Programs Submission Response: MIDAS KFC Requests

Business Partner-KFC requests to inactivate producer record.

Producer record inactivation requests must be submitted to the STO specialist in charge of Common Management for process through MIDAS BP. Producer inactivations include both those who have social security and/or entity ID numbers established with IRS and producers who do not receive any payments and are assigned a temporary ID number by MIDAS.

Producer inactivations for those with temporary ID numbers could be taken care of at the county office level. The potential for overpayments due to inactivation does not exist since these producers have not received payment. This would result in STO specialist time being spent on more important issues and result in cost savings.

We cannot implement the proposed solution, for the following reasons.

Handbook 1-CM (Rev. 3) subparagraph 177 B defines a long list of criteria that must be met prior to inactivating a customer. The criteria is not limited to non-receipt of payment.

Temporary IDs are not permitted, but the customer can have “No Tax ID” recorded.  Customers with “No Tax ID”:

  • Can be recorded in BP as a Farm Loan Customer
  • Can be recorded in BP as an NRCS Customer
  • Can be recorded on a Farm

Even if the customer did not have any payments issued to him, if any of the above criteria are true, or any others defined in subparagraph 177 B, the customer record CANNOT be inactivated. It is for this reason that it is critical for the Business Partner State Security Officer (SSO) to review and approve all requests to Inactivate a customer record.

The inactivation request process was not automated in SCIMS, even though the provisions were the same. COFs were required to email or call the STO to request an inactivation. In CRM, the KFC Request workflow was designed as a process improvement to streamline and expedite those requests.

President’s Notes from NASCOE Meetings with Management


NASCOE Vice President, Dennis Ray, and I recently visited WDC and feel that we had a really productive trip. We met with the following people in management:

  • Val Dolcini, FSA Administrator
  • Mark Rucker, Deputy Administrator of management (DAM)
  • Greg Diephouse, Deputy Administrator of Field Operations (DAFO)
  • Radha Sekar, Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
  • Brad Pfaff, Deputy Administrator of Farm Programs (DAFP)
  • Chris Beyerhelm, Associate Administrator
  • Mike Schmidt, Associate Administrator
  • Thomas Mulhern, Human Resources Director
  • Darren Ash, Chief information Officer (CIO)

We met with the Deputy Administrator of Management (DAM), Mark Rucker, on leasing, phone, and office environmental conditions, space issues and wavier requirements. DAM understands our county office environment and needs. We also talked about the CISCO phone system and the upgrades that seem to be helping improve the system. There are a few environmental issues across the country that were discussed, and DAM agreed to follow up on those. DAM is always receptive to improving our working conditions.

We met next with Greg Diephouse, Deputy Administrator of Field Operations (DAFO) and his staff Linda Treese, Pat Spalding, Rick Pinkston, and Trina Brake. DAFO agreed to send out a NASCOE Membership Packet for STO use with new CO hires. DAFO has mailed every SED and STO a NASCOE Membership packet. DAFO encourages all employees to join their respective associations and realizes the importance of each association’s mission. NASCOE appreciates DAFO’s effort and support with this, and many other issues. The status of the shared management negotiation item was discussed. There should be an amendment out soon that requires written confirmation that a proposed shared management arrangement has been discussed with all the COC’s involved, as well as with the NASCOE State Association President. Other topics included COC authority, BTO update, staffing issues, temps, county office footprint and structure, performance issues and the NAPA Study.

Radha Sekar, FSA Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and Bob McGrath discussed budget, workload, and staffing. The CFO says we are not tremendously understaffed, as most CO employees think, because we continue to meet most of our program deadlines and get payments out timely. We discussed several staffing issues, including that our FTE’s aren’t figured considering the permanent disaster programs like LFP and ECP. It was agreed that some administrative funds should come with the implementation of these types of programs. There currently are no provisions for this, and it was suggested that NASCOE work with DAFP on this issue. NASCOE asked about the workload tool and its release. NASCOE still feels strongly that we are understaffed across the country and that a workload measurement tool is needed. The CFO has agreed to share some data from the proposed workload tool with NASCOE for constructive feedback.

Brad Pfaff, Deputy Administrator of Farm Programs (DAFP), and his staff Brad Karman and Kim Viers (on a detailed assignment) met with us on COC authorities in 2-CRP. NASCOE has asked for DAFP to reinstate COC authority to approve CRP-1’s and delegate that authority to CED’s. The current handbook policy allows the CED to approve CRP-1’s without delegation. DAFP has promised to try and reinstate this policy. DAFP recently has asked NASCOE to review certain information on ACRSI as it would pertain to county office operations. NASCOE has had a task force working on ACRSI for over a year-and-a-half and appreciates management allowing us to provide constructive feedback on its impact to the field. NASCOE had asked DAFP for some relief for those states that just learned that their forage reporting date would now become November 15th. DAFP waived late file fees for those states for thirty days. NASCOE also shared some concerns with other agencies having the ability to make MIDAS edits. DAFP didn’t feel that any of these edits would interfere with FSA, but agreed to go back and look at a few concerns that NASCOE membership had. We wrapped up the DAFP session discussing our geospatial needs.

Dennis and I met next with Chris Beyerhelm, Associate Administrator, on directives, staffing, cost analysis update, county office footprint, COC authorities, WEBTA, and GovDelivery. The Associate Director intends to get all of our directives updated and simplified. As always, staffing and budget issues dominate most of the conversations with our Associate Administrator.

Val Dolcini, FSA Administrator, discussed what he thought FSA’s future looked like. He felt that NASCOE’s role with employee issues and negotiations has been very effective. He hopes we will continue to have the all-association negotiation sessions. The Administrator feels that there is a benefit to all the associations being in WDC at one time. The Associations, including NASCOE, feel that the joint negotiations meetings have been successful. NASCOE thanked Val for his leadership and the support he has given NASCOE during his administration. He has allowed us to work with all of FSA’s management personnel on a lot of different issues during his time in WDC.

Mike Schmidt, Associate Administrator, and his assistant, Katina Hanson, met with us on ACRSI and COC authority. The Associate Administrator supports the COC system and its role. As new farm bill talks begin, NASCOE will continue to stress the importance of a strong COC delivery system.

Thomas Mulhern, Human Resource’s Director, and Barbara Boyd, Deputy Director for Human Resources, met with us on the status of the PT position description task force. This task force has met with some success on rewriting PT position descriptions. NASCOE had asked for a task force, which resulted from a negotiation item from last year. The task force is also looking at adding a position with promotion opportunities for PT’s as well as continuing to look into the possibility of a grade reclassification. We also discussed the CO hiring process. It has been mandated that the CO hiring process will start using a questionnaire to replace the current KSA’s. NASCOE will have representation on this task force as well.

Darren Ash, Chief Informational Officer (CIO), met with us and gave us an update on IT issues. We discussed MIDAS edits and ACRSI. The CIO addressed our ability to have reports and query information that we need to perform our job at a more efficient level. There should be some much awaited information on this coming soon. We discussed the IT Steering Committee and its future. Darren has worked hard to communicate well with the field on all of our concerns and issues and is making progress in resolving them. NASCOE appreciates the time that the CIO gives us and the personal touch he has given the field in addressing our needs.

Respectfully Submitted by,

Wes Daniels
NASCOE President

Programs Submission Response: CCC-505 and CCC-517 Tools Enhancements

CCC-505 tool, ‘Complete/Print’ button reminder. Selecting the ‘Complete/Print’ button sends a workflow to the CED, who should not execute decision until verifying that all signatures have been obtained. Why not change it so that the form can be printed at the “Save as Draft” option?

Some COFs are doing manual forms to get signatures and thus doing dual duty to ensure that everything is obtained before the CED approves in MIDAS. Having the print option at the draft level would ensure that we have a form, without having to do a manual, to get the signatures, but it wouldn’t be put on the CED’s worklist for approval until after the signatures are obtained and the PT goes back in and clicks “Complete/Print.”

Either change the “Save as Draft” option to “Save as Draft and Print” or add a “Print 505” option separate from “Complete/Print.”

This suggestion is not being submitted as a future enhancement. Through the automated CCC-505 process, the form cannot be printed until the base acreage reduction request has been submitted for approval in the system.  This ensures that the reduction request submitted for approval matches the form printed for signatures. The concern with allowing the form to be printed as a draft is that the producer could sign the draft form, but changes to the base reduction data in the system could be completed (after it is printed) and then submitted and approved. In this instance the signed CCC-505 does not match the approved reductions.   

Currently the CCC-517 form prints only the information for base acres that are being proposed for a change when completing the form through MIDAS.

When more than one base is present on a tract, this can be confusing for a producer to see only the base acres that are being revised.

Having all bases print on the CCC-517 would be less confusing for producers. This would let them see all the bases that are still present on the tract of land, and not just list the base that is being revised. Would this revision be possible?

Thank you for this suggestion. With the current design of the automated CCC-517 process, all base crops are available as an option to redistribute within the wizard. It is only when the redistribution request is submitted and the form is available to be printed, that the base crops not involved in the redistribution are omitted from the form. It is believed this would be a minor change to the application to include all crops on the printed CCC-517 form. This suggestion will be submitted as a future enhancement for management to prioritize. 

Programs Submission Response: MIDAS GIS Enhancement


After selecting Save and Sync in MIDAS following a CLU revision, the zoom resets to the farm level, requiring the user to select the tract again, then pan and zoom back to the area of interest in which they were working

After Save and Sync is selected in MIDAS, it would be beneficial for the GIS screen to return to the most recent view. If the user wants to then return to the whole farm view instead, it would simply require the user to click once on the farm level in the menu, which would be far more efficient than the current method.

Returning to the farm level following a save and sync and the need to select the tract again and then zoom and pan back to the specific area of interest are documented pain points in the current CRM Farm Records design. As planning for future enhancements and alternative approaches for farm records functionality take place, elimination of these pain points is at the forefront of considerations.

Under the current design at the time GIS edits are saved and passed to CRM the GIS layers visible to the user change. This change occurs because the software switches from edit mode to display mode. When this change in modes occurs, the system resets GIS display and zoom settings to pre-established default values. Additional logic must be added to the software in order to maintain the specific location and zoom scale that existed at the time GIS edits are saved and synced. It is expected that this improved logic will be included as part of a larger plan to redesign GIS and Farm Records.

Programs Submission Response: Business Partner Enhancement

MIDAS Business Partner-Representative Capacity  “In-Creation” records

When reviewing the Representative Capacity record in MIDAS it’s easy to overlook an “In Creation” status. If pending records in creation were easier to identify this would help in reducing errors.

If the words “In Creation” were in a RED font on the Representative Capacity tab it would be easier to identify those particular records.

We will work with the CRM/Business Partner development team to discuss options. Red font would likely not be 508 compliant, but there may be alternatives that are. If there are users that are still having difficulty identifying Active vs. In Creation entries, we will find a solution to make them stand out more.  We appreciate the suggestion, I will follow up with you when I have a proposed solution.

MIDAS Development team was able to include an enhancement for this issue in the MIDAS 2.16 Release, this past weekend (OCT 15-16/2016). The full details of the release are covered in Web Transmittal 492. In Representative Capacity, the Status column will be sorted in descending order so that ‘In Creation’ entries will be displayed at the top, followed by ‘Active’ entries. This should help field offices quickly and accurately identify the current status of the RepCaps.


Programs Submission Response: MIDAS

An office indicated that they haven’t had a MIDAS Death Master worklist item in several months.  They are aware of producers who have deceased and were wondering if there is a problem in the downloads. It may be that the Social Security folks haven’t been informed of those particular individuals.

I know the CO can manually record individual deaths in MIDAS, but I wanted to follow up just in case there was something larger going on that needed following up on.

The Death Master file has been “on hold” for 3 weeks because we are transitioning from a 3rd party data source, to getting the data directly from SSA. Once the SSA data source is flowing, you may see a large number of workflows come thru. An IB will be issued when that occurs, as an FYI to COFs.

However, if you haven’t had any come through for months (rather than 3 weeks), it’s just likely that those customers haven’t been reported via that 3rd party data source to FSA. The main reason for getting the data directly from SSA is to cut down on the lag time it takes us to get the DOD updates.