Ricci v. Okin

823 F. Supp. 984, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7824, 1993 WL 200163
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedMay 25, 1993
DocketCiv. A. 72-0469-T, 74-2768-T, 75-3910-T, 75-5023-T and 75-5210-T
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 823 F. Supp. 984 (Ricci v. Okin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ricci v. Okin, 823 F. Supp. 984, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7824, 1993 WL 200163 (D. Mass. 1993).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

TAURO, Chief Judge.

Twenty-one years ago, I made my first trip to Belchertown, to see for myself the conditions alleged in a class action filed on behalf of the residents there.

To put that time frame in some perspective, I point out that the law clerk who accompanied me that day, Mark Brodin, is now a tenured professor at the Boston College Law School — a rookie Boston lawyer named Bill Weld had passed the bar less than two years earlier — and Kris Brown, the law clerk now working on these cases, was four years old.

Similar actions were later filed on behalf of the residents of Fernald, Monson, Dever and Wrentham. * I went to see them all, and the sights, sounds, smells and generally deplorable conditions I witnessed are as vivid in my mind today as they were those many years ago.

But, thanks to the healthy tenacity and persistence of the parents, friends and counsel of people with mental retardation — the enlightened leadership of responsible state and federal officials, and the oversight of the Office of Quality Assurance and predecessor Court Monitors — those initial inspection tours became the first steps in a process that has taken people with mental retardation from the snake pit, human warehouse environment of two decades ago, to the point where Massachusetts now has a system of care and habilitation that is probably second to none anywhere in the world.

For the past two decades, literally thousands of hours have been devoted to fashioning a comprehensive remedial program that has included multi-million dollar capital improvements, establishment of a responsible program of community placement, as well as significant staffing increases geared to meeting the individual service plans and overall needs of those with mental retardation.

The result is that, working together, we have created an environment for persons with mental retardation that is now characterized by human dignity and opportunity for growth. And we have done so in a way that consistently ensured a full measure of value for every tax dollar spent.

Despite this progress, these institutions and the related programs are, of course, not perfect. More needs to be done. And, most important, all concerned, both in the private and governmental sectors, need to be ever vigilant that we do not permit any erosion of the significant progress that has been made.

Given this progress, and the demonstrated good will and dedication of Governor Weld to the mission of safeguarding the health, safety and well-being of people with mental retardation, I am today signing a comprehensive Order closing the federal court’s oversight of these cases.

A key factor in my decision to do so is Governor Weld’s commitment to make permanent the historic improvements that have been achieved during the past twenty years — -a commitment manifested and memorialized by the Executive Order he is issuing today, creating the Governor’s Commission on Mental Retardation.

This Commission will be an independent citizen oversight body whose multi-faceted mandate and authority will include monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the Commonwealth’s programs of services designed *986 to address the wide variety of needs of people with mental retardation.

The nine members of the Commission will be selected by the Governor. Three of these members will be nominated by the existing Advisory Panel of the Office of Quality Assurance, thereby providing significant input from those who have been so intimately involved with these cases over the years.

The Commission will be served by a full-time Administrator appointed by the Governor. The Administrator will be a person who has demonstrated knowledge and experience with respect to quality assurance in the delivery of services to people with mental retardation.

The Commission will have access to all relevant information concerning people with mental retardation. It will serve as an ombudsman to resolve disputes, and it will provide a visible and credible forum to ensure that the Commonwealth fully complies with its obligations to its citizens with mental retardation.

The Commission will work cooperatively with the Department of Mental Retardation, and will serve as a source of valuable advice to the Commissioner and to the Governor with respect to issues affecting the quality of care for persons with mental retardation.

This independent citizen task force, having oversight responsibility for monitoring quality assurance, is the first of its type in the nation. And Governor Weld is to be commended for his foresight and sensitivity in creating this atmosphere of citizen inclusion with respect to the critical responsibility for monitoring the efforts of the Department of Mental Retardation.

I know that' Governor Weld will choose the Commission members and the Administrator with great care. To his appointees I repeat something I said in 1982:

The retarded have no potent political constituency. They must rely on the good will of those of us more fortunate than they, and the Constitution which controls the manner in which all of us must meet our varied responsibilities.

Ricci v. Okin, 537 F.Supp. 817, 836 (D.Mass.1982).

My hope is that those words will serve as something of a standard for the Commission members and the Administrator as they assume this important public trust.

An Order will issue.

ORDER

After notice and hearing, and with the consent of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. This Order supplants and replaces each of the consent decrees and all orders of the court in these matters. All such consent decrees and outstanding orders are hereby vacated and dissolved. These five consolidated cases shall be and hereby are closed and removed from the court’s active docket. Any action to enforce the rights of the plaintiff classes may be brought before the court only pursuant to the terms of paragraph 7 below.

2. Defendants shall continue to provide services to the members of the plaintiff class as set forth in this paragraph.

a. Defendants shall substantially provide services to each class member on a lifetime basis. The specific services to be provided to each class member 1 to meet this obligation, *987 and defining this obligation, shall be set forth in an Individual Service Plan (“ISP”) that details each class member’s capabilities and needs for services, pursuant to the regulations governing the preparation of ISP’s, as currently set forth in 104 CMR 20, et seq. (the “ISP Regulations”). 2 Such services shall include, as appropriate for the person, residential programs; day programs; recreational and leisure time activities; medical, psychological, dental and health-related professional services; respite care and crisis intervention services; support and generic services, such as guardianship and adaptive equipment services; and transportation services.

b.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Davidson v. Howe
749 F.3d 21 (First Circuit, 2014)
G.R. v. Department of Developmental Services
4 N.E.3d 926 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2014)
M.M. v. Department of Developmental Services
4 N.E.3d 906 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2014)
M.D. v. Department of Developmental Services
985 N.E.2d 863 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2013)
Ricci v. Okin
770 F. Supp. 2d 438 (D. Massachusetts, 2011)
Rolland v. Patrick
592 F.3d 242 (First Circuit, 2010)
Ricci v. Patrick
544 F.3d 8 (First Circuit, 2008)
Newell v. Department of Mental Retardation
446 Mass. 286 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2006)
Boulet v. Cellucci
107 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D. Massachusetts, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
823 F. Supp. 984, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7824, 1993 WL 200163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricci-v-okin-mad-1993.