Monday, March 16, 2009

Finance commish moonlighted illegally

From the NY Post:

The city gave secret permission to Finance Commissioner Martha Stark to moonlight at a real-estate company -- despite rules forbidding department heads to engage in outside employment, The Post has learned.

Stark, 48 - who makes a $189,700 salary as the city's chief of real-estate assessment and tax collection - works on the side at Tarragon Corp., a Manhattan-based company that builds apartment complexes in New Jersey, Connecticut and several other states.

Tarragon paid her $90,316 in 2007 and $44,126 in 2006, company filings show. That included $104,000 in cash plus stocks and stock options.

No other city commissioner or department head enjoys a similar outside gig, officials said.


Since the Post's article was printed, the Commissioner has resigned from her second job. She should have resigned from the first instead.

17 comments:

Maspethian said...

I see no conflict of interest here. Move along.

Taxpayer said...

This is the same Tax Collector who obstinately refused to void the ticket given to the priest (Fr. Cletus Forson, of St. Andrew the Apostle) who was administering the Last Rites to a 65-year old woman about to undergo emergency surgery.

The ticket was issued although Father Forson had placed his "Clergy on Call" placard on the dashboard. Surely the tax collector Stark had used such a similar placard to abuse the parking rules.

This incident occurred in August, 2006.

Clearly, this Tax Collector was much too busy violating the city charter to give this ticket ($115) any attention.

Anonymous said...

Not only that but she closed that time cheater guy's investigation because his wife worked in her department. Remember the Deutzman story?

lino said...

The greater problem is that these individuals come from, and return to the industries they once regulated.

This is a core issue in: rent regulation, DOB, HHC, Health inspectors.

At least the CCRB is an open sham.

Aghast in Glendale said...

This is a damn disgrace. "Secret permission"? What the f is that? Reminds me of the City Council slush fund scandal. What else is being kept from the public?? Keep digging, follow the $$$!

She should have resigned from her city job. Then, you would quickly see that she would have been of no value to the firm that hired her, and she would have been let go. Quid f-ing pro quo. The arrogance of power!

Anonymous said...

BRING IN THE FEDS!

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter....the real estate industry (Mayor Bloom-turd's) pals run NYC anyway!

Why...
do you think a humble resident actually has a say in NYC's future?

Your opinion (due to a lack of influential $$$$$) amounts to just a fart in a windstorm!

Wade Nichols said...

Well, just look at our illustrious "finance" commissioner. Should we really hold her to the same standards that we expect everyone else to abide by? Or, should we lower our expectations, because she's an "oppressed woman of color"?

But at least we can all get some happiness out of this ridiculous story, and I'm happy to say "SCHADENFREUDE!!" I just checked out the stock price for Tarragon, it closed at 1 Cent! on Friday!

Looks like our "finance commissioner" ought to go back to college and re-take some of those investing classes that she obviously slept through.

There are 12 year old kids that know more about finance than this dim-witted 8 ball.

Astounded said...

I must say this site is a wonderful education in Corruption 101 and Advanced Crapology. Thank you, professor! (And I second the call to bring in the f-ing Feds!!)

Anonymous said...

Where does it say this was illegal?

Taxpayer said...

Anonymous said...
"Where does it say this was illegal?"

The City Charter. NYC's equivalent to the constitution. That's in the posting. You have to be able to read.

Why didn't her boss (Commissar D&T) know? He claims he was not told. Horseshit!

He could have known and should have known. He knew!

To claim he was ignorant is a claim that he is not in control - as a mayor is required - of the subordinate agencies. That his subordinates give him the finger with impunity.

Elsewise, he knew. And is corrupt. How much did Stark have to kickback for coverage?

Anonymous said...

The City Law Department cleared this and said it wasn't inconsistent with the City Charter. I don't think this was appropriate, but, as usual, Crapper misstates a headline. No one says this was illegal.
Maybe Taxpayer should graduate 3rd grade before he comments.

-A Bigger Taxpayer

Anonymous said...

That's funny, the City always loves to point to the Charter as giving them legal authority when they want to ram something down the taxpayers' throats. I guess when they don't adhere to the charter it's verboten to call their behavior "illegal", though.

Enough with the semantics. Why not just say that this stinks?

- The Biggest Taxpayer

Anonymous said...

It does stink, but Crapper shouldn't screw up his own argument again by accusing someone of doing something illegal if they haven't.

The Biggest Taxpayer? In NYC, on an individual basis, that is probably Mike Bloomberg. I doubt it is you.

Taxpayer said...

Anonymous says:
"The City Law Department cleared this and said it wasn't inconsistent with the City Charter. I don't think this was appropriate, but, as usual, Crapper misstates a headline. No one says this was illegal.
Maybe Taxpayer should graduate 3rd grade before he comments."

When several bank robbers plan to steal from another bank, they will convince each other that the more often they rob a bank, the more legal it becomes.

That's how the criminal mind works. They have to delude themselves and others that breaking the law is actually beneficial; certainly not illegal.

The City Law Department simply conspired with Stark to violate the law set in writing in the City Charter.

I knew this was illegal even in kindergarten. And, until you show your complete tax filings for at least 3 years, I am THE Taxpayer, you are the pretender.

Your comments indicate you suffer from infantile analysis.

Anonymous said...

"Infantile"? This from the man who has to childishly insult people who disagree with him.

Believe me, I pay more in taxes than you do.

Taxpayer said...

Anonymous said...
""Infantile"? This from the man who has to childishly insult people who disagree with him.

Believe me, I pay more in taxes than you do."

I never insult anyone who disagrees with me. I love the challenge of disagreement.

Now, I DO love to insult those who are disagreeable, and make infantile remarks.

If you can make any assertion and show the supporting facts, you're the greatest.

Make an inane assertion just to be contrary (demonstrating that you're a moron), and my insult juices run high.

An inane assertion such as? "Believe me, I pay more in taxes than you do."

Prove it or be silent, drink your bottle and take a nap. Mommy will change your diaper later.