Freelance Investigations

Do You Have Jet Lag or Bleed Air Contamination?

2012-01-15T15:26:00.000-05:00

How many times have you gotten off a plane feeling woozy, or unexplainably ill? Did you chalk it up to jet lag or “air sickness”?

Of course crossing time zones can cause “jet lag” and take a few days to adjust. But the same feelings can be produced on short-haul flights which experience what is known as a “fume event”; the insidious problem of toxic oil fumes leaking into aircraft cabins which can cause severe long-term damage to thehealth of both passengers and flight crews, according to Captain John Hoyte who wrote an article for Nexus Magazine.

In June, 2010 the U.S. Senate approved an amendment by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that required the FAA to conduct a study of the air quality in the cabins of all U.S. airliners to determine the level of toxicity to crews and passengers.

Aerotoxic Syndrome, is a term coined in 1999 by Dr. Harry Hoffman, Professor Chris Winder and Jean Christophe Balouet, Ph.D. and is the name given to the illness caused by the long term effects of breathing contaminated cabin air in an aircraft.

“Fume Events” in which cabin air is contaminated, occur in 1 in 2000 flights according to a United Kingdom government website, while other reports claim 1 in 100 flights is a more accurate figure.
Flight crews on certain aircraft report experiencing some fumes to a degree on nearly every flight.

“Bleed Air” is warm compressed air supplied directly from the engine which is used to obtain a comfortable environment and sufficient air pressure at high altitudes for proper breathing. Bleed air is mixed inside the aircraft in a 50/50 ratio with re-circulated cabin air.

The following contains Nexus Magazine excerpts from their Feb-March 2010 article titled:
BEST KEPT SECRET IN AVIATION: AEROTOXIC SYNDROME with full credit and attribution to be given to both Captain Hoyte and Nexus Magazine.com. where noted.

Captain John Hoyt, a former commercial airline pilot, is the Chairman of the Aerotoxic Association, a support group for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome.

Captain Hoyt writes of his experience as a BAe 146 pilot in the Nexus article:

I enjoyed extremely good health until 1989…I suddenly developed Alzheimer’s type symptoms of failing memory, speech difficulties and trouble with thought processing which left me feeling permanently intoxicated. As I was on permanent night flying duties, I logically put these symptoms down to the anti-social hours and I kept quiet for fear of losing my job…By 2005 by which time I had become a Training Captain on the BAe 146 but was now day flying, my memory was appalling and I knew that I was a hazard not only to myself, but to my passengers. In August 2004, I had “failed safe” by walking off a BAe 146 just prior to take-off for a difficult approach into Salzburg airport, Austria, as I was convinced that I was about to kill not only myself but all of my passengers. I finally stopped flying in early 2006 at 49 years of age, confused as to how my excellent health had progressively failed over a 16 year period, leaving me a “zombie-like vegetable”. I would be diagnosed by aviation specialist doctors in early 2006 as suffering from “chronic stress”, but 12 months later I knew without any doubt whatsoever that I had actually been “chronically poisoned” by repeatedly breathing oil fumes in the BAe 146. Like so many others around the world, I would unfortunately discover “the best kept secret in aviation” and a major cause of mysterious, undiagnosed ill health, mainly in aircrew but also in airline passengers who can become equally adversely affected from just one bad flight. (Captain John Hoyte/Nexus Magazine.com article)

Senator Feinsteins’ amendment was included in the FAA’s $17 billion dollar Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act and required the FAA to complete a study of cabin air quality within one year. According to Feinstein’s statement entered onto the Congressional Record: The amendment was designed to ensure the FAA has the necessary information to protect the American public from exposure to harmful contaminants while flying. The amendment also provided the FAA with the authority to mandate that airlines allow air quality monitoring on their aircraft for the purposes of the study.

EXPOSURE IS A ‘SERIOUS MATTER”

Senator Feinstein calls exposure to the “toxic soup” of contaminated air that contains carbon monoxide gas as well as chemicals that can damage your nervous system called tricresylphosphates (TCP’s) “a very serious matter”.

Exposure to TCP’s can initially cause stomach ache and muscle weakness followed by delayed memory loss, tremors, confusion and other symptoms, according to Feinstein’s testimony for the Congressional Record. Nickel, Cadmium and Beryllium are also in the jet engine oil and have been found in the blood
of pilots and crew members tested after exposure to fume events, according to the Aerotoxic Association website.

Mobil Jet Oil II (made by Mobil Oil Corp), according to the Material Safety Data Bulletin (MSDS)- contained on the Aviation Organophosphate Information Site, has Tricresylphosphate (TCP) listed as one of its ingredients. In the hazards identification section it states:

Overexposure to TCP by swallowing, prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or prolonged or repeated skin contact may produce nervous sytem disorders including gastrointestinal disturbances, numbness, muscular cramps, weakness and paralysis. Paralysis may be delayed.

As far back as 2004 “The FAA concluded that the problem was so “unsafe” that it called for repetitive detailed inspections of the inside of each air conditioning duct to prevent impairment of the operational skills and abilities of the flight crew caused by the inhalation of agents released from oil or breakdown products, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.”, according to Senator Feinstein.
Yet to date no action action to change has occurred.

A DANGEROUS DESIGN FLAW IS THE CAUSE

According to Captain Hoyte as stated in the Nexus Magazine article, the problem began in the early 1960’s.Prior to then, engineers provided compressed air in high altitudes to support breathing, by designing mechanical compressors that did the job well. All of the early jet airliners such as the DC-8 and Boeing 707 used this separately compressed air. In the early 1960’s the “bean counters” looked for cheaper and simpler ways to provide that air. All jet engines have vast amounts of compressed air available from the forward section of the engine, before the fuel is added and burned. Soon the engineers would take this hot engine air and pipe it into the cabin. They would call it “bleed air” as it was “bled off” the jet engine compressor section. Despite the fact that many engineers warned if the “bleed air” should become contaminated with oil from within the engine or hydraulic fluid, then everyone in the plane would be breathing a contaminated mixture of air and oil, this new method was accepted and incorporated into new aircraft. The risks were calculated as negligible versus the financial savings and every aircraft from that period forward, including turboprop planes use the bleed air system to get compressed air into the cabin…even AIRFORCE ONE. (Hoyte/Nexus)

In March 2009, the President of The American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) requested the FAA “investigate and determine the requirements for bleed air contaminant monitoring and solutions to prevent bleed air contamination”, according to Senator Feinstein who also noted that in 2007 ASHRAE developed voluntary model standards to protect air craft cabin air quality.

Only the new Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner has gone back to the independent heating system so the air is no longer circulated from the engine through the cabin. This is probably thanks to Senator Diane Feinsteins efforts and her legislation that demanded the FAA take a closer look at this serious problem in 2010.

Captain Hoyte tells of the history of the problem in the Nexus article:

The first bleed air jets were the Boeing 727 and the McDonnell Douglas DC-9, but it would be 36 years before Boeing would suddenly decide in 1999, not to use bleed air in future designs.It would build a new type of jet: the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.The jet would be made of a completely composite materials and have a relatively high cabin pressure. But Boeing would never be able to admit that it had ditched bleed air, as it continued to build bleed-air aircraft. Obviously it would take many years for a complete change of technology… Since 1963, there has been an ongoing debate as to how clean the bleed air is. Boeing itself admits that in abnormal situations, mainly when oil seals “rarely “ fail, the engine oil can contaminate the air. This leads to the claim that the air is “generally safe in normal operations”. But what about abnormal operations: the every-other-day-occasions? What Boeing does not acknowledge readily is that oil seals do not always fail suddenly but often fail slowly over many hours, leaking oil into the air. The fact is that the bleed air and oil are allowed to mix due to: a basic design feature which deliberately allows small amounts of oil to pass through oil seals to provide lubrication...the fact that jet engine oil seals prefer a constant temperature environment to perform “normally” and tend to leak when warming up or cooling down...the fact that when power changes are made, such as on take off or descent when an incredible number of revolutions are suddenly increased or decreased, there are differing tolerances within the jet and the potential for oil to leak. There are a number of basic facts which now must be presented. There will always be a few minor differences, but the following facts are known: Aircrew and passengers generally breathe the same air; if the pilot is sick, so will the passengers be sick. All jet aircraft use bleed air: turbo props, Air Force One, corporate jets. The chemicals in the jet engine are extremely toxic, especially since an organophosphate (OP) is added to make engines last longer and provide fire-retardant properties. So what are organophosphate chemicals? They were developed during World War II by the Germans, specifically to do harm to human nervous systems. They have since been used in pesticides e.g. sheep dip-hence the dreadful nuerological illnesses affecting many sheep farmers in the UK during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Gulf War military personnel were also exposed to OPs and became mysteriously ill. It is known that chronic exposure to Ops can go on to change personalities and character and affect relationships and moods and devastate lives. Does any of this sound familiar? (Hoyte/Nexus)

How prevalent is this problem how long has it been known and what can be done about it?
“Breathing organophosphate fumes in a confined space is more hazardous than breathing in tobacco smoke and scientists agree that a cocktail of chemicals working together synergistically is collectively many times more dangerous than any chemical in isolation,” according to Captain Hoyte. The UK Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme for June and July 2009 shows a fume event being recorded on average every second day or approximately 18,000 passengers per year being exposed to toxic chemicals It has also been suggested that only around 4% of fume events are reported. University College London calculated in 2006 that 196,000 UK passengers are exposed to toxic gas each year. The UK Committee on Toxicity citing pilot reports contradicts the government findings that “fume events” occur in one in 2,000 flights, they say it is closer to one in 100 flights. (Hoyte/Nexus)

Neurotoxic properties of organophosphates have been known since before WW II, but according to the Aerotoxic Association website the first well-documented case is a C-130 Hercules navigator becoming incapacitated after breathing contaminated cabin air in 1977.

There are several viable solutions to this problem which probably won’t be realized until the problem is addressed as the true menace to the health of those who fly that it is. Frequent fliers should be the most alarmed, but also pregnant women, very young babies and any persons with breathing issues are also at greatest risk.

In November, 2009 a French Company, NYCO S.A., which manufactures aviation lubricants and more (specifically aviation jet engine oils in its plant in Tournai, Belgium) sent a letter regarding the Potential Toxicity of Jet Engine Oils to the European Aviation Safety Agency Rule Making and Product Safety Secretariat. NYCO has a long distinguished history in the field of military aviation oils having developed the engine oil for the Dassault “Mirage” fighter.

In 2006, according to the letter:

NYCO became aware of the possibility of contamination of bleed air by engine oil vapours, in case of mechanical deterioration of the seals of the APU or propulsion engines, this bleed air being used for the conditioning of cabin air on commercial aircraft. Such an inhalation exposure scenario was never considered by the company, as under “normal” conditions of use of the engine oil, only mechanics working on the engine were to be exposed, and only to cold and liquid engine oil.

The letter goes on to declare that:

Whilst NYCO can not make a statement on the potential impact of those oil vapours on the health of passengers and aircraft crew, because it is impossible to assess the exact quantity of oil being released into the cabin, the public reports of both passengers and crew members exhibiting various health disorders was a concern to NYCO and deserved attention.

As the reports of doctors and university researchers indicated that most of the symptoms were consistent with organo-phosphate intoxication (neurotoxicity), similar to the symptoms of farmers exposed to pesticides, the focus was put on the organo-phosphate anti-wear additive that is present at 2-3% in jet engine oils. Tri-cresyl-phosphate (TCP), is used in all commercial engine oils with the exception of NYCO oils, as NYCO favoured the use of isopropylated triphenylphosphate (TIPP) as an alternative to TCP from the late 70’s (when TCP became listed by the French Ministry of Health as a chemical causing professional disease in that period). “Turbonycoil 600” contains this additive in lieu of TCP.
NYCO then conducted research at the University of Washington to evaluate comparatively the various organophosphates for neurotoxicity.

A total of 15 organo-phosphates were tested some being commercially available others synthesized for the purpose of the study, in order to understand the relation between chemical structure and neurotoxicity is ( which is measured by the levels of irreversible inhibition of BChE).

NYCO concluded that general rules between the chemical structure and BChE have been found and that specific organo-phosphates inducing a much lower inhibition have been identified.The best candidiates were tested to assess their efficiency as anti-wear additives in engine oil formulations. NYCO found that some could be successfully used in engine oils with an adequate adaption of the formulation, without degrading the overall oil performance.

To that end they filed a patent application concerning these new oil formulations which have the potential to reduce overall neurotoxicity “by several orders of magnitude” comparatively to oils containing the same concentration of TCP.

Switching to safer oils such as those being developed by NYCO is one possible solution, NYCO’s new formulation has already been approved for use in most airliners. Of course the best and obvious answer is to build planes like the Dreamliner where instead of bleed air, cabin air is supplied by electrically driven compressors.

There are some simple steps to be taken in the meantime according to the Aerotoxic Association:
* Installation of Bleed Air Filters * A less toxic oil formulation (like NYCO’s) * Contaminated air detectors in the bleed air supplies.

Senator Feinstein’s amendment was a good start to examining the problem, but the Aerotoxic Association believes this is not enough.

Various government and regulating authorities have commissioned research, but so far have not been able to conclusively prove a link between contaminated cabin air and chronic health problems, although numerous independent studies show clear evidence of this link. Corporate profit, conflicts of interests and ineffective control by government and regulating authorities means that the industry as a whole is in denial.

There are three ongoing court cases in the USA where both aircrew and passengers are suing Boeing for long-term ill health for aerotoxic syndrome. Recently in Australia a crew member won the first court case for exposure to a fume event linked to her health problems.

The BBC mentioned “Aerotoxic Syndrome” for the first time in September 2009 after conclusive proof from a doctor had established a link between serious ill health in pilots and breathing oil fumes, although this was downplayed by “the establishment” as not peer reviewed, according to Captain Hoyte's article.
In November, 2007 the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee asked that the chemicals in fume events be urgently identified. Cranfield University, which enjoys very close relations with BAE Systems and other highly ethical aerospace companies was scheduled to publish these findings by March 15, 2010.The publishing of the report is still pending.

WHAT ARE THE SYMPTOMS AND WHO IS AFFECTED?
Symptoms may be acute i.e. for a short period of time after a flight, or chronic i.e. long lasting, according to the Aerotoxic Association website.

Fatigue- feeling exhausted even after sleep
Blurred or tunnel vision
Shaking and tremors
Loss of balance and vertigo
Seizures
Loss of consciousness
Memory impairment
Headache
Tinnitus
Light-headed
Dizziness Confusion/cognitive problems
Feeling intoxicated
Nausea
Diarrhea
Vomiting
Coughs
Breathing difficulties (shortness of breath)
Tightness in chest
Respiratory failure, requiring oxygen
Increased heart rate and palpitations
Irritation of eyes, nose, throat and upper airways

Primarily the toxins affect the central nervous system and vary in their effects depending on the genetic and physical variables of those exposed. One persons' body may have less success than another at detoxifying contaminants and so be affected after just one exposure, while others may be exposed over long periods or after a serious fume event with little or no affect. Symptoms may be short-lived or remain long term, but with repeated exposure may become more severe and last longer.

Airlines provide no protection against fume events. The aircraft "drop down masks" partially recirculate air, so would not be effective at removing contaminants. They are designed for use only during the loss of cabin pressure. (Information obtained from the Aerotoxic Association website)

If you would like to know more visit:
www.aerotoxic.org/www.nexusmagazine.com/ http://feinstein.senate.gov

Once again attribution for all of the information from Captain John Hoyte should be credited directly to Nexus Magazine in their Feb-March 2010 Edition.
Visit their website to view the article in its entirety.
Link: http://feinstein.senate.gov

OP-ED: Fracking Poisons Water..Govt. Lets Gas Co. Off Hook for Clean Water

2011-12-29T09:50:00.000-05:00

We are all from Dimock
Published – New York Amsterdam News 12-16-2011
By PAUL GALLAY Hudson Riverkeeper

Last week, I joined dozens of other grassroots activists on a relief mission to a small town called Dimock, Pa., where a dozen families on Carter Road no longer have access to safe water for drinking, bathing and other household needs. They made the mistake of allowing a company named Cabot Oil & Gas to drill their properties for natural gas using the technique known as “fracking.” Now, if you open the taps at Craig and Julie Sautner’s house, what comes out is a witch’s brew of lead, toluene, naphthalene and over a dozen other poisons that Cabot executives would never let their kids go within a country mile of.

