|
|
Post by hherman on Aug 11, 2018 11:33:45 GMT -5
There were a number of MSPB AJ positions advertised throughout the country. I applied months ago and USA jobs indicated I was referred, but I never heard anything back, and my USA jobs status hasn't changed. Anyone else apply? If so, what was your experience? I'm wondering if at times USA jobs doesn't receive information to update the status of the position.
|
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Aug 11, 2018 12:00:49 GMT -5
There were a number of MSPB AJ positions advertised throughout the country. I applied months ago and USA jobs indicated I was referred, but I never heard anything back, and my USA jobs status hasn't changed. Anyone else apply? If so, what was your experience? I'm wondering if at times USA jobs doesn't receive information to update the status of the position. Same for me. I am not going to worry about it. I certainly don't monitor that which must not be named. If I get an interview, I will be happily surprised. Best way for me to cope is apply, but keep moving forward with life. After the EO, I have decided it is their loss if I am not in federal service. Smile! |
|
|
|
Post by fedguy on Aug 11, 2018 14:41:20 GMT -5
I know Oakland did interviews about a month ago.
|
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Aug 20, 2018 20:45:13 GMT -5
Only if one didn’t know much about how the MSPB hires its AJs. MSPB AJs haven’t been deemed inferior officers (yet). They are not appointed by the politically appointed Board, but are hired by the Regional Directors (non-political types). Isn't the assumption when SSA starts hiring again it will be the non-political types making the choices? My crystal ball is on the fritz right now, but it seems like a safe prediction. My point is that a group of AJs can be hired and function fairly and apolitically in the absence of a competitive exam process. The way it was done in 2004 through June 2007 does not suggest that a lack of a competitive exam bodes well: "At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show." From an article of the Washington Post dated June 11, 2007. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 21, 2018 7:16:32 GMT -5
Add the possibility of political considerations and you might be describing the future of the ALJ hiring process. Alternatively, you could see that MSPB has been able to hire qualified people without an exam and still managed to avoid making it a political sinecure the way the pessimists on the board predict. Let's be clear, that is not my prediction. In fact, I'm not making a prediction. I'm simply telling it the way it will be. The number one factor will be be prior productivity. Past actions are a good predictor of future performance. Other factors will be at play as well, but past productivity will be the major consideration. Sure, there may be a stray political appointee or two in some classes, but that will be minor. Prior classes have been dominated by outsiders, and many feel that is the way the Agency wanted it. Not so. The Agency chose the outsiders only because it couldn't reach the favored insiders. That has all changed. It is a brand new world out there. So stop speculating on what the new hiring process will be; I'm giving you the definitive answer.* Pixie ____________ *This post isn't directed at ALJ10028; I am simply using his post to deliver my message. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 21, 2018 8:48:26 GMT -5
The only agency I know is SSA, but I imagine they all will follow the same model. The agencies can finally appoint those with experience in their respective fields, and who are known to them without having to go through SSA. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Aug 21, 2018 10:02:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Aug 21, 2018 10:33:05 GMT -5
Alternatively, you could see that MSPB has been able to hire qualified people without an exam and still managed to avoid making it a political sinecure the way the pessimists on the board predict. Let's be clear, that is not my prediction. In fact, I'm not making a prediction. I'm simply telling it the way it will be. The number one factor will be be prior productivity. Past actions are a good predictor of future performance. Other factors will be at play as well, but past productivity will be the major consideration. Sure, there may be a stray political appointee or two in some classes, but that will be minor. Prior classes have been dominated by outsiders, and many feel that is the way the Agency wanted it. Not so. The Agency chose the outsiders only because it couldn't reach the favored insiders. That has all changed. It is a brand new world out there. So stop speculating on what the new hiring process will be; I'm giving you the definitive answer.* Pixie ____________ *This post isn't directed at ALJ10028; I am simply using his post to deliver my message. Thanks, Pixie, for a refreshing dose of reality. Not that I am happy with it, but life is short and I am tired of lingering in Magical Thinking Land when there is a universe of potential Wonderlands about me, if only I dedicate my efforts. You know, "Be all you can be"? Well, it's never too late to start again. [But I still would love to know if I passed that #$^&% WD, tee-hee!] Smiles to all and prayers for airdrop, his family, and everyone else on this board as we never know how those around may be suffering in silence and alone. You are not alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 21, 2018 12:24:00 GMT -5
