Facing Charges in Oklahoma, Pharmacist Plans To Open Shop In
Millington
Clayton Fuchs, former pharmacy manager of Oklahoma-based
Mainstreet Pharmacy, will soon set up shop in Millington, Tennessee. There’s
nothing remarkable about that. But Fuchs is currently under investigation by
the Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy (OSBP) and faces potential charges by the
Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
According to Cindy Hamilton, compliance officer of the OSBP,
Fuchs is charged with selling drugs such as Valium over the Internet — up to
800 prescriptions a day. This violates Oklahoma state law that dictates a
mandatory face-to-face meeting between physician and client. According to an
official complaint filed by Hamilton, one client used a false identity to buy
a prescription, and other clients have obtained “controlled dangerous
substances” despite being suicidal at the time.
In addition to the OSBP complaint, DEA officers obtained a search
warrant for Fuchs’ Oklahoma home. All charges are pending, and Fuchs will face
the OSBP board this week where he could be handed a suspension, revocation of
his license, and a $500 fine per count.
Dr. Ricky Joe Nelson, the physician allegedly authorizing the
prescriptions, is currently under an emergency suspension pending a full
hearing by the Oklahoma Medical Association.
According to Marilyn Elam, spokesperson for the Tennessee State
Board of Pharmacy (TSBP), a potential conviction would not necessarily stop
Fuchs from dispensing medicine in the Volunteer State. The state of Tennessee
has no laws that enforce a face-to-face visit by client and physician. Says
Elam, “Even if he is guilty in Oklahoma, he’s still licensed in
Tennessee.”
Fuchs has already obtained a license in Tennessee, but Dr.
Kendall Lynch, director of the TSBP, says that, should Fuchs be convicted of
charges, “we’ll go through the standard complaint process.” The
TSBP, he says, “has [the authority] in our statutes to summarily suspend
the license. That is our option.” — Chris Przybyszewksi
One Call Stops Phone Solicitors
For everyone frustrated with telemarketers calling during dinner
— and that’s probably just about everyone — the Tennessee Regulatory
Authority (TRA) can offer some relief.
Consumers may submit their names and telephone numbers to the
TRA’s “Do Not Call” program by either calling a toll-free number (1-
877-872-7030) or completing an online form. Though the program only officially
began on August 1, 2000, some 550,000 Tennesseans have already registered for
the service.
“We appear to have started a pretty popular program
here,” says program coordinator Ed Mimms. “We vigorously enforce it.
After a consumer has reported a violation, we investigate it to make sure the
consumer’s name is on the list and then we send the violating company notice
of the alleged violation. In most instances we get a response from the company
after that.”
Mimms says that a company can be fined up to $2,000 for not
registering themselves as telemarketers with the TRA. The company may also be
fined $2,000 for not responding to a violation notice and can be fined another
$2,000 if they are proven to have called a registered consumer.
The statute defines a solicitor as a company or other
organization that makes more than three calls a week to sell a product. Also,
solicitors may only call between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. and cannot
knowingly block identifying information from appearing on a consumer’s caller
ID device.
While no fines have been levied against any violators to date,
Mimms says his program has already investigated more than 500 cases of non-
compliance.
“It’s a lot like speed limits, though,” says Mimms.
“There’s always going to be someone out there who is not aware of the
regulations.”
The statute provides a few exceptions for telemarketers. If a
consumer has expressed permission for the company to call (i.e., signed up for
a promotion, returned a postcard) the solicitor is exempt from the
regulations. Also, if the consumer and the solicitor have a pre-existing
business relationship that has been active within the past 12 months, the
solicitor may call. —Rebekah Gleaves
Children’s Museum To Expand
For almost 10 years, half an airplane — minus wings and tail —
has stood silent guard in the front yard of the Children’s Museum of Memphis.
Soon, though, the gift plane from FedEx will be featured in an an interactive
exhibit, part of a 16,000-square-foot expansion that will almost double the
size of the facility at Central and Hollywood. Groundbreaking is March
23rd.
“The plane will be the centerpiece of the new
expansion,” says Randy McKeel, the museum’s public relations manager. In
fact, it will be housed inside a glass-walled display, and a spiral stairway
will let kids explore the plane interior and cockpit.
The expansion process started about four years ago when the
museum began meeting with community leaders, focus groups, and teachers.
“The teachers wanted more science-based exhibits,” says
McKeel, and the museum listened. “All the new exhibits are science-
based.”
Exhibits like “WaterWORKS!,” “Growing
Healthy,” “Art Smart,” and “Going Places” will
feature a wide variety of hands-on activities, from weaving to
“virtual” walking tours. “WaterWORKS!” in particular will
give children a chance to get their hands wet.
“It will include a 25-foot model of the Mississippi and an
aquarium of Mississippi River fish,” says McKeel. “It’s the museum’s
first venture into live animals.”
Opened almost 11 years ago, the museum has changed out
“permanent” exhibits but has not had any renovations since then.
Money for the expansion comes from the museum’s “It Takes Real Doh”
capital campaign, which started in January 1999 and ended in December 2000.
The campaign hoped to raise $6 million and ultimately exceeded its goal by
$250,000. That sum will go into the museum’s first endowment fund.
The new exhibits are scheduled to open spring 2002. — Mary
Cashiola
UrbanArt Hosts
Forum for Artists
The UrbanArt Commission is hosting its first diversity forum on
Saturday, March 31st, from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the Hope and Healing
Center on Union Avenue. The event will allow artists to meet with members of
the commission, a division of the Memphis Arts Council that concerns itself
with the creation and placement of public art, and learn about opportunities
for becoming involved in arts projects. It will also allow the commission
members to learn more about the concerns of local artists.
According to Elizabeth Alley, UrbanArt’s project manager, the
forum came about largely due to inquiries from Ephraim Urevbu, a longtime
artist and gallery owner in the South Main Historic/Arts district. Urevbu was
curious about the number of minority artists who had applied for consideration
and who had afterwards been tapped to create public art.
“Let’s just say that the number of minority artists accepted
is equal to the number who applied,” says Alley, without being more
specific. She explains that the commission’s new goal — and the main reason
for hosting this forum — is to find out why UrbanArt isn’t receiving a more
diverse group of applicants.
“It could be a question of trust,” Alley says, “or
it could be that we just need to do a better job of communicating.”
In addition to seeking diversity among applicants, UrbanArt is
also hoping that this forum will lead to more diversified “selection
committees,” the groups that actually decide which artists will be
selected for various public art projects. — Chris Davis
Adoption “Scandal” — Montagues Say Full Story Not
Told
| PHOTO COURTESY THE MONTAGUES |
 |
| The Montague “estate”in Fayette County. |
Andy and Michele Montague did not ask to be at the center of a
citywide debate. They say they’ve only tried to do what was best for their
former foster son, Juan Romo. Now, however, the Montagues say they are
embarrassed to be seen in their Oakland community because of the way they were
portrayed in The Commercial Appeal.
Recently the daily newspaper published several news stories, an
editorial, a column, and many letters to the editor about the Montagues’
experiences with the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS). In the
accounts, the Montagues were repeatedly described as “well-off,” and
their home said to be an “estate.” The Montagues feel that these
descriptions led the public to believe that they were wealthy and were trying
to use money to take Juan from his biological mother, an illegal immigrant
with no means of support and five other children.
“I haven’t just been burned, I’ve been fried,” says
Michele Montague, speaking of her family’s experience.
Reporter Shirley Downing, who wrote the stories, told the
Flyer that company policy prevented her from giving comments to other
members of the media. Instead she referred the Flyer to city editor
Charles Bernsen. When asked if he believes The Commercial Appeal
fairly and accurately portrayed all the parties involved, Bernsen responded,
“That’s a silly question to ask a city editor. We have no comment on the
stories we run in the paper.”
The public controversy began last week when the CA wrote a
story referring to the struggle Norma Rodriguez, Juan’s mother, was facing
trying to get her children back. The Montague family was described as
“well-to-do” and their home said to be an “estate-size home on
a 250-acre farm” — both statements the Montagues say are incorrect. In
reality, according to the Fayette County Tax Assessor’s office, they live in a
2,489-square-foot house on a one-acre lot.
Andy and Michele Montague share their three-bedroom, two-bathroom
home with their own four children, and for half of Juan’s life they shared it
with him as well. Furthermore, the home doesn’t really belong to the
Montagues; it doubles as a model home for Andy, a developer, to show to
prospective buyers.
“Put yourself in our shoes,” says Michele Montague.
“What would you do if you had a child for 11 and a half months, you
voiced your concerns, you called [DCS], sent e-mails and letters, and nothing
was done? We were concerned. We definitely didn’t want to go get an attorney
and pay all this money. We definitely don’t have it. We have four kids in
private school, we’re starting a new business, we can’t afford this. But we
were at our wit’s end. We didn’t know what else to do.”
However, the story quickly became one of a wealthy white family
trying to buy the baby of an illegal immigrant. The Montagues contend that
nothing could be further from the truth.
“I feel bad for saying this, but Andy and I didn’t want to
adopt Juan,” says Michele. “I have four children of my own. We love
Juan and we want to make sure he’s safe, but we never had any intentions of
adopting.”
The petition for temporary custody that the Montagues filed was
not to take custody from Norma Rodriguez but to take custody from the state.
The Montagues filed the petition after receiving notice from DCS that Juan was
to BE moved to another foster home. They did not understand why DCS would want
to move Juan into a new foster family. The CA accurately reported that
the Montagues had filed only a petition for custody; but the Montagues feel
the stories still gave the impression that they were trying to take custody of
Juan from Rodriguez.
On March 9th, the daily ran an editorial saying that “no
evidence has surfaced publicly that would justify separating Juan and his
mother.” However, an affidavit of Juan’s treating physician, on file with
the Montagues’ petition, says that when Juan was first removed from Norma
Rodriguez’ home he suffered from “1) Reactive Air Disease, 2) Bronchitis,
3) Development Delay, 4) History of Frequent Otitis Media [inner ear
infection].” While not enough to warrant termination of Norma’s parental
rights, the potential for abuse and neglect became clear when considered with
other factors: the Montagues’ reports that Juan repeatedly returned from his
visits with his mother infested with head lice, Norma Rodriguez’ admission
that Juan sleeps in a bed with her and her boyfriend, and the sworn
testimonies of witnesses who say they have seen activity consistent with drug
trafficking in Norma Rodriguez’ home.
On March 9th, the CA ran a guest column by Richard Wexler,
a Washington, D.C., expert on child-care reform. Throughout his column he
continually refers to the Montagues as “well-to-do,”
“richer,” having “middle-class entitlement” and
“marshaled the network of friends and associates that goes with money and
power.” Absent in Wexler’s column, and in most of the stories on the
issue, was the fact that Rodriguez herself surrendered her children to DCS
last year because she could not care for them.
The CA mentioned that the Montagues offered to let
Rodriguez and Juan’s siblings live in a farmhouse owned by Andy Montague’s
parents rent-free, but Norma refused because they would not allow her
boyfriend to move in with her. There was no mention in the paper of the
approximately $2,000 the Montagues gave or spent on Norma because she told
them that she lacked the money for necessities, like groceries. The CA
also did not mention that the Montagues, though not required to do so, usually
drove Juan from their home in Oakland to Norma’s home on Lamar so that Juan
could visit his mother, who did not have transportation.
And now that Norma Rodriguez could potentially face deportation,
The Commercial Appeal has not reported that the Montagues have
offered to sponsor her so that she and her family can remain in the country
legally.
“I would just love to snap my fingers and have all of this
go away,” says Michele Montague. “Maybe we cared too much, I don’t
know. I do know that this is a 2-year-old who cannot speak for himself. Who
else is going to take care of him?” — Rebekah Gleaves
