The link to day 2 (follow-up) article on the Penn Yan Chronicle Express, authored by Scott Pukos with contributions by Gwen Chamberlain, can be found at: 

http://www.chronicle-express.com/article/20121126/NEWS/121129968/1001/NEWS

Yates County Emergency Services Director Brian Winslow was reported to have said  there was minor damage to the inside and outside of the building and “some charring on the basement floors.”  

Since the group home is owned by NYS, the investigation was done by a state team which determined the cause was “careless disposal of smoking materials.”  He said mulch outside the house caught fire and spread.  It seems quite surprising, less than 2 days later, that the cause is so clear and so quickly reported, as most investigations often seem to take longer. 

One should take into account that it was all about fire concerns that “ignited” the community upset and outrage earlier this year, and is documented in a number of places on this website.  Through FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) SOS had previously learned that in April 2010 there was the first report from NYS Fire Inspection that the fire suppression system at 6166 South Vine Valley Road was inadequate.  Approximately 20 MONTHS later, after NYS put a rehab project out to public bid, the then-occupants were notified of the unsafe conditions and were removed 2 MONTHS after that! 

So, it appears, those occupants were  permitted to remain for nearly 2 years after an unsafe fire suppression system had been discovered, without any notification of families for about 20 months!  And, even though work was to begin on bringing the system to code, there was no provision for those long-term occupants to ever return and, as best we know, they never did.  Rather, 3 to 6 “new” occupants, believed to be more mobile, were moved in, and the only thing the community has been told is that they are not registered sex offenders.  We do not know what else is in their backgrounds, including any fire-related matters, which hopefully has also been examined as part of the current investigation.

The current investigation also does not mention whether it was an occupant of the group home or a member of staff or a visitor who was the one to inappropriately dispose of smoking materials.  Since there is believed to be a regulated distance required from the house for smoking, how did smoking materials get into the mulch which is presumably near the house?  How and by what mechanism did the fire spread to the basement where, we are led to believe, the interior damage occurred?  We know a bit about the basement sprinklers from the Fire Inspection Report we FOIL’ed earlier and which can be found here.

When one looks at those 10 pages of the fire inspection report, one notices that replacement of the basement piping system had been listed as Priority #4.  Was it done?  The report also noted that a plug-in electrical connection for the air compressor was needed to be hard-wired and that the air line had to be run not in a rubber hose as it was found during inspection, but in a hard pipe air line.  Were these corrections made and, if so, were they effective in this basement fire?  Was bringing a K-9 unit to the scene typical of investigation prodedure or was there some other reason?

There are other questions to be raised as well:  Work has been proceeding apace on burying the water tanks.  At the end of this post we show some of the pictures taken by Lynn Lersch of that installation on November 21st. 

• Since, at the time of the fire, the tanks are not fully covered over, it is a reasonable question as to whether or not the fire suppression system was fully functioning, or functioning at all in this latest incident? 
• If the house was filled with smoke, does that indicate the system was not fully functioning? 
• How were occupants able to return the same night if the sprinklers went off?  Wouldn’t everything have been drenched? 
• The Middlesex Tanker Truck was noted filling up at the Vine Valley Beach.  Does that indicate that the new fire suppression system at the group home was NOT fully functioning at the time of the fire? 
• Is it possible that occupants who have been in the building since last July may have been there without full fire suppression capability and that they might have been exposed to the dangers to which prior occupants had been exposed for a prolonged period before they were removed?
• What actions are being taken to prevent such an incident from being repeated?

These questions seem reasonable to ask given the rapidity of the investigation, the dangerous condition which was previously allowed to persist unknown to occupants and their families, and NYS’s less than stellar track record regarding fires in institutional settings (and deaths that have resulted.) Meanwhile, we document recent work being done on the burying of tanks, and we ask whether or not this indicates that occupants may have been several months without adequate fire safety?

      

Three fire companies answered the alarm this morning (Monday November 26th):  Middlesex, Potter and Rushville.  Naples and Crystal Beach were on stand-by.   It was quickly reported that no one was hurt.  The Chronicle Express carried an initial article on-line, which was found at:

http://www.chronicle-express.com/  (Presently it is #3 of the top 5 stories

Initial reports were that there were no occupants other than staff (next day reports are that one “client” was present.)  Initial reports were that the house was “filled” with smoke.  Next day minimized the smoke presence.  Initial reports were that the fire started in the basement.  Next day reports were that it started outside and was caused by improper disposal of smoking materials.

