|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 17, 2018 12:14:58 GMT -5
That doesn't sound like it is blocking the EO...it sounds like it is blocking hiring under the EO.Ā So if there is an EO that essentially says that no one can hire off the register, and then there is legislation that blocks all funding for non-register hiring under the EO, what then?Ā No ALJ hiring at all?
1 + 2 = fish...
Not necessarily.Ā As I understand the pending legislation, the current language in it blocks funding for the hiring of ALJs through the excepted service.Ā It does not block funding for the hiring of ALJs through the competitive service.Ā The legislation still is in committee so we just have to wait to see if it moves out of committee and a vote subsequently scheduled.Ā If the bill passes, the administration simply would have to decide how badly it wants to hire ALJs.Ā There would be no impediment to continuing to hire ALJs off the register.Ā EOs can be tweaked.
Well I think there would be if the EO is not ātweaked.ā As I read it the EO does prohibit hiring ALJs into the competitive service. So basically the result of this bill will be a prolonged hiring freeze. IMO, not a good move politically for the dems (to the extent the public at large cares) because they are going to be perceived as the party making the move to obstruct hiring. Any resulting backlogs can be laid at the feet of this legislation. Even assuming you are correct that competitive service hiring could continue, OPM already said they scratched the register. At the very least those of us who tested wonāt get processed. As a recent DC tester, I want my money and leave back. Iāll reapply when the govt can get itās act together (so.....never?). Iām not sure why this is anything more than a theoretical concern to sitting ALJs: the EO secures your position and Nagles email indicates you are being properly appointed. So I donāt see anything to worry about if you are a sitting ALJ. |
|
|
|
Post by rockey on Jul 17, 2018 12:19:59 GMT -5
I wouldnāt expect the author of the EO to sign such a bill. That would depend on what else is in the bill.Ā Negotiations are ongoing. For example, if it were part of the Defense budget, it would be signed in a heart beat. |
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Jul 17, 2018 12:21:58 GMT -5
EO 13843.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 12:28:52 GMT -5
That doesn't sound like it is blocking the EO...it sounds like it is blocking hiring under the EO. So if there is an EO that essentially says that no one can hire off the register, and then there is legislation that blocks all funding for non-register hiring under the EO, what then? No ALJ hiring at all?
1 + 2 = fish...
Not necessarily. As I understand the pending legislation, the current language in it blocks funding for the hiring of ALJs through the excepted service. It does not block funding for the hiring of ALJs through the competitive service. The legislation still is in committee so we just have to wait to see if it moves out of committee and a vote subsequently scheduled. If the bill passes, the administration simply would have to decide how badly it wants to hire ALJs. There would be no impediment to continuing to hire ALJs off the register. EOs can be tweaked.
Someone correct me if Iām wrong but I thought I read somewhere that OPM is also funded through non-appropriated sources and that funding also helped it to operate through the govāt shutdown. If true, couldnāt OPM use their non-appropriated funding to enforce the EO? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 12:35:34 GMT -5
Even assuming you are correct that competitive service hiring could continue, OPM already said they scratched the register. At the very least those of us who tested wonāt get processed. As a recent DC tester, I want my money and leave back. Iāll reapply when the govt can get itās act together (so.....never?). Iām not sure why this is anything more than a theoretical concern to sitting ALJs: the EO secures your position and Nagles email indicates you are being properly appointed. So I donāt see anything to worry about if you are a sitting ALJ. OPM has not officially terminated the register. As of right now, it still exists. Go to their website and review it and you will see that no changes have been institued as yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Mermaid on Jul 17, 2018 14:27:07 GMT -5
Not necessarily. As I understand the pending legislation, the current language in it blocks funding for the hiring of ALJs through the excepted service. It does not block funding for the hiring of ALJs through the competitive service. The legislation still is in committee so we just have to wait to see if it moves out of committee and a vote subsequently scheduled. If the bill passes, the administration simply would have to decide how badly it wants to hire ALJs. There would be no impediment to continuing to hire ALJs off the register. EOs can be tweaked.
Someone correct me if Iām wrong but I thought I read somewhere that OPM is also funded through non-appropriated sources and that funding also helped it to operate through the govāt shutdown. If true, couldnāt OPM use their non-appropriated funding to enforce the EO? OPM theoretically could use non-appropriated funds (NAF) to implement the mandate in the EO. Assuming, of course, that it has access to NAF for that purpose. However, NAF generally are tied to services or goods through fee-generating activities. Think passports, U.S. Postal Service, day care centers at Federal facilities, naturalization and asylum applications, etc. I am not sure that OPM generates NAF to keep a rainy day piggy bank, but it would not surprise me if some agency out there has something like that.
The bigger challenge I see with the possibility of using NAF to enforce the EO is that pay and benefits, and everything else (including staff, office space, security, travel, training, etc., etc.) for ALJs hired though the excepted service would have to come from NAF if the legislation to block appropriated funds is enacted. Can you envision an ALJ corps - and its mission - funded by NAF? I am having quite a bit of trouble visualizing it but I guess anything is possible.
