* From an April 22nd press release…
Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) introduced a Constitutional Amendment on April 21 with the support of House Republican Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) that, if approved by Illinois voters, would impose a two-term limit on the state’s Executive Branch officers.
“I’ve been slow to embrace term limits because voters do have the power to reject candidates and oust incumbents. However, given the condition of Illinois, I think the time has come to give voters a choice on limiting terms of office for its constitutional officers,” said Radogno. “Coupled with an effort to have voters decide on legislators’ term limits, this could lead to a meaningful change in Illinois government.”
“The power of incumbency is particularly strong for those holding top executive positions like the Governor. Term limits will bring fresh perspectives to these offices and will make elections for these offices more competitive,” said Durkin.
Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 69 (SJRCA 69) would not only limit Executive Branch officers to two terms in office, it also addresses circumstances where an individual is appointed to replace a Governor or Constitutional Officer, whether due to a death or another reason. In that situation, if the acting Governor or appointee serves for more than two years of their predecessor’s term, then they will be limited to one additional term in office; in this way, no Constitutional Officer will ever serve more than ten years in that capacity.
Though a May 5 deadline to pass a Constitutional Amendment is looming, Radogno said it is still possible to move the measure through the General Assembly before the cutoff date. Having been read into the record on April 22, SJRCA 69 has completed the first step in that process.
* From an April 23rd press release…
Bruce Rauner issued the following statement regarding the introduction of SJRCA69 which would place a Constitutional Amendment putting term limits on Executive Branch officers on the November ballot:
“I strongly support this term limits proposal. It is the perfect complement to our initiative for legislative term limits, and as governor, I’ll limit myself to two terms no matter what.
Despite his current opposition to both term limits efforts, I urge Pat Quinn to take on his Party’s legislative leaders and side with the people of Illinois who support term limits across the board.”
* From an April 24th Tribune article…
Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn said today he supports a Republican-backed proposal to limit how long statewide elected officials can serve and defended his term-limit credentials against criticism from GOP governor candidate Bruce Rauner.
“I support this proposed constitutional amendment and have supported term limits since 1994,” Quinn said in a statement issued through his governor’s office. “Constitutional amendments have long allowed the power of the people to translate into positive reform for Illinois government.” […]
In December, Quinn contended he had not abandoned his long-standing support for term limits, but wouldn’t say if a general election victory this year would mark his last four-year term. At the time, he said it was up to lawmakers first to approve a constitutional amendment to place it on the ballot and for voters to approve it.
* And his campaign took it a step further with Michael Sneed on April 25th…
Sneed exclusive . . .
Gov. Pat Quinn has decided his second elected term in office will be his last.
◆ Translation: Although the state has no term limits, Sneed is told Quinn will not run again in 2018 if he wins re-election this year.
* Kurt Erickson put this all into perspective…
The late date of the introduction of the proposal [by Radogno] should not be discounted.
The deadline to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot is May 5. Lawmakers are only in session a few days before that date.
If Radogno was actually serious about getting the question before voters, she wouldn’t have waited until last week to put the idea on paper.
Gov. Pat Quinn, who would have been barred from being governor if the law was in place, signed on as a supporter, even though he doesn’t really have any say in whether the legislature places constitutional amendment proposals on the ballot.
* And in other news, this release went out Saturday…
Gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner today met with the families of Warren G. Murray Developmental Center residents and assured them that he believes they should have a choice in the care of their developmentally disabled loved ones.
“Pat Quinn decided to close Murray Center without ever visiting the facility,” Rauner said. “I made the trip to Murray Center today to see for myself what is happening here and to see the impact Quinn’s decision has had on the families of the residents and on the people of this community.”
“It is irresponsible to close Murray Center unless we can make absolutely certain that the most vulnerable residents are being cared for in an environment that is as good as – or better than – Murray Center,” Rauner said. “Right now, Murray Center is the best option for these families.”
* Quinn’s response…
Out-of-touch billionaire Bruce Rauner today was in Centralia to visit the Murray Developmental Center and privately meet with parents and Republican state legislators Kyle McCarter and Charlie Meier. Quinn for Illinois’ statement regarding his visit follows:
“Billionaire Bruce Rauner is shameless. This guy will say anything depending on his audience, and now is playing politics with the quality of people’s lives.
Today, Rauner showed a complete lack of care or understanding that people with disabilities deserve the choice to live more independently.
Not to mention, he showed a total disregard of how his campaign promises conflict with his promise to cut spending.
He will say and do anything to get elected.
* But Monica Seals, who works for WRXX Radio in Centralia, posted this piece on Facebook…
Love him or hate him the fact is Bruce Rauner did what Gov. Pat Quinn has to this day never done – he took the time and made the effort to visit the Murray Center and witness first-hand what parents and guardians of its residents are fighting for.
While Quinn’s campaign is calling Rauner’s visit and pledge to keep the center open if elected “shameless,” Quinn’s own pandering to ARC and its business chapters earned him an award from the organization after he made the decision – sight unseen – to close the Centralia facility.
Claiming that Rauner, who has actually met with Murray residents, is playing politics with the quality of people’s lives and is showing a lack of care or understanding about what people with disabilities deserve is quite a mouthful for a man who has repeatedly turned down invitations to meet those very people of whom he speaks. […]
Now DHS has banned local lawmakers from visiting Murray residents with whom those lawmakers have developed personal relationships.
According to Sen. Kyle McCarter and Murray Parents Association President Rita Winkeler, DHS contacted republican Rep. Charlie Meier and republican Sen. McCarter and told them they would not be allowed to visit Winkeler’s son on Saturday, despite having done so many times before.
Now I’m a democrat, but even I have to admit that this was strictly a political move. A democratic administration makes a one-day prohibition of republican local lawmakers visiting constituents they have previously visited without restriction. That one day, of course, coincided with the visit of the republican candidate running against that democratic incumbent.
Was Rauner’s visit and pledge political? Absolutely. Was Quinn’s move to close Murray political. Definitely. Was the banning of republican lawmakers for one day from the facility a political move? Without a doubt.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 12:47 pm:
Yeah, multiple terms for statewide officeholders has been a big problem in Illinois. I guess Big Jim should be insulted or flattered or something.
Just think how many problems this will solve!
- steve schnorf - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 12:51 pm:
I don’t believe Quinn’s decision to close Murray was political. In fact I believe it was politically costly to him, with parents of Murray residents, citizens from the greater Centralia area, and AFSCME, traditionally a supporter of Democrats. Agree with the decision or not, I believe his decision was programmatic first and budgetary second. Never having visited the facility certainly left him vulnerable to the move Rauner made.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 12:54 pm:
Today, Rauner showed a complete lack of care or understanding that people with disabilities deserve the choice to live more independently.
Since he forced this move, Quinn and his staff repeatedly spouts off this bit of crap about how they were doing these people a favor. The fact is that these patients are severely retarded and cannot live independently. These people often wear diapers, cannot speak, are in wheelchairs, cannot feed themselves, and often have the mental age of a 6 month old.
So this is a load of bull-crap.
Quinn has never faced these Illinoisans or their parents and caretakers because he would see how wrong he was to force these defenseless souls into political stage props.
Then he does this?
And all he has to say about it is his crap about it is this?
“Out-of-touch billionaire”…Billionaire Bruce Rauner is shameless. This guy will say anything depending on his audience, and now is playing politics with the quality of people’s lives.
Today, Rauner showed a complete lack of care or understanding…he showed a total disregard…
He will say and do anything to get elected.”
Whatever it is Quinn is claiming Rauner did, is doing, or will do - doesn’t match at how badly Quinn has treated these people and their families.
- Norseman - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 12:55 pm:
Nothing new here except the locations. Every election year you have some politician telling groups what they want to hear. Since the folks hear what they want, they’re not going to ask how the he is going to pay for his promise to them when the candidate opposes an extension of temporary tax hike.
- Walter Mitty - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 12:56 pm:
Or give Rauner credit for going…. I know it may cause great trouble for folks… But, he showed up. Better than PQ and the other R’s at the hearing… Leadership by example is appreciated by many…
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 12:58 pm:
Great to see bipartisan support for something that is so overwhelmingly popular in polls of Illinois voters.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 12:58 pm:
Rauner showed that he and his staff knows how to expose Quinn’s shortcomings with this move.
A lot of folks, myself included, forgot about Quinn’s nasty stunt. Good move by Rauner to tell folks about it again.
All Quinn could do is abuse his power. Shameful.
- OneMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:01 pm:
Meanwhile, in touch Pat Quinn said he couldn’t visit the place, well, because, well…..
Also
You may or may not agree with the second part of this statement, but the first part is spot on…
Finally
Steve, the decision to close it may not have been political, but the decision not to visit it and talk with the families is definitely a political decision.
Another way of thinking about it, would a candidate Quinn have visited the place is a governor Rauner had moved to close it. I think we all know the answer to that.
- Shark Sandwich - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:05 pm:
Surprised Quinn didn’t go with “Quinn moved residents of facilities in his care into the comunnity, Rauner moved residents of facilities in his care into the cemetary…”.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:05 pm:
Both gubernatorial candidates support term limits. First Rauner pushed it in this election cycle and Quinn fought it. Then Quinn saw the writing on the political wall and now supports it.
So grousing about it or calling those who favor it lazy, won’t change this issue at this time.
If it passes, fight it at the next level.
The term limit ship has sailed with both Rauner and Quinn on board.
- downstate hack - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:06 pm:
DHS/Quinn’s decision and reaction banning the repub legislators visits are indeed political, but they are also shameful.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:12 pm:
–First Rauner pushed it in this election cycle and Quinn fought it. –
How did Quinn fight it?
Quinn proposed a Constitutional amendment limiting state officeholders to eight years in 1993.
- Norseman - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:13 pm:
=== >“It is irresponsible to close Murray Center unless we can make absolutely certain that the most vulnerable residents are being cared for in an environment that is as good as – or better than – Murray Center,” Rauner said. “Right now, Murray Center is the best option for these families.”
You may or may not agree with the second part of this statement, but the first part is spot on… ===
OneMan, This can be said about so many services provided by the State to many needy individuals. It’s easy to say this, but without appropriate funding it’s not happening. If you want the “best,” you have to pay for the best. How is Rauner going to do that when all he talks about is cutting government and revenue.
Hard choices have to be made to maintain some semblance of service to clients. If Murray is the wrong place to close, what place needs to close to make up for the expenditure. Rauner has it easy now.
- OneMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:14 pm:
Really, not allowing a visitor because of their job?
Really is that how the Quinn administration has become? Because again, before he was governor Quinn I am sure would have been totally cool with that.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:15 pm:
Steve, the decision to close it may not have been political…
…but it was definitely the wrong thing to do.
I know parents involved in this and workers. Quinn’s claim that these folks could be moved into our communities is a flat-out factual lie. The people we normally see in our daily lives, or on television as mentally challenged or delinquent are not the kind of people institutionalized here. These people are what we used to call, “living in a vegetative state”, or needing full-time care. These people cannot dress themselves, do not know what food is and eat inedible objects thinking it is food.
I know of one guy my age who has lived in an institution Quinn forced to close who had never lived anywhere else his entire 40 years of life. Quinn’s decision traumatized him for a year.
Quinn did no one a favor when he pulled this stunt and claiming these people now have independence to live among us - is a disgusting lie.
No wonder Quinn has never been there. He doesn’t want to face his bad decision.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:19 pm:
First Rauner pushed it in this election cycle and Quinn fought it.
This isn’t 1993. Quinn’s attempt to reach back, along with Sherman and Mr. Peabody using their WABAC machine, doesn’t make Quinn a supporter during this election cycle - until he saw the issue leaving him on deck.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:20 pm:
VMan, what actions did Quinn take to fight it?
If you have to continually make stuff up to make a point, maybe your point is weak.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:22 pm:
downstate hack - very well said. It would be interesting to see the email chain, most likely on public time, that suddenly led to Meier and McCarter being banned from future visits after having done so “many times before”.
It might be different if this was their first planned visit, but this is clearly related to politics and trying to limit the Governor’s damage.
As for Rauner’s visit? Those families do not care how many time Quinn calls Rauner a “billionaire” in press releases. They do care that he just showed them more personal time and attention in one day than Quinn has in five years.
- Give Me A Break - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:25 pm:
VMan why do you want to keep people in a 1930s style of care in human warehouses? Other states are closing places like Murray. The fact of the matter is the parents of those at Murray do have a choice in where their child is cared for, but they have chosen to not talk to DHS about options so their claims have no merit. They decided to go to court to keep the Murray open instead of learning about their choices.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:29 pm:
Maybe we should be like Virginia and limit governors to one term at a time.
==First Rauner pushed it in this election cycle and Quinn fought it.==
Rauner never agreed to term limits for statewide office holders until Radogno’s proposal, which, as was pointed out in the post, is nothing more than a media stunt. It was Quinn’s push for term limits that got the state supreme court to limit citizen initiatives. The idea that his support magically went away is a fantasy.
==If you have to continually make stuff up to make a point, maybe your point is weak.==
It means the point is a lie.
