Action Alerts
June 29, 2010
URGENT ACTION ALERT!!!
DDS Budget Issues in Conference Co-Mingle Two Issues
We need a letter from you to help divide the question
I do not have any updated or break-through information for you that would give you any hope for a quick resolution of the current budget challenge.
There are currently two budget plans; one proposed primarily by Assembly Democrats to address more current year financial problems through a series of revenue enhancements/transfers and a version by Senate Democrats that would provide a more long-term plan involving the shifting of responsibilities for some major programs to the Counties accompanied by a transfer of funding for the operation of these programs.
The majority parties in the two houses do not agree!
So … the work goes on!
But this gives us an opportunity to clarify an important point in the Conference Committee consideration. It is more technical and therefore may not be conducive to a broader letter writing campaign. But it should be the subject of a quick letter from you as an Executive Director or Program Manager and perhaps you Board of Chairperson. Of course, anyone who feels comfortable with writing any letter should be encouraged to do so!
BACKGROUND: The budget trailer bill for DDS co-joins two issues. The first is the payment cut, increased by 1.25%. The second is the temporary authority for regional centers to modify various staff requirements for providers under the auspices of administrative relief. Here is some of that language:
4791. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, effective July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, regional centers may temporarily modify personnel requirements, functions, or qualifications or staff training requirements for providers, except for licensed or certified residential providers, whose payments are reduced in Section 2 by 4.25 percent:
We are still supporting the Assembly version of these issues because the Assembly REJECTED BOTH the payment cut AND the trailer bill language. WE HAVE NOT GIVEN UP THIS POSITION!
But we are also aware that in the future, the Legislature might approve some form a payment cut and we would not want to automatically trigger trailer bill language that is inappropriate and controversial. Similarly, we would not want to see the language rejected and the cut approved!
So - for the purpose of this single letter, we are asking that you write:
SAMPLE LETTER
June 29, 2010
Senator Denise Ducheny, Chair
Budget Conference Committee
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Department of Developmental Services (DDS); Item 4300-101-001, Conference Agenda Section III, page 39
SUPPORT ASSEMBLY VERSION
Dear Senator Ducheny:
I am (introduce yourself; executive director, manager, direct care staff, board member, business partner, supporter etc.) of (Name of agency) serving the communities of (list your communities!)
We SUPPORT the Assembly version of the DDS budget item before you and STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE this version when the issue comes before you.
But I want to bring to your attention that the Budget Trailer Bill (TBL) language associated with this item links together two very different and very important issues. If you reject the entire item by supporting the Assembly version, the point is moot.
However, if the Conference Committee approves one item, the link in the trailer bill as it is now written would trigger approval of both items.
Again, we OPPOSE the 1.25% cut in payments to providers. This would add an additional $48.2 million TF) reduction to a system that has had to absorb over $600 million (TF) cuts in the last 18 months. We simply cannot absorb additional deep cuts.
But we also OPPOSE elements of the TBL which authorize so-called provider relief. It might seem incongruous that a provider would oppose relief, but as currently drafted, the language lacks specificity, raises important quality consideration, and puts the authority to determine which relief will be granted entirely in the hands of regional centers.
Such an important subject would better be addressed in a policy committee is stand-alone legislation where all of the nuances and ramifications can be fully vetted and understood.
To restate our position, we Oppose both the Payment Cut and the TBL! Our position is consistent with the Assembly version of the conference item. But should the discussion get down to details, an action to approve one item should not automatically trigger a decision on the other.
Thank you for your attention to this complex yet very important issue.
Sincerely,
Signature/Title