mongo
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by mongo on Jun 18, 2008 8:03:25 GMT -5
Isn't each applicant's GAL specific to that applicant, i.e. it only lists the cities that the applicant said they would go to when they first applied in 5/07? I put down I would go anywhere when I applied in 5/07 so my most recent GAL had all 43 locations on it. I assume that if someone only listed 10 of the 43 locations when they first applied in 5/07 then that person's most recent GAL only had 10 cities on it, thus allowing them to take off cities but not add any. Do I assume correctly?
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by jazz on Jun 18, 2008 8:48:26 GMT -5
Yes Mongo, I believe that is correct. When I applied, I said I would go anywhere. When the Fall 2007 cert came out, I eliminated a number of locations. I ended up with 27 total on the last cert. When this cert came out at the end of April, my list of locations did not include all 43. Mine had only 31. It did not include the ones I had eliminated last time around. I eliminated more this time. I am only looking at 20 locations this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by notherapp on Jun 18, 2008 11:29:49 GMT -5
I have enjoyed the various conjectures in these streams -- some which evince alot of thought and some which are surprising in what the writer things is going on in the selection process.
Having said that, I have an observation/question, which I would ask the knowledgeable "old hands" to discuss.
Say Candidate X lists just two or three sites, and is one of the three candidates for those sites notified in April. She now learns that they have just added (in June) some additional candidates for those sites, perhaps (one explanation) because of transfers/retirements from those sites. Logically (and logic may have nothing to do with it), one could conclude three things:
1. That one of the three who initially identified those sites as acceptable has informed SSA that it is no longer acceptable, and hence, SSA has to backfill an additional candidate to preserve a record that there were three candidates for a slot. This candidate would be a lower-graded candidate than the original three.
2. That because of a transfer from the site, or a retirement from the site, there are now 2 openings at the site and hence, that SSA needs to line up 6 candidates for the two slots, rather than the three candidates (for the one slot) which were notified in April.
3. That if No. 2 is correct, then the three new candidates have inferior scores to those first three (or else, duh, they would have "bumped" one of the three original candidates in the April cert). Having so said, and all else being equal (definition - no new Veteran and no new SSA "ringer" in the second batch, who will be scooped up rather than a higher-graded candidate), what this new notification did was increase the chances of the first three candidates, since now the higher graded individuals (again, all else being equal) are now competing for TWO slots.
I said it was logical -- I didn't say that was how it worked. If an old hand would reply, it would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljhunter on Jun 18, 2008 12:47:01 GMT -5
I knew that JH would make it all clear! Thanks so much for another insightful post. . .
JH said:
"
**** IF we assume that the letter listing the cities only listed newly opened slots, then yes, that would be correct."
We cannot make that assumption, since we know that at least one poster--Orville--received a letter identifying all cities listed in the April Certificate, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by junglejim on Jun 18, 2008 12:56:30 GMT -5
To guess, I'd say that the following are probably true. 1) Current ALJ class i s "short" by 10% or more. 2) Last ALJ class was also short by about 10%. 3) Transfers have been approved and some of the Cert citys are now gone due to this. 4) With the all HOD/HOCALJ meeting in Phonix, no new interviews until next week. Therefore, August class will mostlikely report to training first. (No big deal.) Some people will only get only 10 days notice to go to this class. (This is speculation - but probably accurate.) Like the 'groundhog of doom', we only have 4 more weeks of worry!
|
|
|
|
Post by notherapp on Jun 18, 2008 13:59:56 GMT -5
Re: JungleJim's thoughts -
These seem at odds w/another recent post (within the last several hours) that someone spoke with Susan M who communicated that she had tentative appointments and was awaiting authorization to release (perhaps impeded because of the meeting out-of-town). Whether that was for all or some, unless there was some miscommunication, it would appear that at least some appointees will be notified late this week or early next.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlaw on Jun 18, 2008 14:24:01 GMT -5
I spoke with Susan about 11:15 central time, and asked specifically about those of us who were on the April 25 cert., and her response was concerning that cert., not the June 16 one. She was very specific that she did have "tentative appointments" but said she "wasn't in charge" of releasing that information and could not do so until instructed by "those in charge," who were all at the conference and would not return until next week. It's my understanding that it is a HOC-ALJ conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibear on Jun 18, 2008 15:07:41 GMT -5
In reference to JaggHagg's BIG EXPLANATION under subset 3).... I thought they had to consider you three times before you are out...the rule of three for consideration, and the rule of three for elimination...?
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Jun 18, 2008 15:21:46 GMT -5
The conference is a management conference involving all hearing office chief ALJs and hearing office directors. The regions and OCALJ are heavily represented there.
As for quality concerns, I do not believe that such is a consideration. Without getting into scab-picking over appeals, etc, remember that the register is comprised of the top 600 of those whose applications were processed. OPM says we are all qualified to be ALJs. Whether or not we get selected now turns more on our city selection than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 18, 2008 16:02:57 GMT -5
JH, would you please quit perpetuating the fiction that anyone on the cert was probably in the top 3 for some city. There are many people on these large certs who are nowhere near the top 3. Your comment would be true if the cert were for one city. It is NOT TRUE when dealing with a multiple city cert. Someone (Boley?) just beat you up terribly on this point a month or two ago, yet here you are again, posting incorrect information. As for the odds that someone declined consideration on the last cert, I did so and I know someone else who did, so it's also probably not wise to start making assumptions about what is going on. You know what ? I really don't need this. You all on the Boards take care. I do believe I shall take my marbles and go home. Best of luck to you all. |
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Jun 18, 2008 16:19:58 GMT -5
JH, would you please quit perpetuating the fiction that anyone on the cert was probably in the top 3 for some city. There are many people on these large certs who are nowhere near the top 3. Your comment would be true if the cert were for one city. It is NOT TRUE when dealing with a multiple city cert. Someone (Boley?) just beat you up terribly on this point a month or two ago, yet here you are again, posting incorrect information. As for the odds that someone declined consideration on the last cert, I did so and I know someone else who did, so it's also probably not wise to start making assumptions about what is going on. I highly doubt that there is anyone on this board who is trying to mislead someone. If you don't like the thoughts freely expressed by others here, then you can ignore their posts. I don't believe there was any need for you to go after JH in your post. I hope that this was just your nerves talking and not some intentional rudeness on your part. If the same ridiculous little wars get started on this board, then it will likely cause a departure of people and signal the death of good info just as the other board has experienced. Let's all try to remain professional and courteous while we await some results. |
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Jun 18, 2008 16:20:02 GMT -5
notajudgeyet--what is your statutory or regulatory authority for postulating that OPM uses different rules for large certs versus small certs?
I, too, have frequently "perpetrated the fiction that anyone on the cert was probably in the top 3 for some city". So, show me where it says I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by testtaker on Jun 18, 2008 16:28:24 GMT -5
"Can't we all just get along?"  |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 18, 2008 16:28:56 GMT -5
JH, would you please quit perpetuating the fiction that anyone on the cert was probably in the top 3 for some city. There are many people on these large certs who are nowhere near the top 3. Your comment would be true if the cert were for one city. It is NOT TRUE when dealing with a multiple city cert. Someone (Boley?) just beat you up terribly on this point a month or two ago, yet here you are again, posting incorrect information. As for the odds that someone declined consideration on the last cert, I did so and I know someone else who did, so it's also probably not wise to start making assumptions about what is going on. I highly doubt that there is anyone on this board who is trying to mislead someone. If you don't like the thoughts freely expressed by others here, then you can ignore their posts. I don't believe there was any need for you to go after JH in your post. I hope that this was just your nerves talking and not some intentional rudeness on your part. If the same ridiculous little wars get started on this board, then it will likely cause a departure of people and signal the death of good info just as the other board has experienced. Let's all try to remain professional and courteous while we await some results. Amen. |
|
bb
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by bb on Jun 18, 2008 16:36:44 GMT -5
I think everyone is just stressed out!  |
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Jun 18, 2008 17:04:43 GMT -5
Ok, collectively, deeeeeep breath. Exhale. Again. Good. Now pass me the wine. When the weather is this hot. It is time for a frozen adult beverage or to visit someplace with misting fans or both. I hate it when the ice cubes dilute my wine. |
|
|
|
Post by statealj on Jun 18, 2008 20:46:09 GMT -5
Hello: I spoke with our OPM contact today and confirmed that selections have already been made from the April list but OPM is not permitted to send out notifications until the office of the chief ALJ gives OPM permission to do so. The June list is an expansion of the April list. The candidates selected from the April list will begin work in their individual offices in July as previously scheduled and our OPM contact said she believed the candidates from the April list will be notified of their selection without having to wait for additional selections being made from the June list. I hope this is helpful. I have mostly been silent on this Board but I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who share their thoughts, feelings, insider info and good wishes, risking the scorn of "strangers." You know, I would call that "service."
|
|
|
|
Post by happy on Jun 18, 2008 20:58:23 GMT -5
Statealj,
Could you please clarify? You spoke to OPM? Or did you speak to Susan Martinelli or Pat Rocheford in ODAR Personnel? In the past, offers came from the Agency, not from OPM, so I'm just curious.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by statealj on Jun 18, 2008 21:21:09 GMT -5
Correction with apologies for the confusion: I spoke to our contact at ODAR, not OPM. Thank you, Happy.
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by jazz on Jun 19, 2008 9:05:19 GMT -5
I would assume that if you were on the April cert and are not one of the "tentative" selections, you will still be in the running for a slot in the expanded June cert. This assumes, of course, that the expanded cities include one of your geo selections, and that you were not already considered 2/3 times for a slot.
|
|
