Year 2005 Illinois Legislation Initiatives

• Senator Durbin and the attorney fee cap
• Fully Fund IDEA in Congress
• Start an Illinois IDEA Task Force
• 2003 Objectives-Illinois

New letter added January 28, 2003:

Senator Durbin and an anti-family amendment of  IDEA.

Senator Durbin's Response below (added February 24, 2003)
Sample letter

 

Contact Senator Dick Durbin

WASHINGTON D.C. 332 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 Phone (202)224-2152 TTY (202)224-8180 Fax (202)228-0400	CHICAGO Kluczynski Bldg. 38th Fl. 230 South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604 Phone (312) 353-4952 Fax (312)353-0150
SPRINGFIELD 525 South Eight Street Springfield, IL 62703 Phone (217)492-4062 Fax (217)492-4382	Marion 701 Court Street Marion, IL 62959 Phone (618)998-8812 Fax (618)997-0176

E-mail Senator Dick Durbin

While you are at it, why not write to Congress to fully fund IDEA?

Text of Senator Durbin's Response to the outcry:

Jenni Engebretsen
Washington Press Secretary
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-7115
(202) 228-5694 fax

"I worked to raise the cap to a level above the average payment of
attorney fees in these types of cases, not because I support caps -- I
don't -- but because it was the best I could do with the Senate vote in
doubt.

"I continue to oppose caps on attorney fees and believe the conference
committee that will write the final version of this bill should drop
the cap entirely so that the District of Columbia can make all legitimate
payments while preventing the clear abuses in this critical special
education program."

Also, following please find the text of Durbin's Congressional Record
statement further clarifying his position on various aspects of this
issue:

LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IDEA CASES

Mr. DURBIN.  Mr.  President, I intended to offer an amendment to
address fundamental concerns that a provision in this bill discriminates
against children in need of special education services because they happen
to live in the District of Columbia.  That provision imposes a
/limitation of $3,000 on how much the District of Columbia may pay per case in
attorney's fees to plaintiffs who prevail in litigation brought against
the District of Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in order to enroll their children in
special education services.

I would prefer that we eliminate section 135 from the bill entirely.
Congress should not impose restrictions on the District of Columbia's use
of local funds. If someone is raising a child with a serious learning
disability and wants that child evaluated for enrollment in a special
education program, we have provisions in the law across America governing
access to services.  This law provides for the awarding of reasonable
attorney's fees at prevailing community rates to parties who prevail in
their due process proceedings.  It is only in the District of Columbia
that some Members of Congress want to unfairly limit the amount paid to
those attorneys.  These same Congressmen and Senators would never
impose such limitations on their own States and districts. In last year's
Senate appropriations bill for the District of Columbia, the Senate
overwhelmingly supported an amendment I offered to soften the impact of a
$2,500 attorney fee limitation by designating certain situations !
in which such a cap would not apply.

I have been engaged in extensive discussions with my colleague, Senator
Hutchison, the chief proponent of section 135, which have led to a
modification of that provision.  The nature and amount of attorney fees in
special education cases brought under IDEA raise serious questions
about both the adequacy of in-school programs to serve special education
students and some aggressive activities of certain attorneys and firms.
The modification raises the limit on the amounts which may be paid to
$4,000 per action.  It also precludes the payment of the fees of any
attorney or firm whom the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia determines to have a pecuniary interest, either through an
attorney, officer, or employee of the firm, in any special education diagnostic
services, schools, or other special education service providers.

I note that this bill mandates that the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia require disclosure by attorneys in IDEA cases of
any financial, corporate, legal, board memberships, or other
relationships with special education diagnostic services, schools, or other
special education service providers before paying any attorney's fees. The
Chief Financial Officer may also require attorneys in special education
cases to certify that all services billed in special education were
rendered. The bill also directs that the Chief Financial Officer will
prepare and submit quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives on the certifications and
the amount paid by the government of the District of Columbia, including
the District of Columbia Public Schools, to attorneys in cases brought
under IDEA. The bill further allows the Inspector General of the
District of Columbia to conduct audits of the certification to ensure a!
ttorney compliance.

I endorse the Committee Report's strong recommendation that the Council
of the District of Columbia, in cooperation with the Mayor of the
District of Columbia and the District of Columbia School Board, develop
legislation to address conflicts of interest in special education cases.

I hope these provisions will produce needed accountability.  I hope
these provisions will help prevent manipulative practices by a few which
unfortunately denigrate the honest, dedicated work of the vast majority
of the attorneys who devote their careers to serving vulnerable
families and children through legal representation in special education
placement cases.

