Investigation of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

Recommendations

Info

Commission’s first Association complaint (FN: The Waterfront Rulesand Regulations allow the Commission to revoke the license orregistration of any covered employee who associates with a memberof organized crime.) was filed and served this week with many moreto come. This regulation has never been used before by theCommission and prior attempts to do so were ended by theCommission’s Executive staff. Additionally, the Commission’s legalstaff has just employed Section 8 (FN: Section Eight forbids anyonewith a felony conviction from holding an ILA union position thatsubstantially affects the Port of New York) to compel the ILA todismiss their General Vice President for its Atlantic Coast Divisionbecause of prior felony convictions including a federal racketeeringconviction. Several members of the Commission were aware of thesituation for at least 9 years but took no action until the open matterturned up in a case review. The Legal Division, acting incoordination with the Police Division, has begun investigatinginstances of Workmen’s Compensation fraud by dock workers. Theprevious administration had, for unclear reasons, discouraged (if notforbidden) investigations in this area. This initiative is alreadyproducing results. Two Howland Hook longshoremen have beenarrested and indicted on federal mail and wire fraud charges inconnection with half million dollar scam. The Division of Law hasestablished a Stevedore Review Unit that has begun examiningmembers of the industry (FN: Including ASA Apple). Rather than acursory review of the company’s executive staff as done in the past,the Unit closely looks at who the company voluntarily employs anddoes business with (i.e.: who picks up their trash, does their snowremoval, cleaning, container repair etc.). Because organized criminalgroups often extract payment from companies by compelling acompany to hire uncovered employees or by over charging for basicservices like trash removal, this is critically important. The unit iscomprised of Assistant Counsels, Police Detectives, Auditors andIntelligence Analysts.C. AUDIT AND CONTROL DIVISIONFailure to Address ViolationsThe Inspector General learned that, in addition to being woefully behind schedule,there was no coordinated response to audit violations actually identified.Audit staff stated that, when a payroll audit identified additional monies owed tothe Commission, the Director of Audit and Control was responsible for sendingassessment letters to the company. In contrast, then-Law Division Director Joy Kellystated that it was her division’s responsibility to send letters of assessment to the29
offending companies, although Kelly was aware that former Audit and Control DirectorNastasi would send such letters without notifying the Law Division.The Inspector General also learned that there existed little to no communicationbetween the auditors assigned to audit a specific company and the assistant counsel whowas responsible for making a licensing recommendation to the Commissioners regardingthat company.Finally, the Inspector General found that some violations identified in auditreports were apparently never addressed. When completed compliance audits revealedviolations, they were included in the final report and sent to the Waterfront Commission’sother divisions. Both the audit staff and then-Law Division Director Kelly informed theInspector General that the Law Division then addresses violations as appropriate.However, former senior Assistant Counsel Brian McCann, who had supervisoryresponsibilities within the Law Division, stated that the division, in fact, does nothingwith the violation findings it receives from Audit and Control.Inadequate Supervision of Audit StaffFrank Nastasi was an employee of the Waterfront Commission for 37 years, untilhis retirement in February 2008. Audit and Control employees described Nastasi as adirector who failed to impose structure on his division and remained largely inaccessibleto his staff. A great deal of autonomy was given to audit staff members, with littleoversight on the part of Nastasi. Staff members were unsure if Nastasi ever read auditreports or forwarded them to the appropriate division heads throughout the WaterfrontCommission. Staff members speculated that Nastasi had lost interest in managing thedivision. According to the majority of the auditors, Nastasi’s door was always closed,and often locked during the workday. Many employees had never been inside his office;they testified that Nastasi usually met with them at his doorway.Nastasi allowed auditors to conduct their work primarily from the field, and tocomplete reports either from home or at the Waterfront Commission’s field offices. As aresult, auditors were rarely present at the New York City headquarters to interact withother staff, and were unsupervised. Nastasi had no method, aside from periodic phonecalls, to monitor auditors’ progress and to prevent staff problems such as time abuse.Nastasi not only permitted auditors to remain indefinitely at their assigned fieldlocations, but also permitted auditors to choose those locations themselves. Furthermore,Nastasi permitted auditors to choose which audits they wished to conduct and typicallyan auditor would choose a company most convenient to his residence. As a result, theaudit staff did not rotate among companies but rather, individual auditors reviewed thesame companies repeatedly. An auditors’ ongoing relationships with the same companiesis poor audit practice, as it may encourage collusion, and negates the possibility ofregular peer review.30
Page 1 and 2: State of New YorkOffice of the Insp
Page 3 and 4: STAFF FOR THIS INVESTIGATION AND RE
Page 5 and 6: Personal Use of Waterfront Commissi
Page 7 and 8: mandated core responsibilities. 2 T
Page 9 and 10: enforcement officer, he was hired a
Page 11 and 12: II. BACKGROUNDHistoryIn the early 1
Page 13 and 14: Commission regulates the employment
Page 15 and 16: There was virtually no communicatio
Page 17 and 18: and, therefore, the Waterfront Comm
Page 19 and 20: did identify individual instances o
Page 21 and 22: Maria that he “should have been m
Page 23 and 24: Q.: Why did it change?Deutsch: Beca
Page 25 and 26: all the things that has gone on wit
Page 27 and 28: Police Division. That testimony not
Page 29 and 30: had been completed within the curre
Page 31 and 32: epercussions of his felony convicti
Page 33: Michael DeCotiis testified to the I
Page 37 and 38: Web sites were blocked by software
Page 39 and 40: At all of the police academies, the
Page 41 and 42: epresenting the Waterfront Commissi
Page 43 and 44: training facility has been created
Page 45 and 46: Madonna’s other recommended candi
Page 47 and 48: Madonna denied providing the exam t
Page 49 and 50: which car they would drive, they ne
Page 51 and 52: F. ABUSE OF PUBLIC RESOURCESPersona
Page 53 and 54: A Waterfront Commission Vehicle Was
Page 55 and 56: Wolf also attempted to disclaim res
Page 57 and 58: determining the outstanding forfeit
Page 59 and 60: non-federal share of expense, and t
Page 61 and 62: comptroller received this informati
Page 63 and 64: Commissioner Madonna compelled the
Page 65 and 66: Fiscal Management• The Commission
Page 67: JON S. CORZINEState GovernorOFFICE

Investigation of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?