|
Post by stevil on Aug 3, 2017 14:30:54 GMT -5
Got an e-mail from FALJC saying that on August 3, 2017, Chief Judges were notified that OPM intends to reopen the existing register for additional applicants in the coming weeks. It was noted that this will not be a new examination, but a "refresh" of the existing register. I'm confused - is this akin to the lower scoring sub-group from 2013?
Not sure what this means - but passing it along.
|
|
|
Post by rp on Aug 3, 2017 14:37:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 3, 2017 14:45:55 GMT -5
Got an e-mail from FALJC saying that on August 3, 2017, Chief Judges were notified that OPM intends to reopen the existing register for additional applicants in the coming weeks. It was noted that this will not be a new examination, but a "refresh" of the existing register. I'm confused - is this akin to the lower scoring sub-group from 2013?
Not sure what this means - but passing it along. Interesting. I don't know quite what to make of it as stated. We generally refer to a "refresh" as being what they did over this last year or so. That involves all new applications, OPM reviewing the applications for basic qualifications, having those qualified take the online portion of the exam, sending the higher scoring subgroup of those to the D.C. testing, scoring the tests, and putting some on the register while disappointing others. They did send the next higher scoring subgroup of 2013 online testers through to D.C. to test in 2015 (I think). At that time they picked things up with the D.C. testing and went through to the end. The refresh that put everyone new on the register resulted in a figurative bloodbath at the WD/SI stage. I can't see them wanting to dip lower into the online scores. I'm guessing they'll open up a JOA for the position and start a refresh using the same examination and procedures. That puzzles me since they just put a bunch of folks on the register and nobody has been hired since then that I know of. The way it was put is a bit odd, but it may be because the writer of the email wanted to distinguish a coming refresh from a completely new examination which would be followed by termination of the current register and establishment of a new one.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Atkins on Aug 3, 2017 14:55:01 GMT -5
It does seem strange, from a complete outsider's perspective. However, as someone who discovered the board well into the process, I, for one, would welcome an opportunity to expand my GAL. If there's any kind of "re-opening," it seems that might be possible.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 3, 2017 15:00:22 GMT -5
It does seem strange, from a complete outsider's perspective. However, as someone who discovered the board well into the process, I, for one, would welcome an opportunity to expand my GAL. If there's any kind of "re-opening," it seems that might be possible. If they open a JOA and do the full refresh, you will have your opportunity to modify your GAL.
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Aug 3, 2017 15:01:43 GMT -5
Got an e-mail from FALJC saying that on August 3, 2017, Chief Judges were notified that OPM intends to reopen the existing register for additional applicants in the coming weeks. It was noted that this will not be a new examination, but a "refresh" of the existing register. I'm confused - is this akin to the lower scoring sub-group from 2013?
Not sure what this means - but passing it along. Sounds like what we just did in 2016. It wasn't a "new examination" as in a completely new test. It was the same as the 2013 examination.
|
|
|
Post by franperirose on Aug 3, 2017 15:04:41 GMT -5
I must be super crazy, because just two days after my SSA interview, my immediate thought upon hearing this was whether I should try again and see if I get a better score. And hopefully another SSA interview 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 15:06:44 GMT -5
This is crazy. How? What?
Maybe OPM caught a lot of political flack for cutting so many people after the D.C. stage?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 3, 2017 15:10:58 GMT -5
BTW: Unless appeals are adjudicated first which (based on past OPM performance) would be very fast turnaround on them, all you appellants may have a decision to make:
Start the process anew and abandon the appeal; or
Allow the appeal to run its course and forgo the refresh testing under the new JOA.
|
|
|
Post by franperirose on Aug 3, 2017 15:11:34 GMT -5
This is crazy. How? What? Maybe OPM caught a lot of political flack for cutting so many people after the D.C. stage? This was my thought- that they ended up with far fewer people than they expected.
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Aug 3, 2017 15:12:06 GMT -5
So, basically, we the class of 2016 would have about a year and half to get hired before an influx of fresh faces floods the register.
