|
|
Post by justalawyer on Oct 31, 2007 12:39:53 GMT -5
Ok - now we have our scores. I've heard and read so many "rumors" about how the agencies get the Register list and then what they do with it ... does anyone out there have a web resource that tells us the REAL process?
In the interim, we can all continue with the rumor-mill ... it's always good to hear new interesting info.
So, here's what I've surmissed thus far: agencies with ALJ openings request the geographic list from OPM - OPM then sends "the list" of the top 3 (or 5 or 10?). The agency interviews those candidates and makes their selection. If the "successful" candidate turns down the offer, they go back on the list - however, if they turn down two offers they are then removed from the list.
What have you heard? Again - if anyone has the OPM or other definitive website with the real process I'd appreciate it.
Thanks ... and good luck to all! (If you're in a current federal ALJ office look at some of the current ALJ's ... how in the heck did they make it!?!?!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 31, 2007 13:29:38 GMT -5
The "List" is actually known as the "Certificate." When SSA requests a certificate for certain locations, OPM will send it to the Agency with the names of the top three candidates for those locations. In the event that two or more candidates have the same score, all names with that score will be on the certificate. That's the reason for the decimal points. There may be thirty candidates with a score of 91. By adding the decimal point, more separation between candidates is obtained when all have basically the same score.
In the past, after receiving the certificate, SSA has sent out a preliminary mailing to determine if the individuals on the certificate are still available for those locations. If the answer is no, SSA removes them from consideration for those locations. No penalty applies. If the answer is yes, a subsequent offer is made and the offer is declined, then there is a penalty. I believe that the candidate is removed from further consideration for that certificate, but she may be given two declinations before being penalized.
Obviously, one should not indicate a willingness to go to a location without an intent to do so.
The above is just my memory of the process, and I don't know where you might find this in writing. Pix.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Nov 1, 2007 10:46:44 GMT -5
The "List" is actually known as the "Certificate." When SSA requests a certificate for certain locations, OPM will send it to the Agency with the names of the top three candidates for those locations. In the event that two or more candidates have the same score, all names with that score will be on the certificate. That's the reason for the decimal points. There may be thirty candidates with a score of 91. By adding the decimal point, more separation between candidates is obtained when all have basically the same score. In the past, after receiving the certificate, SSA has sent out a preliminary mailing to determine if the individuals on the certificate are still available for those locations. If the answer is no, SSA removes them from consideration for those locations. No penalty applies. If the answer is yes, a subsequent offer is made and the offer is declined, then there is a penalty. I believe that the candidate is removed from further consideration for that certificate, but she may be given two declinations before being penalized. Obviously, one should not indicate a willingness to go to a location without an intent to do so. The above is just my memory of the process, and I don't know where you might find this in writing. Pix. These were the rules when I was selected. Only we weren't asked before the interview if we were still available. We were given a list before the interview of sites we had selected and were asked to mark out any that we would not accept. Given that everone is new on the list I suspect SSA can assume all candidates are available and will simply get the certificate and interview the candidates. For those going through the process I note that the staff at Falls Church was helpful, much more so than OPM. Of course, they can't tell you how candidates are selected, but are supportive with general information. We did not have to pay our own way to this interview. I can't promise this will still be the case now. |
|
|
|
Post by civilserpent on Nov 1, 2007 12:28:44 GMT -5
The rules for selection were changed when the ALJ test was revised. The old rule of three was found at 5 CFR 930.203. Rules pertaining to ALJ appointments are still found at 5 CFR 930.201 through 930.211; however the rule of three appears to be effective as part of the general OPM selection requirements upon a test--those rules are at 5 CFR 332.401-407. In addition, there are exceptions for selection found at 5 CFR 332.311. The ALJ pay system is descibed at 903.205 and5 CFR 337.101 and 304. Sorry to be so pendantic, but it is easier to read the rules than to summarize all of them. It's interesting that the selection process was once contained in one rule, and now must be ferreted out of the entire 5 CFR
|
|
|
|
Post by lawguardian on Nov 1, 2007 13:43:14 GMT -5
So does SSA put out a Certificate for all 150 ALJ at one time or is there a separate Certificate for each position in each office?
