Protection and Advocacy, Office for; establish policy and guideline for approval of legal remedies. (SB689)
Introduced By
Sen. Harry Blevins (R-Chesapeake) with support from co-patrons Sen. John Miller (D-Newport News), Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg), Sen. Frank Ruff (R-Clarksville), Sen. Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach), and Sen. William Wampler (R-Bristol)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✓ |
Passed Committee |
✓ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
✓ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy; dispute resolution proceedings. Requires the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy to initiate a dispute resolution proceeding prior to pursuing other legal remedies. If the dispute resolution proceeding fails to provide for a reasonable resolution of the complaint or violation, the Office may pursue other legal remedies, subject to approval by the Board for Protection and Advocacy, to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Passed
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/22/2010 | Presented and ordered printed 10104398D |
01/22/2010 | Referred to Committee on General Laws and Technology |
02/01/2010 | Impact statement from DPB (SB689) |
02/10/2010 | Reported from General Laws and Technology with substitute (11-Y 2-N 2-A) (see vote tally) |
02/10/2010 | Committee substitute printed 10104991D-S1 |
02/10/2010 | Reported from General Laws and Technology with substitute (10-Y 3-N 2-A) (see vote tally) |
02/12/2010 | Constitutional reading dispensed (37-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/15/2010 | Read second time |
02/15/2010 | Reading of substitute waived |
02/15/2010 | Committee substitute agreed to 10104991D-S1 |
02/15/2010 | Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB689S1 |
02/16/2010 | Engrossment reconsidered by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/16/2010 | Reading of amendment waived |
02/16/2010 | Amendment by Senator Blevins agreed to |
02/16/2010 | Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute with amendment SB689ES1 |
02/16/2010 | Printed as engrossed 10104991D-ES1 |
02/16/2010 | Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/16/2010 | Passed Senate (31-Y 8-N) (see vote tally) |
02/18/2010 | Placed on Calendar |
02/18/2010 | Read first time |
02/18/2010 | Referred to Committee on General Laws |
02/18/2010 | Impact statement from DPB (SB689ES1) |
02/23/2010 | Assigned GL sub: #4 Professions/Occupations and Administrative Process |
02/23/2010 | Subcommittee recommends reporting (8-Y 0-N) |
03/02/2010 | Reported from General Laws (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
03/03/2010 | Read second time |
03/04/2010 | Read third time |
03/04/2010 | Passed House BLOCK VOTE (100-Y 0-N) |
03/04/2010 | VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (100-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
03/11/2010 | Signed by President |
03/11/2010 | Enrolled |
03/11/2010 | Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB689ER) |
03/11/2010 | Signed by Speaker |
03/12/2010 | Signed by President |
03/18/2010 | Impact statement from DPB (SB689ER) |
04/12/2010 | G Approved by Governor-Chapter 692 (effective 7/1/10) |
04/12/2010 | G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0692) |
Comments
There are serious flaws in this bill.
Only a committee of qualified attorneys should make the decision about what cases to litigate.
Already, VOPA uses dispute resolution proceedings where appropriate.
Surely the patrons do not expect that VOPA should negotiate when seeking a remedy to abuse and neglect?
I suspect that the federal funding for VOPA, which is virtually all its funding, would be jeopardized if such a restriction were placed on it.
I hear that opposition to implementing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. is driving the bill. If so, this is a strange way to accomplish it.
VOPA already uses dispute resolution, this bill is an attempt to burden and cost VOPA money and discourage or prevent litigation of even serious abuse or deaths in our psychiatric faciliites, nursing homes, "training centers", as well as prevent litigation against businesses that do not comply with the ADA, Dept. of Rehab. Services complaints by clients will be muted, this is almost a hate bill against people with disabilities, but I suspect it is in retaliation against VOPA for suing the state and getting certed to the Supreme Court.