Ineptness in UCSD . . . and Elsewhere

So now we find out that the Utica City School District has been wasting months “studying” a project that it cannot carry out. While the architects are taking the fall, I see this as really the administration’s incompetence . . . and an example of how educators are not qualified to be managers. They saw a huge pot of money and could not wait to get their hands on it. They made the assumptions on what it could be used for and took action before Synthesis even got on board – - unless Synthesis was ‘unofficially’ advising the administration before they were ‘chosen’ from among several ‘competitors’ (but there is no evidence of that). The administration is letting their contractor take the fall.

Should this be any surprise when these administrators and school board are the same people who brought you the scheduling fiasco and no-textbooks fiasco a couple years back?

One has to wonder, also, about the competence of the state leaders who made such a tempting huge pot of money available. It only encourages waste. 300 million for Utica, almost a billion for Syracuse . . . now add together similar projects across the state and you know why NY is the highest taxed state in the land.

If New York can blow this kind of money on education, New York can well afford to give us a free Thruway . . . which will probably do more to boost Upstate’s economy than all the new school facilities combined.

Utica School Nonsense . . .

It was interesting to listen to Mr. Pellegrino this morning on WIBX’ “First Look.” Listen to him and you would think that the management of the school district is entirely different. . . . that they are not going to put up with any nonsense any more from contractors . . . and that they are going to be tough and press for criminal charges with the DA for the malfeasance on the roofs that are now leaking. The $8 million bond for repairs was not properly managed – - but the Board is going to insist that things be made right . . . Bravo.

I don’t know about you, but I am not convinced that management people, styles or attitudes are significantly different from what Uticans have put up with for years.

What IS significantly different now is that a bonanza is about to be literally dropped into their collective lap — some $300 million in state funds — more money in one shot than the school district has ever received – - – AND THEY DON’T WANT TO LOSE IT.

While Mr. Pellegrino might have sounded tough, I heard posturing and desperation. He so wants to convince you that the Utica City School District has changed . . . that it can now be trusted with your tax dollars. . . . SO YOU WILL APPROVE THEIR SPENDING PLAN . . . And to prove it they make the show of toughness on the leaking roofs.

But what about the $37 million Millenium fiasco? From the stories emanating out of Proctor, people are suspicious that perhaps that money might not have been well spent either. That project never quite seemed to work as intended, with personnel seemingly shuffled more than a deck of cards in a poker game. Remember the scheduling nightmare? And did Proctor ever find its text books?

And how about that Krazy Kernan Skewl with its Kollege Daze? and Yoga Klasses? and seminars on Kommunity service . . . and Health Klinics. Anything but Reading ‘Riting and ‘Rithmatic!

The Utica public has put up with years and years of watching its school district’s incompetence, nonsense, and waste. UCSD knows it. So now UCSD fears that the voters may reject the $300 million even though it will be entirely state funds.

After wasting millions already given, why give these people more? They will probably bite off more than they can chew, saddling the taxpayers with unneeded facilities to maintain. The kids will see no results anyway.

Payback would be soooo sweet.

That Essential Ingredient . . .

Joe DiMaggio’s cousin has opened a pizza restaurant in Florida, has plans for a chain there. . . and the world.

“. . . we bring our dough in from Utica, N.Y. . . .”

This guy knows what he’s doing!

Forgery . . . and Silence . . .

This story in the O-D, and earlier postings on UticaSux got my attention just before the election. They raise concern about the tactics of the people we pay to enforce and uphold the law. Even more concerning is the failure of local officials and the Oneida County Bar Association, now that they have been made aware of the incident, to publicly call for an investigation. Fear of retribution, perhaps?

Per the O-D:

A fake DNA report created by Utica police investigators last year to pressure a suspect into confessing has raised questions about whether some investigative tactics go too far. . . . “I told him that I believe what was done was an investigative tactic that was totally unacceptable,” McNamara said recently. “It rose to a level that would violate the principle of fairness, and that tactic should never be used again.” Pylman agreed. “If you feel that strongly about it, we won’t do it anymore,” Pylman recalled telling McNamara.

