Caledonia Argus

ABLE policy concerns staff, families

Posted: 11/19/02

by Andrew Miller
Argus News Reporter

A personnel policy implemented by A.B.L.E., Inc. on October 24 triggered strong reactions from those it stands to affect. The Outside Employment Policy prohibits A.B.L.E. employees from working for a company that has been deemed a competitor with A.B.L.E.; if A.B.L.E. management and the Board of Directors ascertain that a conflict of interest does exist regarding an employeeís work with an outside agency, the employee is given 30 days to decide whether to remain with A.B.L.E. and resign from the competing agency, or to leave A.B.L.E.

Though the policy aims to safeguard A.B.L.E. from the threat of competitors and to keep A.B.L.E. client information confidential, much of the public response to the policy has evinced concern that both A.B.L.E. employees and clients will be the most hard hit.

Danielle Burg, a former A.B.L.E. employee and founder of I Can, an agency that like A.B.L.E. provides services for developmentally disabled people, noted that the Outside Employment Policy will be a burden on her clientele and a financial setback for her employees that must choose which agency with which to stay. Five of her nine employees also work for A.B.L.E., and Burg expects many, if not all of these employees to stay with A.B.L.E. However, she noted that the new policy wonít affect her business financially; her main concern was such that the policy will prove detrimental to both the employees she loses and the clients for which they provide services.

ìIíll be able to get other staff,î Burg said. ìItís that they (A.B.L.E. management) are restricting the clientsí rights and the caregiversí rights. The people who are the staff, they donít want this to happen; working for I Can is a second income and they like working with these guys (I CAN clients). And itís not fair to the clients. If people working at A.B.L.E. canít work with these guys (I CAN clients), itís just another loss for the clients.î

Burg also noted that, if forced to choose, those working for both A.B.L.E. and I Can have a financial incentive to stay with A.B.L.E. With I CAN, an employee earns $10 an hour through the Consumer Directed Waiver, which allows developmentally disabled people and their relatives to select a service provider of their choosing; the Consumer Directed Waiver, facilitated by the county, gives $10 an hour to the service provider. At A.B.L.E., she noted, employees make considerably more per hour and they receive health insurance, a benefit that I CAN does not provide. The end result of the Outside Employment Policy, she said, is that many of her staff will leave I CAN for A.B.L.E. out of financial necessity; the policy, though, will prevent the individual service providers from supplementing their A.B.L.E. income.

The adverse effects of the policy have already been perceived by I CAN clientele. Roger and Susan Thicke, whose sister Geri has received services from the same caregiver since 1989, will most likely have to receive care from someone else. Geri left A.B.L.E. in July 2002 and began receiving care through I CAN. Her caregiver at A.B.L.E. continued to work with her through I CAN, though she also remained employed at A.B.L.E. The new policy, Susan Thicke said, could cause Geri to lose her longtime caregiver, as her present caregiver must now decide whether to remain with Geri at I CAN or to remain employed at A.B.L.E.

ìGeriís caregiver is the only one that can get Geri to do new things,î Susan Thicke said. ìHer family accepts Geri as a sister and she treats Geri with respect. Try explaining to a developmentally disabled person that the person taking care of them wonít be there anymore. A.B.L.E. is putting money before the clients; I canít help but question if theyíre trying to get back at the people who left.î

Susan Kittleson, a former A.B.L.E. board member and presently a staff member at I CAN, has already been affected by the Outside Employment Policy. She resigned from A.B.L.E.ís Board of Directors two months ago, concerned that her position at I CAN would be classified by A.B.L.E. as a conflict of interest.

ìIt was a very awkward situation for me to be in,î Kittleson recounted. ìIf youíre going to develop a conflict of interest policy, certainly you canít have a board member that works for I CAN.î

Kittleson, like Burg and Thicke, worries that the clients will be the ones penalized by the new policy.

ìThe biggest impact will be with the people we work with,î she said. ìItís going to be very difficult for Geri; her and her caregiver have been together for 12 years. Theyíre buddies, theyíve been friends for a long time. The staff that itís taking (from I CAN), theyíre really integral parts of the people we work with. It takes a long time to form close relationships, and then to arbitrarily yank them out, itís hard for me to watch.î

Though she said she understands to an extent the reasons why A.B.L.Eís Board of Directors instituted the policy, Kittleson questions whether working for two different agencies is indeed a conflict of interest.

ìA person can work at two nursing homes and thatís not a conflict of interest; a person can work at Kwik Trip and Quillinís and thatís not a conflict of interest,î she said.

Despite the fact that those she and her fellow staff members work with at I CAN are being dealt a disservice by the policy, she was quick to assert that the Board of Directors at A.B.L.E. should not be held blameworthy for the Outside Employment Policy. The blame, if in fact someone is to blame, she thinks, lies elsewhere.

ìEverybody on the board is a volunteer and their intentions are very good,î she said. ìTheyíre trying to make the right choices and do the right thing.î

Margo Baumgartner, another person with a vested interest in the implementation of the Outside Employment Policy, worries that the policy will adversely affect two people she knowsñ a client of PossAbilities, another agency that has been deemed a competitor of A.B.L.E., and the clientís caregiver, who is currently working for both A.B.L.E. and PossAbilities. The client, she says, will most certainly have difficulty dealing with the loss of her caregiver.

ìSheíll probably be withdrawn, sheíll go into many obsessions that have been eliminated, and itíll probably set her back to a seven-year level as opposed to a 25-year level, set back from not having that flexibility to be independent,î Baumgartner said. ìHow can a policy be so cruel and rigid that it would jeopardize the welfare of its clients? It is the client that will lose out. These people have a right to live a life like you or I. A.B.L.E. is in my opinion no longer looking at the full potential of the clients it is hired to serve.î

Baumgartner also mentioned that the policy will also be detrimental to the aforementioned clientís caregiver. Since PossAbilities doesnít provide her with insurance, she will likely leave PossAbilities and remain with A.B.L.E. Either choice she makes, though, will result in a substantial loss of income.

ìA.B.L.E. has determined this outside employment a conflict according to their policy,î Baumgartner noted. ìShe was given 30 days to decide whom she would work for; at the end of this period she will lose half of her income to support her family.î

Houston County, which contracts with A.B.L.E., has as of yet refrained from getting involved in the situation resulting from the Outside Employment Policy. Beth Wilms of Houston County Human Services commented that the county does not intervene with agencies the county contracts in matters of personnel policy. County commissioners have held no formal discussions on the matter, though the topic was brought up at the latest Human Services meeting.

ìIt came up that there was some controversy out there,î said Houston County Commissioner Kevin Kelleher. ìThough when weíre dealing with vendors, and A.B.L.E. is a vendor, our authority within that process is all within the contract.î

If the county were to intervene, Kelleher said, it would be when A.B.L.E. renews its contract with the county. There is precedent for the county board to ask a company to modify policies before the county renews a contract. The former company Networks, which provided employment opportunities for developmentally disabled people and was contracted by the county, was advised by the county board to merge with ABC Works two years ago, a move that the county board thought was in the best interest of Networksí clients.

ìThere was a point where the county board wanted Networks to restructure, and we wouldnít give them a renewal,î Kelleher said. ìThey merged with ABC Works out of Rochester because we wanted that, we wanted a seamless delivery system.î

ìWe need to look at the entire picture for serving people in the county,î he added. ìIf it were that the policy was designed to circumvent the new law (the Consumer Directed Waiver which allows parents of developmentally disabled people to pick other vendors), I as a county commissioner wouldnít be too happy with that.î

Ann Thompson, a county commissioner from Caledonia, expressed that, in order for this issue taken into consideration by the county board, she and the other commissioners would need to hear more complaints and concerns from the public.

ìIf thereís unhappiness with a vendor, weíd want to know,î Thompson said. ìWe want good vendors and we felt weíve had a good vendor through A.B.L.E., and if there are concerns, weíd like to see the complaints addressed. If thereís some major concerns out there, weíd like to hear them.î

Thompson attests that she hasnít received any calls from the general public complaining about the Outside Employment Policy. Kelleher says heís received one call about the matter, and another county commissioner has also received a call, but an overwhelming display of public opinion has not been forthcoming, at least to the county board. Recent editorials and talk about town have been the primary source by which the county board has become aware of the issue, Thompson said, but most of this has been hearsay. For the board to formally consider this issue, she added, there must be more substantive testimony as to the effect the new policy is having.

Several A.B.L.E. personnel were contacted in order to obtain further information as to the content and intent of the Outside Employment Policy, and all such attempts were rebuffed. Two members of A.B.L.E.ís Board of Directors were contacted, and both declined to comment. Wade Welper, A.B.L.E.ís executive director, also declined to comment. A.B.L.E.îs law firm, Parke OíFlaherty, Ltd. out of La Crosse, did not return calls from The Argus.

Top of Page