FORMAL INVESTIGATION OF BURNING OF RADIATED WASTE REQUESTED OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

WILLIAM TOWNSEND PERKS
CENTERPORT,  NEW YORK 11721

January 15, 2014

New York State Inspector General
Catherine Leahy Scott
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223

RE: FORMAL REQUEST FOR FULL INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF  HUNTINGTON AND THE ILLEGAL BURNING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN EAST NORTHPORT

ENCLOSURE: REPORT OF COLLEEN CALLAN,  FREELANCE INVESTIGATIONS

Dear Inspector General Scott,

For the past fifteen years I have been the subject of an ongoing investigation of an alleged assault, made by the Town Board of the Town of Huntington. Enclosed is a copy of the first half of a comprehensive independent investigation of the facts of this case which has caused millions of taxpayer dollars to be squandered by public officials.  The report has uncovered a number of deliberate criminal and ethical actions that require your investigation. There seems to be no end of the financial losses to both the taxpayer and me, as the Town of Huntington continues to file more appeals and hire more law firms adding to the massive costs of litigation.

As a Peace Officer (Harbormaster) of the Town of Huntington (TOH) for over 30 years, I was compelled to become a whistle blower on a number of serious actions, after my employer (TOH) refused to address (including but not limited to) serious health and safety violations, insurance fraud, sewer impropriety and the burning of large quantities of radioactive waste, from 1996 – 2002.

The baseless and fraudulent accusation of assault against me by the Town of Huntington was nothing less than retaliation because of my complaints of their illegal activities. An independent investigative reporter, Colleen Callan, confirmed that the original Town Board Resolution that initiated the accusation of assault against me, which (according to the Town of Huntington) was “based on media reports”, did not exist.  At that time, there were no media reports of an assault. Efforts to file the charge of assault against me by public officials were denied immediately by Suffolk County Police and later by the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office for the lack of any evidence. During the next several years, in different court depositions, the TOH public officials all testified to reading those fabricated “media reports” in a number of different newspapers. These public officials of the TOH even hired an “Independent Fact Finder” to investigate the alleged assault based on the fabricated “media reports”.

After the TOH paid the Fact Finder almost $100,000.00, the TOH never concluded the investigation which had no mention of the (fabricated) “media reports” they had cited in the original resolution.
Later these public officials, under oath cited the news papers and even television news of the alleged assault, but they failed to produce any evidence. There were no attachments (media reports) to the Town Board Resolution which they voted for because they didn’t exist.  It was strange that none of the public officials or even the Town Attorney could remember who in the Town Attorney’s office, drafted the alleged assault resolution for their vote. Not until the Town Board passed the resolution citing an alleged assault did the media reports of assault appear. This is referred to the “tail wagging the dog” in Colleen Callan’s Investigation.

With regard to using the Suffolk County District Attorney to further investigate a police report of harassment (not assault), a Town Councilmember testified that it was felt that the “DA was incompetent” and could not provide the “level” of investigation the Town needed to investigate the alleged assault charge that the Town of Huntington voted for. So the Town of Huntington initiated a well directed and costly private investigation (the Independent Fact Finder) that was to be completed in thirty days by Town Board Resolution. It turned out the public officials were getting such great media reports they let the investigation stretch out to ninety days. Finally, the Independent Fact Finder’s Report was released to the public at the same time being distributed to the Town Board. The report concluded that it was to be sent to the Suffolk County District Attorney and the New York State Attorney General’s office for additional criminal investigation (but that has never been confirmed).  No one from the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office or the New York State Attorney General’s Office ever contacted me.

This is fraud at the taxpayers’ expense.  Over five million dollars have been spent on outside attorneys for the Town of Huntington with tens of thousands of dollars finding their way into the re-election campaign coffers.   It has been a total waste of taxpayer dollars, based on lies, designed to unseat the lone Republican Councilwoman on the Democratic Board and retaliate against me, the whistle blower.  There is no end in sight of continued litigation after fifteen years.

I have waited until after our election to file this formal request for you to investigate the illegal, unethical and corrupt actions on the part of these public officials, in order to prevent any question of my intentions.   Now there is finally an independent investigation with newly uncovered facts of this case which proves the original fraud.

It is time for closure, the public needs an accounting of the facts and costs and most important, those people responsible for perpetrating this fraud for so many years need to be brought to justice. The public does not  know about the health risks they have been exposed to but certainly those employees and the “down winders” have “a right to know” about the radiation exposures they received from the burning of garbage in East Northport.  I ask for your full investigation.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,

William Townsend Perks, Harbormaster, Hazardous Materials Coordinator (retired)

CC:  Ed Yule, Esq.
        Editor, Newsday
        Editor, New York Times
        Editor, Observer
        Colleen Callan, Reporter Freelance Investigations

The same letter was also sent to Governor Andrew Cuomo, The New York State Attorney General's Office and the New York State Comptroller.

Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater: ACT FOUR: Scene Four The Cuthbertson Deposition

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.  Judge Joanna Seybert presiding.

Present were:
Rains & Pogrebin Lawfirm:
Ernie Stolzer, attorney for Mark Cuthbertson 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
Councilman Mark Cuthbertson
William Perks

THE DEPOSITION OF TOWN COUNCILMAN MARK CUTHBERTSON
April 19, 2001

Examination by Jason Abelove (Susan Scarpati-Reilly's Attorney)

Mr. Cuthbertson was first elected as a Democratic Huntington Town Board member in November of 1997.  He was named the liaison to the Engineering Services Department, the Assessor's Office and the Department of Human Services sometime in 1998.

Irving Toliver was the head of the Department of Human Services and Mr. Cuthberston met with him six or seven times a year.   He did not believe he was the Supervisor of the Department heads or their employees, but he did say he spoke to some of the employees directly, especially the veterans or the minority community representatives.

Mr. Cuthbertson said at the time he generally worked two days a week, Tuesdays and Fridays from about 9:30 to 6 o'clock.  He went on to describe the office layout, determining that the offices were all in one line, with secretaries in the open areas in the suites and the walls were glass with shades.

Mr. Cuthbertson said he knew Mr. Perks and had seen him in Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly's office at times, but never took note of how long he spent there.  He testified he did not hear or see anything that would lead him to believe there was sexual activity from inside the Councilwoman's office. Mr. Abelove asked him if he heard any secretaries banging on the Councilwoman's door.

A:  There was an incident, some sort of vague incident, I remember,  about door slamming and something with one of the secretaries.  But I don't know if--
Q:  Were you there?
A:  I may have been, but I may have heard about it secondhand.

Then Mr. Abelove asked Mr. Cuthbertson if he ever recalled hearing the Councilwoman yelling at secretaries for knocking on her door?

A:  I recall some level of incident on this type of thing, about disturbances and somebody in there.  I don't know whether it was conveyed as second hand or I was in there in person.

 He could only remember the one incident.

The questions shifted to the topic of the Town Seal and Mr. Cuthbertson said he never used the Town Seal on political advertisements and thought it would be impermissible to use it for political or commercial purposes.  Since he is an attorney he said he may have seen a Penal Code section about using the Town Seal for political or commercial uses, but could not recall the exact section.

Asked if he wrote a letter on his stationary with the Town letterhead  that was not strictly for Town business, he replied, "Most of the correspondence is, you know, constituent driven so there may be a personal note that you jot to someone.  For instance when people pass away, family members of the Town employees, I'll send a note.  But in many respects that's Town business, I guess because that is a function of interacting on that level.  I don't have a specific recollection besides just jotting a personal note or things like that."

Mr. Abelove then showed him a document labelled Cuthbertson Exhibit A for identification and asked if he ever knew if the Town Seal was used in political or commercial advertisements.  He responded,
A:  The only thing that comes to mind is the letter that Susan had in Suffolk Life.

Mr. Cuthbertson could not recall another time when the Seal was used for political reasons and did not recall any specific procedure for people seeking authorization to use the Town Seal for events scheduled with outside groups.

Exhibit Cuthbertson A was an advertisement that said "Help Shape Huntington's Future" at the top.
Asked if he was a member of the the Town's Smart Growth Steering Committee, Mr. Cuthbertson was unsure and asked to see if his name was on the list...it was.  The Town Seal was on the advertisement and the questions surrounded whether there was a request to use the Town Seal prior to the ad being published.  He could not recall, but said there was a Town Board Resolution and the Town had allocated $10,000 dollars for a speaker series and they were working together.  Vision Huntington put the speaker series together and it was a joint effort, according to him.

Exhibit Cuthbertson B was a one-page ad from The Long Islander (November 12, 1998) that said      "Thank you Huntington" at the top.  Several questions about the ad revealed the Town did not pay for it but there was a Town Board vote with respect to the referendum.  It took place in order to place the referendum on the ballot that allowed them to have an open-space fund; that they were thanking for in this letter.  Yes, we voted on that."

Exhibit Cuthbertson C was marked for identification and shown to the deponent.  An eight page double sided pamphlet entitled "AARP Chapter News", Mr. Cuthbertson said the ad did have the Town Seal on it and was taken out by himself as a reproduction of his business card as a Town Board member.
He did not seek authorization from the Town Board before using the Town Seal and he did not give them prior notice according to his testimony.  Mr. Cuthbertson said he either paid for the ad from his "personal pocket" or from his campaign committee fund.

Mr. Abelove ended his questioning of Mr. Cuthbertson and Mr. Yule  began his examination.

Mr. Yule asked Mr. Cuthbertson a little about his background and learned he attended Albany law School and subsequently worked at Painewood and Littlejohn from '92-'96.

In May of 1996 he became an assistant Town Attorney and worked there until he took office in January 1998.  At that time he went back to Paine and Littlejohn as counsel doing real estate, zoning litigation, bank closings, "sort of jack-of-all-trades."  Licensed to practice in New York State he was originally licensed in 1992.  He had never done criminal or matrimonial law according to the deposition.  His focus was now to be more on education law, employment law and bank commercial foreclosures, commercial litigation.

The curriculum vitae completed, Mr. Yule then asked if there came a time that Mr. Cuthbertson had found out that Susan Scarpati-Reilly had made a police complaint against Mr. Perks regarding an incident of February 28, 1999.

Not sure how he became aware of it, by hearing it from someone or reading it in the newspaper, he mentioned The Long Islander, the Huntington News and the Northport Observer.

Q:  (by Yule) As a Councilperson at the time, was there any discussion by the Town Board regarding that incident, after it was made public?
A: (by Cuthbertson)  When you say the "Town Board", I don't know that, as a Town Board, we sat and discussed that matter.  At some point we did, I guess, as a Town Board, because there was litigation.  But you have to really pin down what you mean by the Town Board and when you are talking about.

Mr. Yule showed the witness exhibit Budd E which was Town Board Resolution 1999-184 dated March 9, 1999 and asked Mr. Cuthbertson about the working sessions prior to the March 9th meeting.
Distinguishing between the roughly 45 minute public session where people take ownership of the resolutions they want to sponsor and the Executive Session which is private and not open to the public, where discussions continue on particular resolutions.

Mr. Cuthbertson said there would not have been a working session regarding this resolution, that it would only have been discussed in Executive Session.

Asked about the media reports that were allegedly the impetus for the discussion in Executive Session and the resulting resolution, Mr. Cuthbertson could not recall the specific time period asked about, prior to March 9, 1999 and after February 28, 1999.  "I don't recall the specific news articles in that time period, I recall that there were news articles after the date of that incident.  I don't recall what the date of the incident was."

Mr. Yule asked about the Fact Finder appointed by the resolution of March 9, 1999.

Q:  Is it fair to say, as a result of this resolution the Town Board appointed a fact-finder to investigate the media reports?
A:  I don't know if they--I don't think that we appointed him to investigate the media reports.  We appointed him to investigate "the factual circumstances that were detailed in those media reports.  So he wasn't going to go and talk to the people about the media reports.  He was trying to get at the underlying facts of the alleged incident.
Q:  That was regarding an alleged assault upon the Councilwoman by Mr. Perks.
A:  I think that's right.  It was of that nature, right.  It was that allegation of him having struck her, and a police report.  And I think he had--he was looking into the circumstances, all of the circumstances of that.

Editor's note:  At that point there were no media reports that said there was an allegation of an assault.
Clearly,  there were no media reports of an assault and none were attached to the Town Board Resolution.  Amazingly not one Town Board member can recall who wrote it, submitted it or seconded it, but each one of them refer to both print and television media reports.  Only after the resolution did the media reports actually use the word assault.  In effect the  Town Board members fabricated media reports  and created a media frenzy based upon false and fabricated information.

Then it took on a life of it's own, according to Mr. Perks and the media took the bait and created the "Harbormaster and the Town Councilwoman Tryst".  It was a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Mr. Cuthbertson could recall of no other time an independent fact-finder had been hired to investigate a Town employee.  After saying he had read the completed fact-finder's report, he recollected there were a series of recommendations and references after the report was made public.  It was supposed to be sent to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, the Town's Ethic's Board and the State Attorney General's Office, Mr. Cuthbertson believed.

Mr. Yule and Mr. Stolzer traded objections related to attorney client-privilege on the discussions held before the resolution was adopted.  Eventually, Mr. Cuthberston said he could not recall who drafted this resolution (marked as Budd E), the one that hired Mr. Labush, but he admitted there was also an investigation of Mr. Perks for possible disciplinary actions regarding the incident of February 28, 1999.
"I know there was always the specter of that hanging out there.  If an employee had actually struck a Town Board member, there was reason for an employee disciplinary investigation.  I think that was part of it.  Whether we did something independent of that, I don't recall." he testified.

