An unfolding scandal at a state laboratory is forcing the resignation of the top Massachusetts public health official, who said Monday that he bears ultimate responsibility for a lack of oversight that led to mishandling of drug evidence, possibly jeopardizing thousands of criminal cases.
“Ultimately, as commissioner, the buck stops with me,” John Auerbach, the state’s public health chief for 5½ years, said in a statement.
Comments
Let me offer a suggestion of how it works: 1/ The state budget crisis begins and the Governor and legislature make cuts to the Public Health Department. 2/ The DPH cuts are made to the places where people will least notice, including the state's two drug testing labs. 3/Over the next couple of years, people at the DPH labs retire and their positions aren't filled. Maybe a supervisor's position goes and remains vacant. 4/ The amount of drug cases remains constant, or increases, and the number of tests the chemists are told to do increase. 5/ Most of the chemists continue to do their job honestly, but Dookhan decides she will crank it up by making up results. 6/ The Governor proposes closing the WesternMass DPH drug lab, but the legislature saves it at the last minute. Apparently the Governor, or those in charge at DPH have a clue at the caseload, and the caseload backlog (and since Dookhan is doing so many ficticious tests) the backlog looks serious, but manageable. 7/ With the backlog building, the DA's and police departments pressure the lab technicians and chemists to get their work done faster so they can get these cases to trial. They don't go to the Governor and complain, mind you, they pressure the lab and the chemists. 8/ The SJC rules that a drug test can no longer be certified, but rather the chemist that does the test must testify, which means the chemists are sitting in courthouse hallways waiting to testify, not doing testing, and the backlog gets bigger (while Dookhan keeps cranking out astronomical numbers of tests). And so it goes until the bubble bursts. 9/ Bureaucracies being what they are, the guy at the top, who started cutting budgets, gets off the hook, while a group (not including Dookhan) of hardworking, honest chemists are made to take the blame. 10/ Good for Auerbach. It takes an honorable man to fall on his sword.
I agree Auerbach behaved honorably by resigning. Indeed, his resignation statement was very gracious. I do wonder, though, if he is "sacrificial lamb." Did he respond appropriately to the allegations against Dookhan once they were brought to his attention? I would like information on that point.
No, Cogito, he did not. It seems he waited too long before sounding the alarm. "Officials say the problems with Dookhan were not discovered until June 2011. Auerbach apparently was not alerted until six months later, according a timeline released last week by the Patrick administration. District attorneys and State Police were not made aware of the full gravity of the situation until months later."
Good comments so far. So, what can we learn from this? Clearly, you can't manage by picking "good and qualified people", and letting them pick "good and qualified people", and they have at it. Because, maybe one of the "good and qualified persons" will turn out not to be so, or, take a downturn (life can do that). So, management needs to be aware of the details. Now, with a single manger and everyone else workers that can more easily be done. Sure, some will fake it, lie, be flattering to get on your good side, play games, put out incorrect information about themselves (to look better than they are), or about others (to gain favor over them). But, seeing each person face to face frequently makes these kinds of things more detectable. When you have a management hierarchy, there may be little contact up or down the layers, perhaps none. Communications may be poor or nonexistant. Rumors may abound. There was be little job security, if only because one does not know where one stands, really, with the powers that be. So, in a management hierarchy it will be a constant challenge for managers to learn the "real facts", and not just from those below to make them feel good, or think that everything is being well taken care of. That why some wise managers are said to be "detail oriented" and "controlling", and why some practise "management by walking around" (make a special effort to meet with, and learn the concerns of, and observations of, those in the trenches). It is everyone's responsibility to produce at a high level of quality. That means resisting pressure to produce more when quality will suffer. That means a duty to tell management what and how to improve, and, of course, management has the duty to not treat bad news by "shooting the messenger".
In this specific situation it would seem very likely that some knew what was going on, perhaps mostly those in the trenches, but did mangement ensure that a quality process was followed? Obviously not. Did management monitor and validate testing results? Obviously not. Did management respond to assertions that some drug test results could not have been correct (for instance, when an accusee knew he or she had not drugs whatsoever? Did reports from family, spouses, credible friends, social workers, that the drug test result could not have been accurate result in ANY re-testing or validation of results? Obviously not.
This should not have been rocket science. It's not like drug testing is not done in other states or the federal government. Clearly the management hierarchy failed. But, again, I have to ask, what was this operation doing reporting under the Department of Public Health? There needed to be checks and balances (protections against tampering) of the chain of evidence. That is not the kind of environment the DPH usually operates in, I would think.
Finally, even hard working good people who insist on producing quality results can make mistakes. Were is the check a balance to allow a mistake to be recovered from? Where is the ability of the accused to insist on a new (double blind) drug test? It is not acceptable just to say that, well, 95% of the tests are correct and the errors are the price you pay for convicting the guilty. Not acceptable.
