|
|
Post by sfactor23 on May 2, 2019 6:24:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on May 2, 2019 7:13:10 GMT -5
I am going to move this to the existing thread. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on May 2, 2019 7:33:48 GMT -5
So what is the logic for having attorney positions excepted, yet ALJ positions competitive service? It seems often a major factor for classifying positions as excepted service is because testing is impracticable. Seeing as one must first and foremost be an attorney to qualify for an ALJ position, why the switch back to competitive service (for current federal employees at least)? Are ALJ roles so homogeneous that they are a better candidate for standardized testing than attorney positions?
I understand why some individuals might prefer to be competitive service, but I am trying to understand the actual logic behind classifying attorneys in ALJ positions as competitive.
|
|
|
|
Lucia II
May 2, 2019 7:45:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jimmyjiggles on May 2, 2019 7:45:22 GMT -5
So another year and many hours of leave down the drain for me if this passes (not sure why it wouldn't other than general congressional inertia, but who knows). Even if it managed to get through Congress, do you think the president is going to sign this bill that is in direct conflict with his EO? All depends on the packaging I suppose. A clean bill with only this? probably not. If it were part of another bill with something politically desirable for him, then I doubt this would be the hill to die on. Besides he can sign it, then have the SG or whoever sue to have it declared unconstitutional under Lucia. But I've gotten out of the political prognostication game, I have no instincts for it anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on May 2, 2019 8:00:25 GMT -5
So what is the logic for having attorney positions excepted, yet ALJ positions competitive service? It seems often a major factor for classifying positions as excepted service is because testing is impracticable. Seeing as one must first and foremost be an attorney to qualify for an ALJ position, why the switch back to competitive service (for current federal employees at least)? Are ALJ roles so homogeneous that they are a better candidate for standardized testing than attorney positions? I understand why some individuals might prefer to be competitive service, but I am trying to understand the actual logic behind classifying attorneys in ALJ positions as competitive. My understanding is that professional positions like attorneys, engineers, etc. are exempt from competitive testing because they have to have a license that proves the base level of competence. In other words, they have been competitively tested for their position by an outside agency. That testing to be an attorney overlaps but does not completely cover the competence you would need to be an ALJ. |
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on May 2, 2019 8:25:16 GMT -5
So what is the logic for having attorney positions excepted, yet ALJ positions competitive service? It seems often a major factor for classifying positions as excepted service is because testing is impracticable. Seeing as one must first and foremost be an attorney to qualify for an ALJ position, why the switch back to competitive service (for current federal employees at least)? Are ALJ roles so homogeneous that they are a better candidate for standardized testing than attorney positions? I understand why some individuals might prefer to be competitive service, but I am trying to understand the actual logic behind classifying attorneys in ALJ positions as competitive. My understanding is that professional positions like attorneys, engineers, etc. are exempt from competitive testing because they have to have a license that proves the base level of competence. In other words, they have been competitively tested for their position by an outside agency. That testing to be an attorney overlaps but does not completely cover the competence you would need to be an ALJ.
I can see that logic, but I would think of that as suggesting testing was "unnecessary" as opposed to "impracticable" because "the nature of the position itself precludes it from being in the competitive service (e.g., because it is impracticable to examine for the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job)" - www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/213.102 . Maybe I have an incorrect understanding of the purpose behind Schedule A classifications. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on May 2, 2019 9:07:11 GMT -5
The logic is judicial independence as ALJs need that extra layer of protection so they can be protected from outside influence that could adversely affect the integrity of the adjudicative decision making process.
While OPM wasn't perfect, competitive testing did protect the application process from partisan or even agency insider influence in the hiring of ALJs. |
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on May 2, 2019 9:47:35 GMT -5
The logic is judicial independence as ALJs need that extra layer of protection so they can be protected from outside influence that could adversely affect the integrity of the adjudicative decision making process.
While OPM wasn't perfect, competitive testing did protect the application process from partisan or even agency insider influence in the hiring of ALJs.
I have no doubt that the extra layer of protection is a perceived benefit of classifying ALJs as competitive service. However, I would hope the noted goal (integrity in hiring) would extend to all federal employment decisions including the selection and hiring of attorneys. Yet, it would appear we find attorneys in the excepted service because "it is impracticable to examine for the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job". So to then take ALJs (who are experienced attorneys in a arguably higher level position) and find the position to be of a nature that is it practicable to examine for the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job is an interesting contrast. You may be right that they were made/allowed to remain competitive service to guard against improper selection/removal. However, that reason seems in conflict with the holding that attorneys should be competitive service. Just my $.02
|
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on May 2, 2019 10:15:47 GMT -5
This is quite the list of sponsors for the bill in the house, showing a broad range of political viewpoints in support of the bill: Reps. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.; Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Richard Neal, D-Mass.; Rodney Davis, R-Ill.; Gerry Connolly, D-Va.; Danny Davis, D-Ill.; Bobby Scott, D-Va.; John Larson, D-Conn.; and Tom Cole, R-Okla
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on May 2, 2019 11:55:04 GMT -5
I wonder if this will change SSA's calculus. If their "freedom from the tyranny of the rule of 3" my be short lived they may want to get who they think they can get while they can get them.
There is also of course the issue that the we all already received formal notice that the registry was disbanded. If the bill passes and is signed, I speculate, but will they just have to have OPM reopen the whole process again?
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on May 2, 2019 12:16:03 GMT -5
I wonder if this will change SSA's calculus. If their "freedom from the tyranny of the rule of 3" my be short lived they may want to get who they think they can get while they can get them. There is also of course the issue that the we all already received formal notice that the registry was disbanded. If the bill passes and is signed, I speculate, but will they just have to have OPM reopen the whole process again? If I had to speculate, if this were to become law, you can almost be assured that the testing process would start anew. Not least because given the proposed statutory language, there’s potentially different eligibility requirements than under the old system. No movement of the goalposts just yet, though. |
|
|
|
Post by uboat on May 2, 2019 12:41:13 GMT -5
I wonder if this will change SSA's calculus. If their "freedom from the tyranny of the rule of 3" my be short lived they may want to get who they think they can get while they can get them. There is also of course the issue that the we all already received formal notice that the registry was disbanded. If the bill passes and is signed, I speculate, but will they just have to have OPM reopen the whole process again? I think it will. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 2, 2019 12:48:04 GMT -5
I wonder if this will change SSA's calculus. If their "freedom from the tyranny of the rule of 3" my be short lived they may want to get who they think they can get while they can get them. There is also of course the issue that the we all already received formal notice that the registry was disbanded. If the bill passes and is signed, I speculate, but will they just have to have OPM reopen the whole process again? I am confident that the register is still archived somewhere, and could be resurrected. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on May 2, 2019 12:57:58 GMT -5
I wonder if this will change SSA's calculus. If their "freedom from the tyranny of the rule of 3" my be short lived they may want to get who they think they can get while they can get them. There is also of course the issue that the we all already received formal notice that the registry was disbanded. If the bill passes and is signed, I speculate, but will they just have to have OPM reopen the whole process again? I am confident that the register is still archived somewhere, and could be resurrected. The Register is alive and well on the second floor at OPM. It is contained in five filing cabinets in a locked room guarded both day and night. OPM will be ready if called back in service. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on May 2, 2019 13:17:12 GMT -5
I am confident that the register is still archived somewhere, and could be resurrected. The Register is alive and well on the second floor at OPM. It is contained in five filing cabinets in a locked room guarded both day and night. OPM will be ready if called back in service. Pixie Right next to the Ark of the Covenant. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on May 2, 2019 15:01:01 GMT -5
The Register is alive and well on the second floor at OPM. It is contained in five filing cabinets in a locked room guarded both day and night. OPM will be ready if called back in service. Pixie Right next to the Ark of the Covenant. No no - we all saw the Ark of the Covenant going into protective custody at a top secret government wharehouse in one of those Indiana Jones movies! |
|
|
|
Post by christina on May 2, 2019 15:02:37 GMT -5
The logic is judicial independence as ALJs need that extra layer of protection so they can be protected from outside influence that could adversely affect the integrity of the adjudicative decision making process.
While OPM wasn't perfect, competitive testing did protect the application process from partisan or even agency insider influence in the hiring of ALJs. And more importantly, firing |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on May 2, 2019 15:56:01 GMT -5
The logic is judicial independence as ALJs need that extra layer of protection so they can be protected from outside influence that could adversely affect the integrity of the adjudicative decision making process.
While OPM wasn't perfect, competitive testing did protect the application process from partisan or even agency insider influence in the hiring of ALJs. And more importantly, firing THIS^^^
If you read the solicitor general's opinion in Lucia, the administration devotes a substantial portion of its brief to removal of ALJs and how it should be easier for the executive to remove them
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on May 2, 2019 16:02:14 GMT -5
And more importantly, firing THIS^^^
If you read the solicitor general's opinion in Lucia, the administration devotes a substantial portion of its brief to removal of ALJs and how it should be easier for the executive to remove them
The fact that they would line up against the ALJ suggests where their center of gravity was---with those who claim there's an "administrative state" and believe in a very unitary executive.
I'd pen a song "I am the very model of a unitary President" ....but work calls.
|
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on May 2, 2019 22:38:14 GMT -5
protective custody at a top secret government wharehouse Which is the incorrect letter? (!) |
|