So, it is undisputed that a “fake DNA report” was created by Utica police as an “investigative tactic.”

What a tactful way of putting it . . .

Local attorneys and officials had better brush up on their Penal Law. It’s written in plain English, and there are few elements, so even they should understand.

 PENAL LAW TITLE K, OFFENSES INVOLVING FRAUD, ARTICLE 170, FORGERY AND RELATED OFFENSES:

§ 170.05 Forgery in the third degree.

A person is guilty of forgery in the third degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument. Forgery in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

The fake lab report is a “written instrument” as that term is defined in PL §170.00 (1), and the intent to deceive the suspect is evident from how the instrument was used.

The “investigative tactic” appears to have been the crime of forgery — and (at least) a misdemeanor.

Although investigators did create a phony DNA report in September 2006 to indicate a match with Wright’s DNA, they did not falsify an official document, Pylman said. He also emphasized it is not against the law for police to lie to suspects.

Although a state lab report would seem “official” to most people, there is nothing in the law that requires the forged item to be an “official document,” so Chief Pylman’s defense is irrelevant.

“They did what any good cop would do, but they pushed it a little too far,” Pylman said of his investigators. “But what’s got to be realized is that they did not have any malicious or evil intent.”

Whether the intent was “malicious” or “evil” is irrelevant because the penal law does not require “malicious” or “evil” intent. What it requires is only an intent to deceive — and that clearly was what was intended here.

McNamara at first was concerned investigators may have committed a forgery by including a forensic scientist’s signature on the last page of the falsified DNA report, he said.

But he determined police never presented the signature to Wright as a means of authenticating the report, he said. Thus, in his mind, no crime had been committed.

The lack of a signature appears to be in dispute. O.C. Public Defender LeLand McCormac certainly thought there was a signature:

“The fact that police officers would tamper with an official document … signed by a forensic scientist, and use such in a vain attempt to elicit a confession by (Wright) demonstrates outrageously deceitful, manipulative and coercive conduct shocking to the conscience and undermining the public’s faith in the integrity of … our criminal justice system,” McCormac wrote in the Feb. 8 document.

But there is no requirement in the law for the forged item to contain a signature, so DA McNamara’s defense is also irrelevant.

So we clearly have a crime that is at least a misdemeanor that has been committed. But it may actually be worse . . . a lot worse.

§ 170.10 Forgery in the second degree.
A person is guilty of forgery in the second degree when, with intent
to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or
alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is
calculated to become or to represent if completed: . . .

3. A written instrument officially issued or created by a public
office, public servant or governmental instrumentality; . . .

Forgery in the second degree is a class D felony.

Here is where the “official” nature of the instrument and whether or not it contained a signature become important: when we look at a forgery as a “felony.” A state police lab report would seem to meet the criteria of an “official” document under §170.10(3). A “signature” would be evidence that the document “purports” to be an official document. As indicated above, the O-D article contains enough information to suggest that these things were also present.

There is possibly more than forgery. How many hands knowingly dealt with the falsified report, used the report, and or directed its use? There are also crimes of possession specified at both the misdemeanor and felony levels. From the text of the penal law Article 170, how many can you identify that may have been committed here?

A misdemeanor is clearly evident and is bad enough. A felony is worse. A felony committed by a government agent as part of his or her official duties is outrageous. The situation suggests that several people may have been involved, and that both forgery and possession of a forged instrument may have been committed.

The reputations of Utica and other police agencies, manned by many good, brave, and noble men and women, are tarnished by such behavior.

An investigation is needed, all involved need to be identified, culpability needs to be determined. . . .

And some heads need to roll.

Utica Author Plagiarized by Paris Hilton?

That’s the accusation . . . the story is in the LA Times . . .

Rome Helping Utica . . .

