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.