Hiring Freezes?? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I was offered a crim AUSA position in late December and my pre-employment security clearance is pending. Here is what I've learned from HR and AUSA contacts:

1. Bottom-line, up front: Further guidance on DOJ exemptions (including with respect to tentative offers that predate the freeze order) will be issued only after the new Attorney General (presumably Jeff Sessions) is confirmed and takes office.
2. The USAOs first thought AUSA hiring was exempt from the freeze, but received further guidance that they were not per se exempt and would have to request individual waivers or wait for the agency to request a blanket exemption. I presume that this guidance is what is reflected in the January 25 and January 31 memos from OMB.
3. Notably, AUSAs were not considered exempt public safety/national security positions in the previous hiring freeze (circa 2013).
4. The "big meeting" that another user referenced around January 26 was with OARM and the USAOs. The purpose of the meeting was to take questions from USAOs. My understanding is that the following guidance was given during this meeting was (1) the DOJ should seek as few individual waivers as possible and would thus prefer to secure a broad exemption; (2) USAOs should continue processing pre-employment paperwork for tentative offers, but await further guidance about agency exemptions before extending a final offer/start date; and (3) further guidance will be forthcoming after the new AG takes office.

So any further guidance will depend on the new AG, and won't be issued until one is appointed. If you've been watching the hearings, there is really no telling when that might happen.

I'm in a similar position, and this is all consistent with what I've heard. Only difference is that my sources have told me the opposite of #3. Each of my contacts seems unconcerned and say that crim AUSAs waiting for start date HAVE qualified as public safety in prior similar freezes. This might be because this is a different kind of freeze from 2013, but similar to other freezes that have happened before. 2013 was a budget-driven freeze, where other new administrations were policy/personnel-driven freezes.

Unfortunately, there is just no way to know what's going to happen until a new AG actually comes in and makes decisions. One upside is that this wait is eating into the 60 day freeze that the executive order says will lift once the administration has the opportunity to re-order its affairs. It would be patently insane to cut crim AUSAs in a law-and-order regime. But lots of insane things are happening.

The decision to go ahead with investigating backgrounds is interesting. Will someone frozen out of the specific job contemplated yet having passed the background check have any leverage to get into any other job?

[Dnova002]

I was offered a crim AUSA position in late December and my pre-employment security clearance is pending. Here is what I've learned from HR and AUSA contacts:

1. Bottom-line, up front: Further guidance on DOJ exemptions (including with respect to tentative offers that predate the freeze order) will be issued only after the new Attorney General (presumably Jeff Sessions) is confirmed and takes office.
2. The USAOs first thought AUSA hiring was exempt from the freeze, but received further guidance that they were not per se exempt and would have to request individual waivers or wait for the agency to request a blanket exemption. I presume that this guidance is what is reflected in the January 25 and January 31 memos from OMB.
3. Notably, AUSAs were not considered exempt public safety/national security positions in the previous hiring freeze (circa 2013).
4. The "big meeting" that another user referenced around January 26 was with OARM and the USAOs. The purpose of the meeting was to take questions from USAOs. My understanding is that the following guidance was given during this meeting was (1) the DOJ should seek as few individual waivers as possible and would thus prefer to secure a broad exemption; (2) USAOs should continue processing pre-employment paperwork for tentative offers, but await further guidance about agency exemptions before extending a final offer/start date; and (3) further guidance will be forthcoming after the new AG takes office.

So any further guidance will depend on the new AG, and won't be issued until one is appointed. If you've been watching the hearings, there is really no telling when that might happen.

I was the "big meeting" poster. We are in the same exact situation. Both with Job offers in early December and background checks pending.

Keep me posted please. Our time line is almost identically. Have you heard of any of your people being contacted yet? None of mine have.

[andythefir]

I was offered a crim AUSA position in late December and my pre-employment security clearance is pending. Here is what I've learned from HR and AUSA contacts:

1. Bottom-line, up front: Further guidance on DOJ exemptions (including with respect to tentative offers that predate the freeze order) will be issued only after the new Attorney General (presumably Jeff Sessions) is confirmed and takes office.
2. The USAOs first thought AUSA hiring was exempt from the freeze, but received further guidance that they were not per se exempt and would have to request individual waivers or wait for the agency to request a blanket exemption. I presume that this guidance is what is reflected in the January 25 and January 31 memos from OMB.
3. Notably, AUSAs were not considered exempt public safety/national security positions in the previous hiring freeze (circa 2013).
4. The "big meeting" that another user referenced around January 26 was with OARM and the USAOs. The purpose of the meeting was to take questions from USAOs. My understanding is that the following guidance was given during this meeting was (1) the DOJ should seek as few individual waivers as possible and would thus prefer to secure a broad exemption; (2) USAOs should continue processing pre-employment paperwork for tentative offers, but await further guidance about agency exemptions before extending a final offer/start date; and (3) further guidance will be forthcoming after the new AG takes office.

