Source: http://rivercitymalone.com/wind-energy/letter-to-district-attorney-derek-champagne/
Timestamp: 2018-02-23 19:57:21
Document Index: 327832717

Matched Legal Cases: ['§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805', '§805']

River City Malone » Burke bought and paid for?
©Ben Sargent, NYTimes.com (edited)
Derek Champagne, Esquire
355 West Main
You asked me to clarify my statement that the Burke town board violated the public’s right of participation at the board’s “work session” on 3/25/08. I have attached the relevant laws and opinions, taken from NYS Open Meetings Law and the NYS Town Manual (2006 ed.)
To begin with, a “work session” is a creation of town governments; it is not provided for in NYS statutory law. Article 4 of NYS Town Law lays out provisions for running town “meetings”; it says nothing about “work sessions.”
Hence, all work sessions are by definition town meetings.
The question becomes: when a town board meets, is it a public hearing or is it meeting to conduct the town’s business. (The law appears to make a distinction between the two.) It’s clear the meeting this past Tuesday (3/25/08) was the latter: a meeting to conduct the town’s business.
Here we encounter a sticky wicket, as the saying goes: NYS Town Law “is silent with respect to public participation. While it has been advised that a public body [town board] does not have to allow the public to speak, many [town boards] choose to permit public participation” (see, “Can I speak at a meeting?” Committee on Open Government website, NYS Dept. of State).
However, context is everything, including of course in the law. NYS law operates within the larger realm of the US Constitution, Article 1: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, … or the right of the people peaceably to … petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Hold onto this paragraph; I’ll come back to it in a moment.)
This brings us back to the purpose of last Tuesday’s public meeting in Burke: to discuss the terms of a proposed Code of Ethics. There is reason to think Burke’s proposed Code of Ethics (attached) violates NYS General Municipal Law §805(c)&(d), which forbids conflicts of interest in town board members:
“No municipal officer … shall … receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any municipal agency of which he is an officer” §805(c).
“No municipal officer … shall … receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any agency of his municipality, whereby his compensation is to be dependent or contingent upon any action by such agency with respect to such matter” §805(d).
The question evidently troubling a good many people in Burke is how to reconcile these two clauses with the fact that two board members, Mr. Arnold Lobdell and Mr. David Vincent, have personal contracts (filed in the Franklin County Courthouse) with the wind developers. (See attached.)
Is this not a case of two municipal officers “receiving or entering into an agreement, express or implied [with the wind companies], for [personal financial] compensation for services to be rendered [presumably a “yes” vote] in relation to a matter before a municipal agency of which they are officers [whether the Burke town board should permit industrial wind factories], whereby their compensation [monies paid to them by the wind developers for erecting turbines on their land] is to be dependent or contingent upon an action [passage of a pro-wind law] by such agency [the Burke town board] with respect to such matter”?
Or am I misreading NYS law? If so, then a lot of people in Burke are likewise misreading the law, and clarification by you or the Department of State would settle the matter. Without that clarification it’s hard to see how one reconciles clauses §805(c)&(d) with the two attached leases.
Back to the Burke town meeting of 3/25/08. There were scores of people in the Burke town hall that evening who were there to petition the town board “for a redress of grievances” (Article 1, US Constitution)—the widespread grievance circulating throughout Burke that clauses §805(c)&(d) of NYS General Municipal Law are being violated by those two leases and by the Code of Ethics being discussed at that very meeting by the town board.
Let’s focus on that Code of Ethics for a moment (attached). It’s cleverly, if not cunningly, worded. (One would expect nothing less, composed as it was by the law firm representing Noble Environmental for the past several years.) It’s not surprising that people in Burke say they detect the fingerprints of the wind developers all over their Code of Ethics.
