The Online Newsletter of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Inc.

President's Message

By Ron Buffaloe

NCSSMA President

It's about midway through my term as NCSSMA president and I've been looking back over the past six months of emails and minutes, to pull together a mid-term report to all our members. This report has now been released and I hope you've had a chance to read it. In working on this mid-term report, I've had time to reflect on the many things the National Council has accomplished in the last six months, as well as some we haven't - yet. I've also looked ahead at what's still out there for us. While the details of what we've worked on are in the mid-term report, I would like to share some thoughts with you about how we've gotten where we are and what's still ahead.

Six months ago I knew that for our organization to continue to be effective the new officers, particularly the president and vice-president, would have to first establish, and then maintain, good working relationships within the agency with the Commissioner, DCO officials, and other interested components, such as Human Resources and Systems. Equally as important was to renew the relationships we already had with outside groups, such as the Social Security Advisory Board, Capitol Hill leaders, NADE, and the NCDDD.

I am pleased to report that I believe those relationships are as strong, if not stronger, than ever before. Vice President Rosemary Dunkle joined me in December for our first meeting with Commissioner Barnhart. She and I are also scheduled to meet with the Commissioner again in June. I met with Linda McMahon in February, specifically to talk about the relationship between NCSSMA and DCO, and the full Executive Committee also participated in a conference call with her in February. During that call Linda agreed to have DCO fund a June meeting in Baltimore, our first funded meeting in almost two years.

Rosemary and I also had several Hill visits while in Washington in December. I revisited those folks while back in town in February, and our full executive committee will, on its own time, have more visits in June. I also met with Hal Daub, the SSAB Chairman, and several staffers in February, and spoke with the officers of the NCDDD and the executive committee of NADE during that trip.

As a result of these meetings, we are able to put a face on the National Council. We stop being just another organization and instead leave these groups with the impression of a collection of talented, dedicated field managers proud of the programs we administer, and the agency for which we work, but also aware of the problems the agency faces. Some of those problems we can fix, and do fix every day, through our individual actions in our own offices. But most are not within our authority to fix. For those we must try to influence others, within the agency or outside, with our recommendations, position papers, testimony, surveys, etc., and try to move them in the direction we see as best for the public, the agency, and the field.

Now, what have we accomplished because of those personal relationships we've established? The too easy answer is "not much". We don't have 5000 more employees in the field, we still don't have enough managers and supervisors, and those we do have aren't properly graded, we didn't get the President's budget request for the agency passed for FY04 and the chances don't look good for FY05, quality in the field hasn't improved, and mentoring of those new employees being trained by IVT still takes too much of management's time.

But we continue to make progress on each of those issues. Because we have taken the time and effort to develop those personal relationships, we are known for being knowledgeable about our issues, accurate with our facts, and dependable with our actions. I know of no better way we can sell our agenda items to the officials who have the authority to make changes. Sometimes, in terms of the speed and excitement with which change comes in this agency, it's still too much like watching paint dry, but the National Council is known for its patience and ability to stay the course.

While we have dealt with, and continue to deal with, many issues of great importance, new issues seem to arise every day. The big one still ahead is dealing with the fallout from the Medicare Drug Bill legislation. We still do not know much about the policy and procedural decisions being made and how they will impact the field. Rumors would lead one to believe the impact may not be as great as originally feared, but there is still substantial work ahead for the field in 2005 and 2006.

Some Medicare hiring will be necessary and we all know how much work hiring entails, although any opportunity to bring more people into the agency is welcomed. The "word" is that those able to hire, for either Medicare or traditional work, will become very familiar with the provisions of "term" employment. While nothing official has been shared on the topic yet, we should know more details in the next few weeks.

The National Council has had a productive six months and has completed or moved forward many interesting and important issues. We should expect more of the same over the next six months and I look forward to sharing our accomplishments with you. Top

Legislative Report

By Sara Garland, NCCSMA

Government Affairs Consultant

Due to the impending presidential election this year, we are anticipating that the legislative appropriations process will, in all likelihood, be excruciatingly slow. Members of Congress who are up for reelection this November will be looking to steer as many federal dollars to their states and districts as they possibly can; however, there are fewer dollars to distribute - and with the increased partisanship in both Chambers of the Congress reaching consensus on funding priorities seems just out of reach.

Last year, Congress did not finish the FY 2004 appropriations until February of 2004, months after the end of FY 2003. We are anticipating a similar timeline this year - with the possibility of only two of the "must pass" appropriations measures being completed before the November elections. The most likely candidates for passage are: Defense and Homeland Security - with the remaining 11 appropriations bills rolled into an Omnibus vehicle that will be dealt with in 2005.

As of May 7, 2004, Congress has still not passed the final version of the FY 2005 Budget Resolution, primarily due to disagreements about a "pay/go" provision. Although the
Budget Resolution is a non-binding measure, it does provide a framework for the Congress to build upon, and the delay on this provision just serves to get the appropriations process off to a slow start.

Because Congress recently passed the "Social Security Protection Act of 2003" (H.R. 743), it probably will not act on other any other sweeping Social Security reform measures this year. There are a handful of "privatization" bills (i.e., to establish private Social Security accounts) floating around out there, but these bills have mostly stalled in committee.

Concerning federal employee issues, the Senate recently passed the "Federal Workplace Flexibility Act of 2003" (S. 129). Sponsored George Voinovich (R-OH), S. 129 would amend current law to allow agency heads to pay special recruitment and retention bonuses for hard-to-fill positions. Another interesting element of the bill is Section 203; this section instructs agencies to provide compensatory time off for travel performed during hour that are generally not considered part of the regular work day. The companion legislation in the House - H.R. 1601 sponsored by Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) - does not contain the compensatory time off language and it has not yet been approved by the House Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Reorganization.

The Department of Labor's overhaul of overtime regulations will certainly remain a hot topic throughout this legislative session. With ongoing resistance from Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who is the ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, to the proposed changes, and continuing support from enough Republicans to tip the vote scale, it is a given that this issue will remain in the headlines.

Another major issue that will influence the progress made on the Hill this legislative session is the war in Iraq and the current focus on the abuse of prisoners. Both the House and Senate held hearings on May 7 regarding the issue - spending an entire Friday on the subject - an indication of the importance of this topic, as most Members of Congress would normally be en route to their home states on a Friday during an election year.

It promises to be an interesting year and we'll keep you updated through our Legislative Reports. As always, we appreciate hearing from you. Please let us know if you have questions or need additional information on any issues. Top

By Rudy Macias, NCSSMA

TSC Representative

The National Council of Management Associations has been actively supporting the TSCs by addressing important issues that directly affect all the TSCs throughout the country. A prime example of this support is the proposal and unanimous adoption of two resolutions at the Annual meeting held in Albuquerque, which are of the utmost importance to the TSCs.

Resolution Number 5 directed the National Council to work with Central Office to increase supervisory staff in all TSCs in order to decrease the supervisory ratio. The National Council has directed the Staffing Committee, the Management Committee and the Teleservice Committee to work together in order to come up with an effective plan and work with Central Office to increase the much needed supervisory staff.

Resolution Number 12 outlines a commitment to pursue the upgrade for both the Teleservice Center Supervisor and MSS positions. The National Council recognizes the inequity in the grade differences between similarly responsible field and TSC positions. This resolution was assigned to the Management Committee to pursue.

Along with those resolutions, the National TSC representative, with the support of NCSSMA, will pursue the following issues that the TSC Committee has submitted. These are: 1. Insuring that all TSCs hire and replace their losses. 2. eWorkforce Management and the affect it has on limited management resources in the TSCs. 3. The reopening of the service observations MOU. 4. Reevaluating the Percent Logged on time to paid hour computation. 5. Systems support and training for all TSCs.

Also, the National TSC representative was invited to be part of the TSC Management Support Workgroup that is currently evaluating the management structure in all TSCs. This workgroup was formed in July 2003 and is tasked with the responsibility of evaluating management support structure/functions in the TSCs and recommend changes that make the best organizational sense, both nationally and locally. This workgroup will submit a final report to Paul Barnes, the Lead Executive for the Workgroup, who will then present the findings to DCO by August 27, 2004. Top

Guest Editorial

Quality: Job Number 99 in SSA?

By Rick Warsinskey, CSSMA President

Editor's note: This editorial originally appeared in CSSMA Today, the newsletter of the Chicago Social Security Management Association.

For years, we heard the automotive company slogan: Quality is Job 1. What would our slogan be in SSA for Quality? Job Number 99?

It has become very clear that our quality has slipped and it does not receive the necessary attention in our agency. When I talk about quality, I am not talking about the broad based definition on the Quality Matters website ( http://co.ba.ssa.gov/qualitymatters/ ). On this website, quality is defined as: providing service that meets the needs of the people we serve, balancing the five elements of accuracy, timeliness, productivity, cost and service.

I'm talking primarily about accuracy. In SSA there isn't a soul in the Field, TSC's or OHA that doesn't understand how important productivity and timeliness is. And that's the root of the problem. Productivity and timeliness are not balanced with accuracy. If you took a typical Area Director visit, what percentage of your visit would focus on quality versus production? This is not the AD's fault. They are only following the lead from the top on down. Very few walk the talk on quality anymore. Why is this?

The consensus seems to be that we just have too much work to focus on quality. If we take time to improve our work, this will slow down our clearances and productivity. The thought is our budget doesn't build in time for quality.

Meanwhile, we hear story after story of cases where we see benefit eligibility is missed, e.g., SDW or we overpay or underpay Title II beneficiaries and Title XVI recipients. Trainees coming out of class are thrown into production with little review. I remember the day when I was Operations Officer at Chicago South where before a trainee could adjudicate any case on their own they had to receive a payment accuracy of 96% on a rolling average of 50 reviews. That means you had to do 48 out of 50 correct in a row. Could our trainees do that today? We simply do not have the field management structure in place to ever know.

Is there nothing we can do? Should we just put our heads in the sand?

The crux of the issue seems to be that we need more resources to improve our quality. Specifically we need more staff that has time to look at cases, more TE's to train and monitor quality, and finally more management time to monitor quality.

Is there a way we can change the Agency mindset around to build in quality throughout our day? How could we achieve this if we have all these workloads to do?

Perhaps we need to consider itemizing what is the most important thing we do. If quality is near the top then perhaps some of the productivity goals and workloads we are expected to do need to be adjusted. We are doing this right now with the budget shortfall by adjusting RZ, CDR and SDW production goals.

Can more money be budgeted for quality giving us more resources? To do this we need to convince Headquarters, OMB and Congress the cost of us putting our heads in the sands. Right now, this has been very difficult to do. The Agency Budget has been squeezed each year leaving us with more work than the resources we have to clear the work. This does seem like a sad state of affairs when we cannot significantly address quality. Leadership at all levels is going to be needed to make Quality Job Number One. Top

Editor's Corner

Investing in the Unseen

By Phil Walton

Rick Warsinskey's guest editorial in this edition points to an issue of organizational culture. Staff on the front lines knows full well that basic payment quality is not up to par and has not been for years. Want a study to prove it. I don't have one. But we all see anecdotal evidence every day that accuracy is given shorter shrift than speed or productivity. The 800-pound anecdote of course is the Special Disability Workload. When we have hundreds of thousands of cases like this, there is a very serious systemic problem. And such a problem is an almost natural effluence of less and less staff and heightened demands for speed and production.

The answer: the organization has to learn to invest in the unseen, yet all too obvious, issues. If we were a private entity, market forces would make us do it. Since we are not in that position, avoidance is all too easy.

Here is another example in the same vein of stewardship. Fraud deterrence is virtually negligible. Ask any front line staffer in SSA how we do on fraud deterrence and you will get an earful. Routinely, egregious violations are returned to the field office with the indication the case will not be pursued. This is not caused by OIG's lack of will or skill. With bare bones staffing, it is an absolute wonder they can deal with the cases they do. The OIG agents perform masterfully. But their potential is diminished drastically by parsimonious staffing levels. All one needs to do to tote up the lost dollars involved in the cases they cannot accept for prosecution due to staff and budget constraints. Add up the dollars and see what we are setting aside. Instead of a handful of OIG agents for an entire state, like Ohio, we should have at least two dozen. They would pay for themselves in deterrence in very short order. But again, this requires proactive investing and relying on what frontline staff feels in their gut. No headquarters study will prove it. So it will not happen. The same is true for investing in quality.Top

Some Random Observations