A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

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