Westchester Guardian/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

In Our Opinion...

Andrew, Yes. Caroline, No

We do not believe that Caroline Kennedy would be the best possible choice to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the United States Senate. Not every public figure, even one who carries the Kennedy name, and is the daughter of one of the most admired and beloved presidents of the last century, is necessarily right for the United States Senate from New York.

For one thing, Caroline, an attorney who is now 51, has made an affirmative effort throughout her entire adult life to shun and avoid publicity and the limelight.That fact, while not an absolute disqualifier, nevertheless, has kept her potential constituents essentially in the dark with respect to her position on major issues, as well as just who she truly is.

And, while it is true that she has shown great interest in the improvement of public education, particularly in New York, and has in fact, raised tens of millions of dollars in her outstanding fundraising efforts on behalf of that cause, Caroline has done so largely out of public view. Perhaps her relative minimal public exposure, her good works behind the scenes, as it were, speaks especially well for her unselfish and charitable intentions, but it does little to prepare her for such a high profile position.

Caroline has never stood for public office, never withstood the aggressive scrutiny and media hazing a Senator from New York must be capable of surviving. And, while she apparently has managed to achieve middle age without any of the scandal or apparent scars that somehow were attached to her cousins, and even her Uncle Teddy over the years, that fact, in and of itself, does not a Senator make.Governor Paterson must carefully consider every aspect of his appointment of whomever he chooses to fill Hillary’s shoes.

There are many who believe it should necessarily be a woman. Still others have insisted it should be someone from upstate to break up the downstate monopoly. Each of those thoughts, We believe, are worthy of consideration, but do not outweigh the need for a dynamic and influential voice advocating for New Yorkers in the United States Senate.

We believe the individual who might best serve the People of New York, and who would likely be elected, and re-elected, in 2010 and 2012, respectively, is Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo, whose political career suffered a severe setback when he primaried Carl McCall in 2002 for Governor, and who also experienced a difficult divorce, has learned a great deal, both about himself, and the world around him, over the last few years.Cuomo has been carving a credible nitch as New York’s Attorney General, and would appear groomed and ready for a return to the Washington scene where he last served as Bill Clinton’s Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development.

Of course, appointing Andrew Cuomo, should he accept, would effectively remove him as an opponent for Governor, a position Paterson has indicated he wishes to run for.

No doubt, President-elect Obama will find an appropriate appointment in the Department of Education for Caroline Kennedy. He is clearly indebted to her for her effort, together with Uncle Ted, on his behalf, and will surely recognize her outstanding work in the area of public education, as well.

Our Readers Respond....

Congressman Feels The Need To Explain

Dear Editor:

Earlier this year a series of newspaper articles raised questions about my personal finances and living arrangements, questions I regard as ridiculous, and frankly, without a basis in fact. I asked the Ethics Committee to look at these questions and am confident they will be resolved favorably.

It is unusual for a Member to ask for an investigation of himself, but I have nothing to hide and never have. I can assure you that at all times I try to comply with both the letter and intent of our ethics rules, and if the Committee finds I failed to do this in any respect, I will take the appropriate steps to correct those errors immediately.

We have a process in the House for resolving these questions in the Ethics Committee. I am confident of the outcome and that the process is the appropriate place to consider a dispassionate and factual account of the matters that have been raised. I welcome the Committee’s decision to expand the investigation, as I requested.

As far as the recent smears against my son Steven, a Marine Corps veteran who earned his law degree with the help of the G.I. Bill and a former FCC attorney, I don’t mind taking the heat that comes with this job but character assassination against family members should be out of bounds. Thank you for reading the attached material.

U.S. Congressman Charles B. Rangel


Taxpayer Bemoans New Rochelle’s Lame Excuses

Dear Editor:


New Rochelle’s 5.56% tax increase proves there is no end in sight for property owners. For years, city officials have claimed that their achievements would be beneficial to taxpayers. But despite an upsurge in residential and retail development, property taxes are still rising significantly. Then, there is added revenue from a garbage fee and library tax.

Even with these reducing city expenditures, notable property tax hikes are still the norm. It seems city officials just keep floating one excuse after the other past taxpayers. “It is the lack of development, the economy, pension shortfalls, inadequate state and poor leadership in Albany”, and on and on. Tune in next year for the next lame excuses.

John I. Imburgia, New Rochelle

Westchester Guardian/The Court Report

Thursday, December 18, 2008

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Young Woman Charges Two Harrison Police Officers
With Sexual Assault And Civil Rights Violations

Last Monday, December 8th, Civil Rights Attorney Jonathan Lovett, of White Plains, filed a lawsuit against Harrison Police Officer Edward Detlefs and Harrison Police Captain Anthony Marraccini on behalf of his client, Stacey Summa, 27, an attractive female resident, for violation of her rights of privacy, equal protection, and Due Process under the 14th Amendment, as well as her Constitutionally-guaranteed right to be free from excessive force under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 (3).

Ms. Summa, reportedly a fashion model, was first briefly contacted by Detlefs on New Street, in the Town of Harrison, December 31, 1999 while
she was dressed up for a New Year’s Eve party. Following a brief contact, as she exited a vehicle, Defendant Detlefs commented to his partner, Offi-cer Ralph Tancredi, that he was sexually attracted to Summa. He reportedly would remind Tancredi, over the next seven years, about her good looks and his sexual attraction to her. Then, on November 10, 2006, Summa was traveling in the front passenger seat of her own car, being driven
by Matthew Foglia, as they exited the Hutchinson River Parkway in Harrison.

Officer Detlefs, on patrol with his German Shepherd, in his police car, observed and recognized Plaintiff Summa, and pulled her car over on Westchester Avenue, under false pretenses. Detlefs reportedly forced the driver, Foglia, out of the car after twice offering a false excuse for the stop. Detlefs reportedly next forced Summa out of the car for no good reason other than his desire to sexually assault her.

He positioned her with her back to oncoming traffic, whereupon he reportedly grabbed her breasts, and repeated the act, while Plaintiff Summa repeatedly demanded a female police officer be summoned to the scene. The complaint alleges that Officer Detlefs proceeded to force Summa to
the pavement, and, assisted by an off-duty police officer who put his body weight on her back, Detlefs then “viciously and forcefully shoved his hand up into her vagina with the punitive objective fully realized, of causing her excrutiating pain, serious physical injury, and sexual degradation.”

Defendant Detlefs had Summa’s car removed to police headquarters and arranged to incarcerate Summa there for more than six hours, during which time Captain Marraccini repeatedly demanded that she give him information about supposed criminal wrongdoing by her brother, offering to free her. Upon her refusal to go along with Marraccini’s scheme, her hands and feet were shackled and she was brought to the County Jail, charged and prosecuted for Possession of a Control Substance. Money that she had on her person was taken from her without issuance of a receipt.

Officer Detlefs’ conduct, expressly encouraged and condoned by Captain Marraccini, caused Plaintiff Summa to suffer sexual abuse, gross humiliation, intense physical pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, fear, shame, embarrassment, anxiety, and emotional upset, as well as deprivation of her property and money, rendering her sick and sore.

Summa seeks punitive damages from Detlefs and Marraccini, each in the amount of $10 million, and compensatory damages against them, jointly
and severally, of $25 million. At a press conference on Tuesday, December 9th, Attorney Lovett told reporters, “Police Officer Detlefs’ Forceable Sodomy, while on duty, is not only a federal issue, but a crime.” He went on, “Being savages with a gun and an I.D. is not acceptable.

And, just because Jeanine Pirro condoned this kind of behavior, and Janet DiFiore does nothing about it, doesn’t make it right.” Lovett declared, “There will be many more cases going forward. Where’s the DA? They don’t need a victim’s consent to prosecute. There is a core group of
thugs who commit sexual felonies in the Harrison Police Department.”

U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HONORED WITH MULTIPLE
DIRECTOR’S AWARDS

LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that six Assistant United States
Attorneys for the Southern District of New York, along with law enforcement agents and paralegals with whom they worked, received awards
at the Department of Justice’s 25th annual Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Director’s Awards Ceremony. A total of 160
award recipients were recognized for their excellence in law enforcement. Recipients included Assistant United States Attorneys, law enforcement
agents, litigation and information technology support personnel, and others who have made outstanding contributions in federal, state
and local law enforcement. Acting U.S. Attorney DASSIN said, “These awards provide well-deserved recognition of the skill, tireless dedication,
and professionalism of these attorneys, investigators, and staff.”

Assistant United States Attorneys MIRIAM E. ROCAH, JONATHAN S. KOLODNER, and ERIC SNYDER, along with Federal Bureau of
Investigation Special Agents JOY ADAM, WILLIAM INZIRELLO, and JOHN JENNINGS, as well as New York City Police Department Detective
SALVATORE ARRIGO, received the 2008 Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team for their successful investigation
and prosecution of members of the Genovese Organized Crime Family. This was the first investigation to use “roving bugs” – placed
in the cellular telephones of several targets. The resulting prosecutions helped cripple the Genovese Family’s operations in the greater New
York City area. The team obtained convictions of approximately 35 people, including high-ranking members and associates, and solved the
1998 murder of RALPH COPPOLA.

Assistant United States Attorneys NEIL M. BAROFSKY, CHRISTOPHER L. GARCIA, and RUA M. KELLY, Criminal Investigator ROBERT
MANCHAK, Paralegal Specialists MARY BETH ALLEN, GARY SMITH, and KARYN LEON-MATOVICK, along with United States
Postal Inspectors WILLIAM JOHNSON and HAESUN MOON received the 2008 Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative
Team for their successful investigation and prosecution in connection with the 2005 collapse of the financial giant Refco. This team used a
creative and innovative approach to achieve unprecedented results in an extremely complex case that involved theft of more than $2.4 billion
from the victims. Among the accomplishments: The conviction after trial of Refco’s former President and co-owner; the guilty pleas of Refco’s
former CEO and co-owner, its former Executive Vice President and its Chief Financial Officer; the seizure and forfeiture of more than $150
million; and the indictment of Refco’s outside counsel.


“The attorneys, agents and staff we honor today are dedicated public servants,” said Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. “Today’s award
recipients are leaders in carrying out the Department’s mission, and the citizens in the communities they serve should be proud of their efforts
and accomplishments.”

Westchester Guardian Article/Janet Difiore/Stephen Bonura.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

DA DiFiore Orders 27-Year Veteran
Good Cop Fired For Voicing His Opinion

Last Friday, December 12th, Pleasantville Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura, accompanied by PBA President, Police Officer Erik Grutzner, held a press conference at the offices of Bonura’s attorney, Jonathan Lovett, essentially to make clear to all those concerned that Bonura’s disciplinary hearing, before the Village Board on Wednesday, December 17th at 9:00 AM, will be open to the public.

Mr. Lovett opened the session explaining, “Our District Attorney has chosen a career criminal over a career police officer, a 27-year veteran with an impeccable record.”

Lovett went on, “He expressed his own opinion that the DA had chosen to leave a career criminal on the street, one that Steve had locked up numerous times; one who should have been in prison long ago, based on a promise by the DA to see that he was sent to prison for five to seven years. But, the DA makes it clear to all that if he gives them a little information, he can be right back on the street to commit more felonies against the community.”

PBA President Grutzner spoke up, telling reporters, “We are inviting all persons in the community who wish to come out to Steve’s hearing, to do so.”

Apparently the Village Clerk had initially been telling callers that the hearing would be closed to the public. Lovett declared, “My client made it clear that he wants it open to the public, and therefore it has to be open under state and federal law.” He then quipped, “The First Amendment has Pleasantville surrounded, and we intend to poke enough holes to get it in.”

Officer Bonura, commenting on the tape of his conversation on May 19th with a newspaper reporter, said, “It took them three months to listen to the tape, and two months to decide what to do.”

Back on October 6th, The Guardian was present when more than 60 Pleasantville residents came out to the Village Board to protest the suspension of Detective Sergeant Bonura, and the loss of his partner, Officer Michael De-Maio, to the Ossining Police Department, because of DA DiFiore.

Westchester Guardian/Jeffrey Deskovic.

Jeff Deskovic

Yes, I Witnessed Violence
In Prison Part 1

For some reason, many in society have a fascination with prison life and prisons. Perhaps it is because it is a world that is unknown to them. Attempting to capitalize on that somewhat morbid interest, there have been television shows, such as Prison Break and, of course, the movie The Shawshank Redemption, most recently, and a whole host of other movies over the years. I am here to tell you, from 16 years of personal experience, that just about all of the prison depictions, including the above mentioned, are not realistic.

The reality is, for the most part, not as bad as portrayed in some ways, and yet, in other ways, much worse. A common misconception is that
rape takes place all of the time. Although it is true that rapes sometimes happen in prison, the entire time that I was in prison I was aware of only one rape that took place. On the other hand, the prison experience was much worse that what is depicted on television.

In a recent, prior article entitled Mental Games I Played In Prison, I attempted to describe the general lack of human dignity and the mistreatment. I attempted to sum up everything by stating that prison was a non-stop obstacle course in which the guards, staff, and other prisoners were all potential obstacles to regaining one’s freedom, and that violence, and the threat of violence, permeated the atmosphere.

In this column, I will at-tempt to explore, in greater detail, the subject of violence in prison, particularly incidents that I witnessed. There are so many reasons for violence that occurs in prison that it is impossible to list every conceivable one. Yet, I can explain some of the common denominators. It goes without saying there is a general level of frustration that comes from being in prison that has to do with being rendered powerless in virtually every way; being subjected to a lot of nonsensical rules that really have nothing to do with preventing escape or maintaining safety. Dealing with the non-professional attitudes of some of the guards and other prison staff; being treated as less than human; being given small quantities of food that is often badly prepared, sometimes to the point of being inedible; and being unable to afford quality legal representation are leading causes of extreme frustration in prison. Additionally, putting two people in a cell that is not too much larger than an average bathroom, and that was designed for one person is a common occurrence and the cause of much frustration. Other factors include the increased irritability that comes from being in a very hot environment in the summer time that is poorly air conditioned.

Drugs cause problems in prison as well. Another important source of frustration in nearly every state prison is the existence of gangs, whose activities add to the overall level of violence, and make things more dangerous because if, for whatever reason, one wound up in a disagreement
that turned physical, with a gang member, they would likely have a potential problem with all of them.

Some of the gangs I encountered included: The Bloods, The Crypts, Latin Kings, Niyettas. There were other groups that were not considered
gangs but were recognized as official prisoner organizations by the prison administration. And, those organizations were forces to be reckoned with because they protected their own members, and, similarly, if you had a problem with one of them you had a problem with them all.

One of those .....was the Black Muslim, believers in Elijah Muhammad Another were the Five Percenters, who believed that the Black Man was God, and the white man was the devil. There were the Muslims, as distinguished from the Black Muslims who believed in the prophet Muhammad, and did not believe in Elijah Muhammad.

Additionally, there was a collective of Whites, who did not have the power generally depicted on television, nor did they express open racism, tending, instead, to be of the closet racist society although it was common knowledge amongst inmates that they privately held such views.


Such a high level of violence in the atmosphere kept everyone on their toes all of the time. But that mindset tended to lead to paranoia,
sometimes causing violence in and of itself when prisoners misinterpreted things, causing them to pre-emptively strike in order to defend themselves, thus bringing about the violence they were afraid of in the first place. In such an environment, little things have a tendency to mushroom, and a simple matter, such as someone being owed a pack of cigarettes that they have not been paid back with an actual value of four dollars, could be seen as an issue of extreme security demanding a violent response, based upon the fear that to let that go, one might be afraid that others might want to take advantage as well, or that they might be perceived as weak.

Over the course of my time in prison, I managed to learn and develop many survival tactics. One of those tactics involved maintaining an
awareness of who was in the area that I was in at any given moment. That ranged from the people in the cells next to me, to everyone on the gallery and in the whole cell-block. I did this at every place I went to in the prison. I learned to group everybody into different categories. Some were potential threats to mem either directly or indirectly. Others, by the very way they carried themselves, had a dark cloud above them and needed to be avoided so that when they eventually self destructed, or got into trouble, I wasn’t taken down with them.

One wanted to avoid such individuals if, for no other reason, because when somebody might decide to attack them, and you were in their company you might very well be attacked as well. in this regard, I had to decide which people were safe to talk to, and whether someone could be hung out with. Over time I learned to feel tension in the air, and how to read signs that indicated violence was impending.

Similarly, I studied the personalities of the guards, so that when I saw them working in my area, I knew what to expect. There were those I
had to walk on eggshells around, others who ran “hot and cold”; some who were professional and from whom who I could ask a small favor; those
who were all right. I was constantly seeking ways to insulate myself from becoming a potential target. For example, if I learned that a particular
guard who could be a problem liked a particular sport, I would watch the sporting event the night before so that I might talk with him about it
the next day.

As regards more serious concerns, I learned to put my back to the wall whenever a fight broke out in my presence so nobody could take advantage of the fact that the guards distracted and strike at me. Similarly, if there had been a disagreement with another prisoner, even over something
slight, it would be of paramount importance to know where he was at all times and to be on the back of the line when it came to leaving the cell
so as to keep everybody in front of me where I could see them There were other preventative measures as well. For example, staying away from prisoners who were looked upon unfavorably by the rest of the prison population so as to avoid guilt by association. A similar line of reasoning was applied to those who had problems with other prisoners, in order to avoid getting dragged into things. I learned early on to refrain from gambling, talking out of the cell bars to people, or purchasing things “on the juggle”, which meant that a prisoner would advance you an item on credit, but you would need to pay back double the amount. Problems might also occur when somebody did that in anticipation of a money order from family that was either late or never arrived at all.

The recreation area in prison is both a place of a little bit more freedom, allowing prisoners to exercise, play sports, chess, cards, have a conversation, take a shower, and have a little bit of contact with the outside world by watching television and using the telephones. But, unfortunately, it is also the place where more violence takes place.

One of my earliest recollections involved an inmate who was blasting his radio late at night, refusing to turn it down when asked. The prisoner
whose request was refused took matters into his own hands, throwing water into the radio as soon as he was able to get out of his cell. That incident
prompted a violent response the following night at recreation. The radio owner punched the other guy in the face, and since each of them were
involved in quasi religious organizations that normally protected their members during times of danger, an all-out melee overwhelmed the recreation area.

I remember an incident from which I still don’t understand how the guy survived. I was watching television at recreation, when suddenly I heard a commotion; and turning around to see what was happening, I saw two prisoners attacking a third. They wound up puncturing his lung with a shank. A shank is a term for a prison-made knife, or other sharp instrument. I have to say, that on that particular day, the correction officers did an outstanding job in getting the gurney to the victim and speedily getting him medical treatment.

Another incident involved a prisoner named Tee, who had been incarcerated for 20 years. Normally, those who are old timers, whether
because of physical age or because they have been in prison a long time, were given respect, and most would not bother them. Part of Tee’s job was
to take pictures of prisoners when they purchased picture tickets. The job afforded him the privilege of being able to go to the visiting room,
where he hoped to find someone who would write to him. He also earned a bit more money for commissary, which is where prisoners purchased
hygienic items, stationary, and some food items.

Tee was responsible to ensure that the number of pictures he took matched the number of picture tickets he had collected. If not, he would
get into trouble. A couple of gang members attempted to get him to take extra pictures of them, and fearing he would get into trouble, he refused.

Later that evening, they attacked him, cutting his face and one of his eyes with razor blades they had smuggled into the recreation area. I can still remember what a bloody mess his face was to the extent that I would not have recognized him as he was escorted out of the area holding his eye were it not for my overhearing another prisoner say who it was.

Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester

County Government’s
Credibility On The Line

Susan Tolchin, mouthpiece for the County Executive’s Office, whose immature and petulant approach “says loads” about the attitude of the heads of County government, would do well to think before she speaks. She is alleging that the decrease in Spano’s proposed budget is $11 million, totally incorrect. At Tolchin’s current rate of pay of $156,891, if she is actually rewarded with a raise along with other department heads for her pathetic display of unprofessionalism, her new 2009 base salary will be $161,990. Factor in the County average benefit cost per employee of $32,010, and Tolchin’s total annual compensation will be approximately $194,000.

Adding insult to injury, Tolchin’s response shows a complete lack of effort to do her job right; she clearly didn’t even try to report the facts correctly. Had she even bothered to open the very first page of the County Budget, she would have indeed read Spano’s comment on the “reduction” in the 2009 budget: “The gross budget for 2009 is $1,773,479,195 for a decrease of $101,426;” from the mouth of the naked Emperor himself, and not the $11 million Tolchin is claiming. Gee, Susan, who’s your daddy now?

Is the County government spending so much time lying to us lately that they do not recognize their own convoluted and misconstrued facts even
when they’re hit with them clean in the face? It’s not as if the County can dodge the evidence; at the budget hearing in the Board of Legislator’s chambers last Wednesday evening, dozens of local residents stood up to challenge the County on the budget, the proposed tax increases, and the back-door raises for the chiefs. Spano, Tolchin, Schwartz, Ryan, et. al., didn’t have to leave their ivory tower to hear the taxpayers’ complaints,
the taxpayers came to them, in droves.

Of course, neither Spano, nor Schwartz, nor Tolchin, were actually present at the hearing to listen to and acknowledge the taxpayers’ concerns;
but more on that, later. Leading the charge against the County budget at this hearing was the tag-team of the Westchester County Association and the League of Women Voters. Mr. Dick French, the Chair of the WCA, painted this damning picture of Spano’s pay-raise manipulations:

“Just as the country reacted to the three auto executives flying their private jets from Detroit to Washington as they pled for a bailout, so too the
County Executive awarding retroactive pay raises to his Commissioners while at the same time many of our fellow Westchester residents had to join, for the first time in their lives, the food pantry lines. This only goes to document that our leaders are tone deaf!”

French warned the Board that: “You are sending a signal of opacity rather than transparency to your fellow citizens and leaving us to speculate that you really don’t want analysis of this complex subject”. He urged the Board that “enough was enough,” a message that was reiterated throughout the hearing from other speakers. William Mooney of the WCA seconded these sentiments: “At a time when everybody is severely
restructuring, why is the County not doing the same? We are being taxed to death. It cannot be business as usual”.

Ms. Mary Beth Gose, the President of the League of Women Voters, analyzed that “the County spent $11.1 million more and $16.8 million more
than had been budgeted for the 2008 operating and capital budgets, respectively,” deducing that the 2009 budget amounts are also likely to be overspent and that the current dire economic situation and proposed tax increases could be even worse as a result. Gose berated the Board, “That the County’s underlying assumption for the 2009 budget appears to be that the County is already operating efficiently.

The League questions this assumption and urges the BOL and the County administration to critically analyze administrative and departmental costs to determine actual essential needs and duplication of services”. She was advocating a method similar to the zero-based budget recommended by this reporter in the Guardian last month.

A feisty Barbara Strauss of the LWV County Budget watch-group urged the BOL and the County to have a watch-group of their own: “The League strongly supports the concept of oversight, both for the BOL and for the Executive branch of County government”. Strauss did not stop there: “The League also recommends the creation of a volunteer commission to conduct a feasibility study for establishing an office of Inspector General, or similar entity, to investigate and resolve issues relating to the procurement process, as well as corruption, fraud, conflicts of interest, etc.”

In other words, establishing a County Audit Department, echoing the advice offered, again, by this reporter, in the Guardian in our articles last month. Strauss recommended that this commission should include “individuals from the business community and non-profit organizations”. As other speakers noted, Westchester County has an abundance of individuals with remarkable experience and expertise who could assist the County and its residents in this crisis.

After an initial round of speakers opposing the back-door raises, the bloated budget, the proposed tax increases, and even the constricted timetable of the budget approval process limiting taxpayer involvement, several special-interest supporters approached the Board to assure their slots in the budget. The Greenburgh Nature Center alleged that they were “the most visited Nature Preserve in the County” and their programs and events should continue to receive funding from the County.

However, Westchester County already has five nature preserves of its own: Cranberry Lake, Marshlands, Lenoir, Edith Read, and Trailside which
already cost the County $536,618. So why does the County need to fund the non-profit Greenburgh Center who admits, in their own annual report, that they obtain funding from “the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester County and New York State, along with tuition fees, membership dues, corporate and foundation grants, business sponsorships and individual contributions”. The Center notes that “Westchester County provided funding to help support our environmental programs for schools, as well as our weekend family events”. But why can’t these programs be held at the
five County preserves instead? What do we have those nature preserves for?

Thom Collins from the Neuberger Museum of Art, unlike the other speakers, was not there to beg for money. Instead he acknowledged that he already had his funding, blatantly thanking the Legislators who “restored $500,000 (for the Museum) to the most recent budget”. Indeed? There were other, less expensive versions, of the County budget available? If so, why weren’t those budgets provided to local taxpayers for their review?

Why are we only shown the budget with this $500,000 slipped in apparently “after-the-fact”? Are the Legislators approving a budget that’s
at least $500,000 more than the one revealed on the County website? And what else was slipped into the “most recent budget” and who put it there? Even more questionable, why are the Westchester County taxpayers being asked to subsidize the Neuberger Museum, a part of Purchase College of the State University of New York? Isn’t the Neuberger SUNY’s responsibility?

Where is it written in the County charter that Westchester has to subsidize a state college? And why are we giving this Museum half a million dollars for modern art exhibits in a year when taxpayers are struggling to pay basic heating and food bills? Since Collins appeared confident
that this funding was already approved, why is art a priority with the County over social services for the poor, handicapped, and the elderly?

Thomas Schwartz, the President of Purchase College, recently urged Governor Paterson to approve a senior living center on the campus noting
that “they, the proposed residents, are active participants in programs at the Neuberger Museum of Art and The Performing Arts Center.” With all the money Purchase will get from leasing state land for this living community, why can’t Purchase subsidize those programs itself and not hit up Westchester taxpayers, who are non-SUNY students and non-Purchase college residents, and who are working too hard to pay their exorbitant property taxes to be able to participate in museum lectures on modern art? Perhaps the answer lies with the Morgan Stanley executives on
the Neuberger board?

Following these pleas were some true heart-wrenching tales from several representatives from My Sister’s Place, an emergency shelter for abused women and their children. The Deputy Director of this center noted that “most victims stay with us for 90 to 135 days, at which point County funding ends. But we often hold families in shelters longer, while we are waiting to secure housing for them, so they do not have to go into the homeless system. The County’s homeless shelters are not confidentially located so some of our families would be in danger there from their abusers”. Contrasted with the $500,000 budgeted for the Neuberger Museum, My Sister’s Place only receives a $40,000 grant from the County to protect women and children from danger. Where are the County Legislator’s priorities? Aren’t people more important than paintings?

Several impressive young people from the County’s own Invest-in-Kids program spoke about the services they receive and pleaded for the continuation of their programs. The youth members who spoke were Mr. James Ward, Ms. Semarley Jarrett, and Ms. Juliana Leghorn. Mr.
Ward gave a coherent, impassioned plea for the “lost children,” those who age out of foster care and services: “My name is James Ward, I am 16
years old and I now attend Mt. Vernon High School and represent the Mount Vernon community. I am a member of the Westchester Youth Council of Family Services of Westchester. I have been a part of the Youth Council for almost five years now and through this time I’ve become
a better speaker as well as influential among my peers.

I believe that we should continue funding for those who ‘age out’ of foster care because their future is just as important as anyone else’s. Without the funding from the county, they will be taking away the opportunity to a future. It’s not only the people who come from families that are the future of this county but it’s all the youth of this county that will affect this community.

Those who are coming out of foster care, without a sense of direction, will tend to associate themselves with those who deal with illegal actions and
we already have enough of that in our community. And, by ensuring those who need it are attended to, we are building a better future for our County”. The leaders of the Invest-in-Kids program noted that these children develop “learning skills and also develop advocacy skills to benefit other kids, even doing grantwriting”, stressing how difficult grantwriting can be and how essential it is for a non-profit organization to survive.

Which begs the question, instead of the County simply doling out money to the Greenburgh Nature Center, and the Neuberger Museum, and the like, why doesn’t the County offer its grantwriting skills and services to these nonprofits so they can get their own money and not have to take from us taxpayers? Some programs were noting that they were already achieving a lot with so little. Pat Levy, a special education teacher from the Greenburgh schools, spoke of the achievements her students are making thanks to the new music therapy programs in her district.

Jane Aoyama-Martin, the Executive Director of the Pace Women’s Center, told of how her law students are volunteering to provide legal services and obtain emergency Orders Of Protection for abuse victims in Family Court. “With the funding we receive from the County, we actually save taxpayers money.” Ms. Aoyama-Martin told the Guardian. “If the County did not have our volunteers in Family Court, they would have to appoint attorneys to represent these victims, costing taxpayers $75 an hour each. We also are able to address emergencies quickly, possibly
preventing additional problems”.

Aoyama-Martin noted that Family Court handles cases of senior abuse as well as abused spouses and children. Again, protecting these victims should be given far greater priority in the County’s budget than their $1.2 million appropriation in 2009 for paving golf cart paths on the County golf courses! As Aoyama-Martin correctly analyzed, “The money we are asking for is a relatively small portion of the County budget, but the
human benefits are so great.”

As the night dragged on, and the room grew warmer, many residents left. But amazingly, so too did many of the Legislators who were getting
paid taxpayers’ dollars to sit there and listen to the taxpayer’s comments. The hearings Chair, Jose Alvarado (D, District 17), did not appear to be in control of these proceedings, allowing his fellow legislators to leave whenever they wished. During a large portion of the speakers’ presentations, George Oros (R, District 1) appeared to be writing a memo instead of paying attention to the speakers. Worse, he actually got up
and left after an hour to get face time in the hall on Cable 12 news, skipping out on the presentations from the Family Court volunteers and their issues on protecting abuse victims. In contrast, Oros was both present and alert, however, for all of the presentations from the Neuberger Museum.

Likewise, Martin Rogowsky (D, District 6), James Maisano (R, District 11), and Gordon Burroughs (R, District 11) were all missing-in-action during the Education presentations. Steven Kaplan, a Certified Public Accountant, member of the Blind Brook Board of Education in Rye Brook, and a forensic accountant, offered his expertise to the legislators who were still present to hear his advice. Kaplan sympathized with the County noting, “I, too, will have my share of challenges when we shortly begin tackling next year’s school budget, although how we approach the process is vastly different”.

Kaplan stressed that more recognition needs to be given “to the value of transparency, and to timely access to information. Not only does the public have a right to know, but in my experience, the public often has valuable insights and skill sets that those in public service cannot and do not.” Kaplan asked the legislators to address the budget process “from the viewpoint of accessibility and willingness to hear ideas.” Of course, it would have helped if the legislators were actually in the room to hear to begin with!

Both Kaplan and the members of the LWV expressed concerns with the short time-frame “from the time the budget is introduced until the time it
is voted upon” noting this was “a mere three weeks, with the busy Thanksgiving weekend in the midst”. Kaplan echoed the frustration of the other taxpayers watch-groups over obtaining more detailed information during this short time frame noting that the WCA “submitted a document request for some 15 information items, and none have yet been fulfilled”. Kaplan noted that Blind Brook openly adopts “best practices” from other school districts, copying Pelham by offering an all day budget discussion on a Saturday, with defined discussion times, “so residents know when in the day they should come for their area of interest”.

Kaplan also noted that “a very detailed budget is also posted online, with a commentary that accompanies each section” much like the recommendations made by this reporter in the Guardian in November. Blind Brook also has a citizens advisory committee, like the one recommended for the County by the LWV, who look not only at the current year’s budget, but also “works on long-term strategic budget and financial planning”, again, echoing the integrated budgeting recommendations made by this reporter in the Guardian.

Kaplan strikingly compared the volunteer efforts of his school district with those of the over-paid County staff: “Our public process spans nearly
three months from the time presented to the time voted upon by the taxpayers. Three months for $38 million, as compared to a holiday- interrupted three weeks for $1.8 billion!” Which begs the obvious question: If a small community of local volunteers can run a budget according to accepted government accounting standards of accessibility, oversight, and consistency, why can’t our overpaid government of-ficials and their equally overpaid legions of minions do the same? Perhaps the answer does indeed lie with Susan Tolchin’s snippy response. The County’s inability
to produce a realistic budget with full disclosure within a reasonable time frame “says loads about their credibility”. And that’s no credibility at all.

Westchester Guardian/The Advocate.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

It Is Time To Awaken And Re-Energize
The State Commission Of Investigation

Mention the State Commission Of Investigation to even a knowledgeable, voting resident of New York State, and he or she is most likely to respond with a blank stare or with, “What commission?” And, that, in part, involves the essence of our public integrity problem in New
York. The people we put into office, particularly legislators and judges, are essentially unaccountable to all but their peers, in reality.

The sad truth is that legislators, state Senators and Assembly members, as well as judges at every level, from local, town and village justices to the State Court of Appeals, are subject, unless under federal criminal investigation, to nothing more substantive than peer review. In the case of legislators, it’s the Legislative Ethics Commission, comprised mostly of legislators, and which simply does not publicly expose legislators’
wrongdoings.

Then there is the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, “overseer” of the Unified Court System, empowered by the State Constitution;
in fact, mandated under Judiciary Law Section 44.1 to investigate all complaints brought against judges. The statutory language that brought the Commission into existence was clear and unequivocal: Judiciary Law Section 44.1 requires the commission “to investigate each judicial misconduct
complaint it receives except where it determines that the complaint, on its face, lacks merit.” However, the Commission’s self-promulgated
operational rule 22 NYRR Section 7000.3 turned the Commission’s mandatory duty to investigate into a “discretionary option” unbridled by
any controls.

As the result, despite the highminded intent of the legislation and its memorialization within our State Constitution, both the Legislative and
Judicial branches of our State Government remain constructively without formal accountability. In the case of the courts, that which
was made mandatory by amendment to the State Constitution, that which was brought into being, proceeded to make, what they “shall”
do something “discretionary” under their rules of operation, in effect, turning what they “must do” into what they “may do” when presented
with a complaint about the conduct of a judge.

And, make no mistake, it is no mere collegiality we are speaking of. It is the wholesale abandonment of the public’s interest in the integrity and truthfulness of our courts. There is a reason our State Court System has degenerated to the level of corruption and dysfunction it has. There is a reason the Matrimonial Part of State Supreme Court is mostly money-determinative, a charade in which, “the best interests of the child” and “equitable distribution of marital assets” are espoused, but the outcomes are mainly in favor of the “monied spouse.”

In case after bloody case, it makes no difference what the facts may be, how wrong -headed and destructive the conduct of the monied spouse
might have been, and may continue to be, they will prevail. They will “grease” the law guardians and the forensic psychologists who are somehow connected to the law clerk who actually writes the decision the judge is all too indifferent to attach any more than his or her signature to.

There is a reason our Family Courts are often presided over by judges the likes of Sarah P. Schechter, who violated every relevant aspect of New York State Family Law in her evil separation of Jing Kelly from her son Tristram, soon to turn 8, for the last six years of their lives.

Schechter, an Ed Koch political appointment in 1982, conspicuously biased against Jing, a Chinese-American citizen, gave standing to the family of a deceased, addicted and abusive former spouse, contriving with them ex parte while keeping Jing Kelly’s only child falsely imprisoned 3,000 miles from her, in California. This, though there was never so much as an allegation that she had ever caused him any harm or neglected him at any time.

The power wielded, the grievous injustice dished up in far too many of our Family Courts has been of scandalous proportions for decades. So-called public and private child protective case workers, and Legal Aid attorneys, are little more than all-too-willing collaborators in such scenarios, as are court-appointed law guardians. Such judges are so out of control and unfearful of consequences that they will disobey the rulings of the Appellate Division, and even a mandamus from that court as well. That was precisely what Schechter got away with when directed by the Court above to “immediately commence visitation” three years ago.

The Criminal Courts are a problem of a different sort. For many decades, more than 95 percent of all criminal indictments in the downstate area have been disposed of by plea bargain, the notion of a “search for the truth,” a “protection of the innocent and prosecution of the guilty,” by prosecutors, is clearly strained and made a mockery in many counties, Westchester prominent amongst them.

Once installed, district attorneys tend to perpetuate their term in office, their hold on power, much of their decision-making is focused on self-promotion, and enhanced by various forms of prosecutorial misconduct demanded of their assistants. Concealment of exculpatory information, Brady and Rosario materials, subornation of perjury, coercion of witnesses, tampering with evidence, and confabulation of facts are but a few of the devices at their disposal. And, they have little to fear if caught and exposed.

There is a natural bias in favor of prosecutors seen day after day by trial judges as opposed to defense attorneys who may be seen only occasionally. Most judges in Westchester, and throughout the State Court system, were prosecutors earlier in their careers. Some never leave it behind, and come off, case after case, as the third prosecutor in the room. The judicial process in the Criminal Court is largely contrived to produce plea-bargaining, to reduce the work load of judges; a system clearly stacked against the innocent accused.

If convicted, the innocent face an appellate process far more concerned with preserving convictions than with bringing about justice and fundamental fairness. And, there is no question that defendants with money and/or the right political connections, receive far better treatment than those compelled to use Legal Aid, particularly in Westchester, but not because Legal Aid attorneys are inferior by any means, but rather, because of the system of attorney rotation from one court appearance to another.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of legitimate complaints lodged with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, fall on deaf ears. In the Jeffrey Deskovic case, where there wasn’t one shred of material evidence to connect a 16-year-old schoolboy to Angela Correa, a 15-year-old victim of rape and murder, and, in fact, it was established eight months before trial that his DNA and hair follicles did not match those found in and on his alleged victim, the judges of the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, repeatedly referred to the “overwhelming evidence of guilt.” The State Legislative Ethics Commission is essentially a peer review board, little different from, and no more motivated, to expose or bring
down fellow legislators, than the Commission on Judicial Conduct is, to deal with, a corrupt, wayward judge. What greater example of “Hear No Evil, See No Evil,” than the case of long-time Queens Assemblyman Anthony Seminario, who is alleged to have managed to “sell his office” to
any number of bidders for a total of a half-million dollars until finally indicted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.One wonders how state legislators, the likes of Senator Vinnie Liebell become very wealthy while spending 20 or 30 years in State
Government. Clearly it doesn’t come from making full public disclosure of all of their other sources of income in addition to their legislative
salaries. On the other side of the aisle, State Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thomson, representing mostly working-class and poor families in the Bronx and lower Westchester, likewise displays a despicable and reprehensible attitude with respect to publicly revealing all of her additional sources of income, outside of her legislative duties.

One wonders what such state legislators have to conceal? The simple fact of the matter is that neither our judges nor legislators are presently, effectively under independent agency scrutiny; and, that is where the State Commission of Investigation must wake up from its long slumber and step in. The S.I.C., as it used to be known, back in the days when it actually was proactively involved in “investigations of corruption, fraud and mismanagement in New York State and local government”, as self-described at their website, was once an agency respected and feared by those holding public office.

In their online introductory statement, the State Commission of Investigation describes its functioning thusly: “The Commission’s purely
investigative character enables it to address problems and suggest legislative and administrative remedies beyond the jurisdiction of other agencies. When evidence of criminal behavior is developed during an investigation, it is referred to an appropriate prosecutor.” The Commission’s public statement continues, “Of equal importance is the Commission’s role as a sunshine agency. In an effort to focus public attention on particular
problems of local or statewide importance, the Commission has the authority to conduct public hearings and issue public reports. As a result, throughout its existence, the Commission’s recommendations have often been the catalyst for the passage of new laws and changes to existing laws. In investigations of a more local character, the Commission’s findings may be reported directly to complainants, subjects of investigations, and authorities with the power to remove or sanction the officials involved.”

The Commission’s statement also states, in relevant part, “The Commission’s statewide investigative powers extend to more than 80 state agencies, divisions, boards and authorities, as well as over 1600 political subdivisions of the State, including the State’s 62 counties and more than 500 villages, 900 towns, and 60 cities. Its broad investigative jurisdiction also includes thousands of school, water and sewer districts throughout the State. In most circumstances, outside of the local district attorney, the Commission is the only independent investigative body in the State with the power to review and investigate allegations of fraud, waste, corruption and malfeasance. Unlike a local prosecutor’s office, the Commission, through its “sunshine role”, has the authority to address these types of allegations outside the traditional criminal justice forum and highlight these governmental problems for the Governor, the Legislature, and the public.

The Commission is unique in that it is the only State agency with both investigative and sunshine mandates.” Given their own description of
their mandate and their mission, the State Commission of Investigation would appear to be that body of State government best equipped to deal with the corruption, malfeasance and failures within both the Legislative and Judicial arms of New York State government. And, we would hope that Governor Paterson will shortly arrive at that same conclusion and press that agency into action.

Westchester Guardian/Janet Difiore/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

In Our Opinion...

Be Careful What You Wish For

Back in late May of 2005, someone whispered in Janet DiFiore’s ear, as she hastily whipped her judicial robe off, to go fetch the Republican nomination for Westchester DA, “Be careful what you wish for.” We believe that was very sage advice.

That was three and a half years ago in the corridor of the Crowne Plaza Hotel in White Plains, and Janet, despite a history of political devisiveness and close association with a carload of sneaky players, hadn’t yet shown her own willingness to engage in ugly politics, to the public. Despite the tension and the accusations that marked her relationship with Jeanine Pirro, for six years under Carl Vergari, and six more under Jeanine, still, Janet was always waiting in the wings to step into her shoes.

Truth was, the two women shared nothing but hard feelings; suspicions and outright accusations with regard to their spouses. A high-ranking assistant DA once told a group we stood with, “There wasn’t enough room in the Office for both of their egos.”

Janet, back on that evening at the Westchester Republican Party Convention, was all pumped up. Jeanine had finally let the second shoe drop, announcing that she would not seek a fourth term, less than 24 hours earlier, as the result of a very comprehensive, and expensive, polling effort that had flatly indicated she would lose to Tony Castro. But Janet had an intense sense of entitlement about being the DA, and some connections and favors she was confident would make her the new Queen Bee, no matter what the polls said.

Those who thought naively that she would represent a departure from the self-promotion, the manipulation, the political dirty tricks, and the tyranny of Jeanine Pirro; all of the ugliness and unlawful activity that had come to be associated with the DA’s Office, would soon experience disillusionment, an abrupt awakening. They would discover, both in her campaign and her running of the Office, that Janet would achieve new lows, squandering any opportunity to make things right for the People of Westchester.

Janet’s agenda has been every bit as self-promotional as Jeanine’s, and, in many ways, more treacherous. What she lacks in skills and personal gravitas she has clumsily and recklessly attempted to compensate for with ugly and unlawful political antics. The departure of more than 60 assistant DAs and investigators, and the discontentment and record low morale of the Office, speak volumes about her incompetence, and unfitness, to hold office.

Janet has truly made a mess where a great opportunity lay just a short three and a half years ago. Her list of wrong-headed mistakes grows daily as she tries desperately to quiet her critics and cover up her unlawful activities, both in, and out, of the Office. The latest of her blatant, First Amendment violations; her use of Al D’Amato in an attempt to silence Giulio Cavallo, and stifle the truth, bears witness to all that is wrong with her occupation of the Office of Westchester District Attorney. Those most affected, the People, will soon get the opportunity to straighten that problem out, to undo what Janet’s political hoodlums imposed on them.

Our Readers Respond....

A. Reader Expresses Concerns Over


Comparison of A. Spano with G. Kriss

Dear Editor:


Your front page article, comparing actions of Gary Kriss to those of Andy Spano, is terrible. That statement is disrespectful and cruel. I’m sure Andy Spano would never do what Gary Kriss did. I believe Mr. Spano is a [sic] overall decent man. Saying his management of the County is bad is one thing, but trying to make him out to be a potential political thief is quite another.

The local press is being allowed to go too far with their criticism of him now. I feel it should be stopped. There must be other officials to criticize and blame for money and other issues, too.

Thanks.
A. Reader


Another DiFiore Victim Speaks Up

Dear Editor:


On Sept. 4, 2008, the Westchester District Attorney charged me with Criminal Contempt, First Degree, for merely being in the presence of Janet Foster, allegedly violating an Order of Protection. However, notwithstanding the above, it was disclosed on Sept. 8, 2008 that said Order Of Protection was vacated on Sept. 2, 2008.

To cover up the unlawful arrest occurring on September 4, 2008 for allegedly violating an invalid Order Of Protection; DA DiFiore via Assistant District Attorney Pauline Haghes, knowingly and maliciously instituted false charges of Stalking And Harassing. The DA’s Office, in an attempt to get me to plead guilty to the false charges of Stalking And Harassing, held me in jail, contrary to my demands for a trial, from Sept. 4, 2008 to Oct. 27, 2008, 54 days, asking me to plead guilty for credit for time served. This offer, by the DA, was blatantly malicious, and I turned it down.


Ronald Ackridge, New Rochelle


Reader Exposes A Matter Of Serious Concern

Dear Editor:


Thanksgiving has just passed in the usual fashion of food, football and the way too standard thoughts about liberty and freedom. The greatness of our nation stemmed out of the seed of truth. The passion for truth broke the chains of tyranny, abuse and sanctified theft from the predatory government and the self-righteous corruption of greedy kings and their henchmen. Have the greedy corrupt corporate Kings recently appeared on Wall Street, plundering funds from the population, with golden parachutes and self-centered million-dollar holiday bonuses? Are elitist corporate
ghouls and state executives draining millions and billions from the pension plans and corporate accounts of hard-working New York families, smirking all the while, because they know they are totally protected in New York by the equally greedy henchmen they put in place in the New York Court System? Is this the reason New York is now being called the Empire Criminal State? One only has to read your paper and go to the website called “exposecorruptcourts.com” to see the truth of the massive corruption in New York.

Our patriots, with no blackberries or 100 channels of su-per-color, high-definition tv, or co-pay medical plans, defeated the corrupt king and their corrupt judiciary system wearing only rags. The corrupt judiciary of the king often stole the citizens’ land and assets from them. Sound like our present Surrogate Courts?

Our past patriots were motivated by an amazing, almost Biblical, zeal for the Truth. Possibly the greatest weapons the patriots had for revealing the Truth was the Freedom Of The Press. Freedom Of The Press assured honest editors the ability to shine the light of truth into the dark “in-chamber” backroom deals of the corrupt barons and kings and their corrupt judges stealing the assets of the common man, via secret handshakes
and clubs kept secret from the public, so that those who could steal from the public could do it in secret. Where is that zeal for the truth today?

I know of only two places where the light of honesty burns like a beacon on a mountain in New York. One of those places is The Westchester Guardian newspaper, where the editor and owners realize their responsibility to carry the Truth through a press that will not be manipulated or silenced by corrupt forces at work in New York State. How many other newspapers can say that?

Many of the editors and reporters of other media outlets might take a good, hard look in the mirror and see if they have the courage to reveal the same integrity. Few want to admit it, but massive corruption is causing the near-total economic bankruptcy in New York. That corruption is being protected by a corrupt court system. Because of the integrity of The Westchester Guardian, the zeal of our past patriots who carried and honored
the Truth has not totally fallen to the ground, and is something the people of New York should be very thankful for. Some of our patriots of old knew they were carrying the same flame of truth that the prophets of old carried and revealed.

How many other papers carry this standard of honoring the truth? Lip services to the truth is no service at all! Here is a simple question for the
public, and perhaps our Governor, who might dare an answer to this question: Will we one day see in The Westchester Guardian or our friends behind the exposecorruptcourts.com website, the exposure of a huge elder home, Surrogate Courts theft ring, that is using the Surrogate Courts of New York as a sophisticated, well-protected criminal laundry to wash millions, if not billions, in stolen homes and bank accounts from the legitimate families of New York and economy of New York, when those families head into New York estate courts?

Are people bringing in known false documents and estate accountings into Surrogate Courts to make senior’s near-million-dollar estates look like a
$2,000 estate, and the rest of the funds are laundered? Here is what may be a major key, that New York law enforcement seems not to want to talk about, deal with or allow the public to see. Are the refundable security deposits due back to the estates of our helpless disabled seniors vanishing when estate accounting fails to appear as required by law, or bogus accountings are substituted in protected sham courts?

Just to give the reader an idea of the amount of money that could be involved, if this is happening, follow this line of thought out. If the average refundable security deposit of someone going into a nursing home in the tri-state area is $30,000, and 100 seniors die in a home a year, and that money is not accounted for correctly, or at all in Surrogate Courts, do we have 30 thousand X 100=3 million falling through the cracks in one estate court alone? Who is standing under those cracks? Any one have any ideas? I do.

What if this is going on in multiple estate courts around New York? Is it 30 grand X 8,000 or 30 grand X 20,000 seniors? This is a small item in the bigger picture. What happens to lost bank accounts that did hold hundreds of thousands of dollars, or the homes and properties of seniors’ estates, when forged documents or forged accountings are knowingly allowed into courts?

Are we looking at the largest corruption theft scandal in the history of New York State? Our Governor has asked for the public to come up with ways to save the people of New York from what he called a looming 47 billion-dollar debt and a near-economic collapse. I have one suggestion that might save millions, if not multiple billions, and that is to stop the corruption in the estate courts of New York now and stop bleeding the
families of New York to death. And, so, at this time of Thanksgiving, I, like friends at exposecorruptcourts.com give thanks for the owners and editors at The Westchester Guardian newspaper who cannot be stopped from revealing the Truth. The honorable people of New York owe them a tremendous debt. Thanks, also, to you-know-who at exposecorruptcourts.com.

Richard Kuse

Westchester Guardian/The Court Report/Janet Difiore/Giulio Cavallo/Sam Zherka.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Civic Leader Hauls DiFiore
And D’Amato Into Court
Claims Retaliatory First Amendment Violations

Last Wednesday, December 3rd, civil rights attorney Jonathan Lovett, of White Plains, filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against former United States Senator from New York, Alphonse D’Amato, individually, and Janet DiFiore, individually, and in her capacity as District Attorney for the County of Westchester, New York, on behalf of his client, Giulio Cavallo, Chairman of the Westchester Independence Party.

The suit seeks a sum of $10 million each from D’Amato and DiFiore, for a total of $20 million in punitive damages, plus an award of compensatory damages in the amount of $20 million, sought jointly, and severally, against D’Amato and DiFiore, for a total of $40 million.
The suit describes D’Amato as, “a disgraced, retired United States Senator,” who is politically connected to Defendant DiFiore directly, and
through her husband, Dennis Glazer, “a wealthy New York City-based attorney with long-term deep, and extensive, connections to D’Amato.”

The suit alleges that in 2005, when DiFiore ran for Westchester District Attorney, Glazer personally threatened Plaintiff Cavallo by Coercion
in the Second Degree, on DiFiore’s behalf, that if he failed to secure the Independence Party’s endorsement for her, indicating that he, Glazer,
would use his wealth and political connections to “take control of the Independence Party, and remove Cavallo as its chairman.”

It is further alleged that out of fear induced by both Glazer and DiFiore, Cavallo did secure the Independence Party endorsement for DiFiore directly resulting in her election, and that she was sworn in, as such, on January 1, 2006. The suit refers to an issue of The Westchester Guardian,
in March 2007, in which an article pertaining to DiFiore, and regarding Glazer’s conduct, in corruptly securing from Plaintiff Cavallo the Independence Party’s endorsement, appeared.

Subsequently, Plaintiff Cavallo, on August 28, 2008, published an article in The Westchester Guardian newspaper, accompanied by the headline,
“Civic Leader Declares DA DiFiore A Failure,” in which he expressed his opinion that DiFiore, “has been largely ineffective in combatting crime,”
and described her administration as a “disappointment.”

The suit further alleges that Di-Fiore and her spouse Glazer, “as a consequence of a federal civil rights action, brought by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka against DiFiore because of her threats in her capacity as DA to go after Zherka and his family, became aware of Cavallo’s willingness to testify that DiFiore had told him that she was going to ‘fix Zherka’, and that, as a consequence, DiFiore and Glazer “entered into an agreement to enlist the active participation of D’Amato and other Republican political operatives to threaten and intimidate Plaintiff with a view toward silencing him.”

Interviewed last Friday, December 5th at his attorney, Jonathan Lovett’s, office, Cavallo explained that on October 16th he was attending
a luncheon with Nassau County officials and the State Chairman of the Independence Party, Frank McKay, at the Oheka Castle Restaurant
in Huntington, Long Island.

Cavallo said, “To my surprise, I was informed that Al D’Amato had come to the luncheon and that he wanted to sit next to me.” Cavallo explained that once D’Amato sat down next to him the former Senator subjected him to more than two hours of threats from Janet DiFiore and her spouse, Dennis Glazer.

This reporter asked, “How do you feel about DA Janet DiFiore?”

Cavallo responded, “I feel fear and intimidation.”

Three-State, Multiple Bank Robber, Gets 92 Months
Judge Tells Poughkeepsie Man, “You And I Are The Same Age,”
Reminds Him Of His Responsibility To Be There For His 16-Year-Old Daughter
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding

Last Tuesday afternoon, December 2nd, Frank Surico, 44, of Poughkeepsie, appeared before Judge Kenneth M. Karas for sentencing, having pleaded guilty to five counts of Bank Robbery, filed in the Southern District of New York, and one count, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in July 2008. Showing no partiality for one bank over another, he robbed the Webster Bank in Brookfield, Connecticut, of $2,800; the Citizen’s Bank in New Windsor, New York, of $3,264; the Fairfield County Bank in Danbury, Connecticut of $5,300; the Catskill-Hudson Bank, in
Middletown, New York, of $5,365; the Citizen’s Bank in Matamoras, Pennsylvania, of $6,756; and, attempted to rob the Mid-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union in Middletown, New York.

His method of operation involved no weapon or threat of violence. He would merely put a plastic bag on the counter before a teller, and announce that it was a robbery, demanding that the teller put money in the bag, whereupon he would then walk out.

Other than The Guardian, the only other press present for the sentencing was staff writer Oliver Mackson of The Times Herald-Record in Middletown, who had graduated from high school with Surico and had written an article about Surico’s history, and his conduct on Graduation
Day some 26 years earlier. Mackson was curious whether Surico would recognize him upon entering the courtroom from the holding area.

However, the Defendant showed no glint of recognition as he entered the room, accompanied by a federal marshal, looking toward the spectators gallery. In his account, Mackson recalled how the Defendant at graduation had held up his diploma. As it turned out, Mackson’s article had unintended significance in the proceedings, as it served to document the fact that Surico was, indeed, a high school graduate, an issue that his attorney, Michael K. Burke, of Burke, Miele, and Golden, LLP of Goshen, New York repeatedly stressed to the Court was apparently not clarified in his client’s probation report. Burke would explain that high school graduation would be determinative of where his client would be designated to serve his time and “what programs he would be admitted to by the Bureau of Prisons.”

Judge Karas acknowledged the Times Herald-Record article, copies of which Attorney Burke produced for him, declaring, “I will take judicial
notice of his walking off the stage holding his diploma. I’m happy to attach the article to his papers.” Karas added, “I’m happy to give him credit for time served back to March 4.”

Attorney Burke, moving in a different direction, then stated, “My client has a long history of substance abuse, starting with alcohol as a youth, then cocaine, and finally heroin. Not in any way to justify his behavior, but in none of these robberies did he threaten violence or use violence. In Middletown, when he handed the plastic bag to the teller and she threw it out, he just walked out. He was not violent.” Burke then advanced his case, telling Judge Karas, “I would hope he could be treated other than as a violent criminal so that he could be eligible to enter a 500-hour treatment procedure and shave one year off his sentence.”

Judge Karas then injected, “Technically, the record is correct.” Burke went on, “He is a 44-year-old man. He has a 16-yearold daugher whom he,
his mother, and father, raised.” At that point the Prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Anna M. Skotko, spoke up to the Court, declaring,
“He isn’t over-classi-fied. Congress classified Bank Robbery as a violent crime. The Government’s position is that the conditions are properly
calculated.”

At that point, Judge Karas offered the Defendant an opportunity to speak. Surico accepted and said, “I would like to apologize to all of the tellers. I didn’t mean to frighten them. I made a wrong turn; I made some bad decisions. I harbor no ill will. Under no condition would I ever have hurt anyone.” Judge Karas then began, “The Court’s starting point is what the guidelines have to say. There’s a guideline for each offense.” He went on to acknowledge Surico’s criminal history and its impact on the sentence, adding points for one aspect or another. He concluded that the guidelines called for 92 to 115 months, and then declared, “So that’s the math.”

Karas went on, “This is yet another sad case of someone who got involved in substance abuse. Mr. Surico has a lengthy criminal history, but not a history of violence or hurting people. He has a daughter.” Then the Judge became more stern, declaring, “Bank Robbery is a serious crime and, even though Mr. Surico didn’t use a gun, still people can be hurt by a reaction to the crime. What Mr. Surico did was a very serious crime. I think the criminal history category wasn’t overstated. I do think Mr. Surico needs to learn his lesson, which I don’t believe he has.”

Karas then opined, “All too often I see people who are engaged in the use of drugs. But, he made choices, not once, but many times. If Mr.
Surico had brandished a gun, his guidelines would be 140 to 175 months. It is the judgement of this Court that he serve 92 months followed by three years supervised release.”

Westchester Guardian/Jeffrey Deskovic.

Jeff Deskovic

Renowned Author And Advocate Sister Helen
Prejean Speaks Of Her Incredible Journey,
Part 2

Sister Prejean spoke about how many murder victim’s family members were shortchanged; given the false dream that prosecutors sell to them that
the execution of a convicted defendant would make them feel better, as a type of panacea. There was a buildup in family members sometimes of 5, 10, 15, or 20 years throughout the appeals process and all of the attendant publicity which makes them relive the crime, and unwanted attention.

And then, at the Pardon Board Hearings, the message would be sent that “All we have to do is get through this last hoop.” During those years, hatred and anger would fester and take its toll. Meanwhile, the real issue was that the family members would have to learn how to deal with the loss
of their loved one.

Sister Prejean stated that she had witnessed a dynamic along the journey, which was when traumatic, life-changing moments occurred, which she terms “rivers of fire”, during which people are challenged within themselves by the circumstances; during such moments of truth people can go either way: become angry and bitter, or rise above it. Human transformation can occur in which people rise above their tragedies to become people who reach a kind of inner peace when they come to grips with what happened and overcome it, reaching a kind of moral plateau, reaching a potential that humans have. A couple of examples that she mentioned were that of Lloyd LeBlanc in several ways: allowing him to befriend her despite her being against Sonnier’s execution and being his spiritual advisor, and visiting Patrick Sonnier’s mother, giving her flowers and telling
her that she didn’t hate her.

Another example was Bud Welsh, who lost a daughter named Julie in the Oklahoma City Bombing. He was for the death penalty for Timothy McVeigh, but when he went to turn on the radio, he remembered a recent previous occasion during which his daughter said that she was against
the death penalty, and so to honor her memory he realized he could not support the death penalty for McVeigh.

It started out that the other victim family members thought that he had gone off the deep end, but by the end, about half of them no longer were in favor of the death penalty. They realized the toll that the desire for the death penalty was taking on them.

Human Costs And Morality

Sister Helen Prejean spoke about how the mental rationalizations that various actors in the criminal justice system offer to others who are involved point to the innate recognition that the death penalty is wrong. She says how prosecutors in the courtroom tell the jury, when encouraging them to impose the death penalty, ‘You didn’t put him there. He put himself in that position.” And, how prison wardens say a similar thing to the guards that accompany the condemned to the death chamber, and strap them down. If there were nothing immoral about it, why is there the need by people in authority to offer a justification allowing people to put distance between themselves and their actions?

Who responds in a similar way when doing something good? She further said, “The fact that executions take place hidden from the public at large, rather than say being broadcast, because it was too ghastly, spoke to its immorality.”

The imposition of the penalty affects the prison guards. As particularly horrific examples, she pointed to two instances in which the reality of just
what execution is was brought to life: There was the execution of Louis Williams. When the time of execution came, and the authorities arrived at his cell, he held onto his cell bars as long as he could, quoting a biblical verse over and over calling for God to save him while also making eye contact with the guards while yelling “I’m innocent! I’m innocent! Don’t kill me!”

Then there was the execution of Mr. Riley, which took place in the gas chamber at San Quentin Prison. The authorities had underestimated how thin his wrists were, and so after he was strapped in and the door was closed followed by the warden giving the signal so that the pellets were dropped, his hands slipped out, he undid the rest of the restraints, and he went up to the glass and started banging on the glass for them to let him out, saying “I don’t want to die.”

Risk Of Executing Innocent People

Sister Prejean then discussed the possibility of innocent people being executed. She referenced her book The Death Of Innocents. The book reviews the cases of two people who Sister Prejean served as a spiritual advisor to, who she believes were innocent but, nonetheless, were executed.
The following excerpt is taken from Random House: “Dobie Gillis Williams, an indigent black man from rural Louisiana with an IQ of 65, was accused of a brutal rape and murder. Williams’s inept defense counsel, later disbarred for unethical practice for unrelated cases, allowed the
prosecution’s incredibly contrived scenario of the crime to go unchallenged. Less than two years after Williams’s execution in January 1999, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to kill a man so mentally disabled.

In 1986, Joseph Roger O’Dell was convicted of murder in Virginia despite highly circumstantial evidence from a jailhouse snitch. For twelve years, O’Dell sought DNA testing in the forensic evidence, which he claimed would exonerate him, but the courts refused. After his execution on July 23, 1997, the state destroyed the evidence. As a result, its conviction of O’Dell could never be scrutinized. The reader of this book will be the first ‘jury’ with access to all the evidence the trial juries never saw,” says Prejean, who accompanied both men to their executions.

By using the withheld evidence to reconstruct the crimes for which these two men were convicted, Prejean shows how race, prosecutorial ambition, poverty, election cycles, and publicity play far too Sister Helen Prejean great a role in determining who dies and who lives. Sister Prejean also mentioned that in the O’ Dell case the prosecution hid evidence, and that his defense attorney was working with the prosecutors.

Questions And Answers

Following her presentation, Sister Prejean received a standing ovation, after which there was a question and answer session. In response to a question about Justice Scalia, who Sister Prejean had previously written about in Dead Man Walking, stating “his opinions are inconsistent with justice”, Sister Prejean stated a justification that Scalia offered: “I rule on what’s there.” The problem, she pointed out, is that when Nelson Mandela reads the Constitution, does he understand it the same way as an audience member might? Her point was that people’s background, experiences, and education all impact upon how they understand the Constitution, and therefore Scalia’s rulings, which often favor procedure over justice, guilt and innocence, don’t hold water.

Another audience member asked her about Troy Davis, whose case was previously written about in The Guardian. For those who may have missed
that issue, seven out of nine witnesses who testified against Davis at trial have recanted, stating that they were coerced by police to testify. Sister Prejean stated that the number of signatures on petitions pertaining to Davis now numbered six hundred thousand. She stated that all of the public attention that his case has received, along with the grass roots work, including the petitions, are the clear reason that he received a last minute stay of execution. An interesting statement from the audience came from a retired Supreme Court Judge who used to preside in Brooklyn. He agreed with what Sister Prejean had presented in her lecture, and pointed out a couple of things that he felt were unfair towards defendants. He stated
that prisoners on Rikers Island were given a cold breakfast since they were awakened prior to breakfast being served, and thus they had a cold breakfast.

While in the holding area in the courthouse, they were given a thin baloney sandwich, and that would be the last thing that they ate, since by
the time they were transported back to the jail they would have missed the evening meal. Then the next day, the cycle was repeated. He felt that it was hard to fully concentrate with that mistreatment going on. He also said that public defenders would frequently only visit their clients once or twice before trial, and that this would impact upon the level of preparation. He finished his statement by saying that in his opinion, there were a lot of innocent people in prison in New York.

Thanks!

Having learned that CW-11 pulled the Jeanine Pirro judge show off the air, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the many thoughtful individuals who took the time and effort to contact Warner Bros. and CW-11 to express their outrage and disapproval over the airing of the program. There can be no doubt that your expressions of disapproval, and your threats to boycott CW-11, its affiliates and sponsors, played a signicant role in convincing network executives to remove the show. Once again, thank you for thoughtfully taking the time and effort to hold
the media accountable.

Journey Of Religion

Sister Prejean spoke about the “Journey Of Religion”. She played a major role in the now well-known Catholic Church position against the death penalty. She wanted the Bishop to take a position against the death penalty, but he would not do it. She mentioned that she had written the book Dead Man Walking, and how 1.3 billion people around the world had seen the movie. She also began giving lectures around the country, and that all three things succeeded in raising awareness about the death penalty, and that this had helped shape world opinion.

At some point in time the Pope had stated that he was against the death penalty except in instances where societies needed it in order to protect themselves. Sister Prejean told the Pope that the ‘protect societies’ clause would be used by everybody to justify executions, and that sure enough, it was. Sometimes prosecutors would reference it when trying to persuade Catholic jurors to impose the death penalty.

Sister Prejean assisted efforts at getting world wide attention for Joseph O’Dell through media coverage, so much so that everybody, even people in Italy, were saying “Who is Joseph O’Dell?”. The Italian Parliament unsuccessfully sought to intervene in his case. e mayor of Palermo used to visit Joseph O’Dell, at one point telling him that if the state of Virginia went ahead and executed him, that they would fly his body to Italy so that he would not be buried in Virginan soil. Even the Pope asked the question, “Who is Joseph O’Dell?”

Sister Prejean believed that the awareness raised in that case was a further watershed moment. At some future point in time, the Pope condemned the death penalty outright, at one point saying, as reported by AP writer Julia Lieblich, on Jan. 27, 1999: “Pope John Paul II condemned capital punishment in some of his strongest terms yet Wednesday, urging 100,000 worshippers at a Mass in this death penalty [St. Louis] state to spare even those who commit ``great evil. ``Modern society has the means of protecting itself without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform,’’ he said at the Trans World Dome on the final day of his visit to the Americas. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty which is both cruel and unnecessary.’’ Following the position of the Pope, the bishops and all of the clergy, came out publicly against the death penalty.

Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.

Thurday, December 4, 2008

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester

Time To Cut County’s Purse Strings?

The Guardian asked several community leaders to comment on the 2009 Capital and Operating Budgets recently submitted by County Executive Andrew Spano to the Westchester Board of Legislators for approval. Mr. Paul Feiner, the Town Supervisor for the Town of Greenburgh, and a co-founder of the newly developed citizens action group Rethinking Westchester Government, offered the following suggestions with respect to the budget:

1) Eliminate Police Security Detail For County Executive: “A savings of almost $400,000 a year could be realized. The County Executive
does not need a bodyguard or around-the-clock police protection.”

