|
|
Post by artemis on Mar 6, 2008 15:10:26 GMT -5
With the dust settling from the selections of the new ALJ appointees of last week, I was curious in getting your thoughts as to how the remaining of us may fare in the upcoming July certificate. If our scores are say below 62, should we be bracing again for another round of dismay or is there some glimmer of hope that with the high scorers having been picked up we may still be in the loop of consideration?
Does anyone know how long we must wait to re visit the entire qualifying process again so as to have another shot at the written and oral examination processes? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by happy on Mar 6, 2008 16:51:37 GMT -5
also as someone with a score in that range, I concur . . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by allrise on Mar 6, 2008 17:03:05 GMT -5
The last cert reached scores in the 50s in some locations and they apparently hired some candidates with scores below 65. If there are more openings in some of these areas, my guess is the cert will go pretty low and the highest score they will be able to pick from with be someone below 65. No?
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Mar 6, 2008 19:05:07 GMT -5
The last cert reached scores in the 50s in some locations and they apparently hired some candidates with scores below 65. If there are more openings in some of these areas, my guess is the cert will go pretty low and the highest score they will be able to pick from with be someone below 65. No? Sorry, Boley's right. Despite the ability to have picked some candidates in the low 60's that they liked this time, the cert from OPM will only go by absolutely best score. Thus, 450 reached down into the 50's, and 150 people are off it, so we can assume that now 300 (for the same cities) would reach to exactly the same place. Any added cities add higher scores who were blocked out by geography - low 60's is below the median. Thus, 300 for different cities (i.e. some the same and some different) would actually not dip as low as 450 did the first time. A cert for 31 more judges would pull 93 names off the register. Based on the above, this would be less than 1/3 (call it 2/9) of the way down the second 2/3 of candidates (left after the first 1/3 of the original ones were taken). 2/9 x 2/3 = 4/27 = 15% ish., + 33% = about 48% of the way as far down the score curve as the first cert. If the first cert got from high 80's down to high 50's, we can expect the lowest score reached by the next cert to be about 68-9 or so, depending on how many new cities are added. Meanwhile, with another 31 off the register, we're looking at about 450 on the register for a potential (and eagerly hoped for by me) 125 next year, which would reach to 75 from the bottom, or an estimated 53 and change for potential candidates (although if it works like this last hiring, the lowest scores will still not be reached). |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 6, 2008 20:07:23 GMT -5
The last cert reached scores in the 50s in some locations and they apparently hired some candidates with scores below 65. If there are more openings in some of these areas, my guess is the cert will go pretty low and the highest score they will be able to pick from with be someone below 65. No? There are quite a few people left with scores in the 70s and 80s. Don't forget our own patriotsfan who had a very nice score but no cities on the first cert. He was not the only one in that situation. And there are other high scorers who had only one or two cities on the first cert who are still available. |
|
|
|
Post by dazedandconfused on Mar 7, 2008 7:38:28 GMT -5
The number of 125 hires for fiscal 2009 was tossed around when the number in 2008 was 150 new ALJs. Now that 175 were hired, will the number for 2009 be 100? It is hard to know now, but considering the hires by other agencies, it is safe to assume close to 200 people will have been removed from a register of 600-650 people. The best way to estimate how many hires SSA would like to have in 2009 is to work backwards: the goal is 1250 ALJs. Does anyone know how many there will be now after adding 175 by this summer (the number of agency ALJs was reported sometime over the summer? Then take away the typical 50-60 from
that retire. The remainder, budget willing, will be the hire for 2009. Assume a hire of 100. That would go 300 deep on the register. Even if there are still folks with high 70's and 80's left, there are a lot less of them. If the past hire dipped down into the mid to low 60's, I would think after removing 200 people, the scores would dip down to the mid 50's.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 7, 2008 9:09:46 GMT -5
...There are quite a few people left with scores in the 70s and 80s. Don't forget our own patriotsfan who had a very nice score but no cities on the first cert. He was not the only one in that situation. And there are other high scorers who had only one or two cities on the first cert who are still available. I think this is a fair caution - there are still a number of "high" scorers on the Cert and a fair number of Vets. The Rule of Three will continue to apply where a vet can only be bypassed in favor of another Vet (even a lower-scoring one) without substantive cause. Like Patriotsfan, some of these "high" scorers have geographic limitations, so it all depends on the cities where slots are going to be filled. |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 7, 2008 13:13:02 GMT -5
If they have 3 high scoring vets or just high scorers who selected all locations, and they don't like 2 of them, they can consider the 3 of them for location X and avoid hiring 2 of them. Bingo. |
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Mar 7, 2008 14:31:42 GMT -5
There are those who have more than passing familiarity with the procedure...