So any further guidance will depend on the new AG, and won't be issued until one is appointed. If you've been watching the hearings, there is really no telling when that might happen.

I was the "big meeting" poster. We are in the same exact situation. Both with Job offers in early December and background checks pending.

Keep me posted please. Our time line is almost identically. Have you heard of any of your people being contacted yet? None of mine have.

Per 4 sub-part 2, your people being contacted will proceed either way. I've also known a few people who got their interim clearance without anybody being contacted. At least Sessions will go up for vote this week, we should have our answers quickly.

[Anonymous User]

My friend just submitted his background check forms for an AUSA job two weeks ago. He was notified today that his start date is 2/20 and that he has an interim clearance to start despite nothing happening really on his background check. Apparently they are trying to rush people in. Also he is current govt, so that might affect the interim clearance decision

[Anonymous User]

My friend just submitted his background check forms for an AUSA job two weeks ago. He was notified today that his start date is 2/20 and that he has an interim clearance to start despite nothing happening really on his background check. Apparently they are trying to rush people in. Also he is current govt, so that might affect the interim clearance decision

Yeah, this is what happened to me - they moved up my start date. It may be that depending on what kind of background check he went through before they may not need to really do much.

[Anonymous User]

My friend just submitted his background check forms for an AUSA job two weeks ago. He was notified today that his start date is 2/20 and that he has an interim clearance to start despite nothing happening really on his background check. Apparently they are trying to rush people in. Also he is current govt, so that might affect the interim clearance decision

Any other info on this re: coming from government. Coming from D.Ct clerkship and CoA (not sure if OPM did a background check the second time around because there was such a little break in service) -- will having at least one OPM background check done help at all with time or passing?

[FSK]

I suppose I'm lucky that w/DOJ my tenative offer is good through 12/1/17, in which time the freeze seems likely to expire on its face w/OMB action

[newlawgrad]

I suppose I'm lucky that w/DOJ my tenative offer is good through 12/1/17, in which time the freeze seems likely to expire on its face w/OMB action

A tentative offer like that only occurs through honors, right? Would love to get one that early while clerking but I went alum.

[FSK]

I suppose I'm lucky that w/DOJ my tenative offer is good through 12/1/17, in which time the freeze seems likely to expire on its face w/OMB action

A tentative offer like that only occurs through honors, right? Would love to get one that early while clerking but I went alum.

yeah its Honors

[Npret]

I suppose I'm lucky that w/DOJ my tenative offer is good through 12/1/17, in which time the freeze seems likely to expire on its face w/OMB action

A tentative offer like that only occurs through honors, right? Would love to get one that early while clerking but I went alum.

yeah its Honors

Any idea as to what OMB might do with Honors? I'm so out of the loop I have no clue. I know it was reduced (stopped?) during the last freeze.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It continued in the last freeze, just seriously shrunk. No idea what they'll do now though.

[Anonymous User]

My friend just submitted his background check forms for an AUSA job two weeks ago. He was notified today that his start date is 2/20 and that he has an interim clearance to start despite nothing happening really on his background check. Apparently they are trying to rush people in. Also he is current govt, so that might affect the interim clearance decision

Any other info on this re: coming from government. Coming from D.Ct clerkship and CoA (not sure if OPM did a background check the second time around because there was such a little break in service) -- will having at least one OPM background check done help at all with time or passing?

Did you do the Sf-85p or Sf-86?

[Anonymous User]

My friend just submitted his background check forms for an AUSA job two weeks ago. He was notified today that his start date is 2/20 and that he has an interim clearance to start despite nothing happening really on his background check. Apparently they are trying to rush people in. Also he is current govt, so that might affect the interim clearance decision

Any other info on this re: coming from government. Coming from D.Ct clerkship and CoA (not sure if OPM did a background check the second time around because there was such a little break in service) -- will having at least one OPM background check done help at all with time or passing?

Did you do the Sf-85p or Sf-86?

