A Rebuttal to: Ethics Anyone, or Foxes in the Henhouse?

ABG posted a story on November 3rd regarding a number of people we felt were in collusion with Mr Feiner seeking a pre-ordained outcome for a building expansion. Collusion seems to happen often in the Town and ABG finds ourselves writing about them quite often – more often than we would like. Regardless, ABG received a letter from Mr Nicholas DeCicco refuting much of what we had posted about his participation of what took place. He asked for an opportunity to set the record straight and after discussing the events with him, feel it is only fair to do so.

After discussing the entire issue with Mr DeCicco, we feel he has presented a compelling argument. While the past cannot be changed, we applaud Mr DeCicco’s efforts to help improve our Town and look forward to hearing from him in the future. Here are Mr DeCicco’s points in their entirety:

Thanks for your time and willingness to make some corrections and hopefully allow the facts to be presented in an accurate context.

Despite my best efforts to comply with every rule during my campaign in 2011, I missed something. Yes I was thrust into my first election with only 4 weeks left to go, BUT NO MATTER HOW ODD OR UNIQUE THE RULE WAS IT WAS STILL MY RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW IT. I took accountability and reimbursed the host of the dinner party in question. Allowing the situation to be represented as anything more than an honest oversight which I took responsibility for and fixed is all together unfair and inaccurate. I believe it is fair to point out that:

1) I was RECUSED from the Deli Delicious Zoning Board application several weeks BEFORE the “fund raiser” and vote, and thus had no ability to vote on or discuss it. The Ethics Board specifically found that I properly and immediately recused myself and abided by said recusal.

2) I had no prior relationship at all with anybody associated with the Deli and recused myself IMMEDIATELY upon a potential conflict arising. Once Mr. Pateman called me to propose the event I called Mr. Belasco* the very next day to tell him I was recused from the Deli case (Mr. Belasco sent an email to the Ethics Board verifying this).

3) I did not “resign” from the ZBA. While I was not consulted about moving to the Planning Board, there was no gap in service from my 6 years on the ZBA through my appointment onto the PB.

4) No “settlement” was negotiated with the Ethics Board. At the very first meeting I explained the situation, offered to reimburse the host, and asked the complainant to withdraw – he refused. After the second meeting, I submitted sworn statements attesting to all of the above and checks showing repayment – The complainant again refused to withdraw.

5) The EB dismissed numerous frivolous accusations.

6) At the complainant’s insistence the board was forced to issue a decision dismissing all but one violation (for which they imposed NO PENALTY) based upon an obscure rule which stated a board member could not accept a political contribution from an associate of a person who had an application before the Town within the past 12 months. Once confronted with this odd rule, my contention was that it was not intended to “get” somebody who properly recused beforehand (as I had done) but to “get” somebody who actually votes for an application and then several months down the road accepts such contribution. But the “look back” was there, without qualifiers, so apparently applicable.

7) Even a member of the Ethics Board stated this rule was unique to Greenburgh, and that my action of immediate and prior recusal would have been more than sufficient in any other municipality.

8) I did not say I was unaware Mr. Pateman had a professional relationship with the Deli – such awareness was the reason for my immediate recusal once the dinner was presented to me. I did not realize that attending such would still be prohibited even though I was previously recused from the matter. I fully believed I was in compliance because of my prior recusal and such belief was more than reasonable as Greenburgh's rule prohibiting such is unique (see #7).

9) I reimbursed the host on my own accord after only two meetings with the EB. This was exceptionally fast as in comparison “Cookie-Gate” took 3 years, and most other complaints typically take several months or years.

10) The Ethic’s Board imposed NO PENALTY, only asking me to verify the reimbursement checks were cashed and state I would not accept a future contribution to make-up for the reimbursement.

For proper context I think it is important to note the complainant was a financial contributor to, political district leader for, close friend to, political advisor to, and main proponent of my then opponent. Perhaps all that played a role here when the simple gesture of a phone call prior to filing the complaint could have resolved any issues without dragging our Town through the mud and hurting so many people.

If the integrity of the system and holding officials accountable was truly the purpose of this complaint, then when it was clear the integrity of the vote was upheld because of my prior recusal and nonexistent relationship with the Deli, that through my history, actions, and sworn statements my only intent was to be in compliance, that the rule in question was obscure, and I was nonetheless holding myself accountable by reimbursing the host – why be importunate for a written decision which will last in perpetuity? Why go for blood?

Perhaps the ulterior goal was to make me look bad and deter me from running in the future? Perhaps that’s why out-of-context information was continually posted on the complainant’s public community Facebook page, which never acknowledged my prior recusal or all the dismissed allegations, and my replies to relevant postings were always deleted but the complainant’s comments remained? Bottom line, if the Ethics Board didn’t believe I was being open and honest they could have issued far more serious repercussions than “verify the reimbursement checks are cashed.”

ABG - There are plenty of bad things going on in this Town and I FULLY support your efforts to call them out. If I ever step out of line intentionally I would expect to be called out too. If I ever do so inadvertently, I would hope to be given a chance to take accountability and fix the issue, and not be wrapped up in the same package as those who continually do wrong on purpose and try to get away with.

My integrity and desire to help our Town be a better place is always paramount and the filter through which all decisions are made.

Thanks,
Nick

* Steve Belasco was the Chair for the Zoning Board of Appeals and has since passed away.

Ethics Anyone, or Foxes in the Henhouse?

It seems residents and taxpayers are repeatedly treated to more and more questionable, and in fact illegal, actions through Mr Feiner’s seemingly untouchable administration. Since we know we cannot curtail these actions, we’re forced to seek remedy through other means. On the surface, one might think the Ethics Board would be an avenue worth pursuit for this satisfaction. Once traveling down that avenue, you will soon find the well-honed and notorious roadblocks craftily set in place to dissuade your pursuit of justice, remedy or anything close to it.

In September of 2013, Town resident Thomas Bock submitted a registered a complaint against Town Attorney Timothy Lewis for several ethics violations relating to the Democratic Primary election petitions. Simply, he lodged an Ethics Complaint against Town Attorney Timothy Lewis because of the actions Mr Lewis took for getting Democratic Primary ballot petition signatures for Town Supervisor Paul Feiner and Town Clerk Judith Beville and swearing to their legitimacy as Town Attorney. Without fear of being found guilty of an ethics violation by an Ethics Board appointed by Mr Feiner, the preordained outcome for Mr Lewis was no surprise to anyone, especially Mr Lewis.

If you read our post, “Ethical Challenge Dismissed By Ethical Challenge” of September 24, 2013, (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6521092612847585726#editor/target=post;postID=4973448450613789264;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=17;src=postname)  

you can see some of the disingenuous bloviating that takes place by members of the Ethics Review Board. In fact, several members of the Ethics Board brought up Chicago politics as though to compare Greenburgh to the worst political model in hopes of validating a foregone conclusion for “one of their own”. Interestingly, the Ethics Board is chaired by Jack McLaughlin. The Planning Board is chaired by his wife, Fran. He should recuse himself with any claim involving planning, zoning, departments, or employees. Ethical, unethical? Your call. 

As can be found on Mr Feiner’s blog during the waning days of his still practicing open government, there are numerous statements validating other violations, specifically Mr Feiner’s violations, such as what’s listed below from his 2007 blog (ABG has added the bold highlight):

“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."

Here’s another quote from that same post:

“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.”    

William LoSapio’s reward for his fund raising efforts was to be appointed by Mr Feiner to the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals. He raised money for Mr Feiner and thereafter gets appointed to the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals. How much do the other seats usually cost?

In 2010, community leader Bob Bernstein brought a verified ethics complaint against two residents, Jordan Glass and Nicholas DeCicco, both attorneys, who were both serving as volunteer members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. For Glass, he represented Deli Delicious’ Ernest Tartaglione’s brother and at the time leased space in Valhalla from Tartaglione’s real estate corporation. Tartaglione was an applicant before the Zoning and Planning Boards. For DeCicco, it was about attending a fund-raising event held for him by Irvington developer Chuck Pateman, and sitting on the Zoning Board as he ran for the vacated County Legislative office against Hastings-on-Hudson’s Mary Jane Shimsky. Pateman, an area developer, hosted the DeCicco fund raiser at his home in Irvington, NY. while representing Zoning Board of Appeals applicant Ernest Tartaglione and owner of Deli Delicious in Fulton Park pursuing expansion. 

Mr Bernstein’s persistence with the verified complaints against these two residents (Glass and DeCicco) exposed the web of deception. The Board of Ethics had no choice but to negotiate a settlement which resulted in Glass and DeCicco’s “voluntary” resignations.

There was a third person involved in this deception appointed to the Town’s Ethics Review Board, Mark Constantine, also a local Attorney with an area practice and a resident of Tarrytown. Mr. Constantine filled the vacant “Republican seat” and has served ever since. Mr Constantine was the co-sponsor with Pateman of the above fund-raiser! 

