We have yet to get adequate answers to the first set of questions.
Earlier this year, for instance, the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) provided us with two lease-purchase agreements in response to a Public Records request for all contracts for the development of group homes for former Fernald residents since 2005. All information that might identify the location of these two homes was redacted in the documents provided. Even the names of the towns in which the homes are located were obscured with black ink.
DCAM said they were redacting the information under the Privacy Exemption to the state's Public Records Law. This exemption states that a public agency can withhold records that include data relating to specific indivduals.
I frankly don't see how publicly listing the town in which a Department of Developmental Services group home is located in any way identifies any of the residents living there or who might live there in the future. Moreover, DCAM charged us $208 for the eight hours it took them to redact the information. The cost of redacting this information could make it prohibitively expensive for us to get copies of future leases as more of these group homes are developed. (We're preparing to appeal the redaction of this information to the state Public Records Division.)
We've been stymied as well in finding out how many group home beds have actually been developed. More than a month ago, I faxed and mailed DDS Commissioner Elin Howe a letter with 11 questions about the status of alternative housing being developed for Fernald residents.
Among the questons I asked:
-
How many group homes are under development and have been developed specifically for Fernald residents? (We think that at most only a handful have been built, at a cost of potentially $2 million per home.)
- How many people are currently on the waiting list for placements in community-based residences? (Howe once said there were thousands of people waiting for these residences; but we have never gotten a specific number on this from the administration.)
- What is the total number of beds that will be made available for Fernald residents at the Wrentham Developmental Center, and when will those beds be ready?
You would think these would be relatively simple questions to answer. But to date, we have received no response from DDS to them. I faxed a follow-up letter to the Commissioner a week ago.
We have also, by the way, received no documents yet in response to a request we made nearly six weeks ago to both DDS and DCAM on the projected cost of renovating the Wrentham Center to accomodate the additional beds that will be needed there. From what we understand, there are only two documents involved here: a feasibility study and a documented cost estimate for the renovations.
Pardon us if we're not yet convinced that this administration is making its best effort to ensure equal or better care for these residents. They could start down that path by providing some answers to our questions with reasonable promptness.
The administration’s schedule calls for the closure of Fernald by June 30, 2010. At this stage I would expect the answers to these very basic questions would be “nailed down”, readily available and eagerly provided. It would certainly instill a little more confidence in their “best interest” speeches….I forgot the “best interest” scam has been exposed.
<
p>I can understand why they can not provide information regarding particular individuals and that is not what has been requested, but where the homes are located is hardly a breach of confidentiality.
<
p>In a previous post we commented on the availability of private service provider financial statements, tax returns and annual report filings on the government website http://www.mass.gov under the Attorney General, Division of Public Charities section. If you take the time to review just a few (granted it is time consuming and dull reading) many of these providers identify the towns where their group homes are located in their public filings. If you take it a step further and go to the service providers own websites, they identify the towns where there homes and have pictures. So why is it a breach of confidentality for DDS to readily provide similar information?
<
p>What you can’t determine from these public records is how many beds are available and where they are located.
<
p>Another thing I don’t fully understand, and hopefully someone can answer my question, since these homes are being paid for with taxpayer money doesn’t that make it public information?
<
p>The only conclusion I can come up with is that these very basic details of the “plan” (I use the term losely) to move extremely fragile people have not been worked out yet.
<
p>
or DDS and DCAM prefer not to subject this process to public scrutiny. As you note, taxpayer money is involved here. One would hope the administration would make the process transparent. But getting information about the facility closure process has always been like pulling teeth.
<
p>The administration’s mindset appears to be to play their cards as close to the vest as possible. Remember their insistence for months that they planned only to close Fernald? Then we were suddenly told last December that four facilities would actually be closed. We’re the only ones looking at, or talking about this process, and the administration no doubt prefers it that way.
<
p>
I think I have to go with your conclusion that DDS and DCAM would prefer no public scrutiny.
<
p>Unfortunately, this closure policy is one that is easily overlooked by the average person unless you happen to be directly affected by it via a relative or friend, etc.
<
p>This fact makes it easy for the DDS/DCAM to keep information to themselves and do whatever they want…they know there are only a few of us watching.
Unless you were a an indigent parent or child who was getting a guardian to fight for your education – invisible.
<
p>Not a ripple when an entire cadre of dedicated, poorly paid professionals and poor children were thrown away.