THE REPORTS......Tell the Tale...
This is the second act of a story that needed to be told in several parts...the details are quite extensive and when looked at closely should leave one asking over and over..."And for this the taxpayers have paid how many millions of dollars in legal fees?"
Though one might wish this were all a bad practical joke...unfortunately it is not. Since this political soap opera was and is being played out over fourteen years at taxpayer expense...the details belong to you...and will continue to be presented. All information is based on interviews, documents, reports, depositions and legal papers.
So..to bring those of you who did not read Act I (available by going to the October 24, 2013 article in the blog archives on the left side of this article), here is a synopsis...
The first act of the story began in 1996 and went through 1999 when we found a Town employee revealing to the Town of Huntington officials they were in violation of State Labor Laws requiring an emergency evacuation plan and manual be available. Despite Frank Petrone's background as the Director of FEMA for the entire East Coast of the United States, as Supervisor of the Town, he failed to comply with the Right-To Know and other laws as requested by William Perks, then the Town's Oil Spill Response Manager and Harbormaster. Eventually the Town was cited for non-compliance of major violations. No fines were leveled against the Town. Mr. Perks went to the State Attorney General; C. Michael Higgins and complained, the Town "lawyered" up and Mr. Higgins told Mr. Perks, "Well they are doing the right thing now." Apparently, that was not the case, they never told employees about their exposure to the radiation and to this day, they continue to deny any burning of radiated waste ever occurred, according to Mr. Perks.
Mr. Perks was also alarmed when he learned that radiated garbage was being burned at Ogden Martin (now called Covanta) the Town's Waste-To-Energy Incinerator. It had contaminated the steel that was shipped to Gershow Recycling in Medford. When they shipped it back to Huntington because it was "hot" or radiated, it was burned in the Town's Incinerator. Then a radiation detector was installed at Ogden Martin and alarms went off over and over many times. Instead of providing Haz-Mat gear for the workers at the incinerator, the background level of radiation of the detector was raised so high--almost nothing would set it off. Mr. Perks began to file grievances. He also admits to having an affair with a Town Councilwoman for the tony, "Gold Coast Town of Huntington" and she ended filing a police report accusing him of harassment. That harassment was turned into an "assault" charge by Frank Petrone when the Town Board passed a Resolution submitted by Mr. Frank Petrone and seconded by Steve Israel, then a Town Councilman for Huntington. They did it in order to hire a $250/hour Fact-Finder to determine the true facts of the"Incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station" as the night of the complaint became to be known. Although supposedly based on media reports of an assault...no media accounts of an assault have ever been produced by the Town Board members who made the Resolution to hire the Fact Finder. In fact when deposed most had amnesia on the topic.
Mr. Perks alleged an affair took place between himself and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, who was his "de-facto" supervisor on the Oil Spill Response Unit. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly has always denied there was an affair.
Mr. Perks' made statements under oath to the Fact Finder, Gerald Labush and admitted while the affair took place, he received special treatment by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. This was confirmed by other employees interviewed by the Fact-Finder, who likened her to a sponsor or a booster with regard to Mr. Perks. When he tried to end the affair, he said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly became angry and vindictive. The completed, $70,000 dollar, 33 page report was submitted to the Town Board on May, 25, 1999 and distributed to the media and the public.
ACT TWO
Scene One:
FACT FINDERS REPORT GOES TO THE ETHICS BOARD
On June 1, 1999, the Town Board issued another Resolution, no. 1999-380 referring to the report of the Independent Fact Finder , pursuant to Town Board Resolution 1999-184, submitting the Fact Finder Report to the Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure for appropriate action. This Resolution was submitted by Steve Israel (now a Congressman) and seconded by Marlene Budd, (now a Family Court Judge).
"Whereas the Fact Finder Report reveals the potential misuse of public funds in that it states that "...an employee was told he would have to pay the monetary costs of a social relationship..." and that such conduct"...raises serious questions of propriety and legality." (page 27 of Report) and concludes "This violates both the Town's own code of ethics and raises serious concerns under Article 195 of the Penal Law "Offenses Against Public Administration." (page 28 of the Report, and whereas the Fact Finder also found "...serious questions are raised whether these allegations constitute the crime of "Official Misconduct," New York State Penal Law 195" (Page 31 of the Report). RESOLUTION No. 1999-380
The Resolution passed 4 ayes and Susan Scarpati-Reilly abstained.
THE FACT-FINDER'S REPORT
In the prologue of the Report (see Act I) it was noted that the Fact-Finder believed it may never be known with certainty who was telling the truth about what happened in the Mobil Oil parking lot that night but Mr. Labush in his "Conclusions" of the Report cites facts he says "Are established by a clear preponderance of the evidence."
The Scarpati-Reilly Relationship:
The evidence that an exceptionally close personal relationship existed between Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly is beyond doubt. This was manifested by the personal interest Ms. Scarpati-Reilly took in the advancement of Mr. Perks' career, her "sponsorship" of him, both directly and indirectly, according to the testimony of employees. Perks became the central day to day person in charge of the Oil Spill Response Team and because he was so difficult to get along with, according to those employees from Harbors and Waterways, his move to Town Hall gave Mr. Perks not just a distinct lack of normal chain of command supervision, but he received significant amounts of overtime pay, making him the highest paid Town employee except for Frank Petrone, the Town Supervisor.
This bred resentment among other employees of the Harbors and Waterways division, described in the report by employees as Perks' "fiefdom" he obtained through an "Implicit if not explicit agreement between Perks and Scarpati-Reilly that went beyond Town business.", according to the Fact Finder's Report.
Mr. Harry Acker used to have Mr. Perks as his boss. He was now in charge of Harbors and Waterways, and Mr. Perks contended back then, he did not follow requirements for protection of employees and he failed to enforce the labor laws with regard to blood born pathogens or Haz-Mat issues. When told there was no emergency response plan and told about other environmental issues that were ultimately sustained by the Labor Department, he said "It's no big deal", to Mr. Perks. This was causing even more friction internally, so Mr. Perks went to the Labor Department.
Mr. Labush wrote that whether or not Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had an affair was "beyond the scope of this report but the manner in which it affected the actions of both Perks and Scarpati-Reilly was relevant to matters investigated in the report." Mr. Perks claimed he was told by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly that because she had helped him to obtain his overtime compensation, he should be the one to pay their expenses when they were together. Mr. Perks produced receipts from the Mohonk Mountain House for an August weekend they allegedly spent together that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly asked him to take so her husband wouldn't find them, according to Mr. Perks.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly declined to answer questions from the Fact Finder regarding the Mohonk House receipts that had her name on them from her credit card account, according to the report.
PERKS FOR PERKS
Their relationship became problematic because Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was his supervisor and "protector" as described by other employees interviewed.
As his"booster...hook...supporter...if the price for this support was not based on job performance alone, but Mr. Perks said he was told he would have to pay the monetary costs of a social relationship he shared with a "de-facto" supervisor, this raises serious questions of propriety and legality. The payment of money and things of value in return for advancement in the workplace is unacceptable, and if true, is illegal. Here Perks believed and the evidence strongly supports this belief, that he was expected to pay the costs of the relationship, with a de-facto supervisor, who was also an elected Town official. This violates both the Town's code of ethics and raises serious concerns under Article 195 of the Penal Law "Offenses Against Public Administration."Perks said he was told he was going to lose his job, that he would be terminated, that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly would demand his resignation and make him beg for his job as she dangled a memo drafted threatening him with one investigation into him or another. This became almost ritual, according to Mr. Perks and he wanted out.
Mr. Perks' statements "Are supported by the testimony of other Town employees regarding Susan Scarpati-Reilly's attempts to have Mr. Perks' day to day activities be monitored by Phil Nolan", according to the report.
According to the Report:
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly asked Phil Nolan, who had been appointed to his job as Head of the Environmental Waste at the end of 1998 to "Keep an eye on Perks' activities." As Nolan stated the Councilwoman asked him to have Mr. Perks generate in writing a daily itinerary each morning. Then if there were a spill and he were to deviate from the schedule, he would notify Mr. Nolan. Since Mr. Perks was the only employee being monitored in this way, a few days later Mr. Nolan said she (Scarpati-Reilly) came to him and said she believed Mr. Perks might have a legitimate grievance if he was the only one they had asked to do this. Mr. Nolan said he then reminded her "You know I--it was you who asked me to do it." and she kind of--you know there was a little exchange of like nervous laughter or something. And at that point, the practice stopped."Mr. Labush wrote that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's claims that Mr. Nolan misunderstood her request "is unconvincing and could hardly have been misconstrued by Mr. Nolan, an experienced administrator."
THE STRANGE CASE OF THE MYSTERIOUSLY NOT-MISSING TRUCK
From the Report:
The Hunt For The Truck as the section of the report is labeled is about another incident involving Ms. Scarpati-Reilly that further hurts her credibility, according to the Fact-Finder.
The "special attention" of Susan Scarpati-Reilly also changed when he stopped the relationship.
In a page long quoted diatribe by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly the report recounts an incident in which Ms. Scarpati-Reily spends an inordinate amount of time and energy one day looking for an allegedly missing Town truck. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted she had spent a considerable amount of political capital to obtain the truck for Mr. Perks' use for Oil Spills and for equipment for it.
Mr. Labush called her actions in pursuit of the truck-even if her explanation for it were credible-bordering on the obsessive.
Josephine Jahier, Deputy Director of Waste Management told the Fact Finder that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had called her after working hours asking if she knew where Mr. Perks was. She said she didn't know where he was and assumed when asked that he had the vehicle with him. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly then told her she had beeped Mr. Perks to find out where the truck was and he had told her it was at 2 Lloyd Lane in Huntington, and that she (Scarpati-Reilly) had looked there but it was not there. Scarpati-Reilly told Ms. Jahier that she believed the truck was missing, but declined to make a call to police or security when Ms. Jahier suggested she do so. Ms. Jahier said she did not believe the truck was missing and Mr. Labush concluded that Susan Scarapati-Reilly's reason for her pursuit of Perks' truck the day before Thanksgiving, that she had expended political capital in getting Perks the truck "rings hollow". "It seems clear that Scarpati-Reilly was more concerned with where Perks was than where the truck was parked. Thus, Josephine Jahier was told by Scarpati-Reilly not to report the missing truck to the police,
precisely because there was no reason to believe the truck was missing. (Statement was Bold in report...)
Mr. Labush wrote that "Indeed, Scarpati's request that a police report not be made foreshadowed the incident of February 28, 1999. It was another example of an obsessive concern with the comings and goings of Perks, and was in contrast to the relative tranquility of their earlier relationship."
THE INCIDENT AT THE MOBIL OIL TERMINAL
Cold Spring Harbor Feb 28, 1999
From the Fact Finder's Report
William Perks' Version of the Events of that Evening:
On February 28, 1999, Bill Perks was monitoring an oil transfer at the Mobil Oil Terminal in Cold Spring Harbor in order to make sure the connects and disconnects were handled properly since that was the time most likely for spills to occur. It was a cold, rainy, nasty day as Mr. Perks' recalled and he met two long term employees there at 7pm when he arrived. Almost right away his pager went off and he had to call Ms. Scarpati-Reilly back as she was the one who paged him. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was demanding to see Mr. Perks that night about what she called "a serious problem" she needed to speak with him about. Mr. Perks said he declined and told her he couldn't meet her after work either because he was due in court for his divorce and needed to pick up papers to work on. They were at the home of his new girlfriend, the Fact Finder's report calls her Anna. (This is not her real name as it was changed to protect her identity in this matter). "The barge had completed pumping and now they're waiting for me--the two gentlemen, the tug, the crews, whatever to get down there and do my job. She held me on the phone, I tried not to be rude. I tried to tell her I had to go-I had to go to work, and hung up the phone. She was--she didn't sound happy..." and although he tried to put her off until Monday or Tuesday, at work, she kept insisting she see him that evening.
Mr. Perks went back to work monitoring the disconnect, when he was paged again, this time to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's cell phone. Again, she was insisting he see her that night. In the report Mr. Perks said she admonished him that he could make time to see a lady friend of his after work, but he could not see her.
Insisting he was lying about needing to work on his divorce, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly told him she was outside his office in her car parked next to his truck. He went out and she rolled down her window and began to "cross-examine" him, according to the report. She got confrontational, got out of the car and was in his face ..upset and complaining he was going to see his girlfriend and didn't have time to talk to her after work. Perks said, "Suddenly, she shifts gears and says "You're out of uniform. I could bring you up on charges. And we get into this whole thing about uniforms."
