Let's say that someone other than Carolyn Colvin had been made the Acting Commissioner of Social Security and let's say it's a career employee in his or her prime working years. Let's also say that the Trump Administration decides a priori that Social Security will do just fine with a 20% reduction in staffing. That Acting Commissioner would face a dilemma. The person could forcefully resist internally in which case that person would probably be fired and their federal career would be at an end. That person could quit in protest in which case their federal career would also be at an end. That's tough on a person with a mortgage and kids in or near college.
At her age, Colvin can easily resign in protest. She has no reason to worry about her federal career. She can court firing or quit without concern. If she leaves, she can be very noisy about it. This gives her a certain power that others, younger than her, don't have.
By the way, if you're someone in line to succeed Colvin, what would you do as Acting Commissioner if the Trump Administration orders up something that you know will have disastrous effects? Would you have the courage to resign in protest? Would you be willing to preside over a disastrous situation? Is there some way of squirming out of the dilemma? These may not be abstract questions for a handful of people at Social Security.
18 comments:
Charles, I think you saw Mr. Smith Goes to Washington one too many times during the Thanksgiving break. There are not too many idealistic leaders in todays society. The current crop would kiss the ring and do what they are told.
The agency has been a disaster for years and no one is protesting. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should give new leadership a chance before you decide they are going to make things worse. The agency needs more than just more staff and more money. It needs updated IT systems. It needs reorganization to make it more efficient. For example, why do we have people in local offices doing a dozen different things, none of them well. Why aren't forms sent to a regional or national intake center like the VA does. I've never had the VA lose anything, yet SSA loses things all the time. Its long past time for someone to look at these outdated systems and come up with more efficient ways of processing things. It ain't rocket science. Yet, anytime someone comes along that may make major changes they are met with "sky is falling" type resistance. Perhaps you need to step out of your box and consider that someone new with new ideas might be a good thing. And, while I know the agency has a lot of hardworking good employees, I also know there is a lot of useless dead weight sitting behind some of those desks. For example, it should not take a year and a writ of mandamus filing to get a paper request for hearing processed, but it did. And, to the best of my knowledge, no one was held accountable. That is another thing, someone needs to bring some accountability into this agency. I know of a hearing office manager who submitted a perjured affidavit to a federal court. The fact that is was perjury was proven by the agency's own statistics. Yet, she still has her job. Perhaps a good house cleaning would be a good thing. Certainly, this agency needs drastic change. Yet, anytime someone proposes such, folks like you want to holler and complain that they are the devil. How about wait and see what a new person might propose before we resort to hysterical rantings that the world is coming to an end?
You must be the same individual that expects Santa to come down the chimney every December and nobody comes. It was a beautiful soliloquy but nothing more.
Some of Trump's changes may be for the better. For example, they are floating the idea of reinstitution cognitive and reading comprehension testing for federal jobs.
It used to be that a college graduate would have to do well on the PACE exam, to be hired at SSA or another federal agency at GS-10 or above. The federal workforce was much more capable and
proficient when testing was part of the hiring process.
If Trump does it I’m in.
Some of Trump's changes may be for the better. For example, they are floating the idea of reinstitution cognitive and reading comprehension testing for federal jobs.
I'll actually answer the question(s) you asked, Charles. I'd stand firm and give my reasons for doing so in hopes that the administration would listen to me. But, that's just what I would do. Take it with a grain of salt, because that will never happen that I would be acting commissioner of anything. I'd certainly stand up for the rights of the elderly, disabled and those on SSI that were never able to work. I wouldn't back down, just state the facts of disparage of any reductions in benefits, and how it would effect the economy. Disabled and elderly people spend their SSA benefits! If they're reduced, their spending will be reduced too.
Charles must be having another one of his fever dreams. Trump was in for four years and SSA ran smoothly. In fact, it was O'Malley who cut telework and forced a grueling return to office while Trump actually increased telework. Trump won't do much at Social Security but the few things he does implement will be welcome and wonderful.
FWIW, Colvin has already said she will be here only for a short time, here is the exact quote from her email:
"I am honored to have been asked by the White House to serve as Acting Commissioner once again. I want to express my gratitude to Commissioner Martin O'Malley for his tireless service and all that we achieved under his leadership. Like you, we share a steadfast commitment to the Social Security program and the vital role it plays for millions of individuals and families.
While my service will be for a brief period, I plan to work closely with Dustin Brown, our career Chief Operating Officer who is also serving as SSA’s Transition Director,..."
You do realize there is a person who is White House "liaison" on SSA's front office staff in every administration? And they (SSA's COSS) get feedback and direction on things? There will also be 2 or 3 new DCs or ACs direct from the Heritage Foundation with more solid hooks into the power structure. And channels to the powers that be. It's not hands on daily control by any means (except when it's political personnel issues), for the front office but if there are "White House Initiatives" (like privatization was during Bush) there is a more heavy hand.
She said in her first email since becoming ACOSS that her tenure would be brief. It seems like whether the ACOSS wanted to take a stand or not, it may have been communicated that someone new is coming sooner rather than later. I wouldn't be surprised if no one else wanted to take the job for this reason.
Wow, someone either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or just wants to misrepresent the facts. Trump’s administration completely eliminated telework across the agency everywhere it could. The only reason that was ultimately reversed is because the COVID-19 pandemic made full-time telework necessary to continue the work.
Dustin Brown was an appointee of O'Malley and has served less than a year so he'll be gone shortly, too.
Regardless of who is president; Joe, Kamala, or Donald. We work for them and should try and implement the president's vision / direction to the best of our ability. If someone's doesn't like it, they can quit. In no case should we try and sabotage it.
So you are saying O'Malley shouldn't have "locked" in telework before he left? Clearly that was opposed to the incoming presidents plan. It's scandalous.
"We" owe nothing to any POTUS. "We" do not work for them, they work for us. Thats kind of how this whole thing has worked for a couple hundred years, they are POTUS not king, remember that whole revolution thing from school?
Well, we may not "owe" anything to the POTUS, but I think you've got it wrong. The president has the power to affect the agency in many ways. Super Joe came in strong with his DEI executive orders, and we all had to suffer through nothing but infested Emails from Kilolo ensuring we all knew how important diversity was. Also, Joe had the ability to come in and fire Saul to get his way with things. Since then we've seen the contract blown up favoring BU employees and gifting all sorts of things to employees. And this stronger together nonsense, what did that even mean? The agency has never been more divided. This was all political and put in motion by the POTUS.
If his motivation was to try and hinder the new administration, then yes, he shouldn't have locked it in. I don't know what his real motivation is / was...but I suspect it was to mess with the new admin.
I get that you’re racist and all, but why not at least offer a plausible narrative? The former Commissioner hardly ever sent any emails, and of the few she sent, only one or maybe two dealt with diversity. Go drown your fake white guilt on foxnews.com or wherever your kind congregates these days.
Post a Comment