From today's News-Gazette:
Czajkowski pondered a clause in the proposed contract that cited consultant availability as "deemed appropriate by consultants."
"I'm not sure what we're buying under this contract," he said. "What does the contract do to increase the census?"
Nursing home board member Mary Ellen O'Shaughnessey said the board needs to act immediately, but questioned whether Champaign is in the same position as DeKalb and Monroe counties.
"We're in a league of our own," she said, referring to a July 16 deadline by the state to correct problems in its inspections as well as $100,000 a month in losses.
O'Shaughnessey said the 27-member county board had made little progress in solving the nursing home's problems. She asked MPA president Mike Scavotto whether results would be faster under the consulting or the management contract.
"Management," Scavotto answered.
Discuss.
These statements were made during the course of the two-hour plus meeting, but as with all news articles these are not in context. After these comments, the board went right back to only thinking about a consulting firm and DEFINITELY not thinking about other possible solutions. Mary Ellen speaks very strongly about moving quickly and this has an overall effect. Movement is badly needed, but just to move and make a decision so the AB can claim that within a month of appointment "look what has been accomplished" is not in the best decision-making model. In fact right now, the decision-making model will be one to use in the class room as the "worse."
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi,,,getting a nursing admin. license.is pretty simple...and relatively inexpensive....send a request for an app to the Dept of Professional Regs in Springfield,,,,get a few references,,,,send it back, with a check of course, they have testing sights throughout the state. I remember I took mine over 25 years ago up in Evanston,,,a little place right outside the football stadium, Kendall Business School was the place, I think,,,any way it is a two part test, Federal in the AM,,,,and State in the PM. about 5 hours total. Mostly common sense,,,,and you get a study manual before hand. There is a catch,,,many of these "management" companies send a dummy or a beard, or whatever you choose to call the person,to get a license to hang on the wall to be legal,,,,and that person has little or no say over the home, ususally they just studied to pass the test, knowing their role will be limited. the county needs someone with that licence that really knows what they are doing,,,,has the contacts with the government agencies,,,,and is accountable to the people of Champaign County,,,no some fly by night,,,with a not cut contract that really has no concern for the people or the home...That is what they will get with this consulting firm,,,and the problems will not go away,,,,I will quarentee that. If they keep Buffenbarger, that is exactly what he will be,,,,another dummy with his license on the wall. and not accountable to the county.
Let me be perfectlly clear that within the suggestion that I have put forth concerning a one-year temporary hire would include due dilligencesuch as, checking credentials, past work record, past nursing homes where individual worked, and I have a preference for someone who is retired so this individual is not lobbying for the job permanently. Due dillengence is not being done about the cases studies that MPA has on their web site. One would not hire a builder without visiting work that this person has done in the past and talking with the people living within the built structure. There is always risk, but I prefer risk to be calculated not blind.
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi, I understood where you were coming from,,,believe me I do. I am concerned about the consulting firms motives, that is all I was saying :)
O.K. maybe someone, some Board member, etc would like to explain what we're getting pursuant to either agreement--the nursing home has been in a crisis for many months, and now the Board is deciding to enter into an agreement because we need to move quickly? I didn't attend the meeting, so maybe I'm missing something or misunderstanding what is going on. It seems clear to me that the Board, either today or next year, is going to have to sell the nursing home to stop the losses, or continue to operate at a loss (when you take into consideration all of the expenses associated with consulting/management agreements, etc) and ask the public for more funds to operate.
In the spirit of trying to post factually, here is a clarification. I asked the CB for a clarification about the CCNH AB not being able to negotiate, but a subset can do so. This is what was said during the most recent meeting. Here is an explanation from a CB member:
"According to the by-laws of the CCNH BOD, the BOD can negotiate, but cannot sign off on
such a contract. At the last BOD meeting, members of the BOD incorrectly made the statement
that the BOD could not negotiate. Such negotiations are exempt under the Illinois Open Meetings
Act [ 5 ILCS 120(c)(1) The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of
specific employees of the public body or legal counsel for the public body.]."
Pattsi Petrie
Broken record time again,,,,but it needs to be hammered home again, and again,,,,,,,none of this needed to happen, or should have been allowed to happen,,,,,the people involved in this situation,and allowing it to happen, need to go away. far away, they cannot continue to have their hands in this.
Pattsi, the statement that the BOD cannot negotiate was made by the County Administrator, Deb Busie, and not by a board member. In fact, prior to the conference call with MPA (that took place during the open meeting), Deb Busie specifically instructed board members that they do not have the authority to negotiate with MPA and they could only ask questions.
