At the end of June I posted a story about perjury by the HR director at NYCERS and the involvement of the legal director at NYCERS and the investigator at DOI. The following is a portion of deposition given by the NYCERS legal director, Karen Mazza, in November, 2006. She earns approximately $162,000/yr. The testimony deals directly with her involvement with these apparently improper activities surrounding the perjury.
Just a reminder. When someone answers that he/she can not remember, there is the possibility that he/she is withholding information in a way that does not perjure him/herself. It is the classic sign of a non-cooperating witness.
Portions of the Mazza Deposition from November 21, 2006
Page 59
Q.: Do you have any current recollection
that you advised the DOI investigators that you
had deleted the Baksh revision E-mails?
A. No, I don't have any recollection.
Q. We have had marked as Exhibit 23 to the
DeFreitas deposition 0745, a summary of a
conversation in which it appears that you advised
DOI on that date, July 22, 2004, that you had
deleted the Baksh resume E-mails.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Does this refresh your recollection
that your first statement to DOI about revising
the Baksh resumes was subsequent to your testimony
on July 13, 2004?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
You mean about deleting E-mails?
Have your question read back.
MS. CARROLL: Read it back.
(Record read.)
Q. You have looked at Exhibit 23?
A. Yes.
Q. It is a fact, is it not, that July 22,
2004 is the first time you tell DOI that you
(Page 60)
deleted the Baksh resumes that indicate your
actions with respect to that resume?
MR. MARKS: The E-mails.
MS. CARROLL: Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. You never mention the E-mail deletion
prior to July 22, 2004 to DOI, right?
A. No.
Q. That is correct?
A. That is correct.
MS. CARROLL: Mark this E-mail dated
7/29/04 as Mazza Exhibit 3.
(Mazza Exhibit 3, E-mail dated 7/29/04,
marked for identification, as of this date.)
Q. I will direct your attention to the
upper part of the memo.
What do you mean you're uncomfortable
if anybody in-house asks to see your deleted
E-mails; uncomfortable about what?
A. I wanted to know if anybody else was
asking to look at those deleted E-mails.
Q. That wasn't my question. I understand
that. That is what it says. My question to you
is, why were you uncomfortable about this
Page 61
information being recoverable, the deleted
E-mails?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
A. I wasn't uncomfortable with it being
recoverable. I was uncomfortable with other
people asking to see it.
Q. I am reading what you wrote. "I am
somewhat uncomfortable with this info being
recoverable." That is not my words. That is what
it says here.
My question is, when you wrote this,
why did you say that? What were you uncomfortable
with about having this information, that is the
deleted E-mails, being recoverable?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
A. That is not -- what I wrote is not what
I meant. When I say recoverable, I meant being
seen by somebody else.
Q. Well, you couldn't see it if it wasn't
recovered.
A. Right.
Q. Why were you uncomfortable that the
E-mails that you had deleted would be seen by
somebody else "in-house"? Why?
Page 62
A. My purpose in writing that paragraph
was, we were in the middle of a DOI investigation
and I wanted to know if anybody else was asking
Kin to show them my deleted E-mails.
Q. You're not answering my question.
I asked you, using your own words, why
were you uncomfortable with this information being
recoverable. I am asking you why.
A. I answered you and said that –
Q. No, you haven't answered me. Why were
you uncomfortable; because it would show that you
doctored a resume?
A. No.
Q. Why were you uncomfortable; because you
deleted E-mails and it related to a subject that
you were sitting on a panel?
A. What I said to you in my answer
previously was that what I wrote is not what I
meant.
Q. You're a lawyer, Ms. Mazza. The trade
of a lawyer is the usage of words. I want to
know, what did you mean when you used the words, I
am somewhat uncomfortable with this information
being recoverable? At that time, what did you
Page 63
mean?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
Q. What did you mean?
A. What I meant was, I want to know if
Mr. Murphy was asking to see my deleted E-mails.
That is what I meant.
Q. Did you tell DeFreitas or Kin Mak or
anybody that you were concerned that Mr. Murphy
would see your deleted E-mails?
A. No.
Q. Why Mr. Murphy?
A. Because we were in the middle of a DOI
investigation.
Q. Why shouldn't DOI get the deleted
E-mails regarding the allegation that you doctored
the Baksh resume?
A. I didn't say DOI shouldn't get the
E-mails.
Q. Well, they couldn't get them because
you deleted them, right?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
Q. Isn't that right; DOI couldn't get the
E-mails regarding the Baksh resume because you
deleted them, right?
Page 64
A. Correct.
Q. There was an effort to try to retrieve
the deleted E-mails, isn't that right? DOI was
trying to retrieve them?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, your testimony that there was
no back-up tapes, that is incorrect; isn't that
right?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
A. There are back-up tapes but only for a
certain amount of time.
Q. The statement that there were no
back-up tapes is inaccurate?
MR. MARKS: That is not what she
testified to. You asked whether she testified
there were back-up tapes on which the E-mail
tapes would be on, not whether the agency has
any back-up tapes, period.
MS. CARROLL: We will go back over it.
Q. At or about the time that the inquiry
was being made by DOI, there were back-up tapes
for E-mails; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, there were back-up tapes for
Page 65
E-mails going back a year; isn't that right?
A. That, I don't know.
Q. Then you can't give testimony that
there weren't, right? There is a difference
between if you know a thing or you're guessing.
In 2004, whether or not there were
back-up tapes for the E-mails you deleted, your
testimony is that you don't know, right?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
A. I know there were not because when they
tried to find them, they couldn't find them.
Q. How do you know that? How do you know
that they couldn't find them?
A. Because I was told by DOI.
Q. Who told you in DOI that Kin Mak could
not get back-up tapes for your deleted E-mails?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you have contact with somebody
other than DeFreitas during the course of the
investigation of the allegation against you
regarding the revision of the Baksh resume?
A. There was Alberta Ancrum also working
on that case.
Q. Anybody else?
Page 66
A. Vinnie Green was also working on the
case.
Q. Did you have conversation with any of
those people, Ancrum, Green or DeFreitas,
regarding the matter of whether there were back-up
tapes for the deleted E-mails?
A. Someone from DOI told me they could not
recover the E-mails.
Q. They told you this verbally or in an
E-mail?
A. I believe it was verbally.
Q. You're the subject of one of the
allegations, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Your testimony is that you deleted
E-mails regarding the revision of the Baksh
resume, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You're telling me that with respect to
the issue of whether there were back-up tapes
which would produce the E-mails that documented
what, in fact, you did, DOI tells you, the
subject, that the back-up tapes don't exist?
A. Yes.
Page 67
Q. Did DOI also tell you whoever it was of
these three, Ancrum, Green or DeFreitas, that they
couldn't obtain the deleted E-mails from the fire
department E-mail system?
A. No.
MR. MARKS: I will let you go on with
this questioning --
MS. CARROLL: We are getting to it --
MR. MARKS: This is a case brought by
Mr. Murphy concerning defamation.
MS. CARROLL: This is very much into
the legally being a reckless disregard for the
truth.
Q. Why were you concerned that Mr. Murphy
would have access to the deleted E-mails if the
back-up was discovered, the back-up files?
A. I was just concerned.
Q. It is a fact, is it not, that you at no
time during the interview process for HR director
told Mr. Murphy that you had revised Baksh's
resume?
A. I didn't tell Mr. Murphy that I had
been asked to look at Felita's suggestions for --
Q. You tracked things and moved things
Page 68
around, right?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
A. I didn't move things around. I made
suggestions about what --
Q. -- for moving things around.
A. Correct.
Q. When you testified at DOI, you
testified that you didn't know whether or not
Baksh had, in fact, adopted your suggestions;
isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. But, in fact, you had as a member of
the panel the Baksh resume that she submitted for
the position, right?
A. Yes.
Q. By reference to the E-mails that you
had which included the original resume and the
resume that she submitted to the panel, you in
fact uniquely did have access to the information
that would answer that question?
MR. MARKS: Objection to form.
A. If I still had the E-mail in my E-mail
box.
Q. There is no question, Ms. Mazza, that
Page 69
as of the time of the interview which was only a
brief period after you received the E-mail from
Browne that you still had the Baksh-related
E-mails, right? Isn't that right?
A. I may have.
Q. The date of Exhibit 22 to the DeFreitas
deposition is dated January 28, 2004. This is
from Baksh to Browne which gets forwarded to you,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. This E-mail existed at the time that
Baksh was, in fact, interviewed, isn't that
correct? You didn't delete the E-mails between
January of 2004 and the date of the interviews?
A. I don't know when I deleted the
E-mails.
