Do we get just our score?

[kingfisher]

In my experience, just your score. The rule of thumb I was told in those days was that any score over 90 had a good chance of getting placed. With Veteran's preferance points, scores could exceed 100. Currently, we are not even certain if they will use the same numerical system for scores, so hope you will let us know when you hear something. Best of luck to you.

[odarite]

Scores are very flexible, it depends on the number of people and the top scores for a particular place. Everything is relative, so no matter what your score is, don't get too excited about it. Under the old system, a 90.3 might have been good enough to get you on the list for Paducah but not enough to get you on the list for Kansas City, for example.

[aljsouth]

I was given my score and they listed the numbers of candidates in a range of scores. Example: 21 with scores above 96.4, 65 with scores above 92.3. It wasn't very helpful and was even discouraging because it doesn't reflect where candidates are willing to go. Naturally I have no idea what OPM plans this time.

[counsel]

I assume that the OPM score is just relevant to getting in the door (ie an interview) with SSA. For the people who make the interview cut, will the OPM score have any relevance? I suspect SSA will score or rank candidates according to their own criteria, regardless of OPM score.

[nylawyer]

counsel, I have been wondering about that. Given the timeline that is being suggested, with the interviews taking place at the end of January and the training starting at the beginning of March, I would think that SSA would have to have some way of ranking the candidates even before the interview- I don't see how there would be enough time to do it otherwise. So, I wonder if the OPM score may not be a factor. Purely speculation on my part.

[aljsouth]

If 3 candidates are on a list for a particular site, can SSA choose which one they want; or do they have to take the highest score? If the latter then I am aware they can get to the one they want by picking the top person for another site, but I really do not know the answer to this. Does anyone?

On verteran's preference, it is reflected in the additional points and is in your final score. No additional preference is required. Of course, it does usually bump veterans onto a lot of site lists.

[odarite]

South is sort of right. However, in a list of three SSA does not have to take the highest score, otherwise why even list three. However, if the highest score is a preference eligible vet, they have a heck of a time not selecting that person, and probably won't go through the contortions required.

[chris]

counsel said:

I assume that the OPM score is just relevant to getting in the door (ie an interview) with SSA. For the people who make the interview cut, will the OPM score have any relevance? I suspect SSA will score or rank candidates according to their own criteria, regardless of OPM score.

Given some of the public statements that SSA has made about the OPM process, and given the highly subjective nature of the grading, and given the fact that past SSA experience is not directly factored into the OPM score, I suspect that SSA will ignore the OPM grades. SSA will first be looking for people with SSA experience, then people who have been judges or have some type of medcial education, all the while trying to ferret out the people who are emotionally unsuited to being judges. I have no doubt that SSA has very refined criteria of their own.

[Pixie]

Chris: And I suspect you are exactly right on all five points. Pix.

[doctorwho]

chris said:

counsel said:

I assume that the OPM score is just relevant to getting in the door (ie an interview) with SSA. For the people who make the interview cut, will the OPM score have any relevance? I suspect SSA will score or rank candidates according to their own criteria, regardless of OPM score.

Given some of the public statements that SSA has made about the OPM process, and given the highly subjective nature of the grading, and given the fact that past SSA experience is not directly factored into the OPM score, I suspect that SSA will ignore the OPM grades. SSA will first be looking for people with SSA experience, then people who have been judges or have some type of medcial education, all the while trying to ferret out the people who are emotionally unsuited to being judges. I have no doubt that SSA has very refined criteria of their own.

Good luck on trying to ignore the registry grades. These are competitive positions, not excepted positions. That's the stuff EEO complaints are made of -- otherwise, why have a registry at all? Believe me, to ignore the registry grades, SSA will be very hard-pressed to find a disqualifying reason for every "higher graded" applicant it does not choose. That, my friends, is the reality of hiring under a cert. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. SSA cannot ignore the registry list and set up a its own independent criteria for choosing a stable of judges. Yes, it does have discretion in hiring; but, it cannot obviate the existence of the merit selection process.

Besides, do you really think that SSA had absolutely no hand in telling OPM that they wanted people with litigation experience in these jobs and that's why OPM required as much in the application process? No, I do not have any documentary written evidence on that, and I'm not claiming to have it -- so please don't ask for it. I do know three judges, however, who have told me as much.

Time will tell, and evidendently, we will know soon. My sincerest best wishes to all.

[aljsouth]

doctorwho said:

chris said:

Given some of the public statements that SSA has made about the OPM process, and given the highly subjective nature of the grading, and given the fact that past SSA experience is not directly factored into the OPM score, I suspect that SSA will ignore the OPM grades. SSA will first be looking for people with SSA experience, then people who have been judges or have some type of medcial education, all the while trying to ferret out the people who are emotionally unsuited to being judges. I have no doubt that SSA has very refined criteria of their own.

Good luck on trying to ignore the registry grades. These are competitive positions, not excepted positions. That's the stuff EEO complaints are made of -- otherwise, why have a registry at all? Believe me, to ignore the registry grades, SSA will be very hard-pressed to find a disqualifying reason for every "higher graded" applicant it does not choose. That, my friends, is the reality of hiring under a cert. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. SSA cannot ignore the registry list and set up a its own independent criteria for choosing a stable of judges. Yes, it does have discretion in hiring; but, it cannot obviate the existence of the merit selection process.

Besides, do you really think that SSA had absolutely no hand in telling OPM that they wanted people with litigation experience in these jobs and that's why OPM required as much in the application process? No, I do not have any documentary written evidence on that, and I'm not claiming to have it -- so please don't ask for it. I do know three judges, however, who have told me as much.

Time will tell, and evidendently, we will know soon. My sincerest best wishes to all.

I agree on the registry part. Yet with many sites SSA has some flexibility.

As to litigation, I thought the new OPM rules downgraded the importance of litigation, courtroom or administrative, and allowed substitution of purely adminstrative experience.

[doctorwho]

aljsouth said:

doctorwho said:

Good luck on trying to ignore the registry grades. These are competitive positions, not excepted positions. That's the stuff EEO complaints are made of -- otherwise, why have a registry at all? Believe me, to ignore the registry grades, SSA will be very hard-pressed to find a disqualifying reason for every "higher graded" applicant it does not choose. That, my friends, is the reality of hiring under a cert. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. SSA cannot ignore the registry list and set up a its own independent criteria for choosing a stable of judges. Yes, it does have discretion in hiring; but, it cannot obviate the existence of the merit selection process.

Besides, do you really think that SSA had absolutely no hand in telling OPM that they wanted people with litigation experience in these jobs and that's why OPM required as much in the application process? No, I do not have any documentary written evidence on that, and I'm not claiming to have it -- so please don't ask for it. I do know three judges, however, who have told me as much.

Time will tell, and evidendently, we will know soon. My sincerest best wishes to all.

I agree on the registry part. Yet with many sites SSA has some flexibility.

As to litigation, I thought the new OPM rules downgraded the importance of litigation, courtroom or administrative, and allowed substitution of purely adminstrative experience.

With the sites, yes, barring a candidate that selected "all." -- SSA will be very hard-pressed to eliminate a candidate who selected all with a high-score, or, for that matter a "high-score" in a particulare site -- it just brings up too many personnel headaches.

The competitive service is set-up to function off of the register.
Deviations from the register are not the norm and are suspect. If I sound like I've spent a lot of time doing this, I have -- from all sides of the table.

As for litigation, I'm just reporting what those judges told me, and reflecting on my experience with the entire application process. Again, best of luck to all!

[chris]

doctorwho said:

chris said:

Given some of the public statements that SSA has made about the OPM process, and given the highly subjective nature of the grading, and given the fact that past SSA experience is not directly factored into the OPM score, I suspect that SSA will ignore the OPM grades. SSA will first be looking for people with SSA experience, then people who have been judges or have some type of medcial education, all the while trying to ferret out the people who are emotionally unsuited to being judges. I have no doubt that SSA has very refined criteria of their own.

