After contested denial, panel delegates Vino Farms appeal to a subcommittee for hearing
Summary
Vino Farms argued at the Dec. 1 meeting that its prior application denial lacked a fact‑based record. The panel voted to delegate a second‑level appeal hearing to a subcommittee of panel members rather than refuse a hearing or refer to an administrative law judge.
Vino Farms representatives and counsel addressed the panel after the company’s training application was denied earlier in 2024. HR Director Roni Natera described the company as a family‑owned California employer with longstanding local operations, competitive wages and benefits and prior successful participation in ETP contracts. Counsel Michael Kopp argued the denial lacked factual findings and raised issues about the scope of questions posed at the earlier hearing.
Panel members clarified that the meeting was not a merits hearing on the appeal but a procedural vote to decide what comes next. The panel considered three statutorily authorized options: refuse to hear the matter with written reasons, conduct a hearing at a regular meeting date, or delegate the hearing authority to a subcommittee of panel members or to an administrative law judge under 22 CCR §4450(2).
After discussion the panel voted to delegate authority to a subcommittee of panel members to hold the hearing. Staff said it will notify the appellant and publish the names of the subcommittee members and schedule a hearing date. The delegation preserves the company’s right to a hearing while allowing the panel to triage scheduling and fact‑finding before a full panel proceeding.
