|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
Good afternoon. I am
Robert R. Rigsby, Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia. The Council has
requested that I appear today to discuss my Office's involvement in connection with the
District's mentally retarded and developmentally disabled clients. Back in 1976, the residents of Forest Haven, then the District's institution for the mentally retarded, brought a class action - now styled as Evans v. Williams - alleging of number of constitutional violations resulting from the poor conditions at the facility. In 1978, the parties in Evans agreed to a consent judgment that called for the closing of Forest Haven and the placing of its residents in community living arrangements. Since that time, the Office of the Corporation Counsel has been involved in ongoing litigation involving quality-of-care issues stemming from the closing of Forest Haven. In 1995, the district court in Evans appointed a special master to handle certain matters. On February 10, 1999, the district court ordered the special master, in conjunction with the parties, to recommend a strategy - or "exit plan" for the termination of the court's oversight of operations at the Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration or "MRDDA." The goals of the exit plan negotiations are to affect a systemic reform of the delivery of services to MRDD clients in the District and ensure future compliance with all court orders. The Office of the Corporation Counsel has been involved since May 1999 in monthly negotiations concerning the exit plan with the Evans class plaintiffs, the special master, consultants, and the Department of Justice or "DOJ", which joined the action as a plaintiff- intervenor. Shortly after the parties began exit plan negotiations, DOJ retained Tony Records and Associates, Inc., a consulting firm, to review the protections, services, and supports provided to Evans class members in order to advise DOJ during exit plan negotiations. On August 5, 1999, after months of cooperation and information sharing by the District, Tony Records issued a report concerning quality of care issues involving MRDD providers. In the report, Mr. Records provided additional details with regard to concerns raised by DOJ in a June 3, 1999 letter that identified 17 individuals who DOJ officials believed required immediate intervention. While they were awaiting the completion of the August 5 report, the parties had agreed that the Department of Human Services would take immediate action on behalf of the individuals identified in the letter. In cases like Evans, it has been customary for the attorney of record within the Office of the Corporation Counsel to forward such reports to agency officials and general counsel, who in turn determine whether and when persons in the Executive Office of the Mayor should be informed. At the time of the August 5 report, there was no practice in place by which each attorney of record would take it upon him or herself to transmit any such report directly to the Mayor or other senior officials. DOJ transmitted the August 5, 1999 report simultaneously to DHS's General Counsel at the time, Jesse Goode, and the OCC attorney of record, Maria Amato. At the time, Ms. Amato was a Section Chief, who reported to a Deputy Corporation Counsel. Mr. Goode, in turn, disseminated the August 5, 1999 report through the chain of command at DHS. Individuals receiving it had to sign an acknowledgement form and return it to the attorney of record because the report was the subject of a protective order. Because the parties were already six months into the development of the exit plan, and because DOJ was participating in the drafting of the exit plan, the parties agreed that the exit plan would address the deficiencies cited in the August 5 report. On December 10, 1999, Tony Records issued a report addressing follow-up visits concerning the individuals identified in the June 3, 1999 letter. It is important to note that, until we received the December 10, 1999 follow-up report, the OCC attorneys handling the case were unaware that the Department of Justice did not believe that the issues regarding the individuals articulated in the June 3, 1999 letter were not being addressed by MRDDA. It was not until the week before the December Council hearing regarding the issue that the General Counsel for DHS told the Acting Principal Deputy Corporation Counsel that, although he had advised former DHS Director Jearline Williams of the issues regarding the individuals repeatedly, he realized - as time wore on - these issues were not being addressed. He also stated that Ms. Williams appeared to be "paralyzed" with regard to these issues, but that he did not know the reasons why. Another matter that has arisen during the course of the Council's investigation of MRDDA concerns the Office of the Corporation Counsel's role in issuing the notice of proposed removal of Jesse Goode. As you know, on January 19, 2000, newly appointed Deputy Mayor Carolyn Graham - in her capacity as the Acting Director of DHS - proposed to remove Mr. Goode from his position. At that time, Deputy Mayor Graham had the sole authority to initiate the personnel action against Mr. Goode. Under section 856 of the Legal Service Establishment Act of 1999, the removal of a Senior Executive Service Attorney in a subordinate agency, like DHS, was placed exclusively under the authority of the Corporation Counsel, after consultation with the agency head. The Legal Service Act became law on April 20, 1999. Section 862(3) of the law provides that "[e]ffective October 1, 1999, the appropriate personnel authority shall appoint to the new Legal Service any attorney who has been appointed to a position in any other subordinate agency" - that is, one other than the Office of the Corporation Counsel - "as of that date." This provision is intended to require the appropriate personnel authority, which in this case is the Director of Personnel, to take the steps necessary to convert eligible attorneys to the new Legal Service before they actually become Legal Service Attorneys. Stated another way, Mr. Goode and the other agency series 905 attorneys did not automatically become part of the Legal Service simply by operation of law. The Office of Personnel needed to prepare Forms 1 and other papers to accomplish the conversion. As of today, the series 905 attorneys in DHS still have not been converted to the Legal Service. Thus, at the time the notice of proposed action was transmitted to Mr. Goode, under the Legal Service Act, I had no authority, nor do I have any authority today, to take disciplinary action against Mr. Goode or any other person appointed as the General Counsel of DHS. Finally, one of the questions you may ask of me today is whether I have implemented any procedures that will address the concerns the Council has raised to make OCC more responsive. The answer to that question is "yes." Even prior to the revelations, I took two steps. Every week, the Office of the Corporation Counsel submits a "frontburner" report to the City Administrator. Such reports advise on pressing matters, the action required, and proposed timeframe in which action should be taken. The reports are intended to make the Executive Office of the Mayor aware of issues and to help the Mayor to resolve them expeditiously. In connection with this weekly reporting, I have directed the Office's supervisory attorneys to encourage line attorneys to report matters concerning health and safety they feel are not being fully addressed by client agencies. Every Wednesday, at our weekly managers meeting - which is attended by senior level attorneys, including the General Counsel of the subordinate agencies under my authority - I remind my staff of the duty to report pressing issues to my Senior Counsel, Luis Rumbaut, who drafts the frontburner report. In addition, I have convened a sensitive case review committee, staffed by the most seasoned litigators in the Office. The committee meets on a biweekly basis to monitor, review, and guide the most significant and complex cases in the Office, particularly those cases that require the assignment of more than one attorney. With these safeguards in place, the Office of the Corporation Counsel can flush out problem cases and proactively address small concerns before they become big problems. Thank you for this opportunity to make a statement. |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
