Judge Will Settle Argument Over Witnesses In Consent Decree Case

By Gina Macris

Sometime in September, the state of Rhode Island drafted a settlement agreement, aimed at avoiding upcoming federal court contempt proceedings, for continuing violations of a 2014 civil rights consent decree case affecting adults with developmental disabilities.

But as the state’s lawyers were planning to show the proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), pre-trial legal sparring moved front and center, and the chances for any settlement to resolve the contempt charges remain unknown.

In an email chain made public in a court filing, the state’s lead lawyer told a counterpart at the DOJ on Sept. 30 that his team hoped to confer with DOJ lawyers in the following days about the proposed settlement.

Those emails also showed the two sides sparred over pre-trial procedures, coming to an impasse over the deposition of witnesses in the contempt hearing, scheduled to begin Oct. 18. A longstanding lack of funding and staff to carry out compliance with a 2014 consent decree would be a be a key issue in the contempt hearing.

The DOJ asked Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court to intervene, and compel the state to make available a total of 15 witnesses, including the House and Senate fiscal advisors, in time for the DOJ to depose all of them in accordance with a pretrial deadline already established in a court order.

McConnell has scheduled a teleconference with the lawyers for 4 pm on October 7.

In asking McConnell to intervene, the DOJ included a Sept. 30 chain of emails between DOJ lawyer Victoria Thomas and two state lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton.

In the emails, DeSisto and Hilton pushed back the start of depositions, in the process postponing a deposition that had already been scheduled with the state’s chief auditor in the Office of Management and Budget.

In addition, DeSisto and Hilton said they could not make the House and Senate Fiscal Advisors available for deposition at all. Sharon Ferland holds the House post and Stephen Whitney advises the Senate.

Hilton wrote: “Without more information as to the reasons you are seeking to call Sharon and Stephen as witnesses, we cannot make a determination on whether we could agree to make them available. There very well may be privileges that need to be preserved by way of a motion for protective order. Additionally, we do not have the authority to accept a subpoena on their behalf.”

DOJ’s Thomas replied: “We are seeking the testimony of Sharon and Stephen based on the Court Monitor’s opinion that they have valuable information relevant to the funding provision of the Consent Decree. We have now exhausted our good faith efforts to resolve this dispute and will be filing a motion to compel shortly.”

Earlier in the email chain, DeSisto had mentioned the proposed settlement:

“As we discussed in last evening's phone call,” he wrote to Thomas, “it is my hope that in the next few days we can confer regarding the terms of settlement. We are waiting for some feedback from Tony (A. Anthony Antosh, the independent court monitor) in this regard. Once we receive his input, we would like to have a settlement conference with you, maybe as early as tomorrow.”

Thomas replied:

“We are eager to see the State's written settlement proposal and to conference with you tomorrow. That said, while we remain hopeful that a settlement may potentially resolve our contempt motion, we must preserve our litigation rights.” Thomas continued to press for assurances on the depositions.

In its contempt motion, The DOJ has stated that, if necessary, it is prepared to present evidence that the state “failed even to ask its Legislature for a sufficient appropriation” and that it “failed to make efficient use even of the resources it had – for example, by failing to modify State rules and incentives that favor providers of less integrated services over providers of more integrated services.”

The DOJ has proposed an escalating scale of fines, from $500,000 on the first day of each of the first two months to $50,000 a day beginning on the 70th day. At that rate, the fines would add up to about $1.5 million a month.


DOJ, RI Spar Over Contempt In Olmstead Case

Federal Courthouse in Providence

Federal Courthouse in Providence

By Gina Macris

The state of Rhode Island told a judge it cannot be held in contempt of a 2014 civil rights consent decree seeking to integrate adults with developmental disabilities in their communities because of circumstances beyond the state’s control.

But the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) says that the state has only itself to blame for its failure to comply.

The state’s “persistent choices to under-fund the system have created a dramatic provider shortage” that has left the target population isolated, the DOJ said in a counter-argument submitted Friday, Sept. 10, to the U.S. District Court.

