April 15, 2010

re: New Futures’ opposition to Sections 70 – 72 of Amendment 2010 – 1311h to SB 450 regarding fundamental policy changes to the responsibilities and operations of the Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment

Dear Representative Smith, Senator D’Allesandro, and Honorable Members of the House and Senate Finance Committees, 

On behalf of New Futures, a non partisan nonprofit advocacy organization working to reduce underage alcohol problems and increase access to substance use disorder treatment and recovery services, I write to express our strong opposition to Sections 70 – 72 of Amendment 2010 – 1311h to SB 450 and respectfully request that these sections be removed from the bill.  Sections 70 – 72 make fundamental changes to the duties and responsibilities of the Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment (“Governor’s Commission” or “Commission”) that will negatively affect its ability to fulfill its mission to promote the delivery of effective and integrated alcohol and drug abuse prevention, intervention and treatment services across the state. 

By way of background, the creation of the Governor’s Commission in 2000 (RSA 12 – J) reflected the General Court’s understanding that problems resulting from alcohol and other drug use involve and effecte the work of numerous state agencies and entities (including the departments of health and human services, justice, safety, education, the judicial branch, the liquor commission and the university system) and its conviction that an integrated approach to solving these problems was crucial.  To this end, the Commission was created with members from all of the above – named entities and also includes members of the General Court, the public and the provider community.  To promote the coordination of alcohol and other drug services across the state the Commission ischarged with the development and implementation of a statewide plan for the effective prevention of alcohol and drug abuse and a comprehensive system of intervention and treatment.  As part of its responsibilities, the Commission is authorized to disburse the moneys from the Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment Fund (“Alcohol Fund”) which was created in 2000 as a nonlapsing and continuously appropriated fund for the purpose of funding alcohol abuse prevention and treatment programs.  RSA 176 – A: 1.  The Commission meets regularly, has created the task forces mandated by RSA 12 – J:2 and the development of a comprehensive plan for the state, and has responsibly distributed monies from the Alcohol Fund to community – based prevention, intervention, and treatment programs across the state in support of the Commission’s comprehensive plan. 

Sections 70 – 72 of Amendment 2010 – 1311 to SB 450 would, for all practical purposes, place the operations of the Commission and authority over the moneys from the Alcohol Fund within the sole control of the Department of Health and Human Services.  New Futures strongly opposes the changes proposed in Sections 70 – 72 for the following reasons: 

• Sections 70 – 72 are fundamentally inconsistent with the understanding that direct interdepartmental collaboration and cooperation is critical to the solution of the problems of alcohol and drug abuse because such problems affect numerous state and community entities. 
• The General Court has repeatedly expressed its opinion that DHHS should not exercise control over the moneys from the Alcohol Fund.  In 2006, in reaction to the decision by DHHS to use Alcohol Fund moneys to meet its “back of the budget” targets, the General Court placed a protective footnote in the Alcohol Fund appropriation that states, in relevant part that the appropriation “shall not lapse or be used for any other purpose or be considered for budget reductions required of the department of health and human services.”
• Sections 70 – 72 make major policy changes that are not related to any budget savings in SFY 2011 and are completely inappropriate for inclusion in a budget bill.  As was demonstrated by Executive Order 2010 – 2 issued on April 12, 2010, the Governor has the authority to reduce the appropriation to the Alcohol Fund to manage the overall state budget. 
• Sections 70 – 72 were apparently included in Amendment 2010 – 1311h at the request of DHHS and were inserted without any notice to or consultation with the Commission.  These sections are, from their express language, simply a way for DHHS to take control of the funds from the Alcohol Fund for its own purposes, including directing such funds to pay for its administrative costs.

For the reasons stated above, New Futures respectfully requests that, as part of its deliberations on SB 450, the House Finance Committee remove Sections 70 – 72 from Amendment 2010 – 1311h and any subsequent amendments.