2) Cut The Number Of Staff Members At The Board of Legislators: “When I was a Legislator there were very few staff positions. Now
there are 41 staff members. Each Legislator does not need paid staff. Use interns; if the legislature wants to pay their assistants, work with
some of the area colleges and law schools and pay interns a nominal fee. The budget for the Legislature exceeds $4 million. Millions could
be saved.”

3) Eliminate Take-Home Cars For Commissioners/Elected County-Wide Officials;

4) Cut Overtime Costs: “Monitor overtime being given to senior employees. Why can’t junior, less expensive employees do the work at reduced costs?”

5) Stop Paying All Travel, Meals For Employees Going To Conferences: “In the town of Greenburgh I have directed that no travel/meals be paid for unless contractually required.”

6) End County Executive’s Robo Calls: “It’s a waste of money and an irritant.”

7) Start Cutting Administrative Positions: “We can reduce number of employees.”

8) Accept Advertising For County Publications: “It would offset costs.”

9) Adopt An Ethics Law Prohibiting The County From Awarding Contracts To Contractors Who Donate Money To Political Campaigns Of Any County Official: “Most contractors presently contribute money to incumbent county officials. If they could not contribute, lawmakers would be less inclined to make sweetheart deals with contractors. The $13 million-plus Board of Elections Building acquisition in Ardsley probably would not have happened.”

10) Sell Off Some Of The Office Owned By The County.

11) Playland Should Be Sold Or Leased To A Private Operator.

On the group’s new web site, http://www.rethinkingwestchestergov.com/, similar solutions are proposed. The group notes that out of 62 counties in New York State, only two counties, Westchester and Nassau, have security details for their County Executives. The group also proposes the complete elimination of the Board of Legislators, who currently cost the County a total of $4,722,056. These costs represent a dramatic increase in recent years as noted on the group’s website.

Paul Feiner pointed out, “There are 17 legislators. In recent years the legislature has increased its staff significantly. In 2007, there were 27 staff
assistants to the legislature. In 2008, the number jumped to 44. Less than 20 years ago, legislators did not have the ability to hire their own personal staff assistants. Taxes were lower”. RWG’s founders also detail the significant lack of internal controls and audits in the County’s administration, supporting the findings in several of The Guardian’s articles on this subject.

New York City displays all audit reports on their Comptroller’s office website, Westchester County does not, in defiance of government regulations calling for full disclosure to taxpayers. In reference to the Board of Legislators’ non-compliance with accounting regulations governing
document retention, RWG notes: “According to the county Finance Department, receipts should ‘be kept by the department for six years for audit
purposes.’ However, when The Journal News sought copies of the receipts through a FOIL request, the board’s records access officer, Michael Amodio, said he could produce only a fraction of them - for 32 of 84 purchases listed on a summary of the expenses supplied by the board.”

When confronted about the lack of documentation, “the Board said officials were not aware that they needed to retain purchase card receipts”. But the resumes of the Board members reveal their years of experience in the business, academic, and government arenas. How could such individuals,
who unquestionably file individual and business tax returns, not know that all records should be kept for a minimum of five to seven years for potential audits? Indeed, on his home page, George Oros, the Board’s Minority Leader, Republican, District 1, alleges that he “is known for his policies on fiscal reform and diligence when reviewing contracts and budgets”. Apparently that diligence did not extend to reviewing and approving expenses by the Board’s own staff.

Thousands of taxpayers’ dollars were spent in recent years on questionable purchases by a Board aide, Gary Kriss, on the County’s credit card. As noted by the RWG: “These were purchases of equipment for various Board Of Legislator personnel that could not wait to be processed through the usual County system without negatively impacting their effectiveness,” the Board’s statement said.

According to County policy, the purchase card was to be used for “incidental and emergency” purchases. Yet Kriss used his extensively, including
for $1,120 in various software and electronics purchases and an additional $476.12 in purchases at Verizon retail outlets. What the Board’s statement fails to note is that their “incidental and emergency” expenses were still subject to basic reviews and approvals.

The Board could have easily done these reviews in their own office, not delaying any conceivable “emergency” requests for spending. The Board has four accountants on their own staff: a Director of Fiscal Affairs, a Deputy Director of Fiscal Affairs, a Fiscal Analyst, and a Fiscal Studies Associate. In addition, the Chair of the Board’s Budget Committee, Jose Alvarado, is an accountant. So where were these individuals when Gary Kriss was on his spending spree with our tax dollars? Why didn’t any of these accountants do their job?

Note: Unlike other County departments, the Board of Legislators accountants do not note the pay levels of their own staff in their budget
reports, so that taxpayers cannot readily determine how much each of these officials are being paid, in defiance of full disclosure accounting regulations. But The Guardian’s investigation revealed the exorbitant amount of money these officials receive in compensation.

In 2007, the Director of Fiscal Affairs, Robert Boland, was making a base salary of $138,089; the Deputy Director, Olivia Rhodes, was earning a base of $130,598; the Fiscal Analyst, Raymond Indelicato, was making a base of $130,598, and the Fiscal Studies Associate, Louise Gantress, was earning a base of $69,226 for a 2007 total of $468,511.

Factoring in 4% annual raises, and adding the average $32,010 it costs the County in benefits and taxes for each employee, the Board is compensating these accountants to the tune of $634,781 a year. For that kind of money, none of them could check how their own staff was
spending taxpayers’ dollars right under their noses. Nor could they set reviews, policies, procedures, and staff/operational audits in place so the Gary Kriss debacle wouldn’t happen to begin with. What are we paying Board of Legislators’ accountants $634,781 a year to do?

For Guardian readers who wish to ask the Board’s accountants those questions themselves, they can be reached at:

Director Robert Boland: 1-914-995-2816

Deputy Director, Olivia Rhodes: 1-914-995-3050

Fiscal Analyst, Raymond Indelicato: 1-914-995-2843

Fiscal Studies Associate, Louise Gantress: 1-914-995-2804

In addition, The Guardian asked Legislator Alvarado to explain how he honors his professional responsibilities as an accountant when reviewing and approving County budgets and expenditures, specifically how can he approve a budget that does not adhere to generally accepted accounting standards and government regulations.

The accountants on staff for the Board of Legislators, above, including Legislator Alvarado, have to report to a higher authority than Spano
and William Ryan, the Board of Legislators Chair; the accountants must ultimately account for their actions to a variety of state and federal regulatory agencies and to their own professional governing bodies such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants” (AICPA). Just as an attorney can be disbarred for disregarding legal rules and ethics, so too can accountants lose their licenses and their right to practice their profession if they do not adhere to their fiduciary and ethical responsibilities. In the eyes of a County Government accountant, Westchester County taxpayers should outrank Spano, Ryan, et.al.; the accountants are professionally beholden directly to us, not to our political leaders.

However, as of press time, we did not receive a single response from Alvarado regarding how he prioritizes his professional and fiduciary responsibilities to the local taxpayers as opposed to his political allegiances to Andy Spano, Bill Ryan, the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party who garnered his place on the ballot to begin with. As the Chair of the Budget Committee, it is Alvarado who ultimately holds local taxpayers’ dollars in his hands since the final approval for the budget rests with his Committee. And, as an accountant, he is professionally beholden to local taxpayers, not to the political leaders and party bosses, especially when those political leaders play games with taxpayers’
money as they are currently attempting to do with the late-date raises for County department heads.

On November 12, County Executive Spano sought retroactive raises for his staff heads for 2008 in a letter to the Board, yet made no reference
to that letter in his submission of his 2009 Operating Budget on November 14, all of which begs the question: Are these raises already factored into the 2009 County Operating Budget? Or do they now have to be added? The Guardian cannot determine if Alvarado demanded a revised budget for 2009, a new Year-End-Estimate for 2008 showing the impact of these raises, or a comparative budget for 2009 – one showing the last-minute 2008 raises on 2009 salaries, and one without.

Given that fact, how can he, or taxpayers, for that matter, determine if these raises have to be added to 2009, increasing taxes even further? Alvarado cannot professionally accept or approve last-minute backdoor raises that defy basic accounting procedures; significant changes in expenses warrant a complete revision of the underlying budgets.

If Alvarado does not confirm whether the back door 2008 raises are in the 2009 Budget that was submitted last week, he could end up approving
a budget for 2009 that is already obsolete, in complete defiance of accounting procedures and basic logic! Do any of the accountants in our County Government even know basic accounting? Are any of them doing their jobs in accordance with proper accounting rules and procedures? Do any of them even acknowledge that their professional and fiduciary responsibility is to the taxpayers and government regulatory agencies and not to the County bosses? Without a response from Legislator Alvarado, The Guardian has no idea what reviews and audits he requested and performed, what
controls, policies, and guidelines he adhered to, and how he ultimately accounted for and monitored taxpayers’ dollars.

On its web site, RWG asks “What would happen without a County Government?” This question is not unreasonable and the alternatives are completely feasible. Many states, including neighboring Connecticut and Massachusetts, survive without the multiple and duplicative layers of government that exist in New York. The founders behind Rethinking Westchester Government are asking local residents to start “considering County life without County government”.

According to Rob Astorino, a former member of the County Board of Legislators and former Republican challenger in the 2005 County Executive race: “Mr. Spano just doesn’t get it. His budget and tax increase is out of touch with the real world. The economy is in a tailspin. People are struggling and worried.

The last thing they need is to pay more money to an already bloated County Government. Tough choices need to be made, both immediately
and long-term, but he keeps strolling along his merry old way.” It may indeed be time for the taxpayers to cut the County’s purse strings completely. Starting with the “accountants” on the County payroll.