State, Dept. of Human Services, Division of Public Welfare v. Hudson County, Dept. of Health and Social Services

• Citation: 390 A.2d 720,161 N.J.Super. 29
• Decision Date: 15 June 1978
• Docket Number: C,L,AFL-CI,No. 52,52
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HUDSON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES: Board of ChosenFreeholders, County of Hudson: Edward Clark, County Executive; William Jones,Director, Hudson County Department of Health and Social Services; James Young,Chief,Division of Welfare, American Federation of State, County and MunicipalEmployees,ouncilocal 2306; Milton Filker, President, Local2306; Michael Lanni, Executive Director, Council 52, Richard Gollin, VicePresident, Local 2306,Defendants.
• Court: Superior Court of New Jersey

Page 29

161 N.J.Super. 29

390 A.2d 720

STATE of New Jersey, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HUDSON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES Board of ChosenFreeholders, County of Hudson: Edward Clark County Executive; William Jones,Director, Hudson County Department of Health and Social Services; James Young,Chief,Division of Welfare, American Federation of State, County and MunicipalEmployees, AFL-CIO, Council No 52, Local 2306; Milton Filker, President, Local2306; Michael Lanni, Executive Director, Council 52, Richard Gollin VicePresident, Local 2306,Defendants.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

June 15, 1978.

Richard M. Hluchan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff (William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., attorney).

Harold J. Ruvoldt, Jr., Hudson County Counsel, Jersey City, for County defendants (Charles M. Schimenti, Asst. Hudson County Counsel, Jersey City, on the brief).

Sanford R. Oxfeld, Newark, argued the cause for the Union defendants (Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, Newark, attorneys).

KENTZ, J. S. C.

Introduction

This case presents another chapter in the legal evolution of the Optional County Charter Law (Charter Law) enacted in 1972. L. 1972, C. 154, as amended by L. 1974, C. 141, and L. 1975, C. 84 (codified at N.J.S.A. 40:41A-1 to 144 (Supp.1977-1978)). Only two years ago this court was presented with the question of whether a county could pursuant to the Charter Law, abolish the autonomous Hudson County Welfare Board which was mandated by N.J.S.A. 44:7-7, in favor of a proposed department consolidating various services among them welfare. In Amer. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Employees v. Hudson Cty. Welf. Bd., 141 N.J.Super. 25, 27, 35-36, 357 A.2d 67 (Ch.Div.1976), I held that the Charter Law superseded N.J.S.A. 44:7-7 insofar as the latter required an autonomous county welfare board, and therefore the county had the power to consolidate the existing county welfare board with other county functions.

Facts

Defendant in this action, the County of Hudson (county), thereafter negotiated and executed a collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 52, Local 2306. This agreement contains the terms of employment of county welfare workers. However, it was never submitted to plaintiff New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Public Welfare (Division) for its approval. In particular, this agreement set forth salary ranges for the Hudson County welfare employees which were not in compliance with the commonly known Ruling 11, an employment compensation and classification regulation promulgated by the Division pursuant to N.J.S.A. 44:7-6 and governing salary ranges of county welfare board employees.

The present conflict between the county and the Division arose out of differing interpretation of the applicability of Ruling 11 to counties which had abolished the county welfare board. Both parties agree that there exists no material issue of fact and each has moved for summary judgment. The issue presented is whether Ruling 11 remains binding upon the county after its adoption of the executive plan of government pursuant to the Charter Law and its abolition of the county welfare board.

History

The relevant history behind the promulgation of Ruling 11 has both federal and state legislative components. The Federal Government, through the Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 Et seq. (1974 [390 A.2d 722] and Supp.1977), established a series of categorical assistance programs, ¹ in order to provide funding for certain classes of needy individuals and families. See Ariz. State Dept. of Pub. Welf. v. Dept. of Health, Educ. & Welf., 449 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1971), Cert. den. 405 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 945, 30 L.Ed.2d 789 (1972); X v. McCorkle, 333 F.Supp. 1109, 1113 (D.N.J.1970) (three-judge court), aff'd as modified Per curiam sub nom. Engelman v. Amos, 404 U.S. 23, 92 S.Ct. 181, 30 L.Ed.2d 143 (1971). Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 601-644 (1974 and Supp.1977), is one such program, ² see Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 407-408, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 1215, 25 L.Ed.2d 442, 453 (1970), having for its purpose the provision of financial aid to dependent, impoverished children. ³ Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U.S. 251, 253, 94 S.Ct. 1746, 1750, 40 L.Ed.2d 120, 125 (1974); Boucher v. Minter, 349 F.Supp. 1240, 1244-1245 (D.Mass.1972); Bradford v. Juras, 331 F.Supp. 167, 170 (D.Or.1971) (three-judge court); State v. Clark, 58 N.J. 72, 85, 275 A.2d 137 (1971).

