|
Post by Legal Beagle on Jun 18, 2009 6:43:28 GMT -5
Perhaps all of the former SSA attorneys would be well served to join the union, as if the current trend apparently goes, in a few years they might number the 'outsiders' and actually have the power to change things.
Just my two paws' worth.
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Jun 18, 2009 7:28:04 GMT -5
As a recently retired ALJ who served for 27 years and was a member of the AALJ board of directors for 8 years, I was horrified when I learned that 52 of the new hires came from the agency. After I saw a list of the names it became apparent that the new judges were hired because they would be management oriented and not likely to join the union. Moreover, knowing several of them personally, I would expect these individuals to be extremely conservative. Don't be surprised to see a big change and a decrease in the rate of favorable decisions from these new ALJ's. Some are already headed for management positions and were handpicked for that! While the retired judge may be horrified, I concur with the views expressed by wilddog earlier. A number of ODAR attorneys were horrified by the intemperate language employed in the complaint, filed by the AALJ, that sought a voiding of the selection of the 2008 judges. When a query was put to the union officials at the training session in July 2008, their response was they had not perceived the language as insulting or intemperate, notwithstanding that they declared all Union Board members read the complaint and only one had an objection, and they regretted any negative inferences drawn. Please! As any litigation attorney knows, the language employed would only have been added at the direction of the client and extensively negative characterizations are normally avoided unless that is part of the strategy. The AALJ's contemptuous language was there because that is how they felt and their negative feelings of agency attorneys was quite clear and hardly hidden. That is why agency attorneys who are now judges are quite reluctant to join a union that litigated against them and posited them unworthy to be judges. I can't say how agency attorneys now judges are granting or denying claims, but would expect them as other judges to make decisions on the merits not some political ideology or philosophy suggested by the lone posting of the aforementioned retired judge.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Jun 18, 2009 11:47:50 GMT -5
"We have met the enemy and he is us."--Pogo
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Jun 18, 2009 12:32:01 GMT -5
I understand why some folks might take this personally but this is precisely one of the reasons that many of us have objected to the SSA selection process that favors insiders. It is NOT because the insiders will be lousy judges, it is because there is both an inherent bias of some people selected by virtue of their connections and shared philosophy with current management, and a perceived bias of others selected from the inside, both of which serve to undermine the concept of a fair APA hearing. While service as an ODAR attorney should NEVER be the basis for exclusion as an ALJ, likewise it should NEVER be the basis for selection as an ALJ. Unfortunately, it IS A PRIMARY FACTOR used by SSA in the selection process, and, as a result, many, many people, not just AALJ, believe that it undermines the principles of the APA and an independent administrative judiciary. Allegations are easy to make, but where is the evidence/proof supporting your assertions that (a) ALJs with an ODAR background have biases that "serve to undermine the concept of a fair APA hearing" and (b) service as an ODAR attorney " is a primary factor used by SSA in the [ALJ] selection process"? I have read these attacks on both ODAR and on ODAR-affiliated candidates (of which I am not one) for quite some time, and have not seen a shred of support for such assertions, anecdotal or otherwise. In short, where's the beef?
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jun 18, 2009 13:21:55 GMT -5
You know, reading all of this stuff, you'd think we were a bunch of argumentative attorneys. . .wait a minute, that's what attorneys are known for, argument. Ever wonder why a 35 page pleading is called a "brief?" ;D
I'm one of those agency insiders (OGC rather than ODAR - spent 9 years defending ALJ decisions in district and circuit court, and the last two years of an 11 year OGC career in a USAO prosecuting SS fraud and ID theft) - if you'all want to believe I weaseled into the job because of my contacts, go ahead and believe it, but it's simply not true. Am I biased or a management flunky? I think some of you have made up your minds and nothing I could say here would change your opinion of me. Shakin' the bush, boss, shakin' the bush . . . apologies to Cool Hand Luke.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Jun 18, 2009 14:59:18 GMT -5
or is that "shakerin' the heights, boss, shakerin' the heights..."?
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jun 18, 2009 15:23:11 GMT -5
Oops. . .it's actually "Shakin' the tree boss, shakin' the tree. "
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Jun 18, 2009 21:10:22 GMT -5
As a recently retired ALJ who served for 27 years and was a member of the AALJ board of directors for 8 years, I was horrified when I learned that 52 of the new hires came from the agency. After I saw a list of the names it became apparent that the new judges were hired because they would be management oriented and not likely to join the union. Moreover, knowing several of them personally, I would expect these individuals to be extremely conservative. Don't be surprised to see a big change and a decrease in the rate of favorable decisions from these new ALJ's. Some are already headed for management positions and were handpicked for that! I don't know one way or the other. Under the "old" register, it was a miracle if an otherwise qualified agency attorney would get a decent score from OPM. On the other hand, now it would seem about 1/3 of them get a qualifying score by OPM... Again, I don't know, perhaps I am woefully ignorant, but....that does not necessarily connote with an extreme change, or otherwise orchestrated change by those with bad motives but rather, perhaps, a more measured change that was a little overdue.... A potentially incendiary, but of course, civil, post was dropped in our otherwise pretty peaceful board. It is interesting to note it has not aroused unreasonable passion in any of those the post seeks to characterize as those who are incapable of reaching objective and impartial conclusions. I would say those the post seeks to pre-condemn--the agency attorneys-- pass with flying colors. But again, what do I know, I am just a rabbit... So, I guess I would say hurrah for free speech, whatever your persuasion, as ALJD says and as Patriots Fan suggests, as well. I am proud to be in the company of each of you, those who are on my side of the highway, and incoming traffic as well. My defense may be too mild-mannered, but it amounts to: there is room for us all to be considered....
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Jun 18, 2009 22:52:22 GMT -5
As a recently retired ALJ who served for 27 years and was a member of the AALJ board of directors for 8 years, I was horrified when I learned that 52 of the new hires came from the agency. After I saw a list of the names it became apparent that the new judges were hired because they would be management oriented and not likely to join the union. Moreover, knowing several of them personally, I would expect these individuals to be extremely conservative. Don't be surprised to see a big change and a decrease in the rate of favorable decisions from these new ALJ's. Some are already headed for management positions and were handpicked for that! I don't know one way or the other. Under the "old" register, it was a miracle if an otherwise qualified agency attorney would get a decent score from OPM. On the other hand, now it would seem about 1/3 of them get a qualifying score by OPM... Again, I don't know, perhaps I am woefully ignorant, but....that does not necessarily connote with an extreme change, or otherwise orchestrated change by those with bad motives but rather, perhaps, a more measured change that was a little overdue.... A potentially incendiary, but of course, civil, post was dropped in our otherwise pretty peaceful board. It is interesting to note it has not aroused unreasonable passion in any of those the post seeks to characterize as those who are incapable of reaching objective and impartial conclusions. I would say those the post seeks to pre-condemn--the agency attorneys-- pass with flying colors. But again, what do I know, I am just a rabbit... So, I guess I would say hurrah for free speech, whatever your persuasion, as ALJD says and as Patriots Fan suggests, as well. I am proud to be in the company of each of you, those who are on my side of the highway, and incoming traffic as well. My defense may be too mild-mannered, but it amounts to: there is room for us all to be considered.... The only position I see anyone supporting here is the one that supports the outcome that most reflects their own career path. For the most part I see a bunch of people arguing who went to law school but didn't take the lessons away with them. I submit the following: if an SSA attorney were on a list for another agency. Say, for example, HUD. And the other attorney had worked in the labor field. And the third had represented people in the housing, public housing field, section 8 and so on. Which of the 3 should HUD pick, given that they had identical scores from OPM, no vet preference and remarkably good interviews with that agency? Should HUD HAVE TO take one of the first two to effectuate the APA? Where is it written that an agency must hire with an eye to implementing the policies of the APA. Wasn't the opm scoring system the APA equalizing hurdle? And weren't the scores OPM derived intended to neutralize the hiring authorities' hopes to hire someone that would see their polices their way? HUD will in most likelihood hire the third guy because he knows a little more about the field, probably has a slight more interest in the subject matter, and therefore is more likely to be successful at it, and stay with the agency. If SSA must hire in a way to mitigate some perceived inequality in the ideals of the APA, then so too should the other agencies. I hear no one making a demand that any other agency bears such a burden. Why should SSA. Furthermore, traditionally, until last year, SSA ALJS were in fact mostly non ssa attorneys. The typical SSA writer/attorney has studied under, been mentored by, had decisions corrected by ALJs who are non SSA attorneys. Some of those remained writers/adjudicators. Others went on to be supervisors and managers. It's odd to me to suggest that these people, who honed their skills by working with and for non SSA derived ALJs would have a purely agency perspective or bent just because they worked for the agency. I'd think their viewpoint then would be less than "incestuous" . Furthermore, to suggest that those SSA attorneys have had no experience beyond SSA is equally baffling. Such outside experience can and has informed them throughout their careers and thus, again, their experience is not incestuous. As far as SSA attorney being tools of management. Consider the possibility that those SSA attorneys just might be the opposite. I'd think they'd be a little sour after the battles they have had to go through to get respect. They're not automatic tools of the powers that be. Although to be sure, many of them will be. Some people are born managers and some are not. And some are born tools of managements and some are not. However, don't confine those traits or characteristics, by dividing the 2 armies along insider vs outsider. I guarantee you that you will have jus as many tools and management hacks amongst the outsiders as the insiders. That being said, I stll say the OPM test is moronic and doesn't do what it sells itself as doing. But we're stuck with it...
