Monday, March 26, 2012
SC DSS PROPOSES TO CORRECT DEFECTIVE NEW HIRE REPORTING STATUTE
Everybody, hold on to your seats, South Carolina is finally going to make a serious effort to enact legislation that the federal government mandated be put into place in 1998. If and when South Carolina enacts this legislation, all fifty states will have adopted a New Hire Reporting Statute mandating that employers report new hires to the Child Support Enforcement Division of their state's Department of Social Services.
We make no comment on whether South Carolina's proposed legislation complies with federal law. We do note, however, that this "employer-friendly" legislation contains no penalties for employers who ignore the law. In other words, this legislation is "all hat and no cattle." Rather than crafting legislation designed to increase child support collections, the South Carolina DSS prefers to propose legislation that will be sure not to inconvenience the business community in the least. Rather than creating legislation that complies with both the letter and the spirit of the federal mandate, lawyers for the South Carolina DSS prefer to tell South Carolina employers, "Here is our new federally-mandated statute. We've put off enacting this as long as we can. But, don't worry--this won't inconveneince you in any way. This is because, although the reporting requirements are 'mandatory,' we have gutted the penalties. So, if you violate the law, nothing is going to happen to you. Go in peace. And don't worry about a thing."
As usual, readers of this Blog do not have to take our word for it. Following is a description of the proposed legislation as well as "an explanation for each proposal."
Everybody, hold on to your seats, South Carolina is finally going to make a serious effort to enact legislation that the federal government mandated be put into place in 1998. If and when South Carolina enacts this legislation, all fifty states will have adopted a New Hire Reporting Statute mandating that employers report new hires to the Child Support Enforcement Division of their state's Department of Social Services.
We make no comment on whether South Carolina's proposed legislation complies with federal law. We do note, however, that this "employer-friendly" legislation contains no penalties for employers who ignore the law. In other words, this legislation is "all hat and no cattle." Rather than crafting legislation designed to increase child support collections, the South Carolina DSS prefers to propose legislation that will be sure not to inconvenience the business community in the least. Rather than creating legislation that complies with both the letter and the spirit of the federal mandate, lawyers for the South Carolina DSS prefer to tell South Carolina employers, "Here is our new federally-mandated statute. We've put off enacting this as long as we can. But, don't worry--this won't inconveneince you in any way. This is because, although the reporting requirements are 'mandatory,' we have gutted the penalties. So, if you violate the law, nothing is going to happen to you. Go in peace. And don't worry about a thing."
As usual, readers of this Blog do not have to take our word for it. Following is a description of the proposed legislation as well as "an explanation for each proposal."
_________________________________________
Proposed Legislation for New Hire Reporting
Part A: An explanation for each proposal.
1. Amend 43-5-598(A)(6): Change in federal law (Public Law 112-40) amends section 453A of the Social Security Act, effective April 21, 2012, as follows:
(a) Definition of Newly Hired Employee- Section 453A(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653a(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(C) NEWLY HIRED EMPLOYEE- The term “newly hired employee” means an employee who (i) has not previously been employed by the employer; or (ii) was previously employed by the employer but has been separated from such prior employment for at least 60 consecutive days.
2. Amend 43-5-598(C)(2): Change in federal law. P.L. 111-291, §802(a), inserted “the date services for remuneration were first performed by the employee,”. For the effective date [June 8, 2011, but delay is permitted if State legislation is required], see Vol. II, P.L. 111-291, §802(c).
3. Amend Section 43-5-598 by deleting subsection (G): This would be an employer-friendly amendment. DSS believes working proactively with employers through outreach efforts will result in substantially improved compliance, therefore, the need for a monetary penalty to assure compliance would be reduced. The cost to enforce the penalty outweighs the benefits because data systems and matching reports used to identify possible non-compliance produce false positives.
Federal law makes imposition of civil fines optional for states. DSS has contacted federal officials at the National Directory of New Hires NDNH) to determine what other states are doing relative to enforcement. At this point, they are aware of only two states that may impose fines, Utah and North Dakota.
The accuracy of the new hire data and matching processes used to detect failure to report new hires is an ongoing national discussion. The NDNH acknowledges that enforcement is difficult because there are no quantitatively reliable methods for identifying non-compliant employers. The issues of multi-state employers and employers using multiple FEINs to report on the same employee(s) for New Hires and Quarterly Wages create uncertainty in identifying non-compliant employers. The NDNH is aware of the accuracy issues and discussed the issues with states in a recent conference call in November 2011.
During the call, they invited ideas and solutions from the states.Enforcement efforts in South Carolina, as the statute is currently constructed, are complicated and cumbersome. Even if an offending employer is identified, DSS is required to issue warnings and identify each employee for which the employer failed to report to the SDNH. Then, with the burden of proof on DSS, all evidence must be presented by DSS to a family court judge who would determine if a fine is appropriate.
Once a fine is imposed and collected, 66% of the amount collected must be forwarded to the Federal government and the remaining 34% would be retained by DSS. Therefore, the time and effort needed to enforce through fines is not economically efficient. The cost overwhelmingly outweighs the return.
4. Repeal 63-17-1210 entirely: The subject matter is fully addressed by a later provision of law, Section 43-5-598. The two statutes contain inconsistencies and Section 43-5-598 is the statute that tracks the latest federal requirements.
Part A: An explanation for each proposal.
1. Amend 43-5-598(A)(6): Change in federal law (Public Law 112-40) amends section 453A of the Social Security Act, effective April 21, 2012, as follows:
(a) Definition of Newly Hired Employee- Section 453A(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653a(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(C) NEWLY HIRED EMPLOYEE- The term “newly hired employee” means an employee who (i) has not previously been employed by the employer; or (ii) was previously employed by the employer but has been separated from such prior employment for at least 60 consecutive days.
2. Amend 43-5-598(C)(2): Change in federal law. P.L. 111-291, §802(a), inserted “the date services for remuneration were first performed by the employee,”. For the effective date [June 8, 2011, but delay is permitted if State legislation is required], see Vol. II, P.L. 111-291, §802(c).
