Academy at Swift River - Split from TTI

[Deborah]

thewho wrote:[/b]

The old, Documented evidence without the documents statement. This is getting old....show us the Documents

I heard the report praised ASR for having an outstanding program and the state is in the process of using ASR as a model for pilot programs in a few of their high schools. But I guess you just forgot to mention that little piece of information.

Sooooo. HLA received a Commendation from a Senator. Boy, isn't she re-evaluating. Anyone, ANYone can pull a scam... until they get caught.

It's a bitch you have no allies, but stop posting anon, Who. That's manipulating the readers, and totally 'out of agreement'. Sounds like you might need a year-and-a-half living in isolation from your family and subjected to the most perverse forms of BM.

[Deborah]

I have to go with thewho on this one.  Anyone can write that and claim it came from a paper.

Show him the link !!

Oh dear lord, he's gone schizzy again. Talking about himself in third person.

[TheWho]

Funny you mention that. According to the licenser I spoke with today the 30% rule came about because of ASR's whining. See the last time OCCS came in, they found ASR in violation of several laws and cited them stating they needed to become licensed as a RCF. ASR cried to the legesilature and got them to enact this 30% law. It worked back then only because ASR had literally just opened their doors and special needs was soley considered kids with IEP's. Thankfully the law has caught up with them and special needs encompasses so much more. ASR will not be able to hide behind anything this time and neither will you Who.

So you really believe that some person crying at the front desk saying:  “Please don’t write us up, I’ll lose my job if you do”  would be enough to change the laws in Massachusetts?

You also mentioned that this occurred when ASR” literally opened their doors” as you stated…..hmmmmmm.  So lets see…….ASR started up, opened their doors and had the EEC (as it is called now) come over to visit, found some violations, ASR corrected them and now, a decade or 2 later, you are having heart burn with it.  I still haven’t seen the report citing these violations or if they exist,  but if they occurred at start up, why bother?  
If a violation occurred 10 or 20 years ago don’t you think they would have follow-up and verified if they made changes?  And if they haven’t followed up why would turning over control to the state in the form of regulation to these people make our kids any safer?

This is nuts!  What newspaper did this come from ……  this just doesn’t pass the sniff test

[Troll Control]

This is the most accurate information available.  Until someone offers proof that the events in the article didn't happen or that the reporter was lying, it's what we'll go with.

I know it gets TheWho bent out of shape to be proven wrong on this but I never thought he'd go off the deep end editing out key parts of the regs to hide them because ASR is in violation.  Ha,Ha,Ha...that's just too funny when he does things like that just to push an agenda.

But these facts won't go away.  ASR has been cited in violation of at least two laws.  I think we've established that beyond doubt and everyone is comfortable with it here.

It was an article writtem by Stepanie Kraft for the Valley Advocate.  It's archived on cafety.org.

So this is where we're at until someone can show otherwise:

Ha,Ha,Ha...  I'm not going to do your busy work.  If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.

We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:

[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]

Sorry, Who, but these are the facts.  I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...

I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha.  You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits!  Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you.  Ha,Ha, Ha...

If someone was a convicted rapist, would you not believe rape was against the law unless someone posted the actual law that says it is?  That's absurd.  

The fact that ASR was cited by state officials for breaking the law is ipso facto proof that the law exists.

This is the most direct source we have stating the facts about the state's inspection of ASR resulting in at least two citations for violating the law.

I think we're all comfortable with the state's findings and the journalist's accurate reporting of it.  We all agree.

So this is where we're at until we see some proof that the journalist was lying about the state's two citations.

I know certain people would like to say that the reporter was lying in the article, but they'll have to take it up with her or the state.  We have established that these events took place and that the record is clear.[/quote]

Let's move on...  As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit.  Time to move on to other items.

This has been fun, Ha,Ha,Ha...just kidding.

[TheWho]

As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit.

State violations are public record.........  Hmmmm  how come there is no record?

"Breaking news,  The power has gone out at ASR, I am here live now in front of the student lounge and if the phones lines are not up in the next 10 minutes I predict a major violation of communication of EEC code 3.07 Part 9 will occur.  I will verify this myself, no need for paperwork or filing for public record purposes... this Amy Cross, signing off from Cummington, MA..... over to you Herb..... Thanks Amy, things are getting wild over there......................

[hanzomon4]

Link to the article

[Troll Control]

As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit.

State violations are public record.........  Hmmmm  how come there is no record?

"Breaking news,  The power has gone out at ASR, I am here live now in front of the student lounge and if the phones lines are not up in the next 10 minutes I predict a major violation of communication of EEC code 3.07 Part 9 will occur.  I will verify this myself, no need for paperwork or filing for public record purposes... this Amy Cross, signing off from Cummington, MA..... over to you Herb..... Thanks Amy, things are getting wild over there......................

There are records, but you'll have to go retrieve them.  I'm not going to do your busywork...Ha,Ha,Ha...

The evidence is in the news article, laid out nice and simple. Don't blame me for linking to it.  I didn't violate the law, ASR did.  That's why they got cited, silly....Ha,Ha,Ha.....Calm down, take a deep breath, read the article and then take up your concerns with the author, the investigator or the OCCS......Get back to us when you get statements from them saying they were making it all up....
Ha,Ha,Ha.....Good night!

[Troll Control]

This is where we are now.  It has been well established that ASR broke the law and was cited for it.  We all agree about this

Time to move on to the next issue.  This one's settled.

This is the most accurate information available.  Until someone offers proof that the events in the article didn't happen or that the reporter was lying, it's what we'll go with.

I know it gets TheWho bent out of shape to be proven wrong on this but I never thought he'd go off the deep end editing out key parts of the regs to hide them because ASR is in violation.  Ha,Ha,Ha...that's just too funny when he does things like that just to push an agenda.

But these facts won't go away.  ASR has been cited in violation of at least two laws.  I think we've established that beyond doubt and everyone is comfortable with it here.

It was an article writtem by Stepanie Kraft for the Valley Advocate.  It's archived on cafety.org.

So this is where we're at until someone can show otherwise:

Ha,Ha,Ha...  I'm not going to do your busy work.  If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.

We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:

[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]

Sorry, Who, but these are the facts.  I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...

I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha.  You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits!  Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you.  Ha,Ha, Ha...

If someone was a convicted rapist, would you not believe rape was against the law unless someone posted the actual law that says it is?  That's absurd.  

The fact that ASR was cited by state officials for breaking the law is ipso facto proof that the law exists.

This is the most direct source we have stating the facts about the state's inspection of ASR resulting in at least two citations for violating the law.

I think we're all comfortable with the state's findings and the journalist's accurate reporting of it.  We all agree.

So this is where we're at until we see some proof that the journalist was lying about the state's two citations.

I know certain people would like to say that the reporter was lying in the article, but they'll have to take it up with her or the state.  We have established that these events took place and that the record is clear.

Let's move on...  As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit.  Time to move on to other items.

This has been fun, Ha,Ha,Ha...just kidding.[/quote]

[Anonymous]

So you really believe that some person crying at the front desk saying: “Please don’t write us up, I’ll lose my job if you do” would be enough to change the laws in Massachusetts?

I have no idea what the circumstances were that lead to the change. I'm just relaying what the licenser told me. ASR was the driving force behind the 30% rule. They did this to avoid regulation. This is true whether you like it or not. Ha ha ha, just kidding.

You also mentioned that this occurred when ASR” literally opened their doors” as you stated…..hmmmmmm. So lets see…….ASR started up, opened their doors and had the EEC (as it is called now) come over to visit, found some violations, ASR corrected them and now, a decade or 2 later, you are having heart burn with it.

Wow you're an idiot. ASR by no means "had the EEC come over to visit". One of the employees a Mr. Kent called them because he was disturbed by the blatent child abuse he saw. EEC showed up much to ASR's chagrin. Mr. Kent was of course fired for this infraction. As to ASR "correcting" the errors, which by the way is a nice term for "breaking the law" ASR did not then, nor have they now "corrected" anything. They just found a way to get away with it, all good things come to end though I guess. Or in this case, all law breaking child abusing programs come to an end.

If a violation occurred 10 or 20 years ago don’t you think they would have follow-up and verified if they made changes?

Not if they arent under the regulation of the EEC, which thanks to their lying to the state and the loop hole they weren't. As explained to me today by the licenser the only way they would be able to go back in for any reason was if someone called and made an allegation of abuse against the school.

