The National Review, a right wing publication, has an article on a subject that I've posted about previously, Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sridhar Boini, who has been charged with indecent assault on two Social Security employees and with having problems with alcohol. The allegations date back to 2012. The agency would like to fire Boini but that's easier said than done. Social Security has to go through special procedures before disciplining an ALJ. In the meantime, Boini is still being paid even though he's not working. This is pretty standard for this sort of situation and, yes, these situations do arise at Social Security. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of ALJs go so far astray that Social Security not only wants them disciplined but doesn't even want them on the job at all. However, with around 2,000 ALJs on duty the agency is bound to have a very few of these cases at any given time. The delays aren't Social Security's fault. The problem is at the Merit Systems Protection Board which adjudicates ALJ discipline cases. I'd be willing to bet that the backlogs at MSPB have to do with lack of adequate funding. I wonder if the National Review would support additional funding for MSPB to help it work off its backlogs. And, yes, ALJs do deserve additional protection against being fired. No one with any sense wants ALJs subject to being fired for merely being independent adjudicators. That doesn't seem to be the case here but take away the MSPB protection and the potential exists. Even the National Review might have been unhappy if ALJs had been fired for issuing decisions that the Obama Administration disagreed with.
By the way, the National Review article talks about the raises that Boini has received but neglects to mention that they were nothing more than routine cost of living adjustments given to all federal employees. That's the sort of thing that makes you suspect that the National Review has an ax to grind.
By the way, the National Review article talks about the raises that Boini has received but neglects to mention that they were nothing more than routine cost of living adjustments given to all federal employees. That's the sort of thing that makes you suspect that the National Review has an ax to grind.