Here's the irony, though. The conference committee language that you came up with, Senator, does nothing to protect any of the facilities. So that leaves us with a nagging question. Why was it so important to take Fernald out of it? Is the mere thought of a cost-benefit analysis before closing Fernald really that threatening to Health and Human Services Secretary JudyAnn Bigby and DDS Commissioner Elin Howe? For months, we were virtually the only ones out there, arguing that a true cost-benefit analysis is needed before Fernald or any of the other DDS facilities should be closed. We presented argument after argument that the administration was inflating Fernald's costs, comparing apples to oranges, and generally throwing out fictitious numbers in claiming Fernald is too expensive to continue to operate. (I'd link to all of those previous posts, but what difference does it really make at this point?) And lo and behold, the conference committee now comes out with a "compromise" that cost-benefit analyses will indeed be required--before closing the Monson, Glavin, and Templeton Developmental Centers. But not Fernald. Apparently, no analysis is even needed for that facility. The funny thing is that both the House and Senate had approved budget amendments requiring cost-benefit analyses for all four facilities (although only after Senator Brewer had taken Fernald out of the Senate budget for the first time, and Senator Susan Fargo got it put back in.) Now, Senator Brewer has taken it out once and for all. It's funny because I thought rule 11A of the Legislature's joint rules states that if both the House and Senate agree on something, it can't be removed in the conference committee. Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Secy. Bigby, Commissioner Howe, and Gov. Deval Patrick are no doubt congratulating themselves that they have cleared yet another small hurdle out of the way of privatizing what is left of the system of care for people with mental retardation in Massachusetts. It wasn't much of a hurdle. If you go to a Fernald League meeting, you'll see a group of people whose average age is probably about 70, who are simply worn out with trying to ensure a viable future for their children and wards at Fernald, whose average age is about 50. All of these people together have practically zero political clout. That they've hung on and kept Fernald going as long as they have is amazing in itself. |
