Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) recently received a response to their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for Attorney Examiner Elements and Standards for Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) employees.
Here’s the document. After reading the piece, I have a better idea of what is going on with the changes at MSPB. Carry on, Ms. (Susan Tsui) Grundmann. You’re doing a great job so far.
7 users commented in " MSPB: Administrative Judge Elements and Standards "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWe know of several AJs who have hit the “unacceptable” areas. Question: What happens to the AJ that has one or more unacceptable ratings?
Ans: Nothing
It may change, but the new board has an uphill battle.
Yes, but on critical element 1, the old board acted as an enabler. Now MSPB AJs no longer have that area where they can rely upon the board to send the same wrong message to employees.
What I read is that the new board is giving AJs the chance to come clean and save face. Else, there is the alternative outcome. . .quite explicit, as I read their elements and standards.
Saving face is an important aspect of collaboration-based management. I strongly recommend the book “Getting to Yes,” by Ury. See link at right of page.
Thank you Charlotte. This document is particularly revealing. How many AJ’s would MSPB have left if we audited their cases?
After 10 months, my AJ dismissed one of my claims at the hearing, with no other justification than “upon further review.”
I’m waiting for Agency response to my PFR (extended until July 26). I think MSPB will have a difficult time obfuscating
“unacceptable” AJ performance.
The longer my case goes on, the more evidence I have of intra/interagency collusion (tacit if not explicit), and fraud.
On a parallel track, I have an EEOC AJ that has stated “Oh, I know what happened here,” but is still rubber stamping the specious claims identified by VA ORM (Agency EEOC), rather than addressing more comprehensive claims.
After 20 months, I actually feel ready for both appeals court (MSPB) and district court (EEOC), as well as Obstruction of Justice, Fraud and False Statements, Perjury, and Subornation of Perjury.
It helps that Agency counsel has several cases pending from misconduct (withholding exculpatory evidence, false statements, and subornation of perjury) as a former state’s attorney in both courts.
I looked him up after he lied about ex parte communication with the MSPB AJ during hearing break which related to merit (Agency’s legal strategy for “dual motivation”), and impacted the AJ’s conduct during the hearing, and presumably initial decision.
I had already asked him “don’t attorneys have ethics requirements?” after I received interrogatories and admissions from Agency with no true statements.
Really, just a few good men/women . . .
I don’t see anything regarding the number (or percentage) of remands allowed or considered unacceptable. It has to be counted against the AJ in some fashion.
I guess I have 2 questions:
1. Do remands count against AJ’s performance rating?
2. Is this a revised performance standard that was released after appointment of the new Board?
I was wondering about your question #2 also. It’s time for me to contact PEER and asked what they asked for.
Re, question #1, from what I read in the standards, remands do count against an AJ’s performance rating. Statistics on remands are listed in the databases MSPB provides.
Jeff Ruch, PEER’s Executive Director, responded by providing a copy of their FOIA request. Specifically, the elements and standards request reads,
Therefore, these are elements and standards that are current, and had been in place prior to 2008. Thanks to MSPB’s new stakeholder openness, I’ve learned that they are also under review and that they may be revised in the near future.
Leave A Reply