Cleveland television station WKYC is reporting on the huge backlogs of Social Security disability claimants awaiting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The backlog is currently 13,000 in the Cleveland area.
May 18, 2007
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:
Here is an interesting little nugget from ODISP's response to the report, that contains some information that I had not heard before:
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 REVIEWThe 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.
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.
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.
May 17, 2007
New Social Security Cards Coming?
There was a major agreement today on a new immigration bill. The bill may go through many more changes before it passes, if it ever does, but this agreement is a major step forward. While the bill has many implications, this blog is concerned with the question of what effect it will have on the Social Security Administration. Here is part of a story in the Los Angeles Times:
However, everyone in the United States would have to get one of these new Social Security cards sooner or later. Most Americans would have to get a new Social Security card within the next few years. Thereafter, everyone might have to get a new Social Security card periodically as their appearance changed. This has the potential to make Social Security offices resemble drivers license bureaus. How much additional staff might this require? We will have to know the details to get a better picture and even then it will take much study to get a good idea, but a wild guess is that this might require a Social Security Administration that is double or triple its current size.
Let me be the first to say that if this happens, it may end up being wonderful news for the Social Security Administration. Currently, few Americans have the misfortune of having to deal with the critically understaffed Social Security Administration. That will not be the case if Social Security has to start issuing tamper-proof Social Security cards. The terrible service that Social Security provides at the moment would never last once large numbers of Americans have to start dealing with the agency.
The bill focuses heavily on border security and work-site enforcement, two areas that the senators spent weeks negotiating in painstaking detail. ... Work-site enforcement would include a tamper-proof ID, probably a Social Security card, that some Senate aides said would have to be presented in combination with a passport or tamper-proof driver's license.Assuming this "tamper-proof ID" is a Social Security card (and it is hard to imagine what else it might be) would this be a big deal for Social Security? The new Social Security card might require a photograph of its holder or some form of "biometric" information. Getting the equipment and personnel to create such cards just for those who need a new or replacement card would be a major undertaking.
However, everyone in the United States would have to get one of these new Social Security cards sooner or later. Most Americans would have to get a new Social Security card within the next few years. Thereafter, everyone might have to get a new Social Security card periodically as their appearance changed. This has the potential to make Social Security offices resemble drivers license bureaus. How much additional staff might this require? We will have to know the details to get a better picture and even then it will take much study to get a good idea, but a wild guess is that this might require a Social Security Administration that is double or triple its current size.
Let me be the first to say that if this happens, it may end up being wonderful news for the Social Security Administration. Currently, few Americans have the misfortune of having to deal with the critically understaffed Social Security Administration. That will not be the case if Social Security has to start issuing tamper-proof Social Security cards. The terrible service that Social Security provides at the moment would never last once large numbers of Americans have to start dealing with the agency.
Budget Resolution For SSA At $10 Billion
A Congressional conference committee has reported out a final version of the Congressional budget resolution. Thus far, I have been unable to access the actual resolution. However, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has put out a press release saying that the final fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget resolution for Social Security is $400 million over the President's recommendation, which would make the total for Social Security $10 billion. While considerably better than President's budget, this is still down from the House of Representatives version of the budget resolution, which was $10.1 billion. FY 2008 begins on October 1, 2007.
Remember that the budget resolution is not money that an agency can spend. It is merely a guideline used by the Appropriations Committees who determine exactly what each agency gets -- and to some extent how each agency can spend it.
Remember that the budget resolution is not money that an agency can spend. It is merely a guideline used by the Appropriations Committees who determine exactly what each agency gets -- and to some extent how each agency can spend it.
From The Encyclopedia Of Ethical Failures
Stephen Epstein, Director of the Defense Department's Standards of Conduct Office, maintains the Encyclopedia of Ethical Failures, which catalogues ethical lapses at all federal agencies. Here are the excerpts concerning Social Security employees, although (no offense to the vast majority of honorable Social Security employees) I think there are more that he has not heard about:
At their 1997 trial in Louisiana, a judge ordered the employee to 46 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. The employee's husband received 30 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. They each paid back $23,809.33.
Bribery
A Social Security Administration employee and her husband were convicted for soliciting bribes from individuals seeking Social Security benefits for themselves or family members. The couple approached citizens who were having difficulty qualifying for Supplemental Social Security benefits. They would offer to arrange to have benefits reinstated or to complete paperwork for the individual. Afterwards, they demanded payment for their services.At their 1997 trial in Louisiana, a judge ordered the employee to 46 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. The employee's husband received 30 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. They each paid back $23,809.33.
Conflict Of Interest
The Facts: In the "off-time" from her work with the Social Security Administration, a senior attorney opened her own legal practice and represented clients with claims against that very same Administration. For her double-duty, she was sued by a U.S. Attorney and ended up agreeing to a settlement that required her to pay the United States $113,000 for this and other violations—not a typical attorney's fee!Hatch Act
Two federal employees, one at the Environmental Protection Agency, the other at the Social Security Administration, were disciplined for violations of the Hatch Act. Although federal employees are entitled to support the political candidates of their choice, the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity while on duty. ... the SSA employee favored George W. Bush, and while on duty, sent a similar email to 27 of his co-workers and other individuals. It was irrelevant which candidate each employee supported, both were found to have violated the Hatch Act because sending emails in support of any candidate while on duty constitutes prohibited political activity. Disciplinary action for violations of the Hatch Act range from 30-day suspension without pay to termination from federal employment.
Katherine Thornton Is New Staff Director At SSAB
This is from an e-mail from the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), now posted on the SSAB website:
I am pleased to announce that the Social Security Advisory Board has selected Katherine Thornton to serve as its next Staff Director. She will be replacing Joe Humphreys who is retiring at the end of July. Ms. Thornton has served as Deputy Staff Director of the Board since February, 2005. Prior to joining the Board staff, she had a distinguished career with the Social Security Administration serving in a variety of positions including seven years as Director of the Center for Disability Programs in the Philadelphia Region.
May 16, 2007
Senate Finance Committee Schedules Hearing For May 23
The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing for May 23 at 10:00 on the subject, "Funding Social Security’s Administrative Costs: Will the Budget Meet the Mission?" No witness list has been released, but Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue should be the main witness. He will have to answer questions in public about how much money he is seeking for his agency.
Andrew Biggs Nominated Again!
Dow Jones is reporting that President Bush has re-nominated Andrew Biggs to become Deputy Commissioner of Social Security.
I do not understand. Just a short time ago, the Senate refused to consider Biggs' nomination for this position and Bush gave Biggs a recess appointment. The recess appointment would only be good until December 2008, while Biggs' term would extend to 2012 if he were confirmed. Why would Bush think that the Senate would be prepared to consider the nomination now?
I do not understand. Just a short time ago, the Senate refused to consider Biggs' nomination for this position and Bush gave Biggs a recess appointment. The recess appointment would only be good until December 2008, while Biggs' term would extend to 2012 if he were confirmed. Why would Bush think that the Senate would be prepared to consider the nomination now?
Biometric Social Security Cards Proposed As Part Of Immigration Bill
From Wired News:
The Social Security card faces its first major upgrade in 70 years under two immigration-reform proposals slated for debate this week that would add biometric information to the card and finally complete its slow metamorphosis into a national ID.
The leading immigration proposal with traction in Congress would force employers to accept only a very limited range of approved documents as proof of work eligibility, including a driver's license that meets new federal Real ID standards, a high-tech temporary work visa or a U.S. passport with an RFID chip. A fourth option is the notional tamper-proof biometric Social Security card, which would replace the text-only design that's been issued to Americans almost without change for more than 70 years.
A second proposal under consideration would add high-tech features to the Social Security card allowing employers to scan it with specially equipped laptop computers. Under that proposal, called the "Bonner Plan," the revamped Social Security card would be the only legal form of identification for employment purposes.
Without a truly vast infusion of resources, the Social Security Administration is simply incapable of implementing any biometric Social Security card, whatever "biometric" means. Even with a vast infusion of resources, it might take several years before Social Security would be ready to implement this.
Social Security Budget Picture Not Looking So Good
Things are not going well on getting the Social Security Administration an adequate budegt for the next fiscal year (FY), which begins on October 1. See the attached letter signed by the Chairmen and Ranking Minority members of both the entire House Ways and Means Committee and its Social Security Subcommittee. This letter was sent to their counterparts on the House Appropriations Committee.
So what is the problem? At first glance, this just looks like a nice letter to help get a good budget for Social Security. Let us go back. The FY 2007 Social Security budget is $9.3 billion. The President's proposed FY 2008 budget is only $9.6 billion. Social Security's requested budget for FY 2008 is $10.4 billion. A few weeks ago, the House and Senate Budget Committees seemed to be agreeing on approximately $10.1 billion for Social Security. There is no final agreement on a budget resolution and the budget resolution provides only rough guidelines on what the actual appropriations will be, but things were looking fairly good just a short time ago.
It is the Appropriations Committees which reports out the actual hard numbers which determine how much money each agency gets. Judging by this letter and particularly by its next to last paragraph, it looks as if we are at the President's number of $9.6 billion and merely hoping to get to $10 billion, instead of at $10.1 billion and trying to go up. The Appropriations Committees seem less inclined to give Social Security additional money than the Budget Committees.
What happened? Commissioner Astrue has been meeting with Appropriations Committee members. I am told that he is asking only for the President's budget proposal of $9.6 billion, even though his own agency asked for $10.4 billion. Astrue seems to be discouraging additional money for his agency, even though his agency had earlier asked for the money. Everyone else is advocating for $10 billion and up, except for the Office of Management and Budget and the Commissioner of Social Security.
I begin to understand why the House Social Security Subcommittee was so hard on Commissioner Astrue at the May 1 hearing. Dealing with Social Security's backlogs and staffing shortages appears less important to Commissioner Astrue than fealty to the White House. There have been rumblings for some time that Social Security as an independent agency has been a failure. This is more proof that Social Security Commissioners are not independent. Commissioner Astrue may need to worry about being reorganized out of a job if there is a Democrat in the White House after the 2008 election.
So what is the problem? At first glance, this just looks like a nice letter to help get a good budget for Social Security. Let us go back. The FY 2007 Social Security budget is $9.3 billion. The President's proposed FY 2008 budget is only $9.6 billion. Social Security's requested budget for FY 2008 is $10.4 billion. A few weeks ago, the House and Senate Budget Committees seemed to be agreeing on approximately $10.1 billion for Social Security. There is no final agreement on a budget resolution and the budget resolution provides only rough guidelines on what the actual appropriations will be, but things were looking fairly good just a short time ago.
It is the Appropriations Committees which reports out the actual hard numbers which determine how much money each agency gets. Judging by this letter and particularly by its next to last paragraph, it looks as if we are at the President's number of $9.6 billion and merely hoping to get to $10 billion, instead of at $10.1 billion and trying to go up. The Appropriations Committees seem less inclined to give Social Security additional money than the Budget Committees.
What happened? Commissioner Astrue has been meeting with Appropriations Committee members. I am told that he is asking only for the President's budget proposal of $9.6 billion, even though his own agency asked for $10.4 billion. Astrue seems to be discouraging additional money for his agency, even though his agency had earlier asked for the money. Everyone else is advocating for $10 billion and up, except for the Office of Management and Budget and the Commissioner of Social Security.
I begin to understand why the House Social Security Subcommittee was so hard on Commissioner Astrue at the May 1 hearing. Dealing with Social Security's backlogs and staffing shortages appears less important to Commissioner Astrue than fealty to the White House. There have been rumblings for some time that Social Security as an independent agency has been a failure. This is more proof that Social Security Commissioners are not independent. Commissioner Astrue may need to worry about being reorganized out of a job if there is a Democrat in the White House after the 2008 election.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)