Apr 5, 2017

First Social Security Regs Under Trump Administration

     From today's Federal Register:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) is issuing a final rule to amend its Privacy Act regulation exempting portions of a system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, entitled Anti-Harassment & Hostile Work Environment Case Tracking and Records System. Because this system will contain some investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, this rule will exempt those records within this new system of records from specific provisions of the Privacy Act.
     The Privacy Act allows individuals to inspect government records about them. This regulatory change appears to be intended to prevent individuals from inspecting these records.
     By the way, the website of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) doesn't show this regulation as one that was even submitted for review. I would guess that the OMB website isn't properly reflecting what's going on.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is very similar to existing rules which allow SSA to create "Program Integrity Files", for investigatory purposes (e.g. suspicion of fraud). The material in such files is exempt from the Privacy Act.

Anonymous said...

This provision will prevent SSA employees, and thereby the public, as well as the courts handling employment litigation of such claims, from being able to obtain investigatory information conducted by SSA in cases of workplace harassment and hostile work environment. Folks, this is SSA Senior Management, in a very sleuth like manner, protecting its ass and, in so doing, the truth from these investigations coming out. Thus, employees like me, SA-27, will be denied access to such information, which could seriously implicate SSA, and employees directly involved whom the Agency has refused to hold accountable based on what they already know is true, from being held liable. Once again, I am crying foul from the top of my lungs!

Since this was not on the OMB website as a Regulation submitted for review by SSA, the public had no way of being able to comment about a proposed Regulation which was not anticipated, or one they had no real way of knowing about.

Since this is the very type of thing the current Administration campaigned on, i.e., "drain the swamp" of this type of corruption, which allows certain Federal employees, including top Agency officials, and Agency's themselves from being held accountable or responsible, I do not think the current Administration, or Congress, will be willing to embrace and support this new Regulation SSA Senior Management very cleverly, quietly, and in a sleuth like manner is trying to establish.

They are trying to hide, and sweep under the rug, investigatory information which they already know implicates certain SSA employees and Manager's in misconduct and wrongdoing in cases of workplace harassment and hostile work environment. I am going to do everything I can to not allow this to take place. This is outrageous, and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society. Thus, over my dead body will this Regulation be found valid and ultimately upheld. Time to bring in the big guns to fight this, without a shadow of a doubt.

Anonymous said...

7:03 am you are incorrect about the public not being able to comment. THis was published as a proposed rule for public comment in December 2016.

Anonymous said...

@7:56

It was not published on the OMB website!

This Regulation was intentionally and purposefully done in a sleuth like manner because SSA Senior Management did not wish to make it known. It was also put it during the December 2016 holidays, which makes it even more likely few, if any, will, or could, see it. It's obvious as hell what took place here. You can dance and tippy-toe all around this, but the bottom line is SSA does not want this information known. This is clear as a bell.

My question to SSA Senior Management is why do you always choose to sweep under the rug, cover-up, protect and shield those whom you very well know engaged in misconduct and wrongdoing from any and all accountability?
This has always been the "go-to" response by SSA Senior Management in my 27+ years with you. Look how long you side-stepped the Huntington debacle before you took any action. But for the Wall Street Journal article, you would never have taken any action!

The same is true with the Garmon situation. How do you in any way justify disciplining a ROCALJ by removing him from his position, and turn right around and give him an even higher level management position; place in in OLMER, despite a well documented history of labor management violations; further placate him by relocating an entire Hearings Office close to his home, which could not be a worse location for everyone else, at a cost of millions in taxpayer money; and then promote him yet again to an even higher level management position as Deputy Chief ALJ?

If SSA Senior Management played by the rules and followed the law in the first place, you would not have to sweep everything under the rug, cover-up, etc. But, this has always been the route you take. Why? Don't you ever learn?

If you did the right thing in the first place and held known wrongdoers and those whom you know engaged in misconduct in workplace harassment, abuse, and hostile work environment cases, you would have no need for the new Regulation to which the article references. Why do you always choose to take the cowards way and refuse to take ANY action, or hold employees you very well know engaged in misconduct and wrongdoing accountable?

What's worse is you do nothing for the target victims. I sent countless emails seeking help to Senior Management, specifically stated relevant sections of the CBA, other relevant laws and provisions, and NONE of you even bothered to respond. None of you. I needed help, you knew it, and you treated me like garbage, if not worse. Given my 27+ year career, all the awards and accolades I had for great performance and work quality, and you did absolutely nothing. In contrast, look at what you have done for Garmon. You can clearly see the hypocrisy. Now, you wish to completely prevent employees like me from being able to discover investigatory information you have in workplace harassment and hostile work environment cases. Why don't you just shoot us in the head and be done with it? By refusing access to such investigatory information, how can anyone, or any other entity such as the EEOX, OSC, MSPB, etc., know whether you are in "Compliance" with mandated policies to PREVENT this from occurring in the first place?


When you treat Garmon the way you have, what message does that send? Certainly, not that you are in COMPLIANCE with mandated anti-harassment and hostile work environment policies, because if that were the case, there would be true accountability, rather than further promotions to higher levels of management, and spending millions in taxpayer money to relocate an entire Hearings Office to placate an official, as opposed to holding them accountable.

As I said, over my dead body will you get away with this!

Anonymous said...

For being the FBI's hottest prospect ever, summa cum laude, etc. etc. it sure is funny you use "sleuth," a word that means detective or to investigate, etc., when you mean something like "stealth" or "surreptitious," etc. lol. They weren't uncovering anything; they were--according to you (wrong)--acting covertly, sneakily, etc.

Gosh, I threw out four words that conveyed what you meant off the top of my head. Maybe I should apply to the FBI.

Anonymous said...

SA 27, I know where you are coming from. I had to file a discrimination suit against the Agency and during the hearing, management responded that she did not remember what she had discussed with management about the case, but that she knew what she had not discussed with management. The Judge Said, "What?" Management went on the state that "If she had her notes she could recall what was said." The Judge asked her if she had notes. Management responded, "No." You can not make up this stuff, you have to be involved to experience it. This Agency is at war with itself as well described in Judge Frank Borowiec's book.

Anonymous said...

@9:45

Thank you for your support. You are absolutely correct in your statement, "You cannot make up this stuff." I have found this to be true on so many levels. I also agree, "The Agency is at war with itself."

What is so shameful, is the Agency was a wonderful place to work when I first started. The poor management, at least with ODAR, started when the DO and Operations Folks began working for OHA and moved up the food chain. Everything started to go to hell in a hand basket not long thereafter.

Anonymous said...

@9:21

Your poorly written and articulated comment is idiotic and makes no sense. I meant "sleuth," and purposely used it for a reason. You are simply denigrating me because you hate me and wish to pile it hip deep. Frankly, you are nothing more than an A-hole and a Troll. I certainly hope you fully reap what you sow.

Anonymous said...

We don't hate you, we just think you are nuttier than a squirrel turd.

Anonymous said...

@2:14 stated, "We don't hate you." This is a flat out lie which anyone with half a brain can see.

Your remark I am, "Nuttier than a squrrel turd," intimating I am "Crazy," is known as "Crazy Making Abuse," which is quite common in most workplace mobbing, bullying, abuse, harassment, and hostile work envirnment cases. Thus, your effort to portray me as "Crazy" is dead on arrival in the courts and legal system.

Each and every time you, and other similar naysayers, make these types of remarks, they only serve to elevate me and my credibility even further. You see, your comments reflect your true colors, and have the effect of making mine seem quite level-headed, logical, reasonable, respectable, intelligent, and very real based on what we already know.

Anonymous said...

you're really asserting that "sleuth" is an appropriate word to convey SSA top brass sneaking through a new reg to hide their corruption? You really are dense. Go to a dictionary--that word does not at all convey (I used my big boy context clue skills) what you were trying to convey. Take the L and admit you used the wrong word. They didn't sleuth anything out, they--under cover of night, accord. you--passed something to cover their butts and hide their Bilderberg level global takeover corruption. That's just not what "sleuth" means, you dummy.

Anonymous said...

If you really want the narcissistic delusional with the persecution complex to really go away, all you have to do is ignore them and they go away on their own, the more you torment them the more it will post. Simply ignore the post, make no reference to them and soon they will fade away to a place where they can find someone to battle, like FaceBook. They will try and pick a fight, but it is easy enough to ignore them and we can return the blog to something of value for information exchange and a bit less entertaining.

Anonymous said...

Praise God!! Repent!

Anonymous said...

I went for a ride on a magic bus once!

Anonymous said...

As an Addendum to my comment at 8:50AM, I note that I already previously requested all the information this proposed Regulation is seeking to exempt pursuant to the Privacy Act and the FOIA in numerous documents leading up to, and including, the original employment litigation complaint(s) in my case several years ago, and further testified about the Privacy Act and the FOIA concerning my requests for all such information in my deposition taken nearly two years ago. Thus, SSA Senior Management cannot legally come along now, years later, (ex post facto), and establish a Regulation which precludes me, the courts, and the public at large from discovering this very information. So, this proposed Regulation is specifically in response to my long time pending case, rather than the broad category of harassment and hostile work environment cases in general. You cannot establish a Regulation denying access to such information requested numerous times in several evidentiary documents previously filed years earlier. The Privacy Act and the FOIA were not implemented with the intent they could so easily be manipulated and circumvented, as such tactics would defeat the purpose for which they were intended.

Why and what are you trying to hide and shove under the rug SSA Senior Management? Like the Huntington debacle proved, it's much better to allow the information to come out, appropriately address it, and let the chips fall where they will, rather than be very embarrassed later, and exposed for choosing not to hold those whom investigators clearly informed you had engaged in misconduct and wrongdoing, like Garmon, fully accountable. Certainly, compliance with the Anti-harassment Hostile Work Environment Case Tracking System cannot be established when you purposely hide information. You are required to hold those you know from investigators who engaged in misconduct and wrongdoing fully accountable. You do not get to establish Regulations circumventing the Privacy Act and the FOIA so you can choose not to hold these individuals accountable.

The law does not work this way. As I said, only over my dead body will you do this.

Anonymous said...

@5:49:

Your insinuation that I, SA-27, am the, "Narcissistic delusional with the persecution complex...," is quite laughable given much of what I have been saying over the past few years is proving more and more to be true with each passing day - That's a fact revealed over and over on this blog alone.

That being said, you are sadly mistaken if you believe I will ever go away, shut up, or stop shouting at the top of my lungs everything I have been stating over the past few years. The ONLY WAY this will happen will be when SSA Senior Management finally chooses to appropriately address the situation, demand and enforce full accountability, and target victims receive justice and full remuneration. You see, I will persist and persevere for however long it takes. I could care less what anyone else does. I crossed that bridges long ago and have never once looked back.

Anonymous said...

Last Word

Anonymous said...

Maybe instead of Duncan the new name is Rocky!

Anonymous said...

I think your habit of using the wrong word is continuing, SAA 27--it is not that you will continue to "persevere," rather, you will continue to perseverate.

Anonymous said...

@11:08:

"Perseverate." You are SPOT-ON!
Thank you.