MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS

TOWN OF GREENBURGH

 

January 20, 2010

 

Greenburgh Town Hall

 

Members Present:            Mike Sigal, Jack McLaughlin, Walter Rivera

 

Others Present:            Glen Eisen; Hal Samis; Heather Murray; Masseurs Apicella, Malara, Palumbo & Sastow, Interviewees; Ella Preiser (part time); Supervisor Paul Feiner (part time); William Ferreira (part time); Mark Constantine.

 

The meeting was convened at 7:10 p.m. A quorum of the Board of Ethics was present. Mr. Glen Eisen and Mr. Hal Samis were present throughout the meeting and participated in the discussions at various points.

 

The agenda was accepted without any revisions.

 

The minutes of the November 24, 2009 meeting were adopted.

 

Mr. Samis presented two new verified complaints which had not been filed with the Clerk. Mr. Samis was advised by the Board to file the originals with the Clerk, and the Board accepted copies subject to their being filed with the Town Clerk as provided in the Code of Ethics Section 11D.

 

Mr. McLaughlin provided an update on the Statutory Refinement Project. A copy of the update is annexed hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Discussion took place regarding the complaint submitted by Patricia Weems. It was explained that the Board initially took no action on the complaint due to a pending police investigation. The Board noted that it will normally refrain from investigating a compliant if there is a pending criminal investigation in connection with the subject matter of the complaint.  After the criminal investigation was concluded, the Board contacted Ms. Weems to advise her that it had conducted a preliminary review of the complaint and did not find any apparent violation of the Code of Ethics and asked her to identify which section(s) of the Code of Ethics she believes may have been violated. Despite said request, Ms. Weems failed to identify a specific Code of Ethics section on which she based her complaint and has failed to respond any further. Accordingly, under the Board’s Rules 5(c)(3) and 6(a)(2), the Board unanimously voted to dismiss the Weems complaint as the complaint does not implicate one or more sections of the Code of Ethics. A short form Opinion will follow to be drafted by Jack McLaughlin. 

 

Mr. Sastow was interviewed regarding his relevant experience and interest in being appointed as Administrative Counsel to the Board. After discussion by the Board and consideration of public comments by Mr. Samis, Mr. Sastow was so selected.

 

The Board reported that Phase 1 of its investigation of a complaint filed by Mr. Samis against Supervisor Paul Feiner concerning contributions made by a member of the Library Board was completed and a Phase 2 investigation (taking testimony) would take place. Mr. Feiner was sworn in and testified that he did not personally solicit any campaign contributions from a member of the Library Board who had donated to his reelection campaign. Mr. Feiner testified about mailing lists of campaign donors his campaign maintains and that he assumed that the name of the voluntary board member at issue was on one of these lists. Mr. Feiner stated that voluntary board members should be free to make contributions and participate in communal activities in any way they see fit, including making contributions. Mr. Samis (the complaining party) cross examined Mr. Feiner regarding appointment of Library Board members and contributions made by a Library Board member to his campaign. Members of the Board of Ethics also asked questions of Supervisor Feiner. Upon inquiry by the Board of Ethics, Mr. Samis stated that he had no further questions as to facts. After all testimony was completed, the Board stated that the question to be determined by it is whether the mailing of a general campaign solicitation by the Town Supervisor to a list of potential contributors that included a Library Board appointee is a violation of the Code of Ethics provision that prohibits solicitation of members of a Town agency. The parties (Samis & Feiner) were advised that they can submit follow up written statements by February 13, 2010 and Mr. Samis could further add to his argument in support of his complaint at the next Board of Ethics meeting. The Board reserved judgment on the complaint.    

 

Masseurs Apicella, Malara and Palumbo were interviewed and the Board went into executive session from 9:55 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. Upon emerging from executive session the Board tentatively decided to select all three applicants as Investigative Counsel for the Board of Ethics. (Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Palumbo declined.)

 

The Board then entertained public comments. Mr. Samis complained about the appointment of volunteer counsel and at what he believed was the slow pace at which the Board was investigating his complaint regarding the Teamsters contributing to Supervisor Feiner. Mr. Samis also engaged in a long diatribe which included ad hominem attacks of the Board of Ethics members and his complaint regarding solicitation/acceptance of gifts for the comprehensive plan meetings. Upon Mr. Samis’ conclusion, he was asked if he had anything further to say, to which he said, no. Mr. Samis was advised by the Board that Rule 4(j) of the Board’s rules prohibits personal attacks and that Mr. Samis had violated this rule. Upon conclusion of the public comments, the Board ratified its decision to select the administrative and investigative counsel.

 

The next meeting of the Board was scheduled for February 22, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at Town Hall.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

 

Submitted by:               Walter Rivera, Secretary and