ISLIP TOWN ATTEMPTS TO GAIN CONTROL OF PRIVATELY OWNED WEB DOMAIN:

                         MACARTHURAIRPORT.COM


“For us to get a little piece of the action, that’s fine too.”


“We just want our pound of flesh.” 


“We could have it built into the contracts and make them 


advertise.” 

No, these are not dialogue excerpts from an episode of the Sopranos, but actual quotes made by Islip Town representatives, contained in a federal lawsuit involving the Town of Islip.  Town representatives made those remarks at meetings with regard to a privately owned and operated website called macarthurairport.com.

The Town of Islip was in federal court yesterday asking for a preliminary injunction and claiming “irreparable harm” if the Honorable Judge Leonard Wexler doesn’t grant them a requested temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the decade old website- macarthurairport.com from operating, while a lawsuit about the issue plays out in the courts.

Mr. Pizzi, from the lawfirm of Connell Foley LLC (New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York) represented the Town when he argued the Town of Islip is laying claim to 16 Domain names and 3 Twitter Accounts and claimed “irreparable harm” if they are not granted the TRO.
Granting of the TRO as his client requested would switch the domain names over to the Town immediately.

Owners of the website claim that would be a de-facto win for the Town, because if they are prevented from operating the website until they have their day in court, it would mean the end of their private operation of the website. The site is devoted to aiding the travelers going to and from Islip’s Macarthur Airport and has offered ten years of free airport related service to the public with no cost to the taxpayers, according to Black Sheep, the sites owners.

Internet disputes over domain names go to an organization called ICANN for resolution.  The NAF or National Arbitration Forum in Denmark is responsible for issuing domain names for websites.   Between one and three arbitrators look at papers submitted by both sides and then make a decision.  NAF did not allow the tapes or transcripts of the tapes of their meetings, to be entered or considered.  The transcripts and the tapes clearly showed the Town had misled them, according to Black Sheep.

When NAF was shown paperwork that the Town owns MacArthur Airport and the Town had (unbeknownst to Black Sheep) copyrighted and registered the name MacArthur Airport, they awarded it to the Town, documents showed.

Black Sheep contends they have never really had their day in court and if the information contained in the audio tapes were admitted, then the NAF decision would have been very different.  That is why they sued in Federal Court and in the meantime the Town requested this emergency TRO to prevent what they call “irreparable harm” to the Town while the case goes to court.


                                  WHAT’S IN A NAME?    

Apparently, when it is an internet domain name…there’s a lot at stake.

The owners of macarthurairport.com, Jacques Ditte and his wife Jan Hanna bought and registered the domain name along with several others back in 2000, when they realized that the Town of Islips’ MacArthur Airport had no website.

They also registered:
nymcarthurairport.com  
islipairport.com    
islipmacarthurairport.com.

After purchasing the names, back in 2000, Mr. Ditte and Ms. Hanna, owners of Black Sheep Television Ltd., which has owned and operated the website for nearly ten years,  got hundreds of hits with no website yet to go to, so they created and managed the new site with the goal of being helpful to the flying public.

They purchased information from the National Weather Service and provided links to the Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security for official passenger and security information.

The website also provides useful information to the flying public about airlines, parking, accommodations and airport conditions.

Mr. Ditte, President of Black Sheep Television, Ltd.  insists their website is run very professionally and they have a rigorous screening process for businesses to qualify to advertise on the site.  They must be travel related and well established businesses in the area to qualify.

The site also links to online travel booking agencies to facilitate booking flights to and from the airport and offers a flight tracking service that allows them to list arrivals and departures and offers a complete weather program tied in with the NOAA.

                      McGOWAN HAD NO INTEREST IN WEBSITE

In September of 2001, according to court papers, Jacques Ditte said he reached out to the Town of Islip, which owns and runs MacArthur Airport, because he felt the need for more interaction after the events of 9/11.

He wrote to Brad Ringhouse, Administrative Assistant, for Islip Town “for the purposes of fostering a cooperative relationship and for providing enhanced services to the public.” according to court papers.

Mr. Ditte stressed that “At no point whatsoever did I intend to or did I offer the website and domain name for sale to the Defendant (the Town).”

Told by the Town agents that they saw no need for a website and did not want to promote the airport, Mr. Ditte and his wife continued to develop and operate the site privately to “provide a valuable service to the public”.

This all took place under former Supervisor Pete McGowan, who insiders claim had no use for the internet.

{When Mr. McGowen was indicted and resigned, Mr. Hofmeister who subsequently handled the negotiations between the Town of Islip and Black Sheep about the website, was voted in as temporary Supervisor of Islip Town until the vote in November when Phil Nolan was elected. After the election, Mr. Hofmeister was transferred to the airport where he still works.}

Years went by with no action or interaction from the Town and the website thrived and sustained itself without Town involvement of any kind.

             NOW THE TOWN WANTS THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE
          
Then on November 8, 2007 under the authority of newly elected Islip Supervisor Phil Nolan, the Town invited Black Sheep Television, the owners of macarthurairport.com to a meeting at the airport with the pretense of forming and soliciting a cooperative relationship, according to Mr. Ditte.  They discussed revenue sharing, enhancement of advertising and promotion of the airport.  During the meeting the audio tape reveals Mr. Hofmeister stated “Our goal is to have a good website, and you know, if you are making some money and it’s working for you, that’s great. For us to get a little piece of the action, that’s fine too.”

Unfortunately for the Town and fortunately for Black Sheep Ltd., the meetings were audio taped and so the Town’s current claims that the website is doing irreparable harm appear absurd against the backdrop and tenure and tone of the original meetings and discussions. (A link to the tapes is provided at the end of this article).


The tapes are crisp and clear and there is no doubt that Eric Hofmeister, Nolan’s Deputy Commissioner, Brad Ringhouse, Airport Administrative Supervisor and Steve Siniki, Assistant Airport Administrative Supervisor who were in attendance as well as co-owners of the site Jacques Ditte and his wife Jan Hanna are all attempting to forge a beneficial, contractual and legal partnership with regard to operating the website together.

Mr. Hofmeister broaches the subject of buying the website domain name, but it is clear from the tapes of the meetings that Black Sheep Television was not interested in selling.  The remainder of over two hours of taped meetings is about the cooperative partnership the Town is requesting and specifically with regard to information on the website that the Town wants to ensure is accurate.  Mr. Hofmeister on several occasions insists the Town does not want to run a website, but just partner with the existing one that has been operating responsibly for over seven years at that point.

However, Eric Hofmeister at one point in the first meeting admits, “Downtown has a different vision of us creating our own website and overtaking you guys.  But to me, you are getting 2 to 3 million hits already, we’d rather work together, why are we trying to rebuild the wheel?”

Mr. Hofmeister proposed they all think it over and a second meeting was scheduled for December 19, 2007 where the details of the cooperative contract loosely hashed out in the first meeting were to be more seriously discussed.

                    "ALL WE WANT IS OUR POUND OF FLESH"


From the second meeting on December 19, 2007, bullet points and a tentative agreement to work together are negotiated and Mr. Hofmeister agrees to have Town staff attorneys “write it up” and he promised to get it together so that it can be voted on by the Town Board.

At that point, Mr. Ditte asks, “Do you need us to go to the Town Board?”

Mr. Hofmeister replies revealing a side of Town politics already known to savvy insiders, “You are certainly welcome to, but we usually have things decided before the meetings.  Usually, everyone is on board with it before the meeting happens.  It’s read, voted on and we go right to the next question.”

Brad Ringhouse stated at one point in the meeting, “We are in a joint venture.  It makes you more legitimate.”

This is the same man who under McGowan had told Mr. Ditte and Ms. Hanna, “We don’t need a website and we don’t want to promote the airport.” according to them.

Negotiations at the meetings included revenue sharing from advertising profits.  Mr. Ditte said in court papers that they had not run the website for the purposes of generating revenue, but as more of a service, but they were not averse to expanding the website and increasing airport services.

The Long Island Tourism Board was discussed as a possible option to generate revenue and a possible 5 year contract with a 60-90 day notification period was also discussed.

Mr. Hofmeister stated that they could require anyone looking to negotiate a contract with the Town to advertise on the website.  “We could build it into our own agreements that they are required to advertise on the website.”

At the second meeting Mr. Hofmeister bluntly states Black Sheep has a strong base operation and “We just want our pound of flesh.”  Adding, they would want input on the look, the content and that the Town would have one of their “investigators” view every single page every week and decide if they see a problem.

Besides operating the website macarthurairport.com Black Sheep Television Ltd. makes television commercials, documentaries and PBS programs like Sesame Street's “Elmo’s World” and “Ageing in America”.

Mr. Ditte’s attorney, Howard E. Greenberg (Smithtown) argued before Judge Wexler yesterday that Black Sheep has yet to get their day in court, because the audiotapes of the meetings where a partnership is discussed were disallowed at the internet “hearings” where their web domain was taken away.  What irreparable harm will be caused if the site continues to operate as it has for almost ten years with no issue or complaint from the Town, he asked the Court?

Mr. Pizzi stated that people are confused because their website is not an official website and they don’t know who is really operating it for the Town.

Mr. Greenberg said the Town directly copied codes from their website and acted in bad faith pretending to cooperate with his clients while surreptitiously creating their own website and seizing the domain names behind the scenes while continuing to communicate with Black Sheep as if their arrangement was still ongoing.

