pinky
New Member
Very Negative and Disgruntled Employee; Believe at your own risk.
Posts: 8
|
Post by pinky on May 26, 2010 15:23:32 GMT -5
The real numbers?
I do not hold hearings every day (no surprises there). As you say, reviewing files, writing instructions, ruling on motions, resolving procedural issues, attending stupid mandatory conferences in Kansas City, take time. (And I take vacations.)
Then, as I said, asking ain't getting, I cannot always have a hearing room when I want one. Our dockets are often unfilled, because not enough cases have been pulled. And, of course, a scheduled hearing does not mean the the claimant will appear, that there will not be a request for a rep, that the rep won't drop 1,000 pages on me three days before the hearing, or we won't have an equipment malfunction, weather emergency.
I am not saying I am more productive than anybody else. I read and analyze every page of every evidence file before me--before the hearing. I hold hearings that vary from 15 minutes to an hour, depending on the evidence. I write some of my own (the most complicated ones). I hold about 60 hearings a month (crammed into the limited number of days available), and issue about 50 decisions. I used to issue between 60 - 80, but that was in a country far away peopled with enough and very competent staff, paper cases, correctly pulled cases, and ample hearing rooms.
I understand that for an office that puts out 500-700 decisions a month a couple of three hundred in writing would be small, but my office does not issue 500-700. We are gasping to get out more than 300 a month--(even with rocket dockets) and not because the judges are not working.
If the agency were to start scheduling under the proposed rule, no decisions would issue faster. In fact, it slowed me down dramatically.
My only point is that there are many fine judges who work very hard, and the proposed rule will be counterproductive, because the delay is NOT in scheduling. All the proposed rule will do is introduce another unnecessary layer of complexity and invite additonal delays due to equipment failures. We already have enough trouble with the computer systems, the e-Files, and Central Print.
It will not help with slugs. Schedule the cases for which he is not prepared. That helps nobody. Maybe he hold those. Then the case is just going to sit until he thinks the evidence is ready, he has written his instructions, etc. etc. etc. OR do you want that decision to be made on some basis other than the evidence? The agency should deal with the judge, not shortchange the claimants.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on May 26, 2010 16:12:23 GMT -5
just another point- some folks say if you are already issuing over 500 decisions a year the agency won't be applying this reg "against you." But I'm in an office where there are twice as many judges as hearing rooms. If the agency starts "force scheduling" for some judges, then there isn't going to be enough hearing space for me to hear as many cases as I want to. in essence it will force all judges towards the middle. instead of someone like me issuing 800 dispositions a year and another judge in the same office only issuing 300 decisions if that's where they feel comfortable, the reg will pull me down to 500 decisions and leave me bored to tears most days while attempting to drag another judge up to 500 decisions. the net result- the office issuing the exact same number of decisions it did before overall or worse, since the judge who is being dragged up will park cases in ALPO or POST, and likely not really increase their dispositions all that much.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 26, 2010 16:29:52 GMT -5
ALPO? Love that acronym. ;D
I have to say, threads like this are very interesting to those of us who are in the applying/interview process and are looking for info about what actually happens in different offices with those already DOING the job.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on May 26, 2010 17:29:11 GMT -5
First, in case people haven't looked at the Social Security News blog today, the reg is currently in limbo. So there is no need to get rattled up about something that's still in progress. Second, I'm not a fan of centralized scheduling and I believe productive ALJs should be left alone so we can do our work in peace. I agree with a lot of the good points raised in this thread, which includes every office being different, the lack of hearing rooms in certain offices, as well as the uneven quality of support staff between different offices. However, what I have a problem with is dumb arguments and hyperboles. If you use poor arguments in an important dispute such as this one, you're more likely to lose and we're all worse off for it. That's why I have been picking on Pinky's posts. Not that I think centralized scheduling is necessarily a good idea, but that her arguments embodies the same dumb style AALJ has been using for the last few years to the embarrassment of some of us. By the way Pinky, has the agency actually took over scheduling at your office or not? ODAR is already scheduling for judges in my office. What it means is that the judges get a week to review the case for needed development (heaven help you if you go on vacation or have hearings out of town). The case is scheduled. If the judge requests development, the case is scheduled immediately, even though the development may not come in time. In this post, you made it sound like it happened already, and it seems like you been backing away from this assertion ever since. So has it or has it not happened? Anyway, if this is the style you practice in arguing against agency management, we're all doomed.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on May 26, 2010 18:42:22 GMT -5
I totally agree that the reg will either be outright rejected or substantially modified by OMB. However, I just have to say why the agency would be pushing for this at this point is beyond my comprehension.
