Republican County Legislator George Oros Declares Spano’s Last-Minute Contracts “A Kick In The Teeth To County Taxpayers”
Last Monday afternoon, retiring Republican County Legislator, Minority Leader George Oros, held a press conference at his law office in White Plains to blast outgoing County Executive Andy Spano for what Oros called “A 2010 Budget filled with land mines and rewards for Spano’s campaign contributors, especially law firms.” He told reporters, “Republicans are calling for a moratorium.”
Oros commented paranthetically, “I’d love to see the budget that would be there if Spano had won.” He went on, “We must bring State, County and Municipal people together. We can achieve real economies of scale. People just can’t take it anymore.”
Oros stressed that, for years, he had called for “reform of the Board of Acquisition and Contract,” but that, on November 24, “the A&C Agenda included a handful of multimillion dollar, multi-year contracts.”
The so-called “11th Hour Contracts” include:
• $2.7 million to various law firms, all of which have been big contributors to Spano’s campaigns to perform of counsel legal services;
• $12 million for Westhab to operate homeless shelters;
• $4 million for security systems integration at the County Jail;
• $900,000 for a fence at Rye Playland.
The Board of Acquisition and Contract consists of three members, the County Executive, and his appointed Commissioner of Public Works, as well as the elected Chairman of the Board of Legislators. In effect, the County Executive, through his appointee, retains the power to pass any contract or long-term lease by his control of two out of three votes.
Oros told reporters, “The Spano Administration wants to tie Mr. Astorino’s hands and make it much harder to achieve the goals the overwhelming majority of voters chose him to accomplish.” He went further, stating, “This is not the way a county executive who has served 12 years should go out the door.”
Oros went on, “Voters spoke loud and clear in the last election that they were tired of business-as-usual in Westchester County government. It’s time for Mr. Spano to step aside and let a breath of fresh air come in.”
Asked if he was, in fact, still pushing for A&C reforms, Oros said he would “like to see the County Budget submitted before Election Day, as well as the use of zero-based budgeting.”
Under zero-based budgeting, every proposed expense, every purchase, every position in County Government, is re-evaluated in terms of developments since the prior budget to determine whether the position, the purchase, etc., is still justified and necessary going forward or, if, for whatever reason, that expense may need to be increased or possibly cut back, or eliminated altogether. Under such budgeting practices, the tendency to fund unneeded positions and expenses is greatly reduced, and duplication of services and acquisition of unnecessary materials and leased space are more easily identified and eliminated.
Oros went on to say, “Spano is frustrating the will and the sentiment of the taxpayers with $30-40 million of 11th hour expenses. We should put those items on hold and give the new administration a change. He owes it to the voters, but he really doesn’t care what they think.”
As if to confirm George Oros’ assertions, on Wednesday, just 24 hours after the press conference, the Guardian received a “Letter to the Editor” from a County Government employee (see page four, “Spanocrat Going to County Board of Elections.”)
We were gratified that the reader had adopted the title ‘Spanocrat’, coined by The Advocate several years ago to describe those party insiders whose attachment for financial selfenrichment, to Andy Spano and Company was much more compelling than their commitment to Democratic principles and practices.
Showing posts with label Andy Spano. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Spano. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Andy Spano.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Rubber Stamp’ Legislators Grapple
With Spano/Schwartz Disaster
Last Tuesday morning, September 1, the committee conference room on the eighth floor of the County Office Building was filled to standing room only and spilling into the corridor when the session got underway at 10:10am; a session Bill Ryan, Chairman of the County Legislature, defined with his opening remark, “We have called this meeting of the Committee Of The Whole.”
In attendance were Susan Tolchin, Deputy County Executive, County Attorney Charlene Indelicato, County Legislators, Chairman Bill Ryan, John Nonna, Gordon Burrows, George Oros, Bernice Spreckman, Lyndon Williams, Vito Pinto, Mike Kaplowitz, Peter Harckham, Ken Jenkins, Tom Abinanti, Judy Myers, and William Burton. Additionally there was Stuart Gerson of Epstein, Becker & Greene, retained outside counsel. Absent
were Legislators Lois Bronz, who was ill, Marty Rogowski, who was “out of town”, James Maisano, working at his law office, and Jose Alvarado, in Yonkers “in his district.”
Referring to a meeting two weeks earlier, Ryan informed the packed room, “I committed that we would continue to hold meetings of the Committee of the Whole to put everyone in the best position to work with what the Committee needs to know to deal with this matter.”
There was an unmistakable sense of anticipation in the room, heightened by the unprecedented circumstances; two weeks of prior publicity and mounting anxiety over many unanswered questions.
The Spano Administration, as it turns out, had been negotiating with the federal government, the Justice Department and the Federal Court for some time, perhaps two years, in an effort to avoid getting jammed up as they now are.
Obviously, without consultation with, or revelation to, their Rubber Stamp Partners In Crime, Andy and Larry had been keeping their dealings a big secret, confident that whatever mess they made, their bought-and-paid-for legislature would simply have to go along with the consequences the Federal Court would impose on their constituents, the taxpayers and families they are supposed to represent.
Nevertheless, no one had broken from the ranks to ask the obvious question, “Where was the $52 million spent between 2000 and 2006, so wrongfully calculated and deceptively accounted for that a clique of five shrewd ‘not-for-profit’ litigants calling themselves the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York could stand in for the Justice Department under the terms of the False Claims Act and get the already-much-overtaxed, struggling homeowners and business community of “wealthy” Westchester County caught with their upper and lower body parts (depending on gender) in the wringer.
Attorney Gerson, referring to the $51.5 million that Susan Tolchin would say was “going toward the construction,” declared to the legislators very early on, “You can’t build 750 units for this amount of money, you can’t build 750 units for twice that amount of money. You will vote for it, or
you will vote against it. It is not subject to change.”
Tolchin would then acknowledge a total package of $62.5 million, supposedly including the Anti-Discrimination Center’s $2.5 million legal expenses, plus penalties, but clearly in no way accounting for the County’s past, and ongoing legal and other expenses likely to bring the cost to
taxpayers well over $65 million if the Board votes to accept.
Gerson told the Board, “The number that’s in there now is lower than the original number. It was a spirited negotiation.” he identified Assistant United States Attorney James L. Cott, Chief of the Civil Division of the Southern District of New York as the negotiator for the federal government.
Mike Kaplowitz began, “Everything seems to cut against...” but, was interrupted by Gerson, who told him firmly, “There is no opportunity for change. The Government of the United States needs a sum certain. The money that the County is spending is for the County to leverage outside
money.”
Kaplowitz was uneasy, frustrated and feeling hemmed in. Gerson came back with, “It doesn’t say the County is going to build 750 units, but that it will get 750 units built.”
Lyndon Williams then spoke up, questioning whether a cap could be established to insure that the County would not be pushed into additional expenses over time. Mr. Gerson responded to Williams’ concerns, saying, “Neither we (the Spano Administration) nor the government feels
there is any ambiguity at all!”
Vito Pinto asked about the cost of the federal monitor and his staff, and was told it would likely be $250,000 in years one and two, and $175,000 in the years that follow.
Legislator John Nonna began to question what the sources of the so-called “supplemental funds” would be, seeking specificity. Then Peter Harckham moved the discussion toward issues of zoning as they might apply to placement of affordable housing units; and, the phrase “as appropriate” in the language of the settlement, as he put it, “based upon my own experiences as a builder of affordable housing.”
Of course, the notion of zoning problems suggested litigation, and, a response came quickly from County Attorney Charlene Indelicato, who declared, “I do not anticipate litigation. It would be absolutely a last resort.”
But John Nonna now jumped back in, asking, “Who gets to determine whether a proposal is appropriate or not? It looks as though the monitor gets to determine what is appropriate.”
Now, Stuart Gerson came back into the discussion with, “Remember we wanted the monitor. Our view was that we didn’t want the Court.” He went
on to say, when pressed further by Nonna, “I’m not going to say there will never be litigation.” Then, pausing, he clarified his comment with “It’s more likely some other municipality will seek judicial review, not the County.”
To his credit, Mike Kaplowitz was becoming increasingly more uncomfortable with the legislators’ lack of options. Gerson, at one point, told the Board with reference to the impact of the settlement, “There is nothing that changes the separation of powers in County Government;” a dubious
conclusion at best.
Kaplowitz, obviously sensing just how boxed-in Spano and Schwartz had left him, and his 16 fellow legislators, next queried Gersen, “Can we wait until we know the Implemental Plan before acting on the settlement?
The devil is in the details.” But Gerson came right back, telling the Board, “You must approve the implementation.” Kaplowitz protested, “This legislation did not have sufficient input.” Then, he asked, “Once we give approval of $51.6 million, is the implementation out of our hands?”
Tom Abinanti, who earlier had expressed a great deal of apprehension, some of which had begun to upset Chairman Ryan, now asked, “What’s the process?”
To which, County Attorney Indelicato quickly responded, “We don’t know;” and, Abinanti declared, “We don’t know either.”
At that point, Chairman Ryan acknowledged the general concern that the Board would need to approve the first $21 million “for bonding purposes.” He referred to the legislators’ task as “looking at this at the eleventh hour and realizing we didn’t have a hand in it.”
The $65 million dilemma Westchester families and taxpayers are now confronted with, and County Legislators are now attempting to wrestle with, grew out of the misappropriation of $52 million in federal block grants and misrepresentations made to the federal government with respect to the use of those funds intended by the government to promulgate and promote affordable, fair housing opportunities throughout the County.
In simple language, Andy Spano, Larry Schwartz and their Administration “knowingly” took $52 million in grants from the federal government, put it into hands and purposes never intended under the terms of the grants, and then repeatedly lied to the government about their failure to do
as promised.
The Federal False Claims Act, in pertinent part, is reproduced here:
“The False Claims Act (“FCA”) provides, in pertinent part, that:
(a) Any person who (1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; (2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government; (3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government;. . . or (7) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person . . . .
(b) For purposes of this section, the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” mean that a person, with respect to information (1) has actual
knowledge of the information; (2) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (3) acts in reckless disregard of
the truth or falsity of the information, and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.
31 U.S.C. § 3729. While the False Claims Act imposes liability only when the claimant acts “knowingly,” it does not require that the person submitting the claim have actual knowledge that the claim is false. A person who acts in reckless disregard or in deliberate ignorance of the truth or
falsity of the information, also can be found liable under the Act. 31 U.S.C. 3729(b).
In sum, the False Claims Act imposes liability on any person who submits a claim to the federal government that he or she knows (or should know) is false. An example may be a physician who submits a bill to Medicare for medical services she knows she has not provided. The False Claims Act also imposes liability on an individual who may knowingly submit a false record in order to obtain payment from the government. An example of this may include a government contractor who submits records that he knows (or should know) is false and that indicate compliance with certain contractual or regulatory requirements. The third area of liability includes those instances in which someone may obtain money from the federal government to which he may not be entitled, and then uses false statements or records in order to retain the money. An example of this so-called “reverse false claim” may include a hospital who obtains interim payments from Medicare throughout the year, and then knowingly files a false cost report at the end of the year in order to avoid making a refund to the Medicare program.
In addition to its substantive provisions, the FCA provides that private parties may bring an action on behalf of the United States. 31 U.S.C. 3730 (b). These private parties, known as “qui tam relators,” may share in a percentage of the proceeds from an FCA action or settlement.
Section 3730(d)(1) of the FCA provides, with some exceptions, that a qui tam relator, when the Government has intervened in the lawsuit, shall receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the FCA action depending upon the extent to which the relator substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action. When the Government does not intervene, section 3730(d)(2) provides that the relator
shall receive an amount that the court decides is reasonable and shall be not less than 25 percent and not more than 30 percent.
The FCA provides protection to qui tam relators who are discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment as a result of their furtherance of an action under the FCA. 31 U.S.C.
3730(h). Remedies include reinstatement with comparable seniority as the qui tam relator would have had but for the discrimination, two times the amount of any back pay, interest on any back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Rubber Stamp’ Legislators Grapple
With Spano/Schwartz Disaster
Last Tuesday morning, September 1, the committee conference room on the eighth floor of the County Office Building was filled to standing room only and spilling into the corridor when the session got underway at 10:10am; a session Bill Ryan, Chairman of the County Legislature, defined with his opening remark, “We have called this meeting of the Committee Of The Whole.”
In attendance were Susan Tolchin, Deputy County Executive, County Attorney Charlene Indelicato, County Legislators, Chairman Bill Ryan, John Nonna, Gordon Burrows, George Oros, Bernice Spreckman, Lyndon Williams, Vito Pinto, Mike Kaplowitz, Peter Harckham, Ken Jenkins, Tom Abinanti, Judy Myers, and William Burton. Additionally there was Stuart Gerson of Epstein, Becker & Greene, retained outside counsel. Absent
were Legislators Lois Bronz, who was ill, Marty Rogowski, who was “out of town”, James Maisano, working at his law office, and Jose Alvarado, in Yonkers “in his district.”
Referring to a meeting two weeks earlier, Ryan informed the packed room, “I committed that we would continue to hold meetings of the Committee of the Whole to put everyone in the best position to work with what the Committee needs to know to deal with this matter.”
There was an unmistakable sense of anticipation in the room, heightened by the unprecedented circumstances; two weeks of prior publicity and mounting anxiety over many unanswered questions.
The Spano Administration, as it turns out, had been negotiating with the federal government, the Justice Department and the Federal Court for some time, perhaps two years, in an effort to avoid getting jammed up as they now are.