The “refusal to adequately fund the Consent Decree is precisely the kind of self-imposed inability to comply” that undermines the state’s arguments in its defense, the DOJ said.

The decree stems from a 2014 finding by the DOJ that the state violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by relying too much on sheltered workshops paying sub-minimum wages and isolated day care centers, which kept people with disabilities out of mainstream society. The Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has re-affirmed the rights of people with disabilities to receive support in their communities to give them a chance to live regular lives.

The DOJ further cites warnings of an independent court monitor a year ago that the state will be unable to comply with the consent decree by 2024 unless it came up with a multi-year plan to overhaul its developmental disabilities system, which for a decade has encouraged segregated care over integrated services. Such a plan has not been forthcoming.

The state’s lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton, submitted arguments Sept. 1 in response to a DOJ motion two weeks earlier that asked the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court to find the state in contempt of the consent decree and impose fines ranging up to $1.5 million per month. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. has scheduled a hearing the week of Oct. 18 through Oct. 22.

The state’s lawyers maintained the state could not meet benchmarks for integrated employment and other criteria because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as resistance by adults with developmental disabilities themselves to work and non-work activities in the community.

But in its reply Sept. 10, the DOJ said the state’s characterization of the population “paints an inaccurate and offensive picture of people with developmental disabilities” and “reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature, purpose, and obligations of the Consent Decree.”

DeSisto and Hilton, meanwhile, also argued that numerical targets for employment of adults with disabilities were not required by the consent decree, even though, as the DOJ said, documents show that state officials have admitted the opposite in numerous statements to the court since 2014, in writing or in person..

The state’s lawyers also maintained the state cannot be held in contempt until after the agreement expires on June 30, 2024 – an interpretation the DOJ said is unheard of in litigation involving system-wide reform.

In picking apart the state’s position over 28 pages, the DOJ said the state is urging the court “to adopt an interpretation of the consent decree that is “at odds with the decree’s text and purpose,” the DOJ said.

The state maintained the consent decree “imposed what could only be described as a cultural shock on the targeted community. After years of receiving services in “non-community” settings, “they are being told that their lifestyle must change,” the state’s lawyers said.

The DOJ disagreed. Rather than being told what they must do, the DOJ said, those eligible for services and their families have the right to make informed choices after receiving education and support about what working and enjoying leisure activities in the community might mean for them.

The state’s own data show that it “dramatically overstates” the resistance to integrated services, with 80 of 1,877 persons, or 4 percent, opting out of integrated services through a formal variance process, the DOJ said. And it cited a report from a court monitor in 2016 who had said he found “strong broad-based acceptance of the goals and desired outcomes of the consent decree.”

Similarly, the DOJ lawyers rejected the state’s argument that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented compliance with the annual employment targets in the consent decree. The pace of new job placements had slowed significantly more than a year before the onset of COVID-19, the DOJ said.

While the pandemic did make compliance more challenging, the state made “minimal efforts” to serve the consent decree population during the pandemic, the DOJ’s civil rights division argued.

“Given the availability of enhanced federal matching funds for providing integrated Medicaid services like those the Consent Decree requires, the State has the opportunity to increase funding for integrated employment services, provide the full amount of integrated day services to each target population member, and enhance wages to attract the required number of service providers,” the DOJ said. Its memorandum is signed by Rebecca B. Bond, chief of the DOJ’s civil rights division, as well as trial attorneys expected to litigate the case in October.

The state did earmark $39.7 million in federal-state Medicaid money to raise the wages of workers and their supervisors by $2 to $3 an hour in the current budget, a roughly 15 percent increase, but only at the conclusion of court-ordered negotiations between state officials and providers.

DeSisto and Hilton, the state’s lawyers, also said the state is finalizing the language in a request for outside proposals “for evaluation and implementation of new rate and payment options for (the) Developmental Disabilities Services System.” The preparation for the request for proposals indicates that BHDDH plans to go out to bid through the state purchasing system, which can take several months.

