|
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel
Teleconference
September 11, 2000
The public teleconference meeting of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel was convened by Sarah Wiggins Mitchell, Chair, at 1:35 PM EST. Also participating were the following Advisory Panel members: Richard Burkhauser, Thomas P. Golden, Frances Gracechild, Christine M. Griffin, Jerome Kleckley, Stephanie Smith Lee, Stephen L. Smart, and Susan Webb.
Ms. Mitchell reviewed the agenda: 1) discussion of TWWIIA implementation and Panel response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); 2) public comment session; and 3) organizational issues. The minutes of the July 24-25, 2000 meeting were approved unanimously.
Ms. Mitchell stated that, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA), it is highly unlikely that the TWWIIA NPRM will be published before the Advisory Panel's September 26-28th meeting. One point of discussion will be how to revamp the agenda for that meeting, since public comment on the NPRM is probably out of the question at that time. Ms. Mitchell suggested that the Panel could still proceed with the work groups and set up meetings with other Federal agencies, such as Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA).
Ms. Webb noted that the Panel in the work groups would not be able to discuss information provided in the August briefing. She asked what was the target date now for NPRM publication.
Marie Strahan, Executive Director of the Advisory Panel, said that she had no indication on this, but that the NPRM was under regular review at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Ms. Lee asked if the Panel should consider changing the meeting dates. Ms. Mitchell asked for Panel discussion on this point.
Mr. Start suggested that the Panel at the September meeting could discuss issues and make recommendations, but could not take any final decisions. Ms. Strahan said that the Panel will have the opportunity to do pre-deliberative work in committees. The Panel could decide whether this work should be made public. However, the work groups could not make any recommendations or eliminate any options for the full Panel.
Ms. Mitchell stated that the work groups could still meet in private, discuss issues, and formulate alternative proposals. But the work groups would have to present any alternative proposals to a full public Panel meeting for action.
Ms. Webb added that there were some details of the NPRM that were not provided in the August briefing. She is interested in seeing raw data from the Gallup survey of prospective service providers.
Ms. Mitchell asked how the Panel was going to solicit input from the public. She added that a three-day meeting may no longer be necessary. She recommended a two-day meeting, including a half-day for public comment.
Ms. Griffin asked if the work groups meeting in private had to report out a summary of discussions to the public. Ms. Strahan responded that a thorough summary of the work group had to be reported out. Decisions still needed to be made by the full Panel, but pre-deliberative research, review, and analysis can take place in a work group. Ms. Griffin said it was worth meeting under these guidelines.
Ms. Strahan stated that SSA has tight time lines for getting Federal Register notice and following the Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements. If the agenda is changed, it has to be done today, so that this information can be published in the Federal Register.
Ms. Lee observed that there was sufficient need to meet. She expressed concern that the Panel should still meet after the NPRM is published.
Ms, Mitchell replied that the Panel needed a post-NPRM meeting. She proposed a revised agenda for the September meeting. The Panel will convene Tuesday morning, September 26th, to discuss operating principles and procedures. Tuesday afternoon, the Panel would break into work groups. The public comment period Tuesday afternoon would be eliminated.
Ms. Lee suggested a public comment period before the Panel broke into work groups. Ms. Mitchell said that the work groups could then meet on Wednesday. Ms. Strahan noted that the previous meeting agenda was already on public view, so it would be very difficult to change.
Ms. Griffin asked if it was necessary to cancel the public meeting. Mr. Start proposed that the Advisory Panel cancel the public meeting and just hold work groups on the separate issues. The proposal was seconded.
Ms. Lee asked if sufficient prior notice was needed to cancel the meeting. Ms. Strahan replied that the Federal Register notice would simply be pulled. Ms. Lee inquired if briefings by HCFA were still possible. Ms. Strahan responded that SSA could arrange for briefings by Federal agencies.
Ms. Mitchell emphasized that the Panel was still committed to obtaining public comment once the NPRM is published. She called for a vote on Mr. Start's motion. It was approved unanimously. Ms. Griffin then moved that the Panel meet on September 26-27th for the purpose of convening work groups and meeting with other Federal agencies for briefings. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.
