At the March 12, 2014 Business Committee Meeting, Oneida advocate Michael Debraska brought up some important information from a public report linked to by U.S News & World Report in their ratings of the Anna John Resident Centered Care Community (AJRCC), but Human Resources Director Geraldine Danforth wanted to censor the public information:
The public report that Mike Debraska refers to, and which the BC and Chief Counsel Jo Anne House seemed unaware of, was already linked to and transcribed by Oneida Eye on March 4, 2014:
The section of the public report that Mike Debraska referred to said:
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure information obtained from 1 of 8 criminal background checks was thoroughly investigated to indicate the final disposition of a serious crime. As a result, the facility could not ensure it did not employ individuals who have been found guilty of abusing, neglecting or mistreating residents and report any knowledge it had of court actions against an employee which would indicate unfitness for service as facility staff to State licensing authorities. Facility Employee-F had a DOJCIB (Department of Justice Crime Information Bureau) background check which included a charge of Second Degree Murder/Felony Commission. The record did not disclose the disposition of the crime. The facility did not document evidence of a thorough investigation regarding the disposition of the crime. Findings include: On 9/24/13 surveyor # conducted a routine Caregiver Background Compliance Check. Eight employees were selected from the employee roster presented by NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-C. The roster indicated Employee-F had been hired 2/12/12. Review of the DOJCIB, dated 1/18/12, indicated Arrest Data which included a charge: Statute # 940.02(2), 2nd-Degree Murder/Felony Commission, 1 count. The document did not reflect a disposition for this charge. However, for additional criminal charges shown at that same time, convictions indicated Employee-F was sentenced to prison. On 9/24/13 at 2:30 p.m., surveyor interviewed NHA-C about the background check for Employee-F. NHA-C was unaware of the most serious charge and had never seen the background check. NHA-C described the hiring process and indicated the ONT (Oneida Nation Tribe) conducted background checks at an offsite location via the human resources department. NHA-C indicated the ONT completed all hiring tasks and maintained the employee files. It was further revealed Employee-F was not employed or supervised by the facility but by the ONTDPW (Oneida Nation Tribe Department of Public Works). NHA-C revealed Employee-F began working at the new, recently built facility, just before it opened 6/13. When asked why his hire dated was reflected as 2/12/12, NHA-C indicated he may have worked elsewhere for the tribe but was assigned to the nursing home in June and had not worked at the previous facility. Surveyor # asked NHA-C how she handled performance issues involving Employee-F. NHA-C indicated a report had to be submitted to Employee -F’s supervisor at the ONTDPW. NHA-C stated she was not aware of results of corrective action. NHA-C verified performance concerns had been reported to Employee-F’s supervisor. On 9/25/13 at 9:00 a.m., surveyor # interviewed HR (Human Resources)-D who verified the a 2nd degree murder charge had been noted on the background check of Employee-F. HR-D also confirmed a background check had been conducted 1/18/12 but not immediately prior to initiation of employment at the nursing home. HR-D indicated background checks had been conducted when Employee-F worked in other departments of the tribe and that a phone call had been made to the county in which the serious crime allegedly occurred. HR-D verbalized understanding of the 4 year caregiver background check compliance laws and awareness of the crimes that prohibited individuals from working in nursing homes. HR-D stated he spoke to ‘G,’ at the Clerk’s office, who told me it wasn’t (Employee-F). HR-D further indicated the phone call took place several years ago and that no documentation with date, time, name, and details of the initial charge, were recorded. HR-D stated he would request documentation from the county in which the charge occurred, today, and provide to surveyor as soon as possible. HR-D also indicated a new criminal background check would be run today. HR-D verified there was not record of rehabilitation for Employee-F in the employee’s file. On 9/25/13 at 9:10 p.m., surveyor # interviewed ASD-U and HSS-H who verified additional information regarding the charge of 2nd degree murder were desirable. On 9/25/13 at 2:45 p.m., surveyor # received a criminal background check dated 9/25/13 with the same charges. At the same time, NHA-C revealed she had no additional information from the county regarding the disposition of the serious crime. It was confirmed Employee-F remained working in the building during the entire survey.
Mike Debraska also commented on a proposal by BC Chair Ed Delgado to pay $75,000 per year for a non-emergency consultant contract with the National Violence Prevention Resource Center out of Tucson, Arizona to do an assessment of the ‘gang situation’ on the Oneida reservation, even though BC Resolution 02-12-14-B, Cost Containment and Spending Restriction through the end of Fiscal Year 2014, states:
5. Delay implementing all non-emergency consultant agreements unless agreement is required to address issues of safety, health, regulatory situation, or General Tribal Council directive.
Oneida Eye has discussed the supposed ‘gangs’ issue before:
An in-depth article on the front page of the March 26, 2014 Green Bay Press Gazette, ‘Green Bay police report decline in violent and property crimes,’ reported that:
Violent and property crimes in Green Bay dropped by a little more than 8 percent last year.
Annual numbers from the Green Bay Police Department showed violent crimes such as rape and robbery fell by 5 percent in 2013. Property crime, which includes vehicle thefts and burglary, fell by nearly 9 percent from the previous year.
The NVPRC consultant contract had been deferred by the BC a number of times since November 2013, and at the March 12, 2014 meeting BC Secretary Patty Hoeft, rather than motioning to approve or deny the contract, motioned to forward the proposal to the Quality of Life Committee and for them to return with a recommendation.
Mike Debraska made the following astute observation which, as you’ll see, caused Paul Ninham to lose his sh¡t:
The answer to Paul Ninham’s rude and uninformed question about what Mike Debraska was doing in 1992 is that Mike was diligently working to actually improve the quality of the lives of Oneida Tribe members as a major force in getting the Southeast Oneida Tribal Services (SEOTS) program off the ground.
Unfortunately, due to lax attitudes by the SEOTS Director Mark W. Powless and the SEOTS Board, along with apathy about oversight by Governmental Services Division Director Don White, SEOTS is failing to meet its most basic objectives while blame is shifted back and forth as seen in the following excerpt from the March 12, 2014 BC Meeting:
All in all, the BC’s responses to Mike Debraska’s relevant and important questions and concerns were this:
1) On AJRCCC: We’re obviously clueless; end of discussion.
2) On Quality of Life Cmte.: Who are you to question us, ingrate?
3) On SEOTS: It’s somebody else’s fault, but we disagree whose it is.
Inspires confidence, doesn’t it?