Concerned citizen/activist Hal Samis lodged a Verified Complaint against Mr. Constantine on February 15, 2011 on similar grounds to those cited by Mr. Bernstein. Mr Samis’ complaint was in reference to Mr Constantine’s involvement as a sponsor with Mr Pateman of the fund raiser. Again, there were overlapping connections among these persons and all with direct or indirect involvement with an Applicant before the ZBA, Ernest Tartaglione owner of “Deli Delicious”!

Read more at: (Thursday, March 17, 2011); Paul, You Have Some Explaining To Do!
(http://abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2011/03/paul-you-have-some-explaining-to-do.html)

The Ethics Board properly referred Mr Samis’ complaint to the Town Board, citing a conflict of interest as Mr Constantine is a fellow Board member. While the Town Board has been repeatedly reminded of the need for a decision, they have refused to take any action. The charges against Mr Constantine are for three violations of the Town's Ethics Code: 570-7, 570-4(D) and 570-4(L)(2) relating to/with Prohibited Political Activities and Standards of Conduct. By definition, Mr. Constantine is an Agency Member and thus subject to the Code. Without any action by the Town Board, whether to clear or indict him, Mr. Constantine has been free to continue unrestricted to advocate and to vote on the Ethics Board since 2011. This is Mr Feiner playing fast and furious by his own rules. Who on any of these appointed Boards will challenge him?

So, to review, Mr Feiner appoints LoSapio, Constantine, DeCicco and Glass to maintain control of the various Town Boards. Tartaglione has a numerous zoning applications (appeals) before the Zoning Board of Appeals (LoSapio, DeCicco), the Planning Board (Chairwoman Fran McLaughlin – not that we’re accusing her of any impropriety) and the Building Department by Tartaglione to approve his building changes. When it is discovered that these players are implicated in Pateman’s fund raising efforts, it seems like the collusive players just dig in their heels preparing for the seige. To be forthcoming regarding Mr DeCicco, he did return the money collected and given to him from the Pateman fund raiser, claiming he had no knowledge of the relationships between Pateman and Tartaglione and stepped down from his Zoning Board position when everything came to light.

Another appointed and non-voting member of the Ethics Review Board, Mr Joseph Malara, whom we understand is a Somers, not Greenburgh, resident. He too, “serves” on the Ethics Review Board, providing the unpaid service of Council to the Board. Even so, he regularly tenders his (albeit Mr Feiner’s) point of view without being asked for a legal opinion, participating as though he were a “regular” Ethics Board member. His actions remind us of Town Attorney Tim Lewis’ constant input during Town Board meetings. He is there to render legal opinions if requested by the Board. Ironically, when they do ask, he typically suggests not giving an answer and to seek outside council. 

ABG has stated before that having Mr Feiner and his Town Board being reviewed by a Board appointed by Mr Feiner creates a host of new ethical challenges in a Town bereft of ethics. How can we have a Ethics Board rule on complaints against the same people who appointed them have the public expect a fair outcome? We can’t and probably never will. 

Mr DeCicco resigned from the Zoning Board but was appointed by Mr Feiner as an alternate to the Planning Board. Mr Pateman is no longer representing Ernest Tartaglione although Tartaglione is currently before, and trying the get approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the same project they turned down 2-years ago. The exception to this offering is he has increased the impervious surfaces, seeking to pave the entire property. Mr Malara continues to be the Council for the Ethics Board while living far beyond the Town line. Mr McLaughlin has not recused himself from Ethics Board decisions involving other Boards. Mr Constantine continues to be in property tax arrears with numerous properties he owns within the Town. He desperately needs the flawed “Tax Amnesty” program Mr Feiner seeks to initiate as another Feiner Folly to collect over $21 million owed the Town – and accrued during Mr Feiner’s tenure. The other Board members sit unscathed by all of these ethical issues – for now. The Town needs some major overhauls or we will never have A Better Greenburgh.

DeCicco vs Shimsky: Is This The Best We Can Do?

The Westchester County 12^th Legislative District seat, formerly held by attorney Thomas Abinanti, is being sought by two challengers. The two are Democrat MaryJane Shimsky of Hastings-on-Hudson, NY, and Republican Nick DeCicco (pronounced de-cheeko) of Hartsdale, NY.

Shimsky, a former attorney, has served as community relations director for former Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. Brodsky retired from this position this year after 28 years. The seat was recently won in the election by Thomas Abinanti, defeating Republican Thomas Bock. Shimsky's a vice chairwoman of the county Democratic Committee.

