Coverup of the Problems with the NYCERS’s Legacy Replacement Project

NYCERS posts videos of its regular monthly board meetings on its website. There are two videos for each meeting .

The first video, Part 1, is a every short clip of only an opening roll call and a motion to go into executive session to hear disability cases and litigation issues. The second video, Part 2, starts with a return to public session and all the items which need to be addressed in public session. The second video usually runs for about 45 minutes but can be shorter.

One of the items that is currently being addressed in public session is the status of the Legacy Replacement Project (LRP). This project is extremely expensive and seriously behind schedule.

Long story short, the LRP contract with Accenture is now projected to be four years late, 2030 rather than 2026 and a detailed resource plan supporting the new 2030 date has already missed its June, 2025 delivery date. NYCERS has paid Accenture approximately $85 million since 2021 and $65 million in secondary costs.

The May 9, 2025, Board Meeting

At the end of the regular LRP status presentation by the NYCERS LRP project manager, a Board member directed a question at the project manager:

“We heard in a prior presentation that, I guess how I would describe it, that there was a lack of wholehearted commitment on at least part of the Accenture team and maybe at the higher levels in terms of the things we would like to see in terms of… therefore…How does that translate down to the NYCERS staff working with the Accenture people. Are they pulling their punches and are they giving it their all?”

(interruption by the Chairperson):

“and so, thanks for the question, I ask you (the project manager) to be mindful in your response that we are in in public session.
“It may be the case that we should have this as an offline conversation.”

After the following silence and subdued laughter, the trustees moved on to the next topic.

Based on the Chairperson’s comments and the silence of all the other trustees, it is clear that the Board is aware of the fiasco surrounding the LRP project and are intent on keeping the problem under wraps.

Time for the Department of Investigation

I recently posted about the incompetence surrounding the LRP project. There now is evidence of a coverup surrounding the LRP project. It is definitely time for Department of Investigation to look into this project.

PR Nonsense from the NYCERS FY-2026 Budget Report on the LRP project

MAJOR TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS/DIGITALIZATION

Legacy Replacement Project (LRP)

The Legacy Replacement Project (LRP) is a transformative, five-phase project to build a new pension administration system. As part of NYCERS’ overall strategic vision, LRP will streamline and automate operational processes and enhance the client experience. In Phase 0, NYCERS and its system integrator completed an overall project assessment, followed by Phase 1, the implementation of foundational changes, in January 2023.

During Phase 2 execution, the team encountered challenges including design delays, complex configuration needs, unforeseen technology compatibility issues, and difficulties in decommissioning the legacy system. As a result, the team decided to deploy the completed Phase 2 functionality as a separate, smaller phase (Phase 2.0). Phase 2.0 successfully deployed on January 21, 2025 as planned, delivering improvements to document management, security, and agency tools. NYCERS and its system integrator are currently replanning the remaining program scope to mitigate risks and ensure a high-quality outcome. The replanning is expected to be completed by June 30, 2025, with the combined Phases 2 and 3 beginning immediately thereafter. The program is now anticipated to be completed by December 2030.

A Four Year Delay in the NYCERS LRP Project - Time for DOI to Investigate

In its FY-2024 financial report (released in December 2024), NYCERS stated that there was a serious delay in completing its Legacy Replacement Project with only a vague reference to changes in the legacy systems. NYCERS promised a report with a new schedule at its February 2025 Board meeting. See the text below:

LRP began in June 2021, with a plan to complete the transformation over five years/five phases, with a target completion of September 2026.

Phase 1 was launched in January 2023, introducing foundational functionality that future phases will build upon.

In the midst of Phase 2 delivery, a range of legacy system changes surfaced that impacted the overall timeline. The Systems Integrator proposed to deliver a subset of Phase 2, called Phase 2.0, as this functionality did not rely on those legacy system changes, and we are currently on track for a January 2025 launch.

In parallel to a Phase 2.0 delivery, the Systems Integrator and NYCERS are working on a re-baseline plan for the remaining phases, which will be discussed during the February 2025 Board of Trustees Meeting.

February 2025 Board of Trustee Meeting

Last week at that meeting, the staff reported to the trustees that the new tentative completion date for the LRP project would be at the end of 2030 rather than the original September 2026 date. That is over four years behind schedule for a five-year contract.

Since December, Accenture (the "systems integrator"), the firm developing the project, delivered a revised high-level plan for the completion of the remaining scope of the project with a target date as of the end of 2030. The NYCERS staff stated that it had reviewed this plan.

Going forward, Accenture will provide a detailed resource plan supporting the 2030 completion target date. This detailed plan is needed for NYCERS to be able to give final approval for the new plan. The NYCERS approval of this new plan is targeted for the spring of 2025.

After a two-minute presentation there were no questions from the trustees concerning this four-year delay. This is obscene.

Background

NYCERS started the LRP project in July 2015. It was the brain child of Liz Reyes, the IT director at the time. She now is the deputy executive director and is hoping to become the executive director in May when the incumbent retires.

NYCERS signed the LRP implementation contract with Accenture in April 2021. It had an approximate term of five years with a total cost of $85.1M.

Three years later in 2024, Accenture notified NYCERS that the September 2026 completion date was not achievable.

When does gross incompetence become criminal?

I am not aware of any evidence of corruption involving the LRP project.

However, NYCERS’s glaring incompetence and obvious inattention to the project’s risks raises red flags that should be investigated.

NYCERS has never produced a cost/benefit analysis for this project.

Gartner has been under contract to NYCERS since 2015 providing advice on the LRP project. What was that advice?

During 2019 and 2020, NYCERS paid Accenture approximately $12M to install a Salesforce application. This means that Accenture has had extensive experience with NYCERS’s operations. Why did it take Accenture three years to come up with a new completion date four years out from September 2026?

A Little Good News!

On Wednesday, September 14, the NYCERS executive director, Diane D'Alessandro, announced that she was retiring at the end of December.

Hopefully the exit of this vicious incompetent boss should provide most NYCERS employees with some relief from their daily stress at work. Of course it will create serious concerns for all the equally incompetent flunkies that she has hired over the last 11 years as well as some other specific employees that have done her dirty work during that time. I am referring to Karen Mazza, Felita Baksh/Ramsami/DiLorenzo, Kin Mak, and Liz Reyes among others.

There was a DOI investigation started in response to the Ellen Carton hiring. I suspect D'Alessandro wants to get out of Dodge before the sheriff arrives.

I sincerely hope that the trustees are able to clean house after she is gone. This agency has a totally adequate operating budget as opposed to other city agencies. It should be an example of almost perfect service to members and retirees as opposed to the arrogant dismissive operation that it is.

Assuming D'Alessandro has no pre-2001 NYS/NYC service, her pension will be about $50K/yr. based on a $217K/yr salary and 14 years of service. This is not a smart financial move. Six more years of service and 12% increase in salary would have increased her pension to $97K/yr.

Sheldon Silver, Martha Stark and Glenwood Management

2011 DOI report on Stark

On January 21, 2015 Sheldon Silver was arrested for fraud and conspiracy. In a description of the charges the name of the Glenwood Management Company surfaces in connection with a kickback scheme that Silver dreamed up to funnel fees from a legal firm to him.

NY Times

In one scheme described in court papers, he asked a pair of real estate developers to hire a small law firm, Goldberg & Iryami, which seeks reductions in New York City property taxes on behalf of its clients.

The firm was started by Jay Arthur Goldberg, who decades ago worked as a lawyer for the Assembly, according to state payroll records. Prosecutors said he was Mr. Silver’s counsel.

Mr. Silver received a slice of the legal fees paid to the firm, even though he did no work for the developers; prosecutors said he was paid about $700,000. He did not report the income on his annual financial disclosure forms submitted to the state.

One of the developers was Glenwood Management, according to people familiar with the matter. Glenwood develops luxury apartment buildings in Manhattan, has been an enormous contributor to state politicians and has a significant interest in matters before the Legislature, such as measures dealing with real estate taxation. While receiving fees from the real-estate law firm, Mr. Silver took actions that benefited the developers, prosecutors said.

Strangely enough, the Glenwood Management firm also surfaces on pages 10 to 33 of a June, 2011 NYC-DOI investigative report on allegations about Martha Stark that were pending at the time she was forced to resign in April, 2009.

Beginning in March, 2005 Stark was involved in lowering the tax assesments for Glenwood. Subsequently in January, 2007 she asked Glenwood for a apartment for her domestic partner (DOI never states which one) along with a break in the rent for the apartment. Read in light of Silver's recent arrest connected to Glenwood, the report has a much more powerful impact. Below is a quote from this section of the report.

The juxtaposition of Stark's request for assistance with an apartment for her domestic partner in a Glenwood owned building and the notice of reduction in assessed value of a Glenwood building for that tax year, and the erroneous further reduction that occurred in the following tax year raises, at a minimum, an appearance issue, and gives rise to the question of whether the reductions were some form of assistance related to the assistance given in the provision of an apartment at a modest reduction for the Finance Commissioner's domestic partner.

Attempts to answer that question were made difficult by Stark's repeated refusal to be interviewed by DOl in connection with this investigation. In addition, the explanations for the assessments were hindered by DOF's lack of oversight and recordkeeping related to the assessment process, as the investigation revealed.

Even after the arrest in 2002 of 18 tax assessors, the work of the DOI/DOF Joint Task Force and the representations by DOF that changes were made and that others would be made in the Joint Task Force Preliminary and Final Reports, there remains a lack of internal controls over assessments.

The costs to the City from this lack of oversight is unknown since no reviews were undertaken to determine if properties were undervalued, and no random audits performed and no regular reports even distributed of significant changes in assessed valuation during the period DOl examined. Finance Commissioner David Frankel reports that he has undertaken measures for reviews/audits of assessments, including assigning/hiring personnel to conduct such audits.

The spring of 2005 was also the time of the $1.74B purchase and alleged tax assessment issues in connection with with Met-Life building, NYCERS, TRS, and the Department of Finance.

It is interesting that in October, 2005 Stark, as the NYCERS Chairperson, was instrumental in hiring of Diane D'Alessandro as executive director of NYCERS. At the time D'Alessandro was a special assitant to Sheldon Silver. Prior to that D'Alessandro worked for DC-37 during the Charlie Hughes and Al Diop years.

DOI and Mazza

The Department of Investigation (DOI) recently released a fraud report involving theft of NYCERS checks.

Below is an excerpt from the beginning of the report which was 23 pages long and dealt with the loss of nearly $384,000 from NYCERS. The report, while accurate about the fraudulant cashing of NYCERS benefit checks, is a lot to do about a relatively small issue. DOI rarelly reports a complete accounting of the actual convictions and prison sentences that result from its investigations.

I want, however, to point out specifically the mention of Commissioner Gill Hearn's thanks to Karen Mazza at the end of the excerpt. Of course, Gill Hearn doesn't mention that she has not completed the investigation that DOI had committed to pursue into perjury and corruption charges against Mazza and other NYCERS management staff. I am sure the financial impact of corrupt management at NYCERS is far greater than $384,000.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: DIANE STRUZZI
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012
(212) 825-5931
DOI RELEASES PENSION FRAUD REPORT INVOLVING EIGHT SEPARATE CASES IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS ATTEMPTED TO DEFRAUD OR DEFRAUDED NYCERS OF MORE THAN $400,000
ROSE GILL HEARN, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), released a report today detailing eight recent investigations into fraud upon the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (“NYCERS“), the country’s largest municipal pension system. The eight investigations included in this report are the most recent that DOI has conducted and illustrate a range of fraudulent schemes that include family members and beneficiaries of deceased pensioners taking NYCERS funds they were not entitled to receive and the theft of NYCERS checks by ndividuals who falsely claimed they had not received the funds. These eight investigations identified nearly $384,000 in NYCERS funds that individuals wrongfully obtained and an attempt to obtain approximately $17,200, which was thwarted by DOI and NYCERS. Five of the eight individuals have already been criminally charged and three of those individuals have pleaded guilty, with one individual receiving a 60-day jail sentence just last week. A copy of the report is attached to this release.
...
Commissioner Gill Hearn thanked NYCERS Executive Director Diane D’Alessandro, NYCERS Director of Security Craig Thornton, and NYCERS General Counsel Karen Mazza, and their staffs, for their assistance and cooperation in these investigations.

What Happened to the Perjury Investigation at NYCERS - Thompson & de Blasio

In 2009, four years ago, the Public Adovcate and the Comptroller, both NYCERS trsutees, requested D.O.I. to investigate a charge of perjury and official misconduct by senior management at NYCERS. As of today there has been no resolution of those charges. The trustees made this request in response to specific evidence that I had given to the trustees of the perjury by NYCERS senior staff.

In 2009, Bill Thompson was a NYCERS trustee and the Public Advocate's office made the actual request for the investigation. In 2010, de Blasio became the Public Advocate and a NYCERS trustee.

Thompson and de Blasio are now running for mayor of New York City. Shouldn't they clear up this unfinished business before they take on the responsibilities of mayor? Scott Stringer was also a NYCERS trustee in 2009 and has equal responsibility for cleaning up this mess.

Sex, Lies, and Martha Stark

2011 DOI report on Stark

Last week DOI released a June, 2011 investigative report on allegations about Martha Stark that were pending at the time she was forced to resign in April, 2009. Stark, in clear sign of problems, refused to be questioned by DOI. So much for DOI's subpoena power. Stark is still teaching at Baruch College earning over $100K and still earning pension credit at NYCERS. How's that for connections. She also seems to have landed a second job, teaching at Columbia. You can't make this stuff up.

The prime source of evidence for this report were emails, going back to at least November 2003, from Stark and other Finance employees. Finance employees, at least six, had no fear of lying under oath to DOI. Without the emails DOI would have been stymied. I guess DOI learned their lesson from their inept 2004 investigation at NYCERS. Of course, they might be using honest intelligent investigators now. Why are any of these Finance employees are still working for the city.

DOI appears to have only addressed the specific allegations pending as of April, 2009. I can only wonder what else DOI stumbled on in reviewing the history of Stark's emails.

Stark should have borrowed Kin Mak from NYCERS to clean up her email trail. Of course, she knew he'd make a copy of everything and then a lot people would be looking over their shoulders.

It is now clear why NYCERS has tolerated the continued employment of high level staff members who have lied under oath. It is a common practice at the city.

This report is 111 pages long and clearly represents an enormous amount of work by DOI. The report is a fantastic read. You will not be able to put it down. It is impossible to quickly characterize it. You just have to read it.

DOI has forwarded this report to the Manhattan DA'a office. What are they doing with this report since June, 2011? Perjury, bribery, and tax evasion are within the DA's jurisdiction, not COIB's.

2002

Bribery at Finance

In February, 2002 the mayor appointed Stark as Finance Commissioner. This is an unclassified title which means there are no qualifications for the job. Stark is an openly gay female African-American. The problem was that she was not really qualified to run Finance. Of course, that's never stopped mayors before. But somewhere along the line the romance went cold.

On February 26, 2002 the NY Times reported the indictment of 18 NYC Finance tax assessors, one of which was a woman named Roberta Hand. DOI determined that at some point Stark and Hand were involved. This bribery scheme had been in existence for almost 25 years.

In response to the scandal, Stark agrees to implement key remedial measures recommended in an August, 2002 DOI/DOF preliminary report. DOI reports that these measures were never fully implemented "leaving glaring corruption vulnerabilities unaddressed". In addition, Stark lied in the 2004 final report about actually implementing these measures.

In the end, this is where Stark probably did the most damage. The tax mess from 2002 was never cleaned up and appears to have only gotten worse under her reign. Her escapades, however insane, with multitude female Finance employees are just a messy side show. In addition, the mayor has provided no evidence that he has corrected the chaos at Finance.

In September, 2002 the mayor appointed Stark to the NYCERS and TRS pension boards. Stark was the chair of the NYCERS board.

For many years Rochelle Patricof's husband, Allan, had worked as an administrative law judge at Finance. In 2002, when Stark made Rochelle the first deputy commissioner, she asked COIB for letter giving her clearance for the appointment and the obvious conflict with her husband working at Finance. There was also a 1997 COIB letter dealing with this issue when Patricof became general counsel at Finance.

In November, 2002 COIB issued a letter to Patricof approving her appointment as first deputy commissioner contingent on her recusing herself from any matters that involved her husband.

2003

In January, 2003 as part of the reform process Stark appoints an outside real estate tax expert, Linda Yancey, as the new Assistant Commissioner of Real Property at Finance. By April 22, 2003, as reported by the N.Y. Daily News, Yancey had resigned in despair and had notified the City Council of her serious concerns about the property tax system and its lack of equity. In retrospect, Stark's comment in the article was completely false. City Hall had fair warning of serious problems at Finance.

On September 8, 2003 DOI determines that Rochelle Patricof, first deputy commissioner at Finance, violated COIB law by invoving herself in matters that potentially affected her husband's compensation as a Finance ALJ.

In October, 2003 DOI concluded that Allan Patricof presented an intimidating presence that people were reluctant to respond to because of his wife's position at DOF.

In the fall of 2003 Stark begins a long running affair with Dara Ottley-Brown, a married female Finance employee who was working in the Bronx at the time. From November 16, 2003 to June 5, 2005, Ottley-Brown's salary went from $84,460 to $131,175.

In order to get a feel for this relationship consider this email exchange between Ottley-Brown and Stark concerning Ottley-Brown's impending promotion. In a November 25, 2003 Finance email titled" The Biggie" Ottley-Brown writes to stark "Okay, here is the big question: If you are vetting me, have you tentatively set my future salary? If so what would it be? Is this open to negotiation? Would Negotiation be contentious? Dara B."

The response from Stark, 20 minutes later, is equally outrageous. I'm too tired to type the whole fawning email but let me give you the last sentence as the coup de gras: "I don't want to disappoint you in any way but I'll let you know if I can do what you want."

Everyone in the city should read this report. It goes to the heart of why the civil service system was invented. Elected officials and their appointees must be tightly constrained when it comes personnel issues.

Also in the fall of 2003 Carol DeFreitas, a female employee at Finance, allegedly asked Stark for a change in her work assignment. In December, 2003 Stark and Rochelle Patricof, the first deputy commissioner, assigned DeFreitas to work at DOI. DeFreitas continued to be paid by Finance for many years while working at DOI. At the very least, this is a violation of the city charter but also appears to be a pattern of Stark's behavior with female Finance employees.

2004

In January, 2004 Stark appointed Ottley-Brown to the position vacated by Yancey the year before. It is hard to ignore the suspicion that Stark wanted back door control of the real property division.
It is comical to go back in time and read Stark's press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE... January 16, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF INVESTIGATION RELEASE FINAL REPORT ON ASSESSOR REFORM; FY05 TENTATIVE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ROLL PUBLISHED

Property Valuation Process Less Vulnerable to Corruption, More Efficient, Easier to Understand

Finance Commissioner Martha E. Stark and Department of Investigation Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn today released a report describing steps Finance has taken to reduce the risk of corruption in the property valuation process, and ways Finance will continue to improve the valuation process and make it easier for the public to understand.

Commissioner Stark also introduced Dara Ottley-Brown, newly-selected Assistant Commissioner for Property, who will serve in an acting capacity for three months. They described the data in the Fiscal Year 2005 tentative assessment roll and recent management changes that contributed to a more efficient, transparent valuation process. Ottley-Brown replaces John McBride, who served very ably as Acting Assistant Commissioner for Property. "With this report and this assessment roll, we have ended a chapter in the City’s history and have begun an exciting era of renewed faith in the way we value people’s property,” Commissioner Stark said. “In less than two years, we have vastly improved the way we do our jobs, and we have begun to turn a confusing, secretive process into something that New Yorkers can actually understand and believe in.”

…

Prior to her selection as Assistant Commissioner for Property, OttleyBrown served in various management positions at Finance, including Property. Before joining the division as Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Ottley-Brown worked most recently as Deputy City Register in the Bronx Office. "I'm excited to lead the effort to transform the process of valuing property in this great City, bringing our practices into the 21st century so New Yorkers can be proud of the work we do for them,” Ottley-Brown said. "I want to thank Dara for taking on this challenge, and also thank John McBride for doing such a good job in transition and for identifying Dara as the person best able to do this job,” Commissioner Stark said. “But most of all, I want to thank the assessors and other staff in Property who have worked tirelessly not just to produce an accurate roll but, more importantly, to change the culture into one that is honest, creative and forward-thinking.”

This is a clear indication of Stark's absolute arrogance. You have to wonder what McBride thought at the time.

If the relationship was genuine, the one thing Stark should not have done was promote Ottley-Brown three months after starting the relationship. In fact, Stark should have left her in the Bronx forever. If Ottley-Brown was competent, she would have gotten promoted on her own, of course, not at Finance.

Ironically, in June, 2004, Stark requests that DOI investigate my relationship with a woman who was and is still working at NYCERS. At the time I was executive director of NYCERS and Stark was chair of the NYCERS Board of Trustees. The woman is now my wife.

2005

In March 2005, Stark starts working for Tarragon, a private real estate firm.

This is an absolute violation of the city charter. No commissioner can have outside employment. There is no exception.

It appears COIB was fooled into issuing an approval for work under Chapter 68 of the city charter. You will notice there is no reported approval from the Law Department who could possibly have issued a "colorable" approval but they did not.

Stop for a moment and realize that for seven years the mayor let Stark invest the city pension funds!!!

Even with the COIB approval, Stark was told not use her position to help Tarragon or to use any city equipment or personnel. Stark proceeds to do extensive work for Tarragon during office hours, use her official position and letterhead, and use city resources and personnel, including Rochelle Patricof, to do her Tarragon work. Over a three year period she made at least $120,000. Nice second job!

NYCERS

On March 2, 2005 based on an investigation by Vincent Green and Carol Defreitas, DOI sends Stark a letter falsely accusing me of promoting the woman I was involved with. This investigation bordered on the corrupt with the suppression of evidence and acts of perjury by NYCERS staff. I now suspect DeFreitas was involved with Stark at some point.

On the evening of March 10, 2005 Stark calls me at home and tells me that I have been fired from my position as executive director at NYCERS.

On May 31, 2005 COIB finds that there are no Chapter 68 violations involving me or my wife.

On June 1, 2005 Stark demotes my wife from the position which she had earned on her own merits and without any help from me. At this point both Rochelle Patricof, the first deputy commissioner, and her husband, Allan, an administrative law judge, were working for Finance.

Back to Finance

In March, 2005 Subordinate 2, a married female, starts to work at Finance as a college aide at $12.50/hr in the executive office.

In May 2005, Stark begins trying to find job (public/private) for Ottley-Brown's ex-husband. Rochelle Patricof is brought into the process. Stark's first attempt was with DOITT as per a May 13, 2005 email. Stark eventually hires Mr. Brown at Finance for $78,000 in 2007. I think there was some child support issues involved with this hire.

On June 21, 2005 Stark tries to get Ottley-Brown's ex-husband, Jodie Brown at job at Bloomberg LP.

As of June 30, 2005 Fenella Ramsami was working at NYCERS at a salary of $26,351. Ms. Ramsami is the sister of Felita Baksh/Ramsami the NYCERS HR director. By June 30, 2006 Fenalla was working at Finance at salary of $28,316. Within a year she was earning $42,510. She now is earning $65,000.

In September, 2005 in response to an anonymous email from an alleged Finance employee I notified the Law Department that Stark was involved with two female Finance employees, Dara Ottley-Brown and Roberta Hand. In addition there was an allegation that in the spring of 2005 there was improper interference by Stark and Ottley-Brown with the property valuation of the Met-Life Building in conjunction with its May, 2005 sale to NYCERS and TRS. The email listed five specific assessors caught in the interference. The property sold for $1.74B, a record amount at the time. Stark was the mayor's representative on both boards.

In light of the truth concerning the two women, the Manhattan DA's office should review its non-response to the notice I gave to that office in May, 2006.

As far back as 2005 Stark and Ottley-Brown attended public functions and in at least one case were photographed for the Prospect Park Alliance's annual report. As of late 2005, it would have been very difficult for City Hall not to have known about Stark and Ottley-Brown.

After March 2005, Finance employees would approach me in public and tell me about Stark and Ottley-Brown and that they were afraid to report them to DOI. Previous reports had gotten back to Stark. At the time Vincent Green was the I.G. for Finance and Stark was supplying resources to DOI.

In October, 2005 Stark along with the other NYCERS Trustees appointed Diane D'Alessandro as the new executive director. D'Alessandro is an openly gay woman. The executive director position is classified as a non-competitive position under NY Civil Service Law which means that it has specific minimum education and work experience requirements. D'Alessandro had none of the required work experience or a "satisfactory equivalent".

By October 30, 2005 Subordinate 2 is working as a Special Assistant to Stark at a annual salary of $$49,512 up from $12.50/hr in March.

2006

On April 10, 2006 Ottley-Brown signs the infamous Yankee Stadium property valuation letter. Long story short, Ottley-Brown, as part of the documentation for the stadium bond deal, wrote to Goldman Sachs that the land on which the new stadium was to be built was worth $204M. At the same time in a May 9, 2006 letter, the NYC Parks Dept. reported to the federal government that the land was worth $21M. You can guess who who has a tighter grip on reality. If you want the gory details, you can view the Congressional hearing on this issue and read a review of the hearing.

In May, 2006, I notified Dan Castleman at the Manhattan DA's office about Stark, Ottley-Brown and the Met-Life Building deal.

By August 13, 2006 Subordinate 2 is making $63,240/yr up from $49,512 in October.

On Sept 19, 2006 the City Council approves the mayor's appointment of Ottley-Brown as a commissioner to Board of Standards and Appeals, one of the two non-professional positions on a five person board. DOI determined that Stark had recommended her to city hall as possible candidate without declaring their relationship. I suspect that after the DA's office got notice all parties involved wanted to make this problem go away.

In early December 2006 Stark first hits on Subordinate 2 and within weeks they began a sexual affair that Subordinate 2 claims only lasted several months. This is based on testimony from Subordinate 2. It was given to DOI during a third interview on March 2, 2011 with her attorney present, with a grant of immunity, and after twice lying under oath in previous interviews. Based on subsequent evidence presented by DOI, it is quite clear that DOI does not find Subordinate 2's testimony credible.

This turnaround in testimony was caused by the lucky discovery of a June 4, 2008 email. The contents of the email contained a copy of an instant message chat between Stark and Subordinate 2. DOI, generally, was not able to access the Finance Department Blackberry instant messages. But because of technical issues Stark had copied the instant message to an email. It appears that Stark and her associates were even more open with their text messaging than their emails.

As per DOI:

"The email was a revealing glimpse into the sexual relationship Stark had engaged in with subordinates, including Subordinate 2 and Ottley Brown. ... The June 4, 2008 email was a vivid demonstration of the lack of boundaries between Stark's City agency and personal life."

DOI chose to include a direct quote by Stark from the June 4, 2008 email:

"There we are all together. My ex-lover with my current lover, with a good friend from work who was happy to sleep with me, my lover or maybe my ex. All hanging out together at my neices's party ..."

Subordinate 2 was the good friend.

2007

Property Tax Issues Again

In January, 2007 Stark arranges for her long time domestic partner, who she was breaking up with, to get an apartment at a reduced rent at an upper east side complex managed by a firm that had received favorable tax traetment from Finance two weeks before. The following year the firm again received favorable treatment. DOI could find no supporting documentation for these downard assessments. This is a clear indication of the continuing chaos in the property tax system at Finance, five years after the bribery arrests, this time at the highest level.

On a smaller scale this episode is comparable to the Met-Life building allegation in 2005.

As of January 9, 2007 in response to negative publicity about the Patricofs, Stark instructs her PR staff to not admit to the press that there was a conflict with the Patricofs' employment at Finance. Stark was adamant in defending Allan Patricof against charges of falsifying his billings for time worked. Stark and the Patricofs are very close friends. Stark used Allan Patricof for personal and business legal matters, a COIB violation. Patricof advised Stark not to use emails for communicating with him.

On February 13, 2007 DOI sends Stark eight policy recommendations as per Patricof's billing irregularities. Finance rejects them. There were also established problems with Rochelle Patricof's influence over those overseeing her husband.

In May, 2007, DOI presents its findings to Stark that Patricof had falsified his billings. A year later Stark responds with vigorous defense of Patricof. Stark's internal emails show that she had worries over this issue. In response to the DOI public report Stark began to consider withdrawing support that she was providing to DOI. This support was both personnel and materiale, i.e. cars. Of course giving this support in the first place was bad policy and is also a violation of the city charter.

In January, 2007 Galia Galansky began working at Finance as director of employee services. Galansky admitted to being socially active with Stark.

DOI chose to quote the following June 8, 2008 email from Stark to Rochelle Patricof:

"I don't care what you say {referencing an email exchange with Galansky], she's as dumb as [Subordinate 2]. I love you but we both are crazy about two dummies. Let's face it."

DOI is pointing out a relationship between Patricof and Galansky that is the same as the relationship between Stark and Subordinate 2. DOI also is raising the possibility of a similiar relationship between Stark and Patricof given Stark's appetite.

As per February 6, 2007 and March 8, 2007 emails, Subordinate 2 was pushing Stark and Patricof for a move to a more "challenging" position.

By March 13, 2007 Subordinate 2 has been assigned to work for Galansky. Subordinate 2's salary increases from $63,240 to $72,602 during the first 6 months of 2007. Her salary increases to $81,840 during the last 6 months of 2007. There is no backup in Subordinate 2's personnel file to support these salary increases. This is also the case for Ottley-Brown's salary increases.

In June, 2007 Stark arranges for her niece to get a job at Finance.

In August, 2007 Stark hires Ottley-Brown's ex-husband at Finance, having failed to find him employment at other places. His salary was $78,000

This hiring resulted in an EEO complaint based on the non-posting of this position. Without all the facts being established the complaint was dismissed on July 18, 2008. This complaint should now be reopened.

As of November 25, 2007 Subordinate 2 is making $81,840/yr and Subordinate 2's sister starts working at Finance.

2008

May, 2008 Stark is instrumental in her half-brother getting a job at Finance. She continued to be closely involved with his work activities and performance at Finance.

In July 2008 Ottley-Brown's is divorced from her husband.

2009

In April, 2009 Stark and senior Finance staff, including Patricof, publicly lie about Stark's relationship with Ottley-Brown. Stark and her crowd also lie to City Hall. What were they thinking? DOI determined that Patricof knew, at least as far back as 2005, that Stark and Ottley-Brown were involved. Did you have any doubt?

On April 28, 2009 Stark resigns.

In October, 2009 Stark shows up teaching at Baruch for $99,200/yr. for two lectures a week. This is as close to a no show job as it gets. I wonder what the average salary is for an associate professor with a PhD and publications? It appears she is now also teaching at Columbia.

The truly interesting question is how far back did City Hall know about Ottley-Brown. Based on public appearances in 2005, reports by Finance employees to DOI in 2004, and my reporting to the Law Department in September, 2005, this could hardly have been a surprise to anyone in New York City.

In December 2009 Subordinate 2 is divorced from her husband.

2011

In April, 2011 Subordinate 2 resigns from Finance. All the rest of the crowd who lied under oath and Stark herself are still working for the city.