After both meetings Mr. Ditte states he maintained contact with Mr. Siniski and Eric Hofmeister continually from December 19, 2007 the date of the second meeting through August 12, 2008.  During this time period the Town and Black Sheep “engaged in a campaign of information sharing, such as parking and airline information…the (Town’s) agents continued to provide direction as to the plaintiff’s operation of the website and we worked as a cooperative partnership.  When I asked Mr. Hofmeister specifically about the status of the contract agreement that had been discussed in our previous meetings, Mr. Hofmeister’s only response was, “We are working on it.”, according to Mr. Ditte.

E-mails from Mr. Siniski to Black Sheep dated August 12th 2008 show the Town is still acting as if all is well:

From: Steve Siniski  
Date: August 12, 20[,8 12:29:36 PM EDT
To: JD@ blacksheeptelevision.com
Subject RE: MacArthur Airport Parking Changes
Reply -To:  

Hi Jacques:

Looks good. Could you also remove the Spirit banner on the airlines page. They are no longer flying out of here.
                                                                   Thanks, Steve
Steve Siniski
Assistant Airport Administrative Supervisor
631-467-3300 (p)
631-467-3348 (f)

___________Original Message _____________
From: jacques[mailto:JD@blacksheeptelevision.com]
Sent 8/6/2008 9:10:47 AM
To:  
Cc:
Subject RE: Re: MacArthur Airport Parking Changes
Blogger: Freelance lnvestlgations - Create Post
Date: August 12, 20[,8 12:29:36 PM EDT
To: JD@ blacksheeptelevision.com
Subject RE: MacArthur Airport Parking Changes
Reply -To:

Hi Jacques:

Looks good. Could you also remove the Spirit banner on the airlines page. They ar€ no longer flying out of here.
                                                                  Thanks, Steve
Steve Siniski
Assistant Airport Administrative Supervisor
631-467-3300 (p)
631-467-3348 (f)

___________Original Message_______________
From: jacques[mailto:JD@blacksheeptelevision.com]
Sent 8/6/2008 9:10:47 AM
To: s.siniski @townofislip-ny.gov
Cc:
Subject RE: Re: MacArthur Airport Parking Changes

Hi Steve,

The changes have been made. Please review and confirm that there are no errors.
httpilwww.macarthurairportcom/pages/parking.shtnl

                                                 All the best,
                                                                      Jacques
Jacques Ditte
Black Sheep Television Ltd.
P.O. Box 1116
Hampton Bays, N.Y. 11946
631-288-5477
Fax 631-288-6075
jd @ blacksheeptelevision.com
On August 6, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Steve Siniski wrote:

Hi Jacques,

How are you? We have some new pricing for the parking lots. They are as follows:

Daily lot $4 per 60 min
$14.00 maximum per 24 hr.

Economy Lot
$4 per 60 min.
$12.50 per 24 hr

Short Term
$3.00 per hour
Max charge $25.00

                                                        Thanks,
                                                                       Steve

Mr. Ditte had argued in court documents that these messages prove that the Town continued to communicate with them even after filing plans for www.flylima.com and that the Town shared information to continue their mutual business operations.

On August 8, 2008, two days after the E Mail from Mr. Siniski, the Town of  Islip filed a trademark application for Long Island MacArthur Airport which was granted on March 31, 2009 and an application for an airport design mark incorporating symbols consisting of a bird's wings, a sailboat, stars and horizontal bars, which was granted in April of 2009.

On August 12, 2008,  the Town had already filed its application for trademark and was apparently also in the planning stages of www.flylima.com, according to court papers.

At no time did they ever reveal their plans to Black Sheep who were still operating under the verbal agreement and waiting patiently for the Town attorneys to “write it up.”

The Town had subsequently completed its’ own website and was now operating as its’ own informational source for the airport.

After a long break in communication Mr. Ditte said he received a cease and desist letter dated May 27, 2009 from the law offices of Galgano &  Associates PLLC demanding Black Sheep immediately stop using the domain names macarthurairport.com due to the copyright infringement.  He said he was "astonished to see the Town had done a complete turnaround on our months of previous negotiations, discussions, brainstorming and agreements."

It became clear to me the only reason the Town had contacted Black Sheep and I in 2007 and continuing thereafter was for the purpose of investigation into our website and business and to steal the models and plans that we had put into place to provide an informational service to the public.  If anyone was operating in bad faith it was the Town and its' agents and representatives in that we discovered that the Town had directly copied the code from our website directly into www.flylima.com 

                                                                              (Jacques Ditte)

An E-Mail with questions about the federal lawsuit and the audiotapes was sent to Mr. Pizzi, but questions were unanswered at time of publication deadline given to him. Mr. Pizzi sent a reply E-Mail directing me to the PACER website where I could purchase copies of the Towns' papers.  He also said, "As the matter is in litigation, we have no response to your inquiry at this time."

He was asked when the Town hired his firm and how much has the Town paid them to date?

He was asked if they handled the copyright and logo paperwork for the Town as well and if so, when was that first begun?

He was asked to explain what the actual irreparable harm to the Town, other than as he testified yesterday, people now being confused as to which website is official.

Black Sheep noted if the Town hadn’t gone behind their backs despite their agreements to work together and started another site there would be no confusion in the first place.

The lawfirm of ConnellFoley LLC, hired by the Town has 121 members according to their website and specializes in Antitrust, Banking, Cable Television Law, Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks and Public Contract Law as well as several other specialties.

Mr. Greenberg has a Smithtown office of one…himself.

This David vs. Goliath case plays out at the Alfonse D’Amato Federal Courthouse in Central Islip at 4pm today.

Yesterday, Judge Wexler (whose son W.D. Wexler an attorney, was hired on March 3, 2010 by the Town as the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals) adjourned the case while he listened to the audiotapes.  Back in Court at 4pm Friday December 3, 2010.

To be continued…………..

        THE DECISION ON THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Decision on the TRO from Judge Wexler just in:  Islip Town wins control of the website while the case winds through the court.

Black Sheep attorney, Howard Greenberg and his clients are assessing their options for appeal.

To hear a copy of the unedited audiotapes cut and paste the link below into your browser and go to:
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/1019882583/b5d08e1912bb4bbbc6bcfff81403e95f

Town of Brookhaven

                
                      HISTORIC APPELLATE DECISION in FIRE ISLAND

                     

                                             ZONING BOARD CASE

In a landmark decision last week four Appellate Court Judges sitting in Brooklyn ruled in favor of Long Island's environment and the future preservation of the landscape of Fire Island National Seashore.

The case involved the Town of Brookhaven Zoning Board's approval of building variances for a Fire Island resident which were granted even though they violated federal and town codes and were opposed by the Town DEP, the Fire Island National Seashore and environmental groups as well as his next door neighbors who filed an Article 78, (originally as pro se litigants) objecting to the variances.

In the Decision and Order of  the Court, the Justices called the Board's decision “arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of power”.  “The Board failed to engage in the requisite balancing test” the Court wrote, adding that  the Brookhaven Town Zoning Board “disregarded evidence that granting the variances would have an adverse impact upon the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, which is part of the Fire Island National Seashore.”  The Judges also decided the changes were self-created hardships, that the Board  didn’t give any weight to the consequences of granting these variances and the Court told Mr. Lewis in their decision he could “…fully enjoy the property without building an addition to the residence or building additional decks and fences.”

Matthew Atkinson, the successful attorney in the case said "From now on people seeking variances on  Fire Island National Seashore are going to have to have a reason beyond personal greed to get them passed."

Richard Scheyer, the Chairman of the Islip Town Zoning Board (Scheyer and Jellenik, Nesconset) and the counsel of record for Mr. Edward S. Lewis the respondent in this Brookhaven case, had actually warned the Appellate Court Judges during his oral argument on October 15, of the “far reaching ramifications for zoning boards all across Long Island” if they ruled to overturn the lower court decision.

In what proved to be a prophetic statement of the magnitude of the win for his opponents,
Mr. Scheyer, one of the losing attorneys told the Court, “It’s going to have a massive impact on zoning boards all across Long Island.  It will change the entire landscape.”

The Judges ruled against his client, Mr. Lewis and in favor of Meg Switzgable and her husband Thomas Brown, who brought the Article 78 to the 2^nd Department against the Town of Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals, The Town of Brookhaven and Mr. Edward S. Lewis, their next door neighbor on Fire Island Pines.

They learned on Friday they were successful and the lower court decision to allow seven variances was overturned.

Matthew Atkinson, (Atkinson and Heffron/Jackson Heights) the Switzgable/Brown attorney, told the Appellate Court in his oral presentation that the State’s balancing test was ignored.  Lewis and the Town had argued that the federal zoning standards for the Seashore are not compulsory.  The Petitioners argued that Town Law compels the BZA to give weight to these standards when applying the mandated balancing test. 

Federal standards limit lot coverage to 35% (35% Rule) and the BZA should consider “the physical or environmental conditions in the [Seashore] and they must also consider the detriment to the community." 

Mr. Atkinson pointed out to the Court.

The Court agreed with Mr. Atkinson that the Zoning Boards’ decision granting eight variances to Mr. Lewis may indeed have been arbitrary and capricious and did not appear to strike a balance between the interests of the community and Mr. Lewis’ requests which the Plaintiff’s argued were well in excess of the 35% allowable.  The original variance request by Mr. Lewis was for lot coverage of 41.5%, according to court documents.