The report had already noted that there is simply no evidence to support the claim that oil spill response team members were required to wear uniforms. "Then she gave me a roundhouse. She took her right hand and struck me on my left side of my head, my ear and my temple. Whether it was a closed fist or open fist, my ear was ringing and it definitely shocked me." Perks backed up and told Scarpati-Reilly, their friendship was over, but she "grabbed my left sleeve of my jacket and demanded that I get in the car with her and we were taking a ride....And I told her "we're not taking a ride." I am not going anywhere with her. That I am--I'm done. I'm not working. I'm off duty. And I am leaving. She tugged. She tugged. I finally broke my hold using my right hand, just pulling her arm off my left sleeve. At no time did I hit her. But as soon as I broke the hold she started screaming at the top of her lungs, "You hit me, You hit me. You hit me." and I started to run."Mr. Perks then ran around the parking lot with Scarpati-Reilly following him. He ended up in the office and went to his friends house and called his girlfriend, deciding not to go directly to her house because he might be followed by Scarpati-Reilly who was stalking him at that point as far as he was concerned.
When he called "Anna" she said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had already called her house looking for him and asked her several times if he were there. When Anna said no, she asked her to give Billy a message and Anna agreed. "Well you just tell Mr. Perks that he is to have his resignation on my desk first thing tomorrow morning, that he is going to be brought up on charges for failure to wear his uniform and other things." In this conversation, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly never told Anna that she had been hit by Mr. Perks. Anna confirmed Mr. Perks version of events and her conversation with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly's Version of the Events of the Evening:
On Sunday evening, February 28, 1999 shortly before 7 pm Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was home baking a cake for her son's sixteenth birthday, when her pager went off, with only a partial number displayed. She said the last page was Mr. Perks' number. She waited until the cake was finished and then paged him back, according to her. She said he called her back and then proceeded to tell her of over a thousand dollars damage that was somehow done to his new girlfriend's car and he had no money for the deductible and his divorce was coming up and his sister was upset and he was very upset.
She said he agreed to call her late that evening because she wanted to talk about issuing summonses instead of violations involving a Keyspan Oil Transfer. She said she had court the next day and needed to discuss it that evening, they agreed and she said she went home. While preparing for the party she realized she needed candles and left the house to get them. Even though her son was due home in an hour, she chose to drive from her home in Fort Salonga to the Mobil Facility in Cold Spring Harbor (a half hour each way) to discuss the Keyspan summons issue. She said she paged Perks and when he called back she told him she needed to speak to him and she was in the parking lot, parked next to his truck.
Scarpati-Reilly (who called Mr. Perks "Billy") then said when he came out he said something she couldn't hear so she got out of her car and went to the front of his truck. Perks said to her "I've had it. I've had it with you. I've had it with everybody. I've had it." And I said, "I don't understand what you're talking about, Billy."...And I noticed he wasn't in uniform. I said to him, "How come you are not in uniform?" He said, "You're after me. George Hoffman's after me. Go ahead and bring me up on charges. Go ahead."
Perks was pacing back and forth, and Scarpati-Reilly said she tried to calm him but he continued to say, "Go ahead bring me up on charges. Bring me up on charges." and then he stopped and with his hand, went like this in my shoulder, (slapping motion) and said, "While you're at it, why don't you take out your memo and investigate me on the truck." I said, "You hit me." And he said "Listen lady, you hit me."
And he was pacing back and forth. And I said, "Can we--Billy, let's calm down. Let's talk about this."
Then all of a sudden he stopped and he got right close up into my face and then he said. "You did it. You did it."And he said "It was you, wasn't it? It was you." And I said, "What are you talking about?" And he said, "It was you." And then he took off in a very strident--when he gets angry he--kind of digs in his heels and he strode off towards the building."
Then according to Scarpati-Reilly, she got into the truck cab, but when he did not return, she walked after him in the rain, almost slipping on the gravel when she caught up to him by her account. This caused Perks to say "Get out of here." She followed him and went between the cars of the other two employees according to her to see if she could see him. And he said, "Listen Lady, go home. Get out of here. Get in your car and go home." And I said "Billy, can we talk about this?" He said, "Get out of here lady." And I said, "I'm going to call the police." So I turned, around and I walked back to my car. I got in my car and I dialed 911. As I was doing that, I saw two individuals walking up towards the building...then I saw Billy walk into the building...I dialed 911 again to see if I could pick it up to put in my key number and I didn't. So I decided to go to the precinct."
Witnesses:
The two Mobil Oil employees on duty on the night of February 28th were interviewed and one of them saw Perks running around the parked cars, apparently followed by a woman. Neither heard the conversation between Perks and Scarpati-Reilly.
Scene Two:
EVENTS AFTER THE PARKING LOT INCIDENT
According to the Fact Finder's Report
Scarpati-Reilly left the Mobil Oil Station around eight o'clock, but did not drive directly to the police station. She drove to Town Hall and got the unlisted phone number of Mr. Perks' new girlfriend (Anna) and called her looking for Perks. She then asked Anna to tell Perks to have his letter of resignation on her desk in the morning for being out of uniform and other reasons. Then Scarpati-Reilly gave Anna her beeper number and went to the 2nd Precinct from Town Hall to file a complaint that she had been slapped.When officers asked her for ID she realized she had left home without her purse but informed them she was a Huntington Town Councilwoman. They took her complaint and she was told she would be contacted later in the week since the crime control section had no one on duty that night. Scarpati-Reilly said she went home stopping to buy birthday candles on the way, according to her.
THE DAYS FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT
According to the Fact Finder's Report
Assistant Town Attorney, Robert DeGregorio came home the night of February 28, 1999 to find several messages on his phone. A longtime friend of both Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and Mr. Perks he found himself in the middle of their altercation. Several messages were from Perks who was agitated and said "Scarpati-Reilly whacked me. She's out of control." Ms. Scarpati-Reilly also left a message complaining Perks was out of uniform, but he did not believe that he had to wear a uniform during oil transfer work. Scarpati-Reilly threatened to report him, Perks said she struck him and he ran around the truck and she tried to talk to him again and he went off to the building.
Over the next day or so Mr. DeGregorio attempted to mediate the situation, albeit unsuccessfully, because the solution they offered Mr. Perks was for him to go back to Harbors and Waterways, where Harry Acker would be his boss and the others he didn't get along with, would be working directly with him. Perks said no one else was competent to handle the oil spill responses and Perks told DeGregorio he had a "blue dress". That alarmed Mr. DeGregorio because it made him think Mr. Perks was considering a sexual harassment lawsuit against Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, something he had done against another supervisor, a male, the year before for constantly telling dirty stories about people in the building.
Scarpati-Reilly rejected any allegations of an improper relationship. "She felt that, you know, it was a lot of hot air."
By Wednesday Mr. Perks called DeGregorio at home and said that he had filed a complaint at the Second Precinct and nobody told him about it, he had to hear about it from reporters. Perks threatened to tell the whole story to the press including the allegations of sexual harassment and that The New York Times would print it because it would be the first time a female elected official had been charged by a man with sexual harassment. DeGregorio said Perks drove to his home that morning, drank some Emmets Irish Creme and was pacing back and forth like a wild animal between his refrigerator and his kitchen table threatening to destroy all of them by telling the truth about his affair and his claims of sexual harassment against Susan Scarpati-Reilly if she didn't withdraw the complaint.
Mr. DeGregorio relayed that message to Susan Scarpati-Reilly telling her Perks said that he had love letters, charge receipts and gifts to prove there was an affair. Scarpati-Reilly still denied there was an affair and said the letters signed (with Love Susan in her handwriting) must have been from another Susan. She said she wanted to talk to Perks and work it out, but before she could do that the Long Islander called her asking about the Police report she had filed.
Scarpati-Reilly told reporters "I don't know what you are talking about." Of course this was untrue. She went on to challenge the notion that she had made the complaint and told reporters when they said her name and address is listed as the complainant..."...all that bio information, anybody can get that They can look in the telephone book for my phone number. Everybody knows, you know,--they can get my date of birth and where I live." Eventually, she told the reporters including George Wallace and A.Anthony Miller, "...that it wasn't me; that I didn't file anything. And it was the end of it." She later called Mr. Perks and told him "Listen Billy, I'll do what you say to resolve this. I told them it's a conspiracy, that George Hoffman is after you, after me, that it was somebody else, that it wasn't me And I kept on repeating that over and over and he has asked, "How could you do this? How could you do this? I hit a councilwoman, how could you do this to me."
