The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07271993 - H.3 4. 3 FROM: Perfecto Villarreal, Director Social Service Department DATE: July 27, 1993 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF GENERAL ASSISTANCE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DECISION BY MICHAEL JOHNSON SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: That the Board deny Michael Johnson's appeal of the General Assistance Hearing decision. BACKGROUND: Claimant filed request for Hearing on May 12, 1993. The hearing was scheduled for June 7, 1993. The claim was denied. Signature: ACTION OF BOARD ON July 27 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by Michael Johnson from the General Assistance Evidentiary Hearing decision dated June 22 , 1993 for a hearing held on June 7, 1993 . Jewel Mansapit, Program Analyst, Social Service Department, presented the staff report on the appeal before the Board. Michael Johnson, 2677 Rollingwood Drive, San Pablo, appellant, appeared and presented testimony relative to his appeal . The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Powers moved to deny the appeal . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendation is APPROVED and the appeal is DENIED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT V ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AD ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: :Social Service Dept. ATTESTED July 27 , 1993 Program Analyst PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Appeals & Complaints SUPERV ORS ND CO NTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel County Administrator Michael Johnson BY , DEPUTY cial Service Departmente4eise(eply to: Contra 0 App-eaft (510) 313-1790 Perfecto-Villareal real Costa 40 Douglas Dr. Director Count�/ Martinez, Ca, 94553 GENERAL ASSISTANCE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DECISION %ppeals Officer: Hearing Date: "face of Hearing: 0 Martinez 0 Antioch Wrichmond rhe proceeding was tape recorded and all testimony and evidence was accepted under penalties of perjury. IN THE MATTER OF: Case#07- Z14 Filing Date: Z Ze Aid Paid Pen-ding Hear*fg [If el [] No Date of Notice: Effective Date of Action: E PRESENT: Claimant- In"County Representative(s): 7. 0. Authorized Repreientative(s): -T 0 Witness(es): 0 Other: ACTION UNDER APPEAL: 0 DentalI'f0iscontinlan(e C3 Application Date P-1Effective Date , Notice of ActionQ-11-0tice of Action &-Keflod of Ineligibility SSUE: J�rmployment Requi(e(nEnt,, 0 Unernployabil,ty Requirements 0 EmployaL)II11Y Assessolelll 0 Medl(ai Veo fi(a i I on 0 Job,5c-wol n Ai RS and PJrJ1<.J)3J1on L7J JOU Oulu I 0 GENERAL ASSISTANCE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DECISION (cont'd.) JURISDI ON DM 49-700' DM 49-701): 01-ITimely Filing of Appeal ❑ Challenge only to Regulation ❑ Untimely filing of Appeal . ❑ Issue Outside Scope of Program Period Expired: ❑ Good Cause EVIDENCE CONSIDERED : �I ' ant Testimony ocumentary County Testimony 0---GA 34 Cooperation Agreement Document Date: -� � ❑ Assessment Appointment Noti e ❑ Work Programs Notice Other: :;'ti:Sf'ttONAt FINDINGS/CONCLUSION: The.evidence and testim ny having been heard and considgred the f owing fi ngs are read-.ed:0� Gai nt re iv did not receive notice of the particular assignment under review aimant a not capable of understanding and meeting the particular assignment under review:: , .-�; ._: . : ,•-- 9:ducational ysical motional (DM 49-10211 B.) ❑Good Cause (DM 49-111 11 F) ❑ Good Cause Exists �Causeoes Not Exist ❑ Employment has been obtained ❑ Scheduled Job Interview or Testing ❑ Mandatory Court Appearance ❑ Incarcerztiort ❑ Illness ❑ Death in the Family ❑ Circumstances beyond Azoi-(anURec,p,ent's control Willfulness (Dtv:49-1 1 1 tl Hl ❑ Willfulness Exist; ❑ Willfulness Do-?s r. E [j failure v.as deliberate an_- ,ntent•onal L] County resoncc� v.,!!!,miss ;:2 ter niio.3t,on 1] Failure v.a5 more than a s•nole o(currence ❑ County failed t.:,provide suf! : ent evidence to ❑ Failure v.as the result of ntent,onal mistake/omission establish v:,lli.-.ness ❑ Failure v:a) rno,(atrveo' a ;^Wiernof non-(ooperation f_I Other i) Fail—r-e -:as t,2dy_t_lt r blcr GENERAL ASSISTANCE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DECISION(cont'd) 'SUMMARY OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE: Claimant stated he appeared for the May 3, 1993 appointment on time, although the log does not record his presence. At hearing, he showed a funeral notice (funeral date one month after the missed appointment) of a person he stated was his niece. He stated she had been ill on May 3 , 1993 (and- subsequently died) and his grandmother had asked him on May 3 , 1993 to stay home with the sick girl. *An offer was made to leave the record open for a statement from the grandmother. Claimant stated he doubted she would write a statement, as she didn't believe in welfare. Claimant stated that on May 3, 1993 he encountered his grandmother on the street; he claimed she asked him to stay with the girl while she went to work. He further claimed he went to the appointment (workfare) requested the day's excuse from the crew leader, was referred to the counselor (whom he never saw) , and, thus, the workfare people did not log him in. It was difficult to follow claimant, as. he expressed verbally many things, including much program dissatisfaction. He seemed to talk more than he listened. It is further noted claimant has had at least two other hearings, one of which went to Board appeal A review of the record additionally indicates he has on at least two other occasions claimed attendance at meetings not supported by other corroborating and logical information. Also, his grandmother and/or guardian has been used as an excuse at least two previous times. It is found the claim must be denied, as claimant's testimony is found not to be credible. 0R DER: C1 im Denied: ❑ Claim Dismissed: Aid shall be discontinued and the Period of Ineligibility imposed. ❑ Aid shall be discontinued. The Period of Ineligibility shall be expunged from the record. Claimant may reapply at any time. ❑ Claim Granted: ❑ General Assistance shall be restored. The proposed discontinuance is reversed. . The Period of Ineligibility shall be expunged from the record. 0 Other: 0 Written copies of the Order were issued by ❑ mail ❑ at Hearing 0 Additional Regulatory Authority was attached to the foregoing Order CAC 23(revised 6/92) GENERAL ASSISTANCE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DECISION(cont'd) Social Services Appeals ficer Dat P ogram Manager, ppeals ate If you are dissatisfied with this Decision you may appeal the matter directly to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Board, 651 Pine Street, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553 . Appeals must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Evidentiary Decision. No further aid paid pending a Board of Supervisors appeal. CAC 23(revised 6/92) CLERK OF THE BOARD Inter - Office Memo TO: Social Services Department DATE: July 1 , 1993 Appeals and Complaints Division FROM: Jeanne Maglio, Chief Clerk Ann Cervelli, Deputy Clerk SUBJECT: Hearing on Appeal from Administrative Decision Rendered on General Assistance Benefits Filed by Michael Johnson Please furnish us with a board order with your recommendations and a copy of all material filed by both the appellant and the Social Service Department at the time of the Appeals and Complaints Division evidentiary hearing, plus any information which your department may wish to file for the Board appeal which is set for 2 : 00 p.m on Tuesday, July 27 , 1993 . Attachment cc: Board Members County Administrator County Counsel GA Program Analyst-SS Dept . 40Douglas Drive The, Board of Supervisors Contra • Ce'rk(o ttheh Bard and County Administration BuildingCota County Administrator Costa 651 Pine St., Room 106 s (510)646-2371 o Martinez, California 94553 County Tom Powers,1st District Jeff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop.3rd District .,� Sunne Wright McPeak 4th District Tom Torlakson.5th District _ July 1 , 1993 `° Michael Johnson 1816 Maine Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 Appeal to Board of Supervisors General Assistance Benefits In response to your request and pursuant to Section 14-4. 006 of the County Ordinance Code, this is to advise that a hearing on your appeal from the administrative decision rendered in your case on General Assistance benefits will be held before the Board of Supervisors in the Board Chambers, Room 107 , County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, at 2: 00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 27 , 1993 . In accordance with Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 79'/P8, your written presentation and all relevant material pertaining to the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Board (Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez) at least one week before the date of the hearing. Your attention also is directed to the other provisions of said Resolution (copy enclosed) which set forth the General Assistance Appeal procedure. Very truly yours, PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of S ervi rs an County Administrator By s Ann ervelli, D ty C erk Enclosure cc: Board Members Social Service Department Attn: Appeals & Complaints County Counsel County Administrator BOARD OF _*ERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COU1•, CALIFORNIA . Re: General Assistance ) Appeals Procedure ) RESOLUTION NO. 75/28 (Jan. 14 , 1975) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES THAT: Appeals from decisions of the Social Service Department 's Complaints and Appeals Division regarding General Assistance are made to the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution 71+/365; and this Board therefore estab-• lishes these uniform procedures for- such appeals, effective today. 1. A written appeal must be filed with the Clerk of. the Board of Supervisors within 30 days after the decision by the Hearing Officer of the Social Service Department 's Complaints and Appeals Division. 2. both the Appellant (the General Assistance applicant or recipient) and the Respondent (the Social Service Department ) must file all written materials at least one week before the date set for Board hearing, of the appeal. 3. Upon hearing of the appeal , the hoard shall make any required fact determinations based .on the record on appeal. This record shall include the Department 's Hearing Officer's fact findings, plus any papers filed with that ,Officer. The Isoard will not allow the parties to present new facts at time of appeal , either orally or in writing, and any such presentation will be disregarded. If the .facts upop which yhe. appeal is based are not in dispute, or If any..dispute.d.S.aCs1;are' not relevant to the issue ultimately to be decided by the Board, the hoard will proceed immediately to the next 'awithout considering fact questions. The parties may stipulate ,to•"an ig'reed set of facts. 4 . Once the facts are determined, or if there are no fact determinations required :i;y' ' -a` pt 81 , the hoard will consider tti4 legal issues •presented• by 'the -appbal. Legal issues are to be . framed, insofar as possible, before the hearing and shall be based on the Department 's Hearing Officer's decision and such other . papers as may be filed. Appealing parties may make legal arguments both by written. brief and orally before the..Board. , If the issues are susceptible of immediate resolution, the Board may, if it desires , immediately decide them at the appeal hearing;. If the County Counsel's ad- vice is needed on legal questions', the Board will take the matter under submission, reserving its final ,judgment until it receives such advice. -1- RESOLUTION NO. 75/28 . 5. If the Board's tentative decision is adverse to the appellant , the Board may modify or reverse its tentative con- clusion for policy reasons , Insofar as such modification is not Inconsistent with law. Such action may be taken when .the Board, in its discretion, determines it to be necessary to moderate or eliminate unduly harsh effects that might result from strict application of law or regulation. The Board may also determine that its policy for similar future cases is to be modified in accordance with its decision. Unless so stated, a decision shall have no precendential effect on future cases . 6. Having made factual determinations , having received advice on the legal issues, and having applied policy ,.cons-idera- tions , the Board will in due course render its decision. The decision will be in writing, stating findings of fact if any have been made, and summarizing the reasoning of the decision. The • .. Board may direct the County •Counsel ,to draft a proposed decision for its consideration. 4. 7 . The Board may contra ct• w.lth :a ,hearing officer, who shall . be a member of the California Bar, to act on its behalf in con- ducting General Assistance appeals . The Board 's Hearing Officer shall follow steps 1 through ,4 ,above,, and shall recommend .a proposed decision, stating findings or fact and summarizing the reasoning of the proposed deci§ion . The Board then will in its discretion, adopt the proposed decision, adopt a modified de- cision in accordance with step 5 above, or reject the proposed decision and render an independent decision based on its own interpretation of the record on appeal and applicable law. r PASSED on January Ili , 1975, unanimously by the Supervisors present . I I EHRMED COPY I certify that this is a full. true ! correct cony of the original document which Is on file In my offlee, and that It was passed A adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County. California, on the date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSON, County Clerk A e=-Officio Clark of said Board of Supervisors, O7 Deput Clerk. _IaN 1 41975 cc: Director, Human Resources Agency Social Service County Counsel County Auditor-Controller County Administrator ' 0 MICHAEL JOHNSON MAILING ADDRESS: 1816 Maine Avenue Richmond, CA. 94804 Jame 29,1993 Re:june 22,1993 GA decision 3 month sanction BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECEIVED CONI COSTA COLJNI'Y 651 Pahe Street Room 106 Martinez, CA. $4553 JLL 1 1993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Dear Achninistrative Review Panel and Board Members: CONTRA COSTA M. I am appealling an unfavorable June 22,1993 GA decision which cuts me off of aid for three months. The County said that they did not believe me. In fact, I do not believe that a listening of the tape of the appeal mould reflect the same result if I could ever have the chance to be believed. The past has been used against me. The facts are this. My piece Antonia Sheree Brawn passed on May 29,1993. She had been sick with a lung disease, which began in December 1992. It was a very trajic reality-- a nine year old wbo I was close to. My help was needed on May 3 to assist in her round the clock care. My grandmother who I awn close to had asked me to help take care of Antonia. She was not always available. I was needed, my presence was extremely important. I could not be excused frau workfare, told I had no credibility and everything I said was referred to as what I "claimed." This is in error. My grandmother would not write me a note tt the time because she does not believe in welfare. So the:'County decision reflected that her lack of notbeing willing to give me a statement verifying the need for my presence to taKe care of a terminally ill minor family member meant that I must not have told the truth. Cr maybe it was because I had h ad my grandmother explain problems to the Department in the past. That was also in the decision. I would also like to know that this