We Strive to Safeguard Pedestrians, Their Children, and Pets!

Mr. Vanaria:  I am Phil Vanaria.  I very much appreciate this opportunity to again speak on behalf of public safety and well-being versus the perils posed by Con Ed and the neglected voltage hazards, a term I've coined that is more accurate I believe than stray voltage, less excusing of the already too enabled Con Ed.

Some of you at least should already be familiar with me from testimony I offered here regarding electrical hazards at different hearings since 2004, or from a series of open letters that I've sent in recent years to about 40 influential public servants, including some City Council Members, or from various media reports on my personal experience with Con Ed first widely reported in and outside New York City and State in 1999 and 2000, and even as recently as an article in the New York Times with Jim Dwyer (phonetic) on August 8, 2007.

My perspectives are not those of an engineer or politician.   They are nitty gritty, flesh and blood, mind, body and soul perspectives painfully formed by having survived miraculously my own electrocution on an un-wintery, hot, muggy day way, way back in August of 1997.

Almost ten and a half years ago, a tragedy caused by Con Ed's negligence at a public site in New York City.  I sustained devastating shocks at both the West Village street corner pay phone and its adjourning bumper post, all electrified.  That near death experience wholly shattered and altered me; yet I also gratefully count the blessings I also surely had in what I now call my second lifetime post electrocution.

I continue to tackle daily the now life-lasting consequences of my serious electrical injury with the erratic ups and downs of its attendant traumatic brain injury and nerve damage - hidden disabilities whose confusing, even contradictory symptomatic challenges are quite enough times compounded by misunderstanding or mistreatment, etc.  by some physically healthy outsiders, whether health, legal, media or other professionals or the general public, whether innocently, even kindly naive or considerate or cruel in their missteps.

Also my electrocution places me at an increase risk for motor neuron diseases such as Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's, Parkinson's disease.

As seemingly the only direct survivor of these terrors able to publicly share my insights, and having done so in one form or another since 1999 despite sometimes being understandably forgotten or rudely ignored, it is valuable for me to note this up front in my introduction as it gives some needed attention to a very little addressed and very crucial aspect of this issue, that is, the lasting consequences endured by victims of these shocks.  There is a great need for more public and professional awareness and for improved care, respect and support regarding electrical injuries and their aforementioned consequences.  Though that largely runs against Con Ed's corporate interest, the utility  also should be compelled to humanely address that as part of the reforms needed at Con Ed, considering how it fails the living equipment that its shock victims are.

Also, my direct personal experience might perhaps also suggest what Con Ed's perspectives might be in general.  I myself can't believe that many of Con Ed's leaders truly care all that much about the public good.   After its neglected voltage shattered me, Con Ed delayed legal actions and my progress as personally as long (as) they were allowed, and Con Ed was shameless, rude, arrogant, unapologetic, ungrateful to me and aggressively fought to make less than adequate repairs to me via compensation, thus preserving its profits, and after my legal victory, put its typical public relations spin in the media on my event, propping itself up.  Sounds familiar, right?

Keep this all in mind, please, as I more directly address this follow-up today by the Council for, for one, assess the effectiveness of Local Law of late 2004 requiring Con Ed, and to a lesser degree the Department of Transportation, to test and inspect certain electrical equipment annually.   This law, of course, followed the fatal electrocution of Jodie Lane in 2004 - bless her spirit - and the long overdue widespread outcry against these electric power perils that her tragic death provoked.  Certainly, I did hope that this legislation, which I thought  was produced much faster than most, was not just some ill-prepared action to appease the public who had already been poorly served by Con Ed and even the public servants who did fail to effectively monitor and rein in Con Ed.  I feared this law was not substantial enough to be sufficiently effective.  Despite any of the ballyhoo or genuine high hopes back in 2004, I don't think the law has produced enough significant results and progress.

Throughout all these seasons of the year, all the seasons of the year that have followed, not just Con Ed's excuse ready winter, there have continued to be too many shock incidents troubling innocent people and pets, so much so that this Council had another hearing in March 2006 where the threatened public could confront Con Ed and the DOT with their anger, frustration and demands, whatever fruits that all bear in forums that should provide more than political theater for the public's good citizens.

That hearing was followed by even more shock incidents that spring of 2006 and fired-up proposals of woefully small penalties to be imposed on Con Ed and its hazards, proposals and penalties that, in fact, seem to have disappeared altogether.

More stock political indignation, and a headline on page three in the paper A.M.  New York on May 31st, 2006 paraphrasing the Mayor's feelings obviously with the words "Street shocks may be inevitable."  That's almost too blasé to me, and it's unacceptable.

Returning to the law of topic here, with these examples, how could anyone consider it alone satisfactorily effective enough? The very disruptive, very troublesome blackouts endured by the public in the summer of 2006 shifted attention to another kind of Con Ed failure, and with no reports of new shock incidents to my notice late 2006 through winter 2007, I wondered, shocked upon my lasting shock: could Con Ed so, so surprisingly really truly be eradicating the neglected voltage dangers? I doubted that peculiar idea, remembering, for one, its hidden shock victims in the past and also how selective, fickle, and even, to be fair, how overwhelmed much of the media's attention can be.

Then, early May 2007, there pulled up the first striking Con Ed neglected voltage story of 2007, the much ridiculed use of livery cabs to mind the very disturbingly excessive number of hot spots found and placed in repair mode.

Now it is a good thing that Con Ed is finding these  too numerous hot spots, but is it enough that they are locating tremendous problems largely produced by Con Ed's own shoddy maintenance practices? Why isn't Con Ed striving to necessarily repair the root of these perils? None of these things should be inevitable.  They shouldn't happen to New Yorkers.  They shouldn't happen to a dog, but hey did happen again to a dog when, just around the corner from where I live and four blocks a way, in late August, 2007, an unfortunate, precious, 80-pound pet pooch was sadly shocked near a playground often full of fragile youngsters and senior citizens.   Fortunately, the dog's shock wasn't fatal, but, if the dog could talk, would it now describe enduring an electrocuted life similar to my own? It's not a pretty story in many ways.

Last week, Con Ed reported that it had cut stray voltage by almost 80 percent.  Con Ed's numbers and statements, and its oddly tolerated self-reporting, often seem shaded to me -- from its formulation of customers, as learned during the 2006 blackouts, to calling Jodie Lane's electrocution an utterly freak occurrence, not recalling - and that's stretching the word recalling - not recalling my electrocution and ten or more other shock victims it eventually had to acknowledge following my testimony here in February of 2004.

I'm confused, and bear with me, please, it really could be brain injury thing.

Chairperson Liu: Okay, but, Mr. Vanaria, we need to ask you to start summarizing your testimony.  I think we've gone there.

Mr. Vanaria:  I'm close to the end.  I have a brain injury and it's really hard for me to just summarize it like that, and it is a public hearing, and I really would like the public to hear my sentiments.

Chairperson Liu:  Mr. Vanaria, given that you have a substantial amount of testimony yet to be covered, I would ask that you give us a copy so we can enter it into the public record, but I think your sentiments, and the point of your testimony, has well been absorbed by this Committee.

Mr. Vanaria:  I can, just quickly, see if I can summarize it in a dot.

Chairperson Liu:  Sure, in a dot.

Mr. Vanaria: In a few dots, whatever.  I don't agree with that this stray voltage thing is under control.  It's true that these figures are misleading.  They're out of whack.  When they said this thing about 46 stray voltage events, let's just go back to the fact that back when Jodie Lane was electrocuted it was said that one life lost is one life too many.  When you have 46, that's a lot more than one life.   One life even shattered is too many.

The things that should be done besides annual inspection, I think that they have to -- We need an independent outside monitor, and I think too many people in the City and the State who oversee Con Ed in some ways seem to have failed the public a long time ago, and seem to keep on failing.  In fact, such a collection of so-called public servants, whether their actions or inactions stem laxity, ineptitude, misguided course, ill will or whatever, these players have enabled and emboldened Con Ed's shoddy behavior.  Their actions may even be almost just as bad as Con Ed's.  That's an unhelpful and an endangering disgrace all around.

I feel strongly that Con Ed needs to be compelled to do the right thing and the most responsible things by an outside independent monitor, a watchdog devoted purely to the public.

Chairperson Liu:  Thank you, Mr. Vanaria for your testimony today.  Thank you very much.

