In the 10 months since the administration announced its intention to close Fernald, your Department has steadily cut staff and services at the Center, failed to repair broken fixtures and equipment, and failed to maintain adequate levels of cleanliness in many buildings and apartments. We are facing growing instances of unexplained injuries, a lack of familiar staff caring for residents, inadequate supervision, leaking plumbing, unclean bathrooms, and many other problems.
We are particularly concerned that this situation amounts to discrimination against Fernald residents because the Department appears to be adequately maintaining staffing and conditions at other Intermediate Care Facilities, particularly the Wrentham Developmental Center. We can only conclude that conditions at Fernald have been allowed to deteriorate because Fernald is the first ICF/MR slated for closure. As a result, families have felt under pressure to move their loved ones out.
Here are some specifics on the changes in staffing, services, and conditions, that we have been experiencing lately at Fernald:
- Staff are being cut back at an alarming rate. In the past month, 25 to 27 staff members have voluntarily taken buyouts, which the Department offered them. These buyouts ranged from $3,000 to $10,000. In addition, close to 90 people have been laid off in the past year.
- More and more remaining staff are being assigned to “float” between buildings, resulting in situations in which residents are no longer cared for by staff who are familiar to them.
- Many remaining staff are being required to take on duties that are not in their job categories.
- Clinical supports are being diminished. As clinicians leave, the remaining clinicians face larger and larger caseloads.
- The number of social workers alone at Fernald has declined from 4 to 2, and one of those two staff members, who has been newly assigned to social work duties, is not licensed as a social worker.
- Supervision of staffing is declining as well. At Malone Park, for instance, we are down to only two supervisors on most shifts, with one of them working only part time.
- Workshop programs are losing clinical supports. Habilitation counselors are not being replaced.
- The clinical unit, which had been inactive for months (a concern in itself) has suddenly been activated as a step-down unit for residents coming back to Fernald from trips to the hospital for serious medical problems. Recently, a resident was returned
by ambulance from the hospital with no accompanying staff and was sent directly back to his apartment without any nursing evaluation. This was in violation of Fernald policy. The next day, after the receipt of medical test results from the hospital, the resident was transferred to the clinical unit and quarantined there. We are concerned that a growing number of medical problems at Fernald is related to staffing cutbacks. - Many residents, who previously had rooms to themselves, are being doubled up with other residents as buildings and other facilities are “consolidated.”
- Numerous problems with cleanliness have been detailed in recent Building Representative Committee reports, including peeling paint, flies in bathrooms, uncleaned toilets, and mold and fungus on walls.
As you know, we oppose the administration's decision to close Fernald, and are disappointed that you have never accepted our repeated offers to negotiate a compromise under which the size of the facility could be reduced in an orderly and thoughtful manner.
The hasty and insensitive manner in which your Department is currently operating only compounds the wrong that is being done to Fernald's residents and their families and guardians. You are proceeding with your unilateral closure plan with a lack of respect for the needs and dignity of the people and staff still living and working there.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Meagher
President
You’ve already registered that support in an effective way with your comment above. Urging others to comment would help as well. If you would like to attend any meetings or contribute financially or otherwise, you can contact Marilyn Meagher by email at m.meagher@verizon.net.
Thanks Eddie for your support.
<
p>It doesn’t seem possible that in 2009 we have conditions that mirror the 1970s but we do. The word appauling just isn’t good enough!!!!!
<
p>Let hear it for our “enlightened society” and in particular lets hear it for our Governor and Commissioner. They should be nominated for their contributions to humanity. In a few short years they have crushed a group of battle-worn elderly guardians, silenced a federal judge, cleared the way for the wholesale eviction of the most severely mentally and physically disabled citizens, destroyed a facility that was “second to none in the world” (quote of Federal Judge), and dismantled a comprehensive system of care and treatment of the mentally retarded that took 30 years to build. Who says government can’t get anything done?