Looking at that Code of Ethics, everything hinges on the tricky word “Contract” (see Definitions, p. 1). A “Contract,” according to this definition, includes an “application to the Town … for any permit or permission.” So far, so good—except that the wind developers are not applying to the town for a permit or permission to do anything. The currently proposed wind law is not a result of an application for a permit or permission; it is merely a case of the town, of its own volition, passing an ordinance (wind law) to regulate any and all wind turbine development within Burke. In addition, whereas “Exceptions to Code of Ethics Requirements,” 4-h, would at first appear to “grandfather in” Mr. Lobdell’s contract with the wind developer (on file in the courthouse), on closer inspection it seems this “grandfather” clause has no bearing on Mr. Lobdell’s contract (or Mr. Vincent’s, for that matter).
What’s significant about this Code of Ethics is not what it includes, but what it excludes. It notably omits §805(c)&(d) of NYS General Municipal Law. Both of these clauses, by the way, are front and center in Malone’s Code of Ethics (attached). Like Burke, Bellmont also omits §805(c)&(d) (attached). Since §805(c)&(d) is fundamental to NYS Municipal Law, and since state law stipulates that all municipal Codes of Ethics must be at least as stringent and inclusive as NYS Municipal Law, it appears that Burke’s proposed Code of Ethics (and Bellmont’s, for that matter) fails to meet NYS standards.
I believe this is what many of the people at the Burke “work session” (3/25/08) intended to bring to the attention of their town. When they discovered their customary right to speak was gagged by order of the town board at the meeting’s outset, they immediately shifted to their Constitutional right to speak under the First Amendment: “no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to … petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The grievance being, “We the People of Burke believe the proposed Code of Ethics is illegal.” Keep in mind that these people were attending a public meeting whose announced purpose was to discuss adoption of a Code of Ethics which, many believe, violates NYS General Municipal Law, §805(c)&(d).
Or does it? This question lies at the core of the standoff in Burke: Does the proposed Code of Ethics violate the law?
Right here the US Constitution kicks in in yet another dimension. It kicks in because you, Derek, are too overwhelmed to get immediately involved and, moreover, you doubt the enforcement of NYS General Municipal Law is within your jurisdiction. (I’m merely reiterating what you have said all along.) Second, the Constitution kicks in because nobody in the NYS Dept. of State, the Comptroller’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, or the NYS Association of Towns is paying attention to Burke’s dilemma. They all pass the proverbial buck.
Graphing this situation would look something like this: District Attorney <> Attorney General <> Dept. of State <> State Comptroller <> Association of Towns, where the <> symbol stands for “passing the buck.” Don’t misunderstand me: they all have good reasons for passing the buck; nevertheless, as Noble’s Chuck Hinckley likes to say, at the end of the day the buck has been successfully passed. The best advice the buck passers can give the residents of Burke is: “file a civil suit.” This being yet another strategy for passing the buck. Why? Because (1) §805(c)&(d) is statutory State law, (2) it appears to be straightforward to hundreds of people in Burke, and (3) all that’s required is enforcement.
Enforcement: the golden word in this dialogue. DA <> AG <> Dept. of State <> State Comptroller <> Association of Towns says to the 300 people of Burke who have signed a petition stating their belief that town board members are breaking NYS Gen. Mun. Law: “We, the above buck passers, don’t have time or the staff to enforce the law, so it is incumbent on you people to hire an attorney and march into court to perform, hopefully, the job we are derelict in performing.”
More or less, this is what they’re being told. Let us call a spade a spade, after all.
The 300 signatories in Burke know the stakes are high. Very high. Despite the wind developers’ assertions that property values remain unaffected by giant turbines in everyone’s backyard, facts prove otherwise, and are proving otherwise in Burke as I write these words. Despite the wind developers’ assertions that there are no disastrous health effects from these 400-foot-high noise/vibration machines in everyone’s backyard, facts prove otherwise, as Dr. Pierpont’s 80-page forthcoming clinical article amply demonstrates. (Not to mention, literally innumerable reports from people living next door to industrial turbines—around the globe.)
The 300 signatories to that petition know this; they know they’re being lied to by the pretty young men whom the wind developers hire to do their business. The 300 signatories are desperate, and rightly so. There is a high likelihood that, at Wednesday’s town meeting (April 2nd), the Burke town board will perform a double-header: (1) pass a doubtful Code of Ethics and, with this in its pocket, (2) pass its pro-wind law (attached, with attention to p. 13).
