coloradoan-anti-censorship.net

This includes the recommendations of the Citizens Review Panel, that Larry Abrahamson and Elliot Phelps seem to think should not be followed, and thus allows Ginny Riley of DHS to hide more false/fabricated evidence in a case of sexual abuse of a child. Mr. Abrahamson, I just want to in form you that I updated the info at the website: http://coloradoan-anti-censorship.net/blog I feel that needed to be done because of the fact that Ginny Riley did not follow the recommendations of the CRP, and you and Elliot Phelps seem to think that the withholding of evidence that may expose more false/fabricated statements is the way the legal system should work in Larimer County. I do not feel the same, and think that anything other the truth is wrong. To condone the withholding of evidence once it is recommended by a County oversite board, such as the Larimer County CRP (unlike what Elliot Phelps told me that the CRP is a state function), does not do anything to increase the credibility of your claims in this case. In the end your office investigated my claims of false/fabricated statements, and found that my claims were correct. I ask you to tell how you can determine that my daughter is no longer being sexually abused by the two boys in my claim, after you have determined that those you would have to rely, have been found by your office to make false/fabricated statements, and not follow the recommendations of the CRP and provide me with the file that will allow me to find other false/fabricated statements. That does not sound like anything close to integrity to me, and thus, I feel it is my duty to make sure that those who work under you never be recommended to higher positions in the legal system in Larimer County, as you and others have displayed that the truth is not a major concern of the Larimer County District Attorneys Office. Mr. Abrahamson, if this was the case, then the fact that Ginny Riley will not follow the recommendations of the CRP, and you seem pleased to find that they will make false/fabricated statements, and that is acceptable. You and Elliot Phelps seem to think that use of false/fabricated statements is acceptable by the Larimer County District Attorneys Office. As this seems to be the accepted norm, of your office I do not think that anyone who is currently employed in your office deserves to be placed on the bench in Larimer County or in any other county in Colorado or any other state. Gregg Leverett   This is the letter from the Citizens Review Panel: Citizen Review Panel Report and Recommendations September 30, 2009 The Citizen Review Panel met on September 15, 2009 to consider the complaint ofGreggLeverett against Susan Kaul and Angela Mead.The panel members present were, Nancy Kain, Cathy Lund, Duke Sumonia, Jeffery Martin and Arthur Trevethick. Also present was Linda Connors, Senior Assistant Larimer County Attorney, to advise on any legal questions which might arise. The complainant, Gregg Leverett, was present as were Susan Kaul and Angela Mead. Laura Walker was named in the complaint but had no duties under Article 3 of the Children's Code but rather is in Human Resources and therefore does not meet the definition of grievance and therefore is outside the scope of this process. The hearing was convened shortly after 6:00 PM on Tuesday September 15, 2009. After some initial discussion concerning process and procedure Mr. Leverett began his statements. Following Mr. Leverett’s presentation Susan Kaul made her presentation and then Angela Mead made her presentation. Each presentation was made with questions coming from the panel members. Each individual was given forty-five minutes to present. Following both presentations each side was given five minutes for summary and rebuttal. The hearing was adjourned at approximately 9:15 PM. Following the hearing the panel met to discuss and make recommendations. At this meeting all the information presented was thoroughly reviewed and discussed by the panel members. It should be noted that there were many questions and issues brought up concerning the exact timing of events and individuals as well as agencies, which may have been involved. There was some confusion about who was involved and when the incidents and involvements took place. We believe that after some conversation and review of the documents these issues were understood sufficiently for the panel to make recommendations. It is important to note that overall the panel did not find any wrong doing, any acts which were improper on the part of the county staff, or any omissions by the county staff as alleged in the complaint in this complex case. Specific Recommendations The Citizen Review Panel thoroughly reviewed the written complaint by Greg Leverett and the responses by staff of the Larimer County Department of Human Services.  The Citizen Review Panel listened impartially to a verbal restating of the complaint and the response at a hearing on September 15, 2009.  The Citizen Review Panel asked appropriate clarifying questions of the Complainant and the Department of Human Services staff.  The complaint resolution requested by Gregg Leverett states “I would like CPS of Larimer County do the job of protecting children in a manner that is based on the truth & has the appearance of being fair & performing due diligence.” It was evident to the panel that neither Susan nor Angela personally conducted the investigation, that both children were interviewed fairly and away from their parents and neither disclosed any abuse or neglect, and the panel does not feel that the conduct of Susan or Angela was inappropriate. We do believe the process of gathering information at the referral stage could be improved but this is a system issue not an individual employee issue.  After discussion of all the issues involved and consideration of the complainant’s requests for resolution of the grievance, the Panel finds that the remedies being sought are presently taking place according to all policies and procedures. General Recommendations The following are not made as recommendations for a resolution based on the complaint but are general observations of items that may aid the county in the future.                                                           This is the reply from Ginny Riley to the CRP, note Ginny Riley states that she agrees with the recommendation that I should have the evidence used by Susan Kaul and Angela Mead, I have yet to receive this material.

1. Documentation by the staff was an issue for the panel at some points. There was a disagreement as to what was said in the initial referral through the Hub. We believe that electronic recording of referrals, where possible, might resolve this in the future. We believe that it also would be helpful if a follow up to the reporting person were made in writing to verify what the Hub has written down so that the reporting person might be able to correct any errors or add anything that he or she has forgotten in the initial call. 
2. We recommend the Hub should ask the reporting person enough questions so that they can determine whether or not there are other people who have first hand knowledge of the incident so they may be contacted in regard to the complaint in order to add important information. 
3. Documentation and reports of the actions taken by the county appear to be difficult for the complainant to access. It would be useful to all parties if the county were able to develop a method whereby the complainant were able to more easily have access to these records. It should be noted that this was in no way a part of the complaint that was heard, it is a general observation by the panel based on the process that is being used. 

This is the response from Ginny Riley to the CRP recommendations: DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1501 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 498-6300 Fax (970) 498-7987 DATE: November 3,2009 TO: Citizen Review Panel CC: Greg Leverett, Complainant Linda Connors, Assistant County Attorney FROM: Ginny Riley, Director, Larimer County Department of Human Services RE: Response to the Citizen Review Panel Report and Recommendations received October 5, 2009 I have received and reviewed the Report and Recommendations from the Citizen Review Panel (CRP)that followed your review of the complaint by Gregg Leverett. This complaint alleged misconduct by employees Susan Kaul and Angela Mead. The panel has determined that the conduct of Susan and Angela was not inappropriate. Therefore, there will be no further action related to misconduct by employees of the Department regarding this complaint. Regarding Mr. Leverett's requested remedy, the CRP also found that the remedies being sought are presently taking place according to all policies and procedures. Unrelated to the CRP recommendations, the Department is conducting another follow-up assessment of the current safety concerns expressed by Mr. Leverett to the Panel. When the assessment is completed, Mr. Leverett will be informed of the results. The Panel also made three recommendations that are general observations that may aid the Department in the future. The following is my understanding of and response to those recommendations. I. The Panel describes some concerns about documentation of calls when the initial referral comes through the Hub. The Panel suggests that the Department provide a written follow-up to reporting parties so that any errors can be corrected and additional information added by the reporting party if needed. The Hub receives over 5800 referrals per year, some of which are received anonymously. Even if the reporting party is willing to share their identity when they call the Hub, the Colorado Trails system does not provide a means to electronically record and generate reports on the address of the reporting party. The Department could not just send a printout of the Trails referral screen since the text includes additional information, such as previous referrals, which cannot be released to the reporting party. The Department would need to create a manual process to accomplish this suggestion. This would be a workload problem for the Department, especially with a capped allocation, increased caseloads, and funding cuts. I believe that the Panel also meant this suggestion to include audio-recording of incoming calls to the Hub. The cost of doing this, and storing the recordings, would be prohibitive. However, the Department did make some changes in early 2009 that address the concern about accurate documentation of calls to the Hub. If the referral is accepted for assessment now, the caseworker is required to contact the reporting party for clarification and additional information whenever that contact is possible. II. The Panel suggests that the Hub staff taking referrals be required to inquire specifically about other individuals who might have first-hand knowledge of the incident so that these people can be contacted for additional information. This concern was also addressed when the Department made changes in its procedures in the beginning of2009. Since that time, this question is asked at intake for all assessments. Team case reviews and family meetings have also been required since January of 2009 and provide quality assurance if this question is inadvertently missed in the initial referral call. III. Although it was not a part of the complaint heard by the Panel, the Panel noted an appearance that documentation and reports of the actions taken by the Department were difficult for complainants to access. It is not clear whether the Panel observed that the difficulty was related to cost, lack of information on the process, or other barriers. However, we are in the process of putting the record request forms and detailed instructions for access to records on the Department's web site. Hopefully this information will be helpful in easing the process for the consumer. The policy on cost for supplying records will not likely change due to the large number of requests and the current budget limitations. However, I agree that in the future any records DHS relies on to support their position at a specific Citizen Review Panel hearing will be provided at no cost to the Panel as well as the complainant prior to the hearing. I want to thank the Panel for their thoughtful review of complaints of employee misconduct and encourage the Panel to continue to provide input to me on issues of concern to them and ideas for system improvement.  I would have to say that highest level of ethics and integrity has not been followed in this case. In fact I would say that every effort has been made by Ginny Riley, Jim Drendel, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, Elliot Phelps and Larry Abrahamson to do less than what should have been done to insure that my daughter is no longer being sexually abused. Thus your claims are not founded on facts or evidence, and you have displayed that you are capable of hiding the incompetence displayed by your office.