Mr. Vanaria:  I'm really sorry that I couldn't complete reading because I think it's really necessary for the public to know the sentiments that I have to express being the only surviving shock victim who is able to speak out on these things, and who has done it.

I've been mortified by this Council before in not being invited to share my opinions when you had stray voltage people come here to testify that they were victims, and you had an owner of a dog.  My heart goes out to them, but I am a living person, the one living person, who can speak about these things.

Con Ed is a mess, and I think that the politicians overseeing often are a mess also.

Chairman Liu:  Thank you very much for your testimony.  There being no other witnesses this hearing of the City Council's Committee on Transportation is adjourned.

We thank Chairman Gennaro for his indulgence.

Mr. Vanaria:  Can I add that I would hope that you will ad the rest of my testimony from page five on besides my summary at the end?

(Hearing concluded at 1:40 p.m.)

PLEASE NOTE:  On January 29, 2008, I called Phil Hom, chief of staff to Councilman John Liu, to note my past and present dissatisfaction with the City Council and to insist that everything that I submitted as my prepared testimony -- portions publicly read and not read, as well as my additional comments at the hearing itself would be included in the official transcript.  He assured me that this would happen.

I bought, and had downloaded, a copy of the disk with that transcript when it became available on March 7.  The substantial portion of my testimony not read at the hearing was not included.  I wasn't at all really surprised by this; in fact, what I was was, and is, rightfully fed up.  From early on, years ago when I spoke out publicly to educate and help protect others from these dangers, I expected that, again given my unique and highly relevant historical and practical experience, that my contributions would be welcome and appreciated.  That has sometimes been the case, but other times, seems not to be, with my efforts, even my experience, being "forgotten," disregarded, misrepresented, etc..  Despite such treatment and the challenges of my own disability and my own personal recovery needs, I have remained tenacious in my efforts, driven by the concern gained from my own ongoing electrical injury, as well as my kindred compassion, for the good and brave disabled community at large, and by painfully personal experience with the shameless indifference or pretenses of those who cause or enable such devastating dangers.  I am not pious; I am crude and imperfect - and  TBI! -- but still largely a decent guy and have just wanted to do my part to help others.  I will hopefully stay mostly optimistic and determined, at the very least about myself, and grateful to God for the grace of my near-death experience and to any people or things that have inspired, benefited, or kindly loved me.  Please read the remainder of my testimony that follows here and kindly at least consider my input, purely just my humble opinions, for the good of the public you serve.

Last week, Con Ed reported that it had cut stray voltage by almost 80%.  Con Ed's numbers and statements and its oddly-tolerated self-reporting often seem shaded to me- from its formulation of "customers" as learned during the 2006 blackouts to calling Jodie Lane's electrocution an utterly freak occurrence, not "recalling," and that's stretching the word, "recalling," not "recalling my electrocution and 10 or more other shock victims it eventually had to acknowledge following my testimony here in February 2004.  I'm confused -- and bear with me please, it's really could be a brain injury thing -- because as I read in the Daily News on different dates, Con Ed Reported finding 5427 electrified objects in 2007 compared to finding 2900 hot spots in 2006.  How is that a real improvement? Because they have an increased number of hot spots in the last year -- largely caused by Con Ed's own cost-cutting profit preserving shoddy maintenance of the infrastructure -- but they also found them, so this is suppose (sic) to be cause for cheers for Con Ed? I don't know, I don't get it.

I also read in Newsday this past Sunday that 46 electric shocks on company-owned equipment were reported in 2007 compared with 210 in 2004.  I am assuming here that these particular shocks mean actual troubling sensations experienced by some person or pet to some degree rather than just detection by detection devices of the element called "stray voltage."  Forgive me please if I've, in fact, made an honest error with this particular assumption, but in any case, even just going back to poor Socha, the dog shocked last August, let's remember the political battle cry when Jodie Lane was killed by such voltage: "One life lost is one life too many."   I thunderously agree -- and more - one life almost lost - one life feeling lost by lasting shock - one life damaged to any degree this way is one life too many.  So to me Con Ed and the city have not done enough to rein in   neglected voltage, a problem made more urgent and overdue and intolerable by the largely overlooked or buried realization that the problem did not begin 4 years ago at the death of Jodie Lane, but it is, at the very least, a very long 10 1/2 years old problem considering my electrocution, apparently the first Con Ed stray voltage tragedy to befall a human and the first to be reported in the media (and widely so), even though it was not attended to with any sustained outcry from the media or political leaders and even though it seems to have faded from public memory, perhaps understandably so.

What are some things that I think still must be done to better improve this situation? First remember that even annual inspections only came about because Con Ed was forced -required by new law -- to do them.  Reform of Con Ed's dangerous habits will have to come from outside Con Ed, and Con Ed will have to be forced by improved political will to comply with them.  In December 1004, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky seemed to suggest the consideration of more responsible intervention to tackle the issue of Con Edison and public safety whom he said, "If Con Edison is unable to assure it workers and the public of safety on a voluntary basis, we are going to have no choice but to come and make them do it."   That time is here and now; in fact, let's face it, it came a long time ago.  Too many people in the city and state who oversee Con Ed in some way seem to have failed to serve the public well a long time ago and seem to keep on failing.  In fact, their actions or inactions stem from laxity, ineptitude, a misguided course, ill will or whatever - these players have enabled and emboldened Con Ed's shoddy behaviors.  Their actions may even be almost as or just as bad as Con Ed's.  That's an unhelpful and endangering disgrace, all around.  For shame, for sure, all around on Con Ed and any party that enables Con Ed.

I feel strongly that Con Ed needs to be compelled to do the most right and responsible things by an outside independent monitor, a "watchdog" devoted purely to the public who would efficiently and regularly oversee Con Ed's work.  First of all, Con Ed should have to develop a genuine well-delineated concrete plan to totally overhaul the neglected decaying electrical infrastructure, with improved city and state agencies stepping up to work alongside them on this.  New standards and regulation must be revised and strictly enforced as this indifferent and lethargic monopoly is corrected by rigorously pursued alternatives.  On a practical level now, Con Ed should go beyond surface detection of stray voltage and go underground and do more visual inspections.  Con Ed must adequately ground all its equipment.  What a remedy this would be! Grounding devices were absent at the site of my electrocution, allowed me to be so destroyed.  Con Ed must halt any of these cheap and shoddy practices and must be compelled to do thorough effective repairs on all repair situations, with temporary-becoming-permanent "patchwork" forbidden.  Too, rather than just let Con Ed continue to drag its feet by "looking into these things for yet another decade or so, an outside independent monitor could also explore new technologies itself and compel a timely look and even perhaps a trial implementation of worthy candidates.  With that in mind, it might, for one, be worth consulting the report from March 2006 at 7Online.com "A new device to detect stray voltage in city streets."   This segment highlighted a real-time stray voltage detector that uses a sound and flashing visual alarm to alert people at the site as well as at the utility's central office.

Again there should be no room for any poor displays of power or privilege in these matters of public safety; wrist-slaps and soft treatment should be unheard of in matters that command the imposing of significant fines or penalties, etc., that would effectively deter intolerable, dangerous practices.  The cost for any such potential remedies should not then be allowed to be outrageously passed to Con Ed customers.  In addition to all this, perhaps,  Con Ed might even need to strongly consider shaking up, or shaking out, members of its highly-pay ed (sic) and overpaid leadership in order to create new and improved approaches and levels of responsibility.  That said, to be fair, it should not be forgotten that there are also a good number of good-hearted and conscientious good workers at Con Ed and also among our various groups of public servants, and they should not be considered targets of these criticisms.

In any case, as best as it can be prevented, electrical shock and electrocution should not be allowed to happen to anyone.   Unfortunately, I can declare to you form my wholly life-shattering, life-altering experience that it is a horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, experience.  In a society where protests would arise in most attempts to just possibly execute via electrocution the most criminal members of society, regardless of their gross flaws, then certainly all the most powerful checks demand to be put in place so all innocent living beings -- all our family members, friends, pets, ordinary, strangers, dear visitors to our city, or very own selves, all vulnerable -- will not have their lives so endangered -- or disregarded -- by Con Ed.  Now that is the only way to be really and truly on it, once and for all.

To let me just not for your information as influential public servants to plan ahead whatever you can do to purposefully mark March as Brain Injury Awareness Month.  And may I too now offer for you to consider designating officially some month as Electrical Injury Awareness Month.  It would help matters in its own special way.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

God help and bless us all.