(Mr. Perks denies he ever told her "I hit a Councilwoman.")
Scarpati-Reilly then called Dave Ambro, reporter for The Observer and told him it wasn't her that made the complaint to the police. "I said it wasn't me, I denied it, went through the whole thing. And he (Perks) said "All right", hung up. And that was the end of that night." Scarpati-Reilly told all of this to the Fact Finder. None of it proved to be true.
At the same time she was denying to the press she had filed the complaint, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was trying to get the Suffolk DA involved. She went to the Suffolk District Attorney with Robert DeGregorio attempting to get them involved and arrest Mr. Perks. They declined. She had gone to the Town Attorney, Jim Matthews, but he declined to get involved according to her, except to bring it to the Town Board, the following day, March 8 and the Board passed the resolution that led to this report.
Scene Three:
THE SHOWDOWN AND THE FALLOUT
From the Fact Finder's Report:
Mr. Labush called the incident at the Mobil Oil Station a "Showdown" that indicated clearly the
"irregularity of the relationship that existed between the two participants". (Perks and Scarpati-Reilly)
The location was a relatively deserted parking lot at an oil terminal, not during regular working hours, on a dark and dreary Sunday night. It is clear that Mr. Perks did not want to meet with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly that night even she acknowledged, that was true and so she was the "moving party" for the events.
The ostensible reason for the meeting regarding summonses for Keyspan was not pressing and could have waited until later that week. Especially since it was Sunday and she was home baking a cake for her sixteen year old son's birthday, that should have been more important than meeting with Mr. Perks, according to the report.
Asking Perks to come out to her car instead of going into the office was a step Ms. Scarpati-Reilly took to keep the meeting private, according to Mr. Labush. All personnel testified there was no uniform requirement and she had been to that station many times before and should have known that to be true, according to the report. The issue of who slapped who is a he-said she-said no one will ever be able to ascertain who is telling the truth as there were no witnesses and the stories are so divergent.
Referring to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's calls to Perks' girlfriend Anna, telling her to leave the message that Perks needed to resign in the morning, Mr. Labush said, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly "had assumed a supervisory position over Perks and administered it in a petty way...Events involving the termination of Town employees should not be conducted by telephone calls to their wives, girlfriends or significant others."
The Police Report and the Denials by Scarpati-Reilly
After leaving Town Hall Ms. Scarapti-Reilly drove to the Second Precinct and filed an incident report in which she claimed she was slapped by Perks. The report had not been acted upon when Scarpati-Reilly made public statements to local area newspapers in which she denied making the report, suggesting that someone else pretending to be her had made the report and attributed the whole incident to George Hoffman, Mr. Petrone's "Public Information Officer" at the time. Of course this was false and Scarpati-Reilly has acknowledged those statements were false.
Later she admitted she lied and said she did it because she panicked and was afraid Perks might expose her family to embarrassment. The consequences of those statements cannot be ignored. They clearly cast doubt on the original claim that she was slapped by Perks. They exhibit a somewhat reckless disregard for truth by an elected official, who was ready to publicly and falsely blame another Town official for the filing of the police report. Such a claim, if it had not been so absurd, could have led to a criminal investigation of filing a false instrument against the "Scarpati-Reilly imposters"...who never existed.
Power Corrupts...Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely...?
The Fact Finders report discussed the serious issues raised regarding the fundamental relationships that people who have power exercise over the people they have power over.
"Mr. Perks alleged he was told his continued employment depended on maintaining a personal relationship he no longer wanted. Perks also alleged he was told by Scarpati-Reilly he should share the proceeds of his overtime by paying for social expenses. If true, and there is at least some evidence to support it, serious questions are raised as to whether Scarpati-Reilly violated New York State Penal Law 195.00. If his employment was contingent on non-work related concerns i.e. a relationship with Scarapti-Reilly, it is a matter for consideration by the District Attorneys' office. This report will be made available to that office for any appropriate action." according to the report.
Mr. Perks also shared some blame, according to the report as he benefited form her early attention and support and often wrote memos castigating fellow employees for their lack of proficiency.
Mr. Perks' claimed he was the only person in the Harbors and Waterways office who was college educated and those he complained about were not doing their job properly. Huntington was eventually cited for making Mr. Perks "Work Out of Title" at the Landfill and as Oil Spill Response Manager when he was sent to jobs needing a Hazardous Material suit wearing only jeans and a t-shirt.
Because the Fact Finder found Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's testimony was "inherently inconsistent and contradictory", he could not reach a conclusion on her allegations that Mr. Perks threatened to expose her if she didn't withdraw the complaint, "since the evidence to support it is so dubious."
Mr. Labush said Mr. DeGregorio's involvement did more harm than good and he admonished him for exacerbating the situation and thanked all the witnesses who agreed to speak with him.
Scene Four:
THE REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
to the HUNTINGTON TOWN BOARD
In response to Resolution No. 1999-380 the Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure issued their own report dated January, 14, 2000.
The Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure created pursuant to Town Board Local Law 23-1998, was formed to give opinions regarding the Code of Ethics when requested to do so by the Town Board.
The reason for codifying the Ethics Code was to provide for the establishment of regulations regarding the conduct of all elected officials and requiring and enforcing certain conduct by them as a condition of employment and or service to the populace of Huntington.
The Board only focused on the provisions relating to the Board of Ethics, not violations of Penal Law or the Attorney's Code of Professional Responsibility as they were under the purview of the District Attorney and the Bar Association respectively.
The Board met five times, conferred by telephone and received in details voluminous and various documents, including the Fact Finder's Report, verbatim transcripts of testimony of witnesses, who appeared before the Fact Finder, all exhibits related to the matter in conjunction with their testimony and gave consideration to all materials provided by the Councilwoman, Susan Scarpati-Reilly. The Board also met with and questioned Patricia Del Col, Gerald Labush, Phil Nolan and Jody (Joe) Anastasia.
The Board never spoke to Mr. Perks.
The Board then found no evidence that Mr. Perks was coerced to pay the monetary costs of the social relationship with a supervisor as the receipts for Mohonk Mountain House were in Scarpati-Reilly's name and she insisted she and her husband used the reservations for his birthday gift from her.
Then the Board considered Scarpati-Reilly's lies to the media and said that her defense that "she was in fear for her personal safety and the personal safety of others appears to be manufactured to justify her actions. It is difficult to place credence in Scarpati-Reilly's assertion that she was in fear of her life as she went to Perks' house. This was the same day she claimed in her deposition that Perks had told Bob DeGregorio she was committing suicide. The Board of Ethics determined that this was perhaps his way of figuratively communicating to Mr. DeGregorio that by her filing the report against him, if it came into the press as he was planning, she would suffer personal embarrassment and possibly destroy her political career. They did not believe she was afraid of him as she alleged.
On March 8, 2000, Scarpati-Reilly wrote letters to the editors of The Observer, The Huntington News and The Long Islander, in which she expressed apologies for "misstatements regarding the police report she filed." In those letters she only referred to fears of her name and reputation being threatened, she never mentioned her personal safety and the safety of others. "Her concern was her reputation, a far cry from personal safety.", the Ethics Board concluded.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly also falsely accused another employee of making the police report and conspiring against her. Even if she was in fear for her safety, that would not have justified her falsely accusing another Town official. At the very least Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly's behavior violated 29-5(b)(5) of the Ethics Code which prohibits government officials from engaging in activity that creates an appearance of impropriety.
"Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly testified she had a social relationship with William Perks for 18-24 months prior to the Feb 28th incident." The Fact Finder concluded that she allowed her relationship to influence her conduct and judgement in relation to her official duties and it manifested itself in the workplace by the "direct advancement of Perks' career."
Her phone call to Mr. Perks' girlfriend demanding his resignation involved more than the impropriety of terminating an employee over the phone, according the Ethic's Board Report. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did not have the authority to fire Mr. Perks and her relationship with him "clearly, clouded her judgement. By demanding his resignation, she was allowing her relationship with him to influence her conduct in relation to her official duties."
The record also revealed Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was instrumental in obtaining, a truck, a laptop and his position of Oil Spill Response Manager for Mr. Perks, but could not prove it was only for his personal use and not for Town business. Mr. Perks never shirked the responsibilities of his job, despite his personal relationship with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. Even though it was acknowledged that Mr. Perks gave her jewelry, the price of the gifts was never listed and if it were less than $75 dollars it would not have been a violation. Since the value was never established, she was not charged with illegally receiving gifts.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly violated the Code of Ethics in several serious ways, according to the Report by the Ethics Board. The Code of Ethics provision (29-12) that conduct which is in violation of the code may also be a violation of "any and all criminal and/or penal laws of the State of New York of the United States of America." In such an event, the violation of the Code of Ethics shall be referred to the proper authorities, including the Suffolk County District Attorney, The New York State Attorney General for the Eastern District of New York for investigation and prosecution, wherever and whenever appropriate..."
Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly is an elected official. The Code of Ethics covers conduct of all Town employees, including elected officials. Elected officials, however, are in a special category. They owe their positions to the electorate. The people of the Town of Huntington placed Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly in office. The people of the Town of Huntington are her ultimate judges. On election day Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly will be subject to the judgement of the people. (The Board of Ethics and Disclosure)
So then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly filed an Article 78 lawsuit against the Board of Ethics and Disclosure...but that is for the next Act...
All of this was started by a false police report and turned around by Frank Petrone and Steve Israel. It is paid for by the taxpayers and yet no agency-- not the District Attorney, not the Police, nor the Attorney General did anything about Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's "serious violations" as described and recommended in these reports. But the "criminal" complaint against Mr. Perks continued and the money kept flowing to the attorneys.
Second Intermission:
Waiting in the Wings:
The Depositions, the Lawsuits, The Lawyers..The Law Firms, the Campaign Contributions...
The Players: (Time period; 1999 to the Present)
Frank Petrone: Huntington Town Board Supervisor, Democrat, currently running for Town Board. In 2001 he was a Republican...(Joined the GOP in 1976)
William Townsend Perks: Then Harbormaster for the Town of Huntington, now retired. Worked under Susan Scarpati-Reilly on the Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly: Then a Town Councilwoman for Huntington Town. An attorney, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was Town Board liaison for the Town’s Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit in 1999.
Steve Israel: Currently a Congressman, Mr. Israel was a Town Councilman for Huntington Town at the time. Dated, married and divorced Marlene Budd.
Marlene Budd: Now a Suffolk County Family Court Judge (term 2006-2016) former Huntington Town Councilwoman, former wife of Steve Israel.
Joseph Anastasia: Director of Maritime Services; Mr. Perks' Supervisor, signed the payroll along with co-signer Phil Nolan who was Director of Environmental Control and the Landfill and the Ogden Martin (Covanta) Town Incinerator.
Lawyers and Law Firms:
Attorneys were paid for by The Town of Huntington for various lawsuits, defenses and appeals for the Town of Huntington, Susan Scarpati-Reilly and those she accused of various things and had filed a myriad of lawsuits against. These included but were not limited to: Thelma Neira, and Marlene Budd and The Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure, the Chairman Howard Glickstein and all the board members collectively and individually and several Town Attorneys.
Thelma Neira: Assistant Town Attorney for Huntington
James (Jim) Matthews: Town Attorney for Huntington
Robert DiGregorio: Assistant Town Attorney for Huntington
Clifford Bart: Attorney for the Town in the Arbitration case
Maureen Hoerger: from Perini & Hoerger, For Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Ernest Stolzer: with Rains and Pogrebin, then with Bond, Schoeneck and King, LLP for the Town
James P. Clark: with Rains and Pogrebin, then with Bond, Schoeneck and King, LLP, Cullen and Dykman and James P. Clark Law Offices, for the Town
Jason Abelove: attorney for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Gerald LaBush and Robert Vespoli: For the Independent Fact-Finder
Edward Yule: Northport resident, the only attorney the Town refused to pay for. Attorney for Mr. Perks for the entire fourteen years, has yet to be paid by the Town despite two court rulings that support Mr. Perks', union contractual right to counsel, when accused of an assault.
