Whether the nursing home is an "emergency"
County Attorney Paul Wilbur told council the law department supports creating a commission but not doing it by emergency measure, because the department is not aware of any state or federal regulator finding a health and safety emergency at the facility. A department attorney added that if an action taken under emergency authority were later challenged and no emergency basis were found, the county would face a second avenue of litigation it would not face under the ordinary process — which, staff explained, would add a 60-day waiting period after the executive's signature but otherwise follow the same two readings.
Council's attorney countered that nothing about the nursing home is codified anywhere, that this was discovered only after complaints began arriving in early August, and that if the facility is a county "agency" as the law department contends, then the current administrator was never submitted to council for confirmation as Section 413 of the charter would require. He also noted that the two prior bills council passed on an emergency basis — on title health and on cannabis zoning — were recommended as emergencies by the law department itself.
The commission's reach, and the personnel question
Councilman Joe Holloway pressed on what the commission could actually do and was told it is purely advisory, with no personal liability for members and no authority to direct the administrator. Wilbur flagged the personnel provision as the larger problem: nursing home employees have operated under their own personnel manual for decades, and reconciling that with the county manual by the bill's November 17 deadline is, in his view, not achievable. Council's attorney said he included the provision precisely because he cannot determine what the nursing home employees legally are, given that the home is a wholly owned part of the county and not a separate corporation.
The county executive's rebuttal
County Executive Julie Giordano came to the podium during public comment and asked council to table the bill. She said county tax dollars do not pay nursing home salaries — that the home runs on Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — and that council met the new administrator in closed session after her hiring without raising confirmation concerns, as had been the practice with the previous director. She said the legislation inserts the legislative branch into executive personnel matters and is driven by hearsay, and she urged members to tour the facility with the new administrator before acting. She circulated a handwritten leave sheet she said showed how the home tracked vacation and sick time, pointing to repeated cash-outs she characterized as a prior employee using leave as a personal piggy bank.
Former employees, the NAACP, and Delegate Sample-Hughes
Several former nursing home employees said flatly that they were not disgruntled. One who said she had handled payroll for nearly 13 years said she was told by phone she was no longer allowed on the premises after a single payroll error, and alleged the administrator has outsourced MDS assessments, billing, and payroll to people who worked for her at previous facilities, has told staff not to speak publicly, and prefers part-time hires to avoid paying insurance premiums. Another former employee and a resident's family member described short-staffed halls where one aide is responsible for feeding and positioning an entire wing.
The NAACP's branch vice president, speaking for the chapter president, said employees have brought the organization complaints about wages and qualifications but will not give their names for fear of retaliation, and alleged the new director has held 10 positions in eight years. He called the facility "a jewel in this community" and asked council to examine the county's hiring oversight.
Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes, whose District 37A contains the nursing home, thanked council for moving quickly. She said she has met with affected employees, described what she called a systematic dismantling, and said roughly 78 employees have been forced out or terminated — some, she said, by phone call. She also suggested one substantive change: adding one or two citizen members to the commission membership in Section 49-5, such as a family member of a resident, which would bring the body to an odd number.
Over-65 retiree health insurance (work session)
Staff and the county's benefits consultant recommended moving 282 over-65 retirees from United Healthcare to a non-integrated Aetna Medicare Advantage plan effective January 1, after last December's renewal came in sharply higher. The county currently pays $546 per month per retiree; staying with United would rise to $623 integrated or $563 non-integrated, while the Aetna non-integrated bid came in at $485. Retirees would save about $10 a month. Holloway pushed repeatedly on pharmacy access, recalling complaints from a prior plan change; staff said the Aetna network is larger than United's and that a new service called Retiree First, included at no added cost, will help retirees navigate the transition. Council gave consensus to bring a resolution on September 1 authorizing the executive to sign.