HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03231993 - H.3B H. 3b
FROM: Perfecto Villarreal, Director
Social Service Department
DATE: March 23 1993
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF GENERAL ASSISTANCE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
DECISION BY DENISE DE RAMO
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND AND
JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board deny Denise De Ramo's appeal of the General Assistance
Hearing decision.
BACKGROUND:
Claimant filed request for Hearing on December 5, 1992. The request was not
filed in a timely manner. Claimant did not present evidence supporting her claim
that she had good cause for late filing. No Hearing was scheduled.
Signature: IV
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 23 , 1993
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x
On March 9 , 1993 , the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the
hearing on the appeal by -Denise DeRamo .ffom the administrative decision
rendered on General Assistance benefits .
Jewel Mansapit, General Assistance Program Analyst, Social Service
Department, presented the staff report on the appeal .
Ellen J. Tabachnick, Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation,
representing the appellant, presented testimony relative to the appeal .
Kevin Kerr, Deputy County Counsel , commented on the Social Service
Department' s actions , and the Board discussed the matter.
On recommendation of Supervisor McPeak, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDER that
the appeal by Denise De Ramo is GRANTED for an evidentiary hearing.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS:
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYES: 1 , 3 , 4 NOES: 5
ABSENT: 2 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 March 23 , 1993
Appeals Unit PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Program Analyst
County Counsel SUPERVISORS A7 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Denise DeRamo
CCLegal Ser. Found. BY a , DEPUTY
�).
DAT
REQUEST TO SPEAK '' ORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: PHONE:
ADDRESS: Cny:
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
Ch � OAC: (NAME OF ORC.AN17NTlOti)
7c
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general for. against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers'
microphone before your item is to be considered.
2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into The microphone.
3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as a
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation. if available.
5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)
Social Service Department Contra
1 ra Please reply to:
Costa
E]Appeals
(510)646-2865
County
OUntY ❑Staff Development
(510)646-2861
1340 Arnold Drive,Suite 220
Martinez,CA 94553
December 22 , 1992
Ms. Denise Deramo
1671 Haller Ct. #1
Concord, CA 94520
County: #92-0401275-A4AH
Filing Date: 12/5/92
Dear Ms. Deramo:
Enclosed is a copy of the correction sheet that was sent to
all General Assistance recipients effective 9-1-92 . This
correction sheet gave notice that effective 9-1-92, the period
for filing for a hearing and receiving Aid Paid Pending changed
from 30 to 14 days. If you can conclusively prove that you,
through no action and/or fault of your own, failed to receive the
above referred notice, then it may be possible to grant you a
hearing. Absent such conclusive proof, the decision to not grant
you a hearing stands.
Appeals Coordinator
40 Douglas Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
ss:
Encl. :
a
December 16, 1992
Appeals Coordinator
40 Douglas Drive
Martinez, CA 9453
Dear Appeals Coordinator:
I am requesting that the county reconsider their decision
denying my request for a hearing on the basis that it was not
timely filed (copy enclosed) . The proposed termination was
inappropriate as I had already submitted verification of a medical
dispensation as the reason for a missed workfare appointment.
Your courtesy and consideration to my request is greatly
appreciated.
sincerely,
enise De
1671 Halle o t �$
Concord, CA 94520
Social Service Department Contra
_on 1`ra Please reply to:
C.l 40 Douglas Drive
.perfecto Villarreal
Director Costa Martinez,California 94553-4068
County
�e
-----ii--
December
December 8, 1992
Ms. Denise Deramo
1671 Haller Ct. #1
Concord, CA 94520
County #07-92-0401275-00-A4AH
Filing Date: 12/5/92
Dear Ms. Deramo:
We have received your request for an Evidentiary Hearing. However,
in accord with the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Resolution #921553 dated August 4, 1992 your request was not filed
timely and thus your request for a hearing is denied. If you
believe this decision to be in error, you may file a written
request for reconsideration along with any necessary verifications
with:
Appeals Coordinator
40 Douglas Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
�.�G�.�
1
4
6� o I 330
40TICE'OF PROPOSED ACTION COUNTY OF 'T' GA 239 H
3ENERAL 'ASSISTANCE PROGRAM' CONTRA COSTA
DEL.10/92
NOTICE DATE 11-13-92 A4AR H
CASE NAME DERA MO DENISE
NUMBER 92-0401275-00—C
WORKER NAME K MARCH
NUMBER A4AH
TELEPHONE 646-2028
ADDRESS 30 M UI R ROA C
MARTINEZ CA 94553
Questions? Ask your Worker.
St necenit• una traduec16n de f3to, 11-0 0 au trabojedor(.)
(ADDRESSEE) Xln endue: llfn 1je 41 ruts alnh vten cue .inn n4u eor. ban dtcn
r DENISE D E RA M O � -�^- �s � ^°• 9e ^» T°
1671 HALLER CT Al
CGNCORD CA 94520
L J
YOUR GENERAL ASSISTANCE WILL BE DISCONTINUED EFFECTIVE NOV 30 1992 —
BECAUSE YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED WILLFUL NONCOOPERATION OR NONCOMPLIANCE
WITH WORK PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS BY FAILURE TO MEET YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE IN THESE SPECIFIC INSTANCES:
DATE OF FAILURES) NATURE OF FAILURES)
BECAUSE OF THESE FAILURES YOU WILL BE INELIGIBLE TO GENERAL ASSISTANCE
FOR A PERIOD OF:
C ) ONE MONTH
THREE MONTHS
( ) SIX MONTHS
IF YOU WISH TO REAPPLY FOR GENERAL ASSISTANCE• YOU MAY AGAIN BE
ELIGIBLE TO AID ON OR AFTER LA DEPENDING UPON YCVR
CIRCUMSTANCES AT THAT TIME.
ANY FURTHER FAILURE TO MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMEN1S OF GENERAL
ASSISTANCE MAYRESULT RESULT IN ANOTHER PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSv OR YOU BELIEVE THIS ACTION IS INCORRECTs OR
YOU WISH TO GIVE YOUR REASONS WHY YOU THINK ANY FAILURE TO COOPERATE CR
TO COMPLY WITH GA REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE EXCUSEDip YOU ARE ENTITLED TC
TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITH YOUR WORKER OR THE SUPERVISOR.
(11-p—
. THIS ACTION IS REQUIRED BY THE FOLLOWING LAMS AND/OR REGULATIONS
DEPARTMENT MANUAL SECTIONS: 49-102 APPLICATION AND RECEPTION
49-111 DISCONTINUE♦ GOOD CAUSES
WILLFULNESS AND PERIOD OF
INELIGIBILITY
. 49-210 EMPLOYABLE PROGRAM
BOARD RESOLUTION 92/553 51-500 EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
GA239 DISC— FAILED TO MEET EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS POI 078—C
A 239H(5/87)
1111-92 H
3TICE OF PROPOSED ACTION COUNTY OF GA 239 H
"
.-NERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM,,_,). CU 1 N TR A C 0T
DEL.10/92
NOTICE DATE
CASE NAME DL'D'A;A') DF'' SE
NUMBER 12 7 5 C0-0
WORKER NAME
NUMBER
TELEPHONE
ADDRESS
(4 1.- C-
Questions? Ask your Worker.
.DDRES8E.E) d, A,--. 118=1 A 3v tr8t'j4dor(,)
X1. &g/b; lli" lq� vc�l Th;�=fir.h vian .1�h n;. cfc b;n dlcr.
-f';7 HA L L 17
Cr--f7.n-- -.1 if 7- -).:N
L
.Y V^ WILL N.-
LL. 3F. P I CNI T T i��U�7-� )%!
Ptc4usH�Avr !,4, -, rC�-!P=-A TIC,%
E -Yr)}_) -. 9 0 N T V,'A T f En V I LL,-�IL i.);i�11 OR NCINO-IMPLIPWI.
!"!
WITH W " F*1ROCPAl RIFQUrRc� MIEN -- c:
TS 5Y -rAILUTO MEET Y-0- LJP R'PSP(l-�ISTFTLT-TEc!
il Ji-H T Y CAUSE TH-7F SPECT IN3T Nr 7
U j
C A L T 7 7 T UY." Yrj U jJ T 1.1 Tr TC: Re; a T S-T
o,i mmwH
THR"c: 1,10(4 �l
T
�X M(Y)THS
yllu -q- E N4r .4L :k S S IA Nfl-;7 Y OU P; y PS A 1 -2 E
0 P, A 7).pLy F.
vc
T 7
7.jr 7
-1.T
r.] r'
J T T R
'. I f7
L
To
S V2H y YZ
I lt�I S J-,' r j7 T V tji 1 R!-
I j Ll - '7
Y. I k.- L i'j
TO c -GA .. RE-OU 1 SH jj- YCIU : ARr
P L Y' 1-4 T "rt�.
-)1 -01.1 Lr) f� 7.-::. C T T T L C:D T
TALK AVOUT THEt T ' ' - 'R: - . .
H.T NG' r:T H; Y OU R 0 R K Fl" Q R T.H.F: SL P::--IR V I S 0 P
rq
2-
THIS S ACT,T()N
. IS REQUIRED BY- T HE FOLLO W I 1`4G, LAWS 01I)l 0 P R EGULAT I Of'-IS
0 E P A R T M F N T 4 A N.U A L S.E C T 10 illfl 49- 102 APPLICATION ANE QECEPTT'C--,'4
:4o- LII C I
- III DTSCrj,'lITlNU'c::t GOOD 'CAUSC
WfLI-r-UL"41-SS ANO PERIOC Oi=
7'4=LIC RILTTY
49-.21 q '4'!-lPL0YA9LF PRO,(19-AM
51-500 M P L lYMrr4T SERVICES
SOARC, P4-S'ILIJTTON -42/53
GA239 FISC FA 1 LE") TO . mSET F-f4PLfJ VM ENT PF C" POT
078
239H(5/87)
GA 239 F
L You have the right to a conference with representatives'of'(he SocialServicc Department to talk about this intended
action. At such a conference, you may speak for yourself,or bc.representcd by a lawyer, a friend or other spokesman.
If you want a conference, contact your worker within ten days of the date of this..notice.;
2. If this notice proposes a denial or discontinuance.or..a..period:of ineligibility for failure to meet.program
requirements, you are entitled to a hearing at which the Department must prove your failure to comply, and you wall
be entitled to show that the failure is excused for good cause or because it was not willful.
3. Whether you request a conference or not,you also have the right to request a Hearing and a decision. Your request
must be in writing.Your request for a hearing must be mailed or delivered.to Social Service Department within 14
days of the date of this notice.
S4. If you ask for a Hearing within 14 days of the date of this notice, and if this notice proposes a reduction or
j termination of a GA grant that you are now receiving, your aid will be continued until a decision has been reached.
5. Your county worker will help you ask for a Hearing.
6.. If the decision is that you were not entitled to the aid which you were paid, the overpayment may be recovered from
you by reducing your General Assistance grant after the decision, or through other legal means.
