Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Five elderly Rappahannock residents — all with monthly incomes BELOW S200 per month and all natives of the county who have worked and paid taxes here for most of their lives — may end up as Medicaid patients in nursing homes as a direct result of action taken by the Rappahannock Supervisors last Thursday.
The Supervisors voted to deny $2,000 necessary for the operation of the county Welfare Department’s op* tional Companion Services program, as well as $582 to cover shortages in the administration and assistance category.
At Thursday’s Board meeting, Public Assistance Director Elizabeth Buntin tried to explain her department’s budget problems as the Supervisors sat with ill-disguised impatience. (Part of the shortfall is due to difficulties in transferring budget information from state required Welfare forms to the budget format used by the county and part of the shortfall is due to cuts that the Chairman of the Supervisors couldn’t even remember.)
After first attempting to vote on Mrs. Buntin’s request for S3,400 without hearing any explanation at all, the Supervisors looked at watches, stared at the ceiling, chewed gum and chatted together while she talked.
Supervisors H. B. Wood and E. P. Luke both announced that they were no wiser at the conclusion of Mrs. Buntin’s brief presentation. Luke even stated at the outset that he didn’t expect to learn anything.
With the attitude displayed by Rappahannock’s Board, it’s no wonder that the Welfare budget and programs continue to baffle the Supervisors. Great insight seldom comes from lack of attention.
We think it’s high time that the,,. Supervisors devoted a few extra hours * to gaining a working knowledge of Welfare programs. We’d be less apt to quarrel with their decisions if we felt they were making informed judgments rather than reacting with blind prejudice to the whole Welfare system.
86.0%