The backlog is going down month after month and much quicker than the agency hoped it would to achieve its goal of eliminating the backlog by 2013. The ALJ Corps has never been more productive both in terms of total dispositions as well as decisions per judge. Yet, the agency wants to fundamentally alter the most important procedural mechanism that keeps everything moving. The agency is willing to cause such a huge disruption to the workflow in hopes of what? maybe a 1-2% increase in dispositions.
It reminds me of when HPI was implemented and every hearing office essentially couldn't function for 6 months while the kinks got worked out. Not coincidentally, that's when the backlog really exploded and, of course, was the reason the ALJ Corps unionized.
|
|
float
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by float on May 26, 2010 18:47:18 GMT -5
How many FTEs are handling the scheduling in your office? In mine, it is at least 4.
I wonder, tho, how a centralized unit could do the same job more efficiently.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on May 26, 2010 19:01:34 GMT -5
I totally agree that the reg will either be outright rejected or substantially modified by OMB. However, I just have to say why the agency would be pushing for this at this point is beyond my comprehension. When I was at refresher training recently, someone asked about the centralize scheduling concept to Deputy Commissioner Sklar when he was doing the Q&A session. DC Sklar's answer was that the current concept is an automated software program where the ALJs and Reps can input their availabilities, and the program will match things up. This will free up manpower at the individual hearing offices for other tasks. DC Sklar was very straight forward in saying he thinks the automation concept has 50% chance of failing, but it's worth a try. I found his candor to be quite refreshing and he came across as a very intelligent executive. So after his presentation, while I still think the pure centralized scheduling concept is not workable, I'm willing to reserve judgment on this automation process he sketched out. After all, e-folder and FITS were greeted with the same skepticism when they first came out, and they are working rather well right now. Now I'm not saying there is no ulterior motives involved or the possibility of a spectacular flop. A good dose of realism and caution is essential for longevity and a healthy career. However, to act like a Chicken Little and run around crying the sky is falling all the time destroys our credibility and is quite unbecoming of a judge. Anyway, I'm a firm believer that we need to speak up and push back if there are bad policies. It's just that we need to do it smart so we don't lose our credibility.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on May 26, 2010 19:41:13 GMT -5
I totally agree that the reg will either be outright rejected or substantially modified by OMB. However, I just have to say why the agency would be pushing for this at this point is beyond my comprehension. When I was at refresher training recently, someone asked about the centralize scheduling concept to Deputy Commissioner Sklar when he was doing the Q&A session. DC Sklar's answer was that the current concept is an automated software program where the ALJs and Reps can input their availabilities, and the program will match things up. This will free up manpower at the individual hearing offices for other tasks. DC Sklar was very straight forward in saying he thinks the automation concept has 50% chance of failing, but it's worth a try. I found his candor to be quite refreshing and he came across as a very intelligent executive. So after his presentation, while I still think the pure centralized scheduling concept is not workable, I'm willing to reserve judgment on this automation process he sketched out. After all, e-folder and FITS were greeted with the same skepticism when they first came out, and they are working rather well right now. Now I'm not saying there is no ulterior motives involved or the possibility of a spectacular flop. A good dose of realism and caution is essential for longevity and a healthy career. However, to act like a Chicken Little and run around crying the sky is falling all the time destroys our credibility and is quite unbecoming of a judge. Anyway, I'm a firm believer that we need to speak up and push back if there are bad policies. It's just that we need to do it smart so we don't lose our credibility. The system described by DC Sklar would require no change in the current regulations. Its no different than me handing my tech a list of dates on which I want to do hearings. I'm still effectively setting the time and place of hearing. part of everyone's paranoia comes from the fact the agency won't spell out in writing what it plans to do or not do with this regulatory change. Instead, we get off hand remarks from various people in authority here and there about what they think maybe the plan might be. If you really want to see in writing what the agency thinks about you and your position as a judge, I strongly urge you to go to the aalj website and read the agency's proposed contract.
