Hits: 0
WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. By John F. Bailey. January 6, 2003, UPDATED 8:26 A.M. E.S.T. UPDATED 4:10 P.M. E.S.T: A crusading environmental lawyer has pried loose a copy of the mysterious “for council eyes only” Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Cappelli Hotel project from city hall after pointing out to George Gretsas, City Executive Officer and City Corporation Counsel, Edward Dunphy that the city was in violation of New York State law in denying the public the right to see the DFEIS once it was filed the week of December 15.
DAN SEIDEL CATCHES THE CITY IN A COVERUP: Mr. Seidel brandishes a copy of New York Code of Rules and Regulations with highlighted copy expressly saying that filed documents must be made available to the public. The picture is from the live Common Council telecast on WPGA-TV Monday night. this dramatic meeting will be recablecast in its entirety evenings at 8 P.M. through the week on WPGA-TV, “The Face of City Hall,” Channel 75. WPCNR VIDEO CAPTURE.
The revelation of the conscious city decision to withhold the document from examination by the public was made on television at Monday evening’s Common Council meeting when leadoff speaker, Dan Seidel, at the resumption of the Cappelli Hotel (221 Main project) public hearing held up the actual copy of the New York Code of Rules & Regulations, (6NYCRR Part 612.12 Sub. B3), specifically stating that all EAFS, EIS’s “once filed must be maintained in files readily accessible to the public.”
The Media Denied a Copy
WPCNR requested the DFEIS document December 16, approximately one week after it was submitted in segments by the Cappelli organization, filed and was informed by Commissioner of Planning, Susan Habel, that the DFEIS was not going to be made available to the public because it was a “draft” document. This struck WPCNR as strange at the time because WPCNR’s news archives has a Draft copy of the New York Presbyterian Hospital proton accelerator Final Environmental Impact statement. The Common Council was informed by the city that the 221 Main Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement was not going to be available to the public, and apparently, accepted this as standard procedure.
Technical Analysis by Member of Public
However, here on White Plains Government Access Television, was attorney Dan Seidel going into technical analysis of the DFEIS, which supposedly no one other than the Common Council, the Planning, Building, and Cappelli organization and consultants have seen. Seidel began his talk by saying there were many questions about the content of the DFEIS, including alleged failure to deal with recently passed county regulations for treatment of storm water runoff that White Plains has not complied with, inappropriate standards calculating waste water generated by the project hotel and condominiums, the letter reporting The Bar Building could be “designated” an historic site, among three major issues and he urged the council to delve into a laundry list of issues that he generalized about.
Stunned Disbelief.
Glen Hockley, with a glassy look in his eye, interrupted Mr. Seidel and remarked that the Common Council had been told the DFEIS would not be made available to the public, (wondering how Seidel had gotten a copy). Seidel said that he took up that issue with the Mayor’s Executive Officer. He said he found it “chilling” that the public had been denied access to a document which he said New York State law entitles the public to see.
Seidel explained he obtained his own copy of the DFEIS when he met with City Executive Officer George Gretsas and City Corporation Council Edward Dunphy two weeks ago, informing them they were violating the New York Code of Rules and Regulations by suppressing documents (not SEQRA as we had written previously), once they had been filed and that he was entitled to see them.
In a late night interview with WPCNR Monday, Seidel said of the Gretsas-Dunphy meetings with him, he could not understand why Michael Gerard, the city environmental lawyer allowed the DFEIS to be suppressed. (Mr. Seidel notes to WPCNR that Mr. Dunphy did not meet with him and Mr. Gretsas in person, writing us, “Dunphy was not at my meetings with George. He was called on the phone several times for a decision and he finally gave one (to release the documents) on Monday (1/5).”
The Council did not seem to remember what letter this was until Tom Roach said it was a letter, turned in December 18, that reported the Bar Building could be “considered” an historic site.
Again, Mr. Hockley, speaking slowly, said he wanted to know the reason why the DFEIS document was given to Mr. Seidel. Seidel answered the question holding up a copy of the New York Code highlighted by yellow marker saying, “By law I’m entitled to it. If it’s been filed the public can sure enough be entitled to look at it.”
Mr. Hockley again returned to the explanation for the sudden selective issue of the DFEIS, asking for a clarification.
MOVING ON QUICKLY, Mayor Delfino snapped to Mr. Hockley first, “Ed will clarify it for you ” and pursued Mr. Seidel on a question wanting to know what letter “qualified” the Bar Building as an historic site. Seidel recalled it was first mentioned at the December 19 Council meeting on the DFEIS. The Council seemed to not remember what letter this was until Tom Roach recalled it was a letter that said the Bar Building could be considered as an historic site. Mr. Seidel closed by saying there were many laws that were not being addressed. Delfino said “every law that’s out there will be considered, will be looked at, and will be reviewed. It will be looked at” and thanked Mr. Seidel for his comments and pushed on to the next speaker. WPCNR VIDEO CAPTURE
DUNPHY CLARIFIES IT ALL.
About eleven speakers later, after Mr. Seidel, we believe had left the meeting, Edward Dunphy was brought to the podium by the Mayor to explain why the city thought it necessary to release the DFEIS to Mr. Seidel and the public.
THE CLARIFIER CLARIFIES: At the conclusion of the public hearing on 221 Main, after all speakers on the subject had appeared and spoken, and several prods by Councilman Glen Hockley, the Mayor called back Edward Dunphy, Corporation Counsel, to explain to Councilman Glen Hockley why the decision to release the DFEIS to Mr. Seidel was made. WPCNR VIDEO CAPTURE
Dunphy did not agree that Seidel’s quotation of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations was the reason why the documents were released. He told the White Plains television audience and the Common Council , “Under normal codes the draft documents are not foilable,” but that it became clear that “someone outside city government” had seen the documents, so “that’s how it became a FOIL able document,” and that was why the documents were available to the public. Dunphy did not disclose who outside city government had been determined to have seen the documents.
Mr. Dunphy’s exact quote was:
“Under normal circumstances as we are all aware a draft document is not subject to requests of FOIL (Freedom of Information Law), and the government does not have to release the document. However, we have discovered that the document has been shared with people outside the City of White Plains, and I rendered an opinion that it comes under the cloak of FOIL. Subsequent to that, checking with Bob Freedman in Albany, he concurred with my opinion that it does become a FOILable document. So that’s how it became a public document. People in the public have seen the document.”
After Mr. Boykin asked for explicit explanation, Dunphy said, the document “has been shared with people other than the City of White Plains.”
Seidel Responds
Mr. Seidel, in a comment attached to this article, received today, elaborated on why the city had to release the DFEIS:
“ It’s not that it was shown to others, but that it was officially FILED on Dec 15 which means the public has a RIGHT to see the documents. SEQR is not subject to FOIL – there is no provision in that law to subject a request to see documents under the FOIL law. “
