Noam Bramson, Executive Director of Sustainable Westchester, and Sara Kaye cast illegal votes as Council Members to approve City contracts with Sustainable Westchester
I had read agenda material before my earlier comment and still don't see a conflict to the detriment of the City, but that is obviously not the view that prevails within the Administration at this time. I know you would like Noam to face a criminal charge. Beyond that (and the upcoming "do-over" on the one remaining SW contract), where do we go from here? Again, should the City demand a refund of all its payments to SW? Even if they were generally advantageous?
The numerous ethics violations by Noam and Sara are based on their failure to disclose their interest in SW, that they are or were on the SW board. They are allowed to be on the board but the law requires they disclose that at every relevant meeting then leave the room for any discussion / vote. The law says nothing about a financial interest or detriment to the city just they must be transparent and not participate when SW is on the agenda.
I start with what does the law require, did they meet the requirements, if not they broke the law. Ethics violations are misdemeanors and just like what happened when the DA did a criminal investigation of Noam on the Development Commissioner ethics violations, the law requires a criminal referral to the DA. I would like the DA to investigate. Whether criminal charges are filed is up to them. There is zero doubt in my mind that criminal charges were warranted in the DevComm case. I believe a deal was cut with Noam— you don’t run again and we will not prosecute. I could accept no prosecution of Sara in the SW case but for Noam there is the issue of his actually taking a high paying job at SW after voting on SW contracts some of which remain active. That should be investigated by the DA.
It is the same issue at one level — Noam desperate to get a job.
I do not know that all SW contracts were “generally advantageous”. I do not know if the outside counsel considered attempting to claw back money. In my experience, a reason they would not is that such cases can be expensive, time consuming and their insurance may not cover it. However, you can ask Yadira or Kathleen or Dawn.
Whereas I start with the law says, you want to start with the idea that SW is an unalloyed good and Noam and Sara were not paid by SW to vote on SW contracts. First, you do not know that (a reason for a criminal investigation). Second, as is clear, the law does not speak to FINANCIAL interest just interest, in this case being on the SW board.
I am a lawyer with some time on my hands and no particular ax to grind. I have done several hours of research on this matter. I don't see linked financial benefits to Noam, and even less so to Sara or Yadira, that would make their votes, on various contracts back over the years, conflicts of interest under the letter and spirit of the statute and related caselaw. Nonetheless, I don't profess any particular expertise in municipal law or ethics and presumably the independent outside counsel does. That said, did outside counsel decide that all the SW contracts were null and void ab initio? If so, should the City seek disgorgement of all prior fees paid to SW?
I am not lawyer but have done quite of bit of research for multiple detailed ethics complaints including two involving Noam (Development Commission, Sustainable Westchester) both of which were sustained by the New Rochelle Board of Ethics.
I think you should consider that the BOE was assisted by an attorney from a prominent law firm (Wilson, Elser) who specializes in municipal law.
The BOE Commissioners have made clear in the past they are both friends of Noam while disparaging me personally. This Noam-friendly Board of Ethics determined the Sustainable Westchester contracts were arrived at “in violation of the spirit and intent of GML, are inconsistent with public policy, or suggest self-interest, partiality or economic impropriety”, because Bramson and Kaye failed to disclose their prohibited interests.
A City Council member is not prohibited from sitting on the Board of a Non-Profit, but under General Municipal Law §803 the City Councilmember must publicly disclose his or her interest in the Non-Profit each time it becomes apparent the City Council may enter into a contract with the Non-Profit, and that written disclosure be made part of and set forth in the official record of the proceedings of the Council. Further, the Council Member shall promptly recuse himself/herself from acting on a matter before the city when acting on the mater or failing to act on the matter.
There is so little question that Bramson and Kaye failed to disclose their prohibited interests that the BOE dispensed with hearings and went straight to issuing an opinion. This based on a painstakingly researched video compilation of every SW discussion and vote. At no point do either Bramson or Kaye state as required they have a prohibited interest in SW, recuse themselves, leave the room, abstain from voting. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The BOE determined that the conduct of Bramson and Kaye made all SW contracts null and void but left it up the city administration to act on that which it has now done and will complete on Tuesday.
I do not know which outside counsel the city hired or exactly what they concluded because, as you know, that is not a public record and the city has not made it public. What is public is in the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting so I encourage you to read it.
To summarize, I made the complaint. That is it. 3 people including an attorney issued the BOE opinion, two lawyers in City Hall reviewed my complaint and video and the BOE report. Then another lawyer looked at all of it and agreed the contracts were null and void.
How many experts with no ax to grind does it take for you to accept Noam and Sara broke the law?
You don’t see a financial interest? You do know that the former mayor walked into a 6 figure job at SW after he walked out of City Hall with his hefty benefits & guaranteed government pension? You don’t see that his voting on contracts while on Council that benefit SW as a conflict? Do we know when SW made the job offer to him? Do we know if Kaye or her husband or his firm have done or will do legal work for SW?
I’m sure you’re aware that financial benefits are not the only benefits that exist, right?
