Two competing bills crafted to determine the future of the Montana Developmental Center and mitigation funds to the community of Boulder appear headed for a showdown. House Bill 387 and Senate Bill 271 offer differing views over what should happen, though each carries a core provision that would keep the MDC operating on some level for up to two additional years. Both also stand to establish a crisis intervention facility of up to 12 beds, though provisions differ over the longevity of those facilities.
Major differences in the current versions of the bills:
• HB 387 caps the census of the MDC at 24, a provision not addressed in SB 271.
• HB 387 calls for increased authorization for spending for direct care services by private community providers. Wages for those providers are not addressed in SB 271.
• HB 387 calls for the continued operation of the state-operated intensive care unit already in existence, but ends emergency admissions there on March 31, 2019. SB 271 calls for the establishment of a 12-bed intensive behavior center without reference to the location of that service.
• HB 387 contains no reference to the proposed $500,000 “Boulder Development Fund” originally placed in the governor’s budget to help the community mitigate impacts from the closure of the MDC. SB 271 includes that funding to be administered by the Director of the Department of Public Health and Human Services.
As now designed, the bills are likely to move into a conference committee, made up of members from both the House and the Senate, to resolve differences. Following the provisions of each bill as it has wound its way through the Montana Legislature has been challenging.
Each has undergone major changes along the way. HB 387, introduced by Rep. Kirk Wagoner and sponsored by Sen. Edie McClafferty, and SB 271, sponsored by Sen. Fred Thomas and senators Blasdel, Caferro, Ehli, Galt and Keenan, have essentially reversed during the session. The changes prompted Thomas to complain to the House Appropriations Committee that his bill had been “highjacked,” comparing it to parking a nice pickup truck outside of a cafe and returning only to find a Pinto in its place.
“It’s not my bill anymore,” he said. During that hearing, Thomas seemed to endorse the idea of keeping the current Assessment and Stabilization Unit (ASU) as the intensive behavioral center for the state. That facility already exists, he said, and the “patients there are safe and so are the employees. The ASU seems fine to me,” he said, “because it was secure.”
Thomas argued that “the thought that you would rename it and build another one just doesn’t make any sense.” Both Wagoner and Thomas are Republicans, Wagoner from Jefferson County and Thomas from Stevensville, but party lines do not appear to be what spells the difference in their views on the state’s system of care for individuals with developmental disabilities and serious mental illness.
Each bill has passed both houses of the legislature, but amendments added in the second house means each must go back to the original body for review, something not yet posted on the legislative schedules as of press time.