- transplant - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:38 pm:
GMAB, Murray is hardly a 1930s style human warehouse. You’ll not find Nurse Ratchet walking the halls, you’ll not find people left sitting in their wheelchairs unattended in hallways. I’ve actually been to Murray on numerous occasions and know that your description is completely inaccurate.
- Give Me A Break - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:46 pm:
tranplant: It’s an outdated system of care that other states are also moving away from.
Maybe Bruce and the Centralia area that love smaller govt and “doing more with less” should look into that. But like a lot of southern Illinois, Centralia hates Big Gvt when they they themselves are Big Gvt.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:46 pm:
== nothing more than a media stunt ==
In contrast to the pure and selfless motivations of proposing $100 million for a presidential museum?
- So. ILL - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:50 pm:
Simple point to make here in response to Quinn: Sir, you have no credibility on this issue whatsoever until you visit the facility. Before AFSCME runs back to PQ this election cycle, I hope they’ll keep his flippant attitude toward the folks housed there, the folks that work there, and their families in mind. I don’t expect a Rauner endorsement, but how can PQ say with a straight face he knows this is best if he has never visited the facility or its residents and their families or the angels that work there and take care of the residents? Say what you want about his management of the state. He can claim both victories and defeats. However, I think it is fair to say he is generally regarded as a genuinely decent, caring, human being. I have a hard time maintaining that bit of affection for him in light of his behavior toward Murray.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:57 pm:
The Murray parents have valid reasons for supporting Murray and taking the stances they have.
Personally, I applaud their efforts to care for their loved ones and ensure they receive the continuum of care they need, deserve and have been receiving. The “options” they were presented with and being forced to accept were woefully insufficient in the eyes of many who have no connection to them whatsoever.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:58 pm:
VMan why do you want to keep people in a 1930s style of care in human warehouses?
I don’t and this place isn’t. You don’t know what you are talking about.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 1:59 pm:
It’s an outdated system of care that other states are also moving away from.
It isn’t and they are not. Once again you don’t know what you are talking about.
- OneMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 2:05 pm:
Ok,
So does anyone think banning selected (or all) legislators from visiting a state facility is good policy?
Anyone?
- Norseman - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 2:06 pm:
=== tranplant: It’s an outdated system of care that other states are also moving away from. ===
That’s the theory anyway. The problem here is that you have to pay the community providers enough to provide quality services and spend sufficient money on staff to monitor those placements. The large papers regularly have a field day finding nasty problems with facilities. The Solon response after each expose is to issue damning statements and change the law to “address” the problem rather than provide the necessary funding to ensure the job gets done right in the first place.
- zatoichi - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 2:13 pm:
Give Me, when was the last time you were in Murray? Ever meet with any of the parents? I assume you know they have talked with DHS. Got a family member living there? Attending a location is nice PR, understanding the effect of what you are doing is another. The state facilities are not cheap to operate but the close physical location can provide great very specialized care for high need people. 24 hour nursing care for 16 people in one location is cheaper than 24 hour care in a 4 bed group home. People at Murray have many severe medical needs. Promise what you want, at some point operating expenses need to be paid.
The state is moving toward closing the SODCs for philosophical and financial reasons. These closures are tough choices. If Rauner wants to shake things up and cut costs, where is his plan to keep places like Murray open? I could drive to Murray and visit, that does not mean I actually understand all sides of the closure issues regardless of what I may say into a microphone.
- Norseman - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 2:27 pm:
=== So does anyone think banning selected (or all) legislators from visiting a state facility is good policy? ===
Banning, no. Restricting, yes. Legislative egos notwithstanding, people in health care facilities have guaranteed privacy rights that need to be closely observed or else the state can be found in violation of federal and state law. There are other operational issues that necessitate reasonable care when bringing in visitors. To simply say that I’m a legislator and I can go wherever and whenever I can is the height of arrogance.
I know that political motivations can be involved, but I’d bet that for every incident of the latter there are three or four incidents where a legislator is grandstanding about issues they don’t know anything about.
- Formerpol - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 2:47 pm:
I’m always amazed when politicians (mostly Democrats) insult successful people (”out-of-touch billionaire Rauner”). Heaven forbid we elect someone who was very successful in the private sector! Rauner is far more accomplished than Quinn, yet Quinn caters to his mostly poor base by claim ing that success is a negative!
- steve schnorf - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 2:58 pm:
V, other states are moving (or have moved) away from this method of care, regardless of what you say. The issue has always been a difficult one for me, because in my heart and mind I believe that there are certain people, suffering from very severe multiple disabilities who may in fact be best cared for in larger settings. To me though, equally indisputably, there are large numbers of people living in such facilities who could live in the community, if adequately supported.
