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.
that Fernald was removed from the Developmental Center study. Clearly it was being singled out. Yet another heartbreaker for all the families and residents of Fernald who have been fighting tooth and nail for the right to stay in their preferred treatment, and a victory for the administration which, just like many that came before, is fudging numbers and counting down the days until it can close Fernald and sell off that prime piece of real estate in Waltham for a nice profit.
<
p>Great effort on behalf of all the legislators who pushed to get the language included in both the House and Senate budget, especially Susan Fargo for slipping it back in after Brewer took it out the first time.
Is an analysis of the costs at Fernald before closure too much of a threat to Bigby and company? Obviously. Could the real numbers bring this steam roller to a grinding halt? Probably. Who is waiting in the wings to buy up this valuable real estate….or has the deal already been struck and the buyer is getting impatient because the land value is decreasing while these inconsequential handicapped people fight for their lives?
<
p>Why else would our “straight arrow” legislators allow something so blatantly discriminatory to be put in writing and find its way into the budget.
<
p>If my questions above are not the motivation, I have to assume that Senator Brewer believes that the mentally retarded individuals that reside in the facilities that just happen to be in his district are a better class of human beings than the mentally retarded people who live in Waltham. He has decided that only those individuals are deserving of a cost analysis before they are thrown out of their homes. Apparently the mentally retarded who reside in Waltham have been deemed unworthy of this same consideration. Sadly the rest of his cronies must have the same prejudice. Or maybe there are no takers for the land in his district yet, so they have to keep up the property until a deal is struck.
<
p>I will say it again for the upteenth time even though no one is listening or even cares…..somethings are wrong and they are always wrong. Forcing severely mentally retarded and physical handicapped people to leave our ICF/MRs when it is the best living arrangement for that individual is wrong–PERIOD.
<
p>The administration and this legislature should be proud. Afterall, its difficult to use the full weight of their politial power to completely crush a small group of elderly parents and 150 severely and profoundly mentally retarded and physically handicapped people.
Pat yourselves on the back for a job well done.
<
p>Rule 11A. What a joke…..there are no rules when they get in the way of the administrations objectives. Just like there is no justice.
<
p>Another question, how do these souless, sorry excuses for human beings sleep at night?
I can understand frustration with Senator Brewer, who was the only member of the conference committee whose district includes two developmental centers, Monson and Templeton, and should have taken a leadership role in keeping all six comprehensive treatment centers for mental retardation open.
<
p>But in defying the intentions of both houses to include a study of Fernald, and putting in facility-closing language rejected on the floor of both houses, the conference committee and the leadership which appointed them have exposed deep divisions on this question. COFAR and the Fernald League will continue to expose the real numbers and the real human costs of Governor Patrick’s plans, and the waste and corruption implicit in building an expensive new system to evict 500 people from longtime homes and programs that work for them — while thousands of families with disabled loved ones at home are tp be deprived of supports that make their lives workable and possible.
<
p>I think we should always assume that our opponents are sincere in their beliefs. Senator Brewer is probably sincere in his belief that Fernald cannot or should not be saved, although a real examination of even the public statements of DDS officials would have given him pause.
I am quite sure that the middle aged parents who work so hard to keep multiply disabled loved ones at home were sincere in their testimony to the legislature last month that they feared for the future of their loved ones. What will happen if something happens to them? Right now almost 17,000 clients of DDS are living at home with parents over 60. To place all those people in the cheapest sort of group homes would require tripling the entire DDS budget! If I were a single mother, age mid-40s, with a multiply-disabled child age mid-20s — staring at that demographic reality — it would be easy to overlook the math that the entire state facilities budget is barely a drop in that bucket of need.
But the professional leadership of DDS should be able to face reality, and it is their motives in fostering the split among advocates that I question on this sad day.
I usually always agree with your analysis Mav. And I do agree with you 100% on the impact of these closings and the other budget cut throughout the entire system. I have no doubt the parents testimony before the committee was sincere. I completely understand their fear. But, I can’t go along with your assumption regarding Senator Brewer.
<
p>As you pointed out, an examination of DDS public statements would have and should have given him pause…but it didn’t. Both houses agreed on language asking for real numbers before proceeding. And he is ok with that except for Fernald. He could have opted to have the cost analysis conducted at Fernald first concurrent with their planning to keep it on track and then proceed with the other facilities. This would have at least given the appearance of interest in the facts and the residents. But he didn’t. I also agree that the need is enormous but closing just Fernald without the benefit of real data on which to base a decision isn’t the miracle fix to the problem. We and he knows that…so again why just Fernald.
<
p>The answer is simple….it is the most valuable piece of real estate of the 4 facilities. If not that, then its as I originally stated, only his constituents are worthy of any factual consideration.
<
p>Unfortunately, I can’t give the Senator the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Forgive my typo. Should have been moe nor mav.
There was no reason or excuse to take Fernald out of a cost-benefit analysis.
I had always thought he was a pretty stand-up guy, but it appears that mischief was afoot in the conference committee. Perhaps the “good” senator traded Fernald to keep the facilities in his own backyard open?
<
p>This has always been about privitization, rather than a “community first” philosophy. The ARCs and other service providers have been very successful at painting their naked ambition as a philosophy – but it’s not. The ARCs don’t scream about closing private facilities – only state operated ones. It’s about taking the jobs of educated, well-trained and reasonably-paid union workers and giving the contracts to the private providers, who barely pay a living wage to their workers (debatable) and score enormous salaries for their execs.
<
p>This very fragile population deserves better, and the good Senator won’t be able to wash his very Pontius-like hands.
You certainly can not call what the ARC is doing for the Fernald residents advocacy. I hear no screaming. They are probably congratulating themselves along with the administration for being instrumental in clearing this hurdle.
<
p>They have been a very vocal proponent of this closure and have demonstrated they are more than happy to sacrifice the quality of life these individuals have achieved to further their philosophy. I have to remember the ARC Mass executive director on TV news calling the loss of the appeal case “a great day” rather than displaying even the slightest degree of empathy for the residents or the fate that awaits them.
<
p>As for the good senator…I can make no further comment.
<
p>