About the FY 2025 Attorney Performance Standards Town Hall
On August 22, 2024, Local 17 hosted a Zoom Town Hall to discuss the proposed changes to attorney performance standards for Fiscal Year 2025. The town hall, led by Douglas Massey, President of Local 17, featured presentations from Union stewards MB Viccellio, JR Cummings, and Calanit Kedem, and engaged a wide range of participants from the Local 17 team.
Table of Contents
Hosts and Key Participants
Douglas Massey began the meeting by introducing key members of the Local 17 team:
- Calanit Kedem
- Steve Eckerman
- MB Viccellio
- JR Cummings
- Nick Keogh Jr.
- Sikenah Baxter
- Marla Woodarek
- Benton Komins
- Denise Adams Hill
- Andre Washington
- Georgio Comninos
FY 2025 Attorney Performance Standards Town Hall Recording
Main Topics Discussed
Proposed Changes to Productivity Standards
MB Viccellio presented the proposed changes to the productivity element of the performance standards. While the annual quota of 156 signed decisions remains unchanged, the introduction of trimester-based goals marks a significant shift:
- Trimester 1 (Oct 1 – Jan 31): 52 signed decisions.
- Trimester 2 (Feb 1 – May 31): 52 signed decisions, or 104 signed decisions cumulatively.
- Trimester 3 (June 1 – Sept 30): 52 signed decisions, or 156 signed decisions cumulatively.
Concerns were raised about the practicality of these trimester checkpoints, particularly for attorneys working with slower-signing VLJs or those taking leave during these periods. Additionally, the proposed elimination of the “issue track” sparked debate, with many attendees worried it could lead to more attorneys being placed on Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) or facing termination.
Quality Standards and Evaluation
JR Cummings covered the proposed changes to the quality element, introducing stricter criteria:
- Fully Successful: No more than 8% of cases rated at Level 2 or below in each trimester.
- Exceptional: No more than 4% of cases rated at Level 2 or below annually.
The Union emphasized the subjective nature of these quality ratings and the absence of a standardized rubric for VLJs. This lack of uniformity could lead to disparities in ratings, potentially affecting attorneys handling more complex cases.
Case Management and Timeliness
Cummings also addressed the proposed changes to case management standards, focusing on timeliness:
- Fully Successful: No more than 2 untimely cases per trimester.
- Exceptional: No more than 2 untimely cases over the entire year.
Attendees expressed concerns about the rigidity of these standards, particularly for attorneys managing large caseloads or cases with complex administrative requirements. The potential lack of flexibility for unavoidable delays was highlighted as a significant issue.
Key Takeaways
- Trimester System Concerns: The new trimester system’s feasibility and fairness were questioned. The rigid structure may not accommodate natural workload fluctuations and leave throughout the year.
- Subjectivity in Quality Ratings: The lack of a standardized approach to quality evaluations across different VLJs raised concerns. The proposed changes could lead to inconsistent ratings with potentially severe consequences for attorneys.
- Impact on Work-Life Balance: The increased pressure from the new standards, particularly those related to timeliness and quality, could negatively affect attorneys’ work-life balance and job satisfaction.
Questions and Answers
- Q: Are VLJs also being held to similar trimester deadlines?
- A: There is no indication that VLJs will have corresponding trimester deadlines, raising concerns about fair performance evaluation for attorneys.
- Q: What happens if a case is delayed due to factors outside the attorney’s control, such as administrative holds or delays from the clerk’s office?
- A: The Union plans to negotiate provisions to account for such delays, but the current proposal does not offer protections for attorneys in these situations.
- Q: Will there be an appeal process for low-quality ratings that attorneys believe are unfair?
- A: The Union is advocating for an appeal process where a second, anonymous VLJ could review the case to ensure fairness in quality ratings.
- Q: Is management aware of the impact these changes could have on attorney stress levels, particularly with the potential for three “September dashes” each year?
- A: The Union has voiced these concerns and is working to negotiate terms that consider the impact on attorney well-being.
- Q: Is upper management still looking to eliminate the “issues” track and only keep the “cases” track?
- A: The trimester system is not viable, but management is still considering changes, including the elimination of the “issues” track. The Union has raised concerns, and it remains a point of negotiation.
- Q: Are the proposed FY 2025 standards available in writing?
- A: Yes, the proposed standards will be posted on the Union’s website after the town hall meeting.
- Q: So, are the VLJs being given a number they have to sign per trimester?
- A: There was no clear answer given during the meeting. However, it was mentioned that concerns exist about how this would impact attorneys if VLJs don’t sign decisions promptly.
- Q: Are these “trimester” goals subject to proration or no?
- A: Yes, the trimester goals are subject to proration, but concerns remain about how this will be implemented, especially regarding cases with slower signing VLJs.
- Q: Has management done an analysis to determine how many issues are pending in the cases, or are they still assuming the AMA cases will be smaller issues?
- A: There was no specific analysis mentioned, but the Union has raised this concern. The complexity and number of issues per case are ongoing topics of discussion.
- Q: What about a maximum number of issues in an issued decision? For example, if it’s 6, then an attorney could get credit for 2 decisions on a 10-issue case.
- A: This idea was positively received in the chat, but no formal response was provided by the Union leaders during the meeting.
- Q: Are VLJs being given a new objective standard for what is defined as “meets expectations” or “exceeds expectations”?
- A: There is no indication that VLJs will have new objective standards, raising concerns about the subjectivity in their ratings, which could lead to many attorneys being placed on PIPs.
Management’s Proposed FY 2025 Attorney Performance Standards
1. Customer Service (critical element)
The attorney exhibits VA’s core values of Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect and Excellence (I CARE) through customer service. Relationships and all communications with internal and external customers are professional, courteous, and cooperative, and contribute to the effective operation of the Board and to the integrity of the VA adjudication process. Requests for assistance, to include but not limited to requests for rewrites or changes to decisions or requests for clarifications from administrative staff, are provided in a timely and courteous fashion. The attorney assists the Board Member/VLJ with preparing for hearings when needed by drafting pre-hearing briefs or memos, and otherwise providing support.
Fully Successful: The attorney generally meets the needs of internal and external customers.
Exceptional: The attorney consistently meets the needs of internal and external customers.
2. Quality (critical element)
The attorney prepares decisions that demonstrate the identification of proper issues and consideration of relevant evidence, arguments and procedural events. Findings of fact are supported by evidence of record and applicable law and are responsive to the issues.
Conclusions of law are supported by relevant legal authority and adequately address all legal issues presented. Recommendations are appropriate, thoroughly and clearly explained, and consistent with the Department’s legal responsibilities. Spelling, grammatical, typographical, usage, and formatting errors are infrequent and no more than minor.
Fully Successful: The attorney generally meets expectations with no more than 8% of cases rated at Level 2 or below in each of the periods from October 1 through and including January 31, February 1 through and including May 31, and June 1 through and including September 30.
Exceptional: Decisions consistently exceed expectations with no more than 4% of cases rated at Level 2 or below.
3. Case Management (critical element)
As determined by the supervisor, the attorney supports organizational objectives with efficient preparation and timely submission of decisions in assigned cases. The attorney keeps the judge and supervisor (if the supervisor is not the judge who assigned the case) apprised of factors affecting case flow. Decisions are submitted within 30 calendar days of assignment for those cases determined by management to be priority cases that require expeditious processing (e.g., those cases that are advanced on the docket or have been returned from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims), and in all other cases within 60 calendar days of assignment.
Fully Successful: The attorney generally meets expectations with no more than 2 cases marked as untimely in each of the periods from October 1 through and including January 31, February 1 through and including May 31, and June 1 through and including September 30.
Exceptional: The attorney almost always meets expectations with no more than 2 cases marked as untimely.
4. Productivity (critical element)
The attorney will produce the following number of signed decisions, prorated for any periods the attorney is not in a duty status or is otherwise exempt from production.
Fully Successful: For the period from October 1 through and including January 31, the attorney produces 52 signed decisions. For the period from February 1 through and including May 31, the attorney produces 52 signed decisions OR, when including decisions signed since the beginning of the performance year, the attorney has produced 104 signed decisions. For the period from June 1 through and including September 30, the attorney produces 52 signed decisions OR, when including decisions signed since the beginning of the performance year, the attorney has produced 156 signed decisions. Additionally, for the period from October 1 through and including September 30, the attorney has produced 156 signed decisions.
Exceptional: The attorney produces 185 signed decisions.
5. Organizational Support (non-critical element)
The attorney engages in conduct and efforts to support and promote efficiency and betterment of the Board programs, initiatives, and culture.
Fully Successful: The attorney functions as a team member. The attorney consistently contributes to a safe and professional working environment. The attorney is open to professional development, participates in appropriate learning activities, and completes mandatory training by established deadlines. The attorney establishes and maintains effective relationships with members of the public, colleagues, co-workers, supervisors, and others within the organization.
Exceptional: In addition to meeting the criteria for the Fully Successful rating, the attorney regularly goes above and beyond in their efforts to advance the organization’s mission and/or culture. Additionally, the attorney actively contributes to the organization by engaging in activities which simultaneously serve to promote the development of others and meet the needs of Veterans and their families, by supporting the organization’s mission of issuing quality and timely decisions and conducting hearings.
6. Information Security (non-critical element)
The attorney accepts full responsibility for all transactions under his or her access verify codes and exercises due care and follows all established policies and procedures to ensure the protection of equipment, hardware and software. The attorney uses access security codes only in the performance of official duties and activities in accordance with established VA Automated Data Processing (ADP) policies. The attorney accepts full responsibility for protecting electronic and printed files containing sensitive information. The attorney protects information from unauthorized release, loss, alteration, or deletion, following applicable policies, regulations and instructions in the computer agreement.
Fully Successful: Any deficiencies are minimal and do not result in a serious compromise in ADP security, protection of equipment or software, or in damage or disclosure of confidential and/or secure records or data.
Exceptional: There are no deficiencies.
