A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

this important matter. Your correspondence has been forwarded on to the appropriatemembers of our staff.” Upon receipt of this letter, Michael Carey stated that hepersonally went to the State Capitol to plead for a meeting with the governor, but wasdenied. “And then after Jonathan died February 15 th , we finally go in to see -- I met withthe governor’s staff probably three weeks after the fact, and then we got a meeting withthe governor a couple of weeks later,” he stated. Former Governor Spitzer’s officereferred the matter to the Inspector General on March 12, 2007, requesting aninvestigation into the Careys’ allegations.Inspector General’s Analysis of the Response by Governor Pataki’sOfficeThe Inspector General found that, in response to the complaint from the Careys,which incorporated a number of complaints against both CQC and OMRDD, thegovernor requested a joint response from the two agencies. Following the receipt of thejoint response from the agencies, the Governor’s Office organized two meetings thatincluded representative from both CQC and OMRDD. The joint response and themeetings, in themselves, do not indicate any improper behavior on the part of theGovernor’s Office. As the Careys’ complaints related to both agencies, the Governor’sOffice has the discretion to request responses and invite representatives from the agenciesto discuss the Careys’ concerns. The Governor’s Director of Human Services explainedthat she did not find it unusual for both OMRDD and CQC to have been present at thatmeeting based on the nature of the complaint the Careys had filed regarding the care andtreatment of Jonathan while at the Anderson School and the roles of OMRDD and CQCregarding such. Similarly, former OMRDD Executive Deputy Commissioner DeSanto226