Maybe my thinking is concrete today, or I didn't read closely enough, but I just don't see a plan to make the appointment of ALJs more political, especially not SSA ALJs. Don't read more into the brief than it deserves. The Agency wants proven workhorses to shoulder the load. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by desert2beach on Aug 21, 2018 14:15:59 GMT -5
The only agency I know is SSA, but I imagine they all will follow the same model. The agencies can finally appoint those with experience in their respective fields, and who are known to them without having to go through SSA. Pixie I think you meant "without going through OPM." |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 21, 2018 15:45:38 GMT -5
The only agency I know is SSA, but I imagine they all will follow the same model. The agencies can finally appoint those with experience in their respective fields, and who are known to them without having to go through SSA. Pixie I think you meant "without going through OPM." No, I meant SSA as I was thinking mainly of OMHA. It gets many of its ALJs through SSA. Other agencies probably do as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 17:07:56 GMT -5
Yeah, if you mean being more subject to political pressure by the executive and his department heads such that they will have to be policy enforcers or risk losing their livelihood..... |
|
|
|
Post by rockey on Aug 21, 2018 17:46:47 GMT -5
Yeah, if you mean being more subject to political pressure by the executive and his department heads such that they will have to be policy enforcers or risk losing their livelihood..... I think SSA ALJ appointments will be less “political” than other agencies’ because SSA decision do NOT adversely affect wealthy powerful interests. And no, I don’t count immigration judges because they aren’t ALJs, they already must do as the Attorney General commands, and unlike SSA determinations, immigration decisions are a hot button issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Aug 22, 2018 9:07:44 GMT -5
Maybe my thinking is concrete today, or I didn't read closely enough, but I just don't see a plan to make the appointment of ALJs more political, especially not SSA ALJs. Don't read more into the brief than it deserves. The Agency wants proven workhorses to shoulder the load. Pixie My reaction, too. As I often find myself saying to the lawyers who appear in front of me: "can you show me exactly where in the document it says that?" This text is copied and pasted from page 15 at the bottom. It is not in proper form as a citation in a paper.
"The Framers therefore chose to “limit[] the appointment power,” so as to “ensure that those who wielded it were accountable to political force and the will of the people.” Id. at 884. Far from being a mere matter of “etiquette or protocol,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 125, limitations on the method of appointing public officials are “among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 659 (1997); see Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 498 (2010) (“Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)."
This brief is not an agency position. It is an administration position. Those are not the same. I agree with you, Pixie, that the Agency wants what you say. The Agency did not write the brief. The Solicitor General did, as the position of this Administration.
From the administration's viewpoint, this brief takes the position that the appointment power is not a matter of protocol, but that it is instead wielded in a way that is subject to political force and the will of the people.
We're reading this brief now with the knowledge of the EO and the Solicitor General's memo thereafter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 22, 2018 21:21:56 GMT -5
Agreed.
We will just have to see how it all plays out. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Aug 22, 2018 22:21:18 GMT -5
My reaction, too. As I often find myself saying to the lawyers who appear in front of me: "can you show me exactly where in the document it says that?" This text is copied and pasted from page 15 at the bottom. It is not in proper form as a citation in a paper.
"The Framers therefore chose to “limit[] the appointment power,” so as to “ensure that those who wielded it were accountable to political force and the will of the people.” Id. at 884. Far from being a mere matter of “etiquette or protocol,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 125, limitations on the method of appointing public officials are “among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 659 (1997); see Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 498 (2010) (“Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)."
