The key point of the editorial is made in the second sentence, and it bears repeating:
Instead of wasting money and good will on litigation, the administration officials should meet with families of Fernald residents to discuss ways of keeping their loved ones in the place they have been in for decades — while making other parts of the campus available for other purposes.
We, of course, couldn't agree more, and it is a mystery to us why the Patrick administration can't see it that way.
If the administration would drop its appeal and start a true dialogue among all of the stakeholders, they could begin the process right now of developing the remainder of the campus. The administration could also begin the process of consolidating the Fernald Center and making it operate more cost efficiently. The irony is that neither of these things can happen while the matter is tied up in court, possibly for months if not years.
There are many other aspects of the administration's announced intentions in this matter that don't make sense. For instance, Secretary of Health and Human Servcies JudyAnn Bigby has stated that although the administration plans to close Fernald, they intend to keep open one cluster of cottages for 24 of the 180 residents. If they're willing to do that, why not construct cottages for all of the residents and let them stay with the same roommates and staff they've always known? Why break up what U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan referred to in his report on Fernald earlier this year as a family-like relationship between the staff and the residents?
Governor Patrick and Secretary Bigby, it's time for dialogue over Fernald, not continued litigation.
I’m writing from The Arc perspective but my comments are personal.
<
p>
If it’s time for dialogue, let’s be clear, Fernald lawyers initiated the litigation not Gov. Patrick. In fact the perspective that Massachusetts should continue to operate all its institutions has been fueled by the Boston Globe and others for decades. Given the political pressure and spotlight, Governor Patrick and Secretary JudyAnn Bigby have shown courage.
<
p>
The legal proceedings regarding Fernald started after a rejection by the Fernald League of a compromise where 70 to 90 individuals would have remained on grounds and all other present residents could have chosen state operated homes. After rejecting the compromise, the Fernald Attorney filed to reopen the consent decrees arguing that conditions at Fernald were not in compliance with the Final Decree of the Federal Court.
<
p>
For those of you reading this who are new to this debate, you need to appreciate that the disability groups who are most active in health care and long term care advocacy all agree that the best options for individuals with disabilities are through community services. So this is not a private vendor vs. state employee debate as Dave and the Globe position it. In fact several brand new homes for individuals presently at Fernald are sitting empty because of Judge Tauro’s ruling. These homes would have been operated by state employees.
<
p>
I also agree that there is too much silence. But the silence is from those who support a “postage stamp”. For all the discussion of this concept, sponsors have not published a prospectus or budget. It is a concept. We know there is nothing specific since it would have been released to the press months ago if a plan existed. It’s a straw man in this debate until those who suggest it are able to produce a plan. Instead the Governor is taken to task for not “discussing” it.
<
p>
(By the way, if you do work on a plan, please insure that it does not force a new generation of individuals into state institutions.)
<
p>
The reality is that this conflict is not simple. Because it includes the inevitability of change. Who really has done the disservice to the families of those at Fernald? Has it been the administration or is it those that have continued to fuel families’ fears and encouraged them to fight on? The logical extension of keeping Fernald is keeping all our state institutions. But this is not what people waiting for services need or want.
<
p>
No, it’s not simple. But there has been an offer of compromise and solidarity. Families can have the choice of an institution, a state operated home or a private non profit home. In addition there are families who would be happy to share their experiences about other settings.
<
p>
There is always time for dialogue. Let families meet each other and learn about their options. Let’s not scare them about the future. They are all good families, whether their loved one is at an institution, in a community setting or living with family. What they have in common is love and caring for their family member.
<
p>
JudyAnn Bigby showed great sensitivity in a very difficult situation. She recognizes how difficult this is for those family members who oppose a change. She stated that the residents will receive service plans that are individualized to their needs. The individuals have extensive rights which will be protected.
<
p>
But that reality is separate from whether Fernald continues as an institution or not. The decision about Fernald’s future is not just about the individuals living there. It has to be made in a broader context. It’s also about the individuals who don’t live at Fernald today, nor want to live there tomorrow.
My post, “The Globe gets it right on Fernald,” is long gone now, but I can’t let Vasaro’s comments, inserted late, go unrebutted.
<
p>
First of all, Vasaro, a member of the Arc of Massachusetts, says the Fernald families rejected a compromise plan that would have allowed 70 to 90 individuals to remain on the grounds. Actually, this plan, proposed in 2004, would have allowed only 24 current Fernald residents to remain in the Malone Park cottages–the same plan the Patrick administration is currently pursuing. The only difference is that the then Romney administration proposed keeping the 27 beds in the skilled nursing facility operating on campus. The nursing facility, however, is open to all persons in the DMR system, and the residents of the nursing facility are not counted among the 180 remaining Fernald residents.
<
p>
The Fernald families want to negotiate a new, smaller-sized Fernald facility that would continue to house all of the current residents. It’s true they are not willing to negotiate plans to throw some of those residents overboard.
<
p>
Vasaro says that Fernald lawyers and not Gov. Patrick initiated the litigation before Judge Tauro. Fernald lawyers initiated the litigation because it was the only way to stop the Romney administration’s then headlong rush to close Fernald. Romney had no intention of negotiating with the families, just as Governor Patrick apparently doesn’t.
<
p>
Vasaro also says, without any backup evidence, that the “disability groups that are the most active in health care and long term care advocacy all agree that the best options for individuals with disabilities are through community services.” Only the most fervent ideologues in support of privatization argue that all persons with disabilities are better off in the community. The Supreme Court, in fact, in Olmstead v. L.C., noted that there are some persons whose disabilities are so severe that instititonal care is the most appropriate source of care for them.
<
p>
Vasaro chides the Fernald families for not having proposed a “prospectus or budget” for their “postage stamp” plan and says it’s just a “concept.” In fact, the families have provided DMR and other administration officials on a number of occasions with a detailed proposal, complete with a map. They haven’t put forward a detailed budget for their plan because they have been unable to get adequate information from DMR for Fernald’s current budget. That would have to be in hand first before a detailed budget could be proposed.
<
p>
Finally, Vasaro resorts to one of the Arc’s favorite canards that people will one day be forced into institutions. The reason this statement is so offense to the Fernald families is that it is the administration that is attempting to force them out of Fernald. No one in the last 30 years has been forced to go to a state facility. In fact, admissions to the facilities have been effectively closed since 1993, and people have had to fight to get their family members or wards into them.
I can’t let Dave’s comments stand. I’m going to set the record straight on a few of his points but otherwise direct you to:
<
p>
http://www.bluemassg…
<
p>
You will be able to get all the information you need by reviewing that diary.
<
p>
1. Dave says there is no evidence that most disability groups support community for all and makes this point twice in his short post. Visit:
http://arcmass.org/S…
<
p>
The first set of groups (ending with Mental Health Legal Advisors), are not service providers. Two of the groups are trade associations but the rest comprise disability advocacy groups such as Mass. Families Organizing for Change, Mass. Advocates Standing Strong, Independent Living Centers, disability law groups, etc. Also visit
http://thechp.syr.ed…
<
p>
The “Community Imperative” refuting the need for institutionalization at the Syracuse University site has many signatories across the nation.
<
p>
Also see the University of Minnesota study reviewing studies on deinstitutionalization
http://ici.umn.edu/p…
<
p>
2. This change process is old news (I know not to Dave) and it’s something that advocates for seniors are promoting nation-wide. These advocates are concerned about the slow pace of offering alternatives to nursing homes.
<
p>
3. Dave says I “chide” Fernald families for the lack of a plan behind the “postage stamp”. No-I was addressing people like Dave and the leaders that keep pushing the parents to fight and who scare them.
<
p>
4. Where is the postage stamp plan if it was shared with officials? Someone may be working on one now, but let’s face it, the specific plan with a budget would have been released long ago with an executive summary.
<
p>
5. And the last piece of misinformation I will address is Dave’s closing remark that families are “fighting” to get their wards into facilities. In fact Dave families are fighting to get services in the community. You have no facts to back your claim.
<
p>
Again to stay on top of this issue see —
http://www.bluemassg…