"Expectations for scheduling hearings"

[gargoyle]

e-mail from Chief Judge Bice:

Jack and I have spoken with many of you over the last few months and know that you share ODAR’s commitment to public service by providing claimants with timely and policy compliant dispositions. You also have shared some of the challenges you face in doing so. We are aware of the challenges you have been facing, even more so now with the hiring freeze. We are working on many initiatives to help support you, such as new regulations, pre- hearing conferences and case summaries of large files.

Given the current environment, you have asked how many cases we expect every judge to schedule each month. Looking at current data, a majority of you are scheduling an average of 45-50 hearings a month and completing the work in a legally sufficient and policy compliant manner. I know that it takes dedication to manage your docket effectively and I thank each of you. I am asking EVERY judge to schedule hearings generally in the range of an average of 45-50 hearings per month. If you feel comfortable handling more cases and can maintain legal sufficiency and policy compliance in your dispositions, please continue to do, and we thank you. If are not yet scheduling an average of 45-50 cases a month, please try to increase your dockets to do so. This may mean adding a day of hearings every month or an additional hearing to each hearing day. We will continue to evaluate our scheduling expectations for all judges in the future.

For those of you who elect to telework, I am going to advise our HOCALJs that, for the October 2016 to March 2017 telework period, an average of 45-50 scheduled hearings a month generally should be considered “reasonably attainable.” I am also going to discuss again with our HOCALJs the need to consider all extenuating circumstances in considering your telework requests.

This is a crisis time for us. Even with all the headwinds in our face, the public we serve is asking us to do the most we can. I am so proud of all of you. If all judges generally can schedule an average of 45-50 hearings a month or more, hold those hearings absent good cause, and move the cases out of ALJ controlled status timely, we can make headway in reducing the wait time for a decision. I speak for your national leaders, your RCALJs and certainly your HOCALJs. All of us, ALL OF US, are appreciative of all you do. I know sometimes our messages do not always reflect that appreciation, but make no mistake - it is unwavering. Judge Allen and I are proud to be your judicial colleagues.

[sealaw90]

Thank you for posting this. So 50 is not the hard and fast rule I was led to believe, there's some wiggle room, albeit small.

[Mjǿlner]



    Is there a clear explanation somewhere for the "hiring freeze?" and what it means for life inside ODAR? As an outsider I can't find something that explains how deep this freeze is. Exactly how absolute is the freeze? Are there really no exceptions?

    If everyone retires in Mt. Pleasant do they simply close that office? And more importantly what is it like to work in an office that is significantly under staffed? Is there any expectation that the freeze will thaw after the election?

[christina]

the hiring freeze wont last forever. it currently covers everyone except judges and theory is there will be a hiring freeze for judges as of October 1st. Extremely good theory btw especially if there is a continuing resolution.

Hiring freeze across the board will probably be lifted summer 2017.

[Thomas fka Lance]

From ALJ hiring to the purchase of ball point pens, all matters are dependent on the budget. In times of uncertainty, such as the present time with its potential for a very restricted budget, the route that is usually taken is to cut expenses, rather than utilize furloughs, (lay-offs). A hiring freeze is one way to cut expenses. There are no exceptions that I am aware of at the present time, because there is no money for such exceptions.

Having said that, an internal promotion can still occur. For example a person could be internally promoted to a lead case technician positon from a senior case technician position. The senior case technician position will remain unfilled, and there is not a net loss or net gain of employees.

The potential for an entire office to have all or most of its employees leave en masse is highly unlikely. However, if that should occur, the open positions could be filled by transfers, or in the alternative the entire workload would be transferred to and absorbed by other offices.

Whether the upcoming election changes any of this is anyone's guess, but it does not automatically guarantee a more generous budget by any means, and so there is no expectation that the hiring freeze will thaw after the election simply because the election has occurred.

[Thomas fka Lance]

Sorry christina, my post is not meant to contradict anything you said. You just typed your response more quickly than I did.

[hopefalj]

Sept 11, 2016 9:57:24 GMT -5 sealaw90 said:

Thank you for posting this. So 50 is not the hard and fast rule I was led to believe, there's some wiggle room, albeit small.

Keep in mind this is a brand new policy that came out Friday. Up to this point, the upcoming hardline rule for telework was 50 minimum. It wasn't necessarily being applied evenly or even correctly across the country.

This new requirement is a little more attainable obviously. 540 hearings isn't nearly as onerous as 600 (some might even say it's 10% fewer required hearings! ).

With regard to the hiring freeze, it'll go on until there's money to hire replacements. If an office is woefully understaffed, they'll ship cases out for work up and writing to the NCACs or offices that are overstaffed. It's not ideal, but it's working with what we've got. I think there may also be emergency funding of an office is critically understaffed, but I'm not sure how frequently that's approved.

[Pixie]

Sept 11, 2016 11:54:27 GMT -5 hopefalj said:

Sept 11, 2016 9:57:24 GMT -5 sealaw90 said:

Thank you for posting this. So 50 is not the hard and fast rule I was led to believe, there's some wiggle room, albeit small.

