Scammed on Ethics – Yet
Again?
You Decide
By Ray Mooney
At the
October 2010 Town Board meeting Rick McCabe, Ginny O’Brien and Rick Matters
voted unanimously to form an Ethics Board.
That is
Resolution 161- 2010.
Part of the
resolution mandated amendments to the 1975 ethics code “including, but not
limited to, financial-disclosure provisions.”
The Ethics
Board met on Monday, July 23, 2012 in what amounts to a now almost two year
effort to amend the 1974 ethics code.
At the July
23 meeting the public was informed by Chairperson Jack Conway that the 2010
resolution and the financial disclosure provision had been repealed.
Keep in mind
that Ethics Board meetings are wonderfully open and fully participatory. The
public in attendance were incredulous and asked when and how the 2010
resolution was repealed.
We were told
that the following language of resolution 117-2012 repealed the 2010
resolution:
“notwithstanding
any previous directive from the Town Board to the Ethics Board.”
The public
was told that the town attorney and the majority had advised the Ethics Board
that this language repealed the 2010 resolution.
We were
further told that the town attorney had informed the Ethics Board to the effect
that since the 2010 resolution was based by a three member Town Board the
current full Town Board could change the meaning and interpretation of the 2010
resolution to anything the majority now wanted.
Ginny
O’Brien voted in favor of financial disclosure in 2010 and against financial
disclosure in 2012.
I e-mailed
Supervisor Langley and asked him if he knew and agreed that the above language
of 117-2012 repealed the 2010 resolution. I have not received a response.
I asked
Board Member Matters the same question. Rick’s response was that the language
of 117-2012 is open to interpretation but he was not aware of the majority’s
intent to have that language repeal the 2010 resolution.
One person
close to all the discussion between the town attorney and the majority has told
me that the only problem is that the town attorney was incompetent when he
wrote the language of resolution 117-2012.
Other people
have told me that they feel that the majority is trying to scam the public and
avoid the responsibility to openly and publically state that they are repealing
the 2010 resolution and its financial disclosure requirement.
What do you
think?
Ray -
ReplyDeleteYou have made serious and substantive contributions to the discussion about a new code of ethics in previous posts but you are in error here. The 2010 resolution does NOT mandate that financial disclosure must be part of the amended code, only that the board of ethics must recommend it to the town board for its consideration. That was done, the town board considered it and decided not to include it. The 2010 resolution did not have to be repealed; the point of the latest resolution was to turn the draft code back to the board of ethics for further review.
In light of this fact, it is hard to understand what the 'scam' is that you refer to in your post. The public record couldn't be clearer: the board of ethics urged the town board to include financial disclsoure, the town board chose not to include it. State law does not require financial disclosure for municipalities with a population of less than 50,000 so they are within their legal rights to do so.
At the end of the day, your complaint amounts to that a resolution may have been poorly worded. Our code of ethics has not been amended in 38 years (it was passed in 1974, not 1975) and none of us has ever worked on anything like this before so the fact that we have made some mistakes is lamentable but not surprising.
Jack:
DeleteThe bottom line for me is that the Ethics Board has put together a proposed Code that is worthy of serious consideration by the Town Board.
As previously stated, the ideal code would include the strong financial disclosure provisions that were previously recommended by the Ethics Board.
The current Majority Town Board has made it clear they are unwilling to consider financial disclosure.
Consequently, the Ethics Board was tasked to craft an Ethics Code without financial disclosure. The Ethics Board has done so and in my opinion, has done an outstanding job.
The next step in the process is for the revised Code recommendation to be officially transmitted to the Town Board.
I would respectfully ask all who are interested in seeing the 1974 Ethics Code updated, to closely examine what the Town Board comes up with (after due deliberation) as a Resolution.
Ethics interested EG town residents will then have an opportunity to make their opinions known to the Town Board at a Public Hearing.
As one of those residents, I greatly appreciate the efforts made by the Ethics Board throughout this difficult process.
Thank you for your service!!!
Be well,
Tom
Gadfly...
ReplyDeleteYou know at the 2012 Organizational Meeting we learned that Ginny O'Brien's husband and Phil Malone's mother did not have to be re-appointed for 2012 because they had been appointed to two year terms the year before.
