At the 12 October 2015 Advisory Council meeting, the council gave final approval to the following proposals:
- D15-10 — eliminating the publication of the claimant benefit tables within the statutes,
- D15-11 — changes to circuit review review previously described here,
- D15-12 — allowing the same protocols for unemployment taxes in regards to fiscal agents in adult care to apply to fiscal agents in child care situations, and
- D15-13 — ending the sunset date in 2034 for the program integrity fund (i.e., the fund for receiving some of the monies from concealment enforcement) since the Department now expects concealment monies to continue in perpetuity.
Previously, the council had approved the following Department proposals:
- D15-02 — adding the ability to issue determinations against out-of-state employers in combined wage claims for being at fault for an erroneous benefit payment to a claimant,
- D15-03 — applying the Treasury offset program to employers, as described previously in this post, and
- D15-07 — changes to how work share benefits are calculated so as to comply with federal requirements for work share programs.
With the legislature currently in session, these three proposals — D15-03, D15-07, and D15-02 — have appeared in bills AB416 and SB341. The legislature will most likely enact these provisions shortly.
Several Department proposals, however, remain in limbo or are still being debated. The council has extensively discussed D15-04 in regards to setting up essentially a backup insurance program for reimbursable employers who get their unemployment accounts swindled by identity fraud (and so have little to no hope of ever recovering the stolen benefits). The final recommendation from the council was for reimbursable employers to be taxed initially in order to create a fund of $1 million for covering themselves against identity fraud, essentially the second option of the three presented. Proposal D15-05 was to correct a hole in the statutes that accidentally left LLPs out of the definition of employer (see also this DWD memo on this issue). Appeals modernization, D15-06, continues to be discussed by council members. Perhaps the most significant change in this proposal — notice by Internet in place of postal mail — has NOT received any discussion of comment from council members, however. On the other hand, there has been no word on D15-09 — distinguishing able and available determinations from separation determinations — since this proposal was introduced at the 19 May 2015 council meeting. Finally, the proposed changes to the definition of concealment in D15-08 (described in this previous post) may be discussed again at subsequent council meetings.