Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02231993 - H.5A H. 5 A) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: February 23, 1993 MATTER OF RECORD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hearing On The Appeal By James Perry Of The Evidentiary Hearing Decision. This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by James Perry of the evidentiary hearing decision. Jewel Mansapit, General Assistance Program Analyst, appeared and advised the Board of a withdrawal of Mr. Perry' s appeal by the Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN LAW OFFICES OF CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION Main Office Telephone 1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(510)233-9954 P.O. Box 2289 East(510)439-9166 Richmond,California 94802 Central(510)372-8209 Fax(510)236-6846 February 20, 1993 RECEIVE® FEB 2 319903 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Clerk, CONTRA COSTA CO. Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez CA 94553 Re: G.A. Appeal of James Perry This is to confirm my telephone conversation with your office. The Social Services Department has agreed to set aside its hearing decision and restore Mr. Perry's G.A. grant immediately. Based upon this agreement, I am withdrawing Mr. Perry's appeal to the Board. v Ralph Murphy Staff Attorney RM:me • CLERK OF THE BOARD Inter - Office Memo TO: Social Services Department DATE: February 3 , 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 James Perry 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, February 23 , 1993 . Attachment cc: Board Members County Administrator County Counsel GA Program Analyst-SS Dept . 40Douglas Drive The Board of Supervisors Cwtra ��Bo:rd nWVWOr County Administration Building • Costa • o Ni5)m, 651 Pine St., Room 106 �� Martinez, California 54553 Tom Powsis,1st District kangr C.Fohdsn,2nd District Robert I.Schroder,3rd District Sunrw Wright MCPeak,4th District Tom Tortakson,51h District February 3 , 1993 James Perry 1704 Clayton Road Concord, CA 94520 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, February 23 , 1993 . In accordance with Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 75/28 , 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 erv. ors amd County Administrator By AnnIcervelli-, 'D61Tuty Clerk Enclosure cc: Board Members Social Service Department Attn: Appeals & Complaints County Counsel County Administrator t r) BOARD OF ACRVISORS OF. CONTRA COSTA COU16, CALIFORNIA Re: General Assistance ) Appeals Procedure ) RESOLUTION NO. 75/28 (Jan. 14 , 1975) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES T}IAT: 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 714/365; 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 Hoard hearing of the appeal. 3. Upon hearing of the appeal , the Board 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 hoard 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 .xhe. appeal is based are not in dispute, or if any..dispute.d,,P.#pts!;are` not relevant to the issue ultimately to be decided by .the Board', the Board will proceed ` immediately to the next 'o�ep,-.Xl.thout ;considering fact questions. The parties may stipulate ,to "8n agreed set of facts. 4. Once the facts are date mined, or if there are no fact' ' determinations required.:15y tti4'1a'0pt8.l, the Board will consider legal issues 'presented• by•'the• -appb al. 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..Boardd = If the issues are susceptible of immediate resolution, the .Boeirq 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. 75/28 116. 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 . .' G. Having made factual determinations , having received advice on the legal issues, and having applied policy considera- 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. .gounsel ;to draft a proposed decision for its consideration. 7. The Board may contract' with :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, l through ,F4 .above,, and shall recommend .a proposed decision, stating findings o� fact and summarizing the reasoning of the proposed decibion. 