McFadden Manor Nursing Home

PrintCouncil denies retirement for McFadden staff
By Francis Brown / Correspondent
Thu Jul 02, 2009, 04:45 PM EDT
Tools:
PrintCommentsShareThisStumbleUpon Newsvine del.icio.us Digg
Malden - Employees at the soon-to-be shut down McFadden Manor will not be able to receive early retirement as the City Council’s vote on Tuesday night was deadlocked at 5, and thus, the motion of whether or not to send the paper to the state legislature failed.

During the Ordinance Committee meeting prior to the council meeting, committee members listened to reports on what the city would have to do and how many employees of McFadden Manor would be affected by the decision.

The issue has to do with those employees that are not yet 55 years of age, but who have worked at McFadden Manor for over 20 years. The six to nine people at McFadden Manor who meet this requirement would be able to receive early retirement, which the city would pay for.

While the numbers are not definite, if the council had voted in favor of the motion and the state legislature had passed the paper, the city would have to pay between $70,000 and $100,000 a year over 20 years or between $140,000 and $200,000 over 10 years.

This uncertainty over what financial impact the decision to grant early retirement to the employees would have on the city is what kept many councilors from voting for the motion.

Ward 6 Councilor and Ordinance Committee Chairman Neil Kinnon voted against the motion citing this uncertainty.

“I am not against taking care of people,” said Kinnon during the meeting. “My challenge with this paper is that we do not understand the financial consequences of it.”

Fellow committee member and Ward 8 Councilor Judith Bucci echoed Kinnon’s concerns.

“These are the most difficult decisions to make,” said Bucci. “But based on the fact that we don’t have the actual numbers on this, I can’t put my arms around it.”

Bucci also had reservations about giving early retirement to the employees of McFadden Manor while those who have been laid off in recent months were not given this opportunity.

This comes on the heels of the city’s decision not to give $1.2 million to McFadden Manor last month, essentially shutting down the nursing home. This decision was still fresh in the minds of some councilors when it came time to vote on Tuesday.

Ward 7 Councilor and Ordinance Committee member Neal Anderson stated that he was aware of the financial uncertainty, but was still in favor of the motion.

“We do have uncertainties about the financial impact, but we owe it to them to do what we can to help them through this transition,” said Anderson.

Ward 3 Councilor Paul DiPietro, also on the Ordinance Committee, called out the city to provide for the employees before the vote.

“I believe it’s incumbent upon the city to be a responsible employer,” said DiPietro.

One of the main reasons for shutting down the nursing home was the poor condition that it is currently in. However, while the conditions have not been up to par, the care of the patients by the employees has been top-notch. Still, it came back to the financial uncertainty that the city would face during a time when its budget was just cut by $6 million.

“I understand that they’ve done a tremendous job for the community over the years,” said Ward 2 Councilor Paul Condon of the efforts of the employees at McFadden Manor, “but I can’t vote for the unknown.”

This decision brought much disappointment to the employees of McFadden Manor who were in attendance. Kathleen MacDonald is one of the few employees that would have been able to opt for the early retirement plan had it been passed as she is not yet 55 years of age but has been employed at McFadden for 25 years.

“I’m very disappointed with the council’s vote,” said MacDonald, who spoke to the Ordinance Committee about the hardships she currently faces caring for a disabled son and a husband who recently had surgery.

“There were inaccuracies stated,” she added, citing the comment that there are other employees in the city that are in the same position as the employees of McFadden Manor. “There’s a big difference,” she said, referring to the comment.

She said that she appreciated the support from the councilors who voted in favor of the motion, but was disappointed that there was not a public forum for proponents of the early retirement plan to voice their opinions in front the entire council.