|
|
Post by judicature on Feb 16, 2008 15:20:30 GMT -5
Thank you for the responses, via PM, and postings. If one of the 71 is not listed, then absent some supplemental information coming in, assume 1 ALJ vacancy. It will be interesting to see how reality compares with these numbers. I elected to list any reported number of openings, whether 0, 1, 2 or more. Please also note that 2 offices no longer expect any of the new ALJ's. As others have made clear, 150 will be hired and ODAR can shift its hires among the 71 locations accordingly.
The number reflects all ALJ hires reported for that office. 103 ALJ spots are accounted for if you assume 1 ALJ for all locations not listed below and use the highest possible reported number. It is obvious that several of the 71 locations not reported here will be receiving multiple ALJ's on this certificate.
The GI/GO (garbage in/garbage out) principle applies.
As more reports/posts come in, I will modify this post accordingly.
The office locations are listed alphabetically by state:
Atlanta, GA - 2
Atlanta North, GA - 2 (possibly 1)
Macon, GA - 2
Wichita, KS - 2
Alexandria, LA – 2
Metairie, LA – 5
New Orleans, LA - 5
Shreveport, LA - 2
Flint, MI – 2
Grand Rapids, MI - 1
Oak Park, MI - 2
Creve Coeur, MO - 1
Springfield, MO - 1
Hattiesburg, MS – 2 (possibly 1)
Jackson, MS - 3
Newark, NJ - 4 (possibly 2 or only 1 - conflicting reports)
Albany, NY – 3 (possibly reduced to 2 with recent transfer in)
Syracuse, NY - 2
Cleveland, OH - 6
Tulsa, OK - 1
Greenville, SC - 4
Nashville, TN – 2 (possibly 1)
Houston DT, TX – 0 (likely filled by transfer in)
Charleston, WV - 0
Puerto Rico – 5 (Separate Certificate)
|
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Feb 16, 2008 22:40:39 GMT -5
I am only reporting what others have told me - I cannot verify the information I receive, except perhaps Cleveland, since that came from Falls Church in response to a media request. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by notafed on Feb 21, 2008 15:00:11 GMT -5
A new ALJ has transferred in to Fort Worth. In fact, he has already set hearings. <<Please also note that 2 offices no longer expect any of the new ALJ's.>> Since Houston Downtown & Charleston WV were off the new hires lift after transfers, does this mean that Ft. Worth will not be hiring, too? |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 22, 2008 15:13:25 GMT -5
I'm surprised at how difficult this information seems to be to come by.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 22, 2008 17:21:55 GMT -5
I still believe that all 71 cities on the list will get at least one judge; otherwise, the assignment process becomes very, very complex.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 22, 2008 17:23:07 GMT -5
Occam's Razor applies.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 25, 2008 8:54:06 GMT -5
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". (I admit, I looked at Wikipedia for the Latin!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Feb 25, 2008 19:39:32 GMT -5
I still believe that all 71 cities on the list will get at least one judge; otherwise, the assignment process becomes very, very complex. You really are an optimist. I hope that you are right. I'm not sure what broom closet they will office in since some of the locations accepted a transfer after the certificate went out. No empty ALJ office equals no space for a new ALJ. (Although the reverse is not always true.) There are minimum office requirements, so ODAR cannot just stick an ALJ in the pods with the case technicians. Perhaps they will do something creative like put the new ALJ physically in another city and make them do video hearings for their "assigned" office. Wouldn't that be a crack in the head? |
|
knownuthin
Full Member
Out of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Posts: 114
|
Post by knownuthin on Feb 26, 2008 15:30:14 GMT -5
A new ALJ has transferred in to Fort Worth. In fact, he has already set hearings. <<Please also note that 2 offices no longer expect any of the new ALJ's.>> Since Houston Downtown & Charleston WV were off the new hires lift after transfers, does this mean that Ft. Worth will not be hiring, too? The press release states 144 instead of 150 are to be offered positions. That's at least 3 of the missing 6, and probably 4, since I think Houston originally was expected to have 2 openings that have since been filled by a transfer in and a canceled transfer out. If the rumor about a HOCALJ stepping down and filling a slot is correct, that leaves 1. Maybe another office was filled with a transfer. |
|
|
|
Post by crazybroad on Feb 26, 2008 19:29:13 GMT -5
I am suddenly so sick to my stomach. I wasn't really sure I had a chance when there was 150 with my low score and the prospect of being beat out by a vet but the thought that 6 other possible openings have been knocked off the list has scared the bejesus out of me :0 . I hate that my hopefulness that I had in the past few days has dwindled to nothing. Good luck to you guys out there. You've been great! I'm going to try and think positive thoughts!
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 26, 2008 20:17:07 GMT -5
As an ODAR attorney who have been though prior rounds of ALJ hirings, I can tell you that the following rules apply:
1. OCALJ does not care whether or not there is an empty office when it hires an ALJ. In 1992 I was moved out of my office for 10 months while a new ALJ occupied my office. I worked in a hearing room with another temporarily displaced attorney. After GSA provided additional office space, I got my office back and discovered that the ALJ had ruined the finish of my personal bookcase with his wire coathangers.
2. See Rule #1.
3. It is up to the hearing office to get furniture and space for the new ALJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazybroad on Feb 26, 2008 20:26:02 GMT -5
Morgullord,
You don't mean that you have previously been interviewed for the job, do you? You mean hirings in your office, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by happy on Feb 26, 2008 20:33:07 GMT -5
1. OCALJ does not care whether or not there is an empty office when it hires an ALJ. In 1992 I was moved out of my office for 10 months while a new ALJ occupied my office. I worked in a hearing room with another temporarily displaced attorney. After GSA provided additional office space, I got my office back and discovered that the ALJ had ruined the finish of my personal bookcase with his wire coathangers. It's a bit of a new day, I'm afraid. 1992 far pre-dated the current SAS and, I must point out, far pre-dated the existence of the AALJ in OHA(now ODAR)-land. OCALJ does take the availability of offices into consideration and, having been in the RO myself for several years, we ended up with ALJs in offices that absolutely, positively didn't need additional ALJs solely because offices were available. We were also not able to get ALJs in offices that needed them because we did not have available offices that met SAS/AALJ requirements. Hence, workload realignment. They are not going to put an ALJ into a broomcloset nowadays and your typical AA office doesn't meet the size requirements. Now, in some offices, they have AA/PAs or management in offices that do meet the requirements and they have booted those folks out in order to house a new ALJ. |
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 26, 2008 20:41:55 GMT -5
The assignment of new ALJs is being driven by the backlog. If you read through the past testimony of the CoSS, he admits that in the past assignments were based upon office vacancies and that has contributed to the backlog. Some hearing offices will have to scramble to accomodate their new judges.
|
|
|
|
Post by happy on Feb 26, 2008 20:47:17 GMT -5
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. The Agency is unlikely to abrogate its obligations under the collective bargaining agreement when it is simply too easy to put an ALJ where there is an office and shift workload.  |
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Feb 27, 2008 17:13:36 GMT -5
the prospect of being beat out by a vet With all due respect crazyboard, your comment (which I have seen from others in the discussion) demeans veterans. There are, I am sure, veterans who have higher scores that you - even without the added veterans points. Remember, veterans served the country and this is a very small thank you -- and it really is very small overall. Your comment makes me feel the same as when I was spit on coming home from Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 27, 2008 17:23:03 GMT -5
the prospect of being beat out by a vet With all due respect crazyboard, your comment (which I have seen from others in the discussion) demeans veterans. There are, I am sure, veterans who have higher scores that you - even without the added veterans points. Remember, veterans served the country and this is a very small thank you -- and it really is very small overall. Your comment makes me feel the same as when I was spit on coming home from Vietnam. Chinook: First of all, thanks for your service. I, for one don't have any problem with the veteran's preference (although I hope the deserving veteran who would be ahead of me in a list is considered for a different city than me). However, I am not sure crazybroad's post in its entirety is as demeaning as you took it: I am suddenly so sick to my stomach. I wasn't really sure I had a chance when there was 150 with my low score and the prospect of being beat out by a vet but the thought that 6 other possible openings have been knocked off the list has scared the bejesus out of me :0 . I hate that my hopefulness that I had in the past few days has dwindled to nothing. Good luck to you guys out there. You've been great! I'm going to try and think positive thoughts! My reading indicates that crazybroad was referencing the veterans' preference to indicate why she saw her own chances dwindling, not to challenge the validity of the preference (or the worthiness of the individuals). She referenced both her low score (which reduced her chances compared to higher scores) and being beaten out by a vet (which would reduce her chances of being chosen over a higher scoring vet). There was no inherent begrudging a veteran that honor, just a growing depression at her dwindling chances, which includes the possibility that a veterans' preference would push her out of the position. I think maybe you read more into it than was there if you thought she was belittling the veterans' preference as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by crazybroad on Feb 27, 2008 18:14:02 GMT -5
Thanks Propmaster, you got me right. I meant no disrespect towards Vets I was just expressing how my hopefulness was lessening with the following factors: low score, vet preferences and dwindling number of positions. I have only utmost respect for those that protect the freedoms I hold dear. Sorry if I insulted any vets in any way.
|
|
)