Q. You have no recollection that it
postdated the actual interview by Baksh?
A. I don't know when I deleted the
E-mails.
Q. Did you talk to the NYCERS trustees or
anybody else at NYCERS about these tapes, the
back-up tapes for the E-mails?
A. No.
Page 70
Q. You said Jodi Nagel resigned.
Was she on maternity leave?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she have to resign because she was
on maternity leave?
A. It was just something Ms. Nagel, now
Mrs. Rodman, decided to stay home and be a
stay-at-home mom.
Q. Subsequent to your interview at DOI,
did you have any contact with any of the trustees
regarding the investigation? And I include
Bratcher in this question.
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you speak with Ms. Stark regarding
the matter?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you send any E-mails to anyone
additional to DeFreitas regarding the
investigation of the allegations in the anonymous
letter?
A. I don't remember.
Q. In addition to the E-mails concerning
the Baksh resume, did you delete other E-mails?
A. I am sorry. Say that again.
Page 71
MS. CARROLL: Read it back.
(Record read.)
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did you ever speak with Musaraca
subsequent to the time that you testified at DOI?
A. I speak to Mr. Musaraca frequently.
Q. That is a silly question. Sorry.
Prior to the DOI report coming out and
subsequent to your testimony, did you speak to
Musaraca?
A. Mr. Musaraca, yes. He is one of my
trustees.
Q. Did you speak to him about the
investigation of the anonymous letter at any time
between July 13, 2004 and March 1, 2005 when the
DOI report came out?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with
him about the allegations against you subsequent
to testifying and prior to the DOI report?
A. I really don't remember.
Q. What about E-mails?
A. I really don't remember.
Q. Would you have your E-mails from that
Page 72
period?
A. No.
Q. You destroyed all the E-mails?
MR. MARKS: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any back-up name for them?
A. I don't know.
Q. When did you first see the DOI report
on the allegations raised in the June 1 anonymous
letter?
A. The day of the trustees meeting.
Q. At the trustees meeting?
A. No.
Q. What were the circumstances?
A. A copy of it was left in my office.
Q. By whom?
A. I have no idea.
Q. When?
A. The morning of the trustees meeting.
Q. Prior to the meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Without any indication as to who left
it there?
A. It was on my chair.
Page 73
Q. I want to make sure I have this exactly
correct.
On March 1, 2005, there is a DOI
report. The records in this case indicate that
there was a meeting on March 10, 2005 on that
report. It is your testimony that on the morning
of March 10, 2005, there is a copy of the DOI
report on your chair?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any conversation with any
of the trustees prior to March 10, 2005 regarding
the fact that that there was a DOI report?
A. I don't remember.
Q. When you saw this DOI report on your
chair on March 10, did you know prior to that that
there had been a determination by DOI?
A. I think so.
Q. How did you first find out there was a
DOI determination on the allegations raised in the
June 1 anonymous letter?
A. I know I spoke to Vinnie Green that
week, in that time period. He told me they were
coming out with a report, but I don't remember
when it was.
Page 74
Q. Did he tell you what the conclusion
was?
A. He told me they were referring the
allegation regarding me to COIB.
Q. Vinnie Green is Vincent Green?
A. Yes.
Q. He called you or you called him?
A. He called me.
Q. You were a subject of the
investigation.
Why was he speaking to you?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
Q. Before the report was issued.
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you have a personal relationship
with him?
A. No.
Q. Well, you're a subject. He is
investigating you.
Why did he tell you he was calling you
about it?
MR. MARKS: Objection to the form.
A. I don't know why he called me.
Q. Did he tell you that there were
Page 75
findings against Mr. Murphy in this conversation?
A. No.
Q. Was it one phone call or more?
A. One.
Q. When you got this phone call, what did
you do with that information?
A. Nothing.
Q. You didn't tell Mr. Murphy?
A. No.
Q. Did you speak to any of the trustees
about this?
A. No.
Q. Prior to the meeting on March 10, 2005
in which the DOI findings are discussed, you know
there is a letter. You know that they are
referring your part to COIB and you have no
conversation with any trustees; is that right?
A. I don't -- no, I don't.
Q. Not with Bratcher, not with Stark?
A. No.
MS. CARROLL: Let's take a break.
(Recess taken.)
Q. On the date of the March 10, 2005
trustees meeting which considers, among other…
