Here's a little more on the lawsuit that seeks restitution for the legally-ruled unlawful no-bid contract that Governor Mitch Daniels and his Family and Social Services chief Mitch Roob sealed to close the Fort Wayne Developmental Center. This is classic stuff from the Daniels administration:"The Daniels administration flagrantly violated the law," said David Warrick, executive director of AFSCME, the union representing the employees.
"Compliance with Indiana's public bidding laws is a fundamental check on executive authority and ensures that the governor will not enter into sweetheart deals, like the multimillion-dollar contract with Liberty, without public input."
The center has now been closed since April - something Family and Social Services Administration Secretary Mitch Roob said was the right thing to do to a facility rife with abuse and neglect violations.
"It was a dysfunctional culture. Our first and only responsibility was and is to the health and safety of the residents," he said. "This is a pathetic stunt by AFSCME. Every single employee was offered employment with Liberty during the closure process." Perhaps I am misreading the whole situation, but it sure seems like Mitch Roob is confused about why he is being sued. It's my understanding that there were a quite a few bad apples amongst the bunch at the FWDC, and that in a sense, the privatization effort was successful on some fronts. Sure, he can attack his own people once again and describe conditions under his control as a "dysfunctional culture," but we already knew that Mitch Roob hates his own employees.
The issue wasn't the closing, it was the contract. Specifically, the fact that the multi-million dollar deal wasn't offered to anyone else. There are rules about these sort of things, and those rules were blatantly disregarded by the state when they simply handed Liberty Healthcare a big bag o' money and told them to close things as fast and furious as they could.
And as for the "stunt" being pulled by the groups seeking some form of back-payment? To quote the Court of Appeals ruling that slapped Mitch & Mitch on the wrist: I.C. § 5-23 et seq. places certain constraints on the way the government may award its public-private agreements. An abandonment of these requirements would result in a situation where the government is encouraged to grant part of its public duties to private entities without any inquiry from the public. In the instant case, while the government provided the funds, set programmatic goals and requirements, its private partner, Liberty, gained effective control over patients, which were in a relation of dependence in a social welfare program. While we do not object to the government turning to private companies in a desire to minimize costs and to enhance efficiency and flexibility, public oversight is nevertheless statutorily mandated for contracts falling within the realm of I.C. § 5-23 et seq. That doesn't sound like a stunt to me, especially since the ruling also advocated for an "appropriate remedy" to be found. |