Paul Marks and Martha Stark

Paul Marks is a lawyer at the Law Department. He represents the city in disputes with city employees. Marks represented the city in a defamation case that I brought against the NYCERS Board of Trustees and Department of Investigation in 2005.

In September 2005, my attorney notified Marks of the following allegations against Martha Stark, the Finance Commissioner and chair of the NYCERS Board of Trustees (The charge was made by an alleged Dept. of Finance employee):

1. That Stark had been involved with Roberta Hand, an assessor at the Finance Department. Hand was subsequently indicted for bribery by the US government.
2. That Stark was involved with Dara Ottley-Brown, another Finance Department employee. In January 2004, Stark had promoted Ottley-Brown to the position of Assistant Commissioner of Real Property, a crucial post at Finance.
3. That in the spring of 2005, Stark and Ottley-Brown had improperly interfered with the tax assessment of the Met-Life Building. In May of 2005, Tishman Speyer, NYCERS, and TRS purchase the Met-Life Building for $1.74B. Stark was chair of both pension boards at the time.

The allegation about the Met-Life Building is a serious charge and has the potential for a major political scandal. The allegation gave specific name s of Finance Department assessors who were being allegedly pressured to alter the tax value of the property.

There was never any indication that Marks took any action on these allegations except to protect Stark from answering questions about her relationship with Ottley-Brown. In April 2009, the NY Post finally confirmed that relationship and the Mayor publicly asked the Dept. of Investigation (DOI) to investigate Stark. DOI has not yet reported the results of that public request.

In May 2006, my attorney notified Dan Castleman, the then chief of investigations at the Manhattan DA’s office, about these allegations.

On September 13, 2006, the City Council confirmed the mayor’s appointment of Ottley-Brown as one of the two non-technical commissioners at the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals. This ended Ottley-Brown's "career" at Finance. In spite of the publicity concerning her relationship with Stark, Ottley-Brown is still at the Board of Standards and Appeals.

Marks sat through Stark’s memory meltdown at her deposition in November 2006.

Marks sat through Bratcher’s false testimony at her deposition.

In addition, Marks handled Karen Mazza's deposition and was aware of evidence that Mazza, a lawyer at NYCERS, tried to destroy incriminating emails concerning Mazza’s communication with Baksh/Ramsami during Baksh’s hiring process at NYCERS.

Marks was also aware of evidence that Carol DeFreitas, a DOI investigator, cooperated with Mazza in trying to hide that evidence and that DeFreitas actually got her paycheck from the Finance Dept. (Stark) and not DOI.

In addition, Marks submitted Kin Mak’s false affidavit about his mythical email search. Mak is an IT worker at NYCERS. Mazza and DeFreitas had pulled him into their attempt to hide the incriminating email evidence.

My attorney notified Marks that the affidavit was false based on the physical impossibility of the statements in the affidavit.

It appears reasonable to conclude that Marks chose to participate in criminal activity in order to shield the city from civil liability in a pending defamation case.

City employees should find it intriguing that their taxes help pay the salary of this “company” lawyer.

NYC Department of Investigation – Can You Trust DOI?

In the spring of 2009, two and half years ago, I reported to both the Department of Investigation (DOI) and the NYCERS trustees an act of perjury (deliberately giving a false statement under oath) by Felita Baksh (aka Ramsami) during a sworn DOI interview.

In response to my notice, one of the trustees, the former Public Advocate, asked that DOI investigate the matter and report back to the Public Advocate and to me. The Public Advocate was the only party to take any action or acknowledge my allegation. In response, DOI notified the Public Advocate that it was forwarding the matter to the Department of Finance IG for review. DOI did not notify me of this action but the Public Advocate did.

I provided all parties with a copy of the verbatim testimony of the DOI interview of Baksh from July, 2004. The interview was given under oath. In a very careful manner, the DOI interviewers gave Baksh a second chance to correct her original false testimony after warning her that she was under oath. She did not change her testimony. The false testimony related to the help Baksh received from Karen Mazza, a staff attorney at NYCERS, in regards to Baksh’s fraudulent appointment as HR director at NYCERS in 2004.

You might be wondering how DOI managed to miss this almost certain act of perjury during one of its own interviews. In 2004, DOI chose not to make a verbatim transcript from the audio tape of the interview. DOI chose, instead, to allow the lead investigator, Carol DeFreitas, to make a summary from the audio recording of the interview. DeFreitas was not one of the DOI investigators who interviewed Baksh. DOI had put her in charge of the investigation even though she was only a temporary employee recently on loan from Martha Stark. DeFreitas was actually a Department of Finance employee receiving a pay check from Finance and not DOI.

Subsequently, DeFreitas became involved with Mazza in an effort to hide the extent of the help that Mazza gave to Baksh. In addition, Mazza pulled another NYCERS employee, Kin Mak, into the cover up. Mak, an IT staffer, enabled Mazza to hide incriminating emails but not before Mak made copies of all the emails that pertained to the events surrounding the investigation.

Those copies are safely tucked away at Mak’s home in Pennsylvania. Those emails, I suspect, cast a wide net and have crippled the investigation into the Baksh perjury charge because of the people implicated by the emails.

I previously reported all of this in a series of postings: perjury, DOI, and sleeping trustees.

Recently, in response to a FOIL request for DOI’s closing memo for the investigation of the perjury charge, DOI refused to release any information. DOI claims that the information is exempt under FOIL because it would be an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” and it was “compiled for law enforcement purposes and would identify a confidential source or reveal confidential information relating to a criminal investigation”.

It is clear that the perjury charge against Baksh is public record. There is no personal privacy to protect in this case. If DOI finds that this public charge is untrue, it should at least clear Baksh’s name. But I am very certain that DOI found the charge to be true. It appears that DOI does not want to deal with the charge and the web of corruption that goes along with it.

The majority of DOI’s work is allegedly for law enforcement purposes. DOI is claiming the closing memo would identify a confidential source. That can’t be it. I publicly supplied them with all the information they need to reach a conclusion on the charge. In addition, after two and half years, I don’t think that there is any criminal investigation going on. It is completely reasonable to conclude that DOI is protecting one or more people.

Unfortunately, DOI has not given a report on the investigation to the Public Advocate or to me.

Even more unfortunately, the current Public Advocate has made no effort to obtain the closing memo from DOI even after being questioned about the investigation.

In closing, the perjury allegation is almost certainly true and therefore, almost certainly the NYCERS trustees are allowing three criminals to continue to work at NYCERS. This raises suspicions about the judgement and integrity of the trustees.