Murray is an example of a large setting that in my opinion unarguably provides good care. I too know some of the residents and their families. It is not a warehouse, much less a horror house like many such institutions were just 40 or less short years ago.
Having said that, there is no dispute that today the great majority of developmental disability researchers, professionals, and advocates believe that large group settings are unnecessary, and an affront to the dignity and rights of the people living there.
When Governor Quinn and his advisers made the decision that Illinois was going to move away from large state operated institutions to serve persons with disabilities he didn’t need to visit Murray. Whether Murray was doing a good job wasn’t the question: the question was should there be Murrays, and he answered it “No”.
This was a very different decision than Governor Ryan closing Lincoln. He closed it because it wasn’t doing a good job, plain and simple. This was more akin to Governor Edgar’s conversion of Adolph Meyer and Governor Thompson’s closing of Bowen and Adler, Galesburg, Manteno, etc.
- OneMan - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 3:10 pm:
Ahhh, the use of HIPPA as a blunt instrument… Always love that.
Have some experience with this since I do hospital visits for church and am married to a healthcare professional. The basic rule is don’t use a name with a condition (ie Bill Smith has cooties). However when you visit a hospital you can see names on doors all the time, you may also see guidelines that can provide some indication of what is going on just by walking around (signs indicating you need to gown or mask up, etc). However if you go the nurses station they can not comment on the condition of a specific patient. They will generally answer a question about if the person could receive communion…
Again the general rule is no names….
But back to the specific situation.
The implication would seem that Winkler’s mother (likely the holder of power of attorney and/or medical attorney) authorized the legislator to visit their child.
So either the facility decided to prevent all visitors or denied specific visitor(s) from seeing a particular client. Visitors who had visited before on multiple occasions, so either something changed operationally or they discovered HIPPA…
That to me, does not seem to work in either a HIPPA framework nor an operational framework.
Also using the ‘operational and privacy’ framework, you could use the same logic to prevent a regulator of any sort from entering if you wanted. Be they the local fire department or a state investigator since they may interfere with operations.
However, that is covered in part by the HIPPA rules.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/m2e411a1.htm
Perhaps by this specific example:
You could argue that the legislature is providing oversight.
However the real key there is acronym PHI used above as defined below…
If an legislator visiting a specific person (or persons) known to them violates the PHI provisions, either that violation of PHI occurs because staff provides them with specific identifiable information upon request against the rules or their controls over that information are so poor that it can be revealed without any action of the visitor whatsoever.
Finally, nothing in HIPPA prevents the facility from providing statistical information to any entity and from what I understand that includes census (how many folks are in) and how sick they are and what medical issues they have. Again you can’t do it with PHI, but decouple the information from names and you can.
But the operational side….
Do not have experience with this type of facility (I used to volunteer at a retirement home when I was a teenager but that isn’t the same) but I can say on the hospital side (ICU and other units at multiple hospitals) the are able to work around a visitor to two without much trouble.
But when it comes down to it, if they denied specific visitors to a specific patient, they in fact may have the legal issue since it would seem to me to be a civil rights and patient rights issue in that case.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 3:13 pm:
VMan, retire that “severely retarded” phrase. Those with disabilities and the people who love and care for them consider it a derogatory term.
I know you don’t want to be “out of touch.”
- Earnest - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 4:27 pm:
This page has some actual stories of folk who moved out of Jacksonville Developmental Center:
http://goinghomeillinois.org/
- Earnest - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 4:28 pm:
And here is one on efforts to stop use of the R-word: http://www.r-word.org/
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 5:41 pm:
Wow. Who writes this stuff?
Next time, point out the hypocrisy of Rauner hiding behind families in crisis while calling for even deeper cuts in services for people with disabilities.
Closing Murray was a crappy necessity. Demanded by budget pressures, backed by research in best practices, but nevertheless disruptive to the lives of residents and their families.
Sometimes, you have to defend crappy necessities, but you should never be cavalier about it.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 6:20 pm:
Honestly, if it was truly a budgetary decision, wouldn’t it have been a better move to close Choate that is always in the red, rather than Murray that is not? If it’s a level of care issue, wouldn’t it have been a better move to close Choate that is frequently in violation of federal care standards rather than Murray, which is not?