But wait, it gets worse. After ordering Cabot to provide a steady supply of clean water to the families on Carter Road, the state of Pennsylvania reversed itself this year and said Cabot could cut these families off. Deliveries stopped on Nov. 30 and Cabot’s victims got down to their last few gallons of clean water. Even their own town officials, who are deep in Cabot’s pocket, betrayed these families by blocking an offer from the nearby city of Binghamton, N.Y., to give them some of its water.

This is no isolated horror story. The EPA found a connection between fracking and poisoned water supplies in Wyoming, while Duke University scientists proved that wells within a half-mile of fracking operations are contaminated with methane levels an average of 17 times higher than before fracking began.

In Texas, fracking communities have three times as many cases of childhood asthma as the rest of the state. Meanwhile, in Dimock, Stacy Haney of Amwell Township let the drillers onto her property and then had to abandon her house because her kids got sick from all the arsenic, benzene and toluene that fracking left in their blood.

When I joined activists from around the region to bring an emergency shipment of water to Dimock last week, the families involved told us that groups like ours were all they had left. I’m proud of what we did, but when nonprofit groups like mine are all these families have because the government has completely abandoned them, it’s just criminal.

Think it can’t happen here? It can and will if we don’t stop it. Without considering the impact on our families’ health, on our quality of life, on our roads-each of the 48,000 wells now planned for New York will bring with it about 4,000 truck trips-or on other industries like farming and tourism, New York State is getting ready to issue fracking permits as soon as this spring. Public opposition to fracking is growing, but is government listening?

Here in New York, we have enough problems already. We don’t need to put our water at risk from fracking, as city officials have testified that the state’s plan would do. How many more poisoned families will it take for New York State politicians to get the message: The fracking business isn’t safe and the companies don’t make good when they screw up.

President Barack Obama faced a similar situation with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas. When he saw how big the risks were, he sent the project back for a new safety study.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo needs to do the same thing here, because fracking will not only hurt important job engines like farming and tourism, it’s also seriously bad for your health. Just ask the Sautners, 20 miles over the state line in Dimock, Pa.
—————-

Historic Indian Point Hearings

2011-12-27T13:54:00.001-05:00

Hearings Focus on the Indian Point Plant’s Devastating Toll on Wildlife

For 40 years, Riverkeeper has been fighting to stop Indian Point and other industrial facilities from killing wildlife while using our river water for free. They are continuing that David-and-Goliath fight in Albany, as Riverkeeper argues that that Entergy’s hot-water discharges, its radioactive leaks, and its annual slaughter of 1 billion fish and other river life is flat-out illegal, and that the water permit it needs to continue operating should be denied.

Riverkeeper’s attorneys are outnumbered, and its resources and expert witnesses are stretched thin responding to roughly 100,000 pages of evidence submitted so far by Entergy—but they continue to point out serious flaws in the company’s case.

Entergy, in keeping with a tradition of running its plant on the cheap, playing games with science and using our river to subsidize its profits, wants to install massive cage-like structures throughout the Hudson in an unproven effort to reduce its massive fish kills, rather than invest in proven closed-cycle cooling technology to stop the slaughter.

Get Informed: Read Riverkeeper attorney Mark Lucas’s statements in the Albany hearings by going to Riverkeeper.org
Do Your Part! Support Riverkeeper’s legal team by making a donation to their Close Indian Point campaign.

EPA Finds Hydrofracking Chemicals DO Contaminate Drinking Water

2011-12-09T17:42:00.002-05:00

According to Tom Kenworthy, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress the oil and gas industry claim that the practice of hydraulic fracturing has never polluted a drinking water well is just not true. On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency officially threw that claim in the waste pit. Go to the following link to read the whole story.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/08/385706/epa-finds-hydrofracking-chemicals-contaminate-drinking-water/

The Riverkeeper Releases Fracking Details and Facts

2011-12-07T06:46:00.006-05:00

10 Major Flaws With New York’s Fracking Plan

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is responsible for fully evaluating fracking’s potential impacts to public health and the environment, but its draft
environmental impact statement and proposed regulations do not protect New Yorker’s environment, health, and drinking water. DEC recently extended the comment period
and the public now has until Jan. 11 to comment on DEC’s fracking plans, which will
determine how this industrial activity will proceed in New York. The plans have a
numberof major flaws, including the DEC’s failure to:

Fully protect the New York City Watershed. The New York City Watershed plus
a 4,000 feet buffer around it is protected on the surface, but the DEC’s proposal still
leaves the watershed vulnerable to drilling underneath watershed lands. The DEC
proposal is also mute on issues relating to wastewater disposal, truck traffic and water
withdrawals that could affect the watershed.

Fully protect the tunnels, dams and aqueducts that deliver New York City’s water.
While New York City requested a seven-mile buffer around the infrastructure (tunnels,
dams, and aqueducts) outside the watershed that supplies drinking water to 9 million
New Yorkers, the DEC has only proposed a heightened review for surface wells
proposed within 1,000 feet, leaving New York’s water supply vulnerable to damaging
vibrations and contamination.

Protect principle aquifers and private wells. The DEC proposal would potentially
allow fracking in principal drinking water aquifers after additional environmental
review. It could allow fracking near private wells if property owners waive their
right to preserve a 500-foot buffer.

Prohibit open pits. In Pennsylvania, open pits have been a major source of
concern for nearby residents, who complain of foul odors, air pollution, leakage
and potential health problems associated with the pools of hazardous fracking
waste. Further, these pools may present a danger to birds and other wildlife.
DEC’s proposal would allow open pits in some cases after a heightened review.

Plan for wastewater disposal. There is no wastewater treatment plant in
New York designed to treat fracking wastes. In Pennsylvania, fracking
wastewater has at times been sent to wastewater treatment plants that weren’t
equipped to handle the waste, resulting in discharges to rivers of untreated wastes
upstream from drinking water intakes. Now, most Pennsylvania wastewater is trucked
to Ohio, where it is injected deep underground.

Consider health impacts. The DEC omitted potential health impacts from its draft
environmental review, and has so far ignored a letter signed by 250 doctors and
health care professionals calling for an independent health impact analysis. In
Pennsylvania, some residents living near fracking sites have complained about the
deaths of horses and dogs, and about a range of illnesses they fear were caused by
the industrial activity nearby.

Analyze cost to communities for social and emergency services, schools and
infrastructure, including road maintenance. The DEC analysis contains hundreds
of pages about the possible economic benefits of fracking, but neglects to seriously
consider potential negative economic impacts, which could be severe. Increased
heavy truck traffic, with 4,000 truck trips per active well, could cost hundreds of
millions of dollars in annual road maintenance.

Analyze potential negative economic effects on other industries, like agriculture
and tourism. Farming and tourism are the two top economic drivers in much of
the Catskills, Southern Tier and Finger Lakes region; heavy industrial activity
could seriously disrupt both industries, but the DEC has failed to account for
this possibility.

Consider private property impacts. The DEC has not considered potential
impacts to private property owners, such as decreased property values (and property
tax revenues for local governments and schools), liability for damage due to gas drilling
and difficulties getting bank loans for properties encumbered by gas leases. There is
also concern that set-backs from private property are inadequate to protect homes.

Study the potential for fracking to trigger earthquakes. There is a strong correlation
between fracking and quakes. The U.S. Geological Survey has confirmed that
earthquakes have been caused by the injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal
or oil recovery. And a gas driller in England found it “highly probable” that its operations
had triggered earthquakes there. Despite this and other evidence, the DEC has discounted
any connection between fracking and earthquakes.

Source: The Riverkeeper Organization
Go To: Riverkeeper.org

BAN OF AERIAL SPRAYING OF ALUMINUM IN SUFFOLK TO BE HEARD by LEGISLATURE

2011-11-29T09:07:00.001-05:00

Look up in the sky, its a bird its a plane...yes it is a plane, dozens of them spraying poison over our land, water and citizens. Who is doing this and how are they getting away with it? These "chemtrails" as they are called are made by drone aircraft spraying pulverized aluminum, barium and strontium. Perhaps this is so in the future the only seeds that will grow are the Genetically Modified seeds created by Monsanto that are curiously and conveniently aluminum resistant. This is a global threat as they are "seeding" the clouds not only all across North America, but also in Europe and Asia.

Please pass this along, plan to attend and write your Suffolk County Legislature. Dec. 6th The hearing will be held at the Riverhead Legislative Auditorium, Evans K. Griffing Building, 300 Center Drive in Riverhead, NY at 2:30 pm.

We need to mobilize public support and interest in this vital situation. Just look up in the sky you will see the chemtrails or "stratospheric engineering" as the government likes to call it. . To ward off global warming these metals are being sprayed in the sky to create denser clouds. They are contaminating water, soil and rain water, even snow.

http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/11/citizens-initiative-to-ban-chemtrails-proposal-to-ban-aerial-spraying-of-aluminum-oxide-barium-sulfur-rady-ananda/

Help Stop the Secret Farm Bill | Environmental Working Group

2011-11-20T14:41:00.000-05:00

Help Stop the Secret Farm Bill | Environmental Working Group

Groups Rally to Push “Don’t Drill the Delaware”

2011-11-19T16:03:00.002-05:00

Moratorium Holds on Gas Drilling and Fracking
As Delaware River Basin Commission Cancels Vote to Allow Drilling

West Trenton, New Jersey – When the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) cancelled its meeting set for Monday November 21 – about whether to open the Delaware River Watershed to gas drilling and fracking – a loud cheer was heard throughout the Delaware River Watershed. Then those who are determined to keep the Delaware River from being drilled rolled up their sleeves and put their collective shoulder against the wheel to make certain that the DRBC stalemate is turned into a permanent victory for the River and its communities.

A Rally for 11:00 am, Monday, November 21 has been called to bring together the community of voices
that has led to this moment and reaffirmed the hope that drilling and fracking can be kept out of this sensitive Watershed, water supply for over 15 million people.

The Rally will feature writer and director Josh Fox www.gaslandthemovie from HBO and
www.savethedelawareriver.org Mark Ruffalo; and actress and activist Debra Winger. Representatives of constituency groups that have worked to convince the DRBC voting members to vote against drilling and fracking, activists and leaders will rally for the next steps that need to be taken.

On the site where the DRBC would have cast the vote that will define the Delaware River Watershed today and into the future - the War Memorial in Trenton, NJ –community, environmental, and
constituency groups will gather. They will join the most famous faces of this struggle to drive home the message “Don’t Drill the Delaware” to the remaining members of the DRBC – New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, President Barack Obama, represented by the Army Corps of Engineers, and Gov. Tom
Corbett of PA who have not come out opposing the plan to allow gas drilling and fracking here, endangering our community health and water supply.

The Rally will conclude with a March to the New Jersey State House that houses Governor Christie’s office. The marchers will be greeted by New Jersey Legislators who have championed a Frack Ban Bill through the NJ Legislature this year.

Several hundred people are expected to come out to express their resolve to work together until the Delaware River Watershed is safe from the intrinsically polluting practices required for natural gas drilling and fracking and to stand as protectors of the treasured Delaware River and its irreplaceable Watershed.

Berks Gas Truth * Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy Catskill Mountainkeeper * Damascus Citizens for
Sustainability * Delaware Riverkeeper Network * Environment New Jersey * Food and Water Watch
Frack Action * Josh Fox/“Gasland” * Hudson Riverkeeper * New Jersey Sierra Club * NYH2O * New
Jersey Environmental Federation * PA Clean Water Action * Protecting our Waters Sustainable Energy Solutions Statewide United for Action

Contacts: Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper 215-369-1188x102
Tracy Carluccio Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Ntwrk 215-369-1188x104

Wes Gillingham, Program Director, Catskill Mountainkeeper 845-901-1029
Jeff Tittel, Director, New Jersey Sierra Club 609-558-9100
Tina Posterli for Hudson Riverkeeper 516-526-9371
Doug O’Malley for Environment New Jersey 917-449-6812
Barbara Arrindell, Director, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability 570-729-8687
Karen Feridun for Berks Gas Truth, 610-678-7726
Dave Pringle, NJ Environmental Federation 732-996-4288
Joe Levine, NYH2O, (212) 219-1038 x1
Jim Walsh, Eastern Region Director, Food and Water Watch 732.979.6883
David Braun, United for Action, 917-514-0700
Nathan Sooy, PA Clean Water Action, nsooy@cleanwater.org
Michael Lebron, NY’ers for Sustainable Energy Solutions Stwide 917-743-7568
Ana Tinsly, Frack Action Communications Director 646-331-4765
Josh Fox, writer and director, “Gasland”, orifox@aol.com
Steve Kent for Josh Fox, skent@kentcom.com 914-589-5988
Iris Marie Bloom, Protecting our Waters, 215-840-6489

Act Now | Delaware Riverkeeper Network | Urgent Help Needed

2011-11-19T11:42:00.000-05:00

Act Now | Delaware Riverkeeper Network | Urgent Help Needed

The Demise of the Carmans River?

2011-11-16T09:00:00.004-05:00

Environmentalists Petition DEC to Classify the Carmans as Polluted

Peconic Baykeeper (PBK) and the Art Flick Chapter of Trout Unlimited (AFTU) have petitioned the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) to include the Carmans River to the 2012 NYS “Impaired Waters” list pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. PBK & AFTU assert that the current nutrient levels exceed state established water quality standards, precluded the assigned “best usages” and are above the levels deemed acceptable to prevent harm to the Carmans River ecosystem. Moreover, due to the magnitude of the nutrient caused impairment(s), the Carmans River warrants the implementation of watershed-based pollutant nutrients) reduction strategy without delay. Pursuant to Clean Water Act regulations, this approach is referred to as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and can be mandated by New York State.

Currently, New York State has a narrative water quality standard for nitrogen and phosphorus that sets forth limits for these nutrients as follows: “None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages.” Pursuant to Title 6 of New York Codes, rules and Regulations, Part 701, the freshwater portion of the Carmans River is classified as C(T). In accordance with this classification, the “best usages” for these waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish and wildlife survival and propagation and primary and secondary contact recreation. The latter use refers to immersion in the water and indirect contact during on-water activities in various watercrafts. In addition, the Carmans River is classified as trout waters, which require superior water quality to support resident populations.

Water quality studies carried out by NYS DEC and others have already documented the high levels of nutrients in the river. The Yaphank impoundments (Willow and Lilly Lakes), created by the presence of two small dams on the river, are dominated annually by aquatic invasive plants that thrive on these excessive nutrients. This condition is a result of nutrient loadings from multiple sources, the most

predominant of which is sewage wastewater seeping into the river. To effectively reverse the degradation, it’s imperative that the Carmans River be classified as Impaired Waters. Obtaining the 303(d) status with a TMDL is a crucial first step in an effective pollution reduction strategy. The Brookhaven Town's proposed Carmans River Watershed Protections and Management Plan (CRWPMP) has not addressed the issue of reducing the current nutrient loading in the river.

Doug Swesty stated, “The current nitrate level in the waters of Carmans River is above the threshold established by the CRWPMP. However the CRWPMP doesn't include actions to reduce the current level of nutrients in the river. Allowing additional development in the watershed will only further exacerbate the problem. If we wish to protect the Carmans ecosystem from further harm we need to

have a TMDL set by the State.”

"Nutrient enriched groundwater from sanitary wastewater discharges is yet another emerging threat to surface water quality in our region. Our fishing interests, real estate values and use and enjoyment of our aquatic environment all depend on clean water. With so much at stake, let's ensure that the Carmans River is a testament to our resolve and not indicative of our indifference," said McAllister.

For more information contact:

Kevin McAllister, Peconic Baykeeper (631) 875-8976

Doug Swesty, Trout Unlimited (Art Flick Chapter) (631) 495-0513

OPINION: Selective Enforcement of Town Code by Islip Town?

2011-10-17T16:20:00.005-04:00

Last week Newsday's Rick Brand wrote an "Our Towns" piece about Republican Legislator, Tom Cilmi of Bay Shore complaining that his campaign signs in Islip were being removed by Town of Islip DPW workers at the behest of Supervisor Phil Nolan and George Hoffman, Mr. Nolan's top aide. The quotes from the Town representatives pointed to the fact that it is a violation of Town Code to put signs on poles or public rights of way. (Newsday October 13, 2011)

Mr. Nolan said "The Town took action in response to civic associations upset by the proliferation of illegal signs on poles." Mr. Hoffman claimed in the Newsday story to have piles of the illegal signs from all political parties...in a heap at the three Department of Public Works (yards). "The option is to ignore the law or enforce it fairly.", Hoffman noted.

Selective Enforcement?

Why then did they not remove the illegal- 'No-Parking' signs that Islip Town Commissioner Lawrence (Larry) O'Leary allegedly had workers put up in the middle of the night?

'No-Parking' signs which were never authorized by the Town Board, were allegedly placed illegally on telephone poles by the same Town workers who Mr. Cilmi says removed the political signs. An Inter-office memo from the Town proves that over two years in a row, the Town distributed more than a hundred forged and illegal parking permits to the residents who lived in the two block radius by the Town marina. Read the article and see the documents in the story below:

Town Employee Voted onto Islip Board of Ethics

ISLIP TOWN EMPLOYEE VOTED onto BOARD of ETHICS

2011-09-28T16:07:00.211-04:00

GOP MEMBERS VOTE AGAINST NOLAN'S CHOICE

At an Islip Town Board meeting Wednesday Sept 22, 2011 Lawrence (Larry) O’Leary, Commissioner of Public Safety and Code Enforcement, was appointed as a member of the Town’s Board of Ethics by a partisan vote of 3-2. GOP board members Steven Flotteron and Trish Bergin-Weichbrodt voted against.

For a Town employee to be a member of the Board of Ethics, according to Mr. Flotteron, "Is just wrong."

"He's not going to be able to be unbiased", Mr. Flotteron said in a recent interview with Freelance Investigations. "His position, with his $103,000 dollar salary, was created by his friend and boss Phil Nolan. Nolan controls his salary and his job and for the first time you'll have a Town employee sitting in on details of ethical concern."

Mr. O'Leary had to get a special waiver to work for the Town because he receives a pension from New York State as a retired police officer. As such, the law states he can only make up to $30,000 dollars as a part time worker and he cannot work in a government position, unless he gets the waiver. Islip Town Supervisor Phil Nolan, signed the request for the waiver stating Mr. O'Leary's extensive police experience, prior to his retirement, was a big advantage and a main reason for his recommending the special waiver from the State of New York.

According to a July 27, 2009 letter from Richard Ciprioni, Director of Commission Operations ; Municipal Assistance for the Civil Service Commission of New York to Mr. Robert Finnegan, Director of Labor Relations for the Town of Islip:

Limited approval through October 31, 2009 was granted with the stipulation that the Town review whether the qualifications of 20 years of law enforcement experience for the position is appropriate, and to expand recruitment efforts beyond police agencies to determine if there are any qualified non-retirees available for appointment...Approvals under this section of law are considered to be of a temporary nature. The Commission's determination is for the finite period indicated and cannot be extended without the Commission approval.

Before the original waiver was expired however, another waiver was granted for November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2011. Then, before the second waiver could expire in 2011, another waiver request was submitted to cover the time frame of May 1, 2010 through April 30, 2012. It was also granted.

Longtime Islip resident, Patricia Montanino, took issue with Mr. O’Leary being appointed to anything with the word ethics attached. She attended the Town Board meeting prior to the vote being taken, to ask Supervisor Nolan if he intended to vote Mr. O’Leary onto the Board of Ethics.

“How can you set an example or judge anyone’s ethical standards, if you do the wrong thing yourself? Ms. Montanino asked. "Mr. O’Leary seems to think he is above it all. He is not able to lead by example, because his own behavior violates the rules.”

At the Town Board meeting Ms. Montanino referred to a package of documents she believes supports her allegations regarding Mr. O'Leary.

Ms. Montanino stated that over a year ago, she handed the same documentation to all the Town Board members. The package of documents allegedly contained proof of offenses committed by Mr. O’Leary and his Code Enforcement team. “If you are making fake permits and parking signs and building an illegal office in your own code enforcement building, how can you be on an ethics board?” she asked.

The package included the following issues, items and documents:

1.) According to documents submitted, Mr. O’Leary allegedly issued over 100 falsified parking permits in 2010 and 2011 to persons living within two blocks of the Islip Town water park. The permits appeared official as they had a bar code and the Town seal and allegedly Mr. O’Leary’s signature on them.

The problem is, the bar code was from a book ISBN number. Islip Town never made a resolution authorizing either the permits or the parking signs. Public Safety officers allegedly put the signs up in the middle of the night on telephone poles and trees within a two block radius of the water park. This would force most people to pay the $10 parking fee in the Town owned marina lot. Putting signs on telephone poles is against Town ordinances and LIPA rules. If the signature is not Mr. O'Leary's, or if it was not forged and was used with his knowledge and/or permission as a memo Mr. O'Leary sent through Susan Pontillo, would indicate, the permits would still be illegal, because there was no resolution by the Town Board authorizing them.

O'Leary memo regarding second set of permits, (now they had book ISBN number added)
the first set had no bar code and didn't appear official enough, according to sources.

Emails to Kevin Bonner, Town of Islip, Public Information Officer, regarding all of these issues were not returned at time of publication.

Parking permit on dashboard of local resident's car

Sample of Permit with Bar Code ISBN # 978091889-428X

Book from ISBN Bar Code # on Parking Permits Issued by Code Enforcement in Islip Town

No Parking Signs on Telephone Poles

"Currently, under Islip Town Code
(Article 29), it is illegal to post signs of
all types on trees and telephone poles."
according to town of Islip spokeswoman
Catherine Green, in an article from the Islip Bulletin dated December 11, 2008.

2.) An office was constructed on the third floor (attic) of the Town of Islip Code Enforcement building at 28 Nassau Avenue in Islip, even though no permits for the construction were ever obtained. The office was newly constructed allegedly for Jason Mistretta, a code enforcement officer, but the office was ordered to be demolished by the Fire Department, after a complaint was made to the Department of Health, about the office and it’s location on the third floor, as a serious safety and fire hazard.

Pictures of a Town dump truck backed up to the building while the contents of the office were thrown out the attic window, were also given to the Town Board members. There allegedly was no attempt to save, store or recycle the new office furniture. Building materials such as brand new doors, desk, chair, carpeting, sheetrock, molding and other items were tossed into the dump truck and discarded. Witnesses claim the brand new doors were purposely damaged with sledge hammers as the workers were disassembling the office and its' contents.

3rd Floor Illegal Office in Code Enforcement Building

28 Nassau Avenue 3rd Floor Office

Attic windows open...items tossed into truck

Weight of truck buckles sidewalk

3.) Lacrosse balls were purchased with Town funds, yet curiously the Town has no lacrosse team. Mr. O’Leary’s phone records on the Town cell phone show dozens of calls on Town work time, to his son’s lacrosse coach at St. Anthony’s High School in Huntington. Many other calls were also made to Southhampton, on the Town cell phone, during work hours, to the number where the coach lives.

Six Dozen Lacrosse Balls $90 Dollars

Invoice For Lacrosse Balls for Islip Town

4.) Fifty two embroidered jackets paid for by the taxpayers were ordered for Mr. O’Leary’s Public Safety Enforcement staff. Inquiries into the purchase however resulted in the jackets never actually being distributed. The cost for the jackets allegedly no one ever received was $1, 464.00 on June 17, 2010.

5.) Mr. O’Leary received three special waivers from New York State to be hired at his $103,000 salary, even though he is a retired New York City Police Officer receiving a pension. That waiver application along with the approval of Alan Schneider, Director of the Town’s Civil Service Division was the reason Mr. O’Leary could make his $103,000 salary. Mr. Schneider’s son, Robert also works for Islip Town-at McArthur airport. Mr. Nolan stated in the papers he submitted to the State requesting the waiver, that Mr. O’Leary’s extensive police background and experience was key to his reason for hiring him and needing the waiver. Mr. Nolan said at the time his search produced no one more qualified for the position than Mr. O’Leary.

First of three waivers: This one dated March 2009 through March 2011

Page one of second application to State for Mr. O'Leary's Waiver
Period covered November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2011

Page two of Waiver Application

Waiver Application: Page Three
Mr. O'Leary's and Mr. Nolan's Signatures

Mr. O'Leary's Responsibilities for Islip Town

Justification for Renewal of Retiree Waiver for Mr. O'Leary

Civil Service Commission Letter to Islip Director of Labor Relations

Ms. Montanino asked with all the special training and police experience Mr. O'Leary has, something Mr. Nolan stressed when asking for the waiver, "Why then did Mr. O’Leary not get involved or even bother to show up when he received a phone call from the Public Safety Officers in Islip, regarding information they had just received from the police department warning of a credible threat of alleged gang activity with weapons for later that day?".

According to the phone message with Mr. O'Leary, the potential violence with weapons was slated to occur that night at Brookwood Hall, where a senior citizen center, a daycare facility and GOP Town Board member Trish Bergin-Weichbrodt’s office are all located.

According to an official audiotape of the call made on April 1, 2011 obtained by Freelance Investigations, Mr. O’Leary, when notified by telephone during regular business hours, that gang related violence- with weapons- was planned for later that day, his 30 second on the record response consisted of asking one question; who was working- then telling them to check it out and if there was a problem, to call the police. End of call.

Ms. Montanino wants to know why Mr. O’Leary, for all his ex-FBI and police training and specialized experience in law enforcement- before his retirement, declined to go to the sight directly himself, instead, asking his lone, unarmed Public Safety officer to handle the situation. The gangs did show up and were chased away, by the police, but not before a noose was hung from the branch of a tree behind the building, according to both police and Town Public Safety reports about the incident.

Ms. Montanino also asked why in all three cases, an extension of the waiver was applied for, many months before the waivers had even expired. For example, the first waiver listed the duration from 3/09 to 3/11. Yet the second waiver was applied for and obtained for the period 11/09 to 10/31/11. The third waiver was granted for the period May 2011 through April 30, 2012.

"These appointments are supposed to be temporary, why is this going on for years now?"
Ms. Montanino asked. "They don't even wait for the waivers to expire, they just reapply. Why? Does any one really believe that in this time of record unemployment there are no other experienced persons who could do this job, that are not already receiving a State pension?"

Ms. Montanino asked. "Are they still looking for a non-pensioned replacement ? I think not, if they are applying for new O'Leary waivers before they even expire."

No Board member responded to the information contained in the package of documents Ms. Montanino gave to the Board members at a Town Board meeting over a year ago in August, 2010. Ms. Montanino wants to know why nothing has been done about alleged forged instruments, unauthorized permits and other anomalies and asks how Mr. O'Leary could be on any Board related to ethics. The documents are all here...you can decide for yourself.

An E-mail to Board Member, Trish Bergin-Weichbrodt, for comment was not returned at time of publication.

TOXIC DUST ON 9/11 LEADS TO CHRONIC BERYLLIUM DISEASE

2011-09-09T09:51:00.004-04:00

WERE THOUSANDS OF WORLD TRADE CENTER RESPONDERS MISDIAGNOSED?

IS SARCOIDOSIS DIAGNOSIS REALLY CHRONIC BERYLLIUM DISEASE?

Thousands of firemen, policemen and other first responders who worked on “the pile” or "the pit" at the World Trade Center after 9/11 even for short amounts of time were potentially exposed to toxic levels of Beryllium which could result in a fatal disease known as Chronic Beryllium Disease.

Hundreds, maybe thousands of World Trade Center First Responders have been diagnosed with Sarcoidosis disease, according to John Feal the founder and president of the non-profit Fealgood Foundation, an organization dedicated to the health and well being of 9/11 First Responders.

According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) anyone who has been diagnosed with Sarcoidosis who had ever been exposed to Beryllium is automatically presumed to have Chronic Beryllium Disease.

According to The American Lung Association: Sarcoidosis is a disease caused by small areas of inflammation. It can affect any part of the body but is most common in the lungs—called pulmonary sarcoidosis. In pulmonary sarcoidosis, small patches of inflamed cells can appear on the lungs' small air sacs (alveoli), breathing tubes (bronchioles) or lymph nodes. The lungs can become stiff and may not be able to hold as much air as healthy lungs. In serious cases, sarcoidosis can cause scar tissue in the lungs, which can affect the lungs' ability to move oxygen into the bloodstream.No one knows what causes sarcoidosis. The good news is that is it usually temporary. In half the cases, sarcoidosis heals naturally—without any treatment. In serious cases, health care providers may treat a patient's symptoms to help improve how well the lungs and other organs are working.

The statement from NIOSH to Congress in unequivocal. According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) anyone who has been diagnosed with Sarcoidosis who had ever been exposed to Beryllium is automatically presumed to have Chronic Beryllium Disease.

On September 4, 2008, DEEOIC issued Circular No. 08-07 which states:A diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not medically appropriate if there is a documented history of Beryllium exposure. Rather, in these situations, the claims examiner is to consider the diagnosis of Sarcoidosis to be a diagnosis of Chronic Beryllium Disease.       (EEOICPA OmbudsmenReport to Congress 2008)
The American Lung Association's Website's "List of Lung Diseases" does not have any information or listing for Chronic Beryllium Disease.

Beryllium is the most toxic metal known to man. Beryllium was in the American Airlines-Boeing made planes that were flown into the buildings that day. When the firemen added water to the pit, a deadly toxic vapor was created that can cause Chronic Beryllium Disease. The disease can take many years to present its’ symptoms, lying dormant sometimes for decades, but when it does present, it can be deadly as the scar tissue shuts down the lungs and there is no cure.

The fires at The World Trade Center should never have been fought with water and everyone who breathed in the vapor, dust and smoke that day and for months to follow were potentially exposed to toxic Beryllium and could be in danger of getting the fatal disease. Even regular airplane fires should not be fought with water.

      THE PREMATURE DEATH OF HEROES
According to John Feal who spoke with Freelance Investigations today, there is no question that Beryllium was in the pit. "Everyone knows that Beryllium was there. I've got eight and a half years of 9/11 "U" behind me and I consider myself intelligent enough to know that this has led to the premature death of heroes who risked their lives without prejudice a few years ago." Mr. Feal spoke of the "toxic soup" in the pit: "I believe the Beryllium added with all the other toxins like the Jet Fuel, Benzene, Mercury, pulverized cement and other contaminants all led to a toxic soup that we inhaled. No one can deny that these toxins have caused serious injury and death. When mixed all together, no one can say what the exposure could do."

In a video on the Fealgood Foundation website, John Fealgood said "The government has let us down... If we have money to kill we should have money to save lives."

Mr. Feal has a vested interest in the issues of 9/11 first responders and works tirelessly on their behalf.
On September 17, 2001 8,000 lbs. of steel fell on Mr. Feal's foot while he was working at the pit causing him to spend 10-11 weeks in the hospital with gangrene and sepsis. Eventually he underwent dozens of surgeries. Despite his own physical issues- on August 14, 2007 John Feal donated a kidney to a perfect stranger. Mr. Feal said he did it "To show America that people that basically have nothing can still help others. People who have seen the bottom can rise to the top and continue to help others."

  HOW MUCH BERYLLIUM WAS IN “THE PIT”AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
It is difficult to ascertain the amount of Beryllium that was contained in the pit at the World Trade Center. Mr. Feal said this issue of Beryllium at the site needs to be investigated further, "Because this is human life we are talking about right now."