According to Mr. Cuthbertson:  

                          "The Suffolk District Attorney is...Incompetent !

Q:  Do you know if the Town Board is still investigating Mr. Perks over that incident?
A:  I'm so confused with all of these things that are going on, that I don't know sort of where it begins and where it ends.  I don't think so, but I don't recall exactly how things wrapped up with that allegation.
Q:  Is it fair to say that you don't know one way or another whether the investigation of Mr. Perks by the Town regarding the February 28, 1999 incident is, in fact, completed or not completed?
A:  I have a sense it's completed, only because I know there are applicable statutes and provisions in collective bargaining agreements relative to discipline.  So I sense that whatever was going to be done, has been done.

According to Mr. Perks, Susan Scarpati-Reilly, on the night of the alleged incident attempted to file the assault claim to Officer Louis Molinari, but there was no credible evidence to support her claim.  The Town Board fabricated a Resolution claiming there were media reports of the incident using the word assault.  Nothing could be further from the truth. In depositions and then on the stand in the trial, the members of the Town Board pointed to The Long Islander, The Huntington Observer, Newsday and all major television news outlets in the tri-state area that supposedly ran reports of an alleged assault.  The problem for the Town Board remains that not one media outlet ever ran a story saying that an assault had taken place until after the Town Board Resolution was crafted.

At no time up until the present moment did any member of the Police Department even speak to Mr. Perks about the allegation...it was so far fetched, they did not charge him in any way.  Newsday actually referred to this as a "He said...She said incident" and failed to perform due diligence and observe the facts, ultimately causing Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to be perceived as a scorned woman, when in actuality she was a self-professed liar.  To this day Newsday has failed to correct the record.

According to Mr. Perks,  "Newsday was duped".

Mr. Cuthbertson did not think the Town Board authorized anyone from the Town of Huntington to go to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office to begin an inquiry regarding the incident.  "I think the only referral  to the District Attorney's office was---the only official Town Board action that involves this incident and the District Attorney's office and this incident to my recollection, is the resolution in response to the Labush investigation."
Q:  To your knowledge did anyone from the Town Board or the Town Attorney's office authorize special Town Attorney Robert DeGregorio to meet with Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly and then go to the District Attorney's office regarding the incident of February 28, 1999?
A:  No. They wouldn't have.  Because that's why we hired Labush, was because there was a conflict in having the Town's Attorney's office be a part of this whole incident.  And we felt that we needed someone outside of that office to do whatever follow-up we felt was necessary.
Q:  Why didn't you call the Police Department or the D.A.?  Why didn't the Town Board contact the D.A.'s office and let them do the investigation as opposed to hiring an outside attorney to do this?
A:  I don't think we thought it was appropriate.  It was an alleged slap or an alleged assault.  I'm not sure that we thought it rose to the level of a District Attorney's investigation.  We had a very serious concern at that point, as an employer and wanting to investigate the facts of an incident between an employee and an elected official.  We thought the most appropriate course was to have an outside independent investigator look for this.

Mr. Perks said the Town Board knew the Police were not interested in filing any charges against Mr. Perks because there was no evidence that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was hurt in any way.  There was nothing to prove otherwise according to Officer Molinari.  The Town Board should have known that that meant there was no reason to contact the District Attorney at that point.  Mr. Cuthbertson says that there was no official permission for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to go to the Suffolk DA with Town Attorney Jim Matthews or Special Assistant Town Attorney, Robert DeGregorio...but that didn't stop them from going anyway.

The Fact Finder cost over $75,000 dollars to taxpayers....why didn't the Town just leave the matter in the hands of the Suffolk DA that would not have cost a penny?  Mr. Perks said, "By going to the DA, the Town would lose control of the investigation and the media frenzy.  If the Suffolk DA had been involved, they would have contacted the Police and learned it was not a case that could be tried.  There was absolutely not a shred of evidence of an assault."

Mr. Cuthbertson believed the Fact-Finder cost the Town $75,000 dollars.  Mr. Yule asked how much the D.A. would have cost to do the same investigation and report...
A:  It wouldn't have been appropriate for the D.A. to investigate it at the level we wanted it investigated.
Q:  What level did you want it investigated, that the D.A.'s office couldn't provide.
A:  As an employment matter, I don't think that the D.A.'s office is competent to do investigation on behalf of employers with respect to disciplinary issues.

                                                 Statutes of Limitation?     

Asked about any applicable Statute of Limitations regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement as it related to the incident of February 28, 1999, Mr. Cuthbertson said although he had done some work with Section 75 of Civil Service Law, he did not know what the applicable Statute of Limitations was with regard to the incident.

He believed there may have been a written referral to the Suffolk County D.A.'s office, after the report was issued, but he had no independent knowledge of that.  He did not think the Town Attorney's office authorized Bob DeGregorio to represent Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly in this matter or to be involved in any way in his capacity as Town Attorney, with the incident of February 28, 1999.

To his knowledge Mr. DeGregorio never told him or any other board members, that Mr. Perks had threatened Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly's life.  He did not believe the Town Board ever authorized James (Jim) Matthews to meet with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly in his official capacity as Town Attorney regarding the incident.

Mr. Cuthbertson said he later learned that Mr. Matthews and Mr. DeGregorio met with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to discuss the incident, although it was not authorized by the Town.  Subsequently,  Mr. DeGregorio went from full time to a part time position and decided to leave with a termination pay of between $20,000 to $50,000 dollars.

So essentially, according to Mr. Perks, after numerous calls to the DA's office went unanswered fror almost a week, she went with Mr. DeGregorio to the DA's office, to get them to intervene, but they refused.

Medical benefits, pension credits, a salary and a secretarial staff were all provided to Mr. Cuthbertson as a Town Board member he said, but he did not know if he would technically be considered "an employee" of the Town.

Mr. Yule then shifted his examination to questions about who paid for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's attorneys.
Originally, she hired Raymond Perini and Maureen Hoder to represent her regarding the February 28, 1999 incident.

Mr. Cuthberston said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly may have made a request for the Town to pay for her attorneys, or she might not have.  She may have presented a bill to the Town Board...or she may not have, according to Mr. Cuthbertson, he could not recall either way.

He thought it was referred to the Suffolk D.A.'s office  as part of the resolution, but could not recall any response back from the Suffolk County District Attorney's office.

The Town honored Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's choice of attorney and her request for them to pay Jason Abelove, according to Mr. Cuthbertson, because it was a "conflict situation".

According to Steve Israel, a Town Councilman at the time, if it was determined that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly 's actions fell outside the scope of her duties and responsibilities as a Town Board member, the Town would act to recoup the legal fees for Jason Abelove that the Town laid out in her defense.  Even after the United States District Court jury found her guilty of sexual harassment, which obviously falls outside of her duties as a Councilwoman, the Town to date has not attempted to get  any of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees back from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.

Editor's note:   Why not?

According to his union contract Mr. Perks had an absolute legal right to counsel,  in the case of an assault, but was denied legal representation and was forced to go to arbitration where he won his case, after an exhaustive and protracted lawsuit.   Upheld by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti, the award has once again been appealed by the Town...(cha-ching for the attorneys involved).

According to the Arbitrator's comment, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

According to Mr. Perks the Town has wasted a fortune supplying Ms. Scarpart-Reilly with legal counsel for numerous actions all of which she lost and yet they refused to honor the provisions of the union contract that absolutely required them to supply him with legal counsel as they had done in the past.  "It is a simple case of retaliation against a whistleblower who insisted on telling the public they are at risk for exposure to radiated waste that was burned in the Ogden Martin (now Covanta) Resource Recovery Plant in Huntington.

No response from the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office was ever received...but the open ended investigation of Mr. Perks hangs like a Sword of Damocles over the life and family of Mr. Perks.

Other Accusations by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly...

Asked if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had accused Thelma Neira (still an Assistant Town Attorney) for Huntington Town, of a criminal accusation, Mr. Cuthbertson said he did recall something about a memo, but it predated his time on the Town Board.

Exhibit Cuthbertson D was shown to Mr. Cuthbertson, it was an interoffice memo dated June 11, 1998 regarding liaison positions.  He was appointed to the  Department of Human Services, the Department of the Assessor and the Community Development Agency and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was appointed as the liaison to the Oil Spill Response Board, the Department of General Services and the Department of Waste Management.

Councilman Steve Israel was appointed liaison to the Department of Environment and Maritime Services.  Mr. Cuthbertson said he had an issue and wasn't delighted with the "slots" he got.

Exhibits Cuthbertson E and F were handed to the witness and Mr. Yule asked about "E", the police report regarding the incident of February 28, 1999, that was made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.

Q:  Did you come to learn that at some point Ms. Scarpati-Reilly denied going to the precinct.
A:  Yes...I either read the fact that she denied that in a newspaper report, or I heard it secondhand, that she denied filing the police report.

Mr. Cuthbertson said he also became aware that she had accused George Hoffman, the Chief of Staff, of impersonating her at the precinct and filing the complaint against Mr. Perks, again, either secondhand or part of a newspaper account.  When Mr. Cuthbertson spoke to Mr. Hoffman he said George Hoffman was very upset and he thought Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's statements that he made the complaint dressed as her, were "libelous and bizarre."

"It would be a masterful contrivance to come up with these sort of circumstances."   Would it be a masterful contrivance to think that George Hoffman impersonated her?

Next,  Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's accusation that there was a conspiracy by the Democrats to "get her", was not true, according to Mr. Cuthbertson. He did not feel it was his place as liaison to discipline employees directly that work within the departments that he is liaison to, but the proper course of action would be to go to the director of the department...the head., who has power to hire and fire.

Mr. Cuthbertson said he was aware Ms. Scarpati-Reilly accused Councilwoman Marlene Budd of stalking her son and then sent a note saying she was "just kidding."  He also knew of an accusation by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly against Steve Israel when she accused him of taking a bribe from Mr. Klar, by way of Steve Reilly and reiterated the charge against Thelma Neira for allegedly changing a memo...

The accusation against Mr. Israel sort of "peetered out", according to Mr, Cuthbertson and no Fact-Finder was hired in that instance.  Mr. Steve Reilly Sr. was involved in the alleged accusation of Mr. Israel, according to the Cuthbertson testimony.

Editor's note:  All of these criminal allegations fettered by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly...against political allies...all peetered out because she was untruthful.   Ms. Scarpati-Reilly lies about a bizarre incident about Mr. Perks and George Hoffman allegedly in drag impersonating her at the 2nd Precinct filing a harassment complaint....she  is forced to admit in written statements to the press and the public that she was a bold-faced liar.

This however, did not stop Mr. Cuthbertson and the Town Board from acting on the word of a self professed liar, from using her false allegations against Mr. Perks to spend millions of dollars in legal fees to target Mr. Perks on the unsubstantiated charge of assault by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.  Remember, Mr. Petrone said in his deposition he had told her, "Susan...you asked for it...you got it."  referring to the Town Board Resolution charging Mr. Perks with assault based on no media reports.

Mr. Cuthbertson did not believe is was proper for a Councilperson to assist a union represented employee of the Town in writing grievances against the Town.  He had not heard Mr. DeGregorio had requested that Mr. Perks cut down some trees in his yard in return for assisting him in preparing his grievances against the Town of Huntington.

Mr. Cuthbertson was not aware of the fact that two persons signed Mr. Perks' checks and he did not think it would be the liaison who could authorize overtime, but the department head.  He also noted it would probably be the harbormaster who had the authority to write summonses, but was not sure.  He was never given a copy of the Town's sexual harassment policy, according to him, when he first took office in 1998.

Exhibit Cuthbertson F was shown to Mr. Cuthbertson, the resolution where they would have adopted a section regarding a sexual harassment policy and regulations dated February 9, 1999.  Then Exhibit Budd F was also shown in conjunction with Exhibit Cuthbertson F  and the sexual harassment policy was identified as "Schedule A".  It was adopted sometime after February 9, 1999 and was a new sexual harassment policy.

Mr. Cuthbertson did not know Nancy Bond, but he was aware of a sexual harassment case involving David McGovern and the Huntington Animal Shelter that took place while he was a Town Board member, though he couldn't recall the substance of the complaint by the plaintiffs.  He was shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 to refresh his recollection that reminded him there were discussions in the Executive Session with outside counsel about the case.

He could not recall Ms. Scarpati-Reilly asking the Town Board if she could hire Jason Abelove. Mr Yule then asked if as an attorney and a Councilman he thought there was a conflict with Mr. Abelove defending Ms. Scarpati-Reilly in this lawsuit, in which the fees are being paid for by the Town and also representing the Councilwoman in the personal matter against Mr. Perks.

Q:  Is that unethical, do you know?
A:  Off the top of my head, I don't know.

According to Mr. Perks, "Susan Scarpati-Reilly filed a lawsuit against me,  my attorney, Ed Yule said that I should check with my home owner's policy to see if they would cover me.  They did and paid out tens of thousands of dollars to defend me. " This case was held before Judge Catterson and Mr. Perks' attorney,  Edward Yule requested that twenty five pubic hairs be removed from Susan Scarpati-Reilly above and 25 pubic hairs be removed below the naval by an attending forensic physician. After several court delays, Judge Catterson ordered Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to appear...and produce the DNA evidence that would support or refute the alleged affair aboard a houseboat owned by Mr. Perks.  When she and/or her attorney failed again to appear in court to produce the evidence, Judge Catterson dismissed the case.

Acording to Mr. Perks...months later he was dropped by the home owner's policy.