Ms. Mitchell asked for names of Federal agencies for briefings (in addition to HCFA). Ms. Lee suggested briefings from both the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration and the Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. She asked if the new Department of Labor disability office had been established. Ms. Strahan said the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Disability Policy will be established as of October 1st.
Ms. Webb said she would like to hear from the Task Force, particularly on the transition summit. She raised a concern expressed in the GAO report that many people were being transferred to Social Security rolls from other programs (i.e., TANF). She suggested that the Task Force be asked to address this issue in its briefing.
Mr. Golden suggested a briefing by the Rehabilitation Services Administration. Mr. Start asked about the relevant agencies responsible for people with mental health and developmental disabilities issues. Ms. Griffin said the relevant agencies were the Administration on Developmental Disabilities and the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), both in the Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Mitchell said that these agencies should be invited as well, since it would send a message that the agencies needed to become active.
Mr. Golden expressed a concern about agencies finding excuses for not working with people with disabilities and passing them along to the TWWIIA program. Once TWWIIA is implemented, there may be more of a push to move people onto Social Security rolls and transfer over costs of rehabilitation and training. He emphasized the need for the regulations and the Panel to address this. Ms. Mitchell agreed that the Panel had to monitor the issue.
Ms. Mitchell said that the Panel staff will work out scheduling and times. It is the intent to assign a staff person to each of the work groups. Mr. Golden asked if each work group could have a staff member who understands the issues. Ms. Mitchell said staff areas of expertise will be taken into account. Ms. Griffin expressed satisfaction that Ms. Strahan had been named Executive Director.
Ms. Webb asked about availability of raw data from the Gallup survey of providers. She requested that the Panel receive this information. With respect to work groups, Ms. Mitchell stated that she had appointed Ms. Griffin to chair Dispute Resolution and had added Mr. Larry Henderson to that group. She added that she had set up a Choice of State Rollout subgroup and had named Dr. Burkhauser as Chair. Ms. Griffin asked about members serving on more than one work group and indicated an interest in serving on Choice of State Rollout.
Ms. Lee and Ms. Griffin asked for information about the last conference call when the work groups were organized. Ms. Mitchell volunteered to provide this information. Ms. Lee then asked about mechanisms for the public to provide information to the Panel. Ms. Strahan replied that the Federal Register notice will have details on how to phone, fax, email, or write to the Panel. This correspondence will go to the Panel's office. Ms. Mitchell has asked the staff to draft a pro forma letter as an immediate acknowledgement to public correspondents. The staff is also developing a one-page information sheet with SSA addresses, e-mails, web sites for Panel members.
Ms. Mitchell then invited members of the public to comment on the type of input they felt was important to transmit to the Panel.
Mr. Ron Calhoun from the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, New York State Department of Education, said that there were many organizations anxious to see TWWIIA take shape. They would welcome an opportunity to offer comments and suggestions even before the NPRM is published. He encouraged the Panel to take every opportunity to elicit public comment.
Ms. Mitchell asked if he was recommending public comment sessions on an ongoing and regular basis. Mr. Calhoun agreed and indicated disappointment at cancellation of the September public meeting.
Ms. Webb stated that, when the NPRM is issued, provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act will apply. Public comments are put into the docket and analyzed. She asked about unsolicited comments submitted prior to NPRM publication. Ms. Strahan responded that only the formal comments are part of the docket, but the Panel can choose to consider comments on an ongoing basis. The Panel can decide to set up its own procedure to catalogue, docket, and respond to these comments.
Mr. Calhoun noted that many organizations in New York feel it is very important to help shape TWWIIA by becoming an initial rollout state. Organizations want to be able to lay out information in order to feed into the Panel's deliberations.
Ms. Mitchell proceeded to organizational issues. She added that many Panel members had expressed concern that the twelfth member be a representative of the mental health community. Several individuals are under consideration by the White House. Ms. Strahan said that the White House has several names and has asked SSA to provide background. She emphasized that there was concern in the White House over need for representation of the mental health community. Ms. Griffin said an individual at the CMHS meeting had indicated that she was to be appointed. Ms. Mitchell said she was doubtful that a decision had been made.
