WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER SETS RECORD VISITS FOR YEAR 7,017,658 VISITS! 2,098,003 VISITORS MADE 6 VISITS A DAY EVERY DAY. 63,330 UNIQUE VISITORS MADE 133,730 VISITS IN DECEMBER. WPCNR AVERAGED 17,284 VISITORS A WEEK, VISITING 31,270 TIMES.

Hits: 0

WPCNR PRESS HANGOUT. By John F. Bailey. November 12, 2010:

White Plains Cable was blacked out in White Plains this evening for reasons unknown at this time.

The blackout resulted in viewers being unable to see the White Plains Week program analyzing the state of Mayor Adam Bradley’s trial on domestic abuse and a military affairs program before the show. Viewers report seeing no community bulletin board notices from 7:28 P.M. on, hearing the audio of the trademark WHITE PLAINS WEEK “roaring presses” theme with no video, and then audio dropped out and nothing but black screen was to be scene. Cable channels 75 (the government access channel) and channel 77 (the White Plains Schools station) were operating normally.

However, viewers with internet access can see this significant program on their computer at www.whiteplainsweek.com beginning approximately 9 P.M. WPCNR will advise when the program is ready and up on its world wide network.

It is unknown whether Verizon FIOS which carries the show across Westchester County also had their Channel 45 programming (duplicating all Channel 76 programming) was black as well.

 

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 10, 2010 UPDATED 9:14 A.M. E.S.T. UPDATED NOVEMBER 12, 8:51 A.M. See “For the Record” Section: 

Taking advantage of Prosecutor Audrey Stone’s calling White Plains  Police Detective Robbins to the stand late in the day this afternoon, Mayor Adam Bradley’s defense attorney, Luis Penichet received a go-ahead from Judge Susan Capeci to question the detective about what Ms. Bradley said to him and another detective during their initial investigation of the incident.

This action by Judge Capeci allows Penichet to probe inconsistencies in Mrs. Bradley’s testimony in this trial and what she did or did not tell the two investigation detectives February 28.

Detective Robbins with Detective Rodriguez, took Mrs. Bradley’s first complaints on February 28 when she arrived at Police Headquarters that day complaining her husband had slammed the fingers of her  left hand in the door of their bedroom.

The trial will resume Monday, the 15th at 9:30 A.M. with Detective Robbins back on the stand.

Earlier in the afternoon court action in the Bradley domestic abuse case, Adam Bradley’s attorney  Penichet questioned the accuracy of the color reproduction on photographs entered in evidence by the District Attorney.

Mr. Penichet showed Fumiko Bradley the photographs. Penichet asked Mrs. Bradley if pictures of her bruised fingers, her house, and the clothing looked the way the looked to her after the alleged door-slam incident.

She testified the photographs of her fingers on her left hand did not look the way her hand looked February 28. 

Detective Robbins was called to the stand by Prosecutor Audrey Stone to explain the initial investigation of the incident and how he and detective Rodriguez had conducted their interview with Ms. Bradley on February 28. 

After Ms. Stone completed her presentation, Mr. Penichet showed Detective Robbins the same photographs (printouts of digital photographs taken by Robbins of Ms. Bradley’s injury).

Detective Robbins testified “No” when asked if the photographs of Ms. Bradley’s injured fingers, hand, her house among others did not look like they looked when he photographed them.

 Subsequent questioning by Penichet produced the information that Robbins did not see the printouts of the photographs after he took them. He said he gave the datacard from the police digital camera to Detective Connelley and he, (Robbins), never saw a printout, but did see the finished photograph in the display screen of his camera.

Meeting the press outside the courthouse after court, Mr. Penichet emphasized he was not alleging the photographs had been altered in any way. He instead said what was needed was the actual datacard to reproduce the photographs.

After Penichet finished his questioning on the alleged photograph color inaccuracy with Detective Robbins, he asked Detective Robbins if during his investigative session with Mrs. Bradley, if Mrs. Bradley had told him Mr. Bradley had kicked her.

Prosecutor Stone objected sharply. Again Stone and Penichet made their individual cases to Judge Capeci on whether or not Penichet could proceed with this line of questioning: what Ms. Bradley told the original investigating detectives and what appears in her sworn police statement and her testimony so far about the incident in the trial.

