What can a union official say in a public hearing about specific reports of child abuse?
That’s the First Amendment question now animating a back-and-forth between the state’s Department of Children, Youth and Families, the ACLU of Rhode Island, and the union representing numerous DCYF workers, SEIU Local 580.
Risk Management Controls in Commercial Property and Liability Insurance
Businesses today are facing a risk landscape that is more volatile, more expensive, and less…
Learn More
On April 16, SEIU Local 580 President Matthew Gunnip, a DCYF social caseworker, sat before the House Committee on Judiciary and testified in his union capacity on a slate of bills. During testimony on a bill about camp safety, he detoured to tell lawmakers about his broader anxieties with the Child Protective Services division in DCYF.
“It’s a division in crisis,” Gunnip said, adding that it was a “silent crisis,” and went on to underline his point with two examples of reported child abuse he alleged were not properly investigated by the department. One incident, he said, pushed a DCYF employee to leave the agency.
“Now that’s just wrong,” Gunnip said at the hearing. “We bring these concerns up to the department, and the department says, ‘Oh, give us some specific cases.’ I can only give you so many specific cases, because our workers are afraid of retaliation.”
It took Gunnip about 30 seconds to share his two examples, which involved alleged physical and sexual abuse. Gunnip did not name the caseworkers, children or families involved, but his public remarks were sufficiently detailed for DCYF Director Ashley Deckert to mention them in an April 21 message to Gunnip’s union email address.
Deckert’s email was part of a larger thread between the two regarding staffing for the child abuse and neglect hotline – referred to internally as the “call floor” – and the union’s concerns about cases which may not be screened or investigated properly.
Deckert wrote in her email to Gunnip that “individual cases often involve additional context that is not reflected in secondhand accounts,” and she added that one of the reports Gunnip mentioned publicly was “ultimately upgraded, investigated, and determined to be unfounded.”
The director then pivoted to address head-on Gunnip’s specific comments at the hearing: “The use of detailed, potentially identifiable examples – particularly in public forums – raises serious confidentiality concerns,” Deckert wrote, and cited a section of state law which prescribes DCYF records to be tightly safeguarded.
“The legislature is not an entity to which confidential case information may be shared under this statute, not to mention that the hearings are publicized on Capitol TV,” Deckert wrote. “Any further dissemination of such information may constitute a confidentiality violation. I am asking that you exercise extreme caution to ensure confidentiality is not compromised.”
That warning, in turn, motivated Gunnip to file a complaint with the ACLU of Rhode Island, whose director, Steven Brown, wrote a letter to Deckert on Tuesday, asking her to “reconsider [her] warning.” Gunnip, Brown argued, was “clearly addressing a matter of important public concern: his opinion about a lack of adequate DCYF staff to handle abuse and neglect complaints,” and to construe a breach of confidentiality laws from his comments “would raise serious First Amendment concerns.”
“Cursory” is how Brown characterized Gunnip’s references, adding, “These few sentences are neither gratuitous nor revealing of the identity of the parties. Nobody hearing that testimony would have any idea who those people are.”
Deckert’s email was part of a larger thread between the two regarding staffing for the child abuse and neglect hotline – referred to internally as the “call floor” – and the union’s concerns about cases which may not be screened or investigated properly.
Deckert wrote in her email to Gunnip that “individual cases often involve additional context that is not reflected in secondhand accounts,” and she added that one of the reports Gunnip mentioned publicly was “ultimately upgraded, investigated, and determined to be unfounded.”
The director then pivoted to address head-on Gunnip’s specific comments at the hearing: “The use of detailed, potentially identifiable examples – particularly in public forums – raises serious confidentiality concerns,” Deckert wrote, and cited a section of state law which prescribes DCYF records to be tightly safeguarded.
“The legislature is not an entity to which confidential case information may be shared under this statute, not to mention that the hearings are publicized on Capitol TV,” Deckert wrote. “Any further dissemination of such information may constitute a confidentiality violation. I am asking that you exercise extreme caution to ensure confidentiality is not compromised.”
That warning, in turn, motivated Gunnip to file a complaint with the ACLU of Rhode Island, whose director, Steven Brown, wrote a letter to Deckert on Tuesday, asking her to “reconsider [her] warning.” Gunnip, Brown argued, was “clearly addressing a matter of important public concern: his opinion about a lack of adequate DCYF staff to handle abuse and neglect complaints,” and to construe a breach of confidentiality laws from his comments “would raise serious First Amendment concerns.”
“Cursory” is how Brown characterized Gunnip’s references, adding, “These few sentences are neither gratuitous nor revealing of the identity of the parties. Nobody hearing that testimony would have any idea who those people are.”’
Gunnip said Thursday Deckert’s email was “clearly retaliation” – a retribution, he argued, that belonged to a larger punitive pattern carried out by DCYF leadership.
“They need to stop retaliating and instilling fear in workers for speaking up about workplace conditions,” Gunnip said, adding later that emails like Deckert’s “chill the First Amendment speech of [DCYF] employees and their right to speak to the media and speak to the legislature about issues of concern.”
Asked what he hoped to demonstrate with his comments before the Judiciary Committee, Gunnip said he wanted legislators to understand that, if DCYF is not adequately following up on certain cases or calls, that constitutes “a matter of public concern.”
He called DCYF’s stance on the confidentiality of his statements “absurd.”
To Gunnip, this was not a case of a few errant remarks, or a purely managerial slap on the wrist.
“This is not…just about a union official,” he said. “This is sending a message to our members, who represent a group who are about two-thirds of the employees at DCYF, that you better shut up and not speak, because if not, we’re coming for you.”
The email thread between Deckert and Gunnip showed DCYF and the union have been discussing staffing on the call floor, as well as the screening decisions made from the calls to the hotline. Gunnip’s emails relayed that the union wanted more information on how and what data the agency uses when determining whether to backfill shifts when Child Protective Services is short an investigator.
Deckert told Gunnip the agency’s approach is to leverage “real-time need, including call volume, time of day, and overall staffing levels” before deciding when to fill a vacancy for an investigator who has called out.
“There are times when call volume is lower and existing coverage is sufficient, even in the presence of call-outs,” Deckert wrote.
The state’s Child Advocate Katelyn Medeiros – whose office serves as the watchdog and legal defender for children in DCYF care – said in an email Wednesday that her office “has been made aware of the confidentiality issues” and was “currently reviewing this matter.”
While Medeiros said her office “will not be commenting on the letter from the ACLU,” it did “share the concerns raised by the union regarding screening decisions and staffing issues.” The Child Advocate routinely monitors DCYF’s practices regarding screen-outs, or reports that are ultimately not elevated to investigation, and Medeiros said her office is “actively addressing” screening and staffing practices with DCYF.
As for H8092, the camp safety bill which prompted the dispute, it’s sponsored by Rep. Justine Caldwell, an East Greenwich Democrat, and would add staff of day and residential camps to the state’s definition of people who are “responsible for a child’s welfare.”
That provided an opening for Gunnip, who used the bill during his April 16 testimony as a launching pad for his broader critique that DCYF’s existing staffing and screening capacity should be scrutinized before the department receives any new duties.
A flabbergasted Caldwell asked Gunnip during the hearing the basis of his objection to her bill.
“I’m not objecting,” he replied. “I’m expressing.”
“It sounded like a significant objection,” Caldwell said, and later added from her committee seat, “This is not an Oversight hearing or a Finance hearing about DCYF.”
In a phone interview Thursday, Caldwell said she was “so flummoxed” during Gunnip’s testimony at the time. She had missed the beginning of his comments and could not specifically recall the cases he cited, she said. But she remembers trying to keep up.
“I was like, ‘Did I miss something?’” Caldwell said, adding that she has good relationships with unions and is typically privy to their concerns when they testify on her bills.
She added: “I really don’t have any reaction, besides [that] I was trying to connect the dots between this testimony and any concerns about the content of the bill.”
