by veritas in Government Reform, Investigative Reports, Politics
Posted on December 2, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Last Modified on August 8, 2009 at 11:08 am
loading…
In 2003, I bought a multifamily home on Temple Street. Over the last five years, the city has seemed to be augmenting its revenue by issuing me one trash citation after another, often for no cause. I took this to my ward alderman, he told me that there was nothing that he could do. When I reached out to mayor’s office, I received no assistance. Subsequently, the Inspectional Services began targeting my property ruthlessly, especially Russell Koty, who issued multiple citations on the same day.
When I appealed these citations to the district court, the magistrate dismissed half of them. Instead of respecting the court’s decision, Russell Koty still kept all the citations in my account as originally issued. It was not after numerous phone calls, letters, and run-arounds between the city clerk’s office and the Inspectional Services, was the matter resolved.
A few months ago, someone dumped a used rug and some plastic bags in front of my property. I requested a hearing in response to the citation that I inevitably received. Three of my tenants attended the hearing with me, to give evidence that we were not responsible for the refuse left on my property.
Six other appellants were waiting to be heard, and all but one were people of color. And the fact that there were four people on the hearing board made me wonder how responsibly the $7,000 that I pay in taxes annually and $2,500 that I pay in water and sewer charges quarterly are being spent.
Ken Joyce, the hearing officer, stated in the presence of my tenants that he would dismiss the citation, but he subsequently sent me a letter stating that I was liable. When I tried to contact him, he refused direct communication. He then lied to the city clerk about his decision. Other members of the trash board supported his story.
When I took this matter to two other aldermen, as expected, they told me that there was nothing that they could do.
It has become clear to me that this city government is rife with nepotism and cronies who are willing to lie in order to protect each other’s misconduct and dishonesty. I can’t help but wonder if city government is corrupt as well, since these traits often go together.
Many Somerville citizens have been forced to tolerate real estate developments that bring down their neighborhoods because the developers are connected, or have been abused because they are willing to speak out, or are city employees who have been forced to work for the mayor’s election already know this. Those who don’t should talk to their neighbors.
loading…
I have independently investigated some of Lei’s claims and have found some evidence that confirms parts of her story and raises new questions in my mind about what happened.
Records obtained from the city clerk’s office on 12/3/08 establish that Lei’s property at 67 Temple Street received 22 citations since 2003 between Feb ’05 and Nov ’07. Of those, the district court reviewed 19 on 11/2/2007 of which 12 were abated (dismissed) and 7 were upheld (which she promptly paid 4 days later). Two of the remaining three citations were abated separately and the third was paid.
Although the records do not explain why certain citations were abated and others were upheld, the fact that more than half (14 out of 22) of the ones in this period were dismissed calls into question the quality and legitimacy of the inspections.
The records do not indicate the time delay between the district court’s decision and the point when the city updated the status of the abated citations.
The trash citation for the rug was issued on 8/14/08 and was appealed by Lei at a 10/16/08 hearing convened by municipal hearing officer Kenneth Joyce. One of Lei’s tenants confirmed to me by phone that he (the tenant) attended the hearing and was certain that Mr. Joyce promised to dismiss the citation, but then tried to enforce it afterwards.
A copy of the hearing notice signed by Mr. Joyce on the same date declares that he conducted the hearing and decided Lei was responsible because “The Appellant (Lei) failed to appear.” This directly contradicts the claim by Lei and the tenant whom I contacted. The original $50 fine was increased by a $10 late (demand) fee on 11/6/08 and is still outstanding.
In contrast to Lei’s claim, it does not appear that the city issued multiple citations on a single day. However, in three separate months (May ’06, Nov ’06, and Apr ’08), she did receive three citations per month. And two trash citatations were issued within five hours of each other between Oct 23-24, 2007 (one was abated, the other was not).
The records show that this property received 7 citations (all for trash) in 2008 including the one for the rug. All of these are outstanding and total $500 including $50 in late fees. Except for the one she contested , I wonder why Lei hasn’t paid or contested the remaining 6 fines for 2008? One of those 6 tickets was returned to the city by mail (why was it returned?).
In response to my email request for info on the citations from the city’s 311 office (constituent services), I received the following message on Mon 12/1/08:
The head of Inspectional Services is George Landers. Assuming Mr. Murphy faithfully reported what he heard from Mr. Landers, then Mr. Landers is not telling the truth about the outstanding citations. But what reason would he have to lie about that?
Interestingly, the city is quite adept at issuing citations, but it doesn’t seem to care about ensuring that those citations are paid. Although two years elapsed between the earliest citations in 2005 and the district court hearing in 2007, the city didn’t add a single late fee or lien. In 2008, the city started adding late fees, but hasn’t imposed any liens. This behavior isn’t consistent with a policy of enforcing municipal codes of health. What good is a citation if it can be ignored?
I have also received phone confirmation from Ward 4 Alderman and current VP of the BOA, Walter Pero that he last communicated with Lei about her concerns at least 2 years ago. He referred to her as an absentee landlord.
Interestingly, Lei’s citations have been issued by different agencies: Inspectional Services, the Board of Health, or the Department of Public Works (DPW). Here’s the Koty connection: Stan Koty is the head of the DPW, his wife Gay Koty was appointed Acting School Nurse Leader in Oct ’08 (listed under the Board of Health according to the city’s online employee address book, and their son Russell Koty who works in the Inspectional Services department under the Office of Planning & Community Development.
Lei’s claim about nepotism in city government can be further confirmed just by searching for the last name Koty or most of the Board of Aldermen’s last names in the city’s online employee address book.
As for conflicts of interest with developers, see the 11/23/2008 Boston Globe article about Ward 5 Alderman Sean O’Donovan in Alderman vs. neighbors, this time on Craigie St..
It takes a lot of courage for Lei Qin to speak out about her experiences of alleged mistreatment by city government. I hope this encourages others to come forward with their own stories. I’m also very interested to hear from any city employees who were “forced to work for the mayor’s election”.
My final thoughts:
(1) it is unnerving to see a Somerville property owner receive so many citations, many of which were either abated or unenforced. What reason would the city have to target Lei Qin in the first place?
(2) it is very strange that Lei and her tenants claim to have attended the Oct 16th hearing while the hearing officer, Mr. Joyce, claims they failed to appear.
(3) why would the head of Inspectional Services, George Landers claim there are no outstanding issues when there are 6 outstanding citations totaling $500?
If anyone would like my spreadsheet summarizing the citations at 67 Temple St., please email me at barry.rafkind(at)gmail.com
Your comments and questions are welcome!
loading...
Thanks to Barry – digging all this up is a slog and I appreciate the time and effort you put into it, and thanks to Lei Qin for going public with this. In spite of all the Somer this and Resi that, the city is very much ‘same old, same old.’ A few years ago I was approached by an immigrant business owner about what he felt were the inequities in how dumpster citations were given out – he felt that got them but connected folks with equal or greater mess didn’t. I advised him to get a digital camera with a time stamp and on the days that he got citations to take a picture of his dumpster and then all the other dumpsters on his street. I called the BOH and told them about his complaint and that I had given this advice. Miraculously, the citation rate dropped way off. I recommend that in the future Lei Qin do the same. Digital photos might not stand up in a court of law (just guessing), but documentation is very helpful.
The city should probably have some kind of digital snap shot technology in play when they slap the citations on. The down side – this would probably mean adding another job – “Digital Citation Recording Specialist, Grade 1″ – to the city payroll and another job for a Koty relative.
loading...
Thanks for sharing that story Alex. This illustrates that sometimes the mere threat of taking action is enough to change minds. Anyway, I wonder how the Kotys are connected in this city?
loading...
Barry & Alex,
Thanks for the comments. That said, when 22 citations were issued, fighting it requires a full time job, which I am already have so that I can keep up with mortgage, property taxes ($7000 and $8000-$10000 annually, respectively), of which a sustantial portion contributed to the over-staffed city payroll. In addition, Ken Joyce’ original version of story was that he found me liable at the hearing (he stated that to John Long, the city clerk); it is disturbing to learn that he changed it to my “no-show”. Even more disturbing that this kind of outrageous lies are allowed and encouraged in Somerville. This is a disgrace.
loading...
Barry’s Dec 6th independent investigation stated the following:
“The records show that this property received 7 citations (all for trash) in 2008 including the one for the rug. All of these are outstanding and total $500 including $50 in late fees. Except for the one she contested, I wonder why Lei hasn’t paid or contested the remaining 6 fines for 2008? One of those 6 tickets was returned to the city by mail (why was it returned?).”
Since the number of citations is more than what I have received, I contacted John Long at the City Clerk’s Office on December 15th, 2008 and learned that there were two additional citations issued on Oct 23rd, and Nov 17th, which were both mailed to a wrong address, and hence I have never received these two citations. It is worth noting that John Long manually entered my new address (change in July 2008) by error. When asked for a deadline to avoid additional penalty (including the late fees and demand fees), John could not provide me with an answer then. He also has repeatedly failed to return my phone calls. He did, however, later in December, mailed me a set of computer printouts, outlining the amounts and dates of 2008 citations. These printouts do not provide either specific reasons or proof for the fines. Given holidays and vacation time, I eventually received these printouts in January 2009.
It is worth noting that the one citation dated Nov 17th was issued by Russell Koty, for the amount of $100, twice as much as the standard amount. When question why double the penalty, Koty stated the prior citation was issued within 60 days (The one issued on Oct 23rd). This indicates that I am held doubly responsible for a prior violation that I was not even aware of. Koty furthur refused to alleviate the penalty even after being informed of the wrong address issue. (Note from prior postings about my prior encounters and citations received from Koty, and his family relationship with the DPW, since the last name Koty or most of the Board of Aldermen’s last names in the city’s online employee address book.)
From a variety of resources, including other local residents and realtors, areas with equal or greater mess have not received nearly as much penalty as I have. Why have I been the target?? Among those attended the Oct 16th 2008 trash hearing, six out of seven appellants were non-white. Note that Ken Joyce put a “no show” as my Oct 16th hearing result and found me liable, even if at the time of the hearing he said otherwise, which was witnessed by my tenants.
Finally, the appeal time frame is 21 days. This indicates that I will not be eligible for appeal for Oct 23rd and Nov 17th citations, even if I have never received the original citations to date, due John Long error in record keeping. I asked John two days ago for an extension of appeal time period, he said he could not promise me anything but would call me no late than Friday (today). Again, he failed to call. When I called his office a few times today, there were no answers.
Meanwhile, amidst a tough economy, my real estate taxes slight increased to even closer to $7000. Is such an increase aimed at a bigger and fatter city payroll?? I could have sat back and take a certain amount of abuse, but the serious of behaviors of the city employees crossed the line.
loading...
John Long did call me back at the end of the day today and extended the appeal time. This occured after my prior posting and I want to make sure it gets disclosed as well.
loading...
I have owned a condo in Somerville for 5 years and have lived in Somerville for 10 years total. I never had any problems with taxes, tickets etc until this past month when our condo building (4 units) got hit with a ridiculously high water bill. After endless conversations with rude and inarticulate people at the water department, my husband and I attended a hearing to dispute the bill on behalf of our entire building.
Naively, I expected a somewhat professional hearing. Wow. I have never encountered such bullying and sandbagging in my life. My husband, who is an attorney, said he had never encountered such unprofessionalism in his career.
The hearing ended and we still don’t have an answer to our questions. They told us that we could appeal further but that we would have no shot and then everyone laughed at us.
Is there no other recourse?? Has anyone else had this kind of experience and what did you do?
loading...
Thank you so much for this important report.
loading...
Sarah,
I am encouraged by individuals like you who have the guts to speak up. Although speaking the truth will rarely make one popular, especially in Somerville, it is the right thing to do. My advice to you is to reach out to local or regional media, e.g., newspaper or the internet, this way not only you can be heard, but also bring a necessary level of transparency in governance to the place we pay taxes and put the majority of our life savings.
Regards,
Lei
loading...