Details

Published: 24 October 2010

Created: 24 October 2010

Last Updated: 28 October 2010

Hits: 7107

One of the dilemmas we will face in the voting booth (or voting-table, as the case is this year with new voting machines) on November 2nd, will be who or whether to vote for…..for those obscure, down-ballot races for judge. For the life of me I cannot fathom why we have elections for judicial candidates! Unless you’re an active practitioner in the courts — or are a relative, neighbor, or friend of a judicial candidate — how and on what basis do you pick and choose?

In Westchester there are contests for Supreme Court Judge (not the highest court in the State — that being the Court of Appeals in New York where judges are appointed), Westchester County Court, Westchester Family Court, and Surrogates Court. So although I believe these positions should be appointed in some nonpartisan fashion, given that the selection is put up to a vote — I want the opportunity to try to make an informed decision and cast my ballot. In past years I would sometimes defer to the editorial endorsements from Gannett owned Journal News, hoping that they have undertaken adequate due diligence. But they no longer makes endorsements in judicial races.

But if you think you can simply defer to specific political parties to make the choice for you –think again.

By way of example, I’ve chosen to focus on the Westchester County Family Court race, in part because if what I found by doing some bare bones due diligence.

According to the New York State court website, the Family Court hears and determines most legal issues involving children and families… including matters involving: child custody and visitation; adoptions and guardianship; juvenile delinquency; persons in need of supervision; child neglect and abuse; monetary support for children, spouses and ex-spouses; determination of paternity; and domestic violence between family members. Now fortunately, I have never had any direct personal experience in or with Family Court, nor do I have any contact with it professionally. The family Court judges are elected for 10-year terms and their current salary is pegged at $136,700 per year.

There are 10 candidates vying for 4 slots on November 2nd. They are:

• Judge Nilda Morales Horowitz (D,C,I,WF)(no website)
  Hal Greenwald (D,C, WF)(no website)
• David Klein (D,WF)(no website)
• Michelle Schauer (D,WF)(www.electschauer.com)
• Edward Borelli (R,C,)(www.edborelli.com)
• Bill Edwards (R,I)(no website)
• Patricia O’Callaghan (R,C,I)(www.ocallaghan2010.com)
• Mary Clark (R,I, RTL)(no website)
• Raymond Belair(RTL)(no website)
• Anthony Decintio (RTL)(no website)

(It makes me crazy that judicial candidates take the “Right to Life” party line — I believe this to be high unethical — as would someone who would run on a hypothetical “right to choose” party….but I digress…)

So the first thing I did was “Google” the major party candidates. Nilda Morales Horowitz is on the ballot with 4 parties: Democratic, Conservative, Independence, and Working Families. She has served as Family Court Judge since 2001. The first Google mention of Judge Horowitz is the fact that she was censured by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2005. A dissent was filed in the matter advocating her removal from the bench rather than censure. The Commission’s quite damning decision is here. In a nutshell, the Commission found that Judge Horowitz interfered with cases before other judges on the Family Court — not once — but twice — seeking preferential treatment for participants in cases before the Court. According to the Commission decision, when one judge objected to Horowitz’ request, Judge Horowitz chastised her colleague as being “ridiculous” and that “everybody does it” The “it” I can only presume is to interfere in cases before the court. Nowhere can I find some statement of contrition from Judge Horowitz. The Commission’s censure occurred 5 years ago. Why did the Democratic, Conservative, Independence, and Working Families parties decide to nominate Judge Horowitz for another term? Are there no other qualified lawyers in Westchester do perform this job?

This is ludicrous.

Now contrast the Horowitz candidacy with another Democratic candidate who I actually met a few weeks ago, Michelle Schauer. She was appointed to a temporary slot on the Family Court by Governor Paterson and is now running for a full 10-year term. I met Michelle Schauer through a mutual friend, and she came on a radio show I guest hosted with the editor of the Westchester-Eye, Peter Moses. Although Michelle is not permitted to talk about “issues”, she did lay our her experience, qualifications, and her calm, deliberative temperament (what you really want in a judge) was clearly on display. And unlike some of the other candidates, she provided a detailed bio to the New York State Court website voterguide and she has a website. Of the other candidates, I’ve seen television ads and tons of signs for Patricia O’Callaghan — who appears to be spending the most money of all the candidates on the race. Other than reaching out and talking to each candidate (which I don’t have time to do) — this is the basis for my choice for Family Court. So I will, on November 2nd lodge a bullet vote for Michelle Schauer. And I will continue to wonder why four political parties including one major party chose to nominate a formally censured judge for re-election.

David A. Singer is a former political consultant/campaign professional and political junkie currently toiling as a lawyer in Westchester and managing real estate and media investments.

Details

Published: 28 October 2010

Created: 28 October 2010

Last Updated: 28 October 2010

Hits: 6503

In another heated exchange concerning safety netting at the Quaker Ridge Golf Club, the Scarsdale Planning Board met on Wednesday night October 27th to consider the club’s application to construct a 60-foot safety net to border two Brittany Close homes.

The issue dates back to 2009 when Brittany Close residents Gail and Leon Behar sought approval to construct their own 40-foot safety net to shield them from flying golf balls hit from the second tee at the Quaker Ridge Golf Club. They complained that during one seven-day stretch, 69 golf balls flew into their yard, preventing them from using their property and pool.

When the Board of Appeals denied them a variance to construct the fence in March 2010 the Behars hired attorney Julius Cohn to take action against the Club. The case was heard in State Supreme Court in White Plains in June 2010 who recommended that the Club construct a 60-foot fence, pending approval from Scarsdale Village. Until a resolution was reached, limitations on the use of the second tee of the Quaker Ridge Golf Club were put in place and they remain in force today.

The Club and Behar were not the only concerned parties. Neighbors from the Brittany Close development expressed their concern about the possibility of a 60-foot structure looming over their carefully planned community.

After the June 24th meeting , the Planning Board decided to hold the matter over until the Club could provide the following:

• Receipt and review of additional information including alternatives to the fence –including trees to provide natural screening coupled with a temporary screening structure
• Scientific data regarding the height of the proposed netting to determine whether or not it would effective
• Continued communication between the applicants and their neighbors to come to an amicable resolution.

At the October 27th meeting, the Club’s attorney and landscape architect proposed a 60-foot high fence, 204 feet in length, rather than the original 169 feet that was on the table at earlier meetings. The Club had decided to extend the length of the fence to shield the Behar’s neighbors to the north and to allow the placement of the fence poles behind existing trees on the neighbor’s property.

The proposed poles were to be 60 feet high and 21 inches in diameter. The applicants also proposed planting a stand of 35 foot Armstrong maple trees on the club side of the fence. These trees grow at a rate of 2 feet per year and would therefore take twelve years to entirely cover the fence on the Quaker Ridge side. The architects advised that the trees be planted on the club side for maximum safety, however this would do little to hide the screen from Brittany close neighbors.

The scientific data revealed that a 60-foot fence would trap 99% of errant golf balls, a 40-foot fence would trap 98% of the balls and a 25-foot net was projected to trap 95% of golf balls.

The President of the Brittany Close Neighborhood Association and a resident attended the meeting to represent the neighborhood. They have the unanimous backing of all the circle residents, excepting the Behars.

Though the neighbors “are sympathetic to the situation (they) should not have to have a 60-foot eyesore and bear the burden on the property values.” The Association President told the Planning Board that they met with the Behars on September 7 and unanimously expressed their reservations about a 60-foot screen. They were told they would be kept in the loop but were surprised that they had not seen any of the photos of the proposed fence until the meeting.

Furthermore, they said, “In the spirit of compromise we agreed to accept plantings that would create a natural barrier. If that were found not to be sufficient we would agree to the screen, not to exceed the height of the Behar’s house. The screen should be removed when golf is not in season and taken down at an agreed upon date or when the trees were sufficiently tall. Brittany Close resident Seth Plattus warned the Board against setting a precedent allowing 60 foot fences in Scarsdale and said that “life involves risk” and the Behar’s don’t need “100% protection from golf balls.”

Addressing the club attorney’s, Beverly Sved, Chair of the Planning Board stated, “I thought it was clear that we asked for various alternatives…one was supposed to be landscaping alone” She asked the Club’s representatives if they had considered a plan that only included natural screening with landscaping, per the Board’s instructions. Referencing the Board’s June instructions for the Club to work toward an amicable resolution, Sved said, “I am floored that they (the neighbors) have not seen this (plans and photos) until this evening.

Village Planner Elizabeth Marrinan questioned why the net was necessary, as the original plans for the subdivision did not stipulate the need for a fence. She asked why the group had not considered plantings on both sides of the property line and a temporary fence until the trees reached a sufficient height.

A discussion ensued of placing the trees on the neighbor’s side, using evergreens rather than deciduous trees, removing the fence when golf is not in season and removing the fence permanently when trees reach a sufficient height.

The Behar’s attorney Julius Cohn made a plea for neighbors to “put aside aesthetics to ensure the safety of the family and allow “Mr. Behar’s wife and children to go outside for a barbeque.”

The Planning Board heard the neighbor's pleas and approved a 40-foot fence supported by poles of reduced diameter.  The club has approval to keep the fence up for five years, providing time for the trees to grow to an adequate size to screen the Behar's yard.

 

Details

Published: 20 October 2010

Created: 20 October 2010

Last Updated: 21 October 2010

Hits: 30679

Candidates for the N.Y. State Assembly and the N.Y. State Senate discussed their records and their views in front of an overflowing audience at the LWV Candidates Forum on Tuesday October 19 at the Scarsdale Public Library.

With local tax rates at an all time high and strapped fiscal budgets, the elections for the NYS legislature are a hot topic. Two of the candidates, Assemblywoman Amy Paulin and Senate hopeful Robert Cohen, are Scarsdale residents which piqued the community’s interest in the upcoming election.

In both contests, the seats have been held by Democrats, with Suzi Oppenheimer the incumbent for the 37th Senate District and Paulin the incumbent for the 88th Assembly District. Given the corruption, deficit and dysfunction of the NYS Legislature, Republican challengers Rene Atayan and Robert Cohen both charged their opponents with being part of the problem and called for a change in leadership.

In return, Oppenheimer and Paulin featured their long record of accomplishments as legislators. Both have lengthy lists of legislation they have sponsored into law and both hold leadership positions in their respective legislative bodies.

Paulin and Atayan were up first, and the format called for opening statements followed by questions posed by the League Moderator, Lindsay Feinberg, and from the public.

Atayan presented herself as a “multi-tasker and problem-solver” who could “bring a tenacious approach to addressing the ills of our district.” Conceding that she was in a room full of people who know Amy Paulin, she charged Ms. Paulin with failing “to pay attention to the fiscal disorder in our district.”

In her statement, Paulin stressed her record, with 108 of her bills signed into law. She also let the group know that the state spending was unsustainable and that she was a proponent of reform.

The first question dealt with redistricting which is on the horizon for 2011 and is currently slated to be handled by the State Legislature. Atayan responded by saying that we need to “get away from partisanship” and called for the lines to be redrawn by “impartial people.” Paulin told the group that she sponsored legislation to create a non-partisan redistricting commission.

The next question addressed the drop in local, county and state revenues. Paulin told the group that there is “no question that the economy is faltering . We have had to raise property taxes, we need to look at mandate relief and Wicks reform to lessen the burden on local taxes.” Atayan argued that the problem was “spending and state mandates,” and the rising costs of pensions and Medicare. She also charged the current regime with a 125 day delay in passing the NYS budget, and told the audience that the legislature had “held your money hostage.”

To a question about corruption and cynicism in NYS politics, Atayan, replied, “There are a great number of people who are first time candidates. We bring business experience to the table. I would not go to Albany to maintain the status quo.” She then attacked Paulin for taking $12,500 in stipends for attending two meetings.

Paulin countered by saying that “cynicism is very unfortunate. My opponent is spreading myths, rumors and inaccuracies and this process is creating the same kind of cynicism.” She called for an independent ethics commission, the denial of pensions to those who abuse their positions and said, we need to “get rid of legislators who are not hardworking.”

The candidates answered questions from the audience and covered some ground that did not appear to be part of their usual remarks.

An audience member asked Ms. Atayan about a quote that appeared on her Facebook page last summer that said, “Democrats have no regard for the law.” Atayan denied that the quote was on her page and told the group that six months ago she was “busy burying her mother.” She defended her ability to work with both sides of the aisle, telling the group that she heads the Republican Party in Bronxville and the candidate they support for Mayor is an independent.

In response to a question about gun control, Atayan stressed her experience with law enforcement and stated “we have a right to bear arms. We should store them safely. As a person of Assyrian descent – my husband is Armenian – it is abhorrent to confiscate weapons. It revolves around legal gun ownership.”

Paulin replied that though the second amendment grants the right to bear arms, she favors pistol permit renewals which could hopefully prevent another massacre like the one that took place in Binghamton.

In response to a question about animal abuse, Atayan stated that animal abuse should be criminalized and said that those who abuse animals often go onto commit more heinous crimes. Paulin cited Buster’s Law that was passed 10 years ago and said that new legislation regulating pet dealers was before the legislature.

In her closing remarks, Paulin said that her mission is to “help people and work to ensure the integrity of government. She said that she is a “hardworking, bi-partisan principled and an effective leader and that she is gratified that her work has touched so many lives.”

Atayan told the audience to “look at the proof in the pudding. Our taxes have doubled in the past ten years, for the same ten years that she (Paulin) has been in office Businesses and people are leaving the state in droves. She (Paulin) has not addressed the pension plan. I offer concrete solutions and would be honored to have your vote in November.”

Suzi Oppenheimer and Robert Cohen took the stage and despite the heated attacks aired on television and published in mail campaigns, they appeared to be more convivial than Paulin and Atayan.

