Thursday, January 17, 2008
Northern Westchester Bureau Chief
Catherine Wilson
Astorino: “County Withdrawal From Emergency Drills A Slap In The Face”
On January 7, 2008 the Westchester County Executive’s office released a new “Indian Point Emergency Planning Guide” for residents within the designated evacuation zone. The guide provides information on the siren alerts, the radio and television stations that will provide alerts, the levels of alerts, and the action to be taken by residents for each type of alert.
The County classifies the types of alerts, as follows:
• An Unusual Event : Defined as an operational problem with no expected radiation leak. Regulatory officials at local, state, and federal levels would be notified. No sirens would be activated and no action would need to be taken by local residents.
• An Alert : Defined as an incident that reduces the plant’s level of safety possibly resulting in a small leak of radiation not expected to threaten the public. Sirens may be sounded and emergency services activated. Local residents are expected to tune into news media sources for further information.
• A Site Area Emergency: Defined as an incident that has substantially reduced the plant’s level of safety with external radiation leaks within federal standards. Sirens will likely be sounded. As with an alert, emergency services will be activated but residents are expected to monitor the situation with the news media.
• A General Emergency : The highest level of alert, de-fined as a problem occurring that could release unacceptable levels of radiation outside the plant. Sirens will definitely sound at this level. Residents are expected to tune into the Emergency Alert System for instructions.
The County’s Emergency Planning Brochure reminds area residents that the level of alert could change at any time. Therefore, resi-dents should be prepared to monitor the news media for updates until the alert is dropped. Both the packet mailed to area residents, and the Westchester County Government website (www.westchestergov.com), provide maps of the evacuation area. Any residents who are unsure if their home, school, or work site is within the evacuation zone can log onto the County’s website and click on “Indian Point” for specific details.
Should an alert occur, one possible course of action for residents is to stay indoors. Residents should not assume that “staying indoors”
simply means closing the door behind them. The County’s information packet instructs residents to check all windows and doors, bring
all family members and pets indoors, turn off all heating and air-conditioning and any other ventilation systems, extinguish fires and close
dampers in fireplaces, tune in the Emergency Alert Systems stations, and leave cell phone and telephone lines open for emergency services.
Should an evacuation be necessary, the County provides instructions for residents to follow, including a checklist of evacuation supplies
to pack, and establishing a check-in phone number or meeting point for all family members. Among the items the County reminds residents
have on hand for an evacuation are important phone numbers, prescription information, a medical insurance card, and photos of any children.
To assist residents further in their planning, the county provides a list of emergency planning websites and resources such as local agencies, the Red Cross, F.E.M.A., and the Department of Homeland Security. The information provided in the emergency planning guide and on
the County website benefits every Westchester resident, regardless of proximity to Indian Point. Many other Westchester areas, outside of
the ten-mile radius around Buchanan, have experienced severe weather conditions, flooding, tornadoes, and man-made disasters ranging from
household fires to truck explosions. An evacuation can occur in any part of our county at any time.
Despite this reality, in November of last year, the County Executive, Andy Spano, announced that Westchester County would no longer be
participating in Indian Point drills and evacuation exercises. In an extensive interview with Rob Astorino, former member of the Westchester
County Board of Legislators and a prior candidate for County Executive, The Guardian learned that he is very concerned that Mr. Spano’s decision will adversely affect the County’s ability to respond to emergencies.
Astorino felt that the County’s withdrawal was “a slap in the face to first responders, volunteers, and officials” all of whom have developed
plans and participated in multiple drills for the public’s safety. Astorino felt that Spano was “irresponsible to withdraw from the drills” and that drills are required to assure that all participants know their roles and responsibilities and to expose weak spots and areas needing improvements.
The County’s new planning guide discusses the improvements the County has already made from their prior evacuation drills – such as
evacuation instructions that will now be given to residents specific to their municipality, not by zone. Several requests to the County Executive’s Office, both by telephone and e-mail by this reporter, for comment on the County’s withdrawal from future drills and the potential impact to public safety, continued unanswered as of press time.
In an OpEd article to the Journal News on January 5, 2008, Astorino reminded local residents that “even if Indian Point were to unexpectedly shut down tomorrow, the spent nuclear fuel would remain at the site for decades”. Used or “spent” fuel must currently be stored by Indian Point onsite since the federal government has yet to build a promised national repository. Indian Point has been storing spent fuel onsite since 1976. At present, the tanks where the spent fuel is stored at the Buchanan plants are full. Entergy, the plant operator, is currently in the process of transferring the spent fuel casks to a concrete storage site. According to Robyn Bentley, a spokesperson for Entergy, all of the spent fuel in the cooling tanks is expected to be transferred by March when the plant is scheduled to be refueled. In addition to the transfers of the spent fuel casks, Indian Point is also recapturing a leak of Strontium 90 material in the drainage system in Unit 1.
Ms. Bentley stressed that this leak poses no threat to the public and is being monitored at present by a groundwater team for any potential issues.
Ms. Bentley could not comment on the impact of Spano’s decision to withdraw the County from Indian Point drills since the next drill
scheduled is not until February 6, 2008. Ms. Bentley noted that Indian Point is obliged to hold drills on a quarterly basis in accordance with
federal guidelines. The February drill is a regularly scheduled state drill with only New York State agencies participating. The next scheduled
drill for local agencies and evacuation partners, including Westchester County, is scheduled for May. The evacuation partners include regional
hospitals, government agencies (including Westchester and Rockland Counties), and local fire departments. Ms. Bentley could not comment
at this time as to what a ect Westchester’s withdrawal will have on these organizations’ evacuation plans.
In the interim, Mr. Astorino is calling for Mr. Spano to immediately reinstate the county’s full and unequivocal participation in Indian Point
emergency planning exercises and drills.
Northern Westchester Round-Up
Chappaqua: • The New Castle Town Board is holding a series of public hearings on the proposed development for the former Readers
Digest site. The proposed development includes plans for affordable housing and units for residents 55 and older.
Cortlandt: • Assemblywoman Sandra Galef announced the winners of a state-wide vote for the official state butterfly. Karina Franke, an
elementary school student from Cortlandt Manor, wrote to Ms. Galef concerned about the plight of the Karner Blue butterfly. That
species, along with some of the state’s most significant butterflies, were selected for consideration for official status. Elementary students
from across the state voted for their favorites.
Peekskill: • Police arrested 16-year-old LaTonya Fisher for the murder of her boyfriend, 17-year-old Justin Woodward. Fisher stabbed Woodward to death in her family’s apartment in Bohlmann Towers.
Valhalla: • The New York Medical College was awarded $215,718 for stem cell research. The grant is part of a statewide program totaling
$14.5 million. • A Cornell University researcher discovered a human skull on the grounds of the Grasslands facility. The researcher, Dan
Bogan of Ithaca, was tracking the movements of a coyote when he made the gruesome discovery.
– Catherine Wilson
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Our Readers Respond...
Giuliani Supporter Upset By Backstabbing
Dear Editor:
I am a Rudy Giuliani supporter, but it looks as though, as the old saying goes, “If not for bad luck, he wouldn’t have any at all.” There’s been too much fuss and attention to his relationship with his former wives, especially wife #2, Donna Hanover. Now, he’s taking dents and dings over Judy Nathan and her security issues.
If anything can be said as a mark against him, and I don’t see it that way, he is very loyal to his friends. It’s not Mr. Giuliani’s fault that Bernard Kerik turned out to be so bad, and now it reflects on him. Some people are like that. They accept your help, and then they do
something that makes you look bad. Kerik wasn’t the only one who turned on Rudy. When Janet DiFiore was running for DA here in Westchester, I’m sure everybody still remembers Rudy’s press releases and campaign phone calls for her.
How was he supposed to figure she would go running out to Iowa to support Hillary? You never know with politicians like that. What did Hillary do for DiFiore when she needed help to become DA? I like Rudy cause he’s a stand-up guy and he doesn’t go around backstabbing his friends.
A True Republican From Eastchester
Reader’s Letters to Hillary Clinton Go Unanswered
Dear Editor
During the last few years innumerable letters were constructed, written, and addressed to the offices of Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding health care, immigration and the Iraq War. As “First Lady” advocating health care reform and seeking a New York State Senate seat I made a request to Mrs. Clinton to challenge the constitutionality, legality, and discriminatory nature of New York State’s “Health Care Reform Act of 1996” (HCRA). Needless to say, I never got the courtesy of a reply nor did she do anything about health care reform for our country while in the White House.
Within the last year, a letter regarding undocumented immigrants was drafted and sent to several of Mrs. Clinton’s Senatorial offices in New York State and Washington. Again, no acknowledgement or response from her, her multiple offices and her enormous staff. A letter regarding terrorism, the Iraq War, and asking for support of our troops went unanswered. It should be noted that all of Senator Clinton’s offices and staff are maintained at taxpayer expense.
It is irresponsible, inexcusable, and reprehensible for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to ignore the public, the issues, and her constituents. I do not understand how anyone could support Hillary Clinton for the office of the President of the United States when she has done nothing for our country, nothing for the State of New York and nothing for the Nation’s people. She has been less than candid with the
people, demonstrated indifference to the voters and evaded the issues.
Edwin P. Heideman, Pleasantville
In Our Opinion.....
What Went Wrong...
Most astute political observers understand that the successful marketing of any candidate for public office is largely dependent upon control of the candidate’s image and reality. Image, of course, refers to the persona, physically, spiritually, morally, and historically; in short, the package of properties, the gestalt, that one conjures up when contemplating another. It may be based on a past reality that is no longer applicable, but remains stubbornly attached. Or, it may be largely fictional, a hype born in, and nurtured by, the media.
Chappaqua resident Hillary Clinton, in her quest to become the nation’s first woman President has, over the last several years, struggled successfully a number of times to repair and remake her popular image. Her election to the United States Senate seven years ago, and again little more than a year ago, by wide margins, would suggest she has largely been able to keep a credible, desirable portrait, at least before New York State voters. She would appear to have coasted into the Iowa contest the likely winner, having remained on top of the national polls right up to the Caucuses. That having been said, the Iowa results must have felt, to her, as though she had walked into a glass door.
Certainly her fundraising had been encouraging. And, with her partner, Bill, out there greeting and pitching supporters, neither she nor her advisors and supporters, ever expected her third-place finish, losing to Barack Obama by double digits, and getting nudged from second place by John Edwards. The truth was, simply, that Obama had bumped her from the stage. And, while it was true that his voting record in the Senate, and hers, over the last two years, were quite similar, the craving for change in this country is so profound and so widespread it is driving individuals of every political stripe, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, into the political process with resurgent energy and commitment not seen in decades.
Key in the mix in Iowa were youthful and first-time voters; individuals whose presidential recollections were largely named Bush and Clinton. Quite simply put, even with similar voting records, standing side by side before a country poised for change; a country tired of paying more than $3 a gallon for gas, a country tired of a war in Iraq that has already run 13 months longer than our involvement in World War II, a country losing their homes to foreclosure while working two and three jobs to keep up; standing before that country, Obama looked, sounded and felt much more like change, in Iowa.
He looked more like change as a youthful Black husband and father, than she did, a middle-aged White woman. He sounded more like change, more anti-Establishment, more anti-Bush/Cheney, more anti-war. Hillary had been too centrist, too generic, too unimaginative in her declarations. She did not make a compelling argument, nor did she present a convincing image of one who would make a complete break with
all that middle-class America wants to put behind it.
Beyond the uninspiring image problem she failed to overcome, her reality had recently been unhelpful to her as well. From our perspective, it would appear that what we had seen lately had been less and less of the real Hillary and more and more of what her handlers and strategists wanted her to come off as. The real Hillary had impressed us two years ago as a good listener and a very intelligent individual with enough
personal power to be a great President. Unfortunately, the Senator who came out two years ago for the candidacies of Tony Castro, for Westchester District Attorney, and Chuck Lesnick in the race for Yonkers City Council President, was totally absent when called upon by Dennis Robertson, running for Mayor of that same city just two months ago.
Whether Andy Spano, who promised Dennis $25,000 and never delivered, influenced her, or her own campaign advisors in New York City, who had been contacted, failed to inform her, was really not the point. One way or another, neither Hillary, nor Bill, nor anyone from that camp, raised a finger to help a Democrat running for Mayor of the fourth largest city in her home state, the largest municipality in her
home county. That was bad advice, whatever the source. That was not the Hillary we had come to know.
What Went Right...
We believe Hillary needed that bruising finish in Iowa to realize, if only just in time, that the people of New Hampshire would be there for her if they were convinced she was there for them, passionately, explicitly, and yes, a little vulnerably. She got back on track in the debate Saturday night, January 5th, when she fought off both Obama and Edwards with strength and with facts. She left no doubt that, yes, she was
a real woman with feeling and emotion, but she could take on the guys convincingly. She won three days later in New Hampshire because, as she said in her opening remarks at 11pm Tuesday night, “I listened to you and, in the process, I found my own voice.”
Our Readers Respond...
Giuliani Supporter Upset By Backstabbing
Dear Editor:
I am a Rudy Giuliani supporter, but it looks as though, as the old saying goes, “If not for bad luck, he wouldn’t have any at all.” There’s been too much fuss and attention to his relationship with his former wives, especially wife #2, Donna Hanover. Now, he’s taking dents and dings over Judy Nathan and her security issues.
If anything can be said as a mark against him, and I don’t see it that way, he is very loyal to his friends. It’s not Mr. Giuliani’s fault that Bernard Kerik turned out to be so bad, and now it reflects on him. Some people are like that. They accept your help, and then they do
something that makes you look bad. Kerik wasn’t the only one who turned on Rudy. When Janet DiFiore was running for DA here in Westchester, I’m sure everybody still remembers Rudy’s press releases and campaign phone calls for her.
How was he supposed to figure she would go running out to Iowa to support Hillary? You never know with politicians like that. What did Hillary do for DiFiore when she needed help to become DA? I like Rudy cause he’s a stand-up guy and he doesn’t go around backstabbing his friends.
A True Republican From Eastchester
Reader’s Letters to Hillary Clinton Go Unanswered
Dear Editor
During the last few years innumerable letters were constructed, written, and addressed to the offices of Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding health care, immigration and the Iraq War. As “First Lady” advocating health care reform and seeking a New York State Senate seat I made a request to Mrs. Clinton to challenge the constitutionality, legality, and discriminatory nature of New York State’s “Health Care Reform Act of 1996” (HCRA). Needless to say, I never got the courtesy of a reply nor did she do anything about health care reform for our country while in the White House.
Within the last year, a letter regarding undocumented immigrants was drafted and sent to several of Mrs. Clinton’s Senatorial offices in New York State and Washington. Again, no acknowledgement or response from her, her multiple offices and her enormous staff. A letter regarding terrorism, the Iraq War, and asking for support of our troops went unanswered. It should be noted that all of Senator Clinton’s offices and staff are maintained at taxpayer expense.
It is irresponsible, inexcusable, and reprehensible for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to ignore the public, the issues, and her constituents. I do not understand how anyone could support Hillary Clinton for the office of the President of the United States when she has done nothing for our country, nothing for the State of New York and nothing for the Nation’s people. She has been less than candid with the
people, demonstrated indifference to the voters and evaded the issues.
Edwin P. Heideman, Pleasantville
In Our Opinion.....
What Went Wrong...
Most astute political observers understand that the successful marketing of any candidate for public office is largely dependent upon control of the candidate’s image and reality. Image, of course, refers to the persona, physically, spiritually, morally, and historically; in short, the package of properties, the gestalt, that one conjures up when contemplating another. It may be based on a past reality that is no longer applicable, but remains stubbornly attached. Or, it may be largely fictional, a hype born in, and nurtured by, the media.
Chappaqua resident Hillary Clinton, in her quest to become the nation’s first woman President has, over the last several years, struggled successfully a number of times to repair and remake her popular image. Her election to the United States Senate seven years ago, and again little more than a year ago, by wide margins, would suggest she has largely been able to keep a credible, desirable portrait, at least before New York State voters. She would appear to have coasted into the Iowa contest the likely winner, having remained on top of the national polls right up to the Caucuses. That having been said, the Iowa results must have felt, to her, as though she had walked into a glass door.
Certainly her fundraising had been encouraging. And, with her partner, Bill, out there greeting and pitching supporters, neither she nor her advisors and supporters, ever expected her third-place finish, losing to Barack Obama by double digits, and getting nudged from second place by John Edwards. The truth was, simply, that Obama had bumped her from the stage. And, while it was true that his voting record in the Senate, and hers, over the last two years, were quite similar, the craving for change in this country is so profound and so widespread it is driving individuals of every political stripe, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, into the political process with resurgent energy and commitment not seen in decades.
Key in the mix in Iowa were youthful and first-time voters; individuals whose presidential recollections were largely named Bush and Clinton. Quite simply put, even with similar voting records, standing side by side before a country poised for change; a country tired of paying more than $3 a gallon for gas, a country tired of a war in Iraq that has already run 13 months longer than our involvement in World War II, a country losing their homes to foreclosure while working two and three jobs to keep up; standing before that country, Obama looked, sounded and felt much more like change, in Iowa.
He looked more like change as a youthful Black husband and father, than she did, a middle-aged White woman. He sounded more like change, more anti-Establishment, more anti-Bush/Cheney, more anti-war. Hillary had been too centrist, too generic, too unimaginative in her declarations. She did not make a compelling argument, nor did she present a convincing image of one who would make a complete break with
all that middle-class America wants to put behind it.
Beyond the uninspiring image problem she failed to overcome, her reality had recently been unhelpful to her as well. From our perspective, it would appear that what we had seen lately had been less and less of the real Hillary and more and more of what her handlers and strategists wanted her to come off as. The real Hillary had impressed us two years ago as a good listener and a very intelligent individual with enough
personal power to be a great President. Unfortunately, the Senator who came out two years ago for the candidacies of Tony Castro, for Westchester District Attorney, and Chuck Lesnick in the race for Yonkers City Council President, was totally absent when called upon by Dennis Robertson, running for Mayor of that same city just two months ago.
Whether Andy Spano, who promised Dennis $25,000 and never delivered, influenced her, or her own campaign advisors in New York City, who had been contacted, failed to inform her, was really not the point. One way or another, neither Hillary, nor Bill, nor anyone from that camp, raised a finger to help a Democrat running for Mayor of the fourth largest city in her home state, the largest municipality in her
home county. That was bad advice, whatever the source. That was not the Hillary we had come to know.
What Went Right...
We believe Hillary needed that bruising finish in Iowa to realize, if only just in time, that the people of New Hampshire would be there for her if they were convinced she was there for them, passionately, explicitly, and yes, a little vulnerably. She got back on track in the debate Saturday night, January 5th, when she fought off both Obama and Edwards with strength and with facts. She left no doubt that, yes, she was
a real woman with feeling and emotion, but she could take on the guys convincingly. She won three days later in New Hampshire because, as she said in her opening remarks at 11pm Tuesday night, “I listened to you and, in the process, I found my own voice.”
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
When Truth And Justice Are Overwhelmed By Celebrity Worship
In the recent evidentiary hearing into the circumstances surrounding the conviction of former New York City Transit Police Officer Richard
DiGuglielmo, the District Attorney’s recently-released “Post-Hearing Submission,” is a document clearly not written to the Court to which it
has been handed but, rather, to the Appellate Division, Second Department, who the Office obviously believes they will be appealing to, as
though a foregone conclusion.
Consistent with their approach to, and disrespectful treatment of, Judge Rory J. Bellantoni’s Court throughout the hearing, the submission is filled with arrogant assertions and assumptions regarding that Court, and its clear and unwavering determination to discover the truth with regard to the handling of Michael Dillon and other key witnesses to the tragic events at the Venice Deli on October 3, 1996, by Dobbs Ferry Police and the Westchester District Attorney’s Office. And, if the information alleged and sworn to by that witness compelled it, the admission of sworn testimony from others as well, to proceed where necessary.
The DA’s Office demonstrates its willingness, indeed, its desire, to perpetuate the confabulation and denial of truth upon which the conviction of a man, an off-duty New York City Transit Police Officer, who saved the life of an unarmed, middle-aged man who happened to be his own father, from a metal bat-wielding assailant who happened to be a Black man, was based, as well as his imprisonment for 20 Years To Life.
It is not totally surprising that the office, the top ranks of which are staffed by most of the same attorneys who engaged in the kind of egregious prosecutorial misconduct that kept 376 pages, 52 boxes and miles of exculpatory audio and videotape, concealed for 13 long years, until forced to present and acknowledge them in Federal District Court last April; thus resulting in the release of Anthony DiSimone after seven years of imprisonment for a crime they knew he was innocent of, would now, in desperation, try any device, any lie, to avoid yet
another exposure and reversal of their unlawful, malicious and cruel treatment of an innocent individual in total disregard of, and disrespect for, his Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. In point of fact, Patricia Murphy and Perry Perone, who prosecuted Officer Richard DiGuglielmo and who sent the Dobbs Ferry Police Department forward on its unlawful, mindless mission to change the original statements of the only three individuals who actually witnessed the entire tragic exchange, including the fatal shooting of Charles Campbell, hold very high rank in the Westchester DA’s Office today.
Having attended each of the eight days of hearings before Judge Rory Bellantoni, the truth of the old bromide that instructs “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” was never more evident than in the unfolding of testimony and the contortions
of the District Attorney’s Office, mostly through the filibustering and obfuscation, practiced throughout the proceedings by ADA Timothy
Ward. Patricia Murphy who, upon arrival at the scene of the tragic encounter the evening of October 3, 1996, declared within 25 minutes, in
her notebook, that it was a “Second Degree Murder” despite the statements to police by Michael Dillon, Jimmy White, and Kevin O’Donnell that what they had just witnessed was a shooting “in self-defense.” Murphy, who testified at the hearing, called as a witness by the Respondent DA’s Office had, from the very moment she stepped foot on the crime scene, learning of a bat-wielding, but Black, assailant, shot and killed by an Italian-American off-duty New York City Transit Police Of-ficer, decided it could only be Murder; and the Hell with the eyewitness accounts of the only three witnesses who had seen all 90 seconds of what had happened, the Hell with the Truth. She and her Office would do whatever was necessary to make the statements to police and the ultimate testimony line up with her charge, the charge that would have the most political benefit to her boss, Jeanine Pirro. Murphy would do whatever was necessary, even if it meant that she would put the Dobbs Ferry Police Department, its 35-year-old Chief, George Longworth, and all three of its detectives: Guarnieri, Ellman, and Gelardi, on a mission to make each of the three eyewitnesses lie, and change their statements, and ultimately their in-court testimony, both before the grand jury and at trial, to comport with her false charges.
ADA Patricia Murphy, who Jeanine Pirro had called upon to lie and prostitute herself for her so many times over the years, to put out fires as she did in the aftermath of young Rob Viscome’s death at Pirro’s next door neighbors, the Porzio’s house, was called upon at the hearing to put out the fire, and possible inferno, of witness-tampering and turning, unlawful activity by the Dobbs Ferry Police Department, perhaps at the direction of the DA’s Office, being alleged by a former key witness in the Richard DiGuglielmo case. She was, after all, the lead prosecutor; she was, after all, fully familiar with Mr. Campbell’s long criminal rap sheet and his history of physical violence. And, as is customary, she, as the prosecutor, did direct the activities of the Dobbs Ferry Police, and not the other way around.
Having observed Patricia Murphy through numerous trials over the years, those where her performance had been praiseworthy and was so acknowledged, and those where she had no problem carrying out a malicious prosecution of a clearly innocent individual, each with the same force and authority, the Patricia Murphy who appeared before Judge Rory Bellantoni, was unlike any previously observed. She was markedly red-faced, and conspicuously nervous; not at all her usual confident, take-charge self. If ADAs Tim Ward and Robert Sauer thought that Murphy would somehow come in and put out the fire, offer testimony that would weaken or somehow impeach what Michael Dillon had testified to, or Jimmy White shared under oath, they were both sadly mistaken.
In light of what the Court had already heard, not to mention the obstruct and delay strategy Mr. Ward engaged in, her attempt to minimize the role of her Office, and specifically herself, in the development of the case, and the manipulation of the three chief witnesses, was simply not credible, particularly coming from someone with her record and reputation for forcefully taking charge! She was unconvincing, and she knew it, as she sat uncomfortably in the witness chair, hoping that the Judge wouldn’t scrutinize her misrepresentations, particularly regarding the extent of her involvement between October 3rd and 12th of 1996.
Murphy had to deal with the “tangled web” of her own creation. She had to take the same “not credible” position, in plain language, she had to lie, commit perjury before Judge Bellantoni with regard to whether Michael Dillon, Kevin O’Donnell and Jimmy White had, in fact, been interrogated two or three times by Dobbs Ferry Police between their October 3rd statements and their October 8th statements, their so-called first and second statements. She had to tell the same story, the same lie, that Detective Lieutenant Guarnieri told, sitting in the same “hot seat”.
What an awkward position Patricia Murphy found herself in, attempting to portray herself as uninvolved, almost ‘laid-back’, during those first critical nine days following the shooting; denying any personal involvement, particularly with Michael Dillon, until at least October 12th. How despicable of her to attempt to make it appear that neither she, nor anyone from the DA’s Office, was calling the shots as the Dobbs Ferry Police Department’s entire Detective Division, not to mention Chief Longworth himself, were so totally consumed, night after night, attempting to make three eyewitnesses lie, by altering their statements to no longer support the self defense that required Officer DiGuglielmo to shoot Charles Campbell; but to, instead, make it appear that the shots were fired at a man who was really so afraid of a middle-aged man whose hand he had just broken and whose leg he had just savaged with a metal baseball bat. Campbell had to be so afraid that he was “backing up defensively”, not swinging for the man’s head as the “three rounds to center mass” dropped him in the act
of swinging, as all three witnesses had originally described.
Of course, although she would be espousing the same fiction as Detective Guarnieri that neither Dillon, O’Donnell or White were ever repeatedly interrogated, taken from their jobs, and brought to Dobbs Ferry Police Headquarters between October 3rd and October 8th, knowingly committing the same perjury, ADA Murphy was, by the same token, tossing the Dobbs Ferry Police to the wolves. After all, none of the three witnesses, Dillon and White in particular, who testified before Judge Bellantoni, ever implicated any department
other than the Dobbs Ferry Police in their harassment and treatment as though they were suspects.
By denying any connection, either by herself or any member of the DA’s Office with what was done to produce altered, false statements and testimony, Patricia Murphy made it appear that if, indeed, such repeated long interrogations were conducted by the Dobbs Ferry Police, they did it on their own hook; they engaged in unlawful activity for their own purposes and not because the DA needed them to.
Let this sordid tale be a lesson to all of the 44 police departments in Westchester. No matter what promises or authority the Westchester DA’s Office offered you in the past, or may offer you in the future, to get you to violate the rights of innocent citizens; when the truth finally emerges, as it has in the DiGuglielmo case, it becomes “everyone for themselves.” They will not care how badly, having done their dirty work, will make you look, or what happens to your career, so long as it’s your butt in a sling, and not theirs. Imagine the celebrity worship and the promise it took to turn the detectives and the Chief of the Dobbs Ferry Police “dirty”, against another innocent
police officer whose shoes they could have been standing in.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
When Truth And Justice Are Overwhelmed By Celebrity Worship
In the recent evidentiary hearing into the circumstances surrounding the conviction of former New York City Transit Police Officer Richard
DiGuglielmo, the District Attorney’s recently-released “Post-Hearing Submission,” is a document clearly not written to the Court to which it
has been handed but, rather, to the Appellate Division, Second Department, who the Office obviously believes they will be appealing to, as
though a foregone conclusion.
Consistent with their approach to, and disrespectful treatment of, Judge Rory J. Bellantoni’s Court throughout the hearing, the submission is filled with arrogant assertions and assumptions regarding that Court, and its clear and unwavering determination to discover the truth with regard to the handling of Michael Dillon and other key witnesses to the tragic events at the Venice Deli on October 3, 1996, by Dobbs Ferry Police and the Westchester District Attorney’s Office. And, if the information alleged and sworn to by that witness compelled it, the admission of sworn testimony from others as well, to proceed where necessary.
The DA’s Office demonstrates its willingness, indeed, its desire, to perpetuate the confabulation and denial of truth upon which the conviction of a man, an off-duty New York City Transit Police Officer, who saved the life of an unarmed, middle-aged man who happened to be his own father, from a metal bat-wielding assailant who happened to be a Black man, was based, as well as his imprisonment for 20 Years To Life.
It is not totally surprising that the office, the top ranks of which are staffed by most of the same attorneys who engaged in the kind of egregious prosecutorial misconduct that kept 376 pages, 52 boxes and miles of exculpatory audio and videotape, concealed for 13 long years, until forced to present and acknowledge them in Federal District Court last April; thus resulting in the release of Anthony DiSimone after seven years of imprisonment for a crime they knew he was innocent of, would now, in desperation, try any device, any lie, to avoid yet
another exposure and reversal of their unlawful, malicious and cruel treatment of an innocent individual in total disregard of, and disrespect for, his Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. In point of fact, Patricia Murphy and Perry Perone, who prosecuted Officer Richard DiGuglielmo and who sent the Dobbs Ferry Police Department forward on its unlawful, mindless mission to change the original statements of the only three individuals who actually witnessed the entire tragic exchange, including the fatal shooting of Charles Campbell, hold very high rank in the Westchester DA’s Office today.
Having attended each of the eight days of hearings before Judge Rory Bellantoni, the truth of the old bromide that instructs “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” was never more evident than in the unfolding of testimony and the contortions
of the District Attorney’s Office, mostly through the filibustering and obfuscation, practiced throughout the proceedings by ADA Timothy
Ward. Patricia Murphy who, upon arrival at the scene of the tragic encounter the evening of October 3, 1996, declared within 25 minutes, in
her notebook, that it was a “Second Degree Murder” despite the statements to police by Michael Dillon, Jimmy White, and Kevin O’Donnell that what they had just witnessed was a shooting “in self-defense.” Murphy, who testified at the hearing, called as a witness by the Respondent DA’s Office had, from the very moment she stepped foot on the crime scene, learning of a bat-wielding, but Black, assailant, shot and killed by an Italian-American off-duty New York City Transit Police Of-ficer, decided it could only be Murder; and the Hell with the eyewitness accounts of the only three witnesses who had seen all 90 seconds of what had happened, the Hell with the Truth. She and her Office would do whatever was necessary to make the statements to police and the ultimate testimony line up with her charge, the charge that would have the most political benefit to her boss, Jeanine Pirro. Murphy would do whatever was necessary, even if it meant that she would put the Dobbs Ferry Police Department, its 35-year-old Chief, George Longworth, and all three of its detectives: Guarnieri, Ellman, and Gelardi, on a mission to make each of the three eyewitnesses lie, and change their statements, and ultimately their in-court testimony, both before the grand jury and at trial, to comport with her false charges.
ADA Patricia Murphy, who Jeanine Pirro had called upon to lie and prostitute herself for her so many times over the years, to put out fires as she did in the aftermath of young Rob Viscome’s death at Pirro’s next door neighbors, the Porzio’s house, was called upon at the hearing to put out the fire, and possible inferno, of witness-tampering and turning, unlawful activity by the Dobbs Ferry Police Department, perhaps at the direction of the DA’s Office, being alleged by a former key witness in the Richard DiGuglielmo case. She was, after all, the lead prosecutor; she was, after all, fully familiar with Mr. Campbell’s long criminal rap sheet and his history of physical violence. And, as is customary, she, as the prosecutor, did direct the activities of the Dobbs Ferry Police, and not the other way around.
Having observed Patricia Murphy through numerous trials over the years, those where her performance had been praiseworthy and was so acknowledged, and those where she had no problem carrying out a malicious prosecution of a clearly innocent individual, each with the same force and authority, the Patricia Murphy who appeared before Judge Rory Bellantoni, was unlike any previously observed. She was markedly red-faced, and conspicuously nervous; not at all her usual confident, take-charge self. If ADAs Tim Ward and Robert Sauer thought that Murphy would somehow come in and put out the fire, offer testimony that would weaken or somehow impeach what Michael Dillon had testified to, or Jimmy White shared under oath, they were both sadly mistaken.
In light of what the Court had already heard, not to mention the obstruct and delay strategy Mr. Ward engaged in, her attempt to minimize the role of her Office, and specifically herself, in the development of the case, and the manipulation of the three chief witnesses, was simply not credible, particularly coming from someone with her record and reputation for forcefully taking charge! She was unconvincing, and she knew it, as she sat uncomfortably in the witness chair, hoping that the Judge wouldn’t scrutinize her misrepresentations, particularly regarding the extent of her involvement between October 3rd and 12th of 1996.
Murphy had to deal with the “tangled web” of her own creation. She had to take the same “not credible” position, in plain language, she had to lie, commit perjury before Judge Bellantoni with regard to whether Michael Dillon, Kevin O’Donnell and Jimmy White had, in fact, been interrogated two or three times by Dobbs Ferry Police between their October 3rd statements and their October 8th statements, their so-called first and second statements. She had to tell the same story, the same lie, that Detective Lieutenant Guarnieri told, sitting in the same “hot seat”.
What an awkward position Patricia Murphy found herself in, attempting to portray herself as uninvolved, almost ‘laid-back’, during those first critical nine days following the shooting; denying any personal involvement, particularly with Michael Dillon, until at least October 12th. How despicable of her to attempt to make it appear that neither she, nor anyone from the DA’s Office, was calling the shots as the Dobbs Ferry Police Department’s entire Detective Division, not to mention Chief Longworth himself, were so totally consumed, night after night, attempting to make three eyewitnesses lie, by altering their statements to no longer support the self defense that required Officer DiGuglielmo to shoot Charles Campbell; but to, instead, make it appear that the shots were fired at a man who was really so afraid of a middle-aged man whose hand he had just broken and whose leg he had just savaged with a metal baseball bat. Campbell had to be so afraid that he was “backing up defensively”, not swinging for the man’s head as the “three rounds to center mass” dropped him in the act
of swinging, as all three witnesses had originally described.
Of course, although she would be espousing the same fiction as Detective Guarnieri that neither Dillon, O’Donnell or White were ever repeatedly interrogated, taken from their jobs, and brought to Dobbs Ferry Police Headquarters between October 3rd and October 8th, knowingly committing the same perjury, ADA Murphy was, by the same token, tossing the Dobbs Ferry Police to the wolves. After all, none of the three witnesses, Dillon and White in particular, who testified before Judge Bellantoni, ever implicated any department
other than the Dobbs Ferry Police in their harassment and treatment as though they were suspects.
By denying any connection, either by herself or any member of the DA’s Office with what was done to produce altered, false statements and testimony, Patricia Murphy made it appear that if, indeed, such repeated long interrogations were conducted by the Dobbs Ferry Police, they did it on their own hook; they engaged in unlawful activity for their own purposes and not because the DA needed them to.
Let this sordid tale be a lesson to all of the 44 police departments in Westchester. No matter what promises or authority the Westchester DA’s Office offered you in the past, or may offer you in the future, to get you to violate the rights of innocent citizens; when the truth finally emerges, as it has in the DiGuglielmo case, it becomes “everyone for themselves.” They will not care how badly, having done their dirty work, will make you look, or what happens to your career, so long as it’s your butt in a sling, and not theirs. Imagine the celebrity worship and the promise it took to turn the detectives and the Chief of the Dobbs Ferry Police “dirty”, against another innocent
police officer whose shoes they could have been standing in.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Judge Giacomo Brings Care And Compassion To the Bench
Warnock v. Warnock
Orange County Supreme Court, Goshen, NY
Judge William Giacomo Presiding
Friday, Jan. 4th, Plaintiff Marc Warnock, represented by Attorney Clifford Kleinbaum, and Defendant Suzanne Stephans, formerly Suzanne
Warnock, represented by Attorney Sandra C. Mattessich, of Legal Services Of The Hudson Valley, together with Court-appointed Law Guardian Attorney Therese Malach, representing the three Warnock children, ages 12, 81/2 and 71/2, appeared before State Supreme Court Justice William Giacomo, with regard to a Motion by the Plaintiff to Modify Visitation.
The parties, who separated some five years ago when Mr. Warnock left the marital home, were divorced in 2004. At the time of their divorce, each parent was granted joint custody with the mother retaining primary residential custody. In April 2007, the father, Mr. Warnock, brought the mother to Court, seeking custody modification, after she, her fiance, and her children, moved less than 50 miles from their prior residence in Westchester, to a condo in Danbury, Connecticut, a move that Mr. Warnock had been notified of many weeks in advance.
In the course of the trial, there were allegations that the mother was attempting to “alienate the father”. Judge Giacomo’s law clerk prepared a very lengthy brief suggesting that the mother had anger management problems, and was in need of therapy, specifically geared to, and focused on, the problem that one Dr. Harris, a forensic mental health evaluator, had alleged was somehow connected to attempts to alienate the children from their father.
As a result of the brief submitted by Law Clerk Barry Swersky, and the recommendations of Dr. Harris, Judge Giacomo, who had spoken with the Warnock children at length, having commented in open court with reference to the care they had been receiving living under their mother’s residential custody, said, “Somebody must be doing something right,” proceeded, nevertheless, to remove the children from their mother’s residential custody, granting sole custody and decision-making to their father, and ordered that the mother be seen by a therapist and that the children see one as well.
Before opening the hearing, Judge Giacomo asked if anyone would mind if matters were discussed in chambers rather than in open court. Suzanne Stephans voiced her objection to that arrangement and the Judge complied with her wishes.
Giacomo then opened by saying, “It pains me to see you again. I had a feeling, after the trial, I would be seeing you.” The Judge then called upon the attorney for the Plaintiff, Clifford Kleinbaum, to state his client’s position. Kleinbaum opened with, “We want to terminate, or else supervise, visitation. She’s got a problem she won’t admit. We must have supervised visitation, period. Her therapist says she (the therapist) does not deal with these issues with her.”
Mr. Kleinbaum appeared upset with Suzanne Stephans’ therapist because she does not believe that her client is suffering from an anger management problem, but instead acknowledges her anger and her feelings of depression as normal and necessary responses to having lost all custody of and decision-making in her childrens’ lives as the result of actions taken by the Court.
Judge Giacomo commented to the Defendant, “You belong in therapy, and you are going to be.” At that point, Law Guardian Therese Malach, spoke up, stating, “I believe Ms. Stephans is in therapy.” Giacomo responded, “ That crystallizes the problem.” The Judge then called upon the Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Kleinbaum, to enumerate his demands. Kleinbaum said, “I need to investigate the therapy. We believe the mother should have supervised visitation. And, we want Dr. Harris reappointed.” Judge Giacomo then declared, “I do have a concern that Mrs. Warnock gets the right therapy. The only way I can deal with this is to get a forensic evaluation.” He then proceeded to review the issues that he believed needed to be dealt with:
• The nature of the therapy the mother was receiving;
• Allegations lodged against the Plaintiff Father with Westchester Child Protective Services;
• The mother’s request for additional time with her children on Sunday nights;
• The need to have the children seen by a new therapist since the father fired the one they were seeing for six months because she corresponded directly with the mother and the Court.
Giacomo then ordered, “Both parties will pay 50 percent of the cost of the forensic evaluation with a 60-day limit to receive the report.” He then admonished both parents “not to discuss matters with the kids.”
Attorney Mattessich informed the Court, “Your Honor, my client is on the verge of bankruptcy, and will never be able to pay for the forensic evaluation.” Kleinbaum quickly broke in, “The Defendant has a habit of manipulating the situation, just like she is doing now.”
Therese Malach then asked the Court, “Will I need to make a motion to receive payment?” Attorney Mattessich then brought up the mother’s need for an additional hour on Tuesdays with the children because of religious instruction. Giacomo quickly granted the request, pushing the time to return the children to their father from 7pm to 8pm.
The Defendant, Suzanne Stephans, at that point spoke directly to Judge Giacomo, telling him, “I object to Dr. Harris.” Giacomo responded, “Dr. Harris has previous experience with your family’s history.” The mother came right back with, “Why does it have to be a private forensic examiner?” Giacomo then said, “One thing I’m not going to do is retry the case from the beginning.”
Stephans then said, “My children need a voice in this matter. My 12-year old daughter is stuttering!” She went on to tell the Court that her children had been out of therapy for several weeks since their father, the Plaintiff, fired their therapist and that he has refused to tell her who the new therapist is. Judge Giacomo, at that point, turned to Marc Warnock and asked, “Who is the childrens’ therapist? I want their mother to know. She has a right to know.”
The Plaintiff either didn’t want to reveal the therapist’s name or genuinely didn’t remember it, because he never stated it. Mr. Kleinbaum, attempting to divert attention in that poignant moment then broke in with, “It’s the Defendant’s continued manipulation that we are
dealing with. You can see it here today.” Giacomo then turned to the Law Guardian, asking, “How are the children doing?”
Malach who, by her own admission, has only seen the children twice, the last time in October, said, “I don’t think they are doing that well. I believe if you asked Olivia (the 12-year-old daughter) she would tell you she wants to be with her mother. I think there is some parentifying going on here.” Giacomo then asked, “How about Olivia’s stuttering?”
Malach, hesitating for a moment, responded, “Olivia has stuttered with me. It is my sense that they have been spoken to about me in advance. The therapist doesn’t see Mrs. Warnock as an angry person and does not see her as suffering with an anger problem.” The Judge then declared, “In my decision there has been no loss of chil-dren. My aim is that you each have equal time with the children.” The mother then responded, “That might be your aim, Your Honor, but it’s not the Plaintiff’s.”
Giacomo then expressed his concern over the fact that the mother never got her second week of vacation with the children. Following a discussion of another matter involving the Plaintiff and Child Protective Services, Giacomo remarked, “We have three lovely kids. I know that; I spent a lot of time speaking with them.”
As the hearing wound down the issue of the mother, having brought the children to a Baptist Church, and the reported resistance to that by their father, was resolved by the Judge, who declared, “The kids should go to Church.” He proceeded to ask Mr. Warnock, “Do you have any objection to the kids going to the Baptist Church?”
Marc Warnock indicated he did not.
Analysis:
As Judge Giacomo said at the outset of the hearing, he had a feeling, after their trial last spring, that he would be seeing the Plaintiff and the Defendant again. Perhaps his instincts back then about the children and the individual “who must have been doing something right,” were superior to the voluminous brief presented by his Law Clerk and some of the forensics included and relied upon that brought about his counter-intuitive decision to switch residential custody, and furthermore, to grant sole custody to the father, the parent who, after all, reportedly abandoned the marital home more than five years ago.
Having said that, one does not get the impression that this Judge is anything less than very concerned about the welfare and well-being of the three “lovely children” involved. Nor does one get the impression that having once decided to switch the parent who provides residential custody, given enough evidence and reasonable argument, that he would not necessarily do the same again, reverting it to the original arrangement.
Toward a better understanding of conditions as they presently exist, Giacomo has called for forensic re-evaluations to assist him in his deliberations. In any event, the Judge did not seem inclined to be stampeded into creating any unnecessary further hardship upon the Defendant Mother as with supervised visitation, etc., run out several times for consideration by Mr. Kleinbaum. We are confident that Judge William Giacomo, because he is very personally concerned about the Warnock children, and is working to be fair to each parent, will come to a right decision when all the facts are in and every side, including the children, has had their say.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Judge Giacomo Brings Care And Compassion To the Bench
Warnock v. Warnock
Orange County Supreme Court, Goshen, NY
Judge William Giacomo Presiding
Friday, Jan. 4th, Plaintiff Marc Warnock, represented by Attorney Clifford Kleinbaum, and Defendant Suzanne Stephans, formerly Suzanne
Warnock, represented by Attorney Sandra C. Mattessich, of Legal Services Of The Hudson Valley, together with Court-appointed Law Guardian Attorney Therese Malach, representing the three Warnock children, ages 12, 81/2 and 71/2, appeared before State Supreme Court Justice William Giacomo, with regard to a Motion by the Plaintiff to Modify Visitation.
The parties, who separated some five years ago when Mr. Warnock left the marital home, were divorced in 2004. At the time of their divorce, each parent was granted joint custody with the mother retaining primary residential custody. In April 2007, the father, Mr. Warnock, brought the mother to Court, seeking custody modification, after she, her fiance, and her children, moved less than 50 miles from their prior residence in Westchester, to a condo in Danbury, Connecticut, a move that Mr. Warnock had been notified of many weeks in advance.
In the course of the trial, there were allegations that the mother was attempting to “alienate the father”. Judge Giacomo’s law clerk prepared a very lengthy brief suggesting that the mother had anger management problems, and was in need of therapy, specifically geared to, and focused on, the problem that one Dr. Harris, a forensic mental health evaluator, had alleged was somehow connected to attempts to alienate the children from their father.
As a result of the brief submitted by Law Clerk Barry Swersky, and the recommendations of Dr. Harris, Judge Giacomo, who had spoken with the Warnock children at length, having commented in open court with reference to the care they had been receiving living under their mother’s residential custody, said, “Somebody must be doing something right,” proceeded, nevertheless, to remove the children from their mother’s residential custody, granting sole custody and decision-making to their father, and ordered that the mother be seen by a therapist and that the children see one as well.
Before opening the hearing, Judge Giacomo asked if anyone would mind if matters were discussed in chambers rather than in open court. Suzanne Stephans voiced her objection to that arrangement and the Judge complied with her wishes.
Giacomo then opened by saying, “It pains me to see you again. I had a feeling, after the trial, I would be seeing you.” The Judge then called upon the attorney for the Plaintiff, Clifford Kleinbaum, to state his client’s position. Kleinbaum opened with, “We want to terminate, or else supervise, visitation. She’s got a problem she won’t admit. We must have supervised visitation, period. Her therapist says she (the therapist) does not deal with these issues with her.”
Mr. Kleinbaum appeared upset with Suzanne Stephans’ therapist because she does not believe that her client is suffering from an anger management problem, but instead acknowledges her anger and her feelings of depression as normal and necessary responses to having lost all custody of and decision-making in her childrens’ lives as the result of actions taken by the Court.
Judge Giacomo commented to the Defendant, “You belong in therapy, and you are going to be.” At that point, Law Guardian Therese Malach, spoke up, stating, “I believe Ms. Stephans is in therapy.” Giacomo responded, “ That crystallizes the problem.” The Judge then called upon the Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Kleinbaum, to enumerate his demands. Kleinbaum said, “I need to investigate the therapy. We believe the mother should have supervised visitation. And, we want Dr. Harris reappointed.” Judge Giacomo then declared, “I do have a concern that Mrs. Warnock gets the right therapy. The only way I can deal with this is to get a forensic evaluation.” He then proceeded to review the issues that he believed needed to be dealt with:
• The nature of the therapy the mother was receiving;
• Allegations lodged against the Plaintiff Father with Westchester Child Protective Services;
• The mother’s request for additional time with her children on Sunday nights;
• The need to have the children seen by a new therapist since the father fired the one they were seeing for six months because she corresponded directly with the mother and the Court.
Giacomo then ordered, “Both parties will pay 50 percent of the cost of the forensic evaluation with a 60-day limit to receive the report.” He then admonished both parents “not to discuss matters with the kids.”
Attorney Mattessich informed the Court, “Your Honor, my client is on the verge of bankruptcy, and will never be able to pay for the forensic evaluation.” Kleinbaum quickly broke in, “The Defendant has a habit of manipulating the situation, just like she is doing now.”
Therese Malach then asked the Court, “Will I need to make a motion to receive payment?” Attorney Mattessich then brought up the mother’s need for an additional hour on Tuesdays with the children because of religious instruction. Giacomo quickly granted the request, pushing the time to return the children to their father from 7pm to 8pm.
The Defendant, Suzanne Stephans, at that point spoke directly to Judge Giacomo, telling him, “I object to Dr. Harris.” Giacomo responded, “Dr. Harris has previous experience with your family’s history.” The mother came right back with, “Why does it have to be a private forensic examiner?” Giacomo then said, “One thing I’m not going to do is retry the case from the beginning.”
Stephans then said, “My children need a voice in this matter. My 12-year old daughter is stuttering!” She went on to tell the Court that her children had been out of therapy for several weeks since their father, the Plaintiff, fired their therapist and that he has refused to tell her who the new therapist is. Judge Giacomo, at that point, turned to Marc Warnock and asked, “Who is the childrens’ therapist? I want their mother to know. She has a right to know.”
The Plaintiff either didn’t want to reveal the therapist’s name or genuinely didn’t remember it, because he never stated it. Mr. Kleinbaum, attempting to divert attention in that poignant moment then broke in with, “It’s the Defendant’s continued manipulation that we are
dealing with. You can see it here today.” Giacomo then turned to the Law Guardian, asking, “How are the children doing?”
Malach who, by her own admission, has only seen the children twice, the last time in October, said, “I don’t think they are doing that well. I believe if you asked Olivia (the 12-year-old daughter) she would tell you she wants to be with her mother. I think there is some parentifying going on here.” Giacomo then asked, “How about Olivia’s stuttering?”
Malach, hesitating for a moment, responded, “Olivia has stuttered with me. It is my sense that they have been spoken to about me in advance. The therapist doesn’t see Mrs. Warnock as an angry person and does not see her as suffering with an anger problem.” The Judge then declared, “In my decision there has been no loss of chil-dren. My aim is that you each have equal time with the children.” The mother then responded, “That might be your aim, Your Honor, but it’s not the Plaintiff’s.”
Giacomo then expressed his concern over the fact that the mother never got her second week of vacation with the children. Following a discussion of another matter involving the Plaintiff and Child Protective Services, Giacomo remarked, “We have three lovely kids. I know that; I spent a lot of time speaking with them.”
As the hearing wound down the issue of the mother, having brought the children to a Baptist Church, and the reported resistance to that by their father, was resolved by the Judge, who declared, “The kids should go to Church.” He proceeded to ask Mr. Warnock, “Do you have any objection to the kids going to the Baptist Church?”
Marc Warnock indicated he did not.
Analysis:
As Judge Giacomo said at the outset of the hearing, he had a feeling, after their trial last spring, that he would be seeing the Plaintiff and the Defendant again. Perhaps his instincts back then about the children and the individual “who must have been doing something right,” were superior to the voluminous brief presented by his Law Clerk and some of the forensics included and relied upon that brought about his counter-intuitive decision to switch residential custody, and furthermore, to grant sole custody to the father, the parent who, after all, reportedly abandoned the marital home more than five years ago.
Having said that, one does not get the impression that this Judge is anything less than very concerned about the welfare and well-being of the three “lovely children” involved. Nor does one get the impression that having once decided to switch the parent who provides residential custody, given enough evidence and reasonable argument, that he would not necessarily do the same again, reverting it to the original arrangement.
Toward a better understanding of conditions as they presently exist, Giacomo has called for forensic re-evaluations to assist him in his deliberations. In any event, the Judge did not seem inclined to be stampeded into creating any unnecessary further hardship upon the Defendant Mother as with supervised visitation, etc., run out several times for consideration by Mr. Kleinbaum. We are confident that Judge William Giacomo, because he is very personally concerned about the Warnock children, and is working to be fair to each parent, will come to a right decision when all the facts are in and every side, including the children, has had their say.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tankleff Conviction Overturned; Then Prosecution Drops All Charges
By Jeffrey Deskovic
Marty Tankleff was convicted of murdering his adoptive parents, Arlene and Seymour Tankleff and was sentenced to 50 Years To Life, based upon a confession that he was tricked into making, and which he immediately recanted. Marty woke up to find that his mother was dead, and his father unconscious. They had both been stabbed and bludgeoned. He immediately called 911 and gave first aid to his father.
When the police arrived, Marty tells the police that he suspected his father’s business partner Jerry Steuerman, who owed his father more than half a million dollars, had recently violently threatened them, and was the last guest to leave the house the night before the murders.
Instead of investigating this possibility, Detective McCreedy of the Suffolk County Police Department, focused on Marty as a suspect and began a hostile interrogation which lasted for 6 hours. In the course of that session, McCreedy tricked Tankleff with three lies: that a humidity test was performed in the shower, thus showing that Marty had washed blood off of himself (in fact, there is no such test); that Marty’s hair had been found in his mothers hand (it hadn’t); and that his father regained consciousness and identified him as the murderer.
Having been brought up to trust the word of his father, and to trust the police, Marty was led to wonder if he could have blacked out and confessed. That confession was immediately recanted by Tankleff. The knife that was mentioned in the confession as being the murder weapon did not have any blood on it, but merely watermelon juice. A week after the attacks, Steuerman faked his own death, disguised
himself, and fled to California under an alias.
The shadow of corruption and con-flicts of interest have hovered over this case in that, at the time of the Tankleff murders, Suffolk County law enforcement was under investigation for corruption, including problems with coerced confessions, by the State Investigation Commission
(SIC) on the order of Governor Mario Cuomo. The SIC’s scathing report included a finding that the detective who interrogated Marty had perjured himself in a previous murder case. Current Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota represented that detective in those hearings, as well as Steuerman’s son on charges of selling cocaine. Spota’s law partner had previously represented Steuerman.
Among the new evidence revealed at the hearing was eyewitness testimony that the business partner had been well acquainted with the lead detective since before the Tankleff murders. This contradicted the trial testimony of the detective, who had been off-duty on the morning of
the Tankleff murders but arrived only 19 minutes after the early morning call, and who ignored the business partner as a suspect. Marty,
who has been incarcerated for the past 18 years, and has protested his innocence while fighting against his conviction the entire time.
A retired NY Detective, Jay Salpeter, working pro bono, uncovered approximately two dozen witnesses who came forward and said
that the man who carried out the murder had admitted it, including the getaway driver. A pipe was located at the place that the driver admitted that it would be found. That evidence, uncovered over the years, was the basis of a motion for a new trial, which was denied in 2006. That denial was appealed to the Appellate Division. Marty argued that the new evidence proved that he was innocent and that the case should therefore be dismissed. He also argued that at the very least he was entitled to a new trial. Assistant District Attorney Lenny Lato opposed the appeal on several grounds: That none of the witness’s were credible, referring to them as “nefarious scoundrels”; Furthermore he argued that the Court should not even look at Marty’s innocence argument on procedural grounds; that the Court did not have legal authority to do so; and that Marty had unreasonably delayed bringing the motion by waiting until all of the evidence was
accumulated rather than bringing it to the Court piecemeal.
Many organizations filed briefs in support of Tankleff, including 31 Former Prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys; The Innocence Project; The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; False confession Exonerees Gary Gauger, Peter Reilly, Beverly Monroe, and Michael Crowe; The Innocence Network (made up of over 30 innocence project type organizations); and over 50 Former Classmates of Marty Tankleff. The Appellate Division pointed out that the Prosecution used such witnesses all of the time, and that many of the witnesses
had no connection to each other.
Their ruling was that although Marty had not met the standard for proving actual innocence, he had nonetheless accumulated enough evidence
that if it were presented to a new jury he would likely be acquitted. “It is abhorrent to our sense of justice and fair play to countenance
the possibility that someone innocent of a crime may be incarcerated or otherwise punished for a crime which he or she did not commit” the court wrote. They therefore reversed his conviction and sent his case back to the lower court.
On Thursday, December 27, I left Westchester around 7:00 a.m., accompanied by a photographer, to cover Marty Tankleff’s bail hearing at the Suffolk County Courthouse in Riverhead, Long Island, on behalf of The Westchester Guardian newspaper. The courthouse was packed, as Marty’s family members, friends, supporters, and a huge media contingent all turned out in force. Anticipation ran high as everyone awaited his arrival in the courtroom. Previous public statements by the Prosecutor’s Office indicated that the People would be consenting to bail, and that they would speak with Defense lawyers to reach an agreement on an appropriate amount prior to the hearing. It was expected that the judge would concur with that agreement and that Marty would be released.
Tankleff entered the courtroom in handcuffs. Nonetheless, he had a smile on his face. The bail that was set seemed shockingly high to most present; one million dollars. However, the Defense was ready, and a bail bondsman stepped forward and said that he would issue the bond.
When the Judge signaled his acceptance, a light applause broke out in the courtroom, as the last vestige of doubt that he would be freed vanished. Then, just as the Judge was standing to leave, Assistant District Attorney Lenny Lato, with an unforgettable look on his face thundered, “The people are ready to go to trial, your Honor”, as if to take the moment away from Tankleff and his supporters.
The Judge had a stunned look on his face, and sitting back down, he asked if the defense had any statements to make on behalf of the
Defendant. They declined. CBS, NBC, ABC, Channel 11, News 12 and a variety of other television stations were on hand for the press conference that followed, as was The Daily News, New York Times, The Post, as well as The Westchester Guardian. The conference itself was held inside the courthouse on the same floor as the bail hearing. Joining Tankleff at the podium were several members of his family, absent his sister, Jay Salpeter, the retired New York City Police detective whose pro bono investigation turned up the new evidence; Rick
Freedman who set up a website for Marty; Lonnie Soury, whose public relations firm had helped garner media attention for Tankleff,
and a few selected friends.
Tankleff’s Aunt, Marianne McClure said “I was as upset when Marty was convicted as I was when I learned my sister was murdered. Now we can mourn my sister properly, because we have not been able to for 19 years.” She praised her nephew for his pro active approach in trying to undue his conviction, and for not giving up. She expressed frustration at how difficult it was to undue a wrongful conviction.
Ron Falbee, Tankleff’s cousin, continued that theme, declaring, “This whole case has been one disappointment after another. There’s a lingering anger that an innocent man spent 19 years of his life behind bars. I find that unacceptable.”
One of Tankleff’s attorneys stepped to the microphone, indicating that Marty would read a statement and that he would not be answering any questions afterward because of the possibility of a retrial. Tankleff, smiling and obviously relieved, read the following, carefully-worded statement:
“It’s great to see all of you here today. If my arrest and conviction was a nightmare, this is a dream come true. I want to thank everyone
who made this possible; Jay Salpeter, for reading a letter I sent him one day, and then taking it upon himself to go out and solve this case; my entire, incredible legal team; the people who have been getting the truth about my case out through the media and the website; the witnesses who have come forward just because it was the right thing to do; the Appellate Judges whose ruling demonstrates they did a thorough review of the case record and acted accordingly; all my friends and supporters, in Suffolk County and across the nation, and literally around the world, for your interest and for making my fight your fight; most of all my family, who have stood by me from Day One right up to this moment.
Remember that while I am innocent, I am still accused by the Suffolk County District Attorney of the murder of my parents, and I am awaiting a possible re-trial. I do hope that I can continue to count on everyone’s support as I defend myself once again.
I always had faith this day would come. I look forward to welcoming in the new year with my family. Happy New Year!” He then stepped away from the podium, leaving his attorneys to answer questions. The possibility of another trial hung in the air, as Tankleff answered no questions, and his attorneys said little in terms of legal questions, or even human interest questions, such as what he would do first, and what he would eat.
When asked directly if there would be a new trial, Attorneys Pollack and Barket stated that they hoped that the Suffolk County District Attorney would weigh the new evidence, investigate, and decide not to pursue another trial, but that would be up to him.
The extra judicial attention that this case received while at the Appellate level was as much a factor as anything that was argued in court, ranging from all of the Friend Of The Court Briefs, to the media and public spotlight that was put on the case. Those factors led to the environment in which the Court reviewed the issues, thereby coming to an objective review and judicial decision, as opposed to previous decisions by other courts, that were more of the rubber stamp denial variety, often issued against defendants regardless of the merits of their case.
Five days following the bail hearing, District Attorney Spota announced that he was dropping the charges against Marty Tankleff and that he would call upon Governor Eliot Spitzer to appoint a special prosecutor to look into whether charges should be filed against other people. Some observers believe that Spota’s decision to drop the charges against Tankleff were influenced by the SIC investigation into how he handled the case, and mounting public pressure encouraging the Governor to step in, take the case from him, and appoint a special prosecutor to decide whether 1) the case should go forward against him, and 2) whether charges should be brought forward against Steuerman and the others. ADA Lato’s in-court statement was cited as proof of that.
There has been an SIC Investigation ordered by Gov. Spitzer into corruption in Suffolk County with respect to the Tankleff case. The SIC is a “sunshine agency” with no direct enforcement powers. However, it can refer evidence of crimes to the authorities or propose a special prosecutor as a means to reopen the case and pursue other suspects.
The investigation had been going on for a year, but under low profile, so as not interefere with Tankleff’s appeal. Chairman Alfred Lerner stated, “The State Commission of Investigation is ratcheting up a probe into whether Suffolk County authorities, including District Attorney Thomas Spota, mishandled the Martin Tankleff case. The commission will issue subpoenas in the next few weeks as investigators take a ‘broad look’ at the Suffolk police investigation that led to Tankleff’s 1990 conviction for killing his parents, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff, and how Spota’s Office dealt with the surfacing of new witnesses in 2003 who supported Tankleff’s claims of innocence.
Commissioner Lerner further stated that Joseph Kunzeman, a former judge and Nassau County attorney, would be spearheading the investigation. “We’re going to look at the whole thing.” Lerner said the commission would issue a report in the next five to six months. He then declared, “The probe will ‘scrutinize the actions of Spota, who wasn’t District Attorney for Tankleff’s prosecution and trial but came under fire for not recusing himself when Tankleff sought a new trial in 2003. Both as a private attorney and as a lawyer for the police union,
Spota represented Mc-Creedy. Spota’s former law partners also represented Steuerman’s family.
By Jeffrey Deskovic
Marty Tankleff was convicted of murdering his adoptive parents, Arlene and Seymour Tankleff and was sentenced to 50 Years To Life, based upon a confession that he was tricked into making, and which he immediately recanted. Marty woke up to find that his mother was dead, and his father unconscious. They had both been stabbed and bludgeoned. He immediately called 911 and gave first aid to his father.
When the police arrived, Marty tells the police that he suspected his father’s business partner Jerry Steuerman, who owed his father more than half a million dollars, had recently violently threatened them, and was the last guest to leave the house the night before the murders.
Instead of investigating this possibility, Detective McCreedy of the Suffolk County Police Department, focused on Marty as a suspect and began a hostile interrogation which lasted for 6 hours. In the course of that session, McCreedy tricked Tankleff with three lies: that a humidity test was performed in the shower, thus showing that Marty had washed blood off of himself (in fact, there is no such test); that Marty’s hair had been found in his mothers hand (it hadn’t); and that his father regained consciousness and identified him as the murderer.
Having been brought up to trust the word of his father, and to trust the police, Marty was led to wonder if he could have blacked out and confessed. That confession was immediately recanted by Tankleff. The knife that was mentioned in the confession as being the murder weapon did not have any blood on it, but merely watermelon juice. A week after the attacks, Steuerman faked his own death, disguised
himself, and fled to California under an alias.
The shadow of corruption and con-flicts of interest have hovered over this case in that, at the time of the Tankleff murders, Suffolk County law enforcement was under investigation for corruption, including problems with coerced confessions, by the State Investigation Commission
(SIC) on the order of Governor Mario Cuomo. The SIC’s scathing report included a finding that the detective who interrogated Marty had perjured himself in a previous murder case. Current Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota represented that detective in those hearings, as well as Steuerman’s son on charges of selling cocaine. Spota’s law partner had previously represented Steuerman.
Among the new evidence revealed at the hearing was eyewitness testimony that the business partner had been well acquainted with the lead detective since before the Tankleff murders. This contradicted the trial testimony of the detective, who had been off-duty on the morning of
the Tankleff murders but arrived only 19 minutes after the early morning call, and who ignored the business partner as a suspect. Marty,
who has been incarcerated for the past 18 years, and has protested his innocence while fighting against his conviction the entire time.
A retired NY Detective, Jay Salpeter, working pro bono, uncovered approximately two dozen witnesses who came forward and said
that the man who carried out the murder had admitted it, including the getaway driver. A pipe was located at the place that the driver admitted that it would be found. That evidence, uncovered over the years, was the basis of a motion for a new trial, which was denied in 2006. That denial was appealed to the Appellate Division. Marty argued that the new evidence proved that he was innocent and that the case should therefore be dismissed. He also argued that at the very least he was entitled to a new trial. Assistant District Attorney Lenny Lato opposed the appeal on several grounds: That none of the witness’s were credible, referring to them as “nefarious scoundrels”; Furthermore he argued that the Court should not even look at Marty’s innocence argument on procedural grounds; that the Court did not have legal authority to do so; and that Marty had unreasonably delayed bringing the motion by waiting until all of the evidence was
accumulated rather than bringing it to the Court piecemeal.
Many organizations filed briefs in support of Tankleff, including 31 Former Prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys; The Innocence Project; The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; False confession Exonerees Gary Gauger, Peter Reilly, Beverly Monroe, and Michael Crowe; The Innocence Network (made up of over 30 innocence project type organizations); and over 50 Former Classmates of Marty Tankleff. The Appellate Division pointed out that the Prosecution used such witnesses all of the time, and that many of the witnesses
had no connection to each other.
Their ruling was that although Marty had not met the standard for proving actual innocence, he had nonetheless accumulated enough evidence
that if it were presented to a new jury he would likely be acquitted. “It is abhorrent to our sense of justice and fair play to countenance
the possibility that someone innocent of a crime may be incarcerated or otherwise punished for a crime which he or she did not commit” the court wrote. They therefore reversed his conviction and sent his case back to the lower court.
On Thursday, December 27, I left Westchester around 7:00 a.m., accompanied by a photographer, to cover Marty Tankleff’s bail hearing at the Suffolk County Courthouse in Riverhead, Long Island, on behalf of The Westchester Guardian newspaper. The courthouse was packed, as Marty’s family members, friends, supporters, and a huge media contingent all turned out in force. Anticipation ran high as everyone awaited his arrival in the courtroom. Previous public statements by the Prosecutor’s Office indicated that the People would be consenting to bail, and that they would speak with Defense lawyers to reach an agreement on an appropriate amount prior to the hearing. It was expected that the judge would concur with that agreement and that Marty would be released.
Tankleff entered the courtroom in handcuffs. Nonetheless, he had a smile on his face. The bail that was set seemed shockingly high to most present; one million dollars. However, the Defense was ready, and a bail bondsman stepped forward and said that he would issue the bond.
When the Judge signaled his acceptance, a light applause broke out in the courtroom, as the last vestige of doubt that he would be freed vanished. Then, just as the Judge was standing to leave, Assistant District Attorney Lenny Lato, with an unforgettable look on his face thundered, “The people are ready to go to trial, your Honor”, as if to take the moment away from Tankleff and his supporters.
The Judge had a stunned look on his face, and sitting back down, he asked if the defense had any statements to make on behalf of the
Defendant. They declined. CBS, NBC, ABC, Channel 11, News 12 and a variety of other television stations were on hand for the press conference that followed, as was The Daily News, New York Times, The Post, as well as The Westchester Guardian. The conference itself was held inside the courthouse on the same floor as the bail hearing. Joining Tankleff at the podium were several members of his family, absent his sister, Jay Salpeter, the retired New York City Police detective whose pro bono investigation turned up the new evidence; Rick
Freedman who set up a website for Marty; Lonnie Soury, whose public relations firm had helped garner media attention for Tankleff,
and a few selected friends.
Tankleff’s Aunt, Marianne McClure said “I was as upset when Marty was convicted as I was when I learned my sister was murdered. Now we can mourn my sister properly, because we have not been able to for 19 years.” She praised her nephew for his pro active approach in trying to undue his conviction, and for not giving up. She expressed frustration at how difficult it was to undue a wrongful conviction.
Ron Falbee, Tankleff’s cousin, continued that theme, declaring, “This whole case has been one disappointment after another. There’s a lingering anger that an innocent man spent 19 years of his life behind bars. I find that unacceptable.”
One of Tankleff’s attorneys stepped to the microphone, indicating that Marty would read a statement and that he would not be answering any questions afterward because of the possibility of a retrial. Tankleff, smiling and obviously relieved, read the following, carefully-worded statement:
“It’s great to see all of you here today. If my arrest and conviction was a nightmare, this is a dream come true. I want to thank everyone
who made this possible; Jay Salpeter, for reading a letter I sent him one day, and then taking it upon himself to go out and solve this case; my entire, incredible legal team; the people who have been getting the truth about my case out through the media and the website; the witnesses who have come forward just because it was the right thing to do; the Appellate Judges whose ruling demonstrates they did a thorough review of the case record and acted accordingly; all my friends and supporters, in Suffolk County and across the nation, and literally around the world, for your interest and for making my fight your fight; most of all my family, who have stood by me from Day One right up to this moment.
Remember that while I am innocent, I am still accused by the Suffolk County District Attorney of the murder of my parents, and I am awaiting a possible re-trial. I do hope that I can continue to count on everyone’s support as I defend myself once again.
I always had faith this day would come. I look forward to welcoming in the new year with my family. Happy New Year!” He then stepped away from the podium, leaving his attorneys to answer questions. The possibility of another trial hung in the air, as Tankleff answered no questions, and his attorneys said little in terms of legal questions, or even human interest questions, such as what he would do first, and what he would eat.
When asked directly if there would be a new trial, Attorneys Pollack and Barket stated that they hoped that the Suffolk County District Attorney would weigh the new evidence, investigate, and decide not to pursue another trial, but that would be up to him.
The extra judicial attention that this case received while at the Appellate level was as much a factor as anything that was argued in court, ranging from all of the Friend Of The Court Briefs, to the media and public spotlight that was put on the case. Those factors led to the environment in which the Court reviewed the issues, thereby coming to an objective review and judicial decision, as opposed to previous decisions by other courts, that were more of the rubber stamp denial variety, often issued against defendants regardless of the merits of their case.
Five days following the bail hearing, District Attorney Spota announced that he was dropping the charges against Marty Tankleff and that he would call upon Governor Eliot Spitzer to appoint a special prosecutor to look into whether charges should be filed against other people. Some observers believe that Spota’s decision to drop the charges against Tankleff were influenced by the SIC investigation into how he handled the case, and mounting public pressure encouraging the Governor to step in, take the case from him, and appoint a special prosecutor to decide whether 1) the case should go forward against him, and 2) whether charges should be brought forward against Steuerman and the others. ADA Lato’s in-court statement was cited as proof of that.
There has been an SIC Investigation ordered by Gov. Spitzer into corruption in Suffolk County with respect to the Tankleff case. The SIC is a “sunshine agency” with no direct enforcement powers. However, it can refer evidence of crimes to the authorities or propose a special prosecutor as a means to reopen the case and pursue other suspects.
The investigation had been going on for a year, but under low profile, so as not interefere with Tankleff’s appeal. Chairman Alfred Lerner stated, “The State Commission of Investigation is ratcheting up a probe into whether Suffolk County authorities, including District Attorney Thomas Spota, mishandled the Martin Tankleff case. The commission will issue subpoenas in the next few weeks as investigators take a ‘broad look’ at the Suffolk police investigation that led to Tankleff’s 1990 conviction for killing his parents, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff, and how Spota’s Office dealt with the surfacing of new witnesses in 2003 who supported Tankleff’s claims of innocence.
Commissioner Lerner further stated that Joseph Kunzeman, a former judge and Nassau County attorney, would be spearheading the investigation. “We’re going to look at the whole thing.” Lerner said the commission would issue a report in the next five to six months. He then declared, “The probe will ‘scrutinize the actions of Spota, who wasn’t District Attorney for Tankleff’s prosecution and trial but came under fire for not recusing himself when Tankleff sought a new trial in 2003. Both as a private attorney and as a lawyer for the police union,
Spota represented Mc-Creedy. Spota’s former law partners also represented Steuerman’s family.
In Our Opinion...
Nicky, Give Us A Break
Last week former State Senator Nick Spano launched a ‘trial balloon’, opening a website and soliciting public reaction to the possibility that he would run against Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins for his old seat this year. The article, appearing in The Journal News, explained that since leaving the Senate a year ago, Nick has been working as a lobbyist/consultant earning, in his first year officially in the game, some $500,000.
Imagine, in his first year out of the Senate, he made more than five times his annual salary as a State Senator and yet, he would be willing to throw it all away if we only asked him to. Yes, Nick Spano, who spent eight years in the Assembly and 20 years in the State Senate, would throw away $500,000, which might very well grow to a million or more this year, just to be our State Senator once again.
Of course, we hope Nick is not suggesting that the only income he derived as State Senator was his salary and whatever stipends he received as Chairman or member of various Senate committees. Truth be told, over the years Mr. Spano has been given multitudes of custodianships and committeeships for incompetent and in-firm individuals, as well as refereeships totalling several hundred thousand dollars
from State judges very friendly to him.
Occasionally, he has gotten carried away and signed off on official custodial reports with the letters “Esq.” following his name, though we are not aware that he possesses a law degree. We all know that long-time politicians, especially “wardhealers” like Nicky, have the habit of stretching the truth a bit, now and then.
And speaking about truth, most people are aware of the fact that Nick had a Senate staff of some 30 employees, earning approximately $1.2 million, most of whom took up “no-show jobs” in the Amicone Administration at about the same cost to Yonkers taxpayers. Keep in mind, once in office, Nick is not that easy to dislodge. Andrea Stewart-Cousins had to actually beat him twice, once in 2004 by some 355 votes, and again in 2006 by nearly 2,000 votes before she was seated. Let’s not lose sight of the fact, either, that it took federal monitors and marshals to keep the 2006 race from repeating what had occurred in 2004.
Nor can we lose sight of the 166 ballot fraud admitted in Nick’s Green Party Primary in 2000 by his repeated campaign director, Anthony Mangone, in his race against Tom Abinanti, or the peculiar circumstances that eliminated a Latino Democratic opponent who was kept out of action by State Courts cozy with Nick until two weeks before the election of 2002.
We would ask Mr. Spano if he wouldn’t agree that 28 years in Albany was more than enough time to have done his best work, remembering that 20 of those years were spent in the Senate, and that it took him all 20 years to finally put some permanent funding vehicles in place so that the Yonkers Public School System would not necessarily need to go begging for fundamental support, money for instructional expenses,
year-after-year, only to be bailed out at the last minute by Cynical St. Nick.
We think, notwithstanding the Republican State Senate Machine that has been spending a fortune against her from the day she took office, that Andrea Stewart-Cousins has been working hard for her district and clearly deserves another term. Surely, she will be required to stand for reelection against some Republican opponent. We do not believe in “political monarchies” and We do not believe the people of the 35th State Senatorial District would benefit from a return to Life Under Nick Spano.
Our Readers Respond....
Concerned About Yonkers Failing Schools
Dear Editor:
Your perspective on the Yonkers Public Schools was right on point and accurate. Both you and Mr. Robertson were able to show the public that our schools are failing and need to be addressed. Mr. Amicone has buried his head, or may be misinformed, about the schools; he has chosen a superintendent that is putting our district, and Yonkers, in the worst situation in the City’s history. All this superintendent does is make excuses for his failure. So where does that leave the taxpayers and schoolchildren of Yonkers?
I have attached the New York State Board of Regents State Education Department Report issued on December 20, 2007 entitled, 444 Title I Elementary And Middle Schools Statewide Are “In Need Of Improvement” Under NCLV; 53 Schools Also Identi-fied Under Separate State Rules.
According to the report, Yonkers has nine schools out of 34 in need of improvement, 25 percent of the schools failing. Three schools given a bye - Pulaski, School 29 and School 21. These three schools were accused of cheating two years ago and, last year; all three of them did not reach their annual yearly progress goals and, technically, should have been placed on the SINI List as failing. A deal must have been made to keep these three schools off the list because the cheating should not count. Perhaps the State Education Department might be willing to supply the answer.
1. Cedar Place Elementary School: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
2. Commerce Middle School: Restructuring, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
3. Emerson Middle School: Restructuring, Year 3; Elementary-Middle Level Mathematics.
4. MLK Jr. High Tech & Computer Magnet School: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language
Arts.
5. Mark Twain Middle School: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts, Elementary-
Middle Level Mathematics.
6. Riverside High School: Restructuring, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level Mathematics.
7. School 13: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
8. School 23: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
9. Yonkers Middle School: In Need of Improvement, Year 2; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
Concerned Taxpayer
Nicky, Give Us A Break
Last week former State Senator Nick Spano launched a ‘trial balloon’, opening a website and soliciting public reaction to the possibility that he would run against Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins for his old seat this year. The article, appearing in The Journal News, explained that since leaving the Senate a year ago, Nick has been working as a lobbyist/consultant earning, in his first year officially in the game, some $500,000.
Imagine, in his first year out of the Senate, he made more than five times his annual salary as a State Senator and yet, he would be willing to throw it all away if we only asked him to. Yes, Nick Spano, who spent eight years in the Assembly and 20 years in the State Senate, would throw away $500,000, which might very well grow to a million or more this year, just to be our State Senator once again.
Of course, we hope Nick is not suggesting that the only income he derived as State Senator was his salary and whatever stipends he received as Chairman or member of various Senate committees. Truth be told, over the years Mr. Spano has been given multitudes of custodianships and committeeships for incompetent and in-firm individuals, as well as refereeships totalling several hundred thousand dollars
from State judges very friendly to him.
Occasionally, he has gotten carried away and signed off on official custodial reports with the letters “Esq.” following his name, though we are not aware that he possesses a law degree. We all know that long-time politicians, especially “wardhealers” like Nicky, have the habit of stretching the truth a bit, now and then.
And speaking about truth, most people are aware of the fact that Nick had a Senate staff of some 30 employees, earning approximately $1.2 million, most of whom took up “no-show jobs” in the Amicone Administration at about the same cost to Yonkers taxpayers. Keep in mind, once in office, Nick is not that easy to dislodge. Andrea Stewart-Cousins had to actually beat him twice, once in 2004 by some 355 votes, and again in 2006 by nearly 2,000 votes before she was seated. Let’s not lose sight of the fact, either, that it took federal monitors and marshals to keep the 2006 race from repeating what had occurred in 2004.
Nor can we lose sight of the 166 ballot fraud admitted in Nick’s Green Party Primary in 2000 by his repeated campaign director, Anthony Mangone, in his race against Tom Abinanti, or the peculiar circumstances that eliminated a Latino Democratic opponent who was kept out of action by State Courts cozy with Nick until two weeks before the election of 2002.
We would ask Mr. Spano if he wouldn’t agree that 28 years in Albany was more than enough time to have done his best work, remembering that 20 of those years were spent in the Senate, and that it took him all 20 years to finally put some permanent funding vehicles in place so that the Yonkers Public School System would not necessarily need to go begging for fundamental support, money for instructional expenses,
year-after-year, only to be bailed out at the last minute by Cynical St. Nick.
We think, notwithstanding the Republican State Senate Machine that has been spending a fortune against her from the day she took office, that Andrea Stewart-Cousins has been working hard for her district and clearly deserves another term. Surely, she will be required to stand for reelection against some Republican opponent. We do not believe in “political monarchies” and We do not believe the people of the 35th State Senatorial District would benefit from a return to Life Under Nick Spano.
Our Readers Respond....
Concerned About Yonkers Failing Schools
Dear Editor:
Your perspective on the Yonkers Public Schools was right on point and accurate. Both you and Mr. Robertson were able to show the public that our schools are failing and need to be addressed. Mr. Amicone has buried his head, or may be misinformed, about the schools; he has chosen a superintendent that is putting our district, and Yonkers, in the worst situation in the City’s history. All this superintendent does is make excuses for his failure. So where does that leave the taxpayers and schoolchildren of Yonkers?
I have attached the New York State Board of Regents State Education Department Report issued on December 20, 2007 entitled, 444 Title I Elementary And Middle Schools Statewide Are “In Need Of Improvement” Under NCLV; 53 Schools Also Identi-fied Under Separate State Rules.
According to the report, Yonkers has nine schools out of 34 in need of improvement, 25 percent of the schools failing. Three schools given a bye - Pulaski, School 29 and School 21. These three schools were accused of cheating two years ago and, last year; all three of them did not reach their annual yearly progress goals and, technically, should have been placed on the SINI List as failing. A deal must have been made to keep these three schools off the list because the cheating should not count. Perhaps the State Education Department might be willing to supply the answer.
1. Cedar Place Elementary School: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
2. Commerce Middle School: Restructuring, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
3. Emerson Middle School: Restructuring, Year 3; Elementary-Middle Level Mathematics.
4. MLK Jr. High Tech & Computer Magnet School: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language
Arts.
5. Mark Twain Middle School: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts, Elementary-
Middle Level Mathematics.
6. Riverside High School: Restructuring, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level Mathematics.
7. School 13: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
8. School 23: In Need of Improvement, Year 1; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
9. Yonkers Middle School: In Need of Improvement, Year 2; Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts.
Concerned Taxpayer
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
An Open Letter To The New York State Commission Of Investigation
New York State Commission Of Investigation
59 Maiden Lane, 31st Floor
New York, N.Y. 10038
Dear Gentlemen:
The State Investigation Commission’s inquiry into the handling, by Suffolk County Police and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, of the murders of Arlene and Seymour Tankleff, is a development we welcome and applaud. However, the Suffolk County DA’s Office has no exclusive franchise when it comes to prosecutorial misconduct.
Here, in Westchester County, under Jeanine Pirro, January 1994 through December 2005, scores of innocent persons were routinely,
knowingly, and maliciously targeted as Prosecutions Of Opportunity; convicted by means of prosecutorial misconduct and sent to prison. Of numerous cases that may ultimately come to your attention, at this moment I commend to your attention the case of Anthony DiSimone.
The prosecutorial misconduct in the case of Mr. DiSimone, now free as the result of a successful writ of Habeas Corpus brought in Federal Court, White Plains, is so egregious both in character, and scope, as to be a virtual primer on the subject.
For thirteen years the Westchester DA’s Office maliciously proffered a lie, while gathering and concealing 376 pages and 52 boxes filled with
exculpatory information, Brady material, hidden from the Defense. So egregious was the case that Judge Calabresi, presiding over a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, declared in that Court’s decision that it was the worst Brady violation he had seen in 12 years on that Bench.
In bringing the DiSimone case to your attention, I must forewarn you that you will, indeed, be opening “Pandora’s Box”, an official inquiry
long overdue, but desperately necessary in light of the fact that the Office, under the current DA, for the first 16 months of the new administration, continued to conceal the Brady material, finally yielding, literally seconds before the evidentiary hearing mandated by the Second Circuit, was about to begin before District Court Judge Brieant.
What your Commission will quickly discover upon investigating the DiSimone case will be a virtual schematic of the methods and modes of
prosecutorial misconduct employed by Jeanine Pirro and many of her top ADAs, many of whom remain in the Office under her successor, suborning perjury and harassing innocent citizens and police officers.
Make no mistake, the serious misconduct began within one month of Pirro’s assumption of office. The brutal stabbing of Louis Balancio, outside of the Strike Zone bar in Yonkers, occurred in the early morning hours of February 4, 1994, just one month after Pirro took office. Within six days of the heinous killing, Pirro not only had a confession but also the bloody jacket worn by the murderer. Still, she permitted Nick Djonovic to escape to the Yugoslav Republic because an Albanian-American would not further her political agenda the way an Italian-American would.
Mrs. Pirro was determined to prove she could prosecute “Organized Crime”, and she would go on to confabulate a “Mafia killing” from what
was, in fact, a youthful overreaction to jealousy over a girl. Nearly four years later, in December of 1997, Pirro tape-recorded a prominent Assistant United States Attorney who had called her office to inform her, as well as her assistant DAs, Clement Patti and Steven Bender, the two prosecutors handling the case, that all of the evidence gathered by the FBI clearly pointed to Djonovic, and not to DiSimone.
Once your Commission opens an investigation into the handling of the Louis Balancio killing, you will very rapidly realize the need for a
comprehensive inquiry into numerous Pirro prosecutions of opportunity, many of which are still under appeal, and being vigorously defended by the Office.
Very Truly Yours,
Richard Blassberg,
Editor-In-Chief, The Westchester Guardian
Richard Blassberg
An Open Letter To The New York State Commission Of Investigation
New York State Commission Of Investigation
59 Maiden Lane, 31st Floor
New York, N.Y. 10038
Dear Gentlemen:
The State Investigation Commission’s inquiry into the handling, by Suffolk County Police and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, of the murders of Arlene and Seymour Tankleff, is a development we welcome and applaud. However, the Suffolk County DA’s Office has no exclusive franchise when it comes to prosecutorial misconduct.
Here, in Westchester County, under Jeanine Pirro, January 1994 through December 2005, scores of innocent persons were routinely,
knowingly, and maliciously targeted as Prosecutions Of Opportunity; convicted by means of prosecutorial misconduct and sent to prison. Of numerous cases that may ultimately come to your attention, at this moment I commend to your attention the case of Anthony DiSimone.
The prosecutorial misconduct in the case of Mr. DiSimone, now free as the result of a successful writ of Habeas Corpus brought in Federal Court, White Plains, is so egregious both in character, and scope, as to be a virtual primer on the subject.
For thirteen years the Westchester DA’s Office maliciously proffered a lie, while gathering and concealing 376 pages and 52 boxes filled with
exculpatory information, Brady material, hidden from the Defense. So egregious was the case that Judge Calabresi, presiding over a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, declared in that Court’s decision that it was the worst Brady violation he had seen in 12 years on that Bench.
In bringing the DiSimone case to your attention, I must forewarn you that you will, indeed, be opening “Pandora’s Box”, an official inquiry
long overdue, but desperately necessary in light of the fact that the Office, under the current DA, for the first 16 months of the new administration, continued to conceal the Brady material, finally yielding, literally seconds before the evidentiary hearing mandated by the Second Circuit, was about to begin before District Court Judge Brieant.
What your Commission will quickly discover upon investigating the DiSimone case will be a virtual schematic of the methods and modes of
prosecutorial misconduct employed by Jeanine Pirro and many of her top ADAs, many of whom remain in the Office under her successor, suborning perjury and harassing innocent citizens and police officers.
Make no mistake, the serious misconduct began within one month of Pirro’s assumption of office. The brutal stabbing of Louis Balancio, outside of the Strike Zone bar in Yonkers, occurred in the early morning hours of February 4, 1994, just one month after Pirro took office. Within six days of the heinous killing, Pirro not only had a confession but also the bloody jacket worn by the murderer. Still, she permitted Nick Djonovic to escape to the Yugoslav Republic because an Albanian-American would not further her political agenda the way an Italian-American would.
Mrs. Pirro was determined to prove she could prosecute “Organized Crime”, and she would go on to confabulate a “Mafia killing” from what
was, in fact, a youthful overreaction to jealousy over a girl. Nearly four years later, in December of 1997, Pirro tape-recorded a prominent Assistant United States Attorney who had called her office to inform her, as well as her assistant DAs, Clement Patti and Steven Bender, the two prosecutors handling the case, that all of the evidence gathered by the FBI clearly pointed to Djonovic, and not to DiSimone.
Once your Commission opens an investigation into the handling of the Louis Balancio killing, you will very rapidly realize the need for a
comprehensive inquiry into numerous Pirro prosecutions of opportunity, many of which are still under appeal, and being vigorously defended by the Office.
Very Truly Yours,
Richard Blassberg,
Editor-In-Chief, The Westchester Guardian
Janet Difiore.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Richard Diguglielmo: Setting The Facts Straight
Last Wednesday, January 2nd, in a front page article in The Journal News, entitled, ‘08 Brings Hope For DiGuglielmo, some statements were made that this reporter, who attended every one of eight days of hearings before County Court Judge Rory J. Bellantoni, believes deserve some clarification and correction.
For one thing, while it is true that the 440.10 Petition filed by former New York City Transit Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo was based
upon the sworn statements of Michael Dillon, who had recanted his final statement to the Dobbs Ferry Police as well as his statement at
trial, the following must be kept in mind:
• Richard DiGuglielmo’s petition was filed well more than a year prior to the evidentiary hearing conducted by Judge Bellantoni.
• At the hearing, Mr. Dillon’s testimony was quite clear about the fact that, although his statement to Dobbs Ferry Police on the night of the tragic incident, October 3, 1996, was identical to what he told News 4 New York, that Charles Campbell, who had already struck Of-ficer DiGuglielmo’s middle-aged father twice “very hard” with a metal baseball bat, was swinging the bat toward the older man’s head at the moment he was shot three times, his final statement given to Dobbs Ferry Police about 1:00 a.m. October 8th was substantially different
because, for at least three nights in between, he was taken from his job at CTI in Mamaroneck by all three detectives of the Dobbs Ferry
Department as well as Chief George Longworth, and transported, like a suspect, to their headquarters, and grilled for hours until he said what they wanted to hear from him.
• Having altered his original, honest, and accurate account, Dillon told Judge Bellantoni that he felt “stuck” with the account that he gave in the wee hours of October 8th and thus repeated it, at trial, fearing what might be done to him if he gave his original, accurate account that the shooting was clearly “self-defense.”
• In addition to Mr. Dillon, a Mr. James White, who also witnessed the incident from start to finish and had told Dobbs Ferry Police that it was “self-defense” was likewise harassed and treated like a suspect, but refused to alter his account, even after numerous interrogation sessions similar to what Mr. Dillon reported at the hearing. Mr. White was never called as a witness.
• Dobbs Ferry Detective Lieutenant Guarnieri, testifying for the Respondent District Attorney’s Office, attempted to deny any knowledge of the repeated questioning of Dillon and White between October 3 and October 8, 1996, and was not credible.
The Journal News article quoted Attorney Debra Cohen, who it identified as “representing the Campbell family” but failed to inform readers that Cohen and her attorney-husband, Randolph McLaughlin, who attended the criminal trial as spectators, and were involved in the 52 weeks of paid pickets under Al Sharpton outside the DiGuglielmo’s deli, had proceeded, following that trial, to collect $460,000 for William Campbell, brother of Charles Campbell, and themselves, in a Wrongful Death civil action.
Under the circumstances, Debra Cohen’s statement, quoted in the article, “There is no reason for the decision (the conviction) not to stand,” is obviously self-serving. To state, as the article goes on to do, “The deli had a history of fretting over their spaces,” immediately followed by, “Campbell was confronted by three men, including DiGuglielmo and his father,” is misleading. Given that, firstly, the elder DiGuglielmo had asked Campbell to park a few feet away in the same lot, but not in front of the store window. And, only upon Campbell’s refusal did he then place a “No Parking” sticker on Campbell’s window as the Dobbs Ferry Police had instructed him to do, long before the incident.
Secondly, and more significantly, to state, “Campbell was confronted by three men,” was a complete misrepresentation of the facts given
that it was undisputed, even at trial, that Charles Campbell, upon being told by the “pizza shop owner”, a man involved in illegal drug distribution, that a sticker had been put on his car window, ran across the street, fists flying, to pummel the elder DiGuglielmo, whose son Richard, and son-in-law Robert Errico, happened to be inside the store and came out to protect the father.
It is somewhat surprising that The Journal News saw fit to give vent to the sentiments of Attorney Debra Cohen but failed to contact any
of Mr. DiGuglielmo’s attorneys for their statement. Nevertheless, the article does acknowledge James White’s testimony at the hearing, stating, “During the hearing, Dillon’s accusation of police intimidation was supported by another witness, James White, who said Dobbs Ferry Police tried pressuring him into changing his account.”
However, while accurately reporting that Mr. White refused to change his account of what he had witnessed on the evening of October
3, 1996 in the parking lot of the Venice Deli, the statement that he “was considered unreliable by both Prosecutors and Defense lawyers
and was never called to testify,” was completely incorrect. The fact was Prosecutors knew that the Dobbs Ferry Police had failed, even after
repeated long interrogations, to get White to waver from his original statement and were, of course, not about to call a witness who would
give a truthful account of a “shooting in self-defense.”
As for the Defense attorneys’ unwillingness to call Mr. White as a witness at trial, that had to do with his stated unwillingness to meet
with them prior to trial, in deference to his 76-year-old father who was in failing health, who was a former FBI agent, and who forbid him from doing so. As explained by Defense counsel Steven Lewis, at the hearing, firstly, the Prosecution had withheld any information about White’s and Dillon’s repeated interrogations by Dobbs Ferry Police from the Defense in Discovery. And, secondly, no Defense attorney would ever put on a witness, at trial, who had flatly refused to meet with him prior to testifying.
In reality, there were really only three eyewitnesses to the entire incident, including the shooting, all of which is estimated to have taken
no more than 90 seconds. Those three witnesses are Michael Dillon and Jimmy White, both of whom testified at the recent hearing, called
by Judge Bellantoni, as well as Kevin O’Donnell, who was seated in the CTI van next to Dillon, directly viewing the incident. Mr. O’Donnell, while unwilling to come to New York from Florida, had nonetheless corroborated to Defense investigators, from his own experience, the accounts of repeated interrogations by Dobbs Ferry Police testified to by Dillon and White.
The Guardian has been advised that attorneys for Mr. DiGuglielmo have submitted a Post Hearing Brief, of just under 50 pages, and the
Westchester District Attorney’s Office has submitted one of approximately 100 pages. A decision, with regard to the need for a new trial
based upon the evidence presented in the eight-day hearing, is expected in open court on January 30.
By Richard Blassberg
Richard Diguglielmo: Setting The Facts Straight
Last Wednesday, January 2nd, in a front page article in The Journal News, entitled, ‘08 Brings Hope For DiGuglielmo, some statements were made that this reporter, who attended every one of eight days of hearings before County Court Judge Rory J. Bellantoni, believes deserve some clarification and correction.