The state last conducted a rate review in 2010 and 2011, but the General Assembly did not follow the recommendations of the consultant, Burns & Associates. Instead, it set dozens of reimbursement rates for private providers roughly 17 to 19 percent lower than Burns & Associates recommended, with the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) saying that it still expected providers to maintain the same level of service.

In November 2018, a principal in Burns & Associates, Mark Podrazik, testified before a special legislative commission that that a rate review was already overdue. Rates should be reviewed every five years, he said.

A few months later, BHDDH hired NESCSO, the nonprofit New England States Consortium Systems Organization, to analyze Rhode Island’s developmental disabilities system from top to bottom.

Although the NESCSO contract called for a rate review and analysis of alternatives to the state’s fee-for-service reimbursement system, NESCSO was asked to present options for change but to make no recommendations.

The BHDDH director at the time, Rebecca Boss, said the department wanted to expand its analytical capability and make its own choices going forward.

The 18-month contract, which cost $1.1 million, produced a final report and supplementary technical materials which, among many other things, said the provider system was significantly underfunded. Since the report was completed July 1, 2020, BHDDH has remained silent on its findings, and has not exercised options for renewal of NESCSOs services.

In their memorandum, the state’s lawyers said that “the intention of the rate review process is to strengthen the I/DD system and services provided to individuals, as well as to address provider capacity to deliver those same services. Thus, the State can and will at hearing clearly demonstrate that it has been ‘performing its obligations’ under the various sections of the Consent Decree.”

The DOJ has scoffed at that notion. The DOJ said in its original filing in August that it is prepared to show the “State failed even to ask its Legislature for a sufficient appropriation, and that the State failed to make efficient use even of the resources it had – for example, by failing to modify State rules and incentives that favor providers of less integrated services over providers of more integrated services.

$10 Million CARES Act Money Set As Emergency Aid For RI DD Providers

By Gina Macris

(This article has been updated.)

The state of Rhode Island has agreed to set aside $10 million from the federally-funded CARES Act as a short-term safety net for private providers of developmental disability services, who are in “financial distress” as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

The state negotiated the sum with the providers, working under an order from Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court to ensure the private agencies don’t close their doors before the end of the fiscal year June 30.

McConnell formally approved the plan in an order Dec. 23, with an accompanying memorandum recognizing the “extraordinary efforts of the State", including Governor Gina Raimondo’s office and several departments of the executive branch, as well as State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, who participated in the negotiations.

“It is heartening to see the large state apparatus come together to assist those most vulnerable in our community, and to help fulfill the promises of the Consent Decree,” McConnell said.

The order also affirmed the state’s commitment to “work with providers to develop a three-year plan to improve outcomes for individuals with I/DD, and to include an investment in the I/DD provider network in the Governor’s FY22 state budget plan as part of this work.”

The continuity of the private provider system is essential to the state’s ability to comply with the consent decree, 2014 civil rights agreement requiring the integration of adults with developmental disabilities in their communities by 2024.

The agreement between the state and the providers establishes an “I/DD (Intellectual and Developmental Disability) Provider Support Program” of grants to cover pandemic-related losses of some three dozen private agencies, which have been forced to drastically reduce daytime services at the same time they have been saddled with sharply higher costs for safety measures necessary to protect residents of group homes.

The application process for funds and the distribution of the grants will run on an accelerated timeline, with initial information flowing to providers Dec. 21 and documented grant requests due back Dec. 28, according to the filing with the U.S. District Court. Funding is to be available Jan. 8. Agencies must document how they are using the funds by Jan. 30.

The program aims to expand daytime services for adults with developmental disabilities, who in large part received center-based care until the pandemic hit and forced providers to close these facilities. Some daytime services, including employment supports, have continued, but the grants are intended to enable providers to go into clients homes as well as build on existing individualized programs.

“Home-based service alternatives require a large and flexible workforce,” according to a summary of the grant program submitted to McConnell. Providers have had difficulty finding workers, having to pay up to $30 an hour to staff some group homes.

