An Open Letter to Framingham

by Sen. Karen E. Spilka
June 6, 2006

The issue of social services in Framingham has been growing in visibility for quite some time now. Strong and varied feelings have emerged about how to approach concerns over the siting of service centers in town. I have commented on this issue in the past, on the pages of the MetroWest Daily News and Framingham TAB, and in conversations with many constituents and local and state officials. Also, I have proposed legislation and budget provisions to respond to some of the existing concerns. However, I want to take this opportunity to share further thoughts on the issue, which are shaped by policies and laws on every level of government, from town to state to federal.

As I have said often in the past, a scenario like this requires increased communication, openness, knowledge and trust to alleviate apprehension; and we have much work to do. I believe that we can take action in different areas. I understand the concern and frustration residents feel - and I will continue to work hard on their behalf and on behalf of Framingham.

• I drafted an act which would mandate a guide explaining existing state and federal laws, legal decisions, and other policies that impact municipalities in the realm of social service site zoning.

  That is why I drafted and filed, with Senator Chandler of Worcester, Senate 2477, An Act Requiring a State Zoning Guide for Social Service Agencies and Municipalities. S 2477 would mandate that the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) create a guide further explaining existing state and federal laws, legal decisions, and other policies that impact municipalities in the realm of social service site zoning. The state has a greater role to play in this discussion, and S 2477 will further prompt the state's involvement. I am very pleased that two weeks ago, S 2477 was passed in the Senate and went to the House for passage.
• I have also been working to increase communication between the social service agencies, town officials, and state agencies. I strongly believe that there has to be a greater and more open dialogue in order to achieve a constructive resolution for the town, the social service agencies, and the members of our community
• In an effort to get more state aid to Framingham, I proposed several new amendments for increased funding for Framingham to the Senate's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget legislation, among them one for $370,000 for increased, new school aid and another for $50,000 for human services cost remediation for Framingham, which could have been used to hire a Social Services Liaison for the town or for any number of other measures. I am very pleased that I was successful in the first and larger amount (securing an additional new $370,000 for Framingham), but the other amendment was not adopted into the budget. Even though I was able to get other new and re-occurring monies for Framingham, I will continue to seek assistance -- monetary and otherwise -- from the state for Framingham.
• Furthermore, I advocated very strongly for -- and the Senate agreed to -- more funding for mental health and substance abuse services so that the state can take more of the load off of municipalities like Framingham and have more appropriate services for those in need -- for example, to get individuals out of shelters and into needed rehabilitation and other services. I am pleased that the Senate budget for FY07 increases funding for substance abuse services by more than $13 million over the FY06 level and funding for adult mental health services by more than $10 million over the FY06 level.
• I, along with Reps. Blumer & Sannicandro, was successful in getting $100,000 for the Framingham Jail Diversion Program (FJDP), which is a terrific program of partnership with Advocates and the Framingham Police Department (FPD). The FJDP diverts appropriate individuals, primarily non-violent nuisance and disturbance type offenders, out of the criminal justice system and into appropriate mental health and substance abuse programs, thereby helping to relieve the burden on the FPD -- also taking more of the load off of the Town and more appropriately servicing those in need -- saving the Town money and resources and delivering better outcomes for all.
• As part of the state's policy concerning the provision of these services, I will continue to advocate for the Governor and state administrative agencies to be proactive and develop state policies to better service residents in the communities in which they live.

In this respect, I note that we must be mindful of federal laws, such as the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, all of which directly impact what states and municipalities can and cannot do with respect to balancing social service siting. These laws are very clear -- that it is unlawful to "utilize land use policies... that treat groups of persons with disabilities less favorably than groups of non-disabled persons." Further, the federal law states that it is unlawful to take action against or deny a permit for a home because of the disability of individuals who live or would live there. Explicit "caps" or quotas or moratoriums have been struck down in federal courts as being in contradiction to these federal laws. As a state senator I can work to make changes to state laws, but I must also work within existing federal laws and therefore it is imperative that we understand them. For example, even if we eliminated the Dover Amendment from Massachusetts' laws tomorrow, federal laws like the ones previously mentioned would provide ample protections to social service agencies, bringing into question the legal effectiveness of a moratorium. We must therefore consider incremental alternatives that work within federal laws while still bringing remediation to Framingham.

• Within this very complex legal setting, my office has been reviewing state laws and policies, with federal laws in mind, to determine if and how we in the legislature may be able help so that the Commonwealth fosters responsible and effective incentives and/or enhanced funding to encourage a balanced pattern of dispersion. We continue to discuss this important issue with committee staff and counsel.
• Additionally, as noted above, one of the major policies in effect at the state level which is often at the center of this discussion is Mass General Laws, Chapter 40A, the so-called "Dover Amendment." The Dover Amendment was passed in the 1950's, in part to protect religious and educational institutions. As you all know, much has changed in Massachusetts since the 50's and I believe that it is the proper time to revisit the Dover Amendment.
• As I have stated previously on record, while social service agencies cannot, under federal and state laws and constitution, be wholly subservient to local planning boards, amending the Dover Amendment to further give municipalities additional opportunities for input and review is an important goal and one that I fully endorse. As such, I am a strong supporter and a Senate co-sponsor of the current Massachusetts Land Use Reform Act (MLURA) legislation to amend the current Dover Amendment (I was a chief sponsor of this bill during my time in the House) within the federal constraints of prohibiting discrimination and offering reasonable accommodation, to enhance and clarify a municipality's authority and facilitate community input.

I would also like to note that one of my top regional priorities as Senator has been to strenuously fight for a change in the law to allow each of our MetroWest towns to vote to decide if they want to create and/or join a regional transit authority (RTA) to enable us to have fixed bus routes throughout the region, whereby each town, if it votes to be a part of a RTA, would also contribute financially toward that RTA. Allowing the MetroWest/Greater Framingham region to get its own RTA would mean that public transportation options throughout the area would be dramatically increased, not only helping our seniors, disabled, teens, and employees/employers, but also further encouraging a more balanced dispersion of social service sites. I am pleased to let you know that I have been successful in getting my bill not only reported out favorably by the Joint Committee on Transportation, but also into the Senate version of the budget AND the Senate version of the Economic Stimulus bill. I am extremely hopeful that the House agrees to include my language in the final version of the Conference Committee Economic Stimulus bill, hopefully due out soon.

Lastly, I would like to address the Channel 5 news report regarding the re-entry housing contract between SMOC and the Department of Correction (DOC). I too became very concerned after hearing about this report. My office immediately contacted DOC officials, (as well as folks from SMOC) about this contract to get firsthand information. The DOC confirmed that SMOC does have the Re-Entry Housing contract with the DOC to place people across the state in housing after they finish their term and leave one of the state's seventeen DOC facilities (it is this contract that is up for renewal). The person leaving the correction facility must volunteer to be a part of the housing re-entry program because, according to DOC, once they leave the DOC facility, DOC does not have jurisdiction over them (either they have completed their sentence or they fall under Probation or Parole). This contract sprung out of an earlier report that highlighted that recidivism drops dramatically when people have community housing after they leave the DOC facility.

The DOC also confirmed that:

• SMOC does not have a re-entry housing center in Framingham, but does in Worcester, Springfield, Fall River, Lowell and Boston for a total of five centers (these are the cities most frequently requested by the individuals for housing placement);
• Out of a total of 292 individuals placed across the state under this program, 5 people have been placed in housing in Framingham -- and records indicate that at least 3 out of these 5 were originally from Framingham (the other 2 may have also come from or have ties to Framingham); and
• None of the 5 people that were placed in Framingham housing were sex offenders.

Unfortunately, I did not personally see the Channel 5 report, but from what I have heard, it appears that some of the information "reported" may not have been 100% accurate.

However, I also believe that it is important to learn more about this contract and increase accountability (I too do not want funds wasted) -- and to this end, I have asked DOC, along with my legislative colleagues, to come to a Board of Selectmen's meeting to share with the BOS and the Town more information concerning the contract, its renewal, purpose, impact, and how DOC monitors performance and accountability. It makes the most sense to me to hear this from DOC directly -- and they are willing to come. I will be pursuing this meeting along with Reps. Blumer and Sannicandro and hope that it occurs very soon.

I want to thank the people of Framingham for truly caring about and having a strong passion for our community and, as always, I am interested in hearing your concerns and ideas. I believe that if we work together, we can successfully address these important issues. I will continue to work persistently to that end. Please feel free to contact my office (617-722-1640, Karen.E.Spilka@state.ma.us) or come by my office in the State House anytime.

Sincerely,
Senator Karen E. Spilka
2nd Middlesex & Norfolk

Have a comment, correction, or suggestion? Write to the webmaster!