Obviously, without consultation with, or revelation to, their Rubber Stamp Partners In Crime, Andy and Larry had been keeping their dealings a big secret, confident that whatever mess they made, their bought-and-paid-for legislature would simply have to go along with the consequences the Federal Court would impose on their constituents, the taxpayers and families they are supposed to represent.
Nevertheless, no one had broken from the ranks to ask the obvious question, “Where was the $52 million spent between 2000 and 2006, so wrongfully calculated and deceptively accounted for that a clique of five shrewd ‘not-for-profit’ litigants calling themselves the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York could stand in for the Justice Department under the terms of the False Claims Act and get the already-much-overtaxed, struggling homeowners and business community of “wealthy” Westchester County caught with their upper and lower body parts (depending on gender) in the wringer.
Attorney Gerson, referring to the $51.5 million that Susan Tolchin would say was “going toward the construction,” declared to the legislators very early on, “You can’t build 750 units for this amount of money, you can’t build 750 units for twice that amount of money. You will vote for it, or
you will vote against it. It is not subject to change.”
Tolchin would then acknowledge a total package of $62.5 million, supposedly including the Anti-Discrimination Center’s $2.5 million legal expenses, plus penalties, but clearly in no way accounting for the County’s past, and ongoing legal and other expenses likely to bring the cost to
taxpayers well over $65 million if the Board votes to accept.
Gerson told the Board, “The number that’s in there now is lower than the original number. It was a spirited negotiation.” he identified Assistant United States Attorney James L. Cott, Chief of the Civil Division of the Southern District of New York as the negotiator for the federal government.
Mike Kaplowitz began, “Everything seems to cut against...” but, was interrupted by Gerson, who told him firmly, “There is no opportunity for change. The Government of the United States needs a sum certain. The money that the County is spending is for the County to leverage outside
money.”
Kaplowitz was uneasy, frustrated and feeling hemmed in. Gerson came back with, “It doesn’t say the County is going to build 750 units, but that it will get 750 units built.”
Lyndon Williams then spoke up, questioning whether a cap could be established to insure that the County would not be pushed into additional expenses over time. Mr. Gerson responded to Williams’ concerns, saying, “Neither we (the Spano Administration) nor the government feels
there is any ambiguity at all!”
Vito Pinto asked about the cost of the federal monitor and his staff, and was told it would likely be $250,000 in years one and two, and $175,000 in the years that follow.
Legislator John Nonna began to question what the sources of the so-called “supplemental funds” would be, seeking specificity. Then Peter Harckham moved the discussion toward issues of zoning as they might apply to placement of affordable housing units; and, the phrase “as appropriate” in the language of the settlement, as he put it, “based upon my own experiences as a builder of affordable housing.”
Of course, the notion of zoning problems suggested litigation, and, a response came quickly from County Attorney Charlene Indelicato, who declared, “I do not anticipate litigation. It would be absolutely a last resort.”
But John Nonna now jumped back in, asking, “Who gets to determine whether a proposal is appropriate or not? It looks as though the monitor gets to determine what is appropriate.”
Now, Stuart Gerson came back into the discussion with, “Remember we wanted the monitor. Our view was that we didn’t want the Court.” He went
on to say, when pressed further by Nonna, “I’m not going to say there will never be litigation.” Then, pausing, he clarified his comment with “It’s more likely some other municipality will seek judicial review, not the County.”
To his credit, Mike Kaplowitz was becoming increasingly more uncomfortable with the legislators’ lack of options. Gerson, at one point, told the Board with reference to the impact of the settlement, “There is nothing that changes the separation of powers in County Government;” a dubious
conclusion at best.
Kaplowitz, obviously sensing just how boxed-in Spano and Schwartz had left him, and his 16 fellow legislators, next queried Gersen, “Can we wait until we know the Implemental Plan before acting on the settlement?
The devil is in the details.” But Gerson came right back, telling the Board, “You must approve the implementation.” Kaplowitz protested, “This legislation did not have sufficient input.” Then, he asked, “Once we give approval of $51.6 million, is the implementation out of our hands?”
Tom Abinanti, who earlier had expressed a great deal of apprehension, some of which had begun to upset Chairman Ryan, now asked, “What’s the process?”
To which, County Attorney Indelicato quickly responded, “We don’t know;” and, Abinanti declared, “We don’t know either.”
At that point, Chairman Ryan acknowledged the general concern that the Board would need to approve the first $21 million “for bonding purposes.” He referred to the legislators’ task as “looking at this at the eleventh hour and realizing we didn’t have a hand in it.”
The $65 million dilemma Westchester families and taxpayers are now confronted with, and County Legislators are now attempting to wrestle with, grew out of the misappropriation of $52 million in federal block grants and misrepresentations made to the federal government with respect to the use of those funds intended by the government to promulgate and promote affordable, fair housing opportunities throughout the County.
In simple language, Andy Spano, Larry Schwartz and their Administration “knowingly” took $52 million in grants from the federal government, put it into hands and purposes never intended under the terms of the grants, and then repeatedly lied to the government about their failure to do
as promised.
The Federal False Claims Act, in pertinent part, is reproduced here:
“The False Claims Act (“FCA”) provides, in pertinent part, that:
(a) Any person who (1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; (2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government; (3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government;. . . or (7) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person . . . .
(b) For purposes of this section, the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” mean that a person, with respect to information (1) has actual
knowledge of the information; (2) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (3) acts in reckless disregard of
the truth or falsity of the information, and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.
31 U.S.C. § 3729. While the False Claims Act imposes liability only when the claimant acts “knowingly,” it does not require that the person submitting the claim have actual knowledge that the claim is false. A person who acts in reckless disregard or in deliberate ignorance of the truth or
falsity of the information, also can be found liable under the Act. 31 U.S.C. 3729(b).
In sum, the False Claims Act imposes liability on any person who submits a claim to the federal government that he or she knows (or should know) is false. An example may be a physician who submits a bill to Medicare for medical services she knows she has not provided. The False Claims Act also imposes liability on an individual who may knowingly submit a false record in order to obtain payment from the government. An example of this may include a government contractor who submits records that he knows (or should know) is false and that indicate compliance with certain contractual or regulatory requirements. The third area of liability includes those instances in which someone may obtain money from the federal government to which he may not be entitled, and then uses false statements or records in order to retain the money. An example of this so-called “reverse false claim” may include a hospital who obtains interim payments from Medicare throughout the year, and then knowingly files a false cost report at the end of the year in order to avoid making a refund to the Medicare program.
In addition to its substantive provisions, the FCA provides that private parties may bring an action on behalf of the United States. 31 U.S.C. 3730 (b). These private parties, known as “qui tam relators,” may share in a percentage of the proceeds from an FCA action or settlement.
Section 3730(d)(1) of the FCA provides, with some exceptions, that a qui tam relator, when the Government has intervened in the lawsuit, shall receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the FCA action depending upon the extent to which the relator substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action. When the Government does not intervene, section 3730(d)(2) provides that the relator
shall receive an amount that the court decides is reasonable and shall be not less than 25 percent and not more than 30 percent.
The FCA provides protection to qui tam relators who are discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment as a result of their furtherance of an action under the FCA. 31 U.S.C.
3730(h). Remedies include reinstatement with comparable seniority as the qui tam relator would have had but for the discrimination, two times the amount of any back pay, interest on any back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
Thursday, May 21, 2009
At The Westchester Democratic Convention
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Democratic Party Insiders Stage
A Very Tightly Controlled
Un-Democratic Nominating Convention
Last Wednesday night the clique that tightly controls all that goes on in County government to the point where the County Legislature is
nothing more than a rubber stamp for the will and the whim of County Executive Andrew Spano, ran a totally choreographed, really un-Democratic Party nominating event.
Entering the arena at the County Center in White Plains, we were immediately struck by the predetermined nature of it all. Signs declaring
Andrew Spano, Janet DiFiore, and Tim Idoni, were strung up everywhere to the exclusion of all others as though the outcome, the very
purpose of the evening, had already been pre-determined.
A district leader from Mount Vernon was told, in no uncertain terms by Reginald LaFayette, that he could not put up a sign for Tony Castro,
candidate for District Attorney. And, in fact, when he then placed some 150 Tony Castro signs at a table next to the entrance where all delegates came in to the arena, and where there were three other stacks of signs, all for Spano, Idoni and DiFiore, those Castro signs were quickly removed, never to be seen again.
When Andrew Spano, the County Executive who first ran for the Office 12 years ago, telling everyone he was only seeking two terms, and who is now, at 74, seeking a fourth, took to the podium, it was difficult to determine just what he was thinking about when he uttered the following: “You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.” This reporter certainly had to agree that what has
been going on in County Government between the County Executive and the Board of Legislators doesn’t pass the smell test.
Spano then, apparently not quite through with the subject of waste matter, proceeded to tell the delegates a whopper of a lie, declaring that
he had “gotten the Mob out of the solid waste business in Westchester.”
This reporter was present, some four years ago, having been personally invited to attend a meeting of the County Legislature’s Solid Waste
Subcommittee, by its chair, Tom Abinanti, when then-Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz stood at the doorway to the conference room, and, one by one, called each of the several legislators present out of the room in order to twist their arms into approving an $87 million, five-year contract, with City Carting of Connecticut, a company the City of New York refused to do business with because of its known Mob connections, rather than exercise the County’s available option to renew with the then-current hauler for only $70 million for the next five years.
When asked by this reporter if the original hauler, at $70 million, had been doing a good job, then- Solid Waste Commissioner Landi, another Andy Spano crony, admitted that they were. When then asked, “Why, then, did you not renew the option with them for the next five years, at $17 million less than you will now be paying?”, Landi said, “We wanted to test the waters.” Landi knew then, as did each legislator in the room, that trash hauling was a very tightly-held and choreo-graphed industry, where prices only went up, just like County government over the last 12 years; just like the so-called nominating convention.
Curiously, when it came to nominating a candidate for District Attorney, Party Chairman Reginald LaFayette insisted that Tony Castro’s,
and Janet DiFiore’s, speeches could only be given after a voice vote was recorded declaring DiFiore the nominee. Apparently he was so insecure that, perhaps, if they each spoke before the balloting, perhaps Castro might have inspired too many of even the tightly-controlled, rather unenthusiastic, crowd.
Truth be told, Spano never really supported Tony Castro in either of his prior attempts to become District Attorney. Andrew Spano has far too many skeletons in his closet, both as County Clerk and as County Executive, to ever risk having a competent, experienced law-abiding prosecutor, the likes of Tony Castro, in the District Attorney’s Office. Spano and his cronies needed, and still need, people like Jeanine Pirro and Janet DiFiore, who will sacrifice the interests of decent, innocent individuals, police officers and civilians alike, while covering up crimes and malfeasance, outright corruption in office. Hence, the all-out effort to put Janet DiFiore, a horrible, self-serving Republican DA, across as a Democrat.
Spano expects the real Democrats, the families who are not Fat Cat Insiders, but who, instead, are struggling with the highest taxes in the nation, to accept DiFiore as one of their own, despite her well-known, ruthless handling of innocent victims, and her vindictive crushing of honest, hard-working police officers. He expects her acceptance from rank and file Democrats, just as he expected them to accept the $5,000 raises he wanted to gift to his crony commissioners already getting $155,000 salaries last Fall. In short, he wants Democratic families to drink the Kool-Aid and accept Janet DiFiore despite the fact that a News 12 poll, taken several weeks ago, with a hefty 999 viewer response that indicated voters for District Attorney favored Tony Castro by an overwhelming 55 percent, Dan Schorr, the Republican, with 27 percent,
and incumbent Janet DiFiore, a distant third, with only 18 percent.
We are confident that, in the certain primary between Castro and DiFiore, Westchester’s Democratic families will not be fooled into Drinking
The Kool-Aid for DiFiore.
“You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.”
Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano
Richard Blassberg
Democratic Party Insiders Stage
A Very Tightly Controlled
Un-Democratic Nominating Convention
Last Wednesday night the clique that tightly controls all that goes on in County government to the point where the County Legislature is
nothing more than a rubber stamp for the will and the whim of County Executive Andrew Spano, ran a totally choreographed, really un-Democratic Party nominating event.
Entering the arena at the County Center in White Plains, we were immediately struck by the predetermined nature of it all. Signs declaring
Andrew Spano, Janet DiFiore, and Tim Idoni, were strung up everywhere to the exclusion of all others as though the outcome, the very
purpose of the evening, had already been pre-determined.
A district leader from Mount Vernon was told, in no uncertain terms by Reginald LaFayette, that he could not put up a sign for Tony Castro,
candidate for District Attorney. And, in fact, when he then placed some 150 Tony Castro signs at a table next to the entrance where all delegates came in to the arena, and where there were three other stacks of signs, all for Spano, Idoni and DiFiore, those Castro signs were quickly removed, never to be seen again.
When Andrew Spano, the County Executive who first ran for the Office 12 years ago, telling everyone he was only seeking two terms, and who is now, at 74, seeking a fourth, took to the podium, it was difficult to determine just what he was thinking about when he uttered the following: “You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.” This reporter certainly had to agree that what has
been going on in County Government between the County Executive and the Board of Legislators doesn’t pass the smell test.
Spano then, apparently not quite through with the subject of waste matter, proceeded to tell the delegates a whopper of a lie, declaring that
he had “gotten the Mob out of the solid waste business in Westchester.”
This reporter was present, some four years ago, having been personally invited to attend a meeting of the County Legislature’s Solid Waste
Subcommittee, by its chair, Tom Abinanti, when then-Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz stood at the doorway to the conference room, and, one by one, called each of the several legislators present out of the room in order to twist their arms into approving an $87 million, five-year contract, with City Carting of Connecticut, a company the City of New York refused to do business with because of its known Mob connections, rather than exercise the County’s available option to renew with the then-current hauler for only $70 million for the next five years.
When asked by this reporter if the original hauler, at $70 million, had been doing a good job, then- Solid Waste Commissioner Landi, another Andy Spano crony, admitted that they were. When then asked, “Why, then, did you not renew the option with them for the next five years, at $17 million less than you will now be paying?”, Landi said, “We wanted to test the waters.” Landi knew then, as did each legislator in the room, that trash hauling was a very tightly-held and choreo-graphed industry, where prices only went up, just like County government over the last 12 years; just like the so-called nominating convention.
Curiously, when it came to nominating a candidate for District Attorney, Party Chairman Reginald LaFayette insisted that Tony Castro’s,
and Janet DiFiore’s, speeches could only be given after a voice vote was recorded declaring DiFiore the nominee. Apparently he was so insecure that, perhaps, if they each spoke before the balloting, perhaps Castro might have inspired too many of even the tightly-controlled, rather unenthusiastic, crowd.
Truth be told, Spano never really supported Tony Castro in either of his prior attempts to become District Attorney. Andrew Spano has far too many skeletons in his closet, both as County Clerk and as County Executive, to ever risk having a competent, experienced law-abiding prosecutor, the likes of Tony Castro, in the District Attorney’s Office. Spano and his cronies needed, and still need, people like Jeanine Pirro and Janet DiFiore, who will sacrifice the interests of decent, innocent individuals, police officers and civilians alike, while covering up crimes and malfeasance, outright corruption in office. Hence, the all-out effort to put Janet DiFiore, a horrible, self-serving Republican DA, across as a Democrat.
Spano expects the real Democrats, the families who are not Fat Cat Insiders, but who, instead, are struggling with the highest taxes in the nation, to accept DiFiore as one of their own, despite her well-known, ruthless handling of innocent victims, and her vindictive crushing of honest, hard-working police officers. He expects her acceptance from rank and file Democrats, just as he expected them to accept the $5,000 raises he wanted to gift to his crony commissioners already getting $155,000 salaries last Fall. In short, he wants Democratic families to drink the Kool-Aid and accept Janet DiFiore despite the fact that a News 12 poll, taken several weeks ago, with a hefty 999 viewer response that indicated voters for District Attorney favored Tony Castro by an overwhelming 55 percent, Dan Schorr, the Republican, with 27 percent,
and incumbent Janet DiFiore, a distant third, with only 18 percent.
We are confident that, in the certain primary between Castro and DiFiore, Westchester’s Democratic families will not be fooled into Drinking
The Kool-Aid for DiFiore.
“You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.”
Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano
The Westchester Democratic Convention
Democratic Committeeman Maurio M. Sax’s
Nominating Speech For Tony Castro
Chairman LaFayette, fellow Delegates, eight years ago I had the privilege to stand before you and place in nomination Tony Castro for Westchester County District Attorney. At that time you enthusiastically, and overwhelmingly, made him our nominee for that Office. Four years later, again, you gave him your unconditional endorsement and, in the election that followed, he received more votes on the Democratic line than his Republican opponent, Janet DiFiore did, on the Republican line. Unfortunately, he lost because of minor Party endorsements held by his opponent.
This evening, we have a complex issue before us, as Tony Castro, once again, seeks the Democratic nomination for DA. He is being challenged by the present Republican incumbent who seeks the Democratic nomination for her re-election to that Office. Let’s be clear. There is a real distinction between these two candidates.
Tony Castro is the incumbent Democratic nominee, seeking to be the Democratic nominee to run as our Democratic candidate for DA. Ms. DiFiore is the incumbent Republican District Attorney who seeks the Democratic nomination for her re-election.
One must question why the Republican incumbent, who campaigned against our Party’s candidate, is now seeking our Party’s nomination.
When asked, at a Committee meeting, why she is defecting the Republican Party, she responded, “I like the Democratic Party’s values.” And, when asked which of those values she liked, the response was, “I am against the Iraq War.”
The question must be asked, what, in fact, being a Democratic District Attorney, would permit you to do that you can’t do as the present Republican in that office? Is there a Democratic or a Republican method of enforcing our laws and protecting the public interest? Will you be more competent and serve the public interest better now that you are a Democrat? This Office requires a person who is independent from political demands; someone who possesses fair social ideals and humanitarian principles which relate to law and justice.
Or, is the real reason that the incumbent Republican candidate cannot win re-election against a strong Democratic challenger. If it is, it is an admittance of weakness in your ability to serve that Office. We should not allow our Party to be used for political opportunism and self-preservation. Let’s not be enablers to those who seek to entrench themselves in public office. If this is the trend, there will be a public backlash against this. Both political parties must maintain the sanctity of the two-party system which is basic to our democratic values.
The facts are, when News Channel 12 ran a poll as to who should be Westchester District Attorney, Tony Castro received 55 percent. Dan Schorr received 27 percent. And Janet DiFiore received 18 percent. From this poll, and his two campaigns, we know that there is strong public support
for Tony’s candidacy.
Most of us in this room know Tony Castro. We have seen him and supported him through two elections. He is the prime example of the American Dream. He is the son of immigrant parents, who worked his way through Harvard University. His whole life has been one of public service, having served for 14 years, with distinction, as an Assistant District Attorney. He is committed to public service and will champion the cause of virtue over vice. Finally, allow me to say this. In over 100 years, a Democrat has never been elected to this office. With Tony Castro, we now have an opportunity to elect a life-long Democrat. Let this be an opportunity to elect a true Democrat to be our next DA, for he will enrich the Office with new, dynamic leadership that is so sorely needed.
It is with great pleasure that I place the name of Tony Castro as our Party’s nominee for the next District Attorney of this great County.
The Westchester Democratic Convention
Tony Castro’s Address Before The
Westchester Democratic Convention
Dr. Martin Luther King said, “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice; and, when they fail in this purpose, they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” Two generations ago, New York Democrats were instrumental in waging and winning a battle for the soul of our Party as we embraced Dr. King’s non-violent crusade for justice as our own.
Just last November, New York Democrats proudly took part in an historic election of change, and promise, when we elected a President of the United States who is as much a son of Kenya as he is of Kansas. But the battle goes on. Today, here in Westchester County, victims of violence at the hands of a few law enforcement officials, are prosecuted by our District Attorney despite public and overwhelming evidence that they have done nothing wrong.
One man was held incommunicado and denied access to his attorney and family for four days. I know, because I was his attorney. In two recent cases, the United States Department of Justice has had to step in and prosecute because our District Attorney charged the victim instead of the offender.
I am a candidate for District Attorney this year, not out of any sense of entitlement as a former candidate. I run because, in this election, I am the better candidate, the better Democrat, and I will be the better District Attorney. Many of you know me as a life-long Democrat who fights the good fight and remains true to the values that define us as Democrats; an uncompromising, unwavering commitment to the civil liberties and rights of all, regardless of economic or social status.
That is the kind of District Attorney Westchester deserves, and that is the kind of District Attorney I will be. Our representations of justice show her blindfolded so that she may weigh, in the scales she holds, the fate of the accused before her, without regard to who that individual may be. In the United States, we are all equal before the law and, as District Attorney, I will make sure that is the practice here in Westchester County again.
Now, I know change is hard. It’s easier to embrace the status quo, to go with the conventional wisdom, to stick with the incumbent even when she just joined our Party. Senator Obama had a good gig going in Washington. It’s nice to be a United States Senator. It’s hard spending weeks in the frozen fields of Iowa convincing Iowa Democrats, sometimes one at a time, that you are the right instrument of the change that America needs.
So, tonight, in asking you to do the right thing for Westchester, and for our Party, I am asking you to do something hard. I am asking you to send a message to the power brokers who put this deal together, and to say “No”, a three-time Republican is not the future of the Democratic Party here in Westchester. And, “No”, we embrace a different vision of justice for our home towns.
It may well be easier to send this message in the privacy of a voting booth in September. But I ask you tonight to join my cause because it is the right thing, not the easy thing, to do. How important is this cause? Dr. King taught us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Westchester deserves a better administration of justice than it has. And, as the Majority Party, it is our obligation to see to it.
Fellow Democrats, I ask for your support, and with it, I promise to return law enforcement to its true purpose, the establishment of justice. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and God bless the United States of America, and our President.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Westchester Guardian/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Repsond/Andy Spano.
Thursday, Janauary 8, 2009
In Our Opinion...
Retaliation From The 9th Floor?
In Our Opinion...
Retaliation From The 9th Floor?
We cannot help but wonder if Andy Spano who, for so many years, made us all understand each New Year’s Eve how thoughtful his Office was by providing an inexpensive alcohol-free party at the County Center, would have cancelled this year’s celebration, if all of his cronies and his rubber-stamp County Legislature had gotten those ill-timed, selfish pay-raises he was pushing for.
We are being told that the number of attendees had declined over the years, and that the event, which once drew 2500, mostly single adults, had been attended by only 800 celebrants last year. We are being told that the event would cost the County $60,000. We say the attendance figures are what they are, but the cost estimate seems a bit dubious, all things considered.
No, it’s very hard to imagine a cancellation if those $5,000-a-head pay-raises had coasted on through and not been met with strong public resistance. King Andy would have felt compelled to throw the Serfs a bone.
Of course, it’s probably somewhat unfair to lay all of the blame at Andy’s throne, given the fact that, as King, he is merely the pretty face,
the figurehead, fronting for a diabolical Svengali, Larry Schwartz, the brains and the power of the Kingdom. Still, King Andy, if he had chosen to, could have overruled Larry’s retaliatory calculations. He simply chose not to.
The cancellation, announced as it was one day before New Year’s Eve, was surely no last-minute decision. Where were all of the usual cablevision
and newspaper promotions for several days in advance, as in years past, if, in fact, there was a genuine desire to maintain the tradition? We are talking about the County Center, after all.
It is not likely that we will see a revival of the event should voters be foolish enough to hand King Andy a fourth reign. We are simply expected to accept the idea that all of the good reasons for running the event, particularly for seniors and singles, not to mention County residents who were not particularly interested in alcohol but wished to welcome in the New Year with music and dancing at a reasonable cost, no longer matter; not on the 9th Floor of the County Office Building, anyway.
Simply think of the cancellation as the County Executive’s Office saying to us, “You may have denied us the icing on our cake, but we denied you the party.”
Our Readers Respond...
Reader Finds Roundabout Way Of Speaking Out On A Subject He Could Have Approached Directly; Even Feigning Response To A Letter To Another Newspaper
Dear Editor:
In reference to a letter in the Journal News, 12/22/08, entitled, “Bush Supporters Have Blood on Their Hands,” the writer is critical of George Bush
for his action in Iraq. He further states that over 4,000 brave American soldiers lost their lives for nothing in Iraq and that their blood is on his hands and those of his loyal supporters.
While I was opposed to the war in Iraq, I am also opposed to another war taking place here on our own soil, that is the war on the unborn which claims one million casualties annually. These casualties are the result of abortion. The writer can’t blame George Bush for that. George Bush is against abortion. So then on whose hands is their blood?
The writer is obviously one sided in his criticism and clearly wanted to take a swipe at the GOP. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have anything to write home to Mother about. It behooves him to tell it like it is if it is his desire to be fair in his criticism.
George Imburgia, New Rochelle
Reader Reaches Back Into 10-Year-Old Video Archive To Draw Interesting Conclusion
Dear Editor:
Andrew Cuomo ushered in the policy of sub-prime lending to people who don’t deserve loans. I’m not from New York, so the governor’s appointment is none of my business, but neither of these two people suggested would be a good idea.
Watch the CSPAN archived video from 1998 at a HUD press release. I think you would change your mind.
Alan Yedlin
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Andy Spano/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
In Our Opinion...
Andy Spano Declares, “I Am The Agent Of Change”
At this point, it is difficult to say with certainty whether County Executive Andrew Spano is more arrogant or more indifferent with respect to Westchester taxpayers. Clearly, his recent conduct and public remarks suggest a hefty dose of each. For example, when asked by a local television reporter what he felt his chances might be if, in fact, he runs for a fourth term, (as we all know he will), he responded by saying he wasn’t concerned about any political opponent who might run on a platform of change. He declared, “I am the agent of change.” To that claim We respond with a one-word interrogatory: “Really?”
The sad, but simple, truth is Mr. Spano, if measured on a scale of arrogance ranging from 1 to 10, would be an 11. He suffers from an incredible disconnect with respect to the needs and the feelings of Westchester homeowners and taxpayers.
He has become a cruel and insensitive monarch. Between rigged elections such as the Larry Horowitz Affair in 2001, and enormous sums of money raised from corporations and individuals doing business with the County, Spano has no idea how most people feel about him; his totally unproductive trips to China, his overpaid and unproductive commissioners, particularly at the Board of Elections. Taxpayers are angry over the outrageous growth of his own staff, and all of County Government under his administration over the last 11 years; and, of course, the cost to working class families at a time when they are losing their homes to foreclosure in record numbers.
Mr. Spano totally underestimates our intelligence, those of us who have not been feeding off the public breast for 10 or 20 years, nor setting our own pay scales and health and pension benefits and perks. Firstly, he brought out a budget, proposed capital expenditures, and operating costs of nearly $1.8 billion. Our Bureau Chief, a knowledgeable auditor, labeled it a “shell game”, warning taxpayers, “Indeed, the County shifts $485,679,066 of its proposed 2009 costs into the ‘miscellaneous category’ in defiance of generally-accepted accounting principles.”
