SB109 Task Group Meeting 11/5/15

Meeting Summary DRAFT

Task Group Members in Attendance: Mindy Kemp, Jennifer Kelly, Anne Patton, David Ervin, Scott Storey, Lexie Kuzick (proxy for Vickie Clark), Gini Pingenot (proxie for Nancy Sharpe), Nancy Sharpe (joined late) Lori Thompson, Jenifer Waller, Heidi Prentup, Randy Kuykendall, Kasey Daniel, Darla Stuart Task Group Members attending by telephone: Jennifer Kelly Guests and Subject Matter Experts in Attendance: Peg Rogers, Miles Mador Members of the Public: Jane Walsh, Lynn Johnson, Debbie Wagner, Megan Davis, Lauren Snyder Members of the Public by Telephone: Erika Flores-Rowe, Rena Kuberski, Juanita RiosJohnston, Grant Jackson, Sue Bozinovski Lisa Carlson, moderator, began the meeting at 9:05, introduced herself and noted the agenda is lengthy. In terms of the process for looking at the recommendations, keep these things in mind: • Be sure you understand the recommendation • Are there any refinements needed to allow you to endorse the recommendation • What are the next steps, and by whom • As an overall approach, are you in general support, or likely dissenting? • If you need more time, the next meeting will be for final approval Lisa also reviewed ground rules: • One person talking at a time • No shaggy dog stories, rabbit holes • Speak up • Be comfortable • Say your name for the telephone callers • For callers, don’t put your phone on hold if it plays music • Interrupt when you need to • Cell phones on vibrate Gini Pingenot with Colorado Counties Inc. asked a question about dissenting opinion – we may not know where commissioners stand immediately – are we expected to have consensus by 11/12? Mindy responded with details about the time limits and Kasey and Lexi both requested the materials be distributed with a few days to digest them, and Gini suggested that the report from the task group could include remarks about some areas that still need to be fleshed out or on which the group hasn’t yet come to consensus. Scott agreed and stated he believed that tweaking language in the law is a very tricky task and we need a different statute for the IDD population, rather than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. He says that rushing through recommendations is not realistic and is counter-productive. He suggested we go back to Representative Young and request more time. Lisa suggested we

forge ahead and Scott pointed out this is a very poor process. His concern is we will pass a law that is unconstitutional. Lisa reminded the meeting that the agenda belongs to the task force members. Lexi agreed with Scott and wanted to share her frustration. Kasey asked if there is another group that takes the recommendations forward to draft the words of the statute. The answer is yes. David suggested yes, we must move ahead so let’s find the issues on which there is quickly consensus, but be able to allow time for more in-depth treatment of more complex issues. Scott described the process of actually drafting the statute and Lisa asked if can include testimony from SMEs when timely and relevant – Like Miles Mador from CDAC Leg. committee - no one disagreed. Mindy walked us through the Agenda items: Provision of Services (developed by the funding group – there are issues to be addressed on the back end, after reports are made, and further work needs to be done on it): David posed a question about bifurcation of investigation and specifically the use of the word Mistreatment in the CCB investigations but not in the APS/LE investigations. Lisa suggested the group move ahead to the Agenda item Definitions to clear this up and come back to “Provision of services.” Darla referred to Definitions Subcommittee meeting notes 11/2: Discussion of proposed language to exclude spouses and partners – Scott was uncomfortable with it and suggested we look at the language in 18.3.402 and the subcommittee agreed to drop the proposed language. Discussion 18.6.5-103(7.5) of hostile environment concept, and adding a subsection c that says something like “uses sexual harassment, intimidation or undue influence to create a hostile or fearful environment for the adult” however, “hostile or fearful” is very vague. Miles described “void for vagueness” rulings and how important precise language is, and made the distinction between definitions for criminal code language and those for the civil arena. Kasey reminded us that we are not drafting a statute. We are making recommendations that are hopefully clear and specific, identifying the problem(s), so the statute drafters can then write a precise criminal statute. Scott pointed out that “exploitation” in the Elder law addresses financial exploitation and we can add IDD population to that section. The group concurred. Darla further discussed the recommendations made by the Definitions subcommittee, and added: Evaluate existing criminal code language to assure at-risk elders and at-risk adults with I/DD are protected from being forced to live in a hostile environment and where the perpetrator is the person who provides care/services. In an effort to standardize language used by LE, APS, CCBs, Peg Rogers referred to SB 111 and how the alignment of definitions helped in discussions between the stakeholders, and she drafted recommendations to address definitions (which were handed out). These recommendations refer to criminal code, APS statute, and IDD statute. There was discussion of at-risk adults, at-risk elders, at-risk adults with IDD, etc., and definitions of incidents.

Randy Kuykendall noted they do not want to see any language that would change or affect any CDPHE processes or rules around incident and occurrence reporting. David wants to avoid exclusivity and err on the side of conservatism. Darla pointed out the lessons from Mandatory Reporting for Elders, one of which is that reporting will increase significantly. Mindy suggested that some of the finer points can be distinguished during training of mandatory reporters. Julie Krow, Deputy Executive Director for Community Partnerships, Reggie Bicha’s Deputy, came in to speak to the group and expressed the thought that some kind of budget placeholder recommendations are most urgent and needed more quickly than some of the “language” recommendations and pointed out we do just have another week or two to meet the deadline but there is a little more time to fine tune and get some of the language right. Lisa suggested we return to the discussion around the term “Mistreatment” and its different applications in the different worlds…David’s concern is the allegations that don’t meet a criminal standard but still require investigation – that they not be overlooked. The definitions subgroup will meet again before the next task group meeting 11/12. Mindy referred to handout called Task Force Budget Recommendations. The narrative refers to the increase in reports that is expected and the costs associated, both costs to counties to maintain the standard 25:1 case to caseworker ratio (last year it was 31:1) and funding the expected increase as a result of the new reporting for the IDD population, and adding 2 FTEs to State APS. Darla asked for clarification about the increases in reporting and Peg answered her questions. Scott drew a distinction between increased reports and increased reports specifically as a result of Mandatory Reporting while at the same time acknowledging the counties certainly need more money to serve their populations. Mindy referred to the task group’s requirements which seem to indicate a need for budget projections to cover increases in reporting as a result of Mandatory Reporting. Peg pointed out that we have extensive history of annual increases in APS reports of 1-2% and with the first year of mandatory reporting, APS saw a 41% increase in reports. Nancy reminded the group that training is a big budget item, and that the handout chart does not include any funding for increases in law enforcement or other stakeholders. Mindy indicated that funding estimates for training and law enforcement still needed to be developed. David, Peg, Lexi, and Lori are on Funding subcommittee and will have another meeting before 11/12. The group decided to extend the 11/12 meeting to 5 p.m. The priority for the next meeting will be finalizing the cost projections. The group agreed to schedule another meeting the week of 11/16/15. Public testimony: Jane Walsh would like to see the exploitation of at-risk adults added to the MR statutes, and would like to see incidents of caretaker neglect prosecuted, and not just as a misdemeanor. Jo and Jeannie B on the telephone provided testimony about CCBs allowed to investigate themselves and how not every CCB has a David Ervin – he responded by agreeing that selfinvestigation is madness. Also that bad actors can go from agency to agency to agency

undetected unless they have been convicted. He would like to see this task force make recommendations about self-investigation, registry, etc. Next steps: Definitions subcommittee will meet in this room 11/12 from 11 to 1, and the entire task group will meet 1-5. The funding subcommittee will meet before the 11/12 meeting. The entire task group will meet again the week of 11/16. The meeting was concluded at 12:05 p.m.