The story about Rome police helping Utica police is a welcome bit of news, especially for the besieged people of Cornhill.

What isn’t quite understood is why no help from New Hartford, Whitestown, or the various Villages nearby. Those areas will have a lot to lose if Utica goes under.

Perhaps it takes a City to understand the problems of another City, and know what to do.

The Shadowman . . .

From my posts you can tell that photography is a hobby and Greater Utica, a favorite subject . . .

If you have these interests too, then you will enjoy (and perhaps be inspired by) The Shadowman (actually a group of 5 photographers) — “Photography of Utica, NY and Beyond.” They have perfected the art of night photography. Familiar locales take on an almost magical quality. Take a look at the recent “On Genny” post and you will see what I mean.

It Was a Brilliant Day in Utica . . .

. . . and I got a new camera!

A Consent Order Primer, Part 4: Dissecting What Happened

Part 1 of this series focused on sewage systems; Part 2 on how laws are developed to control water pollution; and Part 3 on the roles of the federal, state and local governments. This post examines the Consent Order and other documentation of the local situation to understand the nature of the County’s violations. At the end is an analysis of what went wrong and what is going wrong.

The County’s SPDES permit allows discharges to the Mohawk River from 2 places (1) at the sewage treatment plant in Utica and (2) at the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station in Yorkville. The latter, which receives sewage mainly from New Hartford and Whitestown, was permitted as a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), recognizing that sewers in older developed areas combined storm water with sanitary waste; that it would be burdensome and financially unreasonable to make older areas put in separate lines for sanitary waste; and that if an overflow point were not provided, the wastewater would back up into people’s basements.

However, new developments all have separate sanitary sewage collection systems, and New Hartford and Whitestown both have a lot of new developments. These have been allowed to connect to the County’s System via the line leading to the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station.

During early February, 2006, the US EPA conducted an inspection and notified the County and DEC that separate sanitary sewer systems were feeding the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station, and that the discharge from the SCPS should be regulated as a Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO). DEC agreed, and notified the County a few days later that its CSO would be considered an SSO, its SPDES permit would be modified to reflect the change, that the County also appeared to be exceeding the capacity of its sewage treatment plant, that to address the excess it needed to submit a flow management plan (6NYCRR§750-2.9(c)) within 120 days, and that it needed to participate with the City of Utica in the CSO Long Term Control Plan.

Oneida County responded with resistance.

The County argued that the discharge point was a CSO based on a 1982 study, data on the quality of the discharge, and the combined nature of the collection systems built in the villages 70-80 years ago. The County argued that it should not be held responsible for the actions of the communities sending it sewage, claiming that it had no legal authority to regulate what went on in those communities. The County alleged that the DEC was causing a financial hardship to the County and the satellite communities. The County also resisted certain aspects of participating with the City of Utica in the CSO Long Term Control Plan essentially contending that evaluation of how County facilities would interact with Utica’s CSOs would be expensive and should be Utica’s responsibility. The County further took the position that Utica should be exploring other alternatives for treating Utica’s CSOs rather than sending them to the treatment plant.

DEC did not accept the County’s argument that it was not operating an SSO, and followed it up with an enforcement action that charged the County with illegally operating an SSO, illegally discharging sewage without secondary treatment, not submitting a flow management plan, and not having an effective sewer use ordinance in all parts of its service area.

Ultimately last month, the DEC and Oneida County entered into the Consent Order to get DEC to lift its ban on new sewer hookups.

Analysis:

Certainly, at the time the County’s treatment works and collection system were built, “CSO” would have been the proper classification for the discharge from the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station. Again, CSOs were allowed in recognition that it would have been financially prohibitive to require areas previously developed to conform to new standards, and the old sections of the Villages of New Hartford, Whitesboro, Yorkville and NY Mills could be expected to fall into this category.