Secondly, as if to add insult to injury, Spano sent nearly a million dollars in pay increases, roughly $5,000 each, for his commissioners, department heads, prosecutors, and management at Westchester Community College, for approval to his rubber stamp Board of Legislators. His move would seem to suggest that his cronies, underworked, overpaid individuals such as Reggie LaFayette, an election commissioner already earning $155,000-plus, twice the salary of his counterpart in Nassau County, ought to be reaching into our pockets for a little more of our hard-earned tax dollars.
We are inclined to believe the divisive budget, the pay raises, and the overall accompanying remarks and rationalizations from Spano and his official mouthpiece, Susan Tolchin, were all conceived and spawned in the calculations of Larry Schwartz, who, would make such inappropriate moves if, for no other reason, than to show his suffering, taxpaying victims that he can. And, if that sounds as if Andrew Spano, Larry Schwartz, Susan Tolchin, and the “Ninth Floor Crowd” couldn’t care less about your struggle to pay your mortgage and your kid’s tuition, not to mention putting food on your table, you’re right.
Our Readers Respond...
A ‘Cynical Observer’ Responds
Dear Editor:
“There stood a new breed of President, a Renaissance Man, a vibrant, articulate, passionate yet calm under fire Chief Executive: a cool, collected leader, ready for whatever.” This is a small sampling of your November 13 In Our Opinion column. I don’t recall ever having read an editorial
so filled with gushing, reactive and hyper charged commentary. Your use of superlatives and excessive verbose characterizations seem almost frightening.
Mr. Obama has not even taken office yet; are you so certain of his leadership qualities and decision-making abilities? The President-elect has neither the experience nor record of any major accomplishment to warrant such esteem as you have bestowed on him. I believe you’re concentrating solely on surface appearances and not the substance of the man. Your expectations are much too high.
I realize and understand how, after eight years of self-imposed exile and suffering, you feel the need to revel in the joy and jubilation of the moment with the election of “The Chosen One”. I personally believe congratulations and a job well done would have sufficed.
Unlike the insulting, vitriolic and hate-filled emotional outbursts of radical liberals over the last eight years toward the one man, George W. Bush, who single-handedly reduced these same liberals to unrestrained hysterical malcontents; I will congratulate the President-elect. And there’s the difference between conservatives and liberals. I will, for the sake of the country, hope and pray that the new administration is successful. Although I do have my doubts, any criticisms I might have will be issue-oriented, and not personal invective directed at the President or members of his administration.
With this in mind, I’ll begin criticism by asking where is all this change we heard about over the past year and a half? It seems but a distant and faint memory, when you consider the appointments thus far made of former members of the Clinton Administration to cabinet posts. Perhaps experience, in most cases, is indeed a prerequisite for success.
“The American People Have Spoken, And They Have Spoken Clearly.” This statement cannot be contested or challenged. But keep in mind that 58 million Americans did not vote for Barack Obama. And, until such time as we can assess his performance, I will remain one of those Americans
you describe in your editorial, a cynical observer.
Bob Pascarella,
Bronx
In Our Opinion...
Andy Spano Declares, “I Am The Agent Of Change”
At this point, it is difficult to say with certainty whether County Executive Andrew Spano is more arrogant or more indifferent with respect to Westchester taxpayers. Clearly, his recent conduct and public remarks suggest a hefty dose of each. For example, when asked by a local television reporter what he felt his chances might be if, in fact, he runs for a fourth term, (as we all know he will), he responded by saying he wasn’t concerned about any political opponent who might run on a platform of change. He declared, “I am the agent of change.” To that claim We respond with a one-word interrogatory: “Really?”
The sad, but simple, truth is Mr. Spano, if measured on a scale of arrogance ranging from 1 to 10, would be an 11. He suffers from an incredible disconnect with respect to the needs and the feelings of Westchester homeowners and taxpayers.
He has become a cruel and insensitive monarch. Between rigged elections such as the Larry Horowitz Affair in 2001, and enormous sums of money raised from corporations and individuals doing business with the County, Spano has no idea how most people feel about him; his totally unproductive trips to China, his overpaid and unproductive commissioners, particularly at the Board of Elections. Taxpayers are angry over the outrageous growth of his own staff, and all of County Government under his administration over the last 11 years; and, of course, the cost to working class families at a time when they are losing their homes to foreclosure in record numbers.
Mr. Spano totally underestimates our intelligence, those of us who have not been feeding off the public breast for 10 or 20 years, nor setting our own pay scales and health and pension benefits and perks. Firstly, he brought out a budget, proposed capital expenditures, and operating costs of nearly $1.8 billion. Our Bureau Chief, a knowledgeable auditor, labeled it a “shell game”, warning taxpayers, “Indeed, the County shifts $485,679,066 of its proposed 2009 costs into the ‘miscellaneous category’ in defiance of generally-accepted accounting principles.”
Secondly, as if to add insult to injury, Spano sent nearly a million dollars in pay increases, roughly $5,000 each, for his commissioners, department heads, prosecutors, and management at Westchester Community College, for approval to his rubber stamp Board of Legislators. His move would seem to suggest that his cronies, underworked, overpaid individuals such as Reggie LaFayette, an election commissioner already earning $155,000-plus, twice the salary of his counterpart in Nassau County, ought to be reaching into our pockets for a little more of our hard-earned tax dollars.
We are inclined to believe the divisive budget, the pay raises, and the overall accompanying remarks and rationalizations from Spano and his official mouthpiece, Susan Tolchin, were all conceived and spawned in the calculations of Larry Schwartz, who, would make such inappropriate moves if, for no other reason, than to show his suffering, taxpaying victims that he can. And, if that sounds as if Andrew Spano, Larry Schwartz, Susan Tolchin, and the “Ninth Floor Crowd” couldn’t care less about your struggle to pay your mortgage and your kid’s tuition, not to mention putting food on your table, you’re right.
Our Readers Respond...
A ‘Cynical Observer’ Responds
Dear Editor:
“There stood a new breed of President, a Renaissance Man, a vibrant, articulate, passionate yet calm under fire Chief Executive: a cool, collected leader, ready for whatever.” This is a small sampling of your November 13 In Our Opinion column. I don’t recall ever having read an editorial
so filled with gushing, reactive and hyper charged commentary. Your use of superlatives and excessive verbose characterizations seem almost frightening.
Mr. Obama has not even taken office yet; are you so certain of his leadership qualities and decision-making abilities? The President-elect has neither the experience nor record of any major accomplishment to warrant such esteem as you have bestowed on him. I believe you’re concentrating solely on surface appearances and not the substance of the man. Your expectations are much too high.
I realize and understand how, after eight years of self-imposed exile and suffering, you feel the need to revel in the joy and jubilation of the moment with the election of “The Chosen One”. I personally believe congratulations and a job well done would have sufficed.
Unlike the insulting, vitriolic and hate-filled emotional outbursts of radical liberals over the last eight years toward the one man, George W. Bush, who single-handedly reduced these same liberals to unrestrained hysterical malcontents; I will congratulate the President-elect. And there’s the difference between conservatives and liberals. I will, for the sake of the country, hope and pray that the new administration is successful. Although I do have my doubts, any criticisms I might have will be issue-oriented, and not personal invective directed at the President or members of his administration.
With this in mind, I’ll begin criticism by asking where is all this change we heard about over the past year and a half? It seems but a distant and faint memory, when you consider the appointments thus far made of former members of the Clinton Administration to cabinet posts. Perhaps experience, in most cases, is indeed a prerequisite for success.
“The American People Have Spoken, And They Have Spoken Clearly.” This statement cannot be contested or challenged. But keep in mind that 58 million Americans did not vote for Barack Obama. And, until such time as we can assess his performance, I will remain one of those Americans
you describe in your editorial, a cynical observer.
Bob Pascarella,
Bronx
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Gary Kriss/Andy Spano/Ron Gatto/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
If Gary Kriss Is Guilty Of Theft,
So Is County Executive Andy Spano
Several days ago, Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore called a press conference in regard to her Office’s investigation of Gary Kriss, former Chief Advisor to Bill Ryan, Chairman of the Westchester County Board of Legislators. The investigation, conducted over several months, was occasioned by the revelation that Kriss had made several purchases of computer software and communication devices seemingly unrelated to the activities of his employer, with taxpayer funds. Those purchases totalled more than $12,000 and, in some instances, were sent directly to his
home.
When the questionable purchases first came to light, Chairman Ryan, his immediate superior and a good friend, attempted to shoulder some of the responsibility for the troubling purchases, even suggesting that the filmmaking software was actually needed for some effort by the Legislature to
produce public service communication of a novel sort.
However, despite Ryan’s best efforts, given the uproar just a few months earlier over his demands for a huge pay increase, his desire to be compensated nearly the salary of a full time department commissioner for his clearly part-time position, not to mention exposure of excesses in
County Government, rising property taxes, and falling revenues, there was no way Kriss’ problem would go away quietly.
DA Janet DiFiore announced an investigation into the matter, thus abruptly halting all public statements by Ryan and sending Kriss scrambling for
a lawyer. Simultaneously the Board of Legislators, unwilling to surrender their right of self-examination and governance, formed their own ad hoc
fact finding committee headed by none other than Ken Jenkins, water carrier extraordinaire for the County Executive, and, a legislator with residency problems.
Savvy political observers, of course, realized that Janet DiFiore would not be investigating Gary Kriss’ activities unless she had the prior approval of Larry Schwartz by way of Andy Spano. And, Spano had no concern since the target, Gary Kriss, was Bill Ryan’s problem; at least it seemed that way. Of course, Kriss, who had been involved in County Government for nearly 20 years, was a guy who wasn’t accustomed to obeying the rules.
Despite regulations to the contrary, he accumulated many hundreds of hours of unused sick leave, vacation, and personal days, which, as it turns
out, he’s going to receive a fat cash settlement of some $70,000 for, not to mention $56,000 per year in annual pension, and possibly more.
Troublesome and wrongheaded as his actions had been, Janet knew that she had to be very careful how she went about bringing Gary Kriss to justice, if she wasn’t to cause a major conflagration; one that could have injured her political mentor, Andy Spano, and those closely tied to him. Thus, she decided not to pursue charges against Kriss for that which was most obvious and provable, the $12,000 worth of purchases with taxpayers’ funds; items for his personal use and enjoyment, because Big Bill Ryan had already implicated himself, at least partially, in those expenditures, and might suffer injury, and seek revenge. Open warfare between Ryan and Spano could bring down the whole ugly blood-sucking operation.
So, instead, DA DiFiore opted to charge Mr. Kriss with crimes to which there could be no connection to Bill Ryan, and thus no scarring implications for Andy and Company. Declaring, “Anytime a public employee uses taxpayer dollars for his own purposes, a crime has been
committed,” Janet Difiore proceeded to charge Gary Kriss with four Misdemeanor counts, each punishable by a year in prison, for his alleged Theft Of Services of his legislative aide Sarah O’Brien’s county paid time when he engaged her to perform personal tasks for him such as designing book covers for manuscripts he had written, and creating artwork for his wife. If found guilty on each of four counts, Kriss could face four years in prison.
That having been said, We now ask why Andy Spano should not be placed under similar investigation by DA DiFiore’s Office and similarly charged,
given his unlawful dealings with County employee Ron Gatto as exposed in the July 17, 2008 edition of The Guardian. On page 5, in The Advocate, readers were informed, “Gatto was overheard recently telling someone at the Yorktown Diner ‘I’m untouchable; I put in garage doors and did other work at Andy Spano’s house for free’”.
The article went on to state, “In that connection, The Guardian confirmed that on multiple occasions, in December 2003, Gatto was called to Spano’s house, while on duty, on County time, to work on garage doors he installed. On one occasion, he was apparently called to Spano’s house because the County Executive was locked out.”
A press release from the County Executive’s Office issued February 28, 2008, was headlined, “Unlicensed Contractor Arrested, Van Seized
By County Police. First Such Seizure Under New Consumer Protection Law.”The press release remarkably confirmed what was contained in a
letter to the editor published in The Guardian’s June 5, 2008 edition, detailing the fact that the owner of Door Doctor, a major competitor of Ron Gatto’s family’s garage door business, had been arrested by E.S.U. Director Ron Gatto, Detective Car , and E.S.U. Inspector Allen Carroll at a home on Constant Avenue in Peekskill, where he was found repairing a garage door, for failure to have a Consumer Protection License.
Talk about theft of services; Gatto, going several times on County time to County Executive Spano’s home to fix the garage doors installed for free by his family business? Not to mention, Gatto, an Environmental Protection Officer for the County, instead going on County time to apprehend and arrest one of his family’s biggest competitors, literally knocking him out of business.
We believe DA DiFiore has a serious problem here. In light of her pronouncements and the action she has taken against Gary Kriss, there is no way she can let Andy Spano’s Theft Of Services and his acceptance, unlawfully, of merchandise; a quid pro quo from a subordinate, go uninvestigated
and unprosecuted. It has to do with Equal Protection Under The Law, as well as Due Process, and a whole host of other issues.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
If Gary Kriss Is Guilty Of Theft,
So Is County Executive Andy Spano
Several days ago, Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore called a press conference in regard to her Office’s investigation of Gary Kriss, former Chief Advisor to Bill Ryan, Chairman of the Westchester County Board of Legislators. The investigation, conducted over several months, was occasioned by the revelation that Kriss had made several purchases of computer software and communication devices seemingly unrelated to the activities of his employer, with taxpayer funds. Those purchases totalled more than $12,000 and, in some instances, were sent directly to his
home.
