Translating Consultant Speak To English

No Comment Department

     A press release from Social Security:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has published the plan for the Customer Service Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goal on the performance.gov website.  This CAP Goal is one of 15 CAP Goals developed to support President Obama’s management agenda.  Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, serves as a Goal Leader with Lisa Danzig, the Associate Director for Personnel and Performance at OMB.

“Customer service is part of our DNA here at Social Security, and we are happy to provide leadership in this important area,” said Acting Commissioner Colvin.  “For all the federal agencies that interact with citizens or businesses, our customers expect and deserve world-class customer service.  Through this CAP Goal, we renew our commitment to improve service to the American people.”

Staff from Social Security and OMB identified the high-level CAP Goal strategies after consulting with dozens of other federal agencies and external organizations. 
Highlights of the plan include:

• An online and in-person network that federal employees anywhere can join and share ideas and tools for improving customer satisfaction
• A nationwide award program for teams and individuals who excel at customer service
• A better way to improve transparency and measure customer satisfaction across the federal government

For more information on the CAP goal, please click here http://www.performance.gov/node/3400/view?view=public#progress-update

Colvin May Be Pleasing Republicans More Than Democrats

     The Baltimore Sun thinks that Carolyn Colvin, Social Security's Acting Commissioner and nominee to become Commissioner for real, will face the most pressing questions from Democrats during her confirmation hearing.

Take A Look At This

     See the comment someone just made on my post about the delay in the Trustee's report. I know this is anonymous but still ...

Even Those Accused Of Doing Bad Things Are Entitled To Due Process

     From a recent addition to Social Security's HALLEX manual:

Under sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act (Act), the Social Security Administration (SSA) must immediately redetermine the entitlement of individuals to monthly disability benefits if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in the individual's application for such benefits. A redetermination is a re-adjudication of the individual's application for benefits, based on the agency's finding that fraud or similar fault was involved in an individual's application for monthly disability benefits. The agency may be required to initiate a redetermination based on an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) referral of information pursuant to section 1129(l) of the Act or information from a criminal prosecutor with jurisdiction over potential or actual related criminal cases. ... 

The Deputy Commissioner of ODAR will determine which ODAR component is designated to redetermine the affected case(s). ... 

Based on OIG [Office of Inspector General] referrals of information pursuant to section 1129(l) of the Act or information obtained through other criminal, congressional, or administrative investigation, the agency may direct an ODAR adjudicator to disregard certain evidence.

     There are a couple of problems here. Administrative Law Judges are required to be assigned to hear cases in rotation insofar as practical. If Social Security gets to decide which "component" gets to hear a case isn't Social Security getting to decide which ALJ hears the case? Social Security could assign the case to the Anchorage hearing office with its 14% reversal rate for instance.  If the agency wants to set up some special cadre of judges selected using some neutral criteria to hear these cases that's one thing but that's not what they're talking about. Second, Social Security gets to decide which evidence the ALJ can and can't hear? Are you kidding me? Did anyone at Social Security give serious consideration to how this might look to a federal court? 

Off The Shelf

     Social Security has posted a "Request for Information" seeking "sources capable of providing a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software solution designed to help detect and analyze sophisticated cases of fraud, waste, and abuse."

     Because, of course, such "sophisticated cases of fraud, waste and abuse" must exist and it must be possible to find them using a computer program.

Congressman Introduces Bill To Halt Service Cuts -- It's Going Nowhere

     A Democratic Congressman from Iowa is introducing legislation which would require that Social Security continue offering Social Security number printouts and benefits verification letters at the agency's field offices. Of course, the legislation has no chance of advancing.
     Update: And Senator Grassley (R-IA) expresses his concern. Undoubtedly, he blames Social Security management. It couldn't possibly be Social Security's appropriation.

10th Circuit Rules In Favor Of Same Sex Marriage -- How Many States Will This Affect?

     The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision of a District Court that struck down Utah's law banning same sex marriages. Undoubtedly, the state of Utah will ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. In the meantime, they'll ask that the decision be stayed. If the Supreme Court refuses to grant a stay, it's a pretty good sign that the Court will affirm and all states will have to allow same sex marriages.

     Where does this leave Social Security? The agency has a policy on application of decisions of the Courts of Appeals. However, that policy only concerns interpretations of the Social Security Act. This is the Constitution being interpreted, not the Social Security Act. I don't think that Social Security has any policy on this. In any case, it's clear that this will be the Department of Justice's call, not Social Security's. At a minimum, if the decision of the 10th Circuit decision isn't stayed, this will have to be applied throughout the 10th Circuit area, which is Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Would the Department of Justice decide to apply this beyond the 10th Circuit since the Administration would be in agreement and there is no conflicting decision of a Court of Appeals? What if we have three or four other Courts of Appeals coming down with similar decisions over the next three months? Would the Department of Justice then say to apply this nationally?