HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL 2004 #05 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
February 25, 2004
Re: Southold Town Ethics Code
To Whom It May Collcenl:
Please be advised that the Amendments to the Southold Town Ethics Code were adopted by the
Southold Town Board on February 3, 2004 as Local Lax;' No. 5 of 2004. It was filed in the New
York State Office of the Department State on February 4, 2004. I received official notification
from that Department on February 18, 2004 that they officially filed it in their office on February
13, 2004. The date of February 13, 2004 is the official effective date. A certified copy of the
Southold Town Board resolution number 112 is enclosed for your records.
Southold Town Clerk
ELIZABETH A. NEVH,LE
TOWN CT.EP.~K
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 112 OF 2004
WAS .aDOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON FEBRUARY 3, 2004:
WHEREAS there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York, on the 6th day of January 2004 a Local Law entitled "A Local La~v in
relation to Amendments to the Ethics Code" and
WHEREAS the Toxvn Board of the Town of Southold held a public heating on the aforesaid
Local Law at which time all interested persons were heard, now therefor be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby enacts the following Local
Law:
LOCAL LAW NO. 5 OF 2004
A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Ethics Code"
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Toxvn of Southold, as follows:
I. Purpose- Regulations and promulgations of ethical standards for public employees serve a
legitimate public purpose.
Restrictions on partisan political activity of public officers in this state have been sustained as
necessary and proper methods of maintaining public confidence in government. This law will
broaden participation in government by addressing the conflicts of interest and corruption that
may result from the concentration of power in a few officeholders. This law is intended to
eliminate apparent conflicts of interest, including those that arise when public officials are
simultaneously subject to the demands of both their constituencies and their political parties, to
broaden opportunities for public and political participation, to reduce the opportunities for
corruption, and ~,o increase citizens' confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of their
government. These are legitimate govermnental purposes and have been so identified as such
both by the courts and the legislature.
II. Chapter 10 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows:
§ 10-9. Representation.
&. A town officer or employee shall not represent any other person in any matter that said
person has before the toxvn nor represent any other person in any matter against the interest
of the town.
B. No relative (as defined in § 10-2) of a sitting Town Board member shall represent an,/other
person in any matter that said person has before the To~vn nor represent any other person in
any matter a~ainst the interest of the Town.
§ 10-10. Appearances.
A town officer or employee or an,/relative (as defined in § 10-2) of a Town Board member shall
not appear before or exert influence over any board or department of the town, except on his or
her own behalf or on behalf o f the town.
§10-12A
No elected official or member of the Toxvn Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board of
Appeals, Board of Ethics, Board of Assessment Review or the Town Attorney shall be a
committeeman or committeewoman, alternate committeeperson, or the officer of a political
party.
§ 10-13. Revolving door.
A town officer or employee shall not appear or practice before the town as to particular matters
on which the town officer or employee personally worked while in town service, unless acting in
response to a request by the appropriate official for the sole purpose of providing information. A
town officer or employee shall not appear or practice before the board or department in which he
or she previously served, except on his or her own behalf, for a period of one (1) two (2) 3'ears
after the termination of his or her municipal se~'ice or employment. Nothin~ herein shall
prohibit the Town itself from retaining the services of a former Town officer or employee or a
finn or corporation in which such former Town officer or employee currently is employed.
III. Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not effect the validity of this law
as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
IV. Effective date
This Local Laxv shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided
by law. Compliance with § 10-12A shall be completed 60 days fi'om the effective date of this
Local Law.
Strike-through represents deletion.
Underline represents insertion.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
JOSHUA Y. HORTON
SUPERVISOR
Town Hall, 53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Fax (631) 765-1823
Telephone (631) 765-1889
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
DATE: February 25, 2004
NOTE TO: Town Clerk ~.'-'~_~_~.~
FROM: Joanne Liguori '
/
SUBJECT: Ethics Code v/
Fi!B 24 2004
Southold 1'own Clef[
Bett3,, can you please distribute today a copy of the newly adopted "Local Laxv in
relation to Amendments to the Ethics Code" to everyone who might be affected by the
new code.
In addition, as a courtesy, please send a cop), to each of the part3, leaders for their
information.
This should be sent out from the Town Clerk's office.
Thanks.
STATE OF NEW YORK
[~)EPARTMENT OF STATE
4 I STATE STREET
ALBANY, NY 122.3 I-OOO I
OEOROE E. PATAKI
February 13, 2004
RECEIVED
RANDY A, DANIeLs
Town of Southold
Office of the Town Clerk
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
FEB 1 8 2004
Southold Town Clerk
RE: Town of Southold, Local Law 5, 2004, filed on 2/09/2004
To Whom It May Concern:
The above referenced material was received and filed by this office as indicated.
Additional local law filing forms will be forwarded upon request.
Sincerely,
Linda Lasch
Principal Clerk
State Records & Law Bureau
(518) 474-2755
LL:cb
Local Law Filing
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
41 STATE STREETl ALBANYI NY 12231
(Use this form to f'de a local law with the Secretary of State.)
Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use
italics or underlining to indicate nexv matter.
Town of
SOUTHOLD
LOCAL LAW NO. 5 OF 2004
A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Ethics Code"
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows:
I. Purpose- Regulations and promulgations of ethical standards for public employees serve a legitimate public
purpose.
Restrictions on partisan political activity of public officers in this state have been sustained as necessary and
proper methods of maintaining public confidence in government. This law will broaden participation in
government by addressing the conflicts of interest and corruption that may result from the concentration of
power in a few officeholders. This law is intended to eliminate apparent conflicts of interest, including those
that arise when public officials are simultaneously subject to the demands of both their constituencies and their
political parties, to broaden opportunities for public and political participation, to reduce the opportunities for
corruption, and to increase citizens' confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of their government. These are
legitimate governmental purposes and have been so identified as such both by the courts and the legislature.
II. Chapter 10 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows:
§ 10-9. Representation.
A~ A town officer or employee shall not represent any other person in any matter that said person has before
the town nor represent any other person in any matter against the interest of the to~vn.
B.= No relative (as defined in §10-2) of a sitting Town Board member shall represent any other person in any
matter that said person has before the Town nor represent any other person in any matter against the
interest o f the Town.
(If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.)
Dos-e39(Rev. 1 l,'99) (1)
§ 10-10. Appearances.
A town officer or employee or any relative (as defined in § 10-2) of a Town Board member shall not appear
before or exert influence over any board or department of the town, except on his or her own behalf or on behalf
of the town.
§10-12A
No elected official or member of the Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Board of
Ethics, Board of Assessment Review or the Town Attomey shall be a committeeman or committeewoman,
alternate committeeperson, or the officer of a political party.
§ 10-13. Revolving door.
A town officer or employee shall not appear or practice before the town as to particular matters on which the
town officer or employee personally worked while in town service, unless acting in response to a request by the
appropriate official for the sole pnrpose of providing information. A town officer or employee shall not appear
or practice before the board or department in which he or she previously served, except on his or her own
behalf, for a period of two (2) years after the termination of his or her municipal service or employment.
Nothing herein shall prohibit the Town itself from retaining the services ora former Town officer or employee
or a firm or corporation in which such former Town officer or employee currently is employed.
III. Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not effect the validity of this law as a whole or any part
thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
W. Effective date
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by laxv.
Compliance with § 10-12A shall be completed 60 days from the effective date of this Local Law.
(Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies to the filing of this local law and
strike out that which is not applicable.)
1. (Final adoption by local legislative body only.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. __ 5 of 20 04 o of the
(~s.~)(4~(Town) (V~.!zg:) of SOUTHOLD was duly passed by the
TOWN BOARD on__February 3__, 20 04 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective
Chief Executive Officer*.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20
of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the
on 20 , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after
disapproval) by the and was deemed duly adopted on 20__
in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
3. (Final adoption by referendum.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20__
of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the
on 20 , and xvas (approved)(not approved)(repassed after
disapproval) by the on 20 . Such local law was submitted
to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote of a majority of
the qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on 20_ . in
accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
4. (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting
referendum.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20__ of the
(County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the
on 20 , and was (approved)(not approved) (repassed after
disapproval) by the on 20__ Such local laxv was subject to
permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of 20 , in
accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
* Elective Chief Executive Officer means or Includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a county- wide
basis or, If there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor ora city or village, or the supervisor of
a tox~m where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances.
(2)
5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 __
of the City of having been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisions of
section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified
electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(general) election held on 20 ,
became operative.
6. (County. local law concerning adoption of Charter.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No of 20
of the County of State of New York, having been submitted to the electors
at the General Election of November 20 , pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the
Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cities of
said county as a unit and a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said
general election, became operative.
(If any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed, please provide an appropriate certification.)
I further certify that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a
correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally adopted in the manner indicated
in paragraph 1 , above.
Clerk of th~/Coufib' fegis~[ive body~ City. Tovm or Village Clerk
or officer designated by local legislative body
Linda J. Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk
(Seal) Date: February 4, 2004
(Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or
other authorized attorney of locality.)
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that all proper proceedings
have been had or taken for the enactment of the local law an~d hereto. ~ ~
Si
Attorney
Title
Town of
SOUTHOLD
Date: February 4, 2004
(3)
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
February 3, 2004
5:00 P.M.