When the questionable purchases first came to light, Chairman Ryan, his immediate superior and a good friend, attempted to shoulder some of the responsibility for the troubling purchases, even suggesting that the filmmaking software was actually needed for some effort by the Legislature to
produce public service communication of a novel sort.
However, despite Ryan’s best efforts, given the uproar just a few months earlier over his demands for a huge pay increase, his desire to be compensated nearly the salary of a full time department commissioner for his clearly part-time position, not to mention exposure of excesses in
County Government, rising property taxes, and falling revenues, there was no way Kriss’ problem would go away quietly.
DA Janet DiFiore announced an investigation into the matter, thus abruptly halting all public statements by Ryan and sending Kriss scrambling for
a lawyer. Simultaneously the Board of Legislators, unwilling to surrender their right of self-examination and governance, formed their own ad hoc
fact finding committee headed by none other than Ken Jenkins, water carrier extraordinaire for the County Executive, and, a legislator with residency problems.
Savvy political observers, of course, realized that Janet DiFiore would not be investigating Gary Kriss’ activities unless she had the prior approval of Larry Schwartz by way of Andy Spano. And, Spano had no concern since the target, Gary Kriss, was Bill Ryan’s problem; at least it seemed that way. Of course, Kriss, who had been involved in County Government for nearly 20 years, was a guy who wasn’t accustomed to obeying the rules.
Despite regulations to the contrary, he accumulated many hundreds of hours of unused sick leave, vacation, and personal days, which, as it turns
out, he’s going to receive a fat cash settlement of some $70,000 for, not to mention $56,000 per year in annual pension, and possibly more.
Troublesome and wrongheaded as his actions had been, Janet knew that she had to be very careful how she went about bringing Gary Kriss to justice, if she wasn’t to cause a major conflagration; one that could have injured her political mentor, Andy Spano, and those closely tied to him. Thus, she decided not to pursue charges against Kriss for that which was most obvious and provable, the $12,000 worth of purchases with taxpayers’ funds; items for his personal use and enjoyment, because Big Bill Ryan had already implicated himself, at least partially, in those expenditures, and might suffer injury, and seek revenge. Open warfare between Ryan and Spano could bring down the whole ugly blood-sucking operation.
So, instead, DA DiFiore opted to charge Mr. Kriss with crimes to which there could be no connection to Bill Ryan, and thus no scarring implications for Andy and Company. Declaring, “Anytime a public employee uses taxpayer dollars for his own purposes, a crime has been
committed,” Janet Difiore proceeded to charge Gary Kriss with four Misdemeanor counts, each punishable by a year in prison, for his alleged Theft Of Services of his legislative aide Sarah O’Brien’s county paid time when he engaged her to perform personal tasks for him such as designing book covers for manuscripts he had written, and creating artwork for his wife. If found guilty on each of four counts, Kriss could face four years in prison.
That having been said, We now ask why Andy Spano should not be placed under similar investigation by DA DiFiore’s Office and similarly charged,
given his unlawful dealings with County employee Ron Gatto as exposed in the July 17, 2008 edition of The Guardian. On page 5, in The Advocate, readers were informed, “Gatto was overheard recently telling someone at the Yorktown Diner ‘I’m untouchable; I put in garage doors and did other work at Andy Spano’s house for free’”.
The article went on to state, “In that connection, The Guardian confirmed that on multiple occasions, in December 2003, Gatto was called to Spano’s house, while on duty, on County time, to work on garage doors he installed. On one occasion, he was apparently called to Spano’s house because the County Executive was locked out.”
A press release from the County Executive’s Office issued February 28, 2008, was headlined, “Unlicensed Contractor Arrested, Van Seized
By County Police. First Such Seizure Under New Consumer Protection Law.”The press release remarkably confirmed what was contained in a
letter to the editor published in The Guardian’s June 5, 2008 edition, detailing the fact that the owner of Door Doctor, a major competitor of Ron Gatto’s family’s garage door business, had been arrested by E.S.U. Director Ron Gatto, Detective Car , and E.S.U. Inspector Allen Carroll at a home on Constant Avenue in Peekskill, where he was found repairing a garage door, for failure to have a Consumer Protection License.
Talk about theft of services; Gatto, going several times on County time to County Executive Spano’s home to fix the garage doors installed for free by his family business? Not to mention, Gatto, an Environmental Protection Officer for the County, instead going on County time to apprehend and arrest one of his family’s biggest competitors, literally knocking him out of business.
We believe DA DiFiore has a serious problem here. In light of her pronouncements and the action she has taken against Gary Kriss, there is no way she can let Andy Spano’s Theft Of Services and his acceptance, unlawfully, of merchandise; a quid pro quo from a subordinate, go uninvestigated
and unprosecuted. It has to do with Equal Protection Under The Law, as well as Due Process, and a whole host of other issues.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Ron Gatto.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Andy Spano And County Police Officer
Engage In Unlawful Dealings
In the June 5, 2008 issue of The Guardian, there appeared a Letter to the Editor entitled, “Reader Exposes County Police Conflict Of Interest,” from ‘A Concerned County Resident’. The letter asked, “Does anyone find it interesting that Ron Gatto is in charge of the Environmental Enforcement Unit for the Westchester County Police, yet he has his subordinate making a Consumer Affairs arrest and subsequent vehicle impounding of a garage door installer?”
The writer went on, “All the while Ron Gatto’s wife owns a garage door installation company, and the arrested party is the Number
One competitor of Ron Gatto’s wife’s company, Whitaker Overhead Garage Door.”
The writer asked, “Is it more than coincidence that both garage door companies are from Yorktown, further proving that this was more personal than professional?” The writer closed, asking, “Are there no more environmental violators for Gatto’s unit to focus on?” The Guardian wondered what it was all about, and decided to investigate, FOILing the County Executive’s Office and the Department of
Public Safety, Mr. Gatto’s employer.
We confirmed that “Director Gatto’s annual salary is $99,725.” A request for “resumes, qualifications, and training” was denied as were payroll records and stubs. We received a copy of a press release from the County Executive’s Office which had been first issued February 28, 2008, headlined, “Unlicensed Contractor Arrested, Van Seized By County Police. First Such Seizure Under New Consumer Protection Law.”
The press release declared, “This was the first-ever seizure in Westchester, but it won’t be the last.” It went on, “The arrest Wednesday of
Jason Grotsky, owner of the Door Doctor in Jefferson Valley was the second time in a week that Grotsky was charged by County Police.”
The press release essentially confirmed what had been written in the Letter to the Editor, detailing that Grotsky, owner of Door Doctor,
was arrested for failure to have a Consumer Protection License “after E.S.U. Director Ron Gatto, Detective Carfi, and E.S.U. Inspector
Allen Carroll went to a home on Constant Avenue in Peekskill and found Door Doctor repairing a garage door.”
When The Guardian googled “Captain Ron Gatto,” we turned up numerous newspaper accounts from 1999 and 2000 when he was with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. One story that appeared in The New York Times, May 10, 2000, by Randal C. Archibold, best summarizes Gatto’s history prior to employment with Westchester County. The article, entitled “Top Pollution Officer Fired After He Promotes An Aide,” read, in part, “The officer, Deputy Chief Lee Siegel, was fired Monday, a few days after he was ordered
to revoke the promotion of Captain Ronald A. Gatto. Captain Gatto has long clashed with City offi-cials, and he sued the City last year, saying that his superiors retaliated after he complained about inaction on investigations.”
Gatto was overheard, recently, telling someone at the Yorktown Diner, following the June 5 publication of the Letter to the Editor, “I’m untouchable; I put in garage doors and did other work at Andy Spano’s house for free.”
In that connection, The Guardian confirmed that on multiple occasions in December 2003 Gatto was called to Spano’s house while on duty, on County time, to work on garage doors he installed. On one occasion, he was apparently called to Spano’s house because the County Executive was locked out.
In light of the information gathered, strongly suggesting serious conflict of interest issues with respect to the arrest of a competitor of his wife in the garage door business, and the apparent unlawful relationship with County Executive Andy Spano, The Guardian decided,
last week, that it was time to confront Mr. Gatto and afford him the opportunity to explain, and/or dispute, our discoveries.
On Wednesday, July 9, Publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by a staff photographer and a staff assistant, traveled to the headquarters of the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, and led the following report:
Wed., July 9, 2008, 6:19pm - I went to the Westchester Department of Public Safety at around 4:30pm, knowing that Ron Gatto comes out
at that time. He knew we were there and stayed inside for almost an hour, finally coming out. I told him, “Let me take a picture of you.”
I asked him, “Did you ever install doors or do any work for Andy Spano at his home? And, are you involved with Whitaker Doors?” He
said, “No, I’m a cop. I don’t know what you are talking about.” I then asked him, “Do you have anything to do with Whitaker Overhead
Doors in Yorktown?”
He said, “No.”
I asked, “Are you married to Faye Whitaker?”
He said, “No, nope. I’m married to a Faye, but not Faye Whitaker.” I persisted, “Is that her maiden name?”
He replied, “What can I tell you? No.” I then told him, “We have this allegation and I wanted to give you a chance to tell your side.”
His reply was, “It’s nonsense. I have two grandchildren, I have to go.” Again I asked, “Do you know Faye Whitaker?” Again, he said, “No, I do not!” Then I said, “Is your wife’s name Faye?”
“Yes, but not Faye Whitaker,” was his answer. I asked, “Do you know anything about Whitaker Doors?” He insisted, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
I immediately called Whitaker Overhead Garage Doors, located at 1500 Front Street in Yorktown Heights and got the answering machine.
The message directed me to an emergency number, 914-447-4898. I called that number and a gentleman named Jonathan answered. I then asked for Faye Whitaker. He said, “She is not in.” I then asked for Ron Gatto. He said, “He is also not in.” I then asked Jonathan, “Are Faye
and Ron husband and wife?” He answered, “Yes they are. Now, what can I do for you?”
I asked him, “How much did the doors cost that Ron installed in Andy Spano’s house?” He asked, “Which house? The one down here, or the
one upstate?” I said, “The one in Yorktown.” He said he would check and get back to me. I told him I liked the doors and wanted a price. He
asked if they were the custom doors.
I said, “I don’t know. I just want a price.” He called me back five minutes later and said, “I just checked that job, and could not nd an invoice.
I can’t tell you how much they cost.”Ron Gatto had denied being married to Faye Whitaker; denied being associated with Whitaker Overhead Garage Doors. Yet, his employee admits he is both married to Faye Whitaker and involved in the business.
He denied knowing anything about doors installed in Andy Spano’s house; yet, his employee, Jonathan, knew about Andy’s house down here, and the house upstate. Jonathan said he could not send an invoice. That probably means they were free.
– Sammy
Based upon our inquiry and interviews, as well as information volunteered by persons in the community regarding Mr. Gatto’s statements
and activities, The Guardian believes there is more than ample evidence to warrant the following:
•The New York State Commission of Investigation, and/or the State Attorney General’s Office, must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the conflicted relationship between Director Ron Gatto and County Executive Andrew Spano, including, but not limited to, the material
gain by each in violation of state statutes.
•The United States Attorney’s Office must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the conduct of Director Gatto and County Executive Andrew Spano with respect to the violation of trust, and Public Integrity committed by each of them as public employees with respect to misappropriation of taxpayers’ funds as well as the violation of the civil rights, under Color of Law, of Jason Grotsky, and possibly others.
• Director Gatto must be immediately relieved of his duties pending the outcome of said investigations, lest further civil rights and ethical violations of Public Integrity occur.
• County Executive Spano must be made to account to the citizens of Westchester County as to why he should not be sanctioned and recalled from office.
• Under no circumstances may the District Attorney of Westchester County, Janet Di-Fiore, who has repeatedly demonstrated that she is conflicted in matters involving police officers and police agencies throughout Westchester County, be permitted to become involved in the
necessary investigations.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Andy Spano And County Police Officer
Engage In Unlawful Dealings
In the June 5, 2008 issue of The Guardian, there appeared a Letter to the Editor entitled, “Reader Exposes County Police Conflict Of Interest,” from ‘A Concerned County Resident’. The letter asked, “Does anyone find it interesting that Ron Gatto is in charge of the Environmental Enforcement Unit for the Westchester County Police, yet he has his subordinate making a Consumer Affairs arrest and subsequent vehicle impounding of a garage door installer?”
The writer went on, “All the while Ron Gatto’s wife owns a garage door installation company, and the arrested party is the Number
One competitor of Ron Gatto’s wife’s company, Whitaker Overhead Garage Door.”
The writer asked, “Is it more than coincidence that both garage door companies are from Yorktown, further proving that this was more personal than professional?” The writer closed, asking, “Are there no more environmental violators for Gatto’s unit to focus on?” The Guardian wondered what it was all about, and decided to investigate, FOILing the County Executive’s Office and the Department of
Public Safety, Mr. Gatto’s employer.
We confirmed that “Director Gatto’s annual salary is $99,725.” A request for “resumes, qualifications, and training” was denied as were payroll records and stubs. We received a copy of a press release from the County Executive’s Office which had been first issued February 28, 2008, headlined, “Unlicensed Contractor Arrested, Van Seized By County Police. First Such Seizure Under New Consumer Protection Law.”
The press release declared, “This was the first-ever seizure in Westchester, but it won’t be the last.” It went on, “The arrest Wednesday of
Jason Grotsky, owner of the Door Doctor in Jefferson Valley was the second time in a week that Grotsky was charged by County Police.”
The press release essentially confirmed what had been written in the Letter to the Editor, detailing that Grotsky, owner of Door Doctor,
was arrested for failure to have a Consumer Protection License “after E.S.U. Director Ron Gatto, Detective Carfi, and E.S.U. Inspector
Allen Carroll went to a home on Constant Avenue in Peekskill and found Door Doctor repairing a garage door.”
When The Guardian googled “Captain Ron Gatto,” we turned up numerous newspaper accounts from 1999 and 2000 when he was with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. One story that appeared in The New York Times, May 10, 2000, by Randal C. Archibold, best summarizes Gatto’s history prior to employment with Westchester County. The article, entitled “Top Pollution Officer Fired After He Promotes An Aide,” read, in part, “The officer, Deputy Chief Lee Siegel, was fired Monday, a few days after he was ordered
to revoke the promotion of Captain Ronald A. Gatto. Captain Gatto has long clashed with City offi-cials, and he sued the City last year, saying that his superiors retaliated after he complained about inaction on investigations.”
Gatto was overheard, recently, telling someone at the Yorktown Diner, following the June 5 publication of the Letter to the Editor, “I’m untouchable; I put in garage doors and did other work at Andy Spano’s house for free.”
In that connection, The Guardian confirmed that on multiple occasions in December 2003 Gatto was called to Spano’s house while on duty, on County time, to work on garage doors he installed. On one occasion, he was apparently called to Spano’s house because the County Executive was locked out.
In light of the information gathered, strongly suggesting serious conflict of interest issues with respect to the arrest of a competitor of his wife in the garage door business, and the apparent unlawful relationship with County Executive Andy Spano, The Guardian decided,
last week, that it was time to confront Mr. Gatto and afford him the opportunity to explain, and/or dispute, our discoveries.
On Wednesday, July 9, Publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by a staff photographer and a staff assistant, traveled to the headquarters of the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, and led the following report:
Wed., July 9, 2008, 6:19pm - I went to the Westchester Department of Public Safety at around 4:30pm, knowing that Ron Gatto comes out
at that time. He knew we were there and stayed inside for almost an hour, finally coming out. I told him, “Let me take a picture of you.”
I asked him, “Did you ever install doors or do any work for Andy Spano at his home? And, are you involved with Whitaker Doors?” He
said, “No, I’m a cop. I don’t know what you are talking about.” I then asked him, “Do you have anything to do with Whitaker Overhead
Doors in Yorktown?”
He said, “No.”
I asked, “Are you married to Faye Whitaker?”
He said, “No, nope. I’m married to a Faye, but not Faye Whitaker.” I persisted, “Is that her maiden name?”
He replied, “What can I tell you? No.” I then told him, “We have this allegation and I wanted to give you a chance to tell your side.”
His reply was, “It’s nonsense. I have two grandchildren, I have to go.” Again I asked, “Do you know Faye Whitaker?” Again, he said, “No, I do not!” Then I said, “Is your wife’s name Faye?”
“Yes, but not Faye Whitaker,” was his answer. I asked, “Do you know anything about Whitaker Doors?” He insisted, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
I immediately called Whitaker Overhead Garage Doors, located at 1500 Front Street in Yorktown Heights and got the answering machine.
The message directed me to an emergency number, 914-447-4898. I called that number and a gentleman named Jonathan answered. I then asked for Faye Whitaker. He said, “She is not in.” I then asked for Ron Gatto. He said, “He is also not in.” I then asked Jonathan, “Are Faye
and Ron husband and wife?” He answered, “Yes they are. Now, what can I do for you?”
I asked him, “How much did the doors cost that Ron installed in Andy Spano’s house?” He asked, “Which house? The one down here, or the
one upstate?” I said, “The one in Yorktown.” He said he would check and get back to me. I told him I liked the doors and wanted a price. He
asked if they were the custom doors.
I said, “I don’t know. I just want a price.” He called me back five minutes later and said, “I just checked that job, and could not nd an invoice.
I can’t tell you how much they cost.”Ron Gatto had denied being married to Faye Whitaker; denied being associated with Whitaker Overhead Garage Doors. Yet, his employee admits he is both married to Faye Whitaker and involved in the business.
He denied knowing anything about doors installed in Andy Spano’s house; yet, his employee, Jonathan, knew about Andy’s house down here, and the house upstate. Jonathan said he could not send an invoice. That probably means they were free.
– Sammy
Based upon our inquiry and interviews, as well as information volunteered by persons in the community regarding Mr. Gatto’s statements
and activities, The Guardian believes there is more than ample evidence to warrant the following:
•The New York State Commission of Investigation, and/or the State Attorney General’s Office, must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the conflicted relationship between Director Ron Gatto and County Executive Andrew Spano, including, but not limited to, the material
gain by each in violation of state statutes.
•The United States Attorney’s Office must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the conduct of Director Gatto and County Executive Andrew Spano with respect to the violation of trust, and Public Integrity committed by each of them as public employees with respect to misappropriation of taxpayers’ funds as well as the violation of the civil rights, under Color of Law, of Jason Grotsky, and possibly others.
• Director Gatto must be immediately relieved of his duties pending the outcome of said investigations, lest further civil rights and ethical violations of Public Integrity occur.
• County Executive Spano must be made to account to the citizens of Westchester County as to why he should not be sanctioned and recalled from office.
• Under no circumstances may the District Attorney of Westchester County, Janet Di-Fiore, who has repeatedly demonstrated that she is conflicted in matters involving police officers and police agencies throughout Westchester County, be permitted to become involved in the
necessary investigations.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Effort To Eliminate County
Last Monday night, June 2, about 85 Westchester taxpayers showed up at Greenburgh Town Hall to discuss specific ways in which the movement to abolish County Government, and with it probably half of a nearly $2 billion budget, might move forward, as well as how they might assist. Approximately 40 individuals signed up to serve on one, or more, of the six committees proposed and approved by a majority of those present.
Those committees include:
1. A Bi-Partisan Budget Committee, to study the County Budget, specifically searching for duplication of services otherwise provided by municipal and/or state government;
2. A Research Committee, to discover and evaluate what it was that Connecticut residents did to eliminate County government some 40 years ago;
3. A Legal Committee, consisting mainly of lawyers who will advise the group as to what legislative action would be needed to abolish Westchester County government;
4. A Marketing Committee, to carry the group’s message out to the community;
5. A Website Committee, to establish an Internet website;
6. A Funding Committee, to engage in fundraising and other activities to insure the solvency of the operation.
Reached the following day, Paul Feiner indicated that he was very pleased with the turnout, but especially pleased with the number of individuals who enthusiastically volunteered to put their professional experience and energy to work on the various committees.
Asked about a published report that County Executive Andy Spano was amused by news of the group’s second meeting, Feiner responded, “The County Executive’s Office may not be taking this movement very seriously right now, but momentum is building; people are not very happy with the abuses of taxpayer dollars and the public trust. In time, County politicians will be taking us very seriously.”
Feiner was alluding to disclosures of abusive spending by Gary Kriss, a $149,000-per-year “aide” to the County Legislature’s Chair, Bill
Ryan. He said, “We will be moving forward our Committees, creating a website, distributing lawn signs, and holding fundraising events
over the next few months.”
Contacted Wednesday, Joan Gronowski summarized her thoughts on the group’s second gathering with, “We had a very good night, particularly the formation of committees staffed with enthusiastic people.” Asked what she considered the three highest priority tasks, Gronowski said, “We must research and evaluate Connecticut’s experience 40 years ago. There were similarities, and some differences.” She continued, “Fundraising is very important, as well as setting up a website and getting our message out.”
Of those who attended last Monday night, many had been at the first gathering, at the Will Library in Yonkers, and their focus was clearly on getting the process rolling. Upcoming meetings will involve committees engaged in the nuts and bolts of their assignments.
Effort To Eliminate County
Last Monday night, June 2, about 85 Westchester taxpayers showed up at Greenburgh Town Hall to discuss specific ways in which the movement to abolish County Government, and with it probably half of a nearly $2 billion budget, might move forward, as well as how they might assist. Approximately 40 individuals signed up to serve on one, or more, of the six committees proposed and approved by a majority of those present.
Those committees include:
1. A Bi-Partisan Budget Committee, to study the County Budget, specifically searching for duplication of services otherwise provided by municipal and/or state government;
2. A Research Committee, to discover and evaluate what it was that Connecticut residents did to eliminate County government some 40 years ago;
3. A Legal Committee, consisting mainly of lawyers who will advise the group as to what legislative action would be needed to abolish Westchester County government;
4. A Marketing Committee, to carry the group’s message out to the community;
5. A Website Committee, to establish an Internet website;
6. A Funding Committee, to engage in fundraising and other activities to insure the solvency of the operation.
Reached the following day, Paul Feiner indicated that he was very pleased with the turnout, but especially pleased with the number of individuals who enthusiastically volunteered to put their professional experience and energy to work on the various committees.
Asked about a published report that County Executive Andy Spano was amused by news of the group’s second meeting, Feiner responded, “The County Executive’s Office may not be taking this movement very seriously right now, but momentum is building; people are not very happy with the abuses of taxpayer dollars and the public trust. In time, County politicians will be taking us very seriously.”
Feiner was alluding to disclosures of abusive spending by Gary Kriss, a $149,000-per-year “aide” to the County Legislature’s Chair, Bill
Ryan. He said, “We will be moving forward our Committees, creating a website, distributing lawn signs, and holding fundraising events
over the next few months.”
Contacted Wednesday, Joan Gronowski summarized her thoughts on the group’s second gathering with, “We had a very good night, particularly the formation of committees staffed with enthusiastic people.” Asked what she considered the three highest priority tasks, Gronowski said, “We must research and evaluate Connecticut’s experience 40 years ago. There were similarities, and some differences.” She continued, “Fundraising is very important, as well as setting up a website and getting our message out.”
Of those who attended last Monday night, many had been at the first gathering, at the Will Library in Yonkers, and their focus was clearly on getting the process rolling. Upcoming meetings will involve committees engaged in the nuts and bolts of their assignments.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
In Our Opinion...
They’ve Overplayed Their Hand
When it comes to arrogance and obtrusiveness, the inner circle, the key players, in Westchester County Government, are peerless. Who can compare with the likes of Andy Spano, Spano’s Svengali Larry Schwartz, his official liar, Susan Tolchin, the puppets Reggie LaFayette
and Ken Jenkins, and, of course, Chairman Of The Board Bill Ryan, when it comes to sheer chutzpah? Collectively, We are talking about LARRY SCHWARTZ & COMPANY.
Make no mistake, when 85% of those who responded to a NEWS12 poll, stated that they would abolish County Government, the clock began running. Westchester homeowners have had enough. When you are the most heavily taxed in the nation, and mortgage and tuition payments have you between ‘a rock and a hard place’, and the Chairman of the part-time rubber stamp County Board of Legislators continues to whine and kick because he is only getting $89,000, while all of Larry and Andy’s crony commissioners are pulling down $155,000, the time has come to pull the plug.
How can struggling homeowners not think, “What colossal nerve these critters display; what selfishness, grabbing for tremendous payraises at a time when we are already paying such high taxes, and working hard just to make ends meet?” It’s frighteningly apparent that Andy Spano’s, Larry Schwartz’, and Susan Tolchin’s feet no longer touch the ground. And, Bill Ryan is standing on another planet.
Perhaps this crew has so enriched themselves over the last 10 years that a public exposure of their personal worth is not only appropriate, but necessary. We haven’t forgotten the slick deal Larry Schwartz arm-twisted through the County Legislature’s Solid Waste Committee three years ago, refusing to renew a $70 million, five-year contract, with a satisfactory, competent hauler, preferring, instead, to replace him with a company the City of New York was forbidden to do business with, and paying $87 million for the same services.
By displaying such flagrant disregard for their constituents, the County Executive’s Office, and the County Legislators, have added insult to injury. They have made it clear that they believe they can get away with anything. When Andy ran for County Executive in 1997, he promised he would “serve only two terms”. In 2001 it was still “two terms”. But, in 2005, he ran for a third. And, now, he’s already declared for a fourth, in 2009. Why not? They’re fixed elections, anyway. That’s right, fixed, as in Judge Horowitz. Andy will admit that until Larry Schwartz came along, in eleven prior elections, he couldn’t even get elected dog catcher. But Larry “fixed” all that.
Reader Raises Serious Questions About Administration Of Mamaroneck Schools
Dear Editor:
It was not a “breakdown in oversight” at Mamaroneck Schools that allowed the awarding of a “private contract” to Mr. Bill Koulouris by Ms. Sarah Tate.
The School Board’s statement that they knew about the illegal contract and that it was an isolated incident (it was not) is as disingenuous as it is irrelevant.
Anyone interested in the legality of Sarah Tate’s hiring practices need only visit: http://www.westchestergov.com/ hr/adobe/CIVILSERVICERULES.pdf After downloading these “Civil Service Rules for Westchester County” (about 35 pages) it becomes irrefutable as to what was supposed to be done, when it was required to be done and by whom.
Any employment action involving Mr. Koulouris was also required to be monitored by the Westchester County Civil Service Department as described in Rule 22 of the County Rules. Every Civil Service Employee at Mamaroneck was required to go through the same process including semi-annual reports. This was not some special hiring for which the rules were unclear. Mamaroneck has an Assistant Superintendent for Personnel who files these reports. Where are the reports? If the reports were made, what action did the County take? If the County had knowledge of the illegal action they were required to demand the immediate removal of Koulouris. If they were not aware of the hiring, then Tate and the Personnel Director are culpable as described in Rule 22.
