These images provide a textbook illustration of how not
to write an invoice. This is particularly so when the invoice is subject to strict
government oversight like that of the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS)
and the Office of the New York State Comptroller (OSC) as it is here - and particularly
since at least the latter of those two agencies (OSC) can be fairly said to
have law enforcement power:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/08/other-guests-may-be-coming.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/08/other-guests-may-be-coming.html
You will note from the below posted “.jpeg” documents that Sylvia Welch, Piermont’s “Grant Writer”, “Grants Administrator”, “Oversight Individual”, “Consultant”, or whatever else she wants to be called today, billed the “Inc. Village of Piermont”[sic] for “Consulting services”, pursuant to a written invoice (“Invoice”) dated “01/22/2024”, in the four-figure dollar-amount of US$1,110. This reflects but one of several payments from Piermont that Sylvia Welch has sought for her work relating to grants, Piermont code updates, and the Piermont Comprehensive Plan. You will be reading about other such invoices and payments on this Blog as the days further progress.
Just like all invoices for services calculated on the basis of an hourly rate should do, this Sylvia Welch Invoice indicated, on its face within its four corners, a Sylvia Welch rate (or, as she wrote it for some inexplicable reason, “Unit Price”) of US$60 per hour. That US$60/hour number is consistent with the one-page services agreement that Welch previously executed with the Village of Piermont on December 20, 2021:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/09/piermont-volunteerism-at-its-finest.html
“But wait”, sayeth you mathematicians. “That’s not right. US$60/hour times 11.5 hours of work equals the significantly lesser number of US$690. Why isn’t the Sylvia Welch Invoice limited to US$690 instead? Where does the other US$420 come from? That additional US$420 is not explained on the face of the Invoice.”
You'd be right. The answer lies in the curious textual legend Sylvia Welch added to her Invoice, reading “See invoice attached:” [emphasis added].
Huh... A derivative... Sorta like a mirror looking into a mirror.
In any event, that inartful added “See invoice attached:” reference
appears to be a Sylvia Welch citation to a New York State Department of State form called “Attachment
F – Other (Volunteer Services by Individual)”. [Emphasis added].
“But
wait”, you ask. “How in the world could that be? How could Sylvia Welch act as both a ‘volunteer’, and also as a for-profit services-provider, at the same time, on the same project, on the same tasks?”.
And you would be right again. That’s a beyond-sloppy (and, dangerous) way to invoice. Yet maybe “Attachment F” provides some guidance on what would otherwise look like a botched and inflated calculation on the face of the Invoice. Let’s look at the numbers.
It appears that some back-dating may have taken place here - no surprise to those that follow the activities of Piermont government over the past 8 years. On the “Attachment F” form - oddly-enough dated “5/03/2024” which is over 3 months after the corresponding Invoice date – Sylvia Welch appears to be putting-in for a chunky 27.5 hours of work at a nominal “volunteer” rate of US$15/hour, totaling US$412.50. In other words, it appears that Welch almost made it to the US$420 differential by fusing the two parallel-universe invoices together. Not quite, but almost. She must have rounded-up the second one, thereby ignoring the US$7.50 disparity. And hey, speaking of “rounding-up”, you will probably also notice that, of the 13 separate hour-increments that Welch indicated on her signed and certified “Attachment F”, 12 of those 13 are indicated as integers “1”, “2”, or “4” sans any following decimal whatsoever. That looks like some serious rounding-up, too, doesn’t it?
Now here’s the real kicker. You are probably wondering why the document called “Attachment F – Other (Volunteer Services by Individual)” even exists at all. In this case, the reason appears to relate to the “matching” of grant funds. The New York State Department of State would not have parted with the subject corresponding grant money for Piermont code changes and ultimately, for the Piermont Comprehensive Plan, unless the Village agreed to contribute some “matching” to the same enterprise. No, not on a 50/50 basis, but on the basis of some lesser percentage in favor of the Village. In this fashion, state government assures that the municipality receiving the grant truly has a stake in the outcome. At least that is what is intended.
And you would be right again. That’s a beyond-sloppy (and, dangerous) way to invoice. Yet maybe “Attachment F” provides some guidance on what would otherwise look like a botched and inflated calculation on the face of the Invoice. Let’s look at the numbers.
It appears that some back-dating may have taken place here - no surprise to those that follow the activities of Piermont government over the past 8 years. On the “Attachment F” form - oddly-enough dated “5/03/2024” which is over 3 months after the corresponding Invoice date – Sylvia Welch appears to be putting-in for a chunky 27.5 hours of work at a nominal “volunteer” rate of US$15/hour, totaling US$412.50. In other words, it appears that Welch almost made it to the US$420 differential by fusing the two parallel-universe invoices together. Not quite, but almost. She must have rounded-up the second one, thereby ignoring the US$7.50 disparity. And hey, speaking of “rounding-up”, you will probably also notice that, of the 13 separate hour-increments that Welch indicated on her signed and certified “Attachment F”, 12 of those 13 are indicated as integers “1”, “2”, or “4” sans any following decimal whatsoever. That looks like some serious rounding-up, too, doesn’t it?
