Liquor-Fueled Limo Rides To Polls Help Spark $2,500 Fine
by Staff | Aug 5, 2014 9:50 am
The Crossroads substance-abuse-recovery facility in West Hill has agreed to pay the state $2,500 and make major changes in operations in response to a host of violations, including two unauthorized boozy rides of clients to the voting polls.
Yul Watley, a supporter of Mayor Toni Harp, organized the rides (first reported here and here, and recorded in the above video) last Nov. 5. First he filled a limousine with male clients staying at the Crossroads drug-and-alcohol recovery center on East Ramsdell Street to transport them to 200 Orange St. to vote in the mayoral election. Then he returned and filled the limousine with female clients.
The state subsequently learned that alcohol was consumed en route, that no Crossroads staffers were present for the rides, and that contrary to policy, urine tests were not conducted on clients upon their return. The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) temporarily suspended admissions to the agency while it and the state Department of Public Health (DPH) investigated further.
On June 27, Crossroads signed a consent order with the state in response to investigations by both agencies. Besides the limo mess, investigators found numerous other violations of state regulations at the facility, from improperly supervised children to repeated mishandling of medication and general unsafe and unsanitary conditions such as a cracked bathroom mirror and ceiling tiles and soiled floor; from mishandled job evaluations and failures to conduct timely psychiatric evaluations to a failure to provide treatment plans or clinical oversight of treatment plans for clients.
Under the consent order, Crossroads will pay a $2,500 fine to DPH and bring on an approved licensed practitioner for at least six months to monitor a wide range of changes at the facility, including improved safety measures, resident assessments, charting, planning, protection of client rights, medication storage, and staff supervision.
Click here to read both the consent order and the findings of the investigations.
Post a Comment
I’ve mostly put the election behind, but I still wonder, if you could subtract all the people who were just told who to vote for (and even enticed with gifts like limo rides and alcohol) what would the final tally look like? My best guess, based on evidence like this story, is that Harp campaigners relied too much on old-school electoral tactics and couldn’t really trust voters to make the “right” choice or to even vote at all (hence the limos).
Now you’re just getting into electoral fraud territory based on people voting for someone else. Both campaigns ferried people to the polls who otherwise might not have voted. Saying people were “told” who to vote for is pretty denigrating to people solely for choosing a different candidate.