|
Social Security Administration
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel Teleconference Meeting
November 27, 2000
Deborah Morrison opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m., EST with nine advisory panel members present. The following members were present: Sarah Wiggins Mitchell, Chair, Richard Burkhauser, Kristen E. Flaten, Thomas P. Golden, Frances Gracechild, Larry Henderson, Jerome Kleckley, Byron MacDonald, Stephen L. Start, Susan Webb and Stephanie Smith Lee. Mr. Kenneth McGill, Associate Commissioner of the Social Security Administration was also present. Ms. Morrison stated that Ms. Sarah Wiggins Mitchell would be chairing the meeting.
Ms. Mitchell welcomed the panel and audience members. She stated that the agenda would consist of deliberations on the TWWIIA until 3:15 p.m., when the panel would move to administrative issues. Adjournment was slated for 3:30 p.m.
Ms. Mitchell asked SSA staff if the NPRM was near publication. Mr. McGill stated that he had no word from OMB. Even if it is published this week, the public will have 60 days to comment, which would be until the end of January. Mr. McGill stated that there were no further updates.
Mr. MacDonald asked about the non-electronic transmittal of the NPRM. He stated that he has been asked for copies by members of the public and Ms. Mitchell stated that the NPRM should not be distributed by the advisory panel. McGill should receive all requests for copies. McGill stated that he would respond to these requests.
Ms. Mitchell stated that the panel would now turn to the three workgroups. She asked for each workgroup to take fifteen to twenty minutes to bring the panel up to date on work group activities.
Mr. MacDonald stated that he had distributed questions to the panel for response. Ms. Mitchell stated that all of the questions from the work groups would be discussed and reviewed at the December 12 meeting and then made available to the public. Mr. MacDonald's questions will be included in this final list.
Ms. Webb stated that the Milestone Outcome work group had faced some real challenges and had sought outside expertise to assist with the process. Her work group has developed questions but has not solidified them as a group. Ms. Mitchell asked Ms. Webb how she would like to proceed. Ms. Webb suggested that each member share their questions and concerns with staff, who would compile them into a document for consideration by the entire panel.
Ms. Strahan stated her understanding of the current time schedule: The deadline for submittal of work group questions to the other panel members was November 24th. The final questions were to be done soon after, so that they could be published before the regional briefings. The first regional briefing was supposed to be December 12 and 13. Ms. Strahan stated that the work groups were to report back to the panel on December 12. There will be approval of work group reports and decisions on December 19 and the staff would do a preliminary advisory panel report for publication on the website in late December.
Ms. Webb stated that members of the public who had testified had stated that the proposed milestone payment system was problematic and her work group was scheduled to meet on December 7 to work on these issues. Ms. Mitchell stated that the above schedule should be revisited. Since the NPRM has not been published yet, there is additional time. She suggested that the questions be received from the work groups by December 12. This will allow time for Webb's group to have the conference call with the experts. Everyone is to have his or her proposed list of questions by December 12.
Ms. Strahan asked if the regional briefings should be held after the 12th to allow the public to have time to see the questions. Ms. Mitchell stated that the regional briefings should be pushed back till the NPRM is published. Ms. Strahan stated that she concurred, and that the entire schedule should be pushed back till the NPRM is published.
Ms. Mitchell suggested that the conference calls on the 12th and 19th proceed as planned, and that the regional conferences be pushed back till after Christmas. Ms. Flaten asked if we should change the schedule for the meeting on January 9th.Ms. Webb concurred that the regional briefings should be pushed back until January. Ms. Mitchell stated that we should still have the January 9th and 10th meeting. She suggested that we still solicit the input from the questions at regional briefings to be held in January.
There was a discussion about whether the questions could be written without making specific reference to the NPRM, which may not be out when the questions are distributed to the public. The panel decided that questions for community consideration would be finalized on the 12th.Mr. MacDonald stated that their work group had not met since the last teleconference and asked the rest of his workgroup if they could schedule at least one teleconference between now and December 12th. The rest of the work group agreed.
Ms. Mitchell stated that her work group would commit to the same schedule. She will schedule a teleconference for her work group.
Ms. Lee stated that her work group represented primarily provider interests and that if family interests are not represented, she may need to write a minority work group report. Ms. Mitchell said that she understood Ms. Lee's concern. There was consensus that the regional briefings will be put off till January, but that the January 9th and 10th meetings would still take place.
Ms. Strahan stated that the December 12 meeting was to be devoted to reports of work groups. The reports will be finalized on December 19th.
There was a discussion of where to hold regional briefings, and whether to hold in-person conferences or teleconferences. The panel suggested some on-site locations and some teleconferences. The panel suggested Phoenix, Kansas City or St. Louis, somewhere in the Midwest (either Minnesota or Chicago). Mr. Start suggested Salt Lake rather than Arizona. Salt Lake would take care of the whole northwest region. Mr. MacDonald suggested that California be conducted by teleconferences. Boston was suggested for the Northeast Region. Mississippi or Atlanta was suggested for the Southeast.
