Printer Friendly Page
EDITORIAL: VA FAILS TO PROTECT VULNERABLE
VETERANS -- St. Petersburg Times: "Instead of
protecting its vulnerable wards, however, the
VA
ignored the law until a watchdog caught the
mistake."
For the stories that led up to this editorial,
click here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/
nf07/nfAUG07/nf082007-1.htm
For more about VA fiduciaries, use the VA
Watchdog search engine...click here...
http://www.yourvabenefits.org/ses
search.php?q=fiduciary&op=and
Editorial here...
http://www.sptimes.com/
2007/09/05/Opinion/VA_failsto
_protectvul.shtml
Editorial below:
-------------------------
VA fails to protect vulnerable veterans
A Times Editorial
For years, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs allowed guardians to
overcharge for their services to military veterans deemed incompetent to
make their own decisions. Instead of limiting compensation to 5 percent
of the veteran's VA check as Florida law allows, the agency gave
guardians 5 percent of all income. For veterans with Social Security and
other income, the reduction in income could be significant.
There are few individuals more vulnerable than those determined to be
incompetent because of age or disease. Without family involvement, those
veterans rely on the courts to protect their financial assets and
quality of life. There is another layer of oversight: the VA.
Instead of protecting its vulnerable wards, however, the VA ignored the
law until a watchdog caught the mistake. No one knows how it happened,
said Matthew DesRoches, manager of the VA's Fiduciary and Field
Examination unit in St. Petersburg. However, "there's no debating that a
certain percentage of those funds have gone in a direction they
shouldn't have," DesRoches told the St. Petersburg Times.
DesRoches figures the excessive fees cost veterans $24-million over the
past decade. Last year, the VA began following the law again until some
guardians complained that they weren't being adequately paid for their
work. The VA caved, allowing guardians to file a petition with the
courts to take a cut of veterans' Social Security benefits, too, for
"extraordinary" services.
The problem is that those petitions are pretty much rubber-stamped by
the courts. "Technically, I guess we're responsible but the VA has made
it very clear that it's their money," said Lauren Laughlin, chief
probate judge in the Pinellas-Pasco circuit.
That's not very reassuring, though apparently common practice around the
state. Susan Sexton, a probate judge in Hillsborough County,
acknowledged that she "accepts the VA's representation that the
accountings and fees are accurate."
Which brings us back to the VA, a broken agency that has let military
veterans down in so many ways. While the VA is understandably concerned
that trustworthy guardians might quit if they aren't adequately
compensated, this isn't a service that should be motivated by profit.
And while DesRoches, who is currently in a personnel dispute with the VA
himself, might be disgruntled, the VA hasn't questioned the accuracy of
anything he has said.
Someone needs to provide a knowledgeable, unbiased review of
compensation claims by VA guardians. Both the courts and the VA should
step up to their responsibilities, and the Legislature should make sure
that they do.
-------------------------
Larry Scott --
