NEW ROCHELLE, NY — Last month, Talk of the Sound reported that school election votes cast by New Rochelle School Board Member David Lacher on May 19, 2015 were disqualified by the Clerk and Secretary of the Board of Education.
The decision to disqualify the votes of David Lacher and another registered voter, Adina Burian, was contained in a letter signed by New Rochelle School District Clerk and Board Clerk Lisdalia Saravia. The letter was based on an informal “investigation” conducted by attorney Sara Richmond into a complaint filed on behalf of the campaign of Vince Malfetano.
Lacher and Burian cast votes at the Albert Leonard Middle School after the polling location had been closed at the direction of the election inspectors at 9 p.m. The poll watcher who filed the complaint is Dr. Maria Cox, the spouse of the author of this article.
In her letter, signed by the Clerk, Richmond concluded that David Lacher and another woman were allowed to enter the polling place at Albert Leonard Middle School after polls had closed and then allowed to vote. Her conclusions were based almost entirely on video surveillance footage because 7 of the 8 people involved, including all five of the five election inspectors, told Richmond otherwise; that Lacher and Burian arrived at or before 9:00 p.m. In other words, Richmond discounted the claims of the five election inspectors assigned and accepted the claims of the poll watcher for the Malfetano campaign to disqualify two ballots including one cast by a school board member.
While the decision was the right one — there was clear and convincing video evidence that contradicted the statements of 7 of the 7 people interviewed by Richmond including Lacher, Burian and the five election inspectors — it’s not commonplace that a complainant will have the benefit of video evidence that proves their case.
More to the point, the matter highlights the multitude of conflicts inherent in allowing school districts to run school elections.
Sara Richmond is hardly a disinterested party. She is paid by the District to represent both the district and the school board including the board members individually, in their capacity as board members. She also represents the school clerk. She is a neighbor of Adina Burian, both of them residing in houses on Overlook Circle.
And there is more but first an explanation.
Under New York State law, County Board of Elections run all elections in New York with the exception of school elections. This needs to change. This story illustrates why.
Under the law, school districts must put their budget up for a voter referendum (in actuality, it is an authorization for a local tax levy not the actual budget amount which includes other forms of revenue and excludes certain costs). The school district has a rather obvious conflict of interest in overseeing a voter referendum on their own budget — a budget created by the Assistant Superintendent for Business Administration, presented to the school board by the Superintendent and approved by the school board. This conflict becomes more intense if a district seeks to exceed the tax levy cap put in place under Governor Andrew Cuomo when a district needs 60% voter support to pass a budget. Schools Superintendent Dr. Brian Osborne is on record stating that he expects to propose a budget in 2016 that will exceed the tax cap.
In New Rochelle, where the school board effectively selects and backs its own candidates — typically men and women who have been involved in the PTA and are deemed sufficiently loyal (i.e. submissive) — additional conflicts of interest present themselves.
Generally speaking, New Rochelle is run by people who are strongly committed to presenting the community in a positive light no matter what even when this means covering up gross incompetence and even criminal activity by employees. This is especially true, as Talk of the Sound has demonstrated time and again, with the school board.
Anyone failing to be part of the “team” is viewed as a threat and ganged up on by the powers-that-be. In New Rochelle the “team” means the New Rochelle Democratic Party, the PTA including the Special Education PTA, the F.U.S.E. union and all of those with a vested interest in the status quo. These interested parties have, over the years, formed a base of voters who can be relied upon to vote as they are told — for specific candidates and in favor of the tax levy referendum. As a former school board candidate myself, I am intimately acquainted with how this works.
There are about 43,000 registered voters in New Rochelle. Few of them vote in school elections. What was once a base of more than 2,000 blindly pro-district voters has diminished over time down to about 1,600 voters. It means that a budget can pass or a candidate get elected to the board with the votes of 3.7% of the electorate (and in 4 of 5 years, where a second place finish secures a board seat, that figures drops to 3.3%) so long as few people vote.
Despite hollow claims to the contrary, the goal of the district and the board is to suppress the vote generally, doing only the bare minimum required by law to promote the annual school elections to the general public. Meanwhile the district heavily targets direct stakeholders — union members and district employees and their families, PTA members and parents with children in the public schools.
This effort to manipulate turnout is why, for example, there are signs erected at each school promoting the election but none at City Hall, home of the school district central office. This is why there is very little news coverage before school elections (the Journal News, in particular). It’s why parent-oriented events are scheduled at the public schools on election day.
In the case of the now-rescinded Lacher vote, the conflicts are more specific.
Sara Richmond is a former board member and past board President. She was a board-anointed candidate when she ran for election, which means she had the support of David Lacher and she was elected as an officer of the board which also means she had the support of David Lacher. Within weeks of the end of her term as New Rochelle Board of Education President, Richmond accepted a job offer from Kehl, Katzive & Simon, the law firm which represented the school district for decades under a long-standing no-bid contract, written by the law firm, that has been sharply criticized by the New York State Comptroller as unfair to taxpayers.
In the summer of 2011, just days after Richmond’s term expired, the district’s contract with Kehl, Katzive & Simon was renewed with Lacher voting to support the contract. As New Rochelle Board of Education President, Richmond was responsible for making referrals to Kehl, Katzive & Simon and approving invoices from the firm. During her time on the board, Richmond repeatedly voted to approve payments totaling millions of dollars to Kehl, Katzive & Simon. The firm represents the school board and the district. At the time, that was under the direction of Schools Superintendent Richard Organisciak who was himself given a generous contract extension — at the recommendation of Kehl, Katzive & Simon — just days before Richmond’s term on the board ended. In fact, Richmond led the charge in urgently pressing to extend Organisciak’s contract before June 30, 2011 even though the contract still had another year to run. Shortly after receiving his contract extension from the Richmond-led board, Organisciak turned around and extended the contract with Kehl, Katzive & Simon and Richmond went on the payroll at Kehl, Katzive & Simon.
That has not proven to be the case.
One glaring instance is matters involving Jennifer Feltenstein, a wheelchair-enabled student with Cerebral Palsy who was not removed from New Rochelle High School during a fire incident in January 2014. While a board member Richmond was responsible to approve safety plans and safety policies at New Rochelle High School, to hire and appoint various school safety and special education officials on a building-level and districtwide level and to approve Individual Education Plans calling for various services and accommodations for Jennifer Feltenstein.
Richmond’s involvement in the Feltenstein matter goes back to March 12, 2013 when she represented the District in Feltenstein’s last CSE meeting as a student in New Rochelle. After the fire incident, Richmond has represented the district in legal actions brought against the District by the U.S. Department of Justice and two federal lawsuits related to the matter including one brought by Jennifer Feltenstein.
In 2014 Kehl, Katzive & Simon, including Richmond joined the firm of Bond, Schoeneck and King which retained the contract with the New Rochelle school district.
The manner in which the district handled the recent complaint filed against Adina Burian and David Lacher suggests further conflicts of interest.
Adina Burian lives on Overlook Circle, a few houses over from Richmond who lives on the same street. Given the circumstances — that Burian and Lacher arrived together, that they are seen chatting on the surveillance video, and that she lives on the same street at Richmond, and other factors, suggests at least the possibility of a conflict of interest.
Richmond never even questioned David Lacher acting as a poll watcher for a specific candidate in a race run by the school district while he is on the school board charged with overseeing the impartiality of that election.
In her complaint on behalf of the Malfetano campaign, Dr. Maria Cox stated that she checked her iPhone when the door was opened at the polling station to allow Lacher and Burian to enter. She said her iPhone time indicate 9:01 p.m.
9:01 p.m. can indicate any time between 9:01 p.m. and zero seconds or 9:01 p.m and 59 seconds.
The surveillance video reviewed by Richmond and obtained by Talk of the Sound indicates that Lacher and Burian were allowed to enter the polling place at 9:03 p.m. but an analysis of the surveillance video by Talk of the Sound indicates the clock on the video surveillance system is off so the actual time indicated by the surveillance video was 9:01 pm and 40 seconds, a time entirely consistent with the statement by Dr. Cox.
Richmond concluded that Lacher and Burian as well as the 5 election inspectors each gave a differing and inaccurate account of the time when the doors were re-opened after the polling place had been closed.
David Lacher claimed that he checked his mobile phone and the time was 8:59 p.m. Adina Burian claimed she checked her mobile phone and the time was 8:58 p.m. Charles Shaw, the Election Chairperson, claimed he checked his mobile phone and the time was 8:59 p.m.
Three of the other four election inspectors (Naomi Dogani, John Macken, Jr. and June Brusco) all stated they believed the time was “before 9:00 p.m.” when Lacher and Burian were allowed into the polling place. One election inspector, Laura A. Jeffries, stated she believed they were allowed in at 9:00 p.m.
None of these statements is true.
Cell phones get their time from their cell tower, which in turn gets its time from the continental atomic clock. In other words, cell phones are synchronized. The phones at the polling place would all be connected to the same cell tower. If Dr. Cox’s phone indicated 9:01 p.m. then all of the cell phones in the room indicated 9:01 p.m.
The surveillance video further confirms the claims that Lacher and Burian were allowed in after 9:00 p.m.
The district employee who locked the doors, Anthony Palma, stated that he locked the doors at exactly 9:00 p.m., a claim borne out by the surveillance video. Dr. Cox stated that Palma went to lock the doors at the direction of one of the election inspectors at 9:00 p.m.
Richmond states that no one one disputed that after Mr. Lacher and Ms. Burian presented themselves at the entrance door, it was unlocked.
Incredibly, the claim is the doors were locked early!
Shaw stated that it was his determination based on his cell phone, that Ms. Burian and Mr. Lacher had been at ALMS before 9:00 p.m. and had been unable to enter the voting precinct because the door had been locked prior to 9:00 p.m. The surveillance video shows they were allowed in at 9:01:40 p.m. so, by counting backwards, Shaw is stating, all evidence to the contrary, that the doors to the polling place were locked at about 8:57 p.m., three minutes early.
The surveillance video shows that before the doors are locked, one of the election inspectors is looking out the window as if to check for stragglers. Palma is then directed to lock the door. One of the election inspectors walks towards Palma and, according to Dr. Cox, says “It’s 9 o’clock, lock the doors”. Palma complies and the doors are locked. Palma stated later that he checked his cell phone and locked the doors at 9:00 p.m. The surveillance video supports his account.
From when the doors are locked, nearly two minutes passes before Lacher and Burian are allowed into the locked polling place.
So, what happened during those two minutes?
Dr. Cox stated and the video shows from a distance two things going on: (1) election inspectors move so they are standing next to the voting machine; (2) Shaw sits at a table moving his hands, shuffling paper. Dr. Cox stated that the election inspectors were standing at the machine because they were attempting to lock the machine but could not find a key that worked; she states they discussed calling a technician and the technician was, in fact, called. She also states that Shaw responds to the election inspectors struggle to lock the voting machine by stating that he will proceed to count the absentee ballots. He then opens an envelope, dumps the absentee ballots onto a table and begins to record the votes on the absentee ballots. It is while Shaw is counting votes cast by absentee ballot that Lacher and Burian are allowed in so that they are voting after Shaw has counted the six absentee ballots.
These are alarming and flagrant violations of election rules protocol.
What is not happening during those two minuets is anyone expressing any indication that they doors have been locked early — as all of election inspectors will later claim.
When Dr. Cox challenged Burian and Lacher voting, Shaw explicitly stated that he would “attest” that the time was 8:59 p.m. when they were allowed in — in other words, that he would lie in order to justify allowing Lacher and Burian to vote.
According to the District, all of the Election Inspectors are certified with the Westchester County Board of Elections and had served as Election Inspectors in County and School District elections on many previous occasions. Mr. Shaw had served as the Election Chairperson in Westchester County elections on several prior occasions.
All of the election inspectors demonstrably lied to Richmond. She states in her report “the time of entry reflected on the videotape is at variance with the times reported by the election officials.”
That these same people have worked many other elections should be chilling to any voter.
Talk of the Sound intends to take this matter up with the Westchester County Board of Elections and the School District Clerk. None of these election inspectors should be allowed to work another election at any level.
The video also shows that Lacher and Burian did not enter through the doors that were locked by Palma but rather another door close to table where the election inspectors were seated. According to Dr. Cox, when Lacher presented himself at the window attempting to gain entry to the polling place, an election inspector indicated to Lacher that the polling place was closed. Lacher then held up a blue Poll Watcher card which prompted an election inspector to state “oh, its a poll watcher”. It was on this basis, the belief that Lacher was there as a Poll Watcher, that the door was unlocked at which point both Lacher and Burian entered.
Lacher then proceeded to argue that Burian should be allowed to vote. Dr. Cox states “challenge” but is ignored. The video shows Burian is signed in and votes. Several minutes later Lacher suddenly declares that he too wishes to vote at which point Dr. Cox objected again. Her objection was again ignored.
What is supposed to happen in the event that an objection is made is that a blue affidavit form is presented to both the voter and the poll watcher. Each party signs, the objection is noted and the voter is allowed to vote. The objection is then evaluated and a determination is made. Further, if there is any sort of complaint at all, including a failure to accept a challenge, a white complaint form is supposed to be offered to the complainant.
Neither of these forms were offered to Dr. Cox when she complained about Lacher and Burian being allowed in or challenged their voting in the election. Beyond stating a challenge, Poll Watchers are under explicit instructions not to otherwise intervene or obstruct a voter from casting a ballot.
Despite this, Richmond casts doubt on the statement of Dr. Cox that she complained or challenged. Richmond states:
“I have made a careful review of the videotape from the camera which covered the entire lobby area of ALMS, including the voting machines, the exterior doors, and the chair upon which you were seated throughout the events in question. I should note that there is nothing on the video to support your allegation that you objected to either Ms. Burian or Mr. Lacher voting prior to the time they cast their votes. Rather, you remained seated and essentially motionless until after both had voted.”
This statement is full of more holes than Swiss cheese.
Richmond clearly did not make a careful review of the surveillance video because if she had should have noted numerous gaps in the video, ranging from 2 seconds to well over a minute, throughout the video as indicated by jumps in the time stamp in the bottom frame of the video.
In just the five minute period from when Lacher and Burian entered until they had both voted there are 5 such gaps in the video (16 seconds, 10 seconds, 18 seconds, 2 seconds and 6 seconds) and two times where Lacher is standing between the camera and Dr. Cox so that she is effectively blocked from view (6 seconds, 8 seconds) — 56 seconds in all.
For about one-fifth of time from when Lacher enters to when he finishes voting, Dr. Cox is not visible at all.
Richmond is using a lawyer’s trick here when she says “there is nothing on the video to support your allegation…” without mentioning that the video quality is not sufficient to make a determination if she is talking (there is no audio either) and, more importantly, that Dr. Cox is not visible at all in the video segment where Burian and Lacher vote for almost a minute out of five and therefore it is impossible to draw any definite conclusions from the video. That Richmond does so and does so in a way intended to cast doubt on the integrity of Dr. Cox.
From this, Richmond makes another leap by asserting that “there is no indication that the two voters in question or any of the election officials acted in bad faith, since there was unanimity among them that the voters presented themselves at the polling place prior to 9:00 p.m.”
In other words, because they all lied Richmond exonerates them from any wrongdoing.
In fact, the video makes clear there is every indication that the election officials acted in bad faith because the video shows the doors were locked at 9:00 p.m., consistent with both the statement of Dr. Cox and Palma, that they proceeded to shut down the polling place for two minutes, including counting absentee ballots and then allowed Burian and Lacher to enter the polling place through a side door and vote. Not only were the polls closed but the Chairperson was counting votes in front of them.
Richmond then goes a step further:
“To the contrary, all of the evidence demonstrates that each of them acted in good faith.”
To Richmond, that they all lied in a manner consistant with each other is not only not doing something wrong but demonstrated they behaved in an exemplary manner.
Only in the bizarro-world of the New Rochelle Board of Education would anyone even dream of making such a preposterous assertion.
Richmond acknowledges a dilemma — that having concluded no one did anything wrong (except, in her mind, Dr. Cox for not being demonstrative enough and being captured on video doing it) — she still needs to “address the discrepancy between the times remembered by all of the participants on the one hand, and the times recorded on the security surveillance tape on the other.”
Yes, that’s a problem. One that only exists because there happens to be surveillance video. But for the video evidence, the two improper votes would have been counted.
So, with “an excess of caution that the election process be observed as scrupulously as possible”, Richmond declares she will “disqualify the two votes, and will amend the official canvass of votes which was certified at the Board of Education meeting on June 2, 2015 to reflect that two votes at the Albert Leonard Middle School were disqualified.”
Lacher, contacted by Talk of the Sound the night of May 19th, 2015 stated:
“While the woman who came in with me insisted on voting, I offered not to vote. But the crew chief – whom I didn’t know and still don’t know and didn’t know me – insisted that the door was locked too early and that both of us should vote. So I voted, upon the direction of the crew chief.”
Despite these claims the night of the election, Lacher fails to make these same claims to Richmond during her inquiry and none of the election inspectors, including Chairperson Shaw, make a statement verifying Lacher’s claim.
More lies from a school board member with a long history of lies.
Lacher’s Medical Insurance Woes: The Story Behind the Story
