A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...
A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ... A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...
develop sufficient evidence to support criminal charges and the district attorney did notbring charges.The Careys alleged that the district attorney’s decision was the result of undueinfluence from state agencies, particularly CQC and/or OMRDD, or from politicalpressure exerted by the Anderson School. When questioned by the Inspector General’sOffice about outside influence on their investigation, both the State Police investigatorand the assistant district attorney denied receiving political pressure, or pressure from anyother sources, regarding the handling of the investigation. The assistant district attorneytold the Inspector General’s Office that she did not recall having contact withrepresentatives from OMRDD Central Office or CQC at any time during herinvestigation.220
GOVERNOR PATAKI’S OFFICEFollowing the conclusions of the multiple investigations detailed in this report, theCareys complained directly to the Governor’s Office that the various agencies involvedhad mishandled the investigation. Although the Careys did meet with staff from theGovernor’s Office, as well as agency heads of both CQC and OMRDD, they found thegovernor’s response insufficient. The Careys alleged that former Governor Pataki andhis staff were aware that Jonathan had been abused, and perhaps had collaborated with orpressured the investigative agencies to suppress their findings. After attending a meetingin which representatives from both CQC and OMRDD were present, the Careys said thatthey were “shocked to see both CQC and OMRDD’s attorneys [attending the samemeeting]… we felt it was wrong.”The Inspector General’s Office found no evidence that the Governor’s Office inany way pressured CQC, OMRDD, or the Dutchess County District Attorney to minimizefindings of abuse, or to cover up the agencies’ investigative failures. In addition,although the Careys were upset when greeted by representatives from CQC and OMRDDin a meeting with the Governor’s staff, the Inspector General found no impropriety ininviting the agency representatives to the meeting.The Careys’ Complaints to the GovernorSubsequent to the investigations by the Taconic regional office, OMRDD, andCQC, and after the Dutchess County District Attorney’s case was “closed byinvestigation,” the Careys wrote a June 2, 2006 letter to Governor George Patakialleging:221
- Page 174 and 175: that the additional complaints of a
- Page 176 and 177: and aggressive behavior related to
- Page 178 and 179: systemic significance.” In a hear
- Page 180 and 181: • Anderson School did not have co
- Page 182 and 183: Jonathan’s casein-free diet, that
- Page 184 and 185: treatment review to the Careys, the
- Page 186 and 187: Documentation of investigatory acti
- Page 188 and 189: As noted above, Bowser also failed
- Page 190 and 191: did not do a full care and treatmen
- Page 192 and 193: CQC’s progress notes indicate tha
- Page 194 and 195: epeatedly attempted to exaggerate t
- Page 196 and 197: focuses. “We did it at the same t
- Page 198 and 199: ead, “If he wets again - take she
- Page 200 and 201: Although the statement provided to
- Page 202 and 203: The oversight deficiencies were eve
- Page 204 and 205: that OCFS’s rate of indication is
- Page 206 and 207: In the following sections the Inspe
- Page 208 and 209: On at least one previous occasion,
- Page 210 and 211: emotional injury was impossible in
- Page 212 and 213: facility employee and CQC recommend
- Page 214 and 215: Restrictive Statutory LanguageAltho
- Page 216 and 217: ecognizes that the determination of
- Page 218 and 219: CQC policy does not require further
- Page 220 and 221: CQC wrote in its unfounded notifica
- Page 222 and 223: INVESTIGATION BY THE NEW YORK STATE
- Page 226 and 227: There is not proper and safe oversi
- Page 228 and 229: the meeting, “We left it with the
- Page 230 and 231: this important matter. Your corresp
- Page 232 and 233: VI. RECOMMENDATIONSThe Inspector Ge
- Page 234 and 235: ehavior management (14 NYCRR § 633
- Page 236 and 237: child in an institutional setting,
- Page 238 and 239: (a) Records and documents pertainin
- Page 240 and 241: (ii) violent behavior exhibited by
- Page 242 and 243: 8. Such commissioners shall provide
- Page 244 and 245: plan of prevention and remediation
- Page 246 and 247: the commission as to the implementa
- Page 248 and 249: Agency Responses to the Inspector G
- Page 250 and 251: incident is reported to have occurr
- Page 252 and 253: Page 2Joseph FischJune 5, 2008conta
- Page 254 and 255: Recommendations: The Inspector Gene
develop sufficient evidence to support criminal charges and the district attorney did notbring charges.The Careys alleged that the district attorney’s decision was the result <strong>of</strong> undueinfluence from state agencies, particularly CQC and/or OMRDD, or from politicalpressure exerted by the Anderson School. When questioned by the Inspector General’sOffice about outside influence on their investigation, both the <strong>State</strong> Police investigatorand the assistant district attorney denied receiving political pressure, or pressure from anyother sources, regarding the handling <strong>of</strong> the investigation. The assistant district attorneytold the Inspector General’s Office that she did not recall having contact withrepresentatives from OMRDD Central Office or CQC at any time during herinvestigation.220
Change language