Corruption Denied!

Deal reversed; city manager now says care home must not adhere to codes required for medical facilities

The Albany Journal’s reporting of a deal brokered by Ward 6 City Commissioner Tommie Postell has saved taxpayers as much as $40,000. That’s because City Manager Alfred Lott says he now will not require a new personal care home to adhere the national electrical codes required for medical facilities.

In July, Mr. Postell brokered a deal with Mr. Lott to have Albany taxpayers pay for half of the electrical work at the Davis Personal Care Home on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive . That arrangement was made after the new business failed an inspection by city building officials who ruled that electrical work in the new building would have to replaced and wired in conduit.

In other words, as it turns out, Mr. Lott and Mr. Postell only colluded to commit corruption – they didn’t follow through with it after the conspiracy was exposed.

Mr. Lott’s foray into the building inspection business overrides a ruling by city Planning and Development Services Department staffers, who are the Albany and Dougherty County governments’ resident experts on such matters. Building officials reviewed plans for the Davis Personal Care Home and deemed it to be a limited care facility because – among other reasons – it has a nurses’ station and nurses’ call stations in each rooms.

Nursing and limited care homes are medical facilities while, by definition, personal care homes offer assistance and supervision only. Nursing homes and personal care facilities require licensing and state inspections, and there is third-party reimbursement (Medicare and Medicaid) for qualified nursing home residents.

Mr. Davis and his representative, Janice Teemer, maintained to city building officials to no avail that the facility truly won’t be a medical facility, but were not successful in overcoming the reality that nursing stations are in the building plans submitted by a residential designer and local engineer Reginald Pollard.

“We are more in the supervisory capacity for clients that are trying to maintain independence as much as possible,” Ms. Teemer, the home’s administrator, said in a June 19 letter to the city. “A personal care home provides more of a home-like environment. We are not a medical facility, nor do we provide skilled nursing services.”

But representatives of the home turned to one of Mr. Lott’s bosses – Mr. Postell – and got results. According to public records, complicit to the deal that was struck between Mr. Lott and Mr. Postell -- and announced to Mr. Lott’s staff at a July meeting -- was Assistant City Manager James Taylor, who jumped into the fray on July 5. Mr. Lott told Mr. Davis to secure bids for the new electrical work, and that Mr. Lott would use his discretionary taxpayer-funded account to pay for half of the project – up to $40,000.

“What do you know about an issue with this site,” Mr. Taylor wrote in an e-mail to building official Tracy Hester. “A Curtis Davis is to meet with us on July 12 at 3:30 to discuss an issue regarding electrical standards at Madison Personal Care home at the above location. Would like update by July 10.”

Mr. Hester immediately replied: “This has been going on for some time now. This is a personal care home and the requirements in the electrical code are for it to be wired in conduit (which it is not). Mr. Barker, my electrical inspector, has been involved, as well as myself. We have made numerous attempts to … assist in this matter.

“We have contacted code interpretations with Standard Building Code Congress International, International Code Council, National Electrical Code, the state fire marshal, and a local electrical engineer to ask for assistance, and everyone has agreed we are making the right interpretation. Mr. Davis and his electrician have been aware of this issue for weeks and have not completed the word as he is required by the National Electrical Code. I am not sure what they wish for you to do. This is a code issue and not an administration issue, or a lack of service eon our part. I assure you we have made every attempt to find an alternative or a way to get around this requirement as we do with any issue where there is a question of interpretation, but I don’t see one here.”

Mr. Taylor then responded: “I don’t know. For some reason Al has accepted a meeting. I just want to understand the issue. I’ll send you comment to him for review.”