Now here’s the real kicker. You are probably wondering why the document called “Attachment F – Other (Volunteer Services by Individual)” even exists at all. In this case, the reason appears to relate to the “matching” of grant funds. The New York State Department of State would not have parted with the subject corresponding grant money for Piermont code changes and ultimately, for the Piermont Comprehensive Plan, unless the Village agreed to contribute some “matching” to the same enterprise. No, not on a 50/50 basis, but on the basis of some lesser percentage in favor of the Village. In this fashion, state government assures that the municipality receiving the grant truly has a stake in the outcome. At least that is what is intended.
NYSDOS produced voluminous records to me pursuant to FOIL regarding Piermont, grants, Bruce Tucker, and Sylvia Welch. From a cursory initial review of those records, it appears that the Village of Piermont did not kick much if any money into the kitty as “matching” funds. Rather, NYSDOS appears to have instead allowed Piermont to simply identify committee volunteers and then put-in for their time with time-sheets - certified and signed-off on by Sylvia Welch or by outgoing Mayor Bruce Tucker - in lieu of trying to “match” New York State’s financial grant contribution. This alternative approach was apparently intended to discharge the municipality’s otherwise-mandated obligation to “match” grant monies:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/09/piermont-fakes-us7935-in-matching-funds.html
If you have been following the analysis thusfar, you are now wondering whether Sylvia Welch, Bruce Tucker, or the Village Piermont could have possibly “double-counted”. That is, did Sylvia Welch, Bruce Tucker, or Piermont Village Hall endeavor to submit Welch’s claimed 27.5 hours of work as a “volunteer” to apply it against Piermont’s “matching” commitment – only to see Welch also add the same US$412.50, as a rounded-up “US$420” instead, to her “01/22/2024” US$1,110 Invoice? Intentionally?
If so, would NYSDOS have knowingly allowed the “double-counting” as an accommodation to a Piermont village government already so well-known in Albany to be so hapless?
Alternatively, did Sylvia Welch, Bruce Tucker, or other Piermont Village Hall operatives catch any “double-counting” before it happened and then pull the 27.5 incremental “volunteer” hours out of the ultimate “Attachment F” back-up submitted to the New York State Department of State?
Oh weary reckoning. I don’t know the answer yet.
But I bet that I know two New York State agencies that will.
And hey. The Piermont Check Registers from 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 - each unearthed by the ongoing New York State Comptroller Audit - show a total Village of Piermont payout to Sylvia Welch of at least US$16,170:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/08/curious-yellow-part-1.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/08/curious-yellow-part-2-2024-2025.html
And now we’re finding out that’s not even all of it. Conceptually, you can add US$16,170 to any monies that Sylvia Welch collected prior, and any monies that Sylvia Welch collected thereafter. When it all totals-out, you bet she cashed-out on this deal:
If you have been following the analysis thusfar, you are now wondering whether Sylvia Welch, Bruce Tucker, or the Village Piermont could have possibly “double-counted”. That is, did Sylvia Welch, Bruce Tucker, or Piermont Village Hall endeavor to submit Welch’s claimed 27.5 hours of work as a “volunteer” to apply it against Piermont’s “matching” commitment – only to see Welch also add the same US$412.50, as a rounded-up “US$420” instead, to her “01/22/2024” US$1,110 Invoice? Intentionally?
If so, would NYSDOS have knowingly allowed the “double-counting” as an accommodation to a Piermont village government already so well-known in Albany to be so hapless?
Alternatively, did Sylvia Welch, Bruce Tucker, or other Piermont Village Hall operatives catch any “double-counting” before it happened and then pull the 27.5 incremental “volunteer” hours out of the ultimate “Attachment F” back-up submitted to the New York State Department of State?
Oh weary reckoning. I don’t know the answer yet.
But I bet that I know two New York State agencies that will.
And hey. The Piermont Check Registers from 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 - each unearthed by the ongoing New York State Comptroller Audit - show a total Village of Piermont payout to Sylvia Welch of at least US$16,170:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/08/curious-yellow-part-1.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/08/curious-yellow-part-2-2024-2025.html
And now we’re finding out that’s not even all of it. Conceptually, you can add US$16,170 to any monies that Sylvia Welch collected prior, and any monies that Sylvia Welch collected thereafter. When it all totals-out, you bet she cashed-out on this deal:
Therefore, after clearing-up this nagging
invoice question, maybe the New York State Comptroller will then want to
re-train sights on the bigger Welch numbers next and see if they check-out.
After all, as between Sylvia Welch, Garmento Mayor Bruce Tucker, and the fetid abscess that is Piermont Village Hall these days, what’s a thousand between friends, right? Fuggedaboudit.
After all, as between Sylvia Welch, Garmento Mayor Bruce Tucker, and the fetid abscess that is Piermont Village Hall these days, what’s a thousand between friends, right? Fuggedaboudit.