HEARING ON "A LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO AMENDMENTS TO THE ETHICS
CODE".
Present: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton
Justice Louisa P. Evans
Councilman John M. Romanelli
Councilman Thomas H. Wickham
Councilman Daniel C. Ross
Councilman William P. Edwards
Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Attorney Patricia A. Finnegan
COLrNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been presented to the
Town Board of the Toxvn of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 6th day of January 2004 a
Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Ethics Code" and
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a
public heating on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,
New York, on the 3ra day of February 2004 at 5:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be
given an opportunity to be heard.
The proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Ethics Code"
reads as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. 2004
A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Ethics Code"
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows:
I. Purpose- Regulations and promulgations of ethical standards for public employees serve a
legitimate public purpose.
Restrictions on partisan political activity of public officers in this state have been sustained as
necessary and proper methods of maintaining public confidence in government. This law will broaden
participation in government by addressing the conflicts of interest and corruption that may result from
the concentration of power in a few officeholders. This law is intended to eliminate apparent conflicts
of interest, including those that arise when public officials are simultaneously subject to the demands
of both their constituencies and their political parties, to broaden opportunities for public and political
participation, to reduce the opportunities for corruption, and to increase citizens' confidence in the
integrity and effectiveness of their government. These are legitimate governmental purposes and have
been so identified as such both by the courts and the legislature.
II. Chapter 10 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows:
February 3, 2004
Public Heating-Ethics Code
2
§ 10-9. Representation.
A_~. A town officer or employee shall not represent any other person in any matter that said person has
before the town nor represent any other person in any matter against the interest of the town.
B. No relative (as defined in §10-2) of a sitting Town Board member shall represent any other person
in any matter that said person has before the Town nor represent any other person in any matter
against the interest of the Town.
§ 10-10. Appearances.
A town officer or employee or any relative (as defined in §10-2) of a Town Board member shall not
appear before or exert influence over any board or department of the town, except on his or her own
behalf or on behalf of the town.
§10-12A
No elected official or member of the Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals,
Board of Ethics, Board of Assessment Review or the Town Attorney shall be a committeeman or
committeewoman, alternate committeeperson, or the officer of a political party.
§ 10-13. Revolving door.
A town officer or employee shall not appear or practice before the town as to particular matters on
which the town officer or employee personally worked while in town service, unless acting in response
to a request by the appropriate official for the sole purpose of providing information. A town officer or
employee shall not appear or practice before the board or department in which he or she previously
served, except on his or her own behalf, for a period of c, nc, (I) two (2) years after the termination of
his or her municipal service or employment. Nothing herein shall prohibit the Town itself from
retaining the services of a former Town officer or employee or a firm or corporation in which such
former Toxvn officer or employee currently is employed.
III. Severability.
If any clause~ sentence~ paragraph~ section~ or part of this Local Law shall be adiudged by any
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid~ the [udgment shall not effect the validity of this law
as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
IV. Effective date
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided
by law. Compliance with §10-12A shall be completed 60 days from the effective date of this
Local Law.
I have a certification that this has appeared as a legal notice in the Traveler-Watchman and it has also
appeared as a legal notice in the Suffolk Times and I am sure it has appeared out there on the Town
Clerk's bulletin board. I have three written comments that are before us tonight. One is from Patricia
Moore and I will summarize it quickly, "while your proposed legislative changes have no impact on
past elected officials, your proposed legislation is so draconian that you will discourage and eliminate
participation by educated professionals in town government. The Ethics law was placed on the books
for town officials to disclose their financial interests in matters before the Town's Board and in
particular, real estate holdings. It was not intended to restrict employment of non-elected officials
from earning their livelihood. The solution to any conflict is recusal by the involved official. This is a
legal and recognized means throughout the US at all levels of government. Your proposed laxv will
exclude relatives of Town Board members as defined. All those persons will be prevented from
rmming a business in their town. This targets not only lawyers but engineers, architects, environmental
consultants, other professionals and their employees. You intentionally prohibit professionals from
practicing their career in their own town. Why would anyone mn for public office if their family,
February 3, 2004
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
3
extended family and employees will be financially crippled? Your ethics crusade should begin with
honesty and integrity. On a personal note, what the Ethics Board did to me was illegal, irrational and
defamatory. Your proposed amendments to the law do nothing to cure the abusive process xve
experienced. I hope that no one will ever have to face the defamation of character brought upon us. A
professional person or business owner who runs for elected office does not gain financially fi.om their
years of public service. The rexvard must come from the knowledge that they are contributing to their
community and making it a better place for future generations. Very truly yours, Patricia Moore" I
have another somewhat more lengthy communication from William Schriever, PO Box 128 in Orient,
"Public officials can experience conflicts of interest in a great variety of ways, most of which are not
even apparent to their constituents. That there is no appearance of a conflict does not mean that none
exists. In a representative democracy public officials are expected to represent the interests of their
constituents in spite of such conflicts. Considering both the numbers of elected members and their
diversity, a town political committee is undoubtedly more representative of their common constituency
than any of these public officials. The duly elected town political committee is the political party that
nominated them and supported them in their campaign for election and is the organization in the best
position to hold these officials accountable. If given the oppommity by these public officials, the toxvn
political committee can serve as a surrogate for their constituents until the next election. For example,
members of the Town Board could present a draft of any proposed new law to the members of the
town political committees for their comments before adopting it. Thus, the duly elected toxvn political
committee not only does not contribute to the problems of the conflict of interest, it offers the best
solution to the problem. Ifa nominee for public office or an elected public official pledges to support a
certain political outcome and then accepts campaign contributions from those who wish to support
such a political outcome, xve don't consider that taking a bribe. On the other hand, if a nominee for
public office or an elected official receives campaign contributions from those who wish to support a
certain political outcome and then announces his support for such an outcome, do we consider that
taking a bribe? It could happen. But the political parties offer both public officials and campaign
contributors additional security that these contributions will not be seen as bribes and that the pledges
of the candidates of a political party to support the certain political outcome will be fulfilled. Thus the
campaign committees of a political parties, including the duly elected town committees substantially
reduce the opportunity for the type of political "corruption" which might be anticipated by this Ethics
Code amendment. The same constituency elects both the public officials and the members of the town
political committees so there can be no direct conflict of interest as might occur from serving a
different constituency. The town committees usually nominate the candidates for election as public
officials and so it could be seen as a conflict of interest fro a candidate to serve on his own nominating
committee. As a practical matter even if the candidate votes on his own nomination, his vote would be
insignificant on such a large committee. And anyway, it is the election by the public that places the
candidate in office and not the nomination by the town committee. So the conflict of interest that
results fi.om having an elected official as a member of the town political committee is insignificant.
And in the case of a public official who has been appointed to his office by the Town Board, there is
no conflict of interest that results fi.om his membership on a town political committee. AS a practical
matter, the members of the Town Board usually choose not to serve on the town committees because
they are akeady deeply involved in the political issues of the day and they already have plenty of work
to keep them busy. AS a matter of courtesy, if not self-interest, the members of the town political
committes usually offer the members of the Town Board every reasonable opportunity to present their
ideas on the issues of the day. One of the usual functions of the town committees is to adopt a political
platform for the coming election. Public officials, whether elected or appointed, should have an
February 3, 2004 4
Public Heating-Ethics Code
opportunity to participate in the debate over the political platform not only because they many have the
most intimate knowledge of the issues but also because they do have the greatest stake in presenting
the platform to the public during the election. For these reasons, the effect of this amendment to the
Ethics Code, would be to limit the opportunity for public officials to participate in the debate over the
political platform of their party, which is not in the public interest. The members of the town political
committees, acting in their official capacity as committee persons, do not have the capacity for
corruption. Their duties are simply to adopt a political platform for the party, to nominate candidates
for election to public office and to support the campaign for their election. On the other hand, public
officials, especially members of the Town Board do have the capacity because they make the
appointments to public office, hire the public employees, enact the laws, pass the budgets and spend
the money. This capacity for corruption is neither enhanced nor diminished by their membership on
the town committees. Thus this amendment to the Ethics Code to prohibit public officials fi:om being
members of the Town Committees would not achieve its stated purpose "to reduce the opportunities
for corruption." As a former committeeman whose experience on the town committee goes back more
than forty years, I feel that the adoption of these amendments to the Ethics Code would disrespect the
contributions of the party faithful who worked tirelessly year after year as members of the town
committee to keep our minority party alive only to be shut out of the political process by the very
candidates they nominated and helped to elect. Severely restricting the role of the town committees in
the political process would significantly reduce the opportunity for public participation and thereby
increase the opportunity for corruption. For these reasons, I recommend that the members of the Town
Board not adopt the amendments to the Ethics Code." And there follows a short letter fi:om Charles
Cuddy, an attorney who sometimes practices before the town, "Dear Supervisor Honon and Town
Board members, Because of a prior commitment I cannot appear at your meeting of February 3. I ha,,'e
reviewed the proposed amendments to the Ethics Code and believe these proposed amendments are not
only appropriate but necessary to insure the integrity of town government. I suggest that section 10-9B
might be further amended by inserting after 'any other person' the words 'or entity' and that 'or entity'
be inserted after 'person' as it appears in that provision. It is unfortunate that a restriction on a relative
of a Town Board member representing a party before the Town must be codified. That should be an
accepted standard without having to specifically set it forth in the code. That type of representation is
permeated with conflict and should not occur. This provision will make that abundantly clear. It is
also significant to bar committeemen or committeewomen as well as officers of a political party from
either elected or appointed positions in the town, otherwise the perception, if not the reality, is that a
political party controls the governmental process and much of government is conducted outside the
realm of the various town boards. I applaud you for preparing these amendments which implement the
proposed clause set out in Part 1 of this local law and anticipate you will adopt the amendments to
make the Ethics Code more meaningful. Very truly yours, Charles Cuddy". And that is all the
information I have on this public heating.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay, thank you, Councilman Wickham. At this point, we offer the floor
to the public to address the Board on this specific public hearing. Yes, ma'am.
LESLIE PROVATAS: My name is Leslie and I am from Orient, Provatas is my second name. As I
said before, I am here to support you on this because I think that anything that would deter or prevent
any kind of corruption in any situation would be a good thing and not a bad thing. I am looking at the
article that was in the Suffolk Times, I just have written and underlined a few things that I would like
to read that were meaningful to me, 'Mr. Horton's call to make several changes to the Ethics Code
February 3, 2004 5
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
include banning members of the local political committees from simultaneously serving on town
panels, including Ethics, Planning and Zoning Boards.' To me, this is a no brainer, okay. Then it goes
down a couple of paragraphs and it says, 'although the code is scheduled to be heard during Town
Board public heating next week-which is today-it has yet to be discussed by the Board Code
committee. The Town's Ethics Board, which has been working on its own legislative re-write since
last fall is expected to offer its recommendations in March. Why wait? This is a very simple, very
small change that will make things, I think, a little bit better.' Then we go to a little bit further down,
'legislative action must be taken so that the government is structured to remain free from the clutches
of political bosses and committees' which I think is a good idea and I have one kind of question is
everybody in Southold Town may be related to an attorney and that might be something, I don't know
if that is true but there are a lot of attorneys around here. The Supervisor also calls for a doubling of
the time covered in the revolving door provision from one to two years which is nothing, ! think that
sounds very reasonable, in which a town employee or official is barred from representing someone else
before a department or board where they previously worked. That seems very reasonable and earlier
this month, Mr. Tuthill called the Supervisor's ordinance unnecessary, I think this appears to be a
solution for something where there is no problem. My point of view personally is that the party
chairman added that during the last week's committee meeting several party members took offense at
the bill's language, which suggested that political active residents could not perform in an ethical
manner if called to serve in town government. Why risk it? That is my answer to that question, and
Mr. Edwards, it says right here "said that this would be a step in the right direction" and I happen to
agree with him. Then you go to the next part which says here "if the Board's two member GOP
minority remains opposed to the Supervisor's changes Mr. Wickham could become the swing vote on
the six member Town Board. That is what it says. I just ~vant to be sure that it won't be used to
hound people politically, why should it. Councilman Wickham said he added that he is willing to
consider amending the code to make the changes applicable to new appointees and exclude those
currently serving. Can they get off the hook, what is the deal with that? And then again here it says
"Mr. Moore, since he is no longer in office, why should this apply to something that happened last year
with Bill Moore and his wife, Pat. That doesn't even enter the problem, I don't see any problem there.
Why should it be a retro problem or why if this is going to happen now, why should it be have any
relation to that. Ethic Board is scheduled to review (inaudible) entirely new Ethics Code when it meets
next March 5, said Chairman William Thompson. Why has it taken so long for that to happen and why
can't we just do this very simple change, which will deter any kind of problems. That is my specific
opinion. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Other comments fi'om the floor? Yes, Mr. Simon.
MICHAEL SIMON: Michael Simon, from New Suffolk. As people know, one of the principal
safeguards of a democratic government are conflict of interest rules. In lawyers conflict of interest
rules they make a distinction between impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. It was
mentioned that sometimes there are improprieties that don't appear, however, I am concerned about the
other case, that the very appearance of impropriety serves, avoiding the appearance of impropriety is
important because of its affects on the confidence of people in the government. And that is why
professionals, politicians recognize that some things which are perfectly above board, probably ought
not to be gone in for because they may not look right especially to people that are partisan and most of
us are partisan on one issue or another. One of the reasons for having enriched rules of ethics and I
support Mr. Wickham's proposal, is to avoid the personalizing of the debates. What happened
February 3, 2004
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
6
involving Mr. Moore and Mrs. Moore was extremely regrettable. The Moore's took it personally
because there were no rules and maybe some people intended it personally. One of the safeguards that
a set of rules have is that personality is left out of the whole story. As I was riding over here this
evening, I just wondered what would have been the flak if for example, the Supervisor's wife were
appearing before one of the Board's that is appointed by the Town Board. It would, of course, been
extremely political especially in the absence of rules. Regarding Ms. Moore's comments, there are
plenty of precedents on all levels for close family members being covered by Boards of Ethics.
Sometimes they are very dramatic, sometimes they are awkward. I could even remember a time in the
middle of the last century in which a sitting member of the Supreme Court resigned in order that his
son, Ramsey Clark could be appointed to the Attorney General. That was the case of pervasive
potential conflict of interest. The proposal of recusal makes perfectly good sense on some issues but if
the problems is someone appears before a Board who is appointed by the whole Town Board, then that
person would have to recuse him or herself fi.om every time there is an appearance by this close family
member before anyone appointed by the Town Board, recusal simply won't work. So in the aim of
consistency and clarity and the avoidance of conflict, political conflict, I think it is an excellent idea to
make the modifications, the amendments in the ethical rule, the Ethical Code as has been suggested.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Are there other comments fi.om the floor on this public
hearing? Yes, Mr. Russell.
SCOTT RUSSELL: Scott Russell from Cutchogne, I also work in the Assessor's office. I think there
are a couple of important things to be illustrated here. The first that there are some very different
proposals within the body of the legislation. The issue regarding spouses and members of the family
representing various parties before a Town Board or any Board of the town, I happen to see a lot of
merit in that. I do think that the last few years was an unfortunate chapter in Southold Town's history,
I think that the issue was actually there before you came along, Josh, and before some of the other
people came along that complained about it. Suffolk Times addressed the issue of families
representing people before the Town, they actually disclosed that in an editorial about four years ago, I
think they tried to address that. So I happen to see some merit in that, I understand that and perception
is a very important part of what we do here in Town Hall. The second part which deals with people
being active in political committees and serving as an elected official or a public official, I think it
needs to be pointed out that this is a very different law than what was proposed last fall. This law
actually, right now, if far less broad, it is much more targeted to a very small, specific group of people.
I think in the Newsday last year, the Supervisor was talking about including everybody who worked in
toxvn government shouldn't be active in a political committee. That is where I have a bit ora problem,
in that focusing on elected officials, they happen to be the most scrutinized in town government. They
are held up to accountability every two or four years. The public gets to figure out and they do ~vith
absolute, uncanny precision, who decides to work for their own interest and who decides to work for
the interest of the people of Southold Town and the public weeds those people out. The democratic
process works in that regard. I think for the Town Board to replace the judgment of the voters, for the
judgment of themselves, I think it is a bit arrogant, personally. Also as a point of clarification, I had
served as a committeeman for the Republican party for the past four years, I served as an elected
official for the last 13, I stepped down fi.om the committee last fall right after the election, so I no
longer serve there. The reason I ran initially was because I didn't like the direction the Republican
party was going in, I didn't think they were representing the voters or the people of Southold Town
anymore and I wanted to step up and be counted. I am confident now with the nexv leadership and the
February 3, 2004 7
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
new direction the party is going in, I felt like I no longer served a purpose or I had no more burning
desire to steer them in the right direction, I feel like they are on the right course. I would like the
opportunity to come and go into that party, to have some influence in that party when I do think they
go off center, I don't know why you would exclude just elected officials and a few appointed positions
to that. I am going over the list that people have actually served in these committees over the past
several years and this law affects hardly anybody. To my knowledge, no one on the Planning Board
has been a committeeman, a sitting committeeman of any political party for at least 20 years. The
ZBA has two, one Jim DiNizio, who I said last fall is probably the most honest person I have ever dealt
with in government and then Jerry Goehfinger, who is a Republican committeeman. It really doesn't
affect that many people, it has been narrowed to such an extent that it seems rather targeted. I am also
thinking that perhaps we are confusing political interests with personal interests and there is no doubt
about the fact that there are plenty of self-interested people, motivated by their own goals and their
own desires, who get involved in political committees. The Republican committee has it, I am sure the
Democratic committee and the Conservative party committee, have had their share of it. There is no
question about it. But a lot of the people get involved because they believe in something and I don't
think there is anything wrong with that. They believe, they have a philosophy and I don't think there is
anything wrong with them to get involved in shaping the philosophy of their particular party. I respect
people that do that, whether I agree with them fundamentally or not, I respect where they are coming
from because they believe in something. There is a big difference between those two and self-interest
isn't limited to political committees. They are no more or no less prone to the self-interest of the few
than any other committee, any other walk of life. It happens. The question I would have is, we have a
great example of why it is possible and I would ask the Town Board if the Town Board thinks that Pat
Acampora is acting in an inherently unethical way by serving as the party chairman of the Republican
party of Suffolk County and as a Assemblywoman. She is an excellent example of why you can't paint
everybody with the same brush. You know, [ have seen a lot of problems in Town Hall, I have been
here for 13 years and I have seen an awful lot of things that I don't think are right. I have seen a lot of
people getting a lot of special treatment, I have seen basically two Town Halls, I see a toxvn
government that caters to a very small group of people, they have their own rules and their own
interests and then I see a Town Hall that governs everyone else and I don't think that is right. But at
no time have I ever seen that related to political affiliation. Whether you are a Democrat or
Conservative or Republican, you know what I think the damage is, the danger? I think it is the people
that lurk in the shadows of Town Hall and it is the people that lurk in the shadows of the political
committees and they have a boatload of money and they are willing to use it and when they use it, they
are expecting special treatment in return. And you know what, they do get it. They are getting it
probably just as much today as they were my first year here. And if you want examples of it, I could
sit down with you, one to one, Josh and probably agree with you on a lot of this; and that is not right,
and that is what the public sees and that is xvhat this law doesn't address. It doesn't address in any way,
why Town Hall has become so distant from the public and why the public doesn't feel right about how
they are being treated from Town government. A lot of other things I want to say, I don't want to go
on too long but most of you who know me, know that I probably will anyway. You know, you talked
just about a month, you dismissed political committees as hacks. You said that the Town Hall or town
government belongs to the people of Southold, not party hacks. I think that is a very unfortunate
comment. Again, there are a lot of good people that have come before you and have come before me
who have dedicated an awful lot of their time to this Town, people who really cared about something,
people like Frank Kujawski, John Bednoski, Judy Terry, Ray Jacobs. All of these people that came
before us, they served, they wore both hats. I think the fundamental problem with ethics and the lack
February 3, 2004 8
Public Heating-Ethics Code
of ethics isn't the committees they served on, it isn't the way they manifest their beliefs, it is just
simply speaks to character. And this law doesn't address people's character. I don't know if you are
trying to address a public perception or perhaps maybe create a public perception. You talked about
party machine should be outside, or the town shouldn't be under the grips of a party machine. I don't
know what party you are talking about. The Democrats work hard for every election they win. They
generally have an enrollment disadvantage and every candidate that wins and is successful on the
Democratic ticket worked awfully hard to get there. The Conservative party is a smaller party, they
don't have a machine. The Republican party, is it a machine? I have got to tell you, I don't knoxv if
you have been paying attention but they haven't really been doing well for a long time. I don't think
the Republican party has had a successful election cycle since 1997. Even though they won in 1999,
they did so with the minority of the vote and when you are sitting there with an overwhelming majority
of the electorate registered in your party and you can't draw them to your party, that is hardly a
machine, sounds more like not even rise to the level ora hand pump. The last time we talked about the
party machine, that was back, I remember in 1993, that was a term that was used quite a bit by the very
historic, successful race of Supervisor Wickham. Who actually went outside the party system to run.
And we all know the outcome of that, it was a hugely successful race. But a lot of the names back then
in the Republican machine were George Penny, Doc Samuels, Manny Kontokosta, Joe Lizewski. They
are all your guys now. They all support you now. They are not a machine. Are they a machine today,
are you a machine? I don't know.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am definitely not a machine.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, you certainly got the support for it. I don't know xvhat you are trying to
address here. I don't know what is the reason for such strong rhetoric being used about corruption and
about conflict of interest. You know, I served for eight years. I wasn't a Republican committeeman
for eight years, I served for four as a Republican committeeman, I have never seen any difference as
what my job as an assessor was. In fact, I have to say that as soon as I ran for committeeman, they
stopped talking to me because I took points of view, I took stances that the party leadership wasn't
comfortable with. I don't think there is any evidence that an elected official is any more prone to the
demands of their party than any elected official. You, me, Mr. Edwards, John, Tom, we all go before a
political committee and ask for their support when we run for office. They in mm ask us to consider
their view, their people, that is what they do. They stand for something and that is their right. I don't
see why a committeeman is any more prone to that or if I serve as a committeeman and as an elected
official; I am any more prone to that than anyone else. Than anyone that has to go before a committee
for support. As an elected official, I need to go to them and ask for their support. You have to, I do.
They have a right to come back to me and say this is how we feel. I have to tell you, they generally
don't. My job is fairly administrative so I don't have the discretion of voting for, you know,
appointments and things like that. But I don't see why anyone who serves on a committee is anymore
prone to that. In fact, I have to say my history with the Republican party has been quite the opposite.
The committee, I think overwhelming, I will give you a few very specific examples; I remember when
the committee overwhelmingly opposed Route 48 re-zoning. Yet, Republican office holders xvere
supporting and incidentally, they were committee people, they were pushing it forward. I remember
when the committee was overwhelmingly opposed in my view to five acre zoning. Yet a few party
office holders were advancing that agenda. I remember several years ago, when the party leadership
tried to remove people fi.om their conunittee for disloyalty. The two people that voted against that
were myself; I was a committeeman and an elected official and Robert Scott, who was a
February 3, 2004 9
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
committeeman and elected official. Where is the evidence that we are more prone to the demands of
that party than anybody else. The fact is that we all serve the same constituencies. The people of
Southold Town. And everybody, whether they are a committee person or not, has to make that first
and foremost that is your goal. And if you are not doing it, you are not a good committeeman and you
are not a good elected official and the public will weed you out. They have. We have a lot of new
faces on that Town Board to suggest that the democratic process works. With that said, I would like to
say that there are some other things that you could do to put a real meaningful ethics law together.
First, reintroduce the idea of including everybody. Secondly, political officials and committeemen, if
they are not worthy to serve in town government, perhaps they shouldn't be doing business with
Southold Town. You talked about the issue of perception, your party chairman, Dean Blaikie who is
an old friend of mine, sells a lot of products to Southold Town each year. Before you took office, he
sold about $17,000-$18,000 in products to the Senior Center. His receipts now are over $100,000 a
year. And I am not in any way suggesting that you or Dean have done anything wrong, he is a
legitimate businessman. But what is the public pemeption of that? I heard from a Democratic
committeeman, I heard that from, who thought that didn't really look good. So you see how unfair
perceptions can be? I think we need to address the meat of the issues, not just the pemeptions. That is
an empty gesture. I have four or five very valid proposals that I would like you to consider and I will
be presenting them to the Town Board, they are real, they are meaningful and they will go a lot farther
than just this particular piece of legislation. Thank you for your time.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. And do you have those proposals on hand or will you be
submitting them?
MR. RUSSELL: I will be submitting them.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Great. Thank you very much, Scott. Are their other comments from the
floor?
FRANK WILLS: My name is Frank Wills, I live in Mattituck. I have a quick comment to make on
the revolving door. The idea of extending the period from one to two years, I think is a good one,
however although there are one way streets, I think this should be a two way street. That no way
should the Town be allowed, at its own discretion and with its own timing, contact or hire a former
employee. I will give one example that happened nationwide. A former high executive of the
Pentagon moved over to Boeing and lo and behold, Boeing proposed a multi-million dollar contract on
a rental basis to the government to rent, not buy, tankers. That executive has since been fired because
it turned out that there was a handshake involved. So for the Town to be free to immediately or within
any per/od to contact a former employee or the company that he works for, I think is wrong. It should
be a two way street, ifa two year applies to an employee, it should also apply to the Town.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Wills. Are there other comments from the floor?
ART TILLMAN: Art Tillman from Mattituck. There is another aspect to this, committeemen and
town and county jobs and appointed positions. I have been to Republican fundraisers and I have been
to Democratic fundraisers and I want to tell you, Republican fundraisers sure do raise a lot of money
because there is a lot of people there. And one of the reasons there is a lot of people there is because a
lot of the people have jobs that they got through the Republican committee and they are, in fact,
February 3, 2004
Public Heating-Ethics Code
10
Republican committeemen. Now, then in and of itself, perhaps it is not bad but they are expected to
show up at their fundraisers. What bothers me about it is when we go into an election, we are so much
up against it financially, I don't have the facts and figures but they can, the Republican party and I am
a Democratic committeeman fundraiser, they can outspend us in an election, I would guess three to
one, four to one.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Tillman, this relates specifically to the public heating, I am not sure
the relevance of the finances of various political parties.
MR. TILLMAN: Well, I am talking about people on committees who serve the Town and then serve
their party.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: I just want to make sure we don't get into any sort of name calling or
defamation of any particular party or person.
MR. TILLMAN: Oh, no, no. No, not at all. And unlike Mr. Schriever, who was a committeeman and
is against the proposal, I, too, am an active cormuitteeman and I favor the proposal. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Tillman. Are there other comments fi.om the floor? Mr.
Sullivan.
