Shine a light

Early last month, two senior administrators of the McFarland Memorial Home were escorted from their offices and out of the building. They were fired two weeks later.

“These administrative changes are a result of allegations that were recently raised respecting the general administrative oversight of the H.J. McFarland Memorial Home,” wrote the County’s chief administrative officer, Merlin Dewing, in a statement on November 26. “Since these actions were taken as the result of a confidential investigation, the County will not be making further public comment on this issue.”

And with that, the matter was closed.

There were—and are—plenty of unanswered questions. Questions that deserve answers. What were the allegations? What did they find when they investigated? How long did the issues persist? Were there warning signs? What remedies have been put in place to ensure it doesn’t happen again?

We don’t even know what the issues were. Or are—do they persist? We are utterly in the dark about a serious matter at a municipally owned home that cares for our family, friends and neighbours.

Furthermore, two people have had their names sullied and broadcast widely. Now their employment has been terminated. Yet we don’t know why, or under what circumstances, their careers have been shredded. It was a confidential investigation, we have been told, and that is the end of it. Other outlets have dutifully reported this, as if it were acceptable. As if this were the end of the story.

It is most certainly not acceptable. It is not the end of the story.

The H.J. McFarland Memorial Home isn’t a privately owned facility. You and I own it , as ratepayers of Prince Edward County. We fund its $6 million budget, and we subsidize its operation by more than $600,000 annually.

When things go wrong at McFarland Home, it is you and I who pay to make it better.

It is not nearly good enough to simply announce that the top two administrators have been fired, and then fail to explain why.

If McFarland were owned by a publicly held company, shareholders would insist that management answer these basic questions. What happened? Why did it happen? What is our worst-case liability exposure? Why weren’t safeguards in place? And what steps have been taken to ensure that it doesn’t happen again?

If they didn’t get a response, they would use the court system to compel answers. Yet we have no such remedies in municipal governance.

This may be why County officials expect to get away with shielding McFarland Home’s operations from outside scrutiny and investigation. It sets a foul precedent.

It feeds every conspiracy theory that smoulders in the community. What else is being hidden from view?

Council has a role to play. It is a brand new term with many new faces. Many are eager to change the way Shire Hall does business. A helpful way to begin is to ensure that the municipality acts in a truly open and transparent way. Otherwise there is no means to make the organization accountable. You can’t govern what you can’t see.

Many are hoping for fresh new approach. Closing ranks around an unspecified and unexplained need for secrecy only serves to reinforce the perception that nothing at all has changed.

The new council must insist on a thorough airing of the factors that led to the dismissal of the administrators of the McFarland Home. This means an open examination of the oversight and management of this facility.

I expect County managers felt it prudent to contain the problems at McFarland—that little good would come from opening a window to gawkers, conspiracy theorists and critics. But it is entirely the wrong instinct.

It isn’t their business. They are managers. They don’t get to decide when and where a light is shone upon the County’s business.

Refusal to answer these questions is fundamentally disrespectful to the folks who fund this enterprise.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca