OIG On ODISP: Was Martin Gerry Fired Because Of Some Wrongdoing?

In March of this year Martin Gerry was abruptly fired as head of Social Security's Office of Disability and Income Security Programs (ODISP). Also, in March of this year, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue asked Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to review "the organizational structure and functions of ODISP." OIG has now delivered its report.

The crucial question for many people is "Did this OIG 'review' cause the firing of Martin Gerry?" This question is crucial since there have been rumors that Gerry was fired as a result of an OIG investigation, which would imply some wrongdoing on Gerry's part. The rumors are understandable, since OIG has the task of rooting out corruption in the agency and OIG has been investigating ODISP over the last couple of months. However, OIG has the more mundane task of doing studies of agency organization and efficiency.

There is nothing about the report to suggest wrongdoing on Gerry's part. Everything about the report suggests that it was directed at determining whether a reorganization of ODISP was a good idea and, if so, what kind of reorganization would be a good idea. Everything also suggests that the investigation started only after Gerry was fired.

It is conceivable that OIG was looking at something more than how ODISP is organized, but there is nothing in this report to suggest they found anything more than an organizational structure that ought to be looked at and "poor communications."

Here is a summary of the recommendations of the report, which does contain thinly veiled criticism of Martin Gerry, but the criticism merely concerns management style:

RESULTS OF REVIEW
Our review of the structure and functions of ODISP found that this component is not focused solely on planning and program policy issues, but instead is responsible for several operational functions. Specifically, we found that some functions within ODISP may be better aligned to improve coordination and productivity and some other functions appear to be inconsistent with ODISP’s mission and may be better managed elsewhere in SSA.

Additionally, throughout our interviews with about 17 percent of ODISP’s employees as well as several of ODISP’s customers, a consistent theme was poor communication within ODISP and between ODISP and other SSA components.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SSA may be better served from a functional point of view if ODISP’s main focus were program policy. Therefore, we recommend the Agency:

• Re-direct ODISP’s focus to program policy.
• Align similar/related functions within ODISP.
• Delineate more clearly the role of ODISP with respect to other components.
• Improve communications within ODISP and other components.
• Consider renaming ODISP and SSA’s Office of Policy to clarify the roles of each component, or combining ODISP with the Office of Policy.

The criticism that Gerry did not foster good communications is no surprise. Many had noted for years that both Gerry and former Commissioner Barnhart were secretive. By the way, if all Social Security managers who exhibited poor communications were fired, Social Security's management ranks would be decimated. I think you could say that about just about any organization.

Here is an interesting little nugget from ODISP's response to the report, that contains some information that I had not heard before:

This is a particularly critical time for PolicyNet since we are working with all involved components to totally revamp the ”look and feel” and functionality of the Program Operations Manual System (POMS), which is by far the largest policy repository on PolicyNet. We have worked with contractors to create system prototypes and demonstrations and we have created a management structure which includes an AC-level Steering Committee and intercomponent workgroups.