3. Amend Section 43-5-598 by deleting subsection (G): This would be an employer-friendly amendment. DSS believes working proactively with employers through outreach efforts will result in substantially improved compliance, therefore, the need for a monetary penalty to assure compliance would be reduced. The cost to enforce the penalty outweighs the benefits because data systems and matching reports used to identify possible non-compliance produce false positives.
Federal law makes imposition of civil fines optional for states. DSS has contacted federal officials at the National Directory of New Hires NDNH) to determine what other states are doing relative to enforcement. At this point, they are aware of only two states that may impose fines, Utah and North Dakota.
The accuracy of the new hire data and matching processes used to detect failure to report new hires is an ongoing national discussion. The NDNH acknowledges that enforcement is difficult because there are no quantitatively reliable methods for identifying non-compliant employers. The issues of multi-state employers and employers using multiple FEINs to report on the same employee(s) for New Hires and Quarterly Wages create uncertainty in identifying non-compliant employers. The NDNH is aware of the accuracy issues and discussed the issues with states in a recent conference call in November 2011.
During the call, they invited ideas and solutions from the states.Enforcement efforts in South Carolina, as the statute is currently constructed, are complicated and cumbersome. Even if an offending employer is identified, DSS is required to issue warnings and identify each employee for which the employer failed to report to the SDNH. Then, with the burden of proof on DSS, all evidence must be presented by DSS to a family court judge who would determine if a fine is appropriate.
Once a fine is imposed and collected, 66% of the amount collected must be forwarded to the Federal government and the remaining 34% would be retained by DSS. Therefore, the time and effort needed to enforce through fines is not economically efficient. The cost overwhelmingly outweighs the return.
4. Repeal 63-17-1210 entirely: The subject matter is fully addressed by a later provision of law, Section 43-5-598. The two statutes contain inconsistencies and Section 43-5-598 is the statute that tracks the latest federal requirements.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Problems at DSS
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
TEXAS ANSWERS THE QUESTION "HOW DOES NEW HIRE REPORTING BENEFIT THE COMPANY?"
How does it make sense and help a company's bottom line to comply with such a reporting requirement? Simple: the reports are used primarily for tracking parents who owe back child support and for reducing fraud under various social programs, including unemployment benefits. Employers are a vital link in the effort to ensure payment of child support, not only through garnishment of wages, but also through the new hire reports. If your employees who are owed child support start receiving it because of someone else's new hire report, you will have a better, more focused employee. What you do can help other employers, and what they do in that regard will help you. New hire reporting also helps your company through reduction of benefit fraud. Part of the unemployment tax that every taxed employer has to pay comes from claim fraud that must be recouped somehow, and of course the "somehow" is by resorting to employers! Since a new employee's wages will not be reported to TWC for up to three or four months following their hire, the new hire report can help TWC detect UI benefit claim fraud three or four months earlier than it might normally be found. For more details, see the article titled "How Employers Can Help Reduce Claim Fraud" in the Post-Employment Problems section of this book. In addition, since the new hire reporting law absolutely requires employees to give you their social security numbers, it is one more tool to use in verifying SSNs (see the article in the next section of this book titled "Verification of Social Security Numbers"). If a cross-match turns up a problem with the SSN, you can then contact the Social Security Administration for assistance in verifying whether the number is valid.Finally, new hire reporting can help avoid the problem of employees engaging in "double-dipping" with other state or federal benefit programs, such as workers' compensation.
How does it make sense and help a company's bottom line to comply with such a reporting requirement? Simple: the reports are used primarily for tracking parents who owe back child support and for reducing fraud under various social programs, including unemployment benefits. Employers are a vital link in the effort to ensure payment of child support, not only through garnishment of wages, but also through the new hire reports. If your employees who are owed child support start receiving it because of someone else's new hire report, you will have a better, more focused employee. What you do can help other employers, and what they do in that regard will help you. New hire reporting also helps your company through reduction of benefit fraud. Part of the unemployment tax that every taxed employer has to pay comes from claim fraud that must be recouped somehow, and of course the "somehow" is by resorting to employers! Since a new employee's wages will not be reported to TWC for up to three or four months following their hire, the new hire report can help TWC detect UI benefit claim fraud three or four months earlier than it might normally be found. For more details, see the article titled "How Employers Can Help Reduce Claim Fraud" in the Post-Employment Problems section of this book. In addition, since the new hire reporting law absolutely requires employees to give you their social security numbers, it is one more tool to use in verifying SSNs (see the article in the next section of this book titled "Verification of Social Security Numbers"). If a cross-match turns up a problem with the SSN, you can then contact the Social Security Administration for assistance in verifying whether the number is valid.Finally, new hire reporting can help avoid the problem of employees engaging in "double-dipping" with other state or federal benefit programs, such as workers' compensation.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting
Saturday, March 17, 2012
WHY IS THERE NO SC STATUTE REQUIRING MANDATORY REPORTING OF NEW HIRES?
We had high hopes for the new Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services. She is no home-grown inbred, content to worship at the alter of the STATUS QUO because "that is the way things have always been done." Ms. Koller, a well-educated attorney and accomplished public servant, was intimately acquainted with the federal mandates imposed by the 1996 Welfare Reform Act regarding New Hire Reporting before she ever left Hawaii. Yet, a year later, South Carolina still bears the unwanted distinction of being the only State that is not in compliance with the federal mandate to establish a New Hire Directory, just as it is the only state that has no computerized child support tracking and collection system.
Why is this so? "Inquring minds want to know."
We had high hopes for the new Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services. She is no home-grown inbred, content to worship at the alter of the STATUS QUO because "that is the way things have always been done." Ms. Koller, a well-educated attorney and accomplished public servant, was intimately acquainted with the federal mandates imposed by the 1996 Welfare Reform Act regarding New Hire Reporting before she ever left Hawaii. Yet, a year later, South Carolina still bears the unwanted distinction of being the only State that is not in compliance with the federal mandate to establish a New Hire Directory, just as it is the only state that has no computerized child support tracking and collection system.
