[wiaattorneys] Re: WIB as public instrumentality

  • From: "Milwee, Michael (DOES)" <Michael.Milwee@xxxxxx>
  • To: "'JMuelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <JMuelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jpomerantz@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:41:43 -0400

just think of all the fun youm have when the "final" local legislature is
Congress.-Michael Milwee, DC
-----Original Message-----
From: wiaattorneys-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wiaattorneys-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Joseph Mueller
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:54 AM
To: jpomerantz@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wiaattorneys] Re: WIB as public instrumentality

The opinion wasn't based simply on whether an entity was federally funded,
but, for future reference, we'll enter your name on the rolls under the
not-buying-it category.

>>> "Pomerantz, Jane C.  (GC-LI)" <jpomerantz@xxxxxxxxxxx> 06/23/2005
8:23:52 AM >>>

If I were to "buy that logic", I would be a federal agency because I am
federally funded.  I also don't think I can buy it because I just read a
PA Supreme Court case dealing with what is a public instrumentality. In
fact the court specially stated "The receipt by Temple of increased
state financial aid no more transforms Temple into a state "agency" than
the receipt of federal funds can make Temple an agency of the federal
government." Mooney v. Temple, 292 A.2d 395 (1972).  

(By the way, this case also has some great language in a footnote,
quoting cases from DC, Calif, and Iowa, about a public records request
that was a broad and unlimited request that the court, quoting Iowa,
said would impose an intolerable burden on the public officer . . . and
an unreasonable and harmful interference with the day-to-day conduct of
public business. Loved this language.)

Thanks for the info.


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Mueller [mailto:JMuelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:48 PM
To: wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; jpomerantz@xxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [wiaattorneys] WIB as public instrumentality

There's an in-house legal opinion from 1994, concluding that private
industry councils established under the JTPA were federal agencies for
purposes of  an exception to Illinois' confidentiality statute that
allows IDES to share info with certain state or federal agencies. The
reasoning was that the PICs constituted a federal authority, for
purposes of the federal Administrative Procedure Act, because they were
created and funded under the JTPA. If you buy into that logic, it seems
it would also apply to LWIBs. 

Joe Mueller, Legal Counsel
Illinois Department of Employment Security
850 E. Madison, Third Floor
Springfield, Illinois 62702

>>> "Pomerantz, Jane C.  (GC-LI)" <jpomerantz@xxxxxxxxxxx> 06/21/2005 
>>> 12:18:07 PM >>>
Has anyone reviewed the issue of whether the local WIBs are public
instrumentalities?  I don't think they are but I wondered if anyone has
explored the issue.

Thanks JP 

Jane C. Pomerantz
Deputy Chief Counsel
Department of Labor & Industry
Phone: 717-787-4186
Fax:     717-787-1303

Wisdom is knowing the right road to take.
Integrity is taking it.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by
telephone and return the original message to us.

Other related posts: