My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2001 03 26
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2001
>
AG 2001 03 26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 4:51:10 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:45:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
3/26/2001
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
262
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
March 7, 2001 <br /> <br />Daniel R. Coughlin <br />Area Director <br />Piedmont Behavioral Healthcare <br />245 Le Phillip Court, NE <br />Concord, North Carolina 28025 <br /> <br />Dear Dan: <br /> <br /> You have asked me to compare and contrast the legal status, powers and duties of <br />a multi-county area authority, such as Piedmont Area Mental Health, Developmental <br />Disabilities and Substance Abuse Authority, constituted under current G.S. Chapter 122C <br />and a joint agency established by an interlocal agreement between two or more counties <br />under G.S. Chapter 160A, Article 20, G.S. 160A-460 et seq. As I understand it, this <br />question has arisen because some have pointed out that under the draft Mental Health <br />System Reform legislation currently before the General Assembly's Oversight <br />Committee, it appears that a multi-county program can be created under the provisions of <br />proposed 122C-88(e) of the draft legislation which reads, <br /> <br /> A county may operate a local program as a single county program <br />or, pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes, may <br />enter into an interlocal agreement with one or more other counties for the <br />administration of a multi-county program. <br /> <br /> However, the draft G.S. 122C-88(e) goes on to provide, a single administering <br />county must retain budgetary and accounting control of the local multi-county program <br />and the authority to hire and fire the program director. <br /> <br /> My initial comment is that the focus on the point that a multi-county program may <br />be created by an interlocal agreement is a red herring if that focus is meant to raise the <br />implication that a multi-county program under the draft legislation would be more similar <br />to a current multi-county area program than a single county program under the draft <br />legislation, for such an implication, were it to be made, would not be true in any real <br />sense, other than possibly the appearance of the forms. Let us clearly understand that the <br />status of a current multi-county area program is to be fundamentally changed'under the <br />draft legislation. Under current G.S. 122C-116, the status of a multi-county area <br />authority is "a local political subdivision of the State." By contrast, the drat~ proposed <br />G.S. 122C-89A (b) provides, "A county program is a department of the administering <br />county for the purposes of personnel administration of employees appointed by the local <br />program director and Chapter 159 of the General Statutes and such Other purposes as may <br />be agreed to by participating counties." <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.