Health Care Services in Correctional Centres; Suspension of KZN Regional Commissioner; with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

19 May 2021
Chairperson: Mr R Dyantyi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services

In a virtual subcommittee meeting, the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) reported on the provision of healthcare services in correctional centres, with particular reference to the treatment of state patients, and on matters relating to the suspension of its KwaZulu-Natal Regional Commissioner.

DCS reported that the total budget allocated for care services in DCS facilities was R2.5 billion. The Department had particular challenges around human resources capacity. For example, the ratio of medical practitioners and pharmacists to inmates is far lower than that recommended by the World Health Organisation. There were currently 4 690 mental healthcare users and 123 state patients in DCS facilities. In line with a protocol developed with other departments, state patients frequently remained in DCS’s care for several months, primarily because the Department of Health lacked the capacity to accommodate them in designated mental health institutions. DCS proposed that this situation should be rectified by augmenting the capacity of the Department of Health and, in the longer term, by revising the protocol such that state patients would be sent directly to mental health institutions.

Members agreed with DCS officials that the care of state patients was not part of DCS’s funded mandate. The Chairperson said that DCS should embark on a review of the state patients protocol, with the participation of other stakeholders, and that the review should be completed by August. Members also asked about the extent of DCS’s collaboration with the Department of Health, and about the measures it put in place to protect and support mental healthcare users in the DCS system. 

DCS reported that its Regional Commissioner for KwaZulu-Natal, Mr Mnikelwa Nxele, had been suspended in December 2019 upon receipt of 19 referrals from the Special Investigating Unit. These referrals implicated Mr Nxele in procurement irregularities and potential corruption. DCS believed that his suspension was necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of witnesses in the case. Although Mr Nxele had returned to work for a brief period in early May, the Labour Court had since found that Mr Nxele’s suspension held, pending the review of an arbitrator’s award in his favour. The matter was set to continue on 22-25 June before the General Public Service Sectorial Bargaining Council.

Members were unhappy that DCS officials invoked the sub judice principle to circumvent questions about the details of Mr Nxele’s case. They particularly wanted to know how many other officials, and which, were implicated in the matter. There was broad agreement that Mr Nxele could not have acted alone in any corrupt activities. Members also asked about the costs to DCS of litigating the matter. The Chairperson was concerned by internal litigation costs in general and across government departments.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Inkosi Sango Patekile Holomisa, Deputy Minister of Correctional Services (DCS). He asked the DCS delegation to keep presentations concise, to leave sufficient time for discussion among Members.

Opening remarks by the Deputy Minister

Deputy Minister Holomisa thanked the Committee for the invitation. On healthcare services, he highlighted that DCS was required to accommodate in its centres certain people who should not rightly be in DCS facilities. These included mentally ill people who had been declared state patients, because they were unfit to stand trial and so could not be prosecuted. The norm was not for the courts to send such people directly to mental health institutions. Instead, state patients were sent to DCS facilities, on the understanding that they would be transferred to mental health institutions – under the national Department of Health (NDoH) – after a specified period. Before they were declared state patients, those people were kept in DCS facilities as remand detainees, so that they could be available to appear in court as required. The Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) required that they had to be remanded with DCS pending trial. But there was no reason for them to remain in DCS facilities once they had been declared state patients – state patients did not need to appear in court, nor had they been convicted or sentenced. However, there was a memorandum of understanding (MOU) – involving DCS, NDoH, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), and the Department of Police – that called on DCS to keep state patients for a certain further period. In practice, a number of state patients remained at DCS facilities even after the expiry of that period. NDoH argued that they did not have enough space to accommodate those patients. DCS, however, held that the situation was unacceptable. The MOU had to be reconsidered, and he had suggested to DCS that officials should consult with the other departments involved. DCS should not find itself carrying out a function that was not its responsibility and, importantly, that had not been budgeted for. DCS was not given funding to hold state patients, and it did not have the capacity to do the requisite work. 

Deputy Minister Holomisa said that DCS would also report on the suspension of Mr Mnikelwa Nxele, Regional Commissioner: KwaZulu-Natal, DCS. DCS could easily have taken the “cop-out” of refusing to provide information, since the matter was currently before the courts and arbitrators. However, the Ministry was concerned – and he imagined that DCS was, too – that the matter had been “dragging on” for such a long time. Various decisions had been taken by the courts – particularly by the Labour Court – regarding applications brought either by DCS or by Mr Nxele, and, of course, everyone had a right to defend themselves before the courts. Mr Nxele had been suspended because disciplinary hearings had to be conducted, following reports by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) which implicated Mr Nxele in corruption, especially relating to tender contracts. DCS’s view was that Mr Nxele had had to be suspended because he occupied a senior position. There were concerns about the safety, or rather the “anxiety,” of potential witnesses. Those who worked under Mr Nxele might not feel free to give evidence before the courts. There were also other considerations that the National Commissioner might share with the Committee if necessary.

Deputy Minister Holomisa said that, since the initial suspension, the courts had ruled at several points that Mr Nxele should return to work. This was due to “technicalities” – the suspension period had expired without DCS seeking an extension on time. Then, later, there had been a court order in DCS’s favour ordering that Mr Nxele should not set foot on DCS premises. The process had been a “merry-go-round.” However, it seemed that the actual trial would soon begin, and the merits of the matter would then be considered. The General Public Service Sectorial Bargaining Council (GPSSBC) had set aside time in June to look into the matter. DCS hoped that the matter would be finalised soon – unless Mr Nxele took further action, for example by seeking an interdict of some kind. The Ministry’s position was that “the rule of law” had to apply at all times. If the courts said that Mr Nxele should go to work, then he had to be allowed to go to work; and if the courts said that he should not go to work, then he should not be allowed to. This was why there had been a “merry-go-round.” But the Ministry was applying as much pressure as it could to ensure that what needed to be done was done.

DCS briefing: Healthcare services in correctional services
Mr Arthur Fraser, National Commissioner, DCS, thanked the Committee for the opportunity and introduced the delegation from DCS.

Mr Samuel Makgothi Thobakgale, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarceration and Corrections, DCS, made the presentation on the provision of healthcare services in correctional centres, with particular reference to the treatment of state patients.

Services to and treatment of state patients

Mr Thobakgale said that state patients were admitted to correctional facilities under a court order issued in terms of section 77 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, section 6 of the Mental Health Care Act required that state patients should be transferred from a correctional facility to a designated mental healthcare facility of the NDoH within 14 days of the court order. In 2016, through the justice, crime prevention and security (JCPS) cluster, a state patients protocol had been signed which provided for DCS to keep state patients beyond 14 days in cases where NDoH could not confirm that beds were available. However, the healthcare system was unable to cope with the continuous increase in the number of state patients – there were not enough designated mental health institutions, nor enough available beds in existing institutions. This meant that state patients frequently remained in the care of DCS for longer than 14 days. 

While state patients awaited transfers to designated mental health institutions, DCS provided the following services:
· Orientation, assessment, diagnosis, treatment, ongoing care (counselling), rehabilitation and referral;
· Tailored interventions for specific needs of individuals;
· Provision and administration of prescribed medication; and
· Monthly follow-up assessments.

As of 10 May, there were 123 state patients in DCS facilities. This was a decrease from July 2020, when there had been 198. Most of the state patients were in the Free State (33), the Eastern Cape (31), and Mpumalanga (24). In the Western Cape, there were no state patients under DCS care, because mental health facilities in the province were able to keep up with demand. As of 31 March, there were 4 690 mental healthcare users within DCS.

Challenges to the transfer of state patients from DCS to mental health institutions included the following:
· In inter-provincial transfers, the South African Police Service (SAPS) was responsible for transporting state patients, but SAPS lacked the expertise to care for state patients and therefore was “reluctant” to transport them;
· Gauteng – which was also expected to accommodate state patients from Mpumalanga – had low mental healthcare capacity, particularly for long-term mental healthcare users;
· The number of state patients increased continuously without corresponding growth in the necessary infrastructure;
· During COVID-19, NDoH had repurposed some of its bed space to accommodate COVID-19 quarantine and isolation sites; and
· Focus had shifted to COVID-19 at the expense of other priority health conditions and programmes.

Mr Thobakgale discussed mitigation interventions that DCS and NDoH were currently implementing to improve the efficiency of transfers (see slides). DCS recommended that, in the short-term, accounting officers should work together to ensure that NDoH designated more mental healthcare institutions and provided additional beds. In the medium- to long-term, state patients should be taken directly to mental healthcare facilities. This would involve expunging the provision of the CPA which made the availability of bed space a condition for the transfer of state patients. 

Healthcare services in correctional centres

Mr Thobakgale reported on the capacity of DCS healthcare services, with regard to human resources, facilities, and budget allocation (see slides). He highlighted the ratios of medical practitioners to inmates and of pharmacists to inmates. These ratios did not meet, in any province, the recommended norms of the World Health Organisation (WHO). For example, the WHO recommended a ratio of one medical practitioner to 1 000 inmates; but, in Kwa-Zulu Natal, the figure was one medical practitioner to 11 172 inmates. In 2021-22, the total budget allocated for sub-programme four, care, was R2.5 billion. The budget had been increasing at a decreasing rate.

The following factors contributed to challenges in human resources capacity:
· Limited posts for permanent doctors, pharmacists, and pharmacist assistants;
· No provision in the departmental structure for other categories of healthcare professionals (for example, counsellors and dietitians);
· Unavailability of environmental hygiene practitioners; and
· Inability to retain nurses trained in primary healthcare.  

Discussion

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that the detention of state patients was “a classic unfunded mandate.” He fully supported DCS’s attempts to renegotiate the MOU. It was “outrageous” that state patients were “dumped” in DCS facilities, simply because there was no bed space in mental health facilities. That would also affect the availability of beds in prisons, and prisons were themselves, like mental health facilities, overcrowded. He was also concerned that state patients were typically “vulnerable,” and might be subject to abuse. What measures were taken in DCS centres to ensure that vulnerable people were properly separated from other populations, and that mental healthcare users at least had their own beds and decent facilities?

Mr Thobakgale replied that DCS appreciated Mr Selfe’s support. DCS would avail itself to the Committee to continue reporting on the progress it made in amending the state patients protocol. In line with the Correctional Services Act, DCS provided separate accommodations for state patients and for mental healthcare users. It provided security services to ensure that such inmates did not become a danger to themselves or to other inmates. DCS was also aware that these groups were exposed to risks in DCS centres, so it provided for their care separately from that of other inmates, both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of care services.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) noted that Mr Thobakgale said that DCS tried to create space to provide special care for those who needed it. However, she did not think that mental health was taken seriously in South Africa; it was another “pandemic.” How much was DCS relying on NDoH to assist? What was NDoH doing? What timelines had NDoH provided regarding its plans for the special care of mental healthcare users?

Mr Thobakgale replied that DCS did work with NDoH. NDoH was required by legislation to provide psychiatrists and healthcare professionals to state patients. However, DCS also had its own psychiatrists and healthcare professionals in its centres, and it used those resources to provide services to the mental healthcare users in its care. DCS also worked with NDoH in managing the other health issues that arose regularly in DCS facilities. On the timeline for the review of the state patients protocol, he said that, within 30 days, the processes should have begun and there should be a draft in place for discussions between the relevant accounting officers. As mentioned in the presentation, the shortage of available bed space and of designated mental health institutions needed to be addressed. DCS also needed to augment its capacity to discharge its responsibilities regarding state patients.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) said that she had seen figures, somewhere, about the number of medical doctors and psychiatrists, and about how many were employed by DCS. She understood that NDoH sent some psychiatrists, but how many psychiatrists did DCS have on its payroll?

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked who administered daily medication to those under DCS care. Was medication administered by health practitioners from DCS or from NDoH? Also, what was the extent of the mental healthcare services provided by DCS? Did it provide services beyond administering medication? When a remand detainee was a mental healthcare user, but had not yet been declared a state patient, were their medications administered to them in remand detention? 

Mr Thobakgale replied that DCS administered medication to the state patients and mental healthcare users who were under its care. As mentioned in the presentation (see slide 10), DCS also offered other services, including diagnosis, care, and follow-ups. It worked with NDoH, providing the necessary infrastructure for NDoH psychiatrists to come to DCS centres and offer the requisite services to every state patient.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked for clarification. Did DCS provide mental healthcare services other than administering medication, such as one-on-one counselling? 

Mr Thobakgale replied that DCS nurses administered medication, which was prescribed by DCS medical doctors. In cases where patients needed counselling, DCS had counsellors who came in for one-on-one consultations. It also provided sessions with psychiatrists for diagnosis and assessment purposes. These services were available to the mental healthcare users and state patients in DCS’s care.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen noted that once a judge declared a person a state patient and unfit to stand trial, that person was sent back to DCS. Those state patients were not supposed to stay in DCS facilities for longer than 14 days. If they did stay longer than 14 days, what was the average period for which they stayed at DCS? A judge declaring someone unfit to stand trial was different to a judge sentencing him to a period in jail. Did state patients stay at DCS for well over 14 days?

Mr Thobakgale replied that, as mentioned in the presentation, DCS worked closely with NDoH to try to reduce the delays and to minimise the amount of time that state patients spent in DCS beyond the 14-day period. On average, DCS state patients stayed in DCS care for between one and six months. There were instances where state patients stayed longer because they required special care from NDoH and DCS had to await confirmation about NDoH’s capacity.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked about the care budget allocation (see slide 26). Was part of this budget covered by NDoH, or was it entirely covered by DCS?

Mr Thobakgale replied that the budget as presented referred only to DCS funds.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked what happened when a state patient was transferred or released from DCS. Did the patient go to a mental health facility, or did he go home to his community? Did DCS engage with the patient’s family prior to his release? She was concerned that if, for example, someone was charged with murder, but was declared unfit to stand trial, it would be a risk to let him go out into the community or return to his family, because of the severity of his illness. When such a person was released from DCS care, where did he go?

Mr Thobakgale replied that, as mentioned in the presentation, state patients were released to the care of NDoH – that is, to designated mental health institutions. This was in line with legislation. However, DCS and NDoH did also interact continually with the family members of state patients.

DCS briefing: Suspension of the Regional Commissioner for KwaZulu-Natal

Mr Pieter Kilian, Director: Code Enforcement Unit, DCS, presented an update on Mr Nxele’s suspension. He said that the matter was currently under arbitration and under litigation in the Labour Court, so, to protect those processes, he would not speak too much on the merits or details of the matter.

Mr Kilian said that Mr Nxele had been suspended since 2 December 2019, although he had returned to work for brief periods in February-March 2020, April 2020, and May 2021. He was charged with various acts of misconduct in relation to disciplinary referrals from the SIU. Between September 2019 and February 2020, DCS had received 19 disciplinary referrals from the SIU, relating to tenders and, in one case, to the non-disclosure of financial interests. The reports concerned procurement irregularities in contracts whose estimated value was R92 million. DCS held that it was necessary to suspend Mr Nxele to ensure the safety and wellbeing of witnesses. 

Mr Kilian discussed in detail the processes that had been followed regarding the disciplinary hearing and in the Labour Court and the GPSSBC (see slides). Most recently, Mr Nxele had referred an unfair labour practice to the GPSSBC for alleged unfair suspension, and the arbitrator had issued an award in his favour on 26 April 2021. Mr Nxele had returned to work on 3 May. However, DCS had immediately filed to review the award and to stay its enforcement. On 5 May, the Johannesburg Labour Court had granted an order in favour of DCS, finding that Mr Nxele was interdicted and refrained from reporting, pending the review of the award. The Durban Labour Court had dismissed Mr Nxele’s application to rescind the 5 May order. Therefore, Mr Nxele remained on suspension, pending the finalisation of pre-dismissal arbitration. The disciplinary matter was set by the GPSSBC to continue on 22-25 June.

Discussion
Mr Selfe said that he assumed that there was a typo on slide 6 of the presentation. He assumed that the slide should refer to a hearing on 22-25 June 2021, not 22-25 June 2020.

Mr Selfe said that it appeared that, in the disciplinary proceedings, Mr Nxele was employing “classic delaying tactics.” He was not sure whether there was any way for DCS to overcome that. However, he was “disturbed” by the fact that DCS had not succeeded in some of its applications – for example, Mr Nxele had successfully challenged his suspension at one point. He wondered whether DCS was adequately represented and advised, and he worried that it was “not fully on top of the case.” The matter had dragged on, and he hoped that in June there would be some clarity.

Mr Kilian agreed that there had been delaying tactics. However, provided that the tactics complied with the proceedings and with the law, DCS would have to deal with them for as long as they continued. DCS did anticipate and prepare for such tactics. On the adequacy of DCS representation, he said that there had been challenges at one point, because various different state attorneys had represented DCS. However, that issue had been solved. With the assistance of the legal services unit, the Office of the State Attorney, and Mr Fraser, DCS had centralised its approach to the litigation, so that the matter was now being dealt with in one office, by one state attorney.

Ms Yako asked who else, apart from Mr Nxele, had been “fingered” by the SIU.

Mr Kilian replied that, currently, Mr Nxele faced disciplinary proceedings alone. He could not provide any further information without going into the merits of the case, which would be inappropriate.

Ms Yako asked how much it was costing DCS to proceed with Mr Nxele’s case and with all the associated “up-and-down.”

The Chairperson said that, in responding to Ms Yako’s question, DCS should specify how much it had paid in legal fees so far. The taxpayers were being billed for those legal fees. Moreover, since Mr Nxele was still in the employ of DCS, was he also utilising state funds for his defence?

Mr Kilian replied that R1.9 million had been spent on legal costs so far. That figure included all the various litigations – and there had been several. He could not even remember the number of times DCS had appeared in court regarding applications for suspension and other applications.

Mr Dyantyi asked, jokingly, whether DCS had spent only R1.9 million so far.

Mr Kilian replied that he would not use the word “only.” There had been various court matters involving litigation. However, DCS had only brought one court application itself – the most recent application. In every other instance, DCS had been opposing an application brought by Mr Nxele.

Ms Yako asked who was standing in for Mr Nxele as Regional Commissioner.

Mr Kilian replied that Mr Kenneth Mthombeni, a deputy commissioner, was acting Regional Commissioner: KwaZulu-Natal.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen said that she was not sure Members were allowed to ask, or whether DCS was able to answer, her question. She wanted to know whether the SIU referrals and proclamations had all been finalised, and whether any criminal charges had been laid in relation to the referrals.

Mr Kilian replied that DCS had not received all the SIU reports – some were outstanding. DCS had received the referrals but was busy with some outstanding issues. He would have to check before answering about associated criminal charges, because SIU made referrals to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) regarding criminal charges.

Ms Yako said that she was “disturbed” by the amount DCS was spending on the case. Officials needed to be “brutally honest” with the Committee about how many other people were implicated in the matter. DCS was “headlining” Mr Nxele’s case to give the impression that it was combatting corruption, but Mr Nxele could not be the sole “sacrificial” person. DCS was spending a lot of money. And it could not have been that Mr Nxele had acted alone. DCS had to be open and honest in its briefings, so that the Committee would be sufficiently well-informed to deliberate.

Mr Kilian replied that the question of whether other people were involved went to the merits of the case that was currently before GPSSBC. It was a part of the case that DCS had to present. He was not currently at liberty to answer, because doing so would compromise DCS’s case. He asked for the Committee’s indulgence. DCS had to be open and honest, but it also had to respect that there was an internal process underway.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) agreed with Ms Yako. It was unacceptable for DCS to tell the Committee that it would “never entertain” questions about who else was involved. It was fine if it did not provide the information right now, but the Committee wanted the information. There was no way that only one official, Mr Nxele, should be “sacrificed” in the matter.

The Chairperson said that Ms Maseko-Jele had raised not a question needing a response but a request for more information, which DCS should accommodate going forward.

The Chairperson invited Mr Fraser and Deputy Minister Holomisa to provide further input.

Mr Fraser said that the engagement of the Committee was always enriching and challenging. It challenged DCS to reflect on what it did and how it did it. Regarding state patients, DCS would engage on the review of the state patients protocol, and would report back to the Committee within the next two months. Regarding Mr Nxele’s case, he would provide the full scope of the costs to the Committee. If one looked at the total costs to DCS, not just legal costs, DCS had expended a further R1.58 million on matters relating to Mr Nxele’s suspension. However, importantly, DCS had persisted with the suspension for good reason. On one of the occasions when Mr Nxele had asked to return to his offices, he had returned with a few parolees as bodyguards. Witnesses in the matter included female officials, who had registered complaints with Mr Fraser in his capacity as accounting officer. He felt it incumbent upon him to protect witnesses who were prepared to give evidence about possible malfeasance.

Mr Fraser proposed that, when the substantive issues of the matter were concluded, the matter should be used as the basis for a case study. Over the course of the matter, a number of issues had arisen that required the Committee’s attention. A case study could help the government at large. So, once the matter was resolved, DCS should return to evaluate the matter – including its protraction and its cost – and identify challenges. He thought that the matter required a lot of further investigation.

Deputy Minister Holomisa said that DCS intended, at all times, to be frank, open, candid, and honest in its engagements with the Committee. In his opening remarks, he had made a passing reference to the sub judice principle, according to which it was inappropriate to comment publicly on matters that were before court, and particularly to comment on issues that bordered on the merits of such matters. That principle was part of the reason that DCS could not give a clear answer to questions about who else, or how many others, were implicated. It was logical to doubt that only Mr Nxele had been involved in the commission of the offence. DCS’s “suspicion” or “understanding” was that other parties were involved. However, the case was yet to be tried. As such, disclosing certain pieces of information could jeopardise the state’s case. However, the Ministry and DCS would confer to see how DCS could take the Committee into its confidence. Doing so would mean taking the entire public into its confidence. Therefore, DCS had to be sensitive to rules applying to such matters, which prohibited the public disclosure of certain kinds of information. It would find a way of taking the Committee into its confidence, and of indicating exactly how the entire matter was progressing, without jeopardising the interests of the case itself.

Deputy Minister Holomisa said that the Ministry, and subsequently DCS, had long found it irrational that patients who were not facing criminal trials were kept on DCS premises, instead of being taken to the proper facilities. He was pleased that Members shared this view. As Mr Fraser had said, DCS would report to the Committee soon on its progress in reviewing the state patients protocol. State patients were not DCS’s “core responsibility,” and DCS did not have the capacity to look after them. State patients were not supposed to be on DCS premises, regardless of how closely DCS worked with NDoH.

Deputy Minister Holomisa thanked Members for their “probing” questions, which he said sometimes conveyed implicit advice about how DCS should carry out its difficult responsibilities.

Closing remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson noted that, at the previous week’s meeting, he had concluded by asking DCS for concrete information on several issues. He hoped that the relevant information was on its way to the Committee, if it had not already reached the Committee. It was not the kind of information that DCS had to generate anew – DCS should already have the information. DCS had to prioritise providing such information since, at every meeting, the Committee was likely to request more.

The Chairperson said that DCS needed a concrete timeline for reviewing the MOU about state patients. He suggested that after the House reconvened in August, the Committee would call upon DCS to present not just its progress but its completed review of the MOU. It was critical for DCS to review the MOU, together with the other stakeholders, because the current situation did not make sense. The August deadline would give DCS more than three months. Once the review was completed, and DCS had done the work at the administrative, operational, and technical levels, then the Committee would be able to engage with the other affected portfolio committees. That way, the committees could take “a collective approach.” But that would depend on DCS completing the review of the MOU timeously.

The Chairperson said that he wanted to broaden the concern raised earlier in the meeting about the costs of the matter involving Mr Nxele. He had said before, in 2019, that the costs to government of internal litigation were “a worrying phenomenon” – not just at DCS, but in all departments, such as DoJ&CD and others. Mr Nxele’s case was just one piece of the total litigation costs. There were other disciplinary matters and so on, involving other officials. Sometimes there seemed to be “a cold war” within government departments. These were internal litigation costs, because the litigation did not respond to an external pressure of some kind. He therefore wanted DCS, at its next engagement with the Committee, to report on its total litigation costs. DCS should break those costs down into the internal and external components, specifying the monetary figures, the reasons for the litigation, and the alternative responses that could have been taken, besides litigation. That would provide the Committee with a fuller picture.

Finally, on mental healthcare, the Chairperson said that DCS’s briefing had given Members a sense for the situation of state patients. However, he was interested in the wellness of DCS officials, as well as the wellness of state patients themselves. DCS should share with the Committee how its officials were affected.

The meeting was adjourned.

 
 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: