On Wednesday Talk of the Sound reported that Domenic Porcopio, the Chairman of the New Rochelle Municipal Civil Service Commission, was getting two STAR Exemptions, one each on two different properties on which he is listed as the primary owner. As we noted, it is possible for two homes owned by the same person to each receive a STAR exemption if at least one of the homes is co-owned with a second person and that the two people involved are each claiming one of the homes as their primary residence. What is not permitted is for one person to claim two homes as their primary residence.
We contacted the appropriate officials at City Hall for clarification and attempted to contact Mr. Porcopio at the telephone listed for his house on Pinebrook. This should be a simple matter to clarify which is why we waited until the following week before running our story on Wednesday. If this is all just some sort of innocent mistake like a “clerical error” then why not simple say so. If Mr. Porcopio is a co-owner on one of the properties and the other owner is receiving a legitimate STAR exemption why not say so?
Instead, the City has stonewalled.
Only yesterday, the day after we ran the story, did Talk of the Sound finally hear back from the City. In response to our request last week to “inspect any STAR Exemption forms which Domenic Porcopio completed and signed and filed with the City of New Rochelle” the initial response from the City was as follows:
Bob,
You can FOIL for the information you request.
Kathy
Of course, we had already made a FOIL request the week before. In fact, under the FOIL law the City is subject to the following provision:
Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied, including, where appropriate, a statement that access to the record will be determined in accordance with subdivision five of this section.
The records we wish to inspect were more than “reasonably described”, in fact, they were described in excruciating detail.
Within the hour, I got another email from the City, this one from Chuck Strome, who had been copied on my email on Wednesday informing the City that I was going ahead with publication of the story in which I would note their failure to respond to my inquiries from the previous week:
I have forwarded this FOIL request to Kathy Gilwit for processing. She is copied on this e-mail.
More confusion at City Hall. I made a valid FOIL request on Friday. Kathy was saying on Wednesday that I had not yet made a FOIL request. A short while later, Chuck was saying that the email on Wednesday constituted a FOIL request.
Later that morning I got another email from Kathy:
I’ve coordinated an appointment for Monday October 19 at 10 a.m.
Please confirm.
I sent the following email in reply:
I can be at City Hall on Monday at 10 AM.
Who is the appointment with and where is it?
Bob
I have yet to receive a reply so I suppose I am to just appear at City Hall and wander around until someone directs me where to go and who to talk to about inspecting the records.
It would seem to that it is a serious matter if the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission is receiving tax exemptions worth thousands of dollars a year to which he not entitled. If this is not the case it is something that could be determined in a matter of minutes. It is certainly something that you would think Mr. Porcopio would want cleared up immediately. Instead, the City failed respond for days and Porcopio has still failed to return our call or even respond to our story. It is not like no one knows about our story as sources tell Talk of the Sound that everyone in City Hall is aware of our story including staff at the Municipal Civil Service Commission.
We will leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions as to why we have gotten the silent treatment, why we were not given prompt access to public records and what sort of documentary legerdemain is occurring at City Hall this week in anticipation of our visit to City Hall on Monday.
Do All Residents Get This Kind of Protection ?
It’s sad to think that after hearing Paul Vacca on the radio praising (and rightly so) the efforts each year to uncover improper STAR applications there would be so much foot dragging to apply the very same efforts because someone is “connected” . If it was you or me would we get the same smokescreen to protect us ? Hardly . This is a very straight forward request with little room for interpretation . The Building Dept routinely uncovers these issues and resolves them to get it right with very little fanfare . Let’s hope Mr Vacca follows through with the same determination he uses for everyone else and isn’t contaminated by the political stink currently prevailing in city hall. Chuck and his puppet Kathy need to let Paul do his job and let the pieces fall where they may. It really is that simple . Let’s not let this get any more embarrassing than it already is.
Assessor’s Department Issue
In fairness to the Building Department & Mr. Vacca, this is an Assessor’s Department issue. The building department checks STAR exemptions routinely as part of complaint driven investigations. There have been no complaints on the property in question (7 Pinebrook Road). This was uncovered by Talk of The Sound after investigating and confirming an anonymous posting. I would hope that if this is an “honest mistake” the party that wrongly received the benefits will make full restitution. If not I expect the City to follow through on all legal options which include full payment & expulsion from the STAR program for five years.
I am baffled at how this was misconstrued when closing on the property. This means the City, County, State of NY, Mortgage Company and lawyers all screwed up. Normal circumstances would dictate a notice to appear before the assessor to formulate a repayment plan. Let’s see if the law is applied equally!
Anthony Galletta
Mr Galletta- there’s no ill will towards Bldg Dept .
Just to be sure , there is nothing bad implied about the Bldg Dept or Mt Vacca . Surrounding communities could take a lesson from Mr Vacca & co. My point was only to show just how routine this type of matter is handled . There is no back and forth about foil requests , meetings with third parties about the validity of STAR claims ets. The very first question to city hall would be considered the driving complaint , and make no mistake , if it was you or me , it would have been handled by now . That’s the issue here. How many weeks has it been , and this is as far as it’s gotten ? I don’t know Mr Procopio , and it doesn’t matter . The issue is about the STAR rebate , and the Combat/Veteran rebate being properly applied for and subsequently approved for a specific property(s) . WHO the owner is only matters if that person has the ability to influence the improper granting of , or derailing of subsequent investigation . Considering how , as I said , routine the process is , one can only begin to notice the political stink that hangs over this issue . Time will tell us just who’s office in city hall that stink can be found . Maybe everyone reading this will send a can of Lysol to city hall to help clean it up !