AGING AGENCY IN LEGISLATIVE FIRESTORM

The director of the Southeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging is the apparent target of legislation sponsored by a powerful member of the Missouri House of Representatives that would give SEMO University regents the authority to appoint her position.

The bill, filed by state Rep. Gene Copeland, D-New Madrid, was introduced because of concerns Copeland had about operations of the aging office by administrator Glenda Hood Hoffmeister.

Copeland's legislation was triggered by dissatisfaction from several nutrition site administrators in the area, including some in his district. Approval of a new formula by the agency's board of directors last fall for distributing federal funds to pay for meals at nutrition sites also played a role in the discontent.

The Southeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging serves 18 counties, providing a wide range of services to people age 60 and over. Services are required under provisions of the Older Americans Act. There are 38 centers in this area that receive funds for nutrition programs that include both on-site meals and meals delivered to homebound citizens.

Copeland maintains the goal of his legislation is to get more money spent on services to the elderly and less on administration costs, but admits an intended result of his bill would be the firing of Hoffmeister.

Currently the area agency board, which includes a representative from each county elected by senior citizens, hires the director. Under Copeland's bill, the board would be required to appoint a person as director that was recommended by the board of regents at Southeast Missouri State University.

"The first thing I want to do is to get more money put in services rather than administration, and second, I think she should be replaced. I think she has abused her authority," said Copeland.

The veteran lawmaker complains that Hoffmeister is heavy handed in dealing with board members and gives them little authority; wields undue influence in recruiting board members; plays politics in distributing nutrition money; and is overspending on administration costs in an effort "to build and protect her kingdom."

Said Copeland: "I think a lot of her cuts to nutrition sites are politically motivated. There is just too much politics within the system ... I think she's the best politician I've ever run up on."

He points out that the university already has people working for it that could perform some of the duties being paid for by the agency, such as a nutritionist. Copeland said he also believes the university has enough resources to cut administrative costs by well over $100,000.

Brian Forbis, director of the Missouri Division of Aging, said the SEMO Area office does not have administrative costs that are out of line. Of the 10 Area Agency on Aging offices that are in the state, the SEMO office ranks in the middle "fifth or sixth" in administrative costs, Forbis said.

"From our perspective, they are in compliance with state and federal regulations on what they have committed to administrative costs," said Forbis.

A hearing was held on Copeland's bill last week before the House Social Services, Medicaid and Elderly Committee, but the panel has not yet voted on the bill. Among those testifying were Jesse Farmer, a member of the board of the Charleston Nutrition Center; Sissy Williams, director of the senior center in Dexter; Timmie Hunter, director of the center in New Madrid; and Marvin Proffer, who lobbies for the University.

Word of the hearing triggered some concern at senior centers around the area that an effort was being made to undermine the board of the Area Agency on Aging, that the university was trying to make a move for funds designated for senior services, and that the university would take over the sites and eliminate social activities many of the centers have, making them little more than "soup kitchens."

"Nobody really knows what's going to happen if this bill passes," said Jo Nell Lingo, administrator of the Cape Senior Center. "If the university gets this, will they keep the centers as they are? There are lots of ifs, ands and questions that have not been answered as far as we are concerned."

Lingo stressed that the Cape center and most others are trying to expand their role beyond simply providing meals.

Cecelia "Skeets" Sonderman, who is active at the Cape center, said participants are being encouraged to oppose the legislation and noted that many people are concerned about the university's ability to oversee the programs.

Copeland said there is a lot of misinformation about his bill, most of which he blames on Hoffmeister.

"If that woman is that strong with these people ... she does not need to be there putting lies in their heads. To use elderly people in this way really disturbs me," said Copeland.

He stressed the bill will not diminish the power of the board in any way, and that current law requires there be a governing board with a representative from each county.

"The board would continue just like it is now," said Copeland. "The only right they would lose is the right to hire or fire Glenda Hoffmeister. That is the only change in this bill."