After some discussion, the panel agreed to Phoenix, Salt Lake, Boston or New York for the Northeast, Chicago or Minnesota for the Midwest, and Atlanta for the Southeast. This equals five on site briefings. Mr. MacDonald asked for two teleconferences in California, in addition to the Phoenix meeting.
Ms. Mitchell suggested that a local host in each City be identified to coordinate the regional briefings. Ms. Strahan pointed out that the panel would still be accountable if the meeting was not fully accessible. It is difficult to find local organizations that understand this commitment. Ms. Strahan also asked the panel if SSA should pay for transcription at the regional briefings. Ms. Webb stated that transcription would not be required because the meeting could be taped. This would cut down on staff travel. We would have a tape record and use the tape to develop a summary. The contractor could do summaries from the tapes. We could also do a transcription from the tape and could also ask people who testify to provide written comments.
Ms. Mitchell stated that people in the DC area could come to the January 9th meeting and offer testimony. Ms. Flaten asked how much time would be available for public comments at the January meeting and Ms. Mitchell responded that an hour would be available. Ms. Flaten suggested that we add another hour on January 10th because the NPRM might be out by then. Mr. MacDonald concurred that an hour on the 9th and an hour on the 10th should be set aside for public comments.
Mr. MacDonald asked for more use of teleconferences rather than regional briefings. Ms. Mitchell stated that the regional briefings were being held to get the public's input on the panel's questions, not just the NPRM. A panel member suggested that we wait till the December meeting to schedule the exact times for the regional briefings. Ms. Strahan clarified that the support contract would call for on site support and taping for the meetings. The conference calls will be two-hour meetings, with fifteen minutes at the beginning and end for logistics. Ms. Webb asked if the on-site meetings could be partially teleconferenced and partially just the live meetings and Ms. Strahan stated that this was appropriate. So, for example, the teleconference could be two hours and the entire meeting could be four hours.
Mr. Start questioned the use of volunteer space, with a savings of only $300.00 in hotel costs. This might not be worth the cost savings. He asked if we could get rooms right at the airport or a hotel directly adjacent to the airport to make participation seamless. He expressed concern about meeting access and teleconference requirements if we use local organizations. Other panelists concurred. Mr. Start also wondered how we would publicize the hearings to get people to come. Ms. Mitchell expressed concerns that big hotels and fancy accommodations might turn off grass roots people. She suggested collaboration with community organizations. Ms. Strahan stated that the panel was responsible for access and other legal issues and that we need to buy the space for the meeting and hold the hotel staff accountable for access. It was suggested that panel members and others be requested to contact community groups and assist with access. Ms. Mitchell suggested that the forums be identified more with the community rather than with Social Security.
The panel discussed who the target audience would be. Ms. Flaten suggested that if we want local grass root voices to be heard, we should have the briefing at a community agency. If we want to attract professional advocates who fly in from other places, we should have it at the airport. Ms. Webb stated that the CILs and the Parent Training Networks are helpful in meeting logistics. She suggested finding a place that was convenient to the airport for out-of-town travelers as well as for the local people.
Ms. Strahan asked if we could make the contract language general enough to allow flexibility to the contractor in establishing briefing arrangements. She suggested the need for on site help as well. She will write the contract to provide at least one staff person at each site. Some meetings would be held in hotels and others at community agencies. On December 12th the panel will decide upon dates for the briefings.
Mr. MacDonald clarified that the work group meeting that was schedule for December 13th was cancelled.
Ms. Mitchell stated that she had a meeting with the Social Security Commissioner Kenneth Apfel this Thursday November 30th to discuss the open meetings issue.She asked if there were other issues that should be raised at this meeting. Commissioner Apfel will be in his current position until the beginning of January, when he moves to Texas for an academic position. She will also ask him about the NPRM and whether it will likely come out before the January transition.
Mr. Start stated that he hoped Ms. Mitchell would bring up the problem with the milestone payment schedule and ask the Commissioner if there was any flexibility in the approach he was taking. He also asked to whom the panel reports and how the panel fits in to the Social Security structure. The original intent was that the advisory panel advise the director of the return to work program, but things seemed to have changed so that the panel was advisor to the director of the panel. Mr. MacDonald also asked what the direct line of reporting was for the panel's Executive Director. Ms. Strahan stated that she answers to Ms. Mitchell. Panel members wondered what is the direct link to the Commissioner? Does Ms. Mitchell report to the Commissioner? And what is the relationship between the panel, SSA's policy office and the implementation office? There is an issue with staff going ahead and implementing things without panel input because of the time schedule. How does the panel link up with McGill's office? Ms. Mitchell asked how the SSA advisory panel worked and how that SSA panel interacts with the SSA program staff. Ms. Strahan stated that the SSA advisory panel was advisory to the Commissioner. The TWWIIA panel is advisory to the Congress, the President, and the Commissioner.
