As Plainfield's City Council struggles with Mayor Robinson-Briggs' flawed budget proposal amid an economic downturn being likened to the 1930s, one has to ask whether the Mayor's $178,000 Dudley House proposal has been a flim-flam -- an attempt to play the Council for fools -- from the beginning.
From the start, the Council was not happy about the $178,000 proposal by Robinson-Briggs, but only after persistent questioning by Council members and others have more -- and more embarrassing -- facts emerged.
Councilor Burney was surprised to learn from the budget duo at last Thursday's informal hearing that 'there were no patients currently at Dudley House' (see original here).
City Administrator Marc Dashield also stated at that meeting that the Dudley House employees had been laid off, and that looking for a nonprofit to operate the program 'might be part of an RFP' later' (all of which I reported here).
What have we really learned thus far?
First and foremost, that Mayor Robinson-Briggs has not done one thing since the issue of Dudley House's future came up a year and a half ago, despite promising to find funding.
Secondly, the ADA-compliance issue goes back to the beginning of the Robinson-Briggs administration and she did nothing to address it in previous years.
In the course of the Mayor's plan to tiptoe past the fact that she is asking Plainfield taxpayers to foot the bill for a program that is primarily used by non-Plainfielders, some other facts are coming to light --
- Those 'laid-off' Dudley House workers? They're not really laid off, I learned yesterday, but have been quietly taken out of sight, though kept on the payroll. Doing what? No one seems to know for sure, though Public Works is mentioned.
- The 'expected' grant? Robinson-Briggs is asking the Council to believe that all but $36,000 of the $178,000 will be funded by an expected grant as Dashield averred (Burney cites here). We're supposed to rely on an 'expectation' -- like the expectation she promised when the Dudley House issue first blew up that she would find funding for it.
- The program is 'closed' but it's 'running'? Writing in Wednesday's Courier, Mark Spivey reports Dashield as saying that 'outpatient' services are offered at the site. Confused yet? The program failed to get its license, we have been told, because of its failure to comply with ADA requirements. So, WITHOUT A LICENSE, how is it that ANYONE is offering ANY services? And AT THE SITE, which is still NON-COMPLIANT. And OUTPATIENT SERVICES for a RESIDENTIAL program? What about the LIABILITY ISSUES? The questions just never stop coming.
- So, let's hire a consultant? Not only did Robinson-Briggs do NOTHING for the first year she had to get the program back on track, now the Mayor wants Plainfield taxpayers to foot the bill for a consulting boondoggle 'to work with us and come up with a plan' as Dashield told the Courier News (see here). How much will that cost? And where is the cost spelled out in the budget proposal? And why not use in-house expertise? Unless, of course, there IS no in-house expertise.
Effective drug rehab programs are run SUCCESSFULLY EVERYWHERE by nonprofit organizations. And it is hardly news that nonprofits can often do a better job than government agencies.
One has to look no further than the thoughtful appraisal of the Dudley House issue by Councilor Cory Storch (see here). Storch, the Executive Director of Bridgeway House, an internationally-acclaimed mental health- and social-services nonprofit headquartered in Elizabeth, knows whereof he speaks. His agency not only operates a drug rehab program like Dudley House, but met the same state requirements for licensing that Robinson-Briggs has failed to do, and met them in a timely fashion.
Plainfield's City Council should be praised for raising questions and showing their willingness to defend the public purse on this issue.
I think it's time to tell Mayor Robinson-Briggs the City is out of the rehab business, and to find -- without wasting taxpayer dollars on a consultant boondoggle -- a nonprofit that fills the bill and sell them the City's facility and hand off the program to someone who knows what they're doing.
Then, I think, we need to turn our attention to how to get Robinson-Briggs' hands off the public purse.
2009 is coming.
Posts
3 comments:
Dudley House has saved the lives of thousands of men, many of whom, including myself, live in Plainfield with their families. I would not be alive if it were not for the help I received there - I am proud to be in recovery ten years and credit Dudley House and its staff with my recovery.While it is true that things might not have been properly done by the former exec. director to get the facility licensed, Mayor Briggs has fully supported the program since she found out what was really happening. The facility discharged its last clients in May, in an effort to save costs for food, etc. and has not admitted clients since that time. It was planned that clients would be admitted again once the facility was ADA compliant and licensed by the state. The employees have been placed in other duties at City Hall and some are currently working along with the contractors to rehab the facility and prepare it for licensure. Has anyone contacted Union and Middlesex Counties to find out when the funding would be returned to Dudley House/the City of Plainfield? Both counties fully support Dudley House and want it to re-open. Although Dudley does serve some people who don't live in Plainfield, they are paid to serve those people by both Union and Middlesex counties. Many of the Dudley graduates remain in Plainfield after graduation from the program, and pay taxes and purchase homes in the city, which they would not have done prior to coming to Dudley House. The mayor should be commended for trying to save this 34 year old program (the oldest halfway house in NJ). Many cities run social service programs to help people - I understand that the city is in a budget crunch, but why turn your back on a program that works? Even if the city has to cough up $178,000 this year, what does that amount to - about $6 per taxpayer to keep addicts off their streets? How can the city council turn their backs on us?????????????????
The important thing here is that, many addiction dependent individuals are given the opportunity to recover, and change their lives forever. With the assistance of the rehabilitation centers, they can once again get back the good life they once had.
Everyone has become a fool one way or the other. We all make mistakes and that what make us human. With this, we all are given a chance to change. It is up to us if we take it or not. Addictions, bad habits and violence are some of the wrong things we usually do. When we do this things we can't change unless someone tells us that its not good. That is where family intervention is very important. Sometimes we have to accept the fact that we need help in order to change. Thanks to rehabilitation centers people who needed help can now change and straighten their life.
Post a Comment