Mr. Cuthbertson also did not know if the Town was paying for Mr. Stolzer and his associate at the deposition that day, "I don't know how they work, if they have a blended rate, how they bill.  I don't get involved in that."

Asked if the Town of Huntington had an emergency response plan for evacuation, he did not know.

Ed Yule then paused his examination and a short recess was taken.

When the deposition reconvened, Mr. Cuthbertson was shown the letter Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had written     to the newspaper (Budd D) that had the Town Seal on it.   He did not believe that was a proper use of the Town Seal as it was a personal letter.  He took issue with the accusation that there was a Democratic plot and a conspiracy "and how somehow the Town Board members savor this litigation and what is happening.  I disagree strongly with that..  There are other aspects of the details of this that probably, if we went piece by piece, I would disagree with."

The next few pages of the deposition called for a back and forth between the attorneys about what part of discussions with the County Attorney may have been held in the company of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and whether the questions crossed over the realm of attorney client privilege and confidentiality.  Mr.
Cuthbertson declined to answer that and also the next question that involved Ms. Scarpati-Reilly lying to the press about George Hoffman, because she said she was afraid of Mr. Perks who she claimed was threatening her.

A lengthy discussion then took place between Mr. Stolzer, Mr. Yule and Mr. Abelove regarding the issue of privilege.  Mr. Yule asserted that if they do claim privilege in the deposition, they cannot use any of that evidence at trial and they may have to disclose those discussions, maybe in an in-camera review by the court.  Because some of the statements that may be made in Executive Session were not privileged and available for him to assist in his case, if they were going to claim privilege here, they could not use the information at trial.  He reserved his right to get a ruling on questions involving the discussions with the Town Attorney's office at which Susan Scarpati-Reilly was present and privy to information that he was not privy to.

Mr. Yule asked how many discussions were held in Executive Session with Susan Scarpati-Reilly present, without revealing the substance of the conversations and Mr. Cuthbertson said there were a few, maybe less than ten discussions with her present.

Q:  (by Yule)  With regard to the East Northport landfill, were you aware that Mr. Perks was assigned there sometime after February 28, 1999?
A: (by Cuthbertson) Yes.
Q:  Were you aware that while he was assigned there, that the radiation alarm that is installed at that facility went off?
A:  I've read newspaper accounts about radiation.  Am I aware that an alarm with respect to radiation actually went off?  No, not personally.  I read a newspaper about that issue.
Q:  Does the Town of Huntington have a procedure to protect employees at the landfill in the event that there is radiation found there, to your knowledge?
A;  I don't know anything about those procedures..

Mr. Yule ended his examination and Mr. Abelove began to ask questions of Mr. Cuthbertson.

Examination of Mark Cuthbertson by Jason Abelove, Susan Scarpati-Reilly's attorney:

Mr. Abelove only asked a few more questions including whether or not Mr. Cuthbertson had heard directly from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly about her accusation regarding Councilman Steve Israel and the alleged bribe he took from Mr. Klar.  He believed he had read it in a newspaper and did not hear it directly from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.  He did not read any statements drafted by the Councilwoman where she made those allegations and did not hear them from Mr. Steve Reilly or read any documents drafted by him.

The 96 page deposition then ended...

Stay tuned for the entrance of the leading lady in this drama, the deposition of Susan Scarpati-Reilly coming up next......

Letter Sent To News 12 Employees Working in Bethpage...Warns of Risk of Radioactivity in Water...

In a letter addressed to all employees of News 12 and faxed to them January 11, 2014 from  Dr. Carmine Vasile, a former Grumman employee who has been diagnosed with heavy metal poisoning among other serious environmentally related health issues, Dr. Vasile warns them of a health risk they may also face.

FAX to All NEWS12 Employees based in Bethpage (1/11/14)

You are all at risk from radioactive gases produced by Uranium & Thorium used by Grumman on secret, nuclear projects with Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). Radium-226/228 is found tap water supplies for Bethpage, Calverton, Hempstead, Manorville, Riverhead, Moriches, etc. --- yet, only the Suffolk County Water Authority tests for total Radon; the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking. No NYS water company tests for Radon's 39 isotopes or their dozens of decay product that plate lung with cancer-causing isotopes of Lead, Polonium, Bismuth, etc. Contrary to what the panel of experts said at NEWS12's Town Hall Meeting discussing "What's in The Water", if you check water quality & supplemental well reports linked to www.scwa,com  you will find evidence proving more than one of NEWS12's "experts" lied and better understand why Long Island is the cancer capitol of America and why the attached reports excluded known causes of cancer -- radioactive isotopes Grumman routinely dumped in its on-site landfills.  

Yours truly,
Dr, Carmine F. Vasile,
Former Grumman Inventor-of-the-Year 1992 (Ph.D in Electrophysics) 

Dr. Vasile responded to the letter from Susan Kelly from the NYS Department of Health that was her response to his FOI request.  Dr. Vasile said the report that Ms. Kelly refers to does not adequately answer his questions.   The full report is available on line at the Department of Health website. (Human Health Risk Assessment by ARCADIS U.S.)

The letter in reply to Dr. Vasile's FOI request:

Nirav R. Shah, M.D., M.P.H. HEALTH Sue Kelly
Commissioner Executive Deputy Commissioner
January 3, 2014
Carmine F. Vasile
60 Herbert Circle
Patchogue, NY 11772
FOIL #: 13-12-168 

Dear Dr. Vasile:
This letter responds to your Freedom of Information Law request of 12/11/2013, in which
you requested records regarding "copies of Health Assessments for the NWIRPs @ Calverton & Bethpage.  If they exclude health assessments for radionuclides in their NTNC water systems, please add them." I have enclosed documents responsive to your request.
Should you feel that you have been unlawfully denied access to records, you may appeal
such denial in writing within 30 days to the Records Access Appeals Officer, Division of Legal Affairs, Empire State Plaza, 2438 Corning Tower, Albany, New York, 12237-0026.
If you require additional information or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (518) 474-8734. 

EAS/ro
HEALTH.NY.GOV
facebook.com/NYSDOH
twitter.com/HealthNYGov

(NWIRP: Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant)

Dr. Vasile  said "The attached FOIL reply from the NYSDOH  is non-responsive. It's 79-page Human Health Risk Assessment by ARCADIS U.S., pursuant to Section II of the July 4, 2005 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (2005) is a fraud -- as is its 27-page Bethpage Cancer study, because they do not include the Calverton NWIRP or any risk assessments of radionuclides in Grumman's contaminated NTNC (Non-Community, Non-Transient) water systems in either Bethpage or Calverton. The only radionuclides the NYSDEC seems to care about is Cs-137 in deer shot near BNL.