Mr. MacDonald also asked about how the TWWIIA panel relates to Titles XVIII and XIX and how the panel should advise the Commissioner on these portions of the Act. This involves coordination between HCFA, SSA and other agencies. The TWWIIA includes more than the Ticket program; e.g., health care. What is the role of the advisory panel in working with HCFA? Ms. Mitchell stated that she had sent a letter to Tom Hamilton at HCFA some weeks ago. This was done at the direction of the panel and posed several different ways in which the panel could work with HCFA. This correspondence was provided to all panel members. Ms. Mitchell will have it resent to those who do not recall getting a copy. This matter should also be broached with the Commissioner.
Ms. Mitchell stated that issues brought by a panel member to their Congressperson often get referred to the White House, then they get referred to staff and then to the Panel for response. She pointed out that there are often political connotations to panel members making comments to Congress people. Responding to these issues adds a tremendous amount of work for staff. Mr. Start emphasized the need for strong communication between the panel members, the staff, Congressional representatives and the Administration. The panel represents the three entities of government and communication needs to be clear between all branches.
Ms. Webb stated the importance of clarity of mission among the panel. She stated that the panel had a tremendous amount of expertise to bring to the TWWIIA. She had a lot of concern about what was in the draft NPRM. She asked how we as individual panel members bring forward the detailed concerns about the NPRM and get them into the rule making process most effectively. Ms. Mitchell stated that January 9 and 10 meetings would be the opportunity for the Panel to hammer out these details and get their work completed within the 60 days, as well as working on the Advisory report. She also expressed concern about how the panel's input gets to the people who will write the rules. The advisory report may not get completed by the 60 day time period for NPRM review, so it is crucial to get comments in by the 60-day response time. Also, the input from the regional briefings needs to be included in the NPRM review process. Comments made at the regional briefings need to get into the official record. The panel should not take the responsibility for submitting all the comments from the regional briefings into the official record.
Ms. Strahan stated that the draft advisory report should be submitted within the 60 days and posted on the web, if possible. The panel is planning to do a preliminary advisory report and then look at the public comments that come into the agency. Ms. Strahan stated that the advisory report is not in the same legal category as the public comments. Ms. Mitchell asked how the advisory report will be considered if it is completed after the NPRM is done. She asked if the panel could review the comments and turn a report around in a week. This does not seem possible. Mr. Start stated that the Commissioner should be asked how this report should be considered.
Mr. McGill stated that he would be very interested in the advisory report as his staff writes the final rule. He suggested that the report should be submitted to his office in a timely way, so that the advice of the panel can be integrated into the final regulation. He made a strong commitment to consider the report in the highest regard and stated that the report will be a large part of the final rule making process. Ms. Webb asked if the panel could receive the public comments as they came in rather than waiting till the end of the comment period and Ms. Strahan stated that the panel could get the comments as SSA received them.
Ms. Strahan provided a brief administrative update. She stated that staff would be moving into their new space sometime in December and would need a few days to make the office functional. There will be a Federal Register notice for the upcoming meetings in December and January. The P and A application is waiting for approval by SSA higher level staff. She asked the panel to provide due dates for the work group reports and the draft and final advisory report. She pointed out that much drafting needs to be done. Staff will need to review and summarize public comments and expert testimony from all sources. Ms. Strahan assumes that there will be a final advisory committee report that will be published and publicized. To plan her staff workload, she asked if the panel could develop a final due date for the work group reports.
Ms. Mitchell stated that the work groups were in relatively good shape but needed further discussion and perhaps consultation with additional experts. Ms. Mitchell asked if due dates could be set on December 12. Ms. Strahan also stated that the work groups need to submit the work group reports to the panel as a whole and they need to be distributed to the entire panel for decisions.The timelines will be determined on December 12th.
Ms. Strahan stated that staff had prepared a basic outline for the work group reports. This can be sent out today. It is very basic. It is geared toward recommendations and policy.
Ms. Strahan stated that the quarterly meeting dates will be published in the next federal register notice. She added that she has put together a list of panel activities and will send it to the panel this afternoon.
Ms. Mitchell stated that the panel's preliminary report would be shared with the general public and would contain the information from the work groups and the panel's reactions to the NPRM. The work groups would be the basis for the preliminary report. The preliminary report would be a means of sharing the reaction of the panel to the NPRM with the general public. She suggested that panel members get their work group questions to the panel before the 12th. The panel will finalize the responses to the questions on December 19th. Ms. Webb asked if the panel could start with her work group on December 12, since she will be unavailable on the 19th.
Ms. Mitchell stated that two of the meetings next year will be outside of DC. She asked for suggestions on where the meetings might be. Chicago, Salt Lake, St. Louis, Florida and New York were suggested. Mr. Golden suggested that the Northeast regional briefing be held in New York in conjunction with Mr. McGill's visit to do Ticket training. He will work with other northeast panel members on a regional briefing.
The panel decided that the February meeting will be in DC, the May meeting will be in St. Louis and the August meeting will be in Salt Lake.
Mr. Start thanked Mr. McGill for his statement of support regarding the Advisory Panel report. Mr. Kleckley asked if the NASI/Social Security seminar on December 15 would be helpful for panel members to attend. Ms. Strahan asked for interested panel members to contact her.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
|
