A Publication of the North Carolina Justice and Community Development Center

February 2002

The N.C. Poverty Law Monitor is a free, electronic newsletter that is designed to assist Legal Services advocates and other providing legal assistance to low-income North Carolinians. To receive a free e-mail subscription, to unsubscribe, or if you have suggestions or comments to offer or articles or announcements to submit, contact Rob Schofield, editor and chief writer at: rob@ncjustice.org or 919-856-2153

To obtain more information on the North Carolina Justice and Community Development Center, check out our web site at: www.ncjustice.org or contact us at: NCJCDC, P.O. Box 28068, Raleigh, NC  27611

Contributors to this issue include:

Carol Brooke	Carla Burkhead	Kim Cartron	Nicole Dozier
Jack Holtzman	Carlene McNulty	Sheria Reid	Bill Rowe
Sorien Schmidt	Adam Searing

In this Issue

CONSUMER

State Targets Payday Lenders

In response to the efforts of numerous payday lenders to evade the impact of last year's legislative decision to sunset the "deferred deposit check cashing" law, Attorney General Roy Cooper has filed a series of lawsuits in the recent weeks aimed at forcing such lenders to cease activity. The first and, perhaps most significant action is against Ace Cash Express -- one of the nation's most aggressive payday lending outfits. The suit, which was joined by state Commissioner of Banks Hal Lingerfelt, claims that Ace is violating the state's Consumer Finance Act and other North Carolina laws.

Since the expiration of the law last August, some payday lenders across the state have closed their doors. But others, like Ace, have affiliated with national banks, claiming that a legal loophole allows them to continue making loans. The company, based in Texas with at least 16 North Carolina stores, charges customers $17 per $100 borrowed for two-week loans of $100 to $500. Two-week extensions of the loan cost another $17 per $100 plus 5 percent of the principal. These rates (and the "rollovers" Ace allows) were not even permitted by the expired law.

Ace claims its affiliation with Goleta National Bank in California allows it to make loans, but Cooper and Lingerfelt disagree, saying Ace is the real lender and controls the money and the collection process. The practice, called "rent-a-charter," has been criticized by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the federal agency that regulates national banks. Cooper and Lingerfelt will ask a judge to settle the matter, and have placed other payday lenders on notice that the action against Ace could affect their operation.

In addition to the case against Ace, the state has also taken action against two payday operators (American Funding and Advance Internet -aka Advance Til Payday) who have sought to evade state law under the pretext of providing cash rebates for expensive, but essentially worthless, internet sales contracts. In yet another action, the state is also challenging the activities of JR's Check Advance, a business that has simply continued operating just as it did prior to the expiration of the law.

Consumer advocacy groups will be monitoring these cases closely in the weeks ahead as they formulate a legislative strategy for the upcoming "short session" of the General Assembly that is scheduled to convene May 28. Payday industry supporters are expected at that time to attempt to advance another "reform" bill along the lines of the very weak proposals they offered last year.

Report Blasts "Refund Anticipation Loans"

As tax season gets into full swing, poverty law advocates should review a recent report issued by the National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America that details the negatives of so-called "refund anticipation loans" (RAL's). A summary and links to the report are at: http://www.consumerfed.org/ral_cfa_nclc_pressrelease013002.pdf.

RAL's are a close cousin of payday loans that feature short terms, exorbitant interest rates and little -- if any -- benefit to borrowers. For a fee of between $30 and $90, a consumer, receives his tax refund within a day or two after it is electronically filed. As a practical matter, however, this is only about 10 days before the customer would receive his or her electronically filed refund anyway. Often billed as "instant" or "super fast" refunds and sold as part of a tax preparation package that includes fees for filling out the return and filing it electronically, RAL's are often targeted at lower-income people. According to the report, more than 40% of RAL's go to folks receiving the earned income tax credit -- thus, soaking up as much as $324 million from the nation's most successful anti-poverty program. When RAL costs are combined with the other fees charged, as much as $1 billion in EITC pay outs are siphoned off each year.

