A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

When questioned about the Taconic regional office’s conclusions regarding theseallegations, Investigator Searle stated that he did not have enough information to believeit was a routine practice for Jonathan to be left to lie naked on a urine-soaked bed forhours. While Searle agreed that Michael Carey could have found Jonathan as he alleged,he contended that Carey’s observations alone could not substantiate that Jonathanremained in this condition for any extended period of time. Although, what constitutes a“routine practice” and an “extended period of time” is open to interpretation, Taconicregional office had evidence that the Anderson School improperly allowed Jonathan to lienaked on his bed for some period, and on some occasions after urinating on the sheets orthe bed, even though regulations require Anderson School to provide every student with a“safe and sanitary environment.”Taconic Regional Office’s Letter of Findings and Recommendationsto the Anderson SchoolDirector Mizerak of the Taconic regional office notified the Anderson School ofthe findings of the investigation by letter dated December 20, 2004. The letteremphasized the most important findings of the investigation – that the allegation of abuseas defined in regulations was substantiated, and that the Anderson School must takeaction regarding deficiencies in its drafting and implementation of behavior plans. TheInspector General notes that three findings of the investigation were not communicated tothe Anderson School. Two of the omitted findings were those that were unsubstantiated.One could assume that because they were not mentioned, that the Anderson School2828 The letter denotes copies of the correspondence were also sent to OMRDD Division of QualityAssurance and the Anderson School Board of Directors.104