The first thing they recommended was that the ethics code be part of the city charter, and that it include a long list of examples what was expected of city officials and what constituted unethical behavior. (That's the Handlyng Synne connection.) Not only is our current ethics code unclear about what constitutes unethical behavior, it is also silent on the penalties for violating the code of ethics. The Hofstra Law students recommended that the code of ethics also define the consequences--anything from being required to make a public apology to being removed from office.
They also discussed conflict of interest and pointed out the lack of guidance in the code on what to do if someone has a conflict of interest. They reported that the model codes they looked at had very detailed provisions relating to conflict of interest. Eric Lane, the dean of Hofstra Law School, expressed the opinion that no alderman should have to recuse him/herself for a conflict of interest "because then a district is not represented" in a vote. When Common Council president Don Moore pointed out that, in a small community like Hudson, elected officials are often also on the boards of not-for-profits, Lane responded, "Private interest should not limit your capacity to vote. . . , so get off those boards."
The Hofstra Law students' other recommendations included a city meeting to inform everyone about ethics issues, establishing a Board of Ethics for Hudson (the city now relies on the Columbia County Board of Ethics), and mandatory ethics training for all elected and appointed officials and for city employees.
COPYRIGHT 2014 CAROLE OSTERINK
The illustration accompanying this post is an engraving by Pieter Bruegel the Elder from his series The Seven Deadly Sins
Carole, the double negative aside ("no alderman should not have to recuse himself/herself for a conflict of interest"), the paragraph on conflict of interest is wrong. The first duty of any person who works for a public entity is to REVEAL the potential conflict to his/her colleagues on the public entity making the decision (in this case, fellow aldermen). Once the potential conflict is revealed, then that body (and this should be public, under FOIL rules) should decide whether that person may continue to participate (i.e. vote) in the procedings. That seems to be what Lane is saying at the end of the paragraph, but it's unclear. --peter m.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Pete, it was an editing error which has since been corrected. The sentence was originally "an alderman should not have to . . ." which I decided to change to "no alderman should have to" but forgot to delete the "not."
Delete"Private interest should not limit your capacity to vote. . . , so get off those boards." I find that confusing. Not how I read the LAW."Private interest
ReplyDeletelimit your capacity to vote on specific projects,etc..due to Conflict of Interests. .So are they saying it's just a matter of Conscience, for those conflicted to recuse themselves? "so just get off the boards?"resign from Council, Supervisor etc.?or as the Law states ...recuse yourself from voting where there is a Conflict of Interests?..like I said, I am confused here,
what Lane is talking about..and I do not mean the corrected double negative.
An example of the boards Lane was talking would be Habitat for Humanity, from whose board Alderman John Friedman did actually resign, although I'm not sure of his reason for doing so.
DeleteIt wouldn't be a stretch to link the alderman's exit from Habitat with the confusion and trouble caused by his attendance at certain council meetings, and by his eagerness to weigh in on the Habitat/Garden controversy here at Gossips. Of course I could be wrong.
DeleteThanks Carole. Lane's use of the term"boards",I was thinking of Zoning Board,Planning,etc.,not outside entities like Habitat, Galvan,Perfect Ten,Churches, Real Estate Co.'s etc., that public servants,elected or appointed, that vote on behalf of the public interests that are also are on those boards or employed and therefore conflicted. Then I agree with Lane..they should get off those boards. Or resign from public office..if the private entities are more important to them than serving the public's best interests. and they refuse to recuse themselves from public discussion and voting ,as they must,
Deletedue to of Conflict of Interests.
This also explains to me " Eric Lane, the dean of Hofstra Law School, expressed the opinion that no alderman should have to recuse him/herself for a conflict of interest.
Deletebecause then a district is not represented in a vote." Which further explains what Lane meant by saying""Private interest should not limit your capacity to vote. . . , so get off those boards." which I would think also includes, employment or directly financially benefiting by any of these private entities, according to Conflict of Interests.
Mayor, CEO of the "development" coporation and secret agent of real estate all rolled into one. Municipal Monarchs disguised as public servants. The (over-weighted) gerrymandered gentry, separate fishermen from shore, bird watchers from the riparian forest and worst of all, us from each other.
ReplyDeleteThis all sounds like feint echos from the failed Moreland commission, all bark until real estate, then no bight.
Enter new city code: "Use of river front for dueling", then watch people flow freely.
1 Riparian
Naturally the Hudson Development Corporation has its own Code of Ethics:
Deletehttp://hudsonfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/HDC_Code0fEthics.pdf
ReplyDeleteMayor, CEO of the "development" corporation and secret agent of real estate all rolled into one. Municipal Monarchs disguised as public servants. The (over-weighted) gerrymandered gentry, separate fishermen from shore, bird watchers from the riparian forest and worst of all, us from each other.
This all sounds like feint echoes from the failed Moreland commission, all bark until real estate, then no bight.
Enter new city code: Use of river front for dueling, then watch people flow freely.
1 Riparian
Thanks for the correction, Carole.... There are many conflicts in Hudson -- as there would be in any small town. The confusion comes when deciding what to do about them. As mentioned earlier, REVEALING the potential conflict is duty #1. But duty #2 is for the governing entity in question to decide what to do upon learning of the potential conflict; i.e. is it a substantive conflict or not? The person with the potential conflict may recuse him/herself, but need not do that if his/her colleagues determine that the conflict is not substantive. What happens when people don't understand the 2-tier rule is that they try to hide the potential conflict -- or look the other way -- which, in fact, makes matters worse! And illegal!
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good development. We know that human nature will always take advantage, and Hudson does have some big gaps in its standards.
ReplyDeleteThe city does have its own Code of Ethics. While it isn't exactly identical with the county code, both do share pretty much the same "Standards of conduct" (Hudson actually adds one to the list).
But the county states the following where the city does not, under §48-12, "Penalties for offenses":
"In addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any person who shall knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of this code may be fined an amount not to exceed One Thousand dollars ($1,000), suspended or removed from office or employment, as the case may be, in the manner provided by law."
For penalties in the City of Hudson, we must look to the infraction and wonder if it was anticipated in Aristotle's Ethics?
Does manipulating the city code (§1-10) qualify as an ethics problem? In a general sense, yes of course. But compared to the county's penalties, check out the wrist-slap for the decidedly malicious act of "tampering with code":
"Any person who, without authorization from the City Clerk, changes or amends, by additions or deletions, any part or portion of the Code of the City of Hudson or who alters or tampers with such Code in any manner whatsoever which will cause the legislation of the City of Hudson to be misrepresented thereby or who violates any other provision of this local law shall be guilty of an offense and shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 15 days, or both."