AO 078 of something like that is all i can find in terms of exhaustive application to OPM original clerkship

[Anonymous User]

My understanding was that that's an employment application, not a background check. No one checked anything on mine. Of course different jurisdictions could handle things differently, but USAOs require the SF-86, which is unfortunately much more extensive.

[Anonymous User]

So it looks like Sessions will get confirmed tonight and then sworn in tomorrow morning. Best case scenario is that those with DOJ offers get further guidance early next week?

[Anonymous User]

So it looks like Sessions will get confirmed tonight and then sworn in tomorrow morning. Best case scenario is that those with DOJ offers get further guidance early next week?

Does anyone have insight on the decision-making process for something like this? Where/how does the decision get made, what approvals are needed, what inputs are considered, etc.?

[Anonymous User]

So it looks like Sessions will get confirmed tonight and then sworn in tomorrow morning. Best case scenario is that those with DOJ offers get further guidance early next week?

Does anyone have insight on the decision-making process for something like this? Where/how does the decision get made, what approvals are needed, what inputs are considered, etc.?

Unfortunately, no one really knows how the parties get to yes--the pieces that are sacrificed in every game of chess. We just assume that it happens. But no one here will be in the room when it happens.

In any event, the best we can do is look at the guidance that is actually available (i.e. the OPM memos re the freeze). The latest memo of January 31, states:

"Job offers made prior to January 22, 2017, but for which the individual has a confirmed start date that is later than February 22, 2017 (or does not have a confirmed start date), should be decided on a case-by-case basis and must go through an agency-head review. The agency head should review each position to determine whether the job offer should be revoked, or whether the hiring process should continue. Agency heads should consider essential mission priorities, current agency resources, and funding levels when making determinations about whether or not to revoke job offers."

FYI: The agency head for the DOJ--including all USAOs--is the Attorney General.

[Anonymous User]

What have people heard about paid internships?

[Anonymous User]

Unfortunately, no one really knows how the parties get to yes--the pieces that are sacrificed in every game of chess. We just assume that it happens. But no one here will be in the room when it happens.

#Hamilton

[Anonymous User]

FYI: The agency head for the DOJ--including all USAOs--is the Attorney General.

This is probably overly technical, but isn't DOJ a department consisting of a bunch of agencies that each have their own heads? There's a head of BOP, EOUSA, Antitrust, etc., which are all separate agencies. That said, I get that nothing is going to happen until Sessions is in place and the agency heads have to listen to him/he doubtless has priorities, but I'm not exactly sure how "agency head" language relates directly to Sessions since there are also other agency heads. (I say this in part because the decision about my AUSA offer was made by EOUSA.)

[Anonymous User]

Alright big boy Beauregard whats the word

[Dnova002]

FYI: The agency head for the DOJ--including all USAOs--is the Attorney General.

This is probably overly technical, but isn't DOJ a department consisting of a bunch of agencies that each have their own heads? There's a head of BOP, EOUSA, Antitrust, etc., which are all separate agencies. That said, I get that nothing is going to happen until Sessions is in place and the agency heads have to listen to him/he doubtless has priorities, but I'm not exactly sure how "agency head" language relates directly to Sessions since there are also other agency heads. (I say this in part because the decision about my AUSA offer was made by EOUSA.)

Was told yesterday by HR they are in fact expecting Sessions and his staff to make the call on exemptions for AUSA's.

[Anonymous User]

FYI: The agency head for the DOJ--including all USAOs--is the Attorney General.

This is probably overly technical, but isn't DOJ a department consisting of a bunch of agencies that each have their own heads? There's a head of BOP, EOUSA, Antitrust, etc., which are all separate agencies. That said, I get that nothing is going to happen until Sessions is in place and the agency heads have to listen to him/he doubtless has priorities, but I'm not exactly sure how "agency head" language relates directly to Sessions since there are also other agency heads. (I say this in part because the decision about my AUSA offer was made by EOUSA.)

Was told yesterday by HR they are in fact expecting Sessions and his staff to make the call on exemptions for AUSA's.

Good to know.

[Anonymous User]

I hope that agencies with acting directors aren't waiting for Trump to decide about leadership before making a call. It could take Trump MONTHS to fill up all these agency posts.

[Anonymous User]

I hope that agencies with acting directors aren't waiting for Trump to decide about leadership before making a call. It could take Trump MONTHS to fill up all these agency posts.

It's more likely that they are just deferring to Trump in general. The hiring freeze is for 90 days at which point a more thorough plan will be issued.