OLYMPIA The Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) today
filed a complaint against
the state's Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) for violations
of federal law. The complaint was sent to the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, the U.S. General Accounting Office, and the U.S. Western
Washington District Prosecuting Attorney.
At issue are recent audit findings against DSHS regarding day care fraud
in the city of Mattawa, Washington. In these audits, the State Auditor found:
DSHS...does not perform any procedures to verify that the correct
SSN [Social Security Number] has been provided or that an applicant has
supplied his or her real name.
All providers billed the Department for services that they
could not document they provided. We estimate that $2 million in federal
Child Care Development Funds was paid to these 50 providers during the
periods reviewed. In addition, most providers have not yet corrected all
of the deficiencies cited in this report but continue to receive child
care payments from the Department.
Some in-home providers did not provide accurate and complete
information on the Criminal History and Background Information form. One
provider had a 1997 felony warrant that was not identified during the
application process. This provider is still licensed and operating as
child care provider.
This condition occurred because the Department's procedures
for criminal history and background inquiries are inadequate. The applicant
is not required to provide a SSN on the background inquiry form and this
number is not used during the review. The Department uses only the name
and address of the applicant to perform a background check. When the SSN
is available to the Department, it does not verify the validity of the
number or conduct a nation-wide background search using this information.
This condition creates a risk that the Department may not be
aware of a person who could pose a potential danger to the children placed
in the care of this provider.
As a result of these audit findings, the State Auditor requested DSHS to
"forward evidence in this case to the Grant County Prosecuting Attorney's
Office for any action deemed appropriate under the circumstances."
Despite initially cooperating, Grant County law enforcement, as recently
as this morning, indicated that DSHS is now frustrating their efforts to
initiate necessary prosecutions for these violations of state and federal
law by not providing all requested records.
"It isn't our desire to prosecute people because they are taking advantage
of the system DSHS has made readily available to them," Grant County
Sheriff Frank De Trolio told EFF. "Our whole intention in this process
is to stop payments to those individuals not entitled to taxpayer money."
Because of the seriousness of these audit findings and the accusations
of Grant County law enforcement, EFF last week informed
DSHS that, unless the requested documents were turned over to Grant
County by June 9, EFF would be filing a formal complaint with the federal
government against the agency.
"It is unfortunate that DSHS has chosen to engage in this obstructionist
behavior," said Bob Williams, president of EFF. "One has the expectation
that state agencies would willingly cooperate with law enforcement so lawbreakers
can be brought to justice. Since this is not the case, and since the legislature
has not held DSHS accountable for their numerous violations, we are now
being forced to seek federal relief."
"It isn't fair to the taxpayers that cuts to services are happening
while the state is sending illegal payments to individuals committing fraud,"
said De Trolio.
"Remember, this is potentially $2 million worth of fraud in one small
town! Imagine what else is out there," said Williams.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"