|
After hearing well over an hour of
arguments from attorneys for the state agency that wants to close
the Lincoln facility forever, Judge Behle said he would have to
study the issues further and would not announce his decision
immediately.
Behle also dashed the hopes of
supporters when he said the plaintiffs "have a heavy burden." He
said he could not submit his beliefs for the action the Illinois
Health Facilities Planning Board took on Aug. 15, when it issued a
permit to allow the Department of Human Services to close LDC.
Since that time, DHS has moved well
over half of the 153 residents that remained at LDC to other
facilities. As of early Thursday morning, only 59 residents
remained, according to Dan Senters, spokesman for the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 425.
If Judge Behle does decide to issue the
temporary restraining order, Senters said, the facility may well be
empty. He quoted a memo issued by Peggy Davidsmeyer, temporary
director of LDC, which suggested DHS transfer some residents
scheduled to leave Friday on Thursday instead because the court
might block further moves.
"There may be only 25 residents left
there now," Senters said as he left the courtroom. If no more
residents remain, the temporary restraining order would be useless
and the facility would be in essence closed.
AFSCME and other plaintiffs, including
Norlan and Eleanor Newmister, parents of an LDC resident, sought the
injunction pending an appeal of the Health Facilities Planning Board
decision.
The plaintiffs contend that the
planning board failed to follow its own rules in permitting DHS to
shutter Lincoln when they cited a lack of funds as the primary
reason to approve the closure.
"Nowhere in the Health Facilities
Planning Act does it state that the board should consider how to
fund a facility," said Roberta Lynch, deputy director of AFSCME
Council 31.
AFSCME also said closing LDC would
create a lack of needed services in the area. "The planning board’s
rules are very clear. Closing facilities must ensure that residents
have alternative services in the area. Despite the department’s own
admission that it is sending LDC residents as far away as Chicago,
the board approved the closure," Lynch said.
Plaintiffs also objected that Gov.
George Ryan’s last-minute appointment of three new members to the
planning board, replacing members whose terms had expired but who
were still serving, was illegal.
[to top of second column in
this article]
|
Steven Puiszis, attorney for the state,
argued that the planning board appointments were legal and pointed
out that the board voted unanimously to allow DHS to close Lincoln.
Even if the three new members’ votes were not counted, the board
would have had the majority it needs to issue the permit, he said.
He said that "uncontradicted and
undenied evidence" of the fact that the state has not appropriated
money to fund LDC beyond Aug. 31, the date designated for its
closure, had been submitted to the board.
"The money will run out Aug. 31, and
the state can’t lawfully pay bills for salaries, food and
utilities," he said.
Puiszis also said the Newmisters did
not have a valid complaint because DHS is planning to move their son
to an intermediate care facility in Morton, which is actually closer
to their Peoria home than LDC is. The Newmisters have repeatedly
stated that they were happy with their son’s care in Lincoln and did
not want to see him moved into a privately owned care facility.
Puiszis also argued that AFSCME has no
legal standing to ask for the appeal because they are "not an
aggrieved party."
"The purpose of the Health Facilities
Planning Act is not job security or job protection," he said.
Services do exist for LDC residents in
the area, Puiszis argued, because they can be sent to the
Jacksonville Developmental Center 60 miles away.
LDC has had "the highest number of
cases of abuse and neglect of any facility in the system," Puiszis
argued, and he cited three recent deaths of residents. "There is
ample evidence on the record to support closure."
He also said the injunction should not
be issued because there is little likelihood the appeal will
succeed, and the restraining order would be justified only if there
seemed a chance the planning board’s decision could be reversed.
Citing administrative review law,
Puiszis also questioned Judge Behle’s power to issue a ruling,
saying the plaintiffs were asking him to "go beyond your power and
authority."
"The Department of Human Services is
acting in compliance with the law," Puiszis said. Stopping layoffs
and stopping transfers is beyond a trial court judge’s power and
would be interfering with state and even federal functions, he said.
Attorney
Steve Yokich was not present because of a sudden death in the
family, and Robert Seltzer argued the case for the plaintiffs.
[Joan
Crabb]
|