The program is intended to enable group home staff to better protect and care for residents, some of whom have pre-existing medical conditions and are particularly susceptible to being hospitalized with the virus when they otherwise might receive care in a less restrictive setting. Ensuring hospital beds are reserved for only the sickest patients is a public health priority, the summary said.

Agencies receiving grants must agree to comply with all COVID-related public health recommendations and several other conditions that further the goals of preserving and increasing services and supporting frontline workers who provide direct care.

The specific requirements detail a commitment to essential services, outreach to those in a variety of living situations, and making “reasonable attempts” not to lay off more than 50 percent of employees.

The summary said that it will require “broad cooperation” to overcome the problems COVID-19 has caused for the developmental disability system, which will continue to face challenges as the situation evolves.

“This partnership represents an opportunity to extend that cooperation to build strong resilience for the current crisis and improve health outcomes for all Rhode Islanders in need of I/DD services and supports. The State of Rhode Island looks forward to working with critically important I/DD providers, consumers, and other stakeholders to establish and carry out this partnership,” the summary concluded.

The court-ordered negotiations grew out of a Nov. 24 hearing before Judge McConnell. The testimony laid out the ways the COVID-19 pandemic has undermined providers’ ability to serve their clients and threatened the entirety of their operations. (See related article.)

The state’s lawyers said the negotiations were a “collaborative effort” facilitated by the independent court monitor in the case, A. Anthony Antosh.

The state participants included representatives of the governor’s office, the Department of Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals, and members of the General Assembly.

The providers were represented by the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, a non-profit trade association with about two dozen members, about two thirds of the three dozen agencies providing services to adults with developmental disabilities in Rhode Island. Other providers also participated, according to the state’s private lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton.

Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice engaged in the talks but took “no position” on the agreement, according to a separate statement they submitted to the court.

Read the documents filed by the state here.


Federal Judge Asks RI For Quick Action To Increase DD Funding And Avoid Court Order

John J. McConnell , Jr.

John J. McConnell , Jr.

By Gina Macris

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. has made it clear he is prepared to use the power of the U.S. District Court, if necessary, to ensure the state of Rhode Island provides adequate funding for adults with development disabilities.

That population of about 4000 people is protected by a 2014 civil rights agreement set to expire in 2024, assuming the Court approves.

Time is already drawing short for the state to make the changes necessary to achieve compliance by the 2024 deadline. The process would require approval by the General Assembly and would have to be running smoothly for a year before the state is released from federal oversight.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has added urgency to the situation, because the state’s compliance depends on some three dozen private service providers that are in such shaky ground financially that they won’t survive the next six months without extra cash.

That was the picture presented to McConnell at a hastily-called virtual court hearing on Zoom Nov. 24.

McConnell gave state officials and advocates until Dec. 18 to figure out a solution to providers’ short-range fiscal problems.

McConnell said he saw “two levels of crisis:”

  • an immediate one that threatens the viability of social services for adults with developmental disabilities over the next six months, with conditions changing “second by second, moment by moment, and day by day.”

  • a system-wide crisis around the state’s ability to meet the requirements of the 2014 consent decree.

Since last summer, the state has been engaged in a court-ordered planning effort to devise solutions to the systemic issues and present McConnell with a long-range implementation plan by June, 2021.

But the judge said he called Tuesday’s hearing in response to a preliminary fiscal report from an independent monitor, who said the burdens of coping with the coronavirus pandemic posed more immediate threats to service providers.

Cooperative Solution Preferred

McConnell asked the monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, to convene a “collaborative” public-private group to come up with an immediate funding solution by December 18. The collaboration should include state officials, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, and representatives of the community, including the head of a provider trade association, Tina Spears, McConnell said.

Lawyers for the state, including Kathleen Hilton and Marc DeSisto, framed it as a continuation of an active collaboration that already has resulted in one hazard pay initiative.

McConnell said he much preferred a solution devised by the state and its partners in the community, rather than having to resort to a court order.

But he made it clear that one way or another, he considers it his responsibility, as a judge in the “third and co-equal branch of government,” to protect the population with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Rhode Island.

“The advisable way is for the good and smart people to sign off and figure out how to do it,” the judge said.

After hearing from budget director Jonathan Womer, health and human services secretary Womazetta Jones, and other state officials, McConnell said “there is no doubt we have an awesome team in the executive branch whose hearts and minds and souls are in the right place.”

McConnell acknowledged that “quite a bit of money” ($20 million) has been allocated to developmental disabilities during the pandemic, but he said “it has become inadequate as the system currently exists.”

The state “may have fiscal handcuffs on,” as Womer, the budget director, explained, but “for the Court, it’s of no import where the money comes from.”

The state and “all its entities” are part of a consent decree that enforces the civil rights of adults with developmental disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, McConnell said.

“But make no mistake,” he said. If necessary, “the Court will use all its powers to order the state and all its entities to come up with the money,” he said.

Effects Of Pandemic “Unrelenting”

The trade association representative, Tina Spears, director of the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, (CPNRI) illustrated the current problem in human terms.

In the first three weeks of November, a single provider agency experienced COVID- 19 infections in four of its 18 group homes. Sixteen staff members and eight group home residents tested positive, with four residents requiring hospitalization. Three staffers had to quarantine at home, and one staff member died, Spears said.

Meanwhile, the agency’s day programming, which included expansive work-related supports and other services, is running at 30 percent capacity, she said, running into debt at an exponential rate.

“The situation on the ground is unrelenting,” she said.

Kayleigh Fischer, Director of Budget and Finance for EOHHS, laid out the various federal initiatives, totaling $20 million, that have helped service providers stay afloat during 2020.

And Womer, the budget director, explained the fiscal challenges posed by COVID-19, which has decimated revenue and has saddled the state with a projected budget deficit of $250 million to $275 million by the end of the fiscal year in June, depending on who’s counting.

“It’s confusing. There are a lot of moving pieces and a lot of federal guidance that’s constantly changing,” he said.

“We have more restrictions on spending now because of the pandemic,” Womer said. “We are reducing spending anywhere we can to contain the deficit,” he said.

The state can spend federal grant money like the $1.6 billion allocated to Rhode Island for coronavirus relief, Womer said, but among the exclusions are spending for workforce bonuses, as well as replacing state revenue in the federal-state match for the Medicaid program.

Medicaid is the program that funds the developmental disability service workforce.

Spears Highlights Below-Market Funding

Spears acknowledged that without the emergency funding the state has allocated so far, the developmental disability service system already would have folded.

She said she appreciates the fiscal challenges Womer described, but “this has been the rationale for underfunding our workforce for the last decade.“

In 2011, the state deliberately set reimbursement rates for private providers of developmental disability services below market costs, Spears said. “This fact cannot be overstated,” she said.

The rate-cutting, which resulted in layoffs and sharp wage reductions, has been documented in an exhaustive $1.1 million study commissioned by the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals, (BHDDH), and by a separate special legislative commission.

Over time, Spears said, the flawed fiscal foundation of the reimbursement model has made it increasingly difficult for providers to recruit and retain qualified workers, a situation that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Today’s average pay for direct care workers is $13.18 an hour, but provider agencies say they must pay $25 to $30 an hour to get workers to go into COVID-positive group homes or homes where residents are in quarantine, according to Antosh, the court monitor.

Antosh has proposed the state deploy $2 million a month from unused developmental disability funding to boost the pay of direct care workers to $20 an hour and cover other expenses related to COVID-19.

Separate from Antosh’s proposal, Spears said, CPNRI has asked Governor Gina Raimondo for COVID Cares Act relief funding for incentive pay for workers in coronavirus-positive group homes and for emergency relocation funds. These funds would be used for temporary quarters to make sure that COVID-negative group home residents can be separated from housemates who are infected.

She did not provide additional detail on that pandemic-related funding request.

Instead she focused her remarks during the hearing on separate recommendations for addressing the structural problems in the fee-for-service reimbursement model.

The state should raise entry-level wages to $17.50 an hour immediately, with a boost to $20 an hour in the fiscal year beginning next July 1, she said. Spears said the state has received an increase in the federal share of the federal-state Medicaid program which has not been passed along to service providers.

In addition, there should be an expedited, yet comprehensive, review of the rate structure that includes the cost of implementing policies mandated by the 2014 consent decree, Spears said. The current rate structure does not support the agreement, she said. She said changes in the rate structure should be ready to be incorporated in the budget that begins next July 1.

The DOJ has found that the overhaul of the developmental disability service system adopted in 2011 incentivized segregated care, in violation of the Integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

During the court hearing, Womazetta Jones, the Health and Human Services Secretary, said she wants to work with service providers to do what is feasible and equitable, given all the needs of vulnerable populations.

McConnell replied to Jones:

“As a citizen, I have long admired your service,” he said.

But he pointed out that Rhode Islanders with developmental disabilities have a protection that other vulnerable populations do not.

The DOJ found, and the state agreed, that those with developmental disabilities have experienced violations of their constitutional rights “that can’t continue,” the judge said.

“I don’t want to disagree with anything, but I want to focus on why we are here,” McConnell said.

DOJ, RI Ask Judge To Settle Major Dispute Over Compliance With ADA Integration Mandate

By Gina Macris

A dispute has arisen between Rhode Island and the federal government over a key phrase in two court-approved agreements which require the state to provide people with developmental disabilities full access to jobs and community activities.

Both sides have asked U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. to rule soon on what it means for the state to achieve “substantial compliance” with two companion civil rights decrees signed in 2013 and 2014.

The details of the dispute focus on the first of the two agreements, which is scheduled to expire in six months – July 1,2020 – and is known as the Interim Settlement Agreement (ISA).

This agreement applies only to students and former students of the Birch Academy, a developmental disabilities program at Mount Pleasant High School in Providence which once served as a feeder for a now-defunct sheltered workshop in North Providence called Training Through Placement (TTP).

The ISA sought to resolve a finding by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that large-scale segregation of developmentally disabled youth and adults at Birch and TTP violated the Integration Mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The matter became the nation’s first “sheltered workshop” settlement.

How McConnell decides to define “substantial compliance” in the context of the ISA will also impact the broader 2014 consent decree, intended to protect all Rhode Island youth and adults with developmental disabilities from a lifetime of day care or low-paying piecework.

In the ISA, both the state and the city of Providence were defendants until late September, when McConnell ended federal oversight of the city. He received glowing reports of a transformed Birch Academy, which today sends students to productive internships that broaden their experiences and sometimes result in regular jobs.

But the state still has detailed obligations under provisions of the 2013 agreement to help former Birch students and former TTP workers find jobs.

On Dec. 23, the DOJ notified McConnell that “it disputes that the state will be in substantial compliance with the Agreement” by July 1 “without a course-correcting change in the State’s approach to compliance.”

The DOJ asked the judge to direct the interim court monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, to “begin working with the State immediately to develop and implement a plan for completing the (2013) Agreement’s highly achievable remaining outcomes and schedule a status conference with the Parties in January 2020 to address next steps.”

A week later, on Dec. 30, lawyers for the state challenged the DOJ, saying the federal government has not documented its specific objections or offered a “clear working definition” of substantial compliance for either the 2013 or 2014 agreements.

The state is already working with Antosh on a definition of substantial compliance, its lawyers said. The lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen A. Hilton, asked for a formal hearing in January on the issue of substantial compliance, rather than the informal status conference requested by the DOJ.

DeSisto and Hilton said they would be prepared to submit evidence and sworn testimony that the state is meeting its responsibilities under the terms of the ISA.

The agreement itself says only that “substantial compliance is achieved when the state and the city have implemented all of the provisions of the Interim Settlement Agreement for all individuals in the target populations.”

DeSisto and Hilton wrote that “in this context, ‘implement’ means that there are mechanisms and/or policies put into effect of sufficient means to carry out its (the state’s) requirements of the particular benchmark at issue.”

For example, there remain 15 individuals protected by the ISA who have employment goals but have never been employed in the community, DeSisto and Hilton said. The reasons include poor health or challenging behavior, family resistance, legal or forensic issues with the individuals, or extended absences from service programs.

(The state’s memorandum did not specify the total number of persons counted in the ISA, but past reports from the state and the independent court monitor put the total at a maximum of about 125, with fluctuations over time.)

The state could have requested “variances” to exempt these 15 individuals from employment and remove them from the ISA caseload, the lawyers said, but officials have no interest in pursuing this route.

Instead, the state wants to meet the individuals’ needs, “where they are at this time, and (work) on an individualized basis, towards the ultimate goal of employment,” DeSisto and Hilton wrote. They said the state has ”competence” to meet the employment goals, whether or not those goals are actually reached, suggesting that this “competence” demonstrates substantial compliance.

DeSisto and Hilton asserted that the state has achieved full compliance in 52 provisions of the ISA and substantial compliance in the remaining three provisions. But their memorandum to the judge does not describe those respective provisions.

The memo also referred to findings of the previous court monitor, Charles Moseley, who in August assessed the city’s compliance with the agreement but left the state’s compliance with numerous provisions “to be determined.”

DeSisto and Hilton indicated that Moseley followed up on his findings regarding state compliance in an Oct. 1 email with a new report attached. The lawyers included what appears to be an index of Moseley’s findings in three categories; substantial compliance, noncompliance, and “to be determined”, but they did not include the Oct. 1 report itself. Nor does that report appear separately in the court file.

DOJ And RI Can't Agree On Next Consent Decree Monitor; Judge McConnell To Decide

By Gina Macris

For more than four months, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the state of Rhode Island have been unable to agree on a new monitor of the state’s compliance with a 2014 civil rights consent decree affecting adults with developmental disabilities.

The stalemate now leaves the choice to U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., who will consider apparent differences between the DOJ and the state over the extent of the monitor’s authority in making his selection. McConnell must choose from up to six candidates – a maximum of three names submitted by each side.

In the absence of a monitor, whose duties include mediation of disputes, a disagreement simmered between the state’s consent decree coordinator and an Employment First Task Force. The argument, concerning the the independence of the task force, escalated to the point of prompting a letter from the DOJ to the state’s lawyers.

The monitor’s job became vacant with the retirement of Charles Moseley, who notified all concerned on July 9 that because of health concerns, he would step down effective Sept. 30.

The state and the DOJ had 30-days to agree on a replacement once Moseley gave his notice, according to the consent decree. After 30 days, the decree says, the judge makes the selection from the candidates submitted by the two sides.

McConnell initially set a deadline of Sept. 30 for the two sides to conclude discussions, but at the end of September, he extended the deadline to Nov. 25, requiring the DOJ and the state to check in with him every two weeks on the progress in talks.

Earlier this month, he asked the two sides to submit statements on their respective views of the role of the consent decree monitor. That deadline also was extended, from Nov. 19 to Nov. 22.

The statements appear similar in many details but suggest that the DOJ envisions greater independence for the monitor than does the state. The DOJ has asked for a phone conference with the state and the judge on the matter of the monitor’s selection.

During the time there’s been no monitor, comparatively small differences between the state’s consent decree coordinator and an Employment First Task Force (EFTF) have coalesced into a dispute over the independence of the Task Force that reached the ears of the DOJ in at least one telephone call.

The EFTF was created by the consent decree to serve as a community-based advisory group to the state, the monitor, and the court. Its members are drawn from many non-profit organizations working to improve the quality of life of adults with developmental disabilities, as well as representation from those receiving services and their families. .

The flap appears to finally have been settled with a Nov. 13 letter from the DOJ to the private lawyers representing the state in the consent decree, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton.