As it currently stands, I view the executive order simply as directing OPM to implement the mandate set forth in the substance of the EO by taking steps to repeal certain regulations and enact others. I personally think OPM was a little trigger happy (presumably in an effort to impress a certain audience) and quickly issued a poorly worded memo implementing the substance of an EO it does not yet have authority to implement. At this time, in the absence of the regulatory process mentioned in the EO, I think any hiring of ALJs through the excepted service (and as envisioned in the OPM memo) would be ultra vires. But, then again, I have been defending Federal regulations and statutes in Federal court for only over 20 years . . . perhaps I need a bit more experience. I look forward to learning a thing or two as this process unfolds. 
|
|
emby
Full Member
Posts: 60 
|
Post by emby on Jul 17, 2018 14:42:54 GMT -5
Sorry, I donāt have any insight on this. I wish it were the case that theyāre still grading the applications just in case. |
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Jul 17, 2018 15:16:11 GMT -5
I do not profess to have any inside information regarding how ALJs will be hired, but I do have some observations about the excepted service. Yes, it does affect the way the vacancy is advertised. It may appear on USA.jobs or on an agency website. But does this mean that SSA will be looking only at "insiders" for the job? I think not, and here's why. Everyone who is an attorney with OHO was hired under the excepted service process. The job is advertised and everyone who applies is an "outsider."
It is going to take some time for those in charge to determine how they want to proceed. There will still be an interview by the agency, no doubt. They can still ask for a writing sample and references, just like they do for attorney advisor candidates. Certainly I would expect an attorney who is working for OHO, has a good reputation with the management and is productive will be an appealing candidate. But then, so would someone from the representative bar with similar credentials. Someone with no knowledge of SSA regulations/procedures? I will not even venture a guess on that one.
I suspect the Lucia outcome has thrown every agency into a spin. They will have to develop new processes for hiring ALJs and that will take some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge McJudgeypants on Jul 17, 2018 15:20:05 GMT -5
Sorry, I donāt have any insight on this. I wish it were the case that theyāre still grading the applications just in case. Does anyone know when this proposed amendment will be decided? |
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Jul 17, 2018 15:22:01 GMT -5
I do not profess to have any inside information regarding how ALJs will be hired, but I do have some observations about the excepted service. Yes, it does affect the way the vacancy is advertised. It may appear on USA.jobs or on an agency website. But does this mean that SSA will be looking only at "insiders" for the job? I think not, and here's why. Everyone who is an attorney with OHO was hired under the excepted service process. The job is advertised and everyone who applies is an "outsider." It is going to take some time for those in charge to determine how they want to proceed. There will still be an interview by the agency, no doubt. They can still ask for a writing sample and references, just like they do for attorney advisor candidates. Certainly I would expect an attorney who is working for OHO, has a good reputation with the management and is productive will be an appealing candidate. But then, so would someone from the representative bar with similar credentials. Someone with no knowledge of SSA regulations/procedures? I will not even venture a guess on that one. I suspect the Lucia outcome has thrown every agency into a spin. They will have to develop new processes for hiring ALJs and that will take some time. I wonder whether agencies are even required to advertise on opm or can just hire by word of mouth instead. |
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Jul 17, 2018 15:32:22 GMT -5
I looked at the OPM website to see what is required for excepted service. The advertising can be on USA.jobs or an agency website per that source.
One other thought. I don't know how a candidate's productivity will be assessed, but the ALJ corps is on track to have an average of 500 dispositions per judge for this FY which is an increase from the average for last fiscal year. Backlog continues to drop. So far by more than 10% of what the total pending was when the fiscal year started. So it would appear that proof of productivity will continue to be a big factor in making selections. Source for my conclusions is the Consolidated Activity Report in CPMS MI.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 17, 2018 21:48:05 GMT -5
Does anyone know when this proposed amendment will be decided? While I don't have a crystal ball, I would assume the answer is "never". An amendment to a bill from a member of the minority, trying to upset an executive order that's not very controversial outside of our small circle, and in a Congress that, to be kind, isn't very good at working across the aisle? Sure, never say never, but it would be unwise to hope that Congress will "fix" this. For once I think you have hit the nail on the head. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 17, 2018 23:10:54 GMT -5
For once I think you have hit the nail on the head. I'd like to think that my track record merits more than just "for once". You can think what you want, but we both know your track recordāthink PMs. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 17, 2018 23:17:14 GMT -5
You can think what you want, but we both know your track recordāthink PMs. Pixie I know my track record - and yours. You are getting close to being sent back to where you promised to never go again. And you know what that means. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 17, 2018 23:39:07 GMT -5
You are getting close to being sent back to where you promised to never go again. And you know what that means. I went out of my way to send you a PM to thank you for keeping us all civil, and you went out of your way to be uncivil to me in a PM. Why did you do that? You need to read my last PM to you and not take a private discussion public. It really isn't good form. Pixie |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 6:50:27 GMT -5
|
|
emby
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by emby on Jul 18, 2018 9:10:05 GMT -5
Sorry, I donāt have any insight on this. I wish it were the case that theyāre still grading the applications just in case. Does anyone know when this proposed amendment will be decided? The House Rules Committee did not allow debate on the amendment or let I let it go to the floor for consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jul 18, 2018 14:35:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mermaid on Jul 18, 2018 20:15:34 GMT -5
Oh nooo ... the exchange above between Pixie and @alj10028 just took me back 20 years to a time when I had to serve as mediator between my parents. I now need some situational bourbon and I do not even drink bourbon. |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 18, 2018 20:23:35 GMT -5
Oh nooo ... the exchange above between Pixie and @alj10028 just took me back 20 years to a time when I had to serve as mediator between my parents. I now need some situational bourbon and I do not even drink bourbon. At least some good can come from the situation. |
|
