|
Post by Propmaster on Jul 7, 2011 23:54:26 GMT -5
The agency used to use in house people to record the local hearings and contractors for remote sites. During Bush2 they expanded the use of contractors to include the local ODAR offices. It HURT the professional development of the future paralegals but did make it look like the total numbert of federal employees did not increase. This was done before. It's quite odd indeed that they need a pilot project to see if the way they used to do it works. They already did it. What are they studying?
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 12, 2011 8:00:07 GMT -5
Since hearing reporters are only paid a flat fee per hearing but permanent employees are paid a salary, given annual and sick leave, paid holidays, retirement benefits plus government matching for Thrift Savings, health insurance partially paid for by the federal government, and so on, I cannot imagine that hiring full time SCTs to replace them could possibly be cost effective overall. That said, of course, this will be the direction the agency will pursue... I would think that would be variable by office. If an office is doing remote site hearings it would be very hard to be cost-effective paying an SCT per diem and mileage on top of the other costs. I would suspect hearing load would make a difference as well. If an office is keeping four hearing rooms mostly booked and running would there be any efficiency gain if the new SCT's weren't doing non-hearing duties except for a few hours a week.
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Jul 12, 2011 9:11:12 GMT -5
It is my understanding that SCTs will not travel to remote sites. PRS and TRS are excluded from the pilot project.
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Sept 7, 2011 22:11:21 GMT -5
Has anyone heard any details on this recently? I have heard rumblings that shortly the HRs will be getting a letter that their services are no longer needed. Did they decide to discard the idea of pilot offices?
And what about the NHCs? Will they still use the HRs or will local offices have to cough up support staff to take hearings for them?
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Sept 8, 2011 7:57:19 GMT -5
... when I had a unit, my hearing assistant pulled the cases, marked the exhibits, made up the exhibit list, did a case summary, and when the case was ready put it into ready to schedule, then scheduled it. She was throughly familiar with the case and when we got to the hearing, as she was there, was invaluable. That will never happen again, and they don't have hearing assistants like that anymore. God bless'm. This is close to already happening in the NHC's. Granted, OCALJ wants the NHC judges to issue 60-70 decisions per month for the same reason I work in a NHC, and worked formerly in a hearing office. I have never been pressured to issue 60-70 monthly decisions, nor have I received any indication that quantitative performance expectations for NHC ALJs are in any manner different than those in the hearing offices. The assignment of two specific attorneys to each NHC ALJ does, however, facilitate greater productivity.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Sept 8, 2011 21:03:26 GMT -5
Has anyone heard any details on this recently? I have heard rumblings that shortly the HRs will be getting a letter that their services are no longer needed. Did they decide to discard the idea of pilot offices? And what about the NHCs? Will they still use the HRs or will local offices have to cough up support staff to take hearings for them? The pilot is on track to begin at the start of the fiscal year and will be quite large consisting of about 42% of hearing offices.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Sept 8, 2011 21:35:46 GMT -5
Has anyone heard any details on this recently? I have heard rumblings that shortly the HRs will be getting a letter that their services are no longer needed. Did they decide to discard the idea of pilot offices? Nope, pilot project is right on track. Letter to HRs has been signed and will be going out shortly to affected contractors in the pilot office areas if it's not in the mail already. Brace for some really upset HRs.
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Sept 12, 2011 15:44:52 GMT -5
The letter, dated September 7, has been sent to the hearing reporters. It states that the "pilot" was outlined in SSA's Annual Performance Plan (accessible online at socialsecurity.gov/budget/2012APP.pdf); that it will be implemented beginning on October 28, 2011 at 64 designated hearing offices located in every region except region 7; that the current system of using independent contractors will continue at the National Hearing Centers and remote sites; that the pilot will be evaluated for cost effectiveness at the end of the first year; and that, " f we realize the expected cost savings, we plan to implement this employee provided verbatim hearing recording model at the remaining ODAR Hearing Offices nationwide." The letter is signed by Donald Wadhams, Director, Office of Operations Contracts in the Office of Acquisition and Grants.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Sept 12, 2011 16:47:40 GMT -5
The letter, dated September 7, has been sent to the hearing reporters. It states that the "pilot" was outlined in SSA's Annual Performance Plan (accessible online at socialsecurity.gov/budget/2012APP.pdf); that it will be implemented beginning on October 28, 2011 at 64 designated hearing offices located in every region except region 7; that the current system of using independent contractors will continue at the National Hearing Centers and remote sites; that the pilot will be evaluated for cost effectiveness at the end of the first year; and that, " f we realize the expected cost savings, we plan to implement this employee provided verbatim hearing recording model at the remaining ODAR Hearing Offices nationwide." The letter is signed by Donald Wadhams, Director, Office of Operations Contracts in the Office of Acquisition and Grants. A friend of mine, recently hired as an independent contractor HR at a new ODAR just received the 9/7/11 letter. Fortunately, for him he was picking up a lot NHC hearings that other HRs were turning down so he has a good in to continue as a HR with the NHCs who have scheduled hearings at his ODAR through next spring.
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on May 24, 2012 9:00:48 GMT -5
Nothing has been announcd but there is a rumour that this pilot is a failure. Probably because lack of funding. My office was not in the pilot.
Does someone here have any information?
|
|
|
Post by judgegal on May 24, 2012 9:12:27 GMT -5
Yes, the pilot was a disaster from day 1. Even SSA mgmt has realized that. No official announcement, but the contract reporters have come back this week.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on May 24, 2012 9:38:56 GMT -5
There is nothing that irritates me more than the quality of the hearing "transcripts." They are truly awful, and I cannot believe SSA pays them $50 per transcript, when any teenager who has grown up tied to a computer could do a better, more complete and accurate job.
Why do we not demand actual transcipts? As in the ones that any court reporter creates? Having 30+ minutes of testimony summarized in 2 sentences is complete garbage.
|
|
oldschool
Full Member
Newbie FAQ Contributor
Posts: 101
|
Post by oldschool on May 24, 2012 11:05:19 GMT -5
Verbatim transcripts are done if the decisions are appealed. I learned long ago that the "transcripts" done at the hearing are of limited value. But 2 sentences is way past inadequate. At a minimum the VHRs should be putting in enough cues and breaks so that the writer can listen to only that portion of the tape that they need. I learned awhile ago to take decent notes at hearings because you can't rely on the quality of the transcripts.
Our contract VHRs came back a few weeks ago. Ours is a small office, and running multiple hearing rooms was paralyzing other work.
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on May 24, 2012 18:17:30 GMT -5
Yes, even if the CTs did start preparing notes on par with VHRs (and some were), the obvious awfulness of this pilot was all the things not getting done while they were in hearing rooms. You can't do this kind of thing without sufficient new hiring. To someone's credit, though, this was killed off a lot quicker than many of us thought it would be.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on May 24, 2012 20:04:02 GMT -5
8-)They never learn to leave things alone. The WAE program back in the 80s was hailed to be a big cost saver, and release hearing assistants from their hearing monitor duties which involved traveling with the ALJs to remote sites and also hearing trips across the country. This would allow them to devote more time to pulling cases. What goes around, comes around.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on May 25, 2012 8:32:16 GMT -5
Back in the day, the best days IMHO, my Hearing Assistant pulled the case, wrote fully favorable decisions, recommended development, participated in the hearing (I never finished a hearing without asking her if she thought we needed anything else), and was my right arm. She is a writer now but she was the best paralegal I worked with in 35 yhears of practice. Of course I was blessed because there were some who were challenged to get to work.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on May 25, 2012 14:29:15 GMT -5
8-)Decade. back in the day was better, and a lot of fun.My first duty station was Lexington. KY and the hearing assistant assigned to me was just like yours, she nurtured me, wrote decisions to take up the slack, because I had to write my own back then. I got better training from her than in Arlington. I got transferred to Memphis, and my HA there was also great. Great help in running the unit. She came down with cancer and eventually passed away, but they sent an HA down on detail to take 3 weeks of hearings with me, and she was super. She eventually became a writer, then a group sup, and in between all this married me, and we are living happily ever after 23 years later. She was also of the old school.
|
|
|
Post by timc58 on Mar 8, 2014 11:55:06 GMT -5
I realize these are ancient posts but feel I must respond... After having taken the place of VHRs during the disastrous pilot, I can tell you that there is very little chance hearing notes can be done (in realtime) verbatim using the computer program provided by ODAR. Court stenographers use special equipment and not a typical computer keyboard to capture hearing notes. Several of our VHRs do an excellent job and ALL of them do a much better job than most of clerks in our office who resented having to be pulled away from their duties to take on that task. In addition, ALL VHRs are NOT paid $50 per hearing. The payment amount hinges on the individual's bid and they vary quite a bit. Also, the VHRs are paid $5 for no shows/postponements which means they often have to sit around for an hour or more making less than minimum wage. (We have an ALJ or two who take every opportunity to postpone or continue a case and the VHRs are not paid their full rate for those.)
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Mar 8, 2014 13:16:02 GMT -5
I realize these are ancient posts but feel I must respond... After having taken the place of VHRs during the disastrous pilot, I can tell you that there is very little chance hearing notes can be done (in realtime) verbatim using the computer program provided by ODAR. Court stenographers use special equipment and not a typical computer keyboard to capture hearing notes. Several of our VHRs do an excellent job and ALL of them do a much better job than most of clerks in our office who resented having to be pulled away from their duties to take on that task. In addition, ALL VHRs are NOT paid $50 per hearing. The payment amount hinges on the individual's bid and they vary quite a bit. Also, the VHRs are paid $5 for no shows/postponements which means they often have to sit around for an hour or more making less than minimum wage. (We have an ALJ or two who take every opportunity to postpone or continue a case and the VHRs are not paid their full rate for those.) please send those competent VHRs our way. My point still stands, that whatever computer program they are using, you could hire college kids off the street, who have grown up with a computer attached to them at all times, and thus can type 100-150 WPM with few errors. No VHR that I've ever seen can do that. I've also heard that the VHRs are permitted to go back after the hearing, listen to the hearing, and fix the transcript. I have never seen this done. The vast majority of transcripts I see summarize the testimony, and do not provide direct quotes. Many portions are omitted. Often the words they type are at best inaccurate, or at worst completely opposite of what was actually said. Ergo they aren't worth paying $5, and especially not the $50, which is the going rate around here.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 8, 2014 13:29:47 GMT -5
Would you believe the Agency utilizes a deaf VHR?? What can I say. Some Judges say she sits with her hands in her lap. As you all know, the recordings we end up with are often of terrible quality and can't even be understood or heard.. I have heard the Agency is afraid of a discrimination suit if they fire her..
|
|