Residents' and employees' rights must be balanced, Long Creek officials say (Printed Feb. 23, 2007)
Posted by Sentry Editor at 3/2/2007 10:14 AM 
Categories: State News, So Po News, Ward Peck, Public Safety, County News
Categories: State News, So Po News, Ward Peck, Public Safety, County News
By Ward Peck
Editor
Responding to questions posed in the Sentry about policy and procedure at Long Creek Youth Development Center in South Portland (see “Disturbing questions at Long Creek,” Feb. 9, 2007, page 7). Several officials from the facility agreed to explain the personnel policies in place at the detention facility.
Superintendent Rodney Bouffard, Assistant Supt. Eric Gilliam and investigator Michael Curry declined to discuss the specific case of former Long Creek employee Angela Theriault, but discussed at length the policies governing employee conduct and how allegations of mistreatment are handled.
Theriault is accused of four counts of Gross Sexual Assault related to alleged encounters between Theriault and a former resident of the facility. Her case is expected to go to trial soon. Theriault had been investigated of similar behavior, but those allegations were never substantiated.
The officials described a tension implicit in the attempt to protect the underage residents from mistreatment while protecting employees from fabricated accusations by residents attempting to punish their supervisors or gain more favorable treatment.
“A lot of these kids will do whatever it takes to trip up staff members,” Bouffard said. “We’re dealing with a difficult population.”
According to Curry, who handles internal investigations for the facility, any allegation that is claimed to have taken place within or outside the facility involving an incarcerated youth is investigated. Once an internal investigation is initiated, a number of outside agencies are alerted and perform an oversight of the investigation.
Agencies involved in the oversight include the Dept. of Corrections, the Attorney General’s office, the Dept. of Health and Human Services and the state police, according to Curry.
Once an investigation is complete, the investigator can assign one of four findings based upon the evidence– “substantiated,” meaning the allegations are true, “unsubstantiated,” meaning the allegations can’t be proved to be true based upon the evidence collected, “exonerated,” meaning, in the case of the use of force that that force was justified and “unfounded,” meaning the allegations were found to be fabricated.
“If we find the allegation has substance to it, we put them [the employee] on administrative leave,” Curry said. “Even if we don’t believe something happened, we may move them.”
Once the investigation and findings are complete, the report is sent to the superintendent who makes his own determination about what transpired and each agency involved in the process has the ability to question the findings.
“Anywhere along the line, any one of those people can ask for more information, Curry said. “At any time they can request a full, separate investigation.”
If the investigator makes a determination of criminal conduct, as opposed to policy infractions, the case is handed to the Attorney General’s office.
“We are restricted by law of conducting criminal investigations,” Curry said.
One such protection affording law enforcement personnel, including staff at Long Creek is known as the Garrity Warning. Under the Garrity Warning, an investigator can compel an employee to disclose any information they may have in relation to an investigation– even if that information is self-incriminating. Since the Garrity Warning conflicts with constitutional protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment, nothing disclosed in a Garrity Warning interview can be used in a criminal investigation.
All staff members employed by Long Creek are members of the union representing Maine Government workers and their contract affords them protections against actions that could be defamatory.
“We operate in a labor environment,” Gilliam said. “All employees are covered.”
The union, according to Gilliam, represents any employee accused of an infraction. If discipline is found to be appropriate, there are four levels of appeal that must be satisfied. If the findings are overturned, the employee has the right to be reinstated and can pursue a civil case.
“Even if we think a person is involved in abuse or neglect, if we transfer or terminate that employee, we must defend it at several levels,” Bouffard said.
Editor
Responding to questions posed in the Sentry about policy and procedure at Long Creek Youth Development Center in South Portland (see “Disturbing questions at Long Creek,” Feb. 9, 2007, page 7). Several officials from the facility agreed to explain the personnel policies in place at the detention facility.
Superintendent Rodney Bouffard, Assistant Supt. Eric Gilliam and investigator Michael Curry declined to discuss the specific case of former Long Creek employee Angela Theriault, but discussed at length the policies governing employee conduct and how allegations of mistreatment are handled.
Theriault is accused of four counts of Gross Sexual Assault related to alleged encounters between Theriault and a former resident of the facility. Her case is expected to go to trial soon. Theriault had been investigated of similar behavior, but those allegations were never substantiated.
The officials described a tension implicit in the attempt to protect the underage residents from mistreatment while protecting employees from fabricated accusations by residents attempting to punish their supervisors or gain more favorable treatment.
“A lot of these kids will do whatever it takes to trip up staff members,” Bouffard said. “We’re dealing with a difficult population.”
According to Curry, who handles internal investigations for the facility, any allegation that is claimed to have taken place within or outside the facility involving an incarcerated youth is investigated. Once an internal investigation is initiated, a number of outside agencies are alerted and perform an oversight of the investigation.
Agencies involved in the oversight include the Dept. of Corrections, the Attorney General’s office, the Dept. of Health and Human Services and the state police, according to Curry.
Once an investigation is complete, the investigator can assign one of four findings based upon the evidence– “substantiated,” meaning the allegations are true, “unsubstantiated,” meaning the allegations can’t be proved to be true based upon the evidence collected, “exonerated,” meaning, in the case of the use of force that that force was justified and “unfounded,” meaning the allegations were found to be fabricated.
“If we find the allegation has substance to it, we put them [the employee] on administrative leave,” Curry said. “Even if we don’t believe something happened, we may move them.”
Once the investigation and findings are complete, the report is sent to the superintendent who makes his own determination about what transpired and each agency involved in the process has the ability to question the findings.
“Anywhere along the line, any one of those people can ask for more information, Curry said. “At any time they can request a full, separate investigation.”
If the investigator makes a determination of criminal conduct, as opposed to policy infractions, the case is handed to the Attorney General’s office.
“We are restricted by law of conducting criminal investigations,” Curry said.
One such protection affording law enforcement personnel, including staff at Long Creek is known as the Garrity Warning. Under the Garrity Warning, an investigator can compel an employee to disclose any information they may have in relation to an investigation– even if that information is self-incriminating. Since the Garrity Warning conflicts with constitutional protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment, nothing disclosed in a Garrity Warning interview can be used in a criminal investigation.
All staff members employed by Long Creek are members of the union representing Maine Government workers and their contract affords them protections against actions that could be defamatory.
“We operate in a labor environment,” Gilliam said. “All employees are covered.”
The union, according to Gilliam, represents any employee accused of an infraction. If discipline is found to be appropriate, there are four levels of appeal that must be satisfied. If the findings are overturned, the employee has the right to be reinstated and can pursue a civil case.
“Even if we think a person is involved in abuse or neglect, if we transfer or terminate that employee, we must defend it at several levels,” Bouffard said.
Comments