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Jun 18, 2009 23:01:48 GMT -5
quick! lock the thread! potential disagreement on the horizion Trust me, the thought has crossed my mind. But so far so good, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. ;D Please continue to keep it relevant and civil, and hopefully we can all learn a little something here (and also prove that we can actually have a civil discussion about a touchy subject without going bonkers). The bulk of the posts in this thread have come from current and newbie ALJs, so I'm counting on you folks to stay judicial.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Jun 19, 2009 9:53:28 GMT -5
"If SSA must hire in a way to mitigate some perceived inequality in the ideals of the APA, then so too should the other agencies. I hear no one making a demand that any other agency bears such a burden. Why should SSA."
The problem is that other agencies already bear such a burden because they don't have the same flexibility to reach individuals with relevant experience. I was on the last SSA cert. I have a mid-range score, very limited geographic availability (Washington DC area) and I did not get an offer (I actually did not expect one). But my agency, which hires ALJ's one at a time, can not reach down and get me. SSA can reach and get individuals with their experience. That is the unfairness that I see.
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on Jun 19, 2009 21:58:26 GMT -5
It seems that, more than anything else, SSA has simply been looking to hire as ALJs people they think will decide a lot of cases and reduce the backlog. That certainly might give an advantage to an "insider" known to have good production stats, and vice versa. It might give an advantage to an "outsider" who has demonstrated production otherwise, say by being a state ALJ or by having a high volume workers comp or similar practice. It might disadvantage an individual perceived to have any kind of agenda that might interfere with deciding a ton of cases. And once "more productive" or "less productive" people were, rightly or wrongly, so identified, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that all measures possible were taken to hire the maximum number of perceived "more productive" people. Not saying whether any of that is good or bad, just seems like what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by fisherwoman on Jun 20, 2009 7:30:21 GMT -5
I have read this thread and thought a while before I decided to weigh in.
To state the obvious, there is no human process that is not biased or flawed. Moreover, I am amused whenever I hear the word "transparency" because unless the conduct actually follows, or is evident, which supports that description, transparency is nothing more than a word used to "spin." 1984.
This issue of "bias" is clearly an issue widely discussed when it comes to selecting judges. Hence, the current Supreme Court debate about the new nominee, and all of the other discussions we have witnessed with new SC appointtees. Why are some selected and not others? We know based on Presidential philosophies why the SC appointees are made and the characteristics they look for. Of course, there are surprises, ala Earl Warren to Eisenhower. But for this selection process, who knows?
Am I a "management" tool? It is a bit disturbing to read this.
I do not think I am. I have represented both management and those agin' management. I like to think I swing with the evidence, although clearly I have "life" biases. In fact, my life biases are fairly strong. I am not so naive as to think they do not influence how I view the world.
That said, most of us really do not know why some were selected and some not. For example, though selected, I am not an "insider." I have not handled social security cases, but rather my background was a wide and deep litigation and appellate practice, with other aspects of adjudication thrown into the mix. I have other "production" talents, I think, but the number of 500 dispostions per year is daunting.
I am not certain whether I will like this job. It is a wait and see for me. Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by torpedo on Jun 20, 2009 9:40:56 GMT -5
This isn't really a question of bias in the selection decision as it is a question of integrity and public confidence in the decision.
The integrity of any decision is strongest when:1) the record upon which it is based is available for review by all interested parties; and 2) the principles upon which the decision is based are clearly articulated.
The integrity of a decision is weakened when: 1) the interested are unable to see the record; and/or 2) the parties cannot articulate to themselves or anyone else the specific principles upon which the decision is based.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that any SSA ALJ candidate really knows either: 1) the record upon which his/her particular selection/non-selection was based; or 2) the actual principles upon which that particular decision was based. That's why there is so much speculation in all the threads of this forum.
If I were ever selected as a SSA ALJ, I would want my decisions to be based solely upon a record that the interested parties could see, and I would want the parties to understand (even if they disagreed) exactly why I decided as I did.
My guess is that, whoever is in charge of the SSA ALJ selection process believes that it is better to perpetuate mystery in each ALJ selection, rather than explain (as any true ALJ would) the actual bases for any particular ALJ selection.
I am upset by what I perceive to be the "Do what I say, not as I do" example created by this SSA ALJ selection process.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 20, 2009 12:59:21 GMT -5
Personally I am very concerned with the large number of state judges and ALJs that have been hired. As we all know these former judges and ALJs carry a certain "judicial bias" with them that can be expected to interfere with their impartiality when hearing SSA claims. Having been on the bench before, they know that all of the witnesses are lying and all of the attorneys are crooked. Its a lot easier to just ignore the supporting cast and make the decision from the gut.
I am also frightened by the large number of attorneys that have been hired. We have all heard the endless lawyer jokes and know that where there is smoke, there is fire. With all of these attorneys getting hired we can expect the claimants to get nothing, and all of these fat-cat lawyers will walk away with all of the cash.
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Jun 20, 2009 13:52:37 GMT -5
Val, you are a hoot!
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Jun 20, 2009 14:06:51 GMT -5
Yup, excellent sense of humor. ;D
|
|