NY State’s DOH Dysfunction Continues

There is no doubt New York’s new governor Andrew Cuomo has his work cut out for him in his push for ethical and accountable behavior on the part of state employees and state agencies. Evidence of the widespread dysfunction is certainly on display in the response I received in yesterday’s mail  to a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request I filed on December 12, 2010 seeking documents from the state’s department of health.

The December 12 FOIL request asked for the following (quoted directly from the request itself):

Any and all policies and procedures and any and all emails or other forms of written or recorded communications that are related to Medicaid Fair Hearings.

– Any and all policies and procedures and any and all emails or other forms of written or recorded communications that are related to the state’s traumatic brain injury waiver, the RRDCs ( Regional Resource Development Centers) and RRDSs (Regional resource Development Specialists) and assistant RRDSs and their role in Medicaid Fair Hearings

– Any and all policies and procedures and any and all emails or other forms of written or recorded communication that are related to directives from DOH (and or contract employees of DOH) that relate to TBI Waiver providers and their role in Medicaid Fair Hearings

– Any and all information that relates to DOH Policies and Procedures that apply to Medicaid Fair Hearings

And what arrived in yesterday’s mail as a response, a slim binder used to training fair hearing officers. A disturbing and seemingly disingenuous response to say the least. Upon reflection here is what is far more disturbing; I wasn’t surprised.

I’ve filed another, far more specific, FOIL request.

Stay tuned.

Advertisements

One thought on “NY State’s DOH Dysfunction Continues

  1. I have looked at some of your blogs and think for the most part you are right on. Your remarks about Dr. Feeney as a person may be correct or not. I got an e-mail from him once regarding some comments I made about Greenwich University, and he sounded very angry. He had written a long and critical essay about Greenwich University which I thought was too harsh. Your remarks about the school are also, I think, too harsh. At this point let me add that I would be more than happy to sit down with you sometime, and you would be free to tape our conversation. I have four file cabinet drawers full of material from their Ph.D. program. Although Dr. Feeney may have made decisions you don't like, and perhaps decisions that were wrong, that doesn't mean his education was any worse than a doctoral program anywhere else. Moreover, my guess is that the faculty members he had, and the courses he took, would be just as good as the courses at any other school. That was my experience, anyway. I had three faculty members, one was a retired dean and research scientist at Duke University with a Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis, one was a professor at Texas A&M with a Ph.D. from The University of Southern California, one was working for the Pentagon in Washington (contracted) and had a Ph.D. from the Union Institute in Cincinnati. I looked up their dissertations on worldcat.org, and they were all dealing with science. I took classes, wrote papers, sent and received e-mails, made phone calls, sent and received material through the mail, had access to several large libraries (Oberlin, Case, Ohio State, U. of Illinois, Kent State, Cleveland State, and numerous interlibrary loans) over a period of four years. I took a written and oral admission to candidacy exam. The questions they asked me were equal to those of many other people with the Ph.D. because I have often asked professors what questions they had to answer. It is something they often remember. But enough of the program. I don't put much faith in Alan Contrares in Oregon, or his degree authorization office. He does not have a Ph.D. himself. He is an attorney. I don't even know if he has a master's degree or ever wrote a thesis. He never did a dissertation, dissertation proposal, never got a proposal peer reviewed, never took any sort of admission to candidacy exam, never defended a dissertation, yet he is the expert on all things doctoral in Oregon, which is official, and for the world, where he is essentially self-appointed. I see a difference between official and legitimate. A woman once sharply corrected me by saying there are no illegitimate children, just illegitimate sexual activity. I thought it was a good point. As you may know 10% of the people in prison are innocent of the crimes they were sent there for. But they are officially convicted felons, or whatever, nonetheless. Some are not nice, and probably did other things. Some did nothing wrong at all, as the Innocence Project has uncovered. In the same sense, there are schools that may not be accredited, but are perfectly good. I am a geologist and retired geology instructor. It bothers me to see states try to license geologists. The folks involved say they are trying to protect the public. That is a lie, outright. What they are trying to do is protect themselves. This country does not have enough doctors or nurses, yet doctors attempt to keep the number of students going to medical school and nursing school as small as possible. They are protecting themselves while they say they are protecting the public. This whole business of accreditation is a monstrous fraud. I have used up my 4,096 characters. Perhaps later.

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s