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

 WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. June 18, 2009: This withholding  of the settlement terms is illegal according to  Robert Freedman, the New York State Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government., who confirmed this to WPCNR Thursday morning. Freedman told WPCNR that there is no on-the-books penalty  of any kind  to the district or the union for violating the Freedom of Information law on this matter. The organizations  can suppress the agreement and get away with it.

 

The effect avoids public discussion the agreement and gets the agreements passed and tidied up with no opportunity for the public to express opinions on the effect the agreement will have on the district..

 

WPCNR has a call in to the school district for release of the terms.

 

Kerry Broderick, head of the White Plains Teachers said , even so, Freedman’s opinion not withstanding, she would not release the details of the agreement (the Memorandum of Understanding).

 

Broderick said  “as far as I’m concerned, we’re still in fact-finding. Give us a week for the teachers to think it (the agreement) through. There are some very delicate issues. Why can’t we have one week? We’re tired of being filleted in public.” She added that she wanted the opportunity to discuss the terms of the contract with the teachers with integrity without them being pressured. “I don’t know they may vote it down,” she said.

 

 

Freedman, contacted by both The Journal News and WPNCR ( Journal News Reporter Keith Eddings originally contacted Freedman and deserves credit for discovering the revelation), told both news organizations that there was no reason to keep the contract terms secret because it was his understanding “it’s gone out to hundreds of people (teachers, for their approval).

 

Freedman told WPCNR , “No. 2 there’s nothing that could be released that would impair either side’s knowledge or ability to negotiate, they both have the same information because negotiations are over.”

 

Freedman said there is no case law compelling any two organizations to release terms of a settlement in a timely manner, because by the time a case could be filed the agreement would have been ratified for some time.

 

Asked about efforts to compel timely release of settlements, Freedman said there has been some legislation introduced but it has not made progress yet.

 

The Empire Center of New York, Freedman said has proposed such legislation.

 

Lise Bang-Jensen, of the Empire Center, (www.empirecenter.org)  testified  before the Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the New York Legislature  in February on “Collective Bargaining Agreement Secrey,” and concluded with this telling observation, based on a Suffolk County Grand Jury finding of “an abject lack of transparency regarding the issue for which school districts spend the overwhelming majority of their funds – salaries and benefits for the employees.”

 

Ms. Bang-Jenson testified,

 

The grand jury urged the state Legislature to enact a law requiring school districts put copies of tentative contracts on their web sites at least one month prior to a vote by their school boards.

 

That is an excellent idea. In addition, advanced disclosure of tentative contracts should include:

 

• the net financial impact of all provisions, including annualized and cumulative costs of proposed changes in salary schedules, benefits and work rules;
  
• a breakdown of any savings attributed to union concessions or “givebacks”;
  
• proposed salary increases on an annualized and cumulative percentage basis, with a separate breakdown of average percentage increases including step and longevity increments; and
  
• an estimate of the projected impact on taxes over the life of the contract.

 

No law currently prevents local governments from releasing such details after union negotiations conclude. Unfortunately, in the absence of affirmative disclosure requirement, it appears that many local officials are inclined towards secrecy rather than transparency on such matters.

WPCNR THE CERTIORARIAN. June 17,2009: White Plains Assessor Lloyd Tasch in an op-ed piece appearing in The Journal News today debunked the Westchester County Association and the Builder’s Institute statements  opposing the Commercial Assessment Ratio bill awaiting  action in the New York State Senate, as “untrue.”

 

The  bill is being introduced by State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer and was sponsored in the Assembly by White Plains’ Adam Bradley. Bradley and Oppenheimer  have yet to defend their bill which has been attacked by the Westchester County Association and the Westchester County Executive on the grounds that it will raise taxes on commercial property owners and co-op and condominium owners and hurt Westchester in attracting businesses to the region.

 

 

 

Tasch, President of the Westchester County Assessor’s Association repeated his statements he made to WPCNR last week,  that the County Association lobbying effort last labeling the CAR bill  as “shifting the tax burden from homeowners to commercial property owners,” writing today, “This is untrue.” He also points out the glaring need for such a bill, reporting that the Westchester County Tax Commission reports that through the use of the certiorari process and the unfortunate effects of the equalization rate, county commercial property owners pay 9% less taxes than they did 11 years ago, while county homeowners today taxes have doubled.

 

 

 

Tasch points out to the Westchester County Association that “what this bill does is mitigate further shifts of property taxes  from commercial properties onto the backs of homeowners.”

 

Tasch points the certiorari drain, exclusively chronicled the last five years by WPCNR, that “since the early 1990s,commercial properties have been the beneficiaries of huge tax windfalls as a result of the flawed methodology  and the application of equalization rates in commercial tax certiorari proceedings..” charging “the balance (between commercial property taxes and homeowner property taxes) has been disrupted to the detriment of the homeowner.”

 

Responding to Westchester County Association news releases alleging owners of condominiums and cooperatives would pay more expenses if  this bill were passed, Tasch notes cooperatives and condominiums “typically pays 50 percent less than that of a similarly valued residential home.” Tasch dismisses the County Association press releases claiming taxes of condo and condominium owners would go up if the bill passed this way: “The proposed CAR bill will not increase their assessments, but it will help mitigate future certiorari losses (from condo/coop grievances) if and when litigated.”

 

Tasch reminds the Westchester County Association of just how tax friendly being a commercial property owner in Westchester has been the last decade, writing that the Westchester County Tax Commission annual reports show that “county commercial property owners paid 9 percent less  than they paid 11 years ago, while residential taxes have doubled.”

 

Tasch writes hopefully, “The CAR bill will help prevent further erosion of the commercial tax base, and bring some sanity and fairness back to the tax certiorari process. Certiorari attorneys, The Westchester County Association, local chapters of the Builder’s Institute and commercial taxpayers are naturally opposed to this bill. What about homeowners, who represent 73% of this county… We believe that the Senate will not fall prey to the scare tactics of raising taxes by self-interested parties.”

 

Tasch notes that contrary to reports  that the bill is being introduced  as  a surprise, that the bill was originally introduced in 2005.

 

Tasch closes with this comment,noting that in New York City commercial property owners pay five times the taxes residential property owners pay and in suburban Nassau County where commercial property owners pay twice the taxes  (because  there is  a separate commercial assessment ratio in effect in those areas)

 

Tasch writes: No wonder residential taxes in Westchester are the highest in the nation.

 

Adam Bradley, the sponsor of the commercial assessment ratio bill and Senator Suzi Oppenheimer have thus far not contacted WPCNR in defense of the bill in the face of Westchester County Association attacks on the bill and County Executive Andrew Spano’s call for the State Senate not to pass the bill for fear it will hurt Westchester ability to attract business.