THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. February 10, 2011: The Westchester County Attorney’s office filed a motion to dismiss Monday in U.S. District Court, asking Judge Susan Cacace to dismiss the  suit filed by former Councilman Glen Hockley and Martin London alleging “Conspiracy with Malicious Intent by Individuals acting under cover of Government Authority for the Purpose of Keeping Glen Hockley off the Ballout, Trying to Suppress the Vote During Election Day and their continuing efforts after the election of trying to manipulate the results.”

 

Glen Hockley, former White Plains Councilman will respond in two weeks to keep his court case for a new election for Mayor going.

 

According to spokesperson for the County Attorney, Lori Alesio, Attorney Matt Gallagher filed the motion to dismiss Monday. She said Mr. Hockley has  approximately two weeks to file a rebuttal as to why the case should not be dismissed, after which Judge Cacace is expected to make a decision whether or not to dismiss the case, or proceed to a jury trial.

 

Mr. Hockley seeks a jury trial; a finding that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, (their right to Equal Protection Under the Law), a finding that New York Election Law was unconstitutional as applied to Mr.Hockley’s failure to file a Certificate of Acceptance (the basis for the Westchester County Board of Elections act of  removing him from the November 2009 Mayoral ballot), a new election with Mr. Hockley on the ballot; compensatory and punitive damages, and legal fees and costs.

 

Mr. Hockley’s amended complaint, submitted after Judge Cacace refused to consider his complaints of being kept off the ballot being dismissed by the Court of Appeals, frames the court action in terms of his constitutional rights being violated, to wit:

 

“The Defendents’ intentional actions kept Mr. Hockley off the ballot and violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to associate for the advancement of his political beliefs, to political expression and to run for office. It also violated the voters’ fundamental voting right by limiting their choice of candidate on the ballot to one (Adam Bradley). This violated the voters’ right to cast their votes effectively, their right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs,and their right to political expression.”

 

Hockley’s amended complaint also contends New York State Election Law (requiring a signed Certificate of Acceptance of nomination),as applied to Mr. Hockley under the statute is “unconstitutional,” being that Hockley alleges “The law focuses on allowing a political candidate to decline nomination if they don’t want to run. The State Appellate Division applied this law to Plaintiff Hockley even though there was no question he wanted to run. He personally collected the signatures and signed the nominating petition.” Hockley’s amended brief points out,

 

Citing Burdick v. Takushi in 1992,which ruled “a court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forth by the State as jusitifications for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which whose interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights”the Hockley amended brief argues,

 

“The injury to Plaintiffs’ fundamental civil rights is very grave while the State’s interest in requiring a Certificate of Acceptance from an Independent candidate is very small.There is no  danger that an independent candidate (Mr. Hockley) will be nominated against their will if he has personally signed the petition.”

Hockley’s amended brief concludes, “New York State Election Law as it was applied to Mr. Hockley violated the right under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to run as a candidate for election, his right to associate for the advancement of his political beliefs, and his right of political expression as a candidate for Mayor of the City of White Plains, NY. It also violated the rights of voters in White Plains, like Plaintiff London, who wanted to vote for Mr. Hockley but could not. It violated their fundamental right to vote, their right to cast their votes effectively, their right to associate for the advancement of their political beliefs, and their right to political expression.”

 

The amended brief also catalogs a series of affidavited incidents suppressing write-in votes,  which the brief maintains violated voters’ constutional rights.

 

They include failing to supply pencils at voting booths (for write-ins), alleged erroneous instructions to write-in voters; alleged failure to make sure write-in mechanisms worked smoothly in the voting machines; purposeful failure to provide instructions on how to cast write-in votes; Board of Election refusal to count votes cast for him on absentee ballots; and violations of  Equal Protection Under the Law.

 

There are 25 Westchester County Board of Elections Incident Reports attached to the Amended Brief, documenting Mr. Hockley’s charges. There are also 13 communications from voters depicting their experiences.

 

WPCNR is the process of obtaining the motion to dismiss filed Monday by the County Attorney.

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. February 8, 2010 UPDATED FEBRUARY 10, 2010(iTALICS): Layoffs of from 60 to 100 job positions would possibly be required according to WPCNR estimates to compensate for the projected $3.7 Million fall in the White Plains Assessment Roll revealed two weeks ago by the city. Without layoffs a tax increase of 8% (about $1,000 on a $650,000 h1ome in White Plains) would be required to keep the staffing where it is.

 

WPCNR calculates that even if the city school budget for 2010-11 stays at the 2009-10 level of $185.7 million, the district still faces the necessity of replacing $2 Million in revenue because the city assessment roll is projected to decline $3.7Million to $281.5 Million of Assessed Value.

 

If the school district wishes to maintain its current staffing numbers, the decline in assessments alone would require severe cost-cutting measures to fund approximately $5 Million in scheduled teacher increases in 2010-11.

 

The School District presents the second part of its 2010-11 Budget with the “Instructional” portion tonight at Education House at 7:30 P.M., 5 Homeside Lane. The Revenue projections will not be compared to expenses by the District until March 8.

 

.

The assessment shocker comes from an estimate of the 2010 Assessment Roll provided the City Budget & Management Committee last week, where city budget consultant Eileen Earl Bradley submitted the estimate. (There was no one from the school district attending that committee meeting).

 

In addition, another complication is that the school district aid from the state is expected to decline $2 to 3.5 Million based on Governor David Paterson’s budget.

 

To replace just the revenue of about $ 2 Million, lost from the projected assessment roll decline, the district would have to enact a 4% property tax increase – if they keep the school budget at $186 Million (where it is this year). That 4% would raise the tax rate to $535/$1,000 of assessed valuation from the present $515.15, roughly raising the tax on a median priced home of $650,000 to $8,586, up about $600.

 

School Teacher Raises now in effect, Administrator Raises Now Being Negotiated Key Factor that May Trigger Layoffs.

 

However, the district negotiated a contract effective last June raising teachers’ salaries 5.5% in 2010-11 (including automatic “step” raises based on years of service and progress towards degrees). To maintain present staffing the school district has to find about $5 Million to pay those raises for its 641 teachers. If teaching staff, administrative staff (now negotiating salary increases), and teaching assistants remain at the same employment numbers, that $5 Million has to be found somewhere.

 

WPCNR estimates 60 to 100 terminations are needed to keep the school budget at the $186 Million level, or a massive influx of revenue needs to be found.

 

Terminations could come from administrative positions,(paid more than teachers and teaching assistants),or teaching assistants of which there are 297 (232 in the 5 elementary schools, 41 in the Middle Schools and 24 in the high school, according to Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Lenora Boehlert). 

 

The Teaching Assistants are paid an average of $50,000 a year(figure includes salary and benefits). Full-time teachers are paid an average of $94,000 a year or first, second and third year teachers (untenured, B.A. only) earning $52,269, $54,173, and $56,144, respectively.

 

Should the district decide to fund the present teacher staffing next year, this would raise the school budget to $191 Million. To fund that, the district would require a 9% property tax rate increase to $560 per $1,000 of assessed valuation that would increase school taxes on the $650,000 home to about $9,000 (a $1,000 tax increase).

 

There is the problem though of how much state aid the school district will lose. If the present Governor Paterson plan that would eliminate $2 Million to $3.5 Million in state aid to White Plains goes into effect, the district would be faced with providing a tax increase to replace that, too, or eliminate programs.

 

Taxpayers will also pay more if the governor 18% STAR EXEMPTION is approved in the new 2010-11 state budget.  The new tax rates projected here by WPCNR use the new 18% lower STAR Rates applied to an $18,475 assessed home.

  

Cutting some $6 Million in pay raises agreed to for next year that could mean the termination of as many as 60 to 100 employees (one means of cutting the budget)

 

 

To date the district has eliminated 6 positions on their operational budget totaling $59 Million, leaving some $126 Million to go in their attempt to keep the budget where it is at $186 Million. The School District unveils part of its Instructional Budget this evening, in the second phase of its budget-building process. The District is holding off showing the revenue side of the budget until March 8.

 

However, the projected assessment roll unveiled by city consultant Eileen Earl Bradley two weeks ago show the Assessment Roll decline $3.7 Million which would mean a drop of approximately $2 Million in revenue for the school district, in addition to anticipated loss of  $2 to $3.5 Million in School Aid to the district.

 

Another factor that may drop the Assessment Roll lower than $281.5 million is that City Assessor, Lloyd Tasch, reported that there were 1,155 Assessment Challenges filed by the deadline of January 21, and 783 were residential owners. Both figures are all time records.

 

It should be emphasized that the $3.7 Million assessment roll decline is estimated at this time.