Naomi Matusow Concedes. Will Not Contest Result.

WPCNR 5 O’CLOCK LIGHTNING NEWS LEADER. From the Naomi Matusow Press Office. September 24, 2002: Naomi Matusow, in a statement released Tuesday afternoon moments ago, has conceded the 89th Assembly Primary to Adam Bradley.



TEN YEAR INCUMBENT BIDS FAREWELL. Naomi Matusow today conceded defeat in the 89th Assembly District Democratic Primary. She will complete her term in Albany, serving through the end of the year, at which time, Adam Bradley, of White Plains, should he win the November 5 election, against the Right to Life Party candidate, will take over her seat. Ms. Matusow is shown at the Board of Elections last Wednesday afternoon during the examination and counting of the absentee/affidavit ballots that determined the election. Her concession statement follows:
Photo by WPCNR


Ms. Matusow, in a statement released to the media said,

“The primary election is over. The margin was 22 votes.

While there are numerous voting irregularities that would likely narrow the margin, they would not, in my opinion, be sufficient to alter the outcome.

I have called Mr. Bradley and offered my congratulations.

Those who supported me throughout this campaign and the post-election activity have my heartfelt thanks.

I remain committed to the political process and the Democratic Party. I intend to work hard for the success of the McCall/Mehiel/Hevissi/Spitzer
ticket and to remain active in the areas of public policy and Democratic politics.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my ten years in the New York State Assembly and take pride in the many good things that I have accomplished for the people in my district, Westchester County and the state of New York.

I thank everyone whose efforts and support over the years has given me the opportunity to serve.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Pesky West Nile Mosquitoes Still Around Til First Frost.

WPCNR COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER. From Westchester County Department of Communications. (Edited) September 24, 2002: The Westchester County Department of Health has received notification from the New York State Department of Health that there has been one more mosquito pool and six more birds found in Westchester County that have tested positive for West Nile virus.
The mosquito pool was collected in Yonkers on September 13.

Two birds were found in Rye and one each were found in Yonkers, Greenburgh, Hastings-on-Hudson and Harrison. The birds were found on August 9 and 11. No spraying is planned at this time.

41 Mosquito Pools Test Positive to Date.

With the addition of this new positive mosquito pool, a total of 41 mosquito pools from Westchester have tested positive for the virus this year. To date, out of 643 mosquito pools submitted for testing, 633 have been tested for West Nile virus, of which 592 have tested negative.

128 Infected Birds.

With the addition of these six birds, a total of 46 dead birds from Westchester have tested positive for the virus this year. To date, out of 3,496 dead birds reported to the Health Department and 189 submitted for testing, 128 birds have been tested for West Nile virus, of which 82 have tested negative.

One Victim.

There has been one human case of West Nile virus reported in Westchester County this year.

Health Commissioner Dr. Joshua Lipsman again urged residents to take personal protection measures against mosquito bites while in their homes and when spending time outdoors. “It is particularly important that residents remain vigilant in their efforts to reduce their risk of West Nile virus infection until the first sustained frost because there is still risk from mosquitoes during this time,” said Dr. Lipsman.

Posted in Uncategorized

Matusow’s “Irregularities” May Be Normal Irregularities.

WPCNR Afternoon Trib & Post. By John F. Bailey. September 24, 2002: An election machine inspector Tuesday told WPCNR that differences between the number of registered voters signing in to vote at a polling place and the total amount of votes recorded on an election machine are normal occurrences every election.



PROTECTIVE COUNTERS, an example of which is shown here are (located at the top of one of the White Plains voting machines used September 5) at the heart of Naomi Matusow’s protest that more votes are recorded on Assembly District 89 machines than there were registered voters. An Election Inspector calls this normal.
Photo by WPCNR


The issue is alive because Naomi Matusow in a television appearance yesterday, said, “The machine count has more votes on the machines than can be accounted for by the poll rosters.” Because of this discrepancy, Ms. Matusow, who trails her primary challenger, Adam Bradley by 23 votes, is calling for a new primary.

Mr. Bradley, in his television appearance, said “The charges were without merit.”

An election inspector who determined that the voting machine in dispute in the Larry Delgado-Glen Hockley election case last year in White Plains was jammed, explained how such differences may occur:

He said there are two counters on each machine. The top counter is called the “Protective Counter,” which is never set back to zero, and contains the number of votes recorded on the election machine during the lifetime of the machine. He said that this total is recorded on an official envelope prior to the start of any election day voting, then when the polls close, the new total on the Protective Counter is recorded.

A Double Check Prevents Run-ups

He said the Protective Counter number showing at the start of voting is then subtracted from the new Protective Counter Number showing at the close of the polls. The new number should equal the number of votes showing on the lower counter on the voting machine, the “Public Counter.” The Public Counter, our inspector said, is set back to zero at the start of the Election Day, and records each vote cast that day.



THE PUBLIC COUNTER is the official record of votes cast that day, according to WPCNR’s election machine consultant. It is set to zero before the start of the day’s voting and each voter from either party is recorded.
Photo by WPCNR


The Public Counters on all machines in the 89th Assembly District recorded both Republican and Democratic voters that day. The inspector said what might account for the difference between signed-in voters at the poll check-in desks, and votes registered on the machine would be persons not voting in an Assembly race, for example, accounting for a discrepancy between number of votes registered in the Assembly race and the number of total votes on the machine. He also noted a difference can occur when the Protective Counter number is written down incorrectly at the beginning of the election day.

Reading errors do occur.

Reading off a number from a machine incorrectly either before the polls open or after they close is not uncommon, our expert said. WPCNR noted two instances of numbers being read off incorrectly when I observed the recanvass in White Plains last Tuesday. Each time the read-off error was caught by representatives from both the Bradley and Matusow camps, one read-off error would have cost Mr. Bradley 100 votes.

