Conflicts of Interest - Who Has Them And Who Doesn't???

If you go to the blog Pandora’s Box of Rocks you will see a paper on wind turbine noise in stable atmosphere conditions.  Since I can not comment on Pandora’s I will comment here on this discussion.

The comments attached to that post morphed into a discussion for some claiming Cape Vincent Councilman  Clif Schneider has a conflict of interest because he ran against wind turbines in CV, or may have a concerned stance about them.  This is sheer idiocy.  Well first, I don't ever remember Mr. Schneider running on an election platform “against” wind turbines.  No Republican candidate took that position and I defy anybody to show me concrete evidence where they did run on comments opposing or wanting to ban wind development. .

Then some have tried to imply  that since Mr. Schneider is a CV councilman and  is also trying to protect CV  property values (including his) that will be negatively impacted by industrial wind development that this constitutes a financial conflict of interest.  This too is absurd. 

Where this fails as a rational is that IF Mr. Schneider is opposed to wind development and his concerns or actions on wind energy are to protect property values, (including his own by default along with all others) that would be a  town wide impact protecting ALL property values and thus impact everyone’s financial interest. not just his, vs. somebody like Edsall or the Masons who have a direct legal contract with the developers where their decisions as town officers would give them a  direct financial gain and incentive to favor the wind developers proposals.  They would gain personally (through an actual legal/financial contract) and others would not on a level playing field. A contract which BTW states that the lease holder has to assist the wind developer in getting their project approved and sited.  Mr. Schneider has no such contract or involvement with wind development.  As a result Mr. Schneider could decide either way in wind and he has no conflict. 

How about you pro windies consider this.  By your definition of conflicts Tom Rienbeck and Micky Orvis on the old board had a conflict… right?  Why?  Because you have been claiming all along that wind development will actually benefit the town dramatically and property values would go UP…including Rienbeck and Orvis’s property. So they would have a financial interest and conflict.  You also claim taxes would go down, once again where Orvis and Rienbeck would also gain financially. So by your argument they would also have a wind conflict of interest.  That would mean the entire old board was conflicted by your idiotic definitions.  You can’t have it both ways…and THAT is how your argument is so completely absurd!!!!

For example, let’s say Mr. Schneider votes yes for a new recreational water edge park and boat launch with nice facilities somewhere in the town.  This public access to the water could make the town more attractive and desirable for locals, tourists, and potential new residents overall and might also increase everybody’s property values as a result.  So does Mr. Schneider who has no involvement in the park directly nor owns the property where the park would be developed have a conflict even though he voted on something he thinks is good for the town and that would increase his property values AND everybody else’s?

The answer is a clear NO since everyone in town was impacted the same on a broad citizen wide property wide scale, not just Mr. Schneider or any other select town officer. He would have made a policy decision based on the overall good of the community, and since he lived here as a community member, then by default he would gain like everyone else would.  His interests could not be claimed to be a priority over the community at large.  He would have no conflict as a result.

This is such a no brainer I am surprised that the pro wind people keep dragging it out as rational.  Each time they do it just looks more ridiculous and drags their credibility down another notch. If that is possible at this point!!!!

Now if Schneider owned the property on which the park was to be located and the town was going to purchase it, or if he had a business that would provide services in the park  that would be different matter and considered a direct conflict. That does not mean he could not be a town officer, but he would legally have to recuse from all matters or votes concerning the park.  Actually just conflicts alone by public officials are not illegal.  But not declaring them or acting on them for your own financial interest is illegal.

So what does NYS Law say about conflicts.  General Municipal Law, Article 18 sec. 809. This is what actually matters, not some pro wind puppet’s opinion.

IV. DISCLOSURE IN LAND USE MATTERS

Article 18 requires that requests, applications, and petitions

relating to land use disclose the interest of any state officers or

municipal officers or employees in the applicant.  On its face,

Article 18 does not, however, require recusal by the affected

municipal officer or employee The request, application, or

petition must set forth the name and residence of the official and the

nature and extent of the official's interest in the applicant, "to the

extent known to the applicant." Article 18 appears, thus, to

impose no duty upon the applicant to inquire as to the possible

interests of officials in the applicant.

"Interest" is broadly defined. The officer or employee is

deemed to have an interest in the applicant: if the applicant is the

officer or employee or is a family member of the officer or

employee; o r if either the official or his or her family member

holds a position with the applicant;l60 or if the official or his or her

family member owns or controls stock in the applicant;161 if the

official or his or her family member would receive a benefit from the

applicant if the application was approved.

A knowing and intentional violation of these disclosure provisions is a misdemeanor.

Failure to comply with section 809 may result in the invalidation

of the municipal action on the matter, at least if the interested

municipal official takes any official action on it.  Mere nondisclosure

alone, however, may be insufficient to invalidate the

municipal action, at least if disclosure is thereafter made prior to the

municipality taking the action on the application, petition, or

request.

Although section 809 requires only disclosure, not recusal, courts

have extended the section to mandate recusal as well, even by

classes of individuals not encompassed within the section.


And what does the Cape Vincent Ethics Code say? It’s pretty clear.

But since we are talking about conflicts of interest this all becomes a more interesting discussion.  Not because of Mr. Schneider, who has no conflict even by definition of the laws or codes, but as to other town officers, Planning Board alternate officer Karen Bourcy and Planning Board member Rochne Burns.  Bourcy has disclosed her conflicts and started recusing herself, although too late in the wind game to matter. She must continue to do so if faced with wind decisions as an alternate.  The decision to retain her by a board so intent on ethics in the last election still baffles me.   Mr. Burns, however, still remains a big question mark since he at least at one time had a lease with Acciona.  Is that lease in existence and if so has it been bought up by BP?  This is not an attack on Mr. Burns, these are just facts as they exist.

Is Mr. Burns in violation of our CV ethics code and state ethics laws?  I looked up the NY AG wind ethics BP disclosures of CV town officers they are involved with.  It was dated March 2012 and Mr. Burns is not listed. But the question remains, does he have a active wind contract?  I have seen no public official disclosure at the town level on this matter either.  This matter needs to be publicly and officially resolved ASAP.  Despite the high level of ethics mantra and repeated questions on the matter by me…no one at the town level, or blogs or others have addressed it in any way.

Why would it matter?  Because Mr. Burns sat on the Comp Plan committee as a town official from the Planning Board.  Note what the portion of NYS law I underlined says above. Does his potential conflict by sitting on the CP committee have an effect on the integrity of the  new Comp Plan?

To intentionally not disclose is a misdemeanor, and he was appointed several months ago…and if the town wants to protect the integrity of its new Comp Plan and the good work of the committee it would be in the best interest for them to have Mr. Burns publicly disclose or at least publicly clear up his financial wind interests if he doesn’t have any currently. 

It would also be in their best interest simply because the ethics matters were such a big big issue in the last election that put them in office.

And in the end the Jefferson County Ethics Board and the NYS AG Office in various general ethics opinions have agreed that it does not need to be an actual conflict to raise concerns.  They state that even  the “appearance” of a potential conflict is not good for the public’s confidence in govt.

It’s long past time to clear this matter up.  It is absurd to argue and defend Mr. Schneider’s innocence (which on this point I would defend) on conflicts on one hand, if we are not going to address the entire conflict issue that still has implications for the town as we speak.  So let’s be consistent.  It was after all Mr. Schneider among other Town Board members who voted to appoint a potentially wind conflicted Mr. Burns and a known wind conflicted Mrs. Bourcy to the Planning Board.