|
|
|
|
Post by okeydokey on Mar 7, 2008 14:57:10 GMT -5
I am not sure that manipulation of the system in this manner would pass muster. The MSPB has recently been on a "protect the vet" mission.
If you were a vet and were not selected and have a score above 65, I would seriously consider filing a complaint with the Department of Labor. I think it would be safe for you to say you do not know why you were not chosen, but would like to figure it out.
For a vet who chose all locations to have been non-selected in favor of someone with a lower score in any of the chosen locations, I would think there would only be one legal reason: the vet was passed over (in which case you should be able to get the information).
It may be that a vet, considered for a number of locations and not chosen, could have been administratively removed from the list. But I don't think there has been any notification of that process. And I am not sure that it is legal anyway.
If a vet was considered with another vet for a position and was not chosen, the vet should have been put on the list for another location. In other words, there should have been a cascade event.
I would seriously consider filing a lawsuit if I had standing and I found out that ODAR put 144 positions on the board and three names after each position without cascading the vet's name down.
That said... From ODAR's viewpoint, this must have been a nightmare. At the very least, I would ask for the process for determining which person would get which selection.
One last thing. Remedy. Assuming you prevail on your complaint, your remedy WILL NOT be selection as an ALJ. Instead, ODAR will be instructed to reconstruct the selection process (yuck) and if you would have been selected, you will be entitled to backpay and, if the non-compliance was willful, you will be entitled to backpay as liquidated damages, i.e., a total of two times backpay. Oh, if you are entitled to backpay, it will be reduced by the amount of earnings you had while litigating the case.
So, if you sue, you probably won't get a whole bunch of money. You will get vindication. Vindication and a 5 dollar bill will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Mar 7, 2008 16:43:43 GMT -5
I'm not a fed, so I'm a little unclear about several things that have been raised in some posts.
Were applicants put down as possibilities for only one city, regardless of how many options they chose or could you be second (obviously I wasn't first) on several cities?
If you weren't first and the first declined would they or would they not leave the opening vacant or would they then offer it to number 2 or number 3? Has anybody heard of anyone getting an offer as the first runner up?
Also, if the cert is continued and is added to by the appellants who are successful and who also test, can we augment our choice of cities? I see that 4 of the 13 cities that were on the original certificate that I had chosen have no offerees, including Ft. Worth, which I've read on this board was filed by a transferee.
According to the link to the SSA announcement on ALJ selections, there were no appointees to Minneapolis, Tulsa, Ft. Worth, Houston, or Charlotte, all of which I had on my list. Any thoughts?
Is the city choice limited to when we apply with OPM, meaning it cannot be augmented until we reapply or retest?
