Freelance Investigations: February 2014

In the matter of William T. Perks against the Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly as Councilwoman for the Town of Huntington and individually heard in United States District Court of the Eastern District

Present were:
Rains & Pogrebin Lawfirm:
Ernie Stolzer, attorney for the Town of Huntington
James (Jim) Clark, attorney for the Town of Huntington

Jason Abelove, attorney for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Edward Yule, attorney for William Perks
Lisa Baisley
William Perks

The deposition of Susan Scarpati-Reilly took place over several days and generated over a thousand pages of testimony.

March 12, 2001
April 5, 2001
April 19, 2001
April 20, 2001
April 23, 2001
May 7, 2001

The following is account of testimony of the next three days of testimony.

THE DEPOSITION OF TOWN COUNCILWOMAN SUSAN SCARPATI-REILLY
April 20, 2001
Examination by Edward Yule, Attorney for William Perks

When the last day of her deposition ended, Mr. Yule said they were discussing the meeting Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had at the Suffolk District Attorney's Office with Chris Williams and Maureen McCormick on March 8, 1999.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said there were really two conversations crossing over; she spoke with Ms. McCormick, then she spoke with Mr. Williams and then Ms. McCormick and Mr. Williams spoke to each other. She said she told Ms. McCormick there had been an incident at the Mobil Oil Station and that "I filed a police report; that I had tried to get Mark (Cohen) on Tuesday, the 2nd because I was under the impression that Mr. Perks was threatening me with a lawsuit, and the Town with a lawsuit, if I didn't go and report that the field incident report was false; that I had talked to the press because of the threats. And by the time I had talked to the press, I was under the impression that Mr. Perks was threatening my life."

They next talked about getting an order of protection and discussed the fact that Mr. Perks carried a gun, according to her testimony. They discussed using Bob DeGregorio to get Mr. Perks on tape as Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted here, "Mr. Perks wasn't talking to me, but he was talking to Bob."

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said at first she wanted the DA to tap Mr. Perks' phone, then said "Not a tap on his phone because you need more than that, but just to get wired up on Mr. DeGregorio's phone and see if we could get him to continue his threats that he alleged--or at least made. They weren't alleged. They were made to both Bob and myself."

Mr. DeGregorio told her that Mr. Perks intended to sue her and the Town and he was using language taken directly from sexual harassment policy and law. Ms. Scarapti-Reilly then outlined the specific threats Mr. DeGregorio said Mr. Perks had made to him.

He indicated to me, Mr. Perks wanted to remain as the Oil Spill Response Manager; that he was the only one capable of doing that; that if I didn't allow him to do that, that he "had the blue dress", that we had an affair; that he had been lying to Bob and to the whole world ; that he had numerous hotel receipts; that there was jewelry, there was oh, God, I think he went into some salacious details concerning our supposed elicit affair, and he was quoting from the sexual harassment policy. At least Bob's impression was, he was quoting language from that. And that he was going to sell the story to the New York Times with Dave Ambro, because it was the first time that an elected official that was a female was being charged by a Town employee of sexual harassment; that he was going to make a lot of money on this; that both he and David were going to make a lot of money on this. (pg 7 deposition of Scarpati-Reilly)

Q: You stated earlier that you lied to the press because of threats you received, that Perks was threatening you?
A: I misspoke. Yes.
Q: What threats did you receive by Perks that caused you to lie to the press?
A: Bob had said to me that--it was a whole day, but accumulated and the end result being that if I didn't tell the press that I didn't file the police report, that I didn't change the story, that I was going to be found dead on the side of the road and that I was going to be hurt.
Q: What day was this that Bob told you that?
A: Wednesday?
Q: That would be March 3rd?
A: Yes.
Q: Where were you when he said that to you?
A: I don't know.

Later Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had been paged three or four times by Bob (DeGregorio) in the morning. "And when I got back to my office, I gave him a call. And the first thing he said to me was:
"Thank goodness you're still alive. I thought you were dead. You weren't answering my page." He said that Perks had been to his house and said that I was going to be found dead."

Mr. Yule then asked her to confirm that on February 28th, March 1st and 2nd, she felt threatened with physical harm from Mr. Perks. She said "Yeah--I mean yeah. I guess that was it. Other than what happened with Perks on the 28th."

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said his movements were threatening and she was scared at one point, but said she didn't tell that to the Police. "At one point he slapped me. I was taken aback, I said "Billy" he was yelling and screaming and then he came back. When he got in my face he took me by surprise and I got scared. And he accused me of things, he said "You did it. You did it. You did it." And then he went off."

She said at the moment she was scared of him it was in her nature to go after him to try and find out what was going on. "He ran between the cars, I tried to talk to him. He said "Listen lady, get out of here." I said "I'm calling the Police." Instead she went and sat in Mr. Perks' personal truck and waited for him to come out of the building.

She said she was crying then, but was not crying when she got to the 2nd Precinct.

When she spoke with the District Attorneys she never mentioned the "blue dress" or the numerous hotel receipts Mr. Perks alleged he had that proved the long time affair between him and the Councilwoman. The "salacious details" of the sexual affair Mr. Perks allegedly gave Mr. DeGregorio were never discussed either with the DA, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified. The DA told her not to discuss the case, but never told her to lie to the press she stated.

Frank Petrone spoke to the Fact-Finder and she said she had told him that she was in fear for her life because of threats allegedly made by Mr. Perks to her and Mr. DeGregorio. She said she felt threatened that entire summer through October, she never put anything in writing and Mr. Petrone did nothing about it. Jim Matthews, the Town Attorney spoke with her, but she invoked privilege with regard to the content of their conversation and they went off the record and left the room.

When they returned she said Mr. Matthews told her he had been instructed by the Town Board not to speak to her and he suggested she shouldn't talk to Mr. Perks anymore, then he grabbed her hand and Bob's hand and they stood together and said a prayer and this all happened on Sunday, March 7th at Mr. DeGregorio's home on the day before she went to the DA's office.

Mr. Naughton, the head of the Town Highway Department, was discussed and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she felt sorry for him, because as a Democrat, trying to do his job the Town Board and Mr. Petrone (a Republican at that time) held the pursestrings and would not give him the money he needed to do his job properly. Mr. Naughton had sued the Town and won and asked the Town to pay his legal bills and according to the deposition, the Town was just waiting for an itemized bill from Mr. Naughton's attorney.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said "I had been hiding out a few days at Bob's house. And by Sunday, he said that we had to tell Jim (Matthews) about what was going on."

She said she spent days at Mr. DeGregorio's home between Wednesday the 3rd and Sunday the 7th because his house was in a gully, had shades and she felt safer there. She left at night between 10 and midnight and she went home, but her husband was away on business at the time and her step-daughter Liz watched the children.

She said she initiated a phone call with Mr. Perks on Wednesday around 9 PM by paging him and he called her back she said. He had not tried to contact her and did not speak with her from the incident Sunday evening until then, according to Mr. Perks, even though she had gone to his home alone on Tuesday night March 2nd and knocked on his door trying to speak with him. He said he refused to answer the door and eventually she left.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified Mr. Perks also did not try to contact her from that Wednesday to Sunday March 7th and she spent most of Friday, Saturday and Sunday at Bob's house until Jim Matthews came on Sunday.

She said when he called her back on Wednesday after she had paged him that she told him they had to talk.

I said to him we have to talk about this . He said to me that I had to kill the story. He kept on saying that I had to kill the story. You're going to be found dead if you don't tell them that you lied about that.
You got to go to the police department. You got to tell them that they didn't file any charges, that it wasn't you, that it was a conspiracy with George Hoffman. You got to kill the story. He begged me to call David; that I had to call David; that David was going to be extremely upset with him if he didn't get the story, and the Long Islander did, and that I had to call David. He said, "You're going to be found dead if you don't do this. Your kids are going to suffer and get hurt. (Susan Scarpati-Reilly from her deposition pages 34-35)

Q: When you say David, you mean David Ambro?
A: Yes.
Q: The editor of the Observer at Huntington News?
A: Yes.
Q: How many times did you and Mr. Perks speak on that Wednesday?
A: Twice.
Q: What you just said before, the sum and substance of your conversation that Perks and you had, was the first or the second conversation?
A: Second.
Q: What did Mr. Perks say to you in the first conversation?
A: He had to go pick up his kids.
Q: That was it?
A: Yes.

The next few questions revolved around deadline days for local weeklies and how familiar or not Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was with them, considering she had issued press releases, Mr. Yule said he assumed she would have some idea what they were. She was not sure of the deadlines of specific papers, but admitted John Powell, then the GOP leader in Suffolk and Siben and Siben, a law firm, all agreed "Any press, it doesn't matter, as long as they spell your name right. I think that's a general theme around." she testified.

Q: When Mr. Perks first made these alleged threats to you and your family--
A: They weren't alleged. They were.
Q: Okay, after he made these threats to you, what is the first thing you did?
A: I called David.
Q: Ambro?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you say to Mr. Ambro?
A: I told him that I had not filed a police report, that it had been done somehow through Town Hall, through George Hoffman being after us. There was some type of conspiracy, for lack of a better word and that I hadn't filed it.
Q: And all of that was not true correct?
A: That's correct.

