BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 320|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 320
Author: Wright (D)
Amended: 4/25/11
Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE : 7-0, 04/12/11
AYES: Liu, Emmerson, Berryhill, Hancock, Strickland,
Wright, Yee
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-2, 05/26/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson
SUBJECT : Public social services: hearings
SOURCE : Coalition of California Welfare Rights
Organizations
DIGEST : This bill allows the Department of Social
Services (DSS) to develop policies for hearing settlements,
including the timely issuance of aid paid pending, and for
the expedited adjudication of cases where the county fails
to meet its burden of proof, provided the policies are cost
neutral or result in cost savings. The DSS would be
allowed to set up a workgroup to meet with stakeholders to
develop these policies.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
CONTINUED
SB 320
Page
2
1.Allows an applicant for, or recipient of, public social
services who is dissatisfied with certain actions of the
county welfare department to request a hearing from the
Department of Social Services (or the Department of
Health Care Services when applicable) no later than 90
days after the order or action complained of, with
specified exceptions.
2.Requires the department to set a hearing to commence
within 30 working days after the request is filed, and to
send written notice of time and place of the hearing at
least 10 days prior to the hearing. Requires the agency
to make available to the applicant for, or recipient of,
public social services a copy of the agency's position
statement within two working days prior to the hearing,
if regulations require an agency to write a position
statement concerning the issues in question in a fair
hearing or if the agency chooses to develop such a
statement. Requires the hearing to be postponed at the
request of the applicant or recipient if the position
statement is not made available as required. Provides
for specified exceptions.
3.Provides for timelines and reasons for postponements,
adoption of decisions, rehearings, award determinations,
subsequent notices, and requests for additional
information.
4.Provides that administrative law judges (ALJ) employed by
the department shall conduct a hearing, unless the
director of the department orders the hearing to be
conducted by him or herself; allows the director to
contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings to
conduct hearings.
This bill allows DSS to develop policies for hearing
settlements, including the timely issuance of aid paid
pending, and for the expedited adjudication of cases where
the county fails to meet its burden of proof, provided the
policies are cost neutral or result in cost savings. The
DSS would be allowed to set up a workgroup to meet with
stakeholders to develop these policies.
Background
CONTINUED
SB 320
Page
3
Current regulations governing state hearings cover who may
request a hearing, timeframes for requests and actions,
when aid must be paid pending a hearing, when hearings must
be set, general rules and procedures as well as rules and
procedures related to the taking of evidence, postponements
and continuances for additional evidence, conditional
withdrawals, dismissals, examination of records and
issuance of subpoenas, etc.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Policy development involving unknown,
significant General
Stakeholder workgroup cost pressure
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/26/11)
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations
(source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Coalition of California
Welfare Rights Organizations (CCWRO) believes that
telephone hearings are more cost effective and this bill
will make it easier for claimants to attend hearings.
CCWRO points out that, while telephone and videoconference
hearings are currently being conducted, the claimant has no
right to a telephone or videoconference hearing. CCWRO
also believes that regulations require less information to
be presented at the hearing than what is required to be
included in a position statement, and that the position
statement should contain all of the elements needed to meet
the required burden of proof. CCWRO also believes that if
a county fails to meet the conditions of the conditional
withdrawal, the claimant should prevail in his or her
claims in lieu of having another costly hearing.
CONTINUED
SB 320
Page
4
CTW:nl 5/27/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED