Ethics Board Offers No Immediate Answers to Questions Posed
Thursday, 02 February 2012 13:40
By Jim Byrne
The Board of Ethics convened Thursday morning to once again review the matter of Mayor Doug French’s alleged building violations at 13 Richard Place, as well as the unwarranted STAR exemption he received for over a decade on that home he rents out.
But, after a closed-door executive session that lasted close to 90 minutes, the Board of Ethics (BOE) offered no answers – publicly, at least – to the questions Deputy Mayor Peter Jovanovich submitted last week. On hand for the meeting were Board members Ted Dunn, Beth Griffin Matthews, Judge John Alfano, City Manager Scott Pickup, and Corporation Counsel Kristin Wilson. Neither Mr. Pickup nor Ms. Wilson recused themselves this time, as they had done at the previous BOE meeting, basing their decision on the specificity of the questions posed.
The Board of Ethics met Thursday morning.City Assessor Noreen Whitty and Building Inspector Maureen Eckman, subjects of the “preferential treatment” questions Councilman Jovanovich asked, also attended the meeting, along with members of the press and Ray Tartaglione, who originally brought the matter to light. Ms. Mathews asked the press and public to leave the room after the initial public session, so that the BOE could discuss in executive session, since it had to do with personnel.
Members of the press and Mr. Tartaglione waited outside the Mayor’s Conference Room during executive session, but were not alerted when public session eventually resumed. The meeting had already been adjourned, and BOE members filed out without obliging to requests for comment on whether a decision had been reached.
Ms. Mathews said before executive session that it’s not up to Mr. Tartaglione to accept or not accept whatever determination was made. On a need to create a public record, Mr. Alfano added, “If parties or the City doesn’t like the conclusion they then have a record so they can go to an Article 78 or another procedure … it has to be a black and white on-paper record.”
Mr. Pickup interjected that the BOE needed to start with the two “very distinct questions” and that any other issues would then become self-evident. Ms. Wilson agreed, saying the Board’s obligation was to answer those two questions, notwithstanding what the public or anyone else may think or like. “The process has so far followed what is written in the City Code, and our job is to look at it and respond.”
Said Judge Alfano, “When I got the letter [from Deputy Mayor Jovanovich] my gut reaction was to kick it back to him and say, ‘What are the facts?’ I know everyone is interested in resolving this, and that the Council doesn’t want things to trickle on.”
Ms. Wilson replied, “Since we have two staff members here that pertain to both questions, the best way to start is to ask questions we might think we need answers to. I think that is the initial first step. If we need more experts then we go there but that might be jumping the gun.”
The BOE was charged with answering the following: 1) Did Mayor French seek or receive preferential treatment by City employees in the granting of STAR exemptions for his properties at 13 Richard Place and 46 Meadow Place? 2) Did Mayor French seek or receive preferential treatment from City employees in the manner the City and its Building Department handled a complaint regarding a potential violation of the building code at 13 Richard Place?
Right before the BOE went into executive session, Mr. Tartaglione read a lengthy statement that concluded, "I have supported an unbiased, objective, transparent investigation headed by parties independent in both appearance and in fact. These individuals must gather all the evidence available, consider the merits of everything above in a transparent process and render a judgment that the public can understand and accept. Anything less will give the appearance of being a whitewash and yet another impropriety."
Minutes of the meeting will be made available within the week.
Comments
1) Did Mayor French seek or receive preferential treatment by City employees in the GRANTING of STAR exemptions for his properties at 13 Richard Place and 46 Meadow Place?
Answer: “Granting?” “Granting?” What “Granting? The Mayor “certified” by signature that both of his homes qualified as his principal residence and received STAR exemptions on both for 10 years. The New York State District Attorney’s office in Suffolk County considers this activity a felony.
Follow-up Question: And what did the City Assessor and the Mayor do when they “discovered” this “error” in early April of 2011?
Answer: The assessor removed one of the Mayor’s homes from the STAR exemption rolls.
Follow-up Question: What did the City Assessor and the Mayor do about the previous 10 years of STAR benefits worth over $10,000 that the Mayor had inappropriately pocketed?
Answer: The City Assessor apparently did nothing - and the Mayor - apparently did nothing.
Follow-up Question: Who aside from the City Assessor and the Mayor knew about this “error,” the magnitude of the amount owed, and the fact that apparently no arrangements were made or were going to be made between them or other city employees to have the Mayor repay the amounts due the government?
Answer: Who knew, outside of the City Assessor and the Mayor, is unknown.
Follow-up Question: How many months passed before this secret benefit the Mayor had obtained was exposed?
Answer: 8 Months passed until Heal the Harbor publicized the matter using public records. Then a slew of contradictory explanations were issued including the assertion by the City Assessor that other Rye taxpayers had also been discovered with the same dual STAR exemption issue. (When a FOIL request asked the City Assessor to disclose who else in Rye had a double STAR exemption – the Assessor “revised” her statement and was forced to confirm that no other Rye taxpayers had recently been discovered “double dipping” – only the Mayor.)
2) Did Mayor French seek or receive preferential treatment from City employees in the manner the City and its Building Department handled A COMPLAINT REGARDING A POTENTIAL VIOLATION of the building code at 13 Richard Place?
Answer: A legal numbered ‘violation” was recorded and issued to the Mayor by the Rye City Building department on July 1, 2011. There is no evidence of any “complaint” - and there is nothing “potential” about this matter – the violation was issued on July 1, 2011. Whoever farmed the question here using the words “complaint” and “potential” is parroting the language of the denunciations hurled at Mr. Tartaglione from the city council bench about this not being an actual violation but a “phone call” or a “phone call complaint.” Any viewer of the independent investigatory documentary entitled “13 Richard Place” knows all about this unseemly multi-meeting charade by the Mayor, the City Manager, the City Attorney and various city council members.
Follow-up Questions: How did the violation issued on July 1, 2011 actually come about? Who brought 13 Richard Place to Building Department attention? Who certified the matter as a violation – and why? Where is a copy of the standard Building Department letter to Mayor French alerting him to the violation? What city employees were involved in this matter and when?
You’re precious John. Don’t ever change.
It was Jovanovitch who requested this venue so take it up with him.
Under the City Charter the City Council should have conducted an investigation and issued subpoenas. All witnesses would testify under the risk of perjury and anyone refusing to testify under oath would be FIRED.This would have been at no cost to the taxpayers.
Had this happened I believe you wouldn't see any of those same employees sitting there.
Would you like me to send you a copy of my Rye Tax bill? I just happen to be lucky enough to be a resident and taxpayer of both Purchase and Rye. And while you are at it, how about your name, so we can verify your residency if it's that important. It seems like you and the Mayor are the only ones that feel there is a difference between full and part time residency in Rye. Bottom line is, this is the guy we elected to watch the store. Big mistake. Sorry I made the mistake too.
RSS feed for comments to this post