Archive

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Families tell legislators that work opportunity bill for the developmentally disabled is about choice

A few days ago (on June 12), Barbara Govoni and Patty Garrity took their case to Beacon Hill for passage of H. 4541, a bill that would ensure that developmentally disabled individuals get work opportunities in their community-based day programs.

Also testifying at the June 12 public hearing of the Legislature’s Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities Committee in support of the bill was Robin Frechette, a legislative aide to Representative Brian Ashe, who had filed the bill on Govoni’s behalf.

As we noted earlier this month, time is running out in the current legislative session to pass this critically important bill. And many legislators appear to have misconceptions about the legislation.

Govoni, Garrity, and Frechette all pointed out that H. 4541 is needed to fill a gap in work activities for the developmentally disabled — a gap that opened up after all sheltered workshops were closed in Massachusetts in 2016.

We too submitted testimony, and I spoke on behalf of COFAR to the four legislators present on the panel — Senator Joan Lovely, Senate co-chair of the committee; Representative Kay Khan, House co-chair; and Representatives Carolyn Dykema and Shaunna O’Connell.

Supporters of H. 4541

Supporters of H. 4541 on June 12 following the Children and Families Committee hearing. They are (from left) Patty Garrity, Robin Frechette, Danny Morin, Barb Govoni, and John Govoni.

The bill is Govoni’s vision and was filed after she had spent months advocating for it.

“I would not be here had there been a realistic decision to incorporate a community-based support program (when the sheltered workshops were closed),” Govoni testified. That program, she said, should have included a work activity option at day program facilities across the state.

Frechette testified that not all developmentally disabled persons are able to work successfully in mainstream work environments. Garrity pointed out that her brother, Mark, is one of those DDS clients who is “not able to compete in a competitive market for a job.”

Garrity said that when Mark participated in a sheltered workshop at his same day program location in Braintree prior to the workshop’s closure, “the work would come in and Mark would get a paycheck at the end of the week that provided him with self-esteem.” That is no longer the case, and not only is Mark bored with his current day program activities, he tends to let everyone he meets know he misses the work he used to do.

It is not clear yet whether the Children and Family Committee co-chairs are in support of H. 4541. An aide to Representative Khan said on Friday (June 15) that Khan and Lovely were “having a discussion” on all bills still in the committee as formal business in the current legislative session winds down, and would make a decision this week on which bills to report favorably.

Misconceptions persist about the workshop closures

During the June 12 committee hearing, comments from some legislators implied that they may not fully understand the intent of H. 4541 or the problems that have occurred as a result of the workshop closures.

Senator Lovely said that a developmentally disabled client of a DDS provider in her district worked as an intern for her and went on to work successfully at a CVS pharmacy. Lovely added, though, in addressing Govoni, that, “We do recognize that CVS may not be a good match for you,” meaning Govoni’s son, Danny Morin.

We want the legislators to know that the promises made that people would be able to move easily from the sheltered workshops and into mainstream employment have not materialized.

barb-g-testifies-for-h-45411.jpg

Barbara Govoni testifies during June 12 public hearing on H. 4541

As we reported in 2016, the number of participants in sheltered workshops dropped by 1,166 between August 2014 and August 2015 — a 61 percent reduction — while the workshops were being closed. In that same period, the number of developmentally disabled persons in corporate-run, community-based day programs increased by 1,116, almost the same number as the number of participants who had left the workshops.

Yet, the number of developmentally disabled people in “integrated employment” settings increased from August 2014 to 2015 by only 337, or about 6 percent.  Placing people in integrated or mainstream employment was supposed to be the reason for closing the sheltered workshops!

Studies in other states have found similar outcomes from sheltered workshop closures.

We also want the members of the Children and Families Committee to understand that while H. 4541 is intended to address that unkept promise of access to mainstream employment, the bill isn’t intended to bring the actual workshops back.

DDS providers pushed for the workshop closures

We further want the legislators to know that while the closures of the sheltered workshops in Massachusetts was a policy of the administrations of then Governor Deval Patrick and later of current Governor Charlie Baker, the closures were supported by corporate providers to the Department of Developmental Services as well. The providers stood to gain financially from the closures to the extent that the closures would mean more funding for the provider-run day programs.

We have  pointed out that organizations representing corporate DDS providers in Massachusetts co-authored at least two reports with DDS in the period leading up to and during the closures of the sheltered workshops in the state. The reports both called for the closures of the workshops and for more funding for day programs.

It seemed to us at the time, and still does, to be inappropriate for DDS to have allowed the providers to co-author a document that called for a public policy intended to ensure more funding for those same providers, particularly given that the policy was opposed by individuals and families who were benefiting from the workshops.

Misconceptions about the federal role in closing the workshops

As the then Patrick administration began closing the workshops in Massachusetts, the administration argued that the closures were mandated by the federal government and that Massachusetts had no choice but to comply with the federal order.

But the federal government was actually telling the states at the time that sheltered workshops were permissible for those who wanted to remain in them; the problem, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, was that some states were “over-relying” on the workshops. It also appears that unlike Massachusetts, many, if not most other states did not view the federal government as having issued a clear directive to close their workshops.

In remarks in late 2016, in fact, then DDS Commissioner Elin Howe stated that Massachusetts was only the fourth state in the country to have closed all of its sheltered workshops.

In comments made during the June 12 hearing of the Children and Families Committee, some of the legislators appeared to have the impression that the federal government had required the closure of all sheltered workshops around the country, and that the workshops no longer existed.

However, sheltered workshops are continuing to operate in other states, and there have been successful legislative efforts in some of those states to preserve the workshops as an option for those who desire them.

In Missouri, families mounted a successful effort last year to protect the workshops in that state, and that movement has reportedly spread to other states.  State legislators in New Jersey similarly passed legislation last year to preserve the state’s sheltered workshops.

As things currently stand, the federal government has not ordered sheltered workshops to close and has extended a deadline for removing Medicaid funding for them until 2022.

We hope the state Legislature will recognize that H. 4541 is in line with federal guidelines because it doesn’t prevent anyone who wishes to do so from seeking employment in the mainstream workforce. The bill simply ensures that work opportunities exist for those who don’t choose to participate in mainstream employment.

In the end, H. 4541 is about choice.

 

 

Advertisements

Mother wages uphill battle for work opportunity bill for her developmentally disabled son

June 6, 2018 3 comments

[Update: The Legislature’s Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities Committee has scheduled a public hearing at the Statehouse on Tuesday, June 12, at 1 p.m. on H. 4541]

Barbara Govoni personally lobbied for months before a bill was finally filed in the state Legislature that would ensure that developmentally disabled individuals who are unable to function in mainstream work environments are provided with employment opportunities within their existing community-based day programs.

Govoni would now love to see H. 4541 move forward in the current legislative session. She believes it would ensure that meaningful activities are provided for her son, Danny Morin, and for many others like him.

But even though the bill has close to two dozen co-sponsors, time does not appear to be on Govoni’s side.

With the current two-year legislative session drawing to an end, a staff aide to Representative Brian Ashe, who filed the bill on Govoni’s behalf, acknowledged that the chances for passage of H. 4541 this year are slim. The bill was referred last month to the Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities Committee.

Last September, we reported on Govoni’s efforts to reintroduce steady piecework activities in day programs for those who desire it. Danny had enjoyed the work he did in his Agawam-based sheltered workshop before that program and all other remaining workshop programs in the state were eliminated in 2016. After that, Danny was offered only day program activities in the same location, most of which he couldn’t relate to.

In recent months, Danny has been working once a week for about two hours at a time at an assembly and packaging company in Holyoke. It is a pale substitute for the steady work he enjoyed when he participated in the sheltered workshop.

barb-govoni-and-dan-morin2.jpg

Barbara Govoni and her son Danny Morin

“People are suffering with not having enough work,” Govoni said. “This bill would have a monumental impact on the lives of these people if it were to pass.”

In addition to people such as Danny, there are many Department of Developmental Services clients who are either unable to function in mainstream work environments or are unable to work at a rate that those mainstream employers require.

H. 4541 specifies that the work program would be optional for day program participants and would allow them “an opportunity to work in a supportive employment environment which enhances productivity, safety and self-esteem.”

The work would be offered through the DDS-funded day programs for up to four hours a day. All participating individuals would receive a sub-minimum wage permissible under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Children and Families Committee had 30 days to act on the bill after it was referred there on May 21. But even if the committee were to act favorably on it within that time frame, the bill would probably still have to go through at least two additional committees including the House Ways and Means Committee before reaching the House and Senate floors.  After July 31, formal business in the current two-year legislative session comes to an end.

A staff aide to Representative Kay Khan, House chair of the Children and Families Committee, said the committee will schedule a public hearing on the bill this month. But the aide said there is only “a very low chance” that bill will reach the floor of the House prior to the July 31 deadline.

We strongly support this legislation and hope it doesn’t lose the momentum it has gained so far if, as seems likely, it has to be reintroduced when the new legislative session begins next January.

We understand the Baker administration and previous Patrick administration objected to sheltered workshops as  “segregated” settings because they offered work activities solely to groups of developmentally disabled persons.

What should make H. 4541 acceptable to people with those objections is that the employment program would be voluntary. In that sense, the bill mirrors  language that was inserted in the state budget in Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016 that stated that sheltered workshops would remain open for those who wanted to remain in them. That language, however, did not prevent the Baker administration from closing all remaining sheltered workshops in 2016.

The voluntary nature of the employment program under H. 4541 may be why the bill has garnered co-sponsors from across the state. We hope more legislators begin to realize that the closures of the sheltered workshops has caused problems for many DDS clients, and that this bill is a good first step in addressing those problems.

Even though the bill’s chances are slim in the current session, we encourage people to call the Children and Families Committee to urge them to act quickly on the measure. You can reach the office of Rep. Khan, House chair, at (617) 722-2011, and Senator Joan Lovely, Senate chair, at (617) 722-1410.

State Public Records supervisor reverses self, upholds secrecy of DPPC reports

May 23, 2018 2 comments

In a reversal of her earlier decision, the state’s Public Records Supervisor has issued a final determination that the state Disabled Persons Protection Commission can keep investigative reports about the abuse or neglect of any “identified individual” secret.

We were surprised and disappointed by the final decision by Public Records Supervisor Rebecca Murray, which was issued on April 20. It may become nearly impossible for the public to learn the outcomes of many, if not most, investigations of abuse and neglect of developmentally disabled persons as a result.

On May 16, Murray declined my request that she reconsider and restore her original March 22 order to the DPPC. That original determination had appeared to recognize at least some DPPC reports as public records.

In her final decision on April 20, Murray focused on one exemption to the Public Records Law [known as “Exemption (a)”], which appears to us to give blanket authority for the enactment of statutes and regulations that can potentially exempt all records of particular state agencies from disclosure.

Murray’s interpretation of Exemption (a), in our view, could establish a precedent under which blanket secrecy laws and regulations could be enacted on behalf of agencies throughout the state government. That would be the case even though the Public Records Law supposedly establishes a presumption that all governmental records are public and that exceptions to that rule must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Murray’s two contradictory decisions stem from an appeal I filed in February based on my request to the DPPC for investigative records regarding the death of Karen McGowen, a client of the Department of Developmental Services.  Ms. McGowen was killed in an apparent accident last November. She reportedly fell from a wheelchair lift while getting out of a van at her DDS-funded day program in Pittsfield.

The DPPC, which is charged with investigating or supervising investigations of abuse and neglect of disabled adults under the age of 60, confirmed it was investigating Karen McGowen’s death.

DPPC HQ

DPPC headquarters in Braintree (Google Maps image)

On February 13, the DPPC denied my request for the records in the case, stating that the investigation was incomplete. But in denying the records, the DPPC’s assistant general counsel stated that even when the investigation was completed, any records the Commission had on the case would be exempt from public disclosure and that I would need permission from Ms. McGowen’s legal representative to obtain them.

The problem, as I stated, is that even if we were able to find Ms McGowen’s legal guardian, that individual, if he or she exists, would have to agree to authorize the release of the records in the case to us. That effectively nullifies these as public records.

In denying the records, the DPPC cited Exemption (a) as well as other exemptions to the Public Records Law, arguing that because I had sought records “regarding an identified individual and (because) redaction of personal data would be insufficient to protect existing privacy interests, … the responsive materials in their entirety cannot be disclosed.”

In her prior decision on March 22, Murray had determined that none of the exemptions cited by the DPPC applied in the case because the DPPC had provided no specifics to explain why it would not be possible to protect the various parties’ privacy interests through the redaction of names and other identifying material.

Murray had gone on to state that the DPPC “bears the burden to prove with specificity any exemption (to the Public Records Law) that applies.”

However, in her April 20 decision, Murray no longer noted the DPPC’s lack of specificity. She concluded, in  discussing Exemption (a), that the DPPC’s enabling statutes and regulations:

 …provide that the records of the Commission are not public records … Additionally, the regulations provide that the Executive Director, General Counsel and/or designee has the discretion to determine if records subject to disclosure should not be disclosed due to the specific nature of the request (my emphasis).

It seems to us that to the extent that Exemption (a) — or at least Murray’s interpretation of it — permits the enactment of statutes and regulations that classify all records of an agency as non-public, Exemption (a) creates a major loophole that circumvents the intent of the Public Records Law.

The absurd logic underlying the privacy argument in this case is that the supposed violation of Karen McGowen’s privacy in releasing the documents is somehow worse than revealing the actions that caused her death.

In this case, in fact, the “identified individual,” Karen McGowen, is deceased. Murray herself stated in a 2017 determination that privacy interests, other than in medical information, are “extinguished at death.” We are not seeking medical information in this case.

Moreover, we have to wonder why Murray didn’t seek to review the materials we are requesting to determine whether redactions to protect privacy interests would be possible.

As I stated before,  it’s disappointing that to the extent the DPPC does get involved in crucial investigations of abuse and neglect in the state’s human services system, it has taken the position that the products of its work must be kept secret.

Despite what the DPPC apparently thinks, the public has a strong interest in knowing the outcomes of the Commission’s investigations. If the Commission finds, for instance, that the wheelchair lift that Ms. McGowen used was defective, it would be important that the public know this.

If the DPPC finds that the staff of a particular facility failed to provide proper care to an individual because they lacked proper training, the public should know that too. As things currently stand, these are the types of things the public may never find out.

DDS appears to look the other way as provider illegally bans guardian from daughter’s group home

May 14, 2018 21 comments

Despite a broadly worded state regulation that gives residents of state-funded facilities the right to be visited, a human services provider agency is upholding a directive barring a guardian of a developmentally disabled woman from entering her group home.

Yet, the Department of Developmental Services does not appear to be pushing the provider to rescind its months-long ban.  Instead, the Department appears to have decided to ignore the fact that the ban exists.

The August directive from the provider, Toward Independent Living and Learning, Inc. (TILL), stated in writing that the guardian, Susan Fernstrom, “will not go into the residence” even to bring food or other items to her daughter, Holly. “Anything you need to deliver to the residence must be given to the staff or the manager and they will see that it is properly put away,” the directive stated.

In their most recent exchange about the situation, Susan emailed Jennifer Killeen, DDS area director, on May 4, stating that the ban was restricting her ability to serve as Holly’s guardian. In an email in response to Susan on May 8, however, Killeen did not address that concern or mention the ban.

Instead, Killeen’s email described the TILL directive as simply “calling for coordination and notice of any visits to the home…” As such, Killeen said, the directive was “reasonable and compliant with DDS regulations concerning visitation.” This was exactly the same language used by DDS Regional Director Kelly Lawless in an email to Susan in April regarding the TILL directive.

Killeen had also advised Susan in an email on May 2 to establish “regular discussions with TILL and the DDS Service Coordinator about your concerns.”  But when Susan raised the issue of the ban in a phone call with Dafna Krouk-Gordon, TILL’s president, two days later, she said Krouk-Gordon flatly refused to rescind the ban.

It is abundantly clear that the TILL directive goes further than calling for coordination and notice of visits. It bans Susan outright from entering the home.

We have previously noted that we have heard of no evidence that Susan ever acted in a disruptive way either inside the home or in any other location. It appears that the only reason for TILL’s prohibition against her from entering the home and for a subsequent notice of eviction of Holly is that Susan pointed out deficiencies in the staff’s compliance with Holly’s medically necessary dietary restrictions and with conditions in the residence on a number of occasions.

DDS regulations, which give DDS clients the right to receive visitors, specifically state that family members and guardians shall be permitted private visits “to the maximum extent possible.”

The regulations add that clients and their family members and guardians must be allowed to meet “under circumstances that are conducive to friendships and relationships,” and that the location must be suitable “to confer on a confidential basis.”

Enforcement of the ban raises further questions

Enforcement of the ban on entering the home appears to be up to the discretion of the staff and to Krouk-Gordon. Susan said she was allowed three visits in Holly’s room in April, two of which were used to help Holly pack for an upcoming trip and to try on clothes.

Susan noted that not only was she not allowed in the kitchen in the three instances in which she was admitted to the house since August, she wasn’t even allowed in the living room with Holly. Her visits were confined to Holly’s bedroom. She said she has not been allowed for nearly a year into the basement where Holly keeps seasonal clothes and personal items.

In most instances since last August, Susan has been made to wait outside the house for Holly, even in the dead of winter. She said she has even been made to stand outside the house while signing paperwork involving Holly’s care.

As we have reported, in addition to having an intellectual disability, Holly has a serious genetic metabolic condition called galactosemia, which requires a diet free of galactose, a form of sugar found in milk and cheese. That diet must be strictly adhered to in order to avoid complications including brain and kidney damage. Holly must also eat multiple servings of vegetables because she does not metabolize all the nutrients in her food.

Susan has in the past raised concerns that the group home staff was not following her instructions either in buying food for Holly or preparing and serving it to her. Her complaints appear to have led directly to the issuance of the directive banning her from the residence.

Susan said that in the phone call she had with Krouk-Gordon on May 4, Krouk-Gordon declined to discuss Susan’s concerns about Holly’s diet or other issues involving care and conditions in the group home.

Because Susan has only been provided sporadic access to the house since last August, she has been unable since then to determine what Holly is being fed. That has impeded her ability to function effectively as Holly’s guardian and to assure her health and wellbeing.

Krouk-Gordon has not returned phone calls or emails from COFAR for comment on the case.

Susan said said Holly’s dietician at Children’s Hospital had come to the house when Holly moved in, in June 2015, to help management and staff and to also explain why Holly’s diet was so important.

“During Fran’s (the dietician’s) presentation, she stressed to management and staff they should defer to me on Holly’s diet because I knew as much as she did about a galactose-free diet,” Susan wrote to us in an email. She added that she was involved in helping recruit subjects for a first-ever study on adults with galactosemia.

Susan said that to the extent the TILL directive has specified coordination of communication with TILL, the agency hasn’t followed the directive. For instance, Susan said she has not been able to get in contact with the group home’s current nutritionist.

“I’m very worried about what’s going in that house with her food,” Susan said. She said that while Holly is supposed to eat a lot of vegetables, she is concerned, based on Holly’s own reports to her, that she is not getting the food she needs.

During her May 4 phone call with Krouk-Gordon, Susan said Krouk-Gordon also wouldn’t say whether she would rescind the eviction notice for Holly, which she had also issued in apparent violation of DDS regulations. After only a short discussion, Susan said, Krouk-Gordon ended the phone conversation, saying, “‘Your time is up.'”

On April 24, DDS Commissioner Jane Ryder responded to an April 17 email I sent her regarding the TILL ban on entering the residence and a number of Susan’s other concerns. Ryder stated that DDS cannot comment on the specific matters I raised because that would violate client confidentiality. Ryder stated only that, “DDS has been working with the provider and families involved to address any issues and will continue to do so.”

On May 7, I emailed Ryder back, asking whether she could comment generally as to whether providers are permitted to ban guardians from access to residential facilities when there has been no demonstrated disruption of the facilities by those guardians. To date, Ryder has not responded to my query.

Tens of millions of dollars in government funding

As a recipient of state funding, TILL is obligated to comply with state law and DDS regulations.

TILL received $38.6 million in “government grants (contributions)” in Fiscal Year 2017, according to the organization’s IRS 990 form, although the form doesn’t specify which agency or agencies the funding came from. We are assuming the funding is primarily from DDS.

According to the IRS form, Krouk-Gordon received $321,772 in compensation as president of TILL in Fiscal 2017.  Kevin Stock, TILL vice president, received $229,988 in total compensation.

I’ve checked back to Fiscal 2015 so far, and TILL does not appear to have filed the standard online Uniform Financial Report with the state that contractors are supposed to file. That report is supposed to show how much the agencies get in state funding from identified agencies.

I called the state Operational Services Division earlier this month to ask why TILL’s UFR reports don’t appear to contain required information. I haven’t received a call back.

TILL’s financial and business practices have in the past been the subject of controversy.  A January 2002 report by the state auditor stated that TILL, under Krouk-Gordon’s management, had spent more than $4 million in state funds in “unallowable, undocumented, and questionable business activities.” We reported on this in The COFAR Voice in 2005.

In an email to Jennifer Killeen on May 9, which was copied to Commissioner Ryder, I urged DDS “to fully acknowledge the facts and the truth” about TILL’s treatment of Susan and Holly. In particular, I urged DDS to acknowledge the existence of the ban on Susan from entering the group home.

This is an important test for DDS, in our view. If the agency isn’t even willing to acknowledge the clear facts of the cases before it, it cannot effectively carry out its mission of supervising the care of the most vulnerable among us.

Channel 5 uncovers tip of the DDS system iceberg

May 4, 2018 2 comments

A Channel 5 investigative report earlier this week disclosed that group homes and other providers of services to the developmentally disabled are often not informed about substantiated abuse allegations against individuals they hire as caregivers.

The TV news report also made the important point that abusers of disabled persons in Massachusetts are rarely prosecuted for those crimes.

In no way are we criticizing Channel 5 in saying they have uncovered the tip of an iceberg with their findings. Their report revealed more to the public about the Department of Developmental Services system than the rest of the media in the state and most state and legislative investigative authorities have revealed in recent years.

At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that abuse and neglect are only the most outward and visible signs of an overall breakdown in DDS’s largely privatized system.

It is a system that is not adequately monitored by DDS, that underpays and provides inadequate training to direct-care staff, and that overpays a padded layer of corporate provider executives. Moreover, when family members and guardians attempt to question the care and conditions in the system, they are ignored, or worse, intimidated and subjected to retaliation by both the providers and DDS.

One of those family members who has suffered apparent retaliation is Susan Fernstrom, who we just wrote about last week. Susan was banned by her daughter’s provider agency from entering her daughter’s group home after she raised concerns about poor care and conditions in the residence. The provider then sought to evict Susan’s daughter from the home.

In cases in which family members do not have guardianship rights, those persons can find themselves restricted from all contact with their loved ones, apparently indefinitely.

In the past several months, we have tried to make the Legislature’s Children, Families, and Person’s with Disabilities Committee aware of these interrelated issues. In January, the Committee did hold a brief hearing on DDS; but, as we have noted, family members and other members of the public were not allowed to speak before the panel.

We continue to hope that the Children and Families Committee will show that it is taking this situation seriously.  If the Committee were serious, it would get behind legislative reforms.

One of the first pieces of legislation that we think needs to be enacted is the guardian rights bill (H. 887), which has been stuck in the Judiciary Committee, effectively since 1999. The bill would require that probate judges presume that parents of developmentally disabled individuals are the proper guardians for them. That bill, if it ever passed, would give basic rights to family members that are not currently extended to them.

We think that proposed legislation to impose fines on providers that provide substandard care or that otherwise fail to adequately respond to instances of abuse could follow from that.

The Channel 5 report discussed the need for an additional piece of legislation (S. 2213), which would establish a registry containing the names of individuals who have had abuse or neglect allegations substantiated against them by the Disabled Persons Protection Commission or other agencies that investigate those issues.

As Channel 5 noted, persons applying for caregiver positions in the DDS system currently must undergo criminal background checks, which disclose previous convictions for abuse and other crimes in Massachusetts and other states.

However, even when abuse against persons with developmental disabilities is substantiated by agencies such as the DPPC, it does not usually result in criminal charges. As a result, those findings of substantiated abuse are not made known to providers or other agencies seeking to hire caregivers. That’s why an abuse registry is needed in Massachusetts.

We would note that such a registry needs to be designed to take into account the larger issue of the dysfunctionality of the system. Most if not all abuse occurs because upper management in both provider agencies and DDS itself doesn’t care enough about the problem to ensure that staff are properly trained and supervised.

Until executives within provider agencies are held accountable for the abuse that occurs by low-level agency employees, those low-level employees will simply continue to be replaced by other equally bad personnel.

One other thing to keep in mind is that even though the DPPC does have a backlog of abuse investigations, as the Channel 5 report pointed out, the Commission refers the vast majority of its complaints to DDS for investigation. This creates a conflict of interest for DDS, which is also supposed to be overseeing the same providers that it is now investigating.

We think the DPPC needs to be given the resources necessary to allow it to serve as a truly comprehensive and independent investigatory agency.  The DPPC also needs to make its investigative process more transparent and, in that vein, make its reports available to the public.

The Channel 5 report this week demonstrates that at least one media outlet in the state recognizes that there is a serious problem with the oversight of care for a large segment of the disabled population in Massachusetts. We hope the report serves to wake up the rest of the media, the Legislature, and the Baker administration to this problem.

Advocating for her daughter’s care got a woman banned from DDS-funded group home; and her daughter got an eviction notice

April 24, 2018 9 comments

When Susan Fernstrom got her developmentally disabled daughter, Holly Harrison, into a group home in Danvers in June of 2015, she thought it would lessen some of the growing burden on her of caring for members of her family.

Susan’s husband, Patrick, was terminally ill with a brain tumor and needed his own intensive care. He died in December of that year.

Holly, who is now 39, had been born with Galactosemia, a rare genetic disorder, that causes intellectual disability and other complications, including coordination issues, and requires a controlled diet.

The group home is run by Toward Independent Living and Learning, Inc. (TILL), a corporate, nonprofit provider funded by the Department of Developmental Services. The residence was brand new and beautiful, and centrally located in the downtown in Danvers, near the mall.

But almost immediately, Susan became concerned when she realized there were no meal plans for any of the five women in the house. Two of the women are diabetics, and, like Holly, require special diets.

Susan and Patrick Fernstrom

Susan Fernstrom and her late husband, Patrick.  They arranged for their daughter, Holly’s, admission to the TILL-operated group home six months before Patrick died.

Beyond that, Holly wasn’t getting fed regularly. She was not fed or given water for up to nine hours at a time, Susan said. On many occasions, the staff forgot to give her lunch, particularly on weekends. In one instance, Holly was given a sandwich by the staff to eat that contained uncooked bacon.

The home wasn’t kept clean. There was clutter left outside Holly’s bedroom door and mold on the bathroom shower curtain and on the floor of the shower. “The bathroom was often filthy,” Susan said. “The staff would clean it when they knew investigators were coming, mostly due to complaints from me,” she said. Raw meat was often left in the sink.

In addition to the mold and clutter, it took months to hook up a shower curtain rod to the bathroom wall.

There was only one working light in the basement even though that was an area set aside for storage of extra clothing for Holly, which Susan frequently had to retrieve. Also, there was furniture and a large carpet roll placed in way of the clothing bins.

But when Susan raised these issues, she never anticipated the push-back she would receive, not only from the staff, but from Dafna Krouk-Gordon, the president of TILL. As of last August, Susan found herself banned under a written directive from TILL from entering the group home and therefore from being able to check directly on the care there.

We believe that ban violates DDS regulations, which give DDS clients the right to receive visitors, and which specifically state that family members and guardians shall be permitted private visits “to the maximum extent possible.”

The regulations add that clients and their family members and guardians must be allowed to meet “under circumstances that are conducive to friendships and relationships,” and that the location must be suitable “to confer on a confidential basis.”

However, under the ban imposed by TILL, Susan has been required to wait outside the house to meet with Holly, even in the dead of winter. She said the situation has made her feel “humiliated and like a criminal.”

Then, on March 20, Krouk-Gordon notified Susan in writing that her daughter would have to move out of the residence as of the end of April. The written notice did not accuse Susan or Holly of causing any disruption in the operation of the residence, but rather stated that Holly must move because the group home could not accommodate her need for assistance during nighttime fire drills.

Susan believes the real reason for the eviction notice was that she had raised issues of inadequate care and poor conditions in the residence.

We believe the eviction notice violates additional DDS regulations, which require a 45-day notice and the guardian’s consent to any move.

“I feel sick all the time and can’t sleep or eat,” Susan said.

I attempted to contact Krouk-Gordon both by telephone and by email. My email message, which I had sent on April 16 to her email address listed on the TILL website, was blocked. I then resent my query to other officials at TILL, but to date, no one has responded to it.

Throughout the ordeal, Susan said she has felt a lack of support from DDS officials whom she believes have allied themselves with Krouk-Gordon. She contends that rather than addressing her concerns, Kelly Lawless, DDS northeast regional director, has appeared to support Krouk-Gordon’s intention of evicting Holly from the residence.

Susan said that Holly has a strong emotional attachment to the other women in the group home, and that she does not feel, as her guardian, that it would be in Holly’s best interest to be moved to a place she is not familiar with and in which many of the same problems might reappear. What she would like to see happen is strong pressure put on TILL by DDS to fix the problems in Holly’s current residence.

We have heard of no evidence that Susan ever acted in a disruptive way either inside the home or in any other location. It appears that the only reason for TILL’s prohibition against her from entering the home and subsequent notice of eviction of Holly is that Susan has pointed out deficiencies in the care and conditions in the residence on a number of occasions.

Susan said she has both met and had a conference call with DDS Commissioner Jane Ryder, and that Ryder seemed sympathetic, particularly to her concern about being banned from the residence and Holly’s potential eviction. She said Ryder assured her early this month that she would issue a directive to Lawless “to work on these issues,” and that the directive would address the ban on entering the residence.

However, Susan said that in a subsequent phone conversation she had with Lawless, Lawless told her that she wanted only to discuss moving Holly out of the residence, and referred several times to Susan’s relationship with TILL management and staff as “broken.”

Susan said that at one point in that conversation, Lawless stated that an alternative residence for Holly had been located in Gloucester. Susan told her that as Holly’s guardian, she wanted to live close to her and that the Gloucester location was more than an hour away.

But Susan said Lawless not only appeared unsympathetic to her concern, she admonished her for voicing it, saying she was “‘appalled that this is all about you, Susan, not wanting to drive.'” Susan responded that it was not about her, but about her need, as Holly’s guardian, to be near Holly.

Last Tuesday (April 17), I emailed Ryder, asking if she would respond to those and other concerns and questions we have raised about this case. To date, I’ve received no response from Ryder.

On Wednesday, April 18, the day after my email to Ryder, Susan received an email from Lawless in which Lawless stated that in response to concerns Susan had raised about the TILL residence, Lawless and other DDS officials have directed DDS’s human rights officer “to make an unannounced visits (sic) to the house, and asked the Area Office to increase their visits to the house.”

Lawless said she and other DDS officials have “also asked our Office of Quality Management to conduct a review of the home to determine whether conditions in the home meet DDS quality standards.”

In a response to Lawless, Susan said she was pleased to hear about the planned visits and review by DDS. But she told Lawless she remained concerned that many of the issues she has raised, such as the staff’s failures to feed Holly adequately and regularly provide water to her, may not be observed by the inspectors.

In her email, Lawless appeared to walk back Krouk-Gordon’s eviction notice, at least partially. Her email stated that, “as I previously reported, DDS staff have worked with TILL and there is no plan to discontinue Holly’s services with TILL as of April 30, 2018.”

But Krouk-Gordon has not rescinded the March 20 eviction notice to Susan, and Lawless’s email made no mention of that notice. Lawless’s message also appeared to imply that DDS is continuing to push for Holly’s ultimate removal from the home. Lawless stated that, “I encourage you to work with DDS and TILL on coming to an agreement as to how appropriate services can be provided to Holly going forward, including exploring other options available, such as the Gloucester residence.”

Lawless’s email also appeared to suggest that even further restrictions on Susan’s access to Holly in the TILL residence might be imposed. While acknowledging that Susan has “concerns” regarding “the current guidelines in place around your visitation with Holly,” Lawless stated that she had reviewed the TILL directive banning Susan from the residence and had determined that the directive was “reasonable and compliant with DDS regulations concerning visitation.”

Lawless’s email, however, did not mention that the directive from TILL prohibits Susan from entering the home (see details of the directive below). Lawless described the directive as simply requiring “coordination and notice of any visits to the home and that the scheduled visits are to be at a mutually agreeable time.”

Lawless then indicated that she would seek to enact restrictions on visitation times for Susan. “I would like to suggest establishing a set time each week for the visits,” Lawless stated. “Having a set time, or times, each week will minimize the challenges around scheduling and allow for consistent visits with Holly.  I’m happy to coordinate with TILL a standing schedule if you would send me your preferred days and times.”

Lawless’s email did not state that Susan would be allowed inside the residence during those visits.

Visitation ban appears to violate DDS regulations

The written directive banning Susan from entering Holly’s residence was presented to Susan following a meeting she had with the group home staff last August 11. The directive was headed “Ash Street (group home) Family Communication Guidelines.”

While labeled “guidelines,” the document’s provisions were presented as binding policy on Susan.  Among the statements in the directive were the following:

  • You (Susan) will not go into the residence to bring items to Holly’s bedroom or go into the kitchen. Anything you need to deliver to the residence must be given to the staff or the manager and they will see that it is properly put away.
  • We ask that you not go inside the home unless there is a planned event or meeting that has already been established with the manager ahead of time.
  • Susan and the Residence Manager will communicate by telephone once per week at a time that is mutually agreed upon.
  • It is essential that you speak to the manager rather than speaking to staff directly. Only the manager can make house plans and follow through with scheduling needs.
  • All supervision of Holly’s diet will be handled by the residence LPN and Nutritionist. All changes to the menu and/or grocery list will be made through the nutritionist and LPN for the house. (The LPN never has had anything to do with Holly’s diet, Susan said.)
  • We ask that you only communicate with the nutritionist by email given that the time is limited and she receives multiple calls daily from the house as needed.

Since receiving the directive, Susan said she has been banned even from waiting for Holly in the foyer of the house, and must stand outside, even in the winter. In addition, the weekly phone calls with the house manager have been canceled, she said. And she has been told not to contact the nutritionist at all.

As Holly’s guardian, it is Susan’s legal duty to oversee her care and advocate in her best interest. Blocking her from having contact with her daughter inside her residence impedes her ability to carry out her legal duties as guardian.

Also, contrary to Lawless’s contention, we believe the ban on entering the group home violates DDS regulations governing the rights of DDS clients, which include “the right to be visited and to visit others under circumstances that are conducive to friendships and relationships…”

The DDS regulations further state that a DDS client’s guardian or family members “shall be permitted to visit at all times, unless the individual objects, and shall be provided with a suitable place to confer on a confidential basis…” (My emphasis)

The same DDS regulations state that:

Reasonable restrictions may be placed on the time and place of the visit in order to protect the welfare of the individual or the privacy of other individuals and to avoid serious disruptions in the normal functioning of the provider.  Arrangements shall be made for private visitation to the maximum extent possible. (my emphasis)

Susan said she thinks the real reason for the draconian restrictions placed on her is that TILL’s management is “trying to keep me from knowing anything about what is going on in the home.”

Susan said she was told that her presence in the residence was making residents uncomfortable, but Susan doesn’t believe that is the case. “That’s a lie,” she said. “The other girls (in the house) gave me hugs and asked how I am. I would make them omelets, and I showed staff how to make fresh fish. Of course, I’m not allowed to do any of that anymore.”

Susan added that she personally purchased needed cooking equipment for the entire house, and brought the residents and staff fresh corn on the cob, strawberries and apples from a farm over the summer.

In other cases that we have investigated, we have found that the statement that a family member was making residents uncomfortable was often used as an excuse for restricting their access to persons living in provider residences.

Susan said that the directive banning her from the residence appeared to follow directly from checks she had been doing under an agreement with the staff of the cabinets and the refrigerator in the kitchen “to make sure the food they were buying for Holly was dairy free.” After doing the checks “for about three weeks and informing the staff that there was dairy in multiple food products, including food bought specifically for Holly,”  Susan said she received the directive denying her access to the kitchen and entire house.

With regard to the requirement that she communicate directly with the house manager, Susan said she usually attempted to phone or email the house manager, particularly in instances in which Holly had missed appointments, but her emails were often not answered and the manager’s voicemail was often full. She said she once talked to the house staff during a weekend visit because she found that no lunch had been given to Holly that day. “Our conversation was very polite,” she said. “There is no one you can reach in management on weekends. My daughter needed to eat.”

The ban on allowing her into the house has made it particularly difficult to get Holly ready for outings and trips home, Susan said. The staff would frequently forget to pack needed items such as underwear, pants, pajamas, and medication.

Recently, despite the visitation ban, Susan said she requested to be allowed into the basement to see what clothing Holly now has. “ I haven’t been allowed in so long I can’t remember,” she wrote in an email to us. “I know Holly is missing things and I know the staff doesn’t know everything she has. Do I sound frustrated?”

In her email response to Lawless’s April 18 message, Susan stated that:

I want the ability to visit Holly on any day of the week or (at any) time as long as it is not disrupting the functioning of the home, and set visitation times will not allow that flexibility nor does that allow for visitation to the maximum amount extent possible.

My daughter is not in a prison, this is her home and Holly has the right to visit with friends and family as the regulations clearly state.  I also want the ability to sit in the living room with Holly or if we choose or walk into the kitchen with her as any other house guest would do and as other family members are permitted to do.

When I drop Holly off after a visit outside the home I want to walk inside the front door and stand in the foyer area, as any other parents are allowed to do.  I think it’s also important to note that as Holly’s guardian, I have a legal duty to see Holly’s living conditions to ensure her wellbeing.

One-hour visit allowed in April

Susan said that on April 1, she was given permission to enter the residence for an hour because she needed to help pack Holly’s clothes for a trip to Florida. After being given a time for the visit that she couldn’t meet, she finally won approval for one hour on that Sunday.

Susan said she pushed back and said she needed two hours because Holly needed to try on clothes to see what fit.  She also needed to check to make sure Holly’s medication was correct.

Susan said that when she arrived that Easter Sunday at the residence, Krouk-Gordon arrived as well, and then spent some of her time right outside Holly’s room. Susan said Krouk-Gordon’s close presence made her feel uncomfortable and that she believes it was meant to intimidate her.

Eviction notice cites a fire drill policy that does not comply with regulations

Krouk-Gordon’s notice to Susan that Holly must leave the residence as of April 30 did not include any allegations that either Holly or Susan had acted in a disruptive manner. Instead, the March 20 eviction letter stated that Holly must leave because the home could not accommodate her need for assistance during nighttime fire drills at the residence.

Susan said that Holly needs assistance because her blood pressure drops significantly if she is woken up suddenly. As a result, she can suddenly faint and fall unless she is given water immediately after waking up.

Last November, Holly did fall after having been suddenly woken by the fire alarm, which had signaled a middle-of-the-night fire drill. She suffered a concussion and a black eye in the fall.

Susan said the staff made Holly finish the drill immediately after she regained consciousness, and did not take her to the emergency room. The incident and injury were not reported by the staff to the Disabled Persons Protection Commission, as required by law. And Susan wasn’t notified about the injury until  mid-morning the following day.

Susan contends that the danger posed by the fire drills could be solved either by adding a staff member to the group home at night to assist Holly, or by moving her bedroom to a currently empty room on the first floor in which she would have time to quickly drink a small bottle of water and still be able to exit with assistance within the required 2½ minutes. The front door to the residence is right outside that downstairs room.

Susan said, however, that neither TILL nor DDS have expressed support for her suggestions.

In failing to alter the existing fire drill policy, DDS and TILL would appear to be in violation of DDS regulations, which state that “providers of group homes “shall assure that …strategies are developed for meeting the specific and unique safety needs of each individual” (my emphasis).

In addition, the regulations state that “for sites where residential supports…are provided, safe evacuation is defined as assuring that all individuals can get out of the home in 2½ minutes, with or without assistance...” (my emphasis).

The implications of the regulations in this regard seem clear and unambiguous to us. The provider management cannot legally evict a resident because the home is not able to serve that resident in compliance with the regulations. The management instead needs to take steps to comply with the regulations.

Eviction notice did not comply with DDS transfer regulations

It also appears to us that Krouk-Gordon’s March 20 letter notifying Susan of Holly’s pending eviction did not comply with DDS transfer regulations, which require that Susan be provided with an official 45-day notice of a proposed transfer out of the group home.

Under the regulations, the written notice must include a statement explaining how the proposed move would result in improved services and supports and quality of life for Holly. The notice must also specify the location of the proposed home, include a statement that the parties may visit and examine the proposed home, and must further include a request for consent by Susan, as Holly’s guardian, to the proposed transfer.

None of those statements was included in the March 20 letter. As such, the letter does not, in our view, constitute a legal notice under the regulations to Susan of a pending transfer from the residence.

TILL never committed to addressing nutrition issues

Susan said that despite her efforts to work with TILL and with DDS to address the nutrition issues in the residence, TILL staff and management have not shown a consistent willingness to work with her.

Susan said that while the staff initially voiced agreement with her requests to improve Holly’s nutritional regimen, there was no follow-through. She personally developed recipes, grocery lists, and menus for all the residents covering six-periods. Yet, the items were often not purchased, and the recipes were not followed.

The group home at first agreed to allow a DDS nurse to work with Susan to put menus together. But then TILL management suddenly objected, and the nurse was taken off the project. “TILL didn’t like that she was doing the menus,” Susan said.

DDS then assigned a nutritionist to work with Holly, but the nutritionist’s approved hours were limited. Even with the system of checks that Susan and the nutritionist provided, the staff on more than one occasion bought a type of cheese for Holly that is strictly prohibited from her diet. “They weren’t following the recipes,” Susan said.

Susan said the staff recently took Holly to her primary care doctor for an exam, but had given her nothing to eat or drink that day. The doctor was so concerned, she recorded it in Holly’s medical record.

In another incident, the group home staff gave Holly a sandwich for lunch that included raw bacon. The manager at her work site, which is operated by The Northeast Arc, was so concerned, she wrote up a report of neglect, Susan said.

The September 5, 2017, report, which was provided to Susan by the work site, stated that, “During lunch, Holly had a BLT sandwich and she pulled the bacon from it ‘to save the best for last,’ and we noticed that it was raw.”  The worksite staffer who wrote the report stated that the worksite staff cooked the bacon in a microwave and monitored Holly for illness. Other than notifying Susan and the group home manager, the worksite took no further action in the matter.

Susan noted that she has been told that the families of the other residents in the group home are largely happy with the care there. But that may be, she said, because the other residents are higher functioning than Holly. The parents of one of the residents lives out of state, while another resident was working toward getting her driver’s license. Another resident is capable of using Boston’s MBTA system.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of case we hear about all too often. As we have said many times, the DDS group home system is broken. It is long overdue that the Legislature and its Joint Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities Committee begin to address these issues.

In January, the Children and Families Committee held a hearing in which committee members gently queried Ryder about reports of widespread abuse and neglect in the DDS system. A large group of families and guardians attended the hearing, but none of those people were allowed to testify publicly.

We have to wonder what it will take to bring about needed action in this and so many similar cases.

DPPC seeks to keep all investigative records in death case secret

April 12, 2018 2 comments

It would be nice if the Disabled Persons Protection Commission was on the side of the disabled and their families, but it often seems that the agency is more interested in protecting its turf.

We’ve been involved in a battle since February for the DPPC’s investigative records regarding the death of Karen McGowen, a client of the Department of Developmental Services.  Ms. McGowen was killed in an apparent accident last November. She reportedly fell from a wheelchair lift while getting out of a van at her DDS-funded day program in Pittsfield.

The DPPC, which is charged with investigating or supervising investigations of abuse and neglect of disabled adults under the age of 60, has confirmed that it is investigating Karen McGowen’s death.

DPPC HQ

DPPC headquarters in Braintree (Google Maps image)

Little if any information has been publicly released about the incident. As a nonprofit advocacy organization for persons with developmental disabilities and their families, we have been  trying to determine the circumstances under which her death occurred.

On February 13, the DPPC denied my request for the records in the case, stating that the investigation was incomplete. But in his letter denying the records, Andrew Levrault, the DPPC’s assistant general counsel, added that even when the investigation is completed, any records the Commission has on the case would be exempt from public disclosure and that I would need permission from Karen’s legal representative to obtain them.

The problem is we don’t know who Karen’s legal representative might be or even if she had a legal representative.

We have often advocated for more funding for the DPPC, which operates with so few resources that it has to refer most of its investigations to the Department of Developmental Services. So it’s doubly disappointing that to the extent the Commission does get involved in these crucial investigations, it has taken the position that the work it does must be kept secret.

Rebecca Murray, the state’s Public Records Supervisor, sided with us in the matter in a decision on March 22.  Murray’s decision stated that the DPPC’s February 13 letter to us  “did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records…” The DPPC, Murray said, had merely cited exemptions to the Public Records Law without further explanation. She ordered the Commission to provide me with responsive records within 10 business days.

We’re not sure if Murray’s decision is precedent setting, although it does appear to clear up some confusion we’ve had as to whether we are entitled to DPPC reports in cases in which we are not either the guardians of the victims in the case or the complainants.

The DPPC, however, has a different view of the Public Records Law than does the Public Records Supervisor. On March 29, the Commission asked Murray to reconsider her March 22 decision.

Levrault presented the Commission’s arguments in favor of withholding all records in the case in a 10-page letter to Murray.

But Attorney Levrault’s letter continues in our view to lack the specificity required by Murray to justify withholding documents, and unfortunately leads us to the conclusion that the Commission is more concerned about conducting its work in secret than in satisfying the public interest.

Attorney Levrault’s March 29 letter

In his letter to Murray, Attorney Levrault noted that the records in the possession of the DPPC include three “intakes,” an “initial response” in the case, and a draft investigation report. As of March 29, the DPPC investigation was still pending, he said.

Levrault first cited an exemption to the Public Records Law that allows agencies to keep records secret if existing statutes expressly provide for that. In this case, the DPPC’s enabling statute says the agency “shall promulgate regulations to exclude personally identifiable information regarding the subjects of investigations…”

Levrault argued that  it would be impossible for the DPPC “to protect the interests of all parties in the DPPC investigation through redaction of personally identifying information.”  As a result, he stated, the Commission has concluded that the entire record in the case must be kept secret.

However, Levrault’s letter provided no specifics, as required by Murray’s March 22 decision, to explain why it would be impossible to protect the various parties’ interests.

We would note, moreover, that the subject in this case is deceased. It has been our experience that when agencies argue for protection of the privacy of people who are deceased, it is usually a cover for unwarranted secrecy.

In fact, Public Records Supervisor Murray stated in a March 29, 2017, decision involving an appeal for records by The Cape Cod Times that “…it is generally held that one’s right to privacy is extinguished at death.” Murray noted that the only privacy interest that survives an individual’s death is their interest in their medical information.

Levrault’s letter did go on to cite an exemption to the Public Records law that concerns medical information relating to a “specifically named individual” and to any other materials that might constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”  Again, without providing any specific information in support of his claim, Levrault stated that the documents we are seeking contained information “that could significantly impact the reputations of the parties involved in the allegations…”

“There is no showing here,” Levrault continued, “that the public interest in the identities and actions of the alleged victim, alleged abusers, or other parties involved in the abuse investigation outweighs the strong privacy interests of the parties whose information would be disclosed.”

First of all, we are not seeking anyone’s medical information or any other information that might be personally embarrassing, but are seeking only investigative documents involving a fatal incident.

Secondly, it is a major stretch to argue that there has been no showing that there is a strong public interest in the circumstances of this case, particularly given that Karen’s death is the subject of an acknowledged investigation of possible abuse or neglect.

An attorney for the Public Records Division indicated that the DPPC will face a tall hurdle in attempting to demonstrate that it is entitled to withhold all records in their entirety from public disclosure just because those records refer to a specifically named individual. The DPPC would have to prove that “every single word in the records revealed an intimate detail” about that individual, the attorney said.

Levrault then cited another Public Records Law exemption relating to investigatory materials, the disclosure of which “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.”

Levrault stated that the exemption is needed to allow investigators to provide witnesses with an assurance of confidentiality “so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters.”

However, this argument still lacks specificity given that Levrault did not even say whether there is an ongoing criminal investigation in this case. Moreover, the statement about providing witnesses with an assurance of confidentiality does not recognize that confidentiality of witnesses can still be maintained by redacting their names and other identifying characteristics.

Finally, Attorney Levrault argued that the investigation report itself was still in draft form and therefore could not be released. However, this statement did not address the DPPC’s position that all of the records we have requested should be withheld in their entirety.

In sum, what the DPPC actually appears to be arguing here is that the Commission has no obligation to ever publicly release any investigative report about the abuse or neglect of any “specifically named individual.” The absurd logic underlying this argument is that the supposed violation of an individual’s privacy in releasing the documents, even if the person died as a result of the abuse or neglect, is somehow worse than the actions that caused their injuries or death.

In her March 22 decision in the case, Public Records Supervisor Murray noted that the DPPC “bears the burden to prove with specificity any exemption (to the Public Records Law) that applies.”

It seems to us that in his March 29 letter to Murray asking for reconsideration of her decision, Attorney Levrault not only did not meet that burden of specificity, he did not even go any further in trying to meet it than in his original denial of our original records request in February.

 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: