|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Jul 14, 2018 19:03:40 GMT -5
Who “owns” the board? Meaning, who decides whether it survives? As long as it is a viable forum, it will survive. The members will decide that. We obviously will need to shift our focus and determine what is now important. Shining the light on the OPM process was a huge part of our being. Our expertise had been honed in that area. There will definitely be a void until we can come to grips with the new process, whatever that might be. ALJD and I aren't going anywhere; we will be here to do whatever needs to be done. Pixie Gracias ALJD and Pixie. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 14, 2018 22:04:30 GMT -5
I’m OK with Trump’s move politically. Just sucks to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would have a problem with a job posting just to hire someone who was known in advance. That’s not a separation of powers issue, it’s a corruption issue. Fair enough. Posting hiring announcements despite already having a very shortlist is not new or unusual. That doesn’t detract from your point. Might as well sue, god knows you won’t be the only one. Haven’t said so previously, and I give you a lot of props for not leading with it in your posts, but thanks for your service. I’m sorry your s got f’ed while doing so, and I hope things work out for you, whatever our differences. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 14, 2018 22:28:54 GMT -5
I’m OK with Trump’s move politically. Just sucks to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would have a problem with a job posting just to hire someone who was known in advance. That’s not a separation of powers issue, it’s a corruption issue. It isn't corruption, it is called preselection. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 14, 2018 22:50:53 GMT -5
...which is an example of corruption. Do you have a cite for that? Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 15, 2018 15:35:45 GMT -5
Geeeesh. I go away for a while and you guys muck everything up. LOL. Actually, the only thing certain about OHA, ODAR, and whatever it is called now is change. You will get through this, whatever this is. Pixie and ALJD will never abandon you. Perhaps, this will be better than ever, but I truly doubt it. I have considered coming back as a Senior Judge, but.... I love the claimants, I love the hearings, I love the ALJ corps. I hate the management and their constant attempts to micromanage professionals that they have hired to do a job. I miss you all and I will drop in occasionally to keep up with the status of the current mess. Prayers for all involved. Nice to hear from you, Bart! I'm spending most of my time keeping myself busy at the ALJ job I already have, and wondering when the retirement papers can be filed. The federal ALJ gig may well never happen for me, but the hunt over many years now has been made much easier by this board. I tend to agree that litigation over the change, and other topics, will tend to keep this board sailing on into the future. |
|
|
|
Post by statman on Jul 15, 2018 17:44:05 GMT -5
A synonym for corruption is dishonest. It appears to me that advertising a job as being open to everybody when you have made up your mind that some person is getting the job is dishonest. It may, however, be perfectly legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 16, 2018 10:30:40 GMT -5
A synonym for corruption is dishonest. It appears to me that advertising a job as being open to everybody when you have made up your mind that some person is getting the job is dishonest. It may, however, be perfectly legal. It has happened a lot at the state level. Sometimes the personnel rules in effect at the time require it. The first time I interviewed with the state for an ALJ job decades ago, there were openings at two levels, the hearing level and the appeal level. I first went through the panel interview for the hearing level job not knowing that there was a seasonal ALJ on the hiring list; the rules in effect at the time basically required that he be hired, though they went through the charade of interviewing seven people. Fortunately, I interviewed for and got the appeal level job. I heard years later that the chief ALJ at the hearing level had told the appeal board chairman that while he couldn't hire me, the board chairman better do it.  |
|
|
|
Post by unlisted on Jul 16, 2018 13:04:41 GMT -5
...which is an example of corruption. Do you have a cite for that? Pixie Preselection may not be "corruption", but it's a prohibited personnel practice. See osc.gov/ppp |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Jul 16, 2018 13:12:27 GMT -5
Do you have a cite for that? Pixie Preselection may not be "corruption", but it's a prohibited personnel practice. See osc.gov/pppHere's the actual language that mentions pre-selection. It looks very specific, and unlikely: Granting Unauthorized Advantage
An agency official shall not give an unauthorized advantage in order to improve or injure the employment prospects of any person. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6)
This PPP, which can be complex, prohibits agency officials from providing a wrongful advantage to an applicant in order to help or hurt another person’s chance of obtaining the job. Note that pre-selection requires evidence that the hiring process was manipulated with the intent of improving or injuring a particular person's chances of selection.
Example: A selecting official hopes to hire an attorney he has known for many years into an investigator position. When the announcement is issued for the investigator position, the attorney does not qualify for the position. The selecting official then has the announcement rewritten to include legal requirements, such as legal analysis and litigation, even though this is not necessary for an investigator position. Ultimately the attorney is hired for the investigator position.
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Jul 16, 2018 14:30:34 GMT -5
Our RCALJ said they'd all been on a call with Nagle already, and have more calls to come re: effects on current ALJs and to get our internal posting ready. Mentioned the Fall for opening it up. Confirmed with HOCALJs I know to be well connected with OCALJ. Looks like it's gonna happen soon unless a big external factor (i.e., something everyone will hear about) gets in the way first. Does this mean that, failing something unforeseen, an announcement will only be open to internal candidates? |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Jul 16, 2018 14:43:39 GMT -5
Will you guys quit asking questions with legal implications please? Nobody wants this board on a discovery litigation table. People are trying to share information as they get it. Things take time to do in government.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 16, 2018 22:08:53 GMT -5
Does this mean that, failing something unforeseen, an announcement will only be open to internal candidates? Didn't say or even hint at that info, sorry. I imagine I'll hear more about this from my sources before it's widely available and will update as I hear. Thanks for the intel. What did you mean by internal posting? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 22:36:37 GMT -5
Will you guys quit asking questions with legal implications please? Nobody wants this board on a discovery litigation table. People are trying to share information as they get it. Things take time to do in government. What do you mean? What does us asking hypothetical questions on this board have to do with discovery or litigation? |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 16, 2018 22:46:22 GMT -5
Didn't say or even hint at that info, sorry. I imagine I'll hear more about this from my sources before it's widely available and will update as I hear. Thanks for the intel. What did you mean by internal posting? No knowledge but I would be borderline incredulous if this were an actual “internal only” posting. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Jul 17, 2018 8:57:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the intel. What did you mean by internal posting? Hey, Bayou. Not sure if you're referencing my earlier post about a possible internal posting or an other's, but what we mean is SSA could choose to post internally. On the USAJobs posting or wherever that posting lives, the agency could simply restrict consideration to current SSA employees. They do this with pretty much every management and high grade, specialized job already. I can think of: lead SCT, HOCA, (almost always) paralegal specialist, senior attorney, GS, HOD, and that's just in the OHO field. I think it's most all non-entry level jobs throughout the agency that are only available to current SSA employees. My thinking is, if SSA really wants to grab all its in-house desirables that it has been unable to reach on OPM's registers in the past, it could do an internal only posting or two to ensure its net catches all of them right out of the gates. Honestly, I'd love to see that. I can get the numbers and update later, but I know already insiders make up far less than half of the SSA ALJ corps. If you remove folks from OGC and the AC, who we OHO folks would argue aren't quite as "inside," the percentage is surely abysmal. I don't want our ALJ corps to be 100% or even close to it former OHO people, but I sure as heck would like to see us make up more than a single-digit percentage! Y'all have no idea what it would do to the GS-12 and even GS-13 attorney positions in OHO. A lot of you folks are 14s and 15s, as most agencies have good career ladders for all their attorneys. The vast majority of ours are stuck at a 12. To remove what was essentially a Powerball ticket for OHO-only or mostly OHO experienced attorneys and create a meaningful pathway to ALJ would make that currently completely deadend, and very recently tough tough tough, job something folks would stay in with contentment. We lose a lot of new talent once they realize they aren't leaving that 12 chair and their only hope is ALJ, and we lose old talent trying to get OPM test highly valued experience since that's their one weak link for ALJ. But that's just me, and I realize it's a view that can be countered well. I think this is a valid point of view. I’m an outsider to SSA, but I can certainly see the value of more ALJs with SSA AA experience. It’s not just because of substantive law knowledge, either. Those folks bring an institutional cultural knowledge that could, hopefully, be very helpful to their fellow ALJs with different backgrounds. Having said that, I think, since the ALJ Corps at SSA is so large, that it’d be helpful to have a variety of experiences. You don’t want it skewed too far towards insiders, either. But a healthy representation of both insiders and others? Absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 17, 2018 8:59:14 GMT -5
Thanks for the intel. What did you mean by internal posting? Hey, Bayou. Not sure if you're referencing my earlier post about a possible internal posting or an other's, but what we mean is SSA could choose to post internally. On the USAJobs posting or wherever that posting lives, the agency could simply restrict consideration to current SSA employees. They do this with pretty much every management and high grade, specialized job already. I can think of: lead SCT, HOCA, (almost always) paralegal specialist, senior attorney, GS, HOD, and that's just in the OHO field. I think it's most all non-entry level jobs throughout the agency that are only available to current SSA employees. My thinking is, if SSA really wants to grab all its in-house desirables that it has been unable to reach on OPM's registers in the past, it could do an internal only posting or two to ensure its net catches all of them right out of the gates. Honestly, I'd love to see that. I can get the numbers and update later, but I know already insiders make up far less than half of the SSA ALJ corps. If you remove folks from OGC and the AC, who we OHO folks would argue aren't quite as "inside," the percentage is surely abysmal. I don't want our ALJ corps to be 100% or even close to it former OHO people, but I sure as heck would like to see us make up more than a single-digit percentage! Y'all have no idea what it would do to the GS-12 and even GS-13 attorney positions in OHO. A lot of you folks are 14s and 15s, as most agencies have good career ladders for all their attorneys. The vast majority of ours are stuck at a 12. To remove what was essentially a Powerball ticket for OHO-only or mostly OHO experienced attorneys and create a meaningful pathway to ALJ would make that currently completely deadend, and very recently tough tough tough, job something folks would stay in with contentment. We lose a lot of new talent once they realize they aren't leaving that 12 chair and their only hope is ALJ, and we lose old talent trying to get OPM test highly valued experience since that's their one weak link for ALJ. But that's just me, and I realize it's a view that can be countered well. As a “true” insider myself I agree that this would be boost to the rock bottom morale at OHO. Just look at the number of folks on here who have turned down AA positions because its such a dead end job. However, it’s a pretty terrible look PR-wise. I mean the APA was literally created to counter the perception that all agency decision makers were “company men” so to speak. That criticism has a lot more bite at the regulatory agencies where the agency appears to have a dog in th fight as to the outcome - by and large SSA/OHO doesn’t care how an individual case comes out, but still it’s a bit cringey to only hire insiders when I look at it from a big picture perspective. So I sort of hope they do not make it internal only. Of course my principles won’t stop me from applying if they do, but you get my drift. And really they could achieve the same result by having KSAs that address SSA law. Only insiders and claimants reps have this (and many of these reps are not attorneys, so they presumptively would not qualify.). |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 17, 2018 22:04:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the intel. What did you mean by internal posting? Hey, Bayou. Not sure if you're referencing my earlier post about a possible internal posting or an other's, but what we mean is SSA could choose to post internally. On the USAJobs posting or wherever that posting lives, the agency could simply restrict consideration to current SSA employees. .... Thanks. I'm a current fed and former labor atty so I understand what an internal posting means. The context of your posts indicated that you meant something dfferent. Your original post said that the offices were told to get their internal posting ready. VMI99 asked if that meant it would be open only to SSA employees. You said you had no info on that. I asked what you meant by internal posting. You responded that meant it would only be open to SSA employees. Hopefully you understand my confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 17, 2018 23:08:39 GMT -5
Hey, Bayou. Not sure if you're referencing my earlier post about a possible internal posting or an other's, but what we mean is SSA could choose to post internally. On the USAJobs posting or wherever that posting lives, the agency could simply restrict consideration to current SSA employees. .... Thanks. I'm a current fed and former labor atty so I understand what an internal posting means. The context of your posts indicated that you meant something dfferent. Your original post said that the offices were told to get their internal posting ready. VMI99 asked if that meant it would be open only to SSA employees. You said you had no info on that. I asked what you meant by internal posting. You responded that meant it would only be open to SSA employees. Hopefully you understand my confusion. Thankfully, bayou sorted it. A good logical mind. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 18, 2018 7:44:52 GMT -5
Thanks. I'm a current fed and former labor atty so I understand what an internal posting means. The context of your posts indicated that you meant something dfferent. Your original post said that the offices were told to get their internal posting ready. VMI99 asked if that meant it would be open only to SSA employees. You said you had no info on that. I asked what you meant by internal posting. You responded that meant it would only be open to SSA employees. Hopefully you understand my confusion. This is my bad, and I missed why Bayou was confused at first. In my RCALJ/Nagle post I should have written "...get the SSA-led ALJ hire opened in the Fall." There's been no intimation that the hire will be internal only. I only meant the colloquial "internal posting" as in, SSA's own posting, but obviously since "internal posting" is a term of art, that was a dum dum move on my part. Thanks. I appreciate the intel and keep it coming please. Even if it means us outsiders have no chance, I would prefer to know where I stand. It seems pretty clear from discussions I've had that even it isn't open to just SSA, it will practically be primarily insider hiring. |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 18, 2018 7:54:29 GMT -5
This is my bad, and I missed why Bayou was confused at first. In my RCALJ/Nagle post I should have written "...get the SSA-led ALJ hire opened in the Fall." There's been no intimation that the hire will be internal only. I only meant the colloquial "internal posting" as in, SSA's own posting, but obviously since "internal posting" is a term of art, that was a dum dum move on my part. Thanks. I appreciate the intel and keep it coming please. Even if it means us outsiders have no chance, I would prefer to know where I stand. It seems pretty clear from discussions I've had that even it isn't open to just SSA, it will practically be primarily insider hiring. I know where I stand—out back of SSA in a small shed with a crescent moon on the door. |
|