Back to the “work session” of 3/25/08. Given this state of affairs, and finding themselves gagged by what many in the room consider to be a scofflaw town board (whose disregard for the law, they feel, is effectively condoned by all of the above state agencies), it’s not surprising the representatives of those 300 signatories were outraged. At the start of that meeting, they all stood, faced the American flag, and dutifully recited the Pledge of Allegiance—“and to the Republic for which it stands.” The Republic that was created by the Constitution; the Republic which is nothing without the Constitution.
This is the second golden word in this dialogue: the Constitution. When all else fails—and all else has failed (refer to the buck-passing chain above), as far as these people are concerned—then it’s time to resort to the Bill of Rights: the inalienable right to “freedom of speech … [and] the right of the people peaceably to … petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Starting with their town government—except that Constitutional right was denied them on 3/25/o8.
When is a government dysfunctional? The Burke town board desperately needs definitive guidance from the state—not the town lawyer who may have his own conflict of interest, but from the state, either in the form of you, as District Attorney, or the Dept. of State, or State Comptroller, or Assoc. of Towns, or Attorney General. This is not the time to pass the buck. Misters Lobdell and Vincent, both honorable men, need your guidance. Supervisor Darrel Bushey needs your guidance. They don’t appear to be getting it.
On the other side of the dispute, the 300 signatories (and growing) to that petition need your guidance. They don’t appear to be getting it, either.
Meanwhile, the chasm grows wider and gets uglier. Neighbor against neighbor. Friend against friend. A community fracturing and shattering.
My question to you, as senior law enforcement officer for Franklin County, is this: Is the NYS government dysfunctional in this matter?
This is a monumental tragedy for the community of Burke.
I write this in an effort to be fair-minded to both sides in this dispute—an honest dispute that urgently requires resolution by the State of New York. Not by State Troopers arresting people at the next town meeting, but resolution by you, I suggest, as chief law enforcement officer for the county.
I write this letter with admiration and respect for you in the difficult job of being District Attorney. In fact I write it precisely because I consider you to be one of the most conscientious, diligent, vigilant, and exemplary district attorneys in the state. (Let me know when you decide to run for State Attorney General. You’ve got my vote.)
Anyhow, this is how I interpret the Burke uproar. Not unlike the ComLinks uproar, it requires a skilled umpire. Pronto. Probably before the town meeting on 4/2/08. The two critical words at that meeting will be enforcement and Constitution.
I believe that’s where you come in.
I had the pleasure of breaking up quorum of three town board members having a discussion after the hearing was adjourned.
…and here we go again.. http://www.mymalonetelegram.com/mtg01/burke-town-officials-hear-both-sides-of-wind-tower-debate-20150603 , After spending the day on the phone, attempting to get fellow Wind Warriors to attend the meeting, I applaud Mr. and Mrs. Garrow for coming from Churbusco aka town of Clinton for attending and speaking. Aside from them them and myself, only one other person defended the town from becoming a turbine nightmare. People are convinced their taxes will go away…and willing to give up their quality of life! Not mentioned in the article was my statement that the Almanzo Wilder Farm is now on the historical register and nothing can disrupt their view shed…each member on the board has in the past received monies from wind developers. There is no conflict of interest, how??
glenn champage
Comment to Mike Fournier:
You certainly may question anyone’s intention or judgement, as you please. But to set the record straight, the truck in question is mine. It is a 3/4 ton with plow that has been very valuable this winter, as we both live where there indeed is wind and blowing snow. By letting my son take the truck to plow us out has been a win-win situation, except when someone like yourself desires to muddy the waters.
I am a trained biologist as well as a physician. I am watching the present wind-generation controversy with interest and, as a life-long resident of the North Country, I am as interested as everyone in what is best for our area in terms of energy conservation (not much going on in Franklin Co.), alternate energy sources (my camp is completely solar powered), reduced dependence on costly foreign energy, and several other important but neglected concepts such as recycling.
The bumper sticker was a lark at Franklin County Fair time, to stir discussion amongst friends. For anyone to imply that the D.A. is not neutral because he needs my truck to plow our driveways is the most ridiculous stretch of the imagination, that one could hardly imagine anything further from the truth.
Comments really should be based on solid, pertinent facts (read today’s, 4/3/08, Telegram article regarding public officials’ ethics), not a relative’s bumper sticker.
It’s good to hear from Attorney Brian Stewart, letting us know he’s an honorable man, and that his Code of Ethics is impeccably reasoned (“I know this because I drafted it”) and so nitpicky as to (nearly) forbid municipal officers from jaywalking.
Amid expressions of disinterested virtue (“I simply don’t care which way the wind power dispute turns out”) and mind-numbing recitations of legalese, the man whose law firm still, I believe, represents the wind developer, pleads, “What is the proposed Burke ethics law supposedly missing?”
Simple answer: it’s missing The Golden Rule, §805(c)&(d). (A.k.a. 805-a-1-c&d, if he prefers the whole nine yards. I should be flogged for jaywalking the citation.) Nothing in his Code can substitute for §805(c)&(d), verbatim, despite Mr. Stewart’s smoke and mirrors editorializing. (What’s plainly there in black and white and plainly intelligible to anyone with a high school education is what matters, Brian my friend, not reassurances about your intended meaning and your “every confidence that the two members of the Town Board who have vested interests in wind power will avoid obvious conflicts.”)
What matters is what’s conspicuously omitted from this Code—and should not be. Section 805(c)&(d) forms the heart of NYS General Municipal Law regarding conflicts of interest. Mr. Stewart’s protests that he’s adequately addressed the matter remain unconvincing.
Cutting to the chase, I challenge Brian Stewart to insert The Golden Rule (§805c&d) verbatim into his Code and present it to the Burke board at its next meeting. (It’s front and center in Malone’s Code of Ethics, and absent from Bellmont’s—and look who’s got wind towers.) If he does—and if he can resist the urge to retract it, buried in a list of exceptions—then I invite 300 signatories (to that petition making the rounds in Burke) to join me in applauding Mr. Stewart’s legal ethics.
If he doesn’t, I suspect 300 signatories will join me in judging the man’s letter, below, to be mostly noble rhetoric, after all.
To Mr. Brian Stewart,
Would you kindly explain to us exactly what is meant by the 4 h clause in your proposed Exceptions to the Proposed Code of Ethics? I see no mention of this in your rebuttal. I am referring to the March 17, 2008 Proposed Code of Ethics. If that clause has been eliminated since then, there is no need to reply.
The problem with this rant is that it assumes that the Town of Burke is attempting to draft an ethics law that will inappropriately allow Town Board Members with conflicts of interests to vote in favor of legislation that would help wind power farms. In fact the proposed ethics law is designed to do the opposite. It is designed expressly to make it clear to all Town Board Members that they cannot vote in favor of anything that is helpful to wind farms if they have entered into an option agreement with a wind farm company. I know this because I drafted it.
Why did I draft it to prohibit conflicts of interests when I might have “cunningly” given the Town Board the right to vote in favor? Because I represent the entire Town Board. The Board is neither “pro” nor “anti”. In fact it is so closely split on the wind power issue that it may not be able to take a position one way or another. If I was to favor one side over the other I would be legislating, not lawyering. Another reason is that I simply don’t care which way the wind power dispute turns out. Another reason is that if I tried to create an ethics law which allows people with clear conflicts of interest to vote in their personal best interest then my “creation” would be clearly illegal and a bad reflection on my abilities as an attorney. Finally, if the Board ends up authorizing wind power by virtue of the vote of Members who have clear conflicts of interest, then the resulting resolution could be upset by court action. Not even the wind farm companies want that result.
What is the proposed Burke ethics law supposedly missing? The letter says that behaviors which are prohibited by General Municipal Law section 805 (c) and (d) are allowed under the proposed ethics law. There is no GML section 805 (c) or (d). The author may have intended to refer to GML section 805-a (1) (c) and (d). Those sections prohibit a local municipal officer from receiving or entering into an agreement to receive compensation for any matter which is before a municipal agency in which he/she can vote (or has the power to appoint someone who can vote). That is not missing from the proposed Burke ethics law. Among other things, the proposed Burke ethics law prohibits the following: Conflicts of Interest and Appearances of Conflict. It is the policy of the Town that all Subject Individuals must avoid Prohibited Interests or the appearance of a conflict of Interest. Outside Employment. No Subject Individual shall engage in, solicit, negotiate for or promise to accept private employment or render services for his or her personal benefit when such employment or service creates a Prohibited Interest or impairs the proper discharge of his or her official duties. Gifts. No Subject Individual shall solicit or receive any gift, whether financial or in any other form from any person who is doing or seeking a Contract or who seeks to do business of any kind with the Town including applications for permits or approvals; or who has had a Contract with the town during the last twelve months; or from a lobbyist representing a person before a Town agency. A Subject Individual may not solicit or receive any gift or payment as a reward for exercise of official duties. Generally, a Subject Individual may not receive or solicit any gift creating the appearance that official duties may be influenced or that the responsibility to make impartial decisions solely in the public interest is compromised. Self Interest. No Subject Individual shall take action on a matter before the Town or any instrumentality thereof when, to his or her knowledge, the performance of that action would provide a pecuniary or material benefit to himself or herself.
The author correctly notes that the proposed ethics law must be at least as restrictive as the ethical requirements set forth in the General Municipal Law. In fact the proposed Burke ethics law is much more restrictive. It incorporates the topic of “recusal” which is not described in the General Municipal Law. It prohibits any gifts to municipal officers. The state law allows gifts with value up to $75.00. It prohibits disclosure of confidential information so that Town Board Members cannot give away town secrets when negotiating with a party. The General Municipal Law does not have that requirement. It prohibits municipal officials from using Town property for their personal benefit. The General Municipal Law does not have that requirement. It contains a blanket prohibition on nepotism. The General Municipal Law does not have that requirement. It prohibits a municipal official from representing someone appearing before a municipal board seeking a permit except on his or her own behalf. Municipal officers remain subject to that prohibition for 1 year after leaving office. The prohibition is extended indefinitely if the matter involved is one that the municipal officer personally worked on which in office. The General Municipal Law has nothing like that requirement.
This is a very strong ethics law. The only way I know of to make it stronger would be to incorporate a requirement that every municipal officer must annually file a written financial disclosure form. Currently state law only requires this for municipalities which have a population of 50,000 or more. Those town and counties around the state which have had to deal with this requirement find that many good candidates for office simply decline to serve rather than fill out such an invasive disclosure. That kind of requirement is not appropriate for the little town of Burke.
The sky is not falling. The Board will eventually make an appropriate decision on whether to pass the proposed ethics law. There is no hidden agenda. I have every confidence that the two members of the Town Board who have vested interests in wind power will avoid obvious conflicts. The proposed ethics law requires that.
Shame on the Burke Town Board! Whatever happened to the basic human right to live in safety without being subjected to the harmful effects of these industrial machines in our close environment?
How many times do they have to be told of the harmful effects of wind turbines? Talk about selling your soul to the devil!
D. Talebi
Amazing how the same story repeats itself everywhere….
Perhaps one or more of the 300 should lodge a criminal complaint with the NYS Police. They are charged with enforcing the laws of the state.
Or they could go the next step and go to the FBI, as when several people conspire to break the law, it becomes a criminal enterprise. The RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statute is pretty severe. It’s the one that allows the feds to seize any asset used in the conduct of a criminal enterprise. That would include Horizon, the corrupt Board members, and even Mr. Stewart.
I strongly question Mr. D.A.’s judgment. I’d like to see my D.A. as a neutral party, interested only in seeking the truth. (I thought D.A.’s did this.)
However, on many occasions I’ve witnessed him driving a truck with a “support wind” sticker attached. I was informed that he claims this to be his father’s truck, and I believe that. But when I see it being driven by him and/or parked at the courthouse—in light of all the contoversy, I become concerned that he is handling a double-edged sword.