| Contact: | Sunny Mindel/Edward Skyler (212) 788-2958 |
The next bill before me today is Introductory Number 316-A, sponsored by Council Member DiBrienza. This legislation would establish a multi-step grievance procedure at agencies where participants in the Work Experience Program (WEP) are assigned.
Under this legislation, participants would be able to file verbal or written grievances with their agencies for any complaint they may have about their work assignments. The bill outlines two steps, an initial hearing and then an appeals hearing, a process that could delay the start of the state mandated grievance procedure at the Human Resources Administration (HRA) for up to 30 days.
If a participant files a grievance and then refuses to work, the bill expressly forbids agencies from informing (HRA) of the participant's failure to work until after the grievance procedure set out in the legislation is complete. HRA is the agency charged with enforcing work requirements for WEP participants and has the ability to sanction WEP participants for the failing to comply with WEP requirements.
WEP is the centerpiece of the City's welfare reform efforts. By barring agencies from informing HRA when a participant files a grievance and then refuses to work, this bill could make it possible for participants to ignore their WEP obligations for up to 30 days with no consequences. If HRA cannot impose sanctions on those who fail to meet their work requirements, the Work Experience Program could very well grind to a halt.
The bill's sponsors claim that it is their intent that participants continue
to work while the grievance process runs its course. It is therefore inexplicable
why they refused to remove the conflicting provision in this bill that expressly
forbids agencies from informing HRA when a participant fails to comply with
the rules.
The City already has several formal and informal avenues for WEP participants
to resolve grievances, including a state-mandated process that involves as many
as two hearings at HRA and a State Fair Hearing before a State Administrative
Law Judge. In addition, WEP participants are encouraged to resolve complaints
informally with WEP coordinators and supervisors at agencies where they are
assigned. Participants may also bring complaints to HRA's Participant Services
Unit, a division of HRA devoted exclusively to assisting the needs of WEP participants.
The bill's provision allowing participants to file grievances verbally is both preempted by state Social Services Law and could not be effectively and fairly administered. Verbal grievances would be impossible to verify and track. For example, no one would be able to certify the date on which an oral grievance was filed. Supervisors would be unsure if conversations with participants were intended to initiate the grievance procedure. For these reasons, State Social Services Law mandates that all grievances be presented in writing, and thus the bill's attempt to allow verbal grievances would be preempted.
The City Council has also overstepped its authority in passing this legislation. State Social Services Law mandates that HRA submit a plan for handling grievances to the State Department of Labor for approval. Under state law, the Council is not granted a role in developing HRA's plan and does not have the authority to mandate that HRA follow a particular scheme for handling participant grievances. Therefore, this proposed local law would be preempted by state law.
The Work Experience Program is part of a far-reaching effort on the part of
my Administration to break the cycle of welfare dependency. Only a few years
ago, over one million New Yorkers were dependent on welfare checks for their
livelihood. Today, there are fewer than 600,000 people receiving such assistance.
We have achieved this dramatic reduction though programs such as WEP. WEP is
emblematic of a new, welfare reform philosophy that emphasizes the dignity of
work and the responsibility of government to help people become self-sufficient.
This legislation is a stealth attempt by the opponents of our progress to derail
a successful, work-oriented approach to aiding those on public assistance. This
bill should not be allowed to undermine WEP's success with its cumbersome mandates
and its elimination of HRA from the grievance resolution process.
I will now turn to the bill's sponsors and to any other elected officials wishing
to speak on this matter.
I will now turn to the general audience.
There being no one else wishing to speak and for the reasons previously stated,
I will now veto the bill.
www.ci.nyc.ny.us