THE DEPOSITION OF MARLENE BUDD dated April 12, 2001
In the matter of William T. Perks against the Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly as Councilwoman for the Town of Huntington and individually heard in United States District Court of the Eastern District
Present were:
Rains & Pogrebin Lawfirm:
Ernie Stolzer, attorney for Marlene Budd and the Town of Huntington
James (Jim) Clark, attorney for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove, attorney for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Edward Yule, attorney for William Perks
Marlene Budd
William Perks
EXAMINATION of MARLENE BUDD by JASON ABELOVE (Scarpati-Reilly's attorney)
Marlene Budd is currently an elected Family Court Judge in Suffolk County, her term ends in 2016.
Ms. Budd described her responsibilities as the liaison to Parks and Recreation as minimal--limited to policy making decisions or resolutions for necessary equipment or maintenance for the department. Ms. Budd did not believe her job as liaison made her Bob Labua's supervisor nor did she believe she had a right to interfere with personnel concerns, "If they have like policy things, sometimes they will come and say if maybe sometimes if they are having a problem with an employee, they may come to members of the town board and say you know this is what's happening or it usually gets done in executive session."
The next few pages are filled with the physical description of the layout of the Town Hall offices. It was determined that the Councilpersons' offices were in a straight line, they were not soundproof and had floor to ceiling glass walls covered with blinds. Ms. Budd's office adjoined Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's office from 1996 through January of 2001when Ms. Budd took over Steve Israel's office that he had just vacated.
Asked if she knew William Perks, Ms. Budd replied "Yes." She admitted there were times she saw Mr. Perks go into Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's office and close the door, but could not remember how long he stayed in there or how many occasions she saw him in there with the blinds drawn and the door closed.
Ms. Budd did not however say she ever heard anything that might indicate sexual relations were going on behind the closed doors and she could not recall if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly reacted angrily when her assistant Patty knocked on her door to say someone was on the phone for her.
THE TOWN SEAL and the BUDD EXHIBITS...
The next several dozen questions related to proper use of the town seal. Asked if she was a member of the Huntington Smart Growth Steering Committee, Ms. Budd was unsure, "If I am it's news to me."
Then Mr. Abelove showed her an exhibit marked as "Budd Exhibit A".
It was a one page advertisement for Huntington's Smart Growth Steering Committee and the Honorable Marlene Budd's name was at the top of the list and the Town seal was in the bottom right hand corner.
Ms. Budd said her name may have been used without her knowledge as a matter of respect.
Ms. Budd said although she did not know if they asked permission to use the Town seal, there were council members names on it so she did not believe there was any violation of procedure by them using the seal.
At the bottom of the advertisement there was a statement that the views expressed in this series are not necessarily those of the Town of Huntington or of the Town board and Ms. Budd could not say why they would put that there. Asked if despite the fact they weren't necessarily representing the Town board there would be anything wrong with them using the Town seal, Ms. Budd could not say, but she added she did not complain about their use of the Town seal because, "I don't--I don't personally get upset about things like that." she answered.
More questions about use of the seal followed and eventually Mr. Abelove showed "Exhibit Budd B" to the witness. It was a one-page advertisement placed in The Long Islander on November 12, 1998 and the top of the page said thank you Huntington Town. It was paid for by the members of the Town Board, Steve Israel, Susan-Scarpati-Reilly, Mark Cuthbertson and Ms. Budd and according to Ms. Budd it did have the Town seal on it and was meant to convey a letter as it had the Town letterhead on it and the Town seal.
"Exhibit Budd C" was a four page document regarding the Huntington Fall Festival and it had Ms. Budd's name and picture in it. Ms. Budd said she knew of the ad, but didn't draft it and was not sure who paid for it. It might have been Renew Huntington, or Friends of Steve Israel or Friends of Marlene Budd. Ms. Budd said that she did not see any problem with the use of the seal in that ad as it was not in campaign literature and probably approved of it ahead of time, but couldn't remember for sure, but saw no problem with the use of the seal as it was for something the Town was promoting.
"THE BREAKFAST CLUB"
MR. PERKS MEETS WITH MS. BUDD (and Mr. Israel)
Mr. Abelove began to discuss a breakfast meeting at a restaurant called "Mondays" in June of 1998.
Although Ms. Budd thought she recalled the meeting she was not sure of much else relating to it.
Q: (by Abelove) Do you recall having a breakfast with Mr. Perks in or about June of 1998 in a restaurant called Mondays?
A: (by Budd) Yes, I think I did. I'm trying to remember. I think I did.
Q: Do you recall how that breakfast came about?
A; I have no idea. Sorry, it wasn't significant.
Q: I want to see what you do remember about it, if anything. Do you know whether or not you invited Mr. Perks?
A: I doubt it. He probably--I'm trying to remember. I don't recall. I mean to be honest with you I don't know.
Q: Do you know who else was at that breakfast, if anyone?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Was Mr. Israel at that breakfast?
A: Possibly, possibility.
Q: Do you recall whether or not Mr. Perks asked you to go to breakfast that day?
A: He may have. I don't know if it was if he asked or if he asked Steve and Steve asked me to go along. I don't know, I'm not sure.
Q: Besides you and Mr. Israel and Mr. Perks, was there anyone else there that you can recall?
A: No.
Q: Other than this did you have another meal with Mr. Perks at any other time?
A: Not that I can recall.
Q: Ever socialize with Mr. Perks?
A: I say hello, how you doing.
Ms. Budd could only recall one other instance where she met Mr. Perks outside of Town hall and that was a wedding for Don McKay, (Frank Petrone's Public Information Officer and a long time friend of Bill Perks) held at Mr. Perks' home--held after the lawsuit was started, according to Ms. Budd's testimony.
At the breakfast meeting Mr. Perks said they discussed an accident in the Long Island Sound that caused seven power cables transferring power from Long Island to Connecticut to be completely severed by a Texas Oil Barge. The barge had dropped their anchor after they broke loose from the platform and it ended up on the beach at Asharoken. As required by Town code, an inspector was supposed to be on the barge, but no inspector was present the morning of the accident. Bay Constable Richard Rollins was unable to perform the inspection and had notified the Senior Harbormaster at the time, Harold V. Acker. Mr. Acker said he was not feeling well and did not assign anybody else to inspect the barge.
Mr. Perks as the Oil Spill Response Manager, said he should have been called, but was not. As a result there were seven cables severed and hundreds of thousands of gallons of dialectric fluid began to flow freely for several weeks until the cables could be capped and the fourteen splices could be reattached.
Each severed cable required two splices (fourteen in all) and cost over a million dollars each.
At a Town hall meeting LILCO supplied a sample of the dialectric fluid they claimed was safe as baby oil and even safe to drink. Mr. Perks interrupted and offered them one of their own samples to drink as proof...They declined and the meeting ended. The sample was brought to H2M Environmental Consultants for testing and it was determined to have a detrimental effect on the brine shrimp-a source of food for the lobsters. Not long after the accident the lobster population in Long Island Sound suffered a huge decline, according to Mr. Perks and the industry has never recovered. No Environmental Impact Study of the effects of the accident were ever conducted. Nothing came of Senate hearings by Carl Marcellino and the only summonses issued were by Mr. Perks. The DEC took no action and eventually there was a settlement to the Town for approximately $100,000 dollars.
Mr. Acker who originally came under fire, claimed the offshore platform was not in the Town of Huntington's jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Perks said that was ridiculous since Mr. Acker had just spent twenty years inspecting barges and tankers at that facility and issuing permits for the transfer of oil. That didn't stop the Town of Huntington from spending $15,000 to hire the law firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley and they eventually told them it was in the Town's jurisdiction.
Right after the breakfast meeting Marlene Budd and Steve Israel held a press conference concerning the Texas barge multi-million dollar accident at the offshore platform in Long Island Sound.
In the deposition, Ms. Budd could not recall anything discussed at the breakfast meeting, any of the conversation, anything that may have occurred as a result of that breakfast meeting, or even why the meeting was held in the first place.
Q: Do you know what you discussed with Mr. Perks at breakfast at Mondays?
A: I don't remember. What did you say the date was?
Q: I believe it was around June of 1998. Do you have any recollection of when it was?
A: No, I don't.
Q: You don't?
A: If you are saying that's when it was, maybe that's when it was, I don't recall.
Q: Does that sound about right?
A: I don't really remember.
Q: I don't want you to guess.
Q: I don't, I don't remember to be honest.
Q: You don't remember any conversation that happened?
A: No, Not really.
Q: Do you know of anything that may have happened as a result of any conversation that may have happened at that breakfast?
A: What do you mean by anything?
Q: Maybe, you know hypothetically if some course of action was discussed with his department, maybe somebody drafted a resolution or somebody wrote a memo that there was some action taken after the fact, that may refresh your recollection as to the conversation that happened at that breakfast?
A: I don't recall anything, no.
Q: Do you know why you wanted to have breakfast with Mr. Perks?
A: I don't remember.
With that answer Susan Scarpati-Reilly's attorney, Mr. Jason Abelove, ended his examination of Marlene Budd.
EXAMINATION OF MS. BUDD BY MR. EDWARD YULE (Mr. Perks' attorney)
Mr. Yule did a short review of Ms. Budd's professional credentials and Ms. Budd said she had a BA from Stony Brook (1986), a JD from the University of Baltimore Law School (1989) and an LLM from Columbia Law School (1990) and was licensed to practice law both in New York (since 1991) and the District of Columbia.
Ms. Budd said she had her own practice sine 1997 and prior to that worked with Tom Costa (1996-'97)
in Melville. Prior to that she worked with her former husband (1995-'96) and prior to that she worked for Payne, Wood and Littlejohn in Melville and prior to that Lee Perlman in Westbury.
Admitting that she had no experience in criminal law and her practice was primarily commercial litigation, Ms. Budd could not specifically state the difference between harassment and assault, but said she would probably be able to differentiate between the two, even though she was unfamiliar with what the penal law says and eventually she admitted she could not specifically say what the difference between the two was.
Describing her relationship with Susan Scarpati-Reilly as "cordial" and "professional, that's it.", Ms. Budd told Mr. Yule that most of the business the Town does is by resolution.
Mr. Yule asked Ms. Budd to describe the process of how a resolution is first written, discussed, the workshops and ultimately how it goes before the Town board for a vote. Ms. Budd describes the process in great detail over the next few pages and the workshops were said to be the place where the resolutions planning to be submitted would be discussed, community input would be added and sometimes the resolution is co-sponsored in the workshop. Town Attorneys and department heads are included if there are any questions regarding an upcoming resolution, according to Ms. Budd.
Ms. Budd also said that there were times when department heads assigned members of their staff to work on resolutions and she used the environmental bond act as an example.
There was no written directive for the role of liaison, according to her, "It was common sense, I guess."
Ms. Budd did not believe the liaisons would be involved in the direct supervision, discipline or authorization of overtime for any specific employee.
"Budd Exhibit D" was shown to the witness, it was the letter from Susan Scarpati-Reilly that had appeared in Suffolk Life.
Then Ms. Budd says something quite interesting regarding the letter...
Q: (by Mr. Yule) When you read this, what did you think of it, did you think it was truthful?
A: I didn't make any judgments as to the truth or whether it was true or false. I mean that is her opinion, this is her letter.
Q: Does this reflect the opinion of the town board in any way?
A: No, this is her opinion, this is her letter. I mean it wasn't--this is regarding a lawsuit of a personal nature, I mean--
Editor's note: If this was a personal lawsuit, why has the Town paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's attorney, Mr. Abelove? Why have they not tried to recoup Mr. Abelove's fees from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly especially in the personal lawsuits that she initiated?
Mr. Yule then asked Marlene Budd if she ever filed a grievance against Ms. Scarpati-Reilly with the Bar Association because she had published a letter in a local paper "...that accused me of seven or eight crimes so I felt that to protect myself and my reputation that I should file a grievance."
The grievance had been pending since 1997 and there had still been no resolution to the grievance Ms. Budd testified.
The matter was deemed too private and confidential to discuss in the deposition, according to Mr. Stolzer, "We would rather it not be publicly talked about at this point."
Editor's note: This is a cordial and professional relationship?
YOU STALKED MY SON....JUST KIDDING!
Mr. Yule then asked if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had accused Ms. Budd of stalking her son.
Ms. Budd said yes and went on to describe the alleged incident.
This was during my campaign in 1998 and on the day in question I had been to see Mr. Ambro, he was interviewing me the next day. I went into the council office and Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly had asked me, you know, maybe asked me something about my car, was my car outside the front of her house. I said no, I was at this meeting with Ambro and he was interviewing me for the campaign. Why would I do that? And so she let me just--I'm trying to remember, she was saying something along the line, but that was your car and we took down your license plate. I took it as a very serious allegation she was making against me. You know something about his bus was in front of the house, I had been out in front of the house or something when his bus was there, something along those lines having to do with his school. I said no, I wasn't anywhere near your house. I know where she lives because I have heard her address a million times. We know she lives on Fresh Pond Road but I said to her I wasn't there. And then I went into my office and I was talking to another colleague, I said I can't believe this. I mean you know, I'm in the middle of a campaign, like I have time to do something like or I would have time to do something like this. So, I was offended by it. And then shortly thereafter I was given a note by Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly along the lines it was just a joke, don't take it too seriously, I was just having fun with you kind of thing." (Budd deposition pages 60-61)Ms. Budd did not find the situation to be a joke and later admitted there were times when Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had made representations to the Town Board that she later found out were not true, "Right, occasionally that has happened." Mr. Yule then asked if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had ever lied directly to Ms. Budd regarding anything. "Has she lied, do I believe she has lied to me, yes." Ms. Budd testified.
THREATS AND INTIMIDATION?
Mr. Yule asked about any other persons that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly may have threatened or intimidated.
Q: What about has she threatened anyone with criminal action not involving yourself but anyone else that is (has) she threatened anyone with criminal action?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell me about that?
She charged my colleague, Councilman Steve Israel with a criminal action saying that he took a bribe from Klar regarding the Highview homes, Highview Huntington homes. She said that Thelma Neira engaged in criminal activity. I believe. From my recollection she accused not just me, but Thelma Neira of engaging in criminal activity. She has--I know there is somebody else in there, George Hoffman she accused of filing a police report. I'm trying to think if there is anything else of a criminal nature. DeMatina. Tom DeMatina I believe she was involved in getting that out. Other than that I don't remember. (pages 63-64 Budd deposition)
Ms. Budd could not recall if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had accused Ms. Carpenter of a crime and was not sure if the Town hired an attorney for Ms. Neira or if she had to hire her own and they reimbursed her,
"I know there was an issue about that. I don't recall. I'm not sure. I know that issue came up. It was resolved somehow." she testified.
Asked about the nature of the allegation against Ms. Neira:
Editor's note: Cordial and Professional relationship?
It was regarding an interoffice memo from Thelma to myself regarding the DeMatina matter and whether or not we should formalize something to the district attorney's office as to whether the town wanted them to move ahead or not, something along those lines and somehow she accused us of interfering with a criminal investigation and engaging in criminal activity because of an interoffice memo.
THE FACT FINDER RESOLUTION and MEDIA REPORTS
Ms. Budd was unaware that the investigation into the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station of February 28, 1999 was still ongoing. She testified she thought it ended when the report by the Fact Finder was "accepted" through resolution, according to her.
The investigation did not end with Fact Finder's report as they recommended further action including forwarding the report to the New York State Attorney General and the Suffolk County District Attorney's office. By Town Board Resolution (that Ms. Budd voted on) the Fact Finder's Report was sent to the Town Ethic's Board. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly later sued the Ethic's Board and it's Chairman, Howard Glickstein (former Dean of Touro Law School).
Not making any judgments about the report's findings, Ms. Budd said "It was what it was."
Ms. Budd was shown "Budd Exhibit E", the resolution appointing the Fact Finder on March 9, 1999.
When asked what media reports brought about the discussion and ultimate passing of the March 9th resolution, Ms. Budd did not hesitate and listed: The Long Islander, and the Huntington News, The Observer, I believe Newsday, I think there were also, I think it was on News 12, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11 as far as I know. It was on a number of TV stations."
Asked if any of these reports used the word "assault", she replied that they had to do with "sexual harassment"..."not necessarily on the assault".
Ms. Budd then admitted the resolution did not mention anything about sexual harassment, but used the word assault but she had no idea who drafted the resolution or whether or not there had ever been any discussion about it.
Ms. Budd eventually said it was probably The Long Islander and the Huntington News or The Observer that the drafter of the resolution, whoever that was, was talking about when he wrote the resolution hiring the Fact Finder, Mr Labush.
Editor's note: At the time of the resolution, there were no media reports using the word assault.
When asked to provide the press clips usually attached to all resolutions...there were none.
Ms. Budd said the town paid Mr. Labush about $80,000 dollars for the Fact Finder's Report and she believed the town board did authorize the town attorney's office to contact the district attorney's office regarding this allegation of Susan Scarpati-Reilly, but did not know if it was ever done.
Ms. Budd said there were discussions of the Incident at the Mobil Oil Station of February 28, 1999 during the executive sessions and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly made basic general denials, but couldn't say if she was involved in discussions regarding the March 9th resolution or specifically participated in the actual wording of the resolution with Town Attorney, Jim Matthews. She did not believe she was, as she had to recuse herself from the vote.
Ms. Budd said that after Feb 28, 1999 it was fair to say that rumors about an affair between Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and jokes were more common around town hall. Mr. Perks said one of the many jokes told to him about the relationship with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was "Mr. Perks is dancing with an eight hundred pound gorilla and wasn't going to know what to do when the music stops."
For the next few pages Ms. Budd discussed when she learned about the sexual harassment charges made against the dog warden and when the town finalized a sexual harassment policy. She was not sure when either event had occurred.
According to Mr. Perks, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was writing the sexual harassment policy for the Town, while they were having an affair. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly sexually harassed Mr. Perks, according to a jury verdict in United States District Court, but he was awarded no monetary damages.
Ms. Budd told Mr. Yule that Mr. DeGregorio, the Town Attorney and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly were "Close, very close." She did not believe the Town had authorized either Bob DeGregorio or Jim Matthews, to meet with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly regarding the incident of February 28, 1999.
Although Ms. Budd could not give a specific number, when asked how many grievances Mr. Perks had filed against the town, she said, "A lot, that's all I know. It's probably more than ten." Ms. Budd did not believe it would be proper for a liaison of the town board to lobby the union to file a grievance on behalf of a town employee and she said she would not call the department head she was a liaison to after hours unless it were an emergency or crisis situation.
Mr. Yule then broached the subject of the resolution passed abolishing the Department of Environmental Control (this caused Mr. Perks to be assigned to the landfill). Ms. Budd could not recall if Mr. Perks was assigned to the Department of Waste Management (the landfill) after the Department of Environmental Control was abolished by Town Board resolution.
Mr. Perks was the only harbormaster in New York State working at a closed landfill, next to a newly installed radiation detector that was continuously going off. Mr. Perks filed a complaint with Suffolk County Civil Service asking for a desk audit because he was working out of title. Two years later Mr. Perks was working as a hazardous materials coordinator and was the only person in Huntington Town to have two people sign his payroll. Eventually, he refused the appointment of the new title and the Town of Huntington sent him back to Harbors and Waterways.
Ms. Budd testified it would not be her place as a councilperson to issue fines or summonses for oil spills, that would be up to the harbormaster and she had no idea if the town gave Mr. Perks a uniform to wear.
When asked about an emergency response plan and if the town board ever approved of one Ms. Budd answered: "I know we had dealt with the issue as a result of oil spills and around the Lilco plant we may have adopted a policy. I don't know the specifics." She was not sure if it was a result of Lilco oil spills or not. She said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had filed two or three lawsuits in the last three years and after working with her in numerous meetings and having discussions in town hall with many people regarding her, she believed Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was not truthful and she stated in Newsday's "Talk of the Town" "Any time she ( Ms. Scarpati-Reilly) has a disagreement with somebody, she accuses people of things."
Mr. Yule then ended his examination after a brief recess...
Editor's note: In 2001 the Town of Huntington was cited by the New York State Labor Department for the major violation of not having an emergency response plan. The draft plan they had submitted was filled with empty pages, had no table of contents and had no key names and numbers to call in case of an emergency and no Town Board resolution accepting it. Mr. Perks said "I had filed a grievance for no response plan as far back as 1996 I left the Town in 2002 and it still was not completed."
FURTHER EXAMINATION by MR ABELOVE
Ms. Budd told Mr. Abelove (Susan Scarpati-Reilly's attorney) that she is a Democrat and although the other Town Board members really care whether or not a Republican or Democrat would win the Town Board seat in the upcoming November election, she did not really care.
Although she did not think Mr. Perks had a reputation for being untruthful, Ms. Budd did think he had a reputation for filing grievances but she could not say whether they had merit or not.
Mr. Abelove then asked Ms. Budd if she ever heard of rumors about her and Representative Steve Israel...(Ms. Budd was married to someone else at the time and so was Mr. Israel, eventually both divorced their partners and Mr. Israel and Ms. Budd married..they eventually also divorced each other.)
Ms. Budd answered:
"Are there rumors, yes there is rumors."
Q: Are they unfounded?
A: There are a lot of rumors around town hall about a lot of different people. A rumor is a rumor. I don't have any factual basis.
Q: Do you have any factual knowledge to think there was a sexual relationship between the councilwoman and Mr. Perks?
A: No. I can't keep track of all the rumors in town hall.
The questions shifted to the criminal complaints made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and how Ms. Budd came to be aware of them. "Because I had to hire an attorney and I was before the DA's office in Nassau regarding accusations." Ms. Budd had to appear regarding charges made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly against Thelma Neira, according to her. Mr. Petrone was the one who informed Ms. Budd that Ms. Scarapti-Reilly had made the complaint against her, Ms. Budd testified, but she had no idea how he had come to know that.
Editor's note: Cordial and professional relationship?
Mr. Abelove then attempted to press Ms. Budd about "Budd Exhibit G" and Mr. Stolzer refused to have her answer any more questions relating to the exhibit. The exhibit was then described as a two-page letter from the Suffolk County DA's office, signed by Arthur Scheuermann, the assistant DA from the Public Integrity Bureau dated October 16, 1996. The letter was addressed to then Councilman Musnug and in response to Mr. Stolzer's objection it was marked for a ruling as it went to whether or not the councilwoman did initiate such a charge. The letter had been copied to Mr. Petrone, to Ms. Budd, to Councilman Israel, to Susan Scarpati-Reilly and Larry Keegan (Creegan...correct spelling)) in his capacity as town attorney.
Mr. Stolzer and Mr. Abelove then played verbal volleyball arguing about whether or not Ms. Budd called the charges made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly false or not, whether Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was truthful or untruthful or if the matter was even related to this lawsuit. Mr. Stolzer said "Rumors aren't going to prove one way or another what happened."
Mr. Stolzer then refused to have Ms. Budd answer any more questions on the matter, marking it for a ruling with the magistrate.
Mr. Abelove then asked one more question:
Q: Are you aware of an Article 75 Petition that was filed by the Town of Huntington against Mr. Perks?
A: Yes.
Ms. Budd was not sure if it were ever filed, she thought it was as it had definitely been discussed, but she could not say if the grounds were insubordination or anything else more specific.
Mr. Abelove ended his examination...
Mr. Yule asked a few more questions of Ms. Budd about whether or not the town board passed a resolution or anything in writing directing Mr. Matthews not to talk to Susan Scarpati-Reilly, but the issue then became if the discussion were held in public session or executive session---the public portion would be able to be disclosed, but conversations in executive session are privileged, so this was also marked for a ruling, this time by Mr. Yule.
Mr. Abelove then questioned Ms. Budd again asking if she knew of a criminal charge filed by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly against anyone else besides Mr. Perks. Ms. Budd reiterated her statements about the charges Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had brought against Assistant Town Attorney, Thelma Neira regarding an interoffice memo that purportedly interfered with an investigation of Mr. DeMatina. Ms. Budd recalled seeing the document transferring the case from Suffolk to the Nassau District Attorney because of a conflict of interest for the Suffolk Office.
Editor's note: Cordial and professional?
Ms. Budd said she believed Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had filed assault charges against Mr. Perks based on quotes she had made in the paper.
Ms. Budd also testified again about the allegations made against her by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly in the aforementioned letter. The letter was to be produced without argument by Mr. Stolzer when requested by both Mr. Abelove and Mr. Yule.
The only other accusation Ms. Budd could recall was the one Ms. Scarpati-Reilly made against Mr. Israel regarding the alleged bribe to Mr. Klar in exchange for a seat. Because the discussion took place in the public portion, it ended up in the newspaper according to Ms. Budd.
The letter (Budd Exhibit G) was specifically asked for from the DA's office by Donald Musgnug, according to Ms. Budd, but that was just hearsay she said.
One last topic was covered by Mr. Yule and that was the issue of whether or not Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had accused Mr. George Hoffman of portraying himself as her, dressed up in drag and filing the police report against Mr. Perks. Later, Ms. Scarapti-Reilly admitted she lied and misled the papers and eventually wrote a letter apologizing for misleading the press and the public by publicly accusing Mr. Hoffman of that.
Editors' note: No charges were ever filed with the Ethic's Board against Ms. Scarpati-Reilly on behalf of Mr. Hoffman.
Then Ms. Budd testified Ms. Scarpati-Reilly told her she was in fear for her life from Mr. Perks, but could not recall when she said it and she did not know if she was instructed to go to the police or get an order of protection.
The 115 page deposition was certified on May 24, 2001.
The Deposition of Joseph (Jodi) Anastasia was taken on March 19, 2001
Present were:
Rains & Pogrebin P.C.
Ernie Stolzer, attorney for the Defendant Town of Huntington
James (Jim) Clark, attorney for the Defendant Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove, attorney for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Edward Yule, attorney for William Perks
Also present:
Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Lisa Baisley: Personnel Director for Town of Huntington
William Perks
EXAMINATION BY OF MR. JOSEPH (JODI) ANASTASIA by MR. YULE
Mr. Joseph Anastasia was working for the Town of Huntington as the Director of Maritime Services for about three years at the time of his deposition in this case. Prior to that he worked for four years for a company called the National Response Corporation in Calverton, New York. Prior to coming to the Town, he was to be certified as an environmental trainer for the same company. His job description included responding to various ecological and environmental disasters in this country and in foreign countries as well. One year at a job called Spectra Loom in Glen Cove had Mr. Anastasia working with industrial lighting just before he worked in Calverton.
Prior to that, Mr. Anastasia served 22 years in the Coast Guard. He earned an associates degree from Young Harris in Georgia. Mr. Perks was the person who called Mr. Anastasia in 1998 and asked him to submit a resume for a job opening in the Town. They had been friends since 1975, according to Mr. Anastasia.
During the interview he never said Mr. Perks was the best man at his wedding despite the fact that he had three brothers and Mr. Perks said, "When he learned of my troubles he dropped me faster than a dress on prom night." Since Mr. Perks was the Bay Constable and Mr. Anastasia had been in the Coast Guard, they had much in common and worked together for many years prior and had been best of friends, according to Mr. Perks, something Mr. Anastasia never said in either of his depositions.
His initial interview with the Town was with Susan Scarpati-Reilly, then Frank Petrone, then subsequent meetings with Councilman Israel, Councilwoman Budd and Councilman Cuthbertson. He also interviewed with the Harbor Boating Advisory Council.
While waiting for the department he was hired to head to be approved by the State of New York and Suffolk County, he worked under the Department of Planning and Environment. Eventually he was sworn in as the overseer of three divisions:
Harbors and Waterways: The Bay Constable and Harbormaster's Office handle law enforcement activities on the water.
Beaches, Marinas and Docks Division: Maintain docks, ramps and all seven beaches in the Township.
Waterways Supervisory Division: The administrative arm of Maritime Services deals with the scientists (senior environmentalists) and the high tech scientific data that comes out of Maritime Services. This also includes supervisors who deal with the bay men, lobster men and the ecosystem.
In April of 1999, Mr. Anastasia was interviewed by Gerald Labush, the Fact Finder hired by the Town to investigate the incident of February 28, 1999. He told the attorneys that Mr. Perks worked as the oil spill response manager, first under Peter Waznys for a short time and then under Phil Nolan who became the Director of Environmental Waste Management. He also had the title harbormaster simultaneously, something Mr. Anastasia said he was aware of, but he did not believe he was carrying out the harbormaster responsibilities at the same time that he was oil spill response manager.
Mr. Anastasia admitted that although Mr. Perks did not technically work for him, he carried him on his budget line, although he did not understand why it was done that way. He did sign his paychecks along with Phil Nolan, but usually Josephine Jahier or Mr. Nolan would handle vacation or pay issues and then provide that information to Mr. Anastasia.
Mr. Anastasia could not recall anything in writing regarding a uniform and insisted that Mr. Perks never worked for him as harbormaster and he said he had seen Mr. Perks in Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's office on occasion.
I'LL NEVER FORGET WHAT'S HIS NAME...or Back to the Future Testimony....
Then the deposition became memorable...and confusing...
The discussion centered around a phone call from Mr. Perks to Mr. Anastasia on the night of the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station, a call that woke him from a sound sleep.
When deposed in April of 1999 by the Fact Finder shortly after the February 28, 1999 incident, Mr. Anastasia never said that Mr. Perks told him during that call that he had hit Ms. Scarpati-Reilly that night. Now however, two years later he was changing his testimony and saying that his memory of that night and what was said was clearer and now he distinctly remembered it another way.
Asking about the call:
Q: (by Mr. Yule) What did he say?
A: (by Mr. Anastasia) He made the statement that "I'm in trouble."
Q: Did you ask him why?
A: Before that even came out, he went into it again you are talking to me about trying to understand the voice and the excitement and my main point was, calm down, relax. "I'm in trouble." "Why?" And I asked, "What happened?" He mentioned "I hit her" or something like that. I think, I don't know if that was the case or did I- there was so many things coming at you.
Q: You said , you think he said "I hit her."
A: I think that I'm saying that in the confusion of the conversation, Bill made that statement to me.
Q: Do you remember that?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Do you think your recollection is better now of what happened or closer to the time?
A: Probably now.
Then Mr. Yule put the transcript of the Fact Finders deposition of Mr. Anastasia dated April 5, 1999 into evidence and showed it to Mr. Anastasia.
Q: When the Fact Finder asked you this question, "And who called you and could you relate what was said or told to you at the time." Is it fair to say you never said that Perks told you that he hit the councilwoman correct?
A: That is correct sir.
Q: Just to make it clear, you are saying that your memory of what was said to you that night is better now, today, March 19, 2001 than it was on April 5, 1999 two months after the incident?
A: Two Months?
Q: After February 28 incident.
A: Could you repeat that again, sir?
After repeating the question and a brief request to speak to his lawyer before answering (that was denied) Mr. Anastasia answered:
From what I recall, which I did not bring it up at the time because I just was scared, if you want to use a better terminology, never having done this before in my life, sitting before any kind of formal or informal lawyer situation, that is one of the things I have kept inside of me from day one he stated to me on the phone that night. I never said--I didn't think it was what I heard. He made that statement. I never stated it to the Fact Finder, never said it to anybody until right now, here.Q: So when the Fact Finder gave this statement it wasn't truthful?
Mr. Clark: Objection.
You can answer.
A: Say that again.
Q: When you gave your statement to the Fact Finder at a deposition like you are doing here today, you swore to tell the truth, right?
A: I didn't recall it at the time.
Q: You didn't recall what at that time?
A: I didn't recall that at the time.
Q: You didn't recall what at the time?
A: That he had made that statement to me on the phone that night because it was so confusing.
Q: You remember it two years later?
A: I said if I think he said that to me. I did state that from the start. I am only telling you what I thought?
Q: You are sure--
A: Can I withdraw it?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: Then you are not sure?
A: I am not sure.
Q: Cooperating with the Fact Finder, being on the job basically a year, you would want to be as honest as you could be?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Things were more fresh in your mind then about what happened than you are now, right?
A: That's probably true.
Q: By the way, right before this phone call you were sleeping, right?
A: As I stated, yes.
Mr. Anastasia then said he told Mr. Perks to speak to his supervisor about taking some emergency time off, but hedged when asked if he told him to get an attorney, even though he was presented with those exact words from the earlier Fact Finder deposition that said he did tell him to get a lawyer.
Questions shifted to the Town's sexual harassment policy. Mr. Anastasia did not recall receiving a copy when he was hired, but said if there were an issue with sexual harassment it would go through Lisa Baisley, the Town of Huntington's personnel director. He could not recall who originally told him of the Town's sexual harassment policy, then for the record, he and his attorney left the room.
When they returned a short time later, Mr. Yule asked Mr. Anastasia if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had ever spoken to him about Mr. Perks' job performance. He did not recall. He and Mr. Nolan did have discussions about Mr. Perks regarding clarification of his pay line, according to the transcript.
Originally, the responsibility for issuing oil transfer permits came out of the Division of Harbors and Waterways, according to Mr. Anastasia, but someone transferred that responsibility to Waste Management, Mr. Anastasia said, but he was unsure if the oil spill response manager (Mr. Perks) was given the authority to issue oil transfer permits. He did not know if anyone in Public Safety was allowed to issue summonses and said he believed that was the job of the bay constables and the harbor master's office.
Mr. Anastasia was vague when asked if he and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly discussed Mr. Perks gun being taken away. His testimony seemed to cause him great anguish and Mr. Yule asked him about it.
Q: When you say a lot was going on, how would you characterize--I can see your anguish, I am trying to get a sense of what you mean.
A: You have to understand, I am trying to recall stuff that I have just put out of my mind, to be honest with you. It wasn't dealing with me, I put it out of my mind. I'm trying to remember stuff, I would only be guessing. There was too much going on to try and pinpoint here and there dates. To be honest with you, I don't know. Mr. Anastasia admitted for the record that he was uncomfortable both times he was deposed.
Mr. Perks at one point had done a Dock Inventory for the Town and was temporarily assigned to environmental control, but Mr. Anastasia said Mr. Yule should ask the Town Board why Mr. Perks' pay came out of his budget line. "You have to ask the Town Board why they did that. I have no clue."
Mr. Anastasia was then asked if he was aware of a request by Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly
for Mr. Perks to attend a New York State Conservation beach erosion meeting as her representative in November of 1998. He was not aware of that he said.
Mr. Anastasia said for the record that he was subpoenaed in Mr. Perks' divorce case but wasn't sure if that was before or after the February 1999 incident.
The conversation shifted to the phone call that night and Mr. Yule asked Mr. Anastasia if as his friend he told him to not say anything else and get an attorney.
A: As a friend I was telling him because he mentioned his divorce and mentioned talking to a lawyer and in the context of conversation, the excitement of what's happening, you basically say, you don't say anything, speak to a lawyer. That's basically what you are telling him knowing that he was going through a divorce at the time.
Q: Did you say to him quote, "Don't say anymore. The best thing to do is talk to a lawyer and go from there?"
A: Pretty much, yes.
Mr. Anastasia said he had a discussion with Mr. Perks about his carrying his firearm, for which he had a permit. He left it up to Mr. Perks' discretion he said as to whether he should continue to carry it. He said he never knew Mr. Perks to ever be physically violent, but some of his staff had expressed concerns over his carrying the gun at work. Glen Holz and Trudy Shannon both came to him and expressed concern he testified. He could not say when and after Mr. Yule pressed him he eventually said they had made a "passing comment" to him.