Why is this so? "Inquring minds want to know."
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting
Saturday, June 18, 2011
THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT STATE BOXSCORES FOR FY 2010
The Office of Child Support State Boxscores for FY 2010 have been posted. Click here to see how your state compares to other states. And click here to read about a problem that continues to be unique to South Carolina. Three governors, three DSS Chiefs, and almost $100 Million in fines later, South Carolina still can't get it right.
The Office of Child Support State Boxscores for FY 2010 have been posted. Click here to see how your state compares to other states. And click here to read about a problem that continues to be unique to South Carolina. Three governors, three DSS Chiefs, and almost $100 Million in fines later, South Carolina still can't get it right.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting
Monday, March 14, 2011
NEW SOUTH CAROLINA DSS DIRECTOR UNDERSTANDS FEDERAL "NEW HIRE" REPORTING LAWS
Click here to read "New Hire Reporting Information for Hawaii." Or click all of the following links:
Hawaii Employers Guide to Medical Support
Hawaii Employer's Guide - Income Withholding(FEN125)
State Directory of New Hires Q & A (FLO100)
New Hire File Format
Click here to access South Carolina's Employer New Hire Reporting website and click here to read "Child Support Enforcement New Hire Reporting Facts."
Careful readers of the documents posted at the various cited links would probably receive the impression that South Carolina's New Hire Reporting laws are very similar to those of Hawaii. However, there are some critical differences. For example, despite the information contained on its DSS website, South Carolina's statutory scheme, unlike that of Hawaii, does not mandate new hire reporting as required by federal law. Therefore, no penalties are imposed--nor can they be imposed--against those employers who choose not to report new hires in South Carolina.
Recently appointed South Carolina DSS Director Lillian Koller formerly held the equivalent position in Hawaii. Moreover, she is an attorney. Therefore, she both understands the requirements of the federally-mandated New Hire Reporting Program and can help South Carolina develop a statutory scheme which is both effective and complies with federal law.
Now, if the South Carolina General Assembly will only listen to her.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
FULL TEXT OF BOHN V. KOLLER COMPLAINT--HAWAII FOOD STAMP CASE
Click here to view the full text of Bohn v. Koller, the Hawaii case that has apparently caused some concern about South Carolina Governor Haley's appointee for Director of DSS. While we believe that this matter should be taken seriously by the State of Hawaii, it is hardly something that should cause concern in South Carolina unless the General Assembly is planning to underfund DSS, thereby interfering with the ability of DSS to comply with federal mandates.
While this case should not be cause for panic in South Carolina, it does provide yet another reason that the South Carolina General Assembly should cease the practice of making DSS (and other state agencies) funnel money to NGO's for non-core, non-mandated programs when it is not complying with federal mandates such as--say it with us--creating a New Hire Reporting Registry.
Click here to view the full text of Bohn v. Koller, the Hawaii case that has apparently caused some concern about South Carolina Governor Haley's appointee for Director of DSS. While we believe that this matter should be taken seriously by the State of Hawaii, it is hardly something that should cause concern in South Carolina unless the General Assembly is planning to underfund DSS, thereby interfering with the ability of DSS to comply with federal mandates.
While this case should not be cause for panic in South Carolina, it does provide yet another reason that the South Carolina General Assembly should cease the practice of making DSS (and other state agencies) funnel money to NGO's for non-core, non-mandated programs when it is not complying with federal mandates such as--say it with us--creating a New Hire Reporting Registry.
Labels: Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Problems at DSS
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
NEW HIRE REPORTING & JIM HODGES, ET. AL. V. TOMMY G. THOMPSON, ET. AL.
Note the following from http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002512.P.pdf:
The district court opinion contains a comprehensive history, the details of which need not be repeated here, of the federal government’s longstanding involvement in child support enforcement programs and related federal efforts to work with the States to solve the serious problem of nonpayment of child support. See Hodges v. Shalala, 121 F.Supp.2d 854 (D.S.C. 2000). Currently, as a condition of receipt of any federal funding under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669, States must have an approved state plan for child and spousal support that meets all the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 654. Among the prerequisites for approval of a Title IV-D Plan are the requirements that the State establish and operate an automated data processing and information retrieval system, see 42 U.S.C. § 654(24), and a state child support disbursement unit (SDU), see 42 U.S.C. § 654(27)(A). South Carolina concedes that it has neither a federally certifiable statewide automated system for child support nor an SDU. See Hodges, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 86 (emphasis added).
Without an approved state plan, a State may lose federal funding under both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF). See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2). Alternatively, a State may opt for an alternative penalty in lieu of disapproval of their state plan and the withholding of federal funds if the State is making a good faith effort to comply with the program’s requirements and the State has submitted a corrective compliance plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(4). South Carolina has elected to incur the alternative penalty.
South Carolina needs to get a New Hire Reporting Statute in place just as the other forty-nine states have done. Doing so would help South Carolina locate the 70,000 parents who are not paying their court-ordered child support; it would also help get some of the custodial parents off of welfare and their children off of Medicaid. Additionally, not only is it unconscionable that South Carolina has enabled non-custodial parents to steal over $1.2 Billion from their children, but like the computerized child support tracking and collection system, a state new hire reporting system and registry is required by 42 U.S.C. § 655.
Those who do not believe us on this last point should ask South Carolina State Senator Mike Rose and/or the attorney for the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee if we are correct. Or better yet, ask Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner for the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Department of Health and Human Services whether we are correct. Both of them have law degrees from very prestigious institutions.
Of course, Ms. Turetsky and Senator Rose may not be any more concerned about the fact that the South Carolina General Assembly and the CSED of the Department of Social Services are doing so little to collect the $2 Billion+ that is owed to non-custodial parents in South Carolina than is South Carolina DSS Director Dr. Kathleen Hayes. Both of them have known about this problem for over eight months and Dr. Hayes has been aware of the problem for even longer. Yet all of them have done nothing to address the problem.
In her defense, Ms. Turetsky is an equal opportunity neglector of child support recipients--nationwide over $100 Billion is owed in child support arrears, but despite the availability of Draconian laws to enforce compliance with Support Orders, the arrears are increasing rather than decreasing.
Hopefully, the New Year will be better for everyone and those in a position to do so will actually do something to help the families who are going without support rather than just paying lip service to the problem.
Note the following from http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002512.P.pdf:
The district court opinion contains a comprehensive history, the details of which need not be repeated here, of the federal government’s longstanding involvement in child support enforcement programs and related federal efforts to work with the States to solve the serious problem of nonpayment of child support. See Hodges v. Shalala, 121 F.Supp.2d 854 (D.S.C. 2000). Currently, as a condition of receipt of any federal funding under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669, States must have an approved state plan for child and spousal support that meets all the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 654. Among the prerequisites for approval of a Title IV-D Plan are the requirements that the State establish and operate an automated data processing and information retrieval system, see 42 U.S.C. § 654(24), and a state child support disbursement unit (SDU), see 42 U.S.C. § 654(27)(A). South Carolina concedes that it has neither a federally certifiable statewide automated system for child support nor an SDU. See Hodges, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 86 (emphasis added).
Without an approved state plan, a State may lose federal funding under both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF). See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2). Alternatively, a State may opt for an alternative penalty in lieu of disapproval of their state plan and the withholding of federal funds if the State is making a good faith effort to comply with the program’s requirements and the State has submitted a corrective compliance plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(4). South Carolina has elected to incur the alternative penalty.
South Carolina needs to get a New Hire Reporting Statute in place just as the other forty-nine states have done. Doing so would help South Carolina locate the 70,000 parents who are not paying their court-ordered child support; it would also help get some of the custodial parents off of welfare and their children off of Medicaid. Additionally, not only is it unconscionable that South Carolina has enabled non-custodial parents to steal over $1.2 Billion from their children, but like the computerized child support tracking and collection system, a state new hire reporting system and registry is required by 42 U.S.C. § 655.
Those who do not believe us on this last point should ask South Carolina State Senator Mike Rose and/or the attorney for the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee if we are correct. Or better yet, ask Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner for the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Department of Health and Human Services whether we are correct. Both of them have law degrees from very prestigious institutions.
Of course, Ms. Turetsky and Senator Rose may not be any more concerned about the fact that the South Carolina General Assembly and the CSED of the Department of Social Services are doing so little to collect the $2 Billion+ that is owed to non-custodial parents in South Carolina than is South Carolina DSS Director Dr. Kathleen Hayes. Both of them have known about this problem for over eight months and Dr. Hayes has been aware of the problem for even longer. Yet all of them have done nothing to address the problem.
In her defense, Ms. Turetsky is an equal opportunity neglector of child support recipients--nationwide over $100 Billion is owed in child support arrears, but despite the availability of Draconian laws to enforce compliance with Support Orders, the arrears are increasing rather than decreasing.
Hopefully, the New Year will be better for everyone and those in a position to do so will actually do something to help the families who are going without support rather than just paying lip service to the problem.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Thursday, December 23, 2010
THE DEMISE OF CYNDI MOSTELLER'S INFLUENCE IS GREATLY EXAGGERATED
Earl Capps wrote at http://earlcapps.blogspot.com/2010/12/meet-2010-joker-of-year.html:
Cyndi Mosteller: For years, she was an extreme and polarizing figure in GOP circles. Well known for blurring the line between religion and politics in order to support her candidates and personal agendas, she was becoming increasingly marginalized by those who saw her erratic, vicious and self-serving tactics as toxic.
This year, Mosteller found a way to accelerate her political retirement when she teamed up with Liana Orr, another high-maintenance outcast from GOP politics, to run a shadowy attack group which attacked Governor-elect Nikki Haley with undisclosed campaign contributions. In the end, the failure to be candid about her motives and who backed those efforts have done much to put her out to political pasture. Her divisive style of politics won’t be missed.
Contrary to Mr. Capps' belief, the days of Cyndi Mosteller's political influence are hardly in the past. For example, she is on the Board of Heritage Community Services to which the State of South Carolina is poised to hand another $800,000 of the people's money. And this appears to be in addition to the $800,000 federal grant DHEC is apparently steering to Heritage. In the meantime, while DSS is being slowly starved for funding, Ms. Mosteller's brother, South Carolina State Senator Chip Campsen, helped deny the South Carolina Child Support Enforcement Division South Carolina one of its most powerful tools by voting against the enactment of mandatory new hire reporting in South Carolina. This may be one reason that according to the United States Office of Child Support Enforcement the Arrears Amounts Due in South Carolina increased last year by 5% to $1,234,595,152.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting
Monday, July 12, 2010
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE FAILURE OF S. 1257 TO PASS
Obviously, we are convinced that South Carolina’s failure to enact legislation mandating New Hire Reporting puts the State at risk of losing federal funding (see, "SOUTH CAROLINA'S FAILURE TO PASS SENATE BILL 1257--WHY IT MATTERS"). Still, those who care about this topic may want to obtain Senator Michael Rose's views on why he proposed S. 1257, why S. 1257 was amended in Committee, why it failed to pass the South Carolina Senate, and what he thinks the possible ramifications of the Senate's actions could be. As we noted in "THIRD READING OF SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE BILL 1257 FAILS," we are baffled by the Senate's actions. One would think that the South Carolina General Assembly learned its lesson in Jim Hodges, et. al. v. Tommy G. Thompson et. al.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Thursday, June 24, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA'S FAILURE TO PASS SENATE BILL 1257--WHY IT MATTERS
As a starting point, those who are interested in this issue should review the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Form and The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). However, the long and the short of this issue is that The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act mandates that all states which receive certain federal funds both set up a New Hire Reporting Registry and require that all employers—with limited exceptions--report new hires to the state Child Support Enforcement agency. South Carolina has created the requisite forms, but apparently remains the only state that does not require mandatory reporting of new hires.
