A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

details about her sole site visit to the Anderson School and important witness interviews.Regarding interviews, the policy states, “All documentation of interviews must containthe following information: the name of the individual interviewed, the date and type ofinterview (in person or over the phone), the purpose of the interview, and the pertinentinformation obtained.” Bowser did not prepare required documentation of her telephoneinterview with Michael Carey. In addition, documentation of her interview of the nurseat the Anderson School was incomplete.Bowser’s progress notes for the child abuse investigation contained two entries,dated October 29, 2004 and November 10, 2004, respectively, in which she wrote that a“memo to file” was completed to document the details of investigative activities on eachdate. However, Bowser did not prepare either memo. The first entry, dated October 29,2004, reflected the investigator’s initial contact with Michael Carey to discuss theallegations in the child abuse case. In an interview with the Inspector General’s Office,Bowser admitted that she did not complete memos to the file about the conversation andsite visit, but “fully intended” to write them. As a result of these lapses, CQC’s file hasno information about the details of these significant activities.In addition, the documentation of one of Bowser’s four interviews at theAnderson School was incomplete and difficult to interpret, as seen below. Bowserdocumented an interview with the Anderson School nurse on November 10, 2004, inhandwritten notes on a piece of paper, which listed the nurse’s first name only. Duringan interview with the Inspector General’s Office, Bowser had difficulty reading andinterpreting what her own interview notes meant. She indicated that typically her165