Here are some pictures taken by Lynn Lersch:

Water tanks were still not completely buried at time of fire.

View from a Neighbor

Dear Neighbors,

I am writing this post so that we are neither celebrating nor bemoaning under false pretenses.  What first confused me was the range of response from neighbors to the update information received from Assemblyman Palmesano’s office during the summer.  The neighborly comments ranged from “Congratulations” to “Bummer.”  As I pondered why the remarks should be so scattered, I realized it is because we “just don’t (really) know.”  But first, let’s revisit what occurred, and how Assemblyman Palmesano and Senator O’Mara were especially responsive to our concerns, and then the questions that remain. 

History of the Issue

Our plight was revealed to us, to the public, and to the media in January 2012; just after the accidental discovery that occupants were being pushed out of the IRA Group Home at 6166 South Vine Valley Road, with little notice, without all of the families apparently approving and, in some cases, with occupants’ resistance.  The circumstances for some were heart-wrenching.  They disappeared into new locations, separated from each other and sometimes at real inconvenience to their families.  A cloak of secrecy prevailed.

We formed an action team for SOS (Save Our Surroundings) as we’d done for a number of other community issues, and we not only asked for the return of these people who had been members of our community, but we also expressed our concerns about the clear statement of Finger Lakes Developmental Disabled Services Organization (FLDDSO) Director Michael Feeney that those prior occupants would be replaced by six registered sex offenders of level 2 and level 3.  That level indicates a high risk of repeat behaviors.  The community strongly expressed its concern that, given the family-oriented and open nature of our seasonal resort community, any sex offenders (registered or not) are entirely inappropriate to the safety and well being of our families, residents and guests.

At the first meeting held by SOS, we heard that the Town of Middlesexattorney would be asked to look at the situation.  Then Town Supervisor Multer initially made a strong statement of opposition to what was being done at the Middlesex IRA Group Home.  But the desire for a public hearing to give the community’s real and credible input to NYS never materialized.  There seemed to be little follow-up to the desire of residents for action to hold NYS accountable and there was a lack of reporting to the community about what the Town of Middlesex was or was not doing on our behalf.  Inquiries were made wherever possible in “the NYS system” but met with closed doors, delays, and inaction.  There seemed to be no accountability for NYS simply to abide by its own rulebook in reference to community concerns. 

Help from our Senator and Assemblyman

Mr. O’Mara and Mr. Palmesano promptly heard our concerns and met with some of our members. Mr. Palmesano also attended our meeting in Middlesex to give a status report and to hear our issues.  They both made our case to Commissioner Courtney Burke of the NYS Office of People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD), who oversees the FLDDSO.  We submitted petitions to Governor Cuomo and to Commissioner Burke, hearing nothing from the former and only receiving an unresponsive letter from the latter.  We came to understand that those who had been virtually forcibly removed from our community were not going to be returned to us in spite of our many petitions and requests.  Some had adjusted to their new environment with varying degrees of accommodation, and others were rumored to have adjustment problems kept secret by the FLDDSO, refusing even to allow visits by those who were very interested in their welfare.  Such resistance was manifested to us by hang-up phone calls and in a complex volunteer enlistment process that dragged out for a frustratingly long period of time, punctuated by deafening silence. 

Mr. O’Mara and Mr. Palmesano reported that they were keeping up their efforts to address safety of our community but we really had little understanding of what was going on in NYS’s own process.  From Mr. Alesi, a local resident retiring as a NYS Senator, came a warning to be patient and remain passive in pushing for answers or we might hinder the process set in motion by our legislators.  Obviously, for many of us, this was a difficult and confusing time of a hard decision — to act or “just to allow the process to work.” 

Thus we had little alternative than to trust, and fortunately Senator O’Mara and Assemblyman Palmesano did not desert us.  Finally, just as the new occupants of the group home were moving in, we were informed by Mr. Palmesano that the occupants would not be registered sex offenders.  We believe at this time there are 3 people residing at what is now called the “Vine Valley IRA” rather than “Middlesex IRA.”  As with many of our unanswered questions, the name change had never been explained.  Some speculated that the “sex” in Middlesex had to be removed because they are sex offenders, albeit ‘unregistered’.  Such name changes will likely cause more difficulty in getting information under Freedom of Information Laws (FOIL.)  Are there unregistered sex offenders on-site?  We just don’t know anything about the backgrounds of the people housed there. 

Unanswered Questions

The unanswered questions are many: 

• Why did the organization responsible for a house that failed a Fire Inspection in April 2010 not tell its occupants and their families until November 2011 of a condition so dangerous that it required their hurried removal and no return?  Were they deliberately put in danger for an extended period?  Or had there really been no danger which required prior occupants to move? 
• Why were occupants apparently moved before their families even agreed?  Why did Mr. Feeney say there was only $10,000 available for the renovations when he was pressed to bring back the people who had resided there?  The fire inspectors’ estimate was $30,000 – $33,000 and then the NYS Dormitory Authority awarded an average contract of about $250,000 per house for each of 4 houses within the FLDDSO network which were in apparently similar circumstances.  Why? 
• Why was a bid request made public and awards made public before families were even told of the disruption impending?  Why was the community never given a public hearing with a chance to respond before plans were cast in stone? 
• Why do we not know, to this day, the nature of those who moved into the rehabbed facility?  While we have been informed by Mr. Palmesano and Mr. O’Mara that the new occupants are not registered sex offenders, we have no way of knowing if they are sex offenders who are not registered, or if they have other criminal behaviors which could still represent a community risk.  Did we end up with a better or worse situation than what Mr. Feeney boldly proclaimed last February?  Do our representatives or Town officials know anything about the people housed there?  We just don’t know.
• We note that work has only recently started on burying the apparently needed tanks.  If there really were a dangerous condition, have the new occupants been in danger since they moved in?   Or is this big burial project not needed?  Also, we call attention to the fact that although much was made of evacuation times in forcing the removal of prior occupants, the consistent tight parking of vans or trucks on both sides of the evacuation ramp continue to raise questions as to whether or not the safety of occupants is uppermost in priority.

We do believe that Mr. Palmesano and Mr. O’Mara worked diligently on our behalf, and for that we  are very grateful, whether they had succeeded fully, partially or not at all.  We didn’t even get an acknowledgement of our letters and petitions from Mr. Cuomo.  Nevertheless, our Senator and Assemblyman went to bat for us, and that is more than we got from most others.  For their concern, and actions on our behalf, and for pursuing the matter over an extended period of time with diligence and persistence, they deserve our appreciation.  Not many representatives would stick out their necks for such a small community.

But the reason for our receiving comments from neighbors which ranged from “Congratulations!” to “Bummer” is because people don’t actually know all the results.  We don’t know the relative level of community risk of the IRA home’s occupants to the community.  Clearly there are restrictions on information under HIPPA healthcare and privacy laws; but, we don’t need names and dates and specifics of medical or behavioral or criminal personal data.  We do still look for answers to what our current situation is and we need to investigate further to be able to assess prevailing community health and safety risk, and to decide if protective plans are needed.. 

So for now, it’s a coin toss as to whether congratulations or condolences are in order.  Wisdom would imply we take further steps to gather more knowledge.  Not because we think there might be community risk, but because we just don’t know that there isn’t.  We just don’t know.

Just some thoughts by a Vine Valley resident (post yours!),

Diane Harris

Dawn Kane, who was designated as the coordinator between Senator O’Mara and Assemblyman Palmesano and the Town of Middlesex and the concerned residents of Middlesex, has sent the following email to those most involved in the efforts regarding the Group Home at 6166 South Vine Valley Road:

“This is what I spoke to Phil Palmesano about:

There is additional information which Chamberlain has found through FOIL’ing (Freedom of Information Law) but she also makes a significant point about lack of information.  As we digested her story, we found a few points which need further clarification, and the following 7 points will attempt to do so.  While we offer both the link and our interpretation of discrepancies, nevertheless we should realize the public service being done by Chamberlain and both newspapers in continuing to keep this story before the public, not because of any effort on the part of SOS to do so, but rather due to continued reporting and follow-up, for which we are grateful.  We hope what we offer below will also be valuable.  The most KEY POINTS are shown in red:

 Here are the highpoints that we learned from Gwen Chamberlain’s article “Questions remain about Middlesex home’s future,” which we either did not know previously, or which may contradict what we had learned earlier.  Her FOIL work and ours do generally dovetail into a broader picture, adding to our information.  Any contradictions only show the complexity of the issue and hint at the story behind the story. (Chamberlain’s words are in black bold italic).  Aso,  if anyone plans to FOIL, please note that although I requested information on the “IRA at 6166 South Vine Valley Road, Middlesex, NY 14507.” the actual cover letter I received on the FOIL materials said: “6166 Pine Valley Road, Middlesex.”  It might be useful to include both addresses to catch anything mis-filed.  Comments on the newspaper articles follow:

1. “At least three state agenies have been involved” – we knew about the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and its local operation called Finger Lakes Developmental Disabilities Service Office (FLDDSO).  We also knew about the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY).  Chamberlain’s article, however, brings some focus to a third state agency, the NYS Office of Fire Prevention and Control. 
2. “Courtney Burke has declared that no one who is listed on the state’s sex offender registry will move into a now vacant group home in Middlesex.”  This is a matter of NYS “word-smithing.” 1) our understanding of the threat of sex offenders being housed in Middlesex  is NOT  based on “speculation” as Chamberlain mentions, but rather on the remarks of Michael Feeney and his staff that 4-6 sex level 2 or 3 offenders were expected to come to the Middlesex IRA.  ii) Although our petitions were sent to Commissioner Burke, her return correspondence to SOS did not make this point.  For reference, read Commissioner Burke’s letter to SOS here, at  http://sos-news.com/?page_id=2256   iii) one must be careful about putting too much dependence on the meaning of such a promise that no one on the state’s sex offender registry will move into the group home as level 1 sex offenders are not even on the registry.   Further, it is NOT even necessary to meet the technical definition of being on the sex offender REGISTRY in order to be a sex offender.  Some offenders have entered the legal process which would otherwise require such  registration if they were convicted, but because they agree to treatment for life or for a prolonged period they are not on the Registry (because there was no official “conviction”) but are nevertheless sex offenders, just not registered sex offenders.  This is not to say that such people will or will not be coming to Middlesex (it is one of the questions we keep asking), but only to point out the limitation of the REGISTRY, and of what limited comfort it is to promise new occupants will NOT be on the Registry!   However, we also note in Chamberlain’s article the mention of a mixed population,  which is undefined, but if it includes sex offenders mixed with more vulnerable disabled it can still pose dangers to the community as well as to other residents of the IRA.  As Chamberlain points out, “questions….remain.”  This is indeed one of the areas of significant questions and concerns.
3. “Documents…appear to point to an effort to covert the Middlesex house to a use that meets different Life Safety Code regulations.”  We will be trying to obtain the same information under Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) to understand what kind of changes are permitted and what it bodes for our environment. 
4. Lynn Lersch is quoted in the article as having visited four of the nine prior occupants and that those had some apparent satisfaction with where they are now.  Chamberlain reports:  “They looked happy.”  However, Lynn was prevented from visiting the other five, so no meaningful conclusion can be drawn about whether or not they are satisfied or deeply dissatisfied, or somewhere in between.  Lynn Lersch has said she was told first hand from protected sources that two of the remaining four residents had great difficulty transitioning from their home at Middlesex.  Chamberlain does not imply either conclusion, but it is worth pointing out that 4 satisfied people do not equate to 9.  Moreover, even if the people who were so abruptly removed eventually do okay in the facilities to which they are moved, it does not negate the high-handed manner in which they were removed, raising even  questions of abuse.  They did not have a choice, and were apparently kept in facilities of questionable safety for a prolonged period of time. 
5. “O’Mara and Palmesano met with Burke in February, but both still felt the community’s concerns were not being addressed.”  We are pleased that our Senator and Assemblyman continue to support our community.  Chamberlain points out that “Members of the Middlesex community asked Middlesex town authorities to get involved with decisions about the house’s future use.”  Some in the community do not feel this has happened, at least not visibly and/or adequately, after the first and only statement of opposition read aloud at the second community meeting. 

6. Regarding safety records, SOS took a different approach from Chamberlain, and there seem to be  two different answers, raising even more questions.   Chamberlain states:  “A review of the most recent documents from OPWDD inspections of the house and program reveal no negative issues with the structure’s safety capacity until late 2011.”  She also says that “between 2001 and 2009 no issues were noted.”   Chamberlain also mentions that OPWDD’s “surveyors … documented deficiencies in Oct. 26, 2011.”  What happened to the time period between 2009 and Oct. 26, 2011?  Our data from FOIL’ing show a report dated April 27, 2010 (yes, 2010!!!) prepared for the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York by IBC Engineering P.C. called Project # 09221: “Finger Lakes New York OMRDD (now called OPWDD) Sprinkler System Inspection Report Hostel #1200, 6166 S. Vine Valley Road Middlesex, NY (DASNY #295240), which clearly presents a deficiency report.  Rather than repeat the findings, we scan and reproduce the report below.  This report attests that New York State knew of the deficiencies about 22 months before the occupants of the Middlesex IRA were removed.  Chamberlain sates: “It wasn’t until Dec. 1, 2011 when issues began to appear in OPWDD documents.”  As we’ve pointed out in the previous post, New York State went out for bid on the renovations on September 21, 2011, had a pre-bid meeting on September 27, 2011, a bid date of October 20, 2011, and apparently awarded the contract on December 7, 2011.  The construction permit was issued Dec. 13, 2011.  So, is it at all credible that bidding was in the public domain yet OPWDD has nothing in its files, or can possibly imply it knew nothing about what was going on?   Where are those records? 

7. The Chronicle Express article does not get into the 6166 costs; however, those in attendance at the meeting with Michael Feeney do remember his saying that there was only $10,000 available for the needed work at 6166 South Vine Valley Rd.  In the scanned/reproduced pages below from the IBC report, the reader will note that engineering company estimated $30,000 – $33,000.  However, the award for four “hostels” which included 6166, all believed to be about the same size and comparable to each other, was $946, 281, or an average of $236,570 per hostel.  Why?

Gwen Chamberlain asks additional, hard-hitting questions, which deserved an answer.  But the OPWDD and FLDDSO continued the close-lipped policy, especially about schedules and the profile of prospective occupants.  In the meantime, we have a dramatic example in the differences between FOIL’ing two different agencies and the results that we get.  There is more yet to FOIL, but at this point we let the documents speak for themselves.  The foregoing was the basis of a presentation to the community on Tuesday, August 7th.

To view the IBC Engineering Report most relevant pages, click on “Full Story” and then click each picture to enlarge.  

Title Page

Table of Contents

    

Exec Summary p2 of 2

 

 

A Message from Commissioner Burke:

“It takes just one person speaking out against abuse and neglect to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities live their lives with the dignity and safety every person deserves. I am asking you to please join OPWDD’s statewide “I Spoke Out” campaign, and speak up for someone who may be unable — or afraid — to speak up for themselves. Just one person can make all the difference. OPWDD has zero tolerance for abuse. Each of us has an obligation to speak out when we witness or suspect abuse or neglect.”  [Commissioner Burke]

Burke set forth the logo “I spoke out”  to seemingly incentivize people to speak out against abuse.  She even had the gall to assert that one person can make a difference.  But an entire community can not make a difference?  Apparently so.  For the folks of Middlesex and the victims of the IRA debacle, the additional text is more appropriate: “And Cumo and Burke didn’t listen.”  So print it out, cut it out, and wear it proudly to our meetings, and to media events.

Then write to Cuomo and to Burke with the “I spoke out” logo above at the top of your letter.  And pointout that you are merely reporting an abuse:  by Commissioner Burke of the people displaced from their long term home so that sex offenders and worse can be inserted into a community that is also being abused by such governmental arrogance and insensitivity!

 This is an update to the prior SOS News Flash article introducing Danny Hakim, award-winning writer for the NY Times.  His recent (May 4th article) describes NYS’s response to the enormous criticism which has been leveled at it and documented in Mr. Hakim’s articles, criticism even from the federal government. The collection of references to Hakim’s articles posted  here  earlier can be found on this Blog under “Looking at NYS Care of the Disabled.”

This  article is also by  Hakim, and describes an attempt at some intervention and advocacy for, among others, those housed in NYS facilities under Commissioner Burke’s oversight.  One has to wonder why is it seems to always be just one more new gov’t agency that will solve all the ills?  Yet, who can deny that serious reform is needed? 

