VB readers may remember the open letter from
John Rosenthal to Cllr Roger Mazillius we ran at the beginning of the month.
John got in touch with us once he’d received a reply from Cllr Mazillius and asked if we’d be prepared to publish it on VB. As many readers showed a great interest in the points raised by John, we agreed it would be beneficial to publish Cllr Mazillius’ response here on VB and duly wrote to him requesting permission.
Refusal to publish
Unfortunately, Cllr Mazillius declined to give his consent for his reply to be published. Here’s what he told us,
Thank you. After careful consideration I regret I cannot agree to your request.
This is a private exchange with a carer of a client of this Council. His decision to publish his letter on your site is a matter for him. It would in my view be wrong if private exchanges of this nature were routinely made in public particularly without the express permission of the addressee.
More than a little disappointed
John, who was obviously disappointed that Cllr Mazillius had refused permission to share his response with our readers, told us this,
As you are aware, I wrote to Cllr Mazillius on 27th Oct, he did reply with a subsequent request that it was not published. I respect Cllr Mazillius decision on this matter, but I believe the public will be able to interpret why he did not want his comments published if they read my second letter sent on 16th Nov (see below).
I was more than a little disappointed with the reply, he appeared to try to change the subject of some of the questions and completely avoided others which I felt were quite relevant.
He replied to this one only to say that rather than answering in any detail he would enter the letter as part of the consultation process. By doing this he has effectively removed himself from the responsibility of answering the questions.
This could be for several reasons, either, he does not have the answers to the relevant questions, or he would have to admit that the proposals for Westminster House go totally against the Councils own proposals as set out in the Island Core Strategy Paper.
These letters that I have written are not aimed as a personal grievence against Cllr Mazillius but at the council, it just happens that due to his position of being the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care he is the main point of contact.
I do however have serious doubts about, not only of Cllr Mazillius, but also the other councilors making these decisions as to whether they have any real idea or concept, as to how much these proposals will affect the lives of a great many people.
So as not to disappoint Cllr Mazillius, I am asking VentnorBlog to publish my response to his reply and let the readers decide.
Mr Rosenthal writes again
Following Cllr Mazillius’ response to John’s first letter, he decided to write again.
16th Nov 2010
Dear Cllr Mazillius
It appears in your reply to my previous letter dated 27th October 2010 that you were trying to shift the focus away from the consultation towards the totally separate subject of Personal Budgets.It does however appear that you are trying to address some issues in getting the IW Advocacy Trust to consult with the users etc. Besides the communication problems referring to reading, understanding and answering the somewhat dubious questions some concern has been raised about some of the questions being misleading, complicated and some not applicable at all.
For example one gentleman was asked, would you like to go to Westminster House or Butlins? He is known for answering to the last word that was said, he answered Butlins, had the question been put the other way round he would have answered Westminster House.
Respite Care is not just about going on holidays; it is an on-going process that enables families to stay together.
I believe that this type of leading questions or for want of a better description coercion of answers leaves a lot to be desired. On the face of things it appears that this form of consultation is no more than ‘lip service’ and needs a full and thorough investigation. It may be better if a parent or known carer, somebody who knows and understands the user were present to ensure that the user is not led to answers that they would not normally consider.
Referring to the occupancy levels of Westminster House, I have figures for the last five years and the lowest average occupancy recorded was 66%, this figure is obviously lower than the bookings made as inevitably you will get some cancellations due to health and sometimes weather conditions. As Westminster House is only registered for 10 placements then if one or two cancel or fail to show then it has a far greater effect on the percentage as opposed to somewhere that houses say 30 to 40 people. There seems to have no questions asked about why sometimes there might be lower occupancy because the mix of service users, staffing levels to meet the needs of service users that have health needs or behaviour management issues. Another point to remember is that as this is the only emergency unit available for Learning Disabled on the Island it has to keep a bed spare at all times, therefore it is very unlikely that it will ever be more than 90% occupied.
How does the quoted figure of £64 per night equate to over £1000 per week.
What is the quoted figure for the Gouldings? Or Beaulieu for that matter, as their occupancy seems to be around 40% to 50% most of the time with one to one, or two to one staffing ratio.
It is also apparent that as time goes by the figure for Westminster House gets larger and the figure for the Gouldings smaller, again another misleading tactic.
It would also be interesting to see the occupancy figures for both the Gouldings and the Adelaide.
It would be very interesting to know where the estimated £71K, left over from the figure of £125K after the installation of the lift would be spent at Westminster House. Talking to both staff and users at Westminster House there appears to be a question over the necessity of a lift anyway.
