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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment