Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04121988 - S.6 TO BOARD OF SUPERVI(S6,RS Ckntra Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak Costa DATE'. April 6, 1988 Gritty SUBJECT: Law Enforcement Costs to Protect Larry Singleton SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Authorize County Administrator to request reconsideration by the State Board of Control regarding the payment of County claims to recover costs associated with the Larry Singleton case. 2 . Authorize County Counsel to take necessary steps to file suit against the State of California to recover costs associated with the Singleton case in the event that the County is unsuccessful in its efforts to receive reconsideration by the State Board of Control. BACKGROUND: On August 26, 1987, on orders of the Board' of Supervisors, the County Administrator filed a claim with the State Board of Control requesting reimbursement for some $31,237 .90 in expenses the County had incurred in protecting Larry Singleton during his brief stay in this County in the spring of 1987 . On January 19, 1988, the County Administrator' s staff followed up to find out what had happened to our claim. Staff was informed that the claim was still being reviewed and no date had been set for a hearing. The County Administrator' s Office requested that the County be advised when the claim was set for hearing. On March 14, 1988, my staff asked the County Administrator' s Office to follow up and find out the status of our claim against the State. The response we received was that the hearing was held on February 17 and the County' s claim was rejected. No one from the County was notified of the hearing and, thus, no opportunity was provided by the Board of Control for the County to be represented at the hearing, even though we had specifically asked to be notified. Sometime after March 10 we received a one-line computer-generated and unsigned form letter from the State Board of Control which is quoted here in its entirety: CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE XAPPROVE X OTHER SIGNATUREISI: �2_rll X ACTION OF BOARD ON 79 8 APPROVED AS RECOYTMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES' --- NOES*. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. GC' County Administrator ATTESTED April 12 , 1988 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Sheriff-Coroner SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR By DEPUTY .M382/7-83 Page 2 "The State Board of Control, ' at its meeting of February 17, 1988, rejected this claim. " A warning notice is included at the bottom of the letter advising the County that it has six months from the date of the letter to file a court action on the claim. I am personally outraged at this treatment of the County by the State Board of Control. We specifically asked to be notified of the date and time of the hearing. We were ignored. our claim was rejected with absolutely no explanation, nor were we given the opportunity to appear at the hearing. simple courtesy would require that we be given a chance to present our case. It appears appropriate to ask the State Board of Control to reconsider the claims associated with the cost of protecting Larry Singleton for the time that he was in Contra Costa County and to ask the Board of Control to allow a representative from the Board of Supervisors to be present to justify why these claims should be paid. If the County is unsuccessful in this pursuit, we are left by this travesty of bureaucracy with no choice but to go to the time and expense of suing the State of California. State law ought to require, if it doesn' t already, that any claimant be provided a written explanation for the basis of the Board of Control' s decision. we are required by the State to advise every welfare recipient of every action taken in his or her case and that they have a right to a hearing. we must advise any welfare recipient of the date and time of the hearing and of their right to be heard. Why doe's the State Board of Control accord this Board of Supervisors fewer rights and less courtesy than we must show to any welfare recipient whose grant is reduced or whose application is denied? I find this whole process disgraceful and unacceptable and hope my colleagues on the Board will join me in supporting a demand that we be accorded our rights as we accorded Mr. Singleton his rights.