In her opening statement, Oppenheimer said that though it is difficult to get things done in Albany, as the Chair of the Senate Education Committee, she was successful in passing a landmark education reform bill this year. She provided some personal background and let the group know that she is about to celebrate her 50th wedding anniversary and has four children and six grandchildren. She is a former PTA President, League of Women Voters President, Mayor of Mamaroneck and has held the NYS Senate Seat for 26 years.

Cohen introduced himself as the father of three children, an active Scarsdale resident and a volunteer for the fire department. He said, “the New York I grew up in is not the New York I find today. Opportunities have gone away. The Brennan Institute found that we have the most dysfunctional state legislature in the country. We should not have to live with such a dysfunctional legislature. Part of the problem is incumbency. Ms. Oppenheimer has been in office for 40 years and it is time for change in New York.”

The candidates were asked the same questions posed to Paulin and Atayan. On the question of redistricting, Oppenheimer also favored an independent redistricting commission as well as limits on campaign contributions. She proposed election reform to allow weekend voting and registration on voting day.

Cohen had signed a pledge written by former Mayor Koch to support non-partisan redistricting in the state. He also proposed term limits.

In a discussion about the drop in local, county, state revenues Cohen said, “state government has consistently spent more money than it receives. The GNP in New York has not risen (as quickly as spending). We have spent and taxed beyond our means. We have to rein in the spending.” In discussing mandates he said, “if Albany passes a bill they need to send a check with it.”

Oppenheimer replied, “In the past 20 months I have been Chair of the State Education Committee. I have been able to remove unfunded mandates. Now we are looking for unfunded mandates that are not serving our purposes.” She relayed that the committee is looking for opportunities to share services such as BOCES, school busing and library purchasing.

On the culture of corruption and cynicism in Albany, Oppenheimer defended her party, saying, “since the Democrats took control of the Senate twenty months ago we have passed no fault divorce, the bottle bill, a bullying bill, gotten rid of the Rockefeller drug laws, closed four prisons, and ensured health insurance for those with autism.”

Cohen talked about Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada, saying they were Democrats who became Republicans for a day and then went back to being Democrats. The Legislature responded by naming Espada as majority leader.” Cohen called for the end of a “culture of corruption.”

Both agreed that taxes are too high. Cohen spoke in support of a property tax cap of 2%. He also called for employee contributions to pension plans. Oppenheimer said that she had “voted twice for the property tax cap” but said that a cap was not the answer. She added, “We must reorganize government. We have run out of money. Not just limit the amount we increase but actually cut spending.” On pensions, she told the group that “we will shortly see increased employee contributions.”

On taxes, Oppenheimer said, “We have run out of choices. I would like to see cuts made judiciously. I am the highest ranking environmentalist in the state. The cuts we have made are so severe we are not enforcing our environmental laws. I hope we do it (cut spending) with a fine toothed comb, not a hatchet.”

Cohen countered, “In our last budget they raised taxes, spending and borrowing and did not increase aid to education. This is the way we have been operating in the past. This is the result of one party government. We need two party government where there is balance. Our taxes have gone up 8% per year. It is unsustainable.”

They diverged in their answers to a question about gay rights. Stating that this was an important issue, Cohen said, “People should have total equality no matter what their preference. We have to address it and remember that we are dealing with people.” However Cohen said that he believes in traditional marriage and that he supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage.

Oppenheimer stated that civil unions do not give the same legal coverage as marriage. She said, “I am a sponsor of the marriage equality laws. There is a real difference between the laws that govern civil unions vs. marriage. The gay couples I know have been together many years and should have the opportunity to marry.”

Tenure was on the table next and Oppenheimer contended that the issue was ineffective teachers, not tenure. She discussed the new education reform bill that regulates teacher training, evaluation and dismissal. For the first time, student performance will now be a component in a teacher’s evaluation.

Cohen said, “Do we reward seniority or do we reward performance? He advocated five-year renewable tenure rather than lifetime tenure.

The candidates sparred about the $700 million in Race to the Top Funds, with Cohen telling the group that none of these funds would come to Scarsdale. Oppenheimer replied that $125 million would be available for grants and said that she hoped that Scarsdale would apply for the funds.

In his closing statement Cohen said, “We have a clear choice to make. We know what we had for the past 26 years and the problems with incumbency. She (Suzi Oppenheimer) has been there for 26 years. If we want to continue the taxing and the spending, we can vote for Senator Oppenheimer.”

Oppenheimer told the group that “if Cuomo is Governor, there will be a push toward reform. It has been an honor to represent you. I am committed to public service. I hope to continue. Now that I am in this position, I can effect a lot of legislation. The quality of life in Westchester is important to me and important to you. “

Photos by Sara Werder