|
7.15.2001
00:05
Lead
bills collapsed as camps dueled
• Lawmakers
came closer than ever this year to passing a bill to reduce lead poisoning
in children. So what happened?
BY PETER B. LORD
Journal Environment Writer
PROVIDENCE -- As the last sweltering night of this
year's General Assembly session unfolded, everyone who had fought over
two competing bills to reduce childhood lead-paint poisonings in Rhode
Island was convinced they had failed.
State Sen. Thomas J. Izzo, a retired school
administrator who struggled for three years as sponsor of lead-paint reform
legislation, was doing his job on the Senate floor, but he believed his
bill was dead and another year was lost.
So did his opponents. Some of them had
sponsored their own lead bill, which also went nowhere.
Vincent L. Greene, a 28-year-old lawyer
who specializes in suing landlords on behalf of lead-poisoned children,
got out of work at about 7 p.m. and stopped by the State House to see
what was going on.
But Suzanne Alden, a lobbyist for Childhood
Lead Action Project (CLAP), an advocacy group that opposed the Izzo bill,
was home and expecting to go to bed early.
Henry S. Monti, a product liability lawyer
and head of the Rhode Island Trial Lawyers Association legislative committee,
was out with his kids.
Elizabeth Colon, another advocate, was
home with her children.
Then came the surprise.
Just after dinner, Sen. Majority Leader
William V. Irons called Izzo and said there was still a chance for his
lead bill. If he made one amendment, it might pass.
Izzo went to work. Soon phones were ringing
in the homes of Alden, Monti, Colon and other lead experts all over the
state. Over the next several hours, emotional, sometimes angry negotiations
took place in the hot hallways of the State House.
What followed offers a glimpse into how
adults make, or in this case, don't make, laws that are of vital importance
to thousands of children.
Few of those involved feel good about
the way the night ended.
THE GOAL seemed clear: to get the owners
of hundreds of thousands of apartments and houses across Rhode Island
to clean up deteriorating lead paint that each year poisons nearly 3,000
children -- many of them poor and members of minority groups.
Two solutions had been presented in two
competing bills to the Senate Committee on Health, Education and Welfare.
Chairwoman Catherine E. Graziano called a hearing May 16. Advocates of
each were bitterly critical of the other.
Izzo, for the third consecutive year,
sponsored a bill designed to encourage landlords to make their apartments
lead-safe. It lowered the cleanup standards for lead paint to make abatement
cheaper. It provided lead education programs and tax credits for landlords,
called for creation of a statewide cleanup plan, and for a technical center
where landlords could get help.
In what was to become a critical issue
that dogged him throughout the session, Izzo's bill protected landlords
from most lawsuits by lead-poisoned tenants.
If a landlord had his property certified
as lead safe and a child still got poisoned, the child's family could
sue only for medical and educational expenses -- relatively minor costs,
particularly for many victims who already receive state aid.
Izzo insisted the limitation was essential
to encourage landlords to make their apartments lead safe, and to lower
their risks so their liability insurance costs wouldn't skyrocket.
The liability limit was repugnant to CLAP
and its allies, the trial lawyers.
Some of CLAP's members are families with
children who were so damaged by lead poisoning that they will never be
able to work. They need to be able to sue to recover future earnings,
the group says.
The lawyers said it's their job to represent
children, so how could they barter away their ability to recover for damages?
CLAP, the only advocacy group focusing
solely on lead, worked with Greene and others at his law firm, Ness Motley,
to offer opposing legislation that focused more on penalizing irresponsible
landlords. It allowed unlimited liability for landlords, mandated insurance
coverage (so there would be assets to sue for) and offered other tax breaks
to those who protected tenants from lead poisoning.
CLAP had the credibility of its work with
victims, and the clout of a massive law firm that played a central role
in the national tobacco case. One partner, John J. "Jack" McConnell,
treasurer of the state Democratic Party, hosted Hillary Rodham Clinton
at a fundraiser at his East Side home last year.
Before the May 16 hearing, Graziano suggested
the two sides work out a compromise. She was hopeful they could.
Izzo and CLAP executive director Roberta
Aaronson had worked together on lead issues for years before parting over
the direction of Izzo's legislation. Also, The Providence Journal had
just published a six-part series on lead poisoning and its victims, and
the issue had became a hot topic in the legislature.
Graziano, 69, a retired nurse, is much
more familiar with the ravages of lead poisoning than most legislators.
She recalls trying to treat children brain damaged by lead poisoning decades
ago when doctors weren't even sure what was wrong with them.
"They were worse than the victims
are now," she said. "People didn't recognize the problem. In
the old days, we used to send them up to Zambarano [Hospital] and forget
about them."
The CLAP people told Graziano that Izzo
wouldn't change his bill. So she scheduled the hearing. For three hours
it was war.
The insurance industry and one major paint
company supported Izzo's bill. Environmental groups and lead victim advocates
backed CLAP.
Both sides imported experts from Maryland,
another hotbed of lead poisoning. One said Izzo's bill would make Rhode
Island a national leader. The other said it would do little to solve the
problem and it would deny victims the right to sue for damages.
One problem in Rhode Island is that current
practice is to inspect for lead only after a child is poisoned.
CLAP and its supporters argued that current
state law requires that landlords rent lead-free apartments, but municipalities
say it's not their job to enforce those regulations, and the Health Department
says it doesn't have the resources.
It would be better for the state to commit
resources to enforcing current legislation, CLAP said, than to enact Izzo's
bill with its weakened standards for lead abatement.
As the hearing wore on, Majority Leader
Irons entered the room, sat down and started gesturing to Graziano to
speed up the testimony and call for a vote.
The committee unanimously approved Izzo's
bill.
Greene, not hearing one positive comment
from senators about the CLAP legislation, said later, "I think that's
where we died."
THE FULL SENATE later passed Izzo's bill
46 to 1. The only objection came from Sen. David V. Igliozzi, D-Providence,
a lawyer, who -- like previous critics -- said Izzo's bill stripped poisoning
victims of their full right to sue landlords.
A few weeks later, Izzo's bill was sent
to the House Finance Committee, chaired by Rep. Antonio Pires. The CLAP
legislation had also been assigned to House Finance.
In late May, Pires scheduled a hearing
on the CLAP legislation. It ran late into the night and drew opposition
from the insurance and paint industries.
For the next month there was no visible
action on either bill. But work was going on behind the scenes.
CLAP sought to negotiate with Izzo, but
neither side would give on the issues of mandatory insurance and unlimited
liablity for landlords.
If tenants couldn't sue for future earnings,
CLAP insisted, children's rights would be given away. And without mandatory
insurance, there often would be nothing to sue for. But Izzo insisted
both measures would make insurance so expensive that insurance companies
would leave the state or landlords would stop renting to families with
children. Get the apartments cleaned up, he insisted, before children
become victims.
Finally, on June 26, the second-to-last
day of the legislative session, Pires scheduled a hearing on the Izzo
bill.
Witnesses waited for six hours for a chance
to testify, but they had little new to say.
There was one fresh development: Izzo
had lined up support from Governor Almond, the state Health Department,
and the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation.
But CLAP and its supporters continued
to argue that the basic problem is that the state doesn't enforce its
existing lead laws, and that the Izzo bill, which included no recommendations
for extra enforcement money,would do nothing to change that.
At the end of the night, Pires said he
liked Izzo's bill but needed to confer with House leaders.
With the General Assembly scheduled to
adjourn the next day, both bills appeared dead.
ON THE FINAL night of the legislative
session, Greene, the young lawyer working with CLAP, can't remember what
drew him to the State House. But he went.
He quickly ran into Izzo and Kenneth Payne,
the Senate's senior policy adviser, conferring with Anthony DeSisto, lobbyist
for the Rhode Island Trial Lawyers Association.
Izzo said they approached DeSisto because
Irons had gotten a call from someone in the House who suggested one change
that would make the bill acceptable to House leaders -- allow poisoning
victims to sue landlords for pain and suffering, as well as medical and
educational expenses.
Izzo said he didn't know who in the House
made that suggestion.
And Pires said he was unaware of any last-minute
negotiations. He liked Izzo's bill and wanted his committee to vote on
it. But he said "there was a hold on it by the majority leader and
speaker. I was irate about the fact this bill wasn't moving."
On Friday, however, Irons said that House
Majority Leader Gerard Martineau supported the bill, and that the offer
to compromise came from Harwood.
What's more, he said, he had learned that
a number of trial lawyers were in support.
Izzo said he worried that the new concession
might drive away his insurance-industry supporters, but he volunteered
to ask them. "They agreed to go ahead, but said we couldn't go beyond
that."
Izzo and Payne made the proposal to DeSisto
and Greene.
It was stifling in the hallway. Greene's
tie was askew and his jacket was off.
"It was a pressure situation. The
clock was ticking," Greene recalled. "I said, 'Look, I can't
give you an answer right away.' "
He called Alden and Colon. They called
Aaronson. He also sought advice from Monti, a lawyer who started pursuing
lead cases 13 years ago, and Robert McConnell, John's brother, who is
another partner in his law firm.
They all advised him not to compromise
with Izzo.
In all his years of lead litigation, Monti
said, there has never been a settlement for pain and suffering. The real
damages are future earnings. The offer was an empty one.
"I was very sorry about what happened
that night. It came down to the kids versus the insurance companies,"
he said. "When it comes down to that, we're going to go with the
kids every time. I said I would sleep very well that evening."
Alden said she was excited to hear of
a last-minute offer, and she rushed to the State House. "But later
on, I felt very angry and betrayed. We had worked so many months to get
to the point where we could sit down with Sen. Izzo. Now it was happening
three or four hours before the session ended."
Izzo said he was briefly optimistic. He
and Payne even began writing an amendment. But then CLAP and the lawyers
opposed it, and he said he felt "extraordinarily disappointed."
Greene said he went out and sat in his
car for a bit before going back inside and watching the House very closely
until the early hours of the morning to make sure nothing further happened
with Izzo's bill.
Despite everyone's heightened expectations,
no legislation passed.
WHAT'S NEXT?
Alden said CLAP isn't sure what it will
do next, though it's clear the state needs more resources for enforcement
and abatement.
CLAP leaders are also heartened by the
news last week that the NAACP threatened to sue the paint industry as
well as city and state governments that fail to abide by federal and state
regulations.
The focus on poisonings of minorities
is now making the problem a civil-rights issue, she said.
The state Health Department said last
that it will soon start intervening on behalf of children at lower poisoning
levels than it has in the past and it expects to help an additional 80
children a year with the new rules.
It also announced it had stepped up enforcement
efforts in the last two years by conducting 1,800 home inspections and
referring 157 landlords to the attorney general's office for prosecution.
Some hard feelings remain.
Irons remains incensed. He insists that
Monti was the person most responsible for blocking lead legislation this
year.
He readily conceded he was so angry that
he killed a bill sought by the trial lawyers that night. And more retribution
may come.
"This is the year when the problem
should have been solved," Irons said. "The killing of this bill
was an absolute tragedy for the children in our society. It's absolutely
clear that the trial lawyers are at fault and that will be considered
every time they want legislation in the future."
"I believe many people are enlightened
about this problem now, and they will not put up with this not becoming
a law."
Monti insists his opposition was philosophical,
not financial. Few lead lawsuits are won, he said, but it's unethical
not to act in the best interests of those clients.
IZZO SAID last week he thinks CLAP made
a "terrible mistake" in opposing his bill and has marginalized
itself by its hardline position.
He plans to start working on a new bill
in the fall. He said the news coverage of lead poisoning this year has
made everyone aware of the issue.
"I am amazed that since the end of
the session, neighbors, personal friends -- people I have bumped into
-- they ask about the bill," Izzo said. "Even though we in the
end weren't successful, the amount of awareness we generated, and the
fact we came close, are important."
Graziano and Pires are optimistic too.
"Any time you take a controversial
bill and narrow it down to a few issues, you've done something,"
Pires said. "The focus needs to shift from the trial lawyers and
the insurance industry to the children who are poisoned. Until that happens,
we haven't succeeded."
|
