FORMER Nutrition Assistance Program Certification Unit Supervisor Vanessa SN Andres has asked the Superior Court to issue an order finding that her termination from NAP was unlawful.
Andres, represented by attorney Keith Chambers, also asked the court to issue an order reinstating her to her previous position and award her back pay.
In a 22-page motion, Chambers said the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.
“Ms. Andres acknowledges that she generally must exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing an action before the Superior Court. However, Ms. Andres should be allowed to bring her appeal before this Court because her situation falls into the failure to exhaust exception…. Ms. Andres filed her administrative appeal at the agency level and has waited for months for her appeal to proceed,” Chamber said.
“Because there is no definite timeline for Ms. Andres’ appeal to be heard by the Civil Service Commission, and Ms. Andres has already waited months to receive the justice she deserves, Ms. Andres respectfully argues that this court exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over this matter,” the lawyer added.
According to Chambers, neither the notice of proposed adverse action nor the final decision accused Andres of dishonesty.
“Ms. Andres did not sign the (NAP) application and her Statement of Support did not contain any falsehoods,” Chambers said.
Therefore, “honesty” requirement is not violated here, he added.
Chambers said Andres also did not show a lack of “integrity” or “impartiality.”
“Here, Ms. Andres submitted the Application on behalf of a third party, assigned the Application to NAP Representative Frances Cruz per her duties as a Certification Unit Supervisor, did not play a role in the approval of the Application, and accompanied her boyfriend in receiving the food stamps after the Application was approved by NAP Representative Frances Cruz. Ms. Andres did not violate any rule… which shows that she acted with integrity, and Ms. Andres did not play a role in the Application’s approval, which shows her impartiality,” Chambers said.
Background
Andres was, at all times relevant to this appeal, a certification unit supervisor for the Nutrition Assistance Program, which is under the Department of Community and Cultural Affairs.
Andres, during all times relevant to this appeal, had a boyfriend, Jose Blas Manglona Jr., who has a daughter, then under the age of 18.
The daughter’s initial plan was to move to the United States mainland after her mother withdrew her from school in December 2021.
Before the daughter had the ability to move to the U.S. mainland, she moved in with her father, Manglona, who lived with Andres on Saipan.
On March 18, 2022, Andres submitted an Application for Nutrition Assistance on behalf of Manglona’s daughter.
Andres deposited the Application in the drop box designated for such applications.
The application listed the daughter as the head of household.
The application stated the daughter’s date of birth; code “A” status, which indicates that the daughter is under the age of 18; lack of a bank account; lack of employment; and appointment of her father, Manglona, as her authorized representative.
The daughter printed her name on the application but Manglona signed the application as the “authorized representative.”
Andres did not sign the application.
As part of the application, Andres submitted and signed a Declaration of Basic Needs and Living Arrangements.
In a Statement of Support, Andres stated that she provided the daughter with “free housing, utilities, laundry, transportation and basic needs at no cost.”
The statement of support also stated that the “housing structure consists of three bedrooms, two restrooms and two kitchens”; Andres and the daughter had “separate living arrangements”; Andres and the daughter “do not share or prepare food or meals”; and the daughter had “her own kitchen to prepare her own meals: to include storing her food.”
The daughter also submitted an Expense Questionnaire Form that answered accurately the questions posed.
The daughter printed her name on the bottom of the Expense Questionnaire Form, but Manglona signed the form as the authorized representative.
According to Andres’ appeal, NAP failed to do a home check as required by the regulations.
“Had NAP performed the home check as required by the regulations, they would have seen that the daughter has her own living space and kitchen area,” Chambers said.
After Andres submitted the application, and per her duties as a certification unit supervisor, she assigned the application to NAP Representative Frances Cruz.
Based on the documents submitted, Cruz approved the daughter’s application on March 29, 2022.
Andres played no role in the application’s approval process and was not in contact with Cruz concerning the application.
“The Application was similar to several other NAP applications in which a United States citizen minor child applied for benefits and the application was signed by a parental figure of the child,” Chambers said.
After the application was approved, Andres was seen by NAP personnel in a vehicle with her boyfriend and the daughter’s authorized representative, Manglona, in the drive-thru line to pick up benefits.
On June 1, 2022, an investigation was opened into the filing and approval of the application.
The investigation resulted in the Notice of Proposed Adverse Action – Termination or PAA issued on May 19, 2023.
The PAA stated that, per the NAP rules, the daughter was not qualified for food stamp benefits due to her age; and neither Andres nor Manglona submitted their financial information along with the application.
The PAA alleged the following:
1) “Misuse of Authority: As a Certification Unit Supervisor, you knowingly and intentionally submitted [an application for benefit for a minor] who happened to be your boyfriend’s daughter. A federal reviewer in an email to the Acting NAP Administrator dated March 14, 2023, noted that you ‘signed the Zero Income Questionnaire (ZIQ), which raised a flag.’ To add onto your misconduct, you accompanied your boyfriend to [pick up]/receive food stamps for his daughter who did not qualify to begin with.”
2) “Potential fraud: Your actions violated the integrity of the NAP Program. While we strive to follow the procedures in our Manual of Operations and our Memorandum of Understanding, you knowingly and willfully circumvented the regulations and orchestrated the eventual approval of your boyfriend’s daughter’s application. This is so unbecoming of you as a supervisor for a very important unit within the NAP office.”
The PAA recommended Andres’ termination from her employment.
But according to Chambers, “The PAA relied on excerpts from NMIAC § 10-20.2-438, NMIAC § 10.2-440, and NMIAC § 10.2-462 to support its proposed termination action. The PAA did not cite any specific Manual of Operations provisions or other Commonwealth law that regulates food stamp benefits qualifications.”
Andres appealed the PAA to her appointing authority who, on June 26, 2023, issued a Final Decision on Adverse Action, which gave full effect to the PAA as originally proposed and terminated Andres’ employment.
On July 12, 2023, Andres filed her appeal with the Civil Service Commission.
However, at the time, CSC informed Andres’ counsel that the commission did not have a hearing officer and did not have a plan to retain one in the immediate future.
On Oct. 2, 2023, Andres’ counsel was informed by a CSC representative that the commission still did not have a hearing officer due to a lack of funding and that they were not sure when one would be retained.
The commission has repeatedly held off on adjudicating civil service matters and has not indicated that it will act without a hearing officer, Chambers told the court.
Through her counsel, Andres appealed the decision of DCCA-NAP to terminate her employment to the Superior Court on Nov. 26, 2023.