The Second Judicial Department Justices; William F. Mastro, J.P., Steven W. Fisher, John M. Leventhal and Ariel E. Belen, JJ. unanimously reversed the order granting Mr. Lewis the variances he had obtained from the Towns’ Zoning Board of Appeals.  Mr. Lewis had originally requested what he called “minimum and total side variances” for:  a one story residence addition, a new deck and an existing deck, stairs and a shed as well as a 10 ft’ high privacy fence and  5’ to 9.7’ high fencing forward of principal structure. He also wanted permission for 41.5 %  lot occupancy.

Representatives from the Department of Interior, Fire Island National Seashore (FINS)  and local environmental groups were supportive of the Switzgable/Brown  Article 78 Motion to reverse the Town of Brookhaven Zoning Boards' approval of the Lewis variance requests.

“The earth is in my blood”, announced Ms. Switzgable who grew up on Fire Island and may just have protecting Fire Island- in her DNA.  Her mom, Yota Switzgable, was part of a group of ladies in the 1960’s who fought Robert Moses’ plan to build a road through all of the Islands.  Thanks to their grassroots movement back then, to this day no cars are allowed on Fire Island and the proposed road stops at his namesake; the Robert Moses Causeway Bridge.

 Ms. Switzgable and Mr Brown got involved in the currant legal action motivated in her words, “After what we thought was a simple zoning issue with a neighbor opened our eyes to more serious problems with the Brookhaven Town Zoning Board in general, and their failure to adhere to recommendations by Fire Island National Seashore (FINS) or follow Federal laws enacted specifically to protect Fire Island, which is designated as a National Seashore.  (Seashore)”

After several public hearings during which both opposition and pro opinions were added to the record, on April 1, 2009, Mr. Lewis was unanimously granted all variances he requested for changes on his property located on Fire Island Pines. 

                                   FINS and ABCO defend FIRE ISLAND

In June, 2009  Karl Christopher Soller, the Superintendent for the National Park Service under the United States Department of the Interior, wrote to State Supreme Court Justice, Honorable Peter H. Mayer, regarding the Switzgable vs. the Zoning Board of Appeals case (Index # 09 19095):

When Public Law 88-587, the enabling legislation for Fire Island National Seashore (FINS) was passed on September 11, 1964, the intent of Congress was to allow the 17 communities on Fire Island to continue in such a manner that supports the purpose of the Act that enabled the “Seashore”.  Per that Act, Congress established the Fire Island National Seashore “for the purposes of conserving and preserving for the use of future generations certain relatively unspoiled and undeveloped beaches, dunes and other natural features within Suffolk County, New York, which possesses high values to the Nation as examples of unspoiled areas of great natural beauty in close proximity to large concentrations of urban population…” 

They also provide for “the protection of the Seashore’s resources through local zoning limitations on use, location and size of structures on public and private property.”

Additionally, in Section 3 of this law;  “the Secretary [of the interior] shall issue regulations, which may be amended from time to time, specifying standards that are consistent with the purposes of this Act for zoning ordinances which must meet his approval.”

 The communities on Fire Island have a maximum lot occupancy development of 35% of the lot area, which applies to all four zoning authorities with jurisdiction of the Seashore on Fire Island, including the Town of Brookhaven.

On June 1, 2009  Paul DeChance, Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Town of Brookhaven released the Board's “Findings and Conclusions" in the Lewis case: 

• That the relief requested will not create an undesirable change in the nature and character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties to require denial of the subject application. 

• That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 

• That the requested variances are not substantial in nature. 

• That the requested variance will not have an adverse effect on the impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 

• While the hardship appears self-created, the Board concludes that such determination is insufficient to warrant a denial of the requested relief.”

On June 5, 2009 in response to the Town Zoning Board's decision Meg Switzgable and her husband Thomas Brown Filed a  Pro Se Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Verified Petition.

Ms. Switgable and Mr. Brown say, “These findings were not created until after we filed the Article 78 Motion. In most towns of any size this would be a legal problem, they get the advantage because they get to create the "findings of fact" after the fact and can mold them based on the Article 78 information.  This is expensive for the average citizen to defend against, for an Article 78 can easily average fifteen to twenty thousand dollars.”

Mr. Brown added, “These findings contained information that was not discussed at any of the public hearings.”

On June 4, 2010  K. Christopher Soller, (FINS) wrote to John L. Turner (Director of the Town of Brookhaven, DEP) regarding the Lewis Wetlands Permit, outlining findings by FINS:

The property in question appears to have been developed without any permits over a number of years, resulting in aggregate development that is inconsistent with both the Town of Brookhaven Zoning Codes and the Federal Zoning Codes for Fire Island National Seashore. The property as currently developed has a 41.5% lot occupancy, Federal and Town regulations limit lot occupancy to 35%.  Additionally the development did not comply with Town’s regulations regarding setbacks and fence heights.  As a result, the applicant had to apply for  variances undertaken without appropriate permits from Brookhaven’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).  Although the BZA granted the variances for all but the fence along the side yard of the property, the Seashore continues to object to this overdevelopment.”

This was not totally accurate as the Zoning Board had granted all of the variances and it was Supreme Court Justice Mayer who upheld all the variances, except the 10 ft. fence.

Mr. Soller focused on the fact that safety requires setbacks- which are intended as buffers for fires- a critical issue due to the common type of construction on Fire Island (wooden frame structures elevated on pilings), according to him.

Calling the property “subject to condemnation” by the authority of the Secretary of the Interior and citing chapter and verse of Town Codes he was concerned because the BZA are consistently ignoring, Mr. Soller finished by saying “According to Town Code Chapter 20, Article VIII…the DEP is “to be responsible for complying with all federal, state and county laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the environment and to be responsible for ensuring such compliance by other parties.”

Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown wanted to express their sincere gratitude to Ms. MaryAnn Johnston President of the Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organization (ABCO) for all her help.  “Her inspiration, education and humor kept us going along the way.  With her help and support our win was possible.”

Ms. Johnston spoke with Freelance Investigations after hearing of the Switzgable/Brown win.

"They were right and what is so wonderful is the power of one.  It only takes one person to say this is wrong and to fight the battle."

With regard to the Decision she said, "This is new law.  Now the Town is compelled to order the removal of non-permitted structures.”

Ms. Johnston was involved in the case all along the way, according to Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown.

Ms. Johnston, wrote a letter to Mr. Turner, (DEP) asking the Town to deny the Lewis application for a Wetlands and Waterway Permit for his property.

It is without regard for the existing Code, rules, regulations character of the community, neighbor rights or the fragile eco-system of the wetland seashore and its’ critical environment…not one summons or fine has been issued or paid for any of the numerous transgressions all clearly visible on the parcel…Among all our concerns are fire safety, habitat protection, wetland degradation and blatant disregard of the Federal and Town rules which clearly do not permit such abuse.”  (June 4, 2010) 

Ms. Johnston also decried the fact that Mr. Lewis appeared impervious to the rules and was apparently treated differently than other property owners with what she called “less obnoxious violations.”

Mr. Turner also received a letter from Senator Brian Foley (3^rd District) requesting that the DEP reject the 606A Shorewalk Wetland Applications for the Lewis property:

It has been brought to my attention that federal rules intended to protect Fire Island may have been violated by the local Zoning Advisory Board in granting some recent variances. Allegedly the Fire Island National Seashore was not notified by Brookhaven, as required by law, and they were thus unable to register their objections.

There are Town statutes unique for the Seashore district.  They are intended to work in cooperation with the federal rules to limit overdevelopment and protect the Seashore.  Realizing that variances are dependent upon the approval of a Wetlands Application, I ask you closely examine this particular application, and if you find that federal rules were violated, I believe it is within your authority and duty to reject this application.

                                                                                                                 (July 1, 2010)

              

                                MAKING A FEDERAL CASE OUT OF IT

At the oral arguments in Appellate Court both the Town Attorney, Mr. James J. Kevans and Mr. Lewis’ attorney, Mr. Scheyer,  argued that these variances were common practice and not just favoritism for Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Scheyer had argued that  letters from the Seashore all claiming that the granting of the variances was deleterious to the environment were “commonplace” and brushed them off saying they were irrelevant. “They always say that.  I have hundreds of those letters.”

Strangely, Mr. Scheyer made the case for Ms. Switgable and Mr. Brown as he insisted “The environmentalists in their Amicus Brief say the Board failed to give compelling weight to the occupancy limitations of the Federal Law.  Well that is not a compelling argument because they don’t have to.  I personally have written hundreds of decisions with regard to National Seashore’s objections and local government.  If you take their position, you can’t do anything.”

The Court then asked, “Should I just disregard that?  What is their function then?”

Mr. Scheyer answered, “Advisory.”

The Justice pressed him, “Didn’t you just concede they have the power to condemn?’

Mr. Scheyer was forced to capitulate saying “They do have the power to condemn.” 

The Court countered, “So how is that consistent with your opinion that it is advisory?”

Scheyer conceded it was more than advisory but added that he had never known of any instance where they had condemned a property that wasn’t a vacant lot.

Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown said,  “That is the point.  The BZA has been consistently flouting Federal and Town regulations to the degree that the Federal regulations have been ignored for years by them in granting these variances for building on more than 35% of the lots.”

This was confirmed by a 40 year study conducted by FINS called the “Kaufman Report”.

   

                             CONFLICT  FOR CHAIRMAN DECHANCE?

In documents and in oral arguments heard in Brooklyn the Judges discussed whether there was a true conflict of interest when Mr. DeChance, the Chairman of the Zoning Board did not recuse himself even though he continued to personally employ Mr. Thomas Cramer (Cramer Consulting/Miller Place).  Mr. Cramer was an expeditor hired by Mr. Lewis and Chairman DeChance had also hired Mr. Cramer as an expediter for a case of his own. He continued to employ Mr. Cramer for as long as two hearings into the Lewis case documents show.  

The Court noted Mr. DeChance recognized Mr. Cramer as an “expert witness” for Mr. Lewis and never recused himself or left the room during deliberations and actually voted, something the Appellate Court noted was “curious” since he had consistently recused himself in the past when Mr. Cramer was before him. 

Mr. Scheyer insisted there wasn’t a conflict when asked by the Court, “So doesn’t that leave a bad appearance of impropriety, since he had always recused himself before?’

Two hearings into the case, and Mr. DeChance had already appointed Mr. Cramer as an expert witness, he also deliberated and voted on the matter, one Justice remarked "We have a two year rule with regard to things like this.”

Mr. Scheyer argued that because the vote was unanimous, even if Mr. DeChance had recused himself it would have passed anyway.

Mr. Atkinson disagreed with that assessment in his final argument, saying there was no way to know if and how a recusal could have affected things.

Mr. Kevins, the Assistant Town Attorney who told the Appellate Court he was counsel to the Town’s Ethics Board was also grilled about the DeChance conflict when he stepped up to the podium.  The Court noted that Mr. Lewis was on the Pines Zoning Advisory Board and asked Mr. Kevins if he thought Mr. DeChance should have recused himself.

Earlier, Mr. Scheyer had alluded to the Court that Chairman DeChance had gotten an ethics opinion that said it was ok for him to stay on and vote.

Questioned by the Court if one actually existed, Mr. Kevins said he knew of no such opinion, but when pressed to make a decision as to whether he felt it was a conflict, Mr. Kevins voiced softened to a whisper, so low the Judge had to repeat his answer, “That he did not have to recuse himself.” in his opinion.

To which the Justice replied, “Even though he always recused himself in the past?…Isn’t it curious when he doesn’t recuse himself in this one?…You can see why we’re concerned, when he doesn’t recuse himself on this one and Mr. Lewis is on a Board as well.” (Pine Island Zoning Advisory Board).

      

                           THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Mr. Scheyer had argued and the Zoning Board had agreed the variances Mr. Lewis requested made no change to the character of the neighborhood.

When the Court asked him “Weren’t these changes made after the code changes were enacted?”

“Not exactly”, Mr. Scheyer responded.  To which the Judge interjected, “There’s a lot of not entirely, not exactly, not all in your argument.”

Not phased by the rebuke, Mr. Scheyer uttered the words that again seemed to make the case for the other side, “These properties were modified many times since they were originally built.” 

The Court asked about the code changes that had taken effect to which Mr. Scheyer replied, “The Board is aware of all those changes, this is something they are particularly familiar with, something they do all the time, they handle hundreds of cases on Fire Island.”

The real issue for him was to make sure that FINS would not be the controlling statutory body that controls land use and zoning on Fire Island.  “The 1964 law that gave that power to the local municipalities” Scheyer insisted "Most of the zoning boards don’t follow it.  Almost none of them do.”

Mr. Kevins, assistant Town Attorney, for the Town of Brookhaven BZA, argued U.S. Department of Interior Laws don’t transcend Town Code.  Kevins agreed some of the FINS Rules have been adopted by the Town; including the 35% lot occupancy and the 28 ft. height requirement rule have been adopted.

In adopting the federal regulations the Town made the definition of a structure to be anything constructed or erected in or on the land.  In other words if God didn’t put it there it is a structure.

Differences between the standards for the Town zoning codes and FINS are the issue, Scheyer tried to convince the Court.

“For example, the Town would not count the pond and slates on the ground as structures.”  Mr. Scheyer told the Court. He also insisted the pond was not man made and therefore not a structure, yet Mr. Brown pointed out that an article in the Fire Island News about Ken Ruzicka, the president of Ruzicka Design, says he is the man behind dozens of ponds in the Pines, “including that of Ed Lewis and Glen Wieglus at their bay front home.”

                  AND THE SURVEY SAYS… THE HOUSE and DECK 

                    

                                        ARE DISAPPEARING?

Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown insisted that Mr. Lewis built for eight years without permits, the hardships were self-created and added that the survey of his property was found to be inaccurate more than once.

The Court agreed with their assessments when they wrote, “In light of the fact that Mr. Lewis was a member of the Pines Zoning Advisory Committee and did not deny that he built illegally on his property with complete disregard for the zoning laws, his hardship was self-created and supported denial of the variances.”

The Court declined to address the issue of inaccurate surveys submitted by Mr. Lewis and documented in the record.

Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown had asked why 246 square feet disappeared from one survey to another.  In the survey   dated August 8, 2007 labeled  “the house and decks as currently calculated"  equaled 5,518 S.F.

In the survey labeled “BZA--January 27, 2009 the “house and decks as currently calculated” equaled 5,272 S.F.

John McGoldrick of the Office of Professional Discipline, which handles 48 licensed professions, including issues with licensed surveyors was notified of this and other discrepancies in the survey by Switzgable/Brown.  Mr. McGoldrick said "Under Education Law they are confidential until a disposition is made and results are published.  If the case is closed without action, it will remain confidential."

Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown had also argued that the BZA failed to give weight to the “self-created hardship” factor which they contend “must be accorded some weight within the Seashore, such that wholly non-necessary variances are not granted solely for private gain at the expense of a protected National Seashore. “

The findings of the Court were that for Mr. Lewis this was a self-created hardship even though Mr. Cramer, had testified as the expert witness, accepted earlier by Mr. DeChance that it was not a self-created hardship.  The Town argued that the BZA has discretion in these matters.  Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown said while that may be true, that it should be balanced against the ecological harm that ignoring the 35% Rule could do to Fire Island.  The Court agreed.

Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown learned the hard way they claim that expert witness testimony trumps generalized community opposition almost all the time.  The BZA argued that they only needed to consider “what’s on the ground”.

The only variance the Supreme Court denied was the 10 ft. fence that Mr. Lewis had requested to build using another fence he had built on his property (also without permits) as his example of an “on the ground” similar structure in the area. “It would be contrary to public policy to allow Lewis to use his illegal wall as the basis to define the character of the neighborhood so he could erect more walls.” according to Mr. Atkinson, the Switzgable/Brown attorney.

Ms. Johnston asked, "In these tough fiscal times I'd like to know how much the Town spent to defend this 10 ft fence for a private individual?  Why wouldn't they let him spend his own money to appeal?"

An “Amicus Brief” or (Friend of the Court) was submitted by several environmental groups including the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, the Peconic Baykeeper, Group for the East End and the Seatuck Environmental Association in support of the Article 78 motion.

Karl Christopher Soller wrote on behalf of the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service and in his capacity as the Superintendent of the Fire Island National Seashore in support of the Amicus Brief:

(No reason was given as to why the Amicus Brief was not accepted by the Court)  

“I was personally involved in writing the federal zoning regulations for Fire Island National Seashore and believe the Federal regulations and the subsequently adopted Town rules intended to protect Fire Island are regularly overridden by the local zoning board of appeals even when the National Park Service has filed an objection to a variance application.  We agree the cumulative effect of the continuous granting of variances by the local zoning authorities in opposition to the Federal regulations and subsequently adopted Town ordinances is having a detrimental impact on the environmental quality of Fire Island and a detrimental impact on the character of Fire Island’s communities which the Federal regulations and subsequently the adopted Town ordinances were designed to protect.”

Mr. Soller added that Federal regulations requiring the local zoning authority to notify the Fire Island National Seashore of all variance applications on Fire Island, were not followed.  In this instance FINS had no record of notification, according to Mr. Soller.

Mr. Kevins agreed with Mr. Scheyer in admitting that it had been the Zoning Boards’ practice over the last six years not to send the actual zoning applications to FINS as required by law, but instead they sent a calendar of dates of zoning board meetings and names and addresses of anyone requesting variances. 

Ms. Switzgable and Mr. Brown said the Board sends so much information it is difficult to wade through to find what is an issue for FINS.  Mr. Kevins said no one had complained about the process until now. 

Prompting the  Judge to ask why it would take someone complaining for them to follow the law.

The question still remains if the Town will compel Mr. Lewis to remove all the things he did not deny he built illegally, without permits, for the eight years prior to this case.

Calls for comments on the story were made to Mr. Kevins, Mr. Cramer, Mr Scheyer and the Town of Brookhaven.

No one desired to comment to date.

NO SECURITY IN ISLIP’S “ALARMING” BIDDING PROCESS…

Citing the Town’s “mistakes” Islip Town rejects lowest qualified bidder….TWICE


"I said there were mistakes made." Islip Town Attorney Alicia O'Connor admitted at a recent Town Board meeting about a security contract bid put out earlier this year.

World Wide Security owners in Garden City, hope the third time is the charm in their attempt to have their company’s low bid for a Town of Islip contract for Alarm Network and Maintenance and Service accepted.

Twice before their low bid has been rejected by Islip Town, even though World Wide Security (WWS),  executives say they fulfilled all bid requirements and both times they were significantly lower than the only other bidding company; Intellitec, of Westbury, which has held the contract with the Town of Islip for over five years.

Intellitec’s owner  claims the lower bid isn’t always the best financially, after factoring in other variables.
                                                                                                              
Town Supervisor, Phil Nolan also admitted at the meeting the Town had made errors in what he called "an important contract" saying, "We are acknowledging the mistakes and we are going to correct it."


           
                                                   THE FIRST BID...

Pat Mara and her husband Kenneth, owners of World Wide Security put their first bid in response to a request for bids by the Town, back in March of this year.  Originally they were told there were over 80 systems to monitor in about 40 or fifty buildings, but a complete list was not supplied until a week after the initial faxed request for bids was made, according to WWS.  There was a “pre-bid meeting” according to WWS executives, attended by Mike Patejdl, the Director of Purchasing for Islip Town, Jeffrey Hausner, from Intellitec and Michael Catalano, the Chief Fire Marshal for Public Safety Enforcement for Islip.  Also in attendance were WWS staff members Terri George, (who primarily handled the bid) Brian Macquade and Dave Young.

WWS staff and Intellitec were told the Town wanted to cut the cost of Fire and Security Alarm monitoring, currently handled by the Town.

At the time the town had just laid off approximately 39 workers.  WWS and Intellitec were told the Town’s system was “in good condition”.  The Town requested a10% bid bond (of the annual cost of the monitoring) and a one year performance bond at that meeting.   WWS did present a certified check to cover both that day.  Intellitec did not.  When Intellitec did not give a check, Mr. Patedjl returned the check to Ms. George saying the bond check was no longer needed.

Mr. Hausner spoke to Freelance Investigations and claims this was not a requirement.  “There was definitely not a bid bond required, because I called to check and they told me no.  If you go through the document there is nothing there that says you need a bid bond -I could get one overnight if necessary.  They only specified that the successful securities contractor provide a performance bond.”

Part of the specifications for the bid were that there would be no sub-contractors to be used and the company must have a NYC Fire approved Central Station which requires at least two persons manning monitors at all times 24/7 365 days a year.  WWS executives claim their bid has that and that Intellitec does not.

Mr. Hausner, said this is not an issue as Intellitec has Rapid Response Monitoring,  “ Rapid Response Monitoring is a NYC Fire approved Central Station", according to Mr. Hausner.  "We admit Rapid Response is a subcontractor, but so is Vision Monitoring, another company under WWS.”

Ms. Mara claims it is not the same. “In our bid submittal we submitted the bid as WWS and Vision Monitoring together.  They did not, with no mention of Rapid Response in Syracuse at the outset.”

Mr. Hausner countered,  “Rapid Response was printed on the initial bid provided to the Town. The subcontracting had nothing to do with the monitoring and WWS was not a certified dealer and did not have the certifications for Bosch Radionics and Mirtone, which really was the issue.”

Mr. Hausner added 90% of the Towns’ equipment is Bosch.

WWS said Vision Monitoring is a certified Bosch dealer and supplied Freelance Investigations with their certificate as verification.

Mr. Hausner insisted this was the real issue, that WWS does not hold the certification, Vision Monitoring does.

*************************************************************************
WWS first Bid on 88 sites (55 Burglar Alarms and 33 Fire Alarms) was:
$2,261.60/ month for monitoring ($29,264.20/year)
Hourly rate:  $100 for the first half hour; $50 for the next quarter hour for regular service.

Emergency service: $150 for the first half hour and $75 for the next quarter hour.
Central works 2000 computer support fee was $500/year
*************************************************************************
Intellitec bid:  $2,518.65/month  ($36,598.80) for monitoring
Hourly rate: $ 98.00 for the first half hour; $30 for the next quarter hour.
Central works 2000 computer support fee was one dollar.

Emergency service $150 for the first half hour; the next quarter hour $45 dollars.
******************************************************************************
Jeffrey Hausner told Freelance Investigations:

After the bid came out I did an analysis on the service calls that the town had done and I came up with based on these figures and the Town’s needs from January 1st to April 30th, WWS even with their less expensive monitoring combined with their Emergency services they would have been $12,000 more than Intellitec. For the year that translates to approximately $36,000 minus the $3,000 for the difference in monitoring fees, we would still have been about $33,000 less than WWS. 

WWS claims the $7,334.60 difference… made Intellitec the higher bidder.

WWS:

At the time WWS asked for an approximate total of service hours to base their hourly rate on, we were told by Mr. Patadjl to just give a single hourly rate.  When the bids went in however, WWS was told the rate should have been based on approximately 750 hours of service. That according WWS made Intellitec, appear to be the lower bidder.

After the bidding process ended, Ms. George called the Town and asked why they hadn’t been awarded the contract even though they were the lower bidder and was told about the hourly discrepancies and other issues were brought up as a reason to award the bid to Intellitec.  Ms. George informed the Mara’s, owners of WWS/Vision Monitoring and Mr. Mara objected to the process.

Mr. Hausner claims on the first bid, based on the hourly rates, his bid would end up being lower.  “They did not fulfill their certificate requirements. It is monitoring, plus an hourly rate there are two components.  When combined our bid was lower.”

In May, the Vice President of Intellitec, Jeff Hausner, a Nassau County resident, made a  $250 contribution to the Friends of Phil Nolan.  Hausner admitted he made the contribution at a cocktail party and said he grew up in Ronkonkoma and as such had lived in Islip Town, so it was not unusual for him to contribute.

In June the Town of Islip announced they had decided to rebid the job again.

Before the second bid, the Town Attorney’s office called WWS to set up a meeting with Mr. Catalano, (Fire Commissioner) and Mr. Lawrence (Larry) O’Leary, the Public Safety Commissioner for Islip and head of Code Enforcement for the Town, for the next day.  With little notice, the owner and president of WWS, Kenneth Mara, the bids’ administrative project manager’ Terri George and two others from WWS drove to Islip from Garden City, where their firm is located, and said they were told when they were five minutes away that the Security Commissioner (O’Leary) could not attend and the meeting had been canceled.
Mr. Hausner said he was not privy to this meeting.
                                                                                                                  

                                              THE SECOND BID...

The Town told Ms. George (WWS) that they had decided to re-bid the project (in June).

The second set of bids were:
**********************************************************************
World Wide Security:  $81,180.70             $2513.00/monthly monitoring fee
$50/for the first half hour $25 for the next quarter hour
$500 went to zero on the support fee
Emergency Service to $55/hour  and $27.50 for a quarter hour.
**********************************************************************
Intellitec:  $118,866.80                               $2179.80/monthly monitoring fee
$98/for the first half hour; $30/next quarter hour.
Support Fee: $1 dollar
Emergency Service Fee: $155/hour $45/next quarter hour
**********************************************************************
After the numbers for the second bid were in, Mr. Hausner questioned how WWS could pay their people with these numbers.  “I kept my prices the same except the monitoring which I dropped and I only raised the Emergency Service fee five dollars so I wouldn’t lose money on an emergency call.”

Ms. Mara, Vice President of WWS, responded, “How we pay our people should be of no concern to Mr. Hausner.”  At the Town Board meeting Ms. Mara indicated that her company is required by law to pay prevailing wage of $35 to $65/hour, that her contract bid was for $100/hour and that currently Intellitec was getting $200/hour from the Town of Islip for the service they have provided since 2006.

Mr. Hausner also noted,  “I’ve lost hundreds of bids because I was not certified in a particular product as a dealer.  This is the normal course of business.  WWS was not certified in Bosch period.” said Hausner, something WWS denies.

According to the specs, WWS or Intellitec would be required to handle over 88 systems including Bosch, which was also required by the Town in their specs, even though it’s like requiring the antiquated DOS system for your computer, according to Ms. George of WWS.

Mr. Hausner disagreed, calling the Bosch technology different, but complex and since according to him at least 90% of the Town’s ageing equipment is Bosch, Mr. Hausner agreed it was necessary to be Bosch certified, which he again claimed WWS is not.

A letter from Bosch Security Systems, dated March 26, 2010 Re: Certification-Bosch Security Systems Authorized Dealer stated that Vision Monitoring of Garden City is a certified Bosch dealer in: Intrusion Systems, Fire Systems and CCTV Systems.

 Mr. Hausner again insisted, "WWS does not have the certification-Vision Monitoring does."

After the second Bid WWS claims they were nearly $40,000 dollars lower than Intellitec, but again, they were not awarded the bid.

Forced to give an hourly rate, WWS came in at $100/hour compared to Intellitec’s  $196/hour.
However, Mr. Hausner claims when you add up the numbers, Intellitec's actual hourly rate comes down to $158/hour and when other variables are factored in, according to him, it is really less expensive.  WWS disagrees with that assessment insisting they have been the lower bid both times.

No winning bid was chosen again.

Calling WWS’s bid “non-responsive” Alicia O’Connor, the Islip Town Attorney, spoke to WWS the next day.  WWS said Ms. O’Connor told them they were not awarded the bid because they did not meet all the requirements.  WWS insisted they had a Central Station on their premises and that Intellitec did not and invited her to take a ride to Garden City so they could show her their Central Station on their facility that very day.  Ms. O’Connor declined saying “We’re not required to do that.”  In the phone conversation Ms. O’Connor was claiming the process was now “too confused”, according to Ms. Mara V.P. of WWS, a claim Ms. Mara reiterated at the September Town Board meeting saying "These were your bid specs and the Town of Islip is now paying $40,000 dollars more a year because you're confused?"

Ms. O'Connor responded at that meeting, "I didn't say the Town was confused, I said there were some mistakes in the bidding process, which we have reviewed." adding that it was in the "Town's best interest and in compliance with the law" to rebid a third time.

After the second bid,  Mike Patdjl told WWS that Ms. O'Connor told him to tell WWS they were not getting the bid because they didn’t submit a certificate of insurance, according to Ms. George.  This despite the fact that it was clearly stated in the bid papers that only the successful bidder needed to submit their certificate of insurance, so therefore, not until a bid has been awarded would it be required, according WWS.  Even Mr. Hausner agreed in our phone interview that WWS didn’t need one.  Mr. Hausner said he had included it in his package anyway, because it is a simple form, "documenting my ability to obtain insurance."  Ms. O'Connor's office declined to answer the question about the insurance requirement or any others regarding the bidding process sent to her office by Freelance Investigations.

At a Town Board meeting in August, Ms. George, from WWS asked the Board for a private meeting to discuss the issue and the Board agreed.  The next morning, according to Ms. George, without ever having confirmed a date or time for the meeting at 11:30 AM the Town Attorney’s office called her and said her firm missed the meeting that they said was supposedly scheduled for 11:00 AM.  Another meeting was hastily scheduled for 1:30 that afternoon attended by; a different fire marshal, Larry O’Leary, Alicia O’Connor, her legal assistant and members of the WWS team.

The Town was informed by WWS that the Towns’ own bid specs were to include a N.Y. City Fire approved Central Station, which WWS  says they do have and that Intellitec does not.  Intellitec was planning to use Rapid Response Monitoring System in Syracuse, as their Central Station.  WWS believe this violates the provision of no subcontracting, because even though the owner of Rapid Response also owns a piece of Intellitec and does business with them, it is still considered a separate company and as such is considered a subcontractor.

WWS claims Vision monitoring is not a subcontractor, it is a company wholly owned by WWS,  the same owners.

Mr. Hausner says his part ownership of a small piece of Rapid Response is the same as WWS owning Vision Monitoring, which he claims is also technically a separate company and as such is also a sub-contractor.

WWS owner Pat Mara spoke with Freelance Investigations recently about the myriad of problems with the bidding process itself.  Ms. Mara claims that some of the specs required by the Town made no sense.   For example, the Town required the company to be S.I.A. certified.  This course is not even given any longer.  They also required the use of a Mirtone Dealer (made by G.E.) as a necessary “proprietary” supplier, despite the fact that it is not a proprietary dealer as G.E. sells Mirtone Vigilante to another company, according to Ms. Mara.

Mr. Hausner said Intellitec has $40,000 dollars worth of Mirtone parts available 24/7 in an emergency.  "Intellitec can provide them at a moments notice.  WWS would have to acquire these parts third hand and on a weekend in an emergency, that would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish."

In a letter to Islip Town Councilman Steven J. Flotteran (Rep,) WWS Vice President, Pat Mara discussed the concerns she had with the bidding process with the Town of Islip.
“We are a strong company who are reputable and work for some of the largest organizations in the world. I followed the bid specifications to the letter.” Ms. Mara wrote.

Ms. Mara offered to replace the Mirtone Alarm equipment that is in two Town Hall Buildings free of charge if they could not repair or replace it and that they would guarantee they would use brand new Honeywell Equipment, (the world’s largest supplier of fire and security equipment).  Ms. Mara cc’d the letter to the members of the Town Board, inviting Phil Nolan, the Town Supervisor and the rest of the Board to visit their facility and see for themselves, that they do have a NYC Fire Department approved Central Station.  Ms. Mara said no one took her up on the offer.

WWS provided the documentation to Freelance Investigations to support their claims and gave Freelance Investigations a tour of their facility in Garden City, including their on premise Central Station, which contained state of the art modern technology and was manned by two employees at the time.

Mr Hausner sent Freelance Investigations a link to a virtual tour of Rapid Response, their state of the art, Central Station Monitoring facility located in Syracuse, New York.

American Securities Technologies Inc. D/B/A WWS does business with a wide range of clients including the government, West Islip School District, the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County and NYC Department of HRA at over forty locations.

Mr. Hausner declined to name any of his clients stating, "We are in the security business and the last thing I would do is reveal a client due to security concerns."

On September 23, 2010 Patricia Mara sent a letter to Islip Town Attorney, Ms. O’Connor requesting a definitive answer on the second set of bids.

At the last board meeting a number of issues were addressed regarding the use of sub-contractor and licensing.  I am sure you have been able to verify that Intellitec does not operate a central station at their location, which was a requirement of the bid specifications.  You should also have been able to confirm that Intellitec was going to be using Rapid Response as a “sub-contractor” for the central station monitoring, which is in violation of the bid specifications.  Intellitec is not certified as a NYC Central Station Signaling Company, which would make Intellitec “non-responsive” to the bid.

Mr. Hausner insisted, "Nowhere in the request for proposals does it state that the bidder must operate the Central Station at their location."  adding "We provided the name and address of Rapid Response in the initial bid papers as well."

The letter was sent in advance of the recent September 28th Town Board meeting where Ms. O’Connor admitted on the record that the Town had made mistakes in the specifications and the process itself was flawed for the second time, though she declined to specify what the mistakes were.

After the second bid went out, we found there were some mistakes, not only in some of the bid specifications, but in the actual document we had prepared.  There was some information not put into the bid documentation that would specifically go into a maintenance/service contract and they were not there.  So we need to do it again we need to re-draft the specifications.             (Ms. O'Connor/ September 28, 2010)

No one disputes the quality or the credentials of either company.  Mr. Nolan admitted for the record at the September meeting that both sides have "great expertise" and he insisted "This is an important contract that we are looking at in totality."

                                                      THE THIRD BID…


The Mara’s and their employees say they have invested so much time and energy into this bidding process so far it is really a question as to whether it is even worth it to re-bid.  Ms George called the process "unjust" and "it is nothing like I've ever seen before." at the Town Board meeting, adding her company put in over 200 hours of time and energy on the bidding process so far.  According to them, the anomalies of the process itself need to be exposed.

Mr. Nolan responded, "We've given it an even handed negotiation, what more do you want?"

Terry George also asked at the September 28th meeting why Mr. O’Leary and the Fire Commissioner were at these meetings and not just the purchasing agent as is her experience in the 27 years she has been working creating bids in the industry.  Mr. Hausner said their presence at the meetings was "not out of the ordinary".  Ms. George asked of the Board, "I'd like to know what's missing and what errors you found.  I'm concerned because normally the other bidders try to get the lowest bid thrown out."

Ms. George also charged the Town is purposely trying to throw out WWS even though they are the lowest.  "Intellitec doesn't have to say a word, because the Town Board members are doing the work for them."

Mr. Nolan insisted that "We're just trying to get the best outcome."  Saying "I'm not thrilled with bidding something three times...but if an error is correctable, then we should do it.  It's a simple as that."

No one knows when the next bid will be or if they will re-bid, according to owners of WWS and Intellitec.

“We may not even be invited to the next bid, if we are, we will bid unless the new bid specs are clearly aimed at Intellitec.  If it is not clearly looking for the lower bid then we won’t waste our employees’ time.” according to Ms. Mara.

Mr Hausner declined to say if Intellitec will bid again as no date for the third bid has been set.

Freelance Investigations called Ms. O’Connor with a list of questions regarding the bidding process itself and a time frame for the third bidding invitations to go out.  Calls to Ms. O’Connor were handled by Amy Basta, the Director of Public Information for Islip Town, who sent this E-Mail response from Ms. O’Connor.

Hi, Amy, I won’t be able to respond to the questions since we have not yet issued the advertisement for the third bid and any information out there could impact prospective bidders’ numbers and proposals. The writer is free, however, to submit a FOIL request to review the documentation the Town has on file. Thanks, Alicia.

At the September meeting Ms. O'Connor apologized to Ms. Mara and Ms. George stating:

We have cancelled the bid, we are now working on new specifications and putting in the required information, for a maintenance, servicing and monitoring contract.  I can assure you that it was not our intent to have a long arduous process, but the fact of the matter is, there were some mistakes, it went out and we caught the errors and now we are addressing it.

Admitting, "Some of the errors were discovered after the second bid" Ms. O'Connor added when questioned by Ms. George, that the Town would again be drawing up the specifications for the third bid "in house".

State Orders Islip Landfill Capped…$16 Million Dollar Deadline

    Supervisor Phil Nolan says…NO NEED

After more than two decades of delay the Town of Islip is faced with a $16 million dollar deadline from the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to cap the Lincoln Avenue landfill, which closed in the 1980's.   The Town must hire a contractor by March of 2012 and finish the work by February 2013, this represents a three year extension by the State DEC granted after Mr. Nolan requested a ten year extension in 2008.   

Islip Supervisor Phil Nolan has other ideas for the Sayville landfill, according to a recent Newsday article where he is quoted as saying:

 “This is a landfill that has pretty much run its course.  It should have been capped at least two decades ago.  You don’t cap it when all this stuff is already out there.  I don’t like being handed a bill… for something that isn’t necessary, in a climate where we’re trying to maintain services at the town level.” (Newsday 8/6/2010 State Sets Deadline to Cap Landfill by Jennifer Maloney)

Arguing the site poses no “ imminent threat to public health” and that the damage is already done Mr. Nolan asked for a cost-benefit analysis to capping the landfill.

“This would be an environmental travesty for Long Island and its’ drinking water supply and the environment”, a former employee of Mr. Nolan said in response.

A little history is in order here, according to William Perks a former employee of the Town of Huntington when current Islip Town Supervisor Phil Nolan, was the Director of Environmental Control in the Town of Huntington and handled the Ogden Martin Incinerator and the East Northport landfill.  Mr. Perks spoke with Freelance Investigations and had plenty to say about Mr. Nolan’s recent remarks in the Newsday story.

Mr. Perks claims Mr. Nolan violated State Conservation Laws and Town laws when as the Director, he allowed hazardous radiated waste to be burned in the Covanta Waste to Energy Plant operated for Smithtown/Huntington on Townline Road in East Northport ; which at the time was known as Ogden Martin.  

Between December 1998 and March 2000, at least 9 loads of ferrous radiated scrap were returned to the incinerator site from Gershow Recycling Inc. in Medford, according to Mr. Perks and documents obtained by Freelance Investigations.  At the time Ogden Martin publicly denied there was a health risk.  But after Gershow installed their own radiation detector too many loads of scrap known as “Grizzle” or “Grizzly” were coming back to Huntington.

Phil Nolan was the Huntington Waste Management Director when the radiated materials were being sent back by Gershow.  Nolan was questioned then about the issue of radioactive contamination and is quoted in a story by David Ambro printed in  The Observer, The Smithtown News and The Huntington News.

“The plant poses no health hazard whatsoever.  We are monitored by the State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency stringently and continuously and the plant passes all tests with flying colors…I’m confident in saying this is one of the cleanest plants in the country.  The people of Huntington can be very confident they have a safe and efficient plant here.” (Hot Scrap: Incinerator Residue Contaminated With Low-Levels of Radioactivity; March 8, 2001 By David Ambro, The Observer)

The MCLG or Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for radioactive compounds is zero.

Records show that once the Bicron 3000 Radiation Detector was installed,  that the Town paid RADIAC, a radiation removal firm at 261 Kent Avenue in Brooklyn over $140,000 dollars in 2000 as a result of over a dozen radioactive incidents.  Depending on the level of contamination Radiac charges ranged from $4,000-$7,000 per/85 gallon barrel to remove the hazardous material back in 2001, which was strictly prohibited by the DEC permit at the time.  Then the Town was also charged a fee by Gershow  when Gershow  returned the waste to them which averaged $250.00 per returned load of radiated scrap.

Mr. Perks claims he and at least one other witness, saw the reintroduction of the returned radiated scrap metal being fed into the incinerator to burn.  He says both he and another witness brought documents into Manhattan to speak with the Attorney General's Office.  (C. Michael Higgins)

According to documents obtained by Freelance Investigations, Gershow returned radioactive loads of “grizzly” (scrap metal) in 1998, 1999 and in 2000.

At the time Mr. Nolan said in the press he suspected the source of the radiation was from increased outpatient medical procedures causing radioactive diapers to end up in the municipal waste stream.

Mr. Perks, then Harbormaster and Hazardous Materials Coordinator for the Town of Huntington, claims the radioactive contamination was far more extensive than Mr. Nolan admitted publicly at the time.

After the radiation detector was installed, Mr. Perks wrote several interoffice memos to his superiors telling them about the increased frequency of the incineration of radioactive materials  and the danger to the employees who had no haz-mat gear or protective equipment.  Mr. Perks complained they were not being informed about the serious nature of the events and insisted according to the union contract and New York State labor law; the Town and Ogden Martin were violating “The Right To Know” laws.  Town officials responded to his concern at a meeting on May 10, 2000 according to Mr. Perks, where he was told about his concerns, according to him,  “Management will take it under advisement.” 

On May 30, 2000 Josephine Jahier, Deputy Director of the Town of Huntington Environmental Waste Management, working directly under Mr. Nolan responded to a memo from Mr. Perks, then the Harbormaster/Oil Spill Response Manager,  regarding his concerns over the number of incidents tripping the newly installed radiation detectors and the fact that he and the staff working at the newly capped landfill at the entrance to the incinerator, did not have proper hazmat and other protective gear, despite the obvious need.

(from the Memo from Josephine Jahier to Bill Perks dated May 30, 2000)

“Your concern and memo of 5-17-(2000) regarding radioactive material detected at Ogden Martin has been received and duly noted.  The director (Nolan) and I have discussed this and we will be setting up a meeting with you shortly to hear your concerns.  In the meantime, it will not be your responsibility to respond to these detections.”  

A document about the radioactive waste dated May 18, 2000 from the facility manager at Ogden Martin; Thomas Chambers,  shows that from January to April of that year there were 25 incidents of radioactivity at the plant.  Mr. Chambers wrote:

“With the exception of  (3) ferrous metal loads returned from Gershow recycling most all incidents involved metal isotopes utilized in diagnostic testing.  In the beginning of April 2000 we raised the detection level of the Bicron radiation detector to (5) times background and therefore the amount of detections dropped off considerably in April.

What or who gave them the right to raise the background level of the radiation detector? Perks asked.

Mr. Perks said he was even more concerned for his personal health and the health of the general public according to him after the May 30^th Jahier memo telling him not to get involved. 

On June 6, 2000 Mr. Perks sent a three page interoffice memorandum RE: Responsibility of Radioactive Material Detection at Ogden Martin Facility

To: Ms. Jahier (and Mr. Nolan) in order to prepare himself for their upcoming meeting mentioned by Jahier in her earlier memo.  He prepared a list of questions and concerns of his:  From the memo unedited as follows:

What other properly trained and certified Town law enforcement employees (Who enforce Town Code Chapter 120-21) are responsible to investigate and respond to these radioactivity detections, contamination and uncontrolled releases?

Has Ogden Martin notified the Town of Huntington with regard to each radioactive material detection problem in the past as requested by Smithtown Department of Public Safety?

What agencies are Ogden Martin required reporting radioactive material detections problems to?

What coordinated efforts have been made between the Town of Huntington and with the Town of Smithtown or other regulatory agencies as it relates to radioactivity problems at the Ogden Martin facility in the past?

Have there been any summonses issued for previous contamination problems at Ogden Martin facility as regulated in the Town Code (Chapter 120-21)?

Are there any reports filed regarding previous radioactive material detection problems or prevention efforts at Ogden Martin facility?

Why did Ogden Martin just install a radioactive materials detection system this past year at their East Northport facility?

Were there any regulations requiring Ogden Martin to  install the new radiation detector?   

How did Ogden Martin handle radioactive contamination at their East Northport facility prior to the installation of their new alarm system?

What are the minimum acceptable levels of radioactivity now being brought into the Ogden  Martin facility?

Who authorized the raising of the minimum threshold of the radioactive material detector?

What has Ogden Martin done with possible numerous containers of contaminated materials that were rejected from Gershow Recycling Center and returned to Huntington in past years?

Has the ash from the Ogden Martin facility in East Northport been checked for contamination before it was shipped to cap the Babylon landfill?

With regard to your exclusion of my further investigation and enforcement at the Ogden Martin facility (enforcement of Town Code Chapter 120-21), are you advocating selective enforcement?

When did Ogden Martin institute a SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for radioactive material detection at their East Northport facility?

Why have other employees, not located at the plant, been given an SOP for the radioactive material detection at Ogden Martin facility and have I been excluded?

Were any Town of Huntington employees notified of the related exposure problems and health risks at the Ogden Martin facility concerning radioactive materials?

Why hasn’t the problems of radioactive contamination at the Ogden Martin facility been brought to the attention of the Oil and Toxic and Flammable Material Spillage Committee?

If the radioactive materials detector goes off again, should I just start running for Kings Park. (I’m serious) 

"The recent training program given by the Town of Huntington, conducted at the Huntington Fire Department in which I specifically instructed “ZERO TOLERANCE” for any radioactive contamination problems.  My geographic location to the shipments received of any questionable contamination to the Ogden Martin facility is cause for my personal health concerns as well of the general public."   

The memo was cc’d to:

Town Board, Town of Huntington       

The Oil and Toxic and Flammable Material Spillage Committee Members

Dr. L. Miller and Members of the EEO Complaint Review Committee

Lisa Baisley, Personnel Officer

Harry Hennessey Jr., Local 342

Angela Vacerca, Suffolk County Department of Civil Service

Edward Yule Jr., Esq.

Mr. Perks claims the meeting with Mr. Nolan and Ms. Jahier never happened and to this day some of those questions have never been answered because the Town of Huntington  pays attorneys to keep the information relating to an investigation of the landfill not only from the public, but from the State Attorney General’s office as well.

On March 3, 2003  C. Michael Higgins wrote a 3 page letter to Ms. Jahier and Ms. Baisley the Personnel Director for the Town of Huntington regarding alleged violations of "Right to Know" laws.

Mr. Higgins asked questions regarding the landfill in East Northport:

He asked about materials and the nature of the waste that was in the landfill, a description of any covers or liners and the date(s) installed, the type and depth of cover material (i.e. topsoil, crushed rock etc.), if any synthetic covers or liners were installed, the depth of material between the synthetic cover and the surface, the composition of that material and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any contractors that placed any material, whether natural, synthetic, or processed on top of the landfill after it ceased operating.  

Mr. Higgins asked many more questions in the letter including asking for a list of all persons who had worked at the plant for the last three years (1999-2003) and a description of the "Right to Know" education and training programs that have been given during the last three years to people who work at the plant.  Mr. Higgins also wanted to know the Town's procedures for determining the specific employees who must receive the "Right to Know" training, assurance and proof that they had received the training, but most important Mr. Higgins asked for the names, address and social security numbers of all employees who had worked at the plant who handled or used toxic substances and the toxic substances to which these employees were exposed for the last three years.