Would it be possible to see a breakdown of the works and costs required to convert the Gouldings, including the de-commissioning of the lift that joins both floors so as the two areas can be kept separate as promised. Also after this how are you going to transfer the food from the main kitchen upstairs to the downstairs dining room for the Learning Disabled.
You give no mention as to which group the 67 Learning Disabled people belonged to that received Travel Training.
You give no response as to whether Westminster House could be opened up to include day services.
It also appears that you have completely avoided any of the issues mentioned in relation to the Island Core Strategy Paper, particulary in regards to ‘Equal Level of Accessibility’, Protecting Existing Specialised Accommodation, Encouraging the Upkeep of Existing Buildings, Reducing Travel and thus reducing emissions.
Or are you hoping to sell off Westminster House before any of these proposals come into effect.
How do you react to one of the ‘goals’ of the Disability Equality Duty that is to encourage the participation of disabled people into public life, Freshwater is hardly the hive of activity compared to Newport.
Has an Equality Impact Assessment been carried out referring to the proposed changes in service with both the users and the point of view of all the staff involved? If so could we see the results?
How do the council react to the fact that for instance, a person who is normally ‘peg fed’ having problems and then not be able to access the hospital in the required 15 to 20mins for what could be a life or death situation or someone requiring treatment for epilepsy that puts their life at risk, leaving the council wide open to legal claims for damages etc. because they had been warned of this possibility in advance.
Listed below are some very brief observations relating to the Gouldings.
1/ The part of the building and rooms being considered for the L/D are very small, dark and gloomy, artificially lit at all times.
2/ The proposed shared activity area is also small dark and not very inviting, again artificially lit at all times.
3/ Access between floors (joining both types of care) is via either stairs or a lift, the lift would be accessible by the L/D so therefore they could easily access the elderly area. The lift would have to be retained to enable food from the main kitchen in the elderly area to be transferred to the L/D dining room downstairs.
4/ The fact that the facility is not a ‘locked building’ as the elderly have free reign to come and go as they please, this would leave the L/D at high risk.
5/ The Mini Bus that the council propose to use for outings etc. for the L/D is already in use for large parts of the day serving the needs of the elderly, so it would be of very limited use by the L/D.
6/ The conversion of what is at present a very nice open front garden with mature trees / bushes etc. which the elderly at present enjoy, into a fenced area with no bushes etc. for the L/D. This would also not be ‘in keeping’ with the adjoining properties that have ‘open plan’ gardens going down to the roadside.
7/ None of the present staff at the Gouldings seem very keen on the proposals.
8/ As they do not mix ‘children’ with the elderly in hospitals, why try to do it in a care home.
I await your reply / comments on all of the above.
Third letter to Mazillius
John tells us that he received a response to his second letter.
Cllr Mazillius told John that he was pleased that John felt more reassured about the involvement of the IW Advocacy Trust, and that he was confident they will do a good job expressing peoples views.
Cllr Mazillius said he didn’t intend to reply to the rest of the letter in detail but would take all the points made and put them as a contribution to the consultation process.
Following this John has now sent a third letter to Cllr Mazillius and copied in all other Isle of Wight councillors. It reads,
28 November 2010
Dear Cllr Mazillius
I was more than a little disappointed by your decision not to answer any of my questions in my letter to yourself 16th Nov.
Had you provided a full and satisfactory reply to my earlier letter sent 27th Oct then this second letter containing requests for full answers to certain relevant facts and questions would not have been sent.
You have told me that you are going to contribute my points to the consultation process; by doing this you are denying me the answers to these questions so as to enable myself and other parents to compile a response to the consultation.
I am now of the opinion that this is your way of covering up some very relevant questions and not the response one should expect from someone in a public position.
As a councillor you are a public servant and as such have a responsibility to answer questions posed to you from a member of the public, not sweep them into a consultation process, thereby hiding them away.
By not replying it gives the impression that you are not only contradicting the councils own proposals with reference to the Island Core Strategy Paper, but also yourself.
One of your own public quotes ‘What a wonderful invaluable service Westminster House provides for its clients and their parents’.
Now within three years of your quote you seem to think that this purpose built facility with its own gardens, barbecue facilities, conservatory and large communal area is no longer fit for service, wishing to ship the clients off to what is essentially an old peoples care home in a village, far away from the widely available amenities in the central town of Newport.
Due to the previous lack of response, I am re-submitting these questions, comments to you and would respectfully like to receive a full reply to all points within 7 days.
We’ll let you know once we hear back from John again.
