Westchester Democratic, Conservative, Independence, and Working Families Parties Nominate Censured Judge for Re-election
- Details
- Hits: 7300
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.
Candidates Forum Draws A Crowd
- Details
- Hits: 30824
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
Have a Little Faith
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 5041
The hoopla this past week in Scarsdale caused me to reflect on our family’s experiences with the police and the administration at Scarsdale High School. Thinking back to my son’s senior year, I realized that we had been confronted with a similar situation, but unlike the Labor Day incident this year, it was quickly resolved. Though parents today are reluctant to involve the authorities when there is trouble, we had no choice.
On a frigid January night, unbeknownst to his parents, my son witnessed a fight at the Golden Horseshoe parking lot, which pitted a few Scarsdale boys against some kids from New Rochelle. To this day, I don’t know exactly what happened, but a golf club was pulled from a car trunk and a friend of my son’s emerged from the fight with a broken hand.
My son drove the injured boy away from the scene and his parents called the police. The next day, the Scarsdale police asked my son to come in and tell them what had occurred. We were not aware that he went to the police, but in typical fashion my son wrote a lengthy account of the fight. Calling on his experience in the mock trial and debate clubs, he saw no need to consult his parents or a lawyer.
A day later we found out about his visit to the police and we were terrified. Would his early decision acceptance to college be rescinded or would he be suspended from school? My son seemed certain that he had only been called in as a witness and that he was not in trouble.
We held our breaths and waited a few weeks, and as my son promised, nothing whatsoever happened.
A good friend shared a similar story of her daughter’s brush with the law when she was a senior at Scarsdale High School and a captain of the Varsity Soccer Team. While her parents and the parents of several teammates were enjoying dinner in the city, she held a gathering at her house. One thing led to another and she was suddenly surrounded by way too many kids who were drinking at the house.
The police arrived and the distressed girl decided to take the rap for her friends. She was given a summons for serving alcohol to minors, which is a misdemeanor, and had to go to court. The judge required her to do 20 hours of community service and the SHS Soccer Coach pulled her from two soccer games. No mark appeared on her school transcript and today she is a very successful college senior who plans to go into public service.
In both instances, the students were dealt with fairly by the law and the school and they learned a valuable life lesson.
In my current role as a reporter, I have the pleasure of meeting weekly with the Scarsdale Police to review the blotter. When incidents involving kids under the age of 18 are reported, their names are omitted from the reports. In addition, those under 18 have youthful offender status and their records are sealed. I have found that the Scarsdale police do everything they can to teach young offenders a lesson while safeguarding their identities and records so that their mishaps will not affect their futures.
Scarsdale High School has a philosophy similar to the police. In the student handbook it says, “Scarsdale High School generally believes in maintaining confidentiality in matters of student discipline. Our goal is to help students learn from their mistakes, most of which are minor violations of school rules, and thus we consider most disciplinary infractions an internal matter among students, their parents, and the institution.
In discussing the Labor Day incident many commented that the Code of Conduct did not apply as school was not in session and the incident occurred off school grounds. However, the Scarsdale student Code of Conduct clearly states that students must abide by the code whether they are on or off school property, when school is in session and even when it is not. Here is the wording from the handbook:
These expectations apply to every student involved in sports or club activities whether on or off the school premises and regardless of whether school is in session at the time of the conduct. Students who do not adhere to those standards are subject to disciplinary action by the school administration and/or the Fairness Committees.
Though it is a far-reaching policy, it is the one we have adopted and must respect. If we do, I think we will all be better for it. In my view, trust needs to be restored between the police, the school and parents so that together we can instill good morals and good judgment in our kids. When students go astray it is essential that parents follow protocol and trust in the authorities and the school to take action according to code. Their children should be fairly treated and learn that some rules cannot be broken. Hopefully they will emerge from their travails as better young adults. I fear that those who do an end run around the authorities to protect their children ultimately sabotage themselves.
Fair Campaign Practice Committee Finds TV Spots Misleading and Inaccurate
- Details
- Hits: 4075
On October 14, The Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee, chaired by Evelyn Stock of Scarsdale heard a complaint from NYS Senate Candidate Robert Cohen against Suzi Oppenheimer who is running against him for the seat in the 37th District. Cohen complained that a television commercial for Ms. Oppenheimer portrayed him (Cohen) as a slumlord in New York City and was “intentionally misleading and factually inaccurate.” The commercial charged that he violated safety regulations and left children sick with lead poisoning.
The Committee agreed with Cohen, ruling that “scenes and events were fabricated, and it dismissed the Oppenheimer side’s contention that it was fair political discourse. A mother and child who appear in the commercial with facial expressions to convey a negative message about Mr. Cohen’s building were not his tenants and a sign was altered to imply that one of his buildings was condemned or closed for safety reasons by a “Department of Health and Safety” when no such agency existed. Also, as a picture is shown of a boy standing in front of an unfinished wall, a voice states: “… and left children sick with lead poisoning.” The wall is not on Mr. Cohen’s property and the boy is not one of his residents.
Cohen also complained that Ms. Oppenheimer made a “hypothetical and fictional” statement, saying, “If these buildings could talk…would tell of broken promises.”
The committee said they did not have enough information to make a ruling on the second charge.
The purpose of the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee is to promote a climate in which candidates conduct honest and fair campaigns. The Committee encourages candidates to conduct campaigns openly and fairly, to discuss issues, to refrain from dishonest and defamatory attacks, and not to use campaign materials that distort the facts. Visit their website to learn more.
Oppenheimer who has held the seat for 26 years chairs the NYS Senate Education Committee has also sent out some mailers with a positive tone that tout her many accomplishments on behalf of New York Schools. She sponsored the 2010 Education Reform Law that helped to pave the way for New York to win $700 million in federal Race to the Top funds.
The candidates will meet at the Scarsdale Public Library at the League of Women Candidates Forum on Tuesday night October 19th at 7:30 pm.
What About That Fight?
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 9996
Many SHS parents were surprised to receive a September 29 letter from Principal John Klemme discussing a fight that had occurred at a private party over Labor Day Weekend where two students were seriously injured.
Though no one is talking, the story on the street is that up to 30 students, including some members of the football and boy’s soccer teams were involved in a brutal fight at a private home. One student’s nose was shattered and another had injuries to his ribs. Both were taken to the hospital for treatment, though police were not called and no incident report was filed.
Since the Scarsdale High School Athletic Code dictates that students who misbehave on or off school grounds will be punished and may lose their privilege to participate on the team, Principal John Klemme and Assistant Principal Fred Goldberg interviewed suspects and attempted to find out what happened and who is to blame.
From his letter, it is clear that no one wanted to talk, including the students who were battered or their parents. According to Klemme, “Perhaps more disheartening for our school and its relationship with the community, however, is that while we teach and rely upon honesty, respect, trust, and integrity, some students and adults have adopted a "code of silence" that protects the guilty and sends disturbing messages to all.
Unlike the infamous homecoming event in 2003 where drunk students were taken straight from the high school to the hospital, this event occurred off campus and there were no official witnesses. After the homecoming incident, Klemme made extensive inquiries and some students were suspended from school, based on information gleaned from other students. As the suspensions appeared on student’s transcripts there were many heated exchanges between angry parents, students and the administration at that time.
In this case, there was a brutal fight and perhaps someone should be called on the carpet rather than sweeping the entire incident under the rug. No one seems to want to be caught in the glare of the police headlights or be held accountable in the principal’s office. The Athletic Code does not appear to be enforceable when students and parents refuse to cooperate with coaches and school administrators.
By shielding their children from any disciplinary action parents may be doing them a disservice. When bad behavior goes unchecked, children can be empowered to continue to act out and get into even bigger trouble, assuming their parents can bail them out.
Rather than simply let this blow over, should the school enforce a punishment for the two teams that were involved? Even though the entire teams were not present, should the school let students know that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated in the future? How about canceling a game, scheduling a face-to-face meeting with the two teams or requiring a day of community service? This would give students the opportunity to ponder what happened, diffuse the anger and hopefully give them pause before engaging in another brutal exchange.
What do you think? Is what happens outside of school a private matter or should the school take action? Please share your thoughts below.
