Human Services Board chair urges statutory review, outlines hearing process

Michael Donahue, chair of the Human Services Board, told the House Committee on Human Services at a committee hearing on H‑9 B‑2 that the board supports a review of its enabling statute and described how the board conducts fair‑hearing proceedings.

Donahue said the board asks hearing officers to provide written recommendations after de novo hearings and that the board “ask[s] them to give us a recommendation, which we consider.” He described the board’s option to accept a hearing officer’s recommendation, to overturn it, or to remand the matter back to the hearing officer or the agency for additional fact‑finding or legal clarification.

The nut graf: the committee is considering short‑form legislation to update the Human Services Board’s authorizing language after constituent complaints and because federal program changes could affect state implementation and recipients of Agency of Human Services programs.

Donahue gave a synopsis of current practice: petitioners are offered the opportunity to appear before the full board but fewer than half do so; hearing officers conduct de novo hearings and prepare memos and recommendations; and, where appropriate, the board sometimes consolidates uncontested matters into omnibus motions. He said remands “do happen” though they are not common, and that the secretary of the Agency of Human Services has, in some cases, overturned the board’s decision on the grounds that the board exceeded its authority or misread the hearing record.

On meeting logistics, Donahue said the board moved from monthly in‑person hearings to a twice‑monthly remote schedule (typically the first and third Wednesdays) after COVID, and that remote hearings have increased access for many petitioners. He noted, however, that some board members live far from the capital and that the board could implement a hybrid approach—bringing one member in person when necessary while others join remotely.

Donahue also described staffing challenges at the hearing‑officer level, saying the board has at times been short‑staffed and “there were only two lawyers” handling hearings during parts of the recent period. He characterized the hearing officers as “very diligent and conscientious” and said the board values high‑quality legal work for decisions that must withstand administrative and judicial review.

Committee chair Teresa Wood asked for specifics the board would like clarified in statute and invited the board’s staff and hearing officers to submit suggested language. Wood said the committee plans to review draft statutory language over the coming week and will also hear from the Agency of Human Services and Vermont Legal Aid in a subsequent session.

The board discussed recurring non‑case‑specific issues it encounters, including disputes about whether mailed notices constitute adequate agency notice, difficulties when third‑party vendors’ calls are not recorded, the practical limits of state control over federal tax‑credit reconciliation for marketplace insurance subsidies, and cases arising under federal programs such as Medicaid (Donahue mentioned the Katie Beckett waiver as an example of a federal waiver that raises state‑implementation questions). Donahue said the board has no established, regular process for issuing nonbinding policy guidance to agencies but that members will sometimes ask for clarifying footnotes or commentary in written decisions or raise issues directly with agency counsel.

Donahue and committee members agreed the committee would welcome concrete statutory suggestions and that the Human Services Board could provide input to help the legislature consider efficiency and petitioner access while respecting the board’s role and volunteer composition.

The committee plans to continue consideration of H‑9 B‑2 and related bills at its next meeting, at which the Agency of Human Services and Vermont Legal Aid are scheduled to testify.