According to documents dated October 23, 2009 the Town of Huntington paid Madison Avenue Attorneys Bond, Schoeneck &  King, PLLC,   $3,147 dollars for work from August 10, 2009 through Sept 20, 2009 for work related to the" legislative history of the right to know law"  and "the calculation of penalties thereunder".   Mr. Perks claims the Town is still trying to block information relating to issues raised by Mr. Perks and of interest to the State Attorney General’s Office. The documents show the Town’s outside attorneys also finalized a letter to Assistant Attorney General, C. Michael Higgins,  nearly ten years after Mr. Perks notified the Attorney Generals Office of his concerns of radiation at the plant and seven years after Mr. Higgins' letter to Ms. Jahier and Ms Baisley.  

For nine years prior to the radiation detector being installed, the facility now known as Covanta Energy, then Ogden Martin, began burning garbage from Smithtown and Huntington.  Although they were strictly forbidden from burning any radioactive waste at the time, both medical or industrial, there was no requirement that a radiation detector be installed at the plant. At that time Ogden Martin became the last of the four waste-to energy plants on Long Island to have one, something Mr. Perks claims did not go unnoticed by the carters back then, who probably sent all their radiated waste to Huntington, knowing there was no way to know if it was "hot" without a radiation detector -because radiation is colorless and odorless.

In 2003 Kevin Gershowitz, a vice president at Gershow spoke to The New York Times and said the Huntington plant was the only place Gershow had ever received radiated material from.  “Even a small amount of radiated metal would make an entire beam worthless.” (Huntington, Garbage-Burning Plant Stirs Radiation Fears by David Winzelberg; The New York Times, January 19, 2003)

According to Mr. Perks it wasn’t until Gershow was notified that one of the foundries they shipped the metal to became hot (radiated from hot scrap or grizzly) and they traced it back to Gershow in Medford, that Gershow was forced to install a radiation detector.  It was only then that they caught the "hot loads" coming from Ogden Martin on a regular basis Mr. Perks said.

The ash from the Huntington plant was dumped at the Brookhaven and Babylon Landfills, according to The New York Times article.

Back in 2003, Frank Petrone,  Huntington Supervisor, was also quoted in The New York Times article and called Mr. Perks activity filing grievances “a criminal activity” because he filed over 80 grievances with his union about the situation.  The Town attorney, Thelma Neira also spoke on the record and called this “just another complaint” from Mr. Perks.

But the memos from Mr. Perks eventually sparked the Department of Labor to investigate and demand that the Town come up with a viable plan for a radiation emergency or face daily fines of several hundred dollars if not in compliance.

Mr. Perks did in fact contact:  The New York State DEC, The Department of Labor, The Department of Health, The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The State of New York Bureau of Radiation and Hazardous Site Management (DEC), the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office and a cast of political characters just as long between 2000 and the present.

Mr. Perks was portrayed in the newspaper as an overly litigious person with a sexual harassment lawsuit hanging over his head.  Mr. Perks says he is a target because he is telling an unwelcome truth.

Mr. Perks background includes: State of New York Fire Training Certificate in Hazardous Materials First Responder Operations, Instructor Evaluator Training Certificate from the Nassau County Police Department, Incident Safety Officer Training Certificate, Incident Commander/Hazwoper Supervisor/Marine Spill Response OSHA Certification (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.20) 40 hours of OSHA Hazwoper training, numerous refresher courses certified by OSHA and has held a license as a private investigator in New York State and a firearm permit. Mr. Perks said he was the only man in his office with a college degree.

On February 18, and May 12, 1999 NDL Organization Inc. located at 1000 Lower South Street in Peekskill, New York conducted an analysis under Gamma Spectroscopy of the Ash Content, Debris and Sludge (Slag & Debris) from the Ogden Martin Facility at 99 Town Road in East Northport and found that it contained in Thorium 232, Uranium 238, K-40 (Potassium) and Cesium 137.

Specifically:

Uranium-238+D at 8.6 pCi/g              Half Life:  4.46 Billion Years

Thorium-232 +D at 91.2 pCi/g            Half Life:  14 Billion
K-40 (Potassium)  at 0.94 pCi/g         Half Life: 1.25 Billion Years                                                  Cesium-137  at 0.82 pCi/g                  Half Life:   30 Years

Thorium- 232 is classified as a carcinogenic and emits alpha particles. It is extremely insoluble, but can become more soluble in the presence of high concentrations of organic materials.

Uranium-238 emits alpha particles.  They are less penetrating than other forms of radiation, and weak gamma rays. As long as it remains outside the body, uranium poses little health hazard, if inhaled or ingested, however, its radioactivity poses increased risks of lung cancer and bone cancer. Uranium is also chemically toxic at high concentrations and can cause damage to internal organs, notably the kidneys.

K-40 (Potassium)  at 0.94 pCi/g  Half Life: 1.25 Billion Years 

Cesium-137  at 0.82 pCi/g            Half Life:   30 Years

Half-life is the period of time it takes for a substance undergoing decay to decrease by half. (Information from:  The Environmental Health Division of the Wisconsin State Laboratory relating to Radiochemistry)

Radium 226 was listed on other reports as one of the many isotopes found at Ogden Martin and removed by either NDL or Radiac.

Radium-226  has a half-life of 1622 years and emits alpha particles; health implications are bone sarcomas and head carcinomas.

Other reports from Radiac and NDL show isotopes present of I-131 (Iodine), Mo-99 (Molybdenun), Te-99m (Technetium) and I-123 and the aforementioned Thorium 232,  and Radium 226.  What is disturbing about the reports are they are sparsely filled out and in many cases, they are missing what would appear to be critical information including the nature of the isotope present.  In at least 6 reports the space to identify the isotope is left blank, yet the material was carted away by Radiac.

A report dated May 4, 2000  contains the statement,  "Coordinate with the Town Of Islip Hazmat"
and the rest of the paperwork including the nature of the radioactive material they were dealing with is completely blank.

Other paperwork is similarly missing key pieces of data.

An application in the name of Ogden Martin Systems of Huntington marked for renewal of previous permit no: 4342-31-99-Y names Mr. Thomas Chambers as responsible for radioactive waste shipments.  It also lists the total amount of allowable waste permitted under the Class Y Permit with a $200 dollar fee:

An annual total of no more than 75 cubic feet of radioactive waste for disposal, storage or waste processing within the State.  The document lists Th-232 +D and U-238 +D as the radiological materials  to be disposed of at an estimated annual radioactivity in Curies at .001 Curies.  NDL Organization, Inc in Peekskill is listed as the Authorized Waste Collector.  The space for the date the permit covers- is blank. 

In 1999 most of the radioactive waste was removed by NDL,   (records show that between Jan 1999 and December 1999, the Town paid over $49,000 to deal with the radiated waste from Gershow and to NDL) but in 2000 and 2001, a company called RADIAC Environmental Services at 261 Kent Avenue in Brooklyn removed the radioactive waste to their facility near the Williamsburg Bridge.  

In a March 29, 2001 letter from Arthur Green Director of Operations for RADIAC to Mr. Chambers at COVANTA,   (formerly Ogden Martin) Mr. Green wrote:

Enclosed find RADIAC  "Emergency Response Reports" detailing our response activities at your facility from January 2000 to date.  The dose rate upon discovery has been left blank for you to fill in since we have no record of the initial dose rate which caused the alarm on your Bicron scale detector to be activated.

For years radioactive materials travelled on route 112 from Huntington to Gershow and back, yet until the radiation detector was installed there was no way to know that, according to Mr. Perks.

Records show that Phil Nolan was apprised of the radioactivity when he was cc’d as Director of Environmental Waste Management on the May 17, memo from Mr. Perks to Josephine Jahier,  RE:  Radioactivity at Ogden Martin.

“Back during the radiation events, Mr. Nolan never contacted anyone regarding the problem and now he’s gone one step further in Islip and is trying to say that what is buried is done.” Mr. Perks noted.

Radioactive waste removed from Ogden Martin plant was taken to  Radiac, located in Brooklyn and to NDL Organization in Peekskill, New York.

                       Where In The World is... the Driver of Truck # 19?

The Town paid Gershow many thousands of dollars when they would return the radioactive loads to Ogden Martin and an interesting detail provided from the documents show that it was always one truck that did all the returns of the radioactive material…truck # 19.

"Mr. Nolan will probably say I am a disgruntled former employee, which in this case is true.” Mr. Perks said, adding, “For Mr. Nolan to say the contamination is done is false.  These toxins threaten our water supply every time it rains.  The entire aquifer is at risk as the water travels 1 foot per day underground. Once again Mr. Nolan’s decisions are detrimental to the health and safety of our residents and I hope the DEC does not listen to him and enforces the law.”

Mr. Perks insisted, “The longer Mr. Nolan stalls, the more poison goes into our drinking water. The State knows it, the DEC knows it, the EPA knows it and it must be capped.  Some of the radiological materials found in the Brookhaven landfill ash have half-lives of several billion years and Mr. Nolan believes after twenty years, toxins in the Islip landfill are already a done deal?  My question to him is “What are his environmental credentials and training?”

Mr. Perks added, “It’s a lot cheaper and more prudent to cap the landfill than to have to close all the drinking water wells for contamination or to blend it with clean water.”

Freelance Investigations contacted the Town of Islip to get any comment or reaction from Mr. Nolan to the remarks made by Mr. Perks (which were supplied to them in advance of this story being published at their request) or to comment on the information from documents obtained by Freelance Investigations.  

Amy Basta, spokesperson for Mr. Nolan and the Town of Islip said for the record,  “Mr. Nolan is not going to dignify William Perks' allegations with a response.”

Mr. Perks responded to that by saying “This is typical shoot the messenger.  I was not looking for any dignity.  I was a whistleblower... period.”