THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR | 2,905,611 VISITORS VISIT 8,324,077 TIMES 3 TIMES EVERY DAY IN ONE YEAR. HIGHEST ACTIVITY IN WPCNR HISTORY.White PlainsCitizeNetReporter lifted its worldwide visits from unique visitors to wpcnr.com to 8,324,077,a 1,306,419 increase in visits in one year from 7,017,658 visits to the site last year which covers White Plains and Westchester County. The 8,324,077 visits were made by 2,005,611 unique visitors who visited wpcnr an average of 3 visits a day. ON JULY 20- -2026 visitors have accessed wpcnr and made 3,072 visits an average of 1.6 visits. In the last week 33,495 individual vistors made 54,458 visits, averaging 1.6 visits. In the last month, 152,940 visitors recorded 229,338 visits (1.5 visits)

SCOOP OF WEEK: What a Day to Open a Soda Parlor! McGovern-Perrone Family SCOOPS!

Posted on June 15, 2012 by John Bailey

The White Plains Living Cones (Ryan Trapp, left and big brother Mike Trapp) sucked in first time customers in a steady stream to get first licks, off the street in to Anne McGovern-Perrone’s new ice cream parlor today on a beautiful day for cone! 80 SUNNY WPCNR DEGREES!

Anniez is scooping old-fashioned cones and soda-jerking thick and frosties from 11 A.M. to 11P.M. Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays; Tuesday through Thursday 12 noon to 9 P.M.

Check it out! The shakes are thick and frosty (Fribble-Quality–WPCNR-endorsed), the ice cream selection (Mt. Pleasant Ice Cream) has the diversity White Plains demands…and Moms, teens, Dads, and kids of all ages will love. Come on down! Thompson & Bender may want to sign the Living Cones up for their next promotion!

Anne McGovern-Perrone second from left and her Sweet Annie’s Team…Their Scoops work for you! Annie’s is on the south end of Mamaroneck Avenue right across the street from The Jefferson, with plenty of free parking available. No waiting. Right next door to Cartridge World. Anne says it is a joint family venture between her and her husband…and they have plenty of help.

Abinanti on the new proposed reorganization of delivering services to the disab

Posted on June 14, 2012 by John Bailey

WPCNR ALBANY ROUNDS. From Thomas J. Abinanti, Assemblyman, 92nd Assembly District. June 14,2012:

The Assemblyman forwards the following critique of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s reform bill that would establish a superagency to determine which services and how much money would be spent on disabled individuals’ care. The bill, previously highlighted only on the White Plains Week television show, has serious flaws in Mr. Abinanti’s opinion.

Here he highlights the flaws of the legislation as presently constituted. Mr. Abinanti’s office has been notified to ascertain how committed the two houses are to passing the bill in its present form.

The legislation was conceived in response to the federal government requiring more accountability from the state which has been found to be using medicaid money for the disabled as part of the general fund budget. The state response was to formulate this bill to spend federal funds more prudently and save money.

Mr. Abinanti writes about the bill’s ambiguities and pitfalls:

I. GOAL: INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT

A. Reform means establishing independent oversight from different sources separate from service-provider agencies.

The proposed legislation concentrates oversight in one super agency which also provides services. Combining operational functions (rule-making, training, recordkeeping, reporting of incidents) with oversight institutionalizes a conflict. Concentrating oversight control in the Governor’s office gives the appearance of diminishing prosecutorial independence.

The legislation should include:

1. Career prosecutors not reporting to Executive Branch

Employed and supervised by NYS Attorney General

Local prosecutors with AG support

Special State Police Unit to support local police

2. Inspector General not reporting to Executive Branch

a. Employed and supervised by NYS State Comptroller

b. Input from family/guardian counsels and ombudsman

3. Non governmental not for profit protection and advocacy (P&A) watchdog agency with guaranteed funding from state and non-state sources empowered to investigate and commence civil litigation for systemic sufficiency.

a. Should be established by statute not executive order. Executive Order makes entity dependent on the discretion of Executive Branch over which it is charged with oversight.

b. Should have jurisdiction over OPWDD, OMH, and OASAS and also OCFS programs and adult homes.

c. Governing Board should consist of a majority of people with disabilities and family members.

d. Functions should be restricted to monitoring, investigating and reporting on abuse/neglect. Other functions should be moved to an office of services for people with disabilities.

4. Reinstatement of local board–of-visitors type function.

B. Reform means facilitating immediate notification to most convenient law enforcement for investigation of possible crimes, preservation of evidence and protection of witnesses and victims.