GEORGE SULLIVAN: Thank you, my name is George Sullivan, from Southold. I am speaking to
address the issues of the proposed local law to amend the Ethics law as well as to comment on the role
of the Ethics Committee as I understand they are drafting their own changes to the code. We all xvant
our elected officials to act in a trustworthy manner and I do not believe that any elected official from
the Town of Southold has ever been convicted or even indicted on corruption or influence peddling
charges. I believe Supervisors Homan, Pell, Murphy, Harris, Wickham and Cochran have all been
committee persons while they held office or prior to their election and I think the Town was xvell
served by all of them. Participation in political parties enables an individual to observe and affect
government and that individual should not be denied a committee position in their party of choice. It is
a right not to be abridged by the Town Board. I have been fortunate to have served the Town three
times as an elected official and have also served my county in the military. On a recent visit to
Washington to visit troops back from Iraq, I visited the Vietnam Memorial. The point is, there are
58,265 men and women who are on that wall, who fought for tights that we should not have taken
away from us. As to the Ethics Committee, my historical understanding of the Ethics Committee was
to be one of an advisory nature whereby an elected official could seek advice as to any conflict of
interest, as well as to be the forum to decide those conflicts. It was not intended to be an investigatory
club that, to wield against political opponents as it has been in the past year.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Sullivan? Again, if it is pertinent to the specific language in this
legislation, then it is pertinent for the public hearing but this is not a public heating to discuss
procedure of the Ethics Board per se.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Well, I just wanted to comment on what I think their role should be because
they are drafting, I believe they are drafting their own proposals to the Ethics Committee.
February 3, 2004
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay.
MR. SULLIVAN: So, I can continue or no?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. The past opinion drafted by the Ethics Committee was not good and made
no sense. I trust these members do a better job in advising this Board as to what should be or not be in
the Ethics code. Thank you very much for your time.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Are their other comments fi.om the floor? Mrs.
Egan.
JOAN EGAN: Joan Egan fi.om East Marion and I was very much impressed by what Mr. Russell had
to say. I am not going to have an awful lot to say because I think others have said it better. The only
comment and I don't know it would be reflective in this new legislation is that I feel that all and maybe
the projection of it to all people who work for the Town of Southold who are basically public servants,
take a better attitude in the area of sensitivity. This is particularly important in our Police Department.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Again, Mrs. Egan...
MS. EGAN: I just feel that the projection, if people who work for the Town of Southold, whether they
are police or wherever they work take a sensitive position to the person they are addressing, perhaps it
could relieve some of the problems that arise that have to be presented to the Ethics Committee. So I
would appreciate your passing that on to anybody who receives a paycheck that I contribute to in the
Town of Southold. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Ms. Tole.
CATHY TOLE: Cathy Tole, Greenport. Good evening. We are not hearing well in the back, so I am
not sure it was the mike or the speakers. Let me preface my comments by saying that I worked in the
public sector for a very long time, I took an oath of office, when I did that and it was sacred, and I
know the people here have taken an oath of office and I believe that you respect it as deeply as I did.
There are two parts of the ethics code recommendation that I am here to speak about. The first part
regards the prohibition against former officials and employees of the Town of appearing before Boards
and Departments in which they served for a period of two years and I believe I am correct in saying
that is an extension fi.om one year to two years. I believe that this particular provision has
predominantly has an impact on attorneys and in fact, I do believe that it has been actually designed to
have an impact on attorneys. To create a penalty that in will in all likelihood impact one group more
than another goes against the appearance of fairness and fair treatment of people. Ethical treatment of
people. I am wondering if you hire Nelson, Pope and Voorhis to consult in any way for the Board, the
Planning Board, Land Preservation Board, are they also prohibited fi-om ever appearing before any of
the Boards for two years, according to this? Why not, when they are employed by the Town? And I
believe Chuck Voorhis was personally employed by the Planning Board during the initial moratorium
phase?
February 3, 2004 12
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Who?
MS. TOLE: Isn't his name Chuck or Chick?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Chick Voohis. Nelson, Pope and Voorhis.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: His finn was engaged by the Town.
MS. TOLE: And yet his firm, who will be writing these laws will be appearing before these same
Boards and they will not suffer these same prohibitions? I, my reading of this, they do. And that is
something to seriously consider because you hh-e some of the best consultants, you hire some of the
best attorneys to advise all of your Boards or I am assuming you believe them to be the best. And
those people may, in effect, be challenged in appearing before Boards for two years after their
employment by the Town.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Those would actually be professional services that the Town can engage
on a routine or regular basis.
MS. TOLE: Does this exempt them or does it say 'those employed'?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: It says ....
MS. TOLE: Employees of not personal service contracts. Employees of. Are they employed by you?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: They are not employees of the Town. They are professional services that
are engaged by the Town.
MS. TOLE: Okay.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: That was actually a very fair question, good point.
MS. TOLE: I will still go on and say that I do believe that this particular part of the legislation
provides a disincentive to attorneys in particular, and to some people who have special qualifications
that will serve Boards well. We run three risks. If we have disincentives to attorneys, we run the first
risk that legal opinions by the Town or Board attorneys made too easily or too frequently, go
unquestioned. This doesn't benefit the Town in any way. I have frequently seen Justice Evans and
Councilman Moore and I expect to see Councilman Ross consulted for legal opinions where there is
some dissension. It is a valuable service. And I think it provides a disincentive for people to get on
this Board when their future income will be impacted for two years after they complete their service.
The second risk is that people with the most experience in matters of zoning and issues that surround
that entire issue, they have disincentive to serve on the Board at a time when we mostly need their
experience and their expertise. Regardless of where they fall on the issues. They should feel a
willingness to participate xvithout the risk of losing a substantial part of their income. And I am not
sure why you would say that somebody who has been hired to serve with the Planning Board or with
this Board for two years to consult specifically on the future planning of this Town would not be
included in this when somebody, such as Mr. Ross is sitting there for, let's say two years, and he
February 3, 2004
Public Heating-Ethics Code
13
would be excluded fi.om it. It does not seem to make sense. The third risk is that you propose to enact
a law for which you have given no public justification. There should be justification for passing any
law. Have we seen any ethics violations that have been obvious between this one year and two year
period? Without such a justification, it seems to be more government restrictions when none is called
for. It also makes, in my opinion, a ridiculous assumption that there is some sort of time constraint on
unethical behavior. One year isn't enough, two years is enough, maybe it is three years, maybe it is
five years, maybe there should be a permanent prohibition. But it is arbitrary. Let it be arbitrary at one
year unless you have evidence that it needs to be two years. Otherwise, you are doing it for no reason
at all. The last point on this portion of the law is simple. Any Board that makes a decision based on
who appears before it, as opposed to the facts of the case, the Board member or members should be
held accountable. They are the people who are conducting business unethically. Not the people
standing before them. And that is what should be addressed. The second part of the ethics law that I
consider, that I want to address, I consider not only unfair but hypocritical. The section that prohibits
elected or appointed members of certain Boards from holding positions in political parties truly
troubles me. This nations, this State's and this Town's democracy are based on the hard work of
people who step up to the plate when their name and put their time into political parties. Passing a
local law that implies in any way that they are de facto at greater risk of ethical breach, is to unfairly
malign them. It is also, in my opinion, a sign that there is no understanding or acknowledgment of
their real role in the political process. When Councilman Wickham ran for office some years ago, I
believe he actually created a new party, this didn't make Councilman Wickham in any way unethical.
It made him engaged in the political process. And that is honorable. That is what our democracy is
based upon. Councilman Wickhams' ethics will remain at the same high level whether you were
chairman of the United Southold party or whether you were just its candidate. Your ethics are personal
to you, not to your party affiliation or to your activity. Until recently I believe Mrs. Neville was an
officer of the Republican party. To suggest that she would have somehow appeared less ethical by
virtue of that is absolutely absurd. Those are two people whose ethics I don't think have ever been
called into question. In fact, I would say that they are sterling examples of why the law is not needed.
There is an assumption that if a person resigns their political position in order to get on any of these
Boards, they become more ethical. Of course, one action doesn't follow another. Furthermore, we
have recently seen a spurt of appointments of people who were critical functionaries in the last political
campaigns of people who are on this Board now. They were more involved in the personal and
partisan political process than the committeemen you are trying to keep out of government. And that is
where part of this hypocrisy lies. In addition to those appointments, the Supervisor, who I believed
proposed this law, proposed it at least in part in the past, has appointed people to critical town positions
who are officials or members of organizations that keep their membership secret and xvho do not even
publish their principals or their policies. Yet you are not asking any of those appointees to resign their
positions. In contrast, political parties publish their list of members and of committee people. They
also have the platform, which is public information, so that everybody knows where they stand. And
that also speaks to the hypocrisy but let's address ethical problems where they really exist and not
create this image that lawyers, politicians, developers, environmentalists or any other group are less
suitable for government service than any other group. I will also ask about the justification test that I
applied to the one year, two year thing. Where is the justification for this law? Where is there any
indication that any member of a political committee has appeared in any way less ethical or has given
anybody the impression that they are less ethical or anybody the impression that government is less
ethical because of that position. Josh, you called your mother your mentor. Yet apparently even she
February 3, 2004 14
Public Heating-Ethics Code
didn't believe in this law when she accepted her position to a political party. She only stepped down
because you were criticized as a result of it.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: You are wrong about that.
MS. TOLE: Well, that is what was published...
SUPERVISOR HORTON: You should ask her personally if you would like to know why she stepped
down.
