Social Security has recently posted a highly expurgated "Report of Special Investigation" by the agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) into the Madison, WI hearing office after complaints including racism, sexism, sexual harrassment and bias. This report may have been done in 2016. Here's an excerpt from the conclusion (click on each page to view full size):
 |
| The deletions were made by SSA |
9 comments:
These are fun because you can play Mad Libs with the redactions.
Ooops, forgot to redact a name on Page 25, Wayne!
I'm equally troubled by that portion of the second excerpt you've posted, which seems to suggest the OIG is of the belief that disparate application of agency policy cannot constitute reprisal so long as the policy is being applied accurately to the victim. That does not bode well for whatever employee tries to stop the next Huntington-type disaster, and certainly isn't an accurate interpretation of the law.
Does anyone really think that these disgraceful things only go on at the Madison, WI office?
@9:38
Accurate application of agency policy is ALWAYS approrpiate.
The individual who would have an appropiate claim is the person to whom agency poilicy is NOT being appropriately applied. They are morally obligated to inform OIG that agency policy is NOT being applied to them. OIG can then investigate and disipline the manager for failing to comply with agency policy by failing to appropriatly give life to agency policy.
It's insane that the so-called "victim" is complaining that agency policy is being applied to them. Their role, as agent of the Unitary Executive is to receive any policy set forth by the executive. They are not to have individual will separate from the of the Unitary Executive, rather, they, as living avatars of the executive, are mere extensions of the will of the Unitary Executive.
The role of the bureucrat is to be filled and transformed by the will of the executive. This is similar to the role of the pope, who, as the Vicar of Christ is to be filled and be open to, and thereby transformed, by the will God.
I hope this helps.
I don’t read it that way. I think OIG is saying that it wasn’t clear that the inconsistent enforcement of policy was based on reprisal because there was a culture of treating employees differently due to favoritism.
In other words, the bad behavior was so systemic that it’s impossible to trace it to a specific incident.
@11:17PM. I see your point, but the text specifically notes that certain employees were singled out and treated differently than the "favored employees." Hard to figure out with certainty due to the redactions, but assuming that sentences refers to the same employees referenced in the prior sentence, it sure looks like they're saying the whistle blowers were singled out and treated differently than other employees.
9:28 - so I guess the myriad of catastrophes bought on by certain popes was the will of god.
And the union will protect the bad apples.
Part of being a "whistleblower" is knowing that you will receive more scrutiny and less leeway in the short run. Much of this sounds like petty jealousy...I have worked in places with nepotism. Sometimes you get better workers and sometimes you don't. I have also worked where I was given "special accommodations." Some people understand and others just see that "you're not pulling your weight." Funny how it is always the lazy ones that are the jealous, petty ones." The good workers are too busy doing their own work to worry about others.
Post a Comment