Good luck on trying to ignore the registry grades. These are competitive positions, not excepted positions. That's the stuff EEO complaints are made of -- otherwise, why have a registry at all? Believe me, to ignore the registry grades, SSA will be very hard-pressed to find a disqualifying reason for every "higher graded" applicant it does not choose. That, my friends, is the reality of hiring under a cert. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. SSA cannot ignore the registry list and set up a its own independent criteria for choosing a stable of judges. Yes, it does have discretion in hiring; but, it cannot obviate the existence of the merit selection process.

Besides, do you really think that SSA had absolutely no hand in telling OPM that they wanted people with litigation experience in these jobs and that's why OPM required as much in the application process? No, I do not have any documentary written evidence on that, and I'm not claiming to have it -- so please don't ask for it. I do know three judges, however, who have told me as much.

Time will tell, and evidendently, we will know soon. My sincerest best wishes to all.

Doctorwho, what I am discussing above is not the procedural aspect of the hiring process. Obviously SSA has to follow the procedures. What is being discussed above is the internal value that SSA places on an OPM score as SSA tries to compile their own list of the best candidates from their perspective. In that respect SSA is absolutely free to assign no value at all to the OPM grades.

We know SSA has told OPM what they want. SSA has made many public pronouncements on that topic. SSA has been telling OPM for years what they want and OPM has been ignoring SSA for years, because OPM is making a register for all agencies, not for SSA. I have not seen any evidence that OPM listened to SSA anymore this year than they ever have. What is probably most important to SSA is SSA agency experience. But while OPM appears to have increased the importance of adminsitrative law experience generally in this cycle and therefore slightly lessened the importance of litigation experience, I have seen no evidence that OPM assigned any extra weight to SSA experience as opposed to other agency experience and if OPM did, that would be a disservice to other agencies. In the past OPM has always required substantial litigation experience. That is not new and that is not what is most important to SSA anyway.

SSA is completely free to evaluate the value of the candidates using any criteria they want. Ii is very clear that they do not use the same criteria that OPM uses, thus there is little reason to suspect that they will give much, if any, weight to the OPM score.

[chris]

Doctorwho said:

"SSA will be very hard-pressed to eliminate a candidate who selected all with a high-score, or, for that matter a "high-score" in a particulare site -- it just brings up too many personnel headaches."

I haven't seen anyone suggest that SSA could easily eliminate a candidate who scored high and listed all cities. But dealing with a candidate who scored high and listed one city is easy--don't hire him or her. SSA need only hire one of the top 3 candidates, not the top candidate. As long as there are other candidates available, the high score can float out there forever without being hired and without raising any personnel headaches. Those who have been involved in civil service issues for very long have seen candidates in this position.

The practical way to deal with a high scoring candidate who SSA doesn't want to hire but who has listed many cities is this: Ask them their most and least favorite cities in the interview. Then offer one of their least favorite cities. They may reject it. Then offer another least favorite city. If they reject that they become ineligible. Or even if SSA doesn't ask about least favorite cities, it may not be difficult to guess someone's least favorite city.

All of the above assumes the candidate does not have veterans preference.

[doctorwho]

chris said:

All of the above assumes the candidate does not have veterans preference.

Chris, I think I follow what you're saying, but I think there may be a general misunderstanding of why the VP is "powerful" on a certificate list. The power is not derived because the person is a veteran per se. The power comes from the extra points given to the person and where they land that person on the certificate list. That's why we hear from the personnel types, "there are veterans blocking a cert." It's not because they are veterans, it's because they are at the top of the cert. As such, ANY high scoring candidate, whether or not he/she had points added to his/her score, is not easy to bump off of a certificate. [Regardless of the rule of three -- which has its own, internal complications which are too numerous to mention here.]

Moreover, you are not correct that SSA is free to assign "no value at all" to the OPM grades. That, obviates the cert and goes against Merit Staffing principles. ALJ positions are competitive positions, different than attorney positions that fall under excepted service rules, and the rules are far more stringent. Ask any personnel specialist. If candidates so much as suspect that SSA is playing games with the certificate list to show preference for one candidate over another regardless of his/her score lawsuits will fly -- and it will get very ugly. [By the way, agencies have tried things like you mention in your post, and the results have been disastrous, for the agency.]

I take no great pleasure in explaining these rules, believe me. But, they are what they are. Government personnel law is a very complex, all ecompassing animal.

[learnedhand]

If candidates so much as suspect that SSA is playing games with the certificate list to show preference for one candidate over another regardless of his/her score lawsuits will fly -- and it will get very ugly.

My guess is that will happen regardless of what SSA does. When the application came out, people complained and appealed because they didn't think it was truly competitive. When the cut was made as to who could proceed, there was a lot of complaining and appeals, because people thought their experience wasn't fairly considered. Those people intend to go forward and are quite serious. It will be the same with hiring, because many may assume unfairness if they are not selected, considering their scores. Under those circumstances SSA will probably do what it wants to do and deal with the consequences later.

[doctorwho]

learnedhand said:

If candidates so much as suspect that SSA is playing games with the certificate list to show preference for one candidate over another regardless of his/her score lawsuits will fly -- and it will get very ugly.

My guess is that will happen regardless of what SSA does. When the application came out, people complained and appealed because they didn't think it was truly competitive. When the cut was made as to who could proceed, there was a lot of complaining and appeals, because people thought their experience wasn't fairly considered. Those people intend to go forward and are quite serious. It will be the same with hiring, because many may assume unfairness if they are not selected, considering their scores. Under those circumstances SSA will probably do what it wants to do and deal with the consequences later.

Of course!

[Pixie]

Maybe I'm not reading Dr. Who's explanation correctly, but it is not consistent with my understanding of the Rule of Three. Granted it is a rudimentary and practical working understanding. Never found the time to research it in any depth--more pressing matters to be concerned with. And I have never hired an ALJ, but I would think the principles would be the same. I have an in depth article discussing this subject and probably ought to read it before I post, but it is at the office (buried?), and I am at home. Never found time to read it in the past, and probably won't find the time in the next few days either!

When I received my first certificate to hire from, personnel explained that if there were no veterans on the list, I could hire any of the three applicants on the list.* If a veteran were on the list, I would have to hire the veteran unless there was a reason to not hire, and an objective justification could be made to support the non selection of the veteran.

I really don't recall being obligated to hire the person with the highest score, although it has been a while and my memory may have faded a bit. I do remember certain guidance we were given if we decided to not select an obvious candidate. But I don't remember if that guidance was limited to non selection of veterans or applicants in general. I never non selected a veteran, although at times there was someone on the list below the veteran that I was familiar with and really wanted to hire. With the unknown veteran we were taking a big chance that he or she would be as good of an employee as the person we were familiar with.

So, with all of this in mind, my recollection is that anyone of the three on the certificate was fair game, in the absence of a veteran with a higher score. Please correct me if my recollection is faulty. Pix.
_____
*Often there would be more than three names because the scores would be the same. And in hiring for the higher grade management jobs, all who qualified would be on the list (inside v. outside applicants). A written objective justification would have to be submitted for the person selected for the management position. No justification would be submitted for the non selected applicants.

[hooligan]

pixie said:

When I received my first certificate to hire from, personnel explained that if there were no veterans on the list, I could hire any of the three applicants on the list.* If a veteran were on the list, I would have to hire the veteran unless there was a reason to not hire, and an objective justification could be made to support the non selection of the veteran.

Your understanding is similar to mine, with one exception. It is not necessary to choose the vet preference candidate if a non-vet has a higher score. For example, if there are three candidates eligible and the vet has the second highest score, the highest score can be chosen without justification. The third highest score can not be chosen without going through the detailed justification process.

[doctorwho]

hooligan said:

pixie said:

Your understanding is similar to mine, with one exception. It is not necessary to choose the vet preference candidate if a non-vet has a higher score. For example, if there are three candidates eligible and the vet has the second highest score, the highest score can be chosen without justification. The third highest score can not be chosen without going through the detailed justification process.

Precisely, because the score is what is controlling, NOT the fact that the person is a Veteran. Veterans do not sail to the top of the list because they are veterans. They reach the top of the list because of their scores. Once they are there, the normal Merit Staffing rules apply.