Thursday, September 17, 2009
If This is What County Government
Has Done For The People Of Westchester, It’s
Time To Do Away With County Government
Last Tuesday morning, September 8th, we attended the third in a series of hearings at the County Legislators’ Committee Conference Room at the County Office Building dealing with the federal government’s ultimatum to Westchester to promulgate and finally comply with the rules and actions needed to bring about affordable, fair housing.
Regardless of the show that Susan Tolchin, Deputy County Executive, continues to stage, ably assisted by attorney Stuart Gerson of Epstein, Becker & Greene, there is no denying that Andy Spano, and his partner in crime, Larry Schwartz, have gotten Westchester taxpayers in over their heads by their reckless, incompetent misappropriation of nearly $52 million, and their deceptive accounting of its use.
Last week we suggested that Spano had let down both the legislators and taxpayers. We still believe that. However, following a discussion with Chairman Bill Ryan just prior to the start of Tuesday’s proceedings, we now believe that the legislature is every bit as culpable as Spano & Company for the predicament homeowners and taxpayers are now confronted with. When asked how it was that he and his fellow
Board Members had not retained their own attorney, Chairman Ryan indicated that he didn’t believe that the Board of Legislators needed separate legal counsel.
When we raised the issue of Separation Of Powers between the Executive and Legislative branches in County Government, Ryan saw no conflict in relying upon the legal advice of County Attorney, Charlene Indelicato, who was employed at the pleasure of the County Executive, and Stuart Gerson, outside counsel also retained by Spano, to whom Gerson expressed his “loyalty” at the first hearing, a notion Ryan quickly took issue with. We do not accept the idea that Bill Ryan could possibly be that naive. If he is trying to suggest that Andy and Larry haven’t misappropriated federal grants and misrepresented to the federal government, the Department Of Housing And Urban Development, what they did with $52 million, he is culpable before, and after, the fact, and should be held just as accountable as Spano,
Schwartz, and Tolchin, together with every other legislator who sits around that conference table never once asking where the $52
million went.
In plain English, there is no way that use of the same attorneys who, for more than two years, have worked for Spano & Company in the effort to mitigate and minimize their wrongdoing in negotiations with the Justice Department, HUD, and the Federal Court should now be advising and instructing a supposedly separate and independent body of taxpayer representatives, particularly given that those same taxpayers must now pick up the $65 million tab for all that wrongdoing.
It’s safe to say that the 17-member Legislature, the overwhelming majority of whom were campaign-financed and assisted by Spano from contributions controlled by him and Larry Schwartz, are not all that concerned about the plight of their constituents under the terms of the imposed settlement. Why else would only 12 of them show up on time and others, such as Republican Jim Maisano, miss both the first and third hearings?
Jim Johnson, a former United States Attorney, a federal prosecutor with extensive experience in the area of housing discrimination, was introduced as the appointed monitor, although Chairman Ryan was careful to describe him as “the individual proposed as monitor,” as if the County had
any choice in the matter if the Legislature accepts the settlement.
Then Ryan introduced Rose Noonan, an individual with several years of experience in housing issues in Westchester, dealing with not-for-profits, County government, as well as the City of Yonkers, and instructing at Pace University Law School; in short, someone thoroughly enmeshed
in, and dependant upon, the Westchester network of control for her bread and butter.
At that point, as if to emphasize his allegiance to, and blind obedience to, the Spano Regime, Ryan said, “We have our very own outside counsel who is acting as our consultant in this matter, Stuart Gerson.”
Nothing could be further from the truth given the manner in which this entire housing dilemma was brought into being, under the control and mismanagement of Spano & Company.
To now tell the public, the overtaxed homeowners and business-people who will have to foot the bill, that Stuart Gerson, an attorney who has
been working behind the scenes for more than two years to cover Andy’s backside, that he is the County Legislators’ legal consultant, is to deny
any independent voice, any representation of the Peoples’ interest, on the part of the so-called County Legislature.
In fact, it is a blatant admission that the Board of Legislators is simply a 17-member/50 support staff rubber stamp; and a damned expensive one at that. Readers must not lose sight of the fact that 13 out of 17 of these so-called legislators, individuals pulling down $1,000 a week plus stipends
for a part-time job, are Democrats, all of whom feel beholden to Spano and Schwartz, and, could care less about their constituents’ interests or wishes.
They proved that, unmistakeably, with the purchase of the Halpern white elephant at 450 Saw Mill River Road in Ardsley last year. They established that when Andy says “jump”, they only ask, “how high?”
The moldy old building was a commitment of $13.5 million, to possibly as much as $20 million, before it is repaired and renovated; we will never know for sure. This commitment, if approved, will be for $65 million. Not one of these legislators asks where the money went, or why Spano violated the False Claims Act by lying, yes, lying to HUD and the federal government. They don’t ask because they are culpable themselves.
If ever there was a moment when the citizens of Westchester could clearly see the dysfunction within County government; the failure to have checks and balances, the corruption with money of the Legislative Branch by the Executive, that moment is now!
The Board of Legislators is ready to sell out the People of Westchester. Not one of them apparently comes to the table with clean hands. So committed are they, Republicans included, to covering up all of the wrongdoing and double-dealing that has placed our homeowners and taxpayers
in the fix they are now in, that they are only too ready to sign off on an agreement that will cost their constituents $65 million and place control of the future growth of their communities in federal hands.
If this is what County government has done for the People of Westchester, it is time to do away with County government.
Showing posts with label Westchester County Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Westchester County Government. Show all posts
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Westchester County Government.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Taxpayers Take Note: Last Thursday afternoon, at approximately 2 pm, four County workers whose combined wages were
paid by you, mounted this sign, also paid for by you, on the front door of the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue.
It is a self-promotional message installed by Andy Spano, at your expense, just 48 hours prior to the Westchester Tea Party held
at this very site. What taxpayers need from County Government is less propaganda and more performance.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Westchester Guardian/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond/Westchester County Government.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
In Our Opinion...
Perhaps A D.O.J. We Can Feel Good About
We are particularly pleased with the signals now coming from the Justice Department with respect to that Department’s prior handling of
former United States Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens, who lost his bid for re-election in a close race last November, had been convicted days earlier, Oct. 27, 2008, on seven felony counts, and to that point, had been the longest-serving Republican in Senate history.
Particularly significant and reassuring is the fact that Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. had become personally involved upon learning of the extensive prosecutorial misconduct, withholding of Brady material that had gone into Stevens’ conviction. Holder became involved upon learning of the actions of federal prosecutors from Alaska as well as those from the Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice in Washington.
The big question that remains primarily unanswered involves just how much of the concealment of exculpatory information from the Defense
resulted from procedural bungling and poor judgment, “cutting corners” under time constraints; and, how much resulted from deliberate, calculated Constitutional and ethics violations intended to improve the chances of achieving Stevens’ conviction.
We are not merely encouraged that Eric Holder acted swiftly and decisively to remedy the Unconstitutional injury to Stevens, but also, as importantly, that he has brought the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility into the case to determine what, if any, sanctions should be applied to those prosecutors involved. We have long argued for federal legislation that would impose both financial and incarcerative penalties on federal and state prosecutors who willfully and knowingly engage in misconduct.
Additionally, We understand that the Justice Department is examining whether supervisory staff overseeing those prosecutors involved in the case might have been too lax or somehow missed signals that should have tipped them off. The failure of upper-level staff to reign in and more tightly control their otherwise “highly-regarded” prosecutors, lawyers with significant experience in public integrity cases, particularly in light of the trial judge’s strong criticism of the Prosecution well into the trial.
Senator Stevens ironically was convicted on seven counts of failing to disclose nearly a quarter of a million dollars in goods and services received from special interest constituents. Nevertheless, the government in interviewing one such constituent, whom they had intended to be a chief prosecution witness, uncovered information that would have been very helpful to the Defense on at least two critical issues, but failed to turn it over to them.
That failure by Prosecutors to comply with their Constitutional obligation to Defendant Stevens only came to light in February, nearly four months after Stevens had been convicted. And, unlike other instances of prosecutorial misconduct, withholding of Brady, discovered in the course of the trial and dealt with by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, this discovery came too late for any remedy short of overturning the conviction.
Our Readers Respond...
A Westchester Taxpayer Speaks Up For Most)
Dear Editor:
My name is Kurt Colucci, a lifelong resident of New Rochelle, current homeowner and a fed-up Westchester resident. With all our political/economic systems failing, I feel truly angry that my home property taxes have risen to the astronomical levels they currently are and rising. The city/county offers no tax relief for individuals struggling. I need guidance from my elected officials, what do I do?
My tax cost is nearly $16,000 per year. I make $100k in salary (it seems like a lot, but trust me it’s not). I am not married, I take care of my mother and 90-year-old great uncle (nursing home is not an option, he deserves love and caring from those that he looked after).
I am 32, hard-working and a college graduate. I’ve even taught college for four years, so I am not foolish or lazy. Up until recently I couldn’t even afford my own health insurance or various other necessities, but never complain. I just work and pay the bills, no fancy living, just the essentials.
This winter I was forced to make a critical decision, pay my property taxes or pay for home heating oil. Since death and taxes are the only two guarantees in life, you can guess what check was cut, the quarter $4k to City of New Rochelle Tax Collector, as I always do.
I would like to ask other residents and our “politicians”, what would you do? Should I let my family freeze? Maybe I should take a chance and let my home pipes freeze.
I work nearly 70 hours a week as it is, should I work the graveyard shift at the North Avenue Mobil Station for an extra $125 a week to pay our over-inflated, useless County government salaries, or perhaps I should contribute to their retirement pensions? Oh, wait, I already do, in the form of County tax. God knows I don’t even have a retirement savings, nor does my poor mother who raised two kids on her own without additionally funded support. I’m sure I seem like a cranky, bitter person; I assure you, I am not.
I am scared to seek advice from my elected officials, whom I cast my vote for, however I’ve been left out in the bitter cold chasing my tail for answers. I’m tired and dizzy! Well, I have news for them, soon they will be dizzy, because come April 25th they won’t know what hit them, a hell of a lot of angry, over-taxed, hard-working Westchester residents will speak out against these insidious vipers!!
I don’t mind doing my part for the community, but this is asking way too much of a single individual given the current circumstances!
Kurt Colucci, New Rochelle
Reprinted with permission from the Idaho Observer:
“All the truth, nothing but the truth, so help us God” This was the motto of the paper I published in Middletown, New York. The name of the paper was The Wallkill Journal, and I, Anthony Russo, the publisher, spent years relentlessly exposing government officials and public servants for their treasons against “We the People.”
On many occasions over the years I was offered positions of prominence by the aforementioned traitors, always turning them down. Why would I want to be counted among the miscreants? I care too much for “the People” and too much for the truth. I had been threatened over the years and suffered greatly in my pursuit of the injustices and crimes against the people they were charged with protecting. In an effort
to deter me, I was motivated even more to bring out the truths. I have fought against the powers of darkness with all the resources of God,
and now I will tell you how they tried to silence me...
At 4 a.m. on December 24, 2004, I was returning from the corner store when I pulled into my driveway. I looked in the rearview mirror and
saw, parked diagonally behind me, a police car with its lights on. It is safe to say that I was very concerned for I had not broken any of the traffic laws that morning. I rolled down the window to see what the officer wanted and to my utter astonishment Officer Darrel Agarin of the Wallkill Police Department yelled at me, “Mr. Russo, give me the gun you have in the car now!” To say I was shocked would be the understatement of the year. I didn’t have a gun in the car. I realize now that was the set up.
As I was sitting in the car, my back was still facing the officer and suddenly, without provocation, my life was changed forever. Officer Algarin started shooting at my car. I felt a thud in the middle of my back; bullets were smashing all around me. I was terrified! I went into a state of total shock and turned into the gun- fire. I was shot a total of six times, twice in the shoulder, twice in the forearm, and once in the hand. This shooting was the long awaited assassination, the retaliation I was warned of. I realize now that had I not turned towards the gun fire, the two bullets that hit my shoulder would have hit my head! That’s about all I remember before it all went black...
What I am about to tell you I heard from concerned neighbors and officials that were at the scene. They all later testified at my trial. What they said is that Officer Algarin pulled me out of the car after shooting me. He then dragged me to the back of the car, which was facing the street. I now think he did this to make it look as though he shot me while I was outside the car, I don’t know. It was witnessed that he kicked me in the side and that is how my ribs were cracked. This was told specifically to me by Everett Moore, an eyewitness that Officer Algarin
regrets having there. Moore saw the whole thing. Algarin then bent down over me and declared, “He is dead; call the coroner!”
He then placed a black tarp over me, letting me expire. All of the gunfire drew more witnesses, one of which was Dan McDunne. Mc-Dunne is a paramedic by trade. He was one of the first response teams called to the Oklahoma City bombing because of his well-known expertise.
He also tried to attend to me after the shooting. His heroic efforts will never be forgotten. When he tried to come to my aid, Officer Algarin would not let him near me.
He told McDunne, “Step away from him! We are waiting for the coroner to get here.”
McDunne told me later that he heard Officer Algarin tell dispatch there was no need to send paramedics because I was already dead. Algarin’s ruse did not work. When the ambulance got there, they pushed their way over to me and shot something into me, and declared, “This man is not dead!” They put me on the gurney and proceeded to begin taking four of the six bullets that were most life threatening out of my body.
These .45-caliber bullets were fired at me from no more than 15 feet away. Then it was off to the hospital for another harrowing experience.