According to the WPCNR court observer yesterday, Ms. Matusow’s attorney was making the case that there were differences between Protective Counter Counts and signed-in voters across all towns, including Pound Ridge and North Castle, and not just White Plains, a difference of 76 votes across an estimated 100 voting machines.

Unceremonious Bumps Bump the Numbers?

Clerks have told WPCNR that when machines are returned from polling places, occasionally counters are nudged and move up a notch, when machines are loaded onto trucks and moved back to storage. This also could account for 1 and 2 vote differences in the “Protective Counter” which should show up on the recanvass, increasing the total voter count. In fact, this was mentioned during the actual recanvass of the White Plains machines on September 17, one week ago, when just such a discrepancy between a Protective Counter Number and a Public Counter was noted by the recanvassers. The Election Inspector said the Public Count was the official count and it matched what was recorded out of the machine on Election Night on the various lines.

This exchange between Election Inspectors September 17 observed by WPCNR is standard procedure. According to our Election Inspector consultant, the “Public Counter” on the bottom is the official record, and any differences caused by transportation of the machine would be highlighted in the recanvass. There were no differences between Public Counter numbers and recanvass results which across all towns in the 89th District except in one case: the 9th and 13th districts in White Plains.

“Protective Counter” counts held up in all towns, North and South in the 89th District except on one machine in White Plains, where Mr. Bradley was found to receive 145 votes to Ms. Matusow’s 35 in the 9th and 13th Election Districts that enabled him to overtake Ms. Matusow.

Back to the Numbers

Both contestants and the Board of Elections will go over the numbers Tuesday and Wednesday and report back to Judge Orazio Bellantoni in Supreme Court Thursday morning.

Posted in Uncategorized

Riverkeeper Whistle Blower Critiques FEMA DRILLS

WPCNR Morning Sun. From Riverkeeper Press Office. (Edited)September 24, 2002:Speaking in White Plains, the day before the Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA) conducted a test of their Indian Point evacuation plan today, Riverkeeper and a group of elected officials raised concerns regarding weaknesses of the program.
Speaking at the press conference was Doug Harnett, national security
campaign director at the Government Accountability Project.

“We have had scores of whistleblowers come forward that worked in
nuclear weapons and energy facilities, in FEMA, the NRC and other
agencies to expose the lack of preparedness, and the absurdly contrived nature of the exercises that are used to reassure the public,” Doug Hartnett said. “Since September 11, the Government Accountability Project has had a dramatic increase in whistleblowers from nuclear facilities across the country. They have been warning their supervisors for years, but after the terrorist attacks, they simply could no longer allow the threats to be ignored or downplayed.”

Local Whistle Blower Speaks.

According to federal whistleblower Linda Lewis, an eight-year veteran
emergency programs specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the REP program and drills fail to protect public health and safety.

“In total, the problems with radiological emergency preparedness and
evaluation describe a public safety program that has lost credibility,”
said Linda Lewis, who in 1998 was an evaluator assigned to the Rockland County Emergency Operations Center during an Indian Point drill.

No Evaluator Feedback?

Linda Lewis’s overarching concern is that in numerous situations FEMA and other federal agencies have failed to incorporate evaluator feedback on REP drills over the years.

Several of Linda Lewis’ specific concerns regarding REP drills and plans are that they:

* Fail to adequately address the needs of unsupervised children,
which includes “latchkey” or “self care” children.

o This poses a dilemma in certain fast-breaking scenarios, for
instance when a radiological emergency occurs when children have
returned home from school in the afternoon and are without adult
supervision, because their parents are still at work.

o The REP plan allows for early dismissal or cancellation of
school activities in the event that an emergency is anticipated or
underway.

o Emergency booklets, if available to a child, are not written for
a young child’s reading level. Although NUREG-0654 requires state and local authorities to have plans to evacuate other special populations with similar needs, children who lack adult supervision for part of the day are excluded from consideration. The REP program requires preparedness to consider the needs of children only when they are physically in school. Moreover, exercise scenarios rarely, if ever, occur in the late afternoon or summer, the times when children are most likely to be home alone.

o According to the Westchester and Putnam chapter of United Way,
in their Issues and Resources Assessment, there is a “lack of accessible and affordable childcare.” This suggests that many children are unsupervised at times.

* Fail to adequately address how visitors or even local people, who
are away from home, would know the evacuation routes.

* Fail to adequately address protective actions for the “ingestion
zone.”
The Cow Factor Alleged Not Configured

The Ingestion Zone goes out to 50 miles. It’s the area within
which people could be at risk if they eat or drink contaminated food or
water. Contamination occurs when airborne radioactive materials come to rest on crops, pasture, gardens, lakes and rivers. For example, people can be affected if they drink milk from a cow that ate contaminated grass. Over, 11,000 dairy cows exist in New York state counties within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point. According to new data from the USDA (updated January 1, 2002):

* Orange County has 8000 Dairy Cows

* Dutchess County has 2500 Dairy Cows

* Ulster County has 600 Dairy Cows

* Westchester, Rockland, Putnam Counties has 100 Dairy Cows

Dramatizes Deficiencies

“Today’s event illustrates the grave concerns that experts and citizens
alike have about the effectiveness of Indian Point’s evacuation plan,”
Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper told reporters.

“Our message to Governor Pataki and other top elected officials like
Senators Schumer and Clinton is simple and clear — this evacuation plan doesn’t work and it’s a travesty to continue allowing Indian Point to operate without a plan in place that would protect millions of New
Yorkers from the horror of a nuclear accident. The writing is on the
wall. It’s time to shut Indian Point down.”

Posted in Uncategorized