By Michael Kaufman

I tried in vain to differentiate between the knaves and fools among the 12 Orange County legislators who cast 12 futile votes Thursday to authorize the sale of the Valley View Center for Nursing Care and Rehabilitation. The vote came after several hours of public comments that again made it abundantly clear to everyone in the packed auditorium (except for the aforementioned 12 knaves or fools) that the overwhelming majority of Orange County residents want to keep Valley View publicly owned.

I wish I were an expert in interpreting body language or had one with me during the session. He or she would have been able to explain why some legislators’ faces turned red as beets and others slunk into their seats and avoided eye contact with audience members. Curlie Dillard, the sole Democrat among the 12, was careful not to attract attention to his self and uttered but one word during the entire session, a quick “yes” during the roll call. Democratic Caucus Chair Jeff Berkman, whose plan to “save Valley View by downsizing it” (and selling some beds to a private for-profit company) was dead in the water before the meeting started, appeared humble as he explained his reasoning. In the end, however, he joined the rest of his caucus (with the exception of the aforementioned Dillard) in voting “no” and denying County Executive Steve Neuhaus the requisite 14-vote supermajority he craves.

Chairman Steve Brescia did an admirable job of running the meeting and keeping a straight face while knowing that nothing said—no matter how factual, eloquent or passionate—would change his mind or those of the other 11 knaves or fools.  Was that stress-induced rosacea on Legislator Michael Amo’s face or was it that red because his bow tie was too tight around his neck? Amo, introduced by Brescia as “party leader Amo” because he is chair (and sole member) of the legislature’s one-man Independence Party caucus, voted “yes” after a peculiar but apparently sincere soliloquy lamenting that more isn’t being done to enable families to care for loved ones at home.

Republican Dennis Simmons got red-faced as he listened to a host of veterans who questioned the legislature’s commitment to the men and women who have served in the military to protect our rights and are now in need of care. He’s a veteran too, he said, and recited his name, rank, and serial number to prove it. He said he knows from experience of his own family members that you can get really good care from low-paid workers at private nursing homes. He objected to those who would “besmirch” those workers’ reputations! (He also complained that former County Executive Ed Diana’s reputation got “besmirched” on a previous occasion.) This was after several speakers cited statistics comparing the large number of complaints filed against Focus, the private operator said to be the favorite to take over Valley View, versus the small number of complaints filed against Valley View. One of the complaints against Focus involved sexual abuse of an elderly woman and Simmons thought it was a cheap shot to mention it.

Majority Leader Melissa Bonacic did not seem at all uncomfortable as she thanked the veterans in attendance for their service and assured them that this legislature (which as presently composed seems incapable of governing its way out of a paper bag) would see to it that all current residents of Valley View would receive the same level of care if Valley View were sold to a private operator. Her reasoning was twofold (and also places her squarely in the fool category): “It’s the trend,” she explained, adding that counties all over the state are getting rid of their nursing homes and that she’s scared. Her second reason? “I don’t believe the county should be in the nursing home business.”

But that is precisely the point. Valley View has thrived lo these past 183 years because it is not a “business.” It has been publicly owned, supported by tax dollars, and provides a vital service to the residents of Orange County. Assurances from Bonacic or any other county legislator that the quality of care will be maintained for current and future residents if the facility is privatized must be taken with at least 12 grains of salt. And speaking of future residents, here are some other things to consider: Orange County is one of the fastest growing counties in the state in terms of population. The so-called middle class is shrinking here as it is throughout the USA with no end in sight to the rise in wealth inequality. People are living longer. Taken together this means more people among the lower 99 percent will be in need of the services provided by Valley View simply because they won’t be able to afford to pay for equivalent quality care at a private facility.

Thanks are in order to the nine legislators who stood fast against the bullying of the county executive and his minions in the legislature. Several deserve special mention, most notably Republican Mike Anagnostakis, who has put in many hours studying the flawed 2015 budget proposed by Neuhaus and has suggested reality-based alternatives to the sale of Valley View, upon which the Neuhaus budget relies. Unflinching support for Valley View also came from Democrats Matt Turnbull, Roseanne Sullivan, Chris Eachus, and Myrna Kemnitz.

Thanks to them and the handful of other Democrats who voted no, Valley View will now be funded for a full year instead of a few months. But this fight is far from over. The private nursing home operators see gold in “them thar hills” of Goshen. And Neuhaus and his knaves and fools will continue to do all they can to hand it over to them.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

Orange County legislator Mike Anagnostakis was so troubled after reading through the $703.2 million 2015 budget proposed by County Executive Steve Neuhaus last week that he sent a letter to all his legislative colleagues to share his concerns. A centerpiece of the Neuhaus budget plan is the sale of the county-owned Valley View Center for Nursing Care and Rehabilitation to a private, for-profit nursing home company. Neuhaus, who was elected in November after promising voters he would not seek to sell Valley View, now says he anticipates using $15 million from its sale to help close a projected deficit of $63 million.

Anagnostakis, the lone Republican who has steadfastly opposed privatization of Valley View, told colleagues he is troubled by a number of aspects of the proposed budget. “No matter what side of the issue you are on with Valley View,” he wrote, “I would think these items would be a problem if we are trying to do the PROCESS the right way and get a true budget done” to solve problems facing the county. “Most troubling,” he said, is his feeling that the proposed budget is “illegal on many levels.”

“By charter we must fund fully all departments within the charter,” he continued, noting that when Neuhaus’ predecessor Ed Diana, attempted to stop funding Valley View in 2013, the New York State Supreme Court ruled unequivocally, “what the County Executive seeks to do within the confines of the 2013 budget, i.e., to unilaterally close Valley View.…constitutes an impermissible violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.”

Furthermore, said Anagnostakis, using a “one-shot” infusion of $15 million from the sale of Valley View is “contingent on many things happening” and “New York State law does not allow for this kind of a contingent budget item.” He said one of three things will occur if the proposed budget is passed: There may not be the 14-vote supermajority required to sell Valley View; or if there are 14 votes, the resolution may be challenged in court and found illegal; or, even if a Local Law is passed with 14 votes “it will not be in place until AFTER an election occurs, if enough signatures are obtained, and ONLY if the sell Valley View side wins that election, which would be MANY MANY months after the budget needs to be in place.” In each of those scenarios, Anagnostakis told fellow legislators, “this budget would not be legally balanced and I fear we will find ourselves in another court case.”

Anagnostakis pointed out that Neuhaus had “railed against Diana and previous legislators” for failing to have structural balanced budgets (income equaling expenses) because they used about $40 million per year from general fund surplus, other reserves and “one-shots” to balance the budgets. Yet he does the same thing in his proposed budget “by using $45.8 million in general fund surplus, other reserves and ‘one-shots’….Included in that amount are the $15 million from selling Valley View (to balance the other departments deficits) and $8.4 million of Tobacco reserves (instead of using them for anti-smoking programs). The structural deficit would only be cut by about $10 million, so if we had a budget deficit of $63 million this year, then our deficit will still be $53 million for the start of the following year (and we would not even own Valley View at that point).”

He cited several other examples where “the numbers in this budget do not ring true.” For example, the budget “does not itemize one penny for the legacy costs for Valley View which will still be in the $5-$7 million range.” Noting that the 2015 budget to run Valley View has been estimated to be around $5.5 million, he concluded, “it very well may cost taxpayers more yearly to sell the facility than to keep it.”

Asked if he has received any responses to his letter, Anagnostakis said, “Not a single Legislator has given any response!” But there are four Democrats who he says work with him “because they understand what is going on.” The big problem is ALL the Republicans (and Independence Party legislator Michael Amo, who votes with the Republicans) who never have an open mind and only do what is asked of them.”

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

As if on cue, Orange County Executive Steve (Bait-and-Switch) Neuhaus proposed a $703.2 million budget Wednesday that included a threat to lay off hundreds of county workers if the county legislature does not agree to sell the Valley View Center for Nursing Care and Rehabilitation to a private, for-profit operator. “Just on the face of it—lots of smoke and mirrors in order to get ONE result … sell Valley View,” said legislator Mike Anagstonakis, who has consistently voiced opposition to privatization, after listening to Neuhaus outline his budget plan.

Democratic caucus leader Jeff Berkman agreed that the budget as outlined by Neuhaus “was steered toward one conclusion only, which was to sell Valley View.” Both Anagstonakis, the lone Republican legislator committed to keeping Valley View county owned, and Berkman, whose caucus has mustered enough votes to deny the supermajority required to proceed with the sale, said they need to read through the entire proposal before commenting further. Berkman, however, also said he agrees with Neuhaus that the county has serious financial problems and that he appreciates the county executive’s appeal for bipartisan efforts to find solutions. But is there really anything to appreciate? Neuhaus has never reached out to the Democrats before and the only reason he is doing so now is because he needs a couple of their votes if he is to succeed in selling Valley View.

Berkman, meanwhile, has drafted his own proposal to “downsize Valley View as a way to save it.” The centerpiece of his plan is to sell 120 of the 360 beds at Valley View to a private operator and reduce the number of workers at Valley View. “Some county employees may have to face the choice of relocation to other county department positions,” notes Berkman, and others would have to agree to accept employment with the for-profit facility. Under his plan those who agree to be transferred would have “first priority consideration” to be hired and would also retain their right to union representation.

Is it a coincidence that both Neuhaus and Berkman seem to have the same private operator in mind? As reported by Chris McKenna in Thursday’s Times Herald-Record, Neuhaus “touted plans by prospective buyers to expand services to Valley View and offer jobs to its current employees. He highlighted one suitor in particular, which is said to have already developed a partnership with the new medical school Touro College opened this summer in Middletown.” Berkman meanwhile suggests the 120 beds “be transferred to a private operator affiliated with Touro Medical School,” and notes that the Danza Group, “owner of the former Horton Hospital where Touro-Middletown is located, could partner with a firm that provides quality nursing care and can be affiliated with Touro Medical School.” Valley View would remain as a 240 bed, county-owned facility, “and not be considered for sale, transfer, or corporate ownership alteration for a period of no less than two years.”

Two years? I guess that’s better than the May 1 deadline proposed by Neuhaus to end county funding of Valley View. It seems our Orange County government sometimes bears a striking resemblance to the federal government. I can envisage a moment where Berkman and Neuhaus negotiate an agreement on Valley View, after which a grinning Neuhaus declares, “I got 98% of what I wanted.”

We can’t let this happen.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

Well, the good news is that the Orange County Legislature Republican majority has been forced to put off voting on a new proposal to transfer the Valley View Center for Nursing Care and Rehabilitation to a local development corporation (LDC) for at least 30 days. The rumored defection of two or more Democratic legislators, which would have given County Executive Steve Neuhaus the supermajority he needs to move forward with the sale of Valley View, did not take place when the legislators met earlier this week.

“Simply put, the Democrats have held together,” noted Michael Sussman, the Goshen attorney who won a lawsuit filed on behalf of Valley View workers and residents who oppose privatization. “Absent the votes, the Republicans do not want to face defeat again and certainly do not want to pass a Local Law subject to permissive referendum. So the chair of the legislature has asked the head of the Rules Committee to pull this item from the October 2 meeting.” (A Local Law requires only a simple majority but can be challenged by a referendum, which would allow county residents to vote on whether Valley View will remain publicly owned or sold to a private operator to be run for profit.) Sussman said he “could not be more thrilled” by the victory although he is keenly aware it may be short-lived. “I know they will not give up.”

“I’ve never seen an obsession like the obsession to privatize Valley View, now in its eighth year,” says Pamela Chergotis, managing editor of the weekly Chronicle, which has been providing superb coverage (by Chergotis and investigative reporter Nathan Mayberg) on Valley View, as well as the ongoing government center fiasco, and other controversial local political issues. “The fever isn’t breaking,” adds Chergotis. “The tactic seems to be to just wear people down—journalists, activists, Democrats, and supporters alike.”

Chergotis herself was the victim of a mean-spirited attack by Neuhaus following the ruling by Orange County Supreme Court Justice Elaine Slobod invalidating the LDC he illegally appointed. “Steve said I put Valley View on the front page every week for six months (not true either) because my mother died in Valley View in February and ‘it’s personal for them.’ My mother died 12 years ago in New Jersey and as far as I know never stepped foot in Orange County.” In the same statement, reported in the Times Herald-Record, Neuhaus suggested that both the judge and Chergotis are “too emotional and too lacking in professional detachment to do their jobs.” Chergotis says some have suggested to her that “sexism is afoot.” Sexism on the part of a Republican elected official? Impossible!.

Meanwhile, expect Neuhaus to keep the pressure on Democrats to cave on Valley View by threatening massive layoffs of other county workers if Valley View isn’t sold.

Endnote—Certain events inevitably bring out my inner Yippie. Imagine if Abbie Hoffman were still with us and had received an invitation to a “Free Private Event” at the Renaissance Faire’s Peacock Pavilion hosted by Genting “to thank our Warwick and Greenwood Lake supporters” of their plans for a Sterling Forest Resort casino. The event will include live entertainment, dinner and an info session (“By privately funding a Thruway exit, hiring locally, and improving local parkland (!), we are committed to improving the region’s quality of life and financial stability.”) The shindig takes place Saturday, Sept. 20, from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. The catch is that you have to RSVP and present the invitation card at the “Will Call” booth. But Abbie would have found a way to get in even without the invitation.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

 By Michael Kaufman

To the surprise of no one other than the Elders of Chelm (aka County Executive Steve Neuhaus and his cronies) in Goshen, state Supreme Court Justice Elaine Slobod has invalidated the Orange County Legislature’s 12-9 vote to sell the Valley View Center for Nursing Care and Rehabilitation to a private, for-profit company. Apparently they thought Judge Slobod would go along with their decree that in Orange County if you need 14 votes to authorize a transaction and you get only 12, it’s haukay! And they may not be done embarrassing themselves yet:  “We respectfully but strongly disagree with today’s ruling,” said county spokesman Dain (Shmendrik Numskull) Pascocello, who said the county plans to appeal.

It wasn’t a good week all around for the Elders, who learned that another of their foolhardy schemes—the multimillion dollar plan to renovate the Government Center in Goshen—was also in the toilet. The plan had been a compromise of sorts that pleased neither those who wish to preserve the 44-year-old  complex designed by visionary architect Paul Rudolph and those who hate it because they think it looks funny and want to tear it down altogether and put an entirely new building in its place. (The latter would cost a great deal more money so it is ironic that it has been the preferred choice of the same people who have been pushing so hard to sell Valley View supposedly to save taxpayers money.)

So a committee headed by legislator Leigh (Treitel Fool) Benton adopted a plan that involved demolishing part of the structure and replacing the outside walls while leaving the rest of things intact. The Elders went ahead with the plan even after it was revealed that Benton had agreed to take a job with Clark Patterson Lee, the firm that was awarded the contract designs. The investigation that followed determined that Benton had committed no crime and that there was nothing in the legislature’s code of ethics to prohibit this sort of sleazy behavior—but that there should be. Benton took this to mean that he should stay in office and merely recuse himself from voting on future matters pertaining to the project.  This leads to two questions: Why didn’t the other legislators ask him to resign? And why wasn’t the renovation plan he pushed through as committee chair revisited and subjected to closer scrutiny?

Had they done so they might have been spared the embarrassing spectacle that took place last week: Phil Clark, CEO of Clark Patterson Lee, reported that the federal Historic Preservation Office and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have both objected to the renovation plan, especially FEMA. Millions of dollars of federal money that would have been forthcoming to restore the storm-damaged building to its original state may not be coming at all. This leads to two questions for Phil Clark: How could you not know that the structure had landmark preservation status? And did you think Michael (“Heck of a job, Brownie”) was still running the show at FEMA?

Meanwhile, an architect named Gene Kaufman (the “other” Gene Kaufman, not my brother Gene) has offered to buy the government building, restore it to Rudolph’s specifications, and rent out space for artists’ studios. (You can’t make these things up.)

And if you thought things couldn’t get any zanier in our neck of the woods, think again. On Tuesday voters in Kiryas Joel may determine who will be representing the 18th Congressional District after Election Day in November. The district, which encompasses all of Orange and Putnam counties and parts of Westchester and Dutchess, is currently represented by Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney. Maloney and his predecessor, Republican Nan Hayworth, have both filed petitions to run on the Independence Party line in November. This has forced a primary (the sole Independence Party primary in the state) that will take place Tuesday. That leaves little time for such things as publicity, campaigning, voter registration, and such. But those are of little consequence to these two short-on-principle opportunists. (Question for Hayworth: Will you support the Independence Party candidates for statewide office:  Governor Andrew Cuomo and his running mate, Kathy Hochul, Comptroller Tom DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman?)

Chris McKenna, who covers the Kiryas Joel beat for the Times Herald-Record reported in a blog posted Thursday, June 19, that the Independence Party now has some 1,000 registrants in KJ. “High turnout in bloc-voting Kiryas Joel could almost certainly swing a close primary,” notes McKenna. “The question is which candidate the village’s two blocs will support, which may not be known until voting instructions are distributed next week. The larger bloc representing Kiryas Joel’s majority faction backed Hayworth in 2012, while the smaller one supported Maloney.” (As I said, you can’t make these things up.)

Last but not least, the ongoing casino juggernaut continued this week with more bad news for Sullivan County: Foxwoods has withdrawn its bid to build on the old Grossinger’s property (citing the likelihood that a casino will be awarded to one of the Orange County contenders). That leaves only two bids in Sullivan, located on different parts of the old Concord property. Local officials all over Orange County are acting as if a casino in their midst will be the goose that lays golden eggs. They would do well to do a couple of Google searches that include the words “layoffs,” “Foxwoods,” “Mohegan Sun,” and “Connecticut.”

Concerned Citizens Against the Tuxedo Casino report that of the 262 letters received by Rost after he requested public opinion, 174 were opposed and 88 were in favor, a 2:1 ratio. The group has been active in Tuxedo and invites residents of Warwick, Greenwood Lake, and other neighboring communities to join with them. A website is in the works but in the meantime you can reach them at stop.sterling.forest.casino@gmail.com.

Next week: Excerpts from a letter sent by James Hall, director of the Palisades Interstate Parks Commission, to Town of Tuxedo Supervisor Mike Rost, detailing his concerns over Malaysian-based casino behemoth Genting’s plans for a casino in Sterling Forest.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.      

By Michael Kaufman

What’s wrong with this sentence, which appeared the other day in a daily newspaper in our region? “The independent board formed last month to sell Orange County’s nursing home is expected to solicit offers from prospective buyers next week and have bids by mid-June.” If you haven’t figured it out yet the answer appears in the next sentence: “Meeting for the first time Monday since being appointed by County Executive Steve Neuhaus and legislative leaders, the six volunteers initially named to the Orange Valley View Development Corporation picked a seventh member and the officers for their board, as the attorney advising them laid out a rapid timetable for their work.”

A more accurate way to put it would be, “The bunch of toadies appointed to solicit bids to sell the 360-bed Valley View Center for Nursing Care and Rehabilitation to a private, for-profit corporation is working fast because this thing stinks to high heaven and everyone in Orange County knows it.”

A bit later in the article we learn that the attorney doing the advising (also appointed by Neuhaus) is affiliated with the Harris Beach law firm, the same people hired by the county to set up the local development corporation (LDC). The stench gets even worse as readers are informed that the board’s inaugural meeting was open to the public, “except for a private session” during which the members chose officers and spoke with attorney Shawn Griffin of Harris Beach. Oh, and by the way, any future discussions about purchase offers “are expected to take place behind closed doors.”

Only one sentence mentioned perhaps the most important point: “Unless a lawsuit brought by privatization opponents invalidates the move, the LDC board can decide which bidder buys and takes over the operation of Valley View without further action by the Legislature.” That lawsuit, filed by Michael Sussman on behalf of Valley View residents, employees, not to mention most people in Orange County, has yet to be decided. But the last time the county legislators tangled with Sussman they didn’t do so hot. Our local Republicans, taking a cue from their counterparts at higher levels of government, had gerrymandered a couple of districts so as to ensure that people of color would not constitute the majority of voters. They ended up with egg on their lily-white faces after Sussman got through with them.

I hope that wolf-in-sheep’s clothing Neuhaus, who had pledged not to sell Valley View during his election campaign, and the cowardly weasels among the Republican majority in the county legislature (with the notable exception of Mike Anagnostakis) meet a similar fate.  Anagnostakis deserves special recognition for his courageous and principled stand on this issue.  As for the rest, what else can you call them but cowardly after they set up an LDC to do the deed and pretend it is independent when it is anything but? And just to put the stinko icing on the cake, here is the last paragraph of the news article in its entirety: “Griffin told the Times Herald-Record that the board will likely make public the names of all bidders — but not the prices they are offering — once the solicitation period ends. The identity and price of the winning bidder would be released once the county and buyer have signed a sale contract, he said.”

In other words, they will meet in secret, make their decision in secret, and only tell the public about it after the contract has been signed. I guess that’s one way to be independent: independent of public oversight or scrutiny. 

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Jeffrey Page

I got a letter from Orange County Executive Edward Diana a couple of days ago. Well, actually, it was addressed to “Postal Customer,” which was okay because I don’t expect the personal touch from politicians.

There were two parts to Diana’s cleverly constructed letter.

The first was a reminder that the county government center in Goshen remains closed due to damage caused by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. It went on to inform me of the addresses of the temporary headquarters of various government agencies.

I think Diana’s real purpose was to remind me that he has been crusading to build a new government center, but that nasty ol’ Orange County Legislature rejected it.

The fact is that the relocation of county services would inconvenience me only if I had to do business, say, with the district attorney at 40 Matthews St., apply for a pistol permit at 4 Glenmere Cove Rd., observe the Legislature at 15 Matthews St., and visit the Emergency Services Center at 22 Wells Farm Rd.

But I’m not a criminal, I don’t wish to pack a gun, I have no burning need to visit the Legislature, and I’m not having an emergency. The only agency at the government center I ever have to deal with is the Department of Motor Vehicles, and I can usually do it by mail, or by visiting a DMV office in Middletown, Port Jervis or Newburgh.

Diana’s letter was an obvious attempt to remind people that services right now are not consolidated and thus inconvenient. But what it reminded me of was a letter I sent to the editor of The Times Herald-Record noting that Diana seemed happy to spend $75 million to build a new county office building even though one estimate for rehabbing the existing structure is $67.2 million. Just an estimate but do the math: Fix the old place and Diana could save nearly $8 million.

Elsewhere, the rehabilitation of the library at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth – a building similar to the government center – cost $43 million. Assume for a moment that the Goshen job would cost the same, and you have a savings of $32 million. But Diana declined to speak with the UMass architects because they had already discussed the undertaking with people in Orange County.

Now, while Diana seems free with tax dollars when it comes to a county office complex, he’s the picture of frugality when it comes to the future of the county’s Valley View Nursing Home. He asserts that 19 percent of all property tax revenues now go to support Valley View and that he projects this will climb to 30 percent by 2015.

I don’t know how good his numbers are, but if his math is as questionable as his prose, I have a problem with his Valley View arguments.

Read this one meaty paragraph from Diana’s letter: “More than 80 percent of the nursing home patients in Orange County already reside in private or not-for-profit facilities – institutions that are able to provide quality care for less because they are not required to operate under the stringent work, overtime rules and benefit packages imposed on public facilities. On average, the wage and benefit packages imposed on public facilities are 42 percent higher than privately owned nursing homes.”

That is crafty writing, but:

–The 80 percent figure is irrelevant. It doesn’t alter the fact that a large number of people in Orange County may not be able to afford a private facility.

–Diana’s contention that private facilities can “provide quality care for less” omits proof and conveniently fails to discuss whether those nursing home fees are lower as well.

–His description of wage and benefit packages having been “imposed” on public facilities is crass, especially when he uses the thunderous verb “imposed” in two consecutive sentences. An “imposed” benefit sounds like it was obtained by brute force. But benefits are obtained through negotiation. The workers were seated at one side of a bargaining table.

–Facing them were county officials negotiating in good faith and without guns pointed at their heads. In other words, the benefits enjoyed by Valley View workers were not grabbed but agreed to by both sides.

jeffrey@zestoforange.com