A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

the meeting, “We left it with them that we would review what they [Careys] had given usand see what we should do, or could do, if anything.” She noted that the joint responseprovided to the Governor’s Office by CQC and OMRDD in reply to the Careys’ writtencomplaint was not discussed at the meeting.Subsequently, the Governor’s Office arranged a meeting between the Careys andCQC Chairman O’Brien and then-OMRDD Commissioner Maul. No one from theGovernor’s staff attended the meeting, which was held on October 20, 2006. CQCChairman O’Brien told the Inspector General’s Office that the “Governor’s Officedirected both of us [OMRDD and CQC] to meet together with them.You know, so theywere asking us to meet and help.” Maul reported to the Inspector General’s Office thathe thought the meeting was really to discuss confidentiality over quality assurancedocuments and the parents’ frustrations with this. He said that both CQC and OMRDDwere dealing with the same confidentiality issues, so “it seemed appropriate” to him todiscuss the issue with both agencies in attendance. Following the meeting, the Careys’attorney sent a letter to Boehlert, with a copy to former OMRDD General CounselKietzman, thanking them for meeting and enclosed a copy of the aforementionedlogbook, which the Careys believed provided crucial evidence that Jonathan was abusedat the Anderson School. As noted above, neither CQC nor OMRDD Central Office hadreviewed the logbook during their investigations.The Former Director of Human Services told the Inspector General’s Office thatfollowing the October 20, 2006, meeting, Michael Carey made an unannounced visit toher office and expressed his dissatisfaction with Maul and O’Brien. She advised, “Iheard from them, [the Careys] that they weren’t real happy with the meeting and they felt224