New Olmstead Consent Decree Monitor Wants Reality Check On RI DD System Transformation

A. Anthony Antosh * Photo By Anne Peters

By Gina Macris

As the new federal monitor of a 2014 civil rights consent decree affecting Rhode Islanders with developmental disabilities, A. Anthony Antosh wants to get a reality check on where reform efforts now stand and to create a road map for what remains to be done to enable people to live inclusive lives, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead Decision on the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Antosh’s vision, which parallels the requirements of the consent decree is that:

• Adults with developmental disabilities who once spent their days in sheltered workshops or day care centers will have a chance to work at regular jobs and will be able to do whatever non-work activities they want in the community- with the needed supports.

• Teenagers and those in their early twenties still in school, who are also protected by the consent decree, will get the services they need to make a smooth transition to the world of work and adulthood.

The process for assessing how far the state has moved toward inclusion includes not only a look at the state’s compliance with the consent decree’s prescribed goals, or “benchmarks,” but at the impact on the people’s lives as well, Antosh said.

For example, the state’s “Person-Centered Supported Employment Performance Program” tries to boost the number of people who get hired to bring the state into compliance with target job numbers specified in the consent decree. Antosh says he wants to find out if meeting those target employment numbers also means that everyone who wants to work has a chance to get a job.

Antosh outlined his vision at a Dec. 17 meeting in Warwick with the Employment First Task Force (EFTF), a community-based committee empowered by the consent decree to serve as an advisory group to state government and federal officials.

After his appointment as monitor by U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., Antosh said, “a lot of people wanted to give me advice but lots of people felt their voices had not been heard. I want them to be heard.”

Antosh said he can’t process calls and emails from all of the thousands of Rhode Islanders with a stake in developmental disability services, but over the next couple of months he wants to hear from as many people as possible.

He turned to EFTF to help him collect and analyze the information in the next few months because its 15 members have broad and deep connections to the various constituencies with a connection to the developmental disability service system as consumers, families or professionals.

The EFTF membership represents non-profit organizations like the RI Developmental Disabilities Council, the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College, Advocates in Action, Disability Rights Rhode Island, and includes a delegate from the state’s special education directors, the leaders of a statewide developmental disability professional organization, family members with ties to advocacy groups, service providers and adults who themselves receive state supports.

In the next two months, Antosh said, he wants the EFTF members to ask these questions of their constituencies:

• Has life improved as a result of the consent decree reforms already in place?

• What changes must yet be made?

• What will a transformed system look like to them?

Right now, Antosh said, he could go around a room and get a different answer from everyone on “where we are now.”

“I want many data points to know it has changed,” said Antosh, drawing on his background as a researcher and educator in developmental disability and special education issues. Antosh was the original director of the Sherlock Center at Rhode Island College, serving from 1993 until two months ago (check.)

Early in his career, he was one of the plaintiffs the lawsuit that forced the state to close its institution for people with disabilities, the Ladd School. It was shuttered in 1994. And the judge who now presides over the consent decree case, John J. McConnell, Jr., was a young lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in the Ladd school suit, Antosh among them.

Antosh said he has consulted with McConnell on his grass roots, fact-gathering approach. He said he will “do nothing without consultation with the judge.”

McConnell appointed Antosh interim court monitor November 25 to end a stalemate of more than four months between the state and the U.S. Department of Justice on the selection of a replacement to the original consent decree monitor, Charles Moseley, who stepped down for health reasons.

At the EFTF meeting, Antosh, now entering his 51st year in the disabilities field, outlined some of his core beliefs:

• Equity. If an opportunity is available to one, it should be available to all, he said.

• Policy backed by research. He said he has seen well intentioned people putting forward well-intentioned policies which have no impact on people’s lives because there’s no research or evidence to indicate they will work.

• Individualization. Antosh said he has seen many plans for an individualized program of services with information on the goals but no steps outlined on how those goals should be reached. “I believe in real plans,” he said.

• Individual control. People with developmental disabilities and their families can spend their allocation much better if they control it, Antosh said.

Overall, Antosh signaled that he wants flexibility in the system to enable the individualization that is at the heart of the consent decree. “I struggle with rigid anything,” he said.

Judge Names Antosh Interim Consent Decree Monitor, Bridging Impasse Between DOJ And RI

A. Anthony Antosh File Photo

By Gina Macris

A federal court judge has appointed A. Anthony Antosh interim court monitor for a 2014 civil rights consent decree protecting Rhode Islanders with developmental disabilities, breaking through a logjam created when the state and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to agree on a successor to Charles Moseley.

Antosh is a household name among Rhode Island’s developmental disability advocates, having served for 26 years as director of the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College, from its inception in 1993 until his retirement just last month.

U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. issued an order Nov. 25 naming Antosh and saying that “a further delay in appointing a Monitor is not in the best interest of the Parties (the state and the DOJ), or more importantly, those with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.”

The appointment, effective Dec. 1, will continue until one of three conditions has been met:

• The state and the DOJ agree on a replacement.

• The two sides submit a list of up to three names each for a replacement.

• The two sides “agree on another mutually agreeable solution.”  

The consent decree required the state and the DOJ to begin searching for a new monitor when Moseley, the original monitor, gave notice July 9 that he would step down Sept. 30, citing medical issues. 

The two sides could not meet a 30-day deadline set in the consent decree for agreeing on a new monitor, ceding the decision to McConnell, who was to name a replacement from list of up to six names –three submitted by each side.

McConnell initially set Sept. 30 as the deadline for the state and the DOJ to submit their respective candidate lists and then extended it until Nov. 25. No candidate lists were forthcoming.

“To help bridge the impasse, the Court requested the Parties submit an agreement on the role and responsibility of the Monitor. Unfortunately, the Parties could not come to agreement,” McConnell wrote. (See related article)

McConnell said he named Antosh on the general authority the consent decree granted him to enforce its provisions and the court’s “inherent jurisdiction to enforce [its] decrees.”

Antosh’s work is very well known to adults with developmental disabilities who advocate for themselves, their families, and professionals in the public and private sectors involved with implementing the consent decree.

Antosh and the Sherlock Center have served as a resource for Moseley, the previous monitor, as well as the state, private service providers, individuals and their families in providing targeted education and training on the inclusive principles of the consent decrees and how to translate them into daily practice.  In addition, the Sherlock Center has provided research to help the state in data collection and technical assistance to private providers trying to shift to community-based, integrated services.

The 36-page consent decree requires the state to correct violations of the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act in accordance with the Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

By 2024, Rhode Island must transform its system of daytime services for adults with developmental disabilities from a segregated model funded for the staffing of sheltered workshops to a community-based network with an emphasis on competitive employment.

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.