State Senator Rose’s Bill was apparently an attempt to correct this problem so that South Carolina could continue to receive federal funding. Unfortunately, the Bill's defeat in the South Carolina Senate places South Carolina at risk of losing approximately $80,000,000 in yearly federal funding.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Monday, June 21, 2010
THIRD READING OF SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE BILL 1257 FAILS
We not know whether any of our readers are aware of the failed status of S. 1257 or whether they care that this Bill failed to [pass. However, this legislation amended prior South Carolina statutes to conform to federal law; presumably the amendments were intended to increase child support collections in the State, reduce the child support arrearages, reduce the Welfare rolls, and help avoid more federal sanctions for continued failure to comply with the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.
Frankly, we are baffled by the actions of a group that purports to be for family values and ending welfare--think Senators Grooms and Knotts for example--but that will not take steps to require that South Carolina non-custodial parents support their children. Moreover, because Governor Sanford has received severe criticism for the Mess at DSS, it comes as a surprise to us that many of his allies—including Senators Davis, Ryberg, and Campsen--voted against this Bill. Readers can see below which Senators voted for and against it. They would have to ask those who did so why they voted "Nay." We can only assume that those nay saying senators do not understand Senator Rose’s Bill. Or they want to prolong employment of illegal aliens for awhile. Or they want South Carolina to have to keep paying fines to the Feds. Or they do not understand federal law.
_________________________________________________
THIRD READING FAILS
S. 1257 (Word version)--Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 5, TITLE 43 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES AND NEW HIRE REPORTING PROGRAM TO REPEAL SECTION 43-5-598; TO AMEND SECTION 63-17-1210, RELATING TO THE STATE DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES AND THE NEW HIRE REPORTING PROGRAM, TO REQUIRE THAT BY JULY 1, 2010, THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES CREATE AN EMPLOYER NEW HIRE REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATE DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES.
(Abbreviated Title)
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being the third reading of the Bill.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Ayes 8; Nays 30
AYES
Frankly, we are baffled by the actions of a group that purports to be for family values and ending welfare--think Senators Grooms and Knotts for example--but that will not take steps to require that South Carolina non-custodial parents support their children. Moreover, because Governor Sanford has received severe criticism for the Mess at DSS, it comes as a surprise to us that many of his allies—including Senators Davis, Ryberg, and Campsen--voted against this Bill. Readers can see below which Senators voted for and against it. They would have to ask those who did so why they voted "Nay." We can only assume that those nay saying senators do not understand Senator Rose’s Bill. Or they want to prolong employment of illegal aliens for awhile. Or they want South Carolina to have to keep paying fines to the Feds. Or they do not understand federal law.
_________________________________________________
THIRD READING FAILS
S. 1257 (Word version)--Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 5, TITLE 43 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES AND NEW HIRE REPORTING PROGRAM TO REPEAL SECTION 43-5-598; TO AMEND SECTION 63-17-1210, RELATING TO THE STATE DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES AND THE NEW HIRE REPORTING PROGRAM, TO REQUIRE THAT BY JULY 1, 2010, THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES CREATE AN EMPLOYER NEW HIRE REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATE DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES.
(Abbreviated Title)
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being the third reading of the Bill.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Ayes 8; Nays 30
AYES
Anderson
Campbell
Elliott
Fair
Hayes
Martin, Larry
Massey
Rose
Total--8
NAYS
Alexander
Bright
Bryant
Campsen
Cleary
Coleman
Cromer
Davis
Grooms
Hutto
Knotts
Land
Leatherman
Malloy
McConnell
McGill
Mulvaney
Nicholson
O'Dell
Peeler
Pinckney
Rankin
Reese
Ryberg
Scott
Setzler
Shoopman
Thomas
Verdin
Williams
Total—30
Having failed to receive the necessary vote, third reading of the Bill failed.
Expression of Personal Interest
Senator ROSE rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Saturday, May 15, 2010
THE SOUTH CAROLINA IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT AND NEW HIRE REPORTING
According to "Illegals to face added scrutiny”:
Again, if the State of South Carolina enforced the New Hire Reporting Laws, employers would be less likely to hire workers who could not provide proper documentation--not to mention that South Carolina would increase its child support collection rates.
To search for companies in South Carolina that have been cited for violating the State’s Illegal Immigration Reform Act click here. We think readers will be surprised to learn the names of some of the violators. But, we think they would be more surprised to learn the number of South Carolina employers who have never filed a New Hire Reporting Form and how little the State is doing to enforce compliance with the New Hire Reporting Laws.
According to "Illegals to face added scrutiny”:
The state is about to step up its efforts to purge South Carolina's workforce of illegal immigrants by scouring the files of small businesses for evidence of undocumented workers.Our guess is that a statewide New Hire Reporting Form Audit would reveal that many of the cited companies have not been filing the federally-mandated New Hire Reporting Forms either.
On July 1, state officials will begin auditing 110,000 companies with fewer than 100 employees to make sure they are complying with South Carolina's Illegal Immigration Reform Act, which lawmakers passed in 2008 to weed illegal aliens from the workplace.
Again, if the State of South Carolina enforced the New Hire Reporting Laws, employers would be less likely to hire workers who could not provide proper documentation--not to mention that South Carolina would increase its child support collection rates.
To search for companies in South Carolina that have been cited for violating the State’s Illegal Immigration Reform Act click here. We think readers will be surprised to learn the names of some of the violators. But, we think they would be more surprised to learn the number of South Carolina employers who have never filed a New Hire Reporting Form and how little the State is doing to enforce compliance with the New Hire Reporting Laws.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
SOME STATES--NOT SC--SHOWING DECLINE IN CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES
A review of "Table 71: Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years" reveals that some states are decreasing their child support arrearages while the arrearages in other states continues to increase. Note, for example, the progress made in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.
