Police Car Investigation, Shew Update on LoHud

A MyRye.com call out to LoHud.com for these updates

Burning Car Leslie Korngold.

"City Police Commissioner William R. Connors said the Westchester County Cause and Origin Team is going over the vehicle that went up in flames in the 700 block of Boston Post Road to try to find a cause for the fire.

The Public Works Department started an examination of the Police Department's entire fleet Saturday after the 6:19 a.m. fire, Connors said.

The police officer driving the cruiser smelled smoke and discovered his trunk was on fire."

Shewgate and the "Pond Error" Theresa Juva.

"RYE – The city manager was worried that if he acknowledged the city made a mistake in the handling of a resident's dried-up pond, it could face a double lawsuit, according to claims in a new document from a former employee… Chantal Detlefs, the city naturalist until 2007, alleges in a written statement to the City Council that she spoke with City Manager Paul Shew after Bob Schubert of Forest Avenue complained that his 20,000-gallon pond was ruined after work on his neighbor's property… Shew declined to respond to the allegations yesterday. "Those are the assertions of the individual," he said, adding that "people can make their own informed judgment" based on all the case documents, which have been made public. He also referred The Journal News to Kevin Plunkett, the city attorney, who declined to discuss the allegations, saying it was a City Council matter."

RELATED ARTICLES

11 Comments

  1. Re the “Shew Update”:

    When will the next City Council installment be? After the unbiased hydrologist’s report?

    Thanks for the heads up on this, My Rye and many thanks to The Journal News’ Theresa Juva for her coverage!

  2. BB I agree with you on the excellent coverage by MyRye and Theresa Juva.

    Shew did not want to respond to the allegations. Well except to dispute Chantal’s statement. How convenient.

    Why haven’t Otis, Shew and Plunkett signed sworn affidavits as to what happened and have them posted on the Rye website?

    If Shew and Plunkett refuse to sign a sworn affidavit they can be fired.

  3. Re the burning cop car – these wonderful GM cars, as they come out of the factory, are thoroughly designed and tested against spontaneous combustion. They don’t simply burst into flames for no reason – something was added to the car or something was in the trunk that caused an electrical short or generated flames. I am looking forward to reading the results of the investigation.
    Perhaps the investigation will uncover that the Rye Police Department has developed a top-secret Ray-gun, designed to flush away large-scale excrement from our streets. Or maybe it was an underground Water Diverting Mechanism, meant to subvert our riparian rights.
    If so, the Weapons Development Team needs to go back to the drawing board before more cop cars are lost.
    It also might be intentionally set by the police, who will then press the city council for better autos, such as Mercedes, Saabs and BMWs, so they blend in more with the locals.
    If the investigative results are “inconclusive”, I surely hope the conspiracy theorists will pursue such an obvious cover-up with the same zeal as they’re pursuing Hen Island. Remember, ALWAYS BLAME THE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING WRONG IN THE WORLD!

  4. First of all scooter they are Ford vehicles and secondly you sure sound like a frustrated “elected offical”? Why don’t you spend more time watching our tax dollars and less time thinking up nonsense to write on MYRYE.

  5. Wow, I talk about local government and people think I’m running it. If I talked about TARP money and the bailout, would you think I’m Obama?
    And yes, Claremont, it is non-sense. I’m just having a little fun on Friday. Please lighten up, and join me in looking forward to a warm week-end!

  6. Scooter,
    The question is… if there is blame will someone step[HONESTLY] forward or will The City of Rye get another Black Eye from another Hide n Seek w/the truth…. “SWEPT UNDER THE RUG”

  7. Shew referred The Journal News to Kevin Plunkett, the city attorney, who declined to discuss the allegations, saying it was a City Council matter.”

    First Otis has his henchman Plunkett start an investigation by having him personally call Chantal. Plunkett, on behalf of Otis, gets a statement from Chantal. Who does Plunkett give it to? Not Otis, but directly to Shew even though the allegations are made against Shew and even though Otis initiated the contact of Chantal by Plunkett.

    Now Shew says call Plunkett and Plunkett says it is a City Council matter.

    This whole situations smells real bad and is ripe for an investigation of Otis, Plunkett, Shew and maybe others.

  8. The quote from Shew – “Those are the assertions of the individual,” he said, adding that “people can make their own informed judgment” based on all the case documents, which have been made public. He also referred The Journal News to Kevin Plunkett, the city attorney, who declined to discuss the allegations, saying it was a City Council matter.”

    I attended a class on fraud investigations given by some ex-CIA agents. They would say that generally someone who is not lying directly answers a question. Given the opportunity to say that Chantel did not say those things to him, he stated that people can make their own judgement! This is laughable! Make their own judgement? Just either say she told you or she didn’t.

  9. I agree.

    Where are the reports from Shew on these matters? Is Otis having everyone else write reports, having Plunkett gather evidence and then allowing Shew to customize his report to fit the circumstances? This is NOT how investigations are done.

    How about having Otis, Shew and Plunkett all sign sworn affidavits with regard to the Schubert matter?

    If Shew and Plunkett refuse to sign sworn affidavits they can be fired.

  10. Gee, all this talk about fires have made me thirsty – I’m going for a digital drink to the Yelp! article…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *