Ethical Challenge Dismissed By Ethical Challenge

A verified citizen’s complaint against Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul J. Feiner (“Feiner”) and Judith Beville, Greenburgh Town Clerk, (“Beville”) alleging violations of the Greenburgh Code of Ethics in connection with their having solicited or accepted services in aid of their political campaigns for reelection from Town Attorney Timothy Lewis was/is in violation of Chapter 570-7(A)  thereof, and against each of them for aiding each other in the violation of such section of the Ethics Code in violation of Chapter 570-13 therein. There’s a mouthful of the party of the first part and the party of the second part and so on. Simply, Greenburgh resident Thomas Bock lodged an Ethics Complaint against Town Attorney Timothy Lewis because of the actions he took for getting signatures for and swearing to their legitimacy as Town Attorney. And, never fearing being found guilty of an ethics violation by an Ethics Board he appointed, the preordained outcome was no surprise.

Listed below are the points highlighted in Mr Bock’s complaint:
1. Complaintant is a citizen of the Town of Greenburgh
2. Feiner is the Town Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, a position he has held for the past 22 years.
3. Beville is the Town Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh, a position she has held since 2008.
4. Chapter 570-7 of the Greenburgh Code of Ethics is entitled, “Prohibited Political Activities” and subsection A thereof is entitled, “Contributions.” Subsection 1 thereof states in pertinent part that “No Public Officer . . . shall directly, or indirectly, solicit or accept any contribution or money or services or thing of value for any political party, campaign committee or any Candidate from any Appointed Officer or Employee. . . .”
5. As Town Supervisor, Feiner is a “Public Officer” within the meaning of Section 570-7(A)(1). As Town Clerk, Beville is likewise a “Public Officer” within the meaning of that same section.
6. Section 570-3(A) of the Code defines “Appointed Officer” as any “person who is appointed as an official of the Town, including a person appointed as a department head or deputy department had of a Town department. . . .”
7. As Town Attorney, Timothy Lewis is an Appointed Officer within the meaning of the Greenburgh Ethics Code.
8. Earlier this year, Feiner and Beville each asked for the endorsement of the Greenburgh Town Democratic Committee to run for reelection to his position as Town Supervisor. However, at its annual convention on May 24, 2013, neither Feiner nor Beville received the party committee’s endorsement.
9. Because neither Feiner or Beville received the party’s endorsement, in order for them to obtain the Democratic Party’s nomination for their respective town positions, Feiner and Beville had to create their own petition, obtain at least 1,000 signatures from Democrats registered to vote in the Town of Greenburgh, file such petition with the Westchester County Board of Elections, and win a majority of Democratic votes cast in the Democratic Primary to be held on September 10, 2013.
10. Obtaining the required number of signatures to get on the ballot requires many hours of work to make sure that the persons whose signatures are obtained are in fact registered to vote as Democrats in the Town and reside therein.
11. The petitioning period this year ran from June 1, 2013 to July 8, 2013.
12. During that period of time, and specifically between June 6, 2013 and July 7, 2013, Town Attorney Timothy Lewis carried petitions for Feiner and Beville, obtaining a total of 58 signatures on five separate sheets. A copies of these signatures, each of each was signed and verified by Lewis, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
13. By accepting signatures obtained by Lewis to put them on the ballot for the Democratic Primary, Respondents Feiner and Beville each violated Chapter 570-7(A)(1) of the Greenburgh Ethics Code, which bars public officers of the Town from directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting contributions of services for a political campaign from an appointed official of the Town.
14. Chapter 570-13 of the Town’s Code of Ethics is entitled, “Inducement of Violation.” It states in pertinent part that “[n]o Public Officer . . . shall induce any other person to violate, attempt to induce any other person to violate, or aid any other person in violating, any provision of this chapter.
15. The term “Public Officer” is defined in Chapter 570-3 of the Code of Ethics to include “both elected and appointed officers as herein defined.”
16. Town Attorney Timothy Lewis is a Public Officer for purposes of Chapter 570-13 of the Code of Ethics. Respondents Feiner and Beville are also Public Officers for purposes of that section.
17. By obtaining and delivering to Respondents Feiner and Beville signatures to get them on the ballot, in violation of Chapter 570-7(A)(1), which prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of such services or things of value to a political campaign from an appointed official of the Town, Respondent Lewis violated Chapter 570-13 by aiding Feiner and Beville in violating Chapter 570-7(A)(1) of the Code.
18. Similarly, by accepting signatures to get them on the ballot from Respondent Lewis, Respondents Feiner and Beville violated Chapter 570-13 by aiding Lewis in violating Chapter 570-13.

The Ethics Committee, having previously visited with Mr Feiner while they were coming into Town Hall, was followed by Mr Bock. Once in the F. Lee Jackson conference room, they continued discussing whatever they might have been discussing outside, with a sitting member making a few disparaging comments about several religions with a tasteless joke. How ironic. Ethics, anyone? Once they began, they asked the audience members to identify themselves and they did the same. Their regular order of business transpired quickly and they came to the Ethics Complaint. They each had received copies of it and were ready to discuss the complaint.

Having all received a copy of the complaint and read it prior to this meeting, they began by questioning what the definition of “service” is. This was akin to to former President Bill Clinton asking what the definition of “is” is? Being reviewed by a Board that was appointed by Mr Feiner finds us in a quandary of yet another ethical challenge in a Town bereft of ethics. How can we have a ethics board adjudicate the same person who appointed them to their position and then hope to get a fair outcome? We can’t and probably never will.

