Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lindrios OP t1_iz7mejv wrote

Reply to comment by Practical-Intern-347 in Human Rights Violations supported by the Vermont Agency of Human Services by lindrios

I haven't heard of it before if it does exist. From my experience with them however they lack transparency and are definitely not open to criticism.

1

Practical-Intern-347 t1_iz7o2ug wrote

Looks like there is. From the AHS website:

"The Human Services Board is a citizen's panel consisting of seven members created by the legislature pursuant to 3 V.S.A. §3090. Its duties are to act as a fair hearing board for appeals brought by individuals who are aggrieved by decisions or policies of the various departments and programs throughout the Agency of Human Services."

4

lindrios OP t1_iz7qtfx wrote

Ah yes, this I am familiar with. DCF/ESD calls this your "right to a fair hearing".

I was not offered a "Fair Hearing" until 63 days AFTER I had left the property. The hearing was subsequently thrown out for "no longer being relevant" before anything was done.

AHS is also under the impression that they can't "force" these hotel/motel owners to do anything because it is "private property". While correct that it is privately owned, since it is in hospitality zoning and accepting members of the public... they are subject to all of the regulations under the Vermont Lodging Statutes, which would be enforced by VDH a division of AHS.

Therefore any decision made in the "Fair Hearing" doesn't mean anything because none of the AHS departments will act on it.

EDIT: It's also important to note that this is a "citizen's" panel and has no judiciary power, IE enforcing/overturning decisions made by the Agency is not legally possible. It's more of an advisory panel.

5

lindrios OP t1_iz7tkno wrote

If you look through the records any that say

Dept--DCF: General Assistance"

Issue-- 9. Other

Case Decision-- 4. Dismissed

These are the cases in which someone has complained about hotel/motel conditions and was kicked out for it. You'll notice that the way the cases are written its the "Petitioner vs DCF" instead of the actual property owner. The board 100% of the time finds DCF not at fault, which results in conditions remaining the same and the "Petitioner" still loses their housing.

https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/AHSHSB/Orders/Documents/2022/FH-T-04-22-220%20&%20FH-T-04-22-241%20Order.pdf

Here's a a random case that picked and skimmed over.

2