Keep in mind this is a brand new policy that came out Friday. Up to this point, the upcoming hardline rule for telework was 50 minimum. It wasn't necessarily being applied evenly or even correctly across the country.

This new requirement is a little more attainable obviously. 540 hearings isn't nearly as onerous as 600 (some might even say it's 10% fewer required hearings! ).

With regard to the hiring freeze, it'll go on until there's money to hire replacements. If an office is woefully understaffed, they'll ship cases out for work up and writing to the NCACs or offices that are overstaffed. It's not ideal, but it's working with what we've got. I think there may also be emergency funding of an office is critically understaffed, but I'm not sure how frequently that's approved.

If an office is critically understaffed, it didn't get that way by accident. Doubt that region will devote any emergency funds to it. Pixie

[soccerfan]

I am confused.Is there a hiring freeze for judges and in particular for the most recent cert?

[Thomas fka Lance]

Not yet, that may change with the new fiscal year which starts October 1.

This cert, which is in the current fiscal year, is not impacted.

[soccerfan]

Thanks Lance!

[sealaw90]

Here's what is interesting to me. Most continuing resolution budgets hold the agency budget to the same level as the previous year, in increments to coincide with the length of the CR. So, for example, in the CR for the 1st quarter of FY17, the budget will be the same as the 1st quarter of FY16.

The CR will also say that the funding spent in each account (operating, hiring, etc.) will likewise be tied to last year's numbers.

So if there was hiring conducted in the 1st quarter last year, does SSA usually have the ability to conduct the same amount of hiring in the new FY that is authorized under the CR?
My agency usually has that type of authority in their CR. Curious to know if SSA usually gets that too.

Obviously I'm asking if you can still buy pens and still hire folks, just no more than what you did the same time last year.

[christina]

There is so much uncertainty with final budget for fiscal year that starts Oct 1, 2016 that agency plans to hold off on any hiring until dust settles is my take on things. No inside knowledge other than working for odar for awhile.

[jessejames]

REMEMBER THE HIRING FREEZE MENTIONED ABOVE DEALS WITH EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR JUDGES.

[ba]

Sept 11, 2016 14:29:39 GMT -5 jessejames said:

REMEMBER THE HIRING FREEZE MENTIONED ABOVE DEALS WITH EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR JUDGES.

Was going to say this. Historically, ALJ hiring has been an exception to agency hiring freezes. Not sure why some are suggesting that won't be the case in the future.

ALJs have also been deemed mission critical, which means ALJs work in the case of furloughs as well. Of course, holding hearings on skeleton staffs and issuing timely decisions without decision writers presents its own set of problems.

[christina]

i heard and it is only rumor that effective october 1, the hiring freeze will also apply to judges. if i am wrong, that is great news so whoever has accurate(rather than rumored or even more likely to be more accurate rumor than me)info on this, please correct me.

[Thomas fka Lance]

christina, I have heard the same rumor, that the hiring freeze will extend to Judges for at least early fiscal 2017. My WAG? This is the last cert until mid-fiscal 2017, that is until next March or later.

[christina]

Sept 11, 2016 17:59:23 GMT -5 Thomas fka Lance said:

christina , I have heard the same rumor, that the hiring freeze will extend to Judges for at least early fiscal 2017. My WAG? This is the last cert until mid-fiscal 2017, that is until next March or later.

We have the same wag then 

[roggenbier]

This ALJ budget freeze rumour has come in several iterations. The yes and no of it, is that we don't know what the final budget looks like and we don't know whose in and out of the freeze. What is in today would be out tomorrow.

[Mjǿlner]

      The whole issue of "reducing" the federal workforce is an issue that as been something that has been a political rallying cry for years and involves a level of smoke and mirrors worthy of a shady carnival. In my state two of our military bases had their "federal workforce" reduced completely. DOD awarded a no bid set aside contract to a native american tribe to do this maintenance work. The tribe in turn subcontracted to an outfit from Texas to actually do this.

   The result is that the same workers are doing the work, clearing the snow, fixing the plumbing, running the mail room, etc. The difference is that they have lost their benefits and their job security. While the federal payroll has several hundred fewer workers on it, the taxpayers are continuing to pay those workers to do the same jobs that they used to and it is costing the taxpayers more in the end.  While hundreds do with less a company in Texas makes a huge guaranteed profit because it is a cost plus contract.When they settle tort claims they do it generously because the more they pay my client the more they get back as their cost plus percentage. Teir defense attorney leaves no stone unturned, because er bill gets marked up for profit a paid by the taxpayers. It is nuts.


   I'm all for reducing the effects of long term discrimination against native americans, but I question if this is the way to do it. I hope that this type of program does not spread to other agencies, I can see someone deciding to engage in this sort of smoke and mirrors with SSA, by contracting with some company to privatize all of the operational staff, the next thing that you know they will offshore all the staff and decision writers, while this will cost the taxpayers more and adversely impact the services that are delivered, someone will take credit for eliminating federal workers from the government's payroll.