Strome Blames “Talk of the Sound” for Stimulus Confusion

In a transparent attempt to shift responsibility away from staff at City Hall, City Manager Chuck Strome has resorted to blaming “the media” for any confusion over the existence of a so-called “final list” of stimulus projects as part of the City’s efforts to cash in on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As the record clearly shows, Mr. Strome has no one to blame but himself for the confusion that has reigned over this issue for the past five weeks.

At the City Council meeting on March 10, 2009, Richard St. Paul questioned City Manager Chuck Strome about the stimulus package. St. Paul has previously expressed his concerns that the City submitted a “final list” of projects to Albany without giving the City Council members sufficient time to review the “final list”. Mr. Strome expresses his mystification as to how this idea of a “final list” came into being and blames the media — specifically this site — for “morphing” the facts into a controversy.

Throughout the meeting, Strome insists that there was never a “final list”, that nothing as been submitted except a “wish list”, that the concerns of Mr. St. Paul are “silly” because the “controversy” is “over a final list that doesn’t exist”, adding, “it has never existed, it is a wish list”.

As the record will make clear, the only source of any confusion over a “final list” or a “revised list” and a “wish list” is Mr. Strome.

First, watch this video of clips from the March 10 meeting:

Now, let’s look at some emails from Mr. Strome to Talk of the Sound.

In the weeks prior to the March 10 meeting, we exchanged many emails with several city officials including Mr. Strome. As is clear from reading the mails, it is Mr. Strome, from the outset, who is using the terms “final list” and “revised list”, that he does not use the term “wish list” at all and that he is repeatedly referring to projects being “submitted”.

1. After informing Mr. Strome of the statements made the night before by Richard St. Paul, Al Taranatino and Lou Trangucci, I received the following reply:

Cstrome@ci.new-rochelle.ny.us
Subject: RE: [BULK] Liveblogging Confederation Meeting
Date: February 27, 2009 12:50:38 PM EST
To: newrochelletalk@me.com
Cc: Osmall@ci.new-rochelle.ny.us

I am aware of their comments – let me point out the following:

All members of City Council were provided a draft of the potential projects in January – we received no comments.

The subject was on a City Council agenda as a public discussion item on the January City Council meeting agenda well in advance of the submission of the package – no comment from any of the three Council members you mentioned.

They got the final copy two days before submission – no comments.

I will ask Omar Small, my assistant, to e-mail you a copy of the submitted package.

This is the first communication I received from the City about the federal stimulus program. Mr. Strome uses the term “final copy” and refers to submitting the request.

2. After our story ran, questioning whether the projects submitted to Albany were even eligible, Mr. Strome responded:

Cstrome@ci.new-rochelle.ny.us
Subject: RE: stimulus
Date: March 2, 2009 8:30:47 AM EST
To: newrochelletalk@me.com

We put the package together to be inclusive of everything we thought might be eligible. Remember, the program is a federal program but will be administered by the State. That is where we submitted the initial package to. After that, we learned that some projects will not be eligible – such as the ice rink and drainage projects. I believe Omar has submitted a revised package and will check with him when he gets in this morning.

Mr. Strome again talks about submitting the package and differentiates between the “initial” package and the “revised” package

3. Later that day, Mr. Strome again talks about a final package:

From: Cstrome@ci.new-rochelle.ny.us
Subject: RE: [BULK] Liveblogging Confederation Meeting
Date: March 2, 2009 10:40:58 AM EST
To: newrochelletalk@me.com

Mr. Cox:

Please find attached the following documents:

1) The memo and draft list of projects for the stimulus package which was submitted to City Council on December 28, 2008
2) The relevant section of the minutes from the January 13, 2009 City Council meeting at which time the Stimulus Package was discussed.
3) The cover memo sent to Council upon submitting the final package to them. This was dated February 11, 2009.

If you need any additional information on this matter, please let me know.

Chuck Strome
City Manager

4. A week later, the term “revised package” is used.

Cstrome@ci.new-rochelle.ny.us
Subject: RE: stimulus
Date: March 9, 2009 8:36:38 AM EDT
To: newrochelletalk@me.com
Cc: Osmall@ci.new-rochelle.ny.us, kgilwit@ci.new-rochelle.ny.us

No – the list submitted to the State of which you received a copy was compiled before we know of eligibility requirements. It was submitted at the end of the week of February 9th after I left for vacation on February 12th. The revised package was submitted later and I will again ask Omar to forward you a copy. (Omar – please e-mail Mr. Cox a copy of the revised submission which did not include the ice rink.)

5. That same day, reference is made to an initial package and a list that was “revised” and “submitted”.

From: Cstrome@ci.new-rochelle.ny.us
Subject: RE: stimulus
Date: March 9, 2009 10:24:08 AM EDT
To: newrochelletalk@me.com

Omar will contact you today to go over the whole process. We submitted the initial package upon request from the State at the end of the week of February 9th. Omar can give you the specifics. Once the bill was finalized, the State advised that the package had to be resubmitted electronically. Again, Omar can give you the exact date. The only changes involved projects that were deemed ineligible. Omar will answer your other questions but the point is that the list was revised only when we learned projects were ineligible. I maintain that City Council was provided timely information on the preparation of the list and its submittal.

All of this is entirely consistent with what Mr. Strome communicated verbally when we met at City Hall on March 4th.

Given that Mr. Strome is repeatedly using the terms “final” and “revised” to differentiate between the document sent to Albany on February 13th and the projects entered into the State’s new Stimulus web site on February 23rd, is it any wonder that Talk of the Sound used these terms in reporting on the City’s requests for stimulus funding for infrastructure? Yet, Mr. Strome wishes to present himself as a victim of some sort of nefarious plot to invoke these terms to sow confusion and controversy where none exists.

To Mr. Strome, we have a simple suggestion: if you want to understand why people are confused, instead of blaming “the media”, try looking in the mirror.

While we are on the subject, I trust readers will note how, in the video, Mr. Strome uses the figure $80 million in projects. Up until this meeting the only figure used publicly was $98 million — the figure cited by Mayor Bramson when he was interviewed by the Journal News.

As we first reported, about 20% of the projects on the City’s list — whether you call it a “revised list”, a “wish list” or a “final list” — are ineligible for federal stimulus under the law and the actual figure was closer to $80 mm, the figure Mr. Strome is now using. Even that figure is high because the City has no projects that are “shovel ready”. Mr. Strome described the chances of the City getting any stimulus money for infrastructure projects “unlikely”.