Joe Bellow (NY Metro Vets) testifies on concerns with Intro 914 and 928

Let me welcome up to the witness table both Joe Bellow of New York Metro Vets and Timothy Pena of the Veterans Justice Project.

And as they make their way up here, thank you, all three of you.

As they make their way up here, I'll just note, and I'm sure this will upset a lot of people, that I am really appreciative of not only Mr.

Bellow and Mr.

Pena coming to just about every Veterans Committee hearing and preparing to offer testimony, but being so vocal in advocating for the veterans community, including when that

vocalism might be critical of things that the committee is doing.

And I would much rather be criticized by folks that have the best interests of veterans at heart and are putting in so much time, effort, and work in trying to improve the plight of veterans than get praise from people that don't do anything.

With that, Mr.

Bellow, take it away.

Okay, thank you.

Chair Marano, members of the Veterans Community, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's Oversight Hearing on Support and Programs.

Let me begin by saying I do not intend to offer testimony regarding the specific needs, experiences, or challenges facing LGBTQ veterans.

I am not the most qualified person to speak on those issues, and I would actually defer to members of the community and organizations with expertise in the area, such as Brian Elikok.

I will focus my testimony on intros 914 and 928 and explain my concern with both bills.

Starting with intro 914, my concern is not whether RTM is a good treatment or a bad treatment.

I think Coco kind of expressed that.

My concern is why the city, and specifically the Department of Veteran Services, is being asked to evaluate a specific medical modality.

DVS is not a health care agency, a research institution, or a medical regulator.

Its mission is to connect veterans with benefits, services, and support.

Evaluating medical treatments falls outside of that mission.

RTM has its issues, but there are also many other emerging therapies.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is currently conducting and supporting research into a variety of treatments for PTSD and other serious mental health conditions, including MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD and alcohol use disorder.

If the city conducts a feasibility,

study on RTM today, what is the rationale for not studying other emergent therapies tomorrow?

Where do we draw the line?

That is why I believe this bill opens a Pandora's box.

Once the city begins evaluating individual treatment modalities, it will inevitably face requests to evaluate others as well.

Former Commissioner Hendon raised similar concerns during the hearings that Coco and I were at last year regarding the prior version of this legislation.

He noted both the financial and operational challenges involved and stated that the Department of Health's longstanding position is that the city does not validate specific health care modalities.

I believe that remains the correct approach.

The city should focus on connecting veterans to available care, not determining which therapies deserve special recognition.

With regards to Intro 928, as former Councilmember Paul Vallone often said, we, the city, cannot legislate everything.

DVS has a responsibility to serve all veterans.

If there are gaps in outreach and access to services for LBGTQ veterans at DVS, as was said today, those gaps should be identified and addressed.

However, I'm not convinced that creating a statutory liaison position is the answer.

For years, advocates, including myself, have requested a dedicated Veterans Advisory Board liaison within DVS, yet that legislation and proposal never moved forward.

Why is the liaison for one specific segment of the veterans community now being placed in the administrative code?

This proposal also raises broader questions.

If we create legislatively mandated liaisons for LBGTQ veterans,

will future councils be asked to create liaisons for women veterans, African American veterans, Hispanic veterans, Asian American veterans, disabled veterans, or other groups within the veteran community?

So my question listening to that testimony was, what else does Donna do besides being the liaison at DVS?

What's her primary job?

The bill also leaves important practical questions unanswered.

Would this require a new hire?

Would these responsibilities be assigned to an existing employee?

As I was saying, what exactly would this liaison do that DVS is not already expected to do?

How would success be measured?

Veterans come to DVS first and foremost as veterans.

The department should focus on increasing the intake, better intake, and remain on ensuring that all veterans have equal access to benefits, services, and support without creating additional bureaucratic structures or precedents that may

prove difficult to sustain in the future.

Finally, I would encourage this committee to look beyond proposals carried over from the prior council and focus on broader policy initiatives that would improve how DVS serves veterans and their families throughout New York City.

Thank you.