INTRODUCTION

On January 20?Eh and 21St of 2015, Field Examiner Gerard R. Biron of the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) conducted a review of the
administration of the General Assistance (GA) program by the City of Portland.
The review took place at the Portland General Assistance office, where Field
Examiner Biron was given access to the WELPAC database, which is the city of
Portland?s electronic GA eligibility system used to determine GA eligibility and to
store case file information. He was also given access to individual paper case files
as well. During this two day period he was supplied supplemental information
connected to the City of Portland run shelters as well as clients who had spent
time at the shelters. This review was conducted pursuant to 22 M.R.S. as
well as the State of Maine General Assistance Policy Manual, which includes Code
of Maine Regulations (CMR) 10-144, Chapter 323, Section X, which provides for
such reviews and sets forth specific procedures for conducting them. Pursuant to
said Section X, the examiner reviewed 90 cases, the minimum required by the
regulations given the number of cases processed in Portland. In addition,
the Field Examiner and DHHS GA Program Manager David MacLean interviewed a
number of Portland GA administrators as part of the review of the operation of
the City?s program. Finally, on January 28th and 29th of 2015, Field Examiner Ellen
Moore reviewed claims that the City of Portland represented it had paid to aliens
that the City of Portland characterized as either ?qualified? or ?non-qualified,?
based on whether the aliens met or did not meet the eligibility criteria set forth in
8 U.S.C. 1621(a).

Based on that reviewz, DHHS has concluded that the City of Portland is in
violation of a number of statutory and regulatory requirements, including but not
limited to improper eligibility determination and reimbursement practices with
respect to the operation of Portland?s Oxford Street Shelter and Family Shelter.
Specifically, the method by which Portland has been seeking reimbursement for

 

2 Hereinafter, any reference to a statutory section shall refer to Title 22, M.R.S., unless otherwise indicated.
2 A similar review in 2013 produced broadly comparable results, and the ?ndings set forth herein.

1

 

costs related to these shelters is impermissible under existing law and needs to be
corrected. These conclusions are, of course, based on the best available current
information, and are subject to modification upon receipt of further information.

In summary, the review found the following violations:

1. Eligibility of shelter residents for assistance is not being determined as
required by statute. Specifically, it is not being determined on at least a
basis as required by 22 M.R.S. 4309, and eligibility
applications are not being properly processed.

2. The presumptive eligibility provisions set forth in 22 MRS 4304 are
being incorrectly applied by the City to improperly permit eligibility I
beyond an initial night at the shelter. Eligibility beyond such initial night
must be determined using the eligibility standards specified for all
applicants. 'Presumptive? eligibility does not mean ?permanent"
eligibility.

3. The General Assistance program is designed to permit reimbursement to
municipalities for amounts paid to eligible individuals. It does not permit
reimbursement to municipalities for operating expenses of shelters
apart from costs directly attributable to eligible individuals. The
submission of requests for reimbursement for shelter operating costs is
impermissible.

4. The City of Portland, contrary to the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations, is not requiring residents of an emergency
shelter to utilize any income or resources they have for their current
needs, as required by 22 MRS 4317 and related regulations, nor are
they requiring that eligibility for assistance be based on need as must be
required of all applicants.

 

5. The City of Portland is incorrectly submitting reimbursement requests
for individuals who are not US citizens or otherwise eligible for state and
local public benefits under 8 U.S.C. 1621.

REVIEW OF RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

"General Assistance? is a state program involvingjoint municipal and state
participation in aid to the poor, pursuant to Maine Revised Statutes, Title 22, Part
Five, Chapter 1161, codified at 4301 et seq. As a general proposition,
municipalities pay benefits to eligible individuals after making a determination
that such individuals meet all eligibility criteria established under relevant law
(which include factors such as income and assets, economic need, residence,
citizenship or immigration status, compliance with work requirements, and non?
fugitive status). Municipalities are entitled to reimbursement from the state of a
portion of those properly paid expenses.

Among the important statutory provisions governing the General
Assistance program are the following:

8 U.S.C. 1621 generally provides that aliens are not eligible for state and
local public benefits (which includes General Assistance) unless they fall into one
of the categories set forth in 1621(a). Those categories cover: ?qualified aliens?
under 8 U.S.C. 1641; non-immigrant aliens under the Immigration and
Nationality Act; and aliens paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. 
1182(d)(5) for a period of less than one year.

