Reggie Crowley Responds to Eithics Questions

Chronicle Editor’s Note: The following is an exchange of
ideas resulting from last week’s editorial in The Chronicle about the Copake
Ethics Board and the possibility of our town board shutting it down.

These letters come from a forum called Copake Politics. It is an open forum with just a few restrictions. The political discussion should be contained to Copake only and civility should prevail at all times. You can join this group by sending the moderator Howard Blue a request to join at Krylatsk@Gmail.com
_____________________________________________________________________________
From John Decker
I haven't taken any stand on any of the issues so far talked about here because I didn't think I had enough information. But today I will because this is different.  I am proud to live in a town that has an Ethics Board. It is good for the town and the people who live in Copake.Why would our town board even consider to shut it down?  It is a
dumb idea.  I am hoping that it is just some sort of  lawyer talk and the town
board will completely dismiss the idea.
J. Decker

From Bob Sacks

John:
In all fairness, other than myself, the board hasn't taken any official stand yet. We have to
wait and see what the other board members wish to do. I am hopeful like yourself that they quickly stand up and express their full support and intent to keep the Ethics Board where it belongs, right here in Copake. So far there are just recommendations from the town lawyer. Only the Town Board can make a change.
But thank you for your comment.

Bob Sacks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Janet Hanson

I think Mr. Decker has made a very valid and important point. Given a choice I would prefer to live in a town with ethics. Is there someone who disagrees?

Janet H.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Reggie Crowley

In reply to your comments about the Ethics Board. First of all, Mr. Blue did not question the integrity of the Ethics Board itself, but rather questioned the legality of the law. The Board asked the attorney to look into Mr. Blue's question. The attorney did not suggest anything.He gave us a report that outlined the opinions of the Committee on Open Government. He also gave us TWO options to consider.

The first was to for a committee to review our ethics law and make any necessary changes. The second was to adopt the County's ethics law, which was just reviewed about 3 months ago.He DID NOT suggest one option above the other. He left that decision up to the Board.The attorney did exactly what we asked him to do.

He didn't confer with the Liason because at the time there was no Liason to the Ethics Board. Kind of tough to talk to someone who doesn't exist.He didn't confer with the Ethics Board because the Ethics Board DOES NOT write the law, that would be a bit of a conflict don't you think?

Once again Bob, you are posting only partial information and half truths. Perhaps what you should be concerned with is why the Ethics Board did not meet or even pick up their mail for 10 months.

Fortunately, there were no complaints in the pile of mail that built up for 10 months, but they could not have known this if they didn't bother to check their mail.I believe that if you check our present ethics law you will see it requires that the Ethics Board meet monthly, whether they have complaints or not.

If you are going to make posts Bob, you should post ALL the information. Posting inaccurate,incomplete information and half truths are a great disservice to the people of our town.

Reggie Crowley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Howard Blue

Re discussion of the ethics committee,

I wish to correct Reggie Crowley's assertion of what I requested that the board ask the town attorney. Three months ago, at the Nov. Town board meeting I asked the board to look into the legality of keeping the Ethics Board's work secret, a procedure which I suggested violated the state's Open Meetings Law. In response, Reggie said that he would check with the attorney.

Many weeks went by and I had still not received the promised reply. So on February 8,  I repeated the request in an e-mail to all of the board members except Walt Kiernan.
Then, earlier today in a posting to this forum, Reggie wrote "Mr. Blue did not question the integrity of the Ethics Board itself, but rather questioned the legality of the law."

I've already established above what specifically my question was. My concern is with openness in government and compliance with the Open Meetings Law. I believe that we need an Ethics Committee and that as much as practical and legal, its meetings should be open to the public as should its findings.

I also believe that our elected representatives owe it to us to be held accountable. Good and honest representatives will not have problems doing so. Only representatives who are less than good and honest need to fear compliance with the law and responsible oversight.

Howard Blue

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Bob Sacks

To Reggie Crowley and the Copake Politics Group:

Reggie Crowley twice has posted interesting notes in this email forum. In his closing statement in the first note he concludes that:

“Posting inaccurate, incomplete, information and half-truths are a great disservice to the people of our town. “ For the first time, in a long time, I agree with Mr.
Crowley. I suggest that he consider following his own advice.

1) Mr. Crowley is incorrect in his first statement of what Mr. Blue asked. Mr. Blue didn’t ask about the legality of having an Ethics Board, he asked if they were following Open
Meeting Law.

2) In Mr. Crowley’s letter he proudly suggests a fascinating reason why our lawyer didn’t
speak to the liaison. Mr. Crowley said:

 ”He didn't confer with the Liason because at the time there was no Liason to the Ethics Board. Kind of tough to talk to someone who doesn't exist.”

