|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 20, 2015 9:13:43 GMT -5
To be clear, you cannot overlap prior supervisors with the professional, judicial, and adversary references. So no double-dipping. Thanks for adding that info! For those of us who only had one job in that 10 year period, the no double dipping is not an issue. For others, it is. Let me make sure I understand - everyone must list nine references? I have been in the same job for the last five years but, prior thereto, I was a state court judge for 15 years. I suppose they're not interested in supervisors further back in time than that...or are they? Also, adversarial references will be a challenge for me if I can't go back beyond 15, although I can scarf up some from my current job as in-house counsel to a federal agency where I'm involved in all litigation touching my client, which involves contact with opposing counsel but usually not court appearances. Are there supposed to be a certain number of each of professional, judicial, adversary? And how do supervisors fit in there - are they just a part of professional references? As a judge, my supervisor was the chief justice of our state supreme court. That position alternates annually. Fortunately, all of the five justices save one were on the court when I was on the bench and therefore 'supervised' me; I'm sure all four of them would give me favorable references, but I'm not sure if it'd be viewed as kosher to use all four of them under these circumstances. Thoughts??
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jun 20, 2015 9:24:20 GMT -5
Thanks for adding that info! For those of us who only had one job in that 10 year period, the no double dipping is not an issue. For others, it is. Let me make sure I understand - everyone must list nine references? I have been in the same job for the last five years but, prior thereto, I was a state court judge for 15 years. I suppose they're not interested in supervisors further back in time than that...or are they? Also, adversarial references will be a challenge for me if I can't go back beyond 15, although I can scarf up some from my current job as in-house counsel to a federal agency where I'm involved in all litigation touching my client, which involves contact with opposing counsel but usually not court appearances. Are there supposed to be a certain number of each of professional, judicial, adversary? And how do supervisors fit in there - are they just a part of professional references? As a judge, my supervisor was the chief justice of our state supreme court. That position alternates annually. Fortunately, all of the five justices save one were on the court when I was on the bench and therefore 'supervised' me; I'm sure all four of them would give me favorable references, but I'm not sure if it'd be viewed as kosher to use all four of them under these circumstances. Thoughts?? . Nine for everyone, three in each category. If you don't have adversarial references, as I said, list non adversarial ones. The document says you can do that. Supervisors from jobs before the 10 years can certainly be used. All my references have known me at least 25 years. Supervisors from years ago fit where they fit, non adversarial or judicial if they are judges or ALJs. The reference issue has been discussed at length at various times. I can't help but think we are derailing this thread a bit here OPM's process has nothing to do with the references.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 20, 2015 9:40:19 GMT -5
Thanks for adding that info! For those of us who only had one job in that 10 year period, the no double dipping is not an issue. For others, it is. Let me make sure I understand - everyone must list nine references? I have been in the same job for the last five years but, prior thereto, I was a state court judge for 15 years. I suppose they're not interested in supervisors further back in time than that...or are they? Also, adversarial references will be a challenge for me if I can't go back beyond 15, although I can scarf up some from my current job as in-house counsel to a federal agency where I'm involved in all litigation touching my client, which involves contact with opposing counsel but usually not court appearances. Are there supposed to be a certain number of each of professional, judicial, adversary? And how do supervisors fit in there - are they just a part of professional references? As a judge, my supervisor was the chief justice of our state supreme court. That position alternates annually. Fortunately, all of the five justices save one were on the court when I was on the bench and therefore 'supervised' me; I'm sure all four of them would give me favorable references, but I'm not sure if it'd be viewed as kosher to use all four of them under these circumstances. Thoughts?? 1. Assuming they haven't changed the form again you are to list employment going back 15 years and the names of your supervisors for that employment. 2. You are to list nine references who do not duplicate the supervisors you listed. For these they want 3 judicial references (ALJs are acceptable), 3 adversarial references (if you cannot list 3 adversarial attorneys you may include others who can tell them about your ethical and professional conduct), and 3 personal references. You are not to use a name in more than one category; they want nine separate individuals for references.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 20, 2015 9:57:14 GMT -5
Let me make sure I understand - everyone must list nine references? I have been in the same job for the last five years but, prior thereto, I was a state court judge for 15 years. I suppose they're not interested in supervisors further back in time than that...or are they? Also, adversarial references will be a challenge for me if I can't go back beyond 15, although I can scarf up some from my current job as in-house counsel to a federal agency where I'm involved in all litigation touching my client, which involves contact with opposing counsel but usually not court appearances. Are there supposed to be a certain number of each of professional, judicial, adversary? And how do supervisors fit in there - are they just a part of professional references? As a judge, my supervisor was the chief justice of our state supreme court. That position alternates annually. Fortunately, all of the five justices save one were on the court when I was on the bench and therefore 'supervised' me; I'm sure all four of them would give me favorable references, but I'm not sure if it'd be viewed as kosher to use all four of them under these circumstances. Thoughts?? . Nine for everyone, three in each category. If you don't have adversarial references, as I said, list non adversarial ones. The document says you can do that. Supervisors from jobs before the 10 years can certainly be used. All my references have known me at least 25 years. Supervisors from years ago fit where they fit, non adversarial or judicial if they are judges or ALJs. The reference issue has been discussed at length at various times. I can't help but think we are derailing this thread a bit here OPM's process has nothing to do with the references. Yeah. If you want an ad nauseum discussion on this read the reference threads. Also I am certain sometime between now and Sept 7 there will be a new set of certs with the corresponding need to discuss it again.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jun 20, 2015 11:00:31 GMT -5
. Nine for everyone, three in each category. If you don't have adversarial references, as I said, list non adversarial ones. The document says you can do that. Supervisors from jobs before the 10 years can certainly be used. All my references have known me at least 25 years. Supervisors from years ago fit where they fit, non adversarial or judicial if they are judges or ALJs. The reference issue has been discussed at length at various times. I can't help but think we are derailing this thread a bit here OPM's process has nothing to do with the references. Yeah. If you want an ad nauseum discussion on this read the reference threads. Also I am certain sometime between now and Sept 7 there will be a new set of certs with the corresponding need to discuss it again. That would be correct. So, concentrate on successfully getting on the register, and the rest of the process will come in due time.
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 22, 2015 12:28:32 GMT -5
June 22 is here! Good luck to all of us who will be completing the online component sometime between now and July 6!!!
|
|
|
Post by wingnut on Jun 22, 2015 12:42:35 GMT -5
I just went on a cross-country road trip. I was enjoying myself because I kept seeing signs for towns and cities I would have never heard of but for the various certs. In case the powers that be are wondering, there were a lot of charming places I would happily relocate to if I am allowed to expand my GAL. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 22, 2015 12:44:35 GMT -5
June 22 is here! Good luck to all of us who will be completing the online component sometime between now and July 6!!! Yes, go complete the online portion of the tests. Good luck and we don't want to hear from any of you until you're done! And when we do hear from you, remember, no details! Maybe, just maybe, Gaidin will put up a short poll in a few days to see how many folks got to test from 22 June to 6 July in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 22, 2015 12:51:20 GMT -5
June 22 is here! Good luck to all of us who will be completing the online component sometime between now and July 6!!! Yes, go complete the online portion of the tests. Good luck and we don't want to hear from any of you until you're done! And when we do hear from you, remember, no details! Maybe, just maybe, Gaidin will put up a short poll in a few days to see how many folks got to test from 22 June to 6 July in 2015. That could happen.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 22, 2015 12:54:37 GMT -5
Yes, go complete the online portion of the tests. Good luck and we don't want to hear from any of you until you're done! And when we do hear from you, remember, no details! Maybe, just maybe, Gaidin will put up a short poll in a few days to see how many folks got to test from 22 June to 6 July in 2015. That could happen. Perhaps preliminarily a poll on who thinks Gaidin will put up such a poll?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 22, 2015 13:11:52 GMT -5
Perhaps preliminarily a poll on who thinks Gaidin will put up such a poll? Perhaps, Gaidin will put up a poll preliminarily asking how many times Gary will say "today" as his guess for the next cert with an over and under number. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 22, 2015 15:17:37 GMT -5
June 22 is here! Good luck to all of us who will be completing the online component sometime between now and July 6!!! Yes, go complete the online portion of the tests. Good luck and we don't want to hear from any of you until you're done! And when we do hear from you, remember, no details! Maybe, just maybe, Gaidin will put up a short poll in a few days to see how many folks got to test from 22 June to 6 July in 2015. Done. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3408/participating-online-testing-june-july
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 22, 2015 15:18:04 GMT -5
Perhaps preliminarily a poll on who thinks Gaidin will put up such a poll? Perhaps, Gaidin will put up a poll preliminarily asking how many times Gary will say "today" as his guess for the next cert with an over and under number. LOL! Crazy talk
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jun 23, 2015 7:03:58 GMT -5
Interesting. One more way to focus on people with trial experience. ALJs count as judicial references. True, but, for some insiders, depending on your tenure with SSA, the size of your office, and the stability of the ALJ staff, there may not be a lot of ALJ's left to serve as references once you subtract the HOCALJ and former supervisors (who have since become ALJ's).
|
|
|
Post by lawyernj on Jun 27, 2015 23:16:46 GMT -5
Longtime lurker...first time poster...
Has anybody previously rejected after R2 been advised that they meet the new standards?
Or is this something that will wait until after the other people complete the online portion?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 27, 2015 23:23:52 GMT -5
Longtime lurker...first time poster... Has anybody previously rejected after R2 been advised that they meet the new standards? Or is this something that will wait until after the other people complete the online portion? I am unaware of anyone being told they're going to DC yet. My best guess is OPM will wait until all the online testing is done and then will set the new cutoff score at the level necessary to get the number of candidates they want to have take the WD, LBMT, and SI.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 28, 2015 9:50:58 GMT -5
lawyernj, i am in that group and have not heard anything yet. not to say i will but as of yet, i have heard nothing from opm on that issue. i agree with Gary it is unlikely anyone will hear anything until the online portion for those currently testing has been graded. their testing, per this board, ends on July 5th.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Jun 28, 2015 12:38:33 GMT -5
lawyernj, i am in that group and have not heard anything yet. not to say i will but as of yet, i have heard nothing from opm on that issue. i agree with Gary it is unlikely anyone will hear anything until the online portion for those currently testing has been graded. their testing, per this board, ends on July 5th. love the patriotic avatar, christina!
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 28, 2015 13:06:34 GMT -5
thanks miss but your pink hair really rocks too!!! and heck, the spouses really loved that hair!
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 28, 2015 20:54:53 GMT -5
lawyernj, i am in that group and have not heard anything yet. not to say i will but as of yet, i have heard nothing from opm on that issue. i agree with Gary it is unlikely anyone will hear anything until the online portion for those currently testing has been graded. their testing, per this board, ends on July 5th. Online testing open from 12:00 midnight June 22 through 11:59 p.m. July 6th.
|
|