Did Governor Patrick know what was going on? Very unlikely. Did Jon Auerbach? Also, very unlikely. But some people must have. And I have no doubt that some of them were on Beacon Hill. Where else in the state does this kind of gross incompetence exist (yes, in addition to the Probation Department)?
You might want to add the "Housing" Departments, and the previous "Auditor" and you can bet right now there are other departments quivering with their Administrators working "at home" or the hiring nepotism, that to date has not been brought to light. This is a Democratic state with state employees who for years have been hired by who they know - not - what they know!
Dr. Judy Bixby ought to be asked to leave because she certainly wouldn't go on her own. They never do . . . because, they all think if they hide long enough it will blow over. Start checking the state office and find all the employees who don't have job descriptions.
Remember the sister of the Massport CEO who was collecting a pay-check at the State House and coming in to work in an empty office with no assigned duties?
In my time working at in HIV/AIDS advocacy in Massachusetts, John Auerbach has been a dedicated and inspirational leader. I appreciate his "buck stops here" response to this incident, but I am saddened that he will no longer hold the position of Commissioner of Public Health. It's easy to demonize government workers and to assume the worst about their motivations and skills, but as someone in the nonprofit sector who has worked closely with people in government -- in this state, at least -- on issues of equality, justice, and health, I can tell you that the people I know are committed to quality in public service. They inspire me with their willingness to commit their personal and professional lives to serving the common good and tackling complex social issues. I wish Mr. Auerbach well in his future endeavors and thank him for his visionary service.
Governor Deval Patrick said in a statement that problems uncovered at the lab are “deeply troubling” but are not representative of Auerbach’s work or of the rest of his department. The Governor does not get it bcause he's the real culprit. Where was Patrick - how closely does he monitor his departments? Evidently he doesn't. Where are the controls and procedures. This is gross negligence at its worst. This is a nuclear disaster concerning criminal cases and a hugh waste of taxpayer funds. More heads need to roll. No excuses for this. Why did Auerbach not disclose this sooner? How couild he not know the humongous impact? Does the term bozos or worse apply to the admiinistration.
One element in this problem that should be included in any analysis is the effect of "Early Retirement" offers that pay experienced administrators to retire early with big bonuses while elevating less qualified staff below them to senior positions. I wonder if there is any good research on this practice. It is certainly possible that the "Early Retirement" offers end up costing the State more money while diminishing the quality of service. The additional costs are at least twofold. In some situations, the person who accepts the offer to depart (reducing the number of overpaid state employees) is then rehired to do the same job as a contract employee, often at a higher rate, but without adding to his/her pension benefits. Then there is the cost to the public of errors such as those at the State Lab. Now comes what seems to be an example of the unqualified joined with the crooked. But for those seeking to understand the larger issues, the "Early Retirement" issue may be part of the problem. Would this be something the State Auditor should look into as well?
You are making a very good observation: Another issue that appears to be repeated in state departments that become a big mess is we see administration choosing to ignore the calls for help from their staff who identify serious issues within their departments.
WHAT IS THE REASON for state administrators to consistently ignore their staff concerns?
Kudos to John Auerbach! As Commissioner of Public Health he was a breath of fresh air as he traversed the state and listened closely to local public health issues. He piloted DPH through numerous fiscal storms and continued to provide a sophisticated statewide public health resource for 351 local health boards. His energetic leadership will be deeply missed by all who work to promote the health of the public.
Louis Fazen, MD, MPH
Southborough Board of Health
Auerbach resigns and immediately gets another job, instead of facing criminal charges. What's wrong with this picture?
There is much, much more to this story than what has been printed to date. The coverage so far is very scanty and full of holes - kind of the same coverage that the Globe provides on Obama's presidency.
Why hasn't Sec. Bixby resigned yet? She was Auerbach's boss and knew about this mess since last February. It is utterly amazing how such gross incompetance can be rewarded. Only in Mass.
What a shame! Commissioner Auerbach is a good and decent man and has done so much for Public Health in Massachusetts during his tenure. He will be missed. MEH
The interesting thread in the Mass. state scandals is the lack of the State's top administration to respond to their employees: It has been reported that DPH. lab employees, Probation & Housing staff made numerous telephone call, sent emails and pleaded for assistance with unbrearable work condition . . . BUT, the Administrators ignored and shut-out the pleads of help coming from staff who identified the poor practices which we often find out are illegal. Administrators not coming to work, falsifing work sheets, and nepotism within departments - always agnored by state administrators - who are often the worst offenders.
This boils down to who is in chharge . . . We know MIA Patrick isn't in charge: How about Dr. Bixby who shouted an abrupt, "no" when asked by a reporter if she was planning to resign. Why should she continue? Who believe her response - ought to buy the Zakim Bridge and set up a toll.
All of these state laboratories should be required to have advisory boards, which include outside experts in their respective fields. An annual review by such a board could have blown the whistle, when it became apparent the the lab was being overwhelmed by drug samples. Otherwise, the staff is tempted to cut corners, or even worse, do something un-ethical in order to cope with such a burden.