Latest News

News Flash: PY Chronicle Express on the Middlesex IRA

 The Penn Yan Chronicle Express  carried (8/1/12) a front page story by Gwen Chamberlain about the Middlesex IRA (Group Home at 6166 South Vine Valley Rd.)  You can find it at http://www.chronicle-express.com/topstories/x866118642/Questions-remain-about-Middlesex-home-s-future-remain  Then on 8/6/12 the Canandaigua Messenger ran the same article, except for the background paragraph and the closing 9 paragraphs.   Thus, the more complete article is the one in the Chronicle Express. The story is 4 pages long in the on-line version; don’t miss the “rest of the story.”

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.  Full Story

OPWDD Farce and Abuse

 

 

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!

Update to “Looking at NYS Care of the Disabled”

 Update to “Looking at NYS Care of the Disabled”

 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.”

“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, 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:  Full Story