MS. TOLE: I should. I should. But I also believe she shouldn't have stepped down. She didn't do
anything wrong. Whether or not she stepped down, she remained exactly the same person, with the
exact same high ethical standards. Clearly, ethical violations by officials and attorneys of Town Hall
who have no political party positions have occurred. Yet this law does nothing to actually improve
the ethical behavior or the appearance of ethical behavior in Town Hall. Let's be real here. The
legislation is an attack on political parties, not unethical breaches because you have presented no
ethical breaches that apply to this. I am hoping that this, that you don't let this be the beginning of the
new Board's term, that this be the first thing that you have to enact. It places an unnecessary burden or
disincentive on future candidates for public office in our small town. When, unfortunately I wasn't
aware of the spouse, close family part of this, to me it just appears to be the continued attempts to
justify the actions against Pat and Bill Moore and to codify it, make everything look good and fair.
Furthermore, I think it subjugates the spouse to the independent action of a Town employee and that is
not right. That is archaic. All of the people on this Board and many of the people in other positions
have used the people in the political parties to get where they are and are now slapping them in the face
and say/ng that they are not ethical enough to sit shoulder to shoulder with them. Oaths are taken very
seriously, not shunned easily. I ask you to do something about ethics that really addresses ethical
violations. This doesn't do that. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Ms. Tole. Are there other comments from the floor? Mr.
DiNizio.
JIM DINIZIO: You can count me as signing with Mr. Cuddy because I thought his statements were
exactly what I would have said and I suppose that if we are going to be giving examples, I am going to
give you one myself. Let's just say that there is a councilperson that has a significant other that
represents people before the other Boards and let's just say that that significant other makes a lot of
money on the law, a certain law, that may be right or wrong but is there anyway. And let's just say
that the person who could change that law or address that law is that persons significant other. In other
words, it is his wife. And there is a law that maybe his wife is making a lot of money off of,
challenges it. Now, that is not unethical because I don't think that it is but in all honesty, what
incentive is there for that particular councilperson to change the law, to amend the law? I don't think
there is any incentive. Okay? And certainly there is an appearance that there isn't any incentive. Now
what Scott Russell said about integrity and most of the people, I could say 99% of the people involved
in the political process, is he is absolutely right. All of us that are involved in it, understand that. You
have got to be aboveboard when you are dealing with the public, you have got to tell the truth all the
time because you can't chase a lie. I mean, you have got to do it. It is imperative that you keep
yourself clean. But on the same token, if you listen to Mr. Russell, he said that he and Mr. Scott voted
February 3, 2004 15
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
against some resolution or something as proof that he was acting ethically. Well, what about the other
36? What if one of those were? Okay? That is what we are looking at. Appearance. We are looking
at the fact that and I am going to say it, Bill and Pat Moore drove this town absolutely crazy for six
years, not because they were doing anything wrong. I don't really believe they were, I don't think they
were doing anything illegal, I don't think they were doing anything corrupt but just the fact that people
could stand up and say it; drove this town crazy. Now, four years into his term, a Republican
committee elected to have him run again, support him again. While people were standing up and
saying, 'look this is not right, this situation is not right'. But they are not doing anything wrong, no,
they are not doing anything wrong. I don't believe they ever did anything wrong but I am going to tell
you, if I were there sitting were you are and my wife was making plenty of money representing a
certain law in this Town, believe me, it is a whole lot easier just to keep my mouth shut. And that, to
me, is what happened in that instance. No, no one did anything wrong but it drove people crazy and
that is why we are here today. And certainly, anybody who is a committeeman is making a choice to
be a committeeman. And you are not taking his rights away, you are just making him make a choice
and that choice is, Southold Town or the political party. And it is nothing more than that and knowing
it going into the game, when you get up to that point and you have to make that choice, darn it, you
should know that you have to make that choice. And you don't have to worry about whether the
Republican party, Democrat party, Conservative party is hurt by this, okay, you have got to ask
yourself-does the Town benefit fi.om this? What does the Town gain if they have committee people
here or if they do not? And I think you know the answer. It is going to try to take a little bit of politics
out, that is a good thing. You are going to take someone coming up here and accusing the Board of
being political, out of it. Because if you read the paper, the article that lady said, two people are not
going to vote for this, three people are and there is one sitting on the fence. Now, I could stand up and
make the accusation right now, are those two people who are not going to vote for this doing that
because of their party boss? I say no. Because I know you both. I know John, I know John doesn't do
what anybody tells him, John does what he wants to. And Louisa does the same thing. How do I know
that? Because I do it and I am a pretty good judge of that. So but it can be bandied about. People can
stand up and say that and the mere fact that people can stand up and say that, you should be supporting
this law. That is the reason why the law is here. As long as everybody knows that they have the
choice when they get to the point to make a choice, that is the fair thing. If you don't, then we can just
keep going on and on and on about this. Accusing people of this, accusing people of that because of
political bias and I think that you are only doing the Town a disservice if you don't at least consider
most of this. You know, I would like it to go a little further, it is not proposed now as just committee
people but you know, we can always work on that but you have got to take what is in the best interests
of this Town and consider what has happened in the past six years and vote, I think, for this laxv.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you.
MELANIE NORDEN: Melanie Norden, Greenport. When you become the moral police, you run into
a lots of problems and one of the problems is, that political affiliations are only one of the types of
affiliations we have in society. We have fraternal affiliations or members of organizations, or
members of Kiwanis clubs or members of private country clubs or members of all sorts of
organizations and religious institutions that some of us actually don't agree with. And we are not just
talking about ethical breach when we talk about these issues, we are also talking about ethical
influence. So, I will give you an example. How about if one of you owned a corporation that was
February 3, 2004
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
16
polluting our environment? I xvould find that unethical. I could take you before this Board and ask
you to re-write your ethics code to make sure that every elected official didn't do this or that because I
didn't like that or I thought that was wrong. Or how about if one of you is a member of a religious
institution that doesn't believe that my kids should live together before they are married. Then I would
come to you and say, I am sony but I have a different opinion. What you are trying to do is also
legislate that to some degree. You are talking about legislating affiliation. Or how about if one of the
gentlemen was a member ora gentlemen's club that didn't admit women? Or how about if one of you
were a member of a country club that didn't admit Jews, although these things are happening right here
on the old North Fork. You would actually be doing and participating in things that I would perceive
as not being ethical. And if we go this particular route, all of those issues are issues that you have an
option to address ~vhen you are talking about the ethical affiliations or partisan affiliations or
affiliations of elected, appointed or town employees. Political affiliation is only one of those. I just
want you to be aware of the fact that when you open up the can of worms and you talk about
affiliations, you are talking about needing to look at many other affiliations that other people object to
that really have implications that are both ethical and moral and the way that we lead our lives. Having
said that broadly, let me say the following. I don't know who writes these laws now, but this one is
really sloppy. If you are going to take these kinds of concerns, then you really have to do and take a
look at what other countries and cities have done, what other states have done across the union and one
thing that is very is if you don't want your law to be continuously misinterpreted, then you have to
spell out exactly what affiliations you are talking about. Because in point of fact, it is not really a
matter of whether you are an officer of a particular political party or a political club or you are a
member of a political party, it has to do with your level of influence, whether it is formal or informal,
whether it is appointed or perceived, so whether Jim DiNizio for example, steps down fi.om his
appointed role in the Conservative party doesn't make much difference if Jim still has or some other
elected official still has great say in how that party operates. So let me just read to you some examples
from the town of Philadelphia, the town and city of brotherly love, to give you an idea of xvhat some of
the provisions in their particular ethics code address. And I would say if you are going to go this route,
you haven't gone nearly far enough. If you are going to actually ask people not to serve on
committees, there are plenty of other things you really should be thinking of asking them not to do as
well, if you want to ensure that they do not have the perceived influence or ethical breach that you are
addressing. Okay. So I am going to read you a few examples, 'no person shall, for the purpose of
influencing the vote or political action of any person or for any consideration, use or promise to use,
directly or indirectly any official authority or influence, whether possessed or anticipated to secure or
attempt to secure for any person an appointment or advantage in appointment to a position in the civil
service, an increase in pay or any advantage employment of any such position. No appointed official
or employee of the city shall be a member of any national, state or local committee or political party,'
which is kind of what you are saying, 'or any officer or member of a committee of any partisan
political club or take part in the management or affairs of any political party or in any political
campaign except to exercise his fight as a citizen privately.' So this isn't just addressing officers, it is
addressing what influence really is, what breach or ethical breach or ethical influence amounts to. It
doesn't matter if you are an officer of the party, it matters whether you have influence and you act in
that particular capacity. This town of Philadelphia goes on to say, 'protfibitive political activities also
include' and I urge you to think about these because again, these are activities that actually will
influence the ways in which the Town becomes or stays or the people in the Town are ethical, 'be an
officer, a member again of a committee or a political party, address make motions, prepare or assist in
preparing resolutions, maintain records or take any other active part in a meeting or convention of a
February 3, 2004 17
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
political party or a partisan political club. Initiate or circulate public petitions or canvass for the
signatures of others if such petitions are identified with or call for the nomination or election of any
particular candidate to public or party office. Distribute printed materials, matters, badges or buttons
in support of any candidate for public or party office or political party or body. Wear on his person;
display buttons, badges, emblems, signs, posters and the like which are in favor or against a political
party, body or a candidate'. And it goes on and on and on. So if you are going to write this law and if
you are going to actually think of somehow using or utilizing this code, you really have to go for a
level of specificity which this in no way addresses. You have to fully understand yourselves xvhat
behaviors you are talking about that you don't want people to engage in and then you have to at least
reach for a level of specificity that would define them, both for the public and for the very people that
you are purporting that might have an ethical breach or more undue ethical influence. So I really do
think that this code change needs to go back to the drawing boards because without tkis level of
specificity, it is not going to work and I would say that unless you are very clear about the role of these
particular people in the party's themselves, that you really have to define it more fully. It doesn't
matter whether somebody is an officer of a party, it doesn't really matter whether they are an officer of
a club, it doesn't matter whether they have an appointed or exalted position on paper; what really
matters is, if in fact, they have influence within that particular affiliation. If they do, and if that, you
believe, means that they are more prone to be corrupted or corruptible then you have to do in every
way your due diligence to begin to define what you mean by that level of influence. Thanks a lot.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Melanie. Mr. Nickles.