Burke’s programs and attitude show that there are at least 3 sides:  those in her care and their families, the communities from whom facilities are either foisted, withdrawn or both (like Middlesex), and the fat cats with teeth bared in Albany.  To date we have seen no responsiveness from Burke on either of the first two constituencies. The May 4th article is excerpted and highlighted below and can be found at:    https://omrmail/owa/redir.aspx?C=8643fca1270d48b2bd67fee7a6940935&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2012%2f05%2f07%2fnyregion%2fgovernor-to-propose-new-agency-to-fight-abuse-of-disabled.html%3f_r%3d1%26ref%3dnyregion%26pagewanted%3dall

Please read the entire article for more detail.

Cuomo Seeking New Agency to Police Care of Disabled

ALBANY — “…. Cuomo, seeking to strengthen the state’s chronically weak response to abuse of disabled people who live in publicly financed homes, plans …  to propose creating an agency dedicated to investigating problems with the care of nearly one million vulnerable New Yorkers.”

Gov. Cuomo

“A new law enforcement and oversight agency would monitor those in state or private care who have developmental disabilities” ….The agency would employ a special prosecutor and would be granted subpoena power and authority to convene grand juries… The administration is also proposing tougher laws to punish those “who abuse people with developmental or other cognitive disabilities …”  (1)

… “the state had been transferring abusive employees from group home to group home, abuse cases were rarely referred to the police, and employees were hired with criminal records”.  (2)

… the agency would take over many administrative investigations currently performed by six state agencies including the OPWDD (3)

The new agency would have hundreds of employees and be “paid for in part with money taken from the budgets of the six existing agencies”.  (4)

…the nonprofit sector housing those vulnerable would be subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). … The new state agency would provide legal staff to help the nonprofits respond … and “redact documents as needed”.  (5)

… an independent nonprofit organization would serve as an “outside advocate” … “could bring litigation against the state.” (6)

The federal Department of Health and Human Services … sharply criticized NY’s “care of developmentally disabled and mentally ill people, …has pushed the state to move in such a direction…” (7)

“… the agency would administer criminal background checks of those applying for employment at state agencies or nonprofit providers, consolidating what has been a porous and error-filled process” … “maintain a register of abusive employees at all state and private facilities to prevent workers fired by one provider from being hired by another.” (8)

Deciphering state-speak?

(1)    Care of those being displaced from theMonroeDevelopmentalCenteris being forced on the nonprofits, but with financial incentive.  Thus, after they pick who they want, little communities like Middlesex will be left with the worst populations as neighbors.

(2)    What exactly is the difference between transferring abusive employees from house to house, and transferring an unsuspecting population from one abuser to another?

(3)    Good….get the fox out of the henhouse.

(4)    In other words, the taxpayer is of course paying, again.

(5)    Or as necessary to defeat the purpose of FOIL, it sometimes seems.

(6)    Can we hope that potential plaintiffs might include the 12,000 developmentally disabled who are already waiting for beds and their families?  And can anyone really be an “outside advocate” when NYS is employing both?

(7)    Please consider writing to Washington, and the Dept. of Health and Human Services, to complain about the abuse of previous Middlesex occupants of the IRA and their families in the way they were transferred, and also to complain about the abuse of our community, so HHS can add those complaints to their own list.

(8)    Most shocking to think this wasn’t already happening and needs a new law! 

 PRIOR POST:

Danny Hakim, NY Times

Danny Hakim, award-winning writer for the NY Times, wrote a timely article published on March 22, 2012. Here is a link  to the article,  excerpted below.   In 2011, Mr. Hakim and a Times colleague, Russ Buettner, collaborated on a series of articles called “Abused and Used” that focused on abuse, neglect and deadly mistakes in New York’s system of caring for developmentally disabled people.  In April 2012, the series was named a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. The Pulitzer board said the series “revealed rapes, beatings and more than 1,200 unexplained deaths over the past decade of developmentally disabled people in NYS group homes.”

A leak of the 2010 report points to giant shortcomings in the system to care for the disabled, including OPWDD (Office of People With Developmental Disabilities) which Courtney Burke now heads up.  She was appointed in March, 2011 but since the 2010 report hasn’t been issued, it seems unlikely that we will soon be seeing any evidence that she’s made any improvement. 

It is in this environment, of secrecy and unreleased documentation, that decisions about closing the Monroe Developmental Center, privatizing care with less experienced care-givers, sending people such as sex offenders willy nilly into communities which don’t want them, not coordinating with towns or being willing to hold hearings, that the Middlesex IRA and our community finds itself.  Can the following build any feelings of confidence?

 “State Faults Care for the Disabled”

“Nearly 300,000 disabled and mentally ill New Yorkers face a “needless risk of harm” because of conflicting regulations, a lack of oversight and even disagreements over what constitutes abuse, according to a draft state report obtained by The New York Times.

In 2010, the number of abuse accusations at large institutions overseen by the State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities outnumbered the beds in those facilities…

…Problems were found at all six state agencies that provide residential service to children and adults with an array of disabilities, mental illnesses or other issues that qualify them to receive specialized care by the state.

According to the report, a regulatory maze has complicated and in some cases constrained the state’s response to claims of abuse.   At one agency, the police are summoned if “there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed,” while another agency does so only if a potential felony has been committed.   A third agency turns to law enforcement only if a local district attorney has “indicated a prior interest,” ….

Claims of firing people, or improving administration, or making up new rules  (such as criminal background checks of staff members who work with the vulnerable) don’t mean much unless the statistics are supplied.  And are these the “extra staff” Michael Feeney referred to at Emergency Meeting #2 or not?  Should we be worried about the staff as well as the potential occupants?

“…we are currently working on a transformational reform plan based on the report that will be announced soon,” said Richard Bamberger, the governor’s communications director.

,,, Michael Carey, an advocate for the developmentally disabled whose son with autism died in state care in 2007, said he was concerned that the governor was waiting to address the issue until after legislative budget negotiations, which could make it more difficult to find money for new programs.  “It’s gross negligence that that report has not come out, and it’s beyond frustrating,” Mr. Carey said, adding, “The reforms to date are baby steps towards monster problems.”

The Times last year identified numerous problems with the state’s care for the developmentally disabled: only 5 percent of abuse accusations were forwarded to law enforcement, and employees who physically or sexually abused the disabled were often transferred among group homes instead of being fired.  Ten percent of deaths of the developmentally disabled in state care were listed… from unknown causes, suggesting widespread failures in efforts to determine why people die in state care.

… executives at some nonprofit organizations hired by the state to care for the disabled have been earning seven-figure annual compensation packages and taking a wide range of Medicaid-financed perks for themselves and their friends and families.

… six state agencies … oversee residential programs for vulnerable populations, at an annual cost of $17.9 billion.

If you use the link above to read the whole story, be sure also to digest some of the readers’ comments at the end.  Very enlightening. 

Here are some of the headlines of stories under this topic previously written by Mr. Hakim:

In Treating Disabled, Potent Drugs and Few Rules

Tens of thousands of powerful pills created to treat serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia are given to developmentally disabled people in the care of New York State every day….. psychotropic medications alter the brain’s chemistry, are often dispensed sloppily, without rigorous or regular review…. Jan 11, 2012

U.S. Report Criticizes NY on Monitoring Care of Developmentally Disabled

 The federal government sharply criticized NY’s oversight of the developmentally disabled, saying the state agency charged with oversight lacks independence from the governor’s office, failed to account for how it is spending public money and has broken several requirements of federal law.  December 28, 2011

At State-Run Homes, Abuse and Impunity

Decades afterNew York emptied its warehouses for the disabled, the current network of small group homes operates with scant oversight and few consequences for abusive employees. 

Cuomo to Tighten Requirements for Workers in Homes for Disabled

The first steps are unlikely to mollify advocates and aggrieved parents, long frustrated by widespread problems of brutality and neglect.

N.Y. Still Pursues Case Against Whistle-Blower

Over the years, Jeffrey Monsour has filed many Freedom of Information requests examining the practices of the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities, and he sees the case being brought against him as its latest attempt at retribution. 

A Disabled Boy’s Death, and a System in Disarray

A seemingly inexplicable willingness by supervisors to tolerate abuse seems to pervade institutions that house residents with developmental disabilities, a New York Times investigation shows. 

New York Moves to Crack Down on Abuse of Disabled

The Cuomo administration will establish guidelines for telling law enforcement about crimes against the developmentally disabled.

Progress Claimed in Reporting Abuse at Group Homes

Testimony  before the State Assembly underscored the challenges to improving the system for caring for the developmentally disabled.  November 5, 2011

$5 Million Payment to End Suits Over Death of 13-Year-Old Boy in State Care

Testimony about the death of Jonathan Carey, 13, who was killed in 2007, highlighted widespread lapses in care at the state’s disability agency.  August 2, 2011

For Disabled Care Complaints, Vow of Anonymity Was False

New York State has falsely assured its employees who care for the developmentally disabled that they could confidentially report concerns about the treatment of those in their care.  October 16, 2011

Additional Articles here: 

And NYS officials want MORE power?  There is something very wrong with that picture!

The prior evening he had received a letter from Commissioner Courtney Burke, who answered inquiries he made on our behalf, although “stonewalled” might be a better word than “answered.”  The Burke to Palmesano response  was a Pollyanna laundry list of how happy all the people are who moved away and were relocated with strangers and are hardly settled-in.  Many, she claimed, are now closer to home too.  That all remains to be seen.  Families or Guardians of the residents who were moved are asked to confirm how their loved ones are really doing, and whatever information they are willing to supply about when and how notice was given, if they thought the move was permanent, and any promises they may have been made.  We cannot find out the truth without your help, because of the HIPPA laws.

Tracy Dunton and  Skip Twitchell, who had heroically pursued these matters on behalf of her sister, informed us that although at the end of the prior meeting Director Michael Feeney “promised” her  that a room in Yates County was going to be available for her sister, and that she’d have another 30 days before having to move, almost immediately was then told it wasn’t true and that she had to move immediately, according to the summary given at the meeting by Tracy.  Fearful that her sister would have no room available, she could not prevent the move.  It is yet one more example, in the opinion of a number of residents, of NYS and FLDDSO bullying the most vulnerable in our midst.  More of “Putting People Last?”

Ron Papa Makes a Crucial Point

Attendees at the meeting frequently commented on not trusting NYS or FLDDSO or NYS-OPWDD individuals or organizations who seem to have their own agenda and are pushing it through, regardless of the impact on the disabled, their families, or on our community.  Comments were made again about the secrecy, and opinion was expressed that Commissioner Burke’s promise to Assemblyman Palmesano to review the matters was empty, as her email came very quickly….too quickly some believe for her to have done any substantive investigation at all. 

Other proposals were made, which will be explored in sub-committees among those willing to work on the issues.  Assemblyman Palmesano was commended for his prompt response, his seriously taking the state to task, and his willingness to continue to pursue these matters with us.  He is going to research several more points as well.  The frustrations expressed were toward the monolith of NYS policy, not toward our legislators’ good faith efforts.  We also hope to receive a copy of Commissioner Burke’s email to Assemblyman Palmesano, after the names of specific individuals are removed, to meet confidentiality needs.  To clarify, we don’t object to “confidentiality,” which is necessary to protect the privacy of individuals; rather, we object to “secrecy,” doing things in a hidden way to prevent the population at large from exercising its rights, to facilitate bullying, and to “ram it down our throats” in the words of one attendee.

Pending the efforts of sub-committees regarding strategy, a three-pronged action seems to be emerging:  1) assess how the displaced occupants of 6166 South Vine Valley Rd. are faring, and attitudes toward wanting to return or not; 2) network with other areas for the purpose of filling the house with the developmentally disabled, not sex offenders or predators, as an alternative if all occupants don’t want to return, and 3) in spite of NYS denying that it has not made any decision, actively oppose and fight changing the use of the facility and the dangers of what we believe is from the targeted population.  If you are able to work on one of these three sub-projects, please contact us at info@sos-news.com

Also handed out at the meeting is a Letter to Commissioner Burke which will be mailed Monday, February 20th with all the petitions.  View it under “Correspondence” tab: Burke to Palmesano.  Please keep the petitions coming.  Also, a sample letter for residents to send to Commissioner Burke, Governor Cuomo and others was passed out, and is posted on the Sample Letters tab.  This is just a sample letter to get folks started in their writing; please add whatever you want to change or you feel is appropriate; but, please do write.  As Assemblyman Palmesano said “It can’t hurt,” and we would add that it would be a terrible shame to not have written and to have lost without even trying. 

Next meeting: date not set yet.  Volunteers are needed to distribute and collect petitions, write letters, contact residents who are away and may not be receiving emails, and to work on various sub-committee strategies.