Then Dr. Vasile points the News 12 employees to an article from 2002 first printed in the New York Times:

Brookhaven Deer Shows High Radiation
By Valerie Cotsalas
Published: February 24, 2002
"A deer believed killed by a vehicle on the William Floyd Parkway in January was found to be contaminated with the radioactive isotope cesium-137 at twice the highest levels ever seen at Brookhaven National Laboratory, lab authorities reported last week.
The contamination level in the doe, found on Jan. 9, was 21 picocuries per gram. The highest reading for a deer found on lab grounds before that date was 11 picocuries in 1996.
The discovery, announced in a public meeting at the lab on Feb. 14, raised concern among lab officials and environmental watchdogs. ''They have to figure out where it's coming from and that's the most important issue,'' said Scott Cullen, a lawyer for Standing for Truth About Radiation, an East End environmental group.
Scientists said the deer may have jumped a seven-foot barbed-wire fence and grazed in an enclosed hazardous waste site on the 5,265-acre Brookhaven Laboratory campus. The area's soil was contaminated in the 1950's by water from cleaning operations at the lab's graphite research reactor, which has been shut down for decades. The deer might also have slipped through a gap in the gate's fence, said Timothy Green, a zoologist and the natural resource manager at the lab."

In a letter response to Dr. Vasile's  June 30, 2012  letter and HA-Petition regarding "groundwater plumes originating from the Grumman facilities in Bethpage, Great River, and Calverton, New York." acting ATSDR Director Tina Forrester responded in part:

"In regards to your concern that the Grumman facilities have been affected by radioactive fallout from BNL, please know that ATSDR has previously evaluated the available sampling data for BNL. That evaluation considered the community's exposure to radioactive releases to the air (not the water) and concluded that the past releases are not expected to harm human health." (parenthesis and highlight added)

The letter did not respond to the question of releases in the ground or water and tests of the water were not part of the ATSDR study.

A call to Tina Forrester was responded to by Susan Neurath, who sent the questions to Public Information Office...they had not responded at time of publication.

Dr. Vasile has been trying for years to get the water tested for levels of radioactivity.  Radioactivity is colorless, tasteless and odorless.  New York State does not test any water for radioactivity, according to Dr. Vasile, who worked at Grumman for many years and was Grumman Inventor of the Year in 1992.

                                                      Huntington Connection?

William Perks, a former Huntington Harbormaster and Hazardous Materials Coordinator for the Town of Huntington says sources revealed Brookhaven National Laboratory regularly sent waste to be burned in the Ogden Martin (now Covanta) facility in Huntington at 99 Town Line Road and waste oil to be burned in the Northport power plant.  Then the fly ash was used to cap the local landfills.  He claims when he tried to alert officials the newly installed radiation detector was consistently going off at the waste-to energy facility and the workers had no protective gear, they retaliated against him and simply raised the background levels on the radiation detector so high that many radioactive events would not set off the alarm.  Then the Town began to spend tens of thousands of dollars per month to legally dispose of the radioactive waste that formally they had been burning undetected in violation of their permit.

At the time there were four incinerators on Long Island burning garbage and Huntington was the only one without a radiation detector for ten years, a fact that most probably did not go unnoticed by disreputable carters who could burn radiated waste for free.

Mr. Perks filed complaints with the New York State Labor Department that resulted in sanctions against the Town for failure to have an emergency response plan as required by New York State law.  Mr. Perks said the most disturbing facet of this was that at no time were the Fire Departments or the Police or any other Town employees notified with regard to the numerous incidents and accidents concerning the burning of radioactive waste.  That was back in the late 1990's and the Town of Huntington has hired attorneys and resisted releasing documents to the New York State Attorney General's office for over fourteen years in direct violation of the Right-to-Know laws of New York State,  according to Mr. Perks.

Examination of legal bills from the Town of Huntington show attorneys were researching Right-To-Know laws with regard to the Perks complaints.

New York State has five separate agencies that have responsibilities to handle radioactive events:

The New York State DEC:  No summonses were ever issued, no punitive action ever taken.

The New York State Health Department:  No summonses issued, no action taken.

The New York City Health Department:  No action taken.

The New York State Department of Transportation:  Regulates truck commerce and radiated waste traveling on highways...a permit is necessary to transport any radioactive material and for years this waste was moving on the Island without permits, regulation or monitoring.  No fines were ever levied.

(PESH) The New York State Labor Department:  Public Employees Safety and Health, did not do anything regarding the radiation over a ten year period.

    THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW.........

The permit issued by the DEC for the burning of garbage at Covanta strictly prohibits the burning of any kind of radiated waste including medical waste.  The Suffolk County Environmental Crimes Unit at the District Attorney's office also was notified by Mr. Perks about the trucks with radioactive waste arriving at the  Ogden Martin (now Covanta) facility from Gershow for burning.  Officials at the DA's office did not even bother to respond to Mr. Perks' warnings and took no action to stop the radiated waste from traveling on Long Island roads, according to Mr. Perks.  Even when he brought a witness to the burning of the radiated scrap to Manhattan to speak to the Attorney General, C. Michael Higgins, he took no statements for the record and requested no affidavit of the witnesses.

Mr. Perks then went to the FBI environmental crimes unit and the agent came twice to Mr. Perks' home.  The first time he heard the complaint, when he returned he said to Mr. Perks "I am only one guy."  Mr. Perks was shocked that only one agent handled all environmental crimes in the whole tri-state area, especially since at the same time dozens of agents were sent to the home Elian Gonzales down in Florida, a Cuban refugee, threatened with deportation.  Why were there agents available for that and only one man assigned for the whole tri-state region, for environmental crimes, Mr. Perks asked.

The radiated waste smoke went into the air, the ash was transported to the landfills in Babylon, Brookhaven and Islip.  The grizzly or radiated scrap metal went to Gershow Recycling in Medford, through residential streets where people walked and with children playing outside.

Children are at a higher risk of exposure and the most vulnerable to contamination by radioactive materials while they grow.  Gershow finally installed a radiation detector after an Ohio foundry sued them for radiating their entire foundry--including the crucible.  Then the loads of radiated scrap (Grizzly) were clearly identified as only coming from Huntington and so were sent back to the Ogden Martin facility (now Covanta) without any notification to anyone.  They just turned the trucks around and sent them back on the same roads they had come from exposing the public to re-contamination again.  It was then re-introduced into the incinerator and burned over and over and over again, according to sources.  Documents with the bills of lading and proof of transport of at least 22 truckloads  containing tons of the radiated scrap were obtained by Freelance Investigations.

Eventually, the DEC sent Covanta and Huntington a letter saying they were not supposed to do this.

When Mr. Perks questioned the DEC as to why there was no radiation detector for so long at Ogden Martin, he was told the law strictly prohibits the burning of radioactive waste, but there was no legal requirement forcing the Town to install a radiation detector, (which is a relatively inexpensive monitoring device).  Since radiation is colorless, tasteless and odorless, Mr. Perks asked the DEC if they were just trusting the garbage cartels to be the good guys and do the right thing.  The two inspectors from the DEC that were assigned to the Ogden Martin facility admitted to Mr. Perks they had absolutely no knowledge or training in the field of radiation or radioactive waste, unlike Mr. Perks, who was clearly certified in emergency Haz-Mat response.

