Oct 15, 2016

NADE Newsletter

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization of the personnel who make initial and reconsideration disability determinations for Social Security has issued its most recent newsletter, full of summaries of presentations that Social Security management personnel made at a NADE conference.


Anonymous said...

I read the newsletter about the NADE Conference. Many of the presentations were nothing more than a massive whitewash show put on by Colvin’s Top OPERATIONS Management folks who have done nothing but driven the Disability components of SSA into the ground.

Although a representative from the SSA OIG spoke and discussed some cases like Huntington, I could not help but notice he failed to address so many other significant cases of misconduct and wrongdoing, including criminal, among Agency officials, and the role Colvin has played in covering-up those situations, thereby enabling a culture of unaccountability.

For example, why did the SSA OIG representative not address the reason why Colvin was not confirmed SSA Commissioner, or renominated by the President? After all, there were reasons, so why the continued cover-up? Moreover, why did Colvin go to unprecedented lengths to prevent Eanes, whom the President nominated in her stead, from ever taking office? Eanes had all but been confirmed by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year, so why was Colvin able to push him out the door entirely?

You may recall Colvin went to great lengths to maintain her power as Agency Head, but why? At one point, Colvin even offered to step down to a lower SES position, but ONLY ON THE CONDITION SHE COULD MAINTAIN HER POWER AS AGENCY HEAD. This was unprecedented. Why was this of such importance to her that she was willing to circumvent the President’s nomination of Eanes to the point of preventing Eanes from taking office? The reason is obvious: As Agency Head, Colvin, and her and her only, has the sole exclusive authority to determine what discipline/action the Agency takes, if any, to address misconduct and wrongdoing, including criminal, which the Agency fully knows from investigators certain Agency Managers and employees engaged.

Recent articles in this blog referenced evidence of sweet deals being worked out for top Managers whom the Agency knows engaged in misconduct and wrongdoing. Recall the gerrymandered ODAR Hearing Office in Alpharetta, GA, for the former Atlanta ROCALJ? My concern is the extent to which the SSA OIG , which is supposed to be a watchdog unimpeded by Agency Management and Top Officials, has become nothing more than a shill for Management and Top Brass to enable them to sweep dirty laundry under the rug, cover-up misconduct and wrongdoing, and thereby allow those whom the Agency knows engaged in misconduct and wrongdoing, including criminal, from ever being held accountable. Otherwise, why did the representative from the SSA OIG who discussed Huntington and other cases, conveniently fail to address these other significant cases and Colvin’s unprecedented conduct to maintain her power as Agency Head at all cost?

Anonymous said...

The answers to the questions sound like they would be interesting please enlighten me.

Anonymous said...

What I find so funny is that they are so busy patting themselves on the back for meeting goals but they fail to acknowledge that they are meeting the goals by denying people who should be awarded benefits. Anyone can meet goals when the majority of the cases they issue are rubber stamped, bare bone denials. Disgusting. The other thing that I find funny is that NADE refers to itself as "The Advocate", who the hell do they advocate for? The agency. Semantics is everything. Disgusting.

Tim said...

I found the article about Joelle Brouner's speech a bit insulting. Granted, I didn't see the speech, but what I took from the article is, "Let's trot out the woman in the wheel chair to give a flowery speech with no basis in reality." She talks about dandelions that don't know they are weeds growing up through the cracks... However, what I found really insulting were, "DEs are ambassadors of possibility for each client." and "DE work creates a path..." Also, the diagram was disturbing (get it right, etc.) with the question,"What is the diagnostic code for 'lack of ambition?'"