Minutes
Policy & Procedures Committee
Thursday, March 3, 2011,
9:30 – 11:30 a.m.
Weeks Bldg, Conference Room 1B,
State Office Complex, Waterbury
Members Present: Don Parrish (chair), John Alexander, Sam Liss, and Jennifer Whitmore.
Staff Present: Jim Rader, SRC Coordinator.
The meeting was convened at 9:36 a.m.
1.Agenda: There were no changes to the agenda.
2.Minutes of January 6, 2011, meeting: On a motion by Sam and John, the Committee voted to accept the minutes as presented with a correction pointed out by Don: Under agenda item #1, second paragraph, “my consensus” should read “by consensus”.
3.Chapter 103, NewLanguage on Comparable Benefits: Don clarified what this revision will involve: John Howe was going to revise the chapter to clarify it by giving some examples of benefits that are not comparable benefits. The agenda item was passed over.
4.Services to Groups Chapter(revised draft): The Committee discussed the revised draft, speculating whether theirpreviously proposed changes had been incorporated;Don reviewed those proposed changes:
page 2, definition of “Business Account Manager,” delete the word “to” to make this read “a staff person who develops…”;
page 2, under “General Policy,” the first paragraph should read, “have the potential to contribute…”;
page 3, under “Business Account Management Services,” the first sentence should read “DVR Business Account Managers provide and facilitate coordination of employer outreach …”; and in the second sentence, delete the second word “a” in “on behalf of a number of a programs…”; change the last part of the same sentence byinserting “and” before the words “mental illness”,adding semicolons, and relocating the phrase "with disabilities" in twoinstances,to makethe sentenceread, “serving individuals with developmental disabilities and mental illness; JOBS programs serving youth with severe emotional/behavioral disabilities; adults with disabilities served through the State TANF program; and adults with disabilities exiting the correctional system.”
Don also noted that there had been discussion about adding language to include, in the BAM’s role, working with employers to develop training opportunities and programs; adding Sales Force as one of the BAM’s services; and, in the second paragraph under “Business Account Manager Services,” changing “to help coordinate those efforts” to specify what “those efforts” are.
Sam pointed out two proposed amendments: On page 2, under “General Policy,” third paragraph, first sentence, insert a comma and insert the word “with” to make this sentence read “Before establishing a services to groups program, DVR must provide the State Rehabilitation Council with information…” (At this point it was determined that there was confusion because Committee members were working from different versions of the draft chapter.) It was agreed by consensus to recommend changing the first sentence of the third paragraph to read, “Before establishing a program for services to groups…” and, similarly, the first sentence of the fourth (final) paragraph to read, “Annually, the SRC will review the administration of all DVR programs for services to groups to ensure….”
Discussion followed regarding gas cards and phone cards and whether they are truly “services to groups.” Don pointed out that such services could be charged to an individual client even if there is no IEP yet. By consensus it was felt that clarification is needed regarding this.
In view of lack of information and James’s absence, it was decided to carry this item over to the Committee’s next agenda.
5.Review of Chapter 105, Appeals Process (continued): Jennifer suggested, on page 2, first paragraph, fourth sentence, changing “All of us must be aware…” to read “DVR staff must be aware…”. In the final sentence of that paragraph, Don suggested changing “those” to read “other entities” so that the sentence would read, “We encourage other entities working withDVR staff…”
Jennifer, pointing out the use of the word “person” numerous times on page 5, suggested using a more specific word. After discussion, it was agreed by consensus to recommend changing “person” in all cases to read “consumer”. (Don observed that, atthe DBVI SRCs town meetings, “consumers” reported that they prefer to be referred to as “clients”.”
Sam pointed out that on page 5“tape-recorded” and “taping” should be changed to read “recorded” and “recording”.
Don suggested, on page 2, second paragraph, changing the second sentence to read, “An individual may seek assistance from the Client Assistance Program (CAP) prior to or during any step of the appeals process.” He also suggested changing “While we encourage resolution of disputes at the lowest level possible…” to read “While we encourage resolution of disputes at the earliest stage possible…” After discussion, it was agreed by consensus to recommend, in the third paragraph on page 2, changing “with any determination(s) by a Rehabilitation Counselor…” to read “with any determination(s) by anyone representing the interests of DVR…”
At the top of page 3, Don suggested adding a new “step b”, to read, “b. When the person is found eligible and assigned to a category in the order of selection;”.
Don pointed out recommended changes in the first full paragraph on page 3: changing “insure” to “ensure” and changing “dependent on” to “dependent upon”; and in the third paragraph on page 3, inserting the word “through” and deleting the parentheses so that the sentence would read, “Pending completion of an appeal through mediation, Administrative Review, or Fair Hearing, services…” Regarding the second (“Guidance”) paragraph, it was again pointed out that any “advice” with “must” is not really guidance.
Don questioned the second sentence in the first paragraph on page 4; after discussion, it was agreed to recommend changing this sentence to read, “The review officer will not have been involved in any aspect of the case unless the person agrees to such a designation.”
In the fourth paragraph on page 4, last sentence, Don recommended deleting “parent(s) or” to make this sentence read, “If the person is a minor or under a guardianship, the review must also include the presence of the legal guardian.”
With regard to page 5, paragraph 2, Don again raised the question of whether 45 days should be increased to 60 days; he noted that James had wanted to keep it at 45 days, considering the deadline as protection for the customer (even though the deadline is not always met in practice).
In paragraph 3 on page 5, John suggested deleting the words “if any”.
Regarding numbered item #5, beginning at the bottom of page 5, Don suggested reordering the paragraph to reverse the order of the second and third sentences; this change was accepted by consensus.
In the first full paragraph on page 6, Don said he found the language cumbersome. After discussion, it was agreed to recommend splitting the sentence into two sentences, with the second sentence reading, “The consumer has ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision to request mediation, if that option has not been used, or thirty (30) days to request a Fair Hearing” (the words “from receipt of the decision” being added for clarification).
With regard to numbered item #3, beginning at the bottom of page 6, Don observed that he felt that the SRC should make sure that mediators on the statewide list are indeed familiar with VR laws and regulations.
On page 7, under “Guidance,” Don suggested new wording, “Preference should be given to those mediators who are familiar not only with the law and regulations relating to vocational rehabilitation, but also with disability issues.”
On page 7, under “Process,” numbered item #1, Don suggested that the order of the second and third sentences be reversed and that the words, “A written notice…” (at the beginning of the current second sentence) be changed to read, “The written notice…”.
Under numbered item #2, second paragraph, Don said he was not sure what was meant by “a postcard response for CAP services”; this should be changed to reflect whatever form is actually provided. In the first paragraph of this item, John suggested changing the order of the sentences to read, “The Regional Office Manager must, within 10 working days of the receipt of the request for mediation, notify the person…”
On page 8, under numbered item #6, Don pointed out that “with forty-five (45) days” should read “within forty-five (45) days”.
Again, regarding the “Guidance” sections, Don pointed out that they should be reworded to make them read either “may” (guidance) OR “must” or “should” (and not be designated as “guidance”).
With regard to the Fair Hearing section on page 9, Don said that what DVR calls a “fair hearing” is a hybrid of the two ways to conduct a fair hearing provided for in the Federal regulations; James has said that DVR has the permission of RSA to combine the two approaches, but Don has not yet seen the documentation of this. This needs to be clarified.
With regard to item C, Don questioned whether the request has to be in writing; Sam suggested rewording this as “…may request a fair hearing to the DVR Director who must document the request in writing and forward it to the AHS Human Services Board”; this change was accepted by consensus.
In the “Guidance” at the top of page 10, pointing out that CAP does not “pay for” legal representation, Don suggested rewording item a to read, “Is CAP representing or providing legal representation for the individual?” He also suggested that this “Guidance” is policy, not guidance.
Don suggested that clarification is needed about the appeals process with regard to supported employment (SE) services. DVR contracts with mental health agencies throughout the state and each agency has its own grievance process, which is not the DVR grievance procedure. (In addition, may SE customers don’t even know that DVR is involved.) The Committee needs clarification as to which procedure is to be followed with regard to SE. Discussion followed. It was agreed that this is a major issue with regard to privatization in general and that the Committee needs input from James and Jerry Wood, and perhaps clarification from RSA, regarding this issue.
On page 6, last paragraph of section II, Sam suggested changing the word “adverse” to read “counter”. This was accepted by consensus.
6.Review of Chapter 106, Order of Selection for Services: Don offered ageneral correction: consistent withthe Federal regulations, the abbreviation for order of selection of services should read “OOS” (not “OSS”).
With regard to the general issue of OOS, Don said that the key question is whether the categories should be restricted further; the question is whether DVR is providing quality services to the most severely disabled customers before opening up the OOS. He feels that the timeframe for serving customers is getting longer and longer becauseDVR is trying to provide services to more people. He feels that this is a philosophical difference between DVR and himself. “The intent of the Rehab Act … is clear.” Don read the first paragraph on page 3 of Chapter 106, Section II, “Purpose,” emphasizing the word “promptly”. In other words, he said, why is DVR opening up the OOS rather than focusing on serving the most severely disabled customers more promptly?
Don suggested rewording the first sentence of section V, on page 5, to read, “When an applicant is placed in a Priority Category, s/he must be notified…” In Section VI, page 5, item B, “This request must be made within fifteen (15) days…” should be changed to read, “This request must be made within ten (10) days…” since this is what the appeals process provides for.
With regard to page 6, Section VII, item B, Don said that the law provides for the decision to be made at the beginning of the year as to whether the budget allows for providing services to all categories in the OOS. Discussion followed regarding peoplewho need SE services and who lose jobs for lack of adequate support and thus fall between the cracks. On a suggestion by Sam, it was decided by consensus to refer this question to the Performance Review Committee: Is DVR in Vermont living up to the intent of the Rehab Act regarding themandate to provide adequate services to people with the most severe disabilities? (In the context, Don again pointed out the longer delays in counselors meeting with their customers.)
It was also agreed by consensus to refer the Committee’s concern about better education of employers and the general public about the needs of people with severe disabilities to the Advocacy, Outreach, and Education Committee.
7.Other Business: No other business was brought before the meeting.
8.Adjournment: On a motion by John and Sam the meeting was adjourned at 11:36 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by Jim Rader, SRC Coordinator.
Approved by the Committee at their May 5, 2011 meeting.
1