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.