SKYLINE COLLEGE 3300 COLLEGE DRIVE SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 94066 PHONE 415 355-7000

This is in response to your request for letters speaking to the issue of procedures used by the Veterans Administration in the adjudication hearings of college potential liability. The fine legal points involved can be dealt with far better by attorneys who have represented college districts in such hearing procedures. I shall attempt to describe the hearing which was given Skyline and my impressions thereof.

The hearing was held on September 27, 1976 in the afternoon, at 211 Main Street,
in San Francisco, the Western Regional Office of the Veterans Administration.
The hearing was conducted by a Mr. Dicamillo, whose title was not given. He
was accompanied by another young gentleman who was not identified at the time
and whose name and title do not appear on the transcript of the hearing. The
two young gentlemen who conducted the hearing indicated that they had not
done this before and did not seem to be very sure as to what their function
there really was to be. Prior to the official on-the-record portion of the
hearing, we were informed by Mr. Dicamillo that the purpose of that meeting
was for us to enter any new evidence that could help in the judgment of the
cases cited for potential liability to Skyline College, and for the purpose
of the VA staff to indicate to us what our next administrative steps might
be. None of that appears on the record.

The hearing transcript includes only the statements which were made by myself
and other staff members from Skyline College, who had accompanied me to the
meeting. All comments made by the two VA staff members present were made
after the tape recorder had been switched off. In addition, the recorder was
periodically switched off when a question was raised. There is no evidence
in the transcript that there was any discussion or any questions raised about
procedure or the ultimate disposition of Skyline's case. It might be
interesting to note that other than the hearing transcript which I received
on October 19, 1976 there has been no further communication from the VA regard-
ing the disposition of our case by the Committee on Waivers and Compromises.

Mr. William Plosser

-2

June 1, 1977

The VA staff members who conducted the hearing indicated that at some time in the future the extent of confirmed liability, if any, of Skyline College would be determined by the Committee on Waivers and Compromises. The VA staff present did indicate that they felt they personally would probably not be involved, that it would be other parties whom they could not name. None of this appears on the hearing transcript.

The lack of resolution and lack of communication other than a continuing flow of DVB Circulars and Directives contributes to the overall fuzziness of our relationship with the Veterans Administration with respect to those veterans who have been cited for overpayment and whose liability has been potentially assessed against the college.

I don't know where things stand. I don't know who will make a final judgment and when and how, or with what standards.

Sincerely,

John C. Petersen

JCP:hd

Telegram

SFA366(2017) (2-076342E153) PD 06/02/77 2017

ICS IPMR NCZ CSP

27 JAIN -2 PM 7: 26

714 6449311 TDRN NEWPORT BEACH CA 85 06-02 0817P EST

PMS BILL PLOSSER, PSA SAN FRANCISCAN HOTEL, ASAP TONIGHT REQUESTED • DLR

8 AT CIVIC CENTER

SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103

EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SUPPORTS THE EFFORTS OF SENATOR HART AND OTHERS INCLUDING CCJCA TO BRING DUE PROCESS TO THE OVERPAYMENT PROBLEM AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION DECISIONS BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. DUE PROCESS IS NECESSARY SO THAT COLLEGES MAY ESTABLISH THE VET'S LAST DAY OF PURSUIT WHICH IS • NOT ALWAYS HIS OR HER LAST DAY OF ATTENDANCE. UNFORTUNATELY THE VA CALCULATES THE OVERPAYMENT AND THE COLLEGES ALLEGED OBLIGATION FROM THE VET'S LAST DAY OF CLASS ATTENDANCE.

BR-1201 (RSPENCER COVERT SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE

western union

DISTRICT TORRANCE CA
NNNN

Telegram

1877 JUN -2 PM 7:28

western union

Telegram

SFA368 (2024) (2-076660E 153) PD 06/02/17 2023

ICS IPMR NCZ CSP

7146449311 TDRN NEWPORT BEACH CA 85 06-02 0823P EST

PMS US SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS, ASAP FRIDAY AM • DLR
FEDERAL BLDG CEREMONIAL COURT ROOM 19 FLOOR 450 GOLDEN GATE AVE

SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102

EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SUPPORTS THE EFFORTS OF SENATOR
HART AND OTHERS INCLUDING CCJCA TO BRING DUE PROCESS TO THE
OVER PAYMENT PROBLEM AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
DECISIONS BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. DUE PROCESS IS NECESSARY SO
THẤT COLLEGES MAY ESTABLISH THE VET'S LAST DAY OF PURSUIT WHICH IS
NOT ALWAYS HIS OR HER LAST DAY OF ATTENDANCE. UNFORTUNATELY THE VA
CALCULATES THE OVERPAYMENT AND THE COLLEGES ALLEGED OBLIGATION FROM
THE VET'S LAST DAY OF CLASS ATTENDANCE.

SPENCER COVERT SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT TORRANCE CA

B-12010

Chairman CRANSTON. We will now hear from a panel of representatives from the Center for Veterans' Rights, and Swords to Plowshares. Would you please first identify yourselves, from my left, for the record.

Mr. BITZER. Ron Bitzer, counselor, Center for Veterans' Rights. Ms. BAILEY. Susan Bailey, attorney for Swords to Plowshares. Ms. CARON. Martha Caron, staff attorney, Swords to Plowshares. Chairman CRANSTON. Thank you very much. We welcome you, we're glad you're present. If you would proceed in whatever order you prefer. Please follow the great example of your predecessors this morning and be somewhat brief.

TESTIMONY OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CENTER OF VETERANS' RIGHTS AND SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES: MARTHA L. CARON, STAFF ATTORNEY, SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES; SUSAN BAILEY, ATTORNEY FOR SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES; AND RON BITZER, COUNSELOR, CENTER FOR VETERANS' RIGHTS

Ms. CARON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today on three vital issues incorporated in S. 364 which will substantially affect veterans' procedural rights before the Veterans' Administration.

My name is Martha Louise Caron and I am an attorney practicing in San Francisco. Half of my time is committed to Swords to Plowshares, a self-help veterans' group, as staff attorney, primarily for the Veterans' Advocacy Unit. Previously I have worked for Swords as a full-time employee and have been involved in Veterans' advocacy representing veteran claimants before the Veterans' Administration for about 112 years.

My partner, Susan Bailey, is retained on the same basis and will address the committee concerning the judicial review aspects of S. 364. I would like to comment primarily upon the provision of S. 364 repealing 38 U.S.C. 3404.

The present fee limitation in 38 U.S.C. 3404 was first introduced in 1918 as a reaction to allegations of unscrupulous advantage by attorneys and agents in assisting veterans in preparation of war-risk insurance claims. The legislative history of the fee limitation is amply discussed in my prepared statement.

There were a number of suits brought in the early years by attorneys alleging an interference with property rights on fee arrangements contracted with veteran-clients. These cases were uniformly denied.

Then suits were brought by the veterans themselves. Hoffmaster v. V.A. was one of these where a veteran sought representation by counsel before VA administrative hearings. Traditionally, the courts' arguments have been that the purpose of the original statute is in part to protect just claimants from improvident bargains, and to prevent the stirring up of unjust claims against the Government. It is also interesting to note that Hoffmaster was dismissed under section 211(a), so it never got to that point in that case.

However, subsequent cases have held that the mere existence of past precedent does not preclude constitutional challenge so that "lack of