The new legislation did call for testing at more frequent intervals, but I didn't expect it to occur quite this quickly.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 3, 2017 15:12:57 GMT -5
This is crazy. How? What? Maybe OPM caught a lot of political flack for cutting so many people after the D.C. stage? Perhaps but only indirectly. They may have been shooting for a particular minimum size register and the high attrition rate at the WD/SI may have prevented achievement of that size.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 3, 2017 15:13:29 GMT -5
So, basically, we the class of 2016 would have about a year and half to get hired before an influx of fresh faces floods the register. The new legislation did call for testing at more frequent intervals, but I didn't expect it to occur quite this quickly. Welcome to our world.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 3, 2017 15:16:30 GMT -5
As I recall the legislation, OPM (at least for some time) has to examine when SSA wants them to. I would be interested in knowing whether or not this is coming at SSA's "request."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 15:20:04 GMT -5
As I recall the legislation, OPM (at least for some time) has to examine when SSA wants them to. I would be interested in knowing whether or not this is coming at SSA's "request." This is from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015: SEC. 846. <<NOTE: 42 USC 904 note.>> EXPEDITED EXAMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Office of Personnel Management shall, upon request of the Commissioner of Social Security, expeditiously administer a sufficient number of competitive examinations, as determined by the Commissioner, for the purpose of identifying an adequate number of candidates to be appointed as Administrative Law Judges under section 3105 of title 5, United States Code. <<NOTE: Deadlines.>> The first such examination shall take place not later than April 1, 2016 and other examinations shall take place at such time or times requested by the Commissioner, but not later than December 31, 2022. Such examinations shall proceed even if one or more individuals who took a prior examination have appealed an adverse determination and one or more of such appeals have not concluded, provided that-- (1) the Commissioner of Social Security has made a determination that delaying the examination poses a significant risk that an adequate number of Administrative Law Judges will not be available to meet the need of the Social Security Administration to reduce or prevent a backlog of cases awaiting a hearing; (2) an individual whose appeal is pending is provided an option to continue their appeal or elects to take the new examination, in which case the appeal is considered vacated; and (3) an individual who decides to continue his or her appeal and who ultimately prevails in the appeal shall receive expeditious consideration for hire by the Office Personnel Management and the Commissioner of Social Security. (b) Payment of Costs.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commissioner of Social Security shall pay the full cost associated with each examination conducted pursuant to subsection (a).
|
|
|
Post by rp on Aug 3, 2017 15:24:07 GMT -5
Got an e-mail from FALJC saying that on August 3, 2017, Chief Judges were notified that OPM intends to reopen the existing register for additional applicants in the coming weeks. It was noted that this will not be a new examination, but a "refresh" of the existing register. I'm confused - is this akin to the lower scoring sub-group from 2013?
Not sure what this means - but passing it along. By the way -- stevil -- thanks for passing this along!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 15:28:07 GMT -5
I don't know if this should be taken as "we don't like how many were cut", "we don't like the people that made it", or "both." Could the future hiring targets be much higher than we anticipated?
|
|
|
Post by msp on Aug 3, 2017 15:28:20 GMT -5
Based on what you relayed, stevil, it sounds like they may be moving on down to the next higher-scoring subgroup. I wish everyone in that group the best of luck! And thanks for sharing the intel!
|
|
|
Post by christina on Aug 3, 2017 15:30:35 GMT -5
since stevil works for omha, it is possible ohma is letting its judges know about the refresh that includes all of you newbie registrants? does not sound like it from the wording but i like my optimistic outlook.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Aug 3, 2017 15:45:05 GMT -5
Got an e-mail from FALJC saying that on August 3, 2017, Chief Judges were notified that OPM intends to reopen the existing register for additional applicants in the coming weeks. It was noted that this will not be a new examination, but a "refresh" of the existing register. I'm confused - is this akin to the lower scoring sub-group from 2013?
Not sure what this means - but passing it along. No way. I refuse to believe this (though I do not doubt Stevil's sincerity or sources). They are going to refresh again, after they just got a record number of people on the register? If so, this is bad news for those with low scores. Sounds like a full on refresh from the description. Would render the appealing thread moot, that's for sure. Thanks for the 411 Stevil!
|
|