Calls to Boeing by Freelance Investigations to determine the total amount of Beryllium contained in both the plane and the jet fuel were never returned.
The media representative for American Airlines who refused to give their name gave this quote when asked how much Beryllium was in the 757 and 767 planes that flew into the towers and ended up in the pit: " We don't respond to 9/11 requests for information."
Beryllium is used for the airline seats, luggage, clothing, golf clubs, cell phones, computers, landing gear, radar, brakes, the shell of the body of the plane, the turbine blades of the jet engines, electronics and also in the jet fuel and engine oil.   When Beryllium burns and water is poured onto the fire, it creates a toxic brew of dust, particles and Beryllium vapor that even when inhaled in small amounts can be deadly toxic.
Pictures of the firemen fighting the fire at the Pentagon, show they were all wearing protective SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) and Haz-Mat suits while fighting the fire. Perhaps this was because the military has known for decades that you do not pour water on a Beryllium Fire and you wear proper equipment when fighting one.
According to a study published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, a seven year study with members of the New York City Fire Department; rescuers who had significant declines in lung function a year after the attack had still not recovered, and the recorded drop in lung function was about 12 times the rate seen in normal aging. Since Sarcoidosis usually can heal and Chronic Beryllium Disease gets worse, why aren't World Trade Center responders and clean up crews being tested for Chronic Beryllium Disease?
Since Beryllium is now being used in so many non-military or civilian applications shouldn’t all fires be treated as if the possibility of Beryllium is being burned and shouldn't all firefighters have the proper equipment (SCBA gear and Haz-Mat suits) to keep themselves safe from toxic Beryllium vapors?
According to the National Jewish Health Reference Laboratories (NJHCRL) it can sometimes be difficult to diagnose Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD). A normal blood test result (where all values are equal or below the cutoff value of 2.5 in response to antigens) still does not exclude the diagnosis of Chronic Beryllium Disease. They recommend a Beryllium lymphocyte transformation test using bronchoalveolar lavage lymphocytes. Other doctors interviewed said that a tissue sample from the lung is the only real definitive test for Chronic Beryllium Disease. Exposure to even a small amount of Beryllium in a vapor dust or particle form can be deadly toxic depending on the individual, according to the National Jewish Health website.
When misdiagnosed as Sarcoidosis and treated for that disease in error, irreparable harm can be done if the person really has Chronic Beryllium Disease.
Freelance Investigations spoke to the law clerk in the chambers of Judge Alvin Hellerstein to ask if any of the attorneys or doctors trying to hash out a settlement had ever considered beryllium exposure to explain many unexplained symptoms that the workers have exhibited. The law clerk declined to comment. No one at the WTC site has been tested for the disease even though the symptoms match some of the sick workers.

Chronic Beryllium Disease and Beryllium Sensitivity Disease symptoms include but are not limited to: rashes, dermatitis, conjunctivitis and eye ulcers, enlarged heart, kidney problems and chronic sinusitis.  If Beryllium in dust, vapor or particle form is introduced through the skin by a cut or puncture, non-healing ulcers may develop with target organs being; lungs, mucous membranes eyes and skin .    ( Genium Publishing Corporation-Beryllium Metal/Powder)
Beryllium production was halted by Brush Wellman, the nation’s largest producer of Beryllium, in 2000 primarily due to economic and occupational and health reasons according to William Greenwalt, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy) for the United States.
Beryllium use in Europe is strictly limited and regulated by CERN, their nuclear regulatory agency which was already limiting future use and production for safety and health reasons as far back as 1985.
Beryllium production in the United States will continue unimpeded however. Thanks to the need by the Department of Defense for the military and aerospace applications, a brand new facility was scheduled to open in Elmore, Ohio last month.
In testimony before the U.S.- China Economic and Security Review Commission regarding China’s Proliferation and the Impact of Trade Policy on Defense Industries in the United States and China dated July 13, 2007, Greenwalt noted:
When absolutely necessary, the Department of Defense can intervene directly in the marketplace to create or expand domestic production capabilities as necessary to meet military requirements. The department is doing so now to ensure it will continue to have access to high purity Beryllium metal. Because of its’ unique properties (including high stiffness and strength to weight ratios, thermal conductivity and reflectivity to infrared wavelength) high purity Beryllium metal and its primary high Beryllium content alloy (Aluminum-Beryllium metal matrix composite or AlBeMet) have wide ranging defense applications including in sensors, structures and components in missiles, satellites, fighter and rotary aircraft and nuclear weapons. Brush Wellman is the only Beryllium metal producer worldwide that can meet the Beryllium quality requirements of the highest purity defense and essential civilian applications. However, Brush Wellman mothballed its 40 year-old primary Beryllium metal production facility in October 2000 for economic and occupational health reasons.   Since then, Brush Wellman has relied on Beryllium cast ingot from the inventories of the National Defense Stockpile at the Defense Logistics Agency for the highest purity Beryllium material applications; and on less pure Beryllium metal acquired from Kazakhstan for production of AlBeMet. To rectify this situation, the Department initiated a Defense Production Act Title III project jointly funded with Brush Wellman the design and construction of a new Beryllium metal production facility, scheduled for completion in 2010.
People who worked at Department of Energy facilities from the 1940’s to the present who were exposed to Beryllium, like Brookhaven National Laboratory and the former Hicksville-Sylvania Corning Plant are eligible for free medical care, testing and possible compensation (up to $400 thousand dollars per person) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. (EEOICPA)

     DOE EMPLOYEES COVERED: DOD EMPLOYEES ARE NOT...WHY NOT?

One big problem is that a person who stood next to the DOE employee at the same job, who was actually a Department of Defense worker, that person is not covered by the EEOICPA. Why does the same level of toxic exposure have different levels of help for American workers? Why are DOE workers covered for toxic exposure to Beryllium and not DOD workers at the same spot doing the same job? One answer might be the astronomical costs associated with covering everyone. So far the EEOICPA has paid out over 5.5 Billion dollars to EEOICPA claimants since 2001 when the law was enacted by President Clinton, that despite that fact that the Department of Labor has done a limited job of notification to DOE employees. The Department of Labor claims they notified the employers and depended upon them to provide lists of employees to notify of benefits available to those exposed. Many companies refused to supply the lists and to this day thousands of workers who could and should receive medical testing and care don’t have any idea it is available for them.
Sean Riordan, the attorney for the Fealgood Foundation declined to answer when asked if the first responders may have been misdiagnosed with Sarcoidosis noting he does not have medical credentials. He did say "I really want the bottom line truth and if Beryllium is the cause, then we should treat them for what it is. I want all the elements investigated and if it is Beryllium exposure then lets find out and not treat them for Sarcoidosis if that is not the cause."

If the World Trade Center first responders were exposed to Beryllium then shouldn't they be eligible under NIOSH for free screenings and medical treatment? If the World Trade Center is considered a Department of Energy Facility or a subcontractor of a DOE Facility, then wouldn't any and all first responders fall under this federal financial umbrella? This remains to be seen.

Tell Cuomo - All Water Deserves Equal Protection from Hydrofracking!

2011-07-12T11:53:00.000-04:00

Tell Cuomo - All Water Deserves Equal Protection from Hydrofracking!

Freelance Investigations: Freelance Investigations: Editorial OPINION: Hydr...

2011-07-05T11:37:00.000-04:00

Freelance Investigations: Freelance Investigations: Editorial OPINION: Hydr...: "Freelance Investigations: Editorial OPINION: Hydraulic Fracturing Should be Banned in... : ' Robert Catell, former chairman of Natio..."

THE STATE AUDITS ISLIP TOWN

2011-04-29T10:18:00.033-04:00

STATE COMPTROLLER AUDIT OF ISLIP TOWN FINANCES....

In August 2010 Thomas DiNapoli, New York State Comptroller, released a report on the Finances of Islip Town Jan 1, 2007-August 31, 2008.

What follows is a compilation of the audit goals and results, taken almost verbatim from the State Comptroller's Audit Report.

THE AUDIT GOALS

* In this audit the goal was to determine if the Board maintained adequate oversight to ensure Town reserve accounts and records were properly maintained and that financial activity was accurately and timely reported.

* In addition auditors questioned whether the Board properly planned for capital projects and ensured that the Town's accounting records and procedures were adequate to ensure accuracy and prevent improper use of bond funds.

* Auditors also looked into the Town Clerk's office to determine if they had adequate policies and procedures over cash receipts, licenses, permits and computerized data to protect and account for Town assets.

* Auditors questioned whether the Board had established policies and procedures over employees' compensation and fringe benefits to adequately protect and account for Town assets?

* Auditors questioned whether the Board had established policies and procedures over purchasing to adequately protect and account for Town assets.

THE AUDIT RESULTS

THE TOWN BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OVERSIGHT OF THE TOWN'S FINANCIAL ACTIVITY DURING FISCAL YEARS 2006-2008.

THE TOWN INACCURATELY RESERVED AN AVERAGE OF $14.3 MILLION DOLLARS IN FUND BALANCES FOR PURCHASE ORDERS THAT DID NOT SUPPORT TOWN OBLIGATIONS. As a result, the available fund balance was understated.

During fiscal years 2007-2008 the Town Comptroller incorrectly charged a total of $9,958,007 of revenues and expenditures to the wrong funds, that resulted in an inequitable tax levy on certain taxpayers. Residents of Brightwaters, Saltaire, Ocean Beach and Islandia, paid a total of over 9 million dollars in taxes between 2007 and 2008, that should have been shared among all the Town residents and was not.

In addition, Board members did not receive or request adequate information from Town officials.
As a result the Board did not have accurate and timely information needed to develop sound budgets or to effectively monitor expenditures.

The Town Clerk, Regina Duffy, (Islip Town Clerk now and during the entire time of the audit period) did not adequately segregate duties within her office, did not perform monthly reconciliation of cash assets to liabilities, did not perform bank reconciliations and did not prepare reports for the Board as required by General Municipal Law.

The Town Clerk, Regina Duffy did not ensure that un-deposited cash was properly safeguarded.

Ms. Duffy did not post cash transactions in a timely manner, cash receipts books were not controlled, blank checks were not secure and 22 duplicate checks were missing. As a result according to the audit,

a cash shortage of at least $12,250 occurred and was not detected until the audit.

Since the Town Clerk is the only individual covered by the general bonding clause in the Town's insurance policy; as a result the Town was at risk for not being reimbursed for moneys that may have been lost or stolen. For that reason in September 2009, the Comptroller's office referred the matter to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, according to the audit report.

Suffolk County District Attorney, Thomas Spota's Office did not respond to Emails asking if their office ever followed through on the investigation of the missing money, referred to them by the State auditors. Emails were not replied to by their media representative, Robert Clifford, at time of publication.

The audit identified long-standing problems with the Town's capital program. Poor accounting for Capital projects in the early 1990's led to deficits in the capital projects fund of $3,324,744 that have never been accounted for. The audit also revealed the Town was expending bond proceeds for purposes other than those intended, in violation of law.

The audit revealed Town employees received leave time and other fringe benefits without Board authorization, resulting in the Town incurring over $111,000 in unauthorized expenses.

The Town inappropriately gave three independent contractors health insurance coverage through the Town's participation in the New York State Health Insurance Program. Town officials informed the audit board that the practice of insuring the three golf professionals who work at the Town Golf Courses, had been going on for more than twenty years. The Town discontinued the practice after it was brought to their attention by the auditors, that the practice violated the law.

The audit also revealed that Town personnel did not solicit competition when procuring services of 18 professional service providers who were paid $1,154,094. Town officials made payments for 14 purchases totaling $13,200 without obtaining required written and verbal quotes in accordance with Town policy.

The Town did not have written policies and procedures governing the use of credit cards. Town officials also used confirming purchase orders to pay 11 invoices totaling $13,019. These purchase orders are typically for emergencies only.

The audit concluded the Town may have paid more than necessary for goods and services.

TOWN OFFICIALS COMMENT

The auditors sent a draft copy of the audit and discussed their findings with Town officials who for the most part agreed with their findings and recommendations and indicated they planned to take corrective action.

The audit when released, included a response letter from Phil Nolan, Islip Town Supervisor and a separate response from Regina Duffy, Islip Town Clerk, the clerk during the audit period.

The responses from Town officials also blamed the issues on past practices they had continued and that have now been changed in compliance with the audit recommendations.

The audit found that in the last few days of each fiscal year, Town officials created accounting entries for encumbrances that did not exist. These entries misstated the Town's financial position, creating the impression that the Town had fewer resources than it actually did.

Mr. Nolan became Supervisor in November 2006, replacing Supervisor (Rep-) Pete McGowan.

According to the audit nearly 65% of the encumbrances in their sample ($42.78 million dollars)

were not supported by any valid purchase orders placed with vendors.

For example: The Town's encumbrances on December 31, 2007 consisted of 819 entries totaling $32,043,261.

Of the 819 entries, 136 totaling $29,874,091 were dated either December 30 or December 31, 2007.

The auditors received documentation for 22 of those entries (totaling $29,633,622) and found that

$16,555,630 was not supported by any valid purchase orders placed with vendors.

AS A RESULT, THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE WAS UNDERSTATED BY AT LEAST $16.6 MILLION DOLLARS.

A second example: 2008 records showed 214 entries, totaling $24,311,974, that were made on Dec 30 or December 31, 2008. After reviewing the supporting documentation for 29 of these entries, totaling $24,191,009, they found that $11,839,927 was not supported by valid purchase orders.

AS A RESULT, THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE WAS UNDERSTATED BY ALMOST

$12 MILLION DOLLARS.

Town officials averaged $14.3 million dollars inaccurately reserved in fund balances that did not exist during the audit period 2006-2008

The Town's Comptroller, during the time of the audit and currently, Joseph Ludwig, who sources say lives in Westbury, responded to this saying that it was the Town's long-standing practice to encumber and rollover all unspent appropriations from the prior fiscal year into the reserve for encumbrances as part of the Town's year end closing. Town officials said this was necessary to offset shortcomings in their accounting software, despite the fact that this practice resulted in a misstatement of the Town's financial position.

The auditors also found nearly $10 million in incorrect accounting entries during the audit period 2006-2008. This resulted in an inaccurate and inequitable tax levy on certain taxpayers that should not have borne the costs they did. Village residents paid for $8,999,911 in debt service that should have been shared with Town residents.

According to the report, the Islip Town Comptroller also incorrectly posted an operating surplus totaling

$192,871 for the Division of Land Management.

THE SIGNATURE PLATE: NO SUPERVISION

As the custodian of all Town money, Mr. Nolan has the authority to sign all Town checks and uses a metal signature plate bearing both his and the Town Comptroller's signature, who co-signs all computer generated checks. The audit found that Town employees used the signature plate without adequate

supervision. The Comptroller, Mr. Ludwig, when told that employees were removing the signature plate from the Comptroller's office and using it without oversight or supervision, said that it would be impossible to have someone there either from his office or the Supervisor's when the checks are run.

The audit found that the Comptroller had not compensated for this weakness by designating an individual independent of the check register prior to mailing.

THIS WEAKNESS COULD ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO SIGN CHECKS FOR OTHER THAN LEGITIMATE TOWN PURPOSES.

Subsequent to the audit, the Town implemented a new accounting system that corrects this problem.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Town officials should only create encumbrances that are valid commitments to expend funds for specific purposes.

2. The Board should review and approve the amounts transferred to the reserve for encumbrances.

3. Town officials should ensure that each expenditure and revenue is classified in the proper fund and in accordance with the Office of the State Comptroller's standard chart of accounts.

4. The Board should review the amounts budgeted and charged for debt service, the Youth Bureau and the Division of Land Management and ensure that the correct amounts are charged to the correct funds.

5. The Comptroller should provide the Board with accurate and timely financial information that is sufficient to allow the Board to properly budget and monitor appropriations and revenues.

6. The Comptroller and the Supervisor should continue to maintain control over their signatures during the check signing process.

CAPITAL PROJECTS

The Town did not have procedures to properly account for either the revenues or the expenditures for individual capital projects, according to the audit report. In addition, moneys for all the Town's capital projects were commingled into one bank account. Town officials did not maintain adequate records that would account for each project. The accounting records did not include revenues by source or date and the Town did not maintain separate balance sheets, trial balances or ledgers for each project.

AS A RESULT, TOWN OFFICIALS WERE NOT ABLE TO READILY MONITOR PROJECTS AND PREVENT EXPENDITURES FROM EXCEEDING THE CASH AVAILABLE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.

Over the years, according to the audit, Town officials did not earmark or segregate cash in any way to prevent the financing for one project from being used to finance another. Instead the Town placed all capital projects money in one bank account and Town officials did not maintain records or earmark the cash by project. When the bank account ran low on cash, the Board simply authorized the issuance of additional debt (which was previously authorized for other projects, but not yet issued) to create a new pool of money to draw from.

AS A RESULT, TOWN OFFICIALS USED MONEYS INTENDED FOR ONE CAPITAL PROJECT TO FINANCE PROJECTS THAT HAD ALREADY DEPLETED THEIR AVAILABLE CASH BALANCES. SINCE THESE BONDS WERE ISSUED PURSUANT TO CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A SPECIFIC PROJECT, THE UN-EXPENDED BOND PROCEEDS COULD NOT LEGALLY BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT OR PURPOSE.

For example: in 2007, a project was bonded for $150,000. Town officials improperly used $37,100

of these funds to finance an unrelated project, in violation of Local Finance Law, according to the audit report.

Due to the poor state of the Town's records from as far back as 1989 to August 2008, Town officials were unable to identify any over expenditures of a particular project or the amount of funds raised for specific projects, but actually expended by others, in violation of Local Finance Law, according to the audit.