But the 1982 study the County attempted to rely upon could not have addressed the new developments of the 1990s and later that we have seen in New Hartford and Whitestown — all of which were required to have separated sanitary sewer systems. The County did not have to let the new developments connect to its system on the same pipe that carried combined sewage and storm water. The fact that the County allowed this defeated the purpose of requiring separated systems for new developments because, at times of high flow, the waste from the separated systems would be discharged directly to the river untreated — which is a clear violation of the law. The County could have required a second line for separated waste that would have avoided the CSO, but it did not.

The County’s arguing that it should not be held responsible for the actions of the communities sending it sewage because it had no legal authority to regulate what went on in those communities was actually an admission of another violation. The US EPA has long required that the owners of treatment works have the legal authority to control the use of their facilities. This is done through ownership of the facilities themselves, the passing of a local ordinance governing use of the facilities, and then preventing connections by (or cutting connections from) any municipalities who do not cooperate by passing their own ordinances or devising some other method to ensure that the owner’s requirements would be met.

The DEC enforcing its requirements is not the cause of financial hardships to the County and the satellite communities. Any hardships are the result of (1) the County allowing hook ups that caused separated waste to pass through its over flow untreated and (2) the individual municipalities’ failure to recognize that this was happening to the waste from the developments that they not only authorized but encouraged (i.e., the environmental reviews of the developments were inadequate).

Instead of protecting the CSO which was intended to relieve established communities from a monumental burden, the County abused the CSO as a way to reduce the cost of new developments. Now that the abuse has been stopped, the County is going to cause what the CSOs were supposed to prevent: visiting additional costs on old established communities. The County will use its authority over sewer usage fees to make ALL users of the system pay for the solution, including the residents of the established communities that received no increases to their tax bases.

The County’s approach to Utica is especially reprehensible.

“It is the County’s position that the City of Utica and the NYSDEC should be exploring other alternatives for treating CSO’s rather than sending them to the WPCP. The capacity of the WPCP should be reserved for treating sanitary wastes rather than combined wastes”

The treatment works were originally designed to accommodate the flows from Utica’s old CSOs. Utica residents have been paying into this system for years, not only the County charges, but separate City sewer charges. Uticans have already paid for the treatment works to be adequately sized to meet their CSO needs. But the County now has signaled an intent to deprive Uticans of the use of the treatment plant for their CSOs which they have paid for. This would be a County requirement, not EPA’s or DEC’s.

It is amazing that Utica leaders and Utica legislators are not screaming in anger over this, but it is unlikely that they are even aware that this is being done to them . . . Things are rushed through the County legislature at the request of political bosses who appear to be answering to the desires of developers . . . And it is possible that even the County level bosses don’t understand that this is happening.

Perhaps ultimately having everyone sharing the costs makes the most sense, but if this is going to happen, everyone needs to share in the benefits as well.

The innocent should not be made to pay for the violations of the guilty.

[Note: Articles in this series may be revised from time to time to provide additional detail and explanation as time allows, and as current events warrant.]

Park Ave. Parking Permutations . . .

Looks like the plan to turn Park Ave. into a parking lot will again be discussed. To his credit, Ed Hill pulled the plan from City Council consideration pending further study.

The project would be in Hill’s district and he said more specifics, such as a traffic study and an economic impact statement, were needed before the council could discuss deeding the land to the county.

Well, is there a study yet? Sounds like Co Exec Picente is still pushing the plan without one.

The county executive doesn’t want county employees taking up space in the city’s parking garage, which should be used as a marketing tool to attract more tenants into downtown office space, Picente said.

The proposed plan for Park Avenue would address the congestion, said Picente, who added that cities larger than Utica have implemented similar governmental complexes through road closures.

“Utica’s not 110,000 anymore; it’s much smaller,” Picente said. “Bigger cities have adjusted to the safety and traffic issues in their downtowns.”

I have news for Mr. Picente.

Oneida County’s not 320,000 people any more; it’s much smaller. County Government, and its need for parking, should shrink as well.