Maybe States such as South Carolina should contact States such as North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming and find out how they have accomplished this feat and attempt to replicate their efforts. One thing is for certain--while not all the States that have complied with Federal Law by adopting a New Hire Reporting System and installing a computerized child support tracking and collection system have reduced their child support arrearages, all States that have failed to comply with Federal Law--South Carolina--have seen an increase in their arrearages.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, New Hire Reporting
Thursday, March 18, 2010
A GUIDE TO THE NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES
Those who are policy wonks and who like to fill their heads with useless information can click A Guide to the National Directory of New Hires to access the document. We refer to the information as useless because "This guide is to provide federal and state agencies requesting data from the NDNH with a general overview of the data maintained in the NDNH and the limitations on its use. Commercial entities (e.g., law firms and collection agencies) do not have access to the NDNH."
In other words, if a person lives in a State like South Carolina, which does little or nothing to enforce the new hire laws, he or she may be stuck receiving the minimal amount of child support for his or her children's entire minority.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
TRYING TO GET THE SC NEW HIRE REPORTING STATUTE "RIGHT"
As many people are aware, we have long advocated amending the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Statute to both make it conform to federal mandates and to remove conflicts with Title 43 of the South Carolina Code. Earlier this week, an e-mail was forwarded to us that both criticised the specifics of our proposal and served to update us concerning efforts in the South Carolina General Assembly to amend Title 63 of the South Carolina Code to conform to federal law. The e-mail had been edited somewhat to "protect the innocent." And we are editing it further both to "protect the innocent" and to remove some immaterial or irrelevant portions (in our opinion) of the forwarded e-mail:
As to the issue of leaving both Title 43 and Title 63 provisions in the Code (which is what I believe you are proposing), I am at a loss to understand the wisdom of such a move. Our present problem stems from the fact that we have two separate statutes creating two separate New Hire Programs. One is voluntary (and was created in the late 1970s before the federal law was enacted) and contains many provisions that are inconsistent (and probably conflict) with federal law. The other is mandatory and mirrors the federal requirements. Why you or anyone (DSS also proposed this idea initially, but they have since agreed that one of the Sections needs to go) would advocate leaving both Title 43 and Title 63 intact is beyond my comprehension. Title 63 and Title 43 are inconsistent. They are inconsistent regarding when reports must be submitted, the contents of the reports, and several other matters, and Title 63 fails to exempt certain workers and fails to allow multi-state employers to choose a single state from which to file a report. The New Hire Program currently found in Title 63, whether it’s made mandatory or remains voluntary, needs to go. The New Hire Program in Title 43, with the few technical revisions I made to it in [a proposed] bill, is the plan that complies with federal law.
I imagine that DSS will have some kind of a position on this bill. But I have it from Mr. Bray, the legislative liaison for DSS, that DSS concedes that the current Title 63 program does not comply with federal law, and that the language in Title 43 does.
Initially, our focus was only on § 63-17-1210 of the South Carolina Code and the removal of one particular statutory section that we believed conflicted with both 42 U. S. C. 653a and § 43-5-598 of the South Carolina Code. We could not even get anyone in the General Assembly to even read the PRWORA in its entirety, much less to agree that there were internal conflicts within the South Carolina Code. However:
- There now appears to be a consensus that § 43-5-598 complies with the mandates of 42 U. S. C. 653a, that “Title 63 and Title 43 are inconsistent,” and that § 63-17-1210 “contains many provisions that are inconsistent (and probably conflict) with federal law;”
- DSS now agrees that “[t]he New Hire Program currently found in Title 63...needs to go;” and,
- “DSS concedes that the current Title 63 program does not comply with federal law, and that the language in Title 43 does.”
The preceding enumerated circumstances change the scope of the matter and also, in our opinion, both change the appropriate remedy to the problem and increase the potential for passing appropriate remedial legislation in South Carolina. Therefore, we suggest, rather than recodifying § 43-5-598 in Title 63 of the South Carolina Code, that the South Carolina General Assembly simply repeal § 63-17-1210 in its entirety. That would leave the entire statutory scheme set forth in Title 43 intact, would obviate the need for a "savings clause," and would allow South Carolina to avoid having to address the question of whether South Carolina is presently in conformity with federal law. Additionally, as a practical matter, we think it will be easier for DSS, and whoever else supports amending the New Hire Reporting Statute to conform to federal law, to convince the members of the General Assembly to go along with the suggested amendments if it is made clear that no new sweeping legislation is being introduced, but only that a statutory provision which, from a technical standpoint, was repealed by implication when § 43-5-598 was enacted, is now being formally repealed.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Thursday, March 11, 2010
WHY WOULD A SOUTH CAROLINA STATE SENATOR INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW?
Last week we posted a proposed amended version of § 63-17-1210 South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended).* More important, Republican South Carolina State Senator Michael Rose introduced Legislation that attempts to bring South Carolina's New Hire Reporting Statute into conformity with federal law by repealing § 43-5-598 of the South Carolina Code and amending § 63-17-1210 to make the new hire reporting aspects of the law mandatory rather than voluntary.
We commend Senator Rose for his efforts. Unfortunately, while his proposed Bill does, in fact, address the problem we initially raised, we believe it creates other problems that may or may not be as severe. Additionally his proposed Bill itself conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 653a. Moreover, by providing employers with additional time to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 653a and providing DSS with additional time to create a New Hire Reporting Directory Senator Rose is, in essence, admitting that South Carolina has been out of compliance of federal law for twelve years. As we previously wrote, § 63-17-1210 South Carolina Ann. (1976, as amended) conflicts with 42 U. S. C. § 653a. § 43-5-598. On the other hand, as we have also previously noted, § 43-5-598 of South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended) conforms with federal law and provides in relevant part, "This section remains in effect until the federal mandate requiring a mandatory new hire reporting program is repealed."
