You are on page 1of 3


In the Senate: Please Support Item 314 #3s, the bipartisan Black budget amendment, and Item 314 #2s, the Favola budget amendment, identical amendments to establish a fair process for determining the future of the residents of Virginias Training Centers Please Support Item 314 #1s, the Newman budget amendment, which would require the DBHDS to seek approval from the General Assembly before closing any Training Center.

In the House: Please Support Item 314 #1h, the bipartisan Bulova budget amendment to establish a fair process for determining the future of the residents of Virginias Training Centers

Please thank all the patrons and co-patrons The, Black, Favola and Bulova amendments (which are identical) were introduced in the Senate and House last week, as was the Newman amendment. They are all trying to achieve the same goal of setting rational rules for determining the future of the Training Centers. Below is a summary of the amendments and their rationales, a list of the co-patrons, and a description of the process. Summary of the Amendments and Explanations Summary of the Black, Favola and Bulova amendments An independent organization would conduct a survey to see how many people would prefer to stay in their existing Training Center. If more than 50 wished to remain at any Center, DBHDS could not close the Center and would have to come up with a plan to lower Center costs. If fewer than 50 wished to remain at a Center, the Center could not be closed until the CSBs certified that, for those who wish to move into the community: o There is sufficient vendor capacity, adequate Medicaid reimbursement for essential services and properly trained staff (see the attached amendment for further details) and o All such residents have successfully transitioned to the community (again, see the attached amendment for details of what constitutes a successful transition).

Rationale for the Black, Favola and Bulova amendments Judge Gibney has stated on multiple occasions that the Settlement Agreement does not require the closure of any Training Center; that the ultimate decision whether to retain more than one Center is up to the General Assembly. The Agreement provides that people who wish to remain in a Training Center are entitled to care in a state-run Training Center, but not necessarily the one of their choosing. The DBHDS is not giving the authorized representatives (ARs) a fair choice. Instead, it is telling them that if they do not choose a placement in the community (which many Community Services Boards say is not ready and will not be ready by the DBHDS deadlines), the residents will be moved to another Center hundreds of miles away. The amendments require an unpressured survey of the interests of the ARs and set a threshold for keeping local Centers open tied to the wishes of the ARs and economies of scale, making sure all Centers that remain open take measures to reduce costs. The amendments also prohibit closing any Center until there is equal or better care in the community and those who choose to move have made successful transitions. Summary of the Newman amendment The amendment would amend the DBHDS budget. It states the following: "The Commissioner of Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services shall seek approval from the General Assembly prior to the closure of a state Intellectual Disability Training Center." Effect of the Newman amendment If interpreted to prohibit the closing of any Training Center without approval of the General Assembly, the amendment would remove the present authority of the executive branch to close all but one Center on its own authority. While it would have no immediate, direct effect on the DBHDS closure schedule, it would be a significant shot across the bow telling the Department it cant do whatever it wants. Coupled with the creation of the Joint Ad Hoc Subcommittee, it would give us further openings to argue our case to the General Assembly. It also gives us an important fallback position should our legislative supporters determine that the Black, Favola and Bulova amendments cannot fail to secure the 2/3 votes necessary to override the governors veto. Patrons and Co-Patrons of the Amendments Northern Virginia Senators Dick Black (R) and Barbara Favola (D) are the patrons of identical Senate budget amendments. The Black amendment is co-patroned by Senators Howell (D), Stuart (R) and Newman (R). Technically, they are budget amendments (not bills) and are assigned reference numbers (see above) instead of bill numbers. Unlike bills,

one cannot add additional co-patrons after the filing deadline, so your request should be to support the amendments. Senator Newman, a member of the Finance Committee, is the patron of his amendment. Delegate David Bulova (D) is the chief patron of his House budget amendment. Co-patrons are as follows: Filler-Corn (D), Plum (D), Hugo (R), Greason (R), Comstock (R) and LeMunyon (R). You should make the same request for support from your delegates.

For now, please contact your senator and delegate and ask them to support these amendments!