It is my expectation that the reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act and reform efforts by the District of
Columbia Public Schools will make the imposition of caps on how much the
District of Columbia may pay in attorney's fees in IDEA cases unnecessary in
subsequent appropriations bills.

 Capping Attorney Fees

  THE BIPARTISAN DUO of Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and
Democrat Richard J. Durbin of Illinois rode to the rescue of the D.C. Board
of Education and School Superintendent Paul L. Vance recently when they
amended the omnibus spending bill to put a $4,000 cap on attorney fees in
special education lawsuits filed against D.C. public schools. The
unanimously adopted amendment also bars payments to lawyers who have a
financial interest in related special education businesses. (The omnibus
spending bill, approved 69 to 29, now goes to a conference.) If this sounds
familiar, it should. The Senate adopted a similar fee-cap provision in 2001,
but it was killed in conference. The ultimate fate of this year's amendment
is anyone's guess. The Hutchison-Durbin amendment provides financial relief
for the school system. But will the measure hurt children?

  The cost to the school system of attorney fees from
special-education-related administrative hearings is enormous. When the cap
that Congress imposed in 1999 was removed in fiscal 2001, fees skyrocketed
from $4 million in fiscal 2001 to $14 million in fiscal 2002, according to
Ms. Hutchison. The General Accounting Office reports that had it not been
for the 1999-2001 fee cap, the District would have paid $27.4 million
instead of the $10 million it actually paid. The removal of the cap also
appeared to be an incentive for attorneys to demand more administrative
hearings. The number of special-education-related administrative hearings
increased from approximately 190 per month in fiscal 2001 to 230 per month
in fiscal 2002. The current rate of special education hearings puts the
District in the national forefront. According to Ms. Hutchison, the District
accounts for 40 percent of all special education due process hearing
requests in the country under the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act. How can that be?

 Cap opponents argue that caps prevent children with disabilities from
getting what the law requires because they limit families' ability to hire
effective advocates when the school system breaks the law. Opponents also
note that the school system pays attorney fees only if it loses, and that
the system loses if it's wrong in the first place. But is the litigation
primarily concerned with gaining access to good special education programs?
The school system maintains that only 15 percent of the hearing requests
concern issues related to education. The overwhelming majority, school
leaders say, involve procedural and implementation issues, which could and
should be handled outside the hearing process. Thus, school leaders
maintain, the winners under a no-fee-cap system are lawyers, not students
who could benefit from having more education dollars directed to their
classrooms or their transportation needs.

  Our one regret is that this issue is being played out on Capitol Hill
instead of in the District government. City leaders, not members of
Congress, are responsible for providing a high-quality education for all
students in the District. Instead, the city has punted its special education
problem to the House and the Senate, two institutions poorly equipped to
care for the District's children.

---

New letter added January 21, 2003: Start a State IDEA Task Force

More 2003 Objectives

Letter writing and telephone call campaign

I hope you all are having a glorious holiday season. I
believe the new year will bring us tremendous success
in gaining new rights, resources and services for
people with developmental disabilities in Illinois—in
fact, I’m counting on it!

Now is the time to bombard our state senators and
representatives with letters, phone calls, e-mails and
even personal visits. The two issues I hope you will
join me in campaigning on behalf of at this time are:
 

1. Funding to make the benefits of the Family
Assistance and Home-Based Support Services programs
available to all of the eligible disabled children and
adults who so desperately need them;

2. State-funded and/or –subsidized comprehensive, intensive
educational, therapeutic and intervention services for
children and adults with autism.

Letters don’t have to be long or fancy; a simple
note, or even a post-card will do if you don’t have
time to write lengthy correspondence. What is
important is that we contact our state senators and
legislators now, while they are still in their
district offices trying to decide what issues to put
on the agenda in Springfield come January 13. I think
you will all agree that there is no issue more
pressing than providing appropriate resources and
services for children and adults with developmental
disabilities and their families; we need to
communicate this to the elected officials who have
been empowered to assist us. Please call, write,
e-mail or visit your state senators and
representatives. Also, please encourage every other
concerned person you know to participate. Working
together, we CAN make a difference!

I have compiled a list of state senators and
representatives that was current prior to the November
5 general election. The vast majority of state
senators and representatives retained their seats;
however, there were some changes.    If you know or
suspect that the senator or representative listed for
your district is no longer valid, please check the
(unofficial) election results at
http://www.voterinfonet.com/11502results/ or
http://www.chicagoelections.com/march_2002_master_results_page.htm.
Results from the November 5 general election can also
be obtained by clicking on the links located at
http://www.elections.state.il.us/elecinfo/Pages/Localtotals.htm.

*Two representatives have also died.

If you don’t know who your state representative
and/or senator is, you can find out by visiting
http://www.elections.state.il.us/dls/pages/DLSAddresscrit.asp
or by calling your local election board—you can find
the number by looking in the blue or white pages in
your telephone book or by calling 411.
 [try also  http://www.legis.state.il.us ]

To gain the maximum exposure for our two issues, I
suggest that each of us write one letter regarding
each issue and send it to our state senator and state
representative AND to Governor-elect Rod Blagojevich,
House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President
Emil Jones. If you can’t write to everyone, do what
you can; every little bit helps. If our elected
officials are barraged with correspondence, phone
calls and visits from us, they cannot possibly ignore
our issues. Our concerns will become priorities for
them because we will make them priorities.

You can write Rod Blagojevich at:

Office of the Governor
207 Statehouse
Springfield, IL 62706
217-782-0244
217-782-2239 TDD
217-524-4049 FAX

To coincide with the statewide letter-writing
campaign for autism services,
Laura Cellini and I are working together to develop
language for a bill to be introduced in mid-late
January. Laura has already secured the support of at
least one legislator who will introduce a bill this
session. That’s one of the reasons it’s so important
that we start, writing, calling, faxing, e-mailing and
visiting our state representatives and senators right
now. We need to marshal as much support for this
effort as we possibly can!

 This is the wish list of provisions I would like to,
ideally, see inserted in the bill:

1. Education of parents, pediatricians, healthcare
personnel, caregivers, educators and service provicers
about the symptoms of ASD.

2. A statewide network of comprehensive autism
information and referral centers that house tools,
resources and experts who can provide guidance and
assistance to family members and treatment providers
of children and adults with ASD. I would also like for
these centers to provide information about best
treatment/education/intervention practices for
managing ASD.

3. State-funded and/or subsidized intensive,
home-based therapeutic services. I would like for
parents of children aged 0-3 to be made aware of all
of the services available for their children,
including ABA. I would also like home-based services
made available for children past the age of 3,
including school-aged children. A good model for the
types of services I would like to be made available is
the Puentes program at Illinois Masonic Hospital. The
program offers 1 year of moderately intensive,
home-based services available to families of children
up to age 6. Services are provided to families on a
sliding fee scale; it costs the hospital about $8,500
per child serviced. The program is multidisciplinary,
utilizing ABA, Floortime, PECS and a number of other
therapies. While the program provides far less than
the 35 hours per week recommended by most ABA
therapists, nevertheless, all children who have
participated in the program have shown tremendous
gains. Adopting this type of service model would be
create a win-win situation for families and the state
budget-tenders.

4. Regional lifeskills learning laboratories to assist
children and adults with ASD in acquiring the skills
necessary to lead productive, independent and
meaningful lives.

5. Creating and incentive for school districts to go
beyond the requirement of providing "appropriate"
educational services and creating programs that
provide "exceptionally beneficial" or "ideal"
educational services for students with autism.

6. Funding for school districts to provide education
and outreach to students and parents of typical
children regarding the needs and characteristics of
students with autism to ease their acceptance and
integration into the social environment at school. In
order to benefit from "inclusion," autistic students
need to interact with, not just be in the presence of,
typically developing children. By educating children
and their parents about autism, their level of
understanding will increase and they will be more
likely to accept, and even embrace, students with
autism. Similar programs need to be implemented in
workplaces where individuals with autism are employed.
 

7. Medicaid waivers need to be made readily available
to all individuals with autism who need them.
Insurance companies need to be compelled to pay for
necessary treatment for adults and children with
autism.

8. All school districts in the state should be
required to apply for Medicaid reimbursement for the
full range of services reimburseable by Medicaid.
 

9. A variety of employment options--sheltered, secure,
supported and competitive--and the training and
support necessary to help individuals with autism
succeed in them need to be made available.

10. A range of residential options need to be made
available to children and adults with autism.

11. School districts need to be required to provide
either year-round educational options for students
with autism or they need to be required to pay for
services provided by public or private schools outside
of their districts when students with autism require
year-round educational services to prevent regression.
School districts need to be required to provide
home-based ESY services beyond the ESY services they
typically provide when such services are necessary to
to prevent regression in students with autism.

Please e-mail any provisions you would like included
in the bill to Laura at Lclln914@cs.com or to me at
jmicmac@yahoo.com. We am very optimistic about this
project! How can such a passionate, dedicated and
committed group of people fail? We are looking forward
to working with all of you to make this project a
success!!!
Remember, working together, we CAN make a difference!

Cheers,

Michelle McFarland-McDaniels

back to AutismNews