D S S P R E S S R E L E A S E
For Immediate Release:
September 1, 2006
Contact: Ana Compain-Romero
(573) 751-4815
DSS Disappointed with Attorney General's Representation
and Settlement in E.C. v Sherman Case
Nixon’s Lack of Communication Costs Taxpayers $595,000
Jefferson City - The Department of Social Services went on record again today expressing its displeasure with the Office of the state's Attorney General, Jeremiah Nixon. The source of the dissatisfaction stems from a lack of communication and consultation with the state agency in its recent representation of DSS in the E.C. v Sherman case. The Department's General Counsel, Harry Williams, wrote a letter to Nixon expressing the department's concern in follow up to previous letters written to the AGO on May 12 and May 18 by former Department Director, Gary Sherman.
"It is unfathomable to me that the state's attorney would fail to consult with his client. Throughout this case the Attorney General made decisions and pursued actions with no input or discussions with the department until after the fact," said Williams. "I am concerned that DSS has no voice in response to lawsuits filed against the department. I know we are supposed to be represented by the Attorney General, but I can think of no other situation where failure to consult with and consider the input of the client would be tolerated. I don't believe this is what the constitution intended when it made the Attorney General the legal representative for the state agencies. It is an untenable situation, and one which should deeply concern the citizens of Missouri."
While there have been numerous other concerns over the relationship between the state agencies and the AGO, this case has become a tipping point. The case concerned the state's adoption subsidy program. Judge Scott Wright ruled that the state could not implement changes legislated to the program that would have imposed a means test. After the Judge's initial ruling, the Attorney General filed an appeal without consultation with the department. The Department agreed that the existing contracts should be honored and asked the AGO not to pursue an appeal on that issue. However, the department asked the AGO to defend the important right of the state to define and determine the parameters of its state-only funded programs. The department later learned via the press that the Attorney General was pursuing a settlement, again without consultation with the department. The agency had no inkling of what the AGO had agreed to until after the fact - included in that agreement was a negotiated settlement for $595,000 in attorneys fees.