Judge Capeci ruled Detective Robbins could answer the question. The hour being late, the case was adjourned at 4:30 to Monday at 9:30 A.M.

FOR THE RECORD…

At the beginning of Wednesday morning’s session, Judge Capeci heard the issue of whether or not Mr. Penichet would be allowed to bring a witness who could testify to the reasons Mrs. Bradley left a school where she had worked thirteen years ago. The prosecutor  Ms. Stone again protested “it had no relevance” to the charge. Again relying on Richardson on Evidence legal reference, Penichet argued that the testimony would establish motive which is allowed according to Richardson’s. The Judge said she would reserve decision.

 

————

 

Mr. Penichet  began his morning’s questioning attempting to establish why  Fumiko Bradley had begun seeing marriage counselors in mid-2006, the February 2010 door slam incident. Mr. Penichet began questioning based on Fumiko Bradley’s list of notes and possible witnesses Mrs. Bradley provided to the District Attorney. 

 

He observed  reading with those notes in his hand,  that in 2006, Fumiko Bradley had “in your notes written a “series of reasons (why you began to see marriage counselors, one of those was  Amy Paulin, she’s the reason you took therapy in July.” Fumiko Bradley said “Yes.”

 

Penichet then  asked “ And was she (Amy Paulin) part of the reason you were planning a divorce?” Mrs. Bradley said: “I can’t answer Yes or No.”

 

According to the notes, Penichet indicated, Mrs. Bradley first went to see a marriage counselor in 2006  (Amy Paulin was and still is an Assemblywoman in the New York State Legislature, and worked with Mr. Bradley at that time on Westchester issues.)

 

Penichet, observing from Mrs. Bradley’s divorce papers (filed in September, 2010),asked “in this divorce complaint, you alleged problems beginning with Paulin(in 2006) and before February 28 (2010) with Yuko (the au pair in the Bradley household)?”

 

Mrs. Bradley said “Yes, inappropriate (pause) with Yuko. Not sexual. Just lying to see her (Paulin). He didn’t tell me he was going to see Amy. He was going out late with her.”

 

Penichet then proceeded to introduce Mrs. Bradley’s letter to Adam Bradley of  May 14, 2009 to establish with more authority that marital problems had been existing before the February 28 alleged door-slam incident. (See earlier story.)

 

——————-

 

In later testimony on Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Bradley said responded to questions involving a live Madagascar cockroach which can grow up to 4 inches long.. She testified how Mr. Bradley held the cockroach (caged) to her face, a piece of testimony that has been picked up by the Associated Press. Mrs. Bradley said, “I did not want it (the cockroach) in my home. On the day we had a fight he put the cage (containing the cockroach) against my face. So upsetting to me. I told him to get out of the home.”

 

Penichet on cross-examination asked Mrs. Bradley if the cockroach was not purchased by Mr. Bradley as a pet for his daughters at the Bronx Zoo. The Judge did not allow Mrs. Bradley to answer the question.

 

————–

Mrs. Bradley, in mid afternoon, explaining her marriage, said, “I didn’t like what he did. But I liked him.”

Hits: 0

 

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW By John F. Bailey. November 10, 2011:

 

Mayor Adam Bradley’s trial resumes at 10 A.M. in the County Courthouse Family Court today with Fumiko Bradley taking the stand.

 

Court resumes at 2:10 P.M. Tuesday afternoon and adjourned until today after 40 minutes,but not before Bradley Defense Attorney Luis Penichet elicited several more inconsistencies in Mrs. Bradley’s version of the fingers-slamming incident February 28.

 

When court got back in session yesterday afternoon, the explosive question Mr. Penichet had asked  of Mrs. Bradley just before lunchbreak, whether or not it was true she had been fired from her job at a Japanese school for lying and telling stories about people, and was objected to by prosecuter Audrey Stone was withdrawn by Penichet to be addressed later in the proceedings.

 

Penichet returned to the alleged fingers-slam. He asked if Mrs. Bradley had ever said to anyone it was an accident, had never happened and were confused about what had happened. She answered no on these matters.

 

Penichet asked if indescribing the incidents to Patrolman O’Sullivan  and another detective if she had told him Mr. Bradley has slammed the door on her hand twice, and she said “I don’t remember,” four times. Asked about whether she had told Detective Rodriguez who took her statement, if she had told her she had her fingers slammed twice. Mrs. Bradley said, “Only to my mother.”

 

Penichet explored the choreography of the how the door slam incident occurred. Mrs. Bradley explained Mr. Bradley was on the inside of the bedroom door and she was pushing the door in after the door had been slammed on her hand to show him he had hurt her. She then testified that Mr.Bradley went to make a call to Peter Bognar, described as a divorce attorney in the course of the court proceedings today. She then went down to the kitchen phone to listen in on the conversation, and hearing Mr. Bradley say she had been responsible for the incident, she said on the line “That’s not true.”

 

Penichet questioned Mrs. Bradley about the past Bradley relationship. She admitted she chased him out to a car once. She denied ever hitting Mr. Bradley or scratching his face at any time. She said , “He did it to me. I didn’t.”

 

He asked her if she had ever thrown objects at Mr. Bradley, evidenced he said by marks on the walls of her home. She answered, “I see them but not what I did.”

 

He explored whether Mrs. Bradley wished for sole custody of the children in her divorce. Each time, Mrs.Bradley said she wanted joint custody, and said she still prefers that.

 

He asked her about the time when she was seeing marriage counselors, and Ms. Bradley when asked if she had been seeing Dr. Wells, one of the marriage counselors whom, to deal with Mr. Bradley’s alleged relationship with the Bradleys’ au pair, Yuko,  she answered “not only that.”

 

Then Mr. Penichet  asked Mrs. Bradley if she had ever written a letter to Adam Bradley’s mother in the fall of 2009. Ms. Bradley said she did not remember. He produced the letter received approval from the judge over the prosecutor’s objection to introduce it to help Ms. Bradley with her “recollection.”

 

Ms. Bradley, seeing the letter, acknowledged she had written it. The letter confirmed that Ms. Bradley had written Adam Bradley’s mother saying among other things, how the relationship with the au pair was a problem.

 

At that point the Judge suspended the trial because Mr. Penichet was “feeling under the weather.” Mr. Penichet at a press appearance after the court session ended said he was coming down with the flu and fever. 

 

At that news conference, Mr. Penichet said there is a possibility he could bring the marriage counselors to the stand as he is exploring relief with the judge.

Hits: 0

WPCNR COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER. From the Westchester County Department of Communications. November 8, 2010:

 

County Executive Robert P. Astorino today released his proposed budget for 2011 that decreases the county property tax levy by 1 percent, cuts spending, reduces the county work force by 705 people from a year ago, and still maintains essential county services, including all bus routes.

“I was elected on a pledge not to raise property taxes,” Astorino said in his message to the Board of Legislators, which now must review the budget proposal. “In this budget I fulfill that promise and go a step further, calling for a 1 percent reduction in the county property tax levy. Small as it may be, this tax decrease stands as a powerful symbol that elected officials can actually deliver on a promise and can cut spending and taxes responsibly.”

Astorino said his budget does four critical things: Privides needed relief to county taxpayers; protects the neediest; provides essential services and promotes long-term structural financial reform.

 

The County Board of Legislators released this statement, on the budget:

 

“We want to thank the County Executive for his presentation this morning of the fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget. We’re sure this couldn’t have been an easy budget to draft.  Now is our best opportunity to reorganize, restructure and reengineer how county government is run and make our best effort to do more with less.  Members of the Legislature know that property taxes are too high in Westchester.  During these tough economic times, our residents can’t afford to pay more taxes, however we continue to believe that the county must be responsive to those people most in need.  Our budget decisions cannot place an unfair burden on those who have the least.

 

.

 

            He added: “To accomplish these goals, tough choices were confronted and difficult decisions were made. No area of the budget escaped scrutiny. In all cases, reasonable and rational decisions were made based on fair and objective assessments of the data and information available.”

The county executive also released his proposed capital projects budget, as well as budgets for the county’s special districts (sewer, solid waste, and water).

These budgets now go to the Board of Legislators, which has until Dec. 27 to approve a final spending plan for next year.  The proposed budgets are available on line at: www.westchestergov.com/budget.

 

Rigorous debate promised.

 

The Board of Legislators, in its statement today continued:

County government has worked through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and we are determined to maintain fiscal conservancy.  The financial crisis has forced all of us in government to assess our priorities, so that going forward, we can continue to minimize the impact that pending cuts will have on essential services.  The Board recognizes the fact that we need to find new savings in this budget. 

 

Therefore, County Executive Astorino’s proposals will be thoroughly debated and examined by the Board, as we fulfill our obligation to balance the budget in a responsible and fair manner.  We are looking forward to a rigorous debate between the Legislature and the Administration.  In this climate of cost saving and economic cautiousness, nothing is off the table.  The County must – and will – continue to look for creative cuts and additional savings.  The Board takes seriously the importance of keeping core services in place for our residents, even in this time of economic downturn.

 

The Board of Legislators will begin budget hearings on Monday, November 15th.  Through this series of oversight meetings, we are demonstrating both how serious this process is and how committed the Board of Legislators is in helping shape the important decisions that will be made over the coming weeks.  We look forward to working with the Administration on a budget that will preserve the core services that are critically important to many Westchester residents.

 

The Numbers

 

Astorino’s proposed operating budget calls for $1.786 billion in spending for next year, a decrease of $33 million from the $1.819 billion budget of 2010. Had Astorino made no cuts, spending in the budget would have increased by a projected $116 million. Every $5.6 million in net spending amounts to about a 1 percent increase in the county property tax levy.

The budget proposal raises just over $555 million through the county government’s property tax levy. The 1 percent decrease for 2011 lowers that tax levy by approximately $6 million compared to 2010.    

County taxes account for about 20 percent of a taxpayer’s property tax bill. The remainder comes from taxes levied by schools, local governments and special districts. The exact impact of the county tax levy on a property owner varies from community to community, due to different local assessments.

Astorino described the challenges confronting him as enormous.

When he took office Jan. 1, he immediately directed his commissioners to come up with proposals to reduce spending. Since then he has proposed and pushed through the Board of Legislators initiatives that produced about $50 million in savings.

One of the most expensive portions of the budget is the cost of county employees, particularly the soaring costs of their health care and pension benefits. For 2010, the average annual cost of a county worker is $110,000, including all benefits. Next year, this number will be $117,000. Fringe benefits in 2011 will amount to a staggering 55 percent of salary.

As a consequence, a workforce reduction is necessary to make meaningful cuts in spending. Compared to 2010, Astorino’s budget proposal would shrink the workforce by 12 percent, or 705 positions. Almost 70 percent of the reductions were accomplished through 465 voluntary buyouts earlier this year and by eliminating 14 vacant positions. However, 226 layoffs will still be required.

“Behind each of these layoffs are individuals and families, so I fully understand the hardship created by this kind of action,” Astorino said.  “These layoffs are no reflection on the dedication and hard work that characterize the employees of Westchester County.”

Astorino noted that the county executive’s 9^th floor staff has been reduced by 19 people, or 39 percent, from the end of 2009.

 “The harsh reality that must be faced is that the ever-escalating cost of the county’s labor contracts now exceeds the ability of taxpayers to pay for them.”

To lower labor costs, Astorino had asked the county’s largest union, the Civil Service Employees Association, to forego a 4 percent raise and contribute to their health care costs. Earlier this year, the county executive implemented a plan to get non-union employees, including himself, to contribute to health care.

Health care costs for county employees more than doubled over the last decade. These costs have  jumped from $82 million in 2007 to almost $111 million in 2010. Even with the reductions in the workforce, this number will be $117 million in 2011. 

Pension costs for next year are projected to increase to $57 million, from $46 million this year. These costs are projected to be $107 million by 2015. The costs will be even higher if the county does not opt into New York State’s Employer Contribution Stabilization Program. Astorino said he was asking the Board of Legislators to approve the county’s participation in the program, which allows pension costs to be paid for on an amortized basis over a period of years, as opposed to the year they are incurred. However, in spreading out the payment period, the county incurs new financing costs.

“I am reluctantly recommending this to avoid deeper cuts in services and additional layoffs,” Astorino said.

The county’s property tax accounts for about 31 percent of all revenue and the county’s sales tax about 25 percent. The remainder is state and federal aid, mortgage and hotel taxes, investments, fees and other revenues.

Sales tax revenue was at a high in 2007 and 2008, before the recession hit fully, generating about $363 million in each of those years for county government. In 2009, this number plunged to about $325 million, far below what had been budgeted. While the sales tax has modestly rebounded in 2010 – a trend that is expected to continue in 2011 – it will still be less than in 2008. For 2011, the budget anticipates $358 million in sales tax revenues, a projected increase of 4 percent over 2010.  

“It is extremely important that our projections are realistic,” said Astorino. “If we overestimate sales tax, our budget will be left with a hole and no way to fill it.”

State and federal revenues are projected to decrease by a net  $16 million in 2011. This includes a cut of $3.5 million in state transportation aid and a reduction in Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, the so-called FMAP money.

Revenue from investments and sales and hotel occupancy taxes are expected to be flat in 2010 compared to 2011. In the case of the mortgage tax, the projected revenue of $13.85 million is still significantly down from the almost $19.3 million generated in 2008.                     –         

Protecting the Neediest

Astorino’s budget continues to provide services to Westchester’s neediest, particularly important as the nation comes out of the recession.

The largest expenditure in the budget continues to be for programs run by the Department of Social Services (DSS), many of which are mandated by the state and federal governments, such as Medicaid and temporary assistance.  

            The overall proposed budget for DSS is $575 million, which is the same amount as this year. However, the portion of the budget that goes directly towards providing services to individuals and families in need is up by $6 million.

“This shows a solid commitment to the county’s safety net,” Astorino said. “Where we have made cuts, our aim has been to address duplications, overhead and inefficiency, not services.” 

Better management has produced significant savings in the following areas:

·        Foster Care: Westchester County expects to save $3.4 million a year by bringing high-needs children back to Westchester, returning them to their families or to foster care closer to home, as opposed to more costly out-of-state and out-of-county facilities.

• Shelters: The county will have a net savings of $1.9 million by closing two underutilized shelters for the homeless. Through its programs to find permanent housing for the homeless, DSS has been able to reduce the need for shelters. What typically used to take well over a year is now happening in about three months on average. Slated for closing are the WestHelp family shelter in Greenburgh, which has a 55 percent average vacancy, and the Oasis single shelter in New Rochelle, which has a 64 percent vacancy rate. Oasis is scheduled to close in the first quarter of 2011 and WestHelp by the fourth quarter. With the closings, the system will still have a 20 percent vacancy rate among its remaining 10 shelters. As of September 2010, the county housed 594 single adults and families in 12 shelters. That’s down from a high of 1,333 families and individuals in January 1998.

 

“The foster care and shelter savings represent major success stories,” Astorino said. “In the case of the shelters, we are saving money because we are getting people into housing quicker. In the case of foster care, we are providing care closer to home, which helps the kids and their families, as well as county taxpayers.”

 

In addition, the county will save about $4.3 million on day care costs in two ways: by requiring larger parental contributions from some recipients of day care subsidies; and by setting a limit of 385 on the number of Title XX child care slots. As of the end of October, there were 289 children in the program. For a family of three earning $36,620 a year, the increase amounts to about $6 a day. The parental contribution does not increase if a family has more than one child in day care. Westchester families would still be paying a smaller parent share than families in New York City, and the same rate as residents paid between 1998 and 2005.

For the Health Department, the budget proposes to end $1.9 million in subsidies to three neighborhood health centers: Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center (MVNHC), Open Door Family Medical Center and Hudson River HealthCare.

Historically, the county’s subsidies were intended to offset the cost of non-reimbursed public health services, such as treatment and follow-up care for tuberculosis and STDs. However, in recent years the centers have been using the payments to subsidize primary care. The previous administration attempted to cut these subsidies as well, but the funds were restored annually by the Board of Legislators.

In renewing the effort to eliminate these subsidies, Astorino noted that federal health care reform will give these centers a new stream of revenue. MVNHC was just awarded $12 million to upgrade and expand its facilities and $4.1 million for increased demand for services, capital improvements and health information technology; Hudson River Health Care was awarded $2.9 million, and Open Door is to get $1.9 million, all new federal funds.

            The Department of Community Mental Health will close its four mental health clinics in Peekskill, Mount Kisco, Yonkers and Mount Vernon. Nonprofit groups currently operate in these communities, duplicating the services provided by the county. 

The driving force behind the decision is plunging state reimbursement rates that would more than double the county’s cost to run the clinics, from $1.2 million to $3 million. Operating the clinics also presents a conflict for the county because the Department of Community Mental Health is acting as both a provider of services and the regulatory watchdog of those services. Most other counties have already gotten out of the clinic business.

Beyond the costs and conflicts, the change makes sense for the patients and the nearby non-profit clinics.  Dr. Grant Mitchell, the commissioner of Community Mental Health who first recommended the changes, said the local agencies would be able to provide comparable care to those now served by the county clinics and the new patients would provide new revenues for them.

“It just doesn’t make sense for the county to compete with nonprofit agencies when they can provide the necessary care and save taxpayers money in the process,” Mitchell said.

A transition plan will be put in place for every patient before the clinics close.    

Preserving Essential Services

The proposed budget reflects a $3.8 million reduction in state aid to the Bee-Line Bus system. This reduction threatened major cuts in service to the Bee-Line, which transports 110,000 riders a day. However, a planned restructuring of the Department of Transportation, so that it can operate with 19 fewer workers, will save $1.7 million. Coupling these savings with other efficiencies means no cuts in Bee-Line service are necessary at this time. But they could be necessary at a later date if state aid is further reduced over the course of the year.

The budget maintains all core public safety services, including police, corrections, emergency services, health, environmental protection, and continues the county’s longstanding commitment to parks, recreation, nature conservancy and land preservation. Through the accompanying capital budget, the county’s infrastructure needs are being addressed and its economic development agenda is being driven forward.

Astorino expressed his disappointment that the legislators have not acted on his cost-saving proposal to merge the departments of Public Safety and Emergency Services. He urged them to consider the merger as part of their budget deliberations.

 

Long-Term Approach, and Roads Not Taken

The county executive detailed various other measures that he had been presented with – but rejected as irresponsible – to close the budget gap. He cautioned the Board of Legislators not to look for one-shots and budget gimmicks that would jeopardize the county’s long-term fiscal health.

·        Sales tax projections: Astorino cautioned the legislators not to project overly optimistic  increases in sales tax revenue. The 4 percent increase he has included in his proposed budget is based on the region’s consensus forecasts.   

·        “Rainy Day” fund: While Astorino, like county officials in previous years,  plans to use some of the county’s unreserved “rainy day” fund balance, he cautioned the legislators to make sure they do not deplete it below 5 percent of operating expenses. To do this, he said, could jeopardize the county’s three AAA bond ratings.

·        OPEB: Astorino urged the legislators to avoid the temptation to tap into other funds such as the Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) designated fund balance. These funds are explicitly set up to pay for specific future expenses.  

Other Budget Highlights

·        Astorino said he was streamlining the county’s Human Rights Commission because much of its work is duplicated by the efforts of similar commissions on the federal, state and local levels. As such, he is proposing having the county commission work more closely with the county Department of Law as a way of reducing costs. This sharing of resources is expected to save $559,000.  

·        Astorino proposes funding for the Arts in Westchester at $1 million. This is essentially the same as proposed by the former county executive for 2010, but about $600,000 less than approved by the Board of Legislators. 

·        All funding is cut to the Cornell Cooperative Extension, which runs programs for youth and adult horticultural, fitness and nutrition, saving $1.3 million. The service was deemed non-essential to the running of county government.

·        Astorino proposes to allocate $1.5 million to the agencies that receive funds through Invest in Kids, a reduction of $634,000. The agencies will be asked to reapply and compete for funds.

·         The pools at Sprain Ridge and Playland will be closed, as both are in need of extensive repairs. The Sprain Ridge Pool would need $500,000 in repairs to open next year.

·        Playland Park will operate as is for another season. The county is awaiting submissions due in February to its RFP (request for proposals) dealing with the long-term future of the park.

·        Subsidies to groups sponsoring ethnic festivals will be eliminated, saving $100,000.

·        Fees will be increased slightly for golf, contributing to a net savings of $800,000.  

·        Staff at Hilltop Hanover Farm in Yorktown will be reduced to two, from four. This will give the county time to find a non-profit agency to take over operations. This will save $200,000.  

Other Budgets

·        The proposed capital projects budget calls for $138 million in spending, of which 47 percent comes from outside sources. The projects include infrastructure improvements to buildings, parkways, roads, dams and bridges, technology upgrades and park improvements, as well as funding for affordable housing, some of which is required by the county’s Housing Stipulation with the federal government. .

·        The budgets for the individual sanitary sewer districts reflect the increases for debt service expenses associated with recent Capital Projects. However, reducing operating and maintenance costs wherever possible in the Consolidated Sewer District has eliminated the need for any tax increase. This is the result of costs associated with a $173 million consent order negotiated with the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in 2008 to improve treatment and sludge disposal systems at its plant and a $235 million consent order negotiated with DEC in 2004 with New Rochelle and three other districts to reduce the amount of nitrogen discharged into the Long Island Sound.

·        The tax for those communities in the solid waste district will remain flat.

 

 

 

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 8, 2010:

 

The Mayor Adam Bradley trial on domestic abuse charges reconvened at 2 P.M. with neighbor Alexandra Hofgaertner, a friend of Mrs. Bradley’s whose house was her refuge in the February 27-28 time when the alleged slamming-door-on-hand incident), taking the stand for cross-examination by Mr. Bradley’s defense attorney, Luis Penichet.

 

In an hour of cross, Mr. Penichet established that Ms. Hofgaertner was not physically present to witness any of  alleged acts of abuse Mrs. Bradley accuses the Mayor of committing against her, that she often advised Mrs. Bradley of actions to take to get rid of the Bradley’s au pair and what to do to get an order of protection, even advised how to get Mr. Bradley how to pay expenses he was forcing Mrs. Bradley to pay.

 

He asked if Mrs. Hofgaertner’s boyfriend had ever been offered a job by Mayor Bradley. She said no, he had not. Mr. Penichet pointed out that Mr. DiBlasi had been Chief of Staff in Mount Vernon at the time David Chong, was Commissioner of Public Safety in Mount Vernon. Penichet asked if DiBlasi, Ms. Hofgaertner’s friend had ever asked Mr. Bradley for the Chief of Staff job in White Plains. Ms. Hofgaertner said that was not true. She said, “No. He (DiBlasi) was not interested. He suggested John Callahan (Editor’s note: Callahan was eventually hired for the job), would be a good choice.

 

In the late afternoon, Fumiko Bradley took the stand. She was in the process of explaining the sequence of the alleged door-slam incident February 27, and making it clear to the judge who had questions about Mrs. Bradley’s position and side of the door she was one, when the Judge, noticing the late hour declared recess until Tuesday morning.

 

Referencing Ms. Hofgaertner’s direct testimony in the morning session, Penichet asked Hofgaertner why she had not urged either Mr. Bradley or Fumiko Bradley that he might have a problem and need help or counseling. She answered “It wasn’t my place.”

 

Asked if she advised Fumiko Bradley to got to a marriage counselor, Hofgaertner’s answer was “No,” and did you suggest she (Fumiko Bradley) call the police, Hofgaertner said “Yes.”

 

He asked whether she had ever advised Mrs. Bradley how to get rid of the au pair (Yuko Watanabe), how to force Mr. Bradley to pay for vacation trips which he had been forcing her to pay, or to go to the police…she said “Not true.” to the first two questions and True to the third.

 

Subsequently in later testimony, Mr. Penichet confronted Ms. Hoefgaertner with a series of e-mails, which  contracting those statements that she did not advise Fumiko depicted Ms. Hofgaertner as the signor. In each instance, Ms. Hofgaertner, first said, “I do not remember.” Penichet had the baliff show Hofgaertner the e-mails, and asked her if she wrote them. She said yes. Each of the e-mails Penichet selected found Ms. Hoefgaertner advising Mrs. Bradley in the e-mails on the matters Penichet had asked her about if she had done those things. This was an oft-repeated exercise of  Penichet asking a question about an action and Ms. Hoefgaertner saying she did not remember was repeated  again and again, the upshot indicating a pattern of Hoefgaertner advising Mrs. Bradley on actions to take in her relationship with Mr. Bradley.

