Trudy Whittington is the director of the Oak Glen Nursing Home in Rock Island County. It is a County owned facility like our own. Like our own, they recently decided to abandon their older facility and build a brand new facility. Like our own they were doing a bed for bed replacement. Their project started about three years after ours and has a price tag about $4 million more than our original price tag.
If you want a difference between these two projects, it would be the fees they paid to “experts” to navigate the Certificate of Need process with the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. Champaign County has paid over $400,000. Rock Island county did theirs in house.
Cost. $0.
Some number of you are probably not convinced, thinking that there must be some difference that allowed Rock Island to proceed without hiring a Chicago law firm. But it’s simply not the case. These projects are extremely similar, although Rock Island was moving their location about 10 miles while we were moving ours about a pitching wedge away.
The HFPB puts out what is called a State Agency Report. Compare the report for Rock Island with that from Champaign and you can see the similarity. Each received a couple negative indicators but each was approved by the Board even with those negatives.
Now I’m not suggesting that Champaign County should have proceeded without any outside help on this matter. In talking with Ms. Whittington, this was a challenging undertaking for her, that in our instance might have been a distraction from the issues of trying to remain solvent. But it is indicative of the fact that our project was not so complicated and difficult as to require $400,000 in legal fees.
Mark not so surprising to me. Champaign County has long been notorious for having people on the payroll that are long on mouth and short on knowhow. Just spread the wealth around is our long held motto.
"our project was not so complicated and difficult" It ''is''difficult to build in a swamp.
The postings of Mark Shelden concerning some of the costs associated with the Champaign County Nursing home raise several questions for me. (In the spirit of full disclosure as a candidate for the Champaign County Board Champaign District 6, I stated that I support the nursing home and voted for the referendum to build the new home.)
1. Why is it that Mark Shelden is the only one posting financial information concerning the nursing home costs? I have read the position descriptions of both appointed and elected county officials on the web site. This makes me wonder why the auditor, treasurer, states attorney, and county board chairman, as an exofficio member of all county boards and committees, are not publicly questioning this long history of expenditures and doing so with transparency. (This has been ongoing through several county board elections so all of these questions and comments apply to the past history.)
2. Why has not the News-Gazette used the talents of the UIUC journalism students and the political and investigative staff reporters to do an indepth series of articles covering the whole history of the nursing home from the referendum to the present day? IT IS SO CLEAR THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE TOTAL CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS SITUATION THAT DAY BY DAY IS GETTING MORE COMPLICATED.
3. What is the purpose of the newly formed nursing home board when the county board hired a consultant to get this board up to speed, in addition to all of the other expenses and expenditures, and county board members on an individual basis continue to be involved in trying to resolve the mess. The appointed members of this nursing home board receive $45/person/meeting as compensation. I can not find a description of the charge for this board or any other board or committee nor mention of the compensation on the county web site.
4. There are members of the county board who have served for many, many years and thus ought to have a very good understanding of what has occurred; yet, as I watch the county board meetings on cable, there is very little challenge, questioning, request for clarification, transparency related to any nursing home issues that come before the board. The major role of the county board is fiduciary to protect the economic, efficient spending of our tax dollars for the health, safety, and welfare of the county.
5. When the mold issure surfaced, to the best of my understanding, no one connected with the county either employed or a board member called on all of the expertise within this community that exists at the UIUC School of Architecture Building Research Council about the mold--cause, remediation, research to determine responsibility, etc.
6. My last retorical question has to do with the malaise of the residents of the county. Why are they not at the board meetings pounding the desk, metaphorically that is, demanding a full accounting of every aspect connected with the nursing home situation. This includes myself. The lack of public pressure is intriguing.
Pattsi Petrie
One does wonder why the News Gazette awarding-winning team of reporters hasn't gotten on the case, particularly the $600,000 in legal expenditures. A cynic might think its because there hasn't been any official announcement about it. Reporting by press release is so much easier. Maybe they could assign one of their sports reporters to the beat, since this time of year there's really no news on the college football and basketball fronts and they have to manufacure page after page of inane fluff to fill up the space.
Seems to me that if John Piland were still the States Attorney, the News-Gazette would be highly critical of overbilling by the Chicago law firm researched and hired by the current States Attorney. I remember a series of highly critical editorials blasting Piland, and yet there has been nothing about the current problems caused by Rietz. Her office gave bad advice to the county board regarding the Deedrich situation, and now it is apparent she has again failed to properly advise the board regarding the nursing home certification. Why is there only criticism of the county board for these situations when they simply have to rely on the advice provided by the States Attorney? Where are the editorials now?
The issue of whether this building was built in a swamp or not is inconsequential to the costs of obtaining a certificate of need.
The County Board may be surprised the next time they ask for money in a referendum. I will be voting NO for everything that the County Board asks for, for say.... the next 20 years or so.
