Untitled Document
We welcome letters. Please include your full name,
address, and telephone number. We edit all letters. Send them to Letters,
Illinois Times, P.O. Box 5256, Springfield, IL 62705; fax 217-753-3958;
e-mail editor@illinoistimes.com.
POEM JOGGED RADIO MEMORY [About Jacqueline Jackson’s “maydaypoem
#1,” published May 3:] For many years, once a year on the Arthur
Godfrey radio show, Godfrey would say, “Hooray, hooray, it’s
the first of May! Outdoor necking begins today!” Of course, that was
a gentler era, but I thought it was a bit racy for the radio even then. Lisa Corea Springfield
TERM LIMITS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS Independence is freedom from dependence on or control
by another person, organization, or state. Is this what the average
American wants? Once upon a time it was, but now many want the government
to control nearly every aspect of their life. How did this happen? Partisanship has become a stultifying chaos, and the
result is an approval rating for Congress and the president below 30
percent. Government has become corrupt, tedious, boring, and repetitive; it
is a government that has and will continue to produce calamity, waste, and
farcical outcomes. Much of this is the fault of the average American who
gets caught up in the incessant partisanship. Polling indicates that seven out of 10 Americans want
something better but keep grasping at straws when they vote; that is, they
keep sending the same people (career Democrats and career Republicans)
back, and the outcome is predictably always the same. Currently, wisdom,
values, conscience, and honor almost always yield to the bribery of special
interests, and this is what creates the stultifying chaos. If all federally elected representatives came to
serve honorably for a single term, then the stultifying chaos would be
replaced with reason and vision because partisanship would be tempered by
common sense and civility. If representatives came to serve the people for
a short time and then find their career outside of government, the bribery
and corruption that exist today would wither because the politics of
reelection would not squander their time on something that is of no benefit
to the people. Bob Ruble Springfield
PAYING IT FORWARD In 1980 I lived in San Francisco. I was in a job for
five weeks before the first paycheck. I was surviving without special
things like coffee. A man I worked with bought me a coffee at lunchtime.
Come payday, I tried to pay him back. He said no but told me to buy for
others. I now buy a coffee for someone who seems to need it on a regular
basis. That coffee I had was a real special thing for me then, and I gladly
show my gratitude. Many of us have been very low on funds or in need of
something physical or emotional that we were given in a timely manner. Many
of us are going on vacation this summer. The people of Springfield were very generous to
charity during the Christmas season. The St. John’s Breadline is
still working, as well as the Salvation Army. Donations are lower when the
weather is better, but folks still have to
eat. A check for $20 from a bunch of us could
help a lot. Patrick Johnopolos Springfield
LOOKING FOR MORE COMPASSION Recently, the Triangle Center in Springfield, a
nonprofit agency licensed and funded by the state to provide an array of
alcohol and substance-abuse treatment and prevention services to the
citizens of this area, requested a review of the rates it is paid by the
state to deliver these services. That request was rejected without further
discussion or consideration. All that Triangle was told is that a review of
rates was not an option under their current funding rules. It is no secret that private community-based
nonprofit organizations that provide social and human services in
communities across the state are hurting financially. Most of these
organizations depend on support from the state to remain viable. It also is
no secret that state support for these agencies has remained flat in recent
years while the costs of providing services have increased significantly.
That is why it is hard to understand why, when shown a no-cost,
revenue-neutral way to help these agencies, the Department of Human
Services, specifically the Division of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse,
refuses to even consider that very attractive option. When the bureaucracy of state government becomes
insensitive to conditions that they know exist, the individuals who support
that bureaucracy need to re-evaluate why they are in the jobs they are. Are
they working to improve the lives of citizens who need help, or are they
coming to work everyday merely to strictly interpret rules that may need to
have some flexibility based on a changing reality? Community agencies with
missions to serve the sick, to serve children who cannot protect
themselves, to aid the elderly who lack the financial resources to live
with the dignity they deserve, to treat those with mental illness and those
caught in the grip of addiction all depend upon public support to continue
to provide the services not offered in the private sector and that no other
entity wants to, or can afford to, provide. Most of these agencies, statewide, have not seen a
meaningful adjustment in state funding since the current administration
came to office. At the same time, however, the normal costs of doing
business for these agencies have increased steadily. It has reached the
point in some cases where these agencies actually lose money on every
state-funded client they serve. Agencies who have never operated with a
deficit budget before are being forced to either borrow money and then pay
interest on that money or dip into hard-earned cash reserves that have
become impossible to replace. In many cases the most basic infrastructure
that supports these agencies is aging and in need of repair or replacement,
and the dedicated workers who staff these agencies have not seen a salary
increase in four or five years as well. And yet there is a very obvious and
simple way to relieve this crippling situation. State-funded services are delivered at a rate per
unit of service that is established by the state. Some of these rates are
negotiated and some are arbitrarily set by rules that have not been
revisited or updated for years. Historically, rates for certain higher cost
services have been based on the actual cost of doing business as verified
in a certified audit of agency expenses. In most cases today, current rates
are no longer reflective of current costs. The human-service agencies have
been told by the Department of Human Services that they will not even
review or, heaven forbid, adjust service rates in state contracts. The
service providers have received that message every year since the Governor
appointed the current administration at DHS. If realistic support for human services is not a
priority for the administration at this Department of Human Services, they
can, without providing one more dime of new funding to existing contracts,
provide long-overdue relief to their contractors by showing some
flexibility and, yes, some compassion in their implementation of the rules
they continue to hide behind. Because DHS, and, more specifically DASA, is
unwilling to even consider anything to help their contractors out, the
agencies are forced to face a harsh reality that is not of their making.
If there is not going to be any meaningful increase
in state contracts for human services for fiscal year ’08, so be it.
However, there should be, at a minimum, allowances for a review and
possible adjustment in the rates paid by the state for the services it buys
from its contractors. Those rates should reflect realistic costs incurred
by licensed contractors to keep their doors open. Then, in a few years, when a more enlightened
philosophy again prevails at DHS/DASA, a request for realistic contract
awards may find a more receptive, a more compassionate ear. Until that
time, however, a temporary fix is staring the bureaucrats at DHS/DASA in
the face and yet they choose to ignore it. Without asking for an increase
in their state contract awards, agencies should be allowed to have their
rates reviewed to reflect the operating cost realities of 2007 and to have
those rates adjusted accordingly in new contracts for the coming fiscal
year. Dave Dierks Springfield
Editor’s note: Dierks is a member of the board
of directors of the Triangle Center and a former deputy director of the
Department of Human Services, Division of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse.
This article appears in Jun 28 – Jul 4, 2007.