|
|
|
Post by odarite on May 27, 2010 5:40:42 GMT -5
If you really want to see in writing what the agency thinks about you and your position as a judge, I strongly urge you to go to the aalj website and read the agency's proposed contract. About as useful as reading the AALJ's proposal. Neither version is the final product, nor even a realistic picture of what that side thinks they will get. It's called a negotiating posture. I'm not taking any of it seriously, but will sit back and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on May 27, 2010 19:24:25 GMT -5
I'm not taking any of it seriously, but will sit back and see what happens. Yup. Plenty of time to scream after the meteor really hits the earth. ;D
|
|
pinky
New Member
Very Negative and Disgruntled Employee; Believe at your own risk.
Posts: 8
|
Post by pinky on May 28, 2010 7:37:32 GMT -5
Orly,
Yes, they took over scheduling. THEY are backpedaling.
Not to worry--the proposed scheduling reg is dead, dead, dead.
|
|
pinky
New Member
Very Negative and Disgruntled Employee; Believe at your own risk.
Posts: 8
|
Post by pinky on May 28, 2010 11:11:00 GMT -5
You know, Orly, for someone who is still wet behind the ears--not even a year of experience if I read correctly, you are unnecessarily arrogant and obnoxious. Ad hominem arguments and sarcasm are generally ineffective. One does hope that you do not use them in decisions.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on May 28, 2010 11:27:40 GMT -5
I don't doubt DC Sklar's good intentions- the difficulty is once the Commish or his Deputy launches a new program to improve the efficiency and productivity of the hearing process, the implementing management officials have a habit of losing the objective in the details. HPI, E-files, E-biz, WORD 7, VISTA, etc. We come into work on a Monday morning any everything is frozen up. When SSA adopted WORD, at least they left WORD PERFECT as a back-up until everyone could learn the nuances of the new program; but not now- they just shove it down your throat and increase the new "body count" for the month. Frank used to ask how he could help us- that was 14 years ago. Now its here is how we can impede you in your task this month!
|
|
|
Post by Orly on May 28, 2010 17:24:34 GMT -5
You know, Orly, for someone who is still wet behind the ears--not even a year of experience if I read correctly, you are unnecessarily arrogant and obnoxious. Ad hominem arguments and sarcasm are generally ineffective. One does hope that you do not use them in decisions. Pinky, you don't know who I am, what I have done before becoming an ALJ, and what I'm doing now. For all you know, I was the AAJ on the AC that was remanding your ill reasoned decisions back to you for the last 10 years. Besides, how do I know you're an ALJ and not some crazy person pretending to be an ALJ? Or maybe I'm an AA pretending to be an ALJ to yanking your chain? ;D I guess when you can't win the argument on merit, you can always try to claim "seniority". But to do it in cyberspace where we're all quasi anonymous is really silly. Anyway, I think I made my point already. So I'll take the high road now and call it a day here. Good luck and try not to forget to take your Zoloft before you post next time.
|
|
pinky
New Member
Very Negative and Disgruntled Employee; Believe at your own risk.
Posts: 8
|
Post by pinky on May 29, 2010 7:29:25 GMT -5
We were told that the automated system is already in use in several offices. Coming to mine soon. It was described as just a system that coordinates the hearings, so that hearing rooms and experts, etc., are not double-booked. That would not require a regulation change, as noted above. Also of concern is the comment that it may fail. Why not test it FIRST? Not a concept this agency seems to understand. Still, it may help. We share hearing rooms, so things can get tangled easily, especially as one of my colleagues prefers not to schedule VEs, but to borrow them from the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on May 29, 2010 11:09:43 GMT -5
And I'll pretend to be a slobbering sychophant who adores SSA ALJs. Please boys, no fisticuffs...