I have a feeling that I won't be the only one either.
I saw a recording of the state's attorney primary debate on UPTV. While I voted for Rietz last time and always vote Dem, I may vote for her opponent this time (I can't recall her name, but she's the Republican who is running). She seemed to have decent experience and was level-headed. Frankly, in terms of social issues, I thought Rietz seemed more like a Republican while the Republican seemed more like a Dem. And given the county issues detailed above as well as the Deedrich fiasco, I'm losing faith in Rietz.
"Seems to me that if John Piland were still the States Attorney, the News-Gazette would be highly critical of overbilling by the Chicago law firm researched and hired by the current States Attorney. I remember a series of highly critical editorials blasting Piland, and yet there has been nothing about the current problems caused by Rietz."
It's funny you should mention that, since I've been told that Duane Morris was originally hired by the county in May of 2003, a full eighteen months before Rietz took office, and that nearly a third of the total fees had already been billed to the county before she was even sworn in. I haven't had a chance to confirm that independently, but if true, that would suggest that the "researched and hired" you refer to was in fact under the tenure of the previous States Attorney (John Piland), not the current one.
Kevin,
Duane Morris was hired in 2003 to litigate the nursing home mold dispute. The $400,000 referenced in Shelden's post concerns using Duane Morris for the nursing home certification, which of course has occured since the 2004 election. Rietz is fully responsible for the excessive $400,000 in legal fees paid for the certification.
I thought that it was Rietz's decision to use Joe Phebus for some of the work instead of Duane Morris because the bill would be lower.
Duane Morris did the nursing home approval that happened in February 2004, which would have been under Piland's watch. Rietz kept them on, even after the various fiascos with missed deadlines. Rietz also hired them for the mold work in 2005. Rietz now says that they are highly recommended. And yes, this would have been front page stuff if John Piland was State's Attorney.
Phebus is being used for the mold litigation not the nursing home certification. How do you know the Phebus bills will be lower? Rietz has not done anything to reduce the excessive fees Duane Morris has charged for the certification.
Duane Morris was hired in 2003 to do the Certificate of Need. The board paid them $123,500 before Rietz was sworn in. The mold became an issue in mid-2005, and the county initially went with Duane Morris because they were familiar with the nursing home. In February 2007, Rietz fired Duane Morris from the litigation and replaced them with Joe Phebus.
Sure a lot of different versions for the democrat apoligists to fall back on.
I talked with Piland and he said that he didn't know how exactly Duane Morris received this job. He just went along with the recommendation from those involved in constructing the new home. No one seems to know how this firm was selected. While I had concerns a year and a half ago about their competence, I never dreamed that their fees would be so out of line.
Of course, at least in part, this could be laid to rest if Rietz would just give us all the list of State's Attorneys who recommended Duane Morris to her and get from Duane Morris the list of other clients they have worked for in this capacity.
Duane Morris was let go on the litigation in August 2006 although they may have billed some hours in the transition. One attorney calls another and we get two bills.
"Sure a lot of different versions for the democrat apoligists to fall back on."
Actually, no, just one true version, and some mistakes in the timeline on the part of some of the critics. Wayward's description fits what I have been told, and Anonymous @ 4:02 pm seems to be pretty much in general agreement, as well.
The timeline offered by "Remember four years ago..." appears to be grossly inaccurate. Morris could not possibly have been "hired in 2003 to litigate the nursing home mold dispute," since the mold didn't even happen until 2005.
Well Kevin, that's true to some extent, but Rietz, who said that Duane Morris came highly recommended and who defended them two weeks ago, bears the blame for the last $250,000 or so the Duane Morris NH bill, including about $150,000 since I suggested that Duane Morris be canned a year and half ago. On top of that she paid them $200,000 on the mold litigation which appears to have been largely a waste.
While I enjoy Mark's investigative blogging, I think the real question is this: will November voters actually care enough about this mess (and countless others created by our current County Board) to actually vote some members out? Is the electorate informed enough or do they even care? I'd like to believe so, but I must say I have my doubts. This Board is clearly and without doubt fiscally irresponsible. And get ready for another fat tax increase, as they are almost sure to approve the full 1% county schools sales tax.
Mr. Randall,
Part of the problem of the electorate not being "informed enough" to actually vote out members of the county board is that many who are "in the know" like you do not take time to properly inform the voters. You make a blanket condemnation of the county board and expect voters to know which board members are fiscally irresponsible and which are not. I know of several board members that vote in a fiscally responsible manner and do not support tax increases as the answer.
This Board is clearly and without doubt fiscally irresponsible. And get ready for another fat tax increase, as they are almost sure to approve the full 1% county schools sales tax. Does the County Board have anything to do with this? I thought the money went to the school districts, not the county.
My understanding is that the county board will have to vote on it because it is a countywide sales tax. So yes, they will have an up or down vote on the tax.