For one thing, while it is true that the 440.10 Petition filed by former New York City Transit Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo was based
upon the sworn statements of Michael Dillon, who had recanted his final statement to the Dobbs Ferry Police as well as his statement at
trial, the following must be kept in mind:
• Richard DiGuglielmo’s petition was filed well more than a year prior to the evidentiary hearing conducted by Judge Bellantoni.
• At the hearing, Mr. Dillon’s testimony was quite clear about the fact that, although his statement to Dobbs Ferry Police on the night of the tragic incident, October 3, 1996, was identical to what he told News 4 New York, that Charles Campbell, who had already struck Of-ficer DiGuglielmo’s middle-aged father twice “very hard” with a metal baseball bat, was swinging the bat toward the older man’s head at the moment he was shot three times, his final statement given to Dobbs Ferry Police about 1:00 a.m. October 8th was substantially different
because, for at least three nights in between, he was taken from his job at CTI in Mamaroneck by all three detectives of the Dobbs Ferry
Department as well as Chief George Longworth, and transported, like a suspect, to their headquarters, and grilled for hours until he said what they wanted to hear from him.
• Having altered his original, honest, and accurate account, Dillon told Judge Bellantoni that he felt “stuck” with the account that he gave in the wee hours of October 8th and thus repeated it, at trial, fearing what might be done to him if he gave his original, accurate account that the shooting was clearly “self-defense.”
• In addition to Mr. Dillon, a Mr. James White, who also witnessed the incident from start to finish and had told Dobbs Ferry Police that it was “self-defense” was likewise harassed and treated like a suspect, but refused to alter his account, even after numerous interrogation sessions similar to what Mr. Dillon reported at the hearing. Mr. White was never called as a witness.
• Dobbs Ferry Detective Lieutenant Guarnieri, testifying for the Respondent District Attorney’s Office, attempted to deny any knowledge of the repeated questioning of Dillon and White between October 3 and October 8, 1996, and was not credible.
The Journal News article quoted Attorney Debra Cohen, who it identified as “representing the Campbell family” but failed to inform readers that Cohen and her attorney-husband, Randolph McLaughlin, who attended the criminal trial as spectators, and were involved in the 52 weeks of paid pickets under Al Sharpton outside the DiGuglielmo’s deli, had proceeded, following that trial, to collect $460,000 for William Campbell, brother of Charles Campbell, and themselves, in a Wrongful Death civil action.
Under the circumstances, Debra Cohen’s statement, quoted in the article, “There is no reason for the decision (the conviction) not to stand,” is obviously self-serving. To state, as the article goes on to do, “The deli had a history of fretting over their spaces,” immediately followed by, “Campbell was confronted by three men, including DiGuglielmo and his father,” is misleading. Given that, firstly, the elder DiGuglielmo had asked Campbell to park a few feet away in the same lot, but not in front of the store window. And, only upon Campbell’s refusal did he then place a “No Parking” sticker on Campbell’s window as the Dobbs Ferry Police had instructed him to do, long before the incident.
Secondly, and more significantly, to state, “Campbell was confronted by three men,” was a complete misrepresentation of the facts given
that it was undisputed, even at trial, that Charles Campbell, upon being told by the “pizza shop owner”, a man involved in illegal drug distribution, that a sticker had been put on his car window, ran across the street, fists flying, to pummel the elder DiGuglielmo, whose son Richard, and son-in-law Robert Errico, happened to be inside the store and came out to protect the father.
It is somewhat surprising that The Journal News saw fit to give vent to the sentiments of Attorney Debra Cohen but failed to contact any
of Mr. DiGuglielmo’s attorneys for their statement. Nevertheless, the article does acknowledge James White’s testimony at the hearing, stating, “During the hearing, Dillon’s accusation of police intimidation was supported by another witness, James White, who said Dobbs Ferry Police tried pressuring him into changing his account.”
However, while accurately reporting that Mr. White refused to change his account of what he had witnessed on the evening of October
3, 1996 in the parking lot of the Venice Deli, the statement that he “was considered unreliable by both Prosecutors and Defense lawyers
and was never called to testify,” was completely incorrect. The fact was Prosecutors knew that the Dobbs Ferry Police had failed, even after
repeated long interrogations, to get White to waver from his original statement and were, of course, not about to call a witness who would
give a truthful account of a “shooting in self-defense.”
As for the Defense attorneys’ unwillingness to call Mr. White as a witness at trial, that had to do with his stated unwillingness to meet
with them prior to trial, in deference to his 76-year-old father who was in failing health, who was a former FBI agent, and who forbid him from doing so. As explained by Defense counsel Steven Lewis, at the hearing, firstly, the Prosecution had withheld any information about White’s and Dillon’s repeated interrogations by Dobbs Ferry Police from the Defense in Discovery. And, secondly, no Defense attorney would ever put on a witness, at trial, who had flatly refused to meet with him prior to testifying.
In reality, there were really only three eyewitnesses to the entire incident, including the shooting, all of which is estimated to have taken
no more than 90 seconds. Those three witnesses are Michael Dillon and Jimmy White, both of whom testified at the recent hearing, called
by Judge Bellantoni, as well as Kevin O’Donnell, who was seated in the CTI van next to Dillon, directly viewing the incident. Mr. O’Donnell, while unwilling to come to New York from Florida, had nonetheless corroborated to Defense investigators, from his own experience, the accounts of repeated interrogations by Dobbs Ferry Police testified to by Dillon and White.
The Guardian has been advised that attorneys for Mr. DiGuglielmo have submitted a Post Hearing Brief, of just under 50 pages, and the
Westchester District Attorney’s Office has submitted one of approximately 100 pages. A decision, with regard to the need for a new trial
based upon the evidence presented in the eight-day hearing, is expected in open court on January 30.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Local Town Budgets: Salaries and Benefits of Local Officials
The brouhaha over compensation to members of the County Board of Legislators raises the issue of how all local government employees are being compensated. It also raises the question of how a town resident can access salary data for local towns.
Almost all towns provided at least a summary of the town budget when requested by The Guardian. But the information provided for what local government representatives and employees are being paid varies greatly across Northern Westchester towns. Mt. Pleasant, Pound Ridge, and Croton-on-Hudson only provided summaries of their budgets. In contrast, Lewisboro, Ossining, Somers, North Castle, Sleepy Hollow, and Bedford provided fully detailed budgets and supporting schedules. However, New Castle, Mount Kisco, and Cortlandt did not respond to requests for information nor did they provide this information online. Peekskill, Yorktown, and North Salem offered to forward their budgets by regular mail; however, they were not received by press time.
Most of the detailed town budgets reviewed were complex and lengthy – some towns, such as Ossining, had budgets that were over 100 pages long. Finding the salaries of town officials amidst such detail requires some degree of accounting knowledge. But only one of the budgets, from the Village of Sleepy Hollow, came with a page by page summary of the contents for easy reference.
The salary and benefits information provided in local town budgets varies dramatically. Some towns merely provide a two-to-three page summary of the town revenues and expenses by department and category. A resident of Mt. Pleasant cannot tell from looking at the town’s budget summary what the town officials are earning or what the town is spending for employee benefits. In contrast, Croton-on-Hudson’s summary includes a schedule of the salaries of town officials from the village manager’s salary of $176,029 to the village trustees at $3,000 each. However, some towns, such as Bedford, provided salary data by town department and function, and also included schedules for the salary of each employee position. Bedford’s budget schedules also included details of actual salaries by employee for the prior year so that town residents could see the annual raises for each staff position.
One of the reasons local towns are giving for the dramatic tax increases in 2008 are increasing employee benefit costs. Yet only a few towns, such as Bedford, provide a full detailed schedule for overall benefits paid. A quick review of Bedford’s employee benefits shows that their employee dental insurance costs are expected to increase $16,375 from 2006 to 2008 – a 25% increase, and their police retirement fund is expected to increase $132,694, or 20%, over the same period. Bedford also provides a full breakdown of the salaries for all members of the police department, including their longevity and holiday pay.
Such detailed information allows town residents to see where the increases in taxes are generated and what to expect in the way of future increases (e.g. higher longevity pay for employees equates to higher pension costs). Given that employee benefits are partially responsible for rising property taxes locally, residents should expect a full reporting of these benefits from their towns including what town employees are expected to contribute towards those benefits. In a news release last week, Buchanan announced that it was “looking at the possibility of having municipal workers contribute to their health insurance plans” as a possible cost-cutting measure. That announcement would possibly come as a surprise to most town residents who already subsidize their own benefits, either partially or in full. According to the Kaiser Foundation
2007 Summary of Findings, “80% of workers with single coverage and 94% of workers with family coverage contribute to the total premium for their coverage. The average annual worker contributions for single and family coverage are $694 and $3,291, respectively”.
Those numbers represent a national average across small businesses and large organizations. According to the Kaiser study, while only 56%
of small businesses expect their employees to contribute to their single coverage, 87% expect employees to contribute towards family coverage. Indeed the trend in small firms is to have employees pay the full extra cost of any family coverage – it is not unusual for local employees to pay $1,000 a month or more for family health coverage. In addition, according to Kaiser, “most covered workers face additional payments when they use health care services. In PPO’s, 71% of covered workers have a general annual deductible or other forms of cost sharing for office visits and other services”. Those deductibles and co-pays can add thousands of dollars per year to a local family’s medical costs.
But these costs only apply to local residents who actually have health insurance coverage through their places of employment. Again, according to the Kaiser study, only 45% of very small firms and 59% of small firms offer any health insurance benefits to their employees at all. Plus the large force of part-time workers, freelancers, and independent contractors all must provide their own insurance.
Those local residents face even higher health insurance costs, assuming they can afford coverage at all. These taxpayers would be justifiably concerned that their rising property taxes are going towards health insurance benefits for town employees who are not contributing at all towards those benefits. In these instances, the local residents are not only paying for their own personal health insurance but also paying for the insurance of town employees and even for the health insurance for the town employees’ family members – individuals who may not work for the town at all.
The town budgets alone will not reveal the full employee benefit information since the bulk of these costs are determined by union contracts.
In addition to annual budgets and detailed salary schedules, all local towns should also provide full union contract details online for the
taxpayers’ information. This information can be obtained online from the larger unions - e.g., the annual contract for the Westchester County
court employees can be viewed at www.csealocal1000.org/ca/ucs_contract_03_07.pdf. But again, only someone with a level of accounting
ability, and an expertise in government accounting, would be able to decipher this information. Given that these contracts determine the bulk of our local budgets, this information should be more accessible and more “user-friendly” and comparable.
Ideally, if all Westchester towns reported their financial information in the same fashion with the same level of detail, including salaries, benefits, and union contracts, residents could compare how their town is spending compared to similar towns in the county. Such comparisons would enable residents to determine where the excesses in the budgets exist.
For example, a comparison of some local town budgets to the county budget exposes a wide discrepancy in salaries for board positions. e
Chairman of the County board of legislators, Bill Ryan, has requested a salary increase for his part-time position from $89,200 to $124,000.
However, the existing salaries of the County Board Of Legislators already outstrips their town counterparts dramatically. Board members in local towns oversee budgets and contracts, approve changes to the town bylaws, approve the hiring of consultants and
the appointment of committees, etc.
The Town of Mt. Pleasant lists the responsibilities of the Town Board members as follows: The Town Board is the legislative, appropriating, governing and policy determining body of the Town and consists of four board members, elected at large to serve a four year term, plus the Supervisor. Town Board members may serve an unlimited number of terms. It is the responsibility of the Town Board to enact, by resolution, all legislation including ordinances and local laws. Annual operating budgets for the Town must be approved by the
Town Board; modifications and transfers between budgetary appropriations also must be authorized by the Town Board on the recommendation of the supervisor. The original issuance of all Town indebtedness is subject to approval by the Town Board.
In short, the board members of our local communities do essentially the same jobs as their County counterparts for a fraction of the pay. The
following are some individual salaries from around the county:
Croton-On-Hudson: $3,000 (4 town trustees)
Bedford: $16,711 (4 councilpersons)
Lewisboro: $13,000 (4 board members)
Somers: $12,182 (4 board members)
Sleepy Hollow: $5,000 (6 town trustees)
North Castle: $19,455 (4 councilpersons)
Ossining: $11,404 (4 board members)
Westchester County Board: $49,200 (17 Board members – base pay)
When local residents have access to similar details for neighboring towns, the analysis is evident. Given the above facts, a resident of Sleepy
Hollow would ask why their town has six trustees while other, much larger, towns have only four. And a resident of North Castle would want to know why their town councilpersons are being paid $8,000 more per year than the same positions in Ossining.
And all Westchester residents would ask why the County Board members need a minimum of $49,200 each per year while town board members can do the same jobs for at least $30,000 less. If union contracts are added into the mix, local residents could compare limits on overtime, benefit contributions, pension plan calculations, and so on. With such information, taxpayers could hold town employees accountable for their tax dollars.
Some local officials do recognize their responsibility to be accountable to local residents. Paul Feiner, the Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, sets a list of goals for his job every year and links his salary to his performance. If he fails to achieve all of those goals, Mr. Feiner refunds a portion of his salary – he recently announced he was refunding $1,376 of his 2007 salary to the town. This practice of “Management by Objectives” was established by the Harvard Business School in the 1980’s and has been widely adopted by “corporate
America” for all levels of staff.
Linking performance accountability to compensation is not without its detractors, however. The outgoing Greenburgh town board member,
Steve Bass, noted that while “it’s not a bad thing to set goals”, too much time could be spent on addressing the goals and “distract from (the) serious problems.”
Mr. Bass, an assistant with the Westchester County Board of Legislators, believes that “day to day matters,” such as addressing budget and
tax concerns, should not be part of “performance goals.” But taxpayers may want to hold their government officials and town employees personally responsible for the increases in local budgets and taxes.
In many companies where compensation linked to performance is used, employees who do not successfully complete their goals lose out on
the bonuses tied to those goals. But it is not enough for employees to attend to just the “day to day matters” of their jobs. Even employees who do their full jobs but do not complete a specified amount of their goals forfeit their annual salary increases. For Corporate America, doing 100% is no longer enough.
Westchester County now has the distinction of having the highest property taxes of any county in the nation. With such a burden, taxpayers should expect complete and full disclosure and full accountability from their towns (and the county) of all expenditures at all levels. Taxpayers should receive online copies of all budgets and union contracts well in advance of any board meetings and votes. Each community should provide email notices to their residents of budget and contract meetings and votes and when the budgets and contracts are available
online for review so that residents can ask informed questions at their town meetings. In addition, all information should be provided in set formats with the same level of details countywide, and union-wide, so that taxpayers can easily make comparisons.
The County Board Of Legislators could set a performance goal for themselves this year to adopt across-the-board standards for reporting local budgets using Sleepy Hollow, Ossining, North Castle, and Lewisboro as their guides. Finally, taxpayers should have annual guarantees from local officials and government employees at all levels linking any individual salary raises to performance goals set by the taxpayers. It is not unreasonable for a County resident to ask what a union member will do for their contractual salary increases, or to ask if the Board Of Legislators expects $49,200 (base salary) per year to $89,200 (Chairperson’s salary) for their parttime jobs, what precisely have they been doing for that money? And if the officials don’t do as they promise, or the employees don’t perform as expected, will the taxpayers’ get that
money back?
Northern Westchester Round-Up
Buchanan: Indian Point officials announced that their workers have transferred used nuclear fuel rods to dry-cask storage. The rods,
which were first cooled in pools of water, drained, dried and placed inside the helium casks, are now being stored in an on-site concrete
facility.
Carmel: New York State Assemblyman, Greg Ball, announced that he will run for reelection to the NYS Assembly in 2008 and not run for
the United States Congress as was previously speculated. Assemblyman Ball represents the 99th District which encompasses parts of Putnam and Dutchess counties as well as the northern Westchester towns of Yorktown, Somers, and North Salem.
Cortlandt: Town officials announced the formation of a diversity task force following the cross-burning incident last November. The task force will be comprised of local business, clergy, and law enforcement representatives.
Northern Westchester
Local Town Budgets: Salaries and Benefits of Local Officials
The brouhaha over compensation to members of the County Board of Legislators raises the issue of how all local government employees are being compensated. It also raises the question of how a town resident can access salary data for local towns.
Almost all towns provided at least a summary of the town budget when requested by The Guardian. But the information provided for what local government representatives and employees are being paid varies greatly across Northern Westchester towns. Mt. Pleasant, Pound Ridge, and Croton-on-Hudson only provided summaries of their budgets. In contrast, Lewisboro, Ossining, Somers, North Castle, Sleepy Hollow, and Bedford provided fully detailed budgets and supporting schedules. However, New Castle, Mount Kisco, and Cortlandt did not respond to requests for information nor did they provide this information online. Peekskill, Yorktown, and North Salem offered to forward their budgets by regular mail; however, they were not received by press time.
Most of the detailed town budgets reviewed were complex and lengthy – some towns, such as Ossining, had budgets that were over 100 pages long. Finding the salaries of town officials amidst such detail requires some degree of accounting knowledge. But only one of the budgets, from the Village of Sleepy Hollow, came with a page by page summary of the contents for easy reference.
The salary and benefits information provided in local town budgets varies dramatically. Some towns merely provide a two-to-three page summary of the town revenues and expenses by department and category. A resident of Mt. Pleasant cannot tell from looking at the town’s budget summary what the town officials are earning or what the town is spending for employee benefits. In contrast, Croton-on-Hudson’s summary includes a schedule of the salaries of town officials from the village manager’s salary of $176,029 to the village trustees at $3,000 each. However, some towns, such as Bedford, provided salary data by town department and function, and also included schedules for the salary of each employee position. Bedford’s budget schedules also included details of actual salaries by employee for the prior year so that town residents could see the annual raises for each staff position.
One of the reasons local towns are giving for the dramatic tax increases in 2008 are increasing employee benefit costs. Yet only a few towns, such as Bedford, provide a full detailed schedule for overall benefits paid. A quick review of Bedford’s employee benefits shows that their employee dental insurance costs are expected to increase $16,375 from 2006 to 2008 – a 25% increase, and their police retirement fund is expected to increase $132,694, or 20%, over the same period. Bedford also provides a full breakdown of the salaries for all members of the police department, including their longevity and holiday pay.
Such detailed information allows town residents to see where the increases in taxes are generated and what to expect in the way of future increases (e.g. higher longevity pay for employees equates to higher pension costs). Given that employee benefits are partially responsible for rising property taxes locally, residents should expect a full reporting of these benefits from their towns including what town employees are expected to contribute towards those benefits. In a news release last week, Buchanan announced that it was “looking at the possibility of having municipal workers contribute to their health insurance plans” as a possible cost-cutting measure. That announcement would possibly come as a surprise to most town residents who already subsidize their own benefits, either partially or in full. According to the Kaiser Foundation
2007 Summary of Findings, “80% of workers with single coverage and 94% of workers with family coverage contribute to the total premium for their coverage. The average annual worker contributions for single and family coverage are $694 and $3,291, respectively”.
