|
Department of
Advocacy proposed in Rhode Island
(January
2008 Issue)
By Phyllis Hanlon
In October, Rhode Island's General Assembly proposed merging five
state agencies into one Department of Advocacy, a recommendation
that is sending tidal waves throughout the Ocean State, particularly
within the agencies involved.
According to Rosemary Booth Gallogly, state budget officer, the
proposal calls for the offices of the Child Advocate; Mental Health
Advocate; Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; Developmental
Disabilities Council and the Governor's Commission on Disabilities
to join forces as of July 2008.
Although each agency has unique responsibilities, Gallogly says
the merger will streamline services and better serve all populations.
Currently, each agency offers separate 24/7 response capability.
"There has to be a better way from the taxpayer and the client perspective,"
says Gallogly.
In spite of small budgets, each agency has accomplished a great
deal, particularly the child and mental health advocates, says Gallogly.
"Each of the directors is not just a manager but also a worker bee."
Anticipated savings from the merger have not been stated in the
general assembly's statute. "We are still working on a budget for
FY09," Gallogly says.
Jametta O. Alston, Esq., whose child advocate office is nationally
recognized for its strong and organized way of delivering services
to children, intends to fight the merger. "We'll fill the room with
people from all the different constituencies who can speak out for
their groups. Our office would not have been created in the first
place if there had not been a need. The state should be responsive
to its own people," she says.
Alston says that this bid represents an attack on "the weakest"
in the state and that "all groups will suffer." She also views the
proposed merger as a misplaced cost-cutting measure, adding that
all five agencies have a combined budget just short of $3 million.
"There is a $500 million state deficit. [This cut] will not even
be one percent of what they need to deal with the deficit," she
says. "In the guise of trying to save money, they picked five different
groups, so distinct and so different in needs. As an attorney, I
see strong, clear legal conflicts in this proposal."
Alston believes that "under one department, we will have diminished
ability to work effectively." She says, "The reality is that you
have to maintain the civil rights of your people. It's a sad day
when you try to diminish children. My passion is advocating for
kids. I never thought it would be this difficult. The state seems
to have abandoned its most unfortunate citizens."
H. Reed Cosper, Esq., the state's mental health advocate, states
that this proposal represents an example of "government run by rugged
individualistic people" and that the decision is "not in the reality-based
community." He says, "This is not good for the collective good.
We've reached a low-water mark."
The state's determination to follow through with this proposal
may present an opportunity though, according to Cosper. He explains
that with a budget "tinier than the margin of error," his office
remains "invisible." But the introduction of this proposed department
and the discussions that will follow present an opportunity for
Cosper and the other agencies to participate in talks. "I don't
feel my hands are tied," he says. "The question is, 'can the advocacy
groups compel public debate?'" With public pressure, we would get
a debate. Do we cooperate and respond or do we resist because we
oppose the plan fundamentally? Because [the state] has thrown five
of us together, we'll distinguish ourselves."
Aware of the controversy the proposed merger has caused, Gallogly
points out that the final format may differ from the original design.
"This may evolve over time," she says. "It's a long process to get
people thinking. Everyone is protective of their own agency."
|
