Proposed cuts to mental health services cause for high emotions at Washtenaw County board meeting
Washtenaw County Commissioner Jeff Irwin teared up Wednesday night as he struggled to talk about the budget cuts the county must make to address a $30 million structural deficit over the next two years.
On his mind were the faces of the many people who spent the last hour pleading with the Board of Commissioners not to make drastic cuts to mental health services, which they argued would seriously disrupt their families' lives and hurt loved ones.
"Any time you've got mothers bringing in their mentally disabled son and talking about how important it is for them to access these services that the county provides, because it makes their life more rich, that's touching stuff," said Irwin, D-11th District. "We talk about how tough it is to make these budget decisions, but it's always more comfortable being the butcher than the meat, and we got to hear from some of the folks tonight whose lives could be negatively impacted by some of the cuts we're talking about."
Washtenaw County Administrator Bob Guenzel is expected to present a list of budget recommendations to the Board of Commissioners Sept. 16. It's part of the second phase of reductions to address a $30 million structural deficit in the county's 2010-11 budget cycle.
The county board ultimately will decided which programs stay and which ones see reductions or total elimination.
On the hearts and minds of many residents who spoke Wednesday were proposed cuts to Community Support and Treatment Services, a county department that provides mental health services to adults with severe mental illnesses, emotionally disturbed children and county residents with developmental disabilities.
Funds to provide the services come from governmental appropriations, Michigan's Department of Community Health, the United Way, donations, special grants and fees for services. CSTS provides mental health services under a contract with the Washtenaw County Health Organization. CSTS's county general fund allocation for 2010 is projected at $2.4 million.
"Most counties across the state contract this work out," Irwin said. "And I think most of the people in the state recognize Washtenaw County as being the leader on quality mental health services in that category, and one of the reasons is because we don't bid it out - the local government is essentially responsible for holding that contract for WCHO."
But that could change. One of the options before commissioners is to send mental health dollars back to WCHO and let the organization bid out the work to a private contractor at a lower cost.
Milan resident Michele Hill showed up at Wednesday's meeting with her 38-year-old brother Michael, who has Down syndrome. She said her brother has been receiving services through CSTS since he was 26 and noted that consistency and stability are essential for people with disabilities such as his.
"The employees at CSTS are like family. I trust my brother in their hands every day," she said. "I just hope they don't make any changes to their daily routine. I know the employees are willing to make concessions to keep the program going and that should be considered."
Commissioners voted in July on $12.8 million in cuts for 2010 and an additional $800,000 for 2011 as part of the first phase of county budget reductions. Last month, Guenzel revealed a list of options for an additional $11.7 million in cuts that could include eliminating 181 full-time jobs.
Guenzel's report last month said the county could save $2.4 million by cutting funding for mental health services. In a worst-case scenario, that would involve eliminating funding for CSTS, as well as the county's Justice Project Outreach Team (JPORT) program, which assists individuals in trouble with the law, and the Homeless Project Outreach Team (HPORT), which provides mental health services to the homeless population.
Commissioner Conan Smith, D-10th District, said the county is asking its nonunion employees to take a 5 percent pay cut over the next two years - 3 percent in 2010 and 2 percent in 2011. He said he expects the same kinds of discussions with labor unions.
County officials have said one of the challenges in cutting costs is the fact that 81 percent of the county's employees - more than 1,000 -Â are protected under 17 bargaining units. Under contracts that expire Dec. 31, 2010, the county's union work force is scheduled to receive a 3 percent pay increase next year.
Tonya Harwood, interim president of AFSCME Local 2733, spoke at Wednesday's meeting to remind commissioners that the nearly 700 workers in her union made significant concessions during the last round of negotiations. She estimated those savings to be $10 million over the three-year contract.
Harwood said the union sees salaries and benefits as less of a problem than the "careless and irresponsible" spending that's gone on in county government over the years while "not saving for a time like this like we face today."
Nancy Heine, president of the county's AFSCME Local 3052 supervisors union, which represents 66 county employees, said some bargaining units - such as those representing the county's prosecuting attorneys and two nursing groups - already have negotiated letters of understanding with the county in regard to concessions. Heine said it's likely her group will sit down at the negotiation table later this month.
"What we're going to end up conceding is to be determined, but it appears that all of the bargaining units are doing their own thing in terms of concessions," she said.
"I want to be clear that we're not renegotiating our contracts," Heine added. "Any concessions that we would make would be through a letter of understanding and it would be potentially wages and benefits and health care. We're looking at creative ways to maybe co-pay benefits, maybe not get raises for the next two years, and things like that."
Heine said the hope is that layoffs will be avoided if concessions are made, but there's no guarantees.
"We don't have any agreement that by giving concessions we will save jobs," she said. "And that's one of the stumbling blocks that all of the unions have had - that we weren't given provisions that they wouldn't eliminate our jobs if we give concessions."
Commissioner Leah Gunn, D-9th District, said the county is at a crossroads, faced with difficult choices and few options for maintaining some programs.
"I don't think Washtenaw County runs a program that's not good, but this year is the worst year I have ever faced in my career as a county commissioner," she said. "And I will fight to keep what I possibly can."
Photo by Ryan Stanton, AnnArbor.com: Commissioner Ronnie Peterson and other commissioners listen during Wednesday's meeting.
Ryan Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
slyde734
Mon, Sep 14, 2009 : 11:38 a.m.
Bob... I think you are wrong about some of our leaders particularly with the County. While I don't blame them for the current economic mess, Guenzel and the BOC deliberatly put off difficult cuts until after the last election. It was a crass and cynical ploy for them to avoid having to make difficult decisions before an election. As a result, the level of cuts we face today are far more severe. Oakland County and other Michigan Counties recognized the severity and began taking steps well before the Washtenaw County BOC did...As a result, I question there level of leadership. I think they are far more interested in protecting a handful of non-profits and their pet projects than actually helping the county through the current economic storm.
Bob Martel
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 8:25 p.m.
First of all, what everyone needs to acknowledge in this discussion is that the economic plight of Washtenaw County is NO ONE PERSON'S Fault! Who really thinks that people in our county have such influence over international finance? Even Howdy Holmes, John Hieftje, Bill Martin, Bill Ford, Bob Gunzel, Bob Lutz, Rick Snyder and Ron Weiser are all bit players on the world stage. Second, no one in the County could have foreseen this mess. If they had, they'd have made a billion dollars shorting the market over the past twelve months and would have earned the right to be continuously interviewed and lauded by the press for their genius. I don't see any evidence that anyone (other than the odd random monkey with a typewriter) foresaw the downturn. Next, what we need to acknowledge is that the unions and BOC are not the bad guys here. We've very simply reached a point where the money coming in the door is less than the money going out the door (sound familiar?) The answers to this all too familiar dilemma could include increasing the amount of money coming in the door by raising taxes - but in this day and age I sure don't see a lot of support for that solution, does anyone else? So we are left with having to cut what is going out the door - spending. We can do this in one of two basic ways. First, we can cut the number of units of things we buy (primarily through layoffs) and cut services to citizens or, second, we can cut the unit cost of the stuff we buy (primarily salary & benefit reductions) and try to keep the level of services as close to current levels as possible. It's really that simple. You are welcome to be unhappy with the choices, but that's the hand we've been dealt. It's up to the BOC and unions to figure out how they want to play this hand. The citizens can only stand by, voice their opinions and see how this plays out. Let's hope that the BOC and unions make a wise choice.
StartupGeek
Sat, Sep 5, 2009 : 12:05 p.m.
How original - cut mental health first. I would support this if they would also pull the plug randomly on a commensurate number of kidney dialysis patients (or any other vital life saving treatment). Some number will probably die from the mental health cuts. Some will die from cutting dialysis. Seems fair.
a2huron
Fri, Sep 4, 2009 : 10:31 p.m.
So, Umich2008, you feel that at the end of the year your wage level is not 3% greater than they were the previous year. Nice union rhetoric. Frankly, the private sector didn't get raises - we got wage decreases and benefit cuts. You didn't deserve the raise in the first place. If you blame the county for giving you the raise, then you shouldn't have accepted it. Meanwhile, since you will undoubtedly hold onto your raise with a tight grip, the younger union members will be layed off and have no raise or salary at all, while you still have a job. Congratulations.