I respectfully suggest that Mr. Crowley reconsider that statement.  There has always been a
liaison to the Ethics Board since 2006, with the exception that no appointment was made in 2010.  Who makes liaison appointments is a good question.  That responsibility would fall to the supervisor. Reggie, why didn’t you appoint a liaison in 2010? 

3) Mr. Crowley complains that the Ethics Board didn’t meet. That is true.  They did not meet when there were no cases.  I am aware that several of our boards don’t meet when there were no cases.  The ZBA and The Planning Board come to mind.

At the end of the day none of this posturing by me or Reggie matters.  What matters is whether the Town Board will sustain our local Ethics Board.  I am for continuing to have one.

I am asking Reggie right here and now to declare his intentions.  Reggie, will you support the continuation of a local Ethics Board in Copake?

Bob Sacks

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Reggie Crowley

To answer Councilman Sacks questions.

In regards to Mr. Blue's question as to why the finding of the ethics board are not made public. This refers to the legality of our law which states that all complaints are confidential, therefore it is a question about the law, not the ethics board members.

Yes I did not appoint a liason in 2010. My reason for this was to avoid any appearance of political influence on the ethics board. I'm not in any way implying there was, but with no Town Board member as a liason it takes away all doubt. But in February 2011 the ethics board asked for a liason so I appointed one at that time.

Yes the ethics board did not meet for 10 months Bob, and your reasoning is that was because they had no complaints. A question for you Bob, how did they know they had no complaints if they didn't pick up their mail for that 10 month period?

As to my stand on the issue, I still have several questions for the attorney and the ethics board itself. When I get the answers to my questions I will make up my mind.

Reggie Crowley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From John Cady
[Copakepolitics] Ethics obfusification

New Word. Obfusification. noun, Just talking non-sense in a thinly veiled attempt to cloud the real issue rather than even acknowledging it. See obfuscation.
This is getting too weird.

Now Mr. Crowley is suggesting there was a question about the Ethics Board members?

"In regards to Mr. Blue's question as to why the finding of the ethics board are
not made public. This refers to the legality of our law which states that all
complaints are confidential, therefore it is a question about the law,  not the ethics board members."

My understanding of ethics issues in government is that they can go two ways.  The people can have questions about the ethics of officials and officials can have questions about how they should conduct themselves when they perceive they may have conflicts. Officials with questions may want to consult an attorney but my understanding is that the Ethics Board is there to help with those questions also. Our Supervisor says he had an ethics question that prevented him from carrying out his duties regarding the ethics board. The ethics board is there to help. There is no such thing as a dumb question there.

"Yes I did not appoint a liason in 2010. My reason for this was to avoid any appearance of political influence on the ethics board. I'm not in any way implying there was, but with no Town Board member as a liason it  takes away all doubt. "

What was the question? That is the first question to ask when evaluating the attorney's response. Lawyers are expensive. Did the Supervisor really say, Mr. Attorney, tell us what the legality of the Ethics Board is and the attorney said, gee that's a complicated question, lots of case law there, I'll get back to you in a few months? Maybe questions put to our
attorney should be drafted in session as a team effort.

John Cady

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Janet Hanson

This has become scary. What possible problem could there be for having a local ethics board?  What possible reason could there be to be against it? It makes no sense.  Not having ethics is like not having churches. I am appalled.
Janet

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Howard Blue
Reggie Crowley wrote, "The ethics board meetings are open to the public, when they meet. (but that's another issue). But as you know, personnel matters that may involve discipline are confidential, even at Town Board meetings."

Reggie,
Three months ago, I asked the board to look into the legality of keeping the Ethics Board's work secret, a procedure which I suggested violated the state's Open Meetings Law. Would you please clarify? Is your statement above the town attorney's response to which I have been waiting since November?

If a an ethics complaint is made regarding a town employee or elected official and the Ethics Board finds that complaint is valid, does the law support keeping that conclusion secret, does it support protecting an employee's or official's behavior that has been found to be
unethical?

Also, you wrote "The lag in replying to your question was because of the time it took the attorney to research this issue." But as I said in my recent posting you misrepresented the question I had asked. You stated that I had questioned the law which I did not. I asked
whether the Ethics Board's operating in secret was in compliance with the Open
Meetings Law.

And you wrote, "The ethics board meetings are open to the public, when they meet. (but that's another issue)." What do you mean that's another issue? It goes to the very heart of the question I asked: secrecy or openness.

I repeat the question that I asked in November: What is the legality of the Ethics Board operating in secret? Your statement that the public can attend its meetings seems to contradict your implied statement that the public cannot hear discussion of any personnel action that might result in disciplinary action. So what can the public hear at an Ethics Board meeting besides the Pledge of Allegiance? And what about the public's access to the
Ethics Board's findings of the ethical violations?

If your statements above are not a report on the attorney's findings, when can I expect an answer (to the actual question that I asked)? Before the end of the month? Before the end of the year?

Howard Blue