99-5159-C
| Decision Date | 01 January 2000 |
| Docket Number | 99-5159-C |
| Parties | Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless et al.,1 v. Department of Transitional Assistance, and another2 |
| Court | Massachusetts Superior Court |
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Cratsley
This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgement brought by the plaintiffs, the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless (MCH), the Travelers Aid Society of Boston (TAS), the Central Massachusetts Housing Alliance (CMHA), Glorie Miller, and Sallie Dew and the defendants, the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) (the "department"), and Claire McIntire, Commissioner of Transitional Assistance. In this action, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that two DTA-promulgated regulations contained in 106 C.M.R. 309.040 are facially invalid, and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing them.3 The defendants seek a declaration that the regulations are valid as promulgated.
106 C.M.R. 309.040 is the regulation by which the DTA administers the Commonwealth's Emergency Assistance (EA) program, a program that provides temporary financial assistance to keep needy families in a home or to pay for temporary shelter. The DTA administers this program under a general grant of statutory authority given by the Legislature as found in G.L.c. 18, 2(D) (1994 ed.), which directs the department inter alia, "to provide benefits to avoid destitution or to provide living arrangements in a home." G.L.c. 18, 2(D). The Legislature uses a specific line item (4403-2120) in its annual budget to fund the EA program, and dollar amounts in the line item are conditioned on any proviso(s) that may accompany it.
There are two regulations within 106 C.M.R. 309.040 that are at issue in this case. The first regulation changes and/or clarifies the eligibility criteria for homeless families to receive EA after that family has experienced certain events. The second regulation changes and/or clarifies the conditions under which the DTA may terminate the benefits of those families on EA who abandon a shelter placement without notice.
The core issues are (1) whether the Legislature's statutory grant of authority, as narrowed by specific EA line-item provisos, allows the department to change the eligibility criteria or benefits for EA recipients, and (2) whether the promulgated regulations actually change the eligibility criteria or benefits or merely clarify them. The plaintiffs argue that the regulations are illegal as they exceed the authority granted in both the statute and the provisos. The defendants claim that the challenged regulations fall within its broad statutory authority and that the plaintiffs' challenge should fail on several procedural grounds. A hearing was held on March 10, 2000. Upon consideration of the oral arguments and memoranda of both parties, this Court makes the following rulings of law and final order on the cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, this Court concludes that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part; and the defendants'motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.
The Statute: The material facts presented by the parties on the record are not in dispute. EA is a joint Federal-State program established under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1994), which provides temporary financial assistance to homeless families. The Massachusetts Legislature charged the department with administering the program pursuant to G.L.c. 18, 2(D) as part of a comprehensive financial assistance program.4 The statute (G.L.c. 18, 2) imposes several duties on the department including the duties, (1) "[to] formulate the policies, procedures, and rules necessary for the full and efficient implementation of programs authorized by the laws of the commonwealth and federal laws in the area of transitional assistance financial assistance[.]" G.L.c. 18, 2(B)(a); (2) "[to] provide the range of transitional assistance financial assistance services on a fair, just and equitable basis to all people in need of such services[.]" G.L.c. 18, 2(B)(d); (3) "[to] study the economic problems and welfare services in the commonwealth, and make recommendations to the appropriate branches and agencies of government for broadening and improving the scope and quality of welfare services[;]" G.L.c. 18, 2(B)(f); (4) "[to] promulgate rules and regulations to establish the levels of benefits available under the program and to ensure simplicity of administration in the best interest of needy recipients[.]" G.L.c. 18, 2(D); (5) to provide "[...] temporary shelter as necessary to alleviate homelessness when such famil[ies] ha[ve] no feasible alternative housing available[,]" G.L.c. 18, 2(D)(d); and (6) "[to] take all reasonable actions to minimize abuse and errors[.]" (G.L.c. 18, 2(D)(d)).
The Budget Provisos: Besides G.L.c. 18, 2, there is language in several provisos in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 annual line item appropriation for the EA program that also expresses the Legislature's intent concerning the department's administration of the program.
The EA appropriation provides, "that in promulgating, amending, or rescinding regulations with respect to eligibility or benefits under said program, the department shall take into account the amounts available to it for expenditure by this item so as not to exceed the appropriation[;]." St. 1999, c. 127, 2, item 4403-2120; Fiscal Year 2000 General Appropriation Act. This proviso ("the Dowell proviso") was also in the FY 1995 and FY 1996 budgets, and was the only budget proviso at issue in Dowell v. Commissioner of Transition Assistance, 424 Mass. 610, 614 (1997), discussed infra.
The Legislature's FY 2000 EA line item proposal also provides, "that notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law or this item to the contrary, 30 days before promulgating any such eligibility or benefit change, the commissioner shall file with the house and senate committees on ways and means and with the clerks of the house of representative and the senate a determination by the secretary of health and human services that available appropriations for said program will be insufficient to meet projected expenses and a report setting forth such proposed changes."5 St. 1999, c. 127, 2, item 4403-2120; Fiscal Year 2000 General Appropriation Act. This proviso ("the notice proviso") appeared in the FY 1995 line item for the EA program. It was not at issue in Dowell because the department complied with its notice requirement by notifying the Legislature of a shortfall in the FY 1995 appropriation before changing the regulation. (Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit P.)
The EA line item also provides for the department to St. 1999, c. 127, 2, item 4403-2120; Fiscal Year 2000 General Appropriation Act.
Additionally, there is a proviso ("the enforceability proviso") in the FY 2000 line item that directs "that nothing in this item shall give rise to enforceable legal rights in any party or an enforceable entitlement to services other than to the extent that such rights or entitlements exist pursuant to the regulations promulgated by the department..." St. 1999, c. 127, 2, item 4403-2120; Fiscal Year 2000 General Appropriation Act.
Finally, the last proviso in the FY 2000 line item states "that nothing in the two preceding provisos [the notice and enforceability provisos] shall authorize the department to alter eligibility criteria or benefit levels, except to the extent that such changes are needed to avoid a deficiency in this item $45,416,591." St. 1999, c. 127, 2, item 4403-2120; Fiscal Year 2000 General Appropriation Act. The FY 1995 budget (the budget at issue in Dowell) did not contain this (the "deficiency proviso"); it was not added to the line item until FY 1996.
The Political Landscape: In the FY 2000 the Legislature appropriated $45,416,591 to the EA program, an increase of more than $7 million over its FY 1999 appropriation. St. 1999, c. 127, 2, item 4403-2120; Fiscal Year 2000 General Appropriation Act; St. 1998, c. 143, 2, item 4403-2120; Fiscal Year 1999 General Appropriation Act. The defendants admit there was no projected deficiency in the EA program budget prior to the promulgation. (Defendants' Answer to Further Amended Complaint, 33.) It also does not appear that the department needed to change the eligibility or benefit criteria to save money, as the Secretary of State's Regulation Filing Statement reflects no financial savings as a result of the changes. (Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit C.)
The Regulations: The department has promulgated regulations pursuant to the enabling statute.6 Among the regulations, 106 C.M.R. 309.040 (A)(1)(c)-(e) (last revised July 1998) provides that a household shall not meet the basic eligibility criteria for EA temporary emergency shelter benefits if it rendered itself homeless due to certain types of evictions, including nonpayment of rent, criminal activity, or destruction of the property.7 In November 1999 the department promulgated an amendment to that regulation the language at issue in this case so that an otherwise eligible household shall not be eligible if any one of these evictions occurred "anytime within the past 12 months regardless of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial