Saturday, February 14, 2004

EDITORIAL: Report important in calling Long Creek to take action

The governor's report on the management at Long Creek Youth Development Center, released this week, is an important look into the core problems that prevent the facility from working the best it can.

The report describes vast discontent and fragmentation among staff members, distrust of senior management and "two camps" of senior managers who work against each other because of philosophical differences. It calls for a strong, team-building leader to help create a climate in which staff and management can work together well.

As meaningful as the report is, however, it failed to address a significant issue: whether the abuse that's alleged in the Michael T. case happened, and if so, which of the current management knew about it.

Michael T. is a former resident of the Maine Youth Center (now Long Creek) who alleges multiple instances of excessive restraint and isolation that violated the center's own policies during a four-year span. A lawsuit was filed on his behalf and implicates senior administrators and other staff of the center.

Documents uncovered by the lawsuit indicate that Superintendent Lars Olsen, Deputy Superintendent Robert Lancaster and senior psychologist Barbara Heath approved of the treatment.

It's still incumbent upon the governor's office to determine whether this abuse, in fact, occurred and which managers were aware of it. Anything short of a full exoneration should result in firings.

CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER Martin Magnusson and the governor's office are quick to defend Olsen, saying that his tenure brought sweeping, positive changes to a facility that was riddled with problems. The report also spends a good deal of space reinforcing this, saying that some staff members are dismayed at the negative attention focused on Olsen.

Things changed so much and so quickly, however, that it caused "irreconcilable differences" between Olsen and the staff, and the report recommends that he be removed as superintendent and reassigned within the Department of Corrections. Olsen had temporarily stepped aside during the investigation.

"(Olsen) pushed so hard and made things happen so fast that there was some alienation," Magnusson said during a meeting at the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram. "But he had the skills needed for such a turnaround. He changed the culture there."

That's not something a superintendent can do without making some people upset, Magnusson said. He's right.

The good things that Olsen accomplished, however, are a separate issue and don't lessen the grave accusations made by Michael T.

The lawsuit included periods of incarceration between 1995 and 1999, and Olsen began serving as superintendent in 1998. If it's found that Olsen did indeed approve of the treatment alleged in the lawsuit - no matter what positive changes he adopted - he should not be allowed to work for the state in any capacity. Nor should other senior administrators or managers who allowed the alleged abuse.

THE MANAGEMENT report makes excellent points and outlines Long Creek's needs with almost painful clarity.

Though staff attitudes and outlook have changed significantly, there are still discontent and division between those who favor a punitive approach and those favoring a rehabilitative environment. The report is correct to say that a strong leader is needed to bring people together.

Another significant finding is that longtime volunteer and chairman of the Board of Visitors, Dan Reardon, is "unintentionally undermining management's ability to make some of the changes that are so needed at this time."

The report said that his "regular reminders to staff that he has a direct line to both the commissioner and the governor are contributing to a perception that the superintendent isn't really in charge and creating fear and distrust."

This, of course, is a problem. Reardon's function should be clearly outlined so that there is no misunderstanding what, exactly, his influence on decisions at the facility is. Reardon's volunteer work has been invaluable, but the problems outlined in the report are concerning and the department should explore his role carefully.

THOUGH THE STATE is barred from discussing aspects of the Michael T. case, Alan Stearns of the governor's office assured the newspaper that "no stone will be left unturned" as other personnel are reviewed.

That's good. Stearns said while the report doesn't directly address the case, the governor has been "very involved" with looking at management, the litigation and related questions.

It's important that these issues are resolved. Managers or administrators who approved of the kind of treatment that Michael T. alleges have no place in a facility that has made dramatic steps away from such an environment.

An earlier review requested by Gov. Baldacci - one that looked at the restraint and isolation practices at both Long Creek and Mountain View - was to ensure that the things alleged in the Michael T. case were not occurring now, and the review indeed found that they are not.

There's no doubt that Long Creek has made a turnaround that's both necessary and commendable. That doesn't, however, change the past.

The governor's office should determine whether Olsen, Heath and Lancaster - as well as other staff named in the suit - played a role in what this young man claims to have suffered. If they did, they do not belong in state government, anywhere.

It's also vital that reforms recommended by the report are implemented to ensure the best, most rehabilitative environment for young offenders.

Back to Long Creek Articles