Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infineon Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Employment Training Panel refuses to hear Infineon second‑level appeal, directs written denial
Summary
At its Oct. 8 meeting the Employment Training Panel voted unanimously to refuse a second‑level appeal from a company identified in the record as Infineon (also transcribed as 'Infinium') and directed legal staff to prepare a written denial under the cited regulation; a public commenter said over 2,000 pages of pay stubs were not considered.
The Employment Training Panel voted on Oct. 8 to refuse a second‑level appeal from a company identified in the meeting record as Infineon (the transcript also uses the variant 'Infinium') and directed panel legal staff to prepare and serve a written statement explaining the denial.
A panel member identified in the record as Rick moved that the panel "follow the recommendations, to refuse to hear the matter and that the panel direct the legal unit to prepare and serve a written statement with the reasons for the denial in accordance with section 44 50 b 2 a 1 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations." The motion was seconded and called for a roll‑call vote.
During public comment, Bill Sachs of National Training urged the panel not to accept staff counsel's recommendation and to hold a hearing so additional evidence could be considered. "There was, over 2,000 pages of pay stubs that were submitted that were not included in the closeout document," Sachs said, adding that the materials were filed as part of the second‑level appeal and, in his view, were not reviewed.
Panel staff responded that they did not believe there were facts in dispute and summarized the administrative history, saying there had been a preliminary closeout and about nine months of exchanges between the appellant and fiscal staff. A staff presenter also said the remedy sought by the appellant would amount to amending a contract after its term, and "we specifically have a regulation that prohibits that," and framed the impossibility argument as newly raised and not sufficiently articulated in prior filings.
After brief discussion and additional public comment that reiterated the request for a hearing, the panel convened a roll‑call vote and the motion to refuse hearing and direct staff to issue a written denial was adopted. The chair announced the motion was adopted; all present members voted in favor.
The panel then moved on to the remainder of its routine agenda and adjourned at 11:13 a.m.
Votes at a glance: The panel adopted the motion to refuse to hear the second‑level appeal and directed legal staff to prepare and serve a written denial under the cited provision of Title 22. The vote was recorded as unanimous among present members.