Umich2008
Fri, Sep 4, 2009 : 3:28 p.m.
a2...the math does not add up. I am not referring to my salary. but new people..single mothers with 2 or more kids. the federal poverty rate is projected to be well up the 30k mark before the end of the proposed cuts. now back to your community high 'ritmatick....if it was 10, 1.5% would apply for the first half of the year. that would be 5k principal... but thanks for trying genius. Believe it or not, i am actually a staunch conserative, normally anti-union. i have rarely seen the justification for a bargaining agreement. but this is one of those reasons. I feel the cuts should not be on the back of the most vunerable employees in the county. The potential for the county having an added liability for these employees on the other side of the counter is great. Your tax comment leads me to believe your are somewhat fiscally conservative. The wasteful spending and refusal by your BOC to cut their spending so mental health programs aren't jeopardized should be alarming to you. But you are content to lump all the unions into one big group. The information in the article is half truths. Don't believe everythign you hear. Many unions are trying to work with administration, even offering counter proposals. Administration seems hell bent on shoving their proposals down the throat of the unions. They say they are eager to negotiate, but negotiate they won't.
a2huron
Fri, Sep 4, 2009 : 1:50 p.m.
Well, Umich2008, take very careful notes. You clearly need them. And no, not Community High but rather Huron. Ill use an annual income level of $10,000 which is roughly the 2009 annual poverty income level for an individual and presumably your annual income from the county per your comments. I wont elaborate on the obvious 1.5% plus 1.5% = 3.0% that you seem to have missed, but the reason you are getting more is as follows: 1.5% of $10,000 is $150, so you earn $10,150 after your first raise. Then, when your next 1.5% raise kicks in, 1.5% of $10,150 is $152.25, so your annual salary is $10,302.25 going forward. If you had a flat 3.0% on your original $10,000 then you would be earning $10,300.
Umich2008
Fri, Sep 4, 2009 : 11:27 a.m.
a2huron, I would prefer your taxes go down. They are way too high now. The BOC is adding mills without your consent this year. While a tiny percentage, it is still an increase in tax. My issue with the County and its so called capable leaders is that they did nothing to prepare for the housing market crash. They negotiated with the unions for the 2008-10 contract in one of two fashions-1) they knew they were going to rescind the increases because they knew the economy was going to tank and refused to do anything about it or 2) they didn't know and that makes them negligent. Comm Ouimett made a statement almost two years ago that the housing market was going to crash. None of the liberal commisioners paid him any heed. Kent county knew the economy was going to tank yet they did nothing. The big excuse around the county from administration is everyone else is hurting...but we aren't as bad as them. Well screw everyone else. This is our lives. This is our future. I sympathize with the cuts on CSTS. Every program is necessary. My commentary wasn't to uphold the cuts. If you can read, a2huron, you would see I was suggesting admin and BOC take another look at their pay, benefits and ear marks. That is where the shortfall can be found. And a2, your math is as ridiculous as your reading skills. 1.5 in january and then 1.5 in july is not 3% or higher. Must be a Coummunity High grad, huh?
a2huron
Fri, Sep 4, 2009 : 9:01 a.m.
Actually, Umich2008, you should do the math. If you are getting 1.5% in Jan and another 1.5% in July, you are getting a combined increase that is greater than 3%. Your union pity story is disgusting relative to the lives that have been impacted by mental health services. You want people to cry for YOU while you still have a job??? Read the stories above again. I would also recommend reading the national and world news. That will inform you of the world recession you appear unaware of and that there are many people who don't even have jobs. You should be grateful and not spiteful. Oh, I forgot - you probably want me to raise my taxes for you, too.
Umich2008
Fri, Sep 4, 2009 : 8:32 a.m.
Commish Irwin, Where's the tears for the employees who have already made concessions? Where's the tears for those employees who will be at or below the poverty level with the newly proposed concessions? Everyone keeps saying the non-union did their part with their reduction. How is it equitable to compare a union employee making less than $30k taking a 3% decreae to a non-union earning 6 figures? Simply, it isn't fair. And the supposed 3% increase in pay isn't a 3% increase in pay. Anyone with elementary math can figure this one out. Might seem trivial, but the increase is 1.5% in January then again in July. It is not a true 3% acrossed the board hike in pay. These half truths and all together fabrications by the BOC and County administration need to stop. Commish Irwin, did you and your ilk give up your training and subscription stipends? Did you give up your add'l stipends for actually coming to a meeting? How about you give up your money you are getting for coming to work? That would be a start to get the unions to not only trust you, but be willing to give a bit more.
cook1888
Thu, Sep 3, 2009 : 8:50 p.m.
I, too, have a loved one who has been a client of CSTS. Until you have someone you know or love struck my a mental illness you have no idea how devastating this can be. Health insurance plans are allowed to discriminate against mental illness (parity), most of the state hospitals have closed and our jails and prisons are crowded with people who potentially could lead productive, useful lives if undergoing treatment for their illness. Many people with the right care and support manage their illness well and recover. The staff and programs at CTST are lifesavers. We all know what difficult economic times we are in, however if only considered from an economic basis it is less costly to fund CSTS (preventative care) then to flood the criminal justice system.
UPSman
Thu, Sep 3, 2009 : 8 p.m.
It's sad the way the "Wal Mart wage scale" has trickled down across all the economic spectrum over the past 10 years. How, or probably better said WHY, we allowed China to devastate our economy and cause everything to be scaled back is a question our politicians should be ashamed of. With small and mid goverments having to slash their budgets in drastic measures and with that employee wages giving back decades worth of gains has people just feeling lucky to have a job, to keep a roof over their head, to be able to meet their health care needs it's really disgraceful. It's bad enough to have a mental handicap where it's a challenge just to get by another day - not only for the handicapped person but their caregivers and loved ones as well - and to lose that sense of security in their care is devastating. Let's hope there's answers soon - ones that don't have to include any more concessions by the hard working middle class!
Hilderomeo
Thu, Sep 3, 2009 : 3:40 p.m.
Having been on the receiving end of these wonderful services 5 years ago, I can't imagine not having them available to others going forward. I was diagnosed bi-polar, and without the support and love of not only my family and friends, but also from many of the mental health agencies I had the fortunate ability to use, I am confident I would no longer be on this wonderful earth that God created. For the people who cannot afford this country's high cost of private mental health care, do not have insurance that covers this area, or doesn't have insurance at all, what would these children of God do? They would be cast out as "lost lambs" and possibly never return to their flock, i.e. family and friends. I am SO BLESSED to have seen my niece enter high school, attend friends' children's weddings, celebrate the births of daughters and sons to my friends (making them grandparents), watching my next door neighbor's young son ride his bike for the first time without training wheels, and hopefully see my own daughter get married and have children. If it were not for the support of the county's mental health services, I would most certainly be pushing daisies somewhere or my ashes floating in the ocean breeze.
a2huron
Thu, Sep 3, 2009 : 3:25 p.m.
Tough decisions. Its all about priorities. Continue subsidies elsewhere in the budget or provide mental health treatment coverage?
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Sep 3, 2009 : 2:10 p.m.
CSTS starts its 2009-10 budget year Oct. 1. Here's the budget that the department is proposing for County Board consideration Sept. 16. http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/boc/agenda/wm/year_2009/2009-09-02wm/2009-09-02wm8.pdf
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Sep 3, 2009 : 1:30 p.m.
A reader just e-mailed me this comment to share: "This story is truly frightening! As someone with a beloved family member who receives psychiatric care and talk therapy at CSTS, I can personally attest to the devotion and t.l.c. that the entire staff provides -- and these are as vital as the medical care. CSTS serves some of the most vulnerable people in society, who have no other resources. I am almost in tears myself contemplating the potential consequences of the budget cuts...."
dading dont delete me bro
Thu, Sep 3, 2009 : 12:56 p.m.
this is terrible. my brother and i would be at our wits end if we didn't get help from county. mom's bipolar and manic depressive. if we lost this help, they're be two TAX PAYING indivuals out of work trying to provide this kind of support for her. RECONSIDER.