First, the Fernald families will continue to offer their postage-stamp compromise to scale back Fernald and continue its current services to its current residents on a reduced campus footprint. We have never insisted that this is an all or nothing battle. We have proposed a plan to reduce the current cost of operating Fernald.
The administration so far has wanted none of it. They want the facility gone. We will continue to make our case.
The families will also continue to press the administration to publicly present a plan not only for the future care of all mentally retarded persons in Massachusetts, but for where the beds will be found for the 160 remaining residents at Fernald. So far, the administration has not done this. Until that happens, the families will continue to use all legal means to contest the removal of each of their loved ones from the facility.
The families will continue to press the administration to undertake a valid and accurate cost estimation process before closing Fernald. The administration has publicly tossed out cost numbers in an effort to pit the Fernald families against other families in the DMR system, but the administration's numbers have very little foundation in reality.
The administration has not shown how the money now going toward the care of Fernald residents will somehow continue to benefit those residents as well as the other clients in the DMR system once Fernald is closed. If anyone thinks the system as a whole will somehow improve once Fernald is shut, they are deceiving themselves.
Finally, the families will also be there to fight the administration's next moves to shut the five other remaining facilities for individuals with the most profound levels of mental retardation in Massachusetts. Interestingly, the administration's case in shutting Fernald is built on the fact that care at the other institutions is equal to the care at Fernald, and therefore the current residents can be transferred to those other facilities without major harm. But what happens when those institutions are then marked for closure?
There is no answer to these questions from this administration. Until there is an acceptable plan, an acceptable cost analysis, and answers to our questions, the fight will go on.
It was not a good day in Federal court. But you are right the battle will continue. I have no intention of throwing in the towel. Not yet.
<
p>I don’t know if it is appropriate but I have written a letter to the chief judge expressing my disappointment with the general tone of the hearing. Asking them to see through the slight-of-hand put forth by the Commonwealth and see the issue for what it really is–as Judge Tauro did. The ISP process has been compromised and I let them know that. It probably won’t even be read but it made me feel better venting my anger. Maybe more of us need to pen a few letters to the court. If they receive a pile of letters there bound to read at least one of them and that one might have the words that catches someones attention.
<
p>
The Fernald Families will continue to advocate very strongly for the rights of our family members that reside at Fernald!
<
p>The DMR has many question to be answered before any decisions are made for our family members. What is your plan? What is going to happen to the Greene Building? What is the plan for Malone Park? What is the plan for Marquardt? What is the plan for the homeless shelters on grounds? What is the next facility to close? These questions and many more need to be answered so we can all make informed decisions on the health and welfare of our family member.
<
p>The ISP process for 160 Residents can take a very long time. Without a concrete plan from DMR about the next closure and the “new homes to be built” how are guardians going to make an informed decision for their family members?
<
p>According to the ARC attorney there are hundreds of vendor operated community beds. If that is the case why are there so many disabled/retarded people on the DMR waiting list?
<
p>On September 4th, one day after the court hearing, the word given to Administration personnel is “Fernald will close two years after the announced decision of the Appeals court”. That announcement was made by a DMR lawyer! How sure are they? Dever took ten years to close!
<
p>We have not given up and do not intend to give up for a very long time!
Standing Strong,
Marilyn Meagher, President
Fernald League for the Retarded, Inc.
I was also in federal court for the oral arguments, working for COFAR (www.cofar.org) a statewide coalition of family groups and individuals that includes the Fernald League and other groups with family members in developmental centers, as well as “community settings.” I also thought the judges were leaning toward reversing Tauro’s order, but they may eventually decide otherwise.
In either case, it is likely to be a narrow interpretation, not the sweeping clarification of the Supreme Court Olmstead decision that COFAR’s amicus brief (on our website) promoted, and that Mass DMR and its allies feared. The appeal judges seemed to focus on the jurisdictional issue, and thus would not remove the safeguards in the settlement of 17 years ago that gave those residents of Fernald who remained the rights to equal or better treatment for the rest of their lives. The lawyers for the Fernald and Wrentham plaintiffs who defended Tauro’s order also took a narrow interpretation, that it did not prevent the state from closing Fernald eventually.
I think Dave has pointed out the next area of debate by noting that there is no budget to move these 160 or 170 people. While the State was able to create about 20 or 30 beds in the last two years in state operated group homes, moving 160 people — old, medically fragile, complex cases, most neither ambulatory nor able to speak — and with rights to equal or better, is not so easy. Most of the earlier transfers went to other developmental centers or state operated group homes, but both of these budgets are cut for FY09. The governor went out of his way to veto the already insufficient “state schools” budget, and the House did not override (despite their earlier additions to the governor’s budget for this line item.) With a fuel overage carried over from FY2008 (and no signs of cheaper heat for this winter), DMR has begun up to 200 layoffs at all the developmental centers.
State-operated group homes may or may not be equal or better for some people, but that budget also has to absorb excess fuel costs from last winter (both heating oil and gas for transportation), and even community residential is flat-funded — while more than half of all DMR clients live at home with parents over 60.
It can be demonstrated that DMR’s claims of saving money by closing Fernald are false. But when they will have to make new supplemental budget requests to the legislature, or puff up the FY10 budget, the burden will shift to them to explain why it now costs more money to close Fernald! And a new lie will have to be developed for the thousands of families on waiting lists for residential services or even day programs.
For at least 50 years, there has been no real planning for long-term care for people with severe and profound mental retardation/developmental disabilities. The plan has been to let it slide, and then have the courts settle things. That forces the legislature to fund a solution, not always the best solution for everyone.
Once again, the courts will rule. But after that, there will be another opportunity for a democratic process. The road to better and more efficient long-term care runs through the family guardians and the community. If DMR cannot, with a Democrat as governor and a professional team at the top, figure out how to have that negotiation — then it may well be forced by the legislature under pressure of a difficult revenue environment.
<
p>–Mark Zanger
I think Mark is right when he says there has been no real planning for long-term care for people with severe and profound mental retardation. I’d even expand that to say there has been little or no real planning for the DMR client population as a whole.
<
p>Last year, DMR provided the Fernald League with documents listing some of the findings of working groups involved in a departmental strategic planning effort through 2004. This planning effort appears to have been very preliminary and inconclusive, however. There was apparently no consensus reached by the working group examining the appropriate number of state facilities to meet the projected bed need by 2011.
<
p>In many ways, DMR operates by doing what John Bryson, the author of Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, describes as “muddling through.” They don’t want to commit the resources and effort needed for detailed planning for major initiatives, and so they hope they can just muddle through. While this can work in some situations, it does not appear to be workable in the politically sensitive and fiscally complex situation that DMR faces.
The fight is over and it is time for all of you to raise the white flag. The First Circuit US Court of Appeals, a true objective party, heard your argument and asked the questions that had to be asked. And let’s face it. Any objective observer would come to the same conclusion: there was no reason for Judge Tauro to reopen the case and the court has no jurisdiction as to how the Commonwealth chooses to spend taxpayer’s dollars as long as the mandate of the original decree is upheld. It’s over.
<
p>I hate to break this news to all of you from COFAR and the Fernald League. You are all pitied, scorned and resented by all the thousands of families across the State with loved ones with disabilities. You represent the minority who unfortunately are spinning a warped interpretation of the mission of the Department of Mental Retardation. Although you will never admit it, DMR has successfully transitioned countless individuals from facilities, residential schools, nursing homes, and even from their parents’ homes to community residences. There are thousands of individuals across the State supported by DMR who are thriving in a variety of settings. And contrary to your propaganda, they include individuals with disabilities similar and even more intense than the unfortunate people still living at Fernald. The real outrage should be the amount of money spent in these hearings and court appearances.
<
p>And I have more news to break to all of you. This is turning out to be a fascinating election year. Criticize all you want the Patrick Administration. Do you really think that the possible Republican Vice President of the United States is going to advocate for the preservation of institutions for the mentally retarded? You currently have zero support in both major political parties!
<
p>Why don’t you all take a lesson from Ben Ricci, a participant in the original lawsuit. Recognize and acknowledge the failures of the facility and devote your energies to a better community system.
<
p>