Group Supervisors to become GS-14s?

[jcse]

Has anyone heard the rumor that ODAR is upgrading Group Supervisors to GS-14s and HODs to GS-15s? As of now, this is just a rumor. If anyone has any info., however, please share.

[Propmaster]

Based on the responsibilities of GS-14s and 15s in HQ, I think this would be a totally appropriate change.

[bartleby]

Considering that GS-13 Senior Attorneys were just placed under the supervision of GS-13 Group Supervisors, I would certainly think that is the plan.. JMHO.. As usual..

[Well]

Rumor has floated for some time. The water cooler talk is that it is being done to pacify AFGE over the increasing number of senior attorney positions. Since that rumor swirled I've noted the two most recent group supe hires in the area were non-attorney even though a number of attorneys applied. Take that FWIW.

[karaj]

I don't have a problem with the GS14 raise so long as the GS is an attorney. I don't quite understand the logic of nonattorneys supervising paralegal decisionwriters & attorneys..I have a JD and the GS has a BA. If I have a question involving a substantive issue, the GS does not always know the answer. There is something inherently unethical about it. What ends up happening is that we attorneys have to get together and resolve the legal issues on our own; not to mention the fact that the nonatty GSs are coming to us for advice.

[bartleby]

Recently there has been a rush to hire Group Supervisors from outside of ODAR.. That is very problematic as they have never written a decision or know a widget from a divot..

[barkley]

Apr 15, 2010 15:22:25 GMT -5 karaj said:

I don't have a problem with the GS14 raise so long as the GS is an attorney. I don't quite understand the logic of nonattorneys supervising paralegal decisionwriters & attorneys..I have a JD and the GS has a BA. If I have a question involving a substantive issue, the GS does not always know the answer. There is something inherently unethical about it. What ends up happening is that we attorneys have to get together and resolve the legal issues on our own; not to mention the fact that the nonatty GSs are coming to us for advice.

The problem is that when HPI first came about, the HOD was designed to be an attorney position. AFGE threw a fit and non-attorneys were allowed to apply, with the provisio that a non-attorney HOD and a non-attorney Group Supervisor could supervise attorney staff for the purposes of workload only - no as to substantive legal issues. If all the managers were non-attorneys, an attorney could request that the HOCALJ sign off on performance reports to maintain the attorney rating. In cases where there was a quality issue and all managers were non-attorneys, the HOCALJ was supposed to step in.

Of course, HOCALJs love to manage and deal with writer issues, so by default in some office there is no facade of caring about quality and no one to turn to in order to fix problems like this.

I say create a 14, but make it a return to the old Supervisory Staff Attorney position so there is someone to answer staff questions and address substantive writing errors.

[privateatty]

Apr 15, 2010 15:22:25 GMT -5 karaj said:

I don't have a problem with the GS14 raise so long as the GS is an attorney. I don't quite understand the logic of nonattorneys supervising paralegal decisionwriters & attorneys..I have a JD and the GS has a BA. If I have a question involving a substantive issue, the GS does not always know the answer. There is something inherently unethical about it. What ends up happening is that we attorneys have to get together and resolve the legal issues on our own; not to mention the fact that the nonatty GSs are coming to us for advice.

I don't know the facts nor the circumstances as I'm not in ODAR. But you had better check your State Bar Disciplinary Rules. There is a potential issue in allowing non-attorneys to influence your reasoned legal judgement in affording representation and advice to a client.

[karaj]

"I don't know the facts nor the circumstances as I'm not in ODAR. But you had better check your State Bar Disciplinary Rules. There is a potential issue in allowing non-attorneys to influence your reasoned legal judgement in affording representation and advice to a client."

Thanks PA and thanks Barkley. PA, I think you are correct and I think this is an issue that ODAR has lost sight of and that needs to be pursued.

[tater]

I am sorry guys, but I see very little work at odar at the adjudication level that requires a trained attorney. I am just glad to have the job.

[masondixon]

I don't think you have seen the cases this old dinosaur has run across over the years on both sides of the coin. I have encountered hundreds of SSA cases at and above the hearing level where a claimant would be very poorly served without an experienced social security attorney's representation. The same attitude, if not reigned in, can lead to calls to replace ALJs with some lesser qualified individual, even a non-attorney insurance specialist type. That step would be disastrous to claimant's, due process, and the social security legal representation industry.

[Well]

Most of the paralegals we have do a solid job. 95+% of cases they are turning out as good of work as anyone. There are those awful cases with landmines that we all step on but the paralegals seem to get caught by more often. I know cases written in our office by paralegals get remanded for technical problems a bit more often but the bulk of remands sit squarely on the shoulder of the ALJ's (RFC with physical limitations when there is no physical impairment found and mental limits with no mental impairment, finding an impairment non-severe, a less than RFC but no VE testimony).

The whole attorney / paralegal thing is really odd. It's the same pay scale but the lawyers have to pay bar fees and pay for continuing ed to get that same pay. From a taxpayer standpoint seems odd to use same dollars to hire people without specialized training and often no college education as you pay to get people with an advanced degree and specialized training.

Despite the oddness of it all, the results are fine. In our office the top quarter of writers are lawyers except for one paralegal and the bottom quarter is all lawyer.

[decadealj]

Hate to bust the bubble folks but our hearings ran out of due process with HPI and non-attorney managers from RMOs on down to GSs in our office. As for the future of the ALJ Corps, I hear our CALJ just sent a memo to the union that SSA adjudicators don't have to be ALJs and unless GC's position has changed the last 15 years, GC's position is that our hearings are not pursuant to the APA because our hearing process predates the APA. Of course our position description states we conduct hearings pursuant to the APA but that is just a reason to justify a RIF. From what I have seen the past two decades, there is no way to save the ALJ position with SSA and I don't see OPM being very helpful considering its relationship with SSA and the qualification changes to the ALJ position over the years. The ongoing litigation may force the whole issue soon with the expiration of register at the end of the year. The trtansition from OHA to ODARis almost complete.

[valkyrie]

Somehow I don't think that ODAR has been doing is largest mass-hiring of ALJs over the past few years in anticipation of its first ALJ RIF. I won't argue with the non-attorney maangers and paralegal silliness. You can always expect reality and cost-effectiveness to blur when you include the unions in planning decisions, but I have to think that Congress would be pretty doggone pissed if ODAR went so psycho as to do a RIF after asking Congress for the money for all these new offices and hirings.

[tater]

Apr 28, 2010 17:25:08 GMT -5 valkyrie said:

Somehow I don't think that ODAR has been doing is largest mass-hiring of ALJs over the past few years in anticipation of its first ALJ RIF. I won't argue with the non-attorney maangers and paralegal silliness. You can always expect reality and cost-effectiveness to blur when you include the unions in planning decisions, but I have to think that Congress would be pretty doggone pissed if ODAR went so psycho as to do a RIF after asking Congress for the money for all these new offices and hirings.

I think Congress would be very happy if a RIF produced a money saving way of doing things. These times are unprecedented. I do not exclude anything at this point.

Note that years ago, many were riffed just after many were hired at the federal level. THis is government employment.

[decadealj]

About 20 years ago, the FCC RIFFED numerous ALJs when the licensening requirements for marine and CB radios disappeared with the advent of what is now cell phone frequencies. What is most telling about SSA is that they never wanted ALJs in the first place and have been none to subtle about wanting to remove the ALJs from the management process. Can anyone name a RCALJ who wasn't an AAJ on the Appeals Council?

[valkyrie]

Apr 28, 2010 18:19:01 GMT -5 decadealj said:

About 20 years ago, the FCC RIFFED numerous ALJs when the licensening requirements for marine and CB radios disappeared with the advent of what is now cell phone frequencies. What is most telling about SSA is that they never wanted ALJs in the first place and have been none to subtle about wanting to remove the ALJs from the management process. Can anyone name a RCALJ who wasn't an AAJ on the Appeals Council?

Okay, so maybe if we cure diabetes, depression, degeenratvie disc disease, and cancer we'll see a similar RIF. But regardless of whether some past SSA management wanted ALJs or not, the current Congress and management appears to be pretty committed to ALJs. Again, you're predictions would have made a little more sense four years ago as the ALJ numbers were continuing to droop, but the current spending would make SSA and Congress look ridiculous if they turned around an RIFed. In the past many of the ALJs took the "ALJ as Diva" culture to the extreme while the rest merely turned the other cheek. The pendulum is swinging the other way now, as it is usually want to do. I hope that your more dire predictions don't come to pass, but I can't say as though I think they are very likely.

[karaj]

Apr 28, 2010 15:14:43 GMT -5 decadealj said:

Hate to bust the bubble folks but our hearings ran out of due process with HPI and non-attorney managers from RMOs on down to GSs in our office. As for the future of the ALJ Corps, I hear our CALJ just sent a memo to the union that SSA adjudicators don't have to be ALJs and unless GC's position has changed the last 15 years, GC's position is that our hearings are not pursuant to the APA because our hearing process predates the APA. Of course our position description states we conduct hearings pursuant to the APA but that is just a reason to justify a RIF. From what I have seen the past two decades, there is no way to save the ALJ position with SSA and I don't see OPM being very helpful considering its relationship with SSA and the qualification changes to the ALJ position over the years. The ongoing litigation may force the whole issue soon with the expiration of register at the end of the year. The trtansition from OHA to ODARis almost complete.

Decade, can you elaborate on this? Do you mean CALJ Judge Cristaudo?

Going back to the 70's, when OHA was under DHHS, not SSA, there were "Hearing Examiners" not ALJs. That was pre-OPM exam too, and at that time, many attorneys were just promoted to judge/examiners.

I have worked for OHA/ODAR many years and a RIF has never been even a remote possibility. I agree with Val - there has been a tremendous outlay of resources to expand ODAR for the 21st century, so I can't see a RIF happening anytime soon. I cannot remember even a week going by in the last 20 years when I did not have plenty of cases to adjudicate. Plus, I remember when we came under SSA, we were told that it is an essential agency; it never closes; and to be prepared to come to work even when ice storms, floods, and other natural disasters close down other segments of government.

[workdrone]

Apr 28, 2010 21:14:33 GMT -5 karaj said:

Apr 28, 2010 15:14:43 GMT -5 decadealj said:

As for the future of the ALJ Corps, I hear our CALJ just sent a memo to the union that SSA adjudicators don't have to be ALJs

Decade, can you elaborate on this? Do you mean CALJ Judge Cristaudo?

My understanding is last week CALJ Cristaudo forwarded the Congressional Research Service's April 13 report about the Overview of ALJ program to all the judges in ODAR. It was just one of those, this is an interesting report, take a look type of 2 liner e-mail with the report attached.

The report, which I read, is mostly a history of the ALJ program and very neutral in viewpoint. It also briefly compared the ALJ system with the agency hearing examiner system that exists in other parts of the federal government and noted each system has its strength and weaknesses. It's basically a standard CSR report to Congress, nothing to write home about.

It appears the report was prepared for Congress due to a couple ALJ related bills: HR 2850 (ALJ Retirement Act), S. 372 (Whistle Blower Protection Act, which had some references to procedure before an ALJ), and S. 1228 (amending default ALJ leave to 8 hours to match SES employees).

Next thing is some crazies on the AALJ board think this is the CALJ hinting the agency is going to do away with the ALJs and rumors started flying.

As I have said before, ALJs are creatures of statutes and what Congress gives, it can also take away. There is really nothing we haven't heard before, and the report doesn't take a position either way. So it doesn't contain anything new.

Unless there is a secret OCALJ memo flying out there, I think this is just much ado about nothing. Heck, before you know it, they're also going to say Frank was in Dallas on the day Kennedy got shot.

[decadealj]

Elaborate- I don't think SSA has had much choice with the recent hiring rush and I truly believe in its effort to reshape the ALJ Corps to its own image it will end up throwing the baby out with the bath water. PF and JAGHAGG are now gone but I think their message will bear fruit in time. When I came on board, one of our ALJs was a tennis partner to the Chairman of the House Appropriations committee and they talked on the phone every morning- the HOCALJ from Evansville, Indiana, Tom Capshaw, was our cheerleader and welcome in every staffer's office on the Hill. When the then Associate Commissioner tried to "gut" the OCALJ by not appointing key replacements for the CALJ Chuck Boyer, Capshaw met with key members of Congress and we thought the battle was won. But then came HPI and the end of legal supervision of the hearing process. I truly wanted to believe Frank would regain control as Chuck Boyer had done but the toothpaste got squeezed out of the tube. Judge Washington's brief reign comes to mind. When I read the testimony of "stakeholders" before a joint committee of Congress on Tuesday, my concerns are only reinforced. I think it may have been posted on TOB, but we may all hang together.