NEW ROCHELLE, NY (April 24, 2024) — The City of New Rochelle confirmed Tuesday the existence of an anonymous letter sent to city officials several weeks ago which includes allegations of serious criminal misconduct by Council member Shane Osinloye.
Osinloye did not respond to repeated emails seeking comment.
Corporation Counsel Dawn Warren denied a Freedom of Information request for the letter yesterday, in part, on the grounds that providing the letter “would interfere with law enforcement’s open investigation.”
We are considering an appeal of the denial of our records request but would encourage the author of the anonymous letter to both report the allegations to the police and send us a copy of the letter (robertcox@talkofthesound.com).
The letter, sent only to female members of the City Council as well as two female staff members, was turned over to the New Rochelle Police Department.
New Rochelle Mayor Yadira Ramos-Herbert was among the recipients of the anonymous letter. Her response to the Osinloye letter has been markedly different to her response to an anonymous letter sent to Council members in 2023 which made claims of illegal conduct against Kathleen Gill and Adam Salgado.
Her response to the Gill/Salgado letter was to immediately, and, she says, without consulting anyone on Council, email a copy of the letter to Charles Phipps and David Blumenthal of the New Rochelle Board of Ethics. She deliberately did not send the letter to City Clerk Michelle Oliveros, the third member of the ethics board, as required, and as she was subsequently directed to do by Phipps on more than one occasion.
Over the next 10 weeks, in addition to repeated communication with Phipps and Blumenthal, Ramos-Herbert met with Mayor Noam Bramson, supported the creation of a council subcommittee to decide how to respond to the letter (and was a member of the subcommittee), supported the development of a detailed interrogatory to question Gill and compel the production of all pertinent records and papers, participated in council discussions on how to respond to the letter, advocated for the hiring of an outside counsel to investigate Gill and Salgado, and sought a referral to the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
Ramos-Herbert told Talk of the Sound she supported a Council-led investigation because, she said, the Charter required the City Council to investigate claims of wrongdoing made in the anonymous letter. She said the charter does not make a distinction between anonymous complaints and signed complaints, that any complaint, signed or unsigned, should be given equal weight.
While she did not cite Article III, Section 13 of the New Rochelle City Charter by name, Ramos-Herbert referred to the enumerated powers of the City Council in the Charter to “subpoena witnesses and compel the production of all pertinent books, records and papers”. Section 13 also says Council shall be the judge of the qualification of its members and may punish its members.
Instead of a referral to the ethics board or having the Council hire an outside counsel to conduct its own investigation, the Mayor reportedly contacted Police Commissioner Robert Gazzola about the Osinloye letter. Gazzola collected all known copies of the letter. NRPD is now refusing to make the letter public, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.
We have repeatedly asked NRPD to explain their policy on investigating anonymous complaints but they have, so far, declined to do so.
After consulting with law enforcement personnel and criminal defense attorneys, we believe law enforcement cannot investigate an anonymous complaint because they have no victim, no complaining witness and doing so would violate the due process rights of the accused.
Even if an investigation had been opened, it is unclear why it would take weeks to complete an investigation with no victims, no complaining witnesses, no evidence beyond the letter and envelope (DNA, fingerprints?).
The refusal to produce the letter under FOIL stands in contrast to the City’s decision to produce the Gill/Salgado letter, including in a second batch of records produced on April 18, 2024 — the same day as our FOIL for the Osinloye letter.
We asked Ramos-Herbert to address, point by point, the differences between her statements and actions concerning the Gill/Salgado letter and the Osinloye letter.
- Why did you not make an immediate referral of the Osinloye letter to Phipps and Blumenthal?
- Why did you not seek the hiring of an outside counsel?
- Why did you not take any of the actions you took with the Gill/Salgado letter?
- Anything else that you think my readers should know about your actions in response to the Osinloye letter.
Ramos-Herbert did not respond to our inquiry.