Is Social Security Still Hiring Under FCIP?

In the wake of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) that the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) is inconsistent with veteran's preference statutes has Social Security sent any directions to its managers? Is it business as usual until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) acts? Has OMB acted? Is FCIP hiring still going on? Are managers trying to complete FCIP hiring under the current rules before they are told to stop? I realize that the MSPB did not order an immediate halt in FCIP hiring but it is clear that any FCIP hire may bring about a complaint to MSPB and the complaint is likely to be sustained.

Exactly

Andrew Biggs, writing on his blog, gives three reasons why liberals are not interested at the moment in addressing Social Security's long term financing issues. I think his third reason is the only one that really matters:

Time is on their side: If we knew the share of the Social Security deficit that must be filled with higher taxes, it would make sense to apply those tax increases immediately. Spreading a tax increase (or benefit cut) over as many people as possible lowers the necessary increase on each person. But delaying reform puts more people into the system, after which point their benefits are effectively sacrosanct, and tilts the political calculus toward tax increases and away from benefit cuts. It’s like the conservative “starve the beast” strategy in reverse.

Actually, though, the benefits are already sacrosanct. Right wingers just don't accept this well-established fact.

VA Watchdog Ceases Publication

I am sorry to report that the VA Watchdog is ceasing publication due to the ill health of Larry Scott, its founder and editor. This is a great shame. The VA Watchdog has done a great job. I wish someone could pick up where Scott has to leave off.

Federal Career Intern Decision

That decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board on the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) is available online. Some key excerpts:

We hold that FCIP is inconsistent with the Civil Service Rules that govern placement of positions in the excepted service under 5 U.S.C. § 3302(1) -- a law relating to veterans’ preference -- because it allows an agency to invoke an appointing authority reserved for “positions . . . for which it is not practicable to hold a competitive examination” after the agency holds a competitive examination that yields highly-qualified preference-eligible candidates.

We wish to emphasize what we do not hold. Amicus NTEU [National Treasury Employees Union] asserts ... that FCIP violates the merit system principles because it allows hiring without “fair and open competition.” ... The cases before us, however, arise under the VEOA [Veterans Employment Opportunity Act]; the sole issue is whether the appellants’ rights under a statute or regulation relating to veterans’ preference have been violated. ...

In this connection, we overrule the statement in Gingery v. Department of Defense, 105 M.S.P.R. 671, ¶ 9 (2007), rev’d on other grounds, 550 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008), that FCIP is “a valid exception to the competitive examination requirement” because it is “authorized by an Executive Order.” ...

The Board has recognized that in unusual cases its decisions may have such a far-reaching impact on the workings of the government that the normal timeline for compliance should be extended. ... This appears to be such a case. At the same time, untold numbers of veterans are potentially being shut out of job opportunities for which they would have preference, because the agencies are filling the positions under FCIP without public notice. ... Balancing the foregoing considerations, we conclude that OPM must comply with 5 U.S.C. § 3302(1) within 120 days of the date of this decision instead of the customary 30 days.

This will have a massive effect upon future hiring at Social Security and other agencies. FCIP was probably intended to be a small part of federal hiring but has come to be a major way in which federal employees are hired. Of course, because of the elections results, Social Security may not be doing much hiring over at least the next two years.

Updated Fee Payment Numbers

Social Security has posted these updated numbers on payments of fees to attorneys and certain others who represent Social Security claimants.

Fee Payments
Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-10	32,227	$111,440,046.23
Feb-10	29,914	$105,708,101.59
Mar-10	34,983	$122,874,426.87
Apr-10	44,740	$153,478,589.32
May-10	34,686	$119,527,194.40
June-10	32,432	$111,887,579.72
July-10	32,232	$132,328,622.27
Aug-10	34,755	$119,424,346.42
Sept-10	32,660	$108,650,373.60
Oct-10	38,705	$128,133,064.77

MSPB Rules Against Federal Career Intern Program

From a press release issued by the American Federation of Government Employees:

The American Federation of Government Employees today applauded the Merit Systems Protection Board’s ruling that the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) violates competitive hiring and veterans preference rules under Title 5. AFGE had filed an amicus brief in the case urging the board to strike down the FCIP.

In the Nov. 2 decision, MSPB ruled that the FCIP is inconsistent with Civil Service Rules that govern placement of positions in the excepted service because it does not require agencies to justify placing positions in the excepted service as required by statute. Under Title 5, excepted service authority should be granted only for “positions … for which it is not practicable to hold a competitive examination.” The board therefore ordered the Office of Personnel Management to comply with Title 5.

Social Security has made extensive use of FCIP. This will be a major change in hiring for Social Security if this holds up.

Proffering

From an update to Social Security's HALLEX Manual:

HALLEX Sections I-2-5-42 Obtaining Medical Expert Opinion Through Interrogatories and I-2-5-57 Obtaining Vocational Expert Opinion Through Interrogatories are amended to reflect that administrative law judges (ALJ), attorney adjudicators, and hearing office (HO) staff (with the authority to issue interrogatories in cases not yet assigned to an ALJ under the direction of the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ)) need not proffer proposed pre and posthearing medical expert (ME) and vocational expert (VE) interrogatories to claimants or representatives prior to submission to the ME or VE. After the completed interrogatories are received, they must continue to be proffered to claimants and representatives.

This is the first update for HALLEX since August 7, 2009.

I'm Glad Republicans Aren't Getting Carried Away

From the Washington Post:

To make good on their campaign pledge to reduce the size of government, Republicans say they are planning a series of quick moves to slash spending soon after they take control of the House in January. Among the likely options: a massive rescissions package that aides said would slice 20 percent from most domestic agency budgets and enact $160 billion in additional cuts endorsed by visitors to Cantor's "YouCut" Web site. ...

Conservatives, meanwhile, dismissed the proposal as too puny to satisfy a public fed up with three years of bailouts, deficit-spending and other far-reaching government programs.

Could someone explain to me how they get the Senate to pass this and either get the President to sign it or get both houses of Congress to override his veto?