Date: 1990-10-27
Speaker: CONSTANCE HORNER (republican)
Chamber: S

Under Secretary. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington. DC. DEAR CONNIE: I want to respond to your letter of June 28 regarding the Departments decision to deny a grant extension to the Oakwood Child Development Center in Los Angeles. After having reviewed the materials which you sent to me regarding Oakwood. I continue to believe that the facts impel me to conclude that this grant should be allowed to continue. and that service to these 250 children should begin immediately. Before I address the particular issues which you raise in your letter. I believe that a number. of points need to be made clear: (1) HHS has repeatedly failed to demonstrate any improper or unlawful conduct on the part of Oakwood. (2) HHS has failed to demonstrate actions which objectively demonstrate "bad faith" on the part of Oakwood. (3) Oakwood represents the first time in HHS history that a no cost extension has been denied. (4) the monies returned from this project will go to the Treasury Department. not to HHS for reallocation. (5) the revocation of this grant will seriously jeopardize the communitys pledge of $1 million to pay for the operation of this facility. In your letter you quoted Ms. Evert as stating that "Oakwood had not made a genuine effort to carry out the grant purposes but rather. had subjugated that goal to the interests of the Yeshiva." According to my understanding of the matter. this is clearly not the case. After Oakwood had purchased the building. HHS took two months to respond that it would be appropriate to use the airspace above the community center for sectarian purposes. Having received this reply. Oakwood. per HHS instructions. then requested drawdown funding to proceed on renovation efforts. Five months after the building was purchased. HHS reversed itself. stating that no construction could occur above first floor of the child care center. Are these the facts. or not? At no time was Oakwood less than fully committed to building the child care center. Instead. the delays in construction were caused by the delinquent and contradictory instructions which were issued by HHS personnel. Further. Ms. Everts suggestion that Oakwood had "violated the drawdown con. dition" simply is not true. These drawdown monies were requested only after approval had been given for construction above the child care center. Are these the facts. or not? And. having received this approval. Oakwood would understandably have concluded that it could begin construction in the 3060 days as required by HHS. After HBIS reversed its decision to allow .construction above the first floor. Oakwood promptly requested a nocost extension from Mr. Kirker. who felt that such an extension would be granted. Thus. bs. Evert has. improperly concluded that Oakwood failed "to request a nocost extension in a timely fashion" On the contrary. it appears to me Oakwood has repeatedly demonstrated that despite HHS delays. it was committed to a prompt completion of the child care center. On a number of occasions in your letter you refer to Ms. Everts assertions of "bad faith" as well as "false and misleading statements" on the part of Oakwood and its rep. resentatives. To date neither 1.. nor Senator Hatch. nor anyone else who has inquired about the Oakwood case. has been told of one false statement on the part of Oakwoodeven though. we - have repeatedly asked for specific documentation of such allegations. In her testimony. Ms. Evert asserted the attempt to trade 555 North LaBrea for an alternative site. and the "continual efforts to use the property for religious activities." constituted "bad faith! These are the facts as I understand them: first of all. the suggestion of the alternative site was mearn as an effort to speed the completion of the project. and in fact. an independent appraiser determined that the alternative site. was of an almost equal value. Second. at no point did Oakwood attempt to use the child care center for sectarian activities. Instead. Oakwood simply asked HBS if it would be proper to use the airspace for sectarian activities. Considering the lack of building space. and the high land values. in this area. this would seem to he a reasonable request on the part of Oakwood. Last of all. your counsel stated that while there was no Impropriety or unlawful conduct in the Oakwood case. that "this does not. mean. however. that the Department believes that Oakwood acted properly In carrying out the terms of the grant." What does this mean? On the one hand your counsel advised Oakwood was guilty of no Impropriety. on the other hand you are now saying that Oakwood acted Improperly. Which is it? R appears to me Oakwood has offered effective rebuttal to. the Departments criticisms. Again. r urge. the Department either to grant the extension. or document a specific. material case against Oakwood. With warm regards. I am Sincerely yours.