A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

office, but that “he’d gotten no information or recommendations that any staff relatedprotective measures were in order in this matter…there was no personnel action taken.”When the Inspector General’s Office asked Taconic regional office DirectorMizerak to comment on the Executive Director’s response, Mizerak stated, “It’sbewildering to me…regardless of what any outside entity is saying to me, I control thatentity internally and am responsible for the internal operations.” Mizerak added that justbecause a state agency did not make a recommendation for disciplinary action, “It shouldnot have made a difference…it does not relieve [them]. For a state agency to saysomething to a board of directors makes no difference on the responsibility of that boardto look at that particular thing….It should be the incident itself that is the judge and juryof that.”The Inspector General notes that the Clinical Director responsible for Jonathan’sclinical treatment at the Anderson School is no longer employed by the agency and hassince relocated.Anderson School’s Response to Taconic Regional Office’sRecommendationsOn December 29, 2004, the Anderson School’s Executive Director responded tothe Taconic regional office’s letter of investigative findings and recommendations with apoint-by-point response to each area identified in the letter, addressing each conclusionand recommendation. At this point, the Anderson School had already received a separatereport of regulatory violations from OMRDD Central Office and had responded with aPlan of Corrective Action. Accordingly, some of the responses to the Taconic regionaloffice referred to corrective actions that had already been submitted to the OMRDD109