decision makes a point of underlining the fact that the attached funeral service was a month after the missed appointment. I tried with no success to explain the child was very sick. She did not pass overnight. She had taken A around Christmas 1992. It was a long and hard illness. I believe the decision needs to be reversed and is without evidence within it that the County carried its burden of proof. The hearing officer explains that each case turns on its own facts. So I wilfully failed? I IUU= THE CREW LEADER TIRE. HE WILL KNOW. I was at Workfare. I asked to be excused due to a family emergency. He told me I needed VSD permission, gave me TWO MINUTES. It took five to get back in. My VSD counselor Ms. Stewart was not in, I was told by reception. I went back in, was told I would be marked as tar t in the no show tile. I know this because I saw it my workfare sheet was put happen. I spoke up;was told ok, that in that case, because I was there for roll call that I would be marked as 5 minutes late. Then I am told I was not there at all. In fact, Page Two Michael Johnson Board of Supervisors appeal what actually happened is that because I have employability limitations, I am assaaned to light duties. As there were none, the workfare crew leader, I believe it was Mar} excused me. I understand that the C Xnty has a fiscal problem. I have a survival problem that I believe merits consideration. I will be there to present my appeal. Thank you. ��.'• �l�F.'�-� MICHAEL JOHNSON cc Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation ,,`1Yi II11tYi ,:Humorg of Antanin 4jerjeje Prviun 1984 — 1993 t �CrUicrB �C1�1 FRIDAY. XJ NE 4. 1993 11:00 M. CALVARY MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH 425 - 4th Street • �' Richmond. California • (nfficiatittq • REV. BILL COMBS c • • • MICHAEL JOHNSON MAILING ADDRESS: 1816 Maine Avenue Richmond, CA. 94804 June" 29,1993 Re:june 22,1993 GA decision 3 month sanction BOARD OF SUPERVISORS [R-ECEIVED CON'T'RA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street Roam 106 Martinez, CA. 14553 UL 1 1993 ARD OF SUPERVISORS Dear Administrative Review Panel and Board Members: CONTRA COSTA CO. I an appealling an unfavorable June 22,1993 GA decision which cuts me off of aid for three months. The County said that they did not believe me. In fact, I do not believe that a listening of the tape of the appeal would reflect the same result if I could.ever have the chance to be believed. The past has been used against me. The facts are this. My rjiece Antonia Sheree Brown passed on May 29,1993. She had been sick with a lung disease, which began in December 1992. It was a very trajic reality-- a nine year old w1jo I was close to. My help was needed on May 3 to assist in her round the clock care. My grandmother who I am close to had asked me to help take care of Antonia. She was not always available. I was needed, my presence was extremely important. I could not be excused from workfare, told I had no credibility and everything I said was referred to as what I "claimed." This is in error. My grandmother would not write me a note tLt the time because she does not believe in welfare. So'the::County decision reflected that her lack of notbeing willing to give me a statement verifying the need for my presence to taKe care of a terminally ill minor family member meant that I must not have told the truth. Or maybe it was because I had h ad my grandmother explain problems to the Department in the past. That was also in the decision. I would also like to know that this decision makes a point of underlining the fact that the attached funeral service was a month after the missed appointment. I tried with no success to explain the child was very sick. She did not pass overnight. She had taken it around Christmas 1992. It was a long and hard illness. I believe the decision needs to be reversed and is without evidence within it that the County carried its burden of proof. The hearing officer explains that each case turns on its own facts. So I wilfully failed? I,REQUEST THE CREW LEADER THERE. HE WILL KNOW. I was at Workfare. I asked to be excused due to a family emergency. He told me I needed VSD permission, gave me TWO MINUTES. It took five to get back in. My VSD counselor Ms. Stewart was not in, I was told by reception. I went back in, was told I would be marked as tardy, then my workfare sheet was put in the no show file. I know this because I saw it happen. I spoke up;was told ok, that in that case, because I was there for roll call that I would be marked as 5 minutes late. Then I an told I was not there at all. In fact, Page Two Michael Johnson Board of Supervisors appeal what actually happened is that because I have Employability limitations, I am assained to as -'iAdt 'es. As there were none, the workfare crew leader, I believe it was Mar excused me. I understand that the C Xnty has a fiscal problem. I have a survival problem that..I believe merits consideration. I will be there to present my appeal. Thank you. MICHAEL JOHNSON cc Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation j. QQ �YII�� t i c 4.�gg3 iST GHURGH ,�- ONAgY gA¢t � ,^ CALVARY MIS 4,25 _06, CaVOO" is Richet end' !4� OMgS � REV g1LL Comes r Fi '1 t. R i t -kilt. i _ r r ` r 1y O, � l S' G, ✓ M i 4$ N t o� d v