Complaints to then Governor Pataki's office were met with the response "You can't prove anything." by New York State Inspector and Special Investigator, Officer Lipinsky.  Mr. Perks said Mr. Lipinsky refused to look at any of the documents he had available for him to view to prove his contentions.  Mr. Lipinsky kept asking Mr. Perks if he was taping him and Mr. Perks told him several times he was not. The one page report from Officer Lipinsky said only "complaint unfounded."

Efforts to communicate with Eliot Spitzer, the State Attorney General at the time, caused the Town of Huntington to hire attorneys to prevent documents from being released.  C. Michael Higgins assigned to the case from the State Attorney General's Office told Mr. Perks after an exchange of correspondence regarding the matter, "You can take solace that they (the Town) are doing the right thing now."  No fines were ever levied against the Town and Mr. Perks was characterized as a "disgruntled employee".

Mr. Perks said in a recent interview, "The DEC will be all over a fisherman whose striped bass is a quarter inch short or two days out of season resulting in heavy fines, confiscation and a court appearance, yet Huntington Town burned huge quantities of radioactive waste over a decade in violation of their permit and Right-To-Know laws and nothing was done to them even as they kept it all a dirty secret from the public."

The Town may be on the hook for millions in legal fees if their appeal of the attorney's fees award to Mr. Perks' attorney, Ed Yule, is lost.  They have already spent millions in legal fees in court cases started by former Town Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly against various Town Attorneys, Councilpersons and Town employees and continue to do so to the present day.  Mr. Perks says he was personally destroyed through legal machinations that still continue, in order to destroy his credibility.  "No one wants Long Island to be known as the next "Love Canal", but people have a right to know why so many people are getting sick with deadly cancers." Mr. Perks said.  "The politicians are worried about property values and votes. It is about people's health and the health of their family members, not politics."

Hundreds of tons of radioactive grizzly or scrap metal was returned to Ogden Martin.  This occurred from 1990 until 2002...for those who claim this is old news consider the half-life of some of the radionuclides are tens of thousands of years and they are sitting right over the water table in landfills.

An independent investigation is called for according to both Dr. Vasile and Mr. Perks including a public health assessment of the water quality and a poll of the cancer cases of those down wind of the Ogden Martin (Covanta) facility and along the truck routes that the radiated waste travelled.

                               Calverton and Bethpage..........

The Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at Calverton (NWIRP) was a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility which had the mission of designing, fabricating, and testing prototype aircraft from 1956 until 1996.  It was located in Riverhead, New York.

In 1956 the United States Navy purchased about 6,000 acres on the Peconic River by New York Route 25 for the facility. Among the properties purchased was a mansion belonging to the grandson of F.W. Woolworth.  The Navy was to build among other things a 10,000-foot (3,000 m) runway. It is labeled on topographic maps as Grumman Peconic River Airport.

The E-2 Hawkeye, the EA-6B Prowler and the more well known F-14 Tomcat were just a few of the aircraft assembled, retrofitted and tested at the facility.  Marine corps and older Navy aircraft were also tested there including the F9F Panther, F-9 Cougar and the F-11 Tiger.

The Grumman Bethpage site consisted of "Plant Six," where final assembly of F-14s, A-6s, EA-6Bs, and E-2Cs took place, and "Plant Seven," for Flight Test.

During the "Space Race",  Grumman built a mock up of the lunar surface to test its proposed Lunar Roving Vehicle.  Many of the lunar astronauts were said to have visited the plant back then.

In 1965, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller proposed converting the airport into the fourth New York City metropolitan airport joining Laguardia Airport, John F. Kennedy Airport and Newark Airport. The proposal was abandoned following opposition from both Grumman and local residents.

Grumman merged with Northrop Corporation in 1994, forming Northrop Grumman Corporation and the new firm eliminated almost all operations on Long Island. Grumman vacated the site on February 14, 1996.  The airport has since been developed into Calverton Executive Airpark.

References:

Airport information for Calverton Executive Airpark (IATA:CTO, FAA:3C8) at Great Circle Mapper.
FAA Airport Master Record for 3C8 (Form 5010 PDF), effective 2007-10-25
TopoZone.com map. Retrieved 2007-11-09.
Grumman Memorial Park
Shaman, Diana (February 25, 1996). "Planners Ponder 2,900-Acre Northrop Grumman Site". The New York Times.  Retrieved 2009-08-02.

The Radionuclides Rule for Drinking Water

The following information is taken directly from the EPA/US website:

In 2000, EPA revised the radionuclides regulation, which had been in effect since 1977.  The revisions required new monitoring provisions to ensure that all customers of community water systems will receive water that meets the Maximum Contaminant Levels for radionuclides in drinking water.  EPA also issued a standard for uranium, as required by the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The current standards are: combined radium 226/228 of 5 pCi/L; a gross alpha standard for all alphas of 15 pCi/L (not including radon and uranium); a combined standard of 4 mrem/year for beta emitters. The new MCL for uranium is 30 µg/L.

What health effects are associated with exposure to radionuclides from drinking water?


Exposure to radionuclides from drinking water results in the increased risk of cancer. The radioactive particles (alpha, beta and gamma particles) emitted by radionuclides are called "ionizing radiation" because they ionize ("destabilize") nearby atoms as they travel through a cell or other material. In living tissue, this ionization process can damage chromosomes or other parts of the cell. This cellular damage can lead to the death of the cell or to unnatural reproduction of the cell. When a cell reproduces uncontrollably, it becomes a cancer. Certain elements accumulate in specific organs: radium (like calcium) accumulates in the bones and iodine accumulates in the thyroid.
For uranium, we must consider not only the carcinogenic health effects from its radioactive decay and the decay of its daughter products ("radiotoxicity"), but also damage to the kidneys from exposure to the uranium itself ("chemical toxicity"). Exposure to elevated uranium levels in drinking water has been shown to lead to changes in kidney function that are indicators of potential future kidney failure.


 What are the sources of radionuclides in water?

Most drinking water sources have very low levels of radioactive contaminants ("radionuclides"), levels low enough not to be considered a public health concern. Of the radionuclides that have been observed to occur in drinking water sources, most are naturally occurring. However, contamination of drinking water sources by anthropogenic ("human-made") nuclear materials also occurs. Naturally occurring radionuclides are found in the Earth's crust and are created in the upper atmosphere. For example, trace amounts of long-lived isotopes (e.g., uranium-238, which has a half-life of almost five billion years) have been present in earth's crust since the crust first formed. As these long-lived trace radionuclides decay, shorter-lived ("more radioactive") daughter products are formed. Of particular concern are naturally occurring uranium and the naturally occurring radium isotopes, radium-226 and radium-228, which have been observed to accumulate to levels of concern in drinking water sources.

An email to News 12 for comment on the Fax to their employees was not responded to at time of publication.

County Executive Steve Bellone posted this on his FaceBook Page on January 29th.


Suffolk County Executive Steven Bellone As with all emerging contaminants, SCDHS is concerned with potential radionuclide contamination, and remains proactive in investigating potential sources. In fact, the SCDHS has the only certified radiological laboratory on Long Island.

To date, the SCDHS has not confirmed any significant concentrations of radionuclides in public water supply wells in Suffolk County. With respect to your specific questions, radon levels are naturally low on Long Island compared with background levels in other areas of the country, tritium levels have been well under drinking water standards, and there have been no confirmed significant detections of lead-210 (which is a naturally occurring radionuclide for which there is currently no drinking water standard).

The Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Water Resources currently tests all community water supply wells for radionuclides every 3 years, except that Suffolk County Water Authority wells closest to Brookhaven National Laboratory are sampled every year as a precaution. In addition, there is also a monitoring well network upgradient of the Suffolk County Water Authority Wells that are frequently sampled by Suffolk County Department of Health Services staff, Suffolk County Water Authority and Brookhaven National Laboratory. This sampling exceeds the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The NYSDOH, the USEPA, and the SCDHS have previously reviewed the Suffolk County Water Authority’s Annual Water Quality Report supplements that included detections of Lead-210. However, these detections were determined to be likely false positives, and subsequent resampling by SCWA in 2013 did not identify any detections. The standard error, also known as uncertainty, for nearly all of the historical detections were close to or more than the actual measurements reported by Suffolk County Water Authority’s contract laboratory. The Suffolk County Water Authority has investigated the high uncertainties and they were informed by their contract laboratory that the results were an anomaly of the analysis.

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced from the breakdown of radium which may be present in certain soil and rock geological formations. Studies conducted by the USEPA reveal that radon is a natural constituent of most groundwaters. Based on historical monitoring and research, it has been determined that the radon levels detected in Suffolk County water resources were below the natural background level found in other areas of the country. At present, there is no enforceable drinking water standard for radon; however, please note that our staff in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Water Resources routinely collect samples for gross alpha, gross beta and tritium analyses. The gross alpha analysis would identify the presence of radon’s parent compound, Radium-226, which is an alpha emitter and regulated under the USEPA Radionuclide Rule; gross alpha results in public water supplies in Suffolk have never approached drinking water standards.

Finally, in response to your inquiry on the BNL sewage treatment plant, the NYSDEC has determined that the relocation of the outfall to groundwater will have beneficial effects on the Peconic River. Our evaluation of the proposed discharge, using best available modeling and assessment tools, shows that the outfall will not be near the contributing areas to any public supply wells, and the discharge is not expected to impact public water supplies.

Former Huntington Councilwoman's Son Arrested in Napper Tandy Shooting in Northport

At 10:30 last Sunday evening an altercation and shooting occurred at Napper Tandy's, a popular bar in Northport.  The suspect, Steven Reilly Jr.,  allegedly shot a  21 year old Northport man in the upper thigh and fled the scene in a white Ford Taurus registered to a Steven Reilly.  No one at the bar had seen him before to identify him.  Approximately fourteen hours later, at 11:45 on Monday,  Mr. Reilly Jr. was arrested by Suffolk County Police at his home at 30 Fresh Pond Road in Fort Salonga.  Northport and Suffolk Police had secured the scene of the shooting quickly Sunday night, but the suspect had already fled.


Steven Reilly Jr. is the son of Ms. Susan Scarpati-Reilly.  A former Assistant District Attorney for Suffolk County and a former Huntington Town Councilwoman, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly worked prosecuting criminal cases of violent felons while at the District Attorney's Office.  She also worked as an Assistant County Attorney and was involved in several high profile lawsuits, that may cost the Town of Huntington millions in legal fees.  In United States District Court, a jury found Ms. Scarpati-Reilly guilty of sexual harassment of an employee, William Perks, but awarded no monetary damages to Mr. Perks.

The suspect's father is a retired New York State Trooper and an ex-Marine. The gun used in the shooting was according to sources, a 9mm and has been identified as belonging to Mr. Steven Reilly Sr.

                                          LOW BAIL FOR A SCOFFLAW?

Mr. Steven Reilly, 39 years old, was charged with second-degree assault with intent to cause physical injury with a weapon (a class D Felony), criminal use of a firearm second degree (a class C Felony) and second degree criminal possession of a weapon and loaded firearm (a class C Felony).  He was not charged with attempted murder.  He pleaded not guilty and is being held on $50,000 bail.

In 2009, Mr. Reilly Jr. had failed to show for a scheduled court appearance twice on a case involving a "uniform traffic ticket" and the third time he failed to show a warrant had been issued for that offense.  On March 11, 2009 Judge R. Horowitz adjourned the case when Mr. Reilly failed to show up and allowed him to be released on his own recognizance (ROR).  He allowed another adjournment on April 10, when Mr. Reilly Jr. failed to show up at court again and continued the ROR.  On May 11, 2009 when he failed to show again, a scofflaw warrant was issued.

When arrested on Monday, the other warrant was added to the court calendar along with a $25 dollar bond that to date along with the $50,000 dollar bond has not yet been posted.   He has a legal aid attorney representing him and he has been moved to the jail as the bail has not been posted.

An order of protection was also issued in the new case as is customary in cases of this nature, according  the victim's attorney, Edward Yule.

The young victim, who prefers to remain anonymous, was treated and released the night of the shooting and the bar manager, James Gilroy, said the bartender acted heroically by shepherding patrons away from the area of the shooting that was caught on video from several camera angles and was witnessed by at least five patrons.  The altercation allegedly involved Mr. Steven Reilly Jr. putting the gun into the ribs and then the neck of the victim asking him to help retrieve his credit card from the bartender.  When the patron fought back, Mr. Reilly Jr. fell to the floor and shot the victim in the upper thigh.

Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater: Act Four Scenes Two and Three

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, for the record, was elected as a Huntington Town Councilwoman in 1995 and re-elected in 1999 and she was the liaison to the Parks and Recreation Department and the Town attorney's office and according to her maybe public safety as well, "I'm not sure, it's one or the other though." Ms. Budd became liaison after the election of Town Councilpersons Mark Cuthbertson and Susan Scarpati-Reilly around 1998 by request to Supervisor Petrone.  She did not believe there was any paperwork regarding the appointments. The prior head of Parks and Recreation was Bob Labua and the head at the time was Emerson Boozer, (1969 Superbowl Champion on Joe Namath's team) according to the transcript and Ms. Budd's testimony.

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:

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.

Editor's note:  Cordial and Professional relationship?


         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....)