Clearly, the federal mandate requiring a mandatory new hire reporting program has not been repealed. Therefore, we wonder why a South Carolina State Senator would even consider introducing Legislation that would repeal the § 43-5-598.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Monday, March 08, 2010
SC STATE SENATOR INTRODUCES LEGISLATION THAT ATTEMPTS TO REVISE SC'S NEW HIRE REPORTING STATUTE TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW
Last week we posted a proposed amended version of § 63-17-1210 South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended).* More important, Republican South Carolina State Senator Michael Rose introduced Legislation that attempts to bring South Carolina's New Hire Reporting Statute into conformity with federal law by repealing § 43-5-598 of the South Carolina Code and amending § 63-17-1210 to make the new hire reporting aspects of the law mandatory rather than voluntary.
We commend Senator Rose for his efforts. Unfortunately, while his proposed Bill does, in fact, address the problem we initially raised, we believe it creates other problems that may or may not be as severe. Additionally his proposed Bill itself conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 653a. Moreover, by providing employers with additional time to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 653a and providing DSS with additional time to create a New Hire Reporting Directory Senator Rose is, in essence, admitting that South Carolina has been out of compliance of federal law for twelve years.
We have been lead to believe that DSS does not need additional time to create a New Hire Reporting Directory. In fact, Larry McKeown assured us that a New Hire Reporting Directory already exists and that thousands of South Carolina employers already comply with the new hire reporting mandates of 42 U.S.C. § 653a. So why not leave § 43-5-598 intact and immediately make the necessary changes to § 63-17-1210? In all likelihood, it will be weeks before the remedial Legislation can be signed into law by the Governor, so employers will have plenty of time to "voluntarily" comply with the current version of § 63-17-1210 now that they know a remedial Bill is in the pipeline. And, we would think that the AG's Office, the South Carolina State Senate, DSS, and the Office of the Lt. Governor would all want to make sure that they are presently in compliance with existing federal laws before any new and cumulative/repetitive South Carolina Laws come into effect.
We appreciate--in both senses of the word--what Senator Rose is up against in his efforts to rectify what was hopefully merely a mistake on the part of the South Carolina General Assembly. However, in drafting remedial Legislation, Senator Rose should remain cognizant of the fact that, as DSS has advised the General Assembly, South Carolina has been--and will continue to be--severely fined for its failure to comply with other aspects of the PRWORA. Moreover, the South Carolina General Assembly must be mindful of the fact that its failure to correct its New Hire Reporting Statute can be taken into consideration by the United States Department of Health and Human Services in deciding whether to continue to impose fines against South Carolina for its failure to implement a computerized child support collection and tracking system or whether to impose more severe penalties.
In short, while there is no upside for South Carolina allowing employers additional time to comply with § 63-17-1210 and 42 U.S.C. § 653a., there is a great deal of downside to Senator Rose's proposed Legislation. Therefore, unless the amended Legislation can be revised to "solve for pattern,"** it should be scrapped.
*Those who wish to review our proposed Legislation may view it at “REVISING SOUTH CAROLINA'S NEW HIRE REPORTING STATUTE TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW.”
**The concept of "Solving for pattern," was coined by Wendell Berry in his essay of the same title and is the process of finding solutions that solve multiple problems while minimizing the creation of new problems. The essay was originally published in the Rodale Press periodical "The New Farm." And although Mr. Berry used the phrase in direct reference to agriculture, it has since come to enjoy broader use among problem-solvers of all stripes.
Labels: Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
REVISING SOUTH CAROLINA'S NEW HIRE REPORTING STATUTE TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW
Although South Carolina's "Employer New Hire Reporting program" statute is both poorly written and fails to conform to Federal mandates regarding the mandatory nature of the reporting of new hires by employers, it can be made to conform simply by removing three words and adding one word. Our proposed "amended statute" is set forth hereinbelow. The words highlighted in red--"voluntarily" and "may"--are the words that should be removed. The word to add--"shall"--is highlighted in purple.
Admittedly, there are better versions of this statute available, but this one will do the trick.
So what has taken South Carolina so long to revise this statute? And why are Virginia Williamson and Larry McKeown still employed by South Carolina DSS?
_______________________________________________
SECTION 63-17-1210. Employer New Hire Reporting program.
(A) By January 1, 1996, the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Social Services shall create and develop an Employer New Hire Reporting program. The Employer New Hire Reporting program shall provide a means for employers to voluntarily assist in the state's efforts to locate absent parents who owe child support and collect child support from those parents by reporting information concerning newly hired and rehired employees directly to the division.
(B) The following provisions apply to the Employer New Hire Reporting program:
(1) An employer doing business in this State shall may participate in the Employer New Hire Reporting program by reporting to the Child Support Enforcement Division:
(a) the hiring of a person who resides or works in this State to whom the employer anticipates paying earnings; or
(b) the rehiring or return to work of an employee who was laid off, furloughed, separated, granted leave without pay, or terminated from employment.
(2) The Employer New Hire Reporting program applies to a person who is expected to:
(a) be employed for more than one month's duration;
(b) be paid for more than three hundred fifty hours during a continuous six-month period; or
(c) have gross earnings of more than three hundred dollars in each month of employment.
(3) An employer who voluntarily reports under item (1) shall submit monthly reports regarding each hiring, rehiring, or return to work of an employee during the preceding month. The report must contain:
(a) the employee's name, address, social security number, date of birth, and salary information; and
(b) the employer's name, address, and employer identification number.
(4) Employers reporting to the Employer New Hire Reporting program shall provide information to the Child Support Enforcement Division by:
(a) sending a copy of the new employee's W-4 form;
(b) completing a form supplied by the Child Support Enforcement Division; or
(c) any other means authorized by the Child Support Enforcement Division for conveying the required information, including electronic transmission or magnetic tapes in compatible formats.
(5) An employer is authorized by this section to disclose the information described in item (3) and is not liable to the employee for the disclosure or subsequent use by the Child Support Enforcement Division of the information.
(6) Information received by the South Carolina Employment Security Commission from employers which includes information contained in the reports provided for in this section must be transmitted to the Department of Social Services within fifteen working days after the end of each quarter.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Saturday, February 27, 2010
NEW HIRE REPORTING: ANSWERS TO EMPLOYER QUESTIONS
Those South Carolina employers and Legislators who are having difficulty understanding the new hire reporting sections of 42 U.S.C. § 653a are in luck. The "Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement" (OCSE) has compiled [a] brochure to help employers both understand and comply with the law’s requirements." This brochure is titled "New Hire Reporting: Answers to Employer Questions" and can be downloaded by clicking here.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Friday, February 26, 2010
KNOW-IT-ALL LEGISLATORS--WHY SOUTH CAROLINA CANNOT ACCOMPLISH WHAT EVERY OTHER STATE HAS MANAGED TO DO
Following are a number of e-mail exchanges between us and a South Carolina State Senator on the subject of the South Carolina New Hire reporting statute. For the sake of clarity, the reader should be aware that the most oldest e-mails are at the bottom of the page.
The e-mails have been edited only to remove all identifying information.
We now understand why South Carolina is the only State in the country without a computerized child support tracking and collection system and why the State cannot manage to comply with Federal Mandates despite having been given fourteen (14) years to do so.
___________________________________
Senator:
I have put up with your rudeness and name-calling for about a year and a half now. I now have no more time for your insults and lectures. And while I agree that you should not have shared Mr. L's e-mail with me, I DISAGREE with your position on whether I can communicate directly with Mr. L. Moreover, now that you have publicly disseminated Mr. L's e-mail, I think I have a right to share Mr. L's name and legal opinion with whomever I choose. Still, I am not interested in embarrassing either you or Mr. L. Instead, I am interested only in getting the necessary remedial Legislation passed. Once that is accomplished you, Mr. L, and I may have something to celebrate with the citizens of this great State, particularly the 70,000 South Carolinians who are not receiving child support from the non-custodial parent.
From:
To:
Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 10:44:35 AM
Subject: RE: 42 U.S.C. § 653a and New Hire Reporting.
Mr. ,
It is entirely possible for someone to agree with part of what you say but not all of what you say. Therefore, it is not true that Mr. L either agrees with you or disagrees with you. While your world may be that black and white, that does not mean reality is as you see it.
I would have let you see what Mr. L said but I fear you would react to him with hostility with him as you do with me. Therefore, I am trying to insulate/ protect him from your negativity, and continue to sacrifice only myself to learn what I can from you that is accurate, for the benefit of the State of SC.
I regret giving you Mr. L’s name. Please do not contact him, but deal only with me. As staff, he is to deal only with a Senator or state employee. It is only I as an elected official who has offered to deal directly with you.
Senator
From:
It is entirely possible for someone to agree with part of what you say but not all of what you say. Therefore, it is not true that Mr. L either agrees with you or disagrees with you. While your world may be that black and white, that does not mean reality is as you see it.
I would have let you see what Mr. L said but I fear you would react to him with hostility with him as you do with me. Therefore, I am trying to insulate/ protect him from your negativity, and continue to sacrifice only myself to learn what I can from you that is accurate, for the benefit of the State of SC.
I regret giving you Mr. L’s name. Please do not contact him, but deal only with me. As staff, he is to deal only with a Senator or state employee. It is only I as an elected official who has offered to deal directly with you.
Senator
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:31 AM
To:
Subject: Fw: 42 U.S.C. § 653a and New Hire Reporting.
Senator :
Senator :
You did not answer my question. And, in any case, Mr. L either agrees with me or he disagrees with me. I say that Federal Law mandates that:
fire departments, school districts, roofers, the Office of the Attorney General, homebuilders, lawyers, developers, newspapers, the South Carolina Legislature, and Dorchester County “shall furnish to the Directory of New Hires of the State in which a newly hired employee works, a report that contains the name, address, and social security number of the employee, and the name and address of, and identifying number assigned under section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to, the employer."
I also say that:
First, § 63-17-1210 conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 653a. Second, in adopting this particular statute rather than the mandated statute South Carolina has violated Federal Law. And third, South Carolina employers who are not filing the appropriate reports are themselves in violation of Federal Law and may be facing severe fines.I look forward to reading your proposed Legislation.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From:
Cc: Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 10:36:18 AM
Subject: RE: 42 U.S.C. § 653a and New Hire Reporting.
Mr. ,
Mr. L. no longer disagree with you completely. There are two state statutes, one that is permissive and one that is mandatory. Remedial legislation will be introduced by me in a few days that may please you.
Senator
Mr. L. no longer disagree with you completely. There are two state statutes, one that is permissive and one that is mandatory. Remedial legislation will be introduced by me in a few days that may please you.
Senator
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:27 AM
To:
Cc: Tom Davis; Kathleen Hayes; Tony Bartelme; Yvonne Wenger; joconnor@thestate.com; Virginia Williamson; Rebecca Hamil; Will Folks; Seanna Adcox; Mike Fair; Gilda Cobb-Hunter; Anton Gunn; Joel Lourie; Phil P. Leventis
Subject: 42 U.S.C. § 653a and New Hire Reporting.
Senator :
Attached is a hard copy of the latest version of 42 U.S.C. § 653a.
Senator :
Attached is a hard copy of the latest version of 42 U.S.C. § 653a.
I understand that L disagrees with my interpretation of this statute regarding whether it mandates the filing of the New Hire Reporting Form* in South Carolina. And, while I continue to believe that South Carolina is on a disastrous course, I note that the Governor appoints the DSS Director and that DSS has its own well-paid General Counsel to assist it in complying with federal mandates. Therefore, I suggest that you present my “concerns” to Ms. Williamson and see what she has to say on this issue. Alternately, I suggest that you contact the Director of the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the United States Department of Health and Human Services on the subject. I tried to speak with her myself, but the switchboard operator would neither connect me with her nor provide a direct number.
For you information, the main number to CSE is 202-401-9200.
Good luck to you.
*See, second attachment.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
