Roosevelt Island Resident Frank Farance On Selection Process for RIOC Board Members - Disagrees With Direction Taken By RIRA

As reported in this post earlier today, Roosevelt Island's NY State Senator Jose Serrano and RIOC Chair/NY State Commissioner of Housing and Community Renewal (HCR) Darryl Towns met yesterday regarding the appointment of a conflict ridden, non-elected, non-resident to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Board of Directors. Former Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) President and current RIRA Planning Committee Chair Frank Farance sent the following message to Senator Serrano and Commissioner Towns.

From Mr. Farance:

Commissioner Towns, Senator Serrano:

You will be hearing from other residents soon and I (as an individual) am writing to you to give a different perspective on the RIOC Board situation.

I sent the following letter to the Main Street WIRE for publication this week. I've included my letters in June to the WIRE and the Governor. I plan a couple more letters, including one on the "incompetent" actions of the RIOC Board: their letter to the Governor (published in the WIRE) on legal assertions by the 5 resident/elected members, none of them attorneys, no legal review; and another letter on the dysfunction of RIRA, who should not be involved in any elections process because RIRA chose to NOT have 2010 RIOC elections and RIRA can't even manage its own internal elections, e.g., Bill Long was not legitimately appointed in RIRA.

Feel free to contact me for additional details and supporting documents.

Frank Farance

Below is Mr. Farance's referenced letter.

I believe the Democracy subcommittee of RIRA's Government Relations Committee is heading in the wrong direction. I believe the RIOC director process should be as follows (a process administered by RIOC, not RIRA):

- The expiration of terms should be regularized, with 4-year terms expiring on June 30 in odd years and staggered expirations so only half the board expires at the same time

- To fill board member positions (vacancy, expiration, etc.), there should be a Call For Volunteers (CFV), including a list of desirable qualifications.

- After the CFV, there would be a 30-day public comment period on the candidates. For example, residents could fill out a form (at the RIOC office) that indicated their Approval, Disapproval, and Comments for each of the candidates. The results would be tallied and the comments delivered to the Governor (and Mayor). This would not be an election, but a CFV with an endorsement process.

- The balance of 5 resident members and 2 other members (with no residency requirements) is a good balance for striking a partnership with the Governor's office. Considering that RIOC might be bankrupt in 2021, it does not serve the residents well to Take All The Marbles (all 7 board members) and then have to ask the State for a bailout a decade later when the Governor-then could say "you've refused to allow me to help by limiting my selection of board members". I believe it is important for the Governor to have a freedom to choose who he/she wants for these other 2 positions, which builds a sense of partnership.

- Although I would ultimately like to see direct elections for the 5 resident members, we (the residents) have messed this up ourselves, including our choosing not to have 2010 elections (where candidates would have be ready for the present expired positions), having our own substantial conflicts of interest (via privatization of Mitchell-Lama buildings), and the poor judgment shown by the 5 resident-elected directors' letter to the Governor (published in the WIRE). Direct election should wait until *after* the privatization efforts have completed.

I note that the significant conflicts of interest of Rivercross members of the RIOC Board. For example, Margie Smith (who stands to gain a half million to a million dollars on the sale of her apartment) is herself part of the decision-making process, including Chair of RIOC's Governance Committee, yet she participated in RIRA activities seeking legislation to change the composition of the RIOC Board and appointment of the RIOC President. Ms. Smith presently participates in the RIRA Democracy committee, including reviewing/revising letters to the Governor. All three members of RIOC's Real Estate Advisory Committee are also from Rivercross (not good for Rivercross, not good for Island House or Westview either). Privatization is necessary for the remaining WIRE Mitchell-Lama buildings, which means some profits are made. I don't begrudge the profits made by RIOC board members from Rivercross, I am greatly concerned by the severe conflicts of interest in this financial transaction.

In other words, New Yorkers might believe: this a self-dealing transaction were board members of a public authority get to choose how much money they make (each on the order of a half million to a million dollars); the chair of the public authority's governance committee is conflicted (and submits her own legislation on the public authority, and hosts a fundraiser in her own apartment for that legislator); and all of the committee members of the public authority's real estate committee have the same financial conflict. Something is wrong here.

The problem here on Roosevelt Island is that we can only believe that Residents Do Good and Non-Residents Don't Do Good. For example, Bill Long the "interim" chair of the RIRA Government Relations Committee (note: RIRA has no such process for "interim" chairs) focuses the residents on Dr. Fererra's conflicts but ignores Ms. Smith's even more substantial conflicts with: "No, the situations are not similar. Margie doesn't work for an organization the leases space from RIOC. Margie hasn't stated her intention to lease additional space that is subject to the Master Lease to which RIOC is a party.". So because Ms. Smith is an owner (but not a worker) in Rivercross and because she hasn't asked for *more* space (she would be selling her apartment), her situation is acceptable. Mr. Long wouldn't last a millisecond in a corporate ethics committee. However, his thinking representative of the faulty thinking in this RIRA committee.

In these RIRA committees, the culture is very hostile towards any opinions outside the echo chamber. For example, when asked, because of an upcoming committee vote, "Could you list the members of the Government Relations Committee and the members of its Democracy subcommittee?", RIRA Communications Committee Chair Vini Fortuna responds in rage using an internet Rage Generator for posting the cartoon "Frank is a Troll". Ellen Polivy incoherently supports his rage with "Vinnie, by the way had every right to be pissed at you. You were asking him, in a back handed insulting way, for him to do his job." You can see my exact words, there was no back-handed insult. Ms. Smith, who should NOT be participating at all in the RIRA committee, doesn't like differing opinions "Frank, since you’re not on our side, you don't agree with our approach, and we're all so misguided, for God's sake, have the guts/class to drop out of the group and let us get on with our work." Mr. Long supports this kind of abusive culture because he offers no objection.

Your residents at work.

Frank Farance

Here is Mr. Farance's  June letter to the Governor and the letter by 5 of the 6 RIOC Director's letter to the Governor.

RIRA's Governance Committee Chairperson Bill Long responds to Mr. Farance:

It is obvious that Frank and I disagree on a number of issues related to the election of RIOC board members. I will limit my response to just one example.

Regarding asking the governor to appoint board members from elected candidates, Frank's letter said that residents "have messed this up ourselves, [by] choosing not to have 2010 elections". Frank seems to believe because we didn't hold elections before, we are not entitled to petition the governor to honor elections now. My response is "Who says?" In hindsight, it was a mistake not to hold elections last year. But that mistake doesn't mean that we must forever relinquish our rights to have a voice in our government. That seems obvious to me, but Frank doesn't see it that way.

My position has not changed. RIOC is effectively our municipal government and residents have a right to have a say in who runs RIOC. An election is the most successful "call for volunteers" that any free society has ever tried. Let's stick with it.