USDOL, v. Oakland County Bd. of Comm'rs, 83-CTA-22 (ALJ July 20, 1993)

DATE:  July 20, 1993
CASE Nos.: 83-CTA-22, 84-CTA-153

IN THE MATTER OF:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

v.

OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

                            DECISION AND ORDER

     The above captioned consolidated cases arise under the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 ("CETA"), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 801, et seg. (repealed 1983);
and the regulations issued thereunder at 20 C.F.R. Part 676.
     Following an audit of the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners ("Respondents"), the United States Department of
Labor ("DOL") recommended a disallowance of costs in the amount
of ,351,814 in its Notice of Final Determination.  On October
12, 1982, Respondents timely filed with this Office a Formal
Request for Hearing in order to substantiate the Notice of Final
Determination.  On December 27, 1982, this Office issued a
Notification of Receipt of Request for Hearing and a Prehearing
Order docketing this matter as 83-CTA-22.
     After several continuances of this matter which enabled the
parties to negotiate and narrow the disputed issues, both DOL and
Respondents filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate and Continue Case
on November 16, 1988.  In this Motion the parties requested the
consolidation of 82-CTA-22 with 84-CTA-153 because both cases
involve the same parties, the same issues of law, and
substantially the same factual issues.  Moreover, the parties
requested the continuation of the proceedings stating that
settlement would either result or the consolidated cases would be
ready for preheating scheduling by January 31, 1989.  The Motion
to Consolidate and Continue Case was granted by the Honorable
Daniel L. Stewart on November 28, 1988.
     Additionally, these consolidated cases were continued for
ninety days by order of the Honorable Ralph Musgrove on October
30, 1990.  The parties jointly requested the continuance in order
to engage in further settlement negotiations and agreed to file a
status report by January 25, 1991.  However, neither party
complied with the aforementioned order nor did the parties file
any other document relating to this matter.  This Office issued 
[PAGE 2]
an Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed on
February 11, 1993.  By letter dated March 9, 1993, DOL sent a
letter confirming that this Office granted the parties an
additional forty-five (45) days to submit the settlement
agreement.
     On June 25, 1993, the DOL filed a Settlement Agreement
executed by representatives of DOL and Respondents.  Both parties
having signed the Settlement Agreement stipulate, inter
alia, to the following.
     First, DOL accepts Respondents' offer of ,094,323.50 in
full satisfaction of all outstanding matters related to the above
captioned cases.
     Second, the parties agree that upon any breach of this
Settlement Agreement by Respondents the total disallowance cost
will be $2,983,386, plus interest, plus applicable penalty and
processing fees, less any payments to date.
     Third, each party agrees to bear its own fees and other
expenses incurred in connection with this proceeding.
     Fourth, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.91[1] , the parties
stipulate that: 1) this Order shall have the same force and
effect as an order made after full hearing; 2) the entire record
which this Order is based upon consists solely of the Request for
Hearing and the Settlement Agreement; and 3) they waive all
further procedural steps before this office and any rights to
challenge the validity of the Settlement Agreement or any order
issued pursuant to the agreement.
     Finally, the parties jointly move to dismiss these
consolidated cases.
     Having reviewed the administrative file and applicable
regulations, I FIND that the Settlement Agreement is appropriate. 
IT IS ORDERED that the stipulations, agreements, terms and
conditions contained therein, which are attached hereto, are
ACCEPTED and shall have the same force and effect as if they were
individually and specifically set forth in the body of this
Order.  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.9(d), this Decision and
Order, based on agreed findings shall constitute the final
Administrative Order.


JOHN M. VITTONE
Deputy Chief Judge



                               [ENDNOTES]

[1] The regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 676 do not provide for
specific procedures relating to consent findings or stipulation
agreements.  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.1(a), I look to 29
C.F.R. Part 18.