SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
& EL PASO COUNTY COURTS VS. THE FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER
Judge Criticized County Commissioner’s role in DHS
case was reported in the August 18, 1999 issue of the Colorado Springs
Gazette Telegraph. FAC has submitted an OP/ED response to this article
which, unsurprisingly, has not been published by the Gazette. The
Gazette is too focused on the positive publicity campaign on behalf of
the El Paso County Department of Human Services (DHS) to risk
publishing a negative expose’, the facts be damned. The facts in this
case were inaccurately reported by the Gazette - not surprising - and
we are taking this opportunity to set the record straight.
FAC was contacted by County Commissioner Betty Beedy after receiving
complaints against DHS by her constituents. Beedy was trying to find
out what authority she had as county commissioner, and what could be
done to resolve these complaints. FAC pointed her to the relevent laws
and DHS policies governing complaints and she realized that the county
was out of compliance with state law governing the grievance procedure.
She has been attempting to bring the county into compliance. Meanwhile,
FAC had been assisting numerous families file detailed grievances with
DHS. These grievances were not resolved to the satisfaction of the
clients within the statuorily mandated 20 day period.
DHS then had the responsibility to forward those complaints to the
Consumer Review Panel (CRP). They didn’t. FAC contacted Beedy about the
complaints not being forwarded. Beedy began to put pressure on the
Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as the Board of Social
Services to enforce the grievance procedure. Their support was not
forthcoming.
Beedy then discovered five letters of resignation by CRP members on her
desk for her signature. Bud Sailar, Quality Assurance Coordinator, had
asked a secretary to prepare these ‘involuntary’ resignations and give
them to Beedy to sign. Beedy contacted the CRP members who had
‘resigned’ and discovered that they had no idea that they had resigned.
FAC believes this mass ‘resignation’ was a ploy within the department
to prevent the complaints from going outside DHS.
Since there was no functioning CRP, Beedy had no alternative but to
take the complaints herself. She began practicing ‘constitutent
advocacy’ in an attempt to resolve the complaints.
This is where the judge stepped in to criticize her, saying he has
‘exclusive jurisdiction’ over these cases. See the transcript where the
Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Judith Hufford is permitted to make a false
report to the court, a report which is deemed by the court to be
accurate.
This is the same Judge (Richard Toth) that interrogated Suzanne Shell
in open court about the Family Advocacy Center when the same GAL,
Judith Hufford, made slanderous comments to the court about Shell with
the intent of embarrassing and harassing her and hoping to have the
court find Shell in contempt or court.
JUDGE RICHARD TOTH solicits attorneys to violate attorny-client
priviledge in order to file complaint against Suzanne Shell for the
Unauthorized Practice of Law.
