiders!! All right!!! Where is Funky when I need an insider to pick a fight with on this board. He did just buy me a beer recently and besides, I am an insider NOW! Just joking. Tiger I have noticed a very distinct pattern to when offers start. There has been a preceding event, a throw down of sorts, prior to every offer commencement. In that spirit, and to do nothing more than to inspire the powers that be to get on with it and get the calls moving, I state the following:
5. Polls are never right.
And that should be enough for now. Grenade ... pull, throw, take cover.....
And you ma'am can go to he!!
|
|