|
|
|
|
Post by civilserpent on Nov 1, 2007 14:40:25 GMT -5
Any agency hiring judges will have to ask OPM for a certificate of eligibles for as many positions as they want to fill at a time. If they are going to fill 150 at the same time, they will get a certificate of eligibles based on scores and geographic location, according to the rules. The agency will get 3 eligible candidates for each position. The process follows Pixie's explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by justalawyer on Nov 1, 2007 16:20:27 GMT -5
The rules for selection were changed when the ALJ test was revised. The old rule of three was found at 5 CFR 930.203. Rules pertaining to ALJ appointments are still found at 5 CFR 930.201 through 930.211; however the rule of three appears to be effective as part of the general OPM selection requirements upon a test--those rules are at 5 CFR 332.401-407. In addition, there are exceptions for selection found at 5 CFR 332.311. The ALJ pay system is descibed at 903.205 and5 CFR 337.101 and 304. Sorry to be so pendantic, but it is easier to read the rules than to summarize all of them. It's interesting that the selection process was once contained in one rule, and now must be ferreted out of the entire 5 CFR Ah, written like a true researcher! Thanks for the citations ... just what I was looking for. The remaining discussion is helpful/interesting too. |
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Nov 1, 2007 21:59:16 GMT -5
Okay. So they get a certification with 450 names on it. Assume, for the sake of argument, all 450 put "all" for their location preference. How do they decide what three names to send to Bismark, ND as compared to NYC? The Magic question  NO ONE KNOWS. Honestly, sometimes it looks like they manipulate the list to select a pariticular candidate for a particular site, but other times it seems almost haphazard. Put yourselve in their shoes. They need to hire 2 ALJ's for a rural site. Will they first pick an "all" candidate which could go to another unpopular site (including the increasingly unpopular california sites no one can afford to live in) or do they put that candidate in Puerto Rico because she speaks spanish. Then who do they select for a second ALJ in that site. Understand that many sites may get two or even more ALJ's. If it were me I would have a huge board with sites and small cards with names with scores and sites on it with velcro on the back and would mix and match. Kind of like NFL teams getting ready for draft day. Maybe they use darts? |
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Nov 2, 2007 6:19:43 GMT -5
Okay. So they get a certification with 450 names on it. Assume, for the sake of argument, all 450 put "all" for their location preference. How do they decide what three names to send to Bismark, ND as compared to NYC? The Magic question NO ONE KNOWS. If it were me I would have a huge board with sites and small cards with names with scores and sites on it with velcro on the back and would mix and match. Kind of like NFL teams getting ready for draft day. Maybe they use darts? ALJSOUTH: Sounds like you have been in the CALJ's office while they were making selections. It is my understanding that it does involve the big board and cards. No joking. |
|
|
|
Post by skibum on Nov 2, 2007 8:40:44 GMT -5
To paraphrase the former Secretary of Defense, if SSA decides to go to hiring with the applicants they have (that would be us), and not the applicants they wish they had (apparently that would not be us, based on scores revealed thus far), how do they send notices of interviews to the least unworthy of us? The important steps so far have come via email from OPM, but I assume that we are done with OPM and they are done with (to) us.
For those who have endured the end game before, including you exalted sitting judges, how does Falls Church contact the applicants they wish to interview--email, letter, phone call, or what?
PS: Thanks to all for the humor and support in these stressful days.
|
|
|
|
Post by judgegal on Nov 2, 2007 9:07:05 GMT -5
In 2006, Falls Church telephoned to schedule an interview there. I had a choice of dates and times. They paid for the trip--back and forth in one day, no lunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruonthelist on Nov 2, 2007 9:09:30 GMT -5
Skibum:
When I interviewed I got a phone call from the SSA CALJ office to set up my interview appointment. Nowadays it might be an email rather than a phone call, but it will be from SSA, not OPM. You are correct that you are done with OPM. [At least those of you who stand pat with your current scores are. Those who appeal will, of course, be dealing with OPM on their appeals. But the hiring process will now be handled by SSA or other hiring agencies rather than by OPM.]
Whether it is an email or a phone call, it will be, if things go as they have in the past, on VERY short notice. I had less than a week between the call and the interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazybroad on Nov 2, 2007 9:32:33 GMT -5
Following RUONTHELIST's post then, other information on this website suggested interviews in late January and early February - that means more WAITING!!!!!!!! if they are going to call only one week in advance. Boy, are we a patient lot or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by kolekole on Nov 2, 2007 11:04:51 GMT -5
The Baltimore Sun article discovered by FastPorsche987 also states:
The SSA has funding, starting in April, to hire 150 new administrative law judges and 92 support staff members to begin clearing the backlog of disability cases. It will be the largest class of administrative judges in the agency's history.
"Under our collective bargaining agreement, we have to let the existing ALJs who want to move into openings move first," said Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue. "We're required to go through a musical chairs process. That adds a couple of months to the process."
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Nov 2, 2007 11:14:04 GMT -5
If the Commish is real serious about the backlog, forget 150 new Judges--let's go for 300!
Any ideas on how we can get a ground swell going to the right people in Congress?
My Gosh, look at the qualifications of the people who have applied and who have posted here!
|
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Nov 2, 2007 11:30:15 GMT -5
It will be a phone call from the office of the chief judge, because they need a commitment to schedule the interview and give you information on how to arrange your travel (at their expense). If they can't reach you by phone, they will leave a call back message. They might send an email, but it will be an email to call them.
|
|