Pattsi....I hope you see the ultimate ending on this,,,,,please dont get let down too much!
For those of you involved in the rapid-fire discussion yesterday about the Guantanamo SC decision, you might be interested in all of the discussions and information about this on C-SPAN http://www.c-span.org/ Check out today's schedule at http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp for the morning program when Robert Barnes, Washington Post SC reporter, discussed the case and in the afternoon when a panel did the same.
Pattsi Petrie
Rachael, thanks for sharing your view of the meeting. My perspective is the chair of the advisory board clearly stated on many occasions that the board could not negotiate. This was stated before the phone conversation with the consultant. The instructions were that the board had to ask informational questions not negotiate. Deb was confirming this statement. Then he confurred with Deb. After that it was determined that a subset of the board could negotiate. However this is sliced my major point in posting the clarification is that this is how misinformation then becomes institutionalized in conversations and the retelling of what happened at a meeting.
Pattsi Petrie
Gee, the Patsi and Bruce show! This is really great! Really. Great.
Please be advised that while I do beleive we need to move with some expediency as the home is in increasing jeopardy due to the dire financial situation this by no means indicates I am proposing we move thoughtlessly. I think all of the board members are working hard and have put in countless hours collecting data from a variety of sources. There is no magic bullet solution here, that is the one thing that is clear. I appreciate many of the comments that I have read on this site and that have been sent to me. I spent an hour + visiting patients and staff in the nursing home the other day. These are the people we are most concerned about as we attempt to find a solution. I, like all the members of the board, take the charge we have been given very seriously and to suggest otherwise is in error. Please know I am not one to do something just to say I have done something-I have no political motivation or aspirations. This is about the current residents, future residents, their famalies and the employees ,as well as the tax payers. There are multiple stake holders here with differeing needs and expectations. Reading the book "Deep Survival" which chronicles how people survived life threating situations it is made painfully clear that there are times one must act quickly in order to survive and those who are successful in such circumstanes use both left brain and right brain thinking. That is what we are attempting to do. Thanks for everyone's comments and attention to this issue. I do not plan to post regularly but wanted to assure all that whatever is decided will be done with great care, robust discussion and lots of data. In the end someone will be unhappy no matter what is decided . I have deep respect for my colleagues on the CCNHB and know that together we will make a careful choice of action that we will then recommend to the CCB..
Such negotiations are exempt under the Illinois Open Meetings
Act [ 5 ILCS 120(c)(1) The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of
specific employees of the public body or legal counsel for the public body.]
Pardon me, but if that's actually what they are using in the law to justify a closed session about a management contract, then they need to re-evaluate. A management agreement is NOT about a specific employee nor is it about legal counsel. This being Illinois, it's possible that the reading or interpretation of the law has expanded to fit such a discussion. But the exception stated above in plain English should NOT cover a management contract. From the sound of it, the contract needs to be out in the open, unless there is some other part of the law that could be applied...
On the other hand, if they were discussing a specific employee or a legal situation, that could be a different matter, assuming it was "employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of specific employees" -- presuming that whoever it is is currently a county employee -- then the session en camera could be about something other than a management contract with MPA.
It could also be to deal with a legal matter other than simply negotiating a contract. There are several piece of recent news that would qualify for such a discussion.
Am I missing something here?
More and more, it looks like the powers that be are trying to use this "process" to stampede people into passing off this hot potato, rather than taking responsibility for it and managing it as should have been done since 2002.
Please know that whatever the CCNHB decides to recommend to the CCB it will be done after collecting appropriate data from multiple sources, talking with numerous people and thoughtful, robust discussion. While in the end people will no doubt disagree with whatever it is we eventually decide to recommend don't think any of us are grandstanding. This decison has significant impact on the current residents and their famalies, the employees of CCNH and the tax payers. I think I speak for all my colleagues on the board , we took on this assignment because we beleive in the misson of the CCNH and are passionate about identifying a strategy to put it on solid financial footing.
Sorry - there were lots of great anonymous comments here that I wasn't able to approve until this morning.
I hate this anonymous commenting system. There has to be a better way.
Heck Gordy,run this site too your own peace of mind and level of comfort....let anyone get on and say what ever they wish.like before..cut down the stress on yourself,,,just let it all flow:)
Hey Gordy! Let the Anons back in. This blog is kind of self regulating, You post and the participants either agree or they hang you out to dry! I have been guilty of being on both side of it, Don't get too upset about it.