And if they haven’t followed up why would turning over control to the state in the form of regulation to these people make our kids any safer?

Because idiot it would mean the kids could report any abuse anytime, due to the fact that they wouldnt have their communications censored. It would also mean the state could come in at any time for any reason and verify they were actually obeying the law. As ASR has proven they cannot be trusted to obey the law without someone watching over their shoulder at all times.

This is nuts! What newspaper did this come from …… this just doesn’t pass the sniff test

Well of course it doesn't pass yours. You've got your head shoved so far up your own ass all you can smell is your own bullshit.

The rest of us are a little more objective than you are.

[Anonymous]

State violations are public record......... Hmmmm how come there is no record?

Because they arent regulated by the state. Only those companies that actually obey the law and become properly licensed are going to be listed in the OCCS' database.

Same thing with HLA, nothing but their X-Ray machine has ever been listed on the ORS page because they lied to the state to avoid being regulated by the ORS. RC on the other hand was caught before HLA was and is listed.

ASR has been caught and will soon have all their violations posted for the whole world to see. In the meantime we'll see if we cant get ahold of that original report for you Who. No doubt you'll deny it up and down but at least everyone else will know the truth.

[Deborah]

You also mentioned that this occurred when ASR” literally opened their doors” as you stated…..hmmmmmm.  So lets see…….ASR started up, opened their doors and had the EEC (as it is called now) come over to visit, found some violations, ASR corrected them and now, a decade or 2 later, you are having heart burn with it.  I still haven’t seen the report citing these violations or if they exist,  but if they occurred at start up, why bother?

The investigation revealed that ASR was violating state regs, first and foremost, operating without a license. They were cited, but not sanctioned. Can't sanction a program that's not under your jurisdiction. At that point, they were still a private corp with all the rights that entails, hence the meetings with the attorneys. Just like HLA, oh wonder of wonders. HLA probably coached them on how to scam the state.
 

If a violation occurred 10 or 20 years ago don’t you think they would have follow-up and verified if they made changes?

 

Not in an unlicensed program. They are not required to make any changes unless/until they are under the state's jurisdiction.

And if they haven’t followed up why would turning over control to the state in the form of regulation to these people make our kids any safer?

That's a good point. And I can imagine a very similar scenario to what I described about HLA. The state needs to be well educated, ie- shown proof of the services ASR provides. And if the stars are lined up just so, and they have an ethical director on staff, ASR will most definitely be required to licensure.

This is nuts!  What newspaper did this come from ……  this just doesn’t pass the sniff test

You can find it in a google search. I put up another copy in the Aspen forum because it no longer turns up in searches here:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 201#256201

[TheWho]

Finally the newspaper article.. we were waiting for.  So 10 or 15 years ago (when they first opened) the school was cited for allegations made by an employee who was not happy.  After further investigation the allegations were determined to be unfounded.  If the investigation as a result of the citation found ASR to be in violation there would have been a public record.... but there is none.

Lets say I am not happy with my job as a cook at Harvard and get the authorities involved and create enough smoke I could get a citation written for raw meat being left out over night.  But unless I can prove what I have alleged (that there is an ongoing problem) the charges get dropped and there is no public record…..  Harvard shouldn’t suffer because of this man and the law sees that they don’t.

[TheWho]

So it seems they passed the old "Abuse hotline" test 10-15 years ago.....?

[hanzomon4]

Link to the article

No who, in the article it says that ASR used it's licensing to avoid state oversight and that the matter resulted in legal fights that were unresolved at the time this article was published.

The citation struck at another bone of contention between the state and ASR. A few months ago OCCS found itself at odds with ASR over whether the school needs to be licensed in Massachusetts as a treatment center, something College Health Enterprises had not done. ASR officials seemed to be having it both ways by enforcing rules usually associated with treatment programs for people with emotional or behavioral disorders, but refusing to have the school licensed as a treatment center, which would give OCCS the right to oversee its operations.The disagreement is still unresolved, and has turned into a battle between lawyers for the state and the school.

[sick of child torture girl]

Its good to know the folk in Mass care.
do you know is asr has any connection to desito another mass school that also got shot down.
mass is a progressive state and they actually care. Im so happy