Dear Neighbors:
I wish everyone observing Easter a blessed day filled with peace, love and joy. In this week’s letter, I will discuss the State’s ongoing relationship with the St. Mary’s Home, and the issue of unfunded mandates.
1. St. Mary’s Home
a. The Child Advocate’s Disturbing Report
Last Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee reviewed the budgets of the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and the Office of Child Advocate (OCA). In December, OCA published a Report that revealed extensive, disturbing instances of mistreatment of the children under St. Mary’s care. At a March 5 hearing, the Senate Finance Committee Chair expressed his concerns about DCYF’s continuing relationship with St. Mary’s, including plans to use $11 million of pandemic relief funds to design and build a new psychiatric care facility that would be operated by St. Mary’s.
b. DCYF’s Response
At Tuesday’s hearing, the DCYF Director stated she has put a hold on new referrals to St. Mary’s and imposed a “corrective action plan” to bring the facility into compliance with State law and the best interest of children under its care. This process is constrained by the time limits on the use of federal pandemic relief funds, which must be “obligated” by the end of this year and spent by the end of 2026. As a result, DCYF does not have a wide window of time to change its plans should it conclude that St. Mary’s is incapable of making the needed reforms.
c. Coordination With The Child Advocate
I was pleased to learn that DCYF enlisted the assistance of OCA to develop the corrective action plan and to monitor its compliance. As noted above, OCA’s investigation found the serious problems at St. Mary’s that DCYF had not. This collaboration between the two offices is the first of its kind, which in my view presents both opportunities and risks. I asked the Child Advocate how she would balance her roles of collaborating with DCYF to bring St. Mary’s into compliance on the one hand, and maintain its independent oversight on the other. the Child Advocate assured the Committee she would maintain her independent, core responsibility to keep children first no matter what. I will be interested to follow the progress of this partnership.
2. Unfunded Mandates
a. Mandating Trainers For High School Sports
Last Wednesday, the Senate Education Committee, reviewed a bill proposing to protect high school athletes from serious injuries by requiring a trainer in attendance at all sports practices and games. We heard testimony that trainers on the spot could reduce the harmful effects of concussions in high school football and lacrosse, and the risk of other serious injury in other sports.
b. Impact On Local School Budgets
We also heard testimony from school officials stating that while the bill’s intent was commendable, its mandatory language would increase costs for schools and school districts without providing State funding to cover those costs. From the perspective of school districts and municipal officials, this type of bill represents what they call and “unfunded mandate.” During my days on the Providence School Board and City Council, these mandates frustrated me, as they diverted scarce funds from other school programs that, in our judgment at the time, were a higher priority for our students.
c. State Law 1: Reimbursement Program
When the General Assembly considers bills that would require an appropriation of State funds, the Office of Management and Budget provides a “fiscal note” informing legislators of the cost of the proposed initiative. I was curious whether we needed a similar protocol for bills compelling an expenditure of local funds. At Wednesday’s hearing, the Senate staff and the school committee witnesses informed me of two laws, namely 45-13-9 and 45-13-9.1. In 1979, Section 45-13-9 established a procedure to calculate the local cost of these mandates, and for the State to distribute reimbursement to local communities of the mandated costs. The General Assembly then modified the reimbursement, limiting the amount to that “as may be appropriated by the general assembly,” which eventually reduced and eliminated this funding source.
d. State Law 2: Disclosure Requirement
In 2006, the General Assembly enacted section 9.1, which I read to require the submission of a local financial impact calculation when the General Assembly considers enacting such a mandate, even to the point of (at least in my reading) invalidating any such mandates that are enacted without such a cost determination. I have been in the Senate for almost three years, and I have yet to see any local impact “fiscal notes” contemplated by Section 9.1, even as we have enacted “unfunded mandates” during that time. I plan to research this law to understand its current application to State legislation, as these State mandates have commanded substantial local expenditures that diverge from the priorities of many local communities.
|
|
