Strib here. Brian Lambert in his MinnPost gives a shout-out, here.
Elder care abuse being made a felony is in fact long overdue, and we can imagine the lobbying interests that have forestalled it for a long time.
However, what does the legislation SAY?
Post a pdf so readers can read it. Give a bill number so readers can find it, then read it. This "I ask three people to give a soundbite" form of "journalism" is a shame and a sham.
No, I am not going to track down the bill number and post links. But I am not paid to report actual NEWS, as opposed to a shadow of it. It is not my profession.
Shame on the bunch of them.
The big question in the works, that went unaddressed, does the legislation impose vicarious liability for nursing home owners where abuse happens? Or is it only targeting low-wage night staff, etc.? Without teeth in it to bite the people managing and profiting greatly from elder warehouses, nothing will change but a few token cases being brought, and a bunch of officials saying, "See we care."
Did the lobbyists head off any chance of legislation imposing vicarious, corporate liability for not policing staff conduct at elder warehouses where abuse happens, indeed, may even be prevalent? I can only guess, without effort aimed at finding out the legislation involved, ferreting out a copy, and reading.
What's with these lazy writers/reporters? Write something, anything, throw it over the transom, and retreat to the favored watering hole? What?
___________UPDATE___________
Okay. The Strib reporter quotes Limmer and Gottwalt. Each talked to him because Strib has statewide circulation, they return his calls and willingly give soundbites. It's in their blood to do so, in their schooling as politicians.
Let's see how easy or difficult it is for a citizen to track down what the reporting deemed irrelevant. Namely, what the legislation SAYS. A citizen starting from scratch, but with the reporting Strib published. A published report that something about elder abuse penalties being heightened was enacted into law.
This link, legislators past and present. Leading via a link or two to legislation each "authored" searching that status and not "chief author." Searching for the mentioned pair of politicians, Limmer and Gottwalt. Here, and here.
A little bit of searching and reading next, starting with the Senator's bills, "elderly" no hits, "felony" bingo, this bill. Then the Rep's page, "vulnerable" being the search keyword. This bill.
Searching legislative pages is not rocket science. I read "S.F. No. 1586, 3rd Engrossment - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Mar 19, 2012" [link above], and find the key language, "... caregiver or operator ..." which means prosecutors will have the capability to go after the bosses as well as the workers, chiefs as well as indians. Good. Now, final step, because the Strib reporter while on the phone getting a soundbite did not say, "... and could you email me the text so Strib can post it for readers ...". Send a confirmatory email. Hope for a response. But first, track down an email address. Time is in balance, and for me, seeing the bill text and sniffing the legislative history is informative enough. The next increment of confirmatory evidence is not worth the bother.
Bill history, well, this link, interesting factoid - Dettmer and Kiffmeyer each for show after a done deal had been done, signed on as additional authors. For show. Remember that who/what factoid, in considering character of the two politicians. Last entry, same day the Kiffer acted, "See Senate file in House." Whatever that means.
Atop that page, a link to companion [Senate] bill status; this link. These entries:
03/28/2012_SenateConferees_Limmer Ortman Ingebrigtsen
03/29/2012_HouseConferees_Gottwalt Peppin Hilstrom
That suggests that the final legislation differed little from the initial bills, given the conference committee make-up.
BOTTOM LINE: Probing legislative online records is not hard, but takes time, and could have been avoided, by what, beyond sound and sensible journalism. Don't hold your breath waiting.
Further bottom line, I have been critical of Republicans when feeling criticism is earned. Now it is time to compliment all those, Republicans, who pushed to see that this amendment to existing legislation giving greater comfort and hope to the elderly and family members taking responsibility for elderly relatives, that abuse might be discouraged and curbed, by law. In fact, the elderly warehouse operators face civil liability, and in turn any plaintiff faces an uphill effort to discover truth and to prevail in court.
And if prevailing, my guess would be an industry organization where the real estate is owned by an LLC or regular corporation or a limited partnership; it being leased to an operating thin shell; with management of the shell being farmed to another insulating thinly capitalized LLC layer; which hires an onsite fall-guy and "boss" for things beyond fall-guy status; etc.
The "... caregiver or operator ..." language would never reach to the real owners/profit takers. You control the real estate, you control the lease terms, including ability to contract for a share of earnings or profit of the lessee, etc., and this legislation, while praiseworthy, cuts things off at the boss on site and the actual abuser. Half a loaf being better than none at all. It is a step, the bill sponsors deserve praise, AND encouragement to put teeth into things that would pierce the veil erected between the real capital at play, and the intermediaries.
Hope for that but don't hold your breath waiting.
__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Jumping on Strib again, with spurs on. This thread of sensationalist focus, classic failed journalism.
Caption it "Violated."
Don't you, as an intelligent reader, feel a bit violated?
Sensationalism sells? What other motive to not focus on a system of insulating capital ownership from the liability for something as obscene as abuse of vulnerable elderly persons? For all I know senior paper ownership people may hold nursing care shares in their portfolio. Some articles do flag direct potential conflict of interest, but such notice never reaches levels of the likes or dislikes of media ownership for public law being set up to provide insulation of the real power people from liability, be it in media, be it in elderly warehousing.
It is a general societal set-up convenient to those atop things as much so as the Federal Reserve is convenient to the bankers who run it. Bless Ron Paul for going to the heart of the matter, in that singular instance. After all, that singular focus is precisely why Ron Paul has zero chance of being the Republican presidential candidate.
Romney, on the other hand ...