It seems that Officer Algarin had a strong ally in renegade New York County Judge Jeffrey Berry, who was against me from the start. Officer Algarin, Jan B. Golding of The New York State Police Department, and Judge Jeffrey Berry all conspired against me to cover-up the failed assassination of Publisher Anthony Russo. It was only a er being released from jail that I discovered these atrocities.
On my first face-to-face meeting with Judge Berry, my attorney, Mr. Hirsch, asked the judge to lower my bail from $300,000 to an attainable
amount. Judge Berry refused initially citing that it was “not the nature of the crime but the man.” The charges themselves were reduced from attempted murder to criminal possession of a weapon. The amped up original charge of attempted murder of a police officer, the grand jury
would not indict me on. When the attorney informed the judge, “Your Honor last week in the town of Deer Park a man charged with a similar
charge was given a bail of only $1,000, much less than the amount you are asking here.”
The Judge replied, “Its different ‘scopes’ for different folks.” Bail was reduced to $200,000, an amount just as ridiculous and showed Judge Berry’s prejudice and bias. At the trial, police officers testified on my behalf. The testimony of the police would have been enough to dismiss the entire case from the court but Judge Berry ignored the testimony. The nightmare has not ended. There is not enough space to
write all that I have endured.
For more information regarding this case, please contact me at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, my DIN #05A5228, Caller Box 20, 181 Brand
Road, Malone, New York 12953.
Anthony Russo
Note: Russo, 68, swears that the above “affidavit” is true and correct. For the “crime” of being an unarmed man shot by a cop, in his own driveway, without legitimate cause, in an apparently botched murder attempt, Russo was sentenced to 14 years in prison in October, 2005.
The earliest possible release date noted by the State of New York is October, 2009.
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
As a priest and family friend, I find it totally unconscionable that Paul Cote be incarcerated. As a priest I recognize that in my world it has to be less about justice and restitution and more about mercy and forgiveness. Nonetheless the decision the Court has taken in reference to this good man does nothing to dissipate the notion among many whom I serve as a priest that true justice is too o en sacrificed to technicalities, the preconceived notions of the judge, and the “artistry” of the prosecutor.
As a family friend I know the quality of character and integrity with which Paul was educated and which he imparts to his children. I pray that this good family will draw some consolation, even if little, from the conviction that truth will triumph in the end.
In the meantime I want to declare my condolences for this family, my belief in Paul Cote’s innocence, my solidarity with the many other
letters written in his defense, and my outrage at the conviction and sentencing of Paul Cote.
Rev. Timothy C. Ploch, SDB
In Our Opinion...
Perhaps A D.O.J. We Can Feel Good About
We are particularly pleased with the signals now coming from the Justice Department with respect to that Department’s prior handling of
former United States Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens, who lost his bid for re-election in a close race last November, had been convicted days earlier, Oct. 27, 2008, on seven felony counts, and to that point, had been the longest-serving Republican in Senate history.
Particularly significant and reassuring is the fact that Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. had become personally involved upon learning of the extensive prosecutorial misconduct, withholding of Brady material that had gone into Stevens’ conviction. Holder became involved upon learning of the actions of federal prosecutors from Alaska as well as those from the Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice in Washington.
The big question that remains primarily unanswered involves just how much of the concealment of exculpatory information from the Defense
resulted from procedural bungling and poor judgment, “cutting corners” under time constraints; and, how much resulted from deliberate, calculated Constitutional and ethics violations intended to improve the chances of achieving Stevens’ conviction.
We are not merely encouraged that Eric Holder acted swiftly and decisively to remedy the Unconstitutional injury to Stevens, but also, as importantly, that he has brought the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility into the case to determine what, if any, sanctions should be applied to those prosecutors involved. We have long argued for federal legislation that would impose both financial and incarcerative penalties on federal and state prosecutors who willfully and knowingly engage in misconduct.
Additionally, We understand that the Justice Department is examining whether supervisory staff overseeing those prosecutors involved in the case might have been too lax or somehow missed signals that should have tipped them off. The failure of upper-level staff to reign in and more tightly control their otherwise “highly-regarded” prosecutors, lawyers with significant experience in public integrity cases, particularly in light of the trial judge’s strong criticism of the Prosecution well into the trial.
Senator Stevens ironically was convicted on seven counts of failing to disclose nearly a quarter of a million dollars in goods and services received from special interest constituents. Nevertheless, the government in interviewing one such constituent, whom they had intended to be a chief prosecution witness, uncovered information that would have been very helpful to the Defense on at least two critical issues, but failed to turn it over to them.
That failure by Prosecutors to comply with their Constitutional obligation to Defendant Stevens only came to light in February, nearly four months after Stevens had been convicted. And, unlike other instances of prosecutorial misconduct, withholding of Brady, discovered in the course of the trial and dealt with by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, this discovery came too late for any remedy short of overturning the conviction.
Our Readers Respond...
A Westchester Taxpayer Speaks Up For Most)
Dear Editor:
My name is Kurt Colucci, a lifelong resident of New Rochelle, current homeowner and a fed-up Westchester resident. With all our political/economic systems failing, I feel truly angry that my home property taxes have risen to the astronomical levels they currently are and rising. The city/county offers no tax relief for individuals struggling. I need guidance from my elected officials, what do I do?
My tax cost is nearly $16,000 per year. I make $100k in salary (it seems like a lot, but trust me it’s not). I am not married, I take care of my mother and 90-year-old great uncle (nursing home is not an option, he deserves love and caring from those that he looked after).
I am 32, hard-working and a college graduate. I’ve even taught college for four years, so I am not foolish or lazy. Up until recently I couldn’t even afford my own health insurance or various other necessities, but never complain. I just work and pay the bills, no fancy living, just the essentials.
This winter I was forced to make a critical decision, pay my property taxes or pay for home heating oil. Since death and taxes are the only two guarantees in life, you can guess what check was cut, the quarter $4k to City of New Rochelle Tax Collector, as I always do.
I would like to ask other residents and our “politicians”, what would you do? Should I let my family freeze? Maybe I should take a chance and let my home pipes freeze.
I work nearly 70 hours a week as it is, should I work the graveyard shift at the North Avenue Mobil Station for an extra $125 a week to pay our over-inflated, useless County government salaries, or perhaps I should contribute to their retirement pensions? Oh, wait, I already do, in the form of County tax. God knows I don’t even have a retirement savings, nor does my poor mother who raised two kids on her own without additionally funded support. I’m sure I seem like a cranky, bitter person; I assure you, I am not.
I am scared to seek advice from my elected officials, whom I cast my vote for, however I’ve been left out in the bitter cold chasing my tail for answers. I’m tired and dizzy! Well, I have news for them, soon they will be dizzy, because come April 25th they won’t know what hit them, a hell of a lot of angry, over-taxed, hard-working Westchester residents will speak out against these insidious vipers!!
I don’t mind doing my part for the community, but this is asking way too much of a single individual given the current circumstances!
Kurt Colucci, New Rochelle
Reprinted with permission from the Idaho Observer:
“All the truth, nothing but the truth, so help us God” This was the motto of the paper I published in Middletown, New York. The name of the paper was The Wallkill Journal, and I, Anthony Russo, the publisher, spent years relentlessly exposing government officials and public servants for their treasons against “We the People.”
On many occasions over the years I was offered positions of prominence by the aforementioned traitors, always turning them down. Why would I want to be counted among the miscreants? I care too much for “the People” and too much for the truth. I had been threatened over the years and suffered greatly in my pursuit of the injustices and crimes against the people they were charged with protecting. In an effort
to deter me, I was motivated even more to bring out the truths. I have fought against the powers of darkness with all the resources of God,
and now I will tell you how they tried to silence me...
At 4 a.m. on December 24, 2004, I was returning from the corner store when I pulled into my driveway. I looked in the rearview mirror and
saw, parked diagonally behind me, a police car with its lights on. It is safe to say that I was very concerned for I had not broken any of the traffic laws that morning. I rolled down the window to see what the officer wanted and to my utter astonishment Officer Darrel Agarin of the Wallkill Police Department yelled at me, “Mr. Russo, give me the gun you have in the car now!” To say I was shocked would be the understatement of the year. I didn’t have a gun in the car. I realize now that was the set up.
As I was sitting in the car, my back was still facing the officer and suddenly, without provocation, my life was changed forever. Officer Algarin started shooting at my car. I felt a thud in the middle of my back; bullets were smashing all around me. I was terrified! I went into a state of total shock and turned into the gun- fire. I was shot a total of six times, twice in the shoulder, twice in the forearm, and once in the hand. This shooting was the long awaited assassination, the retaliation I was warned of. I realize now that had I not turned towards the gun fire, the two bullets that hit my shoulder would have hit my head! That’s about all I remember before it all went black...
What I am about to tell you I heard from concerned neighbors and officials that were at the scene. They all later testified at my trial. What they said is that Officer Algarin pulled me out of the car after shooting me. He then dragged me to the back of the car, which was facing the street. I now think he did this to make it look as though he shot me while I was outside the car, I don’t know. It was witnessed that he kicked me in the side and that is how my ribs were cracked. This was told specifically to me by Everett Moore, an eyewitness that Officer Algarin
regrets having there. Moore saw the whole thing. Algarin then bent down over me and declared, “He is dead; call the coroner!”
He then placed a black tarp over me, letting me expire. All of the gunfire drew more witnesses, one of which was Dan McDunne. Mc-Dunne is a paramedic by trade. He was one of the first response teams called to the Oklahoma City bombing because of his well-known expertise.
He also tried to attend to me after the shooting. His heroic efforts will never be forgotten. When he tried to come to my aid, Officer Algarin would not let him near me.
He told McDunne, “Step away from him! We are waiting for the coroner to get here.”
McDunne told me later that he heard Officer Algarin tell dispatch there was no need to send paramedics because I was already dead. Algarin’s ruse did not work. When the ambulance got there, they pushed their way over to me and shot something into me, and declared, “This man is not dead!” They put me on the gurney and proceeded to begin taking four of the six bullets that were most life threatening out of my body.
These .45-caliber bullets were fired at me from no more than 15 feet away. Then it was off to the hospital for another harrowing experience.
It seems that Officer Algarin had a strong ally in renegade New York County Judge Jeffrey Berry, who was against me from the start. Officer Algarin, Jan B. Golding of The New York State Police Department, and Judge Jeffrey Berry all conspired against me to cover-up the failed assassination of Publisher Anthony Russo. It was only a er being released from jail that I discovered these atrocities.
On my first face-to-face meeting with Judge Berry, my attorney, Mr. Hirsch, asked the judge to lower my bail from $300,000 to an attainable
amount. Judge Berry refused initially citing that it was “not the nature of the crime but the man.” The charges themselves were reduced from attempted murder to criminal possession of a weapon. The amped up original charge of attempted murder of a police officer, the grand jury
would not indict me on. When the attorney informed the judge, “Your Honor last week in the town of Deer Park a man charged with a similar
charge was given a bail of only $1,000, much less than the amount you are asking here.”
The Judge replied, “Its different ‘scopes’ for different folks.” Bail was reduced to $200,000, an amount just as ridiculous and showed Judge Berry’s prejudice and bias. At the trial, police officers testified on my behalf. The testimony of the police would have been enough to dismiss the entire case from the court but Judge Berry ignored the testimony. The nightmare has not ended. There is not enough space to
write all that I have endured.
For more information regarding this case, please contact me at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, my DIN #05A5228, Caller Box 20, 181 Brand
Road, Malone, New York 12953.
Anthony Russo
Note: Russo, 68, swears that the above “affidavit” is true and correct. For the “crime” of being an unarmed man shot by a cop, in his own driveway, without legitimate cause, in an apparently botched murder attempt, Russo was sentenced to 14 years in prison in October, 2005.
The earliest possible release date noted by the State of New York is October, 2009.
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
As a priest and family friend, I find it totally unconscionable that Paul Cote be incarcerated. As a priest I recognize that in my world it has to be less about justice and restitution and more about mercy and forgiveness. Nonetheless the decision the Court has taken in reference to this good man does nothing to dissipate the notion among many whom I serve as a priest that true justice is too o en sacrificed to technicalities, the preconceived notions of the judge, and the “artistry” of the prosecutor.
As a family friend I know the quality of character and integrity with which Paul was educated and which he imparts to his children. I pray that this good family will draw some consolation, even if little, from the conviction that truth will triumph in the end.
In the meantime I want to declare my condolences for this family, my belief in Paul Cote’s innocence, my solidarity with the many other
letters written in his defense, and my outrage at the conviction and sentencing of Paul Cote.
Rev. Timothy C. Ploch, SDB
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Westchester Tea Party.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Westchester Tea Party Rolls On!
Movement Gearing Up For April 25th Rally
Last Thursday morning, Publisher Sam Zherka and more than a dozen advocates for the abolishment of County government, including David
Spano, and Sam Rivers, held a press conference in front of the Westchester County Of-fice Building at 148 Martine Ave., White Plains. That’s the
site where Zherka has been promising thousands of taxpayers, homeowners, and business people will be gathering at noon on Saturday, April 25th, teabags in hand, to register their dissatisfaction with taxation without real representation from a County government grown gluttonous and unresponsive to the plight of hardworking families and small businesses.
People have been coming out to pre-rally gatherings all over Westchester; the latest a few weeks ago at the Royal Regency Hotel in Yonkers,
drawing 350 supporters. People are fed up with living in the highest taxed county in the nation, and are fearful of losing their homes and businesses
under such a financial burden.
Sam Rivers, a Democratic District Leader, and real estate broker from Mount Vernon, revealed the staggering rate of home foreclosures in that city. Sam Zherka, publisher and owner of more than 4,000 residential units, bolstered those concerns explaining, “The value of residential real estate decreases with each increase of property tax.”
Citing the Boston Tea Party of 1773, and referring to politicians as “self-serving morons,” Zherka told the press and media gathered, “After
the April 25th Tea Party, we will put together a list of our demands.” He went on to say, “If, after we present our demands nothing is done to substantially lower taxes, we will go to Albany to register our objections.”
David Spano, the 49-year-old son of County Executive Andy Spano, told reporters, “I’m disenchanted with the job my father is doing, and
so I come out to support the Tea Party movement.” Responding to a reporter who questioned how he could come out against his father’s administration, David Spano said, “I’m surprised that he’s surprised. I’ve been a fighter all my life.”
The movement to abolish, or significantly reduce, County government, and with it County taxes, has been gaining a great deal of traction. It’s fair
to say that most Westchester families are unhappy, not only with having to pay the highest property taxes in the nation, but also with the arrogance and insensitivity of County Executive Andrew Spano, as well as his bought and-paid-for County legislators.
Spano definitely demonstrated his disrespectful attitude with regard to the plight of working class families when he rammed through the purchase, last year, of a worthless, unneeded hulk of a moldy, leaky disaster of a building at 450 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley, that was owned by one of his big political contributors; a purchase that is estimated to ultimately cost taxpayers as much as $20 million.
The Board of Legislators, of course, rubber-stamped their approval over some of the strongest public outcry we have seen in years. Andy and his super-majority said, in no uncertain terms, “We’ve got the power; so taxpayers be damned.”
And that’s not all the People of Westchester are sick and tired of. There was the Gary Kriss affair which Janet DiFiore, newly-minted Democrat,
made light of. Suddenly more than $12,000 in personal acquisitions at County taxpayer expense, by a man whose sole contribution to County
government for a $150,000 salary, was simply being Big Bill Ryan’s advisor, were all but cut by three-quarters and plea-bargained so that Kriss
could retire and collect a very hefty pension forever after.
How many Gary Krisses are there in our bloated, self-rewarding County government? Hardworking, taxpaying Westchester families want to know; have a right to know. Then there was Bill Ryan himself. Taxpayers realize that $89,000 plus for his part-time job didn’t put him in Reggie LaFayette’s league. But Bill so wanted to be in that company with Reggie and all those other $155,000 commissioners, not to mention all the first, second and third deputy commissioners.
Finally, those who are convinced that we must do away with County government altogether, just as Connecticut and Massachusetts have done, have not forgotten the pay raises the Board of Legislators were giving themselves for their part-time jobs that already cost taxpayers $1,000 per
week per each of 17 legislators, plus stipends and other “lulu”.
Strangely, as the sand washes from beneath their feet and public sentiment turns ever more strongly in favor of abolishing the greedy lot of them,
Spano and the best Board of Legislators money can buy go right on wheeling and dealing with our money. As the press conference drew to a close, Zherka and several Tea Party supporters dumped hundreds of teabags on the sidewalk as a prelude to their upcoming April 25th rally; and, then, promptly removed them.
Westchester Tea Party Rolls On!
Movement Gearing Up For April 25th Rally
Last Thursday morning, Publisher Sam Zherka and more than a dozen advocates for the abolishment of County government, including David
Spano, and Sam Rivers, held a press conference in front of the Westchester County Of-fice Building at 148 Martine Ave., White Plains. That’s the
site where Zherka has been promising thousands of taxpayers, homeowners, and business people will be gathering at noon on Saturday, April 25th, teabags in hand, to register their dissatisfaction with taxation without real representation from a County government grown gluttonous and unresponsive to the plight of hardworking families and small businesses.
People have been coming out to pre-rally gatherings all over Westchester; the latest a few weeks ago at the Royal Regency Hotel in Yonkers,
drawing 350 supporters. People are fed up with living in the highest taxed county in the nation, and are fearful of losing their homes and businesses
under such a financial burden.
Sam Rivers, a Democratic District Leader, and real estate broker from Mount Vernon, revealed the staggering rate of home foreclosures in that city. Sam Zherka, publisher and owner of more than 4,000 residential units, bolstered those concerns explaining, “The value of residential real estate decreases with each increase of property tax.”
Citing the Boston Tea Party of 1773, and referring to politicians as “self-serving morons,” Zherka told the press and media gathered, “After
the April 25th Tea Party, we will put together a list of our demands.” He went on to say, “If, after we present our demands nothing is done to substantially lower taxes, we will go to Albany to register our objections.”
David Spano, the 49-year-old son of County Executive Andy Spano, told reporters, “I’m disenchanted with the job my father is doing, and
so I come out to support the Tea Party movement.” Responding to a reporter who questioned how he could come out against his father’s administration, David Spano said, “I’m surprised that he’s surprised. I’ve been a fighter all my life.”
The movement to abolish, or significantly reduce, County government, and with it County taxes, has been gaining a great deal of traction. It’s fair
to say that most Westchester families are unhappy, not only with having to pay the highest property taxes in the nation, but also with the arrogance and insensitivity of County Executive Andrew Spano, as well as his bought and-paid-for County legislators.
Spano definitely demonstrated his disrespectful attitude with regard to the plight of working class families when he rammed through the purchase, last year, of a worthless, unneeded hulk of a moldy, leaky disaster of a building at 450 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley, that was owned by one of his big political contributors; a purchase that is estimated to ultimately cost taxpayers as much as $20 million.
The Board of Legislators, of course, rubber-stamped their approval over some of the strongest public outcry we have seen in years. Andy and his super-majority said, in no uncertain terms, “We’ve got the power; so taxpayers be damned.”
And that’s not all the People of Westchester are sick and tired of. There was the Gary Kriss affair which Janet DiFiore, newly-minted Democrat,
made light of. Suddenly more than $12,000 in personal acquisitions at County taxpayer expense, by a man whose sole contribution to County
government for a $150,000 salary, was simply being Big Bill Ryan’s advisor, were all but cut by three-quarters and plea-bargained so that Kriss
could retire and collect a very hefty pension forever after.
How many Gary Krisses are there in our bloated, self-rewarding County government? Hardworking, taxpaying Westchester families want to know; have a right to know. Then there was Bill Ryan himself. Taxpayers realize that $89,000 plus for his part-time job didn’t put him in Reggie LaFayette’s league. But Bill so wanted to be in that company with Reggie and all those other $155,000 commissioners, not to mention all the first, second and third deputy commissioners.
Finally, those who are convinced that we must do away with County government altogether, just as Connecticut and Massachusetts have done, have not forgotten the pay raises the Board of Legislators were giving themselves for their part-time jobs that already cost taxpayers $1,000 per
week per each of 17 legislators, plus stipends and other “lulu”.
Strangely, as the sand washes from beneath their feet and public sentiment turns ever more strongly in favor of abolishing the greedy lot of them,
Spano and the best Board of Legislators money can buy go right on wheeling and dealing with our money. As the press conference drew to a close, Zherka and several Tea Party supporters dumped hundreds of teabags on the sidewalk as a prelude to their upcoming April 25th rally; and, then, promptly removed them.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Westchester County Government.
Thursday, March 12, 2009.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Enthusiastic Crowd Of More Than 300
Converge On Royal Regency Hotel, Yonkers;
Plan Strategy To Abolish County Government
Son Of Andy Spano Says, “I Love My Father, But He’s Doing A Bad Job”
Last Wednesday, in part motivated by the commercials calling for the abolishment of County Government being run on their station and other cable channels by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by David Spano, the 49-year-old son of Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, News12 decided to make the issue the question of the day by polling their viewers. Viewers responses fell into three categories: those
wanting to abolish County Government, those wanting to keep it, and those who felt it didn’t matter much either way.
The results, announced Thursday morning, were rather definitive and unambiguous. Those wishing to put an end to County Government were 60 percent; those wishing to keep it were 22 percent; and those who felt it didn’t matter much either way, 18 percent. We believe, even given the unscientific nature of the poll and a probable standard deviation of error of about four percent, viewers, those who took the time to participate,
made a strong statement.
We credit News12 for taking the public’s temperature on the subject, though we suspect had Janine Rose anticipated the very strong outcome,
she might not have run the poll given her usual protectionist treatment of Andrew Spano, and, some of her comments earlier, with respect to his son David’s participation in the campaign to eliminate County Government.
Much as Mike Edelman, Rose’s comments seemed to suggest that it was inappropriate, or somehow not right or fair, for David, a man 49 years old, to have, and express, his own opinion with respect to County Government so long as his father was County Executive.
Nevertheless, the results of the poll spoke very clearly about the sentiments of most Westchester residents. Our bloated, disconnected County Government is a luxury we can no longer afford, and has been for some time. It has created a socio-economic divide that has made Westchester both unaffordable and uncomfortable for working families.
Thursday night, on the heels of the poll, more than 300 residents, homeowners, and business people from all over the County, from as far away as Peekskill and Ossining and Bedford and Somers, converged on the Royal Regency Hotel in Yonkers to share their concerns and ideas with each other, and with White Plains City Councilman Glen Hockley, Independence Party Chair Dr. Giulio Cavallo, David Spano, and publisher Sam Zherka.
The purpose of the gathering was to give taxpayers the opportunity to learn more about the upcoming April 25th Westchester Tea Party, scheduled to be held outside the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue in White Plains, and to send them off with palm cards and lawn signs for distribution to their neighbors and friends.
White Plains Councilman Hockley explained the workings of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and how their committeepersons primarily
function to perpetuate their continued existence with little or no concern about community needs. He explained that he recently voluntarily took a 10 percent pay cut in an effort to set an example and to encourage public servants, at all levels in Westchester, to do the same.
David Spano, son of County Executive Andrew Spano, received a warm round of applause when he addressed the crowd, telling them that he believes his father’s expansion of County Government, and taxes, was wrong and needed to be reversed.
Guardian publisher Sam Zherka told the crowd, “We must force Andy Spano into retirement.” He said the people need to vote the 17 County Legislators out of office, and that the County could be broken up into five legislative districts requiring but five legislators and five assistants, thus eliminating 12 current legislators and 47 legislative assistants, bringing about, at a minimum, a $3 million reduction in salaries in that area alone.
Dr. Cavallo, Chair of the Westchester Independence Party, explained the workings of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Westchester,
and how they conspire to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.
A businessman from Sleepy Hollow rose to express the need for a “watchdog”, someone to keep an eye on corruption. Publisher Zherka responded, “The watchdog should be your district attorney. To have a watchdog we need to get rid of Janet DiFiore.” That comment was greeted with strong applause. Throughout the gathering, more han 20 people rose to their feet to express their own concerns and to relate their individual experiences
with County Government. Each account, almost without exception, spoke of an unresponsive, basically aloof and disconnected County Government, too preoccupied with lining their own pockets to help their needy constituents.
As the gathering drew to a close, Sam Zherka explained, “We’re not going to change things overnight; it will take three, four years, maybe more, but we will succeed.” He went on to say, “Alone we will not accomplish, but if we show up with 5,000, 10,000 people, we’ll not only get their attention, we’ll get the governor’s attention. They’ll know we mean business.”
The majority of the more than 300 attendees registered to do volunteer work for upcoming events, and most took stacks of palm cards and five or more lawn signs for their friends and neighbors. There was unmistakeable enthusiasm and resolve to fight County Government excesses and waste throughout the crowd.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Enthusiastic Crowd Of More Than 300
Converge On Royal Regency Hotel, Yonkers;
Plan Strategy To Abolish County Government
Son Of Andy Spano Says, “I Love My Father, But He’s Doing A Bad Job”
Last Wednesday, in part motivated by the commercials calling for the abolishment of County Government being run on their station and other cable channels by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by David Spano, the 49-year-old son of Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, News12 decided to make the issue the question of the day by polling their viewers. Viewers responses fell into three categories: those
wanting to abolish County Government, those wanting to keep it, and those who felt it didn’t matter much either way.
The results, announced Thursday morning, were rather definitive and unambiguous. Those wishing to put an end to County Government were 60 percent; those wishing to keep it were 22 percent; and those who felt it didn’t matter much either way, 18 percent. We believe, even given the unscientific nature of the poll and a probable standard deviation of error of about four percent, viewers, those who took the time to participate,
made a strong statement.
We credit News12 for taking the public’s temperature on the subject, though we suspect had Janine Rose anticipated the very strong outcome,
she might not have run the poll given her usual protectionist treatment of Andrew Spano, and, some of her comments earlier, with respect to his son David’s participation in the campaign to eliminate County Government.
Much as Mike Edelman, Rose’s comments seemed to suggest that it was inappropriate, or somehow not right or fair, for David, a man 49 years old, to have, and express, his own opinion with respect to County Government so long as his father was County Executive.
Nevertheless, the results of the poll spoke very clearly about the sentiments of most Westchester residents. Our bloated, disconnected County Government is a luxury we can no longer afford, and has been for some time. It has created a socio-economic divide that has made Westchester both unaffordable and uncomfortable for working families.
Thursday night, on the heels of the poll, more than 300 residents, homeowners, and business people from all over the County, from as far away as Peekskill and Ossining and Bedford and Somers, converged on the Royal Regency Hotel in Yonkers to share their concerns and ideas with each other, and with White Plains City Councilman Glen Hockley, Independence Party Chair Dr. Giulio Cavallo, David Spano, and publisher Sam Zherka.
The purpose of the gathering was to give taxpayers the opportunity to learn more about the upcoming April 25th Westchester Tea Party, scheduled to be held outside the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue in White Plains, and to send them off with palm cards and lawn signs for distribution to their neighbors and friends.
White Plains Councilman Hockley explained the workings of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and how their committeepersons primarily
function to perpetuate their continued existence with little or no concern about community needs. He explained that he recently voluntarily took a 10 percent pay cut in an effort to set an example and to encourage public servants, at all levels in Westchester, to do the same.
David Spano, son of County Executive Andrew Spano, received a warm round of applause when he addressed the crowd, telling them that he believes his father’s expansion of County Government, and taxes, was wrong and needed to be reversed.
Guardian publisher Sam Zherka told the crowd, “We must force Andy Spano into retirement.” He said the people need to vote the 17 County Legislators out of office, and that the County could be broken up into five legislative districts requiring but five legislators and five assistants, thus eliminating 12 current legislators and 47 legislative assistants, bringing about, at a minimum, a $3 million reduction in salaries in that area alone.
Dr. Cavallo, Chair of the Westchester Independence Party, explained the workings of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Westchester,
and how they conspire to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.
A businessman from Sleepy Hollow rose to express the need for a “watchdog”, someone to keep an eye on corruption. Publisher Zherka responded, “The watchdog should be your district attorney. To have a watchdog we need to get rid of Janet DiFiore.” That comment was greeted with strong applause. Throughout the gathering, more han 20 people rose to their feet to express their own concerns and to relate their individual experiences
with County Government. Each account, almost without exception, spoke of an unresponsive, basically aloof and disconnected County Government, too preoccupied with lining their own pockets to help their needy constituents.
As the gathering drew to a close, Sam Zherka explained, “We’re not going to change things overnight; it will take three, four years, maybe more, but we will succeed.” He went on to say, “Alone we will not accomplish, but if we show up with 5,000, 10,000 people, we’ll not only get their attention, we’ll get the governor’s attention. They’ll know we mean business.”
The majority of the more than 300 attendees registered to do volunteer work for upcoming events, and most took stacks of palm cards and five or more lawn signs for their friends and neighbors. There was unmistakeable enthusiasm and resolve to fight County Government excesses and waste throughout the crowd.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Time to Reassess
On July 1, 2008, the County Board of Legislators requested funding to perform yet another study to reevaluate property taxes within Westchester County, now the highest in the nation. The Board was granted $25,000 for a study on improving assessment practices, including revaluation.
According to a press release from the Board on December 23, “The study group has begun its work. David Jackson, Executive Director
of the Westchester County Tax Commission, is facilitating the wide-ranging and exhaustive discussion on this complex issue with
representatives from the Westchester Assessors Association and the Municipal Officials Association”.
The report from this Commission is due by the end of February, 2009. At the time of the request for this grant, Legislator William Burton,
the Chair of the Board’s Committee on Legislation, noted that “the Committee on Legislation feels that initiating this study will have a positive benefit to our County’s taxpayers by alleviating the differences in evaluating real property”.
Such promises have been made before by the legislators, with no relief to the taxpayers. In his July request Burton admitted that “in 1996, our Board of Legislators approved legislation, which was also supported by the Westchester Municipal Officials Association authorizing
a County-wide system of real property valuation. is required that there was an establishment of a Westchester County revaluation commission that would implement and oversee the real property valuation”.
Almost 13 years later, County taxpayers are still waiting for a change to the current system. Taxpayers are voicing their concerns over their onerous property taxes to local and state representatives. On December 29, Assemblywoman Sandy Galef released the results of a constituent survey she conducted on property tax relief in the 90th New York State Assembly District. According to Galef, her constituents were “overwhelmingly in favor of change, with the vast majority supporting a property tax cap”.
In June 2008, the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief issued their findings from their study on changes to the current property tax system. Among the solutions the Commission recommended was the establishment of a “tax cap, local overrides to a cap, mandate relief, and circuit breaker legislation”.
Galef ’s survey of County residents showed their preferences (See Chart on Page 2). While Galef ’s legislation seeks to cap the method for calculating property taxes, the County is seeking to reassess the values that local property taxes are based on. County Legislator Ken Jenkins noted the swings in taxes that can result at present from the current system: “A slight increase in county taxes can actually end up as a decrease on a property tax bill for some residents and an increase that varies from minimal to significant for others”.
The Board of Legislators blames the swings on the state’s “equalization rate”. According to the Board, this rate is based on “the relationship
of sample assessments with sales or appraisals in a community. Fluctuations in the real estate market and construction activity, assessment reductions due to appeals, and methodologies that vary from municipality to municipality are factors responsible for producing a wide disparity in assessment results”.
Despite the high rate of taxes and the wide fluctuations in tax evaluations locally, the Board of Legislators acknowledged to the County Executive, Andrew Spano, last July “This survey will be the first step that is in order to ease the undo-burden that our taxpayers
face”.
And, although the Board recognized in 1996 that the County property tax system was already dysfunctional they are only just now taking the “first step” to address this system with this study; a first step that won’t even be completed until February, ten months after they initiated the request for this study. How much more evidence do we need to demonstrate County Government’s disregard for the plight of Westchester’s taxpayers? While both the County Board and the New York State Legislature are seeking to address the property tax issues for the long run, at the rate reforms to the system are progressing, to quote the famous economist John Maynard Keynes “in the long run, we’ll all be dead”. How much longer can local residents wait for tax relief?
The problem is not limited to local homeowners. Commercial property owners face an even higher burden for property taxes since in many municipalities commercial property is assessed at a higher rate than residential property.
One tactic that both commercial and residential property owners use to reduce their tax burden is to challenge the value of their property on local tax records through a process known as a property tax grievance. According to a report in Real Estate New York, this grievance process is fraught with errors and delays. This report outlines the steps in a property tax grievance:
The first step in an assessment review is administrative, generally performed by local assessment boards with no professional staff. Typically they meet for a short-term grievance period. These boards are often deferential to the Assessor and generally lack the expertise to review properties other than homes.
The next step is judicial review. Tax review is generally a part-time assignment for a single judge and this is a major source of delay. Judges also often lack valuation expertise and in many cases they do not set or enforce scheduling orders or deadlines. Attorneys, mostly for municipalities, thus get repeated adjournments and cases do not quickly settle.
Tax review cases are won by proving both the value of a property and the ratio of the assessment to full value. Few assessors assess at 100%
of market value. Most assessment ratios in Westchester County are under three percent. Even a small difference in ratio can make a big difference in obtaining assessment reductions. Compounding the problem, the current system for property evaluation uses the “comparable sales” technique, which has been replacing the “replacement cost” technique. According to the Property Rights Foundation “the comparable
sales technique can only work when properties are extremely similar and are located in extremely similar situations, but, lacking statistically
significant samples, assessors are forced to apply subjective judgment to use a minimal number of sample properties that have just a few similarities to the property being assessed”. In comparison, replacement cost calculations are based on a piece by piece analysis of the construction of the residence or commercial property.
The Foundation warns that, when challenging property tax assessments, “the taxpayer has no right to view the assessor’s selection of comparable sales, because these are considered the assessor’s work product, exempt from the state Freedom of Information Law or from access during assessment appeals!”
The Foundation correctly notes, however, that assessments merely distribute taxes, they do not increase taxes overall. Tax dollars needed
and not collected through property taxes will simply be collected elsewhere. Therefore any relief local taxpayers obtain from lower tax valuations, may eventually be offset by increases in higher income taxes and local sales taxes as the state and municipalities struggle to replenish their drop in property tax revenues from lower property tax values.
Yet despite the problems in the grievance process, for many local taxpayers, it is the only method they have available to alleviate their tax burden. But once again, taxpayers have to wait months for relief. Many local municipalities list their grievance dates and procedures on their website. North Castle lists the following critical dates for taxpayers seeking to challenge their property taxes:
Important Assessment Dates
Taxable Status Date: June 1st
Tentative Completion of Roll: June 1st
Grievance Day: 3rd Tuesday of June
Final Filing of Roll: September 15th
Taxable Status Date: The particular date on which the taxable status of real property must be determined according to its condition and ownership. An improvement added after taxable status date is not assessable until the following year; one added before is subject to current year assessment and taxation Tentative Assessment Roll: The assessor completes, certifies, and files a roll containing proposed assessed
values for each property in the assessing unit.
Grievance Day: The Board of Assessment Review meets to hear assessment complaints. This is the last day property owners may file a
formal complaint seeking a reduction in their tentative assessments. Anyone can examine the assessment roll and property records during
business hours at the Assessor’s Office, 17 Bedford Road, Armonk, New York. However, between Taxable Status Day and Grievance Day
it should be done by appointment.
It is up to individual property owners to monitor their own assessments. Taxpayers who feel they are not being fairly assessed should
meet with the assessor before the tentative assessment roll is established. The assessor can be contacted at 273-3324 or by e-mail at
assessor@northcastleny.com. The assessor will explain how the assessment was determined and the rationale behind it.
North Castle also reminds their residents of the property tax exemptions they may apply for:
Alternative Veterans Exemption
Basic/Enhanced Star Exemption
Clergy Exemption
Cold War Veterans Exemption
Neighbor Notification Order Form
Non Profit Organization Exemption
Senior Citizen Exemption
Volunteer Firefighter & Ambulance Worker Exemption
However, as many property tax reform advocates have noted, property tax studies, reassessments, grievances, and exemptions are merely stop-gap methods that do little to alleviate the real reason why local taxes are so high. At a conference for “Reforming New York’s Property Tax”, the “New York Matters” organization bluntly noted: “Why are property taxes going up? Because spending is going up!” Robert Ward of the Public Policy Institute noted at this conference last year: “We have a spending problem here in New York, and that’s why we have a property tax problem.”
Ward reported at this conference that local government employment in New York State rose 12.6 percent in the last decade though the overall
population was up just 4 percent. School staffing increased 21 percent though student enrollment was up just 5 percent. Putting that in a national context, Ward noted that New York has about 57 local government workers for every 1,000 residents, while the national number is 49.
Ward recommended, “Spending needs to be brought in line through trimming pension and health benefits, and considering whether we
truly need all the government workers we have.”
The Guardian noted last month the significant discrepancies in benefits between government workers and other local employees. The time
has come for local residents to demand concessions from those unions which are unfairly burdening our local budgets for unrealistic and unfair
benefits. In this economic climate, local residents need a reduction in their taxes to survive – simply holding taxes at their current levels is not
good enough. It’s time for our local governments and government employees to cut back. Governor Paterson has already taken a step in the
right direction when he proposed the following concessions from state government workers in his 2009 budget for New York State:
Increasing the minimum retirement age from 55 to 62;
Requiring a 3% contribution from government employees to their pensions;
Prolonging the automatic pension step up at 20 years of service to 25 years;
Requiring a minimum of 10 years of public service to collect a pension, currently 5 years;
Eliminating overtime pay from pension benefit calculations.
These proposals, while still far more generous than the private sector, are necessary to lower the state budget and the tax burdens on state
residents. It’s time for the county and local municipalities to follow suit. Instead of wasting time and money on more studies, the County
Board of Legislators and our local communities should be spending their time negotiating concessions from the government employees.
Reassessing property values merely redistributes the problem. Eliminating or reducing bloated government benefits, eliminates it.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Time to Reassess
On July 1, 2008, the County Board of Legislators requested funding to perform yet another study to reevaluate property taxes within Westchester County, now the highest in the nation. The Board was granted $25,000 for a study on improving assessment practices, including revaluation.
According to a press release from the Board on December 23, “The study group has begun its work. David Jackson, Executive Director
of the Westchester County Tax Commission, is facilitating the wide-ranging and exhaustive discussion on this complex issue with
representatives from the Westchester Assessors Association and the Municipal Officials Association”.
The report from this Commission is due by the end of February, 2009. At the time of the request for this grant, Legislator William Burton,
the Chair of the Board’s Committee on Legislation, noted that “the Committee on Legislation feels that initiating this study will have a positive benefit to our County’s taxpayers by alleviating the differences in evaluating real property”.
Such promises have been made before by the legislators, with no relief to the taxpayers. In his July request Burton admitted that “in 1996, our Board of Legislators approved legislation, which was also supported by the Westchester Municipal Officials Association authorizing
a County-wide system of real property valuation. is required that there was an establishment of a Westchester County revaluation commission that would implement and oversee the real property valuation”.
Almost 13 years later, County taxpayers are still waiting for a change to the current system. Taxpayers are voicing their concerns over their onerous property taxes to local and state representatives. On December 29, Assemblywoman Sandy Galef released the results of a constituent survey she conducted on property tax relief in the 90th New York State Assembly District. According to Galef, her constituents were “overwhelmingly in favor of change, with the vast majority supporting a property tax cap”.
In June 2008, the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief issued their findings from their study on changes to the current property tax system. Among the solutions the Commission recommended was the establishment of a “tax cap, local overrides to a cap, mandate relief, and circuit breaker legislation”.
Galef ’s survey of County residents showed their preferences (See Chart on Page 2). While Galef ’s legislation seeks to cap the method for calculating property taxes, the County is seeking to reassess the values that local property taxes are based on. County Legislator Ken Jenkins noted the swings in taxes that can result at present from the current system: “A slight increase in county taxes can actually end up as a decrease on a property tax bill for some residents and an increase that varies from minimal to significant for others”.
The Board of Legislators blames the swings on the state’s “equalization rate”. According to the Board, this rate is based on “the relationship
of sample assessments with sales or appraisals in a community. Fluctuations in the real estate market and construction activity, assessment reductions due to appeals, and methodologies that vary from municipality to municipality are factors responsible for producing a wide disparity in assessment results”.
Despite the high rate of taxes and the wide fluctuations in tax evaluations locally, the Board of Legislators acknowledged to the County Executive, Andrew Spano, last July “This survey will be the first step that is in order to ease the undo-burden that our taxpayers
face”.
And, although the Board recognized in 1996 that the County property tax system was already dysfunctional they are only just now taking the “first step” to address this system with this study; a first step that won’t even be completed until February, ten months after they initiated the request for this study. How much more evidence do we need to demonstrate County Government’s disregard for the plight of Westchester’s taxpayers? While both the County Board and the New York State Legislature are seeking to address the property tax issues for the long run, at the rate reforms to the system are progressing, to quote the famous economist John Maynard Keynes “in the long run, we’ll all be dead”. How much longer can local residents wait for tax relief?
The problem is not limited to local homeowners. Commercial property owners face an even higher burden for property taxes since in many municipalities commercial property is assessed at a higher rate than residential property.
One tactic that both commercial and residential property owners use to reduce their tax burden is to challenge the value of their property on local tax records through a process known as a property tax grievance. According to a report in Real Estate New York, this grievance process is fraught with errors and delays. This report outlines the steps in a property tax grievance:
The first step in an assessment review is administrative, generally performed by local assessment boards with no professional staff. Typically they meet for a short-term grievance period. These boards are often deferential to the Assessor and generally lack the expertise to review properties other than homes.
The next step is judicial review. Tax review is generally a part-time assignment for a single judge and this is a major source of delay. Judges also often lack valuation expertise and in many cases they do not set or enforce scheduling orders or deadlines. Attorneys, mostly for municipalities, thus get repeated adjournments and cases do not quickly settle.
Tax review cases are won by proving both the value of a property and the ratio of the assessment to full value. Few assessors assess at 100%
of market value. Most assessment ratios in Westchester County are under three percent. Even a small difference in ratio can make a big difference in obtaining assessment reductions. Compounding the problem, the current system for property evaluation uses the “comparable sales” technique, which has been replacing the “replacement cost” technique. According to the Property Rights Foundation “the comparable
sales technique can only work when properties are extremely similar and are located in extremely similar situations, but, lacking statistically
significant samples, assessors are forced to apply subjective judgment to use a minimal number of sample properties that have just a few similarities to the property being assessed”. In comparison, replacement cost calculations are based on a piece by piece analysis of the construction of the residence or commercial property.
The Foundation warns that, when challenging property tax assessments, “the taxpayer has no right to view the assessor’s selection of comparable sales, because these are considered the assessor’s work product, exempt from the state Freedom of Information Law or from access during assessment appeals!”
The Foundation correctly notes, however, that assessments merely distribute taxes, they do not increase taxes overall. Tax dollars needed
and not collected through property taxes will simply be collected elsewhere. Therefore any relief local taxpayers obtain from lower tax valuations, may eventually be offset by increases in higher income taxes and local sales taxes as the state and municipalities struggle to replenish their drop in property tax revenues from lower property tax values.
Yet despite the problems in the grievance process, for many local taxpayers, it is the only method they have available to alleviate their tax burden. But once again, taxpayers have to wait months for relief. Many local municipalities list their grievance dates and procedures on their website. North Castle lists the following critical dates for taxpayers seeking to challenge their property taxes:
Important Assessment Dates
Taxable Status Date: June 1st
Tentative Completion of Roll: June 1st
Grievance Day: 3rd Tuesday of June
Final Filing of Roll: September 15th
Taxable Status Date: The particular date on which the taxable status of real property must be determined according to its condition and ownership. An improvement added after taxable status date is not assessable until the following year; one added before is subject to current year assessment and taxation Tentative Assessment Roll: The assessor completes, certifies, and files a roll containing proposed assessed
values for each property in the assessing unit.
Grievance Day: The Board of Assessment Review meets to hear assessment complaints. This is the last day property owners may file a
formal complaint seeking a reduction in their tentative assessments. Anyone can examine the assessment roll and property records during
business hours at the Assessor’s Office, 17 Bedford Road, Armonk, New York. However, between Taxable Status Day and Grievance Day
it should be done by appointment.
It is up to individual property owners to monitor their own assessments. Taxpayers who feel they are not being fairly assessed should
meet with the assessor before the tentative assessment roll is established. The assessor can be contacted at 273-3324 or by e-mail at
assessor@northcastleny.com. The assessor will explain how the assessment was determined and the rationale behind it.
North Castle also reminds their residents of the property tax exemptions they may apply for:
Alternative Veterans Exemption
Basic/Enhanced Star Exemption
Clergy Exemption
Cold War Veterans Exemption
Neighbor Notification Order Form
Non Profit Organization Exemption
Senior Citizen Exemption
Volunteer Firefighter & Ambulance Worker Exemption
However, as many property tax reform advocates have noted, property tax studies, reassessments, grievances, and exemptions are merely stop-gap methods that do little to alleviate the real reason why local taxes are so high. At a conference for “Reforming New York’s Property Tax”, the “New York Matters” organization bluntly noted: “Why are property taxes going up? Because spending is going up!” Robert Ward of the Public Policy Institute noted at this conference last year: “We have a spending problem here in New York, and that’s why we have a property tax problem.”
Ward reported at this conference that local government employment in New York State rose 12.6 percent in the last decade though the overall
population was up just 4 percent. School staffing increased 21 percent though student enrollment was up just 5 percent. Putting that in a national context, Ward noted that New York has about 57 local government workers for every 1,000 residents, while the national number is 49.
Ward recommended, “Spending needs to be brought in line through trimming pension and health benefits, and considering whether we
truly need all the government workers we have.”
The Guardian noted last month the significant discrepancies in benefits between government workers and other local employees. The time
has come for local residents to demand concessions from those unions which are unfairly burdening our local budgets for unrealistic and unfair
benefits. In this economic climate, local residents need a reduction in their taxes to survive – simply holding taxes at their current levels is not
good enough. It’s time for our local governments and government employees to cut back. Governor Paterson has already taken a step in the
right direction when he proposed the following concessions from state government workers in his 2009 budget for New York State:
Increasing the minimum retirement age from 55 to 62;
Requiring a 3% contribution from government employees to their pensions;
Prolonging the automatic pension step up at 20 years of service to 25 years;
Requiring a minimum of 10 years of public service to collect a pension, currently 5 years;
Eliminating overtime pay from pension benefit calculations.
These proposals, while still far more generous than the private sector, are necessary to lower the state budget and the tax burdens on state
residents. It’s time for the county and local municipalities to follow suit. Instead of wasting time and money on more studies, the County
Board of Legislators and our local communities should be spending their time negotiating concessions from the government employees.
Reassessing property values merely redistributes the problem. Eliminating or reducing bloated government benefits, eliminates it.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Where Our County Tax Dollars Are Going
Regional County Executives recently met with New York State Governor Patterson to request a reduction in state mandated programs and services that are not fully funded by the state. Most residents are aware that Westchester County taxes are the highest in the nation. On the County website, Andrew Spano, the Westchester County Executive, alleges, “Westchester would not have this dubious distinction if it were not for the fact that our property values are so high compared with the rest of the country”.
Spano also blames much of the cost of County government on state and Federal “mandates”, such as Medicaid and school aid. However, these claims are based on dubious math and incorrect analyses and belie the real problem with our County government costs.
First, it is not the “property values” that cause high taxes, as Spano would have us believe. Taxes do not necessarily have to increase in accordance with value. Some government costs are fixed, e.g., it does not cost more to collect garbage from, or run a sewer line to, a more expensive, newer
home than to a lower valued older home.
If the value of Westchester County homes truly affects our property taxes, then we would have the highest rates in proportion to value. But, according to the United States Census Bureau, Westchester County property tax rates, in relation to property values, do not even rank in the top 10.
Second, if the New York State mandates are indeed responsible for the high cost of local property taxes, then all New York State counties would be feeling this impact. According to the Census Bureau, the median property taxes for Westchester County are $8,422, indeed making our County the
highest in the nation. However, the median property tax for all New York State counties is $3,486, meaning half of the counties in New York State fall below this amount!
The New York State Office of the Comptroller notes that: “Nassau, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester counties have tax burdens per household that are more than twice the statewide average. The remaining downstate suburban counties, Dutchess, Orange, Sullivan and Ulster,
are also well above average. By contrast, several western and northern counties have overall burdens that are 20 percent or more below the state average”. So how can other New York State counties operate, under the same state mandates, at tax levels far below those of Westchester County?
By keeping our taxes high, Spano is actually inhibiting Westchester’s ability to collect state and federal funds for programs, such as:
• The Department of Agriculture which uses real estate taxes to determine which areas should receive direct multifamily loan assistance;
• The Department of Health and Human Services which uses real estate taxes to assess the need for housing assistance for low-income, including
elderly low-income, households. The County’s high taxes are actually one of the reasons why Westchester is not receiving more in aid for state and federal mandates. Currently, the County will receive 24.4% of its total operating revenues from New York State and the Federal government
in 2009, a total of $416,506,114.
But lower taxes and a lower tax rate would actually increase the aid to our County. So, if it’s not the state and federal mandates that are responsible for our high taxes, then what is the cause?
The benefits received by county employees are placing a burden on overtaxed residents and creating a massive social divide in our local communities; those with government benefits, and those without. County employees receive health insurance and paid time off that extend far beyond benefits in the private sector. Among those benefits, our tax dollars fund for county employees, are:
• Up to 750 paid workdays off for “employee organization leave”;
• Employee representatives are granted reasonable and necessary employee organization leave, including travel time, for the investigation of claimed grievances and processing of grievances;
• Employees are granted a reasonable amount of employee organization leave, including travel time, for the purpose of participating in mutually scheduled joint meetings of special committees;
• Employees paid on an hourly, per diem, or annual salaried basis who work a minimum of one-quarter time, but less than half-time, during their qualifying period, receive $200; work a minimum of half-time, but less than three-quarters time, during their qualifying period, receive $400; work a minimum of three-quarters time, but less than full-time, during their qualifying period, receive $600; work the equivalent of full-time during their qualifying period receive $800
• “Inconvenience” pay of $550 per year to employees who work four hours or more between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m;
• Holiday compensatory time credited for time worked on such days shall be calculated at the rate of time and one half;
• $20 additional travel expense reimbursement for each weekend employees are in overnight travel status;
• A supplemental mileage allowance rate for the use of personal vehicles for those persons eligible for such allowance when authorized to transport clients or residents, in addition to the standard IRS mileage reimbursement rate;
• Health Insurance office visit charges by participating providers will be subject to a $12 co-payment per covered individual. Office visit charges by participating providers for well child care, including routine pediatric immunizations, will be excluded from the office visit co-pays;
• Maximum enrollee coinsurance out-of-pocket expense under the basic medical component of $900 per individual or family in any one year for County Court employees, $1,292 for most other County employees, as compared to $2,000 for many local non-government health insurance contracts;
• Employees contribute $22.19 per biweekly paycheck for an individual health insurance plan as compared with many local employees who pay up to $600 a month, and more, for their own coverage;
• Employees contribute $95.10 per biweekly paycheck for family health insurance coverage whereas most local companies can no longer afford to subsidize family coverage and employees must pay the cost in full, approximately $1,800. Also, since the family members do not work for the County, the question is raised as to why taxpayers should be paying the cost of health coverage for non-government employees?
• Employees 50 years of age or older and their covered spouses/domestic partners 50 years of age or older are allowed up to $250 reimbursement annually towards the cost of a routine physical examination provided by a non-participating physician. These benefits are not be subject to a deductible and coinsurance, which begs the question, once again, why taxpayers are being asked to provide free physicals for spouses/domestic partners who are not government employees?
• Hearing aids are reimbursed up to a maximum of $1,500 once every four years;
• Free annual eye exams and free eyeglasses for every member of an employee’s family each year;
• Maximum lifetime benefits for non-network substance abuse services of $250,000, compared to zero for many local non-government
health insurance programs;
• Provide basic medical coverage for the treatment of infertility up to a lifetime cap of $50,000 compared to zero for many local non-government health insurance programs;
• Subsidizes 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components. Most employees of local businesses have to finance 100% of the cost of coverage for their spouses/domestic partners and children;
• Subsidizes 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent prescription drug coverage. Many local taxpayers have no prescription coverage at all;
• Part-time employees; those who work at least half of the regularly scheduled work time, are entitled to full benefits. Most local part-time workers receive no benefits, including no health insurance or paid time off;
• Seasonal employees who work at least a half-time basis for at least six months, are eligible to apply for health insurance coverage as of the date of employment. Most local seasonal workers receive no health insurance or paid time off;
• Continued health insurance coverage will be provided for the un-remarried spouse and other eligible dependents of employees who die in government service. Local businesses offer insurance to these individuals under Federal COBRA laws where the spouse/dependents absorb the full cost of the benefits;
• The un-remarried spouse and otherwise eligible dependent children of a retired/deceased employee is permitted to continue coverage on the health insurance program with payment at the same contribution rates as required of active employees for the same coverage. These individuals, who never worked for the County at all, continue to subsidized by tax dollars after the government worker is no longer employed by the County;
• Employees may use their sick leave time to offset the cost of their health insurance. Most local workers don’t receive this benefit at all;
• Holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, Lincoln’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Election Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and day after, Christmas Day – a total of thirteen (13) days, compared to most small local business holidays consisting of New Year’s, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and the day after, and Christmas – a total of eight days. By simply reducing paid holidays to eight days from thirteen, a savings of one work week, the County could reduce staff and costs without affecting productivity or level of services
• Employees also receive two “floating” holidays in addition to the days above;
• Employees can accumulate sick leave up to a total of 200 days. Employees can use up to 200 days of such credits for retirement service credit and to pay for health insurance in retirement. Most local workers do not have any sick time and must use their two weeks of vacation time to cover this. If they do have sick time, it’s on an annual “use it or lose it” basis, and may not be accumulated year to year;
• Government employees also receive personal leave, leave for adoptions, funeral leave, jury duty leave, time off to vote, three days to renew licenses and professional requirements, such as the continuing education requirement for lawyers. Most local professionals squeeze in these courses
at night and weekends, even taking audio courses while commuting!