Those numbers represent a national average across small businesses and large organizations. According to the Kaiser study, while only 56%
of small businesses expect their employees to contribute to their single coverage, 87% expect employees to contribute towards family coverage. Indeed the trend in small firms is to have employees pay the full extra cost of any family coverage – it is not unusual for local employees to pay $1,000 a month or more for family health coverage. In addition, according to Kaiser, “most covered workers face additional payments when they use health care services. In PPO’s, 71% of covered workers have a general annual deductible or other forms of cost sharing for office visits and other services”. Those deductibles and co-pays can add thousands of dollars per year to a local family’s medical costs.
But these costs only apply to local residents who actually have health insurance coverage through their places of employment. Again, according to the Kaiser study, only 45% of very small firms and 59% of small firms offer any health insurance benefits to their employees at all. Plus the large force of part-time workers, freelancers, and independent contractors all must provide their own insurance.
Those local residents face even higher health insurance costs, assuming they can afford coverage at all. These taxpayers would be justifiably concerned that their rising property taxes are going towards health insurance benefits for town employees who are not contributing at all towards those benefits. In these instances, the local residents are not only paying for their own personal health insurance but also paying for the insurance of town employees and even for the health insurance for the town employees’ family members – individuals who may not work for the town at all.
The town budgets alone will not reveal the full employee benefit information since the bulk of these costs are determined by union contracts.
In addition to annual budgets and detailed salary schedules, all local towns should also provide full union contract details online for the
taxpayers’ information. This information can be obtained online from the larger unions - e.g., the annual contract for the Westchester County
court employees can be viewed at www.csealocal1000.org/ca/ucs_contract_03_07.pdf. But again, only someone with a level of accounting
ability, and an expertise in government accounting, would be able to decipher this information. Given that these contracts determine the bulk of our local budgets, this information should be more accessible and more “user-friendly” and comparable.
Ideally, if all Westchester towns reported their financial information in the same fashion with the same level of detail, including salaries, benefits, and union contracts, residents could compare how their town is spending compared to similar towns in the county. Such comparisons would enable residents to determine where the excesses in the budgets exist.
For example, a comparison of some local town budgets to the county budget exposes a wide discrepancy in salaries for board positions. e
Chairman of the County board of legislators, Bill Ryan, has requested a salary increase for his part-time position from $89,200 to $124,000.
However, the existing salaries of the County Board Of Legislators already outstrips their town counterparts dramatically. Board members in local towns oversee budgets and contracts, approve changes to the town bylaws, approve the hiring of consultants and
the appointment of committees, etc.
The Town of Mt. Pleasant lists the responsibilities of the Town Board members as follows: The Town Board is the legislative, appropriating, governing and policy determining body of the Town and consists of four board members, elected at large to serve a four year term, plus the Supervisor. Town Board members may serve an unlimited number of terms. It is the responsibility of the Town Board to enact, by resolution, all legislation including ordinances and local laws. Annual operating budgets for the Town must be approved by the
Town Board; modifications and transfers between budgetary appropriations also must be authorized by the Town Board on the recommendation of the supervisor. The original issuance of all Town indebtedness is subject to approval by the Town Board.
In short, the board members of our local communities do essentially the same jobs as their County counterparts for a fraction of the pay. The
following are some individual salaries from around the county:
Croton-On-Hudson: $3,000 (4 town trustees)
Bedford: $16,711 (4 councilpersons)
Lewisboro: $13,000 (4 board members)
Somers: $12,182 (4 board members)
Sleepy Hollow: $5,000 (6 town trustees)
North Castle: $19,455 (4 councilpersons)
Ossining: $11,404 (4 board members)
Westchester County Board: $49,200 (17 Board members – base pay)
When local residents have access to similar details for neighboring towns, the analysis is evident. Given the above facts, a resident of Sleepy
Hollow would ask why their town has six trustees while other, much larger, towns have only four. And a resident of North Castle would want to know why their town councilpersons are being paid $8,000 more per year than the same positions in Ossining.
And all Westchester residents would ask why the County Board members need a minimum of $49,200 each per year while town board members can do the same jobs for at least $30,000 less. If union contracts are added into the mix, local residents could compare limits on overtime, benefit contributions, pension plan calculations, and so on. With such information, taxpayers could hold town employees accountable for their tax dollars.
Some local officials do recognize their responsibility to be accountable to local residents. Paul Feiner, the Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, sets a list of goals for his job every year and links his salary to his performance. If he fails to achieve all of those goals, Mr. Feiner refunds a portion of his salary – he recently announced he was refunding $1,376 of his 2007 salary to the town. This practice of “Management by Objectives” was established by the Harvard Business School in the 1980’s and has been widely adopted by “corporate
America” for all levels of staff.
Linking performance accountability to compensation is not without its detractors, however. The outgoing Greenburgh town board member,
Steve Bass, noted that while “it’s not a bad thing to set goals”, too much time could be spent on addressing the goals and “distract from (the) serious problems.”
Mr. Bass, an assistant with the Westchester County Board of Legislators, believes that “day to day matters,” such as addressing budget and
tax concerns, should not be part of “performance goals.” But taxpayers may want to hold their government officials and town employees personally responsible for the increases in local budgets and taxes.
In many companies where compensation linked to performance is used, employees who do not successfully complete their goals lose out on
the bonuses tied to those goals. But it is not enough for employees to attend to just the “day to day matters” of their jobs. Even employees who do their full jobs but do not complete a specified amount of their goals forfeit their annual salary increases. For Corporate America, doing 100% is no longer enough.
Westchester County now has the distinction of having the highest property taxes of any county in the nation. With such a burden, taxpayers should expect complete and full disclosure and full accountability from their towns (and the county) of all expenditures at all levels. Taxpayers should receive online copies of all budgets and union contracts well in advance of any board meetings and votes. Each community should provide email notices to their residents of budget and contract meetings and votes and when the budgets and contracts are available
online for review so that residents can ask informed questions at their town meetings. In addition, all information should be provided in set formats with the same level of details countywide, and union-wide, so that taxpayers can easily make comparisons.
The County Board Of Legislators could set a performance goal for themselves this year to adopt across-the-board standards for reporting local budgets using Sleepy Hollow, Ossining, North Castle, and Lewisboro as their guides. Finally, taxpayers should have annual guarantees from local officials and government employees at all levels linking any individual salary raises to performance goals set by the taxpayers. It is not unreasonable for a County resident to ask what a union member will do for their contractual salary increases, or to ask if the Board Of Legislators expects $49,200 (base salary) per year to $89,200 (Chairperson’s salary) for their parttime jobs, what precisely have they been doing for that money? And if the officials don’t do as they promise, or the employees don’t perform as expected, will the taxpayers’ get that
money back?
Northern Westchester Round-Up
Buchanan: Indian Point officials announced that their workers have transferred used nuclear fuel rods to dry-cask storage. The rods,
which were first cooled in pools of water, drained, dried and placed inside the helium casks, are now being stored in an on-site concrete
facility.
Carmel: New York State Assemblyman, Greg Ball, announced that he will run for reelection to the NYS Assembly in 2008 and not run for
the United States Congress as was previously speculated. Assemblyman Ball represents the 99th District which encompasses parts of Putnam and Dutchess counties as well as the northern Westchester towns of Yorktown, Somers, and North Salem.
Cortlandt: Town officials announced the formation of a diversity task force following the cross-burning incident last November. The task force will be comprised of local business, clergy, and law enforcement representatives.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
In Our Opinion...
2008: A Year of Continuing Rectification
We look forward to 2008, a year in which much of what Westchester needs to set right, will be set right. Many have already begun to notice the pendular swing of events over the past several months, portending a rectification, a return to greater truthfulness and reason; a striving for justice where only injustice has too often prevailed.
No longer are the citizens of Westchester mesmerized, unable to distinguish image from reality. With a force that cannot be repelled, the
evil that has been brought into the lives of so many innocent and defenseless individuals has rounded the furthest point of its orbit and now, soon, will converge upon the courier. One who enlisted so many to her self-promoting devildom, has just begun to feel the heat, and shares the fear of certain retribution with those who so willingly signed the ‘Deal With The Devil’ for two paychecks a month.
Injustice happens so often in the snap of a finger: a misspoken jury instruction, an intimidated witnesses’ testimony, a withheld piece of
exculpatory evidence - God knows, so many withheld pieces of exculpatory evidence - a suborning of perjury, a prosecutor’s bald-faced lie
to a judge and/or a jury. On the other hand rectification, the bringingabout of justice, often takes many years, sometimes decades. Jeffrey
Deskovic, Anthony DiSimone, and Richard DiGuglielmo, are but a few of too many who are all too painfully aware of that fact.
The coming of 2008 will not only bring freedom and liberty to many unjustly imprisoned, but will also send, or, at the very least, bring in
the process that will eventually send a number of persons, who betrayed the Public Trust, to their just confinement.
It has taken, and will surely continue to require, the dedicated effort of many good persons. However, as Edmund Burke, British statesman
and philosopher, observed, “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Our Readers Respond...
Dear Editor:
In a recent letter to the editor in the Journal News entitled, Homophobia is the real disease, the writer referred to a PrideWorks Conference which was recently held at the Westchester County Center. This letter writer decided to diagnose a whole group of people as one paints with a broad brush without even identifying what people he is accusing. He gives no examples of prejudice. What could be more prejudiced than that?
A conference held by those who oppose homosexuality was never held at the Westchester County Center or any other public place. While the primary purpose of the PrideWorks Conference appears to have been to educate young people, the word “educate” seems to have been used inappropriately. If the purpose was to educate, then tolerance of all people should be heard, not just tolerance toward homosexuals.
Since all people and viewpoints were not heard, the purpose of the conference appears to have been to rally support for their cause and to indoctrinate the young people with a closed point of view. I am sure that people who truly believe in God will show people love, kindness and respect regardless of their race, creed and sexual orientation.
After all, we are all sinners, and as such, we should say “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
George Imburgia, New Rochelle
2008: A Year of Continuing Rectification
We look forward to 2008, a year in which much of what Westchester needs to set right, will be set right. Many have already begun to notice the pendular swing of events over the past several months, portending a rectification, a return to greater truthfulness and reason; a striving for justice where only injustice has too often prevailed.
No longer are the citizens of Westchester mesmerized, unable to distinguish image from reality. With a force that cannot be repelled, the
evil that has been brought into the lives of so many innocent and defenseless individuals has rounded the furthest point of its orbit and now, soon, will converge upon the courier. One who enlisted so many to her self-promoting devildom, has just begun to feel the heat, and shares the fear of certain retribution with those who so willingly signed the ‘Deal With The Devil’ for two paychecks a month.
Injustice happens so often in the snap of a finger: a misspoken jury instruction, an intimidated witnesses’ testimony, a withheld piece of
exculpatory evidence - God knows, so many withheld pieces of exculpatory evidence - a suborning of perjury, a prosecutor’s bald-faced lie
to a judge and/or a jury. On the other hand rectification, the bringingabout of justice, often takes many years, sometimes decades. Jeffrey
Deskovic, Anthony DiSimone, and Richard DiGuglielmo, are but a few of too many who are all too painfully aware of that fact.
The coming of 2008 will not only bring freedom and liberty to many unjustly imprisoned, but will also send, or, at the very least, bring in
the process that will eventually send a number of persons, who betrayed the Public Trust, to their just confinement.
It has taken, and will surely continue to require, the dedicated effort of many good persons. However, as Edmund Burke, British statesman
and philosopher, observed, “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Our Readers Respond...
Dear Editor:
In a recent letter to the editor in the Journal News entitled, Homophobia is the real disease, the writer referred to a PrideWorks Conference which was recently held at the Westchester County Center. This letter writer decided to diagnose a whole group of people as one paints with a broad brush without even identifying what people he is accusing. He gives no examples of prejudice. What could be more prejudiced than that?
A conference held by those who oppose homosexuality was never held at the Westchester County Center or any other public place. While the primary purpose of the PrideWorks Conference appears to have been to educate young people, the word “educate” seems to have been used inappropriately. If the purpose was to educate, then tolerance of all people should be heard, not just tolerance toward homosexuals.
Since all people and viewpoints were not heard, the purpose of the conference appears to have been to rally support for their cause and to indoctrinate the young people with a closed point of view. I am sure that people who truly believe in God will show people love, kindness and respect regardless of their race, creed and sexual orientation.
After all, we are all sinners, and as such, we should say “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
George Imburgia, New Rochelle
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Lessons From The Chairman’s Miscue
It would be “British Understatement” to say that the proposed increases in compensation for County Legislators and for Chairman Bill
Ryan, in particular, were poorly timed, coming when most homeowners are feeling caught between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”.
Clearly, it demonstrated an insensitivity to the plight of their constituents, many of whom are deeply concerned about ever-increasing
property taxes, coupled with lowered home values in the current soft residential real estate market.
Truthfully, the ill-timed proposal and the flap which quickly smothered it can best be seen as a huge miscue on the part of Bill Ryan in
concert with Larry Schwartz and Andy Spano, that triggered an unexpectedly strong press, and public, outrage.
Surely, they must have realized that there would be little with which to justify such a compensation package for the Chair of the Westchester County Legislature, once the inevitable comparisons with the chairs of other similarly populated counties in New York State, in terms of workload, hours, and responsibilities would be drawn.
In short, the leap from the present $89,200 annual compensation, including a very generous $40,000 stipend as Chairman, to $124,200 was entirely too ambitious, and unjustifiable, even in light of the overly generous salaries paid to the County Executive, the Deputy County Executive, and their appointed commissioners. And, the argument by the present Chairman to the effect that his position should be paid as much as commissioners, who presently receive $155,245, if anything, was unconvincing and counterproductive, if somewhat revealing.
While Bill Ryan may feel that his position as Chairman of the County Legislature is a full-time occupation, and one that leaves no room for
any other active employment, that belief may have more to do with style and less to do with substance.
Commissioners, on the other hand, are engaged during normal work hours, at least five days per week, and may, in some instances, such
as the Commissioner of Health and the Commissioner of Public Safety, be required to deal with any number of emergency incidents demanding immediate attention and decision-making at any hour of the day or night.
And, while the Chairman of the Board of Legislators must preside over the activities of a 17-member board, some commissioners, such as
the Corrections Commissioner, must supervise and oversee several hundred employees. It is painfully obvious that the team of Schwartz
and Spano have no intention of relinquishing the throne any time soon, despite Andy’s campaign promise, ten years ago, that he would “serve only two terms.” Naturally, there are those, Tim Idoni, and yes, Bill Ryan, to name just two, who may feel they have demonstrated superior skills and Party loyalty, and may be growing impatient, waiting their turn, and perhaps more so in Bill’s case, at only $89,200 a year. Whatever the case, there was still no justifying $124,200.
Mr. Ryan is a competent and very likeable public gure, and there’s little doubt that his colleagues on the Board of Legislators wanted to reward him and make his wait in the wings as comfortable as possible. However willing they might have been, especially with their 13-4 Democratic edge, to boost his booty, judging by the flak it stirred up, Ryan is more likely to see hair grow in his hand before his wages do.
Westchester taxpayers have been remarkably tolerant and uncomplaining over the last 10 years, hardly issuing a peep as County Government
has grown by leaps and bounds. They’ve even tolerated the $22.5 million no-bid contract given to political ally Cablevision for an essentially
failed communications system, a sweetheart deal signed with a Mob-connected trash hauler, and invented six-figure jobs to reward political and personal buddies, etc., etc.
But don’t rub salt into their wounds. Don’t try to restate the job description to t the compensation and prestige you crave. And, don’t try
to do an ‘end-run’ around them, releasing the details on Friday to be brought to a vote the following Monday. For, if you do, you may set County Government extravagance back several years.
Finally, nothing happens on the Eighth Floor that doesn’t somehow have its origins on the Ninth. Mindful of that fact, Chairman Ryan may very well have been snookered into the position he now finds himself in. Whatever the details, for the time being, he comes away from this
sorry affair the loser. And, Andy and Larry aren’t too sad over that.
Richard Blassberg
Lessons From The Chairman’s Miscue
It would be “British Understatement” to say that the proposed increases in compensation for County Legislators and for Chairman Bill
Ryan, in particular, were poorly timed, coming when most homeowners are feeling caught between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”.
Clearly, it demonstrated an insensitivity to the plight of their constituents, many of whom are deeply concerned about ever-increasing
property taxes, coupled with lowered home values in the current soft residential real estate market.
Truthfully, the ill-timed proposal and the flap which quickly smothered it can best be seen as a huge miscue on the part of Bill Ryan in
concert with Larry Schwartz and Andy Spano, that triggered an unexpectedly strong press, and public, outrage.
Surely, they must have realized that there would be little with which to justify such a compensation package for the Chair of the Westchester County Legislature, once the inevitable comparisons with the chairs of other similarly populated counties in New York State, in terms of workload, hours, and responsibilities would be drawn.
In short, the leap from the present $89,200 annual compensation, including a very generous $40,000 stipend as Chairman, to $124,200 was entirely too ambitious, and unjustifiable, even in light of the overly generous salaries paid to the County Executive, the Deputy County Executive, and their appointed commissioners. And, the argument by the present Chairman to the effect that his position should be paid as much as commissioners, who presently receive $155,245, if anything, was unconvincing and counterproductive, if somewhat revealing.
While Bill Ryan may feel that his position as Chairman of the County Legislature is a full-time occupation, and one that leaves no room for
any other active employment, that belief may have more to do with style and less to do with substance.
Commissioners, on the other hand, are engaged during normal work hours, at least five days per week, and may, in some instances, such
as the Commissioner of Health and the Commissioner of Public Safety, be required to deal with any number of emergency incidents demanding immediate attention and decision-making at any hour of the day or night.
And, while the Chairman of the Board of Legislators must preside over the activities of a 17-member board, some commissioners, such as
the Corrections Commissioner, must supervise and oversee several hundred employees. It is painfully obvious that the team of Schwartz
and Spano have no intention of relinquishing the throne any time soon, despite Andy’s campaign promise, ten years ago, that he would “serve only two terms.” Naturally, there are those, Tim Idoni, and yes, Bill Ryan, to name just two, who may feel they have demonstrated superior skills and Party loyalty, and may be growing impatient, waiting their turn, and perhaps more so in Bill’s case, at only $89,200 a year. Whatever the case, there was still no justifying $124,200.
Mr. Ryan is a competent and very likeable public gure, and there’s little doubt that his colleagues on the Board of Legislators wanted to reward him and make his wait in the wings as comfortable as possible. However willing they might have been, especially with their 13-4 Democratic edge, to boost his booty, judging by the flak it stirred up, Ryan is more likely to see hair grow in his hand before his wages do.
Westchester taxpayers have been remarkably tolerant and uncomplaining over the last 10 years, hardly issuing a peep as County Government
has grown by leaps and bounds. They’ve even tolerated the $22.5 million no-bid contract given to political ally Cablevision for an essentially
failed communications system, a sweetheart deal signed with a Mob-connected trash hauler, and invented six-figure jobs to reward political and personal buddies, etc., etc.
But don’t rub salt into their wounds. Don’t try to restate the job description to t the compensation and prestige you crave. And, don’t try
to do an ‘end-run’ around them, releasing the details on Friday to be brought to a vote the following Monday. For, if you do, you may set County Government extravagance back several years.
Finally, nothing happens on the Eighth Floor that doesn’t somehow have its origins on the Ninth. Mindful of that fact, Chairman Ryan may very well have been snookered into the position he now finds himself in. Whatever the details, for the time being, he comes away from this
sorry affair the loser. And, Andy and Larry aren’t too sad over that.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
What Chicanery Is The Federal Government Up To Here?
United States Federal District Court, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
In horse racing, there’s an expression about “betting the chalk” which derives from the old days before the advent of pari-mutuel wagering, the days when so called ‘bookies’ inhabited the tracks and would book your wager on a particular horse, establishing odds and posting them on a slate board, a blackboard, with chalk.
The “chalk” meant the horse that was drawing the most action, the favorite, the one most likely to win, and therefore, carrying the lowest payoff odds, perhaps even money or less. In any event, having the name Chalk hasn’t made the chances of Terrence Chalk, 45, named Business Person Of The Year, and inducted into the Westchester Business Council’s Hall of Fame in February of 2006; then arrested by the federal government and thrown into jail on October 31 of the same year; like a bad Halloween prank, any better that he would get out any time soon.
The Guardian first began reporting Mr. Chalk’s very unusual, indeed, unbelievable odyssey at the hands of the federal government
in its July 5th edition last year. Six months later he continues to be incarcerated in the Westchester County Jail, as a federal prisoner,
charged with Conspiracy To Influence Financial Institutions By Making False Statements On Applications For Loans, Lines of Credit,
and Credit Cards. He was also charged with Credit Card Fraud.
The “unbelievable” aspect of the allegations levelled against him by the United States Attorney’s Office is that the loans were made to his
corporation, were all paid off in compliance with the loan agreements, and the proceeds were used for legitimate corporate purposes with no personal enrichment.
Given the above facts, one might wonder if the Accused, whose business in White Plains, Compulinx, employed as many as 50 persons, has really been legitimately detained, and held, these past 14 months in jail, or whether the United States Attorney’s Office has been the not-so-unwilling agent of a scheme to get, and keep, Terrence Chalk out of circulation, without access to financial or other resources, while his twin brother, Todd, reportedly a D.E.A. agent, closely tied to the FBI, goes about unlawfully confiscating the homes of their aunt, and uncle,
and, most recently, their mother’s in St. Albans, Queens.
Given four unsuccessful attempts, the latest a few weeks ago, to make bail; a $250,000 bond, requiring two co-signers, and $10,000 cash, despite the best efforts of qualified individuals, including the Accused’s mother, each time methodically discouraged and/or rejected by attorneys from the United States Attorney’s Office, it has become increasingly evident that the Government may be engaging in some sort of “shell game”, the object of which is to keep Terrence Chalk out of circulation.
To be perfectly clear, Judge Robinson has, in no way, been a party to that game as he has on each occasion that this reporter has been in Court, made every effort to be as flexible and helpful as possible with regard to enabling Mr. Chalk to meet the required bail criteria.
Inasmuch as Chalk’s business, Compulinx, involved IT, information technology, with enormous amounts of stored data, the discovery thus far released by the Government would seem, at bast, a very small fraction of the data confiscated; suggesting that the overwhelming mass of material might very well tend to be exculpatory, particularly given the total absence of evidence that there was any personal enrichment. Furthermore, there have been no allegations that Defendant Chalk made any effort to destroy any data. On the contrary, it would appear that records were found intact.
Assuming the Government, in exercising their due diligence, did, in fact, copy all of the confiscated data, one must question why
they have chosen to present it so selectively. In September it was agreed in Court that a PC would be made available to the Defendant
for use at the County Jail in order to facilitate Defense’s work with the discovery materials. However, a PC that arrived in October was not
for Mr. Chalk’s use, but rather for some 19 other federal detainees at the County Jail. He first gained access to a PC on December 2.
Additionally, what was needed were mirror images of the hard drives, but only CDs were provided. The Government does not
appear to be acting in good faith. It’s as though the United States Attorney’s Office is playing poker with Chalk and they have a deuce and a seven of different suits in the hole, but Chalk doesn’t get any cards at all.
Terrence Chalk’s attorney, Mayo Bartlett, of White Plains, has attempted, on four separate occasions, to bring forward two qualified individuals with sufficient resources and personal credibility to satisfy the bail requirements. Each attempt has been stifled by Government attorneys; the most recent, just a few weeks ago, because one of the individuals had a traffic violation. Following that episode, Judge Robinson, responding to Attorney Bartlett’s concerns, said, “Give me something to work with.”
Of course, while Terrence Chalk, a man who very successfully operated Compulinx for 16 years until his arrest 14 months ago, continues to remain locked up and out of circulation, his twin brother, Todd, a federal agent, reportedly continues to grab up the houses and assets of the senior members of their family, including their mother Naomi, who has filed a complaint with the Queens County District Attorney’s Office for theft of her home by forgery.
The Westchester Guardian continues to monitor this remarkable case closely, particularly in light of the negative implications for the United States Attorney’s Office, as information continues to surface, suggesting that the very agency that 19 months ago called upon the citizens of Westchester to report incidents involving breaches of public trust may be involved in one itself.
By Richard Blassberg
What Chicanery Is The Federal Government Up To Here?
United States Federal District Court, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
In horse racing, there’s an expression about “betting the chalk” which derives from the old days before the advent of pari-mutuel wagering, the days when so called ‘bookies’ inhabited the tracks and would book your wager on a particular horse, establishing odds and posting them on a slate board, a blackboard, with chalk.
The “chalk” meant the horse that was drawing the most action, the favorite, the one most likely to win, and therefore, carrying the lowest payoff odds, perhaps even money or less. In any event, having the name Chalk hasn’t made the chances of Terrence Chalk, 45, named Business Person Of The Year, and inducted into the Westchester Business Council’s Hall of Fame in February of 2006; then arrested by the federal government and thrown into jail on October 31 of the same year; like a bad Halloween prank, any better that he would get out any time soon.
The Guardian first began reporting Mr. Chalk’s very unusual, indeed, unbelievable odyssey at the hands of the federal government
in its July 5th edition last year. Six months later he continues to be incarcerated in the Westchester County Jail, as a federal prisoner,
charged with Conspiracy To Influence Financial Institutions By Making False Statements On Applications For Loans, Lines of Credit,
and Credit Cards. He was also charged with Credit Card Fraud.
The “unbelievable” aspect of the allegations levelled against him by the United States Attorney’s Office is that the loans were made to his
corporation, were all paid off in compliance with the loan agreements, and the proceeds were used for legitimate corporate purposes with no personal enrichment.
Given the above facts, one might wonder if the Accused, whose business in White Plains, Compulinx, employed as many as 50 persons, has really been legitimately detained, and held, these past 14 months in jail, or whether the United States Attorney’s Office has been the not-so-unwilling agent of a scheme to get, and keep, Terrence Chalk out of circulation, without access to financial or other resources, while his twin brother, Todd, reportedly a D.E.A. agent, closely tied to the FBI, goes about unlawfully confiscating the homes of their aunt, and uncle,
and, most recently, their mother’s in St. Albans, Queens.
Given four unsuccessful attempts, the latest a few weeks ago, to make bail; a $250,000 bond, requiring two co-signers, and $10,000 cash, despite the best efforts of qualified individuals, including the Accused’s mother, each time methodically discouraged and/or rejected by attorneys from the United States Attorney’s Office, it has become increasingly evident that the Government may be engaging in some sort of “shell game”, the object of which is to keep Terrence Chalk out of circulation.
To be perfectly clear, Judge Robinson has, in no way, been a party to that game as he has on each occasion that this reporter has been in Court, made every effort to be as flexible and helpful as possible with regard to enabling Mr. Chalk to meet the required bail criteria.
Inasmuch as Chalk’s business, Compulinx, involved IT, information technology, with enormous amounts of stored data, the discovery thus far released by the Government would seem, at bast, a very small fraction of the data confiscated; suggesting that the overwhelming mass of material might very well tend to be exculpatory, particularly given the total absence of evidence that there was any personal enrichment. Furthermore, there have been no allegations that Defendant Chalk made any effort to destroy any data. On the contrary, it would appear that records were found intact.
Assuming the Government, in exercising their due diligence, did, in fact, copy all of the confiscated data, one must question why
they have chosen to present it so selectively. In September it was agreed in Court that a PC would be made available to the Defendant
for use at the County Jail in order to facilitate Defense’s work with the discovery materials. However, a PC that arrived in October was not
for Mr. Chalk’s use, but rather for some 19 other federal detainees at the County Jail. He first gained access to a PC on December 2.
Additionally, what was needed were mirror images of the hard drives, but only CDs were provided. The Government does not
appear to be acting in good faith. It’s as though the United States Attorney’s Office is playing poker with Chalk and they have a deuce and a seven of different suits in the hole, but Chalk doesn’t get any cards at all.
Terrence Chalk’s attorney, Mayo Bartlett, of White Plains, has attempted, on four separate occasions, to bring forward two qualified individuals with sufficient resources and personal credibility to satisfy the bail requirements. Each attempt has been stifled by Government attorneys; the most recent, just a few weeks ago, because one of the individuals had a traffic violation. Following that episode, Judge Robinson, responding to Attorney Bartlett’s concerns, said, “Give me something to work with.”
Of course, while Terrence Chalk, a man who very successfully operated Compulinx for 16 years until his arrest 14 months ago, continues to remain locked up and out of circulation, his twin brother, Todd, a federal agent, reportedly continues to grab up the houses and assets of the senior members of their family, including their mother Naomi, who has filed a complaint with the Queens County District Attorney’s Office for theft of her home by forgery.
The Westchester Guardian continues to monitor this remarkable case closely, particularly in light of the negative implications for the United States Attorney’s Office, as information continues to surface, suggesting that the very agency that 19 months ago called upon the citizens of Westchester to report incidents involving breaches of public trust may be involved in one itself.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Audit Of Northern Westchester’s Municipal Property Taxes Reveals Need For Simplification And More Transparency
Westchester government leaders are warning that local property taxes will increase in 2008 due to continuing drops in sales tax revenues and declining housing values. At the same time, local municipalities are facing an increase in health insurance and pension costs and increasing responsibilities for social services. The combination means dramatic tax increases for homeowners.
Despite FILO (Freedom of Information) laws mandating accessibility of government information, a concerned taxpayer would have extreme difficulty in accessing the details of where their tax dollars are going. An audit of the Northern Westchester municipalities revealed that most do not even have a summary of their 2008 proposed budgets on their web sites. Several towns did not even note which municipal department was responsible for the budget or who to contact to obtain information. Taxpayers in those communities would have no way of knowing how their tax dollars are being spent.
Even when a budget is posted online, finding a budget on a town web site can present a challenge for local residents who may not be familiar with financial protocol. Town budgets generally fall within the realm of a town Finance Department or Office of the Comptroller. For most towns the budget is posted under the specific department, not on the main “home” page where most residents would look. Peekskill makes it even more difficult for its residents to find their town budget – it’s posted on the town’s “bulletin” page through a “PDF” link (a link which did not work. All other PDF Files on this bulletin page could be accessed).
In contrast, residents in the town of North Castle not only have the full details of their community’s 2008 budget at their fingertips, but the town Comptroller also provides full supporting details for the budget including equipment replacement plans for each town vehicle for every year through 2015. Town residents in North Castle, especially those on fixed incomes, can readily see when the next major increases in the town’s spending will be so they can plan accordingly.
North Castle residents can also see their budget in graph form, making the proposed spending easy to understand (see chart on page 2).
For most local residents, even if their town budget is accessible, understanding it presents a problem. The majority of local towns that do post their budgets online also provide contact information, although the range of information that is provided varies widely. Some towns, such as Cortlandt, offer full contact data for each and every one of their staff members, including email addresses and fax numbers. But some towns, such as North Salem, merely provide the town’s main phone number with no additional contact information.
As of 2006, Westchester County residents faced the highest property tax levels of any county in the country. Given such a burden, property owners deserve to have a full explanation from their local officials as to how their property taxes are being spent. Some towns, such as Mount Pleasant, have a long history of not providing computer links to the community – residents have experienced difficulties with online bank payments of their property taxes, abstractors have complained for years of problems accessing town property records for title searches. Westchester county government acknowledges the need to provide online access to local residents, noting on its website that they
are continually upgrading to “keep ahead of changing times”. In a press release from May of this year, Andy Spano’s office reported that “the county government has done a major revamp of its award-winning website.”
“We pride ourselves on being one of the most technically savvy governments in the country,” said County Executive Andy Spano. “If you al-ready visit westchestergov.com, you are going to find our new site even more useful. Using eye-opening new graphics and design based on subjects rather than departments, the new website will give residents information in a more user-friendly way. If you have never visited our site, I urge you to do so now. Yes, there are new bells and whistles, but there is much more.
Whatever your interest, whatever your need, we have something for you.” In 2006, the county’s website received 8.1 million visits – 2.2 million more than in 2005 and 3.4 million more than in 2004. On average, more than 22,000 people visited the website each day, compared to 16,000 a day in 2005 and 12,000 a day in 2004.” (The County budget for 2008 can be accessed online at www.Westchestergov.com).
The use of the internet as a means of information is rapidly growing among all age groups. Many individuals, such as the handicapped, housebound seniors, and the mentally-ill, connect with their communities through their computers. They, and all residents, should expect, at a minimum, the following information to be provided online by their towns:
• Preliminary budgets, preferably several months before adoption;
• A comparison of the proposed budgets to prior years’ budgets and actual expenditures;
• Details of expenses, staffing, salaries, debt, and equipment;
• Future capital projects, loan needs, and equipment replacements for a minimum of five years;
• Full contact information for individuals responsible for budgets;
• Easy access to budget – preferably from town’s main web page;
• A summary, both numerical and verbal, of the budget highlights;
• Color graphs for major budget highlights.
North Castle’s website is a perfect example of an ideal budget presentation. The residents of all of our local communities should expect the same level of accountability from their towns.
Next week: Staffing and salaries in local communities.
Northern Westchester
Audit Of Northern Westchester’s Municipal Property Taxes Reveals Need For Simplification And More Transparency
Westchester government leaders are warning that local property taxes will increase in 2008 due to continuing drops in sales tax revenues and declining housing values. At the same time, local municipalities are facing an increase in health insurance and pension costs and increasing responsibilities for social services. The combination means dramatic tax increases for homeowners.
Despite FILO (Freedom of Information) laws mandating accessibility of government information, a concerned taxpayer would have extreme difficulty in accessing the details of where their tax dollars are going. An audit of the Northern Westchester municipalities revealed that most do not even have a summary of their 2008 proposed budgets on their web sites. Several towns did not even note which municipal department was responsible for the budget or who to contact to obtain information. Taxpayers in those communities would have no way of knowing how their tax dollars are being spent.
Even when a budget is posted online, finding a budget on a town web site can present a challenge for local residents who may not be familiar with financial protocol. Town budgets generally fall within the realm of a town Finance Department or Office of the Comptroller. For most towns the budget is posted under the specific department, not on the main “home” page where most residents would look. Peekskill makes it even more difficult for its residents to find their town budget – it’s posted on the town’s “bulletin” page through a “PDF” link (a link which did not work. All other PDF Files on this bulletin page could be accessed).
In contrast, residents in the town of North Castle not only have the full details of their community’s 2008 budget at their fingertips, but the town Comptroller also provides full supporting details for the budget including equipment replacement plans for each town vehicle for every year through 2015. Town residents in North Castle, especially those on fixed incomes, can readily see when the next major increases in the town’s spending will be so they can plan accordingly.
North Castle residents can also see their budget in graph form, making the proposed spending easy to understand (see chart on page 2).
For most local residents, even if their town budget is accessible, understanding it presents a problem. The majority of local towns that do post their budgets online also provide contact information, although the range of information that is provided varies widely. Some towns, such as Cortlandt, offer full contact data for each and every one of their staff members, including email addresses and fax numbers. But some towns, such as North Salem, merely provide the town’s main phone number with no additional contact information.
As of 2006, Westchester County residents faced the highest property tax levels of any county in the country. Given such a burden, property owners deserve to have a full explanation from their local officials as to how their property taxes are being spent. Some towns, such as Mount Pleasant, have a long history of not providing computer links to the community – residents have experienced difficulties with online bank payments of their property taxes, abstractors have complained for years of problems accessing town property records for title searches. Westchester county government acknowledges the need to provide online access to local residents, noting on its website that they
are continually upgrading to “keep ahead of changing times”. In a press release from May of this year, Andy Spano’s office reported that “the county government has done a major revamp of its award-winning website.”
“We pride ourselves on being one of the most technically savvy governments in the country,” said County Executive Andy Spano. “If you al-ready visit westchestergov.com, you are going to find our new site even more useful. Using eye-opening new graphics and design based on subjects rather than departments, the new website will give residents information in a more user-friendly way. If you have never visited our site, I urge you to do so now. Yes, there are new bells and whistles, but there is much more.
Whatever your interest, whatever your need, we have something for you.” In 2006, the county’s website received 8.1 million visits – 2.2 million more than in 2005 and 3.4 million more than in 2004. On average, more than 22,000 people visited the website each day, compared to 16,000 a day in 2005 and 12,000 a day in 2004.” (The County budget for 2008 can be accessed online at www.Westchestergov.com).
The use of the internet as a means of information is rapidly growing among all age groups. Many individuals, such as the handicapped, housebound seniors, and the mentally-ill, connect with their communities through their computers. They, and all residents, should expect, at a minimum, the following information to be provided online by their towns:
• Preliminary budgets, preferably several months before adoption;
• A comparison of the proposed budgets to prior years’ budgets and actual expenditures;
• Details of expenses, staffing, salaries, debt, and equipment;
• Future capital projects, loan needs, and equipment replacements for a minimum of five years;
• Full contact information for individuals responsible for budgets;
• Easy access to budget – preferably from town’s main web page;
• A summary, both numerical and verbal, of the budget highlights;
• Color graphs for major budget highlights.
North Castle’s website is a perfect example of an ideal budget presentation. The residents of all of our local communities should expect the same level of accountability from their towns.
Next week: Staffing and salaries in local communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