The carrying of a weapon was at the direction of a Town Board resolution, according to Mr. Perks and it required him to not only purchase a firearm, become trained at the Suffolk County Police Academy but also to carry the gun at all times while on duty and to be certified annually. Mr. Perks said it was not discretionary according to Suffolk County rules and regulations. Shortly after, Mr. Perks was told by Mr. Acker that he had failed the re-certification test, but he refused to show him the test results, refused to provide any additional training or chance to be re-certified. Prior to that Mr. Perks had always passed the test and was considered an expert marksman. "They took my badge and my gun and put me at the landfill as a harbormaster..the handwriting was on the wall, they wanted me out because I was making a stink about the radiated waste being burned in the Ogden Martin incinerator."
After a few more questions about the draft of the Dock inventory, Mr. Yule ended his examination and Mr. Abelove and the Attorneys hired by the Town had no questions of the witness at all.
Mr. Abelove submitted the following legal bills to the Town for the Perks' cases..
In Feb. of 2001 billed for 51.7 hours of work for $8,297.50
In March of 2001 billed for 64.9 hours of work for $11,357.60
In April of 2001 billed for 148.6 hours of work for $26,974.02
In July of 2001 billed for 53.4 hours of work for $$10,058.20
In August of 2001 billed for 55.2 hours of work for $$10,291.60
In September of 2001 Mr. Abelove charged Huntington Town for an unspecified number of hours for a total of $6,785.78
In November of 2001 billed for 66.9 hours of work for $11,707.50
In December of 2001 Mr. Abelove submitted two bills, one for 15.6 hours of work for $2,730.00 and the other for 37.5 hours for $6,562.50
Total hours billed 2001 approximately 501.3 hours at $94,764.70
In 2002 Mr Abelove submitted the following bills to Huntington Town for legal services for Susan Scarpati-Reilly:
March 1, 2002 billed for 93.4 hours of work for $17,439.49
March 8, 2002 billed for 48.25 hours of work for $11, 375.00
April 2002 billed for 715.15 hours of work for $11, 693.25
May 1, 2002 billed for 1.9 hours for $332.00
May 31, 2002 billed for 11 hours for $1,925.00
Total hours billed 2002 approximately 896 at $42,764.74
Rains & Pogrebin billed the Town of Huntington for the following legal fees for the Perks' cases.
October of 1999 billed for 42.2 hours for $7,288.50
November 1999 billed for 42.6 hours for $6,745.00
December 1999 billed 13.6 hours for $2,382.00
Total hours 1999 approximately 98.4 hours at $16,415.50
January 2000 billed 7.6 hours for $1,237.00
February 200 billed 3.5 hours for $$612.50
March 2000 billed 22.0 hours for $3,577.00
April 2000 billed 1.7 hours for $297.50
May 2000 billed 18.2 hours for $3,044.00
June 2000 billed 11.6 hours for $1,978.00
July 2000 billed 9.6 hours for $1,596.00
August 2000 billed for 5.6 hours for $962.00
September 2000 billed for 12.7 hours for $2,222.50
October 2000 billed for 31.0 hours for $14,425.00
November 2000 billed for 28.4 hours for $4,970.00
December 2000 billed for 4.0 hours for $700.00
Total hours 2000 approximately 155.9 hours at $35,621.50
January 2001 billed 28.4 hours for $4,778.00
February 2001 billed 25.2 hours for $4,116.00
March 2001 billed 61.1 hours for $10,302.50
April 2001 billed 87.3 hours for $13, 599.50
May 2001 billed 75.7 hours for $12,698.00
June 2001 billed 28.8 hours for $4,956.00
July 2001 billed 38.7 hours ? (hours not listed..just total money) $6,532.50
August 2001 billed 75.7 hours for $11,946.50
September 2001 billed 11.0 hours for $1,799.00
October 2001 billed 16.7 hours for $2,622.50
November 2001 billed 35.2 hours for $5,734.00
December 2001 billed 55.4 hours for $9,415.50
Total hours 2001 approximately 539.2 at $88,500
January 2002 billed 41.0 hours for $6,784.50
February 2002 billed 23.0 hours for $4025.00
March 2002 billed 12.1 hours for 2,117.50
April 2002 billed 1.8 hours for $315.00
May 2002 billed 29.3 hours for $5,127.50
June 2002 billed 11.1 hours for $1,942.50
July 2002 billed 5.5 hours for $962.00
August 2002 billed 12.8 hours for $2,240.00
September 2002 billed 1.0 hour for $175.00
October 2002 billed .3 hours for $52.50
November 2002 billed .4 hours for $70.00
December 2002 billed 16.7 hours for $2,992.50
Total hours 2002 approximately 155.0 at $26,824.50
Freelance Investigation FOILED for any and all legal bills related to the various Perks' cases:
We received only a small amount of the total bills, several years were missing, the Fact Finder's Report payments were missing, though also Foiled for. The bills themselves in many cases were missing key pieces of information including hours worked, dates, worked performed and breakdown of bills.
Mr. Frank Petrone is the highest paid Supervisor on all of Long Island and he has the highest payouts for legal fees to outside council even though Huntington is not the largest Town.
Editor's note:
In Newsday today (Emily C Dooley) wrote an article titled "Petrone Begins Sixth Term".
In it Mr. Frank Petrone stated "I want to complete the unfinished business" ....this lawsuit is in it's 15th year...it has cost millions of dollars and is not finished yet...Do you think that this case is what he was talking about?
Later this week: The Depositions of Mark Cuthbertson and Susan Scarpati-Reilly...
(You might as well read them...you paid a lot of money for them....)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete