Judges: R. T. CARPENTER
Agency: Agency for Workforce Innovation
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 1982
Summary: Respondent did not carefully document disbursement of Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) funds and should pay back the funds wrongly dibursed.
81-3092STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ) EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF ) EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-3092
) FLORIDA FARMWORKERS COUNCIL, ) INC., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This matter came on for hearing in Tallahassee, Florida before the Division of Administrative Hearings and its duly appointed Hearing Officer, R. T. Carpenter, on March 29, 1982. The parties were represented by:
For Petitioner: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire
Department of Labor and Employment Security
2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building, Suite 117 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Eugene T. Gillis, Esquire
Florida Farmworkers Council, Incorporated 1975 East Sunrise Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304
This matter arose on Petitioner's allegations that Respondent had improperly expended $46,071 under its Comprehensive Employment and Traininq Act (CETA) contracts. The disputed amount has been reduced to $16,789 through further documentation provided by Respondent.
Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. To the extent these proposed findings are not adopted or otherwise incorporated herein, they have been rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner executes CETA contracts with program operators on behalf of the State of Florida and administers the expenditure of CETA funds. 1/ Respondent, as a program operator, received CETA funds pursuant to various contracts with Petitioner.
These contracts require Respondent to comply with state and federal requirements as to operation of programs, maintenance of records and utilization of funds. Petitioner seeks to disallow the expenditures discussed herein for failure to comply with applicable CETA regulations.
All the contracts in question were participant contracts. The participants or trainees are to be selected according to the criteria set out in the CETA rules. 2/ There are various programs or titles under which a participant can be hired, and each title has different criteria. Whether or not an applicant meets program criteria is determined by the information contained in his application. A fully completed application must therefore be submitted before eligibility can be established.
Petitioner audited Respondent's records and found certain participants to be ineligible based upon their applications. The applications of Title IV participants Vincent Smith, Fred Collier, Vernon Tynes, Williton Wright, Terry Smith, Carolyn Shelton, and Barbara Witherspoon show they were employed at the time of application, and not unemployed as required. Therefore, these participants, who received Title IV funds as indicated below, were improperly hired:
PARTICIPANT | AMOUNT |
Fred Collier | $ 427.00 |
Vincent Smith | 2,361.00 |
Vernon Tynes | 377.00 |
Williton Wright | 377.00 |
Terry Smith | 2,361.00 |
Carolyn Shelton | 2,109.00 |
Barbara Witherspoon | 75.00 |
TOTAL $8,087.00
Damon Richardson, also a Title IV participant, was paid $2,737.00. Petitioner seeks to recover this amount because Richardson's application did not show the exact date of termination of employment held prior to filing his CETA application. There is no question that Richardson was unemployed at the time of the application, however, and Respondent should not be penalized for this minor deficiency.
Helen Taylor and Indonia Manning received $61 and $55 respectively under a Title VI contract. Here, however, not even an approximate date for termination of prior employment was shown in their applications. Therefore, the expenditure of these funds was improper.
Petitioner's audit established that Peter Dettalico and Willie Ford were paid benefits and wages in excess of $10,000 in violation of 20 CFR 676.26- 1(c)(2). These participants received overpayments in the amount of $857.00 and
$1,607.00 respectively.
Mattie Brown participated under a title Title VI contract, which requires a 10 week unemployment period prior to the date of application. According to Ms. Brown's March 25, 1980 application filed with the Respondent, her last date of employment was April 12, 1980. This indicated that Ms. Brown was actually employed on the date of her application, and was thus ineligible for the $55 in wages and benefits which she received.
Petitioner's audit established that wages and benefits paid to Vermell White were charged to the wrong contract. Mr. White received $748.00 under a Title VI contract while enrolled under a Title III contract. Payments made under a given contract are for performance of some function under the contract charged. Thus, charging one contract for an activity under another contract violated the agreement between the parties.
Rita Johnson received $623.00 under the same contract. Since this was a Title VI contract, it was necessary that Ms. Johnson be unemployed 10 of 12 weeks prior to the date of application. However, her application dated July 16, 1979 shows her last date of employment as July, 1979. At most, Ms. Johnson could have been unemployed only 15 days prior to the date of application. Further, the application is deficient in that it does not show the last date of employment.
The Englewood Fire Department was a CETA subcontractor of Respondent. However, the Respondent remained responsible for overall management of the contract. Petitioner's audit established that the amount charged to the contract ($44,154.67) exceeded documented expenditures by $1,959.00.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties there to, pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17, U.S.C., Section 801 et seq., the State of Florida has received grants from the United States Department of Labor for the purpose of establishing programs to provide comprehensive employment and training services for "economically disadvantaged persons."
Subsection 450.55, Florida Statutes, delegates to Petitioner the responsibility for carrying out the duties and responsibilities assigned to the State of Florida under CETA. These duties include "... (signing) contracts on behalf of the state ... with program operators contracting with the state under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
According to these contracts, the parties are bound by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (29 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.), the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, Federal Management Circular 74-4, and other applicable federal laws and regulations.
As set out in 20 C.F.R. 675.5-9(a), in order to participate under a Title IV contract, an applicant must be "unemployed." Unemployed means:
A person who is without a job for at least seven consecutive days prior to application...
20 C.F.R. 675.4 (definitions)
Those persons whose applications established they were working on the date of application or had not been unemployed for at least seven days, were ineligible to participate under the Title IV contracts. Therefore, these payments must be disallowed.
The maximum yearly income which may be paid to a participant from CETA sources is $10,000.00. See 20 C.F.R. 676.26-1(c)(2). The excess payments to Peter Dettalico and Willie Ford must therefore be disallowed.
The eligibility requirements for Title VI as set out in 20 C.F.R. 675.5-6 are:
... a person must reside within the prime sponsor's jurisdiction...
(1)(i) Be unemployed at the time of application; and
(ii) Have been unemployed for at least
10 out of the 12 weeks immediately prior to application...
Since the application of Mattie Brown indicates she was employed on the date of application, her participation under the Title VI contract was improper, and the funds expended on her employment must be disallowed.
The participation of Indonia Manning and Helen Taylor under the same Title VI contract must also be disallowed since the applications did not show termination dates from prior employment and eligibility under 20 C.F.R. 675.5-6 could not be determined. Further, incomplete applications are in violation of 20 C.F.R. 675.75-3.
According to her application, Rita Johnson left her prior employment during the month of application. Therefore, she was ineligible to receive benefits and wages under a Title VI contract, and the payments to her must be disallowed.
Federal Management Circular 74-4 sets out guidelines for contract administration. Attachment A, Paragraph 2(a) of the Circular states "A cost is allowable to a particular cost objective to the extent of benefits received by such objective." Further, in setting out the basic guidelines for cost allowability, the Circular says to be allowable, a cost must:
1.e. Be accorded consistent treatment through application of generally ac- cepted accounting principles appropriate to the circumstances.
1.g. Not be allowable to or include as a cost of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period.
Vermell White received $748.00 under a Title VI contract while enrolled under a Title III contract. The Title VI contract did not receive any benefits from these charges, which therefore must be disallowed.
Any charges made to a contract must be supported by source documentation. See Federal Management Circular 74-7, Attachment G, Paragraph
A mere listing of costs is not sufficient to support contract charges. Therefore, undocumented payments to the Englewood Fire Department, Respondent's subcontractor, must be disallowed.
RECOMMENDATION
From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED:
That Petitioner enter its Final Order assessing Respondent the amount of
$14,052 due in overpayments under CETA contracts in addition to amounts Respondent has previously agreed are returnable.
DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida.
R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1982.
ENDNOTES
1/ See Section 450.55, Florida Statutes (1981). 2/ 20 CFR 675.4 and 675.5.
3/ See 20 CFR 675.5-9(a), which defines "unemployed person" as one who has been without a job for seven consecutive days prior to application.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security
2562 Executive Center Circle, E. Suite 117--Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Eugene T. Gillis, Esquire Florida Farmworkers Council, Inc. 1975 East Sunrise Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Wallace E. Orr, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security
Suite 206, Berkeley Building
2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 81-3092
FLORIDA FARMWORKERS COUNCIL, INC.,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
The undersigned as Director of the Division of Employment and Training, has reviewed the findings and recommendations of R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer, Department of Administrative Hearings, which were based upon the evidence presented at a hearing held in Tallahassee, Florida on March 29, 1982. The findings and recommendations are attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and thereby made a part hereof.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW
The Division of Employment and Training has alleged that the Florida Farmworkers Council, Inc. in administering grant funds received from the State of Florida and, pursuant to the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), failed to comply with the applicable rules and regulations. As a result thereof, on November 23, 1981, the Division of Employment and Training issued a Final Determination disallowing $46,071.00. At the time of the hearing, the amount disallowed had been reduced to $17,417.00 and thereafter to $16,780.00. These were based upon documentation presented by the Respondent. The Respondent agreed that a total of $339.00 was due and owing to the Division.
The Florida Farmworkers Council, Inc. alleged that there were no expenditures in violation of CETA or the applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations.
The findings of fact of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted and accepted.
The findings of law are accepted and adopted, except to the extent that the $2,737.00 paid to Damon Richardson was recommended for allowance though his application did not show exact date of termination from prior employment. The determination of eligibility is based upon the application. See 20 C.F.R. 676.75-3(b). Without a full and complete application it is impossible to determine participant eligibility.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
That within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order Florida Farmworkers Council, Inc. shall remit $16,780.00 expended in violation of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act and applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations. In addition thereto, Florida Farmworkers Council, Inc. shall pay
$339.00 which it agreed is due and owing.
In the event either party disagrees with this determination, an appeal can be filed with Mr. Lawrence Weatherford, Regional Administrator, United States Department of Labor, 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Room 405, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The provisions pertaining to the appeal process, 20 C.F.R. 676.83 et. seq., are attached hereto.
Dated this 29th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
CHARLES R. RUSSELL, Director
Division of Employment and Training
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Eugene T. Gillis, Esquire, Florida Farmworkers Council, Inc., 1975 East Sunrise Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 this 29th day of June, 1982.
Gloria Byrd
Docket for Case No: 81-003092
Orders for Case No: 81-003092
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Jun. 29, 1982 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
May 25, 1982 |
Recommended Order
|
Respondent did not carefully document disbursement of Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) funds and should pay back the funds wrongly dibursed.
|