Because capital money projects were not properly tracked and accounted for, according to the audit,

there is no assurance that moneys were spent as directed by Board resolutions and in compliance with legal requirements.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE LANDFILL....

According to the audit:

The Commissioner of the Town's Department of the Environmental Control is responsible for implementing and managing, in part, the Town's solid waste stream, environmental protection, recycling and garbage collection. The Commissioner is also the President of the Islip Resource Recovery Agency (IRRA). The IRRA is a public benefit corporation created to assist in the planning and development of waste management facilities in the Town of Islip. Through its collection unit the IRRA provides collection of refuse and recyclables to approximately 1,300 homes.

The IRRA owns the inactive and unlined Sayville landfill. In 1986, the Town of Islip and the IRRA

entered into an Order of Consent with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(NYSDEC) to provide a plan for the future closure of the Sayville landfill. To date, the landfill is still not closed because the Town has requested and been granted postponements of the closing.

In November, 2008, the NYSDEC declined the Town's request to postpone the project for another 10 years, but granted another three year extension. The NYSDEC currently requires that a contract for closing the landfill be awarded by March, 2012 and the required closure certification be completed by February 2013.

The NYSDEC indicated that until the capping is complete, groundwater will continue to be contaminated because various chemicals are leaching out of the facility.

The Town officials had informed the audit committee that they believe the Town is not liable for the landfill's closure and post-closure costs. The Town believes that the IRRA is solely responsible for these liabilities. An agreement between the IRRA and the Town states that the IRRA will reimburse the Town for any costs incurred by the Town related to landfill operations.

According to the audit report, they determined that according to their review of the Order of Consent, both the Town and the IRRA are respondents and are both responsible for closing the landfill. The audit stated that the Town may have some contingent liability, if the IRRA does not act to close the landfill as required by law.

RECOMMENDATIONS

7. Town officials should develop a plan to eliminate the $3,324,744 deficit in the capital projects fund.

8. Town officials should provide periodic reports to the Board showing the authorization for each capital project, revenues, expenditures and encumbrances to date and available authorizations.

9. Town officials should establish adequate accounting records for each capital project. The records should include general ledger accounts for assets, liabilities and fund balance in addition to memorandum accounts of the maximum authorized cost and a detail of project revenues and expenditures since inception.

10. Town officials should take steps to identify the moneys in the Town's capital project bank account and to account for such moneys separately, by project.

11. The Town Board should take appropriate action to ensure that bond proceeds are deposited and expended in accordance with the requirements of Local Finance Law.

12. As a respondent to the Order of Consent, the Town of Islip should work with the IRRA to ensure that the closure of the Sayville landfill is completed in accordance with the New York State DEC regulations.

THE ISLIP TOWN CLERK: REGINA DUFFY

The Town Clerk in Islip, an elected position, has responsibilities that include: issuing licenses and collecting fees, allocating and remitting fee revenues to the Town, Suffolk County or the State and preparing a monthly report that accounts for this activity.

According to the audit report:

Neither the Town Clerk (Ms. Duffy), nor the Board, established any policies and procedures over the financial activity of the Clerk's office. They identified numerous control weaknesses.

As a result of these control weaknesses, the auditors determined that $12,250 was missing and was not detected by Town officials. In September, 2009, the auditors referred the matter to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.

Types of Receipts 2007 2008* Total

Solid Waste Permit Application Receipts $4,200 $2,550 $6,750

Towing Business Licenses $3,600 $0 $3,600

Commercial Boat Haulers Permits $250 $1,000 $1,250

Deposit Differences $650 $0 $650

Total Moneys Unaccounted For $8,700 $3,550 $12,250

* Through August 2008

The example given in the audit:

The Clerk's office issued 188 receipts totaling $139,200 for solid waste permit applications in 2007.

The amount reported totaled only $135,000, $4,200 less than the duplicate receipts. The audit reviewed 93 duplicate receipts and 50 original applications for solid waste permits for the period January 1 through August 31, 2008. (The Clerk was unable to locate one entire duplicate receipt book for the period January 24, 2008 through April 29, 2008.)

The receipt totals were $144,750 but the amount reported to the Supervisor and deposited in that same time period totaled only $142,200, $2,550 less than should have been deposited.

The audit found similar discrepancies with towing business licenses and commercial boat hauler permits

totaling $4,850. According to the audit, the Clerk's office could not account for any of the receipt discrepancies.

Other discrepancies included bank deposit slips which totaled less than the daily receipts for the day and daily deposit log. An example the audit gave was 13 deposits from fiscal year 2007, totaling $71,226.

The deposit slip was missing $650 dollars, totaling only $70,576. Again on April 18, 2007 the daily deposit log had a total of $2,290 in receipts for the day, but the amount on the deposit slip was $300 less and totaled only $1,990. According to the audit report, Ms. Duffy could not explain the discrepancies.

After June 1, 2008 the Clerk's office generated receipts from a computer software program. The receipt numbers were not sequential, the system allowed receipts to be changed and /or deleted and did not generate an audit trail (time and date of access, what activity occurred and time and date of log off)

which determine who altered the records.

Due to these control deficiencies, the auditors selected 27 original documents (licenses or applications)

totaling $13,724, to determine whether the total collections were properly recorded in the daily transactions reports.

*Five original documents totaling $218 did not match the receipt information from the daily transactions reports; the receipts were either deleted from the computer or the amount did not match.

*Six receipts totaling $268 had originally been entered properly in the computer program, but were subsequently altered or deleted.

*Seventeen daily reports were missing receipts that were previously listed, totaling$1,788.

With no audit trail built into the financial management system, changes to the financial data could occur with little risk of being detected.

The Clerk, nor the Board, kept track or reviewed revenue expense trends to help detect irregularities according to the audit report.

For example:

The Clerk's revenues decreased by about $75,000 from 2006 to 2007, while the fees remained the same. The 2008 amounts increased from 2006 to 2007, but were still about $40,000 less than 2006, according to the audit.

No one investigated or was even aware that these trends had occurred.

Employees did not keep cash and checks in secure locations during normal business hours.

Approximately 12 employees in the Clerk's office collect cash and use a single cash drawer.

Collections can sometimes total over $37,000 in a single day. The Clerk did not maintain a log to record checks received by mail, did not inventory or log permits, licenses and unused receipt books, according to the audit.

These control weaknesses increased the risk that cash shortages would occur and not be detected.

Bank deposits and reconciliations were not properly or timely performed by the Town Clerk's office, according to the audit.

For example:

The auditors reviewed 23 deposits totaling $172,069 and found that deposit slips were not sufficiently itemized to detail the kind of money being deposited. Town official were unable to trace amounts from individual receipts because they did not include any detailed information as to what checks were being deposited, check number, payee and amount as is customary, according to the audit.

Without this detailed information Town officials have no assurance that all moneys collected are properly deposited into the Clerk's accounts.

The Clerk did not perform bank reconciliations from June 2008 through April 2009. The Clerk admitted neither she nor anyone on her staff knew how to perform a bank reconciliation. The primary function of a bank reconciliation is to ensure that recorded cash balances in the Clerk's records agree with the records maintained by the bank. The Clerk did not have a policy or procedure in place to address returned checks or related charges, according to the audit.

The failure to perform timely bank reconciliations is a serious internal control weakness that jeopardized the safeguarding of Town moneys and impairs the Board's ability to monitor cash. Town officials had no way to determine whether return checks were ever re-deposited because deposit slips were not detailed.

The Town Clerk did not designate someone independent of data entry functions as a systems administrator.

The auditors reviewed the access rights of 20 employees in the Clerk's office and identified 10 employees that had "supervisory access". Users with supervisory access have the ability to change group access and delete or modify access rights, including their own. They have the ability to add, delete, update and alter data. Three of the 10 with this access no longer were employed by the Clerk's office, yet still had access to the system, according to the audit.

As a result of these weaknesses, there was an increased risk that inappropriate transactions could be initiated and not be detected by Town officials.

RECOMMENDATIONS

13. The Clerk and Town officials should investigate the unaccounted for funds and correct and account for any and all discrepancies.

14. The Clerk should inventory, log and maintain all duplicate receipt books. The Clerk needs to develop a procedure whereby computerized receipts are maintained in their original state.

15. The Clerk and the Director should work with the software vendor so that the system can provide an appropriate audit trail.

16. The Clerk should assign the duty of cash drawer reconciliation to an employee who does not collect cash and enter cash receipt transactions into the computer system. Additionally, the bank reconciliations should be done by someone other than the person responsible for making deposits and preparing the daily and monthly reports.

17. The Clerk should analyze revenue trends on a periodic basis to ensure that all moneys collected are accounted for. Any downward trend should be investigated.

18. The Clerk should take steps to ensure that cash checks, permits and receipts are maintained in secure areas.

19. The Clerk should maintain a log to record all checks received by mail. In addition such checks should be endorsed "For Deposit Only" immediately upon receipt.

20. The Clerk should develop formal procedures for the acceptance of and handling of cash receipts.

The procedures should require that deposit slips are sufficiently detailed.

21. The Clerk should develop procedures to ensure that bank account balances are reconciled to cash records on a monthly basis.

22. The Clerk's monthly reports to the Town Supervisor should be accurate and include all financial

activity for the period covered. The Supervisor should review all these reports.

23. The Clerk should deposit all fees within the time required by statute, which they had not done.

Additionally, a system should be established to identify the deadlines applicable to each officer and agency to which remittances are made and to monitor the applicable reports to ensure the deadlines are met.

24. The Clerk should designate someone independent of data entry as a system administrator and only grant that administrator, "supervisory access".

25. Town officials should implement procedures so that employees who need access to data do not have access to change the computer system's security settings.

26. The Town should obtain additional insurance coverage to adequately protect the Town against loss of cash. (Only the Clerk herself was indemnified at the time of the audit).

COMPENSATION AND FRINGE BENEFITS

The auditors found long-standing weaknesses in internal controls over the Town's payroll process relating to compensation provided to Town employees.

12 employees accumulated leave time by a total of 535 days over what they were entitled to accumulate.

Employees received leave time and other fringe benefits without Board authorization, as required, resulting in the Town incurring over $11,000 in unauthorized expenses.

The audit tested seven individuals who terminated employment between January 1 through Aug 31, 2008 and received payments for unused leave accruals totaling $361,255.

Town official calculated all seven computations incorrectly. The Town paid six employees more than they were entitled to because as managerial employees, not covered by a CBA they should not have accumulated and carried over any vacation time. It was not authorized by a Board resolution as required by law. The Town paid the other employee $1,531 less than he was entitled to because the Town used an incorrect hourly rate.

Vacation accruals and sick leave were tested for 15 employees:

10 managerial

5 white/blue collar CBA employees.

Vacation balances were overstated for 12 employees by a total of 535 days with an estimated value of $156,135, because unused leave balances were improperly carried over to the succeeding year.

Town officials paid three golf professionals a total of $460,013 as contracted vendors during the audit period. The Town inappropriately enrolled them in the State Health Insurance Program, in violation

of Internal Revenue Standards. The Town officials said it had been in their contract for almost 20 years, but corrected the issue when brought to their attention by the audit.

RECOMMENDATIONS

27. Town officials should establish a process by which separation payments are reviewed and approved by the Board prior to making payments to individual leaving Town employment.

28. The Board should ensure that all employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements or Board resolutions, which clearly specify all benefits.

29. The Board should review and clarify the Local Law, which authorizes fringe benefits for non-union employees.

30. The Board should develop written procedures for the accrual and carry-over of leave time for management employees.

31. The Board should require that all departments adhere to the collective bargaining agreements' procedures for the carry-over of vacation leave.

32. The Board should require that accurate leave records are maintained for all employees who are eligible to earn leave and ensure that these records are periodically reviewed and reconciled to employees' attendance sheets.

33. The Town should not provide health insurance coverage to non-employees.

PURCHASING

Town officials made payments for 14 purchases totaling $13,200 without obtaining documented verbal and written quotes in accordance with Town policy.

The Town had no written policies and procedures governing the use of their 73 credit cards.

Town officials paid 11 of 20 invoices reviewed, totaling $13, 019 using confirming purchase orders, which allowed the staff to bypass the purchase order system.

As a result the Town may have paid more than necessary for goods and services. The current administration has taken steps to correct the credit card weakness, according to the audit.

Town personnel did not solicit competition when procuring services of 18 professional service providers

who were paid a total of $1,154,094 during the audit period.

General Municipal Law (GML) requires municipalities to adopt a purchasing policy for the procurement

of goods and services when competitive bidding is not required, such as for the procurement of professional services which involve specialized skill, training and expertise; use of professional judgment

or discretion and/or a high degree of creativity. Requests for proposals and competition provides a mechanism for comparing qualifications or fee structures of professional service providers, according to the audit.

The Board policy did not require the Town to solicit competition before awarding professional service contracts and the Town did not have written procedures for documenting how to procure these services.

The audit revealed that of the 18 professional providers tested, the Town procured the services of all 18 providers without soliciting competitive bids and paid these providers a total of $1,154,094 during the audit period.

The way they went about it:

The Deputy Town Attorney told the auditors that if Town officials know of a person or firm with the specialized skills they are looking for, they solicit a person's services directly, propose a draft contract which is then drawn up by the Town Attorney's office, then they would send it to the Board for approval.

Each department was permitted to solicit a vendor directly for professional services and make its recommendation to the Board.

According to the Town's procurement policies:

Employees must obtain verbal or written quotations from at least three separate vendors for purchase contract that range between $500 and $10,000. The policy also requires obtaining quotations from at least three separate vendors for public works contracts between $1,500 and $20,000 but does not specify the type of quote required.

The auditors tested 21 paid claims totaling $17,483, where competitive bidding was not required by General Municipal Law. They found that for 14 purchases totaling $13,200, Town employees did not obtain quotes in accordance with written procedures and the Town's procurement policy.

The Town's failure to comply with the Town's own procurement policy increases the risk that goods and services may not be acquired at the lowest price.

CREDIT CARDS

The Town had at least 72 store-specific credit cards, with seven different vendors and one bank credit card. During the audit period credit card purchases totaled $100,466.

The audit tested 21 claims for credit card purchases totaling $17,483 and determined the Board did not authorize these credit cards and did not have a list of authorized users. They could not determine the credit card users for 12 claims totaling $10,307. Nine of those claims totaling $5,454 did not have credit card slips and/or receipts attached and there was no signature on the attached receipts for three claims.

The absence of a signature prevents the identification of the person responsible for the purchase and results in a lack of accountability for expenses charged to a local government.

The lack of receipts could result in approving payment for an expense that does not serve a Town purpose, according to the audit. Without any specific policies in place, the Town would have difficulty

collecting reimbursement for any unauthorized or questionable charges.

The Town Supervisor suspended the use of store credit cards in April 2008 and the use of the bank card in May 2009.

CONFIRMING PURCHASE ORDERS

A confirming purchase order is one that is prepared after goods have been ordered from a vendor.

The Board adopted policy allows for confirming of purchase orders only when immediate need for goods or public work could not have been anticipated and pre-approved by the Board.

It requires Town staff to indicate they are using a confirming purchase order.

The audit revealed the Town's purchase order system is ineffective because Town personnel routinely use confirming purchase orders for non-emergencies, without documentation to indicate the circumstances that necessitated the use of confirming purchase orders.

For example:

A purchase made on June 14, 2007 for $1,388 for lumber and hardware had a purchase order dated June 28, 2007, which was not approved by the purchasing director until July 2, 2007, 188 days after the purchase had already occurred.

RECOMMENDATIONS

34. The Board should revise the Town's procurement policy to ensure it provides guidance for procuring professional services through a competitive bidding process.

35. Town officials should monitor and enforce compliance with the Town's own procurement policies and procedures relating to verbal and written quotes and ensure that documentation is maintained.

36. The Board should adopt a comprehensive credit card policy and review and update it annually.

The policy should identify all users, set appropriate credit limits, establish custody of the cards when not in use, require proper documentation for all transactions and establish a means to recoup any authorized expenditures.

37. The Board should formally authorize the acquisition and use of any credit card for official Town business.

38. The Town Comptroller should ensure that a proper audit of claims is performed prior to the payment of each credit card statement. This includes requiring that all charges on the statements are adequately supported by itemized receipts signed by the individual making the purchase.

