Patricia Lancaster Responds to Daily News' Charges
Yesterday’s Daily News article about the deal Patricia Lancaster cut with Robert Scarano certainly did its best to make it sound like something improper had occurred when the DOB head agreed not to reveal any of the details of its Scarano investigation to any other regulatory agencies or the press in return for the architect’s…
Yesterday’s Daily News article about the deal Patricia Lancaster cut with Robert Scarano certainly did its best to make it sound like something improper had occurred when the DOB head agreed not to reveal any of the details of its Scarano investigation to any other regulatory agencies or the press in return for the architect’s voluntarily giving up the right to self-cerify. Noticeably absent from the article, however, was any perspective that might explain Lancaster’s side of the story. As one commenter on Brownstoner put it yesterday, “I couldn’t tell whether I was supposed to think she was aiding and abetting a criminal or just cutting an expedient deal the way a prosecutor might.” A it turns out, the latter’s exactly the defense that the DOB put forth in an email to us last night. Likening the stipulation to a plea bargain, the DOB argues that it was the most expedient way to get Scarano out of the Professional Certification Program; on top of that, the department argues, the State already knew about Scarano’s alleged misdeeds at the time of the stipulation and it had “no practical impact whatsoever” on the State’s ability to go after Scarano. While we’ve certainly been critical of the DOB in many instances in the past, this seems like a pretty reasonable explanation. In the end, what possible reason would Lancaster have to coddle Scarano given what a high profile case it was? It just doesn’t make sense.
Buildings Chief Hid Architect’s Mistakes [NY Daily News]
Daily News: DOB Chief Buried Scarano’s Blunders [Brownstoner]
Photo by Thomas Moncaster for The Daily News
Blow it out your A
O-kay, eight-oh-three! Now all you need is a plaintiff and counsel up to the task. In the absense of same, I argue that you’re just blowing smoke.
I agree whole heartedly with Action Jackson.
What the DOB did was not done to expedite anything but the cover up of the DOB’s complicity in ALL the illegal actions involving Scarano and all the people involved with him. That includes Henry Radusky, who’s plans Scarrano signed off on.
Lancaster and the rest were only covering their own butts. Just like they have done with Radusky and the others who have been allowed by DOB to violate the “administrative code” on a daily basis.
They should all (DOB, Scarrano, Radusky, Katan, Boymelgreen, Mendlshit and the rest) be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
As I stated yesterday, this was a negotiated plea deal (similar to Henry Radusky’s in 2003) so that DOB would drop it’s OATH case. The OATH hearing, if it went against Scarano, could have opened the civil flood gates against him for sites he professional certified (now shut down or delayed by DOB) from the developers and GC’s he was working with…let alone the affected neighbors, communities and, oh wait, the families of the dead workers.
It was in Scarano’s best interest. There is also the thought that DOB may have “done the deal” since if Scarnao was not found at fault (or even if he was) it could be argued that DOB had culpability in his illegal ways since they allowed him to get away with it for 5+ years.
Now, that’s a story. Anyone at the NYDN reading this?
DOB does not license architects. The State does. DOB cannot revoke architects licenses. The State can.
DOB cannot rescind the privilege to self certify without due process. Due process takes forever… DOB wanted him to stop self certifying quick so they probably agreed to not refer him directly to State, knowing the State was already investigating. Why hasn’t the State revoked his license?
Go DeBlassio!!!!!!!
Here’s a theory: despite all the allegations, DOB thought it was going to be difficult to prove that Scarano intentionally self-certified plans that he knew were illegal (as opposed to arguable interpretations of the zoning resolution and building code) and cut this deal…the ministerial version of a plea bargain.
Of course the DOB cannot revoke an architect license. Lets not try to confuse issues. We are talking about self certifying and DOB can prevent Scarano Architects, as a whole, from doing any self certification.
No the DoB does not have the authority to rescind someone’s architectural license. New York State licenses architects, and I believe only the state can pull somebody’s license to practice architecture in that state.
on a related topic, I don’t really understand how pulling Scarano’s ability to self-certify would have any effect on him – I think he can just get another registered architect in his office (presumably a well-compensated employee) to sign and seal the documents, and perform the self-certification