JOHN NICKLES: Good evening. I am John Nickles, I live in Southold. Just a little background, I
think I have worn most of the hats that you have talked about. I am a committeeman, I was a
committeeman, I was a town chairman, I was elected as a Trustee and as a Councilman and I think at
one time I was sitting up there were you are sitting and I was a town chairman, and a committeeman
and a Councilman back in 1983. So I think I have all the bases covered. Currently, I am the vice-
chairman of the Republican party, I was absent from the political scene for about 13 years and I got
back involved the same way Scott got back involved, you wanted to do something, get involved again
and get your organization that I thought was more fitting. At any rate, what brings me here is what you
said, that you wanted to keep the Town Hall free from the clutches of the political bosses and
committees. I guess I am one of those people you are referring to and I don't know if you intended any
offense but I certainly took offense to that. I believe very strongly in our form of government and the
important roles that our political party's have played in keeping our form of government responsive to
the people. The two party system gives the citizens the choice of ideology on how best to run the
government. When the national election is decided this fall, the winning party will appoint members
from their party to the Cabinet, to the Supreme Court mad other judgeships and to thousands of
appointed positions throughout this huge bureaucracy of our Federal government. Those appointed
and elected people are supposed reflect the changes made by the people on election day. It is no less
different here in Southold. We had a recent election, the other party, the Democrats and Conservative
carried the day. The people sent a message, they wanted a change. The new administration has
already begun making these changes tlxrough the appointments made to various Boards and
Committees. By making these changes, the new administration is trying to reflect the will of the
people based on what the party and its candidates stood for during this past election process. And to
the victor belong the spoils. However, I would point out that there is a difference between appointees,
who have allegiance to the belief system of their respective party committees, as opposed to being
February 3, 2004 18
Public Heating-Ethics Code
somewhat outside the mainstream of their respective organizations. In those cases, they could bring an
agenda to the table that may not reflect the will of the people and may be beholden to individual or
groups who are not visible to the public. In other words, what I am saying is, when the folks up here
appoint somebody from their party, you know where they are coming from, you know where their
allegiances are. They are not somebody hidden in the background somewhere. In short, having
committee people who are willing to serve the people should not be considered a bad thing but a good
thing. Committee people and their chairpersons are your neighbors, living, working, raising their
families here also. In short, they have a stake in Southold. They want to keep Southold, Southold also.
They are the grassroots of the political system and when the system, these grassroots party folks will
have been the first one to pull somebody up short when they may have started down the wrong path. It
has been my experience that good politics makes for good government. Please do not punish the
people that help to make our government work by forcing them to resign their party positions. The
bottom line when you are talking about ethics, you cannot legislate character or ethics. An individual
is either honest or corrupt. It makes no difference whether they belong to a political party or not.
Thank you for your time.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Nickles. Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: I am sorry, I spoke already for too long but just one last comment. Actually, Jim
DiNizio raises a point as to why this law is hollow. The fact is that someone can question whether Mr.
Romanelli or Ms. Evans would oppose this law because that is what their political leadership wanted.
They are not committee people. That is my point. There is not distinction, every elected official lives
under that cloud of what are they doing for the interests of the Town and what are they doing tbr the
interests of their party. Noxv, Supervisor Horton, I know you have had the same problem and I think
the world of Ruth Oliva but you cannot tell me that you really thought that she was the best choice for
ZBA when the position came up. It is certainly not what you told some of the members of the
Business Alliance. The fact is that, that is what your party wanted and they certainly had a right to ask
for it because of the hard work...
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, if you would like...just as a point of clarification on that, I
appreciate your point and it is well taken but you are talking about 2002, the first year of my first term,
you are correct, I voted for Ruth Oliva however, that was not the person I put forward and I didn't just
tell that to the Business Alliance, I said that at a public work session, I believe it was reported on the
newspaper, that true at that point in time. I nominated, along with John Romanelli, Joe Lizewski for a
position on the Zoning Board of Appeals and the will of the Board was to have Ruth Oliva and John
and myself agreed to go with that.
MR. RUSSELL: Okay, well I think at the work session, a little bit more of a give and take than
probably your synopsis but that aside, that happens and people can question it and they do question it
and that is why we really need to really set a standard that shows the public that we are working for
their interests and empty gestures aren't the way to do it. The second thing that Mr. DiNizio
mentioned, he said that two people that voted against the party leadership. What about the other 36?
They are not elected officials. That is why I am simply impressing upon you that the elected officials
are no more or no less prone to party will than anybody else. Anyway, I just had to get that off my
chest and I still think the world of Jim, I am not changing my mind. So, talk to you later.
February 3, 2004 19
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. I believe Mr. Tuthill, you had your hand up for several rounds.
LARRY TUTHILL: Thank you, Mr. Supervisor and members of the Town Board. Larry Tuthill,
Southold. I am also standing up here in opposition to that part of the ethics code with regard to
committee people. I have been a committee person for close to 20 years, I believe it to be an honorable
hobby to be involved in politics, in trying to select candidates, get them elected. The Democratic party
has not always been as successful as I would like it to be but I think that we do put up good candidates.
And l know the six members of the Town Board currently all want high ethics amongst our, not only
elected officials and those that are appointed. I happen to think Ruth Oliva was an excellent choice for
the Zoning Board of Appeals, as was Jeri Woodhouse for the Chair of the Planning Board. But I am
here to tell you, we did not discuss it at a committee meeting. Those appointments are made by the
Town Board. This Toxvn Board knows about Jeri Woodhouse's ability, not only because of her service
to municipal government, she was also executive director of the Retreat, a non-profit organization, she
is also a member of the Board of the NFEC. She happened to be the campaign chair, this coming year
of the Democratic party. She, like other people, got involved in politics because she wanted the best
for Southold Town. It is not unusual when the time comes for Board members, looking for qualified
candidates, they go to those people who worked with them in the election. Jeri, I think, will make an
outstanding Chairperson of the Planning Board. I joined with others in the belief that there is not a
need for the legislation but I would like to address the issue that the legislation in and of itself does not
take politics out of government. It doesn't address donors, you cma raise money, you can give money
and you can still be on any of these committees and be elected officials, people have mentioned United
Southold which elected Justice Evans and Mr. Wickham, it doesn't address that organization I believe
it was some sort of committee that ran that campaign, raised the money and did all the work for that.
Those were not elected committee people. It certainly doesn't pertain to campaign chairmen.
Someone can still be a campaign chair and be on any of these Boards and be an elected official and
they can do everything else a committee person does. One of the local papers was incorrect that said
that you just had to be a committee person to circulate petitions. That is not correct. All you have to do
is be member of that party. So it doesn't exclude circulating petitions, raising money, handing out
literature. Those all can be done by the members of the ZBA, the Planning Board and even other
elected officials. And I am sorry, it also does not (inaudible) the legislation, it doesn't reference
anything about the Southold Business Alliance, the NFEC nor should it, of course. My point is, there
are other people that are involved in government that lobby the government and you would never
suggest to them that they should not be part of, for argument sakes just say the NFEC and be an elected
official because those are obviously organizations that lobby the Town government. I understand the
legislation is trying to bring about high ethical standards and take out politics out of Town Hall. The
only way you really do that is to disband any fundraising organizations that you have, to not take any
money from anybody, only go to that political party that you belong to. Circulate your own petitions
and use your own literature that you do through your own money and go door to door, rely on local
newspapers to get your message. That will completely take out politics out of the government. I don't
suggest that you do that because what you do is you end up with rich people. A Ross Perot type, xvho
go outside the party system. And that is not something that we are looking for, it is not something that
the Democratic party or even the Republican party would want to do. They are looking for working
class people, they are looking for good people to run for government and I believe this Town has
elected good people, they will continue to and the ultimate ethics committee are the people of Southold
Town. If they don't like what you are doing, they are going to kick you out of office and that goes
February 3, 2004 20
Public Heating-Ethics Code
with regard to who you appoint and what you do. And I personally feel that this legislation is not
needed and I would ask you to vote no. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. And I definitely get credit for uniting the Republican and
Democratic party leadership. And I am sure the Conservative leadership as well. Mr. cooper.