39. The Board should enforce compliance with the adopted policy relating to limiting confirming purchase orders only to emergency situations. Individuals initiating the purchase should justify the reasons for using a confirming order.

PHIL NOLAN RESPONDED

When the draft of the audit was released to the Islip Town Board Mr. Nolan responded. On July 8, 2010, Supervisor Nolan wrote a letter to Jeffrey P. Leonard, the Chief Examiner for The State Comptroller's Office.

In the 6 page response Mr. Nolan wrote that although the Board did not agree with all the findings the audit had revealed, the Town accepted the findings as stated, with some exceptions which he then began to explain.

Calling the practice of overstating the encumbrances "partially a by-product of an antiquated accounting system", Mr. Nolan wrote that in July 2009, new software was installed and the need to overstate encumbrances had been eliminated.

Mr. Nolan wrote that "the practice of improperly recording the Youth Bureau and Land Management

divisions dates back to 1990 and the Debt Service component back to 2004." Mr. Nolan stated that

as of the 2010 operating budget, Debt Service will be properly classified and properly budgeted to the correct departments.

With regard to the inaccurate and untimely financial information from the Town Comptroller,

which was insufficient to allow the Board to properly budget and monitor operations;

Mr. Nolan responded that as of January 2010, the Comptroller has begun providing various financial reports to the Board on a monthly basis, including cash flow summaries, trial balances, and budget reports for all revenue and expenditure accounts and the status of investments.

With regard to the signature cards, Mr. Nolan declared the Town's new accounting system has password protection over the use of the Supervisor's and the Comptroller's signatures.

In order to develop a plan to eliminate the $3,324,744 deficit in the capital projects fund, Mr. Nolan wrote:

The Town will review the projects that generated the deficit and will determine what funds received the use/benefit of the capital project. Once determined, a schedule will be developed to determine how the appropriate operating funds will reimburse the capital projects fund (fund balance transfer, levy taxes etc.).

Regarding the auditors recommendations to send the Board monthly financial reports, Mr. Nolan

noted that is now being done and will include all of the capital accounts.

Mr. Nolan insisted in his written response, that current Town procedures prevent the Town from overspending an authorized amount for a capital project as had occurred in the past.

With regard to the IRRA and the Sayville landfill, Mr. Nolan wrote:

It is the Town's opinion that the responsibility for the closing of the Sayville landfill is the responsibility of the IRRA. To that end the Comptroller has sat with the President of the IRRA to discuss what steps need to be taken. During 2010, it is anticipated that the President of the IRRA will go before the IRRA Board and propose moving money from the available fund balance into a legal reserve for the purpose of setting aside moneys for the closure.

Mr. Nolan addressed the issue of compensation and fringe benefits by saying the Town will be formalizing a procedure that will require the Comptroller and Director of Personnel and Labor Relations to review all proposed payouts to ensure that the proper amount has been calculated.

Mr. Nolan agreed to implement any and all adjustments necessary to the Town Code Section 17C-2 which defines what benefits are to be extended to all nonunion, full time employees, including elected and appointed officials ("management").

Mr. Nolan noted that early in 2010, the Director of Personnel and Labor Relations for the Town of Islip sent a memo reminding them of the rules for carry over vacation time. They also planned to implement a "time and attendance" software package that will enable the Town to better monitor the amounts of accrued time that employees have earned.

According to the Nolan letter with regard to purchasing issues and confirming orders:

The Town has established an internal procedure for soliciting and evaluating requests for professional services by requiring that an evaluating committee of no less than three individuals, including a representative from the appropriate department along with the Town Comptroller and the Director of Purchasing to review the scope of the work and ensure that the Town does not pay any more than necessary for these services.

The Town will also discuss with the Town Attorney as well as the Director of Personnel and Labor Relations to discuss what, if any, method of discipline can be used if there is a violation of policy (i.e. restitution to be made, voiding contract with vendor, etc.)

The State responded to the Town's policy with regard to adopting a purchasing policy for the procurement of goods and services when no bidding process is required...

Although the Town's policy stated that "the Town Board finds that it is not in the best interest of the Town of Islip to base the award of professional contracts on strictly monetary criteria," the policy did not establish procedures for procuring these types of contracts.

With regard to the use of "confirming orders" for non-emergency purchases, the definition of what constitutes an emergency purchase was to be discussed and defined formally. In the future, according to Mr. Nolan for all "emergency" purchases, a resolution will be put forth before the Board for their approval, before the purchase is made.

During 2008 and 2009, according to Mr. Nolan, the Town revoked all use of credit cards. In December of 2009, the Board formalized a credit card policy which specifically identifies all cards that were authorized as well as spending limits. Storage of cards when not in use, types of purchases allowed as well as procedures for submitting items for payment were all formalized as well, according to the Nolan letter.

The Nolan letter ends with the following statement:

The Town Board appreciates the thorough review of the Town of Islip and all the work that was put in by your staff. As we have noted, many of the items that were identified have since been corrected or will be corrected in the near term. The Town will work to get all items corrected as soon as it is practicable. Sincerely, Phil Nolan, Supervisor

THE TOWN CLERK RESPONDED

On July 8, 2010 the same day Phil Nolan sent a letter to the New York State Comptroller's office,

Ms. Regina Duffy, the Islip Town Clerk, also sent them a letter in response to the preliminary draft

findings that related to her office.

Ms. Duffy wrote; 80% of the unaccounted-for-funds were accounted for by a newly hired account clerk, with a strong bookkeeping background.

The State denied this was so, when the auditor replied to Ms. Duffy's statement in the published audit:

On July 23, 2010, we received additional documentation provided by the Town Clerk regarding the moneys that they have accounted for. Our review showed that the funds referred to in the Clerk's response were not the unaccounted-for-moneys referenced in our report. The unaccounted-for-moneys identified in our audit were not deposited in the Town Clerk's bank account. We have referred this matter to the Suffolk County District Attorney for investigation.

Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota's Media Liaison, did not answer inquiries from Freelance Investigations to determine what if anything came of their investigation at time of publication.

"While the Clerk's office looks for a new software program to provide proper audit trails and necessary securities to ensure funds or information are not lost or altered, in the interim, the Clerk will prepare an inventory of all manual receipt books and will reconcile receipts versus monies received", according to Ms. Duffy.

Ms. Duffy capitulated to the auditors recommendations and assigned the duty of the cash drawer reconciliation to an employee who does not collect cash and she agreed they will now enter cash receipt transactions into the computer system, according to her letter to the State Comptroller, Mr. Jeffrey Leonard.

In February 2010 the Clerk's office hired two new employees, both of whom have bookkeeping experience. Collection of cash receipts, reporting and reconciliation procedures have now been spread out to several employees and the reconciliation and reporting are done by two individuals who are not involved in the collection of the receipts as was recommended by the audit, according to Ms. Duffy's correspondence.

The Clerk has taken steps to secure the permits, receipts and licenses and now keeps them locked in her desk in her private office. Only Ms. Duffy has the key to her desk, according to the letter.

Ms. Duffy has assigned the responsibility of recording all checks received by mail to one employee.

All are stamped "For Deposit Only" as suggested should be done, by the draft audit and now a daily log is being maintained, according to her letter.

Ms. Duffy has established procedures detailing the proper way to handle all cash receipts, including a copy of each check received will be made and they will be listed individually on the deposit ticket along with the check number, which was not being done prior and was an issue, according to the State Comptroller's audit report.

The Clerk and the Town Comptroller will now perform monthly bank reconciliations and will reconcile past months which were never done, according to Ms. Duffy's letter.

As part of the reorganization of the Town Clerk's office which took place in 2010, deposits are now made on a timely basis (daily). Monthly remittances are also made to all appropriate State and local governments within prescribed times and according to deadlines, according to Ms. Duffy.

Now the Town Clerk is the only System Administrator and the only one who has full access to the system. There is one employee who has "supervisory" rights, but needs to have the Clerk sign off on any adjustments or amendments made to the system, according to Ms. Duffy who now is the only one who can change user rights.

Ms. Duffy said she would make a recommendation to the committee responsible for reviewing various insurance coverage with regard to the auditor's suggestion of obtaining additional insurance coverage for the rest of the Town Clerk's staff.

Ms. Duffy concluded by stating:

As an elected official, I take great pride in the office I hold and as a result, I appreciate the work that was done by your office. The comments and suggestions were taken seriously by my office and I have worked very hard to address all of the comments. I want to thank your office for their time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Regina Duffy, Town Clerk

The preceding documented information came directly from the New York State Comptroller's report, (almost verbatim), all credit and publication rights to the State.

If you would like to obtain a copy of the audit or to view the complete audit report and the Town's responses, go to the link provided below, call the office of the State Comptroller at (518) 474-4015 or write to:

Public Information Office

110 State Street, 15 Floor

Albany, New York 12236

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/towns/2010/islip.pdf

ISLIP BOND RATING is AAA DESPITE STATE AUDIT REVEALING ISSUES

2011-04-29T10:16:00.038-04:00

ISLIP'S BOND RATING WAS "NOT AN UPGRADE"...SAYS FITCH SENIOR DIRECTOR

On January 31, 2011, the Fitch Ratings Agency, a global financial ratings agency, put out a press release about the Town of Islip. Not long after, Newsday, Long Island Business News and several other respected news venues put out stories that the Town of Islip bond rating had been upgraded from AA to AAA; the highest rating available. According to the Fitch press release "Prudent management has enabled Islip to maintain sound reserve levels".

In August 2010, The Office of the State Comptroller for New York, Thomas DiNapoli, issued an audit report for the Town of Islip, for the time period January 1, 2007-August 31, 2008. The audit tells a different story of how Islip Town has handled its' money.

Mr. Jim Mann, the Senior Director and member of the Fitch Ratings team that handled the Islip rating, said this week that the Islip Town bond rating was NOT upgraded, but simply "AFFIRMED", as to what it already had been. Mr. Mann said that he had not seen the State audit, before releasing the rating. Cindy Stoller, Media Liaison for Fitch, wrote the press release and the release does say, the rating was "affirmed".

Perhaps the confusion for the reporters who mistakenly called it an upgrade came about, according to Mr. Mann because:

On April 30, 2010, there was a re-calibration of the entire (bond) ratings system and a systematic ratings upgrade to all outstanding ratings. This was done in order to use the same ratings for municipalities versus corporations. Islip already had a rating which would be equivalent to a AAA and therefore their rating was merely affirmed, not upgraded.

Following Fitch's January 31, 2011 press release, all news reports of the "upgrade from 'AA to AAA' were inaccurate", according to Mr. Mann.

The rating has been and continued to be AAA. No reason was given by anyone at Fitch, as to why something that occurred in April of 2010, suddenly became the topic of a new Fitch press release on January 31, 2011. Messages to Ms. Stoller asking her to explain why the release was made in January 2011, when the changes occurred in April 2010, were not returned.

A company called Fitch Inc. (vendor number 8649) was paid $27,500 by the Town of Islip, between 2005 and 2008. Fitch Inc. received no payments from the Town in 2009 and 2010. Calls to Ms. Stoller to ask if this Fitch Inc. is the same as Fitch Ratings Inc. and if it is the company that received $27,500 between 2005 and 2008 from Islip Town as a vendor, were not returned. Googling Fitch Inc. brings you to the Fitch Ratings System webpage and Ms. Stoller is listed as director of U.S. Public Financial Infrastructures and Project Finances/Latin America.

After the Fitch Press release was sent out in January 2011, over six newspapers printed the story as an "upgrade" from AA to AAA for Islip, something that according to the Fitch Agency representatives was not accurate.

Freelance Investigations questioned Mr. Mann in a recent telephone interview asking why the Town of Islip, has a AAA rating in general, considering the myriad of problem issues found in the State Comptroller's Office Audit; released in August 2010 by Thomas DiNapoli. Mr. Mann had not yet seen the audit.

Mr. Mann and Peter Wei, the Senior Analyst on the Islip Rating decision, both admitted for the record, that they had not seen the State audit until a link to it was sent to them earlier this week, by Freelance Investigations.

On a conference call later that day with Mr. Mann, Mr. Wei and Freelance Investigations, Mr. Mann said "Because of this new information we will review and reconsider their rating. We do rely on information from audited financials. It was an unqualified opinion of a qualified financial statement given to us by Town government officials that we based our decision on." Mr. Mann could not recall who actually gave him the numbers, except to say that they were Town of Islip government officials.

Earlier that day, Mr. Wei had spoken with Freelance Investigations and he had no trouble recollecting where he got the numbers from that Fitch relied on. "We did not see the audit released by the State Comptroller in August 2010. We relied on numbers for 2010 that came from Bob Kerr, from the Town of Islip, he is their financial advisor and Mr. Ludwig, they gave us all the financial information for 2010.", Mr. Wei said.

Robert Kerr works for the New York Municipal Advisors Corporation, (NYMAC), a financial management company that has been paid over $100,000 by Islip Town in the last five years for- as their website states "Our successful approach to 'rating agency presentations' (that) has benefited our clients by improved ratings."

According to records obtained by Freelance Investigations, NYMAC, located at 2 Roosevelt Avenue in Syosset, donated $2,150 to Friends of Phil Nolan's campaign between 2008 and 2010.

Mr. Joseph Ludwig, was the other person, according to Mr. Wei to give Fitch the Town's financial statement and 2010 numbers, along with Bob Kerr from NYMAC.

Mr. Ludwig has a home in Westbury, according to the address he used donating $200 to Friends of Phil Nolan in 2008. The Town Comptroller is required to live in the Town of Islip.

Mr. Ludwig was also the Islip Town Comptroller, when the State Audit Report found serious breaches of financial protocol.

Problems outlined in the audit included:

$14.3 million dollars per year for three years was "misplaced", which made it appear as if the Town was in a worse financial state than it really was.

Sources said this miscalculation resulted in over sixty Town workers being let go unnecessarily and yet immediately after the firings or retirements, a smaller group of much higher salaried employees were hired, explaining why the salaries remained flat despite the firings.

According to the audit there was a co-mingling of millions of dollars in capital projects' funds in one bank account. There was no accountability of where the money was being spent, or on what project and no safeguards were put in place to determine when or even if -money was misappropriated. There was no way to know when projects were over budget. In many cases , according to the audit, money for one project was used for another- in violation of law. When the money ran out, the Town Board would just make a resolution to put more in, also in violation of proper municipal protocol.

Bank deposits were made without identifying information, the Town failed to keep the signature plate used to sign checks from the Town coffers in a secure location and many other financial anomalies were indicated in the audit, including over $12,500 in missing money, a matter which was referred to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.

Credit cards purchases were not accounted for and each December millions of dollars in vendor payments without proper supporting paperwork, were paid by the Town. In some cases supporting invoices were created and submitted long after the work was already performed and paid for.

Mr. Phil Nolan, Islip's current Town Supervisor and Supervisor for the time period dealt with in the State's audit, has stated publicly that problems and issues in the audit were all dealt with. What Mr. Nolan refers to as the Fitch Bond rating "upgrade" is appropriate and warranted, according to his statements in published news accounts.

Attempts to contact Mr. Nolan for any comments he might have on issues raised in this story, went through the Town's Acting Public Information Officer, Kevin Bonner. Since the Town's regular Public Information Officer, Amy Basta, has been on maternity leave, all attempts by Freelance Investigations to communicate with Mr. Bonner, have yielded no response.

The Town has had a strong bond rating since 2002, when Peter McGowan was the Supervisor. The bond rating has remained high recently, despite many serious financial concerns that occurred from 2007-2009, when the State audit revealed problems under Mr. Nolan's administration.

Mr. Mann commented after first reading the State Audit report, although admittedly he read it only cursorily the day it was sent to him this week, by Freelance Investigations. "I will read it more thoroughly and see what it says, but it appears that many of the lack of internal controls were because of software problems and it looks like most of those issues were or are being resolved."

NUMBERS DON'T SEEM TO ADD UP.......

The January 2011 Fitch Rating press release stated, "In light of declining revenues, management instituted a series of staff reductions which generated 1.2 million in total savings...". The numbers from the Islip payroll from 2007 through 2009 do not reflect this savings. Instead, they show a reduction/savings of a little over $29,700 dollars between 2007 and May 2010. Records for the rest of 2010 show although the payroll figure dropped approximately $5 million to $48,541,279- at the same time the vendor payout totals for the time period between 2007-2010 increased $122.8 million.

$788,611,329 in 2007

$827,305,148 in 2008

$877,152,451 in 2009

$911,457,676 in 2010.

Fitch stated in their January 31, 2011 press release when the Islip rating was "affirmed" that the unemployment totals for Islip were unavailable. Statistics are available online at the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and show the unemployment rate for Islip was 8.5% in March, 2010 but dropped to 7.8% in 2011. Suffolk County is currently 8.2% and higher than the State average of 8.0%. On January 22, 2011 state jobless rates were said to be on the rise across the board, according to the Department of Labor whose records show the steady rise of the jobless rate in Suffolk since 2008. In 2009 it was 8.0%. and in 2010 Suffolk County's unemployment rate was 8.8%. It dropped in 2011 to 8.2% still slightly higher than the State average of 8%.

In published reports Mr. Nolan has always insisted he saved millions in payroll expenses, in fact in a recent published article Mr. Nolan claims to have saved $18 million per year in payroll. However, a review of the numbers reveals the payroll stayed relatively flat from 2007 when he first took over through May 2010, despite the fact that approximately 113 employees were fired or retired during that time period.

SALARY OVERTIME

Management 2007 7,906,454

2008 8,867,641

2009 7,267,080

As of 5/11/10 2010 7,019,715

WHITE COLLAR 2007 16,844,259 309,322

2008 16,785,615 291,806

2009 16,912,785 279,051

As of 5/11/10 99,376

BLUE COLLAR 2007 22,549,126 2,075,590

2008 21,821,786 1,571,732

2009 22,226,650 2,085,567

As of 5/11/10 948,418

PART TIME 2007 4,096,360

2008 4,054,158

2009 4,980,406

# of employees # of employees # of employees

1966 2007 1932 2008 1853 2009

Salary 47,299,839 47,475,042 46,406,515

O/T 2,384,912 1,863,538 2,364,618

P/T 4,096,360 4,054,158 4,980,406

___________________________________________________________

53,781,111 53,392,738 53,751,339

Saved in 3 Years $29,772.00

Numbers from the Town of Islip Payroll Sheets

Although the number of employees went from 1,966 in 2007 to 1,932 in 2008 (34 fewer employees= payroll of $388,373 dollars less) and again the number dropped to 1,853 employees in 2009, (79 fewer employees= a payroll increase of $358,601 dollars) so from 2007 to 2009 the payroll stayed relatively the same. Sources say Mr. Nolan let go of low salaried employees and hired fewer employees making much higher salaries, most averaging $103,000 per year. The savings calculated in 3 years is $29,772, despite over 100 workers either retiring or being fired.

Then in 2010, the payroll numbers drop to $48,541,279, according to Republican Islip Town Councilman, Steve Flotteron. This number he received from Mr. Nolan has not been confirmed by any document to date. It includes part time and overtime according to Mr. Flotteron, who spoke recently with Freelance Investigations. He said the lower numbers are deceptive, because although it appears the payroll has decreased, the numbers fail to include increased outside contractor fees now being paid for things such as road paving, outside cleaning services, custodial and many more services that were always done by the Town employees and now are contracted out. According to the State audit, these contracts were often awarded without competitive bidding as required by law and there were no controls on purchasing.

"Now Nolan wants to float a $70 million dollar bond to repave the Town and play catch-up with all the things that haven't gotten done, or were not done with the same quality, since we let the Town workers who used to do those jobs go." according to Mr. Flotteron.

'There is already $141.3 million dollars in bonds that will come due within the next ten years, according to Town records. How will our children be able to pay for that and then another $70 million?" Mr. Flotteron asked.

Vendor Totals from the years 2005 through 2010:

2005 $700,004,540 * Mr. McGowan only

2006 $753,696,931 **Mr. McGowan/Nolan (Mr. Nolan in December)

2007 $788,611,329 Mr. Nolan

2008 $827,305,148 Mr. Nolan

2009 $877,152,451 Mr. Nolan

2010 $911,457,676 Mr. Nolan

Between 2007 and 2010 the vendor totals increased roughly over 122.8 million dollars from 788.6 million to 911.4 million, a difference of $122,846,347 dollars.

Mr. Flotteron pointed to things like custodial services. "Outside contractors can clean the floor, but when we had Town workers and the floor needed to be stripped, sanded and refinished, the Town workers would do that too. Now we have to hire additional outside contractors for things such as that."

Mr. Flotteron said he believes that former Supervisor Pete McGowan for all his faults, had already pared down the payroll and was very budget conscious. "The Town payroll was stable and the work was getting done with people who were consistently accountable to the Town. If the job is shoddy now, we have to search for a new outside contractor and that takes time, energy and money.", according to Mr. Flotteron. The audit showed that where outside contractors were supposed to be hired after a bidding process, in most cases no bidding was done prior to the awarding of contracts, so there was no way to determine if the price paid by the Town was the lowest available.

NEWER EMPLOYEES = LOWER SALARIES ?

One of the positive reasons given by Town officials and also by Fitch representative Mr. Mann for using outside contractors instead of municipal workers, was that benefits and pensions don't have to be paid by the Town. Mr. Mann pointed this out to Freelance Investigations when asked how the increase in vendor payouts of $122.8 million and a decrease of $5 million in workers' salaries between 2007-2010 could be considered to be a substantial savings when taken in total. "How a municipality manages its' budget by outsourcing is not necessarily a bad thing, because they don't have to pay pension and health benefits."

Not having to pay pension and benefits might appear to make financial sense. What is actually happening in Islip Town, however, belies another scenario, according to Town workers.

Sources say many people who took early retirement incentives are being hired right back as part timers and/or consultants, sometimes with an hourly rate hovering around $40/per hour. J. Baumgarten, payroll supervisor, took early retirement last year and was hired back a week later and now works part time in the same title, for $40.92 an hour and she still receives benefits and a pension from the Town. Also hired was R. Duhigg as payroll supervisor for $51,142 dollars per year. G. Athenas, head clerk in the Town Attorney's office, took the retirement incentive last year and was hired back one week later as a part time worker for $35/per hour and she also still receives a pension and health benefits.

Maureen Meehan worked for the Town for over 10 years, her salary in 2006, was $69,700 as the Executive Assistant/Chief of Staff. When Mr. Nolan appointed Jeannine Dillon to the same job, with the same title, she was paid $88,000. Mr. Nolan claimed he was just bringing her salary in line with the former employee's salary, however, Ms. Meehan worked for many years and never had a salary commensurate with what Ms. Dillon started with. On February 2, 2009, Ms. Dillon got a raise to $103,100 dollars plus $10,000 from Mr. Nolan's campaign for consulting work. Ms. Dillon left her job as Deputy Supervisor in September, 2010, just after the audit was released, saying she was going to explore other opportunities. She had worked for the Town since Mr. Nolan took over in 2006.

Chris Nicolia, makes $11,830 as a part time clerk. Also a part time clerk is A. Pugliese who has the same title and was hired on the same day. He makes $7,280. Chris Nicolia started out as an unpaid intern while he attended law school. His father, owner of of Nicolia Ready Mix, in West Babylon has donated $8,500 to Friends of Phil Nolan from June 2007 to the present.

In December 2010, Gene Murphy, the Town of Islip Planning Commissioner, attended a party to celebrate his retirement after more than thirty five years with the Town. Now he is also being hired back, two days a week to work as a consultant, despite the fact that he stated publicly at the time, that his staff is more than capable of going on without his expertise, or he never would have retired. Re-hires can make up to $30,000 per year or more as part time consultants or part-time workers, while still getting their pension and benefits from the Town without the need for a waiver.

Why hire the same people back? Are there no other qualified personnel who could do these jobs, some residents ask? Approximately 30 more retirees are scheduled to be hired back by the Town, according to sources inside Town government.

Residents question where the alleged savings are. These retirement incentives were touted as an effort to rejuvenate the staff with new hires and thus alleviate some of the rampant unemployment.

Hiring back the same people you just retired, allows some people to get two paychecks and others none,

according to workers who wish to remain anonymous. This is double dipping, an issue Mr. Nolan raised in his election run, promising to end the practice. Town workers said some people worked for over twenty years to get to their salary and the new hires are starting where they worked so hard and it took them decades to get. Some of them, "twenty-somethings" with little or no experience are starting at the salaries they worked their whole lives to accomplish, insiders complained.

Mr. Flotteron said they fired the Town photographer, (a union job). Now they are hiring young kids and training them to take pictures for the Town, something Mr. Flotteron said should not be allowed because Town photographer was a union position and as such the position or title can't be eliminated and then have someone non-union just come in and be trained or allowed to do the same job.

To view the audit:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/towns/2010/islip.pdf

REMEMBERING VETERANS in GREENLAWN-CENTERPORT

2011-04-06T18:05:00.000-04:00

The Greenlawn Centerport Historical Association (GCHA) has started a data bank of all veterans that have ever lived in the Greenlawn-Centerport area. If you or someone you know is a veteran or is now on active duty, please contact Ruth Ann Hyne, the project sponsor. E-mail: hyneh@aol.com

Ruth Ann is collecting memorabilia, and would like to compile both an oral and written history if possible. The Hynes have a daughter Kim, who served on the hospital ship "Mercy", during Desert Storm.
She has agreed to prepare a recording that will become part of the collection. They encourage others to do the same. Ruth Ann's husband Bob served in the army in Germany for two years. Even though it was peacetime, they believe peacetime service is just as worthy of note as is the family's sacrifice-a veteran is a veteran.

The local American Legion Greeenlawn Post #1244 has already compiled a history containing over 150 names, history and pictures which they hope to build upon.

A GCHA Veterans Exhibit will open at the Suydam House following the Memorial Day Parade on May 30th. They will be honoring all of the loyal veterans from the American Revolution up to the present.

SPONSORED BY RUTH ANN HYNE
Greenlawn-Centerport Historical Association
Email: hyneh@aol.com

Spurred to Action to Protect the Wilderness at Pilgrim State

2011-02-04T18:16:00.008-05:00

PARCELS AT RISK ...

Someone’s been working on the railroad at the site of the old Pilgrim State Psychiatric Facility railroad spur and the members of the Friends of the Edgewood Oak-Brush Plains Preserve are vowing to stop them in their tracks.

Edgewood Oak-Brush Plains Preserve

Springtime in the Edgewood-Oak Brush Plains Preserve

Since 2008, the New York and Atlantic Railway Company (NY& A) has been clearing trees, using plant defoliants and even burning rare plants approximately 2000 feet north from the southern end of the spur, according to residents who documented the activity and notified the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRPH) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in May of 2009. NY&A has been in business since 1994 and has an agreement with the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) to run freight trains on Long Island since 1997.

Patricia Burkhart, the President of the Friends of the Edgewood Preserve’s Board of Directors insists that no one should be doing any work on the railroad spur on the property which is contiguous to the Pilgrim parcel which is also contiguous to the Edgewood Preserve. The Edgewood Preserve is an 843 acre-wildlife habitat tucked neatly into one of the most developed and densely populated areas in Western Suffolk, located just off Old Commack Road between three Long Island towns, (Islip, Babylon and Huntington) Friends of the Edgewood Preserve are also fighting to get the 118 acre Pilgrim parcel designated part of the Edgewood Preserve. The land in question is a critical groundwater protection area for Long Island's drinking water.

“We first discovered the destruction on the spur in 2008 at the Southern end when they were spraying the defoliants. Then it was about 1500 feet lost. Last summer we discovered more and as of August 2010, the total is approximately 3500 feet destroyed.’ Ms. Burkhart told Freelance Investigations.

Mat Oppen legal intern for Friends of Edgewood Preserve
looking South to main RR switch.

Pitch pine and scrub oaks were removed to this point. Up to two years ago most of the spur was covered completely.

(photos by P. Burkhart)

In 1987, then Governor Mario Cuomo, officially turned the grounds of the old Edgewood State Hospital into the Edgewood Oak-Brush Plains Preserve. “It is a rare, globally imperiled wildlife habitat in the State and it is the only pitch pine scrub oak habitat on Long Island.” according to Ms. Burkhart.

“Chapter 635 of the Laws of 1987” as it became known; was intended to preserve unique lands on Long Island, for the people of New York State and is the law cited by those claiming the land should revert to the Edgewood Preserve and then be under jurisdiction of the DEC.

This is not a new issue. Senator John Flanagan (East Northport) weighed in on it as far back as November 2008, when he responded in a letter to a Dix Hills constituent concerned about the fate of the Pilgrim parcel.

Section 7 of Chapter 635 of the Laws of 1987 clearly provides that the Commissioner of the Office of General Services (OGS) "shall" arrange for the transfer of lands now or hereafter not necessarily for use by Pilgrim State Hospital into Oak-Brush Plains State Preserve. On October 27, 1998, OGS transferred 86 acres of land into the Preserve in fulfillment of the commitment made in Chapter 635. Despite the presence of approximately 118 additional acres of vacant land that currently exist adjacent to the Preserve and which are no longer needed by Pilgrim State Hospital, it would appear that Commissioner of OGS has failed to fulfill his responsibility under Chapter 635 by not transferring this property into the Oak-Brush Plains State Preserve.

Senator Flanagan then wrote, despite the veto by Governor Patterson of Senate bill (6728 A) which would have forced the OGS to immediately transfer the land to the State:

It is the opinion of Senate Majority Program and Counsel that the Commissioner of OGS still maintains the authority granted under Chapter 635 of the Laws of 1987 and must fulfill that commitment by transferring the property described in the Senate bill into the Oak-Brush Plains State Preserve. 11/6/08

   Legislation Gets New Life in Assembly and Senate


Recently, Senator Owen Johnson (West Babylon) has re-introduced a bill (S-2734) to return the 118 acre Pilgrim parcel to the State DEC, where it can be protected. The bill was introduced with co-sponsors Senator Flanagan and the newly elected, Lee Zeldin (Shirley). It is a bill very similar to the one introduced earlier this year by Assemlyman Phil Ramos (Brentwood). This bill A3836 also demands the land revert to the State DEC and is co-sponsored by: Congressmen Andrew Raia (Northport), Steve Englebright (East Setauket); the Chair of the Committee on Tourism, Parks, Arts and Sports Development, Robert Sweeney (Lindenhurst); former Chair of the State Committee on the Environment and James D. Conte (Huntington).

From the Senate Bill:

More than twenty years have elapsed since Chapter 635 of the laws of was enacted and the Pilgrim State Hospital land has not been annexed to the Preserve. In recent years, however, the Pilgrim State Hospital land had been considered as a possible site for the New York State Department of Transportation to construct a large commercial multi-modal project known as the long Island Truck & Rail Inter Modal (LITRIM) Facility. The Region 10 Staff of the New York State Department of Transportation dedicated a tremendous amount of time and energy into the planning of the LITRIM project with the goal of reducing long haul truck traffic on the roads of long Island. While the sponsors recognize and support the need for the development of alternative methods of freight movement on and off long Island in order to reduce the burden of long haul trucking on the highways of long Island, the Pilgrim State Hospital location, due to recent substantial commercial development in the surrounding areas, is unsuitable for a multi-modal facility. Today, the area immediately surrounding the land is so vastly different than it was just a few years ago when the LITRIM project was first proposed. The recent approval of three major construction projects by town officials has so overburdened this area with traffic congestion that the State should not support yet another project that would further exacerbate the traffic congestion problem in this area. Consequently, this area should not undergo further development and the subject land should be transferred to the Edgewood Preserve as originally called for in 1987, thus ensuring more green space and mitigating future traffic congestion.

Ms. Burkhart claims that in the 1920’s the Gardiner Family, (also owners of Gardiner's Island) who originally owned the land, gave portions of their property for the construction of the Sagtikos State Parkway. Approximately 100 acres of forest was to remain on either side of the Parkway (60% on the east side and 40% on the west side) and designated to be state park land for public use only.

Then in 1929, the Office of Mental Hygiene requested permission of the Gardiner family to build a railroad spur to enable easier delivery of supplies and materials to the Pilgrim State Psychiatric Hospital, then under construction. The Gardiner Family agreed and wrote the sidetrack agreement that is now in the middle of a tug of war over its' purported purpose.

In March 2010, more destructive activity took place on the spur and once again the NYS-DEC and the OPRHP were notified by the Friends of the Edgewood Preserve, that approximately 2000 feet of mature forest had been cut down. In some places whole trees were pulled out by their roots and rare plants, including “wild pink” which had just been identified in 2008, by Steve Young of the New York State Natural Heritage Program, were destroyed within months of the finding the rare plants.

"Wild Pink"

Euphorbia Ipecacuanhae (growing right on the tracks)

Trees tossed on the side after being ripped out by the roots

Trees pulled out by their roots
(Photos by P. Burkhart)

Ms. Burkhart claims all Freedom of Information requests turned up no permits and/or agreements allowing NY&A to store and/or use heavy equipment on state land (including a back hoe with no identifying information) and to destroy wildlife seven or eight feet on either side of the spur and along approximately 2000 feet of what she believes is public land.

Calls to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) were responded to by Citizen Participation Specialist, Aphrodite Montalvo, who wrote in response to questions sent by Freelance Investigations:

DEC conducted an exhaustive investigation regarding the pesticide and clearing use and determined that the herbicide was applied by a contractor working for New York and Atlantic. The DEC investigation concluded that the commercial application of herbicide at issue was performed by a NYS-registered pesticide business, using NYS-registered pesticides in accordance with pesticide label directions. DEC staff investigating the matter did discover a record keeping violation. The violation was: "ECL 33-1205(1) requiring all commercial applicators to file at least annually a report on or before February first for the prior calendar year containing information for each pesticide application including EPA Registration number, product name, quantity of each pesticide used, date applied, and location of application. (A. Montalvo NYS/DEC)

Recently, Aslplundh Tree Expert Company, Railroad Division, paid a thousand dollar fine to the DEC for the 2008 violation after an order on consent signed by DEC LI Regional Director, Peter Scully was issued in December of 2010.

When asked what happened to soil samples collected- had they ever been tested? The DEC response was:

The purpose of collecting the samples was to determine what herbicides were responsible for the vegetation control. Because the investigation has already determined the name of the pesticide, as well as the quantity, no additional information would have been gained in analyzing the samples. ( A. Montalvo NYS/DEC)

"Since they went to the trouble and expense of going to the site and taking the soil samples, we believe an agency meant to protect our air land and water would actually test the soil to make sure of what it contained. They trusted a company who failed to keep proper records. Testing the soil would have been in the publics' best interest." according to Ms. Burkhart.

Ms. Montalvo pointed out the fact that the land in question does not belong to the DEC and that the State Parks Department has made the following determination regarding the spur:

State Parks has advised other state agencies that the activities this spur was originally used to service the Pilgrim State Psychiatric Center. According to Parks, the spur was to be used by the State, and if the spur was not used for state purposes, it was agreed that the Rail Road could utilize it for their needs. According to Parks, no additional permits were required for use of the spur by New York and Atlantic. (A. Montalvo NYS/DEC)

Peter Scully, the Director of the Long Island Region of the NYSDEC was asked about his opinion on whether or not the land belongs to the State or if the LIRR can let NY&A use it. He declined to respond.

In an August 5, 2010 letter from Carol Ash, then Commissioner of NYS OPRHP, Commissioner Ash wrote a response to Senator Owen Johnson (R-4th Senate District) who has championed the cause of the Preserve as far back as 2006 and had written to her about the renewed activity on the spur.

Dear Senator Johnson:

Thank you for your letter of July 19, 2010 regarding the Edgewood/Sagtikos Parkway Right-of-Way Rail Spur. As you know we are aware of the renewed activity on the spur and in response our Long Island Regional Director Ron Foley met on July 21, 2010 with Bob Clark of New York & Atlantic Railway (NY&AR) as well as Lou Sullo from the LIRR.

At that meeting Mr. Clark explained that a total of 3600’ of rail was recently cleared to temporarily store railroad cars. While we had hoped to examine documentation that describes the conditions under which NY&AR uses the State Park land, no such documents were produced. Since we cannot locate any agreement that may have been executed by the Office of Mental Health (DMH, now OMH) that would afford the LIRR or NY&AR any rights to use the siding we asked both Mr. Clark and Mr. Sullo to provide any documents that would establish their right to use this siding as soon as possible.

They were informed, regardless of what agreements may exist, State Parkland, including the parkways (on which this site is located) is held by OPRHP in trust for current and future generations of New Yorkers as recreational, scenic and natural lands. No work of any kind may take place on State Park property without submitting a plan for approval. That includes, but is not limited to clearing; and the use of pesticides and herbicides is strictly forbidden. The only permission given NY&AR at this time is for clean up of railroad debris and all other litter throughout and adjacent to the siding corridor and that care should be taken for the protection of endangered plant species.
(Carol Ash, Commissioner of Parks August 5, 2010 )

Commissioner Ash gave them an end of August deadline to produce the requested documents or discontinue using the track for any purpose other than the completion of the clean up and Ms. Ash also informed the Senator that “the DEC has two open investigations underway at the site for removal of plants without the permission of the landowner (Parks).”

Within two months of sending this letter challenging the LIRR, Carol Ash was out as Commissioner and Andy Beers was in as Acting Commissioner of OPRHP for the State. Ms. Ash now works in an advisory role for the Alliance for New York State Parks.

Dan Keefe, Deputy Public Information Officer for the NYS OPRPH, provided Freelance Investigations with a copy of both the 1929 sidetrack agreement between the Gardiner family and the Long Island Railroad and the 1996 transfer agreement between the LIRR and NY&A. According to OPRHP they have concluded that these documents do give NY&A the rights to do maintenance on the spur.

In a letter dated November 4, 2010 from Andy Beers to Senator Owen Johnson, Mr. Beers appeared to change the opinion OPRHP had taken earlier, in August under Commissioner Ash. He wrote, “State Parks has received several documents that establish NY&A’s right to utilize the Pilgrim Spur.”

When the spur was first established it was used mostly for passengers, coal and some light supplies, but it was not a freight operation per say, according to Ms. Burkhart.

Mr. Beers insisted that the 1929 agreement entered into between the State and the LIRR giving rights to the LIRR still held- and that the LIRR had assigned those rights over to the NY&A.

Ms. Burkhart insists this is their mistake, the agreement was between the Pilgrim State Hospital (Office of Mental Hygiene) and the LIRR with the permission of the Gardiner family, not with State Parks. "There never was an agreement between State Parks and the LIRR, it was between the hospital and the LIRR, therefore Parks could not give permission." Ms. Burkhart added.

“The NYSDOT has reviewed those documents and concurs that they provide the LIRR and NY&A authorization to operate and conduct maintenance activities on the spur.” according to Mr. Beers’ letter. NY&A has agreed to clean-up debris along the spur and will “maintain good communications during the clean-up.” Andy Beers/NYS OPRHP

Ms. Burkhart claims that OPRHP had been in possession of these same documents as far back as last summer and did not consider them to be reasonable proof that NY&A had rights to the land. She points to the fact that Carol Ash was in possession of these same documents when she wrote her letter stating the land belonged to the State Parks and didn’t consider them enough for NY&A to claim the rights to regenerate the spur and destroy the trees and rare plant life in the process.

Ms. Burkhart believes the LIRR had no right to assign those rights to any other company or entity, according to the sidetrack agreement.

FOR HOSPITAL USE ONLY…?

The next piece of the story is currently the crux of the issue. According to Ms. Burkhart and other local environmental advocates, the permission was granted “FOR HOSPITAL PURPOSES ONLY” as per the sidetrack agreement, which was an addendum to the Gardiner’s will. Ms. Burkhart claims this shows that the LIRR had no right to confer rights to NY&A.

Ms. Burkhart said according to the addendum, it is "not for benefit of any other party not part of this agreement."

Since the hospital has not used the spur since 1980, it has regenerated back to a pitch pine scrub oak forest, which according to the interpretation of the will by Ms. Burkhart and other environmental groups, should be left to grow unfettered.

Pitch pine and scrub oak regenerate after being cut in 2008.

Mr. Dick Amper, the Director of the Pine Barren’s Society spoke to Freelance Investigations regarding the issue in a recent interview and said “Burkhart is right, the Parks Department is wrong.”

Mr. Amper criticized the inaction on the part of politicians in such a serious matter. “It’s been dragging on too long. This is a critical groundwater protection area. The land is too valuable not to protect and we also need to preserve this critical habitat.”

The land and forest in question has regenerated over the spur. It is adjacent to the Pilgrim property and in order to establish a critical wildlife habitat corridor should become a contiguous area of the Edgewood Preserve according to Ms. Burkhart.

Attorney Karen Holmquist of the Mineola law firm of Klemanowicz, Holmquist &VandeStouwe LLP, agreed with Ms. Burkhart and called the Spur property use an "heir ship" issue. “The State hasn’t paid any attention to the Gardiner Will. It is ignoring the deeds transferring the rights, because the will was set up with reversionary rights to return it to the Gardiner Family Estate.” according to Ms. Holmquist.

Ms. Ash left the Parks department in October of last year and went to work as an advisor at the Alliance for New York Parks. According to published reports at the time, it was because she believed she could do more to keep the Parks open if she worked with the non-profit in an advisory position, rather than continue to try to work as Commissioner of Parks for New York, without the proper funding or necessary workers. OPRHP lost more than 1500 employees over the last two years under Governor Patterson- nearly 21% of the total State Parks workforce.

The fact that Carol Ash is still working on behalf of New York parks in any way gives rise to a sliver of hope for the environment on Long Island, according to Ms. Burkhart who believes that the DEC as well as OPRHP has been decimated by the loss of many of the most knowledgeable and ethical members of their agencies over the last few years- due to downsizing and severe budget cuts. Ms. Burkhart wonders "Who will protect the environment now?"

Governor Andrew Cuomo recently named former Open Space Institute (OSI) President, Joe Martens, as the new Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation for New York State and also just appointed Rose Harvey as the new Commissioner of the Office of Parks Recreation and Historical Preservation. Andy Beers is out. Friends of the Edgewood Preserve are hopeful there is now a chance that the OPRHP will reassess the situation.

Some say the Gardiner family is really the only one with standing, to challenge use of the spur by NY&A in court, but to date no legal action has been taken by the Gardiner family.

A letter was sent by Freelance Investigations directly to Mrs. Alexandra Creel Goelet, the Gardiner family heir, in an attempt to clarify the intended meaning of the sidetrack agreement, and ask if they intend to reclaim the land, but it was not responded to at time of publication. Attempts to contact her attorney, were also unsuccessful.

THE INTERMODAL...the Smoking Gun?

Others may try to take matters into their own hands anyway. Dick Amper said “Legally or legislatively we need to complete this to fruition in 2011.”

Mr. Amper said politics is the real reason this issue is stalled. He pointed specifically to Congressman, Jerold Nadler and Governor Paterson as two key political figures involved in this issue. “Congressman Nadler and Governor Paterson have been the key obstructionists in this matter because they are more interested in building the Intermodal than in protecting our drinking water.”

The intermodal is a project that has been proposed for the Pilgrim Site and is considered by some the true smoking gun in this story. The proposed intermodal on the Pilgrim State Property is a rail-truck hub facility being touted by Congressman Nadler and strongly opposed by environmental groups who say the increased truck traffic defeats the purpose of an intermodal and the fact that this land is a critical groundwater protection area, makes it the worst choice for the intermodal project.

Environmentalists including Ms. Burkhart insist this land is already protected by Chapter 635 of the 1987 law and so it is not only a bad idea for the intermodal, it is also illegal, based on this law.

“While we applaud the basic idea of an intermodal to alleviate truck traffic by increasing rail/freight capacity, not on this groundwater protection area and not in the magnitude they propose. You would want several smaller ones strategically located on Long Island, not one mammoth one in the middle, that may not even take the trucks off the road.”, according to Mr. Ampers.

   Google Earth view of Edgewood Preserve/Pilgrim Psychiatric Center/Sagtikos Pkwy/LIE


   FRIENDS OF THE FRIENDS


Environmental groups that support the Friends of Edgewood Preserve and oppose the development on this land include- but are not limited to:

Pine Barrens Society
Sierra Club
Citizens Campaign
Natural Resources Defense Council
Great South Bay Audubon Society
Seatuck Environmental Association
American Littoral Society
Long Island Botanical Society
CLIMB
Parks and Trails NY
Environmental Advocates of NY

Two groups that are not local, but supported the revival of the truck-rail plan (the intermodal) are: Environmental Defense Fund and the New York League for Conservation Voters.

Local environmentalists, charge that these groups have nothing to do with Long Island and ignore the issue of increased truck traffic and its’ impact on the Brentwood area which due to traffic, already suffers severe health problems with a higher than average percentage of persons, suffering from asthma.

After the veto of the original Senate bill by Governor Paterson, Patricia Burkhart wrote a 4-page booklet titled "Averting a Health Crisis and Environmental Disaster in Western Suffolk County". Written in English and Spanish it outlined the reasons why the intermodal is a bad idea...both for the water and the air. She personally developed, paid for and distributed the booklets in the local neighborhoods, including Brentwood, which began a ground swell of concern by residents and their desire for more information and education about this critical groundwater protection area, according to Ms. Burkhart who added it is in its' fifth printing.

(View below shows proximity of Brentwood High School to the proposed LITRIM Intermodal and Pilgrim Spur)

Front cover of Burkhart's Booklet...

On May 11, 2010 Islip Town Board member Trish Bergin-Weichbrodt and the entire Islip Town Board passed and sent what Ms. Bergin-Weichbrodt described as a “sense resolution” regarding the Pilgrim Spur issue to then Governor David Paterson and members of the Assembly and the State Senate. The resolution supported the legislation in the State legislature at the time, for the transfer of approximately 118 acres of land to the Oak-Brush Plains Nature Preserve, which Governor Paterson eventually vetoed. (s.5502-A/A.6156-A)

Though Ms. Bergin-Weichbrodt admitted the resolution had “no teeth”, she said the Board felt it was important to support the land transfer back to the State, as according to the resolution, “The land in question is already under public ownership and was previously ordered protected as part of the Oak- Brush Preserve.”

Friends of Edgewood Preserve Website

To read the entire Senate bill: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/api/1.0/html/bill/S2734-2011

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

2010-12-03T20:36:00.028-05:00

   MACARTHURAIRPORT.COM

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

“We just want our pound of flesh.”

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

advertise.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      WHAT’S IN A NAME?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   McGOWAN HAD NO INTEREST IN WEBSITE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     NOW THE TOWN WANTS THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE

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

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

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

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

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

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

   "ALL WE WANT IS OUR POUND OF FLESH"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Jacques:

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

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

Hi Jacques:

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

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

Hi Steve,

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

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

Hi Jacques,

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

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

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

Short Term
$3.00 per hour
Max charge $25.00

   Thanks,
   Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Jacques Ditte)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…………..

THE DECISION ON THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

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

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

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

Town of Brookhaven

2010-11-16T08:31:00.018-05:00

HISTORIC APPELLATE DECISION in FIRE ISLAND

ZONING BOARD CASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Atkinson pointed out to the Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINS and ABCO defend FIRE ISLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the relief requested will not create an undesirable change in the nature and character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties to require denial of the subject application.
That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.
That the requested variances are not substantial in nature.
That the requested variance will not have an adverse effect on the impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
While the hardship appears self-created, the Board concludes that such determination is insufficient to warrant a denial of the requested relief.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(July 1, 2010)

MAKING A FEDERAL CASE OUT OF IT

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

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

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

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

Mr. Scheyer answered, “Advisory.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONFLICT FOR CHAIRMAN DECHANCE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND THE SURVEY SAYS… THE HOUSE and DECK

ARE DISAPPEARING?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one desired to comment to date.

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

2010-10-29T15:06:00.006-04:00

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

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

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

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

Intellitec’s owner claims the lower bid isn’t always the best financially, after factoring in other variables.

Town Supervisor, Phil Nolan also admitted at the meeting the Town had made errors in what he called "an important contract" saying, "We are acknowledging the mistakes and we are going to correct it."


   THE FIRST BID...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WWS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SECOND BID...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No winning bid was chosen again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE THIRD BID…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Orders Islip Landfill Capped…$16 Million Dollar Deadline

2010-08-11T10:20:00.009-04:00

Supervisor Phil Nolan says…NO NEED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The memo was cc’d to:

Town Board, Town of Huntington

The Oil and Toxic and Flammable Material Spillage Committee Members

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

Lisa Baisley, Personnel Officer

Harry Hennessey Jr., Local 342

Angela Vacerca, Suffolk County Department of Civil Service

Edward Yule Jr., Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other paperwork is similarly missing key pieces of data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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