Correia to Panarites: Enough is Enough

Editor,  Northport Patch:

describing an impending 'financial tsunami.'

Mayor George Doll, contrary to his longstanding policy,

Following the publication of that letter,  responding to Mayor Doll's rebuttal in a letter, with his version of the facts and how much he accomplished without a “replacement for Mr. Correia during his absence from 2002 to 2005.”

Initially, I thought not to respond to Mr. Panarites’ version of the record. Upon reflection, however, I have concluded that I must tell the real story and present the actual facts. Not responding would trivialize the three-plus year ordeal that my family and I endured, leave the public misinformed, and make a mockery of the legal determination in my favor.  

In 2005, then-Mayor Panarites signed a settlement agreement, on behalf of the village, that resolved my wrongful discharge case dating back to September of 2001. 

Section A of the agreement states “Effective immediately, the Village drops all charges in the Section 75 proceeding against Correia and he is hereby reinstated to the position of Superintendent of Public Works, with all of the same duties and responsibilities attendant to that position at the time of his suspension.”

Moreover, in a March 24, 2005 in The Observer, Mr. Panarites publicly stated at the time: “I think it is a fair settlement for all of the parties involved. This has to end. Every day it goes on, it is costing the village a great deal, and we are losing the services of a valuable village employee, who we can really use on the job right now.”

I cannot fathom why Mr. Panarites would now seek to rehash previously litigated and fully resolved matters, but given that he has done so, the public deserves the information which follows. 

First, when Mr. Panarites stated that “in the process of rectifying the procedural error (which occurred during the term of my predecessor), money was necessarily spent” he neglected to reveal his position as a village trustee during that “predecessor” administration. In fact, he voted as trustee to bring the charges against me in September of 2001 and cast the deciding vote to dismiss me in March of 2002. This omission on Mr. Panarites’ part is misleading because he was part of the process from the start.

Second, Trustee Panarites — along with then-Mayor Roxanne Browning and then-Deputy Mayor James Corrigan — “voted to prefer the charges," then “testified against him,” and “voted in favor of the resolution adopting the findings of the hearing officer”* on the very same date that the decision was written. This gave the Village Board zero time to review the record -- as is required by law -- before adopting the resolution to dismiss.

To act as prosecutors, judges and executioners, found by the courts to be illegal, is in my opinion also unethical.   

*Quotes from the Supreme Court decision June 21, 2004

Third, Mr. Panarites stated that “The judge, it is noteworthy to mention, did not overturn the allegations.”  Mr. Panarites’ statement implies that the court did not overturn the allegations because they possessed validity. 

As Mr. Panarites knows, by law, the court had no power to adjudicate those allegations, given the procedural errors made by the village. Judge James Catterson’s decision, in a footnote, states that “Given the Court’s determination, the remaining contentions are moot.” 

Moot does not mean valid.  Moot here simply means irrelevant or not subject to consideration. Nowhere does the judge’s decision state that he is not overturning the allegations, because the judge had no legal authority to do: the procedural defect disallowed any consideration of the underlying allegations themselves. Mr. Panarites’ insinuation is misleading to the public, offensive to  my family and I, and unprofessional.

Fourth, Mr. Panarites referred to “money . . . necessarily spent.” Regarding necessary expenses, the public should know that the village spent far, far more than it need have done in connection with its action against me. 

Prior to the start of the hearing, I offered, through my attorney, to accept an adjudication of the case through binding arbitration. That process would have allowed each side to present its case to a professional independent arbitrator, as opposed to a hearing officer chosen by the board.

The arbitrator’s decision would have been binding on both parties, with no right to an appeal.** The expense and duration of such a case would have resulted in a fraction of the cost of the process undertaken through a hearing officer. The overall cost to the village would have been minimal. The village, represented in part by then-Trustee Panarites, chose the far more expensive option of a hearing.

**It is interesting to note that the Village started with five allegations, added two, making it seven, after they brought the original five charges, and ended up with three after dropping four of the original five --speaking volumes as to their validity.

Finally, after 44 ears as a village resident, and 17-and-a-half as Superintendent of Public Works for the village, I must say that the current mayor and trustees comprise one of the finest Village Boards I have had the privilege to serve.

The members' record of accomplishments is significant. In tough economic times, they have overseen the completion of numerous projects, some grant-funded and some village-funded, and numerous others continue.

These include the grant-funded pedestrian crosswalks and the grant-funded Woodbine Avenue.  By the way, Mr. Panarites assumed “that [the funding for the latter] is now lost to the taxpayers.” I can assure the taxpayers that the funds have not been lost. Had Mr. Panarites asked, he would have learned that the federal government, due to budget constraints, made minor changes to the amounts they awarded thereby substantially delaying the date that the village could start the process to secure these funds.

As a former Mayor, he surely must know that securing monies and completing projects with grant funding can take several years, as was the case with the Phase I improvements to the wastewater treatment plant. The village received the grant award when Browning was Mayor, most of the work occurred during Mr. Panarites’ tenure, and the project only closed out after my return. 

Which leads me back to the subject of necessary expenses. A Superintendent of Public Works likely would have saved the village much of the supervision expenses related to the wastewater treatment plant project.

In addition, to refresh Mr. Panarites’ memory, although he attended a meeting with the DEC in 1999, I started the Scudder Avenue cleanup six years earlier, and completed the cleanup and subsequent staging area DEC permit prior to April of 2001.

As an aside, the area cleanup did not itself consist of wetlands but was adjacent to the wetlands. As for the storage shed, our former mayor certainly can and should take credit for it. In my opinion it cost too much and constitutes the wrong structure for that location. I would gladly have assisted with that project had I been there, as I did shortly after my return when I proposed the village forces construct the so-called Dorothy Walsh parking lot [in between the First Bank of Long Island and Northport Copy] retaining wall for less than $15,000, or about one third of the cost of the proposed wall designed for that location.

Here are the summative facts about finances. During my absence, the village needlessly bled money for legal fees and settlement. Furthermore, it paid significant amounts to the consulting engineers for work which I previously had done and/or could have done, including Planning Board activity, grant projects, and myriad smaller projects. 

Now, after almost 10 years, after having long-ago signed a settlement agreement dropping all charges, after publicly stating his approval of the settlement as fair, and after having acknowledged me as a valued village employee whom the village needed back on the job, Mr. Panarites defies both reason and decency in retrying me in the court of public opinion by unsubstantiated assertions and innuendo.

Many years ago I moved forward with my life after a very difficult time for my family and I. Enough is enough Mr. Panarites, neither your discontent with the sewer fee nor any other motive gives you license to libel an innocent person.  

Sincerely,
Joseph Correia
Former Superintendent of Public Works, Northport Village