Shutdown Fears

I hate to worry people (and government employees seem to have an incredibly visceral fear of job instability, which may be why they were interested in working for the government to begin with), but here is some news. From The Hill:

The prospect of a September government shutdown loomed over the Capitol on Wednesday as the two parties fought over rising energy prices.

It’s a fight some members of either party are willing to have, but others worry about who will get blamed for a repeat of the 1995 shutdown that President Clinton pinned on a Republican Congress. ...

Senate Republicans debated strategy at a party lunch Wednesday, discussing whether they should block a continuing resolution (CR) that must pass in September if the government is to continue functioning, according to lawmakers who attended.

The moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been renewed annually for decades in spending bills by Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses.

Since Democratic leaders this year are not planning to pass most of the individual spending bills, Congress will have to pass a CR to keep government functioning past Sept. 30.

Usually, such resolutions pass easily. But this year, soaring gas prices have changed the political calculus and Republicans have decided the issue might rescue them at the polls. Republican leaders say Congress should not leave for the August recess without taking a vote on drilling.

Republicans would likely have to make the first move by filibustering a bill, or by President Bush vetoing a spending bill. ...

A shutdown fight holds allure for Republicans, who have seen Congress’s favorability ratings slide to record lows with little political consequence for the Democrats in control. Though Republicans tried to tag Democrats with the “Pelosi premium,” polling has shown that Bush is taking far more blame for gas prices than are Democrats.

“It depends on whether the White House wants this fight,” said a Republican aide. “A lot has to be gamed out on both sides.”

Backlogs Keep Getting Worse

I have been paying attention to the overall track of the backlog of claims awaiting a hearing before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) using the numbers provided by Social Security to the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR). Here are the updated numbers on the state of the backlog at certain points over about the last year and a half:

• January 25, 2007 -- 508 days
• May 25, 2007 -- 523 days
• July 28, 2007 -- 528 days
• August 31, 2007 -- 523 days
• November 30, 2007 -- 500 days
• February 29, 2008 -- 511 days
• May 30, 2008 -- 523 days
• June 27, 2008 -- 529 days
  

This makes one wonder how Social Security can claim with a straight face that it has a Plan to Eliminative the Hearing Backlog and Prevent Its Recurrence.

ALJ Registry Reopens -- Act Quickly If Interested

The Office of Personnel Management is now accepting applications for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) positions.

The announcement says that "This announcement is open from July 30, 2008 until either 11:59:59 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on the day on which the 600^th completed application has been submitted or 11:59:59 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on August 13, 2008 -- whichever comes first." This means that the register could close as early as midnight tonight.

New Instructions On 1695s

The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) obtained the recent staff instructions from Social Security. Note in particular the language requiring Social Security to contact the attorney or representative if there is no 1695 in the file at the time of implementation.

Identification Number AM-08092 REV Effective Date: 06/27/2008
Intended Audience: All RCs/ARCs/ADs/DDSs/FOs/PSCs/OCO/ODAR/TSCs
Originating Office: DCO OPSOS DOACS
Title: Processing SSA-1695s - Identifying Information for Possible Direct Payment of Authorized Fees
Type: AM - Admin Messages

Program: All Programs
Link To Reference: GN 03910.042
GN 03920.017
GN 03920.055

Retention Date: December 27, 2008

Revision: 7/17/08 - The instructions have been revised to separate and highlight processing instructions for the DDS and ODAR hearing offices. References to Form eSSA-1696 was removed because it does not exist.

The purpose of this message is to provide information and instructions for processing SSA-1695 (Identifying Information for Possible Direct Payment of Authorized Fees). This message also includes an important reminder for DDS and ODAR.

A. Background

Current policy in GN 03910.042 states that all appointments made on or after January 1, 2007 require the claimant representative to register and submit an SSA-1695, prior to the date SSA issues a favorable decision in order to receive direct payment of the representative’s fee. Upon receipt of an SSA-1695, field offices are instructed to establish a link on the SSA system between claimant and representative by:
· inputting information from the form;
· destroying the paper form; and
· sending a manually-generated letter of acknowledgement to the representative.

We’ve received an unusually high number of complaints from appointed representatives with allegations that field offices (FOs) are not acknowledging receipt of form SSA-1695. The complaints also allege that some FOs are not processing the SSA-1695s that are submitted. On April 8, 2008, the president of the National Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives lodged a formal complaint with SSA; and questioned the policy on how representative fees are released and the workflow for processing of SSA-1695.

Operations staff is currently working with the Office of Retirement and Disability Policy to support an online initiative to reduce this manual workload in the future. Until that initiative is implemented, the procedures below should be followed.

B. Procedures

When the DDS or ODAR hearing offices receives an SSA-1695:
1. DDS and ODAR hearing offices do NOT process SSA-1695s.
2. These offices should send SSA-1695 immediately to the claimant’s servicing FO for processing.

When the FO receives an SSA-1695:
1. Input the information on the Appointed Representative Direct Payment Screens located in POTS, #27 on the SSA Main Menu (If concurrent, input for both Title II and Title XVI cases—verify input posts to records);
2. Prepare and send the manual acknowledgement notice to the representative; and
3. Shred SSA-1695.

