Watching the Town Board meeting of May 22nd showed some of this infighting. Case in point was over TB1 and TB2 on the agenda. Below is the summary of each of those:
TB 1 - 5/22/19 Resolution authorizing the Town Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh to enter into a Municipal Fee Agreement with Manhattan Avenue Senior LLC whereby Manhattan Avenue Senior LLC will pay a fee to the Town in the amount of $100,000 as reimbursement for the costs and expenses related to the development of up to (#units) residential housing units for seniors aged sixty-two (62) and older [#units still needs to be determined by the Town Board-- 66 or 82] (Held over to Town Board Meeting of June 12, 2019)
TB 2 - 5/22/19 Resolution authorizing the Town Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh to enter into a Tax Exemption Agreement with Manhattan Avenue Senior Housing Development Fund Corp., a New York not-for-profit corporation, which will hold title to the property located at 48, 50, 54, 56 and 58 Manhattan Avenue, currently owned by the Greenburgh Housing Authority, for the benefit of Manhattan Avenue Senior LLC, a for-profit entity that is a party to the Agreement, for the purpose of exempting an affordable housing project for seniors aged sixty-two (62) years and older from all local and municipal taxes (meaning all real property taxes levied by the Town of Greenburgh, the County of Westchester, the Greenburgh Central School district or any other taxing jurisdiction), other than assessments for local improvements and special district taxes, 100% of the value of the Property and Project for a period of thirty (30) years.(Held over to Town Board Meeting of June 12, 2019)
It begins to get interesting at eight or nine-minutes into it after Bishop Preston took to the microphone and accused the Board of dragging its feet on approving the Municipal Fee Agreement with the Greenburgh Housing Authority (GHA). Bishop Preston proceeded to complain that it should not take this long to approve and that the Board should give a tax exemption or do a P.I.L.O.T. (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) program in hopes of expediting the program before the Board, adding what they were doing was disrespectful and dishonorable to the seniors. He claimed that it had been pushed back numerous times again and again.
Mr Jones
pontificated about being the Greenburgh Town Board liaison with the Greenburgh
Housing Authority and that he was very aware of what was going on and that
the agreement should be voted on, adding the GHA have come before them with their
professional representatives and there is no reason not to take this vote. It’s
just the tip of the iceberg and that this should not be held over. He then moved
to vote on it. After being newly appointed that same night, Town Councilwoman Hendrickx fell in line and seconded the motion.
True to his flawed character, Mr Feiner originally had postponed the vote late in the day but now confronted by an irate Jones, jumped on his bandwagon expressing his support for it, saying it was not a perfect agreement and we’ll have a real crisis if they don’t move forward with this. He continued that this is a crime that Greenburgh is not leading the way and voted yes. He also referenced the lack of funding for WestHelp and how it is wallowing due to a lack of funds. He neglected to mention that the entire WestHelp debacle and its current state was caused by him and his complicit Town Board. This too has cost taxpayers millions of dollars every year!
Then Councilman Sheehan began to speak about the reason this resolution had been pulled from the agenda which was to give the new Board member (Hendrickx) time to study it before voting on it and got into a verbal back and forth with Councilman Jones. Mr Jones stated he knew nothing of the resolution being pulled from the agenda. Sheehan said that since Mr Feiner advertised this as being pulled from the agenda, many have not attended that night's meeting. He went on to discuss the affordable vs low income categories and the lack of paperwork that he's requested for at least two years to support the verbal commitments made to the Board. They’ve received nothing.
Both Mr Jones and Bishop Preston (from the audience) stated the paperwork couldn’t be drafted until their petition was approved. If this was true, the paperwork could have been drafted, submitted and held contingent upon approval of the application. Mr Sheehan also stated he sees this lack of paperwork as contributing to the destruction of the Greenburgh Housing Authority. Frankly, it appears that this paperwork could have easily been drafted and submitted during that two year period. This seemingly small stumbling block could have been easily addressed during that time and this point would have been moot. As a matter of fact, taking two more weeks or so after over two years seems more than reasonable.