 

 

In  previous questioning, Mr. Penichet introduced a memo to Audrey Stone ( the prosecutor), which was written from Ms. Hofgaertner, on March 13, fifteen days after the Mayor was arrested and charged, complaining about “slanderous” comments made about her in the media, and she wanted the prosecutor to do something about it.

 

Audrey Stone, the lead prosecutor objected  saying the memorandum was irrelevant and hearsay, “a collateral item,” and nothing to do directly with the incidents in the charges. Penichet quoted from the Richardson legal reference  which allowed introduction of a item as evidence in the instance indicating “bias, interest, hostility.”

 

Judge Capeci took a 15-minute recess to consider, and came back saying she should would allow the memo (which Penichet told WPCNR was given him by the District Attorney).

 

Penichet used the memo to show in his opinion, Ms. Hofgaertner was concerned about her being slandered in the media and in the memo, said that if the district attorney did not do something about it she would (this is paraphrasing). He got Hofgaertner to say she was referring to the Mayor, his chief of staff, John Callahan. He got Ms. Hofgaertner to admit on the stand that she leaked the sequence of emails between her and Mrs. Bradley to Fox News because she was worred about her reputation.

 

Tying it together, Penichet wrapped up with Ms. Hofgaertner by getting her to once again, after saying she could not remember if she had written comments to the effect that that Mrs. Bradley should go to the police, and get an order of protection, just before the  door-slamming incident. Hofgaertner, visibly upset at this time, being shown another e-mail with her name on it by the bailiff remembered and said “Yes,” she had written it.

 

At times during these long “I do not remember” sequences of questioning, Judge Capeci overruled noticeably infrequent objections by Ms. Stone, saying to Ms. Hofgaertner, the witness,  at one point, the judge asked “Does this help your recollection?” as one e-mail was shown for Ms. Hofgaertner to identify.

 

Penichet’s point was that Hofgaertner had with her e-mails orchestrated Mrs. Bradley’s befhavior. He also got Hofgaertner to admit she had been going through a divorce at the time the Bradley incidents occurred.

 

Audrey Stone, the Prosecutor, attempted to bolster Ms. Hofgaertner, quoting a portion of Fumiko Bradley’s e-mails which Ms. Hofgaertner had answered, in which Mrs. Bradley was asking what should she do. Hofgaertner, tearfully said, “she was just trying to help.”

 

At 3:45 P.M. Fumiko Bradley was called to the stand with the Assistant Prosecutor handling the direct testimony. Mrs. Bradley described the tea throwing incident of January 11 and was in the midst of describing the alleged door-slam-on-her fingers on February 27 when court action was adjourned for the day at 4:45 P.M.

 

Mrs. Bradley said that Ms. Hofgaertner was the one person she felt she could talk to, and that was because Ms. Hofgaertner was going through a divorce at the time. The Assistant Prosecutor showed some photographs of the interior of the Bradley home.

 

In describing the tea incident, Mrs. Bradley said she did not know why Mr. Bradley threw the tea at her, and that she left the children with Mr. Bradley at the time. She described her injuring as reddish skin and that she did not seek medical attention.

 

The Assistant Prosecutor then lead her to a discussion of how the alleged door incident developed. She said she went up to the bedroom to ask Mr. Bradley to attend a traditional Japanese event for his daughters. Mr. Bradley reacted badly, she said attempting to “push her out of the bedroom, and from the way she described it, he was behind her dragging her out the bedroom door, holding her left hand with his left hand. She said she was afraid “he was going to push me down the stairs again (about 7 steps)” and Mr. Bradley reaching around her waist, slammed the door, on three fingers of her left hand high on the doorjam.

 

Judge Capeci found this confusing and asked Mrs. Bradley to demonstrate it. Mrs. Bradley was in the process of doing so, when the Judge noting the clock, adjourned for the day.