|
|
|
|
Post by testtaker on Mar 7, 2008 17:50:43 GMT -5
Also, if the cert is continued and is added to by the appellants who are successful and who also test ... Numerous other posts have stated that the certificate was specific to this past round of hires. A new certificate will have to be issued for the next round of hires. That new certificate will list the cities where there are currently looking to hire ALJ(s). It is the REGISTER that will be added to with the names of those successful appellants who go through the WD & SI. It is a question as to whether those folks will make it onto the register before the next SSA certificate is issued. As far as adding additional geographic locations, please note that the original job announcement from 5/07 states: "Once this vacancy announcement closes, you will not be able to change your selected geographical location(s) until the next ALJ vacancy announcement open period." |
|
bb
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by bb on Mar 10, 2008 23:00:44 GMT -5
There are people with scores 70+ that didn't get hired this round, I don't know what that means.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 11, 2008 6:36:42 GMT -5
I am not sure that manipulation of the system in this manner would pass muster. The MSPB has recently been on a "protect the vet" mission. No, no, no, no – this is just the kind of reaction that will not serve any viable purpose. The MSPB is not on a “protect” the Vet mission; there are rules which have been in place for decades which the MSPB has been recently called upon to interpret --- and revisit --- in light of alleged abuses. These things happen. Sorta like how many anti-discrimination statutes have been in place since the Sixties and, gee, there is still discrimination. Making sure the “right” thing is done is a matter of constant vigilance, because the bottom line is that rules governing practice and procedure sometimes get in the way of what an agency wants to do in the long run. That doesn’t mean any agency is out there, rubbing its hands together, chortling “Ooooo, let’s screw the Vet…” They are saying, “Let’s get X done” only to find there are rules they have to follow to reach an end. Any end can be reached in the long run; it just takes time. No, no, no, no -- Your score determines your place ON THE REGISTER, not on the Cert. The Cert is a list of individuals who are “qualified” – and the Vet rules require that a non-vet cannot be selected over a Vet without a substantive reason, BUT they do not require the highest scoring Vet be selected when competing against a Vet. So, for example, if under the “Rule of Threeeeeeeeee,” there are 3 vets slotted for a selection in, say, Seattle, and one has a score of 60, one has a score of 65, and one has a score of 85, the agency could select the score of 60 without violating any law, rule or regulation Yes, this is exactly right – and it is not unique to being a Vet. Any person – any candidate – who is considered THREE times (which gets confused with the infamous “RULE OF THREEEEEEEEEE”) for positions being filled off a given Certificate can then be passed over (no longer considered) for the duration of the fill off that Cert. That means that even if a Vet OR ANYONE ELSE had said they were available for all 71 locations, they only had to be considered 3 times before the agency no longer had to put their name up against a location. It doesn’t change the position of that individual on the Register and when another Cert is requested from OPM, their name will be referred again; it just means their competition for a position FROM THAT CERT is over. (Now, BTW, three declinations – THAT’S a different story. Three of those suckers and OPM will banish you to the southern hinterlands of the Register.) No, no, no, no – there would be NO “cascade event” – three opportunities only per Cert. 3. The Agency does not have to keep moving the Vets from opening to opening to opening until they have been considered for all of them. Three times and then the Agency is free to ignore them until they show up on a new Cert. Were applicants put down as possibilities for only one city, regardless of how many options they chose or could you be second (obviously I wasn't first) on several cities? Three slots. Could be three slots in one city, like Atlanta, but three slots only. Otherwise it would be just too unwieldy. I’m not saying that SSA could not have considered someone for every single city; there is no prohibition from doing so, but they never would have gotten this hire out had they done so. I’ve heard nothing on this, but my expectation is that they will fold any declinations (which would be few and far between) into the May process. As noted in several places, including this thread – a cert cannot be “continued”…. A Certificate is given a specific number by OPM and that number is tied to a specific request from an Agency. Once an agency completes a process, the parameters of which are defined by their request, they cannot re-use or “continue” a Cert; they have to ask for a new one. Transfers. When the REGISTER is re-opened, those on the list may, I understand, be given a chance to change, augment, or limit their availability. In the meantime, yer stuck with what you chose. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 11, 2008 8:45:19 GMT -5
Jagghagg: Do you charge for your services?
Where I sit this board owes you a billable hour....
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 11, 2008 12:49:22 GMT -5
Jagghagg: Do you charge for your services? Where I sit this board owes you a billable hour.... I'm not easy, but I sure am cheap!  |
|