Copeland argued that the university would continue to encourage expanding senior centers to do more than provide meals, as well as offering more programs to do just that.

"Just as important as getting a balanced meal is the camaraderie and visitation these people have," said Copeland. "In some cases, this opportunity for fellowship is more important than the balanced meal."

There is some question about whether Copeland's bill is legal, and those issues are being reviewed now.

Forbis said the Division of Aging has not taken a position on the bill yet and noted that his role is to help determine whether the bill fits within federal law parameters.

"We have not taken a position yet and are attempting to research it," said Forbis. "Under the Older Americans Act there are some guidelines that need to be followed on this and we are trying to research all the issues. We are working with interested parties to provide information so people can make an informed decision."

Copeland, by virtue of his role as the senior member of the Missouri General Assembly, serving his 33rd year, wields considerable influence in the legislature. He has also secured a powerful ally in House Majority Leader Bob Ward, D-Desloge, who is a co-sponsor. This area aging office includes counties in Ward's district.

Forbis said he is well aware of some of the problems in the Southeast area and discussed concerns with 10 state representatives and three state senators at a meeting held in Copeland's office on Jan. 12.

"This spat has drawn a lot of attention and we are trying to work with Rep. Copeland to bring a resolution to it," said Forbis. "Our overriding concern is to see that senior services are delivered properly and that resources are maximized. Our role is as a resource and for technical assistance; if people feel we can use our role as a technical assistant we will be glad to help."

One goal of the Older Americans Act, Forbis said, is to allow people at the local level to make decisions on delivering services. That local input is apparently the source of some of the problems because of the new distribution formula, Forbis noted.

The director explained that Hoffmeister reports to her board and that his division has no authority over area directors unless state and federal guidelines are being violated.

"We review their area plan each year, and if it is in compliance we approve the plan," said Forbis.

Forbis said he was aware that much of the controversy was over the board's decision to enact a formula for distributing nutrition funds. He explained area boards use different methods for distributing the funds, but stressed the law allows for boards to determine what guidelines should be followed for sharing money.

Forbis also pointed out that the Area Agency on Aging boards are involved in much more than simply providing meals as part of their service to seniors.

One nutrition center hit especially hard by the new distribution formula is in Charleston, which is receiving $40,039 in this fiscal year from federal nutrition funds distributed by the area board. But under the new formula, that allocation will be reduced beginning in the next fiscal year July 1 to an eventual level of $26,566 in Fiscal Year 1996. The center is in Copeland's district.

Jesse Farmer said he can't understand why his center is getting such a drastic cut. By comparison, he noted the center in Marble Hill's share will increase from $16,159 to $26,573 over the next three years.

"In the Older Americans Act it clearly says that in allocating funds for centers you should consider the economic ability and status of the county," said Farmer. "We have a lot of poor people in our county and yet they cut us $13,500. They have compared Charleston with Marble Hill, not by who we served, but only by how many meals we served."

Farmer said a local group took over operations of the center from the SEMO AAA office two years ago and overcame a $10,000 operating deficit to make it break even. He added that the Charleston center is serving more meals and getting a higher rate of contributions from seniors than before.

"This whole thing doesn't make sense. There is no way we can operate and serve the same number of meals we are serving now with a $13,500 cut," said Farmer.

Another critic of the plan is Timmie Hunter, even though her center at New Madrid will realize a $4,500 increase to $30,164 over the next three years. She recalled that four years ago her center got cut $13,000, which meant someone else got part of their funds. This time, she realizes that for her center to get more money, someone else has to get less.

"They will have to cut another area to give me my increase," said Hunter. "That pits seniors and the board members against each other. I want a board that tries to work with everyone, rather than trying to pit one center against another. We want to see that senior citizens in this area get the services they need. It doesn't make any difference where they live."

Hunter added, "If something doesn't change, some centers are going to close. Puxico, for example, doesn't serve as many meals as I do, but every meal they serve is just as important as every meal I serve."