NOTE: When an appointed representative does not receive acknowledgement of receipt 30 days after submission of an SSA-1695, he/she is instructed to contact the field office or National 800 Number and then determine if it is necessary to fax the SSA-1695 directly to the field office manager for processing.

When the FO receives a faxed copy of the SSA-1695:
1. Query the appointed representative’s SSN on the Appointed Representative Direct Payment Screens, selection 5, located in POTS, #27 on the SSA Main Menu;
NOTE: If the link is established (if concurrent, verify both Title II and Title XVI cases.)
2. Check ORS to determine if the acknowledgement was sent to the representative, if not;
· Prepare and send the manual acknowledgement notice to the representative; and
· Shred faxed SSA-1695.

OR
1. Query the appointed representative’s SSN on the Appointed Representative Direct Payment Screens, selection 5, located in POTS, #27 on the SSA Main Menu.
NOTE: If the link is not established and no favorable decision has been effectuated, follow existing procedures in GN 03910.042 for processing SSA-1695.
2. Input the information on the Appointed Representative Direct Payment Screens located in POTS, #27 on the SSA Main Menu (if concurrent, input for both Title II and Title XVI cases—verify input posts to records);
3. Prepare and send the manual acknowledgement notice to the representative; and
4. Shred faxed SSA-1695.

When FO does not receive SSA-1695 prior to effectuating the claim:
1. If the SSA-1695 is not present or recorded in POTS prior to effectuation of the claim, and the representative later complains that he/she did not receive direct pay, request proof of timely submission of the SSA-1695.
2. If he/she cannot provide proof of submitting the 1695 prior to effectuation of the claim, follow procedures in GN 03920.017C.3.

When the claim is ready to effectuate/adjudicate a favorable decision; there is an SSA-1696, or written equivalent from a representative; the fee is not waived; and is otherwise eligible for direct pay:
1. Contact the representative;
2. Inform him/her that SSA has not received the SSA-1695,if the representative wants direct payment;
3. Instruct the representative to fax the SSA-1695 immediately.
NOTE: The link must be established before the claim is effectuated.

When the representative provides proof of submitting a 1695 prior to the date the claim was effectuated; and the 1695 is located in the FO after effectuation and receipted in by the FO prior to effectuation; but was not linked or acknowledged:
This is considered an inadvertent release of withheld past-due benefits to the claimant.
Follow procedures in GN 03920.055 if the representative has evidence of submitting the 1695 prior to a favorable decision.

C. Reminders
· After information is input into the system, always send acknowledgement for SSA-1695s; then promptly destroy the paper forms.
· SSA-1695s should never be scanned into the electronic folder nor sent to DDS or ODAR offices.

Additional scenarios for processing SSA-1695 can be found at:
· Appointed Representative Database; and
· Title II Attorney Fee Coding Guide

Direct all program–related and technical questions to your RO support staff or PC OA staff. RO support staff or PC OA staff may refer questions or problems to their Central Office contacts.

You Know Things Are Bad When ...

There is an article in the paper with the headline "Social Security Office Moves Into 'Bat-Free' Location." As the article says, "It was quite startling for the workers."

ALJ Backlog Report

The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) newsletter contains information obtained from the Social Security Administration on the state of the backlogs of claims awaiting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Click on each thumbnail to view it full size.

OPM Suspends Requirement That ALJs Continue To Have Law License

From the Federal Register:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing an interim rule suspending the requirement ... that requires incumbent administrative law judges (``ALJs'') to ``possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law.'' This provision requires ALJs to maintain ``active status,'' (or ``judicial status'' in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining ``active status'' to practice law), or to be in ``good standing'' where the licensing authority considers ``good standing'' as having a current license to practice law. ...

ALJ applicants are unaffected by this suspension, and the requirement that applicants possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law continues to apply. ... We have reconsidered comments received during the notice and comment period, however, about the burdens imposed by the active licensure requirement, as it applies to incumbents, the potential differences between the ethical requirements that pertain to an advocate and those requirements that pertain to someone asked to adjudicate cases impartially, and the variations in what States require as to lawyers serving as ALJs. We intend once again to solicit comments on this point in a new rulemaking. In the interim, we seek to prevent any adverse impact on incumbents while we engage in this process by suspending the current requirement as to incumbents.

Comments are due by September 16, 2008.

Send, deliver, or fax written comments to: Ms. Angela Bailey, Deputy Associate Director for Talent and Capacity Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 6551, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-9700; e-mail: employ@opm.gov; fax: (202) 606-2329. Comments may also be sent through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov.

Social Security Seeks Automated Scheduling

From a Request for Information posted by the Social Security Administration:

SSA is looking for an expert contractor with experience in scheduling cases in a judicial environment. We are interested in an Automated Scheduling tool that may be of value to any part of the SSA’s Intelligent Disability effort, whether it’s a front-end solution, back-end solution, or combination of both. Please provide enough documentation as to how you would address the needs described below to permit an initial assessment.

This seems to be part of the theory that any amount of money can be spent on contractors in the hope that they can somehow improve service at Social Security, but hiring additional federal employees to actually get the work done is out of the question. The history of the last 7 years or so suggests that this theory does not work. In fact, I would say that this theory is one of the major reasons for the backlogs at Social Security. We are to the point now that Social Security is receiving increases in its operating budget that are well above the rate of inflation, yet the agency is unable to add badly needed personnel, because of all the money being paid to contractors.