The following is the complete text of the letter from Gary Kaskel (SRAC co-chairman) to the NYC Conflicts of Interest Board regarding the improper relationship between the CACC and the Department of Health.
This letter was never answered by the Conflicts Board -- whose members are appointed by the Mayor -- and follow-up phone calls by the writer went untaken and messages unreturned.
GARY KASKEL
1700 YORK AVENUE #6L
NEW YORK, NY 10128
March 15, 1996
Mr. Sheldon Oliensis, chair
NYC Conflicts of Interest Board
2 Lafayette Street, Suite 1010
New York, NY 10007
Mr Oliensis:
On behalf of myself and the taxpayers of NYC, I wish to complain of the conflicts of interest in the relationships of several City employees and former City employees with a contractor to the City.
After the City conducted an RFP for contractors to assume the animal control functions formerly contracted to the ASPCA, on August 11, 1994, without any public hearings or input, Corporation Counsel incorporated The Center For Animal Care and Control ("CACC") under Section 402 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, and on September 29, 1994 the City awarded a $5 million+ contract to the CACC. The Mayor designated the Department of Health as the agency to oversee the contract.
The Mayor simultaneously appointed the Health Commissioner, the Sanitation Commissioner and the Deputy Police Commissioner for Public Affairs as ex-officio members of the CACC Board of Directors. DOHCommissioner Margaret Hamburg was designated initial Chairman of the CACC Board, and her agency was designated the agency to form, staff and oversee the CACC.
DOH Commisioner Hamburg signed the contract for the City and Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty signed for the CACC. Subsequently, the CACC Board appointed Martin B. Kurtz as the CACC executive director (salary $75,000), and Douglas Mansfield as the CACC general counsel (salary: $40,549). Prior to receiving these positions at the CACC, Martin Kurtz was the director of veterinary public health services at theDOH (salary: $50,000), and Douglas Mansfield was employed as a staff attorney at the NYC Department of Law (salary: $38,900).
While the DOH claims to have held an open solicitation for executive candidates for the CACC's initial staffing, conversations with CACC Board member Dr. Jane Bicks, who made the final selection of Mr. Kurtz (who was her personal friend) indicated that she never saw the bona fide application of at least one other qualified candidate who had applied for the executive director position (ASPCA VP Herman Cohen) because it had been improperly "screened out" by a DOH screening committee.
CACC executive offices at 11 Park Place are leased by the City's General Services Department, for which, upon information and belief, the CACC pays no rent. Two facilities formerly owned by the ASPCA in Brooklyn and Manhattan were subject to condemnation proceedings and, upon information and belief, the titles were transferred to the CACC at a cost to the taxpayers of several million dollars.
None of the above has ever been brought to the attention of the Conflicts of Interest Board, depite these questionable activities and relationships. Most disturbing is the fact that despite an opinion from the State Department of State's Committee on Open Government that the CACC is subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), both the CACC and the DOH have stated the contrary and refused to honor citizens' FOIL requests about the CACC operations.
I believe it is an unhealthy conflict of interest for NYC Commissioners to sit on the board of a corporation with which the City is doing business, and that at least one City employee reaped substantial increases in salary due to "insider" appointments to this new corporation which holds a lucrative City contract.
As third-party beneficiaries to that municipal contract, the taxpayers have a right to open access and proper oversight to the CACC. That is not the case here. Both the CACC and the DOH have obstructed every attempt to review their policies and conduct in their animal control activities. I am still waiting for the DOH to honor a FOIL request for CACC documents made on December 4, 1995 -- more than four months later!
We cannot have a secret society that collects and kills more than 40,00 animals a year that is not be subject to public scrutiny, because government officials and their former employees do not wish to have their actiivitiesexamined. The CACC does not own the animals they take in; they are merely custodians of these animals for the citizens of New York City. There have been numerous reports of inhumane conditions and illegal destruction of animals which the public has no way to investigate under this cozy arrangement between the government agency that oversees the supposed private contractor they also formed and staffed.
CACC executive director Martin Kurtz has never resigned from the Health Department, yet he works for a contractor to the City. Kurtz's former employee, Lisa Polk, is the DOH officer charged with overseeing her former boss' activities. Such an arrangement is preposterous.
City commissioners do not belong on the board of directors of a city contractor which purports to be a private not-for-profit corporation not subject to FOIL, as the DOH and the CACC claim. Alternatively, as the Committee on Open Government opines, the CACC is indeed a government agency and should clearly be subject to FOIL, CAPA and proper oversight.
The conflict of interest is clear -- there is no check and balance to how the government spends $4 million of thetaxpayers money for animal control, and DOH employees have improperly benefited from their insider relationship with Board members, and apparently conspired to eliminate review of outside competition forCACC employment.
Supporting documentation is attached hereto. I request an advisory opinion from the entire Board that can be made public under § 2603(c)3, as Deputy Counsel Hugh Weinberg erroneously opined to me in a letter dated January 18, 1996 that all records of the Board are kept confidential.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Gary Kaskel
List of attachments:
1) Certificate of Incorporation of The Center for Animal Care and Control
2) By-Laws of The Center for Animal Care and Control
3) Face and signature pages of City contract with CACC
4) Press release from Mayor's office announcing the CACC
5) City condemnation papers for the ASPCA Manhattan and Brooklyn shelters
6) Employment application of Herman Cohen, former ASPCA Vice President
7) Employment application of Martin Kurtz, former DOH director of veterinary public health services
8) Letter dated January 20, 1995 signed by CACC general counsel Douglas Mansfield, stating that CACC is not subject to F.O.I.L.
9) Letter dated February 3, 1995 signed by Robert J. Freeman of the NYS Department of State's Committee on Open Government opining that the CACC is a government agency subject toF.O.I.L.
10) Letter dated October 18, 1995 signed by DOH general counsel Wilfredo Lopez stating that the City agrees with the CACC's position that it is not subject to F.O.I.L.
11) Letter dated March 5, 1996 signed by DOH general counsel Wilfredo Lopez stating that the City is allowing the CACC to void the provision in the contract with the City requiring them to provide the City with the Minutes from their monthly Board of Directors meetings, so they cannot be subject to F.O.I.L. requests.
12) Letter dated March 11, 1996 signed by DOH secretary Patricia Caruso stating CACCexecutive director Martin Kurtz is on a leave of absense from the DOH, and that the DOH has no opinion from the Conflict of Interests Board regarding Mr. Kurtz's appointment.
This letter was never answered by the Conflicts Board -- whose members are appointed by the Mayor -- and follow-up phone calls by the writer went untaken and messages unreturned.
GARY KASKEL
1700 YORK AVENUE #6L
NEW YORK, NY 10128
March 15, 1996
Mr. Sheldon Oliensis, chair
NYC Conflicts of Interest Board
2 Lafayette Street, Suite 1010
New York, NY 10007
Mr Oliensis:
On behalf of myself and the taxpayers of NYC, I wish to complain of the conflicts of interest in the relationships of several City employees and former City employees with a contractor to the City.
After the City conducted an RFP for contractors to assume the animal control functions formerly contracted to the ASPCA, on August 11, 1994, without any public hearings or input, Corporation Counsel incorporated The Center For Animal Care and Control ("CACC") under Section 402 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, and on September 29, 1994 the City awarded a $5 million+ contract to the CACC. The Mayor designated the Department of Health as the agency to oversee the contract.
The Mayor simultaneously appointed the Health Commissioner, the Sanitation Commissioner and the Deputy Police Commissioner for Public Affairs as ex-officio members of the CACC Board of Directors. DOHCommissioner Margaret Hamburg was designated initial Chairman of the CACC Board, and her agency was designated the agency to form, staff and oversee the CACC.
DOH Commisioner Hamburg signed the contract for the City and Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty signed for the CACC. Subsequently, the CACC Board appointed Martin B. Kurtz as the CACC executive director (salary $75,000), and Douglas Mansfield as the CACC general counsel (salary: $40,549). Prior to receiving these positions at the CACC, Martin Kurtz was the director of veterinary public health services at theDOH (salary: $50,000), and Douglas Mansfield was employed as a staff attorney at the NYC Department of Law (salary: $38,900).
While the DOH claims to have held an open solicitation for executive candidates for the CACC's initial staffing, conversations with CACC Board member Dr. Jane Bicks, who made the final selection of Mr. Kurtz (who was her personal friend) indicated that she never saw the bona fide application of at least one other qualified candidate who had applied for the executive director position (ASPCA VP Herman Cohen) because it had been improperly "screened out" by a DOH screening committee.
CACC executive offices at 11 Park Place are leased by the City's General Services Department, for which, upon information and belief, the CACC pays no rent. Two facilities formerly owned by the ASPCA in Brooklyn and Manhattan were subject to condemnation proceedings and, upon information and belief, the titles were transferred to the CACC at a cost to the taxpayers of several million dollars.
None of the above has ever been brought to the attention of the Conflicts of Interest Board, depite these questionable activities and relationships. Most disturbing is the fact that despite an opinion from the State Department of State's Committee on Open Government that the CACC is subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), both the CACC and the DOH have stated the contrary and refused to honor citizens' FOIL requests about the CACC operations.
I believe it is an unhealthy conflict of interest for NYC Commissioners to sit on the board of a corporation with which the City is doing business, and that at least one City employee reaped substantial increases in salary due to "insider" appointments to this new corporation which holds a lucrative City contract.
As third-party beneficiaries to that municipal contract, the taxpayers have a right to open access and proper oversight to the CACC. That is not the case here. Both the CACC and the DOH have obstructed every attempt to review their policies and conduct in their animal control activities. I am still waiting for the DOH to honor a FOIL request for CACC documents made on December 4, 1995 -- more than four months later!
We cannot have a secret society that collects and kills more than 40,00 animals a year that is not be subject to public scrutiny, because government officials and their former employees do not wish to have their actiivitiesexamined. The CACC does not own the animals they take in; they are merely custodians of these animals for the citizens of New York City. There have been numerous reports of inhumane conditions and illegal destruction of animals which the public has no way to investigate under this cozy arrangement between the government agency that oversees the supposed private contractor they also formed and staffed.
CACC executive director Martin Kurtz has never resigned from the Health Department, yet he works for a contractor to the City. Kurtz's former employee, Lisa Polk, is the DOH officer charged with overseeing her former boss' activities. Such an arrangement is preposterous.
City commissioners do not belong on the board of directors of a city contractor which purports to be a private not-for-profit corporation not subject to FOIL, as the DOH and the CACC claim. Alternatively, as the Committee on Open Government opines, the CACC is indeed a government agency and should clearly be subject to FOIL, CAPA and proper oversight.
The conflict of interest is clear -- there is no check and balance to how the government spends $4 million of thetaxpayers money for animal control, and DOH employees have improperly benefited from their insider relationship with Board members, and apparently conspired to eliminate review of outside competition forCACC employment.
Supporting documentation is attached hereto. I request an advisory opinion from the entire Board that can be made public under § 2603(c)3, as Deputy Counsel Hugh Weinberg erroneously opined to me in a letter dated January 18, 1996 that all records of the Board are kept confidential.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Gary Kaskel
List of attachments:
1) Certificate of Incorporation of The Center for Animal Care and Control
2) By-Laws of The Center for Animal Care and Control
3) Face and signature pages of City contract with CACC
4) Press release from Mayor's office announcing the CACC
5) City condemnation papers for the ASPCA Manhattan and Brooklyn shelters
6) Employment application of Herman Cohen, former ASPCA Vice President
7) Employment application of Martin Kurtz, former DOH director of veterinary public health services
8) Letter dated January 20, 1995 signed by CACC general counsel Douglas Mansfield, stating that CACC is not subject to F.O.I.L.
9) Letter dated February 3, 1995 signed by Robert J. Freeman of the NYS Department of State's Committee on Open Government opining that the CACC is a government agency subject toF.O.I.L.
10) Letter dated October 18, 1995 signed by DOH general counsel Wilfredo Lopez stating that the City agrees with the CACC's position that it is not subject to F.O.I.L.
11) Letter dated March 5, 1996 signed by DOH general counsel Wilfredo Lopez stating that the City is allowing the CACC to void the provision in the contract with the City requiring them to provide the City with the Minutes from their monthly Board of Directors meetings, so they cannot be subject to F.O.I.L. requests.
12) Letter dated March 11, 1996 signed by DOH secretary Patricia Caruso stating CACCexecutive director Martin Kurtz is on a leave of absense from the DOH, and that the DOH has no opinion from the Conflict of Interests Board regarding Mr. Kurtz's appointment.
