I have just had confirmed from the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board that the County's new certificate of need has been denied . This is very bad news, and makes it all but certain that the nursing home won't open by January 1, 2007 as promised by Steve Beckett. What's more, the cost to the county of reapplying is going to be $50,000.This is our second post election surprise from Mr. Beckett. You'll recall prior to the primary that he promised the nursing home would be open in April.
Perhaps most interesting about this is that the County didn't apply for the new certificate until the day before the election. Why not ask for it months ago? Perhaps because they knew that it might be denied and that it would be another black mark on Steve Beckett. How else to explain the 7 month delay from the time we knew that the certificate was needed and the day it was requested.
I talked to the IHFPB in July as I researched the nursing home issue. At that time I was told that getting an extension on the scheduled opening was perfunctory. However, getting an amendment to our certificate of need was not and that we should get it done soon. I was also told about the new rules that were coming into place in September.
In hindsight, I should have called Denny Inman about this so that he could pass this information on to our attorneys. But I knew that we were paying these attorneys over half a million dollars for their “expertise” in this area. Surely they would have known this bit of information which is prominently featured on the IHFPB website. In addition, Mr. Beckett has been known to extol the importance of having Denny Inman in his position because of his expertise on the permitting process as well.
I don't know all the implications of proceeding on this project without getting approval, but this portion of the above rules doesn't bode well for us.
1130.750
i) Any alteration undertaken without prior HFPB approval (when required) shall be considered a violation of the Act and shall be subject to the penalties mandated inthe Act and in Section 1130.790.
In reading 1130.790 from the above rules it looks like fines begin at $25,000 and go up from there.
It defies my imagination to describe my shock over this. We've known about the need for a new Certificate of Need since at least April. Why did they wait until after September 1, 2006 to apply for it?
Someone dropped the ball. And no one will be held accountable.
UPDATE: I guess I'll agree that it wasn't a NEW certificate of need but rather an AMENDED certifciate of need. Hope that makes Mr. Beckett happy. Anyone who reads the original document that I posted from the IHFPB could obviously see that.
Also, Mr. Beckett is apparently also saying that the County can proceed without any amended certificate of need and just pay the penalty. Oh, that's wonderful. What a great way to do business. Let's screw around for 7 months instead of doing what we're supposed to do, and then pay a $100,000 late fee.
In the spirit of open government, why was the most recent Republican caucus not noticed?
Isn't that illegal?!
Too bad Steve's firm doesn't handle bankruptcy cases.
i notced that too about the GOP caucus
Dear dumbass open govt,
The press was there--where were you!!!
The caucus was certainly open to the public and announced- Paul Wood of The News-Gazette talked to me last Friday before Monday's meeting about the caucus.
WDWS was there and did a story
Gordy, Mark, John,
You all could do live-blogging at the Republican caucuses. That way, those of us who are not on the inside can still find out what's going on.
I hear Republicans are seriously thinking about putting Beckett/Wysocki back in power. I guess all this supposed outrage over the nursing home really was just election year politics, after all. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites.
Shame on any Republican that puts Steve Beckett (or his puppet Wysocki) back in power. You deserve to lose elections if you're really that bankrupt.
No one will ever be accountable for anything as long as Republicans keep giving cover to Steve Beckett and Barb Wysocki.
I'm curious: Do rank-and-file Republicans want their County Board representatives to reauthorize the current leadership of Beckett/Wysocki? Does their handling of information regarding the nursing home matter, or was that just campaign spin?
Republisocki,
I agree completely. You can't run a campaign on "open and honest government," against the people you put in power, then turn around and suppor them again.
It would be the most hypocritical move since...well...Mike Frerichs flip-flopped on abortion to get votes.
I agree.
GOP'ers should refuse to support Beckett/Wysocki.
In that manner Matt Gladney/Lorraine Cowart/Lloyd Carter/Tony Fabri can be county board chair and that will be sooooo much better.
OOHHHHH, you mean that winning $30,000 campaign strategy cooked up by sheldon for districts 7 & 9. Yep, lets get back to good old partisan politic that only benefits the majority. Kirchner and Pussing love you sheldon--they couldn't have done thinks better than what you continue to shovel!!
Dang Chuck, you sure love Beckett & Wysocki. I wonder who you'll be voting for as chairman?
Local TV news reports last night painted a very different picture regarding this certificate of need issue. Granted, it was Beckett in the interviews, but it raised two yes-or-no questions: 1) Was a new certificate of need indeed denied? 2) Is a new certificate of need even needed? As usual, I don't claim to have the whole story, but I would appreciate some more objective details.
Beckett was very clear in claiming that Mark Shelden simply isn't telling the truth. So what is the truth?
If you read the letter that is linked to in Shelden's post you'll see that the amendment was denied. So I guess Beckett is right in his own way, but pretty disingenuous.
On the news, Beckett said that the County might have to pay fines, which obviously implies that someone screwed something up.
I've looked into this a bit further. I think the item '3. Third Alteration' paragraph of the letter ( see the "has been denied" link in the original post) posted by Mark Shelden contains the key information, but it also poses its own questions:
1. Did someone at our county level (Inman, Beckett, attorneys; otherwise, who?) fail to make note of this new rule? It seems that any need for an amended or altered or extended permit hinges on the fact that the overall increase based on the original budget amount exceeded 5%. Someone should have been on top of this, correct? Who is responsible?
2. As Mark Shelden has suggested, did Steve Beckett et al know or suspect that the request would be denied? If so, is it possible that they didn't have this information in time to do anything about it before getting doo doo on their shoes during the recent campaign?
3. Let's also not forget the following:
"I talked to the IHFPB in July as I researched the nursing home issue. At that time I was told that getting an extension on the scheduled opening was perfunctory. However, getting an amendment to our certificate of need was not and that we should get it done soon. I was also told about the new rules that were coming into place in September." -- Mark Shelden
Shelden goes on to say that PERHAPS he should have told Denny Inman about this. PERHAPS? Since I won't accept a "not my job" explanation, I'm left with the unfortunate assumption that Shelden had no politically beneficial reason to share this information with the proper county officials -- other than a general obligation to serve his constituency, I suppose.
"PERHAPS he should have told Denny Inman about this. PERHAPS? Since I won't accept a “not my job” explanation,"
This speaks to Denny Inman's job performance, not Shelden. And Denny doesn't return phone calls anyway (I guess, unless, your name is Beckett).
fbm:
I am in no way defending Denny Inman, Steve Beckett, or anyone else on that side of this fracas. I'm simply pointing out that since Shelden knew about this in July, it will be difficult for him to give me a legitimate reason why he shouldn't have passed that information along.
His paragraph that begins "In hindsight," is an indictment of both the county's attorneys and Beckett/Inman. The indictment may be legitimate, but who did Shelden really punish by withholding the information?
...is all I'm saying.
Wow..looks like another kill the messenger story line. Deal with the facts as MARK has presented, pretty good smoke screen about when the information was released, not sure how it detracts from the message?
"Deal with the facts as MARK has presented.."
I see. So what Mark presents are facts. Never a biased, partisan opinion, right?
Jay, I believe there is some opinion here, but there are plenty of facts which Mr. Beckett declines to address.
and now for....I found out today that the County was informed of the fact that these rules would apply to them by certified letter from the HFPB. I wish I had told them myself but who could guess that the experts would not have known about this.
However to cover myself on some other points, if you're a plumber, I can tell you s&#t runs downhill and if you lay carpet put the pretty side up. If you're a lawyer in an Illinois court room, use the Illinois statutes. If you're a doctor, that little skull and cross bones thingamagig means you don't want to put that stuff in your Christmas cookies. Oh, and for all you drivers, the little dash between the 60 and the 70 on your speedometer is for 65.
In tonight's paper, Beckett says that Shelden's post is an "outright prevarication." Mark, I understand you didn't go to college, so you might not realize, Beckett has called you a liar. An outright liar. Beckett is saying that not one word, not even the punctuation in your post is true. You might want to find out who Bob Thomas's lawyer was. With $7 million in hand, I'll bet you Republicans could take control of the county board and fire Denny Inman.
"if you're a plumber, I can tell you s&#t runs downhill "
And the most important part, as my brother says (he's a Journeyman - UA Local 149 in Savoy) "payday's on Friday."