Lest you think our request was overly broad, we offered last month to narrow it to a request for documents primarily supporting a specific projection in the administration's analysis that it would cost $150,000 per person to place residents in new community-based homes. That figure compares with $172,900 per resident that the analysis contends is the average cost of operating three of the developmental centers targeted for closure. The difference of $22,900 is part of the savings claimed by the administration in closing the centers.
So far, we've received no documents. In fact, the last I heard from the administration on this matter was a December 21 letter from the general counsel of the Department of Developmental Services, stating that the agency would have to search for the records we were requesting and that the cost of the search was likely to exceed $100. The letter stated that the general counsel would contact me as soon as she determined the precise cost of searching for and copying the documents.
It's interesting that DDS would have to search at all for documents used to back up a major cost analysis that was submitted to the Legislature only last summer. One would think DDS officials would know where these records are.
One would also think that by now, the general counsel would have at least determined the actual cost of such a search. After all, the state's Public Records Law [M.G.L. Chap. 66, Section 10 (b)] states that custodians of public records must comply with public records requests within 10 days. The regulations accompanying the law [950 CMR 32.05(2)] further state that requested public records should be provided “without unreasonable delay.” Nearly two and a half months since we first submitted our Public Records request, we haven't even been told what the cost of searching for those records might be.
On Feb. 4, not believing that DDS was in compliance with either the letter or spirit of the Public Records law or regulations, I contacted the state Supervisor of Records, who can ultimately refer these matters to the attorney general or a district attorney. As of Feb. 11, a staff person in the Supervisor's office told me that DDS had not responded to a fax she had sent to them, asking about our records request, and that she was going to send them a letter.
We asked for these documents for a number of reasons.
First of all, we believe the administration's methodology in comparing developmental and community-based costs is flawed. The cost analysis appears to be based on a comparison of the average cost per resident of community-based care and the average cost of care in the Tempton, Monson, and Glavin centers. The problem is that the residents of the developmental centers are older and have higher levels of intellectual disability and greater medical needs than the average community-based resident. The average age of residents in those three facilities is 57.5, according to the cost analysis itself. In other words, the administration appears to be making an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Secondly, we believe that the $150,000 community-based cost figure projected in the administration's analysis may not include at least some charges that have been shifted to the state's Medicaid budget. Day Habilitation services, for instance, which are a key element of the care of persons who have been transferred from the developmental centers to the community system, are paid from Medicaid. Similar services, which are provided in the developmental centers, come from the DDS budget. The administration appears to be comparing costs only within the DDS budget of developmental centers and community-based care.
We don't feel as though we're grasping at straws here in trying to demonstrate that the cost of community-based care is not necessarily less expensive than developmental-center care for comparable residents. As we've previously reported, the State of Connecticut has projected that closing that state's remaining developmental center would result in higher costs, not savings.
After we sent out a press release late last year expressing our concern about the apples-to-oranges comparison of costs, a spokesperson for the administration claimed to The Springfield Republican that the administration's projections “have been accurate so far.” If that's the case, then the administration should be eager to provide the documents we've requested, which would show what those projections are based on. The administration, however, seems to have shown a notable lack of eagerness to provide those documents
you’re not alone.
states that the “biggest offenders” among agencies that stonewall Public Records requests are the State Police and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.
<
p>And Gov. Patrick’s excuse that agencies aren’t responding in a timely manner to Public Records requests because of staffing cuts seems weak to me. DDS reportedly has at least seven in-house attorneys fighting individual appeals of the closure of the Fernald Center. It’s a matter of where the administration places its priorities. For EOHHS, at least, it doesn’t seem to be a priority to uphold the public’s right to know about how its agencies operate.
I have seen their short pieces on the news about state spending but was not aware that they too were trying to get information from EOHHS. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that snippet to appear.
<
p>You are right Dave…..it is all about the priorities. There are 7 in-house attorneys fighting Fernald appeals and I can tell you that there were 3 in-house attorneys in attendance at one hearing this week. Three attorney’s against one. You’d think they were holding a trial for a mass murderer or something rather than one guardian fighting for the right of a severely mentally retarded individual to be treated like human being.
<
p>I’m sure an invitation would have been extended to Channel 5 to come and sit through the hearing and see their tax dollars at work. I wonder if they would have accepted?
<
p>I think the argument can be made that transparency via the public records law would save MA taxpayers a lot of money. Throw in the public records law applying to the legislature, and we’d save even more money. It’s just lovely that Governor Patrick would use budget cuts as an excuse for stalling, denying, or overcharging for public records requests… and what’s the legislature’s excuse for exempting themselves? That it would cost taxpayers too much money at a time when we need to be fiscally prudent (behind closed doors)? Yah, right.
<
p>”Let’s sell off Fernald for cheap to our developer friends and tell the people of Massachusetts they made millions of dollars on the deal!”
http://www.thebostonchannel.co…
<
p>
<
p>Is hoping for a transparent report on the true costs/losses of the relentless march towards privatization what the Governormeant when he said “hope?”
<
p>Patrick vowed to change the way that business is done on Beacon Hill and promised no more government by “sound byte, photo opportunity and gimmick.”
<
p>We have departments violating public records law with faux excuses. Most would call this a “gimmick.”
<
p>
<
p>If allowing your department heads to obfuscate and avoid transparency in order to prevent the taxpayers from knowing the truth about the anti-union privatization efforts you’ve undertaken – is “the best that you are”- then clearly we’ve been sold a false bill of goods.
<
p>More from the 2006 acceptance speech:
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>
<
p>It’s unfortunate….that we, our loved ones and the taxpayers are still waiting for the Governor to be “straight with us.”
“to change the way we do business on Beacon Hill?”
<
p>While Gov. Patrick has arguably made some strides to strengthen the state’s ethics law, has business on Beacon Hill changed in any substantive way? Has the way business gets done changed since the Romney administration with regard to services for the poor and disabled?
<
p>I would suggest that the responsiveness of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to its consituents may have gotten worse since the Romney days. The Patrick administration is even more committed to laying off direct-care workers, cutting community-based programs, privatizing services, and stonewalling public information requests. I guess the difference, as someone said elsewhere, is that it’s accompanying all this with more expressions of sensitivity.
According to the Secretary of State
<
p>
<
p>So by privatizing services, the state can also get off the hook on the public records law. Under privatization, the state doesn’t create the records (the private entity does) and if the state is also careful not to take custody of the records, there are no public records to be had.
<
p>Another reason the law needs to be amended.
and quite troubling. However, since there would be transfer of federal Medicaid dollars for residential habilitation purposes, perhaps this would subject the agency to federal rules and regulations.