And yet there is not a single word available from 2011 to the public to make that a truthful statement.
Lies of omission occur when the truth is deliberately hidden.
And that is precisely what the town attorney, Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone have done and continue to do to taxpayers - they lie by omission.
Deep down we probably all know that the majority is going to do whatever they damn well please - at least until 2013 when we get to vote again.
And in the meantime we get screwed, blued and tatooed with their deceitfulness.
Nice way to govern.
Wake up Langley and Matters. Now. Please.
Looks to me like Conway just announced for Town Board.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he will start as deputy supervisor to Sue Mangold.
DeleteSeems that convoluted politics have taken things over here in East Greenbush. Can't we have a serious analysis of what a couple of Resolutions mean? How about looking at them and seeing exactly what they say? It seems to me that the majority administration has an obligation to be clear as to what it is saying and what it wants to do.
ReplyDeleteIf the Resolution at the last Board meeting invalidated the Resolution of October 2010, couldn't that be said? Plain English might help all of us right now.
Jack: Here's what I am sure of...
ReplyDelete1.) The Ethics Board has worked hard and done a great job.
2.) The ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board is the version that best represents the public's interests.
3.) Neither of the two statements above are true for Liccardi, O'Brien, Mangold and Malone.
4.) The public deserves to know about the almost two year (so far) mismanagement of the ethics code process by Liccardi, O'Brien, Mangold and Malone.
5.) O'Brien, Mangold and Malone are supposed to do what is best for the public. Their performance on the ethics code is anything but.
I am fully prepared to engage with you, or anyone else, in a public discussion around these five points.
If these three were truthful this town would be in great shape.
ReplyDeleteBut we all know they are anyting but, So why hasn't Matters and Langley been on the ball?
This Ethics code is a just another notch in their belts.
So what can the people of this town do? I guess just pay till they are elected out. Nothing else seems to work.
How about if we just borrow the Library Trustees' code: "Trustees/board members owe allegiance to the institution and must act in good faith with the best interest of the organization in mind. The conduct of a trustee/board member must, at all times, further the institution's goals and not the member's personal or business interests...A trustee/board member should avoid even the appearance of impropriety...Acts of self-dealing constitute a breach of fiduciary responsibility that could result in personal liability and removal from the board." Clean, simple, effective. In our case the institution/organization is the Town itself and all its citizens. What's so hard about that? Dwight Jenkins
ReplyDeleteDwight, at every Town Board meeting we pledge allegience to the United States. A lovely tradition intended to remind us of our loyalty to our country as citizens.
ReplyDeleteHow about if the Town Board members simply repeat their oath of office every month to remind them of their responsibilities to the citizens and taxpayers of our town?
Yup, that would work as long as there wasn't money to be made by a vote that night... Dwight
ReplyDeleteYou should publish more of your posts in the Advertiser. You will reach more voters and increase their awareness.
ReplyDeleteThis majority board doesn't think of any oath they have taken.. Look at Malone and his notary license.
ReplyDeleteThat is a great example about our majority board and were their
loyalty lies.
My question pertains to audits on ALL municipalities. http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2012/07/04/news/doc4ff3cdfe59967665061984.txt, this site takes you to an article in the Troy Record regarding a woman embezzling $75k from Rensselaer County DOH. The article reports she was able to do this from Jan 2010--April 2012. Over 2 YEARS she was able to do this. Apparently the County is not conducting annual audits of each department. We complain about the Town and the lack of audits and check and balances. What about the County? What this woman did was very wrong BUT had the County conducted annual audits of each department this could have been caught and stopped much earlier. If the County is conducting these audits, how did this woman manage to embezzle for over 2 years---lax auditor or lax County policies?
ReplyDeleteMy apologies but I did not know where else to post this question. We complain the Town has lax financial controls...so does the County. I fear this problem is bigger than the voters.
Sometimes the problem is with audits that the findings have absolutely no "teeth" so ignoring them is really easy. In East Greenbush, we've had audits which have looked at taxpayers money being disbursed without the requirements of the law being followed, but the auditors just don't have the honesty to say so. So the "wink and the nod" kick in and nobody gets nailed and business continues as usual. When a referral gets made, we'll have a change in behavior. It's as simple as that. When misbehavior starts to cost something, we'll have change.
ReplyDelete