Overtime seems over the top at seniors residence

Maybe it is wrong of us to ask questions about the management of the Prescott-Russell Residence. What do we know about managing a long-term care home? Actually, what do eight mayors know about managing a long-term care home? Maybe it is wrong of us to ask that question, too.
For years now, Clarence-Rockland's mayor has been asking questions about what he calls the exorbitant costs associated with the Prescott-Russell Residence. An internal study recently analyzed how services were being delivered and studied the ratio of employees to residents.
Clarence-Rockland Mayor Richard Lalonde has asked why the Centre d'accueil Roger Séguin in Clarence Creek can manage its 116-bed facility with a $6-million budget while the Prescott-Russell facility cares for 140 residents with a $12-million budget?
The truth is that it is not wrong to ask questions about how the Prescott-Russell Residence is managed - not when taxpayers are paying the bill. The issue is that management must keep its eye on the ball the same as if it was spending its own funds - an issue that always comes to bear when taxpayers' money is on the line.
A quick look at the overtime hours paid for in 2009 reveals that overtime hours have been reduced by more than half for the first 11 pay periods in 2010.
One can only hope that such extreme overtime costs were an aberration in 2009 and not something which took place as a matter of course.
One wonders why, indeed, there are 300, 400 and 500 overtime hours per month and if a comparison of overtime hours has been made with the Clarence Creek facility.
In 2009, overtime hours for a four-week period varied from 900 to 1300 hours for a four-week period. During 2009, there were nearly 14,000 hours in overtime logged for unionized employees. Using a 40-hour work week, that's 350 extra weeks of work by unionized employees, or 4.9 weeks for each of the facility's 71 employees. Was there a staff shortage forcing regular staff to put in overtime hours on a regular basis in 2009? Is there an explanation?
The counties' summary states there are 6,200 hours less (4,400 less overtime hours and 1,800 less regular hours) during the first half of the 2010 (until mid-June), at a savings of  $190,000, due to "reorganizing of the everyday working routines" which, in effect, has elminiated more than one-half of the facility's overtime costs.
But it is not just the dollars that taxpayers are worried about; it is the parents, brothers and sisters who are receiving care at this facility.  What matters the most to everyone is the quality of care we are providing at that facility. Given what appears to be inordinate amounts of overtime, were staff members working at their best if some were working overtime consistently, week after week? Was staff interviewed confidentially so that they could share their concerns, if any, with the quality of care provided by the Prescott-Russell Residence? Were family members of residents consulted so that their concerns were part of this study?
It just seems like common sense to balance work hours so that overtime is not the lion's share of the payroll budget.
Perhaps the bigger question is: does common sense come into play when it comes to the care of the residents?