Yeah, I know, I'm mixing metaphors. So? |
I've been looking at the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. Here's what I've discovered.
Under 5 U.S.C. §3345 upon a vacancy in an office that requires Senate approval, the President can designate a person to serve as an acting officeholder. If the President doesn't make such a designation, the "first assistant" to the departed officeholder becomes the acting officeholder. In the case of the Social Security Administration, President Obama established a plan of succession. President Trump could have altered that plan but didn't. Under that plan, Nancy Berryhill became acting Commissioner. However, under that statute there can only be an acting officeholder up to certain time limits and 5 U.S.C. §3347 makes it clear that there is no other process by which a person can become or stay an acting officeholder beyond those time limits. Everyone is in agreement that that time period has passed for the office of Social Security Commissioner and that office is vacant.
Once the time period has passed, 5 U.S.C. §3348(b)(1) says the office and the functions and duties of that office
remain vacant until someone can properly qualify to become the
officeholder. Under 5 U.S.C. 3348(a)(2)(A) the functions or duties of an office are defined as those established by statute and "required by statute to be performed by the applicable officer (and only that officer)." That means that Administrative Law Judges and Appeals Counsel members and other Social Security employees who are performing previously delegated duties are able to continue to perform their previously delegated duties during the vacancy of the office of Commissioner of Social Security. So can just about any other employee.
However, what about duties that had not previously been delegated? Even though there's nothing in the statutes that would have prevented the Commissioner or Acting Commissioner from delegating essentially any of the duties of the office, I don't see how there's anybody available now to further delegate any duties.
I don't think there's any published list of duties that the Commissioner of Social Security has and hasn't delegated. Probably, there's always been some fuzziness about this since it's not possible to know in advance every novel issue or circumstance that might come up. Here would be my best guess of some duties that would never have been delegated under normal circumstances:
I don't think there's any published list of duties that the Commissioner of Social Security has and hasn't delegated. Probably, there's always been some fuzziness about this since it's not possible to know in advance every novel issue or circumstance that might come up. Here would be my best guess of some duties that would never have been delegated under normal circumstances:
- Firing, replacing or disciplining senior level employees
- Coordinating the activities of the various offices and individuals who report directly to the Commissioner
- Deciding upon internal budget allocations
- Deciding upon staffing level and overtime allocations for Social Security's various parts
- Approving contracts over some predetermined dollar amount
- Approving agreements with employee unions
- Signing off on proposed or final regulations
- Settling major litigation
- Approving statements made to Congressional committees
- Approving requests for legislation or agency comments on pending legislation
It is possible that Nancy Berryhill made some last minute delegations before her authority as Acting Commissioner expired so that there could be better continuity. If there were any such extraordinary delegations, I think it behooves Social Security to announce them.
In any case, Social Security was already somewhat rudderless with Nancy Berryhill as Acting Commissioner (not that it was her fault) and is even more rudderless now. How rudderless may depend upon whether Nancy Berryhill made some extraordinary delegations of authority while still Acting Commissioner. There's also the question of how well those at the top at Social Security will work together with no one really in charge -- the "you're not my real mommy" problem if you will.
No, Charles, it seems SSA's plan is to keep Nancy as acting by trying to be slick.
ReplyDeleteRe-read her email. She doesn't indicate any new ACOSS, and indicates she is returning to her role as DC of Operations (while still running things--you know, acting as ACOSS).
Well, either by statute or Obama's succession plan or both (no time to do the googling to see which it is), the DC of Operations becomes ACOSS. So, SSA is trying to be slick by saying she is no longer using the ACOSS label but that she will still run things via her role as DC of Operations, tacitly acknowledging that role's de facto becoming ACOSS!
I don't think this course of action passes muster. Either SSA needs to name a new ACOSS (if it even has the ability to do so itself) or Ms. Berryhill needs to amend her message and indicate she is no longer ACOSS or able to do the (not previously delegated, at least) duties of ACOSS and clearly indicate there is no ACOSS right now. The veiled process we appear to be following according to what was and was not in the email doesn't seem to be the best or even a good way to have approached this.
can new ALJs be appointed?
ReplyDeleteRe: Delegations - I've seen memos numerous times listing delegations of authorities to the various deputy commissioners, some permanent, some temporary. It's been a while but those are in writing and periodically refreshed. Try for when an office is created or eliminated, as the authorities have to shift at that time.
ReplyDeleteAs for slick, don't think so. Consider the following - there is a natural disaster that takes out DC, so we have no president, no house, no senate and the Baltimore HQ is done. But the rest of the agency is intact so who is in charge? President can't act, senate can't so it's Succession Plan time. Per the succession plan, it's be DCO "in charge"(if alive in my scenario.) Being in charge doesn't equate to being either the COSS or the ACOSS. The succession plan doesn't make the person who becomes leader the ACOSS. Only the Senate or via action using the Vacancy Act can that title be given. No, it just means that, in the absence of a COSS or ACOSS, leadership is vested in the order listed in the memo, here it's DCO. As the DCO. Not as the (A)COSS. Because the succession plan cannot confer the statutory roles and responsibilities of the job of Commissioner of Deputy Commissioner.
So Charles is right to question the gaps created by this situation (regulations being one I'm certain of) but the meat and potatoes work of the agency can certainly go on, employees get paid, claims get processed.