In addition to advising clients about the pitfalls of these loans, advocates should be aware that North Carolina is one of the few states to have an affirmative consumer protection statute on the subject. The Refund Anticipation Loan Act (G.S. 53-245, et seq.) requires all lenders to register with the Commissioner of Banks and specifies a list of prohibited activities. Though the current banking commissioner has retreated from his predecessor's more aggressive stance on what constituted an "unconscionable" fee (as prohibited by G.S. 53-250(4)(ii)) advocates should consult the Commissioner's office if they encounter charges that seem excessive or questionable.

Third Circuit Ruling Bolsters Truth in Lending Statute

In a defeat for the lending industry, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the "bait and switch" tactic used by Fleet Bank's credit card promotions. The decision in Rossman v. Fleet Bank, No. 01-1094, decided on 2/8/02 can be accessed at http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/011094.txt. (This link is invalid after 30 days.)

The tactic, which is familiar to many consumers, involves the soliciting of a customer to enter into a "no annual fee" credit card arrangement. A few months later, once the customer is signed up, the bank notifies him or her of a change in the agreement that imposes the fee after all. While the District Court had ruled that such tactics were permissible under federal truth in lending laws because the law, it held, only required disclosure of terms at the time the card is delivered -- whether or not the lender had wrongful intent to change the terms later. In reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals found that the Truth in Lending Act is a consumer protection statute deserving of liberal construction and not just a disclosure law. "Fleet's approach would have the potential to render the solicitation disclosure requirements...entirely ineffectual. Misleading early disclosures would serve no informative purpose. And worse, the ... disclosure requirement... could be used for the purpose of deceiving consumers."

Future issues of the Monitor will report on any further developments in this case.

State Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Arbitration Case

The state Supreme Court heard arguments on February 14 in a health care case that could have a significant impact in the increasingly contentious debate over mandatory arbitration clauses. Such clauses have become almost universal in a number of types of consumer contracts in recent years. The case, Milon v. Duke University Health System, No. 549A01, Court of Appeals No. COA 00-1246, involves a medical malpractice matter in which the injured patient's wife was asked to sign a lengthy form contract on "assignment of benefits" at the time she was attempting to obtain care from their long-time family doctor. The wife's signature was sought after they had retained legal counsel for a malpractice action against Duke. The Milons did not know at the time that they were presented with what appeared to be standard paperwork, that the family doctor had become affiliated with Duke and that the arbitration clause purported to apply to the ongoing matter. According to the amicus brief filed in the case by Justice Center attorney Carlene McNulty, "If the Court of Appeals decision is allowed to stand based on the facts of the purported waiver...North Carolina's most vulnerable citizens will be at risk of unknowingly and involuntarily forfeiting important rights designed to protect them." For more information on this matter (or a copy of the brief), contact McNulty at carlene@ncjustice.org.

Mediation Results in Substantial Recovery for Victimized Manufactured Home Buyer

Readers may recall a previous report on an action filed by McNulty and co-counsel, Mal Maynard in May 1998: Jones v. Showcase Homes et al. The complaint alleged many causes of action, including unfair trade practices. A jury trial was held in November 1999, with the jury returning a verdict in Ms. Jones' favor. She was awarded $24,000 in damages to compensate her for the poor condition of the home, $50,000 in punitive damages for the mobile home dealer's fraud, and $30,000 for the unfair trade practices of the mobile home dealer. Attorneys' fees totaled $30,000. In an attempt to collect on the judgment, McNulty and Maynard filed a separate lawsuit alleging that the mobile home dealer fraudulently converted assets to a third party. In a mediation proceeding recently completed, the case was settled in regard to all but one of the parties. Ms. Jones will receive: $10,000 from one of the parties, and $15,000, plus a home with an estimated $30,000 in equity from another. The judgment of $140,000+ still remains against the mobile home dealer.

TOP

Public Benefits

Congress Debating Food Stamp Reauthorization

Federal laws creating several of the largest anti-poverty programs in the U.S. are set to expire September 30, 2002 unless Congress reauthorizes them. Tops on the reauthorization list are: the Food Stamp program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant that funds North Carolina's Work First program, and the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Because North Carolina wages are lower than the national average, these programs play a large role in supporting low-wage workers and their families, as well as the unemployed. Together, they bring around half a billion federal dollars annually into North Carolina. As a result, their reauthorization has serious implications for the state, especially during the ongoing economic downturn.

At this point, it appears that the three programs will be handled sequentially, starting with Food Stamps. While final reauthorization seems a foregone conclusion, there is currently significant debate in both the House and Senate Farm Bills over funding, eligibility and many other issues. Among the topics currently in controversy,

• reinstating eligibility for many immigrants;
• increasing the standard deduction to help larger families;
• extending transitional (post-TANF) Food Stamps from three months to six;
• proposals to reduce bureaucratic and paperwork barriers;
• raising the cap on the so-called "shelter deduction."

For complete and up to date information go to: http://www.frac.org/html/news/news_index.html.

Congresswoman Clayton to Lead "Hunger Tour" Next Week

In light of the debate over Food Stamp reauthorization, Congresswoman Eva Clayton and US Department of Agriculture Undersecretary for Nutrition Eric Bost will conduct a "hunger tour, listening session and field hearing" in several sites in eastern North Carolina next week. Clayton will meet with state and local nutrition officials and food stamp recipients and later be joined by Congressmen David Price and Bob Etheridge and Agriculture Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps and other state and local officials.

The tour will take place next Wednesday, February 20 at the following times and places:

In addition to gathering new information, it is hoped that the tour will serve to focus public attention on the current reauthorization debate of the Food Stamp and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs. According to Clayton, "we must pause to listen to food bank workers, anti-hunger advocates, consumers and others about the struggles and challenges of working and low-income Americans. Too often, they face choices between necessities such as food, rent and medicine." For more details, contact Sorien Schmidt at the Justice Center at sorien@ncjustice.org.

TOP

IMMIGRANTS

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Age Discrimination Appeal by Foreign National

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the petition for writ of certiorari by a Mexican national who was discriminated against by the North Carolina Growers' Association because he was over forty years old when he applied to perform agricultural work in North Carolina. In his petition to the Supreme Court, Mr. Reyes-Gaona appealed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 does not protect non-U.S. citizens who are discriminated against in a foreign country by a U.S. employer. The Fourth Circuit's decision noted that Reyes-Gaona was not authorized to work in the United States at the time he was discriminated against.

Reyes-Gaona v. North Carolina Growers' Assn., et al., 01-342, cert. denied, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 10008 (Oct. 29, 2001).

Court of Appeals to Rule on Medicaid for Immigrant Family

Justice Center attorney Jack Holtzman is co-counseling a case in the North Carolina Court of Appeals (Okale v. NCDHHS) regarding the right of a Liberian woman and her U.S. citizen son to be covered under North Carolina’s emergency Medicaid program. Ms. Okale escaped violence in her home country by coming to the United Stated on a tourist visa. At the time Ms. Okale applied for emergency Medicaid coverage for the birth of her son, she was still in the United States legally under an unexpired visa. Solely as a result of the existence of the unexpired visa, NCDHHS held that Ms. Okale failed to meet the residency requirements for Medicaid coverage. This conclusion, however, is contradicted by substantial additional evidence acknowledged by various state and local government agencies showing Okale intended to reside in the state. For more information, contact Holtzman at: jack@ncjustice.org.

Hispanic Population Study Indicates Dramatic Growth in N.C.

A recent report by a non-profit known as FaithAction in Greensboro has published a report estimating astounding growth in the Hispanic population in North Carolina. The report estimated North Carolina's Hispanic population at 487,718 in 2001 -- more than a 25% increase over the 2000 census total. The report also provides estimates for all 100 counties. To access the report, go to: http://www.nr.infi.net/~faithact/pop01.html.

INS Fees to Rise on February 19

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has announced a general fee increase that will apply to a wide array of applications and petitions. The typical increase will be around $20. A complete chart detailing the changes can be accessed at http://www.ins.gov/graphics/formsfee/feechart.htm. Information about hardship fee waivers can be found at http://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/natz/waiver_policy.pdf.

