Vol. 35 No.43
       ©2007 Marianas Variety
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 www.mvariety.com
Serving the CNMI for 35 years
 

© 2007 Marianas Variety
Published by Younis Art Studio Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Email :
mvariety@vzpacifica.net
Persons with disabilities demand sanction vs GovGuam anew

By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

FOUR persons with disabilities reiterated their demand in court to hold in contempt GovGuam officials for the continued failure to comply with a permanent injunction and stipulation to improve the services of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, or DMHSA, and the Department of Integrated Services for Individuals with Disabilities, or DISID.
In a reply to GovGuam’s response, Atty. Daniel Somerfleck of the Guam Legal Services Corp. asked the District Court of Guam to sanction Gov. Felix P. Camacho, DISID director Roseanne Ada and DMHSA acting director Andrea Leitheiser.
Somerfleck is representing the four persons with disabilities: J.C., S.F., J.M. and R.A. in consolidated civil cases brought against GovGuam officials for the failure to improve services for at least 200 persons with disabilities on the island.
The plaintiffs renewed their petition to hold DISID and DMHSA in contempt for the local government’s failure to comply with the deadlines set by the court.
GovGuam attorney David Mair responded by telling the court that the stipulated deadlines are almost impossible to comply with, and asked that the court amend the stipulation “to reflect realistic time frames as concluded by the independent experts.”
The amended permanent injunction issued on June 30, 2005 established deadlines for the local government to meet for the following key events: a) the submission of a proposed system for the implementation of a prioritized waiting list for services, including residential placement; b) the development and submission of a comprehensive implementation plan to develop community services and support that would ensure the placement of plaintiffs in appropriate living situations outside of the Adult Inpatient Units; c) the development of policies and procedures, including grievance procedures, and; d) the development and submission of a plan to implement minimum care requirements.
GovGuam entered into a million-dollar contract with Silverlake Behavioral Associates, a Texas-based consulting group that specializes in the assessment and implementation of standards for the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, JCAHO.
Silverlake was retained to evaluate and develop an accredited program for DMHSA and DISID.
But for JCHAO accreditation alone, GovGuam said the minimum care requirements and accreditation would take three to five years.
Reacting to GovGuam’s explanation of why local officials should not be held in contempt, Somerfleck said GovGuam officials have been unable to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to comply with the court’s permanent injunction or stipulation.
“Defendants do not even have a ball park figure for their long-awaited submittal of the court-ordered amended comprehensive implementation plan despite the due date having passed approximately 300 days ago,” the plaintiff attorney stressed.
Reminding GovGuam officials of Judge Consuelo Marshall’s statement that the case constituted little more than “a plan for a plan,” Somerfleck stated that the local government does not even have “a plan for a plan.”
“It is noteworthy that no argument is made or evidence proffered to denote that anything has been put into place regarding the conditionally approved implementation plan,” Somerfleck continued.
The federal receivership of DMHSA and DISID was thwarted when the governor created the Office of Community Integration for People with Disabilities and formed the Comprehensive Community Implementation Plan/Permanent Injunction Task Force in 2005.
The task force’s job is to ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan as outlined in a court stipulation.
While denying that GovGuam officials have “repeatedly failed to comply with the court orders” for over 20 years, Mair suggested that the court schedule periodic status conference so that the parties may discuss their actions and concerns.