|
Post by bartleby on Jul 13, 2010 13:18:11 GMT -5
Valkyrie, It's not so easy.. Other than the DUE PROCESS and JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, once we say that all ALJ's must schedule 40 hearings a month, those ALJ's will expect to have an adequate staff to assist them in doing same. This being BIZZARRO World, not all staff are equal.. and therefore not all shortcomings can be blamed on the ALJ.. Noting the dramatic decrease in the backlog and increase in hearings in the past year, one would be led to believe that the POWERS THAT BE would see such accomplishments as proof that they are dealing with professionals and begin to respect same. Au contraire mon amie, not so. If a small whip works, then a big whip will work better, no?? Basically, since we are not working with WIDGETS and are working with individuals and the nuances thereby, one cannot expect all ALJ's to move the same number of hearings on a daily basis..Stuff happens.. The big problem is way too many bean counters. We have more bean counters in the Agency than we have non-productive ALJ's.. Can everyone see the craziness of all of this?? Can I have an AMEN??
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Jul 13, 2010 13:51:20 GMT -5
Let me just stick my neck out an make the stupid suggestion: Why doesn't the agency just set a minimum scheduling requirement for all ALJs of say 40 per month? If they can require us to work forty hours per week, why can't they just require us to schedule 40 cases per month? I was in an office where the judges were given approximately 28 cases a month. This went on for years. How would your quota system of 40 cases scheduled a month play in that scenario? This could happen again and may be happening to judges in some offices. All it takes is one incompetent HOD with friends in regional office. What would happen? The HOD would schedule unpulled cases rather than admit not pulling enough. What about vacations, sick leave ? Why stop at 40, why not 60 or 80? Somewhere out there, there is a manager who would impose this to make himself or herself look good to those in management above him or her. This is why I oppose quotas.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 13, 2010 13:52:49 GMT -5
AMEN! AMEN!
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 13, 2010 13:52:58 GMT -5
I'm an outsider at this point, but I'll give you that AMEN, because the same scenario applies to hearings at other levels of government.
|
|