2025-02-14T02:07:31-06:00 2024-09-30 141442607 BST & CO CPAS LLP 10 BRITISH AMERICAN BLVD LATHAM NY 12110 990 2023-10-01 813942898 GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER INC GOVE 5184343125 PO BOX 7113 ALBANY NY 12224 ZILVINAS SILENAS PRESIDENT 5184343125 2025-02-12 1 0 JEREMY COLE P00436330 5184596700 2025-02-12 2023 2025-03-06 01:10:19Z CAMERON J MACDONALD PO BOX 7113 ALBANY NY 12224 82174 0 X GOVJUSTICE.ORG X 2016 NY TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS FROM GOVERNMENT WASTE, NEGLIGENCE, MISAPPROPRIATION, AND OTHER IMPROPER ACTIONS. 6 6 1 6 0 0 240411 82174 0 0 0 0 0 0 240411 82174 0 0 0 0 140193 65000 0 0 0 98251 19973 238444 84973 1967 -2799 12015 267 14676 5727 -2661 -5460 TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS FROM GOVERNMENT WASTE, NEGLIGENCE, MISAPPROPRIATION, AND OTHER IMPROPER ACTIONS. 0 0 60239 LEGAL SERVICES THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER, INC. PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO THOSE SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW AND PROMOTE GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A DESCRIPTION OF CASES LITIGATED AND THE RATIONALE FOR THE DETERMINATION THAT THE LITIGATION BENEFITS THE PUBLIC GENERALLY. 60239 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 NY X CAMERON J MACDONALD 5184343125 PO BOX 7113 ALBANY NY 12224 DEBI GHATE BOARD PRESIDENT 1.00 X X 0 0 0 TIMOTHY P HOEFER DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 HON ROBERT S SMITH DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 JAMES COPLAND DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 CAMERON J MACDONALD LEGAL DIRECTOR & TREASURER 40.00 X X 94327 30870 0 MARK WALSH SECRETARY 5.00 X X 0 0 0 KENNETH MOLTNER DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 JULIE KILLIAN DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 94327 30870 0 0 0 0 0 0 82174 82174 82174 0 0 0 65000 48750 16250 1105 1105 2500 2500 5125 5125 2225 1668 557 210 210 1015 713 302 RESEARCH, SUBSCRIPTIONS 5599 5599 FEES 1282 1282 CONTINUING EDUCATION 912 912 84973 60239 24734 0 12015 267 12015 267 14676 5727 14676 5727 X -2661 -5460 -2661 -5460 12015 267 -2799 0 X 0 0 0 X 233747 186217 169534 240411 82174 912083 233747 186217 169534 240411 82174 912083 912083 912083 52500 1.00000 1.00000 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B THE FORM 990 IS DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD MEMBERS WHO REVIEW PRIOR TO FILING. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C NEW BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS ARE EVALUATED FOR ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND IF IDENTIFIED, ANY INTERESTED PARTIES RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM DELIBERATION OF SUCH RELATIONSHIPS. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 GOVERNING DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (PART 1 OF 3): THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER DETERMINES WHICH CASES TO ACCEPT BASED ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND THE IMPACT FOR THE LITIGANT AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND NOT BASED ON ANY EXPECTATION OF FINANCIAL AWARD OR BENEFIT FOR THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER. IN ADDITION TO LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST PUBLIC BODIES, GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER SUBMITS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS TO UNCOVER GOVERNMENT MISAPPROPRIATION, FRAUD, AND ABUSE. IT ALSO PROVIDES INFORMATION TO TAXPAYERS REGARDING TRANSPARENCY RELATING TO PUBLIC RECORDS AND OPEN MEETINGS UNDER STATE LAWS. KATHERINE C. SULLIVAN ET AL V. NEW YORK STATE JOINT COMMISSION ON PUBLIC ETHICS ET AL GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER SUED TO STOP THE STATE'S ABUSE OF POLITICAL POWER THROUGH ITS JOINT COMMISSION ON PUBLIC ETHICS (JCOPE), WHICH IS TASKED WITH REGULATING LOBBYING IN NEW YORK. JCOPE INVESTIGATED KAT SULLIVAN, A RAPE SURVIVOR WHO WAS PUSHING FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT, FOR WHAT JCOPE DEEMED "UNREGISTERED LOBBYING" IN SUPPORT OF THE LEGISLATION. GIVEN THIS CLEAR ATTEMPT TO CHILL SULLIVAN'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER STEPPED IN AND FILED A CASE ON HER BEHALF. JCOPE EVENTUALLY DROPPED ITS INVESTIGATION INTO SULLIVAN THANKS TO GJC'S BACKING. GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER IS CONTINUING TO PURSUE MS. SULLIVAN'S FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO NEW YORK'S LOBBYING ACT ON APPEAL. THE LOBBYING ACT IS OVERBROAD AND VAGUE ON ITS FACE AND IT IS NOT NARROWLY TAILORED TO ADDRESS A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. THE STATE DEEMED MS. SULLIVAN'S ACTIVITIES GRASSROOTS LOBBYING, BUT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO INVOLVED FOR THE STATE TO HAVE ANY INTEREST. THE CASE REPRESENTS AN ABUSE OF POWER BY THE STATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER IS WORKING TO STOP. ELIZABETH CELLA ET AL V. SUFFOLK COUNTY FOR SEVERAL YEARS, LONG ISLAND'S SUFFOLK COUNTY AVOIDED RAISING GENERAL FUND TAXES BY IMPOSING NEW OR INCREASED FEES ON CERTAIN RESIDENTS. T HE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO PUT AN END TO THE ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF RAISING GENERAL REVENUE THROUGH SUCH FEES. SUFFOLK COUNTY SKIRTED THE LAW BY INCREASING FEES FAR BEYOND THEIR LEGAL LIMIT. UNDER STATE LAW, FEES CHARGED MUST NOT EXCEED THE COST OF SERVICE. EXCESS FEES USED FOR GENERAL REVENUE PURPOSES ARE UNAUTHORIZED TAXES. WORSE, THESE FEES UNFAIRLY TARGET A SUBSET OF THE POPULATIONNEW HOMEBUYERS, FOR EXAMPLETO RAISE REVENUE FOR EVERYONE. THE MOST EGREGIOUS CATEGORY IS FEES FOR FILING REAL ESTATE DOCUMENTS. THE TAX MAP VERIFICATION FEES IN QUESTION WERE PROJECTED TO BRING IN $65 MILLION IN 2017FROM AN AGENCY THAT COSTS JUST OVER $1 MILLION PER YEAR TO RUN. THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER EXISTS TO STAND UP FOR TAXPAYERS AND ENSURE THAT GOVERNMENT PLAYS BY THE RULES. ROBERT ARRIGO V. THOMAS P. DINAPOLI IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER SUED ON BEHALF OF A TAXPAYER TO HAVE THE STATE LEGISLATURE COMPLY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR SETTING THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR COMPENSATION AMOUNTS. THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SALARIES TO BE SET BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. IT ALSO FORBIDS THE LEGISLATURE FROM INCREASING OR DECREASING THEIR SALARY AMOUNTS DURING THEIR ELECTED TERMS TO ENSURE THEIR INDEPENDENCE AS STATE OFFICERS. THE CURRENT STATE CONSTITUTION'S PROVISIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW AND POLICY IN THE STATE FOR OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS. IN 2019, HOWEVER, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROVIDING RETROACTIVE RAISES TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DURING THEIR ELECTED TERMS. GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER SUED TO STOP THE COMPTROLLER FROM UNLAWFULLY EXPENDING STATE FUNDS ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL HIGHER SALARIES. THE LAWSUIT IS CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER'S MISSION TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW AT THE STATE LEVEL. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (PART 2 OF 3): QUEENSRAIL CORPORATION V. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER SUED ON BEHALF OF QUEENSRAIL CORPORATION, WHICH ADVOCATES FOR REACTIVATING THE FORMER LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH THAT HAS BEEN IDLE IN NEW YORK CITY SINCE 1962. IT HAS DEVELOPED AND PROPOSED A PLAN FOR "QUEENSLINK" A DUAL RAIL AND PARK PROJECT TO PROVIDE A NEW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSIT LINK IN QUEENS FOR BOTH RAIL AND TRAIL USE. THE QUEENSLINK CORRIDOR CAN PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN IMPROVING MOVEMENT, ACCESSIBILITY, AND EFFICIENCY OF TRAVEL WITHIN QUEENS, BY PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED INTEGRATION OF QUEENS COMMUNITIES, BY CONNECTING THE EXISTING EAST-WEST SUBWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL LINES TO PROVIDE ACCESS ACROSS THE CITY. IN 2018, A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (MTA) CONSULTANT PROVIDED AN ASSESSMENT, AT A SKETCH PLANNING LEVEL, OF THE PHYSICAL ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY AND ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE COSTS OF REACTIVATING THE ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH FOR SUBWAY OR COMMUTER RAIL USE BETWEEN QUEENS AND MIDTOWN MANHATTAN. THE CONSULTANT ESTIMATED THE COST TO REACTIVATE THE ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH AS A SUBWAY LINE TO BE $8.1 BILLION. QUEENSRAIL CONTENDS THAT THE COST SHOULD BE CLOSER TO $3.4 TO $3.7 BILLION. QUEENSRAIL SUBMITTED A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST FOR THE CONSULTANT'S RECORDS TO SUPPORT THE HIGHER COST. MTA REFUSED TO DISCLOSE CERTAIN RECORDS AS NOT BELONGING TO MTA AND BEING THE CONSULTANT'S WORK PRODUCT EXCEPTED FROM DISCLOSURE. GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER SUED ON BEHALF QUEENSRAIL BECAUSE A GOVERNMENT AGENCY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RECORDS OUT OF THE PUBLIC'S REACH BY OUTSOURCING ITS WORK TO CONSULTANTS AND THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE DATA USED TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION OR DETERMINATION ON A PUBLIC MATTER. THIS LAWSUIT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER'S MISSION TO PROMOTE GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY BY MAKING THE FACTS UNDERLYING DECISION-MAKING AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND NOT HIDDEN IN A CONSULTANT'S WORK PRODUCT. SIMON V. KINSELLA ET AL V. LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY ET AL THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER FILED A COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND RATEPAYERS AGAINST THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY AND SOUTH FORK WIND, FORMALLY KNOWN AS DEEPWATER WIND SOUTH FORK, FOR VIOLATING NEW YORK STATE'S PROCUREMENT LAWS. SPECIFICALLY, SOUTH FORK WIND DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THE SOUTH FORK REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. SOUTH FORK WIND'S PROPOSED PROJECT FOR OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES WOULD COST THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) CUSTOMERS AN ESTIMATED $1.6 BILLION FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY OVER 20 YEARS, AT A SUBSTANTIAL PREMIUM PER KILOWATT HOUR TO OTHER POWER SOURCES AT THE TIME. LIPA REQUESTED PROPOSALS FOR LOCAL RESOURCES TO MEET PEAK ELECTRICAL DEMAND DURING SUMMER AFTERNOONS AND EVENINGS WHEN RESIDENTIAL AIR CONDITIONING USE DRIVES ELECTRICITY DEMAND ON LONG ISLAND'S SOUTH FORK. ANY POWER PRODUCTION RESOURCE NEEDED TO BE AVAILABLE ON DEMAND AND COULD NOT REQUIRE NEW TRANSMISSION FACILITIES. LIPA, HOWEVER, SIGNED A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH FORK WIND FOR AN OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT THAT WAS NOT RESPONSIVE TO LIPA'S RFP. NOT ONLY IS THE OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT NOT A LOCAL RESOURCEIT IS LOCATED 30 MILES OFF LONG ISLAND, BUT IT CAN PROVIDE POWER ONLY INTERMITTENTLY (ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS) AND REQUIRES A NEW 60-MILE-LONG ONSHORE/OFFSHORE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER SUED TO STOP LIPA'S WASTE AND ABUSE THAT WILL HURT ALL ITS CUSTOMERS ON LONG ISLAND WITH HIGHER ENERGY COSTS. JOHN AND KATE EISENHAUER V. WATERTOWN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER AFTER THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICT REJECTED A BALLOT PROPOSITION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE EISENHAUERS TO REMOVE A LIBRARY TAX FOR A NON-SCHOOL LIBRARY. THE DISTRICT DETERMINED THAT THE EISENHAUERS DID NOT OBTAIN ENOUGH SIGNATURES, CITING A STATUTORY PROVISION THAT ALSO REQUIRES ANY CHANGES TO THE TAX LEVY TO BE APPROVED BY THE LIBRARY TRUSTEES. BUT SCHOOL DISTRICT VOTERS HAVE NO SAY IN WHO IS APPOINTED TO THE LIBRARY AND THE DISTRICT CANNOT TELL THE EISENHAUERS HOW MANY SIGNATURES THEY NEED UNDER THE FORMULA IN THE STATUTORY PROVISION. HOWEVER, IN PRIOR LITIGATION OVER THE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTING THE TAX IT ASSURED AN APPELLATE COURT THAT THE EISENHAUERS HAD THE ABILITY TO PETITION FOR A BALLOT PROPOSITION TO END THE TAX. BY REVERSING ITS POSITION THE DISTRICT CONFIRMED THE EISENHAUERS' ARGUMENT THAT LIBRARY TAX IS AN EXAMPLE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (PART 3 OF 3): EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY ET AL V. LETITIA JAMES THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER FILED A PETITION TO COMPEL THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DESTROY IRS FORM 990 DONOR SCHEDULES FILED WITH ITS CHARITIES