Published in the Current
Of the 3,300 sex offenders required to register with the state’s sex offender registry, only a couple hundred showed up by the Sept. 1 deadline, according to the state police. Officials are taking a wait-and-see approach pending a decision on further action.
“We were hoping for a far greater response to voluntary compliance,” said Maine State Police spokesman, Steve McCausland.
He understands why there is a problem. “The sex offender list is the last place most people want their names to appear,” he said. Some of the offenses took place as long ago as 10 years, he said, so people may “take their chances” and effectively make the police go looking for them.
Starting June 30, 1992, people convicted of gross sexual assault of minors were required by state law to register with state and local police.
In 1999 the legislature expanded the law to include a number of other offenses, ranging from unlawful sexual contact to non-parental kidnapping.
From that date forward, all people convicted of those offenses also had to register.
In September 2001, the state Legislature made the 1999 law retroactive to the original 1992 date. All offenders convicted of any of the crimes added in 1999, and who were convicted between 1992 and 1999, were required to register by Sept. 1.
The plan of action now is uncertain.
“We will now regroup and decide what our next steps are going to be,” McCausland said.
The State Bureau of Identification, which oversees the sex offender registry, has other tasks as well, he said, so officials will have to look at what else is required of that division before deciding how to handle the sex offender issue.
In the meantime, state police will wait for sex offenders to have background checks run on them, or have other contacts with law enforcement.
When sex offenders who should have registered do encounter police, McCausland said, they may be subject to “enforcement action” based on their failure to register.
Criminal background checks, he said, are common in many fields as pre-employment checks, including most jobs dealing with children, including school employees, daycare providers and scout leaders.
Thursday, September 5, 2002
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Cape schools juggle budget changes
Published in the Current
An unexpected increase in federal funding has the Cape Elizabeth School Board breathing a bit easier in the current climate of concern over state budget cuts, but the specter of additional state cuts still looms.
For now, $39,800 in state cuts will be offset by an estimated $40,000 in federal grants for students who have additional needs but don’t qualify for special education.
“We’ve heard rumors there may be more,” said Business Manager Pauline Aportria.
The board has an additional $232,000 in surplus, beyond their expected end-of-year surplus of $285,000, as a result of $60,000 in state agency payments for special needs students and savings due to an end-of-fiscal-year spending freeze.
The board, meeting as its finance subcommittee, decided to use $200,000 of that additional surplus to begin a capital improvement fund. They expect to use some of that money to either offset the cost of the high school and Pond Cove renovation projects, or to perform some needed roof repairs, if the
renovation project fails to win voter approval.
The money could be reallocated to other purposes if, for example, additional state funding cuts meant the schools needed the money sooner. The Town Council would need to approve such a reallocation, Aportria said.
After a discussion of whether to keep additional money in an undesignated reserve to bring the district’s reserve funding up to 2 percent – the “generally accepted accounting principle” – the board gave up under budget pressure from the council in the spring.
Board member George Entwistle said keeping the reserve at 2 percent would provide the district a strong negotiating tool when returning to the council during this year’s budget process.
But board members agreed that putting the money in a building fund would be the wisest move, particularly because they could move it if needed.
Superintendent Tom Forcella said the $200,000 for building expenses could make a big dent in the initial years of any bond that would be passed for the project.
“Ultimately, it’s going to reduce the tax rate,” said board member Kevin Sweeney.
School Board chair and building subcommittee chair Marie Prager said the high school building project, in particular, had been projected to cost more than they had imagined.
The $9.2 million proposal from HKTA Architects is far more than an initial survey, conducted by SMRT Architects, which projected high school renovation costs at $2.5 million, Prager said.
The big jump, she said, would pay for “redoing the high school the way everyone thinks it should be done,” including staff requests and $2 million in site work. Prager said she expects to get 20 to 25 years of use out of the upcoming renovation, but the cost is too high right now.
“We will bring it down,” she said. She warned, however, that the cost would not be cut to $2.5 million.
In its regular August business meeting, which followed the finance subcommittee meeting, the Cape Elizabeth School Board hear the following reports:
–Middle School Principal Nancy Hutton said there will be 34 new students at the middle school this year, including 11 new eighth-graders. She said there were 17 seventh-graders participating in the laptop iTeam program, in which they will help their peers and teachers better use the laptop computers. Hutton also spoke about the middle school outdoor education trips to Camp Kieve and Chewonki, and fund-raising activity to pay for the trips.
– Superintendent Tom Forcella told about new district employees hired over the summer.
– Pond Cove School Principal Tom Eismeier said he is accepting questions to be answered during his upcoming trip to learn about education in Japan.
– High School Principal Jeff Shedd said the state has mandated all high schools have in place at the end of this school year a local assessment program ready for implementation in the fall.
An unexpected increase in federal funding has the Cape Elizabeth School Board breathing a bit easier in the current climate of concern over state budget cuts, but the specter of additional state cuts still looms.
For now, $39,800 in state cuts will be offset by an estimated $40,000 in federal grants for students who have additional needs but don’t qualify for special education.
“We’ve heard rumors there may be more,” said Business Manager Pauline Aportria.
The board has an additional $232,000 in surplus, beyond their expected end-of-year surplus of $285,000, as a result of $60,000 in state agency payments for special needs students and savings due to an end-of-fiscal-year spending freeze.
The board, meeting as its finance subcommittee, decided to use $200,000 of that additional surplus to begin a capital improvement fund. They expect to use some of that money to either offset the cost of the high school and Pond Cove renovation projects, or to perform some needed roof repairs, if the
renovation project fails to win voter approval.
The money could be reallocated to other purposes if, for example, additional state funding cuts meant the schools needed the money sooner. The Town Council would need to approve such a reallocation, Aportria said.
After a discussion of whether to keep additional money in an undesignated reserve to bring the district’s reserve funding up to 2 percent – the “generally accepted accounting principle” – the board gave up under budget pressure from the council in the spring.
Board member George Entwistle said keeping the reserve at 2 percent would provide the district a strong negotiating tool when returning to the council during this year’s budget process.
But board members agreed that putting the money in a building fund would be the wisest move, particularly because they could move it if needed.
Superintendent Tom Forcella said the $200,000 for building expenses could make a big dent in the initial years of any bond that would be passed for the project.
“Ultimately, it’s going to reduce the tax rate,” said board member Kevin Sweeney.
School Board chair and building subcommittee chair Marie Prager said the high school building project, in particular, had been projected to cost more than they had imagined.
The $9.2 million proposal from HKTA Architects is far more than an initial survey, conducted by SMRT Architects, which projected high school renovation costs at $2.5 million, Prager said.
The big jump, she said, would pay for “redoing the high school the way everyone thinks it should be done,” including staff requests and $2 million in site work. Prager said she expects to get 20 to 25 years of use out of the upcoming renovation, but the cost is too high right now.
“We will bring it down,” she said. She warned, however, that the cost would not be cut to $2.5 million.
In its regular August business meeting, which followed the finance subcommittee meeting, the Cape Elizabeth School Board hear the following reports:
–Middle School Principal Nancy Hutton said there will be 34 new students at the middle school this year, including 11 new eighth-graders. She said there were 17 seventh-graders participating in the laptop iTeam program, in which they will help their peers and teachers better use the laptop computers. Hutton also spoke about the middle school outdoor education trips to Camp Kieve and Chewonki, and fund-raising activity to pay for the trips.
– Superintendent Tom Forcella told about new district employees hired over the summer.
– Pond Cove School Principal Tom Eismeier said he is accepting questions to be answered during his upcoming trip to learn about education in Japan.
– High School Principal Jeff Shedd said the state has mandated all high schools have in place at the end of this school year a local assessment program ready for implementation in the fall.
Cape playgrounds get rave reviews
Published in the Current
Dozens of kids already have tried out the new playgrounds at Pond Cove and the middle school, and the reviews, from kids of all ages, is unanimously positive.
“There’s a tire swing there, there’s a trampoline there, and there’s a street sweeper,” said Will Downes, age 4, pointing out some of the new playground’s features.
“I think the playground looks beautiful,” said the well-spoken 4-year-old, who will start kindergarten this year. He went on to detail the virtues of the new slides (there are three) and several ladders, a climbing pole and a fireman’s pole.
“My favorite is the tire swing,” Downes said.
Mac Sweeney, 8, is eager for crews to put the finishing touches on the playground next to Pond Cove.
“I can’t wait until the other playgrounds open,” he said. But he is happy with what he’s seen so far. “I think it’s great,” he said.
Playground reconstruction was organized by CapePlay, with local support from Cape architect Pat Carroll and construction by Skip Murray and L.P. Murray and Sons construction.
Lisa Silverman-Gent, co-chair of CapePlay, said everything “went right on schedule.” She expects there will be a blacktop painting party in September to set up foursquare courts and other games on the blacktop areas near each playground.
The equipment was chosen by students, teachers, administrators and members of the public, Silverman-Gent said. She thanked members of the community for donations and support.
“The two school playgrounds could never have happened without the community,” she said.
The final phase of CapePlay’s efforts will be a new playground at Fort Williams, tentatively planned for the oak grove near the Day One offices. But that remains subject to approval by the Fort Williams Advisory Committee, Silverman-Gent said.
There is no timetable for that project, though CapePlay will need to raise roughly $90,000 to complete it, she said.
Silverman-Gent said that in addition to the Murray crews, who were “very generous” with their time, her co-chair Laura Briggs and volunteer Tina Harnden also played important roles in getting the project done.
Dozens of kids already have tried out the new playgrounds at Pond Cove and the middle school, and the reviews, from kids of all ages, is unanimously positive.
“There’s a tire swing there, there’s a trampoline there, and there’s a street sweeper,” said Will Downes, age 4, pointing out some of the new playground’s features.
“I think the playground looks beautiful,” said the well-spoken 4-year-old, who will start kindergarten this year. He went on to detail the virtues of the new slides (there are three) and several ladders, a climbing pole and a fireman’s pole.
“My favorite is the tire swing,” Downes said.
Mac Sweeney, 8, is eager for crews to put the finishing touches on the playground next to Pond Cove.
“I can’t wait until the other playgrounds open,” he said. But he is happy with what he’s seen so far. “I think it’s great,” he said.
Playground reconstruction was organized by CapePlay, with local support from Cape architect Pat Carroll and construction by Skip Murray and L.P. Murray and Sons construction.
Lisa Silverman-Gent, co-chair of CapePlay, said everything “went right on schedule.” She expects there will be a blacktop painting party in September to set up foursquare courts and other games on the blacktop areas near each playground.
The equipment was chosen by students, teachers, administrators and members of the public, Silverman-Gent said. She thanked members of the community for donations and support.
“The two school playgrounds could never have happened without the community,” she said.
The final phase of CapePlay’s efforts will be a new playground at Fort Williams, tentatively planned for the oak grove near the Day One offices. But that remains subject to approval by the Fort Williams Advisory Committee, Silverman-Gent said.
There is no timetable for that project, though CapePlay will need to raise roughly $90,000 to complete it, she said.
Silverman-Gent said that in addition to the Murray crews, who were “very generous” with their time, her co-chair Laura Briggs and volunteer Tina Harnden also played important roles in getting the project done.
Sex offender registry expanding
Published in the Current
Thousands of people convicted of sexual crimes are required under a revised state law to register with their local police department by Sept. 1 – a mandate the Maine Civil Liberties Union believes should be challenged in court.
At issue is how far the state wants to go back in a person’s criminal record. Originally the state’s sex offender registration law required that all people convicted of gross sexual assault of minors, which includes rape, since June 30, 1992, had to register with state and local police. In 1999 the legislature expanded the law to include a number of other offenses, ranging from unlawful sexual contact to nonparental kidnapping. From that date forward, all people convicted of those offenses also had to register.
In September 2001, the state Legislature made the 1999 law retroactive to the original 1992 date. All offenders convicted of any of the crimes since 1992 are required to register by Sept. 1 of this year.
The backward-looking expansion of the law is expected to add about 3,300 people to the sex offender registry. In mid-July the list held about 750 names, some of which were duplicates. The new list is projected to include 4,000 people.
Registration happens at the police station in the town where the offender lives, and involves appearing at the police station and giving a photograph and a set of fingerprints to the police, as well as providing proof of address, according to Lt. Jackie Theriault of the State Bureau of Identification, a part of the Maine State Police.
Local police send the information to the state, where it is compiled into a statewide registry.
Local police also have to decide whether to notify neighbors of the offender.
Notification
Neighbors of registered sex offenders are not always notified. Theriault said this is up to local authorities, who can decide whether to tell neighbors, and how wide an area to alert, if notification occurs.
“We deal with them on a case-bycase basis,” said Scarborough Police Chief Robert Moulton.
“You’re walking a tightrope,” he said, between the public’s right to know and the registrant’s right to privacy. He said generally the department would notify the neighbors about someone classified as a “sexually violent predator” and would be less likely to notify people about a registrant classed as a “sex offender,” the other designation on the registry. Violent predators include those who are repeat offenders and first-time offenders who have committed especially serious sexual crimes.
“It depends on the offense,” Moulton said, and on the department’s perception of risk to the community.
Moulton said the town has four offenders registered, and police have notified neighbors two or three times in the last two or three years. They have confined that notification to the immediate neighborhood where the registrant lives.
Moulton said some registrants have “settled in” even after notification, while others have left. He said the department has not been notified of any retribution problems, with neighbors harassing or otherwise targeting registrants for abuse. Moulton also said he has not had problems with registered sex offenders committing further sex offenses while in town.
Cape Elizabeth Police Chief Neil Williams said the town has not been home to any registered sex offenders since the law took effect. “We’ve been lucky,” Williams said. He said a small number of offenders have visited people in town or worked in town, but had not caused any problems and had not stayed very long.
If a sex offender were to move to town or if an existing resident were to be required to register, Williams said, “we would probably notify the neighborhood.”
How it works
Maine’s sex offender registry was created in 1991 by the state Legislature, which required that beginning June 30, 1992, offenders convicted of gross sexual assault of minors under the age of 14 register with state and local police when they were released from prison or immediately after conviction, if the sentence did not include jail time.
Convicted offenders were required to tell police where they lived. If they did not change residence, re-registration was not required, according to Theriault. In 1995, the Legislature changed the law to include offenders convicted of gross sexual assault of a victim under age 18. That law became effective in 1996.
In 1999, the Legislature expanded the law to apply to 12 other lesser offenses: gross sexual assault as a sexually violent crime, sexual exploitation of a minor, sexual abuse of minors, unlawful sexual contact, visual sexual aggression against a child, sexual misconduct with a child under age 14, kidnapping (nonparental), criminal restraint, violation of privacy, incest, aggravated promotion of prostitution (victim under age 18) and patronizing prostitution of a minor.
The 1999 law applied only to offenders convicted after the law took effect. It also created two separate categories of registrants, “sex offender” and the repeat offender or “sexually violent predator.” The latest revision, in September 2001, rolled back the time frame on the new offenses to June of 1992.
Sex offenders are required to register annually for 10 years after release from prison or sentencing, if there is no prison time involved. Sexually violent predators are required to register every 90 days for the rest of their lives.
In each case, the registry mails a registration form, which cannot be forwarded, to the last known address of the offender. Registrants must take the form and a recent photo to the local police department, where police will verify their identities and take a set of fingerprints.
The records are then sent back to the registry office in Augusta, where the list is updated if necessary. Registrants must also pay $25 per year in administrative fees, Theriault said.
If registrants move, they have 10 days to notify the state registry office, whether the new home is in Maine or outside the state. If moving out of Maine to a state with a sex offender law of its own, a registrant must also notify the authorities in that state.
Similarly, sex offenders convicted in other states where they are required to register, must also notify Maine police if they move into the state.
Criticism of retroactive change
The Maine Civil Liberties Union is criticizing the sex offender registry for covering too broad a range of crimes and, in particular, the new requirement to register people convicted as long ago as 10 years ago.
“In our view, requiring someone to register can often amount to punishment,” said Louise Roback, the MCLU’s executive director, who recently came to Maine from a position as the executive director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, where she dealt with sex offender registry issues, among other concerns.
Roback said imposing punishments is the role of the courts and not the legislature. Further, she said, imposing additional punishments for crimes committed in the past could be a violation of constitutional rights.
Once a person serves their time in prison or on parole or probation, Roback said, “they have paid their debt to society. ”
Further, some of the people now required to register, she said, are criminals who committed an offense long ago and may not have run afoul of the law since. “It is unusual to go back so many years,” she said.
Roback said listing on a sex offender registry tars the reputation of a person who may be on the way back to productive participation in mainstream society.
It may, she said, also result in “severe incidents of vigilantism,” which she said she saw in New York.
Roback said she understands the intent of the law, and said it seems to be legitimate. “People wanted to protect their children from child molesters,” she said. But now the list of offenses requiring registration is too large, she said.
“Legislators just can’t stop” adding offenses to the list for which registration is required. The list presently includes at least three crimes not directly related to sex acts or sexual behavior: non-parental kidnapping, criminal restraint and violation of privacy.
Not enough protection
Further, legislators who say the sex offender registry protects children are ignoring a major source of sex offenses against children.
“The vast majority of sex offenses committed against children are committed in the home by people that the parents trust,” Roback said. A sex offender registry does nothing about that, she said.
If the idea was for people to take action to protect themselves and their children from sex offenders, Roback said, the defenses are misdirected.
“The real danger is something that parents are overlooking,” she said.
She is not opposed to “reasonable measures” taken by parents and legislators to protect children from sexual predators. But she said creating lists serves only to drive offenders “underground,” and prevents them from seeking services they may need to be healthy, functioning members of their communities.
“It does tend to ostracize people from society,” Roback said.
Challenging the law
Roback said the MCLU is open to considering a challenge to the law, and is hoping to hear from sex offenders affected by the law change, who feel they are being wronged by the new requirement to register. “We haven’t heard from anyone complaining about it,” she said.
Often, she said, convicted criminals are reluctant to stand up for their rights, because filing a lawsuit would require them to identify themselves as sex offenders. She did say that anonymous lawsuits could be a possibility.
She said challenging this law is important because it may violate constitutional protection against what is called “ex post facto” legislation, or laws that outlaw behaviors that have already occurred, or add punishments to sentences handed down in the past.
In the meantime, state officials are encouraging anyone who thinks they might need to register to contact state police, rather than risk violating the law.
“I want them to call us and we’ll help them,” said Lt. Theriault. If people do not register, they are in violation of state law and can be charged with a Class D misdemeanor offense.
Thousands of people convicted of sexual crimes are required under a revised state law to register with their local police department by Sept. 1 – a mandate the Maine Civil Liberties Union believes should be challenged in court.
At issue is how far the state wants to go back in a person’s criminal record. Originally the state’s sex offender registration law required that all people convicted of gross sexual assault of minors, which includes rape, since June 30, 1992, had to register with state and local police. In 1999 the legislature expanded the law to include a number of other offenses, ranging from unlawful sexual contact to nonparental kidnapping. From that date forward, all people convicted of those offenses also had to register.
In September 2001, the state Legislature made the 1999 law retroactive to the original 1992 date. All offenders convicted of any of the crimes since 1992 are required to register by Sept. 1 of this year.
The backward-looking expansion of the law is expected to add about 3,300 people to the sex offender registry. In mid-July the list held about 750 names, some of which were duplicates. The new list is projected to include 4,000 people.
Registration happens at the police station in the town where the offender lives, and involves appearing at the police station and giving a photograph and a set of fingerprints to the police, as well as providing proof of address, according to Lt. Jackie Theriault of the State Bureau of Identification, a part of the Maine State Police.
Local police send the information to the state, where it is compiled into a statewide registry.
Local police also have to decide whether to notify neighbors of the offender.
Notification
Neighbors of registered sex offenders are not always notified. Theriault said this is up to local authorities, who can decide whether to tell neighbors, and how wide an area to alert, if notification occurs.
“We deal with them on a case-bycase basis,” said Scarborough Police Chief Robert Moulton.
“You’re walking a tightrope,” he said, between the public’s right to know and the registrant’s right to privacy. He said generally the department would notify the neighbors about someone classified as a “sexually violent predator” and would be less likely to notify people about a registrant classed as a “sex offender,” the other designation on the registry. Violent predators include those who are repeat offenders and first-time offenders who have committed especially serious sexual crimes.
“It depends on the offense,” Moulton said, and on the department’s perception of risk to the community.
Moulton said the town has four offenders registered, and police have notified neighbors two or three times in the last two or three years. They have confined that notification to the immediate neighborhood where the registrant lives.
Moulton said some registrants have “settled in” even after notification, while others have left. He said the department has not been notified of any retribution problems, with neighbors harassing or otherwise targeting registrants for abuse. Moulton also said he has not had problems with registered sex offenders committing further sex offenses while in town.
Cape Elizabeth Police Chief Neil Williams said the town has not been home to any registered sex offenders since the law took effect. “We’ve been lucky,” Williams said. He said a small number of offenders have visited people in town or worked in town, but had not caused any problems and had not stayed very long.
If a sex offender were to move to town or if an existing resident were to be required to register, Williams said, “we would probably notify the neighborhood.”
How it works
Maine’s sex offender registry was created in 1991 by the state Legislature, which required that beginning June 30, 1992, offenders convicted of gross sexual assault of minors under the age of 14 register with state and local police when they were released from prison or immediately after conviction, if the sentence did not include jail time.
Convicted offenders were required to tell police where they lived. If they did not change residence, re-registration was not required, according to Theriault. In 1995, the Legislature changed the law to include offenders convicted of gross sexual assault of a victim under age 18. That law became effective in 1996.
In 1999, the Legislature expanded the law to apply to 12 other lesser offenses: gross sexual assault as a sexually violent crime, sexual exploitation of a minor, sexual abuse of minors, unlawful sexual contact, visual sexual aggression against a child, sexual misconduct with a child under age 14, kidnapping (nonparental), criminal restraint, violation of privacy, incest, aggravated promotion of prostitution (victim under age 18) and patronizing prostitution of a minor.
The 1999 law applied only to offenders convicted after the law took effect. It also created two separate categories of registrants, “sex offender” and the repeat offender or “sexually violent predator.” The latest revision, in September 2001, rolled back the time frame on the new offenses to June of 1992.
Sex offenders are required to register annually for 10 years after release from prison or sentencing, if there is no prison time involved. Sexually violent predators are required to register every 90 days for the rest of their lives.
In each case, the registry mails a registration form, which cannot be forwarded, to the last known address of the offender. Registrants must take the form and a recent photo to the local police department, where police will verify their identities and take a set of fingerprints.
The records are then sent back to the registry office in Augusta, where the list is updated if necessary. Registrants must also pay $25 per year in administrative fees, Theriault said.
If registrants move, they have 10 days to notify the state registry office, whether the new home is in Maine or outside the state. If moving out of Maine to a state with a sex offender law of its own, a registrant must also notify the authorities in that state.
Similarly, sex offenders convicted in other states where they are required to register, must also notify Maine police if they move into the state.
Criticism of retroactive change
The Maine Civil Liberties Union is criticizing the sex offender registry for covering too broad a range of crimes and, in particular, the new requirement to register people convicted as long ago as 10 years ago.
“In our view, requiring someone to register can often amount to punishment,” said Louise Roback, the MCLU’s executive director, who recently came to Maine from a position as the executive director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, where she dealt with sex offender registry issues, among other concerns.
Roback said imposing punishments is the role of the courts and not the legislature. Further, she said, imposing additional punishments for crimes committed in the past could be a violation of constitutional rights.
Once a person serves their time in prison or on parole or probation, Roback said, “they have paid their debt to society. ”
Further, some of the people now required to register, she said, are criminals who committed an offense long ago and may not have run afoul of the law since. “It is unusual to go back so many years,” she said.
Roback said listing on a sex offender registry tars the reputation of a person who may be on the way back to productive participation in mainstream society.
It may, she said, also result in “severe incidents of vigilantism,” which she said she saw in New York.
Roback said she understands the intent of the law, and said it seems to be legitimate. “People wanted to protect their children from child molesters,” she said. But now the list of offenses requiring registration is too large, she said.
“Legislators just can’t stop” adding offenses to the list for which registration is required. The list presently includes at least three crimes not directly related to sex acts or sexual behavior: non-parental kidnapping, criminal restraint and violation of privacy.
Not enough protection
Further, legislators who say the sex offender registry protects children are ignoring a major source of sex offenses against children.
“The vast majority of sex offenses committed against children are committed in the home by people that the parents trust,” Roback said. A sex offender registry does nothing about that, she said.
If the idea was for people to take action to protect themselves and their children from sex offenders, Roback said, the defenses are misdirected.
“The real danger is something that parents are overlooking,” she said.
She is not opposed to “reasonable measures” taken by parents and legislators to protect children from sexual predators. But she said creating lists serves only to drive offenders “underground,” and prevents them from seeking services they may need to be healthy, functioning members of their communities.
“It does tend to ostracize people from society,” Roback said.
Challenging the law
Roback said the MCLU is open to considering a challenge to the law, and is hoping to hear from sex offenders affected by the law change, who feel they are being wronged by the new requirement to register. “We haven’t heard from anyone complaining about it,” she said.
Often, she said, convicted criminals are reluctant to stand up for their rights, because filing a lawsuit would require them to identify themselves as sex offenders. She did say that anonymous lawsuits could be a possibility.
She said challenging this law is important because it may violate constitutional protection against what is called “ex post facto” legislation, or laws that outlaw behaviors that have already occurred, or add punishments to sentences handed down in the past.
In the meantime, state officials are encouraging anyone who thinks they might need to register to contact state police, rather than risk violating the law.
“I want them to call us and we’ll help them,” said Lt. Theriault. If people do not register, they are in violation of state law and can be charged with a Class D misdemeanor offense.
Nursing home makes changes after death
Published in the Current
Improvements have been made at the Viking Community Nursing Home – where an Alzheimer’s patient wandered off and died earlier this month – but the facility is still being fined for what the state calls “substandard” care.
The finding of “immediate jeopardy” has been lifted, according to Helen Mulligan, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. But not all the problems have been fixed.
“The facility isn’t in total compliance,” Mulligan said. It is considered to be providing “substandard quality of care,” because of problems with record keeping and security, she said.
As a result, Viking is being fined $350 per day from Aug. 23, and is not eligible for Medicare payments for new admissions, she said. If the nursing home does not fix the problems, Mulligan said, its Medicare payment
agreement for existing patients will be terminated Feb. 13, 2003.
The nursing home remains in violation of federal requirements to prohibit “mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property,” and to complete “a comprehensive care plan within seven days” of patient needs assessment, Mulligan said.
The Viking is the subject of state and federal scrutiny following the Aug. 9 death of Shirley Sayre, 77, who wandered out of a secure unit at the Viking and drowned in a culvert across Scott Dyer Road.
An initial investigation by state regulators found the nursing home placed several residents in “immediate jeopardy.” A $3,050 fine per day was levied Aug. 12 and remained in place until Aug. 22, requiring the Viking to pay$33,550 for that infraction.
Corrections plan accepted
Viking sent a plan of corrections to the state Department of Human Services Aug. 22, according to department spokesman Newell Augur. It has been accepted, after some minor revisions, he said.
State inspectors paid a surprise visit to the Viking the following day. “It wouldn’t have made any sense for us to go in before they’d filed a plan of corrections,” Augur said. Once a plan had been filed, though, the state wanted to check on things quickly, especially given the prospect of the Viking losing federal funding without a successful inspection, he said.
Door locks and alarms that had been malfunctioning during the Aug. 12 investigation had been fixed by the end of that day, and remained functional Aug. 23, Augur said. Individual care plans had been updated by Aug. 23, Augur said, but that’s not quite enough.
“They have completed the care plans for all the patients in the facility,” he said. “They haven’t proven to us that they can set up a system” to prevent future care plans from being incomplete.
Augur said the plan of corrections provides a strategy for doing just that, but it has not been tested yet.
Duane Rancourt, administrator at the Viking, said all the necessary corrections have been made and he is waiting for word from regulators that will allow the nursing home to admit new patients.
The biggest adjustment for staff and visitors is the keypad to get in and out of the building, he said. The code to the keypad is posted at the door, but he said that doesn’t give dementia patients an opportunity to get out because “they have a hard time with sequential things.”
Rancourt and the Viking staff also are taking advantage of a temporary slowdown in business to relocate the Medicare unit to the long-term care unit, a change that he had planned for some time, he said.
And despite regulatory criticism and scrutiny, the Viking is getting support from many family members of current and former patients.
Community support
One family member of a recent Viking Community patient, who asked not to be identified, told the Current that he was satisfied with what he called “excellent care” from Viking staff. He also said, “Alzheimer’s can strike anybody, and it always ends in death.” He went on to express support for the staff of the Viking, whom he said were “doing the best they can” dealing with patients with challenging conditions.
Selvin Hirshon, whose wife was an Alzheimer’s patient at the Viking for close to seven years before her death in February, said he strongly supports the Viking.
“I think it’s one of the best nursing homes” in the area, he said. Before moving his wife into the Viking, he said, he looked at “at least half a dozen nursing homes around here” and chose the Viking. “I think very highly of it," he said.
Hirshon said he has spoken with other family members of Viking residents who feel similarly. He said he knows a number of the staff, too, after spending “300 days a year for nearly seven years” visiting his wife. He said the staff and administration, including administrator Rancourt, “go out of their way” to be friendly to residents and to make it a nice place to live and work.
“I would give it a very high rating,” Hirshon said.
Improvements have been made at the Viking Community Nursing Home – where an Alzheimer’s patient wandered off and died earlier this month – but the facility is still being fined for what the state calls “substandard” care.
The finding of “immediate jeopardy” has been lifted, according to Helen Mulligan, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. But not all the problems have been fixed.
“The facility isn’t in total compliance,” Mulligan said. It is considered to be providing “substandard quality of care,” because of problems with record keeping and security, she said.
As a result, Viking is being fined $350 per day from Aug. 23, and is not eligible for Medicare payments for new admissions, she said. If the nursing home does not fix the problems, Mulligan said, its Medicare payment
agreement for existing patients will be terminated Feb. 13, 2003.
The nursing home remains in violation of federal requirements to prohibit “mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property,” and to complete “a comprehensive care plan within seven days” of patient needs assessment, Mulligan said.
The Viking is the subject of state and federal scrutiny following the Aug. 9 death of Shirley Sayre, 77, who wandered out of a secure unit at the Viking and drowned in a culvert across Scott Dyer Road.
An initial investigation by state regulators found the nursing home placed several residents in “immediate jeopardy.” A $3,050 fine per day was levied Aug. 12 and remained in place until Aug. 22, requiring the Viking to pay$33,550 for that infraction.
Corrections plan accepted
Viking sent a plan of corrections to the state Department of Human Services Aug. 22, according to department spokesman Newell Augur. It has been accepted, after some minor revisions, he said.
State inspectors paid a surprise visit to the Viking the following day. “It wouldn’t have made any sense for us to go in before they’d filed a plan of corrections,” Augur said. Once a plan had been filed, though, the state wanted to check on things quickly, especially given the prospect of the Viking losing federal funding without a successful inspection, he said.
Door locks and alarms that had been malfunctioning during the Aug. 12 investigation had been fixed by the end of that day, and remained functional Aug. 23, Augur said. Individual care plans had been updated by Aug. 23, Augur said, but that’s not quite enough.
“They have completed the care plans for all the patients in the facility,” he said. “They haven’t proven to us that they can set up a system” to prevent future care plans from being incomplete.
Augur said the plan of corrections provides a strategy for doing just that, but it has not been tested yet.
Duane Rancourt, administrator at the Viking, said all the necessary corrections have been made and he is waiting for word from regulators that will allow the nursing home to admit new patients.
The biggest adjustment for staff and visitors is the keypad to get in and out of the building, he said. The code to the keypad is posted at the door, but he said that doesn’t give dementia patients an opportunity to get out because “they have a hard time with sequential things.”
Rancourt and the Viking staff also are taking advantage of a temporary slowdown in business to relocate the Medicare unit to the long-term care unit, a change that he had planned for some time, he said.
And despite regulatory criticism and scrutiny, the Viking is getting support from many family members of current and former patients.
Community support
One family member of a recent Viking Community patient, who asked not to be identified, told the Current that he was satisfied with what he called “excellent care” from Viking staff. He also said, “Alzheimer’s can strike anybody, and it always ends in death.” He went on to express support for the staff of the Viking, whom he said were “doing the best they can” dealing with patients with challenging conditions.
Selvin Hirshon, whose wife was an Alzheimer’s patient at the Viking for close to seven years before her death in February, said he strongly supports the Viking.
“I think it’s one of the best nursing homes” in the area, he said. Before moving his wife into the Viking, he said, he looked at “at least half a dozen nursing homes around here” and chose the Viking. “I think very highly of it," he said.
Hirshon said he has spoken with other family members of Viking residents who feel similarly. He said he knows a number of the staff, too, after spending “300 days a year for nearly seven years” visiting his wife. He said the staff and administration, including administrator Rancourt, “go out of their way” to be friendly to residents and to make it a nice place to live and work.
“I would give it a very high rating,” Hirshon said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)