This brief is not an agency position. It is an administration position. Those are not the same. I agree with you, Pixie, that the Agency wants what you say. The Agency did not write the brief. The Solicitor General did, as the position of this Administration.
From the administration's viewpoint, this brief takes the position that the appointment power is not a matter of protocol, but that it is instead wielded in a way that is subject to political force and the will of the people.
We're reading this brief now with the knowledge of the EO and the Solicitor General's memo thereafter.
Wasn’t the APA’s adjudication portion also to safeguard “political forces and will of the people?” This is argument never made sense to me. Imho, it doesn’t matter where chain of command falls, it is who can be held “accountable” by the “will of the people.” SC and Art. III judges are appointed for life, same as ALJs. So who does the chain of command fall on for them? At least the POTUS and Congress can be held accountable for nominating/confirming them. (I have voted on POTUS based only on SCOTUS). The West Virginia SC serves as an example. The “will of the people” through the State Congress is holding them accountable. Who does it fall on with ALJs as inferior officers? The head of agency? How can “the will of people” blame or punish them, especially with SSA? According to the argument above, who is held accountable for a “bad ALJ?” The ALJ? Agency heads? The “will of the people” can do very little. Congress/POTUS could hold the Agency Head accountable, but would the will of the people really care that much about 1 “bad ALJ?” (I’m ignoring today’s social media/fake news power since the argument is based on “the founders.”). With SSA, the COSS is appointed for 6 years so not to be influenced by “political forces.” Congress/POTUS? The “will of the people” can at least vote them out. (I am also ignoring lobbyist/$$$$$$, because of founders statement). Therefore, even holding Congress/POTUS accountable by voting them out, the COSS and ALJ could still remain. To me, this argument is flawed because there are too many layers to peel in the chain of command to “determine whom to blame/punish/... and my understanding of the APA is that the role of the ALJs serves as “structural safeguards in the constitutional scheme” by acting as the quasi-judicial branch to protect peoples’ rights from “political forces.” On a side note, ALJs were once called “officers” in the statutes, but in 70s/80s (around time CSC converted to OPM) the statutes changed them to “employees.” I haven’t had the time to read exactly why, but it would be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Aug 23, 2018 8:54:37 GMT -5
This text is copied and pasted from page 15 at the bottom. It is not in proper form as a citation in a paper.
"The Framers therefore chose to “limit[] the appointment power,” so as to “ensure that those who wielded it were accountable to political force and the will of the people.” Id. at 884. Far from being a mere matter of “etiquette or protocol,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 125, limitations on the method of appointing public officials are “among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 659 (1997); see Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 498 (2010) (“Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)."
This brief is not an agency position. It is an administration position. Those are not the same. I agree with you, Pixie , that the Agency wants what you say. The Agency did not write the brief. The Solicitor General did, as the position of this Administration.
From the administration's viewpoint, this brief takes the position that the appointment power is not a matter of protocol, but that it is instead wielded in a way that is subject to political force and the will of the people.
We're reading this brief now with the knowledge of the EO and the Solicitor General's memo thereafter.
Still not seeing how this proves your point that the EO will make the ALJ corps more political. I do see that the EO could make it easier to get rid of poorly performing ALJs, but I think you are making a mistake common on this board, which is to equate "easier to fire" with "appointment of political hacks". They are not necessarily the same thing. Not the point I was making. I feel so misunderstood. [sigh] |
|
|
|
Post by hherman on Sept 1, 2018 7:48:26 GMT -5
I know Oakland did interviews about a month ago. fedguy and acttwo: Have either of you heard anything further about the MSPB positions? My USA job status is still "referred" so I'm thinking that acttwo is correct - that it may remain "referred" forever. |
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Sept 1, 2018 8:58:39 GMT -5
No, not a peep. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
Post by fedguy on Sept 1, 2018 17:43:52 GMT -5
Not sure, sorry. I didn’t interview or apply, but someone I know did get rejected after an interview a month-ish ago.
|
|
