An Open Letter to the Copake Town Board

An Open Letter to the Copake Town Board


I urge the town board to open up the Copake Ethics Committee and its deliberations to public scrutiny.

At least in some ways, the committee is functioning as a means of protecting actual and potential legal and/or ethical violations by town employees and official appointees. Part of the reason for this is the lack of requirement that the committee's deliberations and even its conclusions are hidden from the public. In other words in a crucial area of government there is no transparency.

Late last spring, a town appointee, Karen Hallenbeck, deliberately misrepresented herself on the telephone as speaking to a town resident on a matter of so-called "official business." In fact, Ms. Hallenbeck was speaking to that town resident on behalf of a friend who was also an elected town official, in regard to a private disagreement that the town resident and town official had recently had.

After the Copake resident submitted a complaint to the Copake town ethics committee, and after the committee met in October, it took two full months before the resident learned that the committee had made its findings. But because the committee works in secrecy, she could not even find out what those findings were.

Ms. Hallenbeck was originally appointed to her position, that of town ombudsman, at the urging of town supervisor Reggie Crowley. So it was no surprise when the Ethics Committee sent Mr. Crowley its findings, which apparently confirmed the validity of the complaint, that he sat on them for two months instead of sharing them with his town board colleagues as the committee had requested him to do.

In another situation, a year or two ago, a complaint about an illegal and unconstitutional sign which in effect was being used to prohibit free speech in the town park was referred to the ethics committee. The town attorney was present at the town board meeting when the complaint was made and the matter should have been referred to him; there was no attorney on the ethics committee and the effect was simply to slow down the complaint.

The lack of government transparency in Copake compares quite unfavorably to, for example, Westchester County whose Board of Ethics operates in the open and whose findings are public. (Columbia County has no such board.)

Good government requires transparency, timely responsiveness from government officials and procedures designed to enhance resolution of complaints and/or produce answers to citizen’s inquiries.

Ms. Hallenbeck has now applied to be reappointed as ombudsman. The current procedure has been used to try to shelter her from public scrutiny. Because of this case, and any similar complaints that might be made against town officials or appointees, regardless of their party, the town board needs to turn the ethics board into one which can properly service the public.

Sincerely,
Howard Blue