In fact, Mr Feiner posted on his own blog, back when he probably still thought transparency meant posting the truth, about his lying to the Ethics Board, comprised of some different members:

8/02/2007 3:37 PM

feiner caught lying to town's ethics board said...49

Feiner has been caught lying to the Town's Ethics Board about lawyer Mark Weingarten's involvement in a March 2004 fundraiser that netted Feiner tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from developers with applications pending before the town.

In his October 6, 2004 letter to the Ethics Board, Feiner made no mention of Weingarten when he described the $1000 Feiner picked up that night from Michael D'Allessio, the developer who had an application pending before the town to cut trees in Edgemont.

Feiner wrote as follows: "Mr. D'Alessio attended a fundraiser that William LoSapio of Gregory's Restaurant in White Plains hosted for my campaign account on March 29th."

Bernstein, who first raised the issue of Feiner's ethical problems, wrote to the Ethics Board on October 18, 2004 and said Feiner was playing fast and loose with the truth.

Bernstein wrote: "In fact, Mr. Feiner told The Scarsdale Inquirer that the fundraiser was organized by Mark P. Weingarten, a member of the White Plains law firm of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Tartaglia Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, and that it was Mr. Weingarten, who issued the invitations on behalf of Mr. Feiner’s campaign committee. See The Scarsdale Inquirer, "Residents Question Feiner on Campaign Contributions," September 17, 2004. Mr. Feiner also omits to mention in his letter that Mr. Weingarten was then representing Mr. D’Alessio and that, in addition to Mr. D’Alessio’s $1,000, his law firm contributed another $500."

On Wednesday, August 1, 2007, the Town made public the actual invitation to the event. The invitation, dated March 4, 2004, was on the letterhead of Weingarten's law firm and says as follows:

"On Monday, March 29, 2004 . . . Bill Losapio and I will be hosting a fundraiser for Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner." Weingarten cited Feiner’s “strong support for economic development within the Town of Greenburgh” and said, “I know you have been helpful to Supervisor Feiner in the past. . . A minimum contribution of $250 is recommended. Paul has earned our support in the past. . . .” Contributions were to be mailed to Weingarten’s law firm, to Weingarten attention, care of his secretary.

The invitation was mailed to numerous developers with applications pending before the town.

The invitation proves that Bernstein was right: Feiner was lying to the Ethics Board in October 2004 when he tried to claim someone other than Weingarten was responsible for the fundraiser.

Other documents show that Feiner lied to the Ethics Board about other matters pertaining to that fundraiser as well.

So while Mr Bock and others lodge complaints against Mr Feiner, he has appointed members to the Ethics Board that will be sympathetic to him and his lies. One of the current members on the Zoning Board is William Losapio (above) who held the fund raiser for Mr Feiner. He also voted on the Westhab project as well as other Feiner-centric projects that residents were vehemently against. So, how can residents be assured of getting any real and honest decisions from him when they file with the Board or go against one of the Town leaders? They can’t. Nor can they appeal a rendered decision.

If we look at any of the major projects that have been perpetrated in many of the neighborhhoods throughout our Town seems to be represented by DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Wise and Wiederkehr, LLP. Since this law firm has actively participated in Mr Feiner’s previous campaign, it’s no wonder that Mr Feiner will make a motion to have the Town Board become the Lead Agency and “floor the accelerator” for the process to sail through every required review process. In the event one of the reviewing entities votes against a DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Wise and Wiederkehr, LLP client, the Lead Agency has the power to ignore their recommendation(s) and simply move the project along. For instance, when Westhab petitioned to change the zoning for their subsidized housing project at 22 Tarrytown Road and the Zoning Board voted against the change, Mr Feiner told the Town Board to ignore that recommendation and the Town Board changed the zoning and continually greased the project past every bump in the road.

Ethical behavior needs to begin with the Ethics Board as well as the other Boards in our Town. The Ethics Board’s cavalier and wanton disregard for the real issues lodged against Mr Lewis and the others are easier skirted because the control of these appointed Board is just that: controlled. This needs to change. The decision was laboriously discussed even though the Ethics chair succinctly described the issue and the recognizable ethics violation, poised for a vote. The three other members able to vote, whose position was echoed by the volunteer attorney, providing a service that their explanation deemed not a service, claimed the heart of the matter was a definition of service. They twisted the issue to be about Mr Lewis’ right to participate in community service gathering petitions. One member even went so far as to compare this to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which was in no way what was inferred in the complaint or the explanation given by the complainant. It was a very well-done, Feiner-like deflection.

This issue was a simple one for anyone without an agenda, but changed to nothing more than pleasing their benefactor (Feiner). Mr Lewis acquired signatures for Paul Feiner. It was a service that would be paid for if volunteers were not available. It was also a thing of value and both of these were clearly stated in the Greenburgh Ethics code and the gist of the complaint. Mr Bock explained that Mr Lewis could place a yard sign in his own yard, a bumper sticker on his own car, and get signatures for any other candidates that were not a member of the Town of Greenburgh government. As an attorney he was the witness to the ballot petition signatures, similar to that of a Notary Public which is a service that is normally paid for. While the three members of the Ethics Board voted to dismiss the suit, the issue of an ethical decision being heard and made by this ethics board will certainly impact whether or not others will step forward to lodge a complaint. It’s exactly the outcome that was expected and Mr Feiner as well as Mr Lewis knew the outcome. These members should have a shelf life and be replaced by an independent vote by the public to the position for a limited specific time period. It would help make for A Better Greenburgh.