DOUG COOPER: Doug Cooper, Mattituck. I strongly support this legislation, as Jim DiNizio pointed
out and I think it was Attorney Cuddy. Ethics has to start at the top and the Town Board has to set the
tone for ethics. I think this is very, very important for our town. There is the old adage I have heard
and I strongly believe that locks don't keep thieves out, locks keep honest people honest. A lot of the
opposition to this proposed legislation seems to he by the political party's. Both parties'. That is fine.
I know of instances in our recent past, where political pressure has been put on committeemen to vote
certain ways in their parties. And there is no reason to believe that if a committeeman wasn't also a
member of the Board or one of these other Departments that you are proposing, that pressure would
not be put on them, could not be put on them, to vote in certain directions. Especially if the spouse of
the conunitteeman or the child of the committeeman has another county appointed job of position. It is
easy to say, well your wife has a political job or an appointed job in the county somewheres, it is easy
for county leadership to say, we want you to vote in this direction. I think ethics has to start here, I
think we should set the tone for the Town. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Are there other comments from the floor? Sir, in the back.
SEAN KELLY: Scan Kelly. I agree that a lot of the opposition to this seems to be coming from the
political parties, and I think that the language of the ethics law does need to reflect the difference
between committees that serve the public interest versus committees that are representative of party
government. I do agree that it is a good example to be set in a local to~m for the rest of the country to
put a limit on how long, how much influence an individual that has already served on government can
have within the Town after they are elected. I think that it is a better service to democracy as a
philosophical form of government. It is a better service to allow more people to be involved in the
political scene. I have seen in, I mean I am a member of the Green party, I switched over this year
based on the federal elections to the Democratic party but in support of getting more parties involved
in government, I think that it is important to open up the scene, as it were, to more individuals and I
think that lessening the influence of people that have already served-not so much in committees
because the experience of somebody that has served in government I think is a valuable tool for
individual desires as far as for things needing to be done within their town. However, when it comes
to either the Democratic or Republican or any other party, I do think that there needs to be limitations
placed on that. I don't think that ever necessarily in and of itself, serves the interests of the small town
as much as opening up the system to more people to come in from the outside. So, in response to the
language of this, I would just like to see a reflection for the separation of political party committees
versus necessary town government committees for the pursuance of specific issues. In closing, I
would just like to state that you can never take personal desires out of politics because otherwise, there
would be nobody left to run. So, thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Other comments from the floor? Mr. Marschean.
February 3, 2004
Public Heating-Ethics Code
21
DICK MARSCHEAN: I would like to address some of the points that are in the legislation that is
proposed. The committees that we have heard about from the previous speakers, why do we cherry
pick the committees? This is nothing more than discriminatory. I mean this is almost like First
Amendment, if you really wanted to be fair about the whole thing, I am not suggesting this, you should
have it that it should be everybody, regardless of whether you are on any committee and as far as the
party structures go, being any member of a party regardless of what position he holds. I am not
advocating that. But if you want to be perfectly fair about the legislation that you are proposing here,
so that you don't violate First Amendment rights, you have it such that you don't cherry pick the
people as you write the legislation. You cherry pick the committees, the Planning Boards and then you
cherry pick the political process also at the same time with the offices of the different political party.
Other people have also talked about this not going far enough on the other side with the people who
are the representatives. We have Mr. Wickham here, who we know what his occupation is, and when
the barbarians start trampling the gates here in August and he is called upon to exercise his judgment,
which I know will be very good, the thing is, we could consider Mr. Wickham having a confiict of
interest because of his occupation. That he has to rule on certain things that are going to be, with
regard to the land that we have here that we are all worded about that we should probably be
discussing tonight rather than discussing this ethics problem, and I agree with one of the speakers here
who said that it is terrible that we are talking about this particular item tonight as a priority item, as an
agenda item; rather than talking about the thing that I think that we all are worded about, which is the
7000 acres that we have here, that are at risk. That is the one item that I wanted to talk about xvith
respect to what is legislated or proposed legislation. So, I don't believe that you should cherry pick.
This is not democracy when you cherry pick committees. The other thing is, the revolving door. I
have no problem with the first statement on the revolving door, that somebody shouldn't come from
the position of a Board and come out and then come back and get favored treatment. I think the one
year versus two years is purely arbitrary, as one of the other speakers talked about. Whether it is one
year, two years, three years, five years. It doesn't make any difference. The other thing [ have a big
problem with this particular paragraph is the last paragraph. The last paragraph says that if someone
leaves and he joins another entity, even within the two year period, the Town can hire him. So there is
a complete contradiction here. In other words, when the person leaves Town government, is a private
citizen, wants to set up his own consulting practice, he is banned from practice for two years. Okay,
no problem. He joins another entity, another particular organization; a law firm or an engineering firm
and the Town can go ahead and hire his services by hiring that law firm. So this does an injustice to
somebody who wants to be in business for himself, self-employed person. So again, you are cherry
picking. You are cherry picking. You are keeping a person from opening up his own business, forcing
him to join another entity so that he can practice and make his daily bread. So that is xvhat is wrong
with that item. The last one is more of a, I don't know if it is a typo or what, but we talk about the
exclusion from code of ethics. Some of these things are self-explanatory. I don't know why they have
to be written down. Such as statutes by State, Federal or Municipal as being not excluded for recusal,
wouldn't be items for recusal. But we come to the girl section here, we have items 1, 2 and 3. I would
love to have somebody explain to me what 1, 2 and 3 in five cent English means, particularly if they
are all supposed to be separate items; 1, 2, 3. I don't believe that they are. So I think somebody should
explain this, one of you people who either wrote this or what, this doesn't make any sense xvhatsoever
on the girls.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: There are no proposed changes to the gifts, it is not in any of the...
February 3, 2004 22
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
MR. MARSCHEAN: Are they all rtmning together as one sentence or are they all rtmning as separate
items?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: I don't even have what you are referring to in front of me.
MR. MARSCHEAN: I have here under gifts: C. Gifts. Under item 10-15.
COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: Of the original Ethics Code in the Code or in what we are discussing
tonight?
MR. MARSCHEAN: I guess what is in the original code.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: That was taken out.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We are not proposing to change that.
MR. MARSCHEAN: I know but I don't understand even what is there. That is what I am, I am taking
this to the next level here. I am not just talking about the underlined features.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: So you are not discussing any proposed changes that are on the hearing
tonight?
MR. MARSCHEAN: No, I would just like somebody to explain to me what the present code says.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: After the meeting, we will sit down.
MR. MARSCHEAN: Because these are separate items, fight? Are they not?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Well, what you are, to be honest with you, what you are discussing isn't
part of what is on for public heating tonight as proposed change. So, we don't have that in front of us
to speak to.
MR. MARSCHEAN: Yeah, but I think that the people here should know that under girls it says, 1.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Well, that as a matter of public record is available...
MR. MARSCHEAN: Yeah but you have changed something in item 2, where you go from $500 down
to $75.
JUSTICE EVANS: We didn't do that.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: No, that is not correct.
MR. MARSCHEAN: That is underlined.
February 3, 2004 23
Public Hearing-Ethics Code
SUPERVISOR HORTON: You might have an old...
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We proposed doing that several weeks ago...
SUPERVISOR HORTON: That was taken off.
MR. MARSCHEAN: That is taken off. Alfight. Okay, so those were my three comments.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Marschean. Are there other comments from the floor on
this public hearing? Yes, ma'am?
MARY ELLA REUTERSHAN: My name is Mary Ella Reutershan and I will be very brief. But I
have lived here about two years and I am very excited about living on the North Fork, this is my first
public appearance and I am very impressed with this Town Board and especially with the citizens who
have made so many interesting remarks. I was 44 years in the Town of East Hampton and I was a
Republican, an Independent and a Democrat and I went through five elections and then I was on the
Town Board of Ethics for eight years and I think that you have written legislation that should be
approved, I agree with Mr. Cuddy's comments. It is very hard to separate ideas and principals and
viewpoints and so forth but having served on a Board of Ethics, I believe that it is better to leave off
membership in a political party. Thank you very much for this heating.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Are there other comments from the floor on this public
heating? (No response) We will close the heating.
Elizabeth A Neville~
Southold Town Hall
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
there has bccn l~esented to thc Town
Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York, on the 6th day of
Janumy 2004 a Lccal Law entitled "A
~ [mw in relation to Amendments
~ tl~ Ethics Code" and
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER
GPgEN that the Town Board of the
Town of Soulba)ld will hold a public
_hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at
the $outhold Town Hail, 53095 Main
Road, Southold, New York, on the 3rd
day of February 2004 at 5:0~ p.m, at
which thne all interested persons will be
given an opportunity to be heard.
The proposed local law entitled,
"& Local Law in relation to
Amendments to the Ethics Code"
part~,
aidsdicdon to be invalid, the jude~{e~;i
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)SS:
',--.~_./~,¢-,,~'/'e'~/,,~'d'~-/~-~"-~----,,'~ of Mattituck, in id
county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal
clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, pub-
lished at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of
Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly pub-
lished in said Newspaper once each week
for / weeks successively, commencing
on the /--~ day
of
Principal Clerk
Sworn to before me this /5.2
day of ~ ./ 20,:;
%/. ,t