Response To Ethical Behavior

Previously, ABG reported the actions of former candidate and Greenburgh resident Nicholas DeCicco, posting an email he sent to us explaining the circumstances surrounding his involvement on the Greenburgh Zoning Board, the ethics complaint filed against him by Robert Bernstein, and how it related to him as a Republican candidate for Westchester County Legislator in the special election for the seat vacated by Thomas Abinanti. While we chose to no longer focus our attentions on Mr. DeCicco, ABG received a letter through an intermediary from a Ms. Ella Preiser of Greenburgh. We believe this warranted another look. In it, she counters comments that were both verbalized and written about her by Mr. DeCicco.

In the interest of fairness, we are posting her letter here, unedited with the exception of the removal her address:

“In his May 26 email, Nick states that "the situation did not warrant a formal ethics charge." I disagree. As one of those involved during the crafting of the Town's current Code of Ethics, I know that Section 7A was deemed necessary to prevent "even the appearance of impropriety." At that time, there were concerns that some individuals seeking political office might lack the common sense to avoid accepting contributions from consultants of applicants seeking approval from the Town.

Perhaps one of the strangest comments in Nick's May 26 email is the statement that Bob Bernstein should have given Nick a courtesy phone call to make him "aware that attending the reception was still potentially prohibited even if he was recused." Nick fails to explain how Bob should have known in advance that Nick was contemplating a fundraiser hosted by an applicant's consultant who was present with Nick at a ZBA meeting only days earlier. Nor does Nick explain why the co-host of the fundraiser, Mark Constantine, a member of the Board of Ethics, never informed him that accepting the fundraiser offer would be a violation of the Code, of Ethic-s.

As predicted, the Board of Ethics found Nick guilty of violating Section 7A. It is interesting to note that even today Nick does not acknowledge he violated the Code of Ethics. Instead he refers to the violation with such euphemistic terms as "one technicality" or "an honest harmless error" or;a small unintentional oversight." Nick claims that the Board of Ethics accepted his actions as an "honest oversight" when, in fact, Opinion 2011-5 made no such finding but merely noted: "Mr. DeCicco characterizes his actions as an "honest oversight"...." Nick does not explain why it took him more than I I weeks to decide to remediate his "oversight" by voluntarily returning funds to the fundraiser co-hosts, Chuck Pateman and Mark Constantine.

Interestingly, Nick does not inform the Edgemont community that although he pleaded "no contest" to the ethics complaint, he was upset that the Board of Ethics released its Opinion without hearing from him again. Following the release of Opinion 2011-5, Nick sent an angry email (May 20) to the Board stating it had improperly issued a finding that he violated Section 7A because he had not consented to such a finding. He stated he only consented to having the charges withdrawn or dismissed. He also wanted the findings to address his "good faith." Nick wants the Board of Ethics to rescind its ruling and further discuss the matter at its next meeting.

Should a person who violates a provision of the Code of Ethics have the right to delineate possible resolutions or dictate what should be included in the Board of Ethics findings? That appears to be what Nick is requesting. Would he also recommend that a person found guilty of robbing a bank or embezzlement who voluntarily returns the money dictate what the court should rule?

In my opinion, Nick is his own worst enemy. If he had bothered to read the Code of Ethics or use common sense, he would not be in this predicament. If once the complaint was filed, he had offered his mea culpa and asked for advice on how to re-mediate his "honest oversight" immediately, the issue would have been resolved weeks ago. Instead, Nick has spent more than eleven weeks proclaiming his innocence, honor and integrity while maliciously attacking Bob Bernstein. Fourteen weeks after the complaint was filed, Nick wants to control the agenda of the Board of Ethics and get his way regarding what the Board's findings state. And now, fifteen weeks later, Nick is still attacking Bob and has chosen to ignite the wrath of Ella Preiser. How foolish.

Ella Preiser

Ella Preiser re Nick DeCieco's Dishonesty - June 1, 2011 - Page 2”