- christine chalkey - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 9:54 pm:
I am a journalist and a parent of a child with developmental disabilities (DD) not living at Murray. There are more facts to this story than two gubernatorial candidates brawling over a photo/media opportunity. This story is about government, politicians and special interest groups using and abusing the most vulnerable of all citizens, those with DD, for their own self-interests, political gain, jobs, contracts and money. And, every tax payer should be outraged because it is being done with your hard-earned tax money. Here are some facts not reported in the above story: 1.) Gov. Quinn is violating the right of residential choice for the 224 residents at Murray. 2.) Quinn and Illinois DHS are trying to close all State-Operated Developmental Center (SODC) in the supposed name of choice; yet, ironically they are violating and eliminating a right to residential choice, clearly outlined in the Supreme Court Olmstead vs. LC Case. 4.) The Murray Parents Association has repeatedly requested and invited Gov. Quinn to tour Murray, yet, he continuously declines. 5.) The Murray Parents Association has filed a class action lawsuit because Quinn and the state are violating the rights of DD outlined in Olmstead under the ADA. And, finally, my last fact is also a comment. As a journalist I find it sad and disheartening that the media considers a visit by a politician/candidate news-worthy, instead of the real truth and fact behind the closing of Murray. The story worth reporting here is the fact that the most vulnerable of all our citizens are being used and abused as by the vary government, leaders and society who is supposed to protect them, and sadly with tax payers money. It has been said that “the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable” and perhaps, equally, the measure of a society is based on what it also considers news worthy.
- Monica Seals - Monday, Apr 28, 14 @ 11:25 pm:
This was NOT a story, this was a status on my personal Facebook page. In fact, I noted at the beginning of the status that I do NOT editorialize in my current position, so I chose to share my opinion on recent events on my personal page. (That part (and more) was not included in the above excerpt.
As a reporter, I assure you, Christine, I have covered your points and much more when it comes to the Murray Center issue.
- Rita Winkeler - Tuesday, Apr 29, 14 @ 5:26 am:
Charlie Meier is first and foremost a family friend, and second a representative. DHS had no legal right to prevent my son Mark from seeing Charlie. Charlie has visited Mark many times in the past year and a half. Rep. Cavaletto has been a family friend for over 40 years…..and all of a sudden my son cannot have friends in his home!
Also, 37 states STILL have large facilities for their severely disabled residents. Three states that have closed their large facilities are now reopening them because they have found they cannot safely care for the some disabled people properly in the community. Something that no one has brought up is that when we met with Mr. Rauner he also spoke about making sure we take care of ALL the disabled properly. He questioned how CILAs are funded, and how we can assure they too are funded properly, particularly after how some Murray residents (according to Stewart Freeman, their court appointed guardian) who have been moved to the community have been neglected and have received substandard care.
Gov. Quinn has had hundreds of opportunities to visit my sons’ home. From his behavior and that of DHS it is very obvious they do not care about the disabled, only about their political agenda.
Also, if we are closing institutions….when are we closing schools, particularly college dorms….get real….there are many forms of institutions and Murray is one of the best!
The MPA parents HAVE seen what DHS and CRA has to offer and it is not choice.
- christine chalkey - Tuesday, Apr 29, 14 @ 6:47 am:
re: Monica Seals. I did not respond or comment to your facebook status and did not see your post. I was responding in general to the media and their lack of interest in the real meat of this story.I am pointing out to journalists, in general, that there is good scoop here if a reporter would dig and uncover the layers. Sorry, you took this as a insult to your personal posting. It was not intended for you, personally. But glad it hit a nerve. It proves you know what real journalism is about and understand that today’s journalism is turning yellow.
- Laurie Stengler - Tuesday, Apr 29, 14 @ 9:31 am:
We need to understand what has happened to the former Jacksonville residents before subjecting another vulnerable group to the same. How can it be that a year after the closure we receive a report from the director of a Jacksonville shelter that at least some are homeless? It is important that we know what has happened to all of the residents. It does not seem unreasonable to me that DHS would know where these people are. They should be able to account for all of the residents including the related cost issues and above all their well being.
HB5481 addresses these issues. I would advocate for at least a year of tracking although I recognize that the bill is more likely to get through with the shorter period. We must protect this very vulnerable segment of our population and this bill helps to do that.
- Old Friend - Tuesday, Apr 29, 14 @ 7:41 pm:
My niece works as a social counselor in IN & has stated to me (upon hearing about the proposed closing of Murray)that IN puts their mentally ill out on the streets. Murray residents are not mentally ill, but just as vulnerable. How can we in this century, with any clear conscious, not care for the most needy in our community? Are we that cold-hearted & uncaring? I hope not or else we are doomed as a society.