There’s a reason that the rules violated by both Kaye & Bramson are in place. They were found to have violated the rules.
I had read agenda material before my earlier comment and still don't see a conflict to the detriment of the City, but that is obviously not the view that prevails within the Administration at this time. I know you would like Noam to face a criminal charge. Beyond that (and the upcoming "do-over" on the one remaining SW contract), where do we go from here? Again, should the City demand a refund of all its payments to SW? Even if they were generally advantageous?
The numerous ethics violations by Noam and Sara are based on their failure to disclose their interest in SW, that they are or were on the SW board. They are allowed to be on the board but the law requires they disclose that at every relevant meeting then leave the room for any discussion / vote. The law says nothing about a financial interest or detriment to the city just they must be transparent and not participate when SW is on the agenda.
I start with what does the law require, did they meet the requirements, if not they broke the law. Ethics violations are misdemeanors and just like what happened when the DA did a criminal investigation of Noam on the Development Commissioner ethics violations, the law requires a criminal referral to the DA. I would like the DA to investigate. Whether criminal charges are filed is up to them. There is zero doubt in my mind that criminal charges were warranted in the DevComm case. I believe a deal was cut with Noam— you don’t run again and we will not prosecute. I could accept no prosecution of Sara in the SW case but for Noam there is the issue of his actually taking a high paying job at SW after voting on SW contracts some of which remain active. That should be investigated by the DA.
It is the same issue at one level — Noam desperate to get a job.
I do not know that all SW contracts were “generally advantageous”. I do not know if the outside counsel considered attempting to claw back money. In my experience, a reason they would not is that such cases can be expensive, time consuming and their insurance may not cover it. However, you can ask Yadira or Kathleen or Dawn.
Whereas I start with the law says, you want to start with the idea that SW is an unalloyed good and Noam and Sara were not paid by SW to vote on SW contracts. First, you do not know that (a reason for a criminal investigation). Second, as is clear, the law does not speak to FINANCIAL interest just interest, in this case being on the SW board.
I am a lawyer with some time on my hands and no particular ax to grind. I have done several hours of research on this matter. I don't see linked financial benefits to Noam, and even less so to Sara or Yadira, that would make their votes, on various contracts back over the years, conflicts of interest under the letter and spirit of the statute and related caselaw. Nonetheless, I don't profess any particular expertise in municipal law or ethics and presumably the independent outside counsel does. That said, did outside counsel decide that all the SW contracts were null and void ab initio? If so, should the City seek disgorgement of all prior fees paid to SW?
Damon,
I am not lawyer but have done quite of bit of research for multiple detailed ethics complaints including two involving Noam (Development Commission, Sustainable Westchester) both of which were sustained by the New Rochelle Board of Ethics.
I think you should consider that the BOE was assisted by an attorney from a prominent law firm (Wilson, Elser) who specializes in municipal law.
The BOE Commissioners have made clear in the past they are both friends of Noam while disparaging me personally. This Noam-friendly Board of Ethics determined the Sustainable Westchester contracts were arrived at “in violation of the spirit and intent of GML, are inconsistent with public policy, or suggest self-interest, partiality or economic impropriety”, because Bramson and Kaye failed to disclose their prohibited interests.
A City Council member is not prohibited from sitting on the Board of a Non-Profit, but under General Municipal Law §803 the City Councilmember must publicly disclose his or her interest in the Non-Profit each time it becomes apparent the City Council may enter into a contract with the Non-Profit, and that written disclosure be made part of and set forth in the official record of the proceedings of the Council. Further, the Council Member shall promptly recuse himself/herself from acting on a matter before the city when acting on the mater or failing to act on the matter.
There is so little question that Bramson and Kaye failed to disclose their prohibited interests that the BOE dispensed with hearings and went straight to issuing an opinion. This based on a painstakingly researched video compilation of every SW discussion and vote. At no point do either Bramson or Kaye state as required they have a prohibited interest in SW, recuse themselves, leave the room, abstain from voting. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The BOE determined that the conduct of Bramson and Kaye made all SW contracts null and void but left it up the city administration to act on that which it has now done and will complete on Tuesday.
I do not know which outside counsel the city hired or exactly what they concluded because, as you know, that is not a public record and the city has not made it public. What is public is in the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting so I encourage you to read it.
To summarize, I made the complaint. That is it. 3 people including an attorney issued the BOE opinion, two lawyers in City Hall reviewed my complaint and video and the BOE report. Then another lawyer looked at all of it and agreed the contracts were null and void.
How many experts with no ax to grind does it take for you to accept Noam and Sara broke the law?
You don’t see a financial interest? You do know that the former mayor walked into a 6 figure job at SW after he walked out of City Hall with his hefty benefits & guaranteed government pension? You don’t see that his voting on contracts while on Council that benefit SW as a conflict? Do we know when SW made the job offer to him? Do we know if Kaye or her husband or his firm have done or will do legal work for SW?
I’m sure you’re aware that financial benefits are not the only benefits that exist, right?
There’s a reason that the rules violated by both Kaye & Bramson are in place. They were found to have violated the rules.