• Employees are reimbursed for professional training and annual certification fees, even if they are basic requirements for obtaining their jobs. Most small business employees pay their own costs; • Employees receive four hours off for annual mammograms. In contrast, most local workers who are expected to attend to medical exams on their own personal time;
• Many local government workers receive a minimum of four weeks vacation. In addition, the County Courthouse closes for the week between Christmas and New Year’s, giving those employees an additional paid week off. All vacation time may be accumulated and the employee may receive a lump sum check for their unused vacation time upon their retirement, paid at the latest rate of pay, not at the rate of pay at which that time was earned. Most local workers are on a “use it or lose it” basis and may not accumulate their unused vacation time;
• Overtime meal allowances for employees who work at least three hours overtime on a regular work day or at least six hours overtime on other than a regular work day. Most local employees do not get this benefit;
• Annual benefits, up to $600, to defray dependent care costs
• Overtime pay for most levels of staff, even those at high rates of pay. Most local employees now work a standard 50 hour week, 70 for professionals, without any additional compensation. They feel lucky to have a job in this economic environment;
• A government contribution of $212.50 per employee to employee’s organizations; • Employees receive one hour paid lunch breaks;
• Employees receive compensation for uniforms and equipment. Local office workers are not reimbursed for the cost of their suits and briefcases;
• Employees may deduct the cost of their health insurance premiums pre-tax, and allocate up to an additional $4,000 in pre-tax dollars to a health fund for expenses such as orthodontia;
• Fully financed pensions. Most local businesses do not have pension plans so employees must struggle to contribute to 401K’s. As funds in the County pensions drop with the stock market decline, the government contributions will increase to compensate. At a time when local residents have seen their own retirement funds decline, they will be expected to contribute even more to the pensions of County workers.
• Many employees receive subsidized phones, computers, cars, and houses. The Guardian has requested a complete inventory of all County houses, many of which are located in County parks, and the names of the individuals residing in those residences, and the amount, if any, of rent paid by them to the County for the use of these properties;
• Employees receive free life insurance, with coverage up to three times their annual salaries
• In addition to the above, the County also pays employment taxes, such as FICA, and provides unemployment and disability insurance for employees. The County budget provides only a brief analysis of what these benefits cost taxpayers:
Retirement costs: $34,883,259
Payroll Taxes: $27,464,958
Health Insurance: $91,147,315
Employee Benefit Fund: $2,727,125
Unemployment Insurance: $500,000
Other (Disability) Insurance: $959,122
Total Employee Benefits: $157,681,779
With only 4,912 employees on the County payroll, that’s an average cost of $32,101.34 for each and every employee in benefits!
Depending on the department, and the salaries of the employees, the distribution of County benefits fluctuates. The County Legislators have salaries of $3,998,153 in their 2009 budget for their 57 employees, and benefit costs of $1,758,881, meaning their staff receives an additional 44% in mostly non-taxable benefit compensation on top of their base salaries. Not only do most local taxpayers have to pay for the cost of their
own benefits, they also do not receive any tax breaks for most of those payments, increasing their economic burden even further.
In the chart below, compare two fifty-year old employees, one County government, and one small business worker, both making $70,000 a year
For some reason, County government is continuing to expect local non-government employees to be able to afford to pay the average $8,422 in local property taxes. The only way the average local worker can afford to continue to subsidize County employees is if we forego our own benefits, at the risk of our families, our health, and our retirement.
Isn’t it time the County addresses the real problem mandates in its budget? Isn’t it time we cut the benefits the staff is receiving and bring those benefits in line with those being offered to local taxpayers in their place of business? We cannot afford to pay for benefits of non-County employees which may be illegal if not mandated by County charter. We cannot afford to subsidize carryover plans for excessive vacation and sick leave policies and fund high cost health and pension plans. Westchester residents can no longer afford to subsidize these unrealistic benefits and the social and socio-economic divide they create among us.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Where Our County Tax Dollars Are Going
Regional County Executives recently met with New York State Governor Patterson to request a reduction in state mandated programs and services that are not fully funded by the state. Most residents are aware that Westchester County taxes are the highest in the nation. On the County website, Andrew Spano, the Westchester County Executive, alleges, “Westchester would not have this dubious distinction if it were not for the fact that our property values are so high compared with the rest of the country”.
Spano also blames much of the cost of County government on state and Federal “mandates”, such as Medicaid and school aid. However, these claims are based on dubious math and incorrect analyses and belie the real problem with our County government costs.
First, it is not the “property values” that cause high taxes, as Spano would have us believe. Taxes do not necessarily have to increase in accordance with value. Some government costs are fixed, e.g., it does not cost more to collect garbage from, or run a sewer line to, a more expensive, newer
home than to a lower valued older home.
If the value of Westchester County homes truly affects our property taxes, then we would have the highest rates in proportion to value. But, according to the United States Census Bureau, Westchester County property tax rates, in relation to property values, do not even rank in the top 10.
Second, if the New York State mandates are indeed responsible for the high cost of local property taxes, then all New York State counties would be feeling this impact. According to the Census Bureau, the median property taxes for Westchester County are $8,422, indeed making our County the
highest in the nation. However, the median property tax for all New York State counties is $3,486, meaning half of the counties in New York State fall below this amount!
The New York State Office of the Comptroller notes that: “Nassau, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester counties have tax burdens per household that are more than twice the statewide average. The remaining downstate suburban counties, Dutchess, Orange, Sullivan and Ulster,
are also well above average. By contrast, several western and northern counties have overall burdens that are 20 percent or more below the state average”. So how can other New York State counties operate, under the same state mandates, at tax levels far below those of Westchester County?
By keeping our taxes high, Spano is actually inhibiting Westchester’s ability to collect state and federal funds for programs, such as:
• The Department of Agriculture which uses real estate taxes to determine which areas should receive direct multifamily loan assistance;
• The Department of Health and Human Services which uses real estate taxes to assess the need for housing assistance for low-income, including
elderly low-income, households. The County’s high taxes are actually one of the reasons why Westchester is not receiving more in aid for state and federal mandates. Currently, the County will receive 24.4% of its total operating revenues from New York State and the Federal government
in 2009, a total of $416,506,114.
But lower taxes and a lower tax rate would actually increase the aid to our County. So, if it’s not the state and federal mandates that are responsible for our high taxes, then what is the cause?
The benefits received by county employees are placing a burden on overtaxed residents and creating a massive social divide in our local communities; those with government benefits, and those without. County employees receive health insurance and paid time off that extend far beyond benefits in the private sector. Among those benefits, our tax dollars fund for county employees, are:
• Up to 750 paid workdays off for “employee organization leave”;
• Employee representatives are granted reasonable and necessary employee organization leave, including travel time, for the investigation of claimed grievances and processing of grievances;
• Employees are granted a reasonable amount of employee organization leave, including travel time, for the purpose of participating in mutually scheduled joint meetings of special committees;
• Employees paid on an hourly, per diem, or annual salaried basis who work a minimum of one-quarter time, but less than half-time, during their qualifying period, receive $200; work a minimum of half-time, but less than three-quarters time, during their qualifying period, receive $400; work a minimum of three-quarters time, but less than full-time, during their qualifying period, receive $600; work the equivalent of full-time during their qualifying period receive $800
• “Inconvenience” pay of $550 per year to employees who work four hours or more between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m;
• Holiday compensatory time credited for time worked on such days shall be calculated at the rate of time and one half;
• $20 additional travel expense reimbursement for each weekend employees are in overnight travel status;
• A supplemental mileage allowance rate for the use of personal vehicles for those persons eligible for such allowance when authorized to transport clients or residents, in addition to the standard IRS mileage reimbursement rate;
• Health Insurance office visit charges by participating providers will be subject to a $12 co-payment per covered individual. Office visit charges by participating providers for well child care, including routine pediatric immunizations, will be excluded from the office visit co-pays;
• Maximum enrollee coinsurance out-of-pocket expense under the basic medical component of $900 per individual or family in any one year for County Court employees, $1,292 for most other County employees, as compared to $2,000 for many local non-government health insurance contracts;
• Employees contribute $22.19 per biweekly paycheck for an individual health insurance plan as compared with many local employees who pay up to $600 a month, and more, for their own coverage;
• Employees contribute $95.10 per biweekly paycheck for family health insurance coverage whereas most local companies can no longer afford to subsidize family coverage and employees must pay the cost in full, approximately $1,800. Also, since the family members do not work for the County, the question is raised as to why taxpayers should be paying the cost of health coverage for non-government employees?
• Employees 50 years of age or older and their covered spouses/domestic partners 50 years of age or older are allowed up to $250 reimbursement annually towards the cost of a routine physical examination provided by a non-participating physician. These benefits are not be subject to a deductible and coinsurance, which begs the question, once again, why taxpayers are being asked to provide free physicals for spouses/domestic partners who are not government employees?
• Hearing aids are reimbursed up to a maximum of $1,500 once every four years;
• Free annual eye exams and free eyeglasses for every member of an employee’s family each year;
• Maximum lifetime benefits for non-network substance abuse services of $250,000, compared to zero for many local non-government
health insurance programs;
• Provide basic medical coverage for the treatment of infertility up to a lifetime cap of $50,000 compared to zero for many local non-government health insurance programs;
• Subsidizes 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components. Most employees of local businesses have to finance 100% of the cost of coverage for their spouses/domestic partners and children;
• Subsidizes 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent prescription drug coverage. Many local taxpayers have no prescription coverage at all;
• Part-time employees; those who work at least half of the regularly scheduled work time, are entitled to full benefits. Most local part-time workers receive no benefits, including no health insurance or paid time off;
• Seasonal employees who work at least a half-time basis for at least six months, are eligible to apply for health insurance coverage as of the date of employment. Most local seasonal workers receive no health insurance or paid time off;
• Continued health insurance coverage will be provided for the un-remarried spouse and other eligible dependents of employees who die in government service. Local businesses offer insurance to these individuals under Federal COBRA laws where the spouse/dependents absorb the full cost of the benefits;
• The un-remarried spouse and otherwise eligible dependent children of a retired/deceased employee is permitted to continue coverage on the health insurance program with payment at the same contribution rates as required of active employees for the same coverage. These individuals, who never worked for the County at all, continue to subsidized by tax dollars after the government worker is no longer employed by the County;
• Employees may use their sick leave time to offset the cost of their health insurance. Most local workers don’t receive this benefit at all;
• Holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, Lincoln’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Election Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and day after, Christmas Day – a total of thirteen (13) days, compared to most small local business holidays consisting of New Year’s, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and the day after, and Christmas – a total of eight days. By simply reducing paid holidays to eight days from thirteen, a savings of one work week, the County could reduce staff and costs without affecting productivity or level of services
• Employees also receive two “floating” holidays in addition to the days above;
• Employees can accumulate sick leave up to a total of 200 days. Employees can use up to 200 days of such credits for retirement service credit and to pay for health insurance in retirement. Most local workers do not have any sick time and must use their two weeks of vacation time to cover this. If they do have sick time, it’s on an annual “use it or lose it” basis, and may not be accumulated year to year;
• Government employees also receive personal leave, leave for adoptions, funeral leave, jury duty leave, time off to vote, three days to renew licenses and professional requirements, such as the continuing education requirement for lawyers. Most local professionals squeeze in these courses
at night and weekends, even taking audio courses while commuting!
• Employees are reimbursed for professional training and annual certification fees, even if they are basic requirements for obtaining their jobs. Most small business employees pay their own costs; • Employees receive four hours off for annual mammograms. In contrast, most local workers who are expected to attend to medical exams on their own personal time;
• Many local government workers receive a minimum of four weeks vacation. In addition, the County Courthouse closes for the week between Christmas and New Year’s, giving those employees an additional paid week off. All vacation time may be accumulated and the employee may receive a lump sum check for their unused vacation time upon their retirement, paid at the latest rate of pay, not at the rate of pay at which that time was earned. Most local workers are on a “use it or lose it” basis and may not accumulate their unused vacation time;
• Overtime meal allowances for employees who work at least three hours overtime on a regular work day or at least six hours overtime on other than a regular work day. Most local employees do not get this benefit;
• Annual benefits, up to $600, to defray dependent care costs
• Overtime pay for most levels of staff, even those at high rates of pay. Most local employees now work a standard 50 hour week, 70 for professionals, without any additional compensation. They feel lucky to have a job in this economic environment;
• A government contribution of $212.50 per employee to employee’s organizations; • Employees receive one hour paid lunch breaks;
• Employees receive compensation for uniforms and equipment. Local office workers are not reimbursed for the cost of their suits and briefcases;
• Employees may deduct the cost of their health insurance premiums pre-tax, and allocate up to an additional $4,000 in pre-tax dollars to a health fund for expenses such as orthodontia;
• Fully financed pensions. Most local businesses do not have pension plans so employees must struggle to contribute to 401K’s. As funds in the County pensions drop with the stock market decline, the government contributions will increase to compensate. At a time when local residents have seen their own retirement funds decline, they will be expected to contribute even more to the pensions of County workers.
• Many employees receive subsidized phones, computers, cars, and houses. The Guardian has requested a complete inventory of all County houses, many of which are located in County parks, and the names of the individuals residing in those residences, and the amount, if any, of rent paid by them to the County for the use of these properties;
• Employees receive free life insurance, with coverage up to three times their annual salaries
• In addition to the above, the County also pays employment taxes, such as FICA, and provides unemployment and disability insurance for employees. The County budget provides only a brief analysis of what these benefits cost taxpayers:
Retirement costs: $34,883,259
Payroll Taxes: $27,464,958
Health Insurance: $91,147,315
Employee Benefit Fund: $2,727,125
Unemployment Insurance: $500,000
Other (Disability) Insurance: $959,122
Total Employee Benefits: $157,681,779
With only 4,912 employees on the County payroll, that’s an average cost of $32,101.34 for each and every employee in benefits!
Depending on the department, and the salaries of the employees, the distribution of County benefits fluctuates. The County Legislators have salaries of $3,998,153 in their 2009 budget for their 57 employees, and benefit costs of $1,758,881, meaning their staff receives an additional 44% in mostly non-taxable benefit compensation on top of their base salaries. Not only do most local taxpayers have to pay for the cost of their
own benefits, they also do not receive any tax breaks for most of those payments, increasing their economic burden even further.
In the chart below, compare two fifty-year old employees, one County government, and one small business worker, both making $70,000 a year
For some reason, County government is continuing to expect local non-government employees to be able to afford to pay the average $8,422 in local property taxes. The only way the average local worker can afford to continue to subsidize County employees is if we forego our own benefits, at the risk of our families, our health, and our retirement.
Isn’t it time the County addresses the real problem mandates in its budget? Isn’t it time we cut the benefits the staff is receiving and bring those benefits in line with those being offered to local taxpayers in their place of business? We cannot afford to pay for benefits of non-County employees which may be illegal if not mandated by County charter. We cannot afford to subsidize carryover plans for excessive vacation and sick leave policies and fund high cost health and pension plans. Westchester residents can no longer afford to subsidize these unrealistic benefits and the social and socio-economic divide they create among us.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Rethinking Westchester County Government.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Rethinking Westchester Government
Contrary To Those, Including Phil Reisman, Who, Immediately Following The First
Gathering At Yonkers’ Will Library, Predicted That The Movement To Eliminate Or Dramatically
Downsize County Government Would Dwindle And Fail, There Is Growing
Evidence Of Broad-Based Support And The Willingness Of Many To Work For It
Last Wednesday night, Nov. 19th, 150, by actual count, Westchester taxpayers filled the Grand Room at the White Plains Women’s Club on Ridgeway. They were there to hear from several speakers, including Paul Feiner, Candice Corcoran, Glen Hockley, Dennis Robertson, Joan Gronowski, John Murphy, Steve Mayo, and Sam Zherka, to name a few, who presented their thoughts and gathered information on the subject of
possible methods by which to eliminate Westchester Government or, at the very least, cut it down to size. The movement, which got underway
with an initial organizational meeting at the Will Library in Yonkers some six months ago, has continued to evolve, rapidly picking up momentum and charting direction as economic conditions continue to decline in Westchester, the Nation’s most heavily-taxed county.
Given the extremely gloomy outlook nationally, tax increases across the County have brought residents together in a common cause, including homeowners from Yonkers whose County taxes went up 24 percent; homeowners from Ossining, who have been hit with an 18 percent hike, and their counterparts from Harrison, who have been tapped for a 13 percent increase. Those present, from all over the County, were essentially making it clear that they were “angry as hell and not going to take it anymore.”
To his credit, Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz, probably the one individual in County Government more than any other, directly responsible for Westchester residents’ heavy property tax burden, sat in the middle of the audience, appearing to be taking notes for most of the nearly two hour session.
Glen Hockley, White Plains Common Council member, told the audience, “It’s an ongoing mission to get County Government to cut the budget.”
He characterized County legislators, and particularly County Executive Andy Spano, as suffering from “a huge disconnect.” Hockley asked, “Can you imagine the audacity of Andy Spano cutting only 15 percent from his security detail? Our County Executive wants to increase our taxes.”
Hockley’s mere utterance of Bill Ryan’s name brought out a loud, spontaneous “boo”. He was not willing to accept the old standby excuse of County Government, that it is forced by “unfunded state mandates” to continually raise taxes. He declared, “State mandates can be challenged
and changed.”
John Murphy, of Yonkers, gave a slide presentation demonstrating how the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts managed to eliminate their county governments. He told the audience, “Corruption, patronage, and mismanagement is what we have in Westchester.” He reassured everyone,
“In ten years, since eliminating their county governments, there has been no problem in Massachusetts; so we believe they provide a blueprint.”
He then reminded everyone, “The state of Connecticut eliminated county government in 1960.”
Bobbie Anne Flower Cox, attorney for the project, stepped forward and explained that the necessary legislation to eliminate county government could come either from state government, the County Legislature, or by referendum. She indicated that the Justice Department had already been contacted. She asked for attorneys present to volunteer their time to the effort.
Guardian publisher Sam Zherka took the podium and informed the gathering that he had applied for a permit, with the City of White Plains, to hold a massive public demonstration April 25, 2009. He predicted more than 10,000 County residents would attend to drive home the point that County Government needs to be dismantled.
Acknowledging the presence of Larry Schwartz, Zherka said, “If Larry attempts to block the effort, I will go to court,” quipping that he is known to sue government when necessary. Paul Feiner, Greenburgh Town Supervisor, and the individual most closely identified with the movement, told
the gathering, “Government at every level wastes a certain amount of money; we need volunteers. We also need funds.” Announcing the official launch of www.rethinkingwestchestergov.com, he said that County residents are encouraged to use the interactive blog as anonymous whistleblowers who could “expose waste in government.”
Feiner then suggested, “What we need are 17 professional pests,” one for each County Legislator, who would monitor and stay on top of their activities.
Rethinking Westchester Government
Contrary To Those, Including Phil Reisman, Who, Immediately Following The First
Gathering At Yonkers’ Will Library, Predicted That The Movement To Eliminate Or Dramatically
Downsize County Government Would Dwindle And Fail, There Is Growing
Evidence Of Broad-Based Support And The Willingness Of Many To Work For It
Last Wednesday night, Nov. 19th, 150, by actual count, Westchester taxpayers filled the Grand Room at the White Plains Women’s Club on Ridgeway. They were there to hear from several speakers, including Paul Feiner, Candice Corcoran, Glen Hockley, Dennis Robertson, Joan Gronowski, John Murphy, Steve Mayo, and Sam Zherka, to name a few, who presented their thoughts and gathered information on the subject of
possible methods by which to eliminate Westchester Government or, at the very least, cut it down to size. The movement, which got underway
with an initial organizational meeting at the Will Library in Yonkers some six months ago, has continued to evolve, rapidly picking up momentum and charting direction as economic conditions continue to decline in Westchester, the Nation’s most heavily-taxed county.
Given the extremely gloomy outlook nationally, tax increases across the County have brought residents together in a common cause, including homeowners from Yonkers whose County taxes went up 24 percent; homeowners from Ossining, who have been hit with an 18 percent hike, and their counterparts from Harrison, who have been tapped for a 13 percent increase. Those present, from all over the County, were essentially making it clear that they were “angry as hell and not going to take it anymore.”
To his credit, Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz, probably the one individual in County Government more than any other, directly responsible for Westchester residents’ heavy property tax burden, sat in the middle of the audience, appearing to be taking notes for most of the nearly two hour session.
Glen Hockley, White Plains Common Council member, told the audience, “It’s an ongoing mission to get County Government to cut the budget.”
He characterized County legislators, and particularly County Executive Andy Spano, as suffering from “a huge disconnect.” Hockley asked, “Can you imagine the audacity of Andy Spano cutting only 15 percent from his security detail? Our County Executive wants to increase our taxes.”
Hockley’s mere utterance of Bill Ryan’s name brought out a loud, spontaneous “boo”. He was not willing to accept the old standby excuse of County Government, that it is forced by “unfunded state mandates” to continually raise taxes. He declared, “State mandates can be challenged
and changed.”
John Murphy, of Yonkers, gave a slide presentation demonstrating how the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts managed to eliminate their county governments. He told the audience, “Corruption, patronage, and mismanagement is what we have in Westchester.” He reassured everyone,
“In ten years, since eliminating their county governments, there has been no problem in Massachusetts; so we believe they provide a blueprint.”
He then reminded everyone, “The state of Connecticut eliminated county government in 1960.”
Bobbie Anne Flower Cox, attorney for the project, stepped forward and explained that the necessary legislation to eliminate county government could come either from state government, the County Legislature, or by referendum. She indicated that the Justice Department had already been contacted. She asked for attorneys present to volunteer their time to the effort.
Guardian publisher Sam Zherka took the podium and informed the gathering that he had applied for a permit, with the City of White Plains, to hold a massive public demonstration April 25, 2009. He predicted more than 10,000 County residents would attend to drive home the point that County Government needs to be dismantled.
Acknowledging the presence of Larry Schwartz, Zherka said, “If Larry attempts to block the effort, I will go to court,” quipping that he is known to sue government when necessary. Paul Feiner, Greenburgh Town Supervisor, and the individual most closely identified with the movement, told
the gathering, “Government at every level wastes a certain amount of money; we need volunteers. We also need funds.” Announcing the official launch of www.rethinkingwestchestergov.com, he said that County residents are encouraged to use the interactive blog as anonymous whistleblowers who could “expose waste in government.”
Feiner then suggested, “What we need are 17 professional pests,” one for each County Legislator, who would monitor and stay on top of their activities.
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, August 21, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Westchester County Government/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Kriss Affair: Something Stinks In the Disconnect Of County Government
There is something fundamentally disconnected about the relationship between taxpayers and Westchester County Government. It has been the situation for many years now. Viewed objectively, there is little that goes on either in the County Executive's Office or the Board of Legislators that is of any great moment to the majority of Westchester residents other than the raising or lowering of their taxes. One simply doesn't get the impression that the organizations on the eighth and ninth floors of the County Office Building are particularly plugged in to the needs, or the concerns, of the nearly one million people who share the county with them.
Many citizens feel the detachment, and are lucky if they can name their local legislator. Certainly, most would be hard-pressed to name half, or even a third, of the seventeen on the Board. Sadly, in concert with Larry Schwartz, mastermind of the County Executive's Office, the Board will spend two thousand dollars this year, of our money, for every man, woman and child who calls Westchester their home; a budget of nearly $2 billion.
If the County Executive and the County Legislators are supposed to exist in a relationship of checks and balances, that notion died nearly 11 years ago when Larry Schwartz, bluntly speaking, took over County Government.
How can there be checks and balances when one diabolical control-freak decides who will run for office, and controls the purse strings of the political party, the Democrats, who have more than 100,000 more registrants than do the Republicans?
And, it doesn't end with the selection and financing of legislators who will be loyal, and beholden, to Schwartz. It reaches its ugly paw into the courthouse, the selection of candidates, and rigging of elections, for judges, for County Clerk, and most importantly, District Attorney.
They've got it all sewn up. After all, they don't want the wrong persons to come along and file nominating petitions without "kissing Larry's ring."
The end product is arrogant, damned insensitive local government. It's tough enough for constituents to deal with that kind of disrespect from Washington and Albany; self-serving career liars and manipulators. But, here, at the local level, so-called public servants trying to milk part-time positions into six-figure annuities, and beyond, seems so out-of-touch, so misguided and crass. Surely, they don't want to be perceived as they truly are.
Consider the Gary Kriss affair: After many months of trying to pass unreasonable and unwarranted pay raises for themselves, the County Legislators, each of whom earn more than $1,000 a week for a part-time job, were pushing a whopping increase for Chairman Bill Ryan, from $89,000 to $125,000. Often, along comes the revelation that Ryan's shadow, his 'Chief Advisor', Gary Kriss, already earning the $150,000 that Ryan got so sullied grabbing for, was also spending taxpayers' Hard-earned dollars, perhaps $12,000 or more, on personal expenses. And, at the same time, he was piling up months and months of vacation time in violation of the rules. But, then, it does appear that the rules that govern County employees somehow didn't apply to him.
At a time when everyone is getting wiped out, with $4-plus gas, milk, and food costs going through the roof, and job layoffs and cutbacks, we learned of Chairman Ryan's best buddy's largess, and possible unlawful use of Taxpayers' funds for his personal enterprise and entertainment, as well as political activity. No doubt, with a wink of an eye from Andy Spano, his favorite DA, Janet DiFiore, announced she was looking into the unusual expenditure of public funds by Kriss for any possible criminal implications. A call by The Guardian to DiFiore's Office last Tuesday con-firmed that Kriss was "still under active investigation."