Perjury at NYCERS - Trustees sleeping

November 16, 2009 - This is an update on the DOI perjury investigation of the NYCERS HR director, Felita Baksh (aka Ramsami). Listed below are letters between the NYCERS trustees and myself with respect to this investigation.

It is clear from the letters, that the trustees are ignoring this issue. I thought the November 3, 2009 election would have provided the trustees with a date for action. They are, however, still allowing this woman to put the agency at risk.

This year Baksh again lied under oath. NYCERS is currently trying to terminate a long time employee because she allegedly incorrectly claimed to have completed three cases on a weekly production report. This employee had previously reported the agency to DOI. That did not make the current executive director happy.

At a disciplinary hearing at OATH for this employee, Baksh lied about a conversation she had with the employee. Since it was a two person conversation, she felt free to deny saying what the employee claimed she had said. The employee, however, had the good sense to record the conversation unbeknownst to Baksh. There is now evidence of two instances of perjury by Baksh.

NYCERS had the nerve to threaten the employee with disciplinary charges for recording the conversation. You can’t make this stuff up. Of course, the NYCERS legal director, Mazza, was involved with the OATH hearing, so anything is possible. This was months ago and there is still no decision from OATH. That is not a good sign.

For the record, this savvy employee also has an EEO action against the agency which is moving into a trial stage. In light of my recommendation to the trustees to put Baksh on paid leave while the investigation is going on and their refusal to do so, it is disturbing that NYCERS felt it necessary to put this employee on paid leave for the last nine months along with a 30 day suspension without pay. Remember perjury is a criminal charge.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        August 12, 2009

Greg Floyd, President – Teamsters Local 237
Trustee, NYCERS Board of Trustees
216 West 14th Street 
New York, NY 10011

        Pub. Adv. Case #: 140753

Dear Trustee:

 This is a follow up to a letter I sent to most of the trustees in March, 2009.
The original letter provided the trustees with evidence of perjury by the current NYCERS HR director, Felita Baksh.

 Only one of the trustees, the Public Advocate, took any action with respect
to this evidence. The Public Advocate forwarded the charge to the Department of
Investigation (DOI) for its review and notified me of her action. 

 As of today, I have received no notice of any subsequent action in this case.
As reference, I am enclosing a copy of a May 9, 2009 letter that I sent to DOI 
Concerning this matter. Please notify me of the status of this investigation.

 In the interim, the trustees should immediately place the HR director on
administrative leave, since this is a criminal matter and the investigators already have clear evidence of the crime (an audio tape of DOI sworn testimony)
in their possession.



        Sincerely yours,



        John J. Murphy



Cc:  Ms. Susan Edelman, NY Post

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
    OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER 
     GENERAL COUNSEL 
    1 CENTRE STREET. ROOM  614 
    NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007-2341

         TELEPHONE: (212) 669-2048 
         FAX NUMBER: (212)815-8714

         WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, JR.
         OMPTROLLER

Lewis Finkelman
DEPUTY COMPTROLLER FOR LEGAL
AFFAIRS/GENERAL COUNSEL

         August 19, 2009 

John J. Murphy 

Dear Mr. Murphy: 

 I write in response to the letter that you mailed to the
Comptroller on August 14ft and that was forwarded to me yesterday,
regarding your allegations of perjury by Felita Baksh, a current
employee of NYCERS. Your initial letter to the Comptroller in March
2009 regarding this matter was also referred to me and, at or about
that time, I promptly contacted the Department of Investigation ("DOI")
and forwarded your letter to that agency for its handling. Your most
recent correspondence makes clear that you have referred this matter to
DOI as well. Accordingly, you should follow up directly with DOI as to
the status of its investigation of this matter.

        Very truly yours, 


        Lewis Finkelman 

LF/lm 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        August 23, 2009

Mr. Lewis Finkelman
Office of General Counsel
Office of the Comptroller
1 Centre Street, Rm. 614 
New York, NY 10007

        Pub. Adv. Case #: 140753


Dear Mr. Finkelman:

 Thank you for your August 19, 2009 letter in which you acknowledge my March
20, 2009 letter to the Comptroller and notifying me that you had referred the reported perjury charge to DOI.

 The Public Advocate had already promptly notified me in an April 29, 2009
letter that she had referred this work related perjury charge against the NYCERS HR director to DOI. The Public Advocate also sent me a copy of her
April 14, 2009 letter to Rose Gill Hearn.

 The purpose of my August 12, 2009 letter to the NYCERS trustees was to find
out the status of that investigation. 

 It would appear from your August 19, 2009 letter that you also do not know the
status of that investigation.

 DOI has never given me any acknowledgement of this matter in spite of my
Direct correspondence to Rose Gill Hearn or Richard Sullivan.

 The Comptroller, as a NYCERS trustee, is employing this person as the 
NYCERS HR director. This is while she is under investigation for perjury with 
respect to her official duties at NYCERS. DOI has the audio tape on which she
intentionally lied under oath while being interviewed by DOI in 2004.

 As a NYCERS fiduciary, the Comptroller should be protecting the fund from
this employee. He has hard evidence that this employee committed perjury. 

 I strongly recommended that the trustees place this employee on administrative
leave until the investigation is completed. I also request that you notify me
 whether you adopt this recommendation and, if you don’t,  why not.

 DOI can not provide the trustees with protection from misdeeds by this
employee while she is under investigation. The fact that DOI is possibly complicit in the perjury charge makes this action more imperative. 

 In 1986, the trustees dealt with perjury in a rapid and ruthless manner. Why
Such a casual attitude now?
 

        Sincerely yours,



        John J. Murphy



Cc:  Mr. Michael Barbaro, NY Times
 

Department of Investigation and Perjury at NYCERS

In a June 5, 2009 posting, I described an act of perjury committed by the current HR director at NYCERS, Felita Baksh, aka Ramsami. The following is a further description of the involvement of three other people with that perjury, one of which was functioning as an investigator for the Department of Investigation (DOI).

DOI is as subject to corruption as any other human organization. In addition, there is no oversight agency with authority to monitor DOI. The Commissioner of DOI serves at the pleasure of the mayor. The mayor can replace her without cause at a moment's notice. It is hard to imagine DOI producing an investigative report that would embarrass the mayor.

In December, 2003 Martha Stark assigned Carol DeFreitas, a Finance Department employee, to work on loan as an investigator with Vincent Green at DOI. For several years, DeFreitas remained on the Finance payroll while continuing to work at DOI. She is now on the DOI payroll with an annual salary of $83,000. DeFreitas is the investigator who suppressed the evidence of Baksh’s perjury.

The following is a July, 2004 time line covering the three people involved with Baksh’s perjury and other possible criminal acts.

1. On July 13, 2004 DeFreitas interviewed Karen Mazza. Under oath, Mazza admitted to editing Baksh's resume. She further admitted to using email to send the resume to Baksh.
2. On July 16, 2004, DeFreitas sent an email to NYCERS LAN administrator, Kin Mak, asking whether he could recover deleted emails from approximately 2 months ago.
3. On July 23, 2004 DeFreitas makes note of phone conversation with Mazza in which Mazza claims to have deleted emails to Baksh about 2 & 1/2 months ago. DeFreitas tells Mazza that the LAN group may be able to retrieve the email and that she will ask them to do that.
4. In a July 26, 2004 (5:05PM) email DeFreitas requests that Kin Mak give her copies of Mazza’s deleted emails as follows:

   Hello again Kin: I hope you enjoyed your vacation. I'm hoping you could retrieve e-mail(s) deleted by Karen Mazza about 2 and a half months ago. The subject of the email(s) was “resume” and the original sender was Felita Baksh. There may actually be several of these mails on the same topic going back and forth. I've spoken to Karen about this; so if you need additional information to help you in your search, please feel free to contact Karen and please keep this confidential. thank you. Carol.

5. The following morning, July 27, 2004(7:17AM) Mak emailed DeFreitas as follows:

   Thanks. Mondays are usually my scheduled day off (4 days work week). I will call you this morning to verbally confirm going ahead with the email retrieval. Also I will speak to Karen regarding this matter. Regards,

6. Three hours later (10:22 AM) Mak sent the following email to DeFreitas:

   Hi Carol: I am forwarding you the email I was able to recover. Please let me know if you need further assistance. Regards,

7. On July 29, 2004 (10:25AM) Mazza sent the following email to DeFreitas:

   "...Also can you please ask Kin Mak to let you know if anyone in house asks to see my deleted emails? I am somewhat uncomfortable with this info being recoverable. I'm sure you can understand why."

DeFreitas’ behavior during this time is very suspicious. She was looking to retrieve evidence that could be very damaging to a target of an investigation. She then allowed the target to control the search for the evidence. She also suspected that there were several emails. This might indicate other assistance that Mazza may have given Baksh. There were allegations about Baksh’s final writing test. The test was the basis on which she was hired. Of course, the actual emails would have clarified the situation.

When Mak retrieved only one email, DeFreitas made no attempt to check into the email system at the Fire Department where Baksh worked before returning to NYCERS. In fact Baksh’s Fire Department email address was on the one email that Mak allegedly retrieved. DeFreitas took no action in response to the admission by Mazza that Mazza did not want any NYCERS staff seeing her deleted emails. Mazza clearly knew that they are recoverable from the backup tapes. DeFreitas obviously knew this too. The existence of the deleted emails is further confirmed below.

In an affidavit, notarized by Mazza on June 19, 2007, Mak gives the details of this email search on the morning of July 27, 2004. The relevant testimony is as follows:

3. My search for the emails requested by Ms. DeFreitas was structured as follows. First, the period for the search was January 2004 through July 27, 2004, the date of Ms DeFreitas' request. Second, I searched for two types of emails: (1) e-mails in Ms. Mazza's e-mail box in which Ms. Mazza was either the sender or the recipient and "resume" was the subject of the e-mail; and (2) e-mails in Ms Mazza's e-mail box in which Felita Baksh, was either the sender or recipient at the e-mail address of bakshf@fdny.nyc.gov, and which either had “resume” in the subject field or the substance of the e-mail concerned Ms. Baksh's resume. I conducted the search for the above e-mails by: (a) searching Ms. Mazza's then current e-mail box, i.e., the email box as it existed on July 27, 2004; and (b) searching the weekly backup tapes starting from July 27, 2004, and going backward to January 2004. 4. As a result of the above search, I was able to recover one e-mail, dated January 28, 2004, in which the original sender was Felita Baksh at bakshf@fdny.nyc.gov, the subject of which was "Resume" and which had been sent by Ms. Baksh to Niki Browne NYCERS, who forwarded it to Ms. Mazza. On July 27, 2004, I forwarded the recovered e-mail to Ms. DeFreitas.

It is clear that Mak would have you believe that he was able to find only one of Mazza's allegedly deleted emails. However, shortly after this affidavit Mak was forced to admit that he did not find this email in Mazza's email box on line or on the backup tapes. He had to admit that he actually found it in the active email box of Niki Browne who had forwarded it to Mazza and who had no reason to delete it.

While this means that Mak made a false statement in his affidavit, the truly bizarre fact about Mak's description of his e-mail search is that it is a total fabrication and a physical impossibility.

Each backup tape would have taken at least two hours to search, assuming no problems, and he claims to have searched 27 backup tapes. It is clearly impossible to have searched 27 backup tapes in three hours. It would have taken him at least 54 straight hours to perform the search. Just putting your hands on 27 tapes in three hours would have been a miracle, never mind down loading them and searching them for specific info. Mak never provided any documentation verifying the search.

During a subsequent deposition, Kin Mak, under advice of counsel, refused to answer any questions about the search. The deposition was ordered because Mak told Niki Browne that he had found many incriminating e-mails and that Mazza, DeFreitas, and Baksh were all dirty. This occurred on October 12, 2006 at NYCERS and in the phone calls later that evening and during the next three days. During the deposition, Mak attempted to deny having had these phone conversations but when presented with phone records, he changed his testimony.

What do we have now? For the last five years the city has been paying four city officials who are most likely guilty of criminal acts involving their official duties. DOI is facing the serious possibility of a corrupt investigator who suppressed evidence of perjury and conspired with a target to hide evidence during an investigation. NYCERS has three corrupt employees, a HR director who is perjurer, a legal director who hides evidence and lures another employee into making false statements, and a senior IT manager who allowed himself to be drawn into a conspiracy and then forced to commit perjury.

It is actually perverse that Mazza and Baksh are responsible for the termination of dozens of NYCERS employees. One of those employees is actually being terminated for wearing jeans for one day to work after an office fire.