DeCicco is a prosecutor in the county Attorney's Office assigned to Family Court in Yonkers. He is a member of the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals, where he currently has an Ethics Violation lodged against him from Town of Greenburgh Democratic District Leader Robert Bernstein. Bernstein had sought to have DeCicco recuse himself from voting on the numerous zoning variances requested by Deli Delicious, located at Rt 119 and Old Kensico Road. The Town Code of Ethics for board membership is pretty straightforward as to what a member can and cannot do. But in Greenburgh, and in particular with our supervisor and his board, it's just another set of rules to be ignored.

The neighborhood, besieged with heavy traffic, conspiratorial actions by Supervisor Feiner and his rubber-stamp Board, is upset, and against this expansion on top of the blatant “lead agency” hijinks, anti-neighborhood and pro-developer giveways of the Town Board toward WestHab. Feiner has gone out of his way to post blogs, write letters to various newspapers, use his radio show on WVOX endorsing Deli Delicious' requests. It must pain Feiner to have the Zoning Board do the right thing.

Deli Delicious wants permission from the zoning board to put in a drive-through window, pave on NYS property and create additional parking spaces in hopes of reviving his expiring business. DeCicco voted in support for the plan at a Zoning Board meeting last month. Then the planning consultant/contractor and the deli's lawyer, alleged to also be the planning consultant's lawyer, organized a political fundraiser for his county board bid at his home in Irvington. Did the deli also contribute to DeCicco? It's been alleged that Deli Delicious may also contribute to Paul Feiner’s campaign fund. We wouldn't be surprised.

The zoning board is scheduled to vote on the deli's requests this Thursday. Last Friday DeCicco said he planned to abstain from any votes on the deli's application. Isn't that a little late in the game Mr. DeCicco? In a Lohud.com interview with his opponent, DeCicco repeatedly stated, "If you want more of the same... vote for MaryJane. If you want something different, a real change, vote for Nick DeCicco." How is a political payoff through fund raising and contributions different? How is voting on an issue that directly involves your campaign financing different? How is ignoring the wishes of an entire community and siding with a developer different? How is siding with a business owner whose bad business acumen is leading to his demise any different? How is any of this different? It's not. What's next, a political appointment to the Board of Elections for a phantom position?

Watch the Journal News debate between the two candidates and see how uninspired they'll make you feel. Neither has a positive presence on screen and both leave us wanting. Shimsky repeatedly appears to refer to her notes off to the side and incapable of having an opinion without cheat sheets. DeCicco, while working without notes, appears equally inept as he struggles to make his case. Who are coaching these two?

If we look past DeCicco's clumsy and perhaps bumbling camera presence, he does seem to make a few points prompting Shimsky's standard retort of, "I have two comments about that..." Poorly executed, neither candidate inspired confidence during this excruciating exchange. Both prove all too well that neither will be a leader, simply another vote in an already dysfunctional legislature.

DeCicco rightfully attacked the Democrat Shimsky for operating her campaign out of the CSEA headquarters. She countered that Republican DeCicco is being bankrolled by the Republican Party. Touché. Regrettably, this was as good as it got and appears to be the level to which Westchester politics has deteriorated. It’s disappointing. The Democrats lost their way several years ago and lost a good and righteous leader with the recent passing of Lorrin Brown. The Republicans had a great candidate with Thomas Bock in the last two elections but the Republican Party chose to abandon him as Doug Colety typically writes off the Town of Greenburgh each election as insignificant to the Republicans. Again, it’s disappointing. Are there any stewards left out there?

The Republican residents of Greenburgh have been discarded by the Westchester and NY GOP because the democrats have a 3 to 1 ratio over the republicans in the district. Any viable or good candidates, such as Bock, are ignored or dismissed, almost mandating the election of “empty suits” such as Thomas “Proclamation4U” Abinanti. Following "suit" is newly elected Alfreda Williams. The democrats are simply offering bodies and frankly, it’s not good enough. The republicans aren't any better. Even Astorino, who lamely follows the advise of his incompetent advisors, jumped into the waters by offering political payoffs and paybacks. Will it ever end? Apparently, no, especially with the thinking we have from the supposed leaders in these parties. It’s so disappointing.

Our prediction is a simple one. DeCicco, with the power of the feckless Republican Party, with Colety at the helm, will lose this special election to Shimsky; not because she’s better, rather, because of the “D” after her name. It’s simply numbers.