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on May 29, 2010 13:15:04 GMT -5
We were told that the automated system is already in use in several offices. Coming to mine soon. It was described as just a system that coordinates the hearings, so that hearing rooms and experts, etc., are not double-booked. That would not require a regulation change, as noted above. Also of concern is the comment that it may fail. Why not test it FIRST? Not a concept this agency seems to understand. Still, it may help. We share hearing rooms, so things can get tangled easily, especially as one of my colleagues prefers not to schedule VEs, but to borrow them from the rest of us. I am staying out of any personal issues. I am not a fan of agency scheduling. I note DCOSS Sklar was fired, er, transferred shortly after making a negative comment about central scheduling. I am not aware of any testing of central scheduling. Certainly some offices might be using some new software, but it cannot be the centralized scheduling by its very nature. I disagree that no reg change is needed for centralized scheduling. The agency clearly wants to do more than just match up available alj times and rep times. The proposed reg allows it to decide the day and time of hearings. This is not simply a harmless use of language. There is a reason for this, and it is that the agency desires to set the days and times without any consultation with the judges. Even if by some miracle the agency only wanted to match ALJ and rep times, there still exists reasons needed for reg changes. I like to set 3 in the a.m. and 3 in the p.m. with the morning hearings set at the same time and the afternoon at the same time as well. We have a high no show rate here and I do shorter hearings than most. I doubt the agency will allow this type scheduling. It can not allow them only by assuming the power to set times of hearings. Lastly, I just don't think the agency has shown a track record that allows for any confidence they can schedule all the cases in all the hearing offices with remote sites of many different kinds across time zones from Puerto Rico to Guam and in addition schedule VE's and ME's for hearings. The debacle of HPI still resonates. Testing some sort of software in a few offices does not qualify as a test for a task of this magnitude. I agree completely with you that the agency has a bad habit of not testing at all, or ignoring the results of testing. This is the agency that in its first draft of a contract for hearing reporters forbade the reporters to communicate or give documents to the claimants. Somehow the agency had forgotten about remote sites and that in VTC hearings the agency has no one present but the reporter and a guard. How can anyone believe that the agency will be able to pull this off without massive disruption.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on May 31, 2010 13:57:14 GMT -5
We were told that the automated system is already in use in several offices. Coming to mine soon. It was described as just a system that coordinates the hearings, so that hearing rooms and experts, etc., are not double-booked. That would not require a regulation change, as noted above. Also of concern is the comment that it may fail. Why not test it FIRST? Not a concept this agency seems to understand. Still, it may help. We share hearing rooms, so things can get tangled easily, especially as one of my colleagues prefers not to schedule VEs, but to borrow them from the rest of us. I am staying out of any personal issues. I am not a fan of agency scheduling. I note DCOSS Sklar was fired, er, transferred shortly after making a negative comment about central scheduling. I am not aware of any testing of central scheduling. Certainly some offices might be using some new software, but it cannot be the centralized scheduling by its very nature. I disagree that no reg change is needed for centralized scheduling. The agency clearly wants to do more than just match up available alj times and rep times. The proposed reg allows it to decide the day and time of hearings. This is not simply a harmless use of language. There is a reason for this, and it is that the agency desires to set the days and times without any consultation with the judges. Even if by some miracle the agency only wanted to match ALJ and rep times, there still exists reasons needed for reg changes. I like to set 3 in the a.m. and 3 in the p.m. with the morning hearings set at the same time and the afternoon at the same time as well. We have a high no show rate here and I do shorter hearings than most. I doubt the agency will allow this type scheduling. It can not allow them only by assuming the power to set times of hearings. Lastly, I just don't think the agency has shown a track record that allows for any confidence they can schedule all the cases in all the hearing offices with remote sites of many different kinds across time zones from Puerto Rico to Guam and in addition schedule VE's and ME's for hearings. The debacle of HPI still resonates. Testing some sort of software in a few offices does not qualify as a test for a task of this magnitude. I agree completely with you that the agency has a bad habit of not testing at all, or ignoring the results of testing. This is the agency that in its first draft of a contract for hearing reporters forbade the reporters to communicate or give documents to the claimants. Somehow the agency had forgotten about remote sites and that in VTC hearings the agency has no one present but the reporter and a guard. How can anyone believe that the agency will be able to pull this off without massive disruption. Love your final example - agree completely. What do you mean DCOSS Sklar was reassigned? When did that happen?
|
|
|
Post by Orly on May 31, 2010 15:00:43 GMT -5
What do you mean DCOSS Sklar was reassigned? When did that happen? He probably meant DCOSS Sklar's predecessor, DCOSS David Foster.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jun 1, 2010 11:03:13 GMT -5
What do you mean DCOSS Sklar was reassigned? When did that happen? He probably meant DCOSS Sklar's predecessor, DCOSS David Foster. Oh. In that case, I can guarantee it was not due to criticizing central scheduling.
|
|