As an Assistant Superintendent of Buildings at Mamaroneck I often brought my concerns about the adverse hiring practices initiated by Tate. There were many. Complaints I filed with Westchester County resulted in cover-ups including their admittedly predating documents which can only be described as perjury and conspiracy. My complaints to the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office resulted
in their finding, “after checking with” Civil Service, that I was confused as to the law.
There exists, at the Human Resources Dept in the Westchester County Building, White Plains, descriptions for Bill Koulouris’ and Sarah Tate’s job titles which State Law requires be available at all times for viewing. Both titles are listed as “Competetive” and subject to State approved tests and County approval prior to appointment as demanded by Rule 22. Any person evading Rule 22 is required to reimburse
the employer for the employee’s salary and benefits.
During the 1990’s Larchmont resident Dr. Max Eaglefeld, and others, filed several complaints about Sarah Tate and the School Board’s illegal activity. Mr. Koulouris, like many others hired by Sarah Tate, was paid to stay out of the way. His activity is simply described as “out of title” and was illegal. If this seems unfair, read the paragraph titled “Duties” in the “Network Administrator” Classi ed Title at the County Civil Service Office.
F. Scaglione
Enforcing Federal Immigration
Laws Adds Burden To State And
Local Law Enforcement
Dear Editor:
The National Black Police Association has been in existence since 1972 nationally with chartered organizations in the United Kingdom, Canada and Bermuda. The principal concerns of the National Black Police Association are the promotion of justice, fairness, and effectiveness in law enforcement issues and the effect of those issues upon the total community.
The Westchester Chapter of the National Black Police Association is in full support of the Hudson Valley Community Coalition’s press conference against enlisting State and Local Law Enforcement to exercise and enforce Federal Immigration Laws. The press conference was held Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 12:00 p.m. at Mahopac Public Library, Mahopac, New York.
Immigration Enforcement should remain under federal guidelines and enforced by Federal Immigration Agencies such as the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Agency and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that are all under the umbrella of the Department of
Homeland Security. For State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce such federal laws will be an added burden to the already highly stressful job of protecting the communities we serve.
This will ultimately increase the existing poor relationship of Law Enforcement and the Immigrant and Minority communities. It will
also add to the institutional bias policies that already exist in Law Enforcement towards immigrants, the poor, and people of color.
Damon K. Jones, Executive Director, Westchester NBPA
Reader Critical Of Reproductive Health And Privacy Protection Act of 2008
Dear Editor:
Despite your publication being called by many people a “rag”, I have always read with interest, your criticism of various public officials,
judges, etc., especially in view of the fact that I served as an Assistant District Attorney for ten years, both in Bronx County and Westchester County, and can identify with many of the arguments made by your publication at various times.
I realize that advertising dollars might be hard to get, but the fact that you allowed to be published on page 7 of your April 10, 2008 paper,
a smiling picture of Andrea Stewart-Cousins, apparently proud that she and the other names that appear below, support the Reproductive
Health and Privacy Protection Act of 2008, is disheartening.
I do not know if your staff or yourself has read what the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act of 2008 is, but it provides that high school girls who would not be allowed to be prescribed or given an aspirin by school staff members, can obtain abortions without their
parents’ knowing that they are pregnant or being notified of that fact, to allow them to love, nurture and counsel their daughters through
that difficult time. It also attempts to legalize what is not even permitted on a national level, that is the use of partial birth abortion, in which a perfectly healthy full term child’s head is crushed and the brains are removed to terminate its life.
The politicians’ attempts to package this bill, which not only threatens the mental and physical well-being of young high school girls who are
faced with the daunting proposition of being single, pregnant, and a teenager, but also provides a legislative imprimatur for the killing of healthy, innocent babies, as a noble and health-related bill is a masquerade. I invite you to read this legislation and see if my description of it is a fair one. If it is, then you and your paper should be ashamed that you allowed Ms. Stewart-Cousins and the other politicians who sponsor this Bill, to use your paper to foist it on an unsuspecting public.
Kevin J. Kitson, Esq., White Plains
Editor’s Note: Contrary to Mr. Kitson’s suggestion that the piece published on page 7 of our April 10th edition represented a paid advertisement, readers should be informed that that announcement was merely an unpaid joint press release from Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins and the State Democratic Senate Committee.
Regarding Westchester Medical Center
Dear Editor:
Regarding this hospital, I was a biller there in 1999. They brought absurd charges against me. I’m physically and mentally handicapped. These people had no compassion for me. I was humiliated due to office politics. My Civil Service was terminated with no regard to due process of law or medical compassion. Many people have had the same experience working there. See Karen Bendel v. Westchester County Healthcare Corporation 2000.
Just because it has the name Westchester doesn’t make it a quality place.
Bob Kampel, Mount Vernon
Tuckahoe School District Insider
Exposes Shocking Realities
Dear Editor:
I recently read the article written by Catherine Wilson Determining The Real Cost Of Our Local Schools in your 4/10/08 edition. As a member of the Tuckahoe School District Budget Oversight Committee I found it to be the most factual and enlighting article I have seen on this topic. As a taxpayer I believe (and know) that the cost of education in NY is out of control... period! How can taxpayers who pay 80-92% of the cost of education continue to pay for teachers pensions (defined benefit plan), health insurance (for teachers and family)
and provide “automatic raises” without performance criteria?
Currently the District contributes 94% to employee health care premiums (which are rising 10%/yr). Teachers only contribute 3% to their pension fund (defined benefit) for the first ten years and zero thereafter. Upon retirement they receive “FREE” health care for themselves
and their qualified family members receive a 75% discount....all paid through local real estate taxes. The District’s “ECR” Employee
Contribution Rate to the “TRS” Teachers Retirement System increased by 241% between 2003-2006 and according to KPMG, auditor
for “TRS” this trend will continue as there is a shift towards a grater portion of retirees to active members (Baby Boomers).
There is no wonder why my school tax bill has increased by over 150% from 1996-2007 while the student population has remained stable. This unsustainable rate is forcing older residents who raised their children here to move and is also pricing out younger folks from buying and raising a family.
Dennis Dubak
In Our Opinion...
They’ve Overplayed Their Hand
When it comes to arrogance and obtrusiveness, the inner circle, the key players, in Westchester County Government, are peerless. Who can compare with the likes of Andy Spano, Spano’s Svengali Larry Schwartz, his official liar, Susan Tolchin, the puppets Reggie LaFayette
and Ken Jenkins, and, of course, Chairman Of The Board Bill Ryan, when it comes to sheer chutzpah? Collectively, We are talking about LARRY SCHWARTZ & COMPANY.
Make no mistake, when 85% of those who responded to a NEWS12 poll, stated that they would abolish County Government, the clock began running. Westchester homeowners have had enough. When you are the most heavily taxed in the nation, and mortgage and tuition payments have you between ‘a rock and a hard place’, and the Chairman of the part-time rubber stamp County Board of Legislators continues to whine and kick because he is only getting $89,000, while all of Larry and Andy’s crony commissioners are pulling down $155,000, the time has come to pull the plug.
How can struggling homeowners not think, “What colossal nerve these critters display; what selfishness, grabbing for tremendous payraises at a time when we are already paying such high taxes, and working hard just to make ends meet?” It’s frighteningly apparent that Andy Spano’s, Larry Schwartz’, and Susan Tolchin’s feet no longer touch the ground. And, Bill Ryan is standing on another planet.
Perhaps this crew has so enriched themselves over the last 10 years that a public exposure of their personal worth is not only appropriate, but necessary. We haven’t forgotten the slick deal Larry Schwartz arm-twisted through the County Legislature’s Solid Waste Committee three years ago, refusing to renew a $70 million, five-year contract, with a satisfactory, competent hauler, preferring, instead, to replace him with a company the City of New York was forbidden to do business with, and paying $87 million for the same services.
By displaying such flagrant disregard for their constituents, the County Executive’s Office, and the County Legislators, have added insult to injury. They have made it clear that they believe they can get away with anything. When Andy ran for County Executive in 1997, he promised he would “serve only two terms”. In 2001 it was still “two terms”. But, in 2005, he ran for a third. And, now, he’s already declared for a fourth, in 2009. Why not? They’re fixed elections, anyway. That’s right, fixed, as in Judge Horowitz. Andy will admit that until Larry Schwartz came along, in eleven prior elections, he couldn’t even get elected dog catcher. But Larry “fixed” all that.
Reader Raises Serious Questions About Administration Of Mamaroneck Schools
Dear Editor:
It was not a “breakdown in oversight” at Mamaroneck Schools that allowed the awarding of a “private contract” to Mr. Bill Koulouris by Ms. Sarah Tate.
The School Board’s statement that they knew about the illegal contract and that it was an isolated incident (it was not) is as disingenuous as it is irrelevant.
Anyone interested in the legality of Sarah Tate’s hiring practices need only visit: http://www.westchestergov.com/ hr/adobe/CIVILSERVICERULES.pdf After downloading these “Civil Service Rules for Westchester County” (about 35 pages) it becomes irrefutable as to what was supposed to be done, when it was required to be done and by whom.
Any employment action involving Mr. Koulouris was also required to be monitored by the Westchester County Civil Service Department as described in Rule 22 of the County Rules. Every Civil Service Employee at Mamaroneck was required to go through the same process including semi-annual reports. This was not some special hiring for which the rules were unclear. Mamaroneck has an Assistant Superintendent for Personnel who files these reports. Where are the reports? If the reports were made, what action did the County take? If the County had knowledge of the illegal action they were required to demand the immediate removal of Koulouris. If they were not aware of the hiring, then Tate and the Personnel Director are culpable as described in Rule 22.
As an Assistant Superintendent of Buildings at Mamaroneck I often brought my concerns about the adverse hiring practices initiated by Tate. There were many. Complaints I filed with Westchester County resulted in cover-ups including their admittedly predating documents which can only be described as perjury and conspiracy. My complaints to the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office resulted
in their finding, “after checking with” Civil Service, that I was confused as to the law.
There exists, at the Human Resources Dept in the Westchester County Building, White Plains, descriptions for Bill Koulouris’ and Sarah Tate’s job titles which State Law requires be available at all times for viewing. Both titles are listed as “Competetive” and subject to State approved tests and County approval prior to appointment as demanded by Rule 22. Any person evading Rule 22 is required to reimburse
the employer for the employee’s salary and benefits.
During the 1990’s Larchmont resident Dr. Max Eaglefeld, and others, filed several complaints about Sarah Tate and the School Board’s illegal activity. Mr. Koulouris, like many others hired by Sarah Tate, was paid to stay out of the way. His activity is simply described as “out of title” and was illegal. If this seems unfair, read the paragraph titled “Duties” in the “Network Administrator” Classi ed Title at the County Civil Service Office.
F. Scaglione
Enforcing Federal Immigration
Laws Adds Burden To State And
Local Law Enforcement
Dear Editor:
The National Black Police Association has been in existence since 1972 nationally with chartered organizations in the United Kingdom, Canada and Bermuda. The principal concerns of the National Black Police Association are the promotion of justice, fairness, and effectiveness in law enforcement issues and the effect of those issues upon the total community.
The Westchester Chapter of the National Black Police Association is in full support of the Hudson Valley Community Coalition’s press conference against enlisting State and Local Law Enforcement to exercise and enforce Federal Immigration Laws. The press conference was held Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 12:00 p.m. at Mahopac Public Library, Mahopac, New York.
Immigration Enforcement should remain under federal guidelines and enforced by Federal Immigration Agencies such as the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Agency and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that are all under the umbrella of the Department of
Homeland Security. For State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce such federal laws will be an added burden to the already highly stressful job of protecting the communities we serve.
This will ultimately increase the existing poor relationship of Law Enforcement and the Immigrant and Minority communities. It will
also add to the institutional bias policies that already exist in Law Enforcement towards immigrants, the poor, and people of color.
Damon K. Jones, Executive Director, Westchester NBPA
Reader Critical Of Reproductive Health And Privacy Protection Act of 2008
Dear Editor:
Despite your publication being called by many people a “rag”, I have always read with interest, your criticism of various public officials,
judges, etc., especially in view of the fact that I served as an Assistant District Attorney for ten years, both in Bronx County and Westchester County, and can identify with many of the arguments made by your publication at various times.
I realize that advertising dollars might be hard to get, but the fact that you allowed to be published on page 7 of your April 10, 2008 paper,
a smiling picture of Andrea Stewart-Cousins, apparently proud that she and the other names that appear below, support the Reproductive
Health and Privacy Protection Act of 2008, is disheartening.
I do not know if your staff or yourself has read what the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act of 2008 is, but it provides that high school girls who would not be allowed to be prescribed or given an aspirin by school staff members, can obtain abortions without their
parents’ knowing that they are pregnant or being notified of that fact, to allow them to love, nurture and counsel their daughters through
that difficult time. It also attempts to legalize what is not even permitted on a national level, that is the use of partial birth abortion, in which a perfectly healthy full term child’s head is crushed and the brains are removed to terminate its life.
The politicians’ attempts to package this bill, which not only threatens the mental and physical well-being of young high school girls who are
faced with the daunting proposition of being single, pregnant, and a teenager, but also provides a legislative imprimatur for the killing of healthy, innocent babies, as a noble and health-related bill is a masquerade. I invite you to read this legislation and see if my description of it is a fair one. If it is, then you and your paper should be ashamed that you allowed Ms. Stewart-Cousins and the other politicians who sponsor this Bill, to use your paper to foist it on an unsuspecting public.
Kevin J. Kitson, Esq., White Plains
Editor’s Note: Contrary to Mr. Kitson’s suggestion that the piece published on page 7 of our April 10th edition represented a paid advertisement, readers should be informed that that announcement was merely an unpaid joint press release from Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins and the State Democratic Senate Committee.
Regarding Westchester Medical Center
Dear Editor:
Regarding this hospital, I was a biller there in 1999. They brought absurd charges against me. I’m physically and mentally handicapped. These people had no compassion for me. I was humiliated due to office politics. My Civil Service was terminated with no regard to due process of law or medical compassion. Many people have had the same experience working there. See Karen Bendel v. Westchester County Healthcare Corporation 2000.
Just because it has the name Westchester doesn’t make it a quality place.
Bob Kampel, Mount Vernon
Tuckahoe School District Insider
Exposes Shocking Realities
Dear Editor:
I recently read the article written by Catherine Wilson Determining The Real Cost Of Our Local Schools in your 4/10/08 edition. As a member of the Tuckahoe School District Budget Oversight Committee I found it to be the most factual and enlighting article I have seen on this topic. As a taxpayer I believe (and know) that the cost of education in NY is out of control... period! How can taxpayers who pay 80-92% of the cost of education continue to pay for teachers pensions (defined benefit plan), health insurance (for teachers and family)
and provide “automatic raises” without performance criteria?
Currently the District contributes 94% to employee health care premiums (which are rising 10%/yr). Teachers only contribute 3% to their pension fund (defined benefit) for the first ten years and zero thereafter. Upon retirement they receive “FREE” health care for themselves
and their qualified family members receive a 75% discount....all paid through local real estate taxes. The District’s “ECR” Employee
Contribution Rate to the “TRS” Teachers Retirement System increased by 241% between 2003-2006 and according to KPMG, auditor
for “TRS” this trend will continue as there is a shift towards a grater portion of retirees to active members (Baby Boomers).
There is no wonder why my school tax bill has increased by over 150% from 1996-2007 while the student population has remained stable. This unsustainable rate is forcing older residents who raised their children here to move and is also pricing out younger folks from buying and raising a family.
Dennis Dubak
Thursday, May 3, 2007
In Our Opinion...
County Legislators Refuse To Be Stampeded
We applaud the decision by the County Board of Legislators, under Chairman Bill Ryan, to retain independent counsel to evaluate the feasibility of bringing a successful civil action against KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, as has been strongly urged by the County Executive’s Office recently. Any such court action would, of course, require the County Legislature to sign off.
County Executive Andrew Spano, based on data compiled by Larry Schwartz, and legal assessments from the law firm Nixon Peabody, has been actively promoting the notion that County taxpayers might recover as much as $200 million from KPMG Peat Marwick because they, allegedly, repeatedly failed to warn the County of problems with the accounting practices employed in-house at the Westchester County Medical Center between 1998 and 2004.
Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz, several weeks ago, suggested that the well-known accounting firm had been derelict in its duty to inform the County, which guarantees several hundred million dollars of the hospital’s debt, that certain flawed accounting practices might have been misleading, and more encouraging to underwriters, than was warranted. Some observers have expressed doubt that Mr. Schwartz could have been misled, or working under any misunderstanding regarding the Medical Center’s financial health given the publicity attendant to their long-standing financial crisis, and their need for repeated monetary transfusions over the past several years, virtually teetering on the brink of bankruptcy a few years ago.
We appreciate Chairman Bill Ryan’s measured and thoughtful response to Larry Schwartz’ hustle to try to get the legislators on board. Perhaps Ryan, and the other legislators, are experiencing a little difficulty swallowing
the notion that Larry, controlling as he is in all aspects, would somehow be left in the dark regarding the financial health and circumstances of the Medical Center. We certainly would understand if they found his position a little out of character, and somewhat disingenuous.
After all, it’s not as though the County Executive’s Office could have been out of touch with the operational and financial day-to-day realities at the Medical Center, given the fact that Mr. Spano has made several appointments
to the Board of Directors, including its chairman Richard Berman, since 1998, and throughout the period in question. And, clearly, there was reason enough to have justified independent audits given the mismanagement and financial miscues that required repeated bailouts, and, ultimately, the resignation of several top administrators, including Executive Vice President Marilyn Slaaten.
Finally, given the fact that the Medical Center’s administration has announced that they will not be joining in any action to recover money from their former accounting firm, having been advised by counsel that their case would be weak, the Legislature and Chairman Ryan’s hesitation to jump into litigation is both prudent and reasonable. The $20,000 they have agreed to spend for an independent evaluation by Lowey-Dannenberg, a law firm with a great deal of experience in litigation involving accounting firms, is money well spent.
County Legislators Refuse To Be Stampeded
We applaud the decision by the County Board of Legislators, under Chairman Bill Ryan, to retain independent counsel to evaluate the feasibility of bringing a successful civil action against KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, as has been strongly urged by the County Executive’s Office recently. Any such court action would, of course, require the County Legislature to sign off.
County Executive Andrew Spano, based on data compiled by Larry Schwartz, and legal assessments from the law firm Nixon Peabody, has been actively promoting the notion that County taxpayers might recover as much as $200 million from KPMG Peat Marwick because they, allegedly, repeatedly failed to warn the County of problems with the accounting practices employed in-house at the Westchester County Medical Center between 1998 and 2004.
Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz, several weeks ago, suggested that the well-known accounting firm had been derelict in its duty to inform the County, which guarantees several hundred million dollars of the hospital’s debt, that certain flawed accounting practices might have been misleading, and more encouraging to underwriters, than was warranted. Some observers have expressed doubt that Mr. Schwartz could have been misled, or working under any misunderstanding regarding the Medical Center’s financial health given the publicity attendant to their long-standing financial crisis, and their need for repeated monetary transfusions over the past several years, virtually teetering on the brink of bankruptcy a few years ago.
We appreciate Chairman Bill Ryan’s measured and thoughtful response to Larry Schwartz’ hustle to try to get the legislators on board. Perhaps Ryan, and the other legislators, are experiencing a little difficulty swallowing
the notion that Larry, controlling as he is in all aspects, would somehow be left in the dark regarding the financial health and circumstances of the Medical Center. We certainly would understand if they found his position a little out of character, and somewhat disingenuous.
After all, it’s not as though the County Executive’s Office could have been out of touch with the operational and financial day-to-day realities at the Medical Center, given the fact that Mr. Spano has made several appointments
to the Board of Directors, including its chairman Richard Berman, since 1998, and throughout the period in question. And, clearly, there was reason enough to have justified independent audits given the mismanagement and financial miscues that required repeated bailouts, and, ultimately, the resignation of several top administrators, including Executive Vice President Marilyn Slaaten.
Finally, given the fact that the Medical Center’s administration has announced that they will not be joining in any action to recover money from their former accounting firm, having been advised by counsel that their case would be weak, the Legislature and Chairman Ryan’s hesitation to jump into litigation is both prudent and reasonable. The $20,000 they have agreed to spend for an independent evaluation by Lowey-Dannenberg, a law firm with a great deal of experience in litigation involving accounting firms, is money well spent.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
In Our Opinion.
It’s Time To Pull The Plug On Larry Schwartz
It has come to our attention that the Westchester County Commissioner of Public Safety, Tom Belfiore, has been supplying Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz with police intelligence, BCI Reports, on applicants for pistol permits, and other County residents. If true, the practice is not lawful, and constitutes an unacceptable
conspiracy, and usurping of powers by two public employees, neither of which are directly answerable to the public, and one of whom serves at the pleasure of the other. Sure, both were appointed by County Executive Andy Spano. And he, ostensibly, is answerable to the voters.
However, everyone knows Larry is the real County Executive. And, that situation is not healthy for decent, law-abiding citizens, whether applicants for a Pistol Permit, or not, because Larry’s lust for power and control knows no limit. From his perch on the ninth floor of the County Office Building, he has controlled Westchester County
Government, in all three of its branches: the Executive, of course; the Legislative, by it’s purse strings, with all of the funds raised from Democrats going into Andy’s campaign coffers for distribution as Larry sees fit; and the Judicial, similarly, historically in collaboration with individuals such as Guilio Cavallo, Nick Spano, and Jeanine
Pirro corruptly controlling the nomination and election process.
Under Larry Schwartz, County Government has been a ‘closed shop’ for nearly ten years. It’s not merely about patronage and money. Larry’s diabolical control involves indecency, and unconscionable, and unconstitutional, violations of individuals’ civil rights; in one instance driving a gifted young attorney and public servant, working
in the County Executive’s office, to suicide, a man whose only “disloyalty” was his unwillingness to betray his political party, the Democrats, and their candidate for District Attorney, Tony Castro, to join Larry’s scheme to re-elect Jeanine Pirro.
Larry never forgave David Meyer for his unwillingness to join the countywide race-fixing conspiracy of 2001. After pushing him from the office, he blackballed him everywhere he went, with every prospective employer. David, with a wife and two young children, pleaded with him, 48 hours before his plunge, to stop badmouthing him. But, Larry told him he would “never work again.”
We do not believe an individual as ruthless and conscienceless as Larry Schwartz ought to have a hand in the selection of who will be granted a pistol permit. He shouldn’t have had a hand in selecting the County’s solid waste hauler, either. However, because he did, we are doing business with a company from Connecticut that
the City of New York specifically would not do business with because of its Mob ties, and we are paying nearly twice the $70 million we once paid, and could have renewed for another five years, but for Larry’s control of the County Legislature.
One has to wonder about deals like that. Where do the unnecessary millions of taxpayer dollars squandered on a vender with, at best, a checkered history, really go?
We are not persuaded that the pistol permit application process should be taken from the hands of elected, County and Supreme Court Justices, and entrusted entirely to Larry and his cronies, simply because he has enlisted the support of the District Attorney’s Office. The relationship between that office and his has been far too incestuous to begin with. To be more specific, the DA’s so-called Public Integrity Unit has been a joke for years, a virtual oxymoron.
Elected judges are accountable to the voters, and their decisions are subject to scrutiny, due process, and recall. The same cannot be said for Larry and his gang. As We understand it the real question is: Why does County Executive Andrew Spano keep Larry Schwartz employed and in control, someone whose cruel agenda has injured, and turned away so many good citizens and public servants?
It’s Time To Pull The Plug On Larry Schwartz
It has come to our attention that the Westchester County Commissioner of Public Safety, Tom Belfiore, has been supplying Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz with police intelligence, BCI Reports, on applicants for pistol permits, and other County residents. If true, the practice is not lawful, and constitutes an unacceptable
conspiracy, and usurping of powers by two public employees, neither of which are directly answerable to the public, and one of whom serves at the pleasure of the other. Sure, both were appointed by County Executive Andy Spano. And he, ostensibly, is answerable to the voters.
However, everyone knows Larry is the real County Executive. And, that situation is not healthy for decent, law-abiding citizens, whether applicants for a Pistol Permit, or not, because Larry’s lust for power and control knows no limit. From his perch on the ninth floor of the County Office Building, he has controlled Westchester County
Government, in all three of its branches: the Executive, of course; the Legislative, by it’s purse strings, with all of the funds raised from Democrats going into Andy’s campaign coffers for distribution as Larry sees fit; and the Judicial, similarly, historically in collaboration with individuals such as Guilio Cavallo, Nick Spano, and Jeanine
Pirro corruptly controlling the nomination and election process.
Under Larry Schwartz, County Government has been a ‘closed shop’ for nearly ten years. It’s not merely about patronage and money. Larry’s diabolical control involves indecency, and unconscionable, and unconstitutional, violations of individuals’ civil rights; in one instance driving a gifted young attorney and public servant, working
in the County Executive’s office, to suicide, a man whose only “disloyalty” was his unwillingness to betray his political party, the Democrats, and their candidate for District Attorney, Tony Castro, to join Larry’s scheme to re-elect Jeanine Pirro.
Larry never forgave David Meyer for his unwillingness to join the countywide race-fixing conspiracy of 2001. After pushing him from the office, he blackballed him everywhere he went, with every prospective employer. David, with a wife and two young children, pleaded with him, 48 hours before his plunge, to stop badmouthing him. But, Larry told him he would “never work again.”
We do not believe an individual as ruthless and conscienceless as Larry Schwartz ought to have a hand in the selection of who will be granted a pistol permit. He shouldn’t have had a hand in selecting the County’s solid waste hauler, either. However, because he did, we are doing business with a company from Connecticut that
the City of New York specifically would not do business with because of its Mob ties, and we are paying nearly twice the $70 million we once paid, and could have renewed for another five years, but for Larry’s control of the County Legislature.
One has to wonder about deals like that. Where do the unnecessary millions of taxpayer dollars squandered on a vender with, at best, a checkered history, really go?
We are not persuaded that the pistol permit application process should be taken from the hands of elected, County and Supreme Court Justices, and entrusted entirely to Larry and his cronies, simply because he has enlisted the support of the District Attorney’s Office. The relationship between that office and his has been far too incestuous to begin with. To be more specific, the DA’s so-called Public Integrity Unit has been a joke for years, a virtual oxymoron.
Elected judges are accountable to the voters, and their decisions are subject to scrutiny, due process, and recall. The same cannot be said for Larry and his gang. As We understand it the real question is: Why does County Executive Andrew Spano keep Larry Schwartz employed and in control, someone whose cruel agenda has injured, and turned away so many good citizens and public servants?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