Y. 7. Ata Hearing you have the right to be represented by an attorney or any other person (a friend, relative, or any other
spokesman) of your choice. If you need an interpreter we will provide onefor you. You may obtain free legal advice
and services by contacting the nearest legal services office at:
CON I'RA COSTA LEGAL SERVICE SERVICES FOUNDATION
From East CCC call 439-9166
From West CCC call 233-9954
From Central CCC call 372-8209
8. You have the right to request that the Eligibility Worker, Work Programs staff, or any staff member who has actual
knowledge regarding the issue under appeal be present at the Hearing as a witness.
9.. Regulations governing Hearings are available at this office of the county welfare department.
IF YOU 1VISH TO REQUEST A HEARING,WRITE TO:
Office of Appeals Coordinator
40 Douglas Drive
Martinez, CA 94553-4068
j Please include one copy of this notice with your hearing request and keep the other copy for your records.
If you wish to have your worker or other staff person present at the Hearing, please indicate that on your Hearing request.
REMEMBER THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR HEARING MUST BE MAILED OR. DELIVERED.TO THE SOCIAL
SERVICES DF.,PARTMENT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE OF T11iS NOTICE.
Q
Cn
N
O
U
Q
Q
H
Z
1 U
U
u\
m
N
H. 2b
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 9, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing On Appeal From Administrative Decision Rendered On
General Assistance Benefits Filed By Denise DeRamo
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by Denise DeRamo from the
administrative decision rendered on General Assistance benefits.
Jewel Mansapit, General Assistance Program Analyst, Social
Services Department, advised of the Department' s agreement with a
request from Ellen J. Tabachnick, Contra Costa Legal Services
Foundation, for a continuance of the above appeal to March 23 , 1993 at
2: 00 p.m.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above appeal by Denise DeRamo
is CONTINUED to March 23, 1993 at 2: 00 p.m. in the Board Chambers.
hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Sp isors o the date shown.
ATTESTED:
PHIL dAkCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
f Supervi and Cou ty dministrator
Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board
Social Services Dept. By ,Deputy
Jewel Mansapit
Denise DeRamo
Ellen J. Tabachnick
CC Legal Services Foundation
Law Offices of
Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation
Main Office Telq�tww
1017 Macdonald Avenue West County (5 10)233-9954
P.O.Box 2289 t (510)439-9166
Richmond California 94802ral (510)372-8209
RECEIVE cen
D a, (510)236.6846
819M
ssnt by fax March 5,1993 MAR
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Office of County Counsel
Attn. Attorney Kevin Kerr
I
This is to confirm that County Counsel's office and CCLSf have agreed
to continue the GA appeal to the Board of Supervisors from March 9,1993
at 2pm to March 23,1993 at 2pm. Thank you.
Sincerely,
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES
by: ELLEN J. TABACHNICK
cc: Denise DeRamo
Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors
• CLERK OF THE BOARD •
Inter - Office Memo
TO: Social Services Department DATE: February 22 , 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 Denise DeRamo
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, March 9 , 1993 .
Attachment
cc:
Board Members
County Administrator
County Counsel
GA Program Analyst-SS Dept .
40Douglas Drive
BOARD OF OERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUI, CALIFORNIA
Re: General Assistance )
Appeals Procedure ) RESOLUTION NO. 75/28
(Jan. 24, 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 74/365; 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 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 ,.Offleer. The board 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 .the. appeal is based are not in
dispute, or if any,.dispute.d.Aap si:are' not relevant to the issue
ultimately to be decided by .the Board, the Board will proceed `
immediately to the next -step•�,WLtbout ;considering fact questions.. *
The parties may stipulate ,to 8n agreed set of facts.
4. Once the facts are determined, or if there are no fact' '
determinations required."UY.
" tti4'ta pt al, the Board will consider
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,..Boardii 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 cons1dera-
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. � =
7. The Board may contract, wlth :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 'o� fact and summarizing the
reasoning of the proposed deci§ion. The Hoard 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.
MTIFMD COPY
I certify that this is a full, true A correct copy 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 Costs county, California, on
the date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSON, County
Clerk a ex-officio Clerk of said Board of supervisors,
by Deput Clerk.
,�N 1 4 1975
ce: Director, Human Resources Agency
Social Service
County Counsel
County Auditor-Controller
County Administrator
SoftheW
The Board of Supervi rs Contra 1�of the Bmfd
txt.�,,AdtWft do►
County Administration Building Costa N15)3n-M71
651 Pine St., Room 106 ��
Martinez, Califomia 94553
Tom Powers,1st District
Nancy C.Fandsn,2nd District
Aobart 1.Schroder,3rd District
Sunrw Wright MCPaak,4th District
Tom ToAakson,Sth District
February 18 , 1993
Denise DeRamo
1671 Haller Court #1
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, March 9 , 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 ler:nors. id County Administrator
By
An4 Cervelli , D puty Clerk
Enclosure
cc: Board Members
Social Service Department
Attn: Appeals & Complaints
County Counsel
County Administrator
' LAW OFFICES OF
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
Main Office Talephow
1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(510)133-9954
P.O.Box 2289 East(510)439-9166
Pichmnd,California 94802 Central(510)372-8209
Fax(510)236846
February 3, 1993
RECEIVED
FEB - 51993
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson
District 15
Board of Supervisors CIFR SpA coSUPEO ISORS
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Request for General Assistance Evidentiary Hearing
Reinstatement
Claimant: Denise DeRamo
1671 Haller Ct. , #1
Concord, Ca 94520
Resolution Requested: Rescission of Notice of Dismissal
Dear Chairperson and Board Members:
I. BACKGROUND:
The issue in this case is limited solely to claimant's legal
right to be heard. This is a procedural, not substantive appeal
requesting the Board to review the case and applicable law
regarding my client's right to be heard. This is an appeal
regarding jurisdiction and the three month sanction Ms. DeRamo is
currently serving (January 1 . 1993 - Abril 7 . 1993) . We contend
it is without statutory authority.
The notice of action that this appeal addresses is dated
11/13/92 . The appeals unit dismissed the appeal and her 12/92
request for hearing reconsideration (12/92) continually due to an
alleged lack of jurisdiction. However, this County's decision
and conclusion is incorrect.
Denise DeRamo wishes to be heard regarding a General
Assistance workfare problem. We have evidence showing good cause
may well have existed, but for the County's denial of appeal
jurisdiction.
II. JURISDICTION EXISTS BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF ACTION OF NOVEMBER
1992 WAS INADEQUATE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW:
A. The claimant filed what the county states was an
"untimely" appeal dated December 5, 1992, of a November 13, 1992
Notice cutting her 0f General Assistance for 0 months. It also
sanctioned her for 12/92 due to another General Assistance appeal
unfavorable to claimant. In other words, two separate sanctions
on one notice. Thus, for reasons summarized below, the 14 day
General Assistance appeal time limit has not even started to run
on the appeal or subsequent Board of Supervisor deadlines.
1. When a County proposes taking an action affecting public
assistance, the County must give claimant adequate notice. (D.M.
49-700 et seg. ) .
2 . The County's own regulations violate notice language
requirements, as to what is legally adequate.
The November 13 , 1992 notice which Ms. DeRamo received did
two specific things: First, there was an unfavorable pro per
General Assistance negative decision issued November 5, 1992.
The GA laws required the decision be implemented within 5 days.
Instead, what the Department did was send a notice beyond 5 days
and sanction her twice in the same notice. There is no legal
authority for double sanctions on one notice. (11/13/92) It
went so far as to not only impose a one month sanction for 12/92
but simultaneously sanction her again for three months (see
attached notice) .
3 . Notice is adequate only if it sets forth the intended
action, and the specific regulations. Due to the double sanction
(12/92 , 1/93 , 2/93 , 3/93) contained in the same notice, this
notice was inadequate. Even with an unfavorably evidentiary
hearing decision, no General Assistance regulation supports
compliance and due process with the County's own regulations and
Board order when it:
(a) provides for a one month sanction (12/92) at the
bottom of the notice;
(b) and simultaneously proposes a second 3 month
sanction on the same notice. (1/93 - 3/93)
It is no wonder claimant filed for an appeal when she did.
In all cases, separate notices should be sent and are. If a
claimant loses an appeal, it should be implemented separate from
any new action by the Department. It is not whether claimant
received a notice of change in appeal deadlines, it is an issue
of whether the notice was adequate in the first place The
front of the same notice is defective since it does not inform
her she has a right to appeal. The appeals rights are on the
back but never indicate any right of appeal on its face. We
contend this omission makes the notice defective. A right of
appeal and applicable regulations should be spelled out on the
front page of the termination notice. Since this does not exist,
no adequate notice of determination was ever made. Thus, as
stated, the deadlines have not begun to run.
c�
2
This client i0currently without aid for4he entire winter,
posing an unreasonable burden and hardship without legal
justification. Therefore, a denial of this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction based upon an untimely appeal would be improper.
C. Finally, the burden of proof is with Contra Costa
County and not claimant in proving they did
provide adequate notice on 11/13/92. The Appeals
Unit informed her twice that her appeal was
untimely but that constantly precluded her right
to put forth evidence that the November 13 notice
was inadequate. The claimant relied on the County
to provide her with a full, complete and adequate
notice. This is also a violation of the State of
California Constitution and the United States
Constitution 14th Amendment. In that the notice
was and is inadequate, there is also a deprivation
of property in violation of due process
requirement of Goldberg v. Kelly.
If the Department's records are to be believed, they fall
short in light of the evidence needed to sustain the dismissal.
Thus, the County has yet to prove their own notice was correct.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, claimant request that the December 1992 denial of
her appeal for reconsideration of the right to be reversed and
heard. In fact, the Board should on it's face reverse the
decision on the record. Ms. DeRamo is entitled to adequate
notice. Ms. DeRamo is entitled to jurisdiction. She is not
"entitled" to any four month sanction without either. In
addition, anyone facing such a severe consequence and hardship
should have the right to be heard, especially since the notice is
wrong, compelling corrective action. In light of the confusing
language of this specific notice, we request that the denial of
jurisdiction-reconsideration be reversed.
Please notify Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation and
claimant of her Board of Supervisors appeal date. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely yours, ,
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES
FOUNDATION
f \
By:
ELLEN J. IrABACHNICK
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
EJT:vh
3
cc: Denise DeRamo
Kevin Kerr
office of the County Counsel
i
iMs
4
I
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
I, , claimant
of L� � - /J((?Cf q VS �J
California, hereby appoint CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES
FOUNDATION, 1017 Macdonald Avenue, P.O. BOX 2289 , Richmond,
California 94802, and any agent thereof to act in my behalf as
my AUTHORIZED REPRESEN IVE in corMection with my application
for and/or receipt of
[TYPE OF ASSISTANCE] , CLUDING ANY APPEAL REGARDING SAID AID.
I hereby authorize CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
and any agent thereof to make or give any request or notice ;
present or elicit evidence; obtain and review any and all
information including medical records; and receive any notice in
connection with my claim wholly in my stead.
d•\/ '� 9
Dated:
(S GN TURE)
PLEASE ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
CONTRA CO TA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
1017 Macdonald Ave. , P.O. Box 2289
Richmond, California 94802
;NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTT( COUNTY OF �� GA 2"-
. 'GENE,RAL ASSISTANCE PROGOW .�, CONTRA COSTA DEL 1C
NOTICE DATE j 13-92
CASE NAME DERA MO DENISE'
NUMBER 92-0401275—CO-0
t WORKER NAME K MARCH �J
NUMBER A4AH
TELEPHONE 646-20 28
ADDRESS 30 MUI R ROAC
MARTINEZ CA 94553
Questions? Ask your Worker.
Sl neeet ic• unn trdreels. Oe bte, 11ue n w tnUUber
(ADDRESSEE) fla Ong/el lltn lee ee1 ThI6#lnn filn e46 slab n!'. efe
r 1671SHALL�MCT fl
CCNCORO CA 94520
L J
YOUR GENERAL ASSISTANCE WILL BE DISCONTINUED EFFECTIVE N-1V 3:) s 1992
BECAUSE YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED WILLFUL NONCOOPERATION OR HCNC1M?LIANCE
kITH WORK PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS BY FAILURE TO MEET YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
MITFOUT GOOD CAUSE IN THESE SPECIFIC INSTANCES:
DATE OF
FAILURE(S) NATURE OF FAILURES)
PECAUSFOF TH?SE =AILU^ES YOU WILL FE INELIGIBLE TC GENERAL ASSISTANCE
FOR A Pr!IIO0 OF:
\!_ ) ONE MONTH
9 `
THREE MONTHS
( ) SIX MONTHS
IF YOU WISH TO R=APPLY FOR GENERAL ASSISTANCE• YOU PAY tSOIN F=
ELIGIBLE TO AID OV OR AFTER _�S- _ L`c?=P.DIyC, UPO•: YCLR
CIRCUMSTA4CES AT THAT TIME-
ANY FURTHER FAILU2E 7O ME=T THE ELIGIBILITY R=_CUIREMEN1S OF SENERAL
ASSISTANCE_ MAY RESULT IN ANOTHER PERIOD OF IN=LIGIEILIT11.
IF YOU HAVE ANY 2JESTIONS9 OR YOU BELIEVE THIS ACTION IS INCORRECT. CP
YOU MISE! TO GIVE YOUR R=ASO":5 OJ
WHY YOU THINK ANY FAILURE TO COOPERATE CR�
TO COMPLY WITH GA REJUIRFMENTS SHLD BE EXCUSED '�' -"
TALK A£OUT THESE THINGS WITH YOUR WORKEP, OR THE SUPERVISOF-
Tll�
THIS ACTION IS REQUIRED BYJ .THE FOLLOWING LAWS AND/OF REGULATIONS
DEPARTMENT MANUAL SECTIONS: 49-102 APPLICATION AND RECEPTICN
49-111 DISCONTINU=v GOOD CAUSES
WILLFULNESS AND PERIOC OP
INELIGIBILITY
49-210 EMPLOYABLE PROGRAM
BOARC RESOLUTION 92/553 51-500 EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
CA239 DISC— FAILED TO MEET EMPLOYMENT RECUIREMENTS- PCI
GA 239H(5187)
` LAW OFFICES OF
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
Main Office SelephOOe
1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(5 10)233-9954
P.O.Box 2289 East(510)439-9166
Richmond,California 94802 Central(510)372-8209
Fax(510)236-6846
February 3 , 1993
F�ECEIVED
FEB - 51993
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson
District #5
Board of Supervisors CLE Cpkrlr COSTAECO.�SORS
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Request for General Assistance Evidentiary Hearing
Reinstatement
Claimant: Denise DeRamo
1671 Haller Ct. , #1
Concord, Ca 94520
Resolution Requested: Rescission of Notice of Dismissal
Dear Chairperson and Board Members:
I. BACKGROUND:
The issue in this case is limited solely to claimant's legal
right to be heard. This is a procedural, not substantive appeal
requesting the Board to review the case and applicable law
regarding my client's right to be heard. This is an appeal
regarding jurisdiction and the three month sanction Ms. DeRamo is
currently serving (January 1 , 1993 - April 7 , 1993) . We contend
it is without statutory authority.
The notice of action that this appeal addresses is dated
11/13/92. The appeals unit dismissed the appeal and her 12/92 -
request for hearing reconsideration (12/92) continually due to an
alleged lack of jurisdiction. However, this County's decision
and conclusion is incorrect.
Denise DeRamo wishes to be heard regarding a General
Assistance workfare problem. We have evidence showing good cause
may well have existed, but for the County's denial of appeal
jurisdiction.
II. JURISDICTION EXISTS BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF ACTION OF NOVEMBER
1992 WAS INADEQUATE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW:
A. The claimant filed what the county states was an
"untimely" appeal dated December 5, 1992, of a November 13, 1992
Nbtice cutting her off General Assistance for 3 months. It also
sanctioned her for 12/92 due to another General Assistance appeal
unfavorable to claimant. In other words, two separate sanctions
on one notice. Thus, for reasons summarized below, the 14 day
General Assistance appeal time limit has not even started to run
on the appeal or subsequent Board of Supervisor deadlines.
1. When a County proposes taking an action affecting public
assistance, the County must give claimant adequate notice. (D.M.
49-700 et seq. ) .
2 . The County's own regulations violate notice language
requirements, as to what is legally adequate.
The November 13, 1992 notice which Ms. DeRamo received did
two specific things: First, there was an unfavorable pro per
General Assistance negative decision issued November 5, 1992.
The GA laws required the decision be implemented within 5 days.
Instead, what the Department did was send a notice beyond 5 days
and sanction her twice in the same notice. There is no legal
authority for double sanctions on one notice. (11/13/92) It
went so far as to not only impose a one month sanction for 12/92
but simultaneously sanction her again for three months (see
attached notice) .
3 . Notice is adequate only if it sets forth the intended
action, and the specific regulations. Due to the double sanction
(12/92 , 1/93 , 2/93 , 3/93) contained in the same notice, this
notice was inadequate. Even with an unfavorably evidentiary
hearing decision, no General Assistance regulation supports
compliance and due process with the County's own regulations and
Board order when it:
(a) provides for a one month sanction (12/92) at the
bottom of the notice;
(b) and simultaneously proposes a second 3 month
sanction on the same notice. (1/93 - 3/93)
It is no wonder claimant filed for an appeal when she did.
In all cases, separate notices should be sent and are. If a
claimant loses an appeal, it should be implemented separate from
any new action by the Department. It is not whether claimant ` `,
received a notice of change in appeal deadlines, it is an issue
of whether the notice was adequate in the first place The
front of the same notice is defective since it does not inform
her she has a right to appeal. The appeals rights are on the
back but never indicate any right of appeal on its face. We
contend this omission makes the notice defective. A right of
appeal and applicable regulations should be spelled out on the
front paste of the termination notice. Since this does not exist,
no adequate notice of determination was ever made. Thus, as
stated, the deadlines have not begun to run.
6eaa
2
This client is currently without aid for the entire winter,
posing an unreasonable burden and hardship without legal
justification. Therefore, a denial of this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction based upon an untimely appeal would be improper.
C. Finally, the burden of proof is with Contra Costa
County and not claimant in proving they did
provide adequate notice on 11/13/92. The Appeals
Unit informed her twice that her appeal was
untimely but that constantly precluded her right
to put forth evidence that the November 13 notice
was inadequate. The claimant relied on the County
to provide her with a full, complete and adequate
notice. This is also a violation of the State of
California Constitution and the United States
Constitution 14th Amendment. In that the notice
was and is inadequate, there is also a deprivation
of property in violation of due process
requirement of Goldberg v. Kelly.
If the Department's records are to be believed, they fall
short in light of the evidence needed to sustain the dismissal.
Thus, the County has yet to prove their own notice was correct.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, claimant request that the December 1992 denial of
her appeal for reconsideration of the right to be reversed and
heard. In fact, the Board should on it's face reverse the
decision on the record. Ms. DeRamo is entitled to adequate
notice. Ms. DeRamo is entitled to jurisdiction. She is not
"entitled" to any four month sanction without either. In
addition, anyone facing such a severe consequence and hardship
should have the right to be heard, especially since the notice is
wrong, compelling corrective action. In light of the confusing
language of this specific notice, we request that the denial of
jurisdiction-reconsideration be reversed.
Please notify Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation and
claimant of her 3oard of Supervisors appeal date. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES
FOUNDATION
By:
ELLEN J. WABACHNICK
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE .
EJT:vh
seas
3
cc: Denise DeRamo
Kevin Kerr
Office of the County Counsel
I
I
6w
4
I
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
I, claimant
of tie
California, hereby appoint CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES
FOUNDATION, 1017 Macdonald Avenue, P.O. BOX 2289 , Richmond,
California 94802, and any agent thereof to act in my behalf as
my AUTHORIZED REPRESEN IVE in co ction with my application
for and/or receipt of tk/L�L� n 0'w CQ J
[TYPE OF ASSISTANCE] , WCLUDING ANY APPEAL REGARDING SAID AID.
I hereby authorize CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
and any agent thereof to make or give any request or notice;
present or elicit evidence; obtain and review any and all
information including medical records; and receive any notice in
connection with my claim wholly in my stead.
Dated: \/
(S G NATU RE)
PLEASE ADDRESS AIL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
CONTRA CO TA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
1017 Macdonald Ave. , P.O. Box 2289
Richmond, California 94802
'NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTI� COUNTY OF i _ GA -
�GENERAL ASSISTANCE PRO M I CONTRA COSTA DEL IC
NOTICE DATE 11-13-92
CASE NAME DERA MO DENISE'
NUMBER 92-0401275—CO-0
WORKER NAME K PARCH (J
NUMBER A4AH
TELEPHONE 646-2028
ADDRESS 30 M UI R ROA C
MARTINEZ CA 945-53
Questions? Ask your Worker.
S! neeef it• un• tr*Gueel6n a• Tato, 11000 • su trdb@J&dOf
(ADDRESSEE) ilr• One/Oi liln 14c 41 Thi:lSnn filo eu• Pine n6 e%%
r
DENISE D E RA M O
C671 CNCOR3 CA 9452LLER CT 0
-. — YOUR GENERAL ASSISTANC;= WILL BE DISCONTINUED EFFECTIVE NOV 33s 1992
BECAUSE YOU HAVE 'DEMONSTRATED WILLFUL NONCOOP=RATION OR NCNC0M?LIANCE
WITH WORK PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS BY FAILURE TO MEET YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
WITH.CUT SOOD CAUSE IN THESE SPECIFIC INSTANrES:
DATE OF FA.ILURE(S) NATURE OF FAILURES)
FECAUSE 3F THESE AILURES YOU WILL FE INELIGIBLE TC GENERAL ASSIS !ANCE
FOR A PcRIOD OF:
? ONE MONTH
_ - =
THREE MONTHS
( ) SIX MONTHS
IF YOU �'I.SH TO R=APPLY FOR GENERAL ASSISTANCE• YOU MAY 15VAIN £_
ELIGIBLE TO AIC 64 OR AFTEP. = 3- DE?=P:OING UPC,'-: YCLR
CIRCUMSTA'VCES AT THAT TIME.
ANY FUFTH=R FAILURE TO ME=T THE ELIGIBILITY R=QU IREM,EN 1 S OF S ENE RAL
ASSISTANCE MAY RESULT TN ANOTHER PERIOD OF IN_LIGIF.ILITY.
IF YCU HAVE ANY 7JESTIOMS9 OR YOU BELIEVE THIS ACTION IS INCORRECT, CF
YOU WISH TO GIVE YOUR R=ASONS WHY YOU THINK A-NY FAILURE TO COOPERATE CR�
TO CsCMPLY WITH GA REOUIRFM=NTS SHOULD BE EEXCU
�. TALK ASOUT THESE THINGS WITH YOUR WORKER OR THE SUPERVISOF�
r" I
. THIS ACTION IS REQUIRED BY .THE FOLLOWING LAMS AND/OF REGULATIONS
c} DEPARTMENT MANUAL SECTIONS: 49-102 APPLICATION AND RECEPTION
49-111 DISCONTINUE, GOOD CAUSE*
WILLFULNESS AND PERIDC OF
INELIGIBILITY
49-210 EMPLOYABLE PROGRAM
51-500 EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
BOARC RESOLUTION 92/5.53
j
GAZ39 DISC- FAILED TO MEET EMPLOYMENT RECUIREMENTS- POI
GA 239H(5/87)
Q� � � a
�..,...a.R 3 - a �.
Y�'Q n-���-,� O
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)3724209
Fax(510)236-6W
February 3, 1993
RECEIVE®
FEB - 51993
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson
District #5
Board of Supervisors CLER CROON RR COS�ACO!SORS
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez , CA 94553
Re: Request for General Assistance Evidentiary Hearing
Reinstatement
Claimant: Denise DeRamo
1671 Haller Ct. , #1
Concord, Ca 94520
Resolution Requested: Rescission of Notice of Dismissal
Dear Chairperson and Board Members:
I. BACKGROUND:
The issue in this case is limited solely to claimant's legal
right to be heard. This is a procedural, not substantive appeal
requesting the Board to review the case and applicable law
regarding my client's right to be heard. This is an appeal
regarding. jurisdiction and the:-three month sanction. Ms. DeRamo- is
currently serving (January 1. 1993 - April 7 . 1993) . - We contend
it is"wfthout statutory authority.
The notice of action that this appeal addresses is dated
11/13/92 . The appeals unit dismissed the appeal and her 12/92
request for hearing reconsideration (12/92) continually due to an
alleged lack of jurisdiction. However, this County's decision
and conclusion is incorrect.
Denise DeRamo wishes to be heard regarding a General
Assistance workfare problem. We have evidence showing good cause
may well have existed, but for the County's denial of appeal
jurisdiction.
II. JURISDICTION EXISTS BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF ACTION OF NOVEMBER
1992 WAS INADEQUATE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW:
A. The claimant filed what the county states was an
"untimely" appeal dated December 5, 1992, of a November 13, 1992
Notice cutting her off General Assistance for 3 months. It also
sanctioned her for 12/92 due to another General Assistance appeal
unfavorable to claimant. In other words, two separate sanctions
on one notice. Thus, for reasons summarized below, the 14 day
General Assistance appeal time limit has not even started to run
on the appeal or subsequent Board of Supervisor deadlines.
1. When a County proposes taking an action affecting public
assistance, the County must give claimant adequate notice. (D.M.
49-700 et seq. ) .
2 . The County's own regulations violate notice language
requirements, as to what is legally adequate.
The November 13, 1992 notice which Ms. DeRamo received did
two specific things: First, there was an unfavorable pro per
General Assistance negative decision issued November 5, 1992 .
The GA laws required the decision be implemented within 5 days.
Instead, what the Department did was send a notice beyond 5 days
and sanction her twice in the same notice. There is no legal
authority for double sanctions on one notice. (11/13/92) It
went so far as to not only impose a one month sanction for 12/92
but simultaneously sanction her again for three months (see
attached notice) .
3 . Notice is adequate only if it sets forth the intended
action, and the specific regulations. Due to the double sanction
(12/92, 1/93 , 2/93 , 3/93) contained in the same notice, this
notice was inadequate. Even with an unfavorably evidentiary
hearing decision, no General Assistance regulation supports
compliance and due process with the County's own regulations and
Board order when it:
(a) provides for a one month sanction (12/92) at the
bottom of the notice;
(b) and simultaneously proposes a second 3 month
sanction on the same notice. (1/93 - 3/93)
It is no wonder claimant filed for an appeal when she did.
In all cases, separate notices should be sent and are. If a
claimant loses an appeal, it should be implemented separate from
any new action by the Department. It is not whether claimant
received a notice of change in appeal deadlines, it is an issue
of whether the notice was adequate in the first place. The
front of the same notice is defective since it does not inform
her she has a right to appeal. The appeals rights are on the
back but never indicate any right of appeal on its face. We
contend this omission makes the notice defective. A right of
appeal and applicable regulations should be spelled out on the
front page of the termination notice. Since this does not exist,
no adequate notice of determination was ever made. Thus, as
stated, the deadlines have not begun to run.
sass
2
This client is currently without aid for the entire winter,
posing an unreasonable burden and hardship without legal
justification. Therefore, a denial of this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction based upon an untimely appeal would be improper.
C. Finally, the burden of proof is with Contra Costa
County and not claimant in proving they did
provide adequate notice on 11/13/92. The Appeals
Unit informed her twice that her appeal was
untimely but that constantly precluded her right
to put forth evidence that the November 13 notice
was inadequate. The claimant relied on the County
to provide her with a full, complete and adequate
notice. This is also a violation of the State of
California Constitution and the United States
Constitution 14th Amendment. In that the notice
was and is inadequate, there is also a deprivation
of property in violation of due process
requirement of Goldberg v. Kelly.
If the Department's records are to be believed, they fall
short in light of the evidence needed to sustain the dismissal.
Thus, the County has yet to prove their own notice was correct.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, claimant request that the December 1992 denial of
her appeal for reconsideration of the right to be reversed and
heard. In fact, the Board should on it's face reverse the
decision on the record. Ms. DeRamo is entitled to adequate
notice. Ms. DeRamo is entitled to jurisdiction. She is not
"entitled" to any four month sanction without either. In
addition, anyone facing such a severe consequence and hardship
should have the right to be heard, especially since the notice is
wrong, compelling corrective action. In light of the confusing
language of this specific notice, we request that the denial. of
jurisdiction-reconsideration be reversed.
Please notify Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation and
claimant of her Board of Supervisors appeal date. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely yours, -
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES
FOUNDATION
By:
ELLEN J. trABACHNICK
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
EJT:vh
"48
3
cc: Denise DeRamo
Kevin Kerr
Office of the County Counsel
Baas
4
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
claimant
of �l�t�il� l� /1(0)LC Cl S .l
California, hereby appoint CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES
FOUNDATION, 1017 Macdonald Avenue, P.O. BOX 2289 , Richmond,
California 94802, and any agent thereof to act in my behalf as
my AUTHORIZED REPRESEN 1VE in co ction with my application
for and/or receipt of
[TYPE OF ASSISTANCE] , CLUDING ANY APPEAL REGARDING SAID AID.
I hereby authorize CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
and any agent thereof to make or give any request or notice;
present or elicit evidence; obtain and review any and all
information including medical records; and receive any notice in
connection with my claim wholly in my stead.
Dated:
(S GNATURE)
PLEASE ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
CONTRA CO TA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
1017 Macdonald Ave. , P.O. Box 2289
Richmond, California 94802
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTS COUNTY OF � _ "~.
GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRA COSTA GA 2`
DEL t(
NOTICE DATE 11-13-92
CASE NAME DERA MO DENISE'
NUMBER
ENISE.NUMBER '92-0401275-CO-0
WORKER NAME K PARCH r
NUMBER A4AH
TELEPHONE 646-2028
ADDRESS 30 M UI R ROA C
MART INEZ CA 94553
Questions? Ask your Worker.
//0 st neeealt• un• tr*eueel6n Oe tato, lime, • au treCoJWor
(ADDRESSEE) :ln en`/e: 111n lee 41 Thre 81nh Ytln eu• minh n6 efr. Di
FDENISE D E RA M 0 1 i-^� �^--- -•QeN-�-^� -
.-� 1671 HA,LLER CT :91
CCNICORO CA 94i2D
L J
YOUR GENERAL ASSISTANCE WILL BE DISCONTINUED E;:FECTIVE NOV 371 1992
BECAUSE YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED WILLFUL NONCOOPERATION OR NCNC7MPLIANC=
kITH WORK PROGRA4 REQUIREMENTS BY FAILURE TO MEET YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE IN THESE SPECIFIC INSTANCES:
DATE OF FA.ILURE(S) NATURE OF FAILURE(S)
171 - e
P=CAUSE `F THESE =AILD^ES YOU VILL INELIGIBLE TC GENERAL ASSiSTANC:
FDR A PFR'106 OF:
rf ) ON- MONTH
.. _. -�
"(.j) THREE !MONTHS
( ) SIX MONTHS
IF YOU WISH TO R=APPLY FOR GENERAL ASaiSTANCE• YOU PAY [SA.IK
ELIGIBLE TO AIL' 51 OR AFTER01N- S UPON' Y C L R
CIRCUPIST&NCES AT THAT TIME.
ANY FURTH=R FAILURE TO MEET THE ELIGIBILITY RE QU IREMEN 1 S OF 3 ENE R AL
ASSISTANC= MAY R=SUET 7N ANOTHER PERIOD OF TNELIGIEILITY.
IF YCU HAVE ANY 7-JESTIONS9 OR YOU BELIEVE THIS ACTION IS !NCORFECT-F CR
YOU WISH TO GIVE YOUR REASONS WHY YOU THINK ANY FAILURE TO COOPERATE CR
TO CL'MPLY WITH GA REQUIRr-MENTS SHOULD BE EXCUS u
°;.. ` TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITH YOUR WORKER OR THE SUPERVISOF..
V2_ '
THIS ACTION IS REQUIRED BY .THE FOLLOWING LAWS AND/Of REGULATIONS
C' DEPARTMENT MANUAL SECTIONS: 49-102 APPLICATION AND RECEPTION
49-111 DISCDNTINU=9 GOOD CAUSE,
WILLFULNESS AND PERIDE OF
INELIGIBILITY
49-210 EMPLOYABLE PROGRAM
51-500 EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
BOARC RESOLUTION 92/553
GAZ39 DISC- FAILED TO MEET EMPLOYMENT RECUIREIMENTS- PCI
GA 239H(5187)