The letter said EFTF members informed the DOJ that the state’s consent decree coordinator, Brian Gosselin, has told the task force not to communicate with the DOJ without Rhode Island’s oversight.

Gosselin, queried briefly by Developmental Disability News after an EFTF meeting Nov. 19, which he attended with Kathleen Hilton, one of the state’s consent decree lawyers, said it was a “genuine misunderstanding.”

The DOJ said in its letter that it hoped it indeed was a misunderstanding that was at the heart of the disagreement:

“We hope that there is simply a misunderstanding or miscommunication here, as such an instruction would be inconsistent with the role of the Task Force as set out in the Consent Decree,” wrote DOJ. While the consent decree required the state to create the task force,” the letter said, the consent decree ”does not contemplate that the State will supervise its work, dictate its findings, or limit its communications. The Task Force’s members are independent stakeholders whose role is to assist in successful implementation of the Consent Decree, including by providing recommendations to the Monitor and State officials.”

“Indeed, any limitation on open communication would undermine the intended autonomy of the Task Force. We ask Rhode Island to help ensure that the channels of communication between the Employment First Task Force, the United States, and the Monitor are uninhibited,” the letter said. It was signed by trial attorneys Jillian Lenson, Victoria Thomas and Nicole Kovite Zeitler.

The letter was not discussed at the most recent EFTF meeting, but there appeared to be some tension between Gosselin and members of the task force around a discussion that began with EFTF questions about the details of the state’s latest quarterly compliance report and ended with the state’s own questions about ways the task force could do more to work in the field to present the benefits of employment.

Members of the task force indicated they do what they can in the community, but added that they are a group of volunteers, most of them with full time jobs. (Some of them are also family members with responsibilities for individuals with special needs.) Task force members emphasized the advisory nature of the committee, echoing the DOJ letter.

If a monitor were in place, he or she might be expected to mediate differences between the consent decree coordinator and the EFTF before they got the point of requiring a lawyer’s letter from one side to the other. In fact, the consent decree explicitly authorizes the monitor to mediate, although the monitor’s recommendations for settling disputes are not binding, unless they happen to overlap with requirements of the consent decree, according to the DOJ.

As to the monitor’s powers, one of the main points made by the DOJ is its view that the monitor is not bound by the preferences of the state or the DOJ, unless the preferences are also required by the consent decree itself. By the same token, the state is not bound by the DOJ’s preferences and vice-versa, according DOJ view.

The state does not spell out that distinction between either sides’s preferences s the requirements of the consent decree. The differences between the DOJ and the state are highlighted in red or blue type in a in an extra document submitted to McConnell by the federal government.

In the highlighted document, the two sides differ on the monitor’s independence in evaluating situations in which there is a change in the relevant facts, like fluctuating numbers of people in the consent decree “target populations”, or subgroups, who are required to be placed in jobs in the community. (There are four “target populations,” depending on whether or not individuals ever were employees of a sheltered workshop or whether they were in high school or young adults at the time the consent decree was signed.)

If, for example, the number of target population members is lower than the number of target population members required to be placed in integrated employment, the state says that monitor will make recommendations or ask advice from the court on how to evaluate the state’s compliance in light of the changed numbers.

The DOJ, however, just asks that the monitor report the changed numbers to the court.. Its preferences would not put any qualifiers on the monitor’s authority to evaluate the new situation.

There is agreement that the annual budget for the court monitor, including expenses any consultants that may be hired, should not exceed $300,000, as required by the consent decree. The state pays the monitor.

But the DOJ points out that the consent decree allows the monitor to ask for increase that would exceed the $300,000 limit. The state’s document omits that point. Any expenditure over $300,000 would require approval by the state, according to the consent decree.

In many respects, the submissions by the state and the DOJ are identical.

Read the state’s view of the monitor’s role by clicking here.

Read the DOJ’s view of the monitor’s role by clicking here.

Read the DOJ comparison of the two documents by clicking here.