The AFDC program, known well as "a scheme of cooperative federalism," King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S. at 316, 88 S.Ct. at 2133, 20 L.Ed.2d at 1125, is financed largely by the Federal Government on a matching fund basis while it is administered by the individual states. Shea v. Vialpando, supra, 416 U.S. at 253, 94 S.Ct. at 1750, 40 L.Ed.2d at 125; State v. Clark, supra, 58 N.J. at 89, 275 A.2d 137; Marlin v. McCorkle, 117 N.J.Super. 465, 469, 285 A.2d 73 (App.Div.1971). State participation in AFDC is optional. Redding v. Burlington, 65 N.J. 439, 442, 323 A.2d 477 (1974); Hausman v. Institutions and Agencies Dept., 64 N.J. 202, 206, 314 A.2d 362 Cert. den. 417 U.S. 955, 94 S.Ct. 3083, 41 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). But once a state elects to do so, it must comply with AFDC legislation and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S. at 317, 88 S.Ct. at 2133, 20 L.Ed.2d at 1125; Cornelius v. Minter, 395 F.Supp. 616, 621-622 (D.Mass.1974) ("state accepts federal money * * * with the realization that there are 'strings attached' "); Johnson v. Harder, 383 F.Supp. 174, 179 (D.Conn.1974), aff'd Per curiam, 512 F.2d 1188 (2 Cir.), Cert. den. 423 U.S. 876, 96 S.Ct. 149, 46 L.Ed.2d 109 (1975); Essex Cty. Welf. Bd. v. Institutions & Agencies Dept., 139 N.J.Super. 191, 196, 353 A.2d 132 (App.Div.1976). Withdrawal of federal funds may result from a failure subsequently to follow the applicable federal laws. Rosado v. Wyman, supra, 397 U.S. At 420, 90 S.Ct. at 1222, 25 L.Ed.2d at 460; Cornelius v. Minter, supra, 395 F.Supp. at 621-622; Adens v. Sailer, 312 F.Supp. 923, 927 (E.D.Pa.1970).

One of the main prerequisites to receipt of federal grants-in-aid is the formulation and submission of a state plan for implementing the AFDC program. Shea v. Vialpando, supra, 416 U.S. at 253, 94 S.Ct. at 1750, 40 L.Ed.2d at 125; Ariz. State Dept. of Pub. Welf. v. Dept. of Health, Educ. & Welf., supra, 449 F.2d at 460; Redding v. Burlington Cty. Welf. Bd., supra, 65 N.J. at 442, 323 A.2d 477; Buchanan v. Essex Cty. Welf. Bd., 117 N.J.Super. 541, 545, 285 A.2d 252 (App.Div.1971). "A 'state plan' consists of all the statutes and regulations which create and provide for the administration of public assistance." Communications Workers v. Union Cty. Welf. Bd., 126 N.J.Super. 517, 524, 315 A.2d 709, 712 (App.Div.1974). This plan must also be consistent with the goals and mandates of the federal statutes and regulations. Shea v. Vialpando, supra, 416 U.S. at 253, 94 S.Ct. at 1750, 40 L.Ed.2d at 125; Mothers & Childrens Rights Org., Inc. v. Stanton, 371 F.Supp. 298, 303 (D.Ind.1973); Redding v. Burlington Cty. Welf. Bd., supra, 65 N.J. at 442, 323 A.2d 477. Of particular import are the requirements that (1) a single state agency administer or supervise the administration of the plan, 45 C.F.R. 205.100(a) (i); Essex Cty. Welf. Bd. v. Institutions & Agencies Dep't, supra, 139 N.J.Super. at 196, 353 A.2d 132; Communications Workers v. Union Cty. Welf. Bd., supra, 126 N.J.Super. at 524, 315 A.2d 709; (2) the plan set up a merit system of personnel administration for state employees, 42 U.S.C.A. § 602(a)(5) (A); 45 C.F.R. 70.1 Et seq.; accord, Norton v. Blayblock, 285 F.Supp. 659, 660, 663 (W.D.Ark.1968), aff'd Per curiam, 409 F.2d 772 (8 Cir. 1969); Communications Workers v. Union Cty. Welf. Bd., supra, 126 N.J.Super. at 525, 315 A.2d 709; and (3) the plan be in effect and mandatory throughout the state, including all political subdivisions. Communications Workers v. Union Cty. Welf. Bd., supra, 126 N.J.Super. at 524-525; Multnomah Cty. v. Luihn, 180 Or. 528, 533, 178 P.2d 159, 162 (Sup.Ct.1947) ("state-wide administrative plan is mandatory upon the counties and may not be varied by them").

A state may not implement the plan until it is approved by the Department of Health, Education & Welfare (HEW), Chambers v. Klein, 419 F.Supp. 569, 574-575 (D.N.J.1976), aff'd mem. 564 F.2d 89 (3 Cir. 1977); State v. Clark, supra, 58 N.J. at 89, 275 A.2d 137; Buchanan v. Essex Cty. Welf. Bd., supra, 117 N.J.Super. at 545, 285 A.2d 252, the governmental agency responsible for supervising and administering the Social Security Act. N. Y. State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 420, 93 S.Ct. 2507, 2516, 37 L.Ed.2d 688, 698 (1973). Actual receipt of federal funds is preconditioned upon state certification to HEW that all "the requirements of the state plan have been fulfilled in the administration of the welfare programs." Communications Workers v. Union Cty. Welf. Bd., supra, 126 N.J.Super. at 524, 315 A.2d at 712.

After the state plan is approved, it remains "subject to continuing scrutiny * * * to ensure its continuing conformity to the federally imposed requirements and its continuing freedom from the federally proscribed conditions, both on the face of the plan and in its administration." Ariz. State Dept. of Pub. Welf. v. Dept. of Health, Educ. & Welf., supra, 449 F.2d at 461. If, at a conformity hearing, a state plan or the administration thereof is determined to be no longer in compliance with federal requirements, federal payments to the state are terminated until the defects are cured. Id. Where the plan or the state regulations under the plan have been invalidated due to nonconformance, the regulations have been set aside, see Buchanan v. Essex Cty. Welf. Bd., supra, 117 N.J.Super. at 548, 285...