The proposed legislation funnels all abuse/neglect complaints through a new clearinghouse bureaucracy which will cause significant delay of /impediment to immediate notification of law enforcement officials of potential crimes. The proposed legislation appears to delete requirements for certain officials to immediately notify law enforcement of a potential crime yet requires whistleblowers to use dictated channels under criminal penalty even if they are at risk of retaliation.

The legislation should:

1. Clarify that anyone may report a crime directly to law enforcement.

a. No limitations on where complaints may be made

b. Statewide reporting registry designed as a registry and tracking tool one means of entry into the criminal justice system not a clearing house for complaints.

2. Reward not punish whistleblowers or put them at risk

C. Reform means understandable definitions and standards that reflect Zero Tolerance for criminal behavior.

The proposed legislation raises the bar for referrals to law enforcement.

The legislation should:

1. Standards

a. Not raise the threshold from “some credible” evidence to “preponderance of evidence”

b. Not raise the threshold from “indicated” to “substantiated” requiring a finding that an individual or facility is responsible.

2. Definitions:

a. Advocates and providers have complained about the proposed definitions being imprecise

b. Definitions of abuse/neglect appear to wrongly omit accidental injurious physical conduct no matter how often repeated, or how many victims

c. Definition of physical injury appears to wrongly require diminution of physical condition not just harm or damage

d. Confusion arises by changing Penal Law district attorney definition to include inspector general.

e. The act should use accepted language of “people with disabilities” not “people with special needs.”

II. GOAL: ENHANCE THE ROLE OF FAMILIES

A. Reform means enhancing the role of families of people with disabilities who are residing in facilities operated by the state and the private sector.

The proposed legislation adds no meaningful enhancement of the role of families.

The legislation should include:

1. Family Bill of Rights

a. Immediate notification of any untoward event

b. Access information: learn as if resident could talk

c. Freedom to unannounced visits

d. Input to health and safety issues

e. Regularly scheduled meetings

2. Family/Guardian Councils

a. Advise on statewide and local budget

b. Review expenditures to ensure financial transparency

3. Ombudsman Program/Advocacy Program

a. Paid staff and unpaid family advocates for state and

non-profit agencies

B. Reform means total transparency for families to examine the operation, care and finances of the entire system and each individual facility. Protecting the privacy of individual residents should not be used as the excuse to prevent family members to access and understand information as if the person with disabilities were able to explain to them what occurred.

The proposed legislation appears to reinforce present “confidentiality” provisions which have served to cloak care agencies in secrecy and block family access to information. (Example, Why restrict medical examiner’s release of death report to justice center?)

III. GOAL: IMPROVE LIVING CONDITIONS

Reform means improving the living conditions of people with disabilities and preventing abuse and neglect.

The proposed legislation adds no meaningful enhancement of the living conditions of people with disabilities. At most, it instructs existing agencies that have failed to better both living conditions and working conditions to promulgate new regulations to do what they should have been doing all along. It does nothing to implement the recommendations and latest reports to the Governor that there should be increased opportunities for people in residential facilities to have community integrated services and “segregation as last resort”.

The legislation should include:

1. Abuse and neglect prevention

a. Establish standards for good appropriate care

b. Integrate person centered programs

c. Carefully drafted uniform definitions of abuse and neglect of people with disabilities, including intentional and accidental behavior

2. Better care from better working conditions

a. Living wage

b .Limited overtime

c . Appropriate training

d. Careful employee vetting

e. Standards/Qualifications/Job Descriptions

3. Implementation

a. Should establish commission to determine appropriate staffing and costs

b. Need budget amendment for finances

c. Include family members and, where possible, people with disabilities consumers in planning transition to new system

d. There should be no delay in implementing recent reform laws.

Abinanti Concerned Disabled Care Reform Will Hurt Disabled Under Cuomo Cost-Cut

Posted on June 13, 2012 by John Bailey

WPCNR ALBANY ROUNDS. From New York State Assemblyman Tom Abinanty. June 13, 2012:

On an under-the-radar issue, not touched by local media, and only publicized by the White Plains NewsTalk television show, White Plains Week, Assemblyman Thomas Abinanti of Greenburgh is urging the New York State Assembly to significantly strengthen protections for people with disabilities before approving Governor Andrew Cuomo’s “Protection of People with Special Needs Act”, which is intended to prevent and punish abuse and neglect of those living in state and private care facilities.

“Families need to be sure that when they entrust their loved ones for care their loved ones are safe from abuse and not neglected,” said Abinanti. “The proposed legislation is inadequate. It needs an upgrade.”

In a letter to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Abinanti commended the Governor’s focusing public attention on the need to reform the system for delivering residential and related services to people with disabilities. However, Abinanti provided a four-page outline of changes needed.

Many advocates for people with disabilities who applaud the Governor’s imitative also urge public discussion before the Assembly acts on some provisions they see as troublesome.

A member of the Assembly’s Mental Health Committee, Abinanti noted:

Rather than establish independent watchdogs, the proposed legislation concentrates all oversight in a super agency which also provides services. The legislation would institutionalize conflict of interest. (italics added by the editor)

Rather than facilitating immediate law enforcement investigation of possible crimes, the proposed legislation funnels all abuse and neglect complaints to a new clearinghouse bureaucracy, raises the bar for what gets referred to law enforcement and discourages whistleblowers.

Rather than enhancing the role of families, the proposed legislation continues to shroud decisions and information in the veil of “confidentiality.”

Rather than improve living conditions, minimize “segregation” and prevent abuse and neglect, the proposed legislation merely instructs existing agencies that have failed to try again.

To read Abinanti’s letter to the Speaker and specific proposals click here.

Violent Crimes up Sharply in Two Years Since 12 Police Officers Fired: PBA

Posted on June 13, 2012 by John Bailey

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. June 13, 2012. :

Since WPCNR reported Monday Judge Gerald Loehr’s decision striking down 12-hour police shifts, requiring the city of White Plains to return to the practice of paying overtime after 8 hours of duty for patrol officers, the Mayor’s Office has not responded to WPCNR requests for how the city will manage the overtime drain, that three years ago was costing the city $500,000 a year.

The 12-hour shift, according to former Commissioner of Public Safety Dr. Frank Straub cut overtime in half. The President of the Common Council, Beth Smayda has not returned a call from WPCNR asking if the council would consider officially approving the 12-hour shifts or at least reopen the discussion of whether 12-hour shifts indeed do cut overtime.

However, Robert Riley President of the White Plains Police Benevolent Association issued a statement to WPCNR on the matter of 12-hour shifts and points out that since 11 police officers were fired by the Common Council in 2010, serious crimes in White Plains (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault (domestic and non-domestic, Burglary, Larcenies and Auto Theft have risen 50%. Here Officer Riley Comments on Judge Loehr’s decision effect on overtime and the crime trends — which reflect the data on the Public Safety website.

Mr. Riley’s statement:

“By reverting to and implementing the prior work schedule, it will cost the City overtime, require the City to either hire additional police officers or remove officers and detectives from other vital divisions. We submit that this will dramatically diminish the level of police services that are presently provided to its residents. At this time, the police patrol force is not able to accommodate such restructuring due to a lack of police officers.

Year to date, crime in White Plains is up 32.3% from the previous year. We believe that the present administration of the police department is directly responsible for this increase. The department is currently operating with 25 less officers than it was prior to the police lay offs in 2010. Additional reorganization to accommodate a work schedule change may result in service cuts that jeopardize the safety, security, and integrity of the city.

As for the Commissioners receiving a 2% raise, we believe it is a smack in the face to all police personnel. The City is asking that we take two years of ZERO PERCENT, but are able to find funds for the Commissioners.

So far the City has taken 15% medical from retirees, raised taxes 4.75%, asked for the PBA to give up 15% medical for new hires, and take two zeroes. Something doesn’t add up here. It’s obvious that labor and the citizens are getting the short end of the stick and something needs to be done immediately.

For the City to give a raise to Corporation Council, ($193,800) who can’t even get a deal worked out with its unions and had the City file for impasse is a total disgrace. He, as well as Mayor Roach and all members of the Common Council should be held accountable for giving this raise.

Also, we are still wondering why the City has viciously attacked our retired members. The City gave its word to these brave men and women that they would never have to worry about their health care, and now they have broken that promise. With actions like this, it’s no wonder that trust in government is at an all time low. These officers stayed in White Plains when they could have gone elsewhere, putting themselves in harm’s way, many because of their health care benefits. Now, after they made this city one of the safest in the state for the public, it turns out that they were risking their lives in more ways than one. It’s a disgrace and intolerable.”

2010-2012 Violent Crime Statistics

2010 (Total year)

VIOLENT CRIMES

· There were 24 burglaries as of 6/8/2010 and that increased to 50 burglaries by the end of 2010, which is a 100% increase in burglaries in just 6 six months after the layoffs of 12 officers

· There were 10 aggravated non-domestic assaults as of 6/8/2010 and that increased to 26 by the end of 2010, which is an increase of 150%

2010 to 2011 (Total year)

· Part One Crimes increased by 14.8%. There were 173 more crimes that the previous year (1171 in 2010 and 1344 in 2011)

June 2011 to June 2012

· Part One Crimes increased from 480 in June 2011 to 635 in June 2012

· That is an increase of 32.3%

Part One Crimes consist of the following offenses:

1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Robbery
4. Aggravated Assault (domestic and non-domestic)
5. Burglary
6. Larcenies
7. Auto Theft