Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02131990 - 2.8 2. 8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _February 13, 1990_, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Decision on Appeal of Decision of Evidentiary Hearing Officer Regarding General Assistance Benefits The Board on February 6, 1990 closed the public hearing on an appeal of a decision of a Social Services Evidentiary Hearing Officer regarding the appellant' s ineligibility for General Assis- tance benefits , and requested County Counsel to review legal issues raised and report to the Board on this day. The Board this day reviewed the report of County Counsel dated February 12 , 1990. (A copy of the report is attached and included as a part of this document. ) County Counsel recommended that the Board uphold the decision of the hearing officer and that funds used .to pay the General Assistance recipient' s semi-annual tax liability of $311 . 10 be deducted from the lump sum amount of $6,750 (paid to the appellant as a Social Security benefit on April 19, 1989) in requiring a spend down of excess personal property. Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the recommendations of County Counsel are APPROVED. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. cc: Social Services Dept. ATTESTED: � �� l3, /1116 Appellant PHIL BATCHELOR,6feik of the Board County Counsel of Supervisors and County Administrator County Administrator 9y Deputv c2- D COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ CALIFORNIA IVED Date: February 12, 1990 -i FEB /a 1990 To: Members of the Board of Supervisors " "KL O'.S';PE'VISORS :J\, ' � �COST.:CC: From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Kevin T. Kerr, Deputy County Counsel Re: The Board of Supervisors is Not Authorized to Hear General Assistance Appeals in Closed Session or Required to Appoint Hearing Officers to Hear Such Appeals . Background. Appellant was discontinued from General Assistance due to the appellant's receipt of a $6,750 lump sum payment. Under the Social Service department manual for General Assistance, the lump sum would be expected to be applied at the rate of $325 per month for the appellant' s support. Accordingly, the appellant was discontinued from General Assistance for 20 months . The appellant's appeal from the evidentiary hearing officer's decision, which upheld the discontinuance of General Assistance, was heard before the Board of Supervisors on February 6, 1990 . The Board requested County Counsel' s report on the following legal issues raised by appellant: 1 . Should the Board' s hearing of the General Assistance appeal be held in closed session? 2 . Should the Board refer the appeal to an appointed attorney who will hear the matter and make recommendations to the Board in closed session as to his/her factual and legal findings? Discussion. 1 . The Board is Not Authorized to Hear a General Assistance Appeal in Closed Session. Under the Brown Act, the Board of Supervisors is not authorized to conduct its meetings in closed session unless expressly authorized to do so by statute. (Gov. Code, S 54962 . ) We are not aware of any statute which authorizes the Board to hear a General Assistance appeal in closed session. It appears to us as well that the appellant' s voluntary submittal of an appeal to the Board constituted a waiver of confidentiality as to the appellant's applicable public assistance records . (See Title Members of the Board of Supervisors -2- February 12, 1990 Ins . and Trust Co. v. California Development Co ( 1915 ) 171 Cal . 173, 220 . ) In addition, insofar as the appellant's name was not disclosed in the proceeding, and the underlying records in this matter will be confidentially maintained, the Board has taken steps over and above its legal requirements . 2 . The Board is Not Required to Refer the General Assistance Appeal to a Hearing Officer. While Board Resolution 75/28 permits the Board to contract with a hearing officer to act on its behalf concerning General Assistance appeals (except as to rendering a final decision) , the Board has not implemented this provision. The Board is not required to contract with a hearing officer. Concerns as to the Board's time constraints, rather than concerns as to confidentiality in General Assistance appeals, appear to underlie the option to use a hearing officer under Resolution 75/28 . 3 . County Counsel Recommends that the Board Uphold the Hearing Officer's Decision With a Set Off For the Property Tax Owed By Appellant. We recommend upholding the decision of the hearing officer. However, pursuant to Department Manual S 49-208 IV.B. 7 . (which provides that funds to be used to pay the General Assistance recipient's property taxes are excluded in determining eligibility to the extent they do not exceed the semi-annual tax liability) , we advise that the appellant's semi-annual tax liability of $311 . 10 be deducted from the lump sum amount of $6, 750 in requiring a spend down of excess personal property. The appellant is required to spend down the lump sum amount at a rate of $325 per month (Department Manual S 49-208 IV.F. 1 . ) . While the $325 of monthly spend down is not directly tied into General Assistance rates, this amount is $2 more than an individual in independent living would receive as a maximum General Assistance grant ( $323) . KTK:df df2:ktk\memo\appea1s.s1r