<
p>We are back where we started fighting for the basic human rights and dignity of these most vulnerable people.
<
p>Standby for the next installment. Fernald is just the tip of the iceburg. The same fate awaits the residents of other developmental centers as the Governor and the Commissioner charge forward with their closure plans, free of any potent opposition and unfetted by anything as trivial as basic human rights or moral decency.
<
p>They will continue to force those requiring the most care into the an inappropriate community based setting that is, by their own admission, overloaded, understaffed, underfunded, and facing more budget cuts. Some will be forced to move to the soon to be overcrowded Wrentham facility. I question how long Wrentham can sustain the good level of care it provides in the face of continuing budget cuts. Does anyone believe the empty promise that Wrentham will always remaing in operation? Forcing all these people into one over crowded and underfunded facility is segregation and will ultimately lead to warehousing. So again we are right back where we started.
<
p>Those individuals who have been waiting for services will continue to wait as they are bumped further down the non-existent “waiting list” and will be forced to try to survive, on their own, like the 1970s when there was no assistance to be had. So again, we are right back where we started.
<
p>If these actions aren’t criminal they should be. Am I the only one who is disgusted and outraged?
<
p>
Yesterday, we sent a press release about deteriorating conditions at Fernald to news organizations around the state. Apparently, only WBUR ran a small item on its website.
<
p>Question 2: When was the last time The Globe — the largest MSM outlet in the state — ran a news story about Fernald?
<
p>I did a search in the Globe archives and typed in “Fernald Developmental Center.” The last story I could find ran in early May, five months ago, and it was about development of the land. The Globe has ignored every press release we’ve sent to them over the past year.
<
p>Once again, we are indebted to the blogosphere, which is the only way now to let the public know about this issue.
Great questions.
<
p>There has been no sigificant reporting on Fernald for quite a while. Only local coverage of the reuse committee and a story about atrocities from the 1940s & 50s. Nothing about the injustices taking place as we speak.
<
p>I’ve said it many times before in my previous posts here, but if these severely mentally retarded and physically disabled individuals were gay or some other politically popular group of the day this story would be all over the national news.
<
p>I’m about ready to say that my brother is gay, and let them prove he isn’t.
if we’ve moved you and Charlie to the undecided column on Fernald. After all, the administration and its supporters have long been using the seductive argument that Fernald is too expensive and is outmoded as their rationale for closing it. That’s a very difficult argument to counter because it plays into the government-can’t-do-anything-right mentality.
<
p>To the extent that politically knowledgeable people such as yourselves at BMG are undecided on this issue after the administration has provided its rationale for Fernald’s closure is encouraging. Yet, as I told Charlie, I find it surprising that after two years of our posts here on every aspect of this issue that we could think of, you are still saying you don’t know enough about the issue to form an opinion either way.
<
p>I can see that part of the problem is that our posts are admittedly one-sided, even though we try to be as factually accurate as possible. And only rarely do people on the other side post any rebuttal comments. So, I can understand that you feel you’ve been getting only one side of the story.
<
p>A solution to this would be adequate coverage in the MSM, which ideally would present both sides of the story in a dispassionate way. Unfortunately, as I noted in my previous comment, the MSM has been almost totally uninterested in following this story, not to mention delving into its underlying issues.
the debate is about more than this one facility. It seems to be a huge philosophical debate about the best way to care for a very vulnerable population. I don’t feel well enough informed about the arguments on either side of that debate to know where I come down, nor do I have much specific knowledge of what’s going on at Fernald, beyond (as you say) what you and your allies have been posting here. I don’t feel like it has a lot to do with being politically knowledgeable; it feels very specialized to me, and it’s way outside any area of expertise I happen to have. Certainly, more MSM coverage would help, but even then, there are major aspects of this issue that just don’t seem to me readily accessible to lay people such as myself.
about more than this one facility. I would argue that it’s about more than just this one vulnerable population. It’s really part of the debate over just how far government should go in shedding its responsibilities to the private sector.
<
p>True, the specifics about care at Fernald and about care for the mentally retarded require some specialized knowledge. But that’s true of just about every issue that gets aired on BMG, from casino gambling to health care. Were the MSM to cover this issue, it would, I think, become more readily accessible to “lay people.”
<
p>IMHO, the lack of accessibility that you feel about Fernald, care for the mentally retarded, and privatization in general is just fine with the administration. They never answer the charges we raise. That might, God forbid, force a debate that would bring about some actual press coverage and scrutiny of these matters. Pretty soon, people might start forming their own opinions about them.
On the contrary, I believe lay people have a responsibility to become informed and offer a public opinion about this important policy debate. If the MSM is going to take a pass on covering Fernald and the other affected institutions, then it is up to the active citizenry of Massachusetts to do its own research and evaluate the competing plans for Fernald and the other affected institutions.
<
p>After all, if thoughtful Massachusetts residents, who are not directly affected by the administration’s plans, abstain from offering an opinion about the Patrick administration’s closure plans for Fernald and its similar institutions, then all these highly vulnerable individuals have is their families, friends, and professional advocates to speak up on their behalf.
<
p>Finally, I find that the intellectual argument “that there are major aspects of the issues that don’t seem readily accessible to lay people as myself” to be very weak regarding this public policy matter. Over the last several years, I have seen the BMG contributors and editors thoughtfully weigh in on some highly sophisticated issues well-beyond their professional or educational expertise. It seems far-fetched to believe that the public policy questions surrounding the medically appropriate and fiscally sound environment and level of care tfor these mentally and physically disabled adults at Fernald and similar institutions represent issues beyond the intellectual scope of BMG posters and editors. While some of the issues may be “specialized,” as David characterizes them, they certainly aren’t as technically dense as “weapons of mass destruction” or “health care reform,” or technical “state fiscal matters” including bonding authority. Personally, I appreciate Dave from Hvad posts about Fernald, and hope he continues to keep us informed about policy and advocacy developments in the months to come.
Eddie–well said.
<
p>Even though the MSM does not see fit to publize the issue, the information is there, you just have to look for it a little harder and when you find it read it. Over the past several years Dave from Harvard has made numerous posts on BMG that have highlighted the various aspects of this issue that contain the administrations position and the position of those of us who oppose these closures.
<
p>I don’t think you need an advanced degree in a particular subject to form an opinion. Seems to me thats what BMG is all about. The anonymous expression of opinions made under the cover of user names with no details regarding the indiviuals specialized education, expertise or qualifications on which their opinion is based. So whats the problem?
<
p>Considering some of the subjects discussed here, this particular issue is really quite simple. Either you believe that our society has a moral obligation to care for those who truly can not care for themselves or you don’t. Either you believe that there are standards of basic human decency or your don’t. You believe that all people, regardless of their intellectual or physical abilities, have basic human rights or you don’t. When you boil it all down the Governor is depriving these people and their guardians of their basic human right of choice. A right a Federal court says they have.
<
p>If nothing else, you have to at least consider that there just might be something to this argument if this group is willing to fight for 6 years, spend hundreds of thousand of dollars in litigation, and are willing to continue that fight against impossible odds. I would expect this “think tank” to at least be curious.
<
p>I have to conclude that you will blindly follow the mandates of a politician.
<
p>That is precisely not the issue. You know full well (or, at least, you should) that people of good will who believe very strongly in those obligations and standards disagree on what the best way is “to care for those who truly can not care for themselves.” One of the folks who works with the very population you are concerned about, and who sees things very differently than you, is right here on BMG. I am not qualified to decide between those competing visions.
With all due respect to you, I am familiar with LynPBs posting.
<
p>Even his/her posts acknowledge that not all would be well served in the community….only most. What about the few that aren’t part of the most? Are their guardians not entitled to the right to choose the best venue for their care?
<
p>LynPB stopped posting his/her opposing opinion quite sometime ago. Indicating he/she was tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. Yet his/her post could easily be categorized as the same thing over and over Twenty years of experience…..blah…blah…blah. After twenty years of experience one should know that one size does not fit all and its wrong to try to make it fit. When his/her opinion was sought out in posts because that twenty years experience could provide unique and detailed insight into this particular matter such as why increased oversight of the community vendors was so cumbersome “same thing over and over again” and tired or talking to myself was the response.
<
p>So after all is said and done, it still really is simple. The guardian, is the only one who truly knows the disabled person, and is in the best position to make the choice. Be it community or facility based care, the choice should still be the guardians. Not the Governor, a bureaucrat or an anonymous poster. The guardians BASIC RIGHT OF CHOICE has been taken away.
<
p>If there is even the slightest doubt of what is the best environment for delivery of care, I would expect a person would err on the side of caution and come down on the side of what has worked for the individuals in the past. Good enough that their guardians would rather fight than move.
You don’t need to be an expert to figure this one out. In fact, better to not be one and retain a sense of objectivity.
<
p>For those of you who may have a family member in a nursing home, know that the residents of the developmental centers are more like those nursing home residents than not, and that there are many overlapping issues. What if the Secretary of EOHHS were to suddenly announce (maybe in the middle of an ice storm) that the majority of nursing homes in the state would close within four years? What if you were told that the patients were going to be moved to group homes in the community, even though those homes did not exist, that the patients would receive the same level of care that they had been receiving, all at less cost to the state? Would you believe that? I certainly hope that you would not believe that.
<
p>What if the Department of Education were to suddenly announce that the majority of schools would be closed, that we would revert to little red schoolhouses scattered in the community, that the pupils would receive the same level and quality of services as before at less cost to the state? Would you believe that? I certainly hope that you would not believe that.
<
p>In both of these instances it’s just common sense that it is not possible to provide the same quality and quantity of services in scattered settings, and likewise it is not possible to provide for the residents of the developmental centers the same quality and quantity of services in scattered settings as before. The centralized service delivery model works and well in a cost-effective manner for groups of persons with similar needs. That is why this model is used in schools, hospitals, prisons, and the military, and has worked well in the developmental centers for the mentally retarded and developmentally disabled among us.
<
p>Yet in tyrannical fashion Governor Patrick announced that certain developmental centers would be closed, even though no plan ascertainable to those affected existed to meet the needs of the residents. They say community-first is best. Read community-private vendors-first, people-last. How arrogant to dictate to those who cannot speak for themselves and their caregivers what is best for them without their input.
<
p>Then in a succession of public meetings, EOHHS representatives made appearances and stated their reasons. At one meeting the stated reason was to save the state money; then they had changed their philosophy; then they said it was because other states were closing their facilities. Because other states were closing their facilities! The problem with these excuses is that they don’t tell the whole story, and even when a request was made for information that should be public and available to all of us, that request was denied by the administration because they don’t want the information subjected to public scrutiny. Read public business being conducted in secret at the expense of the unsuspecting taxpayers using taxpayer money.
<
p>And, as has been typically the case, the most profoundly disabled among us, who represent about one percent of the population, those not able to speak up for themselves, and those who do not cast votes take the brunt of budget cuts.
<
p>Another excuse the administration and some publicly-funded and quasi-private agencies have used is, without sharing the intent of the decision, is “because of Olmstead.” The Olmstead decision has been falsely interpreted to mean that closure of the developmental centers has been mandated, when the opposite is true:
But the administration seeks to ignore rights conferred by Olmstead in favor of their own policies, and without the input of those affected.
<
p>And that is why the administration’s treatment of the mentally retarded and developmentally disabled is alarming. They and their families and representatives should be participating in the government it funds-not being dictated by it.