Stage Set for County-State Showdown Over Home-Care Program

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday proceeded toward a showdown with the state over a program that provides homemaker services for the elderly and disabled.

Acting against the state’s wishes and completing an action that it began on Tuesday, the board voted unanimously to rebid the contract for the $5.3-million-a-year program--a move that county administrators admit could cause the county to lose the nearly $425,000 a month in state funding for the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program.

California Department of Social Service officials have already told the county they will not authorize a second round of bids, a position that state administrators reiterated Wednesday.

“At this point, our position is exactly the same,” Loren Suter, the state department’s deputy director, said in an interview after the board’s action. “There’s nothing I know of that would cause that position to change.”

First Bids Last Summer

When the board solicited bids last summer, Chicago-based Wright Marketing Inc. (doing business under the name National Homecare Systems) was the low bidder, submitting a bid $1.1 million less than the one from Remedy Temporary Services, the local company that currently operates the county’s in-home services.

Several supervisors, however, have expressed concern about National’s qualifications to perform the service and have argued that the bidding process was flawed because Remedy’s pay structure was known in advance, making it easy for National to bid lower. State Social Services officials, though, have described the bidding process as fair and National as a “responsible and responsive bidder.”

Under the IHSS program, about 2,200 poor elderly and disabled people throughout the county receive assistance with shopping, cooking, cleaning and other chores from about 600 Remedy employees. The program’s purpose is to reduce public costs by enabling people who cannot care for themselves to remain in their own homes rather than be placed in nursing homes.

But with the county and state at an apparent impasse, the program--specifically, how it will be financed--faces an uncertain future in San Diego after the current contract expires at the end of this month.

Wednesday’s action, county administrators admitted, represented little more than a request for the state to reconsider a decision that it has already made--and that, as Suter’s comments illustrate, it is unlikely to alter.

If the state does not acquiesce, county Social Services administrators warned the supervisors, $425,000 monthly in state funding for the IHSS program could be eliminated--forcing the county to absorb that cost.

Heated Hearing

In a hearing characterized by heated rhetoric on all sides, that grim financial prospect prompted some tough talk from the supervisors, who sought to shift both responsibility for the program and blame for the dispute to the state.

Saying that the county cannot afford to finance the program itself, several supervisors said that, if state funding is cut off, the county may sue the state or the program may be terminated.

“We do not have $400,000 (a month) to put into this program out of county funds,” Supervisor Brian Bilbray said. “Responsibility lays within the lap of the state.”

“Basically, the program dies if the state does not want it to continue,” added Supervisor Susan Golding.

State Social Services official Suter, however, dismissed those remarks as simply political grandstanding.

“The (law) clearly requires the county to provide the service, so they don’t really have the choice of just dropping it,” Suter said. “That’s simply not an option they have. Besides, I don’t believe any county would take the position that the aged and blind and disabled don’t deserve and need this service. I don’t believe any county would be that irresponsible. To me, that just sounds like posturing on somebody’s part.”

Others in Tiff

That disagreement, however, paled by comparison to the sharp verbal exchanges before and after Wednesday’s meeting between Mark Heaney, National’s executive director, and Ken Seaton-Msemaji, president of the United Domestic Workers of America, the union that represents the local home-care workers.

Heaney, who has accused the supervisors of “caving in” to pressure from the union and to “bias toward . . . the hometown boys,” argues that the union undermined National’s efforts by threatening to strike if National was awarded the local contract. Union officers, in turn, oppose National because, they say, the company would cut starting salaries from the current $3.94 an hour (which would increase to $4.25 if Remedy retains the contract) to $3.75 an hour. It also would take workers longer to achieve raises under National than under Remedy, and fringe benefits would be cut, union leaders contend.

Faced with that intransigence, National’s representatives this week distributed an open letter to union members, telling them that they were being “sold down the river” by Seaton-Msemaji. The letter also stated that, according to the union’s annual financial report, Seaton-Msemaji and his wife, Fahari Jeffers, the union’s executive vice president, receive nearly $90,000 annually in wages and expenses. Three-year-old allegations about misuse of union funds--allegations that Seaton-Msemaji termed “completely and totally false”--also were repeated in the letter. (Jeffers called that figure a “deliberate misrepresentation” of the couple’s combined salary, but declined to specify their wages.)

Angry Exchange

Before Wednesday’s board meeting, Seaton-Msemaji buttonholed Heaney at the back of the board room and angrily told him: “If you want to get dirty, we can do that, too. When you start getting personal and getting into my family, that’s a low blow. If you keep that up, you should know that there are consequences far beyond an IHSS contract in San Diego.”

“If there’s anything wrong in what we said, sue us for libel,” Heaney shot back.

“I’m not talking about suing. I’m talking about hurting,” Seaton-Msemaji answered.

“What do you mean by that?” Heaney asked.

“I’m talking about hurting you wherever you do business,” Seaton-Msemaji said. “We’ll follow you anywhere you do business--in California or anywhere else--and fight you and hurt you.”

“Like you haven’t done that here?” Heaney asked.

“We’ve fought you on the facts,” Seaton-Msemaji replied. “And I’d expect you to try to bring in another union or do everything you could to get the contract. That’s fine. But we didn’t get personal. You did. You’ve hit below the belt. And if it continues, we’ll be your adversary any time and any place.”

A similar exchange between the two followed Wednesday’s meeting, with Seaton-Msemaji threatening to make Heaney’s “personal and professional life very uncomfortable--in a legal manner.” The union executive directed the same remarks toward Ben Clay, a local consultant working on Heaney’s behalf.

Service Won’t Stop

Despite the uncertainties posed by the county-state dispute, county, union and Remedy officials have assured current recipients of the home-care services that coverage will not be interrupted pending resolution of the matter.

Wednesday’s board action underlined that point by specifying the interim steps that the county plans to take if, as seems likely, the state does not OK the rebidding.

The state’s primary objection to the proposed rebidding, Suter explained, stems from the fact that the state pays for most of the county’s IHSS program, with the county paying only a small portion of the total cost.

“Going out for new bids probably is going to increase the cost of the program, and that increase will come at the state’s expense,” Suter said. “Obviously, that’s not something that we’re very interested in seeing happen.”

Assuming that the state denies the county’s rebid request, the county then would shift to a so-called “individual provider” system under which home-care workers would be hired on a one-by-one basis by the county, rather than under a contract supervised by a private company. Under current plans, existing Remedy employees would be retained as “individual providers” pending the award of a new contract early next year--even though that would mean a temporary 19-cent per hour pay cut.

“Our members are willing to do that, because a few months of a pay cut is better than three years of (National),” Seaton-Msemaji said.