Ms. Strahan said there was no new information on office space, either in Washington and Baltimore. The Office of Disability and Income Security Programs is looking at space in the SSA building in downtown Washington. On staffing, she has talked with the Office of Human Resources on adding one more staff analyst position and upgrading another staff position. The paperwork should go through in the next week or so.
In order to facilitate work of the staff, Ms. Mitchell asked that Panel members direct requests through her with a "cc" to Ms. Strahan (or vice versa). She asked that Panel members do not go directly to staff members, except for questions of travel or pay to Ms. Kristen Breland. This is the best way to ensure that everything will get addressed with the least confusion. Ms. Mitchell will send out a brief memorandum on this. Ms. Strahan will inquire as to whether Advisory Panel members can obtain SSA identification cards for travel purposes.
Ms. Mitchell confirmed that the September 26-27 meeting will take place at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, Virginia. Following this teleconference, there will be an SSA briefing on the rollout for Panel members.
Dr. Burkhauser inquired if Panel members had received his comments on the rollout. He asked if staff could send copies of his comments before the rollout briefing.
Ms. Webb suggested that the Advisory Panel write a memorandum to OMB stressing the importance of publishing the NPRM in due time. She added that, in rulemaking at times, a message from an appointed body can attract someone's attention. The expectation had been that the NPRM would appear by Labor Day.
Ms. Mitchell said that she will send a letter to OMB on behalf of the Panel. She wondered if part of the delay was due to the end of the fiscal year and change in administrations.
Ms. Strahan spoke about responding to public comments. She has asked Ms. Debby Morrison of the Panel staff to begin a catalogue of the comments with summary and date, so that the Panel can review the types of comments received. Ms. Morrison will also draft an acknowledgement response for each commenter.
Ms. Webb (said it would be helpful if the commenter identified him/herself as a consumer, service provider, educator, etc. Ms. Strahan replied the staff would encourage this, but could not require it.
Ms. Mitchell stated her concern about obtaining a variety of public comments. Some people are comfortable with the formal public hearing format, while others are not. She and Ms. Tamara Allen, SSA Consultant, discussed this and came up with a set of ideas. The Panel may want to hold hearings in other parts of the country. In addition, the Panel may want to sponsor focus groups, surveys, Federal Register notices, telephone call-ins to the Panel, electronic comments to the Panel's e-mail box, notices on the SSA Work web page, outside presentations with question-and-answer sessions, round table discussions with consumers, review of studies by other groups, and review of complaints received by SSA.
Ms. Lee thought these were excellent suggestions, particularly during the NPRM comment period. She asked for a summary of comments by the next meeting, so that the Panel could incorporate this information in its advice report. Panel members have listservs sponsored by disability groups that could conceivably distribute Panel surveys. She emphasized the need for comments by potential beneficiaries. Ms. Strahan noted the SSA E-News mechanism (available for free) to disseminate Panel news electronically.
Ms. Webb observed that those who are paid to comment are very sophisticated on how to do it. Consumers are not usually as sophisticated. She cited the example of the 1:12 ramp. Consumers tell you what is wrong, but won't provide any substantive information about what to do right. In doing rulemaking, you have to weigh comments. She added that some guidance, perhaps on the SSA website, may be necessary on how to respond to the NPRM, describing what should be contained in public comments. Ms. Lee agreed and emphasized the need to simplify the language as part of this guidance for consumers. Ms. Mitchell said this could be a topic for the two-day work groups. Ms. Webb added that she had drafted a similar guidance that she could pass along to the Panel.
Jenny Kaufmann of the National Senior Citizens Law Center provided a public comment. She stated that the NPRM can have up to 70 pages of rules, which can be daunting to some consumers. She asked if there was any way to break the NPRM up, especially for people with mental illness. The effort to concentrate on the NPRM for hours can be a barrier. Ms. Mitchell replied that the proposed guidance document could be an additional way for the panel to obtain information from consumers. It could also serve as a guide to consumers before developing their formal docket comments. Ms. Kaufmann added that information will need to be provided in other languages as well.
The Advisory Panel teleconference then adjourned at 3:15 PM EST.
|
