|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 6, 2008 21:09:00 GMT -5
The follow list of insiders appointed in the recent round of hiring was posted on the prior board.
1 Regional Management Officere
3 Regional Attorneys
4 Appeals Officers
3 OGC
7 HOD
4 FEDRO
17 Senior Attorneys
8 Group Supervisors
7 Attorney Advisors
A couple of these are former: one now with HUD, one an EEO AJ.
Also R---- W----- is back as an ALJ; has a history as an AA and ALJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 7, 2008 5:22:27 GMT -5
So a little over a third of the hire came from insiders. Is that really so astounding ? (Rhetorical question - it is unsurprising to me.) Seems imminently reasonable, actually. (This from an un-offered "outsider," mind you...)
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Mar 7, 2008 6:50:40 GMT -5
It is astounding when viewed in the context of prior practice. Individuals working in hearing offices were very rarely selected as ALJs. In my office, for instance, none of the judges worked in a hearing office (or any component of SSA for that matter) prior to becoming a judge. "Insiders" are still the exception rather than the rule. I say this as the insider left out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 7, 2008 7:01:52 GMT -5
It is astounding when viewed in the context of prior practice. Individuals working in hearing offices were very rarely selected as ALJs. So yer sayin' this is a good trend for SSA.... |
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Mar 7, 2008 9:13:09 GMT -5
This is one of those times when I don't know what I am saying. To the extent that attorney-advisors in the agency are getting considered on a level playing field (with emphasis on the word "level") it is a good thing. I have worked with judges who were "outsiders" and who, 2 years into the job, were bragging about how they still knew nothing about Social Security law. These judges made their decisions based upon their personal political and social agendas. I want SSA to have the best judges it can hire, no matter the professional background.
It has always amazed me that as a JAG captain I had three years to prove myself or I was history but judges are hired for life before deciding a single case. Who came up with that as a good idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Mar 8, 2008 0:18:25 GMT -5
I am an "outsider" and around March of 2007 I started nosing around on the internet trying to figure when, if ever, the register was going to be reopened again. I ran across the old board, from there found out about the ALJ qualifications rulemaking and then the May 1 hearing with Linda Springer before the House subcommittee on Social Security. I read press reports about what transpired there and made note of her commitment to reopen the register in the near future (or words to that effect). I then started checking USA jobs and the old board daily, and figured out the register had reopened late in the afternoon of Friday May 4th (thanks to postings on the old board). I worked on my application that evening and a good part of the next day and submitted it late on Saturday May 5th. It was a short turnaround, but the fact that it closed on Tuesday, May 9th means the word got around pretty quickly. Those who didn't have their antenna up clearly got burned, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by lostagain on Mar 8, 2008 4:29:02 GMT -5
So a little over a third of the hire came from insiders. Is that really so astounding ? (Rhetorical question - it is unsurprising to me.) Seems imminently reasonable, actually. (This from an un-offered "outsider," mind you...) Given the cetificate, it was foreseeable and, perhaps reasonable (I don't know enough about the applicant pool to comment). The bigger issue is whether OPM acted reasonably in completely throwing out the old regsiter and creating a race to its door that may have favored gov't insiders (me included). While anyone could sign up for email notices, how often does getting an email notice give one a substantial advantage vis a vis checking USAJOBS on a weekly basis. In particular, unless they given personal notification from OPM that their scores were boing thrown out (I don't know one way or another), those who were on the old regsiter probably did not foresee the need to keep day-to-day tabs on OPM. |
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Mar 8, 2008 6:46:40 GMT -5
Actually, those who were on the old register did know they were about to be thrown off. I know this because I was talking to some of those folks in the run-up to the hiring of the 2006 class. They knew if they were not selected then that they would have to start all over again. And given that SSA is the biggest hiring force for ALJs, the fact that OPM had been told by SSA that the hiring pool was too stale and too shallow (other than certain preference eligible vets as required by 5 CFR 332.311, essentially no-one had been added for years), OPM really did have to do something. So while it was a pain for those folks to have to start over, they knew (if they were still interested at all) they were going to have to reapply. If they did not register with USAJOBS to get an email the day the register opened, then if they missed the opening, it was more or less their own fault. I know plenty of people outside government who were doing exactly what lostagain was doing: checking pretty much daily to see if the register had opened.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightowl on Mar 8, 2008 9:52:59 GMT -5
I am an outsider. A co-worker of mine was on the old register. Every one on the old register knew they had to reapply and go through the testing process. He was anxiously awaiting the reopening for years. OPM wrote him and told him the old register would be eliminated and that there would be a new listing on USA Jobs starting May 4. Since OPM notified all of the people on the old register, I do not see that they can complain if they failed to reapply.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 8, 2008 10:40:07 GMT -5
I do not see that they can complain if they failed to reapply. I don't think that is the issue on this thread; I could be wrong - but I think the only thing that the initial post indicated is that about a third of the hires are insiders. My observation is that such pretty much makes sense that it would be such. Hooray for outsiders (and insiders) who were given offers and are off to become Baby ALJs, - and the whole process will begin again each time SSA (or any other agency) requests a cert from OPM. |
|
tater
Full Member
Posts: 73 
|
Post by tater on Mar 10, 2008 21:30:43 GMT -5
I do not get it. If 54 insiders is good compared to the past why? I have been writing cases for some time now and the apathy of some aljs is appalling. I would want to hire a proven track record of an insider. It goes against the grain. It should be 75 percent at least. I don't get it!  |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 11, 2008 6:44:41 GMT -5
I do not get it. If 54 insiders is good compared to the past why? I have been writing cases for some time now and the apathy of some aljs is appalling. I would want to hire a proven track record of an insider. It goes against the grain. It should be 75 percent at least. I don't get it! Because insider staff attorneys have writing experience but do not have courtroom experience. Outside attorneys have courtroom experience but not subject matter writing experience. There are factions within the ALJ community who insist one is better than the other and vice versa. If the ALJ is NOT writing the decision but rather is doing the hearing and making the decision and the staff attorney is writing the decision, then there is an argument there that the "inside" experience doesn't count for much. If the emphasis is on substantive knowlege, then the insider experience DOES count for a lot. It seems to me that SSA took a wide swath here - taking insiders and outsiders and looking for a lot of litigation experience. Insider attorneys would take a beating on the court room experience criteria but smack the heck out of everybody else on substantive knowledge. Either way, that doesn't add up to a preference of 75%. |
|
|
|
Post by extang on Mar 11, 2008 7:56:59 GMT -5
"There are factions within the ALJ community who insist one is better than the other and vice versa." A minor point perhaps: what "factions within the ALJ community" think about this or any other issue is not especially relevant to hiring. The "ALJ community" does not do the hiring and has no input into the hiring. As those who are about to become baby ALJs will soon find out, what the "factions within the ALJ community" think is of pretty much no interest or importance to anybody in management within ODAR and especially elsewhere in SSA: or perhaps it is of interest or importance only as something to be opposed or quashed.
|
|
|
|
Post by extang on Mar 11, 2008 8:08:42 GMT -5
Another minor point regarding "the apathy of some aljs is appalling." Let me tell you, the "apathy" [to put it mildly] of many attorneys in this agency is beyond belief. Most of the attorneys in my hearing office produce work that, considered purely as expository writing, would not deserve a passing grade in 10th grade English; this is not an exaggeration. This quality of work has been tolerated in all cases for years and in some cases for decades. Several of these employees were hired as temporaries: they did not even have to be fired--they could just have been told sorry, your term is up. Instead, here they are, apparently for as long as they want to be. It is not just ALJs who in effect get lifetime appointments when OHA/ODAR hires them.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 11, 2008 8:39:00 GMT -5
I do not get it. If 54 insiders is good compared to the past why? I have been writing cases for some time now and the apathy of some aljs is appalling. I would want to hire a proven track record of an insider. It goes against the grain. It should be 75 percent at least. I don't get it! Because insider staff attorneys have writing experience but do not have courtroom experience. Outside attorneys have courtroom experience but not subject matter writing experience. There are factions within the ALJ community who insist one is better than the other and vice versa. If the ALJ is NOT writing the decision but rather is doing the hearing and making the decision and the staff attorney is writing the decision, then there is an argument there that the "inside" experience doesn't count for much. If the emphasis is on substantive knowlege, then the insider experience DOES count for a lot. It seems to me that SSA took a wide swath here - taking insiders and outsiders and looking for a lot of litigation experience. Insider attorneys would take a beating on the court room experience criteria but smack the heck out of everybody else on substantive knowledge. Either way, that doesn't add up to a preference of 75%. Couldn't agree more. And remember, OPM is hiring ALJs not just SSA ALJs. Lots of courtroom experience is highly relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by rhialto on Mar 11, 2008 9:40:53 GMT -5
In the not too distant past AALJ opposed hiring anyone with an Agency background, calling it inbreeding. There was even a time when OPM employees were in accord.
It is not correct, however, to say that Agency employees only have administrative law experience. Right off the bat, I could name several with 20+ years of litigation experience who got tired of the rat race, or needed more time with family, etc. There is a variety of experience, and, "insider or outsider", I believe ALJ diversity is a good thing. No rubber stampers, we!
|
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Mar 11, 2008 10:31:34 GMT -5
Although I have outside experience as an AUSA, I do not feel that litigation experience is absolutely necessary. While true that ALJ's for agencies other than ODAR are hired under the same standards, perhaps the better answer would be to have a bifurcated process with one list for formal adversarial scenarios and one for non-adversarial scenarios where the formal FRE is not applicable. Considering that SSA has 80+ % of all fed ALJ's, it would seem logical--and I tread lightly using logic with regard to government decisional processes--that a system more suited to such a great number of hires should at least be considered if not prime.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Mar 11, 2008 12:33:11 GMT -5
"In-breeding" was one of the gentler terms used by the AALJ. I recall AALJ using the term "glorified law clerks" as the description for attorney advisors in SSA.
|
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Mar 11, 2008 13:02:09 GMT -5
You know, this kind of thing is not helpful. All the new judges will be members of the bargaining unit, whether they join the union or not. My guess would be that the longtime ALJs might be a little more of that persuasion that the newer ones, and a substantial percentage has been on the job less than 10 years. Anyway, here is your chance to change the organization. Join it and facilitate change. If you don't and no change happens, whose fault is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 11, 2008 13:11:35 GMT -5
You know, this kind of thing is not helpful. All the new judges will be members of the bargaining unit, whether they join the union or not. My guess would be that the longtime ALJs might be a little more of that persuasion that the newer ones, and a substantial percentage has been on the job less than 10 years. Anyway, here is your chance to change the organization. Join it and facilitate schnge. If you don't and no change happens, whose fault is that? You know, I don't know what you mean about "this kind of thing".... it is certainly understandable that "insiders" would think that their substantive experience would give them a leg up on the competition; it is equally as understandable that "outsiders" would have thought that they brought new blood and a fresh prespective to the SSA. Both are correct. The bottom line is that NOW there is going to be a fresh influx of baby ALJs. Some will be jerks and most will not. No matter what, the change for the SSA is going to depend on how things evolve from within - that's how everything changes, from human to corporations. And, if I get Odarite's drift, y'all are now in this together - no longer insiders OR outsiders. Now you are the ALJ Corps. Now you can act as a cadre for the good of the government, for the good of the SSA; and for the good of your profession. |
|