22 MRSA 4304 states that each muniCipality must have a general
assistance office or designated place where a person may apply for assistance at
regular reasonable times. Additionally, "the municipality must issue a written
decision on all applications [for aid] within 24 hours.? Subsection (3) further
provides that "Municipalities may arrange with emergency shelters for the
homeless to presume eligible for municipal assistance persons to whom the
emergency shelter provides shelter services.?

 

22 MRSA 4308, captioned ?Applications,? states that ?in order to receive
assistance from any municipality, the applicant or a duly authorized
representative must file a written application with the overseer, except as
provided in section 4304, subsection the ?emergency? provision cited
above. The section further provides that eligibility must be "determined solely on
the basis of need.?

22 MRSA 4309, captioned ?Eligibility,? provides that the overseer ?shall
determine eligibility each time a person applies or reapplies for general
The period of eligibility must not exceed one month.? Sub-section 1-
further provides that ?In order to determine an applicant?s eligibility for general
assistance, the overseer first must seek information and documentation from the
applicant.?

22 MRSA 4310, captioned "Emergency benefits prior to full verification,? -
states that whenever an applicant claims to be in an emergency situation
requiring immediate assistance to meet basic necessities, the overseer shall,
pending verification, provide sufficient benefits to meet basic necessities,
assuming that based on an initial interview the overseer believes the applicant
will probably be eligible for assistance, and that need has been either
documented or supported by other witnesses. However, in no case may the
authorization for benefits thereunder exceed 30 days absent full verification of
eligibility.

22 M.R.S.A. 4311 allows DHHS to pay reimbursement to a municipality
only ?when the department finds that the municipality has been in compliance
with all requirements? of Title 22, Chapter 1161, including the requirement that
municipalities pay only eligible claimants.

22 MRSA 4317, captioned ?Use of potential resources? states that "an
applicant or recipient must make a good-faith effort to secure any potential
resource that may be available, including, but not limited to, any state or federal
assistance program, employment benefits, governmental or private pension
programs, available trust funds, support from legally liable relatives, child?support
payments and jointly held resources [that] may be available to the individual.?

4

 

22 MRSA 4322 provides that DHHS shall review the administration of GA
by each municipality for compliance with statutory mandates, and report the
results in writing to the municipality. If the Department finds any violation, it is to
provide the municipality 30 days to specify what action the city proposes to take
to achieve compliance. Failure to file a plan to come into compliance exposes the
municipality to civil penalties and the withholding of reimbursement until
compliance is achieved.

Additionally, the Maine General Assistance Policy Manual includes the
following important provisions:

1. SECTION DEFINITIONS-
INCOME

income is defined as "any form of income in cash or in kind [including]
any payments received as an annuity, retirement, or disability benefits,
veterans pensions, Worker?s Compensation, unemployment benefits,
benefits under a state or federal categorical assistance program,
supplemental security income, Social Security and any other payments
from governmental sources unless specifically prohibited by any law or
regulation.?

EMERGENCY SHELTER COSTS
municipality may choose to consider the actual cost of an emergency
shelter provided by a shelter provider as a shelter cost up to the amount

allowed by ordinance. (Emphasis added.)

in such cases the municipality may provide general assistance to the
emergency shelter provider on the following criteria have been met:

1) The applicant (not the shelter provider) has completed an application
for assistance.

 

2) The applicant has been found eligible for assistance based on criteria
established in the municipal ordinance.

Municipalities may arrange with emergency shelters for the homeless to presume
eligibility for persons to whom the emergency shelter provides shelter services.
Individual agreements should be on file and available for review 4304(3)).

When residents of an emergency shelter apply for assistance, they must be aware
that any income or resources they have are to be utilized for current needs. The
same verification of income and expenditures for the previous 30 day period and
30 day perspective income procedures are to be utilized as with other
applications.?

(Emphasis added.)
2. SECTION V. ELIGIBILITY FACTORS
?22 MRSA 4309(1) limits the period of eligibility. The period of

eligibility shall not exceed one month. The one month is the maximum
period of eligibility a municipality may use in determining eligibility.?

?Each time the eligibility period has expired, the applicant must have his
eligibility re?determined.?

?Decisions are to be rendered within 24 hours of application 
?In the event of an ?emergency? sufficient assistance to alleviate
emergency should be provided until the next business day.?
EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE

"[Tlhe municipality has 24 hours to grant or deny an 

"It is not necessary to provide long-term assistance or a permanent
solution in an emergency. Assistance of a type and amount that will

 

alleviate immediate threat to life and safety are that will help to
alleviate any undue hardship or unnecessary costs will suffice.?