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. PASSED on January 111 , 1975, unanimously by the Supervisors present. M77FIED COPY I oertlfY that this is a full, true a correct coVY of the original document which Is on file in my offlce, 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 ex-officio Clerk of said Board of Supervisors, b7 Deput Clerk. � .le 141975 cc: Director, Human Resources Arency Social Service County Counsel County Auditor-Controller County Administrator I LAW OFFICES OF CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION Main Office Telephone 1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(510)233-9954 P.O. Box 2289 East(510)439-9166 Richmond,California 94802 Central(510)372-8209 Fax(510)236-6W February 1, 1993 -. F' RECEIVE® 1 FEB - 2 1993 Clerk, CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa County Board _ CONTRA COSTA CO. of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez CA 94553 Re: Appeal of Evidential Hearing Decision on General Assistance Termination of: James Perry, Claimant 1704 Clayton Road Concord CA 94520 This is to appeal the Decision of the Department of Social Services dated January 21, 1993 to terminate the General of Assistance of James Perry for 30 days for failure to attend a job club appointment on November 17, 1992. Statement of Facts The following facts were testified to by Mr. Perry at his hearing. Mr. Perry was scheduled for a job club appointment with the Department for November 11, 1992 at 10 a.m. at the Antioch office of the Department. Mr. Perry resides in Concord and must take a bus to Antioch from the Concord BART station. On November 11, 1992 he arrived at the BART station sometime after 8 a.m. . He had missed the PE1 bus which would have gotten him to the Antioch office an hour before the scheduled appointment. He waited about an hour and took the next PE1 bus; it was scheduled to arrive near the Antioch office at 9:59 a.m. He arrived at the Antioch office at about 10: 01 or 10: 02 a.m. . He stood in line for several minutes waiting to sign in at the reception area. He believes he signed in at sometime between 10:03 and 10: 05 a.m. However, the office clock said 10: 10 a.m. He believes the clock was inaccurately set. He immediately went to the job club appointment room. Although he was only 5 to 10 minutes late, he was told he must wait outside. Twenty-five minutes later a Department official told him that he would not be allowed into the job club meeting and he would be reported as having failed to comply with Department rules. He received a notice of action saying his General Assistance would be terminated and a period of ineligibility would be imposed for 30 days. Mr. Perry requested a hearing. 1 Clerk, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor February 1, 1993 Page Two The hearing' decision The hearing decision denied Mr. Perry's appeal. The hearing officer held that "The county position that the claimant cannot use transportation as an excuse for his failure is understandable, considering that on 4-9-92, he signed an agreement with the county that expressly states that transportation cannot be used as a valid excuse for failure. " " . . the decision to take that particular bus was of the claimant's own choosing and he cannot divest himself of the attendant responsibilities of that choice. It is self-evident that if a bus is scheduled to arrive only one minute before an appointment, very little distance can be covered before that individual is late even if the bus is on time. It is also axiomatic that such a tight schedule guarantees that the lateness will inevitably occur and the responsibility for such lateness cannot be laid to the bus line. " Grounds for Decision to be reversed 1. Both Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17001.5 and the Board Resolution 92/553 provides that a sanction shall not be imposed if a failure to comply with Department rules is not willful. The hearing decision makes no findings that Mr. Perry's non-compliance was willful. Absent such findings, the upholding of a 30 day sanction is unlawful. 2 . There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of willfulness. The Decision is in violation of Mr. Perry's due process rights. 3 . The penalty imposed is unfair and excessive and violates due process guarantees. 4. The Department's procedures and practices shown in the above statement of facts constitute a violation of Sections 17000, 170001 and 100000 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and a violation of the due process guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Why was Mr. Perry not allowed to participate in the job club meeting? Why wasn't he given a second opportunity to comply with Department's requirements before the Department took away for one month the money he needs for the basic necessities of life? Conclusion The Board of Supervisors should reverse the Decision and direct that Mr. Perry's aid be restored to him. Ralph Murphy Attorney for the Claimant ,;social Service Depa ent Contra • Please reply to: 40 Douglas Drive Perfecto Warreal Costa Martinez,California 94553-4068 Director County c + EVIDENTIARY HEARING DECISION IN THE MATTER OF: County 107-92-398685- James Perry, Claimant Date of County Notice: 10-14-92, 1704 Clayton Road 11-18-92, 12-11-92 Concord, CA 94520 Effective Date of Action: 10-31-92, 11-30-92, 12-31-92 Filing Date: 10-23-92, 11-23-92 , 12-23-92 Hearing Date: 1-11-93 Aid Paid Pending: Y Appeals Officer: Ken Adams Income Maintenance Representative: Pat Allen, Pam Westfall Place of Hearing: Martinez, CA ISSUE The NOA of 10-14-92 proposed to establish the claimant's grant at $230 a month based on the contention that 5 persons shared housing. The NOAs of both 11-18-92 and 12-11-92 attached to the same event-- an 11-17-92 Job Club failure. The issues are thus: A) Shared Housing B) A Job Club failure of 11-17-92 STATEMENT OF FACTS COUNTY ACTION AND POSITION: The NOA sent on 10-14-92 establishing the claimant's proper grant at $230 due to 5 persons in the household, all of whom are not responsible for the claimant is;according to the position taken by the county, correct. In addition, the county contends that its proposal to discontinue the claimant's grant and to impose a penalty of one month for a 11-17-92 Job Club failure is also correct. 4. CLAIMANT'S POSITION: In regard to the 10-14-92 filing, the claimant's only position was that he had filed for a hearing in the hope and expectation that some legal action would take place and his objection would be on the record. The other two NOAs involve the 11-17-92 Job Club failure. The 5 claimant testified that he rides the BART Express bus and that on the day in question, he rode the bus to Los Medanos College which was near the agency office. The record was held open for the claimant to submit additional information and he submitted a bus schedule which appears to confirm that the bus in question is scheduled to arrive at Los Medanos College at 9:59 AM. The claimant thus argued that he rode the bus in question and went immediately to the appointment and thatjry tardiness was not due to his dereliction. The claimant also spoke to the county's contention that he was 10 minutes late and stated that while the lobby clock may have so indicated, he had no assurance that clock was accurate. ` REASON FOR DECISION Departmental Memo #187, dated 10-27-92, establishes as a grant level. Departmental Manual 49-111 establishes good cause standards as well as the standards for willfulness. CONCLUSION In regard to the shared housing issue, there was no factual dispute. The claimant appeared to oppose the county action on legal grounds but these were, as expressed during the hearing, nebulous and ephemeral. However, the county regulations are clear and in the absence of any other authority, these regulations must be upheld. The Job Club issue revolved around the 11-17-92 appointment. The county position that the claimant cannot use transportation as an rA excuse for his failure is understandable, considering that on 4-9- 92, he signed an agreement with the county that expressly states that transportation can not be used as a valid excuse for failure. However, it. seems obvious that there must be some occasions when an emergency situation could occur that would constitute a situation beyond the control of the claimant. For this reason, each claim of • transportation basis for a failure must be examined individually. In this instant case, the claimant's challenge to the proposed discontinuance takes two forms--his challenge to the accuracy of the timepiece in the lobby that was used to mark his tardiness, and his challenge to the severity of not allowing a 10 minute lateness. a The claimant's challenge to the accuracy of the clock could possibly be sufficient if it were buttressed by some evidence or indication that the time piece used was inaccurate. Absent such / proof, it is not sufficient for the claimant to merely challenge-- he must advance further along the chain of evidence to make a showing that his challenge has substance. This he has not done. In regard to the actual tardiness, the decision to take that particular bus was of the claimant's own choosing and he cannot divest himself of the attendant responsibilities of that choice. It is self-evident that if a bus is scheduled to arrive only one minute before an appointment, very little distance can be covered 4 before that individual is late even if the bus is on time. It is ! also axiomatic that such a tight schedule guarantees that the lateness will inevitably occur and the responsibility for such lateness cannot be laid to the bus line. ORDER The claim is denied. Program ager, Ap als Date i l Assistant Director Date :ss 7. 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 96553 within thirty (30) days of the date of the Evidentiary Hearing Decision. s No further aid is paid pending a Board of Supervisors appeal. ■ LAW OFFICES OF CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION Main Office Telephone 1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(510)233-9954 P.O.Box 2289 East(510)439-9166 Richmond,California 94802 Central(510)372-8209 Fax(510)236-6846 February 1, 1993 -. EKBOAR�OSUP�ERVISORS EIVE® - 21993 Clerk, Contra Costa County Board COSTA Co. of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez CA 94553 Re: Appeal of Evidential Hearing Decision on General Assistance Termination of: James Perry, Claimant 1704 Clayton Road Concord CA 94520 This is to appeal . the Decision of the Department of Social Services dated January 21, 1993 to terminate the General of Assistance of James Perry for- 30 days for failure to attend a _job club appointment on November 17,1992 . Statement of Facts The following facts were testified to by Mr. Perry at his hearing. Mr. Perry was scheduled for a job club appointment with the Department for November 11, 1992 at 10 a.m. at the Antioch office of the Department. Mr. Perry resides in Concord and must take a bus to Antioch from the Concord BART station. On November 11, 1992 he arrived at the BART station sometime after 8 a.m. . He had missed the PE1 bus which would have gotten him to the Antioch office an hour before the scheduled appointment. He waited about an hour and took the next PE1 bus; it was scheduled to arrive near the Antioch office at 9:59 a.m. He arrived at the Antioch office at about 10: 01 or 10: 02 a.m. . He stood in line for several minutes waiting to sign in at the reception area. He believes he signed in at sometime between 10:03 and 10:05 a.m. However, the office clock said 10: 10 a.m. He believes the clock was inaccurately set. He immediately went to the job club appointment room. Although he was only 5 to 10 minutes late, he was told he must wait outside. Twenty-five minutes later a Department official told him that he would not be allowed into the job club meeting and .he would-bereported as having failed to comply with Department rules. He received a notice of action saying his General Assistance would be terminated and a period of ineligibility would be imposed for 30 days. Mr. Perry requested a hearing. Clerk, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors February 1, 1993 Page Two The hearinq' decision The hearing decision denied Mr. Perry's appeal. The hearing officer held that "The county position that the claimant cannot use transportation as an excuse for his failure is understandable, considering that on 4-9-92, he signed an agreement with the county that expressly states that transportation cannot be used as a valid excuse for failure. " " . . . the decision to take that particular bus was of the claimant's own choosing and he cannot divest himself of the attendant responsibilities of that choice. It is self-evident that if a bus is scheduled to arrive only one minute before an appointment, very little distance can be covered before that individual is late even it the bus is on time. It is also axiomatic that such a tight schedule guarantees that the lateness will inevitably occur and the responsibility for such lateness cannot be laid to the bus line. " Grounds for Decision to be reversed 1. Both Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17001. 5 and the Board Resolution 92/553 provides that a sanction shall not be imposed if a failure to comply with Department rules is not willful. The hearing decision makes no findings that Mr. Perry's non-compliance was willful. Absent such findings, the upholding of a 30 day sanction is unlawful. 2 . There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of willfulness. The Decision is in violation of Mr. Perry's due process rights. 3 . The penalty imposed is unfair and excessive and violates due process guarantees. 4 . The Department's procedures and practices shown in the above statement of facts constitute a violation of Sections 17000, 170001 and 100000 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and a violation of the due process guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Why was Mr. Perry not allowed to participate in the job club meeting? Why wasn't he given a second opportunity to comply with Department's requirements before the Department took away for one month the money he needs for the basic necessities of life? Conclusion The Board of Supervisors should reverse the Decision and direct that Mr. Perry's aid be restored to him. D1 ep,�--� Ralph Murphy Attorney for the Claimant %Social Service Department Contra Please reply to: 40 Douglas Drive Perfecto Villarreal Costa Martinez,California 94553-4068 Director County L ............ YA ,a Ca STS cdu�`� Li EVIDENTIARY HEARING DECISION y IN THE MATTER OF: County #07-92-398685- James Perry, Claimant Date of County Notice: 10-14-92, 1704 Clayton Road 11-18-92, 12-11-92 Concord, CA 94520 Effective Date of Action: 10-31-92, 11-30-92, 12-31-92 Filing Date: 10-23-92 , 11-23-92, 12-23-92 Hearing Date: 1-11-93 i� Aid Paid Pending: Y 4 Appeals Officer: Ken Adams s Income Maintenance Representative: Pat Allen, Pam Westfall Place of Hearing: Martinez, CA rs ISSUE The NOA of 10-14-92 proposed to establish the claimant's grant at $230 a month based on the contention that 5 persons shared housing. The NOAs of both 11-18-92 and 12-11-92 attached to the same event--- an 11=17-92 Job Club failure. The issues are thus: A) Shared Housing B) A Job Club failure of 11-17-92 ` STATEMENT OF FACTS COUNTY ACTION AND POSITION: The NOA sent on 10-14-92 establishing the claimant's proper grant at $230 due to 5 persons in the household, all of whom are not i responsible for the claimant is,according to the position taken by the county, correct. In addition, the county contends that its proposal to discontinue the claimant's grant and to impose a penalty of one month for a 11-17-92 Job Club failure is also correct. t CLAIMANT'S POSITION: In regard to the 10-14-92 filing, the claimant's only position was that he had filed for a hearing in the hope and expectation that some legal action would take place and his objection would be on the record. The other two NOAs involve the 11-17-92 Job Club failure. The claimant testified that he rides the BART Express bus and that on the day in question, he rode the bus to Los Medanos College which was near the agency office. The record was held open for the claimant to submit additional information and he submitted a bus schedule which appears to confirm that the bus in question is scheduled to arrive at Los Medanos College at 9:59 AM. The claimant thus argued that he rode the bus in question and went immediately to the appointment and that py tardiness was not due to his dereliction. The claimant also spoke to the county's contention that he was 10 minutes late and stated that while the lobby clock may have so }" indicated, he had no assurance that clock was accurate. REASON FOR DECISION Departmental Memo #187, dated 10-27-92, establishes as a grant level. .Departmental Manual 49-111 establishes good cause standards as well as the standards for willfulness. .� CONCLUSION In regard to the shared housing issue, there was no factual dispute. The claimant appeared to oppose the county action on legal grounds but these were, as expressed during the hearing, nebulous and ephemeral. However, the county regulations are clear and in the absence of any other authority, these regulations must be upheld. The Job Club issue revolved around the 11-17-92 appointment. The county position that the claimant cannot use transportation as an excuse for his failure is understandable, considering that on 4-9- 92, he signed an agreement with the county that expressly states that transportation can not be used as a valid excuse for failure. -� However, it. seems obvious that there must be some occasions when an emergency situation could occur that would constitute a situation beyond the control of the claimant. For this reason, each claim of transportation basis for a failure must be examined individually. In this instant case, the claimant's challenge to the proposed discontinuance takes two forms--his challenge to the accuracy of the timepiece in the lobby that was used to mark his tardiness, and his challenge to the severity of not allowing a 10 minute lateness. i The claimant's challenge to the accuracy of the clock could possibly be sufficient if it were buttressed by some evidence or indication that the time piece used was inaccurate. Absent such proof, it is not sufficient for the claimant to merely challenge-- he must advance further along the chain of evidence to make a showing that his challenge has substance. This he has not done. 4 In regard to the actual tardiness, the decision to take that particular bus was of the claimant's own choosing and he cannot divest himself of the attendant responsibilities of that choice. It is self-evident that if a bus is scheduled to arrive only one minute before an appointment, very little distance can be covered before that individual is late even if the bus is on time. It is also axiomatic that such a tight schedule guarantees that the J lateness will inevitably occur and the responsibility for such lateness cannot be laid to the bus line. ORDER ' The claim is denied. 14 =3 Programa ger, ;Apals Date Assistant Director Date :ss € If you are dissatisfied with-this: Decision you may w y y y 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 within thirty (30) days ._ of the date of the Evidentiary Hearing Decision. No further aid is paid pending a Board of Supervisors appeal.