During the special election for Tom Abinanti's vacated county legislative seat for District 12, two unimpressive Greenburgh candidates vied for the county position. We won't discuss it all over again in this posting, but suffice to say Mary Jane Shimsky (D), of Hastings-on-Hudson, beat Nicholas DeCicco (R), of Hartsdale, by Democratic volume, not dynamism, individuality, great ideas and ideals, or even a stellar personality. Greenburgh certainly wasn't the winner in this election. But some events during the election allow for some interesting conjecture.
Behind DeCicco's "closet door" was the skeleton of Deli Delicious, auspiciously propped up by none other than Charles Pateman, of Irvington, who has been representing the poor, struggling, down-and-out deli owner. We've heard they might be joined by an attorney named Mark Constantine in the adjacent closet. As mentioned earlier, Pateman hosted a Republican fund-raiser for Nick DeCicco, a prosecutor for the Yonkers Family Court, who also sits on the Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board. DeCicco claims he had never met Pateman prior to the fund raiser. We tend to believe him, as Douglas Colety, the Westchester County Republican chairman, probably accepted or possibly initiated an offer by Pateman to host a fund-raiser as he has done in the past. During the fund-raiser, Pateman probably made sure introductions were made between DeCicco and Deli Delicious owner Ernest Tartaglione. Chuck Pateman is the contractor for a major renovation for Deli Delicious. In the quiet of the fund-raising wrap-up, when there was just a few of the good old boys left, we can only imagine a conversation that might have gone something like this:
"Nick, have you met my good friend Ernie, here, who made a donation to your campaign. You know, you have a real shot to win this election."
"Thank you, Ernie. I really appreciate your help. Chuck, I really appreciate your sponsoring this fund raiser for me. If I can ever return the favor to either of you, just let me know."
"Oh, you are more than welcome. Listen, my friend Ernie has an issue that you may be able to help him with, and, I'd consider it a personal favor to me if you help him out. Let me explain it to you..."
or
Doug might have said to Nick privately:
It starts. There would be strings attached from the get-go. Pateman would need DeCicco to vote a certain way, in favor of the deli, at the zoning board meeting. And it's true. DeCicco never discussed this prior to the fund raising event. He did, however, vote in favor of the deli's zoning request. He's also since vowed to run for the position in the next regular election.
or
Doug might have said to Nick privately:
"Nick, have you met my good friend Chuck Pateman, he sponsored this fund raiser for you. He's very powerful behind the scenes and can really help your campaign. You know, you have a real shot to win this election. And if you don't, we'll go to the mat for you again."
"Thank you, Doug. I really appreciate your help and Chucks help. If I can ever return the favor, just let me know."
"Oh, you are more than welcome. Listen, his friend Ernie has an issue that you may be able to help him with, and, I'd consider it a personal favor to me if you help him and Chuck out. Let me explain it to you..."
It starts. There would be strings attached from the get-go. Pateman would need DeCicco to vote a certain way, in favor of the deli, at the zoning board meeting. And it's true. DeCicco never discussed this prior to the fund raising event. He did, however, vote in favor of the deli's zoning request. He's also since vowed to run for the position in the next regular election.
Subsequent to the zoning vote and the fund-raiser, an Ethics violation was filed with the Town of Greenburgh Ethics Board against DeCicco. The ethical violation accuses the candidate, DeCicco, benefited from a fund-raiser at Pateman's home, actively involved with Tartaglione. DeCicco had voted in favor of the variance request by Tartaglione. Once the ethics violation complaint was filed, DeCicco issued a statement that he hadn’t had any contact with Pateman prior to his first vote with the Zoning Board in favor of the applicant, Ernest Tartaglione, and that he would abstain from voting at the next hearing. But now he owes. Quid pro quo in Greenburgh? You decide.
We're sure that this event is not over. We'll keep you abreast if things change. The politics of politics is ruining politics. Tammany Hall anyone?
We're sure that this event is not over. We'll keep you abreast if things change. The politics of politics is ruining politics. Tammany Hall anyone?
Disclaimer: All conversations in the above account are fictional and not confirmed to have happened.
Anyone interested in knowing what really occurred here would be well advised to read the two Citizens Complaints against Nick DeCicco and Jordan Glass that were recently filed with the Town's Board of Ethics. Complete copies of these complaints, with the evidence attached, are available on the Edgemont Community Council's facebook page.
ReplyDelete“conjecture”
ReplyDelete“imagine”
“probably”
Not many facts here eh?
The “vote” you speak of was an informal straw-poll on 1/20/11. Pateman first contacted DeCicco on 1/24 (4 days after straw-poll). DeCicco recused the NEXT day on 1/25 from all further voting and discussion of the case. This has all been VERIFIED by the ZBA Chairman. Its clear that there was no undue influence based on these facts which have been verified.
Plus - “Ernie” was not at the fundraiser (which occurred 11 days after DeCicco recused himself) and the pretend conversations you write just that – fantasy
The only accurate thing in this piece (Part 3) was when you said you “believe” Nick which is good – because he has been nothing but honest and open about his actions in all his roles as a public servant.
He is a good humble person which is why he got 46% of the vote when he started from NOTHING 4 weeks before the election when Shimsky had a head start, political experience, and the Greenburgh machine behind her. It’s not really knock on her, more of a credit to young man who took an unpaid leave of absence to walk door to door for a month in the cold.
I'm sure the ECC website didn't post DeCicco's reply to the baseless accusation? - let me check - nope they didn't.
This is all garbage - we are lucky to have good people like Nick willing to serve and his actions here show that he had nothing to hide and preserved the integrity of the case by recusing himself immediately.
All documented if you are not selective in the documents you read.
Why was my comment taken down?
ReplyDelete“conjecture”
ReplyDelete“imagine”
“probably”
Not much facts here, eh?
The “vote you mention was an informal “straw-poll” on 1/20. Pateman called DeCicco for the first time on 1/24 (4 days later). DeCicco recused himself from the Deli case the NEXT day – 3 weeks prior to the formal vote on 2/17. At the time of the fund raiser on 2/5 DeCicco had already been off the Deli case for 11 days! This has all been VERIFIED by the ZBA Chairman.
Furthermore, “Ernie” wasn’t event at the fund raiser and the “fantasy” conversations stated are just that – fantasy.
Nick is one of the most honest and humble people around. That is why even though he was a political no-name, who had major registration deficit, no time to put a team together, and no readymade organization to work with – he got 46% of the vote!
And that’s not a knock on Shimsky, but a credit to good young man who took an unpaid leave from his job to walk door to door in the cold for a month. It’s horrible what we do to good people especially when it’s clear he was acting in openly at all times.
Oh – and I’m sure the ECC posted DeCicco’s reply on their facebook page next BB’s complaint – oh wait – they didn’t. Big surprise.
“conjecture”
ReplyDelete“imagine”
“probably”
Not much facts here, eh?
The “vote you mention was an informal “straw-poll” on 1/20. Pateman called DeCicco for the first time on 1/24 (4 days later). DeCicco recused himself from the Deli case the NEXT day – 3 weeks prior to the formal vote on 2/17. At the time of the fund raiser on 2/5 DeCicco had already been off the Deli case for 11 days! This has all been VERIFIED by the ZBA Chairman.
Furthermore, “Ernie” wasn’t event at the fund raiser and the “fantasy” conversations stated are just that – fantasy.
Nick is one of the most honest and humble people around. That is why even though he was a political no-name, who had major registration deficit, no time to put a team together, and no readymade organization to work with – he got 46% of the vote!
ReplyDeleteAnd that’s not a knock on Shimsky, but a credit to good young man who took an unpaid leave from his job to walk door to door in the cold for a month. It’s horrible what we do to good people especially when it’s clear he was acting in openly at all times.
Oh – and I’m sure the ECC posted DeCicco’s reply on their facebook page next BB’s complaint – oh wait – they didn’t. Big surprise.
Nick is one of the most honest & humble people around. He got 46% of the vote despite being a political no-name, a major registration deficit, no time to put a team together or readymade organization to work with!
ReplyDeleteThat’s not a knock Shimsk but a credit to good young man who took an unpaid leave to walk door to door for a month. It’s horrible what we do to good people especially when it’s clear he was acting in openly at all times.
Oh – and I’m sure the ECC posted DeCicco’s reply on their facebook page next BB’s complaint – oh wait – they didn’t. Big surprise.
Where does DeCicco come off thinking that as long as he "recused" himself, he's off the hook when it comes to violating the Town's Ethics Laws? Those laws forbid any member of a decision-making board from accepting political contributions from any individual or his or her representative who has an application pending before that board. As a lawyer, DeCicco had to know that when Chuck Pateman, Deli Delicious's representative at the ZBA hearing offered to host a fundraiser for him at his house -- four days after the straw vote before the ZBA on the Deli Delicious application which DeCicco supported -- that his accepting Pateman's offer was strictly forbidden under the Town's Ethics Laws. And telling the ZBA chairman, who was not going to be at the next ZBA meeting that he intended to recuse himself is meaningless gibberish. DeCicco didn't even have the balls to tell his fellow ZBA members what he had done and why he had to recuse himself. DeCicco may have started off as a "good young man" but he's now damaged goods. He can't even find a way to apologize for his disgraceful behavior. What a shame!
ReplyDelete"had to know” ... Many more assumptions here.
ReplyDeleteSo it's disgraceful that DeCicco did immediately recuse himself once Pateman called him? And that he refrained from talking to other ZBA members about case since he recused on 1/25? Huh? Sounds like he was acting in good faith at all times.
Maybe you’d be better calling him incorrect – IF anything – than dishonest. Sound like you have an agenda – like souring a fine young political candidates name who could very well take over the cherished Greenburgh Legislative seat?
Telling the ZBA Chairman is gibberish – really stop with these conspiracy theories! Besides if you paid attention to the last ZBA meeting DeCicco stated on the record that as part of the conversation with the ZBA Chairman it was said the Chairman would inform the ZBA staff attorney because of some issue his recusal created with quorum – oh well that is before Feiner rushed Glass onto the Board.
ReplyDeleteGo after the real culprits here that are STILL trying to push this through, not a good guy that took himself off the matter immediately.
Also... DeCicco statement's on the record at the 2/17 meeting he said he advised member Harrison of his recusal at the same time he advised Chairman Belasco. So, he immediately advised another member (who expressed favor for the application in the straw-poll) AND the Chairman (who express DIS-favor with the application) that he was recused from the case as of 1/25. This is why people hate politics - agenda driven cronies who use half-truths and manipulate facts to inflame the public against otherwise good people.
ReplyDeleteDeCicco violated the most fundamental Ethics Law Greenburgh has -- the law that makes "pay to play" illegal in Greenburgh. Recusing himself does not excuse the violation; and yes, even if he weren't a lawyer, DeCicco had to know what he was doing was in violation of the Ethics Law, and the fact that he IS a lawyer makes his refusal to admit what he did was wrong all that more troubling. And DeCicco seems not to know that his failure to tell the ZBA chairman the reason for the "recusal" made the quorum issue moot. Had DeCicco told the ZBA chairman the truth, the ZBA chairman would have known that, quorum or no quorum, DeCicco couldn't "abstain." He had to recuse himself. But regardless, he should never have put the ZBA in this embarrassing position in the first place. Most people are forgiving. Maybe if DeCicco would admit what he did was wrong and apologize, people might give him another chance. Because he cannot, he remains a stain on the ZBA who should be replaced at the earliest opportunity.
ReplyDelete