PRESHO PATTI K (Patti cakes)

Observation

The two emergency exit windows in the bedrooms are not able to open completely and they were not accessible at time of visit. THe windows are also tall and over 44 inches in height and do not meet the licensing standards. Dispute Description: Most of the WAC’s cited for this violation and Sergio Avila’s observations noted are incorrect. (ii) – To open these windows there is no key, tools, or special knowledge needed. I do not know what he is referring to by citing this WAC. Since there is no reference to this WAC in the observation I request that the supervisor overturn this and retrain Sergio Avila on proper WAC citation. This request is pursuant to DCYF Procedure PRO10.1.4(3b). (iii) – He states that two emergency exit windows would not able to open completely. This is inaccurate, there was only one window that had a temporary technical issue (that has since been resolved within the 5 business days needed for a serious concern) and would not open completely. He also stated in his observation that ‘they were not accessible at time of visit’. I do not understand fully what he means by that comment and what WAC number that refers to. (iv) – Both emergency exit windows have an open area of 45 inches by 26 inches, this equates to 8.125 square feet. Neither window was measured at the time of the inspection by Sergio Avila. Since there is no reference in the observation to this WAC I request that the supervisor overturn this and retrain Sergio Avila on proper WAC citation. This request is pursuant to DCYF Procedure PRO10.1.4(3b). (v) – Per the above statement (iv), both windows are 45 inches by 26 inches when fully opened and meet the WAC requirement of ‘at least 20 inches wide and at least 24 inches tall’. Since the windows meet the WAC requirement, citing this WAC is inaccurate and I request that the supervisor overturn this and retrain Sergio Avila on proper WAC citation. This request is pursuant to DCYF Procedure PRO10.1.4(3b). (vi) – There are tables underneath the windows. The height from the table to sill height for one of the windows is 37 inches and the other is 44 inches. This brings the sill height within the 44 inch distance needed to meet licensing standards. Sergio Avila did not measure the distance for this violation. (vii) – I am not sure why Sergio Avila is citing this WAC as there is nothing in his observation that references this WAC. There are platforms outside both windows that are less than 48 inches below the window sill. Since there is no reference to this WAC in the observation I request that the supervisor overturn this and retrain Sergio Avila on proper WAC citation. This request is pursuant to DCYF Procedure PRO10.1.4(3b). I was not aware of this Non-compliance because Sergio did not use his tablet and marked this monitor visit as "virtual" and I should have been given the opportunity to provide my input on the non-compliance violations and suggest a timeline for compliance. Which violates DCYF procedures. *Response composed in collaboration with Deborah and James Thurber. We are concerned about potential reprisals from state officials as we assert our rights. Most of the WAC’s cited for this violation and Sergio Avila’s observations noted are incorrect. (ii) – To open these windows there is no key, tools, or special knowledge needed. I do not know what he is referring to by citing this WAC. Since there is no reference to this WAC in the observation I request that the supervisor overturn this and retrain Sergio Avila on proper WAC citation. This request is pursuant to DCYF Procedure PRO10.1.4(3b). (iii) – He states that two emergency exit windows would not able to open completely. This is inaccurate, there was only one window that had a temporary technical issue (that has since been resolved within the 5 business days needed for a serious concern) and would not open completely. He also stated in his observation that ‘they were not accessible at time of visit’. I do not understand fully what he means by that comment and what WAC number that refers to. (iv) – Both emergency exit windows have an open area of 45 inches by 26 inches, this equates to 8.125 square feet. Neither window was measured at the time of the inspection by Sergio Avila. Since there is no reference in the observation to this WAC I request that the supervisor overturn this and retrain Sergio Avila on proper WAC citation. This request is pursuant to DCYF Procedure PRO10.1.4(3b). (v) – Per the above statement (iv), both windows are 45 inches by 26 inches when fully opened and meet the WAC requirement of ‘at least 20 inches wide and at least 24 inches tall’. Since the windows meet the WAC requirement, citing this WAC is inaccurate and I request that the supervisor overturn this and retrain Sergio Avila on proper WAC citation. This request is pursuant to DCYF Procedure PRO10.1.4(3b). (vi) – There are tables underneath the windows. The height from the table to sill height for one of the windows is 37 inches and the other is 44 inches. This brings the sill height within the 44 inch distance needed to meet licensing standards. Sergio Avila did not measure the distance for this violation. (vii) – I am not sure why Sergio Avila is citing this WAC as there is nothing in his observation that references this WAC. There are platforms outside both windows that are less than 48 inches below the window sill. Since there is no reference to this WAC in the observation I request that the supervisor overturn this and retrain Sergio Avila on proper WAC citation. This request is pursuant to DCYF Procedure PRO10.1.4(3b). I was not aware of this Non-compliance because Sergio did not use his tablet and marked this monitor visit as "virtual" and I should have been given the opportunity to provide my input on the non-compliance violations and suggest a timeline for compliance. Which violates DCYF procedures. *Response composed in collaboration with Deborah and James Thurber. We are concerned about potential reprisals from state officials as we assert our rights.