INTERIM ASSISTANCE

?Municipal General Assistance Administrators must seek authorization
[for payment to~the State] from each applicant who, to the
Administrator?s knowledge, may be eligible for SSI, has applied for SSI,
or who is waiting for benefits which may have been sUspended?

Further detailed sections of the Manual describe the process by which
an SSl-eiigible individual?s benefits must be used to reimburse the state
and municipality.

. SECTION X. REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION OF GENERAL
ASSISTANCE.

(This section reiterates much of the statutory content of 4323.)

"It is imperative that no [municipal administrative costs are billed to
the Department.?

Following review, written findings indicating program violations are to
be presented at an exit conference; if the municipal administrator is not
in agreement with the findings, written responses are to be sent to
DHHS within 10 days, to be considered before a final determination is
made by the Department.

"If a plan of correction is not filed with the Department within the thirty
day period [after the 10-day comment period], the Department shall
send written notification that a plan of c0rrection has been requested,
that none has been received, and that withholding [of reimbursements]
will take place.?

 

DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATIONS

1. Eligibility determinations are being made improperlyI and
applications are not being processed as reguired.

The relevant statutory provision, 4309, states that eligibility is to be
determined "each time a person applies or reapplies for general assistance,? and
that "[t]he period of eligibility must not exceed one month.? The eligibility
determination process also encompasses the requirements of ?4308 which
require a written application except as provided in 4304(3), and further require
that eligibility be determined solely on the basis of need.

By necessary implication, an eligibility process that purports to qualify
individuals for general assistance on an ongoing basis of indefinite duration
violates 4309. Similarly, the failure to arrange for the completion and proper
processing of an appropriate application violates 4308. During the course of the
review it was revealed that applications taken at Portland shelters are not being
completed on a basis and, insofar as they are completed, are simply put
into a file and stored on~site. They are never appropriately reviewed by Portland
GA staff for proper eligibility determinations. During a meeting on December 9,
2013 at the Portland GA office, DHHS program manager Dave MacLean was
shown a folder containing a month?s worth of abbreviated applications, none of
which had been placed into the the municipality?run computer system
for GA eligibility, or otherwise processed as required. As a result, the review of 90
files was effectively not probative of the current issues insofar as none of the
shelter files were among those available for review.

2. The presumptive eligibility provisions of 4304(3) are being
misconstrued and misapplied to allow effectiver perpetual
eligibility without consideration of need or assets.

As noted above, all applications for assistance must be in writing except for
those which fall within the ambit of 4304(3), which allows for a period of
presumptive eligibility for individuals in emergency shelters (but which does not
purport to exclude operation of all other statutory provisions). The City of

8

 

Portland has apparently taken this exception to the general rule to mean that
individuals admitted to municipal shelters are to be deemed, immediately and in
perpetuity, to qualify for general assistance without respect to need or assets.
Further, the City proceeds from this conclusion to seek reimbursement for all
costs of running such shelters, including nonrecoverable administrative costs. This
is a misinterpretation of the law.

Reading the statute as Portland apparently does violates all rules of
statutory construction and would lead to absurd results. To take the position that
the statutory language of 4304(3) (included in a subsection entitled
"Emergencies") provides limitless assistance without ever requiring an actual
determination of eligibility would ignore the clear legislative intent, create
inconsistent results, and lead, finally to absurdity. Fundamentally, a literal reading
of the presumptive eligibility exception in isolation from the statutory context
would swallow the rule.

Multiple sections of the GA statute, including 4308, 4309, and 4310,
spell out in considerable detail the process of making application, determining
eligibility, and providing emergenCy benefits where necessary. As a general
proposition, applications must be in writing, must assess the applicant?s financial
need, must produce a determination of eligibility within 24 hours, and must cover
no more than a 30 day period. If 4304(3) trumps all other portions of the law,
and allows individuals limitless use of general assistance funds in the form of a
subsidy to the shelter without even a determination of eligibility, all of those
provisions would be pointless, and certainly lead to inconsistent results, as
'sheltered? applicants would be favored over all others, irrespective of need. It
would in effect make such persons not presumptively eligible but automatically
and indefinitely eligible. The very nature of the term ?presumptive? eligibility
suggests that it is an inherently temporary status, pending a final determination
of eligibility. To contend that someone who is "presumed eligible? for any status
never actually has to be determined to be eligible would render the very word
?presumed? redundant. Had the legislature wished the statute to have the effect
the City urges, it could simply have said so, and stated that all residents of

 

emergency shelters would be ?deemed? eligible or, more simply, "are eligible? -
- for general assistance. It did not.

This issue was raised with the City in April 2014, at which time it suggested
that ?the city?s interpretation in this regard is supported by the language of the
statute,? citing as support an internal advisory letter issued by Assistant Attorney
General Christina Hall to DHHS in 1996. In fact, although AAG Hall found the
language of the statute at issue ambiguous, she concluded that an examination of
the legislative history "supports a stronger argument for the position currently
and historically taken by [the] Department [to the effect that] shelter residents
must apply and be found eligiblefor GA in order for towns to be reimbursed for
costs attributable to them.? In other words, while perhaps conceding that
portions of the statute were ambiguous, the opinion ultimately concluded that
the proper interpretation of the issue is the one being advanced both then and
now by the Department. As you will also note, part of her rationale was that the
legislative Committee rewrote the broad original Statement of Fact for the bill, to
observe that the purpose of the amendment was to "clarif[y] the permission to
municipalities to grant assistance to residents of emergency shelters without an
application in writing.? This does not reflect an intention to grant assistance
without an application, or without meeting other qualifications. Again, this makes
perfect sense: an emergency shelter will inevitably and often receive potential
applicants under circumstances where the mechanisms described in the statute
for determining eligibility are unavailable. A presumption of eligibility is a
reasonable stopgap measure in such circumstances. A conclusive and automatic
determination of eligibility is neither reasonable nor supported by the broad
purpose of the statute. The directly expressed legislative intent surely supports
the Department?s interpretation.

By letter of April 18, 2014 counsel to the City contended that 4304(3)
"says only that presumptive eligibility is permissible with absolutely no limit on
the application of that presumption.? (Letter from Jennifer L. Thompson, Esq., at
p. 3.) In fact, however, all statutory language is necessarily ?limited? by the rules
of construction, even to the extent that, as noted, "a court can even ignore the
literal meaning of phrases if that meaning thwarts the clear legislative objective,?

10

 

State v. Day, at 605. The courts will defer to an agency?s interpretation of
an arguably ambiguous statute so long as that interpretation is a reasonable one.
State v. McCurdy, 2010 ME 137, 10 A.3d 636 (Me. 2010). To consider the
exceptional language in 4304(3) as providing a benefit that is both unavailable
under any other portion of the statutory scheme and which would render much
of that scheme superfluous is unsupportable as a matter of law.

3. The City of Portland is impermissiny submitting expenses related to
operation of shelters not directly attributable to GA eligible

individuals.

As a result of the practices described above, the City of Portland does not in
fact individually and correctly determine the eligibility for assistance of individuals
housed within the City?s shelters. Instead, relying upon the contention both that it
is self?evident that anyone in the shelter would qualify for general assistance, and
that the State has ostensibly blessed the practice in the past, it has submitted for
reimbursement the total operating expenses of such shelters, regardless of
whether the resident individuals actually meet the relevant eligibility criteria.

Apart from the provisions of 4308(3), the entire statutory scheme of the
general assistance program is premised on determination of need on the part of
each individual for the care of whom the municipality seeks reimbursement. For
the reasons described in the preceding section, the exception permitting an
emergency admission to a shelter cannot be read in isolation from the remainder
of the statute, and therefore, for example, cannot negate the requirement
reflected in 4308(1) that municipalities must issue written decisions on
applications within 24 hours, the requirement that a period of eligibility must not
exceed one month 4309) or that eligibility must be based solely on need. 
4317)

Nothing in either the statutory or regulatory framework of the program
permits reimbursement as has been sought by Portland. Administrative costs are

11

 

not reimbursable3 nor are costs not directly attributable to individual eligibility.
Where the City has failed to appropriately process individual applications through
their WELPAC computer system, reimbursement is unsupported and cannot be
con?nued.

The claim that the Department?s current interpretation is said to be
inconsistent with prior tacit or explicit approvals is not relevant. The suggestion4
that the Department could be collaterally (or otherwise) estopped from enforcing
its current interpretation based on past practice is unsupportable. First,
?collateral estoppel only prevents the relitigation of factual issues when the
identical issue was already determined by a prior final judgment.? Kelley v. Maine
PERS, 2009 ME 27, 1122, 967 A.3d 676 at 683-84. Since the dispute at hand reflects
interpretation of law rather than factual issues, and there has been no
determination of any such issues by any court, collateral estoppel is inapplicable.
To the extent the City would alternatively contend that the doctrine of equitable
estoppel applies, we note that the Law Court has held both that ?compelling
policy reasons discourage applying equitable estoppel to restrict the government
from undertaking its essential functions,? and ?equitable estoppel requires a
misrepresentation.? It is thus applied only ?carefully and sparingly,? State v.
Brown, 2014 ME 79, 1120, 1117, 1115, 95 A.3d 82, 87-88. There is no such claim of
misrepresentation here, much less the "clear and satisfactory proof? the Court
requires, id, at 1115. Similarly, nothing in past practice estops the Department
from enforcing its rules in a different fashion prospectively. gag Astrue v. Ratliff,
560 US. 586, 130 2521, 2529 (2010) ("nothing about the Government?s past
payment practices ire: fee awards] altered the statutory text estopped the
Government? from revising them.) To the extent the Department?s interpretation
of the statute and rules is reasonable, even if not mandated, it will be upheld.
Lippitt v. Board of Certification for Geologist and Soil Scientists, 2014 ME 42, 88
A.3d 154 (2014); Fryeburg Health Care Center v. Department of Human Services,
1999 ME 122, 734 A.2d 1141 (1999).

 

3 See discussion and rule at Manual, Section X111.
4 See letter of Attorney Thompson, supra, at 4.

12

 

4. The Citv of Portland is not requiring shelter residents to use income
or resources for their current needs, and is failing to consider such
resources in determining ?need? as the statute requires.

As described above, 4309 and 4317 describe a system in which the
municipality identifies all resources available to the individual, which must then
be considered as bearing on the level of ?need? and thus the eligibility of the
individual for assistance. It is the very essence of the general assistance program
that only individuals who meet the ?need? parameters of the municipalities GA
ordinance may be provided reimbursable assistance.

In the course of the present and prior reviews, DHHS has determined that
the perfunctory application process conducted before individuals are lodged in
the City shelters fails to comply with these requirements. While it is difficult to
determine precisely how many ineligible individuals may be routinely admitted to
the shelter and then, indirectly, have those costs passed on for reimbursement,
the Department?s review has revealed that at least a substantial number of
individuals who routinely stay in shelters are clearly ineligible.

Documents provided to the Department by City employees identified the
"Top 30 Stayers? in City shelters based on total bed nights. Of those 30, at least 13
were determined to have more than approximately $20,000 in savings or
checking accounts in their names. Of these, the person with the single greatest
number of total bed nights was reported as of November 19, 2013 to have
$92,424 in his accounts. One other individual was reported to have as much is
$161,351 in liquid assets.

The City of Portland employs a number of individuals who act as
"representative payees? for individuals who receive a number of benefits
including and SSDI. At least 60 of those individuals stayed at least one night at
the Oxford Street shelter in 2014. Many of those had combined checking and
savings accounts balances as of January 2015 amounting to as much as $50,000.

13

 

While it is difficult on this limited information to determine the precise
scope of the problem, it is clear that the City?s practices with respect to admitting
and retaining persons in its shelter are inconsistent with the statutory
requirements that those persons demonstrate ?need? for such emergency
accommodations after initial admission.

5. The City of Portland is incorrectly submitting reimbursement

requests for individuals who are not United States citizens or are

otherwise ineligible for state and local public benefits under 8 USC 
. 1621.

The City of Portland has been submitting to the Department for
reimbursement general assistance amounts paid to individuals who are ineligible
for General Assistance pursuant to the terms of 8 U.S.C. 1621. The City of
Portland segregated its claims for reimbursement into two groups: one group it
called "non?qualified,? consisting of those aliens who are not included within the
eligible categories set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1621(a), and a group it called ?qualified,?
consisting of US. citizens and aliens who do fall into an eligible category under 8
U.S.C. 1621(a). DH audit reveals that the City of Portland has correctly
performed the segregation of claims in the manner it has described; it has not
included any ineligible aliens within the group of its ?qualified? claims. It has
incorrectly paid those individuals benefits, however, since it has incorrectly
concluded they are eligible for benefits notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. 1621.

REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED

DHHS requires that the following steps be taken to bring the City of
Portland into compliance with the General Assistance statute and regulations:

1. An applicant who seeks refuge at a city shelter is, pursuant to section
4304, entitled to an initial night of presumptive eligibility, assuming that

14

 

it is impractical to process his application for General Assistance benefits
in the usual fashion immediately.

2. All such persons must thereafter complete the application process
within the 30 day period following their sheltered admission. For each
such person determined to be eligible for General Assistance, shelter
costs for such period will be eligible for reimbUrsement based on the
"bed night rate? to be established as in Paragraph 4(a) below. If the
applicant is found to be ineligible, reimbursement will be provided only
for the initial night of assistance.

3. With respect to any period beyond the initial 30 days, the usual General 
Assistance eligibility standards must be applied. City staff must process
each such applicant for eligibility through the WELPAC system as it does
with non?shelter applicants.

4. The methodology to be used for current reimbursement requests for the
category of "Temporary Housing (Shelter, etc.)? will be as follows:

a. Portland will establish a bed night rate for shelter clients not to
exceed the maximum housing utility allowance for a single
individual in the "heated zero bedroom? category of the Appendix
as listed in the most recently adopted General Assistance
ordinance. This amount shall be prorated into a daily figure and
will be the amount allowed to be requested as reimbursement for
a General Assistance eligible individual staying at any municipal
homeless shelter;

b. Portland may no longer submit reimbursement requests in the
"Temporary Housing (Shelter, etc.) category based on the
operating expenses of municipal shelters. Such reimbursement
requests will instead be made based on the number of nights that
shelter was provided for General Assistance eligible individuals at
the defined bed night rates.

15

 

5. Portland must continue to determine whether applicants are eligible for
state and local benefits under 8 USC 1621 as part of its overall
responsibility to determine eligibility, and must pay general assistance
to eligible applicants only. Portland shall not seek reimbursement from
DHHS for payments made to individuals who are not eligible for state
and local public benefits under 8 USC 1621.

6. As part of the process of determining compliance, DHHS will conduct a
in-depth review of Portland?s shelter reimbursement requests
for a minimum of one year. DHHS may elect to continue these reviews if
deemed necessary to verify compliance. Upon request, Portland agrees
to furnish DHHS with any requested documents reasonably needed to
monitor compliance.

NOTICE

 

In light of the violations catalogued above,the Department is submitting
this notice of the aforementioned corrections that must be made before
compliance with the statute can be achieved. If the administrator is not in
agreement with these findings, he or she may file a written response with the
Department within 10 days of the exit conference. Such information will be
considered before a final determination of noncompliance is made.

Pursuant to the General Assistance Manual Section X, if the City is found to
be out of compliance following the 10 day response, it will be so notified in
writing by the Department. It will have 30 days thereafter to submit a plan of
correction specifically targeted to the violations found. If the plan is accepted by
the Department, the City shall receive such a notice from the Department along
with a notice advising that a further review will be done within 60 days. If at that
subsequent review the same violations are found the Department may withhold
reimbursement until compliance is achieved.

16

 

If a plan of correction is not filed With the Department within the 30 day
period, the Department will send written notification to that effect and
withholding will take place. If an unacceptable plan of correction is filed the
Department shall so advise the City and indicate what is needed for an acceptable
plan. In all respects these procedures shall be guided by and comply with the
statutory provisions of 4322.

The Department recognizes that the City of Portland disagrees with the
conclusion that it is non-compliant by virtue of paying benefits to aliens who are
not eligible under 8 U.S.C. 1621(a), and that such disagreement is the subject-
matter of a pending lawsuit between DHHS and the City of Portland. Pending
resolution of that lawsuit, DHHS will not be paying reimbursement of claims paid
to such "non-qualified? aliens, but DHHS will not be .assessing any civil penalties or
imposing any broader withholding remedy for the City of Portland?s failure to
correct this non-compliance. Assuming the lawsuit is resolved in favor,
and the City of Portland?s non-compliance continues thereafter, DHHS reserves
the right to assess civil penalties and impose withholding remedies from that
point forward. DHHS also reserves the right to impose civil penalties or withhold
all reimbursement including reimbursement for so-called ?qualified? or ?non-
qualified? claims before resolution of the lawsuit, in accordance with law, for
non-compliance unrelated to the issues of citizenship and immigration status that
are the subject of that lawsuit.

The Department thanks you for your cooperation in this matter. If we can
be of any assistance, please contact us at 1-207-624-4138.

17

 

94%;

DHHS General Assistance Program Manager

Date: 25 24 Ar

GA Administrator/Authorized representative

 

Date:

Note: your signature does not signify agreement with the review findings, but
serves only to indicate that the review findings have been discussed with you.

18