I am writing as a father who watched an Oxford House give my stepson his life back. I don't say that lightly. He is alive today because of it.

I support the state wanting recovery homes to be safe and accountable. But several of the proposed rules seem to assume a staffed, business-run home, and an Oxford House is not that. It has no employees and no company behind it. It is a group of people in recovery who run their own house, vote on who moves in, pay the bills together, and hold each other accountable. That is why it works. I am asking for three changes.

First, please don't require staff these houses don't have. The rules call for a staff member to handle complaints, a staff person to serve as community liaison, and a staff member to answer handbook questions. An Oxford House has no staff, and the proposal itself calls these houses "self-governed and unstaffed." Please let elected house officers or the members carry out these duties.

Second, please say clearly who the "operator" is. Many rules put responsibility on the operator, defined as the owner or the owner's agent. People in an Oxford House rent from a landlord and do not own the home. Without a clear answer, residents could be held responsible for duties that belong to someone else, or the house could be judged unable to comply.

Third, please don't treat every recovery home like a business. The proposal asks for business insurance and registration with the State Corporation Commission. An Oxford House is a group of residents sharing household expenses, not a company. Please exempt houses like these from business registration and ask only for coverage that fits a shared home.

I saw what this model did for my stepson. Every resident in these houses is somebody's son or daughter. Please write rules that keep these homes open and keep them what they are.

Sincerely,

Bryan Parsons