BUREAU AND TO COMPEL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STOP COLLECTING REDACTED VERSIONS OF THE SCHEDULES. UNDER NEW YORK LAW, CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING IN THE STATE MUST REGISTER AND FILE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS WITH THE CHARITIES BUREAU. FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS REQUIRED REGISTERED ORGANIZATIONS TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THEIR COMPLETE IRS FORM 990S WITH SCHEDULES AS PART OF THEIR ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS. THOSE FORM 990 SCHEDULES INCLUDE SCHEDULE BS, WHICH GENERALLY CONTAIN DONOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES AS WELL AS DONATION AMOUNTS FOR DONORS CONTRIBUTING $5,000 OR MORE IN AGGREGATE. IN AFP V. BONTA, DECIDED ON JULY 1, 2021, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REQUIREMENT THAT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS FILE THEIR IRS 990 SCHEDULE B IMPOSED "A WIDESPREAD BURDEN ON DONORS' ASSOCIATIONAL RIGHTS." THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT CALIFORNIA'S REQUIREMENT WAS NOT NARROWLY TAILORED TO ACHIEVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INTEREST IN INVESTIGATING FRAUD. THE COURT ALSO CONCLUDED THAT CALIFORNIA'S INTEREST IN ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE WAS NOT COMPELLING ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE BURDEN ITS REQUIREMENT PLACED UPON DONORS' ASSOCIATIONAL RIGHTS. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT "UP-FRONT COLLECTION OF SCHEDULE BS IS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL." THE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT NEW YORK WAS ONE OF THREE STATES OTHER THAN CALIFORNIA THAT COLLECTED SCHEDULE BS UP-FRONT. THE CHARITIES BUREAU PURPORTED TO STOP COLLECTING SCHEDULE BS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN AFP V. BONTA. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FORMALLY AMENDED THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE MARCH 16, 2022. THE PUBLIC, HOWEVER, HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SECURITY OVER THE SCHEDULE BS THAT IT MAY STILL POSSESS. IN AUGUST 2022, AN UNREDACTED SCHEDULE B WITH A NEW YORK CHARITIES BUREAU STAMP WAS PUBLISHED IN A POLITICO NEWS MAGAZINE STORY, REVEALING CONFIDENTIAL DONOR INFORMATION FOR NIKKI HALEY'S NONPROFIT POLICY ADVOCACY GROUP, STAND FOR AMERICA, INC. THE LAWSUIT IS CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER'S MISSION TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW AT THE STATE LEVEL. ELISE STEFANIK, ET AL. V. KATHY HOCHUL, ET AL. THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER FILED AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NEW YORK'S NO-EXCUSE EARLY MAIL-IN VOTING LAW. THE LOWER COURT FOUND THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSED IN 1963 CHANGED THE RULES UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW SUCH VOTING. PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGED THE LAW BASED ON A PLAIN READING OF THE CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING A PROVISION THAT SETS OUT THE LIMITED EXCEPTIONS FROM IN-PERSON VOTING AT POLLING PLACES. THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER SUBMITTED A BRIEF EXPLAINING THE HISTORY AND TRADITION OF IN-PERSON VOTING NEW YORK WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS. IN-PERSON VOTING BY SECRET BALLOT HAS BEEN THE TRADITION IN NEW YORK SINCE IT ADOPTED ITS FIRST CONSTITUTION IN 1777. THE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER ESTABLISHED THAT, BEGINNING WITH SOLDIERS DURING THE CIVIL WAR, NEW YORKERS TOOK A DELIBERATE APPROACH TO MAKING LIMITED EXCEPTIONS TO IN-PERSON VOTING. THAT APPROACH INCLUDED THE 1963 AMENDMENT THAT NEITHER SCHOLARS NOR THE PUBLIC BELIEVED AT THE TIME CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW NO-EXCUSE EARLY MAIL-IN VOTING. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, AFFIRMED. THE BRIEF WAS CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER'S MISSION TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW AT THE STATE LEVEL. EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC PO BOX 7113 ALBANY NY 12224 461987418 PROMOTING PUBLIC POLICY NY 501(C)(3) LINE 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC O 65000 CASH