TOP

HOUSING

Court of Appeals Decides Housing Tax Credit Case

In an important decision for low-income housing advocates, developers and nonprofit community organizations, the state Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a 1997 decision by the Durham County Board of Equalization and Review and the North Carolina Property Tax Commission that had assessed full market-rate property taxes on rental units subsidized with low-income housing tax credits under Section 42 of the IRS Code. The court found that The Greens of Pine Glen, a 168-unit apartment complex awarded low-income housing tax credits and constructed in Durham, NC, in 1996, should not be required to pay property taxes at market value given the restrictive income requirements attached to the property, the probable future income of the property and other factors affecting the property’s value. The North Carolina Low Income Housing Coalition, represented by the firm of Moore and Van Allen and Bill Rowe of the Justice Center, submitted an amicus curiae brief arguing that The Greens of Pine Glen is required to maintain rents twenty-five to thirty percent below prevailing market rates for thirty years and therefore should not be assessed at market value. In the Matter of Appeal of: The Greens of Pine Glen, Ltd. of the Durham County Board of Equalization and Review, No. COA00-1218, 11/20/01.

Court of Appeals Examines Standing of Independent Fair Housing Groups

The state Court of Appeals will apparently decide whether or not independent fair housing and housing advocacy organizations may file fair housing complaints on their own behalf, based on the concept of “organizational standing” in the case of Bergman v. Fair Housing Center, No. 00 CVS 04096, on appeal from Durham County. Justice Center attorney, Jack Holtzman is representing two Hispanic advocacy organizations (El Pueblo and El Centro Hispano), in addition to the Justice Center, in an amicus brief in support of the Fair Housing Center (FHC).

FHC had originally filed a fair housing complaint with Durham’s Human Rights Commission, alleging the FHC was injured as a result of alleged discriminatory conduct against Hispanic tenants by landlord Bergman. Rather than submit to a document/information request by the Durham agency, Bergman filed a lawsuit against the FHC in state superior court, seeking to dismiss the FHC’s administrative complaint. Bergman’s motion to dismiss the FHC complaint was granted and FHC appealed.

HUD Evictions Policy Case Briefed at the Supreme Court

Last spring, we reported that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had issued an opinion striking down HUD's policy for terminating tenancies due to criminal activity. The decision in Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3rd 1113 (2001), invalidated HUD's "one-strike" regulations because, as applied to innocent tenants, they are inconsistent with the authorizing statute. The court upheld the district court's decision to enjoin the Oakland, California Public Housing Authority from evicting four residents pursuant to those regulations.

Now the issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court and low-income housing advocates have filed an amicus curiae brief that neatly summarizes the legal arguments in favor of an interpretation of the HUD statute that favors innocent tenants. The brief argues that the text of the HUD "one-strike" statute is silent on the existence of an innocent tenant defense, and that HUD's rule, which precludes the assertion of innocence to reviewing courts, is unreasonable. The brief was filed on behalf of AARP and several tenant associations and can be found at: http://www.nhlp.org/html/pubhsg/Rucker%20AARP%20Amicus%20FINAL.PDF. Oral arguments are scheduled for February 19.

As we noted last year, advocates should be aware that the Rucker decision actually comports with North Carolina law. The federal statute at 42 U.S.C. 1437d(1)(5) defines lease requirements for housing authorities seeking to evict families for criminal activities. On its face, the statute may appear to allow eviction of the entire family if a household member or guest commits a crime. According to the NC Court of Appeals, however, Congressional legislative intent was to not allow eviction of innocent heads of household and family members when the tenant was not personally at fault for a household member’s criminal act. See Charlotte Housing Authority v. Patterson, 120 N.C. App. 552, 464 S.E.2d 68 (1995).

TOP

EMPLOYMENT

State Forced to Pay in Race Discrimination Case

The state has paid $149,500 to 13 African-American employees of Eastern North Carolina School for the Deaf who alleged racial discrimination at the school. Each employee will receive $10,000 plus $1,500 for attorneys' fees in a conciliation agreement with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. The settlement, signed Dec. 13, also orders the state to transfer former ENCSD superintendent Steve Witchey off the school's campus within 60 days. At last report, he was on medical leave from his job as a counselor at the school. The absence of black administrators and the scarcity of black teachers have been used as evidence of racial bias in employees' complaints filed against the school nearly three years ago. Witchey officially stepped down from his job as superintendent in the summer of 1999, but had remained in the interim until the state replaced him in February 2000. This case was handled by Elizabeth McLaughlin (formerly of the Justice Center) and Travis Payne of the Raleigh law firm, Edelstein and Payne.

Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Reserves Dropping Rapidly

Recent reports from the state Employment Security Commission reveal that the unemployment insurance trust fund remains in a precipitous slide in wake of the recession. While the fund stood at well over a billion dollars a year ago, it now has a balance below $500 million and is being depleted by more than $100 million per month. Despite tapping into emergency reserves, projections place the fund at under $250 million by this summer. Even with the employer tax rate increases that will be kicked in as a result of the slide, some projections place the fund at essentially zero by 2003 absent a dramatic turn in the economy. Worker advocates warn that the downturn in the fund seems likely to precipitate calls for reductions in eligibility and benefit levels from the business community during the 2002 legislative session. Justice Center advocates and analysts point to these developments as yet another example of the desperate need for federal relief to prevent states around the country from facing true economic disaster in the months ahead.

TOP

EDUCATION

Leandro Briefs Filed with Judge Manning

The latest chapter in the ongoing saga of the Leandro education equity case began this month when parties filed briefs with Superior Court Judge Howard Manning. Readers will recall that the Leandro case has a long and complex history that was highlighted by the 1997 state Supreme Court finding of a constitutional right to a "sound basic education." Since remand, Judge Manning has issued a series of findings and holdings and now appears ready to grapple with what has emerged as the fundamental question: are the many constitutional inadequacies of North Carolina's educational system simply the result of poor allocation of resources or is there a fundamental funding shortfall that no amount of creativity and innovation can overcome? The central message of an amicus curiae brief submitted by the Justice Center, the ACLU of North Carolina and Carolina Legal Assistance is that reinvigorated attitudes, better allocation of resources and additional funding are all necessary if at-risk children throughout the state are to be afforded their constitutional rights.

The brief makes the case that it will take substantial additional funds if the state is to provide educators themselves with the training and professional development that will be necessary for them to to have the knowledge and skills to reach at-risk kids. It will also cost more to put the necessary tools at the disposal of teachers. Among the service delivery programs highlighted in the brief: pre-kindergarten educational services, remedial programs, including one-on-one tutoring, for all who are failing, tailored and effective programs for limited-English-proficient and special education children, and substantial reductions in class and school size. Oral arguments are currently scheduled for February 22.

TOP

HEALTH CARE

Blue Cross Conversion to a "For-Profit" Taking Shape; Consumer Advocates Needed for New Foundation Board of Directors

Attorney General Roy Cooper is overseeing the search committee set up by statute to select the board of the new foundation that will be formed when Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina converts to a for-profit corporation. The committee has hired a professional executive search firm to help find candidates. The committee will allow a period of time for names to be put forth (anyone is eligible to suggest names), then allow a period for the search firm to search for more candidates. The committee will take the list the firm creates and develop a list of 22 possible board members. This list will go to the Attorney General and he will select the final 11 people for the board from the list of 22 as is specified by statute. The deadline for suggestions is officially March 1.

The importance of this Foundation and of assuring that it is governed by a progressive board dedicated to serving those in need cannot be understated. Because of the outstanding state statute that guides the conversion, the new foundation could have as much as $200 million to dispense on an annual basis to improve the health care of vulnerable North Carolinians.

Complete information on who the search firm is seeking can be found at: www.andersonexecsearch.com/main.htm. The committee wants a board that exhibits racial, ethnic, gender and geographic diversity and has experience in one or more of the following: health care, public health or social welfare, asset management and investment, corporate securities transactions, non-profit organizations, grant making foundations, or organization development or management. Advocates are encouraged to think of folks from around the state who would contribute to this sort of board. There is no compensation involved in serving on this board although expenses associated with work on the board like travel and child care will be covered.

Those interested in being candidates should submit to the search firm 1) a resume and 2) a cover letter describing their interest in the board appointment. Anyone can also suggest names of qualified candidates directly to the search firm.

The address is:

Attorney General Roy Cooper
C/O Board Search - Health Foundation for NC
201 South Tryon St. Suite 130, P.M.B. 141
Charlotte, NC 28202
Email: info@andersonexecsearch.com
Fax: 704-347-0064

For further information on the process and what follows, feel free to contact Health Access Coalition coordinator Adam Searing at adam@justice.org.

Challenge to State Medicaid Reimbursement to Dentists at the Fourth Circuit

Previously, we have reported on a suit challenging North Carolina's inadequate Medicaid reimbursement rates for dentists. The four parents named in the suit brought the action on behalf of their children, who do not have adequate access to Medicaid dental services because the state does not offer sufficient reimbursements to attract an adequate number of providers. The lack of access to basic dental care, such as regular cleanings and early screenings, results in loss of teeth, later painful and extensive dental work, and serious infections.

After a prolonged series of negotiations with attorneys representing the state, plaintiffs' attorneys (including Carlene McNulty and Adam Searing of the Justice Center) appeared to have reached a settlement predicated upon an appropriation of $7.5 million of additional funds in the state budget bill that would provide adequate resources to increase rates. Unfortunately, last minute, behind closed doors changes reduced the new funds to a mere $1 million for the current budget year.

As a result, the case remains on appeal to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, where the state seeks to overturn the District Court's denial of its motion to dismiss. The state invokes an Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity argument in support of its contention that neither recipients nor health care providers have the right to judicial enforcement of federal Medicaid law. Though contrary to the great weight of precedent, the state's position does comport with a single district court ruling out of Michigan that is now on appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Many low income advocates have expressed frustration and outrage that the state of North Carolina is advancing such an extreme position in opposition to access to the courts for vulnerable people. The position of the Attorney General's office also stands in stark and ironic contrast to its strong support for the recently passed "Patients' Bill of Rights" that assures consumers of their right to sue private health care insurers.

TOP

FAMILY

Court of Appeals Vacates TPR Over Burden of Proof Issue

On February 5 the state Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded a decision to terminate the parental rights of a Transylvania County woman. In the Matter of: Mitchell (M.,K.,and K.) Nos. COA01-488,489 and 490. The court found that the trial court had erred in the procedures it used to apply the "best interests of the child" standard. According to the Court of Appeals, such cases must be handled in two phases -- the adjudication phase and the disposition phase. In phase one, the burden is on the petitioner to prove by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that one or more of the statutory grounds for termination exist. If the petitioner meets its burden, the court moves on to phase two in which it must make its own determination as to whether termination is in the best interest of the child. While the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's findings in phase one as to the presence of statutory grounds, it improperly placed a burden on the parent to overcome a presumption in favor of termination during phase two. According to the Court of Appeals, no such burden exists and the second phase: "is more in the nature of an inquisition, with the trial court having the obligation to secure whatever evidence, if any, it deems necessary to make this decision. Either party may offer any relevant evidence." The Court remanded the case for a new dispositional hearing and specified that the parties may present new evidence.

Criminal Conversation Judgment Upheld

On December 28, the Court of Appeals upheld a trial court judgment in favor of a man who brought suit for "criminal conversation" against the a man who had sexual relations with his wife five months after the couple had been separated. Though the General Assembly has previously amended the state divorce and alimony statutes to exclude post-separation activities from fault considerations, the changes were found by the court not to apply to the tort of criminal conversation. Johnson v. Pearce, No. COA01-47.

Court Dismisses Appeal from DBB Ruling as Interlocutory

In another year-end decision, the Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by a Mecklenburg County woman who sought to overturn a District Court decision granting her husband a Divorce from Bed and Board and dismissing her similar petition. According to the court, "Although orders granting divorce from bed and board are final orders, the language in this order explicitly provides that '[t]he issue of custody was deferred until the parties have had the opportunity to participate in mediation.' This order is not a final judicial determination of all the claims raised in the pleadings. The trial court did not certify this order for appeal, and defendant has not argued that delay would affect a substantial right." The Court dismissed the appeal. Washington v. Washington, No.COA01-250, 12/28/01.

Link Between Abuse and Addiction the Focus of Upcoming Conference

From the N.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence comes news of an upcoming conference:

"Healing the Wounds: Abuse and Its Connection to Addiction" featuring Dr. Stephanie Covington, is a three day conference, April 10-12, 2002, in Rocky Mount at the Gateway Convention Complex, that will be hosted by My Sister's House. Conference registration is only $75.

Dr. Covington is a clinician, organizational consultant, author and lecturer. She is recognized for her pioneering work on women's issues and specializes in programs on addiction, sexuality, families, and relationships. Dr. Covington has published numerous articles and co-authored the book Leaving the Enchanted Forest: The Path from Relationship Addiction to Intimacy. She also wrote A Woman's Way through the 12-steps with accompanying workbook. Her newest publication is a comprehensive treatment program entitled Helping Women Recover.

If you want to add mental health or substance abuse professionals in your community to a mailing list for the conference brochure, or if you have any questions about the conference, call Meredith Holland, My Sister's House Director, at 252-462-0366.

Five scholarships will be awarded for the cost of registration to former victims of domestic violence who are also in recovery from substance abuse.

A block of rooms has been reserved at the Holiday Inn at the Gateway. You can call the hotel directly to reserve your room at 888-543-2255 or 252-937-6888.

TOP

OTHER ISSUES OF NOTE...

State Budget Woes Worsen

Despite last year's combination of budget cuts and a tax hike package, North Carolina state government continues to face a serious budget crisis that seems certain to bring additional damage to numerous state programs for those in need. According to a recent report authored by Kim Cartron, a policy analyst with the Justice Center's Budget and Tax Center project, the budget picture remains extremely grim. Moreover, interim measures to meet the immediate shortfall (such as dipping into reserves) only worsen the picture in 2002-2003. The report goes on to state that North Carolina should not fall into the trap of cutting critical services, like health care to low income people, at a time when the services are most needed. Such measures not only hurt people, the report notes, but the economy as a whole, as programs serving low income people ensure that money continues to flow into the economy even when people are losing income through lost employment. Consumer spending is crucial to prevent the economy from spiraling further downward. The full report titled, "North Carolina's Current Budget Shortfall: A Hard Look at the Tough Choices," can be accessed at the Center's website www.ncjustice.org.

IOLTA Legal Battles Continue

Last fall, in the latest chapter in the battle over Texas' IOLTA program, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the program amounted to an unconstitutional per se taking of client property that entitled the plaintiffs to injunctive relief without a state determination of whether just compensation was due. In response, to the decision in Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation, (5th Circuit, No. 00-50139) lawyers for the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation (the Texas IOLTA program) and the Texas Supreme Court filed a petition for rehearing en banc. The petition marked the next logical step in a process of appellate review of the constitutionality of the IOLTA program that is likely to proceed through the courts for several years. No current IOLTA program, including the one in Texas subject to the decision, has suspended funding to recipients and no injunctive relief has been entered as a result of the 5th Circuit decision. For more information go to http://www.nlada.org/Civil/NLADA_News/1005692203.88.

AARP Offers Assistance National

AARP lawyers would like to become involved in a greater number of cases and are hoping to do this by co-counseling or sponsoring cases that can be litigated primarily by local counsel. The organization would continue to offer financial and other litigation support, media assistance and the use of its name. Chief areas of emphasis include: age discrimination in employment, employee benefits (ERISA), grandparent rights, health and long term care, Medicare, Medicaid, predatory lending, consumer fraud and independent living. Housing, public benefits and other Legal Services cases may be eligible for consideration under the headings "independent living" and "consumer issues." If you have any case that you think would be of interest to AARP - either because it has an impact issue or raises interesting, individual facts or law - and you think having AARP associated with the case would be helpful to you, contact: Susan Ann Silverstein, Senior Attorney for Member Access to Legal Advocacy, AARP Foundation Litigation, 601 E Street, NW, Room A4-140, Washington, DC 20049, 202-434-2159, ssilverstein@aarp.org.

TOP

· contact us · back to Poverty Law Litigation · back to Justice Center