She testified she spoke to Dave Ambro that Wednesday after speaking with Mr. Perks in person at his home where she stood on the steps and he had opened the door slightly, according to her. Sometime between 6 and 7 PM on Wednesday, she said, she went to his home to speak to him, "Because things were just getting crazy."
Q: How were they crazy from your standpoint?
A: I thought Mr. Perks and I were friends. I trusted him. I listened to him. I gave him my best advice. I took a lot of time out of my life to help him with his divorce. With all his problems. He would call me on a dime, he needed to see me and I would drop what I was doing. Or he would come into my office and no matter what I was doing, I would sit down with him. I would talk about him and his children, the problems he was having with that and his wife. He was going through a divorce.
Q: Did you ever talk to him about problems you were having with your husband?
A: I didn't have any problems with my husband.

The questions shifted back to the March 8th meeting in the DA's Office with Mr. DeGregorio, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, Ms. McCormick and Mr. Williams.
Q: Can you just tell me what you recall Mr. DeGregorio said, about what threats he had heard from Mr. Perks to the District Attorney's Office?
A: He said he felt his life had been threatened, the way in--Mr. Perks' behavior in his house. He was very concerned for his safety, he was concerned for my safety. And that the night he went out to buy a pack of cigarettes and he just--he felt that he was being watched. He started to feel very paranoid. He felt that Mr. Perks was going to shoot him.
Q: What was the DA's reaction to that?
A: Wire up your phone, see if we can get him on tape.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly gave the DA a copy of the Police Report and according to her, while they didn't tell her to lie to the press..."He said to me that it's not a crime to lie to the press."
Q: What did you take that to mean?
A: I didn't. I don't know. I didn't look into it. I didn't think about it. It just was said.
Q: Did Ms. McCormick say anything to you about lying to the press?
A: I don't recall. She probably just laughed about it.
Q: You didn't think the DA's office was taking you seriously?
A: No. They don't take the press seriously. The police do to get what they want, you know. Typical, the husband is not the suspicious one when the wife is dead and two weeks later, the husband is arrested and they are jailing the husband. That's typical Police mentality.
Q: You have been practicing criminal law, right, for some time?
A: For twenty years.

Orders of protection were discussed again and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said they were not always issued in cases of domestic violence, she still practiced criminal law and she was late for court. She did not seek an order of protection and Mr. DeGregorio did not go to the police, he just told the DA.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said when she told the DA that she was worried because Mr. Perks had a gun, they told her to get an order of protection and she didn't and she didn't go back to the Police. She didn't go to the Courts for an Order of Protection, even though she knew that was the method of obtaining one and she knew that as an attorney.

After leaving the DA, she said, "The best I recall, we were both kind of relieved that we finally had let somebody know, in case something happened to us as a special duty here."

A discussion on whether or not someone whose life has been threatened should go to the Police or the DA, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly insisted she would recommend her client go to the DA, not the Police because according to her, "If you've gone to the Chief Prosecutor, they decide whether to prosecute not the Police Department. You know that."

Saying her husband is a retired State Trooper, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly noted State Police and Suffolk Police are "very different", but did not say how. Her husband does have a gun in their home she stated and she did not think Mr. DeGregorio had one, but she still felt safer at Bob's house she testified.
"I don't have a license--if I picked up a weapon, who knows what would happen. It would be more dangerous than not, and my husband was not around." Mr. Yule agreed with her at that point and she responded, "I'm glad we agree on something."

Editor's note: Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's words would prove to be prophetic as her step-son Steven Reilly Jr. was arrested last month after he shot a young man in a popular local bar, Napper Tandys. After putting the gun in the ribs, then the neck of the 21 year old victim, the victim struggled and Mr. Reilly dropped to the floor and shot the victim in the upper thigh, then he fled in a white Taurus and was arrested the next day at the Fresh Pond home of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and her family. The shooting was captured on several video cameras and the gun used in the shooting has been identified as the service revolver, 9mm gun that belonged to his father, the retired NY State Trooper. Mr. Reilly Jr. was also wearing his father's State Trooper jacket. Mr. Reilly Jr. is still in jail, no one has posted the $400,000 bond, that was only recently increased by Judge Richard Ambro from the original $50,000 dollars. (No one posted that either) The State Police have not yet charged Mr. Reilly Sr. with failure to secure his weapon.

THE MAKING OF THE RESOLUTION...
THE CRUX OF THE STORY

The next few questions really go to the heart of the story...the Town Board Resolution that hired the Fact-Finder to investigate the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station on February 28, 1999.
Q: Do you recall the resolution that was passed by the Town Board hiring the Fact-Finder?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you involved in any discussions involving the drafting of that resolution?
A: I received the initial draft of the resolution and it was fine. And moments before the vote was taken, a new resolution was put in front of me and I disagreed with the content of that resolution.
Q: What did you disagree with?
A: The way it was written.
Q: Was there a clause in there saying you have to indemnify the Town for all legal costs spent if it found you were acting outside the scope of your employment?
A: I don't recall that.
Q: Do you recall that being added?
A: No.
Q: Do you know if that, in fact, exists today, that language?
A: That's the law. When we appointed the fact-finder, I don't remember seeing that langauge anywhere in there.
Q: Do you remember seeing that language when you hired Jason Abelove at the expense of the Town; did they put that clause in there?
A: Mr. Cuthbertson decided to grandstand on it, yes.
Q: You sure it was Cuthbertson and not Israel?
A: Positive.

Here Ms. Scarpati-Reilly insists she tried to say the wording of the resolution was wrong, according to her testimony, she objected, they pushed the resolution through and she abstained from the vote.
"I wasn't part of the Fact-Finder resolution."
Q: But you said you saw a draft of it?
A: No. They gave me a resolution in my packet. I saw it, I read it, it was alright. And then moments before we took a vote on it, it was thrown in front of me. I took one look at it. I think we were going through the resolutions. I took one look at it and said this is not written correctly. And it went by. I abstained on it. I objected to it.
Q: What was written incorrectly about it?
A: If you take a look at it, I'll tell you.
Q: (handing)

A: In the first whereas clause, it says "complaining of an alleged assault." There was never an alleged assault. The field report definitley says "harassment", which does not rise to the level of a criminal assault. I object to the $250 an hour because that was twice as much as we pay any municipal lawyer. But of course he wanted to grandstand out of this one so he wanted to raise the price. $75 for investigative services. That's double the amount you pay anywhere. But they chose to pay this guy $75. They don't even have his name in here. And the independent Fact-Finder's report was supposed to be filed in 30 days. I felt that 30 days wasn't sufficient, if in fact I chose to go and proceed on a criminal nature as well. As it wasn't fair to Mr. Perks either, because, if in fact, there were criminal charges filed, Mr. Perks was going to be under--his constitutional rights were going to be violated. I felt this was totally inadequate. They didn't understand the nature of what was going on. I didn't talk to them. They didn't ask me and I didn't have anything to do with this. They were doing this in the dark. (pages 50-52 Scarpati-Reilly deposition).

According to her testimony the first resolution she got did not have the clause that read "alleged assault" and the whereas clause was added later, just before the vote. It was typed however, she noted and that meant, it had been prepared in advance and apparently changed after the Executive Session, held earlier that day. She was told by Jim Matthews, the Town Attorney, it was Larry Creegan who drafted the second resolution.

The objection she says she raised at the meeting never made it to the record as she went personally to Frank Petrone and Jim Matthews, according to her statement.
Q: Was that at the public meeting?
A: Yeah.
Q: What did you say to Matthews?
A: I told him it was incorrect. It wasn't an alleged assault. If he took a look at the police report, which they didn't have, it was harassment and that it doesn't make any sense; that if in fact, I had talked to him on Sunday, talked about perhaps we would end up pursuing criminal charges. I didn't know whether I was going to do that or not. And that 30 days was not fair to Mr. Perks. It was violating his rights and it really was perhaps taking away an option from me.
Q: What was his response to that?
A: I didn't draft the resolution, I can't talk to you about it. They kicked me out of the room. Larry Creegan (an Assistant Town Attorney) did this.

Mr, Perks said Larry Creegan attended a Conservative fundraiser at the Thatched Cottage years later, and told him that he informed the Town Board that by the wording of the resolution they would have to honor the municipal agreement with the Union and have to pay his legal fees.

The first draft of the resolution was bare-bones and did not have the word harassment in it either.
She did not raise an objection on the record or speak about her objection before the vote as was her right calling it "a judgement call" on her part.

"They were appointing a fact-finder to investigate me. And so, do I go on the record and start making a big to-do about a resolution that was inaccurate? Because my colleagues didn't want to talk to me about it, I was instructed: They don't want to talk to you about it. They want to appoint the fact-finder. You talk to the fact-finder. What am I supposed to do? It was a judgement call. All I could do was raise my objection to the Town Attorney, because he is the guy that is in charge. And the Supervisor, because he is the guy chairing the meeting. And I did both of those things. I was ignored."

I'M NOT YOUR BUDDY...

Q: Could you read this over here Budd E, the Resolution and tell me where they said they were investigating you?
A; Did you just call me "buddy"?
Q: No Budd E. That's the name of the exhibit.

The clause said that because the complainant was a member of the Board and disciplinary action would be taken if it was found that the allegations were true "an employee" may be disciplined. The questions then focused on whether Ms. Scarpati-Reilly considered herself an employee of the Town or not...
Hashing the topic back and forth with no definitive answer from her, Mr. Yule finally said, "You're a lawyer. You have been doing that for twenty years. You're educated, experienced, two-term Councilwoman. Are you an employee of the Town of Huntington? Do you believe you're an employee of the Town of Huntington?"
A: I get a paycheck from the Town of Huntington.
Q: That calls for a yes or no.
A: I don't know.
MR. ABELOVE: That's her answer.

A ten minute recess was taken and questioning resumed.

The next time she spoke with the District Attorney was the next day, March 9th when she spoke to her old friend, Mark Cohen on the phone around 4PM and the Town Board meeting was at 2PM according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.

Mr. Cohen suggested she go to the Police Department as Mike Connelly, the person in charge of the Public Integrity Unit was on vacation. Mr. Yule asked if any other department could have handled her complaint since she alleged there were threats against her family and her life...but neither Rackets, nor Major Crimes, nor Homicide Bureau was involved. "Nobody was murdered here, there were no bodies." Ms. Scarpati-Reilly responded. Then the question of whether she would be considered a victim or a complainant and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly told Mr. Yule that for someone who practices criminal law she thought his answer was "ignorant" when he stated the State merely represents the underlying victim who is the actual complainant.

Mr. Abelove objected to Mr. Yule as badgering his client and Mr. Yule said he didn't need her to tell him what kind of criminal lawyer he is, he just wanted her to answer the questions.

Questioning resumed:

Asked about the next time she spoke to the Police, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said it was after the Resolution-- by telephone and she told him that after speaking with everyone, she wasn't going to file criminal charges and since she believed Mr. Perks was going to sue the Town, it was probably in her best interest not to talk to him. "I was more concerned about the expenses it was going to be for the Town and the taxpayers and I felt that the Town would be doing much better, anticipating Mr. Perks filing a lawsuit, that I didn't go this route at that point."

Mr. Perks said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was running for office at the time and her concern was re-election and not the taxpayers as she filed numerous frivolous lawsuits against Town employees, reporters, Town Attorneys, secretaries and the Ethics Board and the Town taxpayers paid the legal fees for most even though all were dismissed without merit.

There was no investigation as she did not file any charges and besides harassment is not considered a crime, it is an offense, like going through a red light, a misdemeanor, a violation she insisted. Although she said Mr. Cohen encouraged her to go back to the Police, she never did and after a phone conversation with an Officer Hunt, she told him she was not going to file any charges and he said she had a year to file. She denied saying to the Police "she had a change of heart."

In the fall of 1999, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly spoke to District Attorney James Catterson Jr. when they met at a Veteran's event. She asked him since the Fact-Finder report had been forwarded to him, did he plan on filing any charges and was she the target of any investigation. He said, "No, he didn't see any crimes here." She did not ask if Mr. Perks were the target of an investigation she said.

The three possible degrees of harassment were brought up and Officer Molinari described the harassment of February 28, 1999 as not rising to the level of assault. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she did not want him charged with assault and arrested.

Editor's Note: (This directly contradicted the testimony of Officer Molinari at the Arbitration hearing. He testified she insisted Mr. Perks be arrested for assault and he refused, saying there were no indications of any physical injury at all.)

Q: Did you ever say you wanted Mr. Perks charged with assault?
A: Never. It didn't rise to the level of an assault. There was no physical injury.
Q: Do you know what the elements are of an assault in the third degree?
A: You have to have physical injury. There was no physical injury, no impairment of a bodily function or substantial pain. I was just struck in the arm as part of a harassment. It did not rise to the level of the crime of assault. I even believe when you asked me it didn't hurt, because I had my slicker on and his hand slid off. Because it was raining out. I was all wet.

Q: When the resolution was drafted, Budd E, did you know that the Town could be liable for paying Mr. Perks' legal fees under his collective bargaining agreement, because of the word "assault"?
A: Not until the Article 75 is filed.

It was Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's contention that because Mr. Perks had not been charged his contract did not kick in. "No other employee in the Town of Huntington has ever, ever been paid for, their attorneys, during a fact-finding investigation, never." she stated. Only one other time was a fact-finder appointed by resolution of the Town and that was when they hired attorney Tom Liotti concerning Rice Buick.
That resolution did not involve an assault, she admitted, but did involve a Town employee, who brought in an attorney, but was not represented by the Union, she insisted.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly again pointed to the fact that the resolution was not correct. "I said grammatically and legally that was incorrect. It was drafted wrong, by people who didn't understand what had taken place. They hadn't talked to me. The only one I had talked to was Jim Matthews and he said he didn't draft it. He wasn't allowed to be involved. The whole resolution was inaccurate, the way it was written."
Q: Why didn't you open your mouth and say it was inaccurate?
A: I did.
Q: And it was on the record?
A: The reporter didn't get it on the record.
Q: Who drafted the resolution? Was it Creegan or Matthews?
A: I was told it was Creegan, by Matthews.

The original copy of the draft resolution did not have the word assault in it according to her and when asked to produce that copy of the resolution she said she was not sure if she still had it, but she definitely didn't shred it. Mr. Yule asked her to produce it if possible.

The issue of the uniform became the next topic up for discussion and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly took issue with the fact that Mr. Nolan, Mr. Perks' department head, said in the newspapers that Mr. Perks did not need to be wearing a uniform the night of February 28, 1999. She said she told Mr. Nolan that she disagreed with him on that. Mr. Perks had been issued a harbormaster's uniform and she had seen him wear it in the past. He was never issued an Oil Spill Response uniform, according to her and since he issued summonses as the harbormaster, she insisted he should have been wearing one that evening.

Mr. Nolan did not really understand the role of Mr. Perks, she testified and he didn't understand the code unless it was explained to him. "We have had many discussions about things in Executive Session, under Waste Management, what his authority is, what it isn't, in dealing with carters and everything. He is not a lawyer. Neither is Mr. Anastasia." She felt his law enforcement background helped him to understand...Mr. Nolan she said did not follow even when she talked to him about garbage being a commodity. "Mr. Nolan didn't know what I was talking about. he came back and said Gee. I just went to the sewage treatment plant." He lives in Islip. He finally came to Huntington...Mr. Nolan in December, I sat down with him and I think that is where the miscommunication came. I just said, "keep an eye him. I didn't mean go write all those memos, every single day. That was the most ridiculous thing I heard of. It wasn't up to me." She said he came in "star-gazed" because he had been to the sewage treatment plant.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she placed all her trust in Mr. Perks because he had warned them about the Texas Oil Barge ending up on the beach and it did. Harry Acker had insisted no one sign in at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station and so you never knew who was really out there and the overtime was being handed out like candy on Halloween so she was getting conflicting information as Mr. Perks was saying there were oil spills out there not being handled properly and Harry Acker told her not to trust Mr. Perks as well as several others including Mr. Pentel, Bob Haligan, Virginia Riker and Ken Smith.

Although she called the Environmental Waste Management Department the biggest department in Huntington, she said Mr. Nolan needed time to figure out where everything was in the Town.
The resolution appointing Mr. Perks as the Oil Spill Response Manager was for both water and land based spills, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly insisted.

Calling it a political decision, so as not to interfere with the Fire Department, when the final resolution was submitted the land based spills were taken out and Mr. Perks was to handle only Marine based spills, she testified. That didn't change the Town Code that he was authorized under to handle land based spills, she insisted. Mr. Nolan began giving her daily logs and copies of where Mr. Perks was in December and after two or three days she said she told him to stop as Mr. Perks was going to file a grievance against him. This was way before Christmas, according to her but he continued to send the logs until February. She said she told him to stop, but he didn't. She said she only wanted him to "keep an eye on" Perks to make sure he was doing his job.

Back to her conversations with the Suffolk District Attorney's Office, she said she spoke to ADA Cohen on March 9, 1999 but never spoke to him about the case after that.

First contacted by the press on the Wednesday after the incident of Sunday February 28, 1999 Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said Anthony Miller called, paged her and she called back because she didn't recognize the number. He asked her if she had filed the Police Report and she said she asked to see it, but they said no, they were on deadline and did she file it? She told him no.
Q: Did you ever mention to them in that phone call that it wasn't you, it was George Hoffman?
A: No.
Q: Do you recall saying that to the press though?
A: To the press, yes.

She said she panicked because she had just gotten off the phone with Bob DeGregorio and he told her Mr. Perks told him she was going to be found dead if she didn't kill the story. "I had to deny it to the press; that I was going to be found dead. He said he needed to talk to me."

She was sure this was Wednesday March 3rd and she said she was hung up on by Peter Slogget (Phonetic) when she asked to come there. "I called Peter back because they hung up on me."
She said he answered her and put her on hold and then she was cut off. She didn't speak to him again that day.

The next reporter she spoke to was Dave Ambro, from the Huntington Observer and Huntington News. She said she told Mr. Ambro what Mr. Perks had told her to say, that she did not file a police report against him and that it had to be someone else. She said she never identified anyone else as having made the report.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Ambro that it couldn't have been you because you were home baking a cake?
A: No.
Q: What did you say?
A: To the best of my recollection, I said that--oh, God, that there was a field incident report out there that had my name on it, that I hadn't filed it. That--I don't know, that someone else must have filed it instead of me and that I'm sure it comes through somehow through--George Hoffman or somebody like that had done something like that in order to embarrass me, or something of that nature.
Q: But you do recall mentioning George Hoffman's name in the conversation?
A: Yes, that is what I was instructed to do.
Q: Who instructed you to use George Hoffman's name?
A: Mr. Perks.
Q: He told you directly?
A: Yes.
Q: When did he tell you directly and say to use George Hoffman's name?
A: Immediately before I talked to David, when he told me to kill the story. He said: I don'y care how you do it. Tell them it was Hoffman.

Mr. Perks said when she came to his home on Wednesday, he refused to speak with her and told her to go away. He had never spoken to her before she spoke to the press he insists. When she called him later at about 9 or 9:30 she said:

He said to me I had to kill the story. He kept on repeating that: You got to kill the story, tell them it wasn't you. Tell them it was Hoffman. I don't care how you do it, kill the story. Please call David (Ambro) David has to know about this story. He was pleading with me give the story to David. Be careful, you got to kill the story. You got to go to the Police Department. You've got to tell them this didn't happen and withdraw the criminal complaint. And I said there was no criminal complaint. He said you've got to do this or you are going to be found dead.
Q: Was this on the phone?
A: Yes, pleading on the phone screaming.

Mr. Perks said he only found out about the Police Report when he was called by Anthony Miller of the Long Islander and never saw the story until that Friday. He says he never threatened Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and that he taped that phone call to prove it and gave a copy of the phone call to the Fact-Finder to support his version of the call.

Mr. Perks said Mr. Labush, the Fact-Finder, never mentioned the taped conversation he gave him and also never mentioned speaking to Officer Molinari and conspicuously left those two pieces of information out of his report. Only after Officer Molinari testified in the Arbitration case did Mr. Perks learn he had been interviewed by the Fact-Finder and had told him there was no assault. Mr. Perks said that is when he first knew he was set up by the Town of Huntington when the Fact-Finder deliberately withheld this information.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she told Mr. Ambro exactly what Mr. Perks told her to say, that she didn't file it. Then on March 8, 1999 she faxed an apology letter to the The Observer and it said "With great regret, I heartily apologize for misstatements I made to you. My name and reputation were being threatened and unfortunately, I panicked." She admitted to writing the letter quickly, but said she never proof read it before telling her secretary to fax it. The only other time she said she ever panicked was before the Bar Exam, but never sought any medical advice for her panic, which was not a panic attack, according to her.

She said she felt threatened.

Well I was told that the Town and I were going to be recipients of a lawsuit by Mr. Perks charging sexual harassment; that he was going around Town saying that we had this affair for 18 months; that he had a blue dress; that he had numerous hotel receipts; that he had love letters, that he had jewelry. Ruining my reputation. (page 133 deposition)

Mr. Yule then asked:

Q: You never wrote in here that: "Mr. Perks threatened to kill your family and me, and that's why I had to lie, because he told me to lie," You never wrote those words right?
A: No.
Q: But you testified that's what happened prior to writing this letter, right?

Mr. Matthews recommended she ask for an independent fact-finder, according to her testimony and under her own advice in anticipation of litigation by Mr. Perks, she made no further statements she said.
Mr. Perks never threatened to sue her personally, she said, but did so through Bob DeGregorio, she stated. She apologized to the press for lying about filing the police report but said she did not speak to the press again until September or October of 1999.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was on anti-anxiety medication before the incident and that afterward her doses were increased as a result of it. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she did not believe Mr. Perks had taped the phone call and asked Mr. Labush about it in the judge's chambers. He told her he handed over everything to the Court and so she was not sure if it did exist.

The deposition ended for the day and reconvened on April 23rd 2001.

Mr. Yule began the questioning again and asked Ms. Scarpati-Reilly if she spoke to Mrs. Laura Perks, Bill Perks' wife who he was divorcing. When asked about the conversation, she said she had called back Mrs. Perks and that her conversation was privileged and confidential. Mr. Yule countered that she had helped Mr. Perks with his divorce papers at times and so she couldn't represent both. Mr. Abelove would not allow his client to answer any questions and they decided to call Judge Wall for a ruling. They had to call back later and so Mr. Yule continued questioning Ms. Scarpati-Reilly about how she helped Mr. Perks in his divorce. She gave Mr. Perks advice and spoke to Mr. DeGregorio and Mr. Perks about the divorce at least 20 times in 1996 she testified.

Questions about the number of cell phone calls she made to Mr. Perks and how many after work meetings she asked him to attend followed. She spoke to him every morning and sometimes at night and he attended several evening events with her as well. She did not think he got any overtime for attending the events, she thought he volunteered to be there.
Q: Was Perks ever given overtime for meetings with you after the events?
A: I certainly hope not.

She attended several events including at least two fundraisers with both her husband and Mr. Perks present. One was at Glad's in Crab Meadow Golf Course, the other at the Thatched Cottage.

The questions then shifted again to the gifts she had received from Mr. Perks and Mr. Yule reminded her of a visit she and her attorney had made to his office. He asked if she took any exception to the gifts she had been shown and were supposed to be from Mr. Perks.
A: There were some things I didn't give him.
Q: Like?
A: There were some books, there was some jewelry, a belt. I'm losing my voice.

Offered water, she declined and the next round of questions had to do with the frequency she and her husband were also in the same place as Mr. Perks and whether or not the Union Local 342 attended her fundraiser and donated to her campaign. They did attend but she believed donations were only from individuals. She stated she knew both Harry Hennessey Jr. who worked for the Town as a laborer but was on leave to handle Union business in Town Hall and his brother, William Hennessey, since 1993 and she accepted money from COPE, a union check, but had no idea how much they had contributed to her.

Editor's question: She stated contributions came from individuals only when asked about union donations, yet one sentence later admits to getting a check from COPE, a union check...So which is true?

She said she had spoken to William Hennessey, a general manager for the union representing several thousand people in various communities, just a few weeks prior and he was complaining about the costs for the arbitration trial and the transcripts.

Harry Hennnessey Jr. was a friend and had donated to her campaigns, she testified, but could not say how much. The discussion shifted to the procedure for filing grievances and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was asked if she ever helped Mr. Perks with a grievance and she said she did not assist him in filing the grievance but believed his grievances often had merit.

Mr. Perks had filed a grievance because he was doing the same work as Harry Acker had been doing except now he was doing the paperwork for the oil spills rather than Harry and so he should have been a grade 8.

Three days before the February 28th incident at the Mobil Oil Station, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she and Mr. Perks returned to Town Hall after lunch and Harry Hennessey Jr. was there. They went in and she was told by Mr. Perks not to speak while he ranted to Mr. Hennessey Jr.. She said she left in the middle of the conversation and Mr. Perks followed her to the elevator.

Later that day she said she saw Harry Hennessey Jr. and told him she felt Mr. Perks' grievance did have merit, and he told her that if he entertained Mr. Perks' grievance that he had been told by George Hoffman that every other grievance that was filed by all the other employees that they would have to fight each and every one, that there would be no settlement of any of them.
Q: What did you take that to mean?
A: George Hoffman didn't want to hear any grievances from Mr. Perks.

She then likened Mr. Hoffman as the "bad cop" in the game of "good cop-bad cop" as he was chief of staff and kept on top of everyone and everything in the Town. Asked if that made Mr. Frank Petrone, the good guy she replied, "Frank is always the good guy."

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was asked what she thought Mr. Hoffman meant when he said he didn't want to hear any grievances from Mr. Perks.

A: I believed that what was implied was that oftentimes employees file grievances for various reasons. Some of them, they are slam dunk, so to speak, it's black-and-white, they violated the-we violated the contract one way or the other, they are entitled to what they have. Oftentimes, we, as management turn around and settle those grievances. There are others that we say maybe we are right on that, those are the ones that they bring forward and take to hearings and we deny the grievants. And my impression was that if there came upon any grievance that is either black-and-white and management would say, okay, we violated the contract, you are right and we will grant those grievances. If, in fact, Mr. Perks' grievance of '99 were entertained that those black-and-white grievances would not be granted right away, they would be denied and they would have to go through the whole process. (pages 175-176 Scarpati-Reilly deposition)

Asked about the number of grievances Mr. Perks had filed with the union, she testified she heard it was between 60 and 80, but to her personal knowledge it was about 15 or so. When pressed further, she said she had seen his personnel file and there were over 50 in the file. She saw it for the first time when Mr. Abelove showed it to her and she said she counted over fifty as she read through them.

Editor's Question: To her personal knowledge it was 15 or so, she testified under oath...when pressed by Mr. Yule she admitted sentences later she saw the personnel file and counted over 50 herself. Which is true here?

Later in the evening on February 25th, three days before the "incident", Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was invited to Bob DeGregorio's home by Bill Perks to discuss his 15 grievances that were filed at the time. She said after her conversation with Harry Hennessey Jr. where she told him he should be supporting the employee (in this case Mr. Perks) he then assigned numbers to the Perks grievances.

Prior to 1999 Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had gone to the Union in 1995 on Mr. Perks' behalf just to find out where his grievances were "logistically", according to her. She had gone two times that she could remember for Mr. Perks and also for other constituents, she said.

The resolution appointing Mr. Perks as Oil Spill Response Manager was drafted by Pat Del Col and Mr. DeGregorio who gave it to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly for sponsorship and then she reviewed the language before it was submitted in the supervisor's office to put it on the agenda, according to her deposition statements. Prior to that, it was Harry Acker that was responsible for oil spills and Mr. Perks insisted he was not qualified and was not doing the job.

Permits and summonses were usually issued by Harbors and Waterways Division, the Harbormaster's office, where Jody Anastasia is the Director of Maritime Services.

Postage Stamps the contribution no one counts????

Q: For your campaign did anyone ever give you any stamps as part of a donation?
A: Back in 1993, I believe.
Q: Who was that?
Q: I believe the union gave me some stamps.

The Unions buy postage stamps and give them out to support candidates. This is a stealthy way to support a candidate and the money involved can be substantial as mailings are a significant expense in a campaign. This money technically goes untracked and unaccounted for by the candidate, while the unions write off the stamps as a business expense, instead of a campaign contribution which it is in reality.

Since Mr. Perks was no longer harbormaster and he used to issue the permits and summonses, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did not know who was issuing them now.
A: I have been trying to stay away from that as much as possible.

THE SCORPION AND THE SWAN

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly began answering questions about Mr. Nolan and she said they had a conversation about the uniform and she told him to read the contract, then in a subsequent conversation, she said Mr. Nolan told her he was "pretty frightened", because Mr. Perks had filed a number of grievances, including one for "malfeasance" as a director and "he was complaining to me that he had to do a lot of time and he told me a little story about a scorpion and a swan, which I don't quite remember."

Q: What was the point of the story?
A: You try to help the scorpion and the scorpion will sting you and you will die whenever you try and help the scorpion. And I think last week we just kind of met over a coffee pot and having some coffee, he said something to the effect, it's nice to see you in this atmosphere than the other, and Mr. Perks is a bully.

MR. YULE: Move to strike as non-responsive.
THE WITNESS: That was responsive, that was exactly what Mr. Nolan said.
MR. YULE: Nolan said that, I'm sorry.
Q: Why did he say he was a bully?
A: Because he is looking to get money out of the Town and bully everybody around.
Q: Did Bob DeGregorio bully the Town when he got his payout when he left the Town?
A: No.

She believed he was a bully herself after February 28, 1999 she testified, but before that she considered them very close friends. She couldn't say how many times a week she met with Mr. Perks, either for drinks or more often coffee, in 1997-'98 she said, but she met with Mr. DeGregorio more often.

Editor's Questions: In her own account of the night of the "incident" Susan Scarpati-Reilly herself admits Mr. Perks was running away from her around the cars and into the office. Several employees at the Mobil Station testified they saw her chasing Mr. Perks and him running around the cars away from her as she was yelling. Mr. Perks told her to "Go away lady", by her own words. Mr. Perks has always contended she slapped him and he tried to get away. How does this make him the bully that evening? Who was doing the chasing? Does the bully run away from the confrontation or toward it?

Asked if Mr. Nolan ever talked to her about the gun (Mr. Perks was required to purchase, get certified and licensed to carry his weapon at all times at the specific request of the Town Board by Resolution); Ms. Scarpati-Reilly answered that both Mr. Nolan and Mr. Anastasia came to her and said they had spoken with him and he had "voluntarily decided after this incident that he would not wear them while he was in Town Hall."

Mr. Perks denies that was the case, he said he was required as a Peace Officer and by Town Board resolution, to wear his gun at all times. So he could not, would not and did not voluntarily give up his gun.

THE HARBORMASTER GETS TRANSFERRED TO THE LANDFILL...
BUT NOT AS ANY KIND OF PUNISHMENT THOUGH...

Mr. Perks was the only harbormaster in New York State to be transferred to a landfill. That just happens to be as far away from the water as you can get in Huntington, Mr. Perks said.

Q: Did Mr. Nolan ever talk to you about Mr. Perks' claim that the Town retaliated against him by moving him to the landfill without proper equipment to do his job?
A: Mr. Nolan never talked to me about that.
Q: Did you ever become aware of the alarm going off at the Ogden Martin plant at the East Northport
landfill owned by the Town of Huntington in the last year?
A: I don't think I heard it in that particular context.
Q: What did you hear about it?
A: I heard that there was some discussion of radioactive waste was coming to the plant.

She said she heard it from Josephine Jahier, who worked under Mr. Nolan, who had both received a memo from Mr. Perks that was cc'd to the Town Board. That caused the Board to take the matter up in Executive Session for discussion and the Town Board "has been discussing it ever since."she stated.

Q: Would it be fair to characterize the Town Board as concerned about the issue at the landfill?
A: No.
Q: They are not concerned about radioactivity in the landfill right now, to your knowledge?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Was the issue of radioactivity ever discussed at any of the oil spill response meetings?
A: No.
Q: Never?
A: No, not that I am aware of.
Q: Are you aware that Mr. Perks while he was assigned out of Town Hall to the landfill in East Northport, that an alarm went off when a truck came in with a load of waste?
A: I never heard that.
Q: Did you ever hear that a Geiger counter was set off, an alarm, there was radioactivity material in the landfill last year?
A: I never heard that.
Q: Would that concern you if that would come to your attention?
A: It would concern me, yes.
Q: Did Ogden Martin request a radiation detector from the Town of Huntington?
A: Not that I am aware of.
Q: Do you know who the liaison is to that department, Mr. Nolan's department?
A: I think it is Mr. Petrone.

THE DRAFT EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE TOWN of HUNTINGTON

If there were an emergency in the Town, the Suffolk County evacuation plan would be the plan the Town would use, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified. The Town did have a "draft plan", but the Board decided to use the County plan and she had never heard any specific evacuation plans ever discussed at the Town Board meetings.

Mr. Perks said, "There is no plan to use the County evacuation plan...they are not interchangeable. There is no resolution saying the Town will use the County plan and no provision to use their plan. The Town should have their own plan and the failure of the former FEMA director, Frank Petrone, not to have one shows you the level of his incompetence. Even the Town's Chief Fire Marshal acted like this was not an issue when I complained to him. The draft plan had blank pages and no contact numbers. The chain of the command in the County does not include control over the Village police and there are no Town Police in Huntington. There is no direction for Town employees, the County does not tell the Town what to do. Her statement that the Town will use the County plan is absurd, it shows you she has no idea what she talking about." Mr. Perks said. Since 1996, Mr. Perks had a paper trail to attempt to get an evacuation plan established, until he was forced to file a grievance. Then Mr. Petrone called Mr. Perks' filing of grievances criminal. Eventually the Department of Labor agreed with Mr. Perks and cited the Town for a major violation of failure to comply and have an emergency response and evacuation plan.

If the radiation detector were to go off, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she did not know what the emergency procedures would be at the Ogden Martin (now Covanta) plant in East Northport.

Town employees are assigned to work at the Ogden Martin facility Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified, but she would not say what was discussed in Executive Sessions about the radiation and what employees were told to do if a radiation alarm went off.

Mr. Yule asked that it be marked for a ruling that the discussions in Executive Session may contain exculpatory material relevant to their retaliation claim.

Q: What's the basis of claiming privilege of the executive session regarding discussions of radiation and protection of employees that may be affected by such radiation?

A: Litigation.

Q: Was there a plan ever discussed to protect employees that worked at that landfill?

A: I never participated in one.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly never read the draft plan according to her since they were going to use the Suffolk County plan anyway. The next few pages Ms. Scarpati-Reilly spent minimizing the issue of the radiation and Mr. Perks' complaints. "Mr. Perks was set up in a trailer away from the actual scale that would detect the hot material before it actually got into the plant ." "Hot" meant contaminated by radiation she said. She said she had never been inside the trailer and could not understand why Mr. Perks complained he couldn't do his job as Oil Spill Response Manager while at the landfill.

I don't understand why not. He has his own personal truck with him while working at the landfill, just the same as he had his own personal truck there on February 28, 1999. He could do his job then, he could probably do the same job at the landfill without his uniform and his own personal truck. (Scarpati-Reilly deposition pages 200-202)

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly conceded that the Oil Spill Control Board would be responsible for review of hazardous radiation and that would be Mr. Perks' purview. She also said there had been some problems with radiated waste as far back as 1994 and '95.

RADIATION.....NO BIG TO-DO ABOUT IT WAS NECESSARY....

Q: Do you know if any employees that were assigned to the Ogden Martin plant were ever given any written materials on radiation, the effects on the body, anything to do with what was in that?
A: We had problems back in 1994/95 they were all taken care of, and this happened, this little incident had occurred and Mr. Perks has made a big to do about writing to the District Attorney's Office and complaining to everybody in the world making sure that Dave Ambro writes story after story about it. This is Mr. Perks' thing. This is, I guess his hope for whistleblower protection.
Q: You are a lawyer, do you agree with the concept of whistleblower protection?
A: Yes, I do. This was nothing that was a big surprise to us, he is not protecting himself by blowing a whistle on anything.

Editor's Note: Earlier she stated she knew nothing about this, now she says this was no big surprise and no big deal... If so, why did they spend tens of thousands each month after the radiation detector was installed to remove radiated waste and why were they keeping it a secret in executive sessions? They had a legal responsibility under Right-To-Know laws to tell employees that there were radiation events they were exposed to.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified she was sure that Mr. Perks was the one who sent an anonymous letter to the DA complaining about the radiation as he was the only one who ever talked or complained about it.
Asked about the problems at the Ogden Martin facility in '94-95 she said "There was also some problems with radioactive waste being sent there and the Town took care of it."
Q: We think they took care of it. Do you know for sure they took care of it?
A: Yes.
Q: How do you know that?
A: They have a system in place there that would notify us, if in fact, there was a hot waste truck that was coming into the plant.
Q: Do you think it is proper for an employee who's working in the Ogden Martin plant, an employee of the Town of Huntington, to be concerned about radioactivity?
A: No.

Editor's Note: Ms. Scarpati-Reilly stated that "Mr. Nolan was aware of the radioactivity in the plant before Mr. Perks complained", because "...other employees had made a record of it as part of their duties". She just stated the anonymous note had to be from Mr. Perks because he was the only one who complained about it and here she says other employees had already informed Mr. Nolan. Which is it?

Was Mr. Perks the only one who was reprimanded for complaining? Mr. Yule asked her and she said he was reprimanded for insubordination to Mr. Nolan, Josephine Jahier and Mr. Anastasia not for complaining about the radiation at the plant. (They had filed an Article 75 against him and improperly imposed a sanction on him, that they were forced to withdraw according to an administrative judge.)

As a person whose said her platform was always protection of the environment, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was asked if Mr. Perks was correct in bringing attention to a possible problem with radiation where he and others were assigned to work.
A: That had nothing to do with the Section 75. He had every right to talk to his director and bring these things to their attention.

A brief recess was taken and when the questioning resumed Mr. Yule went back to the topic of Ogden Martin.

Q: Do you recall with regards to the Ogden Martin plant, what problems there were?
A: No.
Q: Do you know what employees made complaints about the plant?
A: No.
Q: How did you hear there were problems and that employees made complaints?
A: During Executive Session.

MR. YULE: Can you mark that for a ruling too.

Q: You are not going to discuss executive session stuff with me?
A: No, it was in anticipation of litigation.

Editor's Question: Are they more concerned about litigation than radiation??????

Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said "these things happened before I was on the Board" and it was not happening at the time and had been resolved. "I don't have a crystal ball into what was going to happen in the next couple of years." The liaison to the plant was Frank Petrone.

Editor's Note:
Let's see just how much Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was privy to while she was in office as a founding member of and Town liaison to The Oil and Toxic and Flammable Material Spillage Committee:

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 most of those questions have never been answered because the Town of Huntington pays attorneys millions of dollars to keep the information relating to an investigation of the landfill and the illegal trucking and burning of radiated waste in Huntington, not only from the public, but from the State Attorney General’s office as well.

On March 3, 2003, Attorney General 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 to for the last three years.

A number of letters and phone calls went from Mr. Perks to Mr. Higgins and he never heard back from him. Ernie Stolzer was hired by the Town to handle the Right-To-Know issues. After a year of no response, Mr. Perks said he finally got Mr. Higgins on the phone and Mr. Higgins told him, "You can take solace in the fact that they are doing the right thing now." Since no one ever has told Mr. Perks what he has been exposed to, he says they are still not doing the right thing and since these radionuclides can be deadly for thousands of years there is no solace in the fact that they are doing the right thing now.

A SCARPATI-REILLY LETTER.....

The topic shifted to a letter written by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly with the help of her husband that was labelled Exhibit Budd D; it had the Town Seal on it.

"The accuser, a malcontent employee known for verbal abuse who turned to violence against a woman." she had written.

Calling it common knowledge, he was violent, when asked to name anyone Mr. Perks had ever been known to be violent against, she said only, "He verbally abused me." She said she complained about it, but when asked directly didn't say to whom she complained simply stating, "He did it in front of Harry Hennessey Jr. on January 25th."

She said Mr. Perks himself told her his wife had gotten an order of protection against him for a "physical episode" between him and his wife, but she never saw the Order of Protection.

When asked to describe the incident as described to her by Mr. Perks she declined to do so.

"I'm not going to discuss my conversation with Mr. Perks." She next claimed Mr. Perks had slapped her on the arm.

Editor's note: Originally Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she told the Police she was slapped in the head...then she said he slapped her shoulder, then she testified his hand slipped off because it was raining and she had on a slicker and it slipped off...here she says he slapped her on the arm...This slap is like the Kennedy magic bullet...one slap hitting three places simultaneously.

Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said Mr. Anastasia told her Mr. Perks had been told to surrender his gun to the Sheriff's Department. At another point she said she was told he voluntarily surrendered his gun.

Mr. Perks claims he had gotten an order of protection against his wife, first with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's help and at her suggestion. She said it would help him in the divorce and walked him through the process to obtain it, then his wife retaliated and got one against him. When she realized it would jeopardize his job, his wife backed down and both orders were rescinded immediately.

Shown an anonymous letter about Mr. Perks---Mr. Yule purported it was in Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's handwriting. She denied ever seeing it or writing it.

In January of 1998, Mr. Perks lobbied her to sponsor a Town sexual harassment policy she said.

First asked about updating and formalizing the sexual harassment policy for the Town in January, she said she didn't really begin working on it until September and that was because it was a good political issue and Mr. Perks had kept bugging her about it for months and had shown her Smithtown's policy.

Mr. Perks said he never got involved in it at all, never pushed her to develop a policy. "This was another boldfaced lie."

The Councilwoman had finally submitted a version of her draft sexual harassment policy to the Town Attorney, in September, but she would not discuss what he said about it, citing privilege again. Mr. Yule again asked for a ruling, for potential exculpatory information.

Mr. Perks said "All of these privileges she cites, conversations with the executive session, her husband, the Town attorney are all so she can keep secret the information about what really happened."

Earlier issues with sexual harassment were already being handled within the departments involved, such as at the animal shelter, so they were not considered in her draft policy, she testified. She was not sure when and how the new sexual harassment policy adopted after the Cuthbertson Resolution (Cuthbertson Exhibit F) was distributed to employees and asked if she had a copy, "I'm sure I have one somewhere."

BACK TO THE MOHONK MOUNTAIN HOUSE

Also mentioned in the letter Exhibit Budd D Ms. Scarpati-Reilly wrote, "He stole that receipt which my husband placed in the glove box of our car after we spent the weekend there for my husband's 51st birthday."

Mr. Yule asked what her husband said about him stealing the receipt...Mr. Abelove objected as this was privileged between a husband and wife...Mr. Yule said she gave up privilege when she said her husband placed it in the glove box...but since that was not a quote from her husband, she said she saw him put it there, she had not given up privilege, according to Mr. Abelove.

Then how she paid for the weekend at Mohonk...who brought the luggage to the car...and who actually put the receipt in the glove box was discussed again. She said she paid the bill, he brought the luggage to the car and she got in the passenger side and handed him the receipt and he leaned over and put it in the glove box. She said her husband was not in Florida that weekend, neither were her children and her father was watching them. Earlier she testified she had the luggage and the receipt was in her mouth and her husband took it and put in the glove box.

Mr. Perks said both of these scenarios are contradicted by the truth, subpoenaed information relating to his frequent flier miles, that put her husband in Florida at the time. "She gave me the receipts at Mohonk House, so her husband wouldn't find them." Judge Seybert never let that information into the court case saying it was obtained improperly, that the execution of the warrant was not proper.

BACK TO THE INFAMOUS "NOT REALLY MISSING" TRUCK

Asked if when she spoke to the Fact-Finder she told him she traded her vote on the budget so that Perks could get his truck, she denied that and said he was taking her statement out of context.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted to the Fact-Finder she had spent "a considerable amount of political capital to obtain the truck for Mr. Perks' use for Oil Spills and for equipment for it.", according to the Report.

The next topic in the letter was the Fact-Finder's Report that she called a "political hatchet job" in her letter. In the report she said "he struck me". Mr. Yule asked her if there was a difference between the word struck and slap...she answered, "Same thing, slap, struck."

In the report Mr. Labush said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly told him she lied to the press to protect her family and herself from the embarrassment of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said that was part of it, but that he also threatened her and her family that she was going to be found dead and her children would be hurt.

Asked if she presented evidence to the Ethics Board, she said she did submit some memorandums, but no affidavits to the Ethics Board, but did try to appear before the Board, but never did. She said Mr. Perks had told her she would be found dead by suicide on March 3rd, when she went to his home.

Mr. Perks claims he refused to open the door and speak to her, when she came to his home that evening alone.

Asked if she went to the Police after he threatened her, she said she did not.

Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly began to talk about the fact that Mr. Yule's mother-in-law is the Deputy Commissioner of the Suffolk County Board of Elections and she felt there was a conspiracy of Democrats, including Ed Yule and Dave Ambro who all socialized together with Mr. Perks who was like Ms. Scarpati-Reilly a registered Republican. She mentioned Mr. Yule's mother-in-law in the letter because she wanted to show it was all a political thing to get rid of her she stated.

Q: Who started this whole thing?

A: I believe it was you.

Q: Me?

A: Yes, I believe it was you.

Q: Didn't you go to the police the night of February 28, 1999 and light the fuse that started this whole thing?

A: And you just added fuel to it.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly insisted there was no sexual harassment prior to February 28, 1999 and none after that either and Mr. Perks only used a lawsuit as a threat to stop her from going forward with her complaint to the Police. Mr. Perks said there was a sexual relationship with her for years and she was technically his boss. He testified when he tried to end the relationship, she threatened to fire him on more than one occasion.

Mr. Yule then marked a three page document as Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 and showed it to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. It was a copy of The Observer with her picture on the front cover. Mr. Perks had promised to get Mr. Ambro to do a story on her in the paper and he kept his word to her during the campaign.

A picture of Alison Sanchez, a close friend of Mr. Perks, was also sent and Mr. Yule tried to get Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to say why she sent the two pictures together through her attorney.

Q: Are you claiming by sending them this exhibit which is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 that Alison Sanchez was the one that Arthur Simpson saw coming out of the boat that evening?

A: I don't know, he may have, I don't know.

Q: Are you claiming that?

A: I have no idea. All I can say is that if you take a look at these two pictures you will see a resemblance.

Q: I have to know, are you claiming it or not?

A: MR. ABELOVE: Ask her if she knows.

Mr. Yule continued to try to get Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to admit that she was trying to show that it was Ms. Sanchez that a witness saw leaving Mr. Perks' houseboat and not her...eventually she capitulated and said, "...I believe that just because people said that they saw him with various women, that are not necessarily me, it could have been his wife, it could have been your secretary, I don't know. But he claimed he was sleeping with a number of women, he wouldn't tell you who they were. If he told us who they were, maybe I can get photographs of them and show them, perhaps there is some resemblance."

At that point a recess was taken and Judge Wall was contacted to settle some points of law from earlier.

The judge decided that the issues should be put in a letter application, including the issues of privilege with Mrs. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and privilege as it related to the executive sessions and the discussions of sexual harassment charges. If he determined there was no privilege, he would add time to the deposition to complete it with that one exception.

The judge did not seem to care that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had to leave a couple of depositions early and let her slide on that.

At 1:45 Mr. Yule continued the examination and asked if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly ever mentioned to the Town Board that Mr. Abelove was also representing her personally in a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Perks.

A: I don't think I ever mentioned it to the Town Board.

Asked again if she went to the Mohonk House with Mr. Perks, she again denied it.

Mr. Yule shifted gears and asked about Edward Hennessey a week after "the incident".

Q: Did there come a time when you spoke with Edward Hennessey, Attorney at Law, regarding this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Was he representing you at any time?

A: Yes, so to speak.

Mr. Yule asked if Mr. Hennessey advised her to take the fifth amendment when she spoke to the Fact-Finder and she claimed attorney-client privilege. She said she never pled the fifth, but on advice of her attorney refused to answer the question when asked if she ever had a sexual relationship with Mr. Perks.

She said she had been approached by Harry Hennessey's brother William Hennessey to try and settle the matter between her and Mr. Perks. The meeting was arranged because Mr. Perks "begged for it" and he was happy to try and resolve the matter and Harry Hennessey had spoken with Mr. Yule and they had supposedly scheduled a meeting at Mr. Yule's office.

Mr. Yule asked if she had told the Fact-Finder that they just decided to show up at his office without an appointment. She said no.

Q: You never said that to the Fact-Finder?

A: I may have said that , but it was out of context, three very busy people took time out of their busy schedule to try and resolve a matter with Mr. Perks, you had made the arrangements and the meeting was going to be at this office.

Q: The was no arrangements.

A: Are you testifying sir?

Q: Don't yell at me, ma'am.

A: I'm yelling back in the same tone of voice.

Q: I wasn't yelling.

MR. ABELOVE: I think you were.

MR. YULE: The court reporter will note it the way she notes it.

MR. ABELOVE: They don't write down the tone of voice.

THE WITNESS: I'm going to the ladies room.

The witness left the room at six minutes to two and returned a few minutes later.

Asked when she allegedly came to his office to work things out, she said to the best of her knowledge it was the following Thursday after the week of the incident and it was around 6:00 PM. This was after her meeting with Chris Williams and Maureen McCormick from the Suffolk DA's office. She said she refused to answer questions on whether or not she had a sexual relationship with Mr. Perks on the advice of her attorney.

Next Mr. Yule showed her Plaintiff's Exhibits 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 that were web pages from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's website as of October 4, 2000. The pages were written by her by herself and were reviewed by her then attorneys Gregg Perini and Maureen Hoerger. She first got the website up and running around March of 2000 and some of the memorandums she gave to the Ethics Board were included on the website after being reviewed by the attorneys, Perini and Hoerger. Asked if she paid the attorneys, she sidestepped the question and never answered.

Asked about revisions made to the website, she said she had deleted previous postings and had no copies anywhere. He then showed her a Newsday article titled "Talk of The Town" dated April 2, 2000. Showing her the article, it said she gave him a book called "The Perfect Storm" and she said she had. Asked if she gave him a book on the Mohonk Hotel or the Mohonk Town, she said no, but he had shown her a book about it he got from his neighbor. She said she told him in June she was planning on going there and told her husband sometime at the end of July that she was bringing him there for his 51st birthday.

Editor's note: Earlier she said the trip was a birthday surprise and now she states he was told a month in advance.

Mr. Yule asked her if her husband ever accused her of having an affair prior to February 28, 1999 and Mr. Abelove instructed her not to answer. She admitted that she was called Cruella, the Disney villainess as a joke at Town Hall after that.

The Fact-Finder's report was said to have cost $96,870 dollars, but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she didn't think it was accurate and had heard several numbers "all over the place". More questions about the Mohonk receipt revealed that she phoned in her order and only signed one copy when she checked out. She said she only realized Mr. Perks had stolen them from her car when she found out from the Fact-Finder that Mr. Perks had given them to him.

Mr. Perks claims he got the receipts from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly when they spent the weekend together at Mohonk House so her husband wouldn't find them. He claims the husband was in Florida with his children.

Q: Why did you refuse to answer questions regarding whether or not you had ever been on Mr. Perks' boathouse?

A: I don't believe I did that. Can I take a look at the testimony, I think you are misquoting what is in the transcript.

Q: Let me ask this question then: Did you ever answer the question with regards to whether or not you have ever been on Mr. Perks' houseboat with the answer, "I didn't know he had one."

A: I may have done that.

Q: Why did you refuse to answer questions posed by the Fact-Finder regarding whether or not you had a sexual relationship with Mr. Perks?

A: I believe the record speaks for itself. I rely on what my attorney stated on the record.

Q: You didn't answer any questions regarding that topic, correct?

A: On the advice of my attorney at that point, yes.

Next Mr. Yule changed the topic to whether or not she and Bob DeGregorio discussed how litigious Mr. Perks could be. She admitted they had talked about it and she said she felt his union grievances were the same as him bringing a lawsuit in her opinion. She could use the word sue and grievance interchangeably she said. "Yes, it's a legal proceeding that he brings. Administrative proceedings to me, it is a litigation just as if it were done in a court of law."

"A grievance is not a lawsuit, an attorney should know that. It is just the first step in a process to resolve violations of a contract. It is the only way to resolve issues, the only method you have. It is not a lawsuit...it may lead to a lawsuit...but it is not one. They violate the contract very often and going after me intimidates others not to file grievances." Mr. Perks said, "They do that by making an example out of me." Ms. Scarpati-Reilly stated earlier, if he didn't drop his grievance, it would mean trouble for everyone else, according to Mr. Hennessey Jr..

In 1998, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was in a car accident with Mr. Perks in the car after a Town Board workshop meeting. They had just left the diner and a guy cut her off she said and hit her.

Q: Did you express to Mr. Perks your thoughts that you didn't want your husband to find out that you had this accident?

A: The whole front end was all smashed up, to hide it from my husband, I don't believe that's true.

Mr. Perks said she didn't want her husband to know that he was in the car with her.

Mr. Yule then asked if Bob DeGregorio ever told her that she was going to be found dead after committing suicide.

A: To the best of my recollection, yes. The first conversation I had with him after Bill had left his house, I called him back and he said, thank God you're alive, I didn't hear from you, I thought you committed suicide. Bill said you were going to be found dead after committing suicide.

Q: "Found dead." Those were his words?

A: Found dead after committing suicide, to the best of my memory, that was the conversation.

Mr. Perks asked, "If I said she was going to be found dead after suicide..then how did she twist that into me threatening to kill her? This makes no sense. I never threatened her with anything. The fact that she makes no sense and lied continuously, is the reason the DA and the Police did not pursue her baseless charges."

Mr. Yule then showed an interoffice memo from Mr. Nolan that was indicating there was about $16,000 in arrears between Mobil and Keyspan and she and Bill had discussed it she said and they tried to get the money that was owed. The memo stated that Town code indicated that the Division of Harbors and Waterways issues the actual permits. This was Bill Perks' job and he was "loaned" to the department, but he was still a harbormaster and the only one authorized to issue the permits. These were his duties as oil spill response manager. "We took it away from Harry Acker. That was part of his grievance, part of the work he was supposed to be doing as oil spill response manager, as harbormaster in the Division of Harbors and Waterways. He was supposed to issue them as a part of that division." Mr. Perks said he was being forced to work out of title and this is a violation of Civil Service Rules and Regulations. He was being forced to work out of title and eventually Civil Service ruled he was correct and was working in violation of the law and ruled he was not the harbormaster, but the hazardous materials coordinator instead.

Mr. Yule asked if he could be working for Maritime Services, then later in the day if he had to correct an oil problem somewhere, part of the day he would be working under Mr. Nolan under environmental? The answer was no because according to Town code it is still under the Division of Harbors and Waterways, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly pointed out.

During that time frame (December 1998) Mr. Anastasia was still Mr. Perks' supervisor. From December 1998 through March 1999, Mr. Perks issued permits in his capacity as harbormaster.

Q: Now if Mr. Nolan believes that his staff is issuing those permits would that be in violation of Town code?

A: That would not be following the Town code, that's right.

Changes in the Town code would have to be amended by resolution and a vote by the Town Board.

Mr. Yule then showed Ms. Scarpati-Reilly an aticle from The New York Times by Stuart Ain and asked if she was quoted properly.

A: There are a few discrepancies here and there.

She took issue with the fact that it says it was the talk of the town and she did not believe it was accurate when it said Mr. Perks filed his sexual harassment lawsuit on May 24th the day before Mr. Labush released his report. She also said she never said Mr. Perks physically assaulted his wife, according to her and it didn't take a half hour to drive to the Mobil station, she insisted.

Mr. Yule then showed Ms. Scarpati-Reilly a three page affidavit that she had submitted to Judge Mischler in conjunction with her motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. Asked why she would submit that affidavit on a 12B6 motion, she declined to respond as it called for a conversation with her attorney. The judge had said when he made his decision that the affidavit should not have been submitted with that type of motion and her attorney should have known that.

Mr. Perks was a registered Republican as was Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and they had that in common. They had lunch at least twice a week over 18 months and she said Mr. Perks wanted a more social relationship as he told her details about his wife, children and friends etcetera.

Q: Paragraph 7, "absolutely at no time was there a relationship, romantic or sexual," you highlighted and bolded it.

A: I didn't do that.

Q: Who wrote this?

A: My attorney.

Q: Jason Abelove?

A: Yes. I--unfortunately, he wasn't around when I went to sign it, there was some discrepancy there. I didn't think it was worthwhile the sum and substance was pretty accurate.

Q: Paragraph number 9 you state, "I never threatened the plaintiff with the loss of his job, other benefits of employment or with criminal prosecution." You wrote those words right?

A: My attorney wrote those words.

Q: You read it and signed it right?

A: We were under a time constraint, he wasn't in his office. I read it. I never threatened him with loss of his job. I asked for a letter of resignation, that was not a threat of loss of his job.

Q: What is it?

A: It was a request for his resignation. I didn't have authority to do anything else.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she only took Mr. Perks up on his standing offer to resign if she ever became unhappy with his performance as oil spill response manager. "...and after that incident that evening and I felt it was to the point where our professional relationship was no longer viable. And so as a result of that, I took him up on his offer."

Then things got a little strange...

Mr. Yule asked Ms. Scarpati-Reilly if Mr. Perks believed she was his supervisor and that is why he offered his resignation to her.

MR. ABELOVE: Objection. How can she know what Mr. Perks thought? Why don't you ask her whether he told her if he thought that?

Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, the witness said..."Stop staring at me."

Mr. Yule: The witness just threw an exhibit at me and told me to stop staring at her and walked out. The time is now exactly what Mr. Perks?

Mr. Perks: Its eleven minutes of three.

THE WITNESS: I refuse to answer any more questions Mr. Yule. I think he is abusing his authority by staring at me and his client is doing just the same. I think you had enough hours with me and I'm concluding this deposition.

MR. YULE: You will suffer the penalties that the judge imposes, if any.

THE WITNESS: Yes, if any. I have a terrible headache. [The witness left the examination room.]

MR. YULE: Mr. Stolzer is in the room, Mr. Abelove, Lisa Baisley, Mr. Perks and myself and the reporter, and at no time was I staring at her, she got up, threw the papers at me and walked out.

MR. ABELOVE: I am going to object to that characterization.

MR.YULE: Describe what happened.

MR. ABELOVE: I object to your characterization. I'm not being deposed. I think you were abusive to her several times over the last 16 or 17 hours. I think that you did--

MR. YULE: What did I do in the last ten minutes that caused her to walk out is what the issue is.

Mr. ABELOVE: I am not being deposed. You asked me, I answered it. She is gone. You are going to depose me? I haven't been sworn in. I'm not giving testimony. I object to your characterization.

MR. YULE: Mr. Stolzer, do you have any objection of my characterization of what just transpired in the last five minutes?

Mr. STOLZER: I'm not going to testify about that. We will deal with it with the judge.

At that point the deposition was over for the day.

Here are some of the facts that surround this story...

Records show that once the Bicron 3000 Radiation Detector was installed in the Ogden Martin Incinerator in Huntington in 2000, 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. (known as Grizzly)

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. Note the time frame as it relates to the story and it becomes clear that as Mr. Perks' protestations became more frequent and concerned, the Town augmented charges against him, and minimized the radiation issue. Instead of facing the facts that thousands of pounds of radiated scrap metal was being burned in the incinerator, Mr. Nolan blamed diapers from radiated patients for the alarm going off.

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.

No radiated waste, medical or otherwise is permitted to be burned in the incinerator.

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

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. He tried to blow the whistle on the illegal activity for years. No one would listen to him, instead the Town passed a resolution based on the allegations of an admitted liar that resulted in a shift of focus from the true crime of allowing radiated scrap to be burned in the Town Incinerator, trucking it through residential streets without legal permits and to bury the contaminated fly ash in the local unlined landfills as capping material. Documents obtained by Freelance Investigations include truck manifests of radiated scrap being sent from Gershow in Medford to Covanta...(then Ogden Martin). Witnesses testified it was re-entered into the incinerator over and over until it was just pellets and ash.

After the radiation detector was installed, Mr. Perks wrote several interoffice memos to his superiors telling them about the increased frequency of the alarm going off and 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.”

According to his job description and Town Code it was his responsibility to respond to the 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 reported 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? Mr. Perks asked then and still asks the same question now. The DEC permit allows for the burning of NO radioactive waste...zero...not medical waste either...

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 30th Jahier memo telling him not to get involved.

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 15 years later 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 and documents obtained by Freelance Investigations.

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.

At one point Thelma Neira burst into an arbitration hearing meeting being held at Town Hall and blurted out that the word "assault" on the Town Board Resolution against Mr. Perks was just "a typo" and should not have been included. Because Mr. Perks was accused of an assault he was eligible to be represented by an attorney and have it paid for by the Town. The Arbitrator decided in Mr. Perks' favor and the Town appealed. Judge Farneti agreed and upheld the arbitrator's decision. The Town would have been responsible for about $70,000 in fees at the time of the original arbitration hearing. They bifurcated the trial to do legal fees first and separate. Fifteen years and millions of dollars later they are in Appellate Court still fighting the legal fees. They are now over 4.9 million at 9% interest and counting for Mr. Yule's fees from 2009 according to Arbitrator Gregory's ruling.

This week Thelma Neira was let go by the Town after over twenty years of service with one days notice. She said in Newsday there was no animosity even though she was told only the day before a new attorney was hired by Town and Mr. Petrone said "This is in no way anything derogatory against her."

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 in hundreds of articles as an overly litigious person with a sexual harassment lawsuit hanging over his head. Mr. Perks has always maintained he is a target because he is telling an unwelcome truth about radiation of the North Shore of Long Island's Gold Coast.

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 Line Road in East Northport and found that it contained 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 is extremely dangerous 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.

Never once was Mr. Perks notified of these reports despite the fact that he was the Town's Hazardous Materials Coordinator. Neither was the Fire Department notified. "The Right-To-Know law is a sham and the State Attorney General's office and the DA should be ashamed of themselves. This was criminal activity with far reaching health implications for the whole neighborhood and whoever is downwind of the incinerator." Mr. Perks said. "The downwinders of this plant are definitely in peril."

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. When notified there was radioactive material being stored in Brooklyn within a short distance from the Williamsburg Bridge and a school, the local politicians quickly passed an ordinance prohibiting the storage of radioactive material within 1500 yards of a school and Radiac was forced to move the stored material to another location.

The SCWA does not test wells for radiological materials and blends contaminated water with clean water to dilute any contamination. Radioactive material can build up in the body, when consumed over time and with a half-life of a billion years, to say Mr. Perks was making a big "to do" over nothing seems off the mark.

Mr. Perks said this is the largest environmental disaster and coverup ever to happen in the United States. A 30 million dollar breast cancer study to determine why such a high rate of cancer on Long Island found nothing, but never examined radiation as an issue, they only tested for pesticides, Mr. Perks said. "Don't drink the water." he added.

Intermission:

Next: The end of the deposition

The media's involvement.

Freelance Investigations

Blog Archive

Pages

About Me

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Governor Cuomo asks State DEC to Investigate Illegal Trucking and Burning of Radiated Waste in Huntington Town

Monday, February 10, 2014

Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater: ACT FOUR: Scene Five...The Scarpati-Reilly Deposition Part 2