Mr Sheehan then stated that the Housing Authority and the developer are using the same attorney, Lucia (last name unknown). Mr Jones interrupted him and said, “No they’re not. No they’re not. That’s a misrepresentation.” Mr Sheehan said she represents both, to which Mr Jones responded she represents the development company that both the Housing Authority and Georgica Green Ventures have formed together. The GHA has separate counsel. Mr Sheehan asked Mr Jones twice if they've actually formed that company and he did not answer. Once again, from the audience Bishop Preston could faintly be heard saying not until they get this resolution approved.
The meeting seemed to devolve even faster from that point, especially when Mr Sheehan pointed out that a Board member went to the Ethics Board to find out if they should abstain from voting on GHA issues. That woke Mr Jones up who loudly told Mr Sheehan that that statement was not true and that he did not go to the Ethics Board. Mr Sheehan responded by saying he had not mentioned anyone by name. So we wonder, was Mr Jones feeling guilty about just lying to everyone thinking we wouldn’t find out?
Below is an excerpt from the Ethics Board’s May 8, 2018 meeting minutes which we made blue to distinguish it and bold to highlight the pertinent facts:
MINUTESTown
> of Greenburgh Board of EthicsTuesday,
> May 8, 2018 6:30 p.m.Town
> Hall, Steven Belasco Conference Room
>
>
> Board
> Members Present:
> Doris Friedman, Esq.; Carol Sarcinella, EdD; Blase Spinozzi,
> Craig Zumsteg.
>
> Volunteer
> Counsel.
> Joseph Malara, Esq.
>
> Also
> present:
> Ken Jones and Francis Sheehan
>
>
> Meeting
> was convened at 6:38 p.m. A quorum of the Board of Ethics
> was present.Adopted the Agenda.Adopted the Minutes of the March 20, 2018,
> meeting.The Chair Doris Friedman, Esq. thanked Carol
> Sarcinella for filling in during her absence.Correspondence. The e-mail received from the Town
> Clerk, Judith A. Beville and the response were
> noted.The Advisory Opinion regarding David Cannon’s
> request will be discussed at the next meeting.Ms. Friedman will write to Steve Grant inviting
> him to the next meeting of the Board of Ethics.Financial Disclosure. Blase Spinozzi reported that
> David Fried, Esq. stated as of May 2, fifty-nine percent of
> the employees and twenty-eight percent of Boards and
> Committees were in compliance returning disclosure
> formsEthics Training. Blase Spinozzi said David Fried
> will discuss with the Town Board the possibility and date
> for the ethics training presentation. Ken Jones
> made an informal request for advice on how to proceed in
> future decisions involving his position on the Town Board,
> his liaison with the Greenburgh Housing Authority for the
> Town Board, and the legal firm he serves “of counsel.”
> The Board of Ethics recommended that he recuse himself from
> any decisions involving his firm and the
> Town.
This clearly shows that Mr Sheehan's assertion was accurate and Councilman Jones is not telling the truth. The legal firm he is referring to is Bozeman Law firm (see pic below), which we just captured Sunday from their website (https://www.bozemanlawfirm.com/profiles.htm).
Mr Jones could argue that he left his firm in the Spring 2019, a few weeks prior to the vote in question and that technically his May 2019 vote was not barred by the Town Ethics Ruling. Unfortunately, the Town Ethics Code does not directly address a “cooling off” for private sector matters. However, the NY State Joint Commission on Public Ethics “plain language guide” is very clear with its “reverse two-year bar” for public officials in dealing with matters that involved a former private sector employer. Again, technically, the NYS employees ethics rules might not bind town employees, but that is a very weak “ethical” position for Mr Jones to take. Perhaps he subscribes to Mr Feiner's methodology to ignore any laws or standards he doesn't like? By the way, Mr Feiner appoints all Ethics Board members which gets ratified by his Board.
Below is an excerpt from of the NYSJC Public Ethics rule. We made it blue to distinguish it and bold to highlight the pertinent facts:
REVERSE TWO-YEAR BAR
If you are entering State service from the private sector, the “reverse two-year bar” may, depending on the circumstances, require you to recuse from matters directly involving your former private sector employer for a two- year “cooling off” period.
The Commission interpreted Public Officers Law § 74 to contain this “reverse two-year bar” in Advisory Opinion Nos. 98-09 and 07-04.
In practice, the “reverse two-year bar” prevents the appearance that you, in performing your State duties, may give preferential treatment to, or be unduly influenced by, your former private sector employer.
If you are entering State service from the private sector, the “reverse two-year bar” may, depending on the circumstances, require you to recuse from matters directly involving your former private sector employer for a two- year “cooling off” period.
The Commission interpreted Public Officers Law § 74 to contain this “reverse two-year bar” in Advisory Opinion Nos. 98-09 and 07-04.
In practice, the “reverse two-year bar” prevents the appearance that you, in performing your State duties, may give preferential treatment to, or be unduly influenced by, your former private sector employer.
If your Ethics Officer or JCOPE determines that recusal is appropriate, it runs for two years
from the date that you terminated employment with the private sector employer.
Link:
Link:
Watching the Town Board meeting shows just how dysfunctional this Board has become. Mr Jones made a motion for the Board to vote on the proposal and it was seconded by newly appointed Councilwoman Hendrikx. Mr Sheehan said, we believe correctly, that any Board member can move to hold-over any item without cause and he was doing so. Mr Jones objected. They argued some more and finally Town Attorney Tim Lewis, referred to as the Board's Parliamentarian, suggested suspending the rules -- basically to thwart Councilman Sheehan's request to pull the resolution -- and allow the vote that Councilman Jones wanted. Not only can you not vote to suspend your rules so you can have a favored or controlled outcome, but doing so may violate the Town charter. So after they voted to suspend the rules (Yes vote by Hendrickx, Jones, Feiner) Juettner abstained saying they've never done this before, and Sheehan voted no, they then voted for the the original resolution with the same comments and counts. Suspending or changing the rules to control the outcome is like passing a law to say murder is not illegal so you can't be found guilty of murder after you've killed someone.
What probably most important here is that Mr Jones worked for Bozeman as an attorney while he was a Town Councilman and the GHA liaison. Bozeman represents Georgica Green Ventures which is comprised of the Housing Authority and the developer. Ken Jones should have recused himself because his employer was involved with the Town whether directly or indirectly. Mr Feiner should have removed Mr Jones as the GHA liaison due to the conflict of interest and Town Attorney Tim Lewis should have also asked Ken Jones to step down as liaison for the same reason. But this is “Bizarro Greenburgh” where rules apply to others, not the elite few in Mr Feiner’s inner circle. And, with the forcing of the suspension of rules to make a decision go the way he wanted, Mr Jones has placed the Town in another risky, contentious and possibly criminal position with Ms Hendrickx, Mr Feiner and Mr Lewis.
What probably most important here is that Mr Jones worked for Bozeman as an attorney while he was a Town Councilman and the GHA liaison. Bozeman represents Georgica Green Ventures which is comprised of the Housing Authority and the developer. Ken Jones should have recused himself because his employer was involved with the Town whether directly or indirectly. Mr Feiner should have removed Mr Jones as the GHA liaison due to the conflict of interest and Town Attorney Tim Lewis should have also asked Ken Jones to step down as liaison for the same reason. But this is “Bizarro Greenburgh” where rules apply to others, not the elite few in Mr Feiner’s inner circle. And, with the forcing of the suspension of rules to make a decision go the way he wanted, Mr Jones has placed the Town in another risky, contentious and possibly criminal position with Ms Hendrickx, Mr Feiner and Mr Lewis.
There are three candidates running for two Board seats in the Democratic Primary on June 25th. Those Board candidates are incumbent Ken Jones(D) seeking re-election, Eric Zinger(D) and Gina Jackson(D) vying for Mr Jones’ and Kevin Morgan’s seat. There are two candidates running for Supervisor position in the general election on November 5th. Lucas Cioffi(IND) is running against incumbent Mr Feiner (D) for the Supervisor's position. We know Mr Zinger and Mr Cioffi and are hoping to sit down with Ms Jackson soon and invite all the candidates to submit position papers to us for publication. Without position papers we believe any of the new candidates would be a breath of fresh air, a welcome change and long overdue. It’s the only way we can begin to get A Better Greenburgh.
I will be submitting an article to ABG in the coming week to highlight my position. We need fresh leadership in Greenburgh, not more of the status quo.
ReplyDeleteThe three council candidates are mediocre.
ReplyDeleteThis is the appearance of a choice. None have shown any
creativity or insight how to undo the fiasco
of three decades of Feiner amateurism.
Eric, you should have commented on what they did. You missed the boat
ReplyDelete