On Monday, August 11, the "Special Committee On Internal Controls And Procedures" of the County Legislature released the report commissioned by Chairman Ryan. That committee had been established just two months earlier, on June 10, by Ryan, who also named all five of its members; Democrats Ken Jenkins, of Yonkers, named as Committee Chair, William Burton, of Ossining, and Peter Harckham, of Bedford, as well as Republicans Gordon Burrows, of Yonkers, and George Oros, of Cortlandt, legislative Minority Leader.
Questioned last Tuesday by The Guardian as to "Why wasn't Gary Kriss made to testify before the Special Committee with regard to how he spent thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money", Jenkins responded,"Our charge was not to conduct an inquisition, but to review the expenses for adherence to policies and practices." He then paused a moment, and added, "People didn't think it applied to them; their mindset was We don't have to do things that way."
Asked, "Why wouldn't you want him to make a public accounting?" Jenkins responded, "We found $2,695 in reimbursed expenses, and $300 on a County purchase card, for a total of $2,995. We have a list of all these expenses."
Interviewed earlier on Tuesday, Republican George Oros had said, "Kriss has no incentive to provide an explanation or reimbursement." When Oros' remarks were related to Jenkins, the Committee Chair told The Guardian, "We are penalizing Mr. Kriss for use of County equipment on County time at the rate of about two hours a day during the election period for a total penalty of ten days."
Oros had told The Guardian that he was upset with Committee Chairman Jenkins who, he said, had made light of Kriss' conduct, stating, "It was only $12,000 in a $2 billion budget."
When prodded about his comments to Oros, Jenkins said, "The Committee is not trying to protect anybody. They were stupid purchases at best, criminal at worst."
Again, there is such a huge disconnect between those in County Government and those paying the freight. To begin with, the common term for Gary Kriss' misconduct is theft, whether it's a theft of services, as in the case of thousands of dollars in phone calls, or theft of merchandise, as in soft ware, being Chairman Ryan's "buddy" doesn't confer immunity, either from scrutiny or prosecution. Surely, the taxpaying public has a right to know the facts.
District Attorney Janet DiFiore is another story altogether. It's difficult to second-guess what a prosecutor, who goes around prosecuting victims of police brutality with trumped-up charges, is likely to do in any given situation. Given her own fraudulent political activities, her abandonment of the Republican Party, and those who helped her political ambitions for years, not to mention her incestuous relationship with Larry Schwartz and Andy Spano, conspicuous since Election Day 2005, it may well be that Gary Kriss', indeed, perhaps even Bill Ryan's, personal and political futures now rest in the hands of Larry and Andy.
The kinds of issues raised by Kriss' behavior, and possibly Ryan's conduct, after the fact, comes under the heading of Public Integrity, a unit run for many years by Assistant District Attorney Mike Hughes. Just ponder the job Di-Fiore and Hughes did with the killing of Mount Vernon Police Detective Christopher Ridley by three of four Westchester County cops last January 25.
Anywhere other than Westchester, Gary Kriss would have resigned several weeks ago, and written a check to the County for $12,000, or whatever the final total of his malfeasance in office may ultimately total. Bill Ryan would finish out his present term and go quietly to work for that $150,000 job Liz Schollenberger tells us he could have as a lobbyist. Perhaps, another highly ethical guy, Al Pirro, might be willing to help get Bill started. You never know, maybe Al owes him one for one of those deals he slipped into White Plains even after his license to practice law was suspended for three years.
However, because this is Westchester, Gary Kriss continues to be employed, receiving more than $12,000 a month using up week after week of vacation time that nobody else in County Government could have accumulated under the rules.
And, of course, Bill Ryan is back in the saddle, thankfully having recovered from heart surgery, looking a whole lot healthier, and, as if to add insult to injury, frantically putting out press releases such as his July 30 effort, headlined, "Ryan Secures More Assistance, Services For Battered Women: County Board Chairman Arranges $20,000..." or his August 12 dandy, "Scarsdale Teens Get Further Support From Ryan."
Oh, yes, what did this 60-day old Special Committee, formed by one of the subjects whose conduct needed scrutiny, conclude before anything else? One might have guessed it; "Name A Full Time Chief Of Staff." In other words, add still another layer of bureaucracy; someone to oversee the 17-member Board, the 48-person staff, and provide still another layer of insulation between County Government and those footing the bill while trying to make ends meet.
Most disturbing, once again there is the distinct stench of entitlement surrounding the entire Kriss Affair. Somehow, it's not what he is accused of doing, or even, in fact, what he did; it's that he got caught doing it. It's not the stain and the humiliation we, who have been betrayed, would think one must feel, who has been presumed to be a dedicated public servant. Rather, it's the inconvenience, the distraction, disclaimers, and posturing, the whole dance that one's peers are now going through
That upsets and concerns far too many who ought to be feeling indignant, disappointed, and outraged.
Instead, there are far too many Liz Schollenbergers, too many in the supporting cast of the "entitled", all too ready to rush in with the perfume and deodorant of rationalization and excuse to cover up the stench. But our noses have told us, and continue to remind us, "Something stinks about all of this, like rotten fish." And, as we all know, a fish rots from the head down.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Kriss Affair: Something Stinks In the Disconnect Of County Government
There is something fundamentally disconnected about the relationship between taxpayers and Westchester County Government. It has been the situation for many years now. Viewed objectively, there is little that goes on either in the County Executive's Office or the Board of Legislators that is of any great moment to the majority of Westchester residents other than the raising or lowering of their taxes. One simply doesn't get the impression that the organizations on the eighth and ninth floors of the County Office Building are particularly plugged in to the needs, or the concerns, of the nearly one million people who share the county with them.
Many citizens feel the detachment, and are lucky if they can name their local legislator. Certainly, most would be hard-pressed to name half, or even a third, of the seventeen on the Board. Sadly, in concert with Larry Schwartz, mastermind of the County Executive's Office, the Board will spend two thousand dollars this year, of our money, for every man, woman and child who calls Westchester their home; a budget of nearly $2 billion.
If the County Executive and the County Legislators are supposed to exist in a relationship of checks and balances, that notion died nearly 11 years ago when Larry Schwartz, bluntly speaking, took over County Government.
How can there be checks and balances when one diabolical control-freak decides who will run for office, and controls the purse strings of the political party, the Democrats, who have more than 100,000 more registrants than do the Republicans?
And, it doesn't end with the selection and financing of legislators who will be loyal, and beholden, to Schwartz. It reaches its ugly paw into the courthouse, the selection of candidates, and rigging of elections, for judges, for County Clerk, and most importantly, District Attorney.
They've got it all sewn up. After all, they don't want the wrong persons to come along and file nominating petitions without "kissing Larry's ring."
The end product is arrogant, damned insensitive local government. It's tough enough for constituents to deal with that kind of disrespect from Washington and Albany; self-serving career liars and manipulators. But, here, at the local level, so-called public servants trying to milk part-time positions into six-figure annuities, and beyond, seems so out-of-touch, so misguided and crass. Surely, they don't want to be perceived as they truly are.
Consider the Gary Kriss affair: After many months of trying to pass unreasonable and unwarranted pay raises for themselves, the County Legislators, each of whom earn more than $1,000 a week for a part-time job, were pushing a whopping increase for Chairman Bill Ryan, from $89,000 to $125,000. Often, along comes the revelation that Ryan's shadow, his 'Chief Advisor', Gary Kriss, already earning the $150,000 that Ryan got so sullied grabbing for, was also spending taxpayers' Hard-earned dollars, perhaps $12,000 or more, on personal expenses. And, at the same time, he was piling up months and months of vacation time in violation of the rules. But, then, it does appear that the rules that govern County employees somehow didn't apply to him.
At a time when everyone is getting wiped out, with $4-plus gas, milk, and food costs going through the roof, and job layoffs and cutbacks, we learned of Chairman Ryan's best buddy's largess, and possible unlawful use of Taxpayers' funds for his personal enterprise and entertainment, as well as political activity. No doubt, with a wink of an eye from Andy Spano, his favorite DA, Janet DiFiore, announced she was looking into the unusual expenditure of public funds by Kriss for any possible criminal implications. A call by The Guardian to DiFiore's Office last Tuesday con-firmed that Kriss was "still under active investigation."
On Monday, August 11, the "Special Committee On Internal Controls And Procedures" of the County Legislature released the report commissioned by Chairman Ryan. That committee had been established just two months earlier, on June 10, by Ryan, who also named all five of its members; Democrats Ken Jenkins, of Yonkers, named as Committee Chair, William Burton, of Ossining, and Peter Harckham, of Bedford, as well as Republicans Gordon Burrows, of Yonkers, and George Oros, of Cortlandt, legislative Minority Leader.
Questioned last Tuesday by The Guardian as to "Why wasn't Gary Kriss made to testify before the Special Committee with regard to how he spent thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money", Jenkins responded,"Our charge was not to conduct an inquisition, but to review the expenses for adherence to policies and practices." He then paused a moment, and added, "People didn't think it applied to them; their mindset was We don't have to do things that way."
Asked, "Why wouldn't you want him to make a public accounting?" Jenkins responded, "We found $2,695 in reimbursed expenses, and $300 on a County purchase card, for a total of $2,995. We have a list of all these expenses."
Interviewed earlier on Tuesday, Republican George Oros had said, "Kriss has no incentive to provide an explanation or reimbursement." When Oros' remarks were related to Jenkins, the Committee Chair told The Guardian, "We are penalizing Mr. Kriss for use of County equipment on County time at the rate of about two hours a day during the election period for a total penalty of ten days."
Oros had told The Guardian that he was upset with Committee Chairman Jenkins who, he said, had made light of Kriss' conduct, stating, "It was only $12,000 in a $2 billion budget."
When prodded about his comments to Oros, Jenkins said, "The Committee is not trying to protect anybody. They were stupid purchases at best, criminal at worst."
Again, there is such a huge disconnect between those in County Government and those paying the freight. To begin with, the common term for Gary Kriss' misconduct is theft, whether it's a theft of services, as in the case of thousands of dollars in phone calls, or theft of merchandise, as in soft ware, being Chairman Ryan's "buddy" doesn't confer immunity, either from scrutiny or prosecution. Surely, the taxpaying public has a right to know the facts.
District Attorney Janet DiFiore is another story altogether. It's difficult to second-guess what a prosecutor, who goes around prosecuting victims of police brutality with trumped-up charges, is likely to do in any given situation. Given her own fraudulent political activities, her abandonment of the Republican Party, and those who helped her political ambitions for years, not to mention her incestuous relationship with Larry Schwartz and Andy Spano, conspicuous since Election Day 2005, it may well be that Gary Kriss', indeed, perhaps even Bill Ryan's, personal and political futures now rest in the hands of Larry and Andy.
The kinds of issues raised by Kriss' behavior, and possibly Ryan's conduct, after the fact, comes under the heading of Public Integrity, a unit run for many years by Assistant District Attorney Mike Hughes. Just ponder the job Di-Fiore and Hughes did with the killing of Mount Vernon Police Detective Christopher Ridley by three of four Westchester County cops last January 25.
Anywhere other than Westchester, Gary Kriss would have resigned several weeks ago, and written a check to the County for $12,000, or whatever the final total of his malfeasance in office may ultimately total. Bill Ryan would finish out his present term and go quietly to work for that $150,000 job Liz Schollenberger tells us he could have as a lobbyist. Perhaps, another highly ethical guy, Al Pirro, might be willing to help get Bill started. You never know, maybe Al owes him one for one of those deals he slipped into White Plains even after his license to practice law was suspended for three years.
However, because this is Westchester, Gary Kriss continues to be employed, receiving more than $12,000 a month using up week after week of vacation time that nobody else in County Government could have accumulated under the rules.
And, of course, Bill Ryan is back in the saddle, thankfully having recovered from heart surgery, looking a whole lot healthier, and, as if to add insult to injury, frantically putting out press releases such as his July 30 effort, headlined, "Ryan Secures More Assistance, Services For Battered Women: County Board Chairman Arranges $20,000..." or his August 12 dandy, "Scarsdale Teens Get Further Support From Ryan."
Oh, yes, what did this 60-day old Special Committee, formed by one of the subjects whose conduct needed scrutiny, conclude before anything else? One might have guessed it; "Name A Full Time Chief Of Staff." In other words, add still another layer of bureaucracy; someone to oversee the 17-member Board, the 48-person staff, and provide still another layer of insulation between County Government and those footing the bill while trying to make ends meet.
Most disturbing, once again there is the distinct stench of entitlement surrounding the entire Kriss Affair. Somehow, it's not what he is accused of doing, or even, in fact, what he did; it's that he got caught doing it. It's not the stain and the humiliation we, who have been betrayed, would think one must feel, who has been presumed to be a dedicated public servant. Rather, it's the inconvenience, the distraction, disclaimers, and posturing, the whole dance that one's peers are now going through
That upsets and concerns far too many who ought to be feeling indignant, disappointed, and outraged.
Instead, there are far too many Liz Schollenbergers, too many in the supporting cast of the "entitled", all too ready to rush in with the perfume and deodorant of rationalization and excuse to cover up the stench. But our noses have told us, and continue to remind us, "Something stinks about all of this, like rotten fish." And, as we all know, a fish rots from the head down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
