I have to say I am very disappointed at the apparent conflicted state the West Seneca Ethics Board has proven itself to be in. First it was unable, or unwilling, to reach an opinion about a Town Employee, who is currently running for Highway Superintendent, when they allegedly acted in soliciting the efforts of another Town employee, in the WSPD, to get private information on another candidate for Highway Superintendent (who is another Town employee) and giving that information to the West Seneca Democratic Committee Chair, who happens to be the Chairman of our Zoning Board of Appeals (who is also covered by the ethics code) for political use. All the while the Attorney for the West Seneca Ethics Board is employed by a law firm that regularly appears before the West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals. While a current candidate that is endorsed by the West Seneca Democratic Committee for Town Board is a member of the West Seneca Ethics Board.
Second, this body offers this opinion: https://www.scribd.com/document/4330...a-Ethics-Board
I have not located any requirement in the creation of the West Seneca Citizens Budget Advisory Committee requiring it to comply with the Open Meetings Law. In the absence of such a requirement it is not considered a public body which the Open Meetings Law applies to of its own force.
Judicial decisions indicate generally that advisory bodies having no power to take final action, other than committees consisting solely of members of public bodies, fall outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law. As stated in those decisions: "it has long been held that the mere giving of advice, even about governmental matters is not itself a governmental function" [Goodson-Todman Enterprises, Ltd. v. Town Board of Milan, 542 NYS 2d 373, 374, 151 AD 2d 642 (1989); Poughkeepsie Newspapers v. Mayor's Intergovernmental Task Force, 145 AD 2d 65, 67 (1989); see also New York Public Interest Research Group v. Governor's Advisory Commission, 507 NYS 2d 798, aff'd with no opinion, 135 AD 2d 1149, motion for leave to appeal denied, 71 NY 2d 964 (1988)].
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
dt, you mean to tell me that a local government ethics board is rife with ethical conflicts that compromise the integrity of its operation? Well, knock me over with a feather. I thought the purpose of local boards of ethics was to obfuscate, cover up or generally justify the rankest of unethical conduct by the local officials that appoint them.
Sounds like sour grapes posting the shot at the Dems and the grumbling about the Ethics case tied to the GOP.Originally Posted by dtwarren
Is that because the GOP candidate is favored?
His Dem opponent wrote this yesterday on his Facebook page:
"In just two years Gary Dickson has brought as much dishonesty to West Seneca as Sheila Meegan ever did.
"The complaint alleged that the West Seneca Citizens Budget Advisory Committee was operating outside of the public’s view in a ‘private, closed Facebook group which does not include all members of the Budget Committee and includes a nonmember of the Budget Committee who is currently a political candidate.’ Jim Lawson confirmed with the Town Attorney’s Office through a FOIL request that the political candidate referred to in the advisory opinion is Mr. Dickson."
https://www.facebook.com/LawsonforWestSeneca/
Sounds like the Ethics Board is correct in it's ruling.
What about the spirit of the law?
What about avoiding the appearance of impropriety?
Looks like the Facebook group and Dickson failed those tests.
Just saying.
I think you misspoke the ethics board failed those tests.What about the spirit of the law?
What about avoiding the appearance of impropriety?
Looks like the Facebook group and Dickson failed those tests.
Just saying.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
One usually suspects this but typically the acts of the corrupt body are couched in plausibly deniable acts and not so brazen.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Your reply, Dan, sounds more like a diversion tactic by yourself in order to save Dickson from embarrassment - esp your omission of Gary from your initial post.I think you misspoke the ethics board failed those tests.
What is Dickson doing with this group in the first place?
Funny, as an attorney you should have written about the spirit of the law as well as the appearance of impropriety on the part of Dickson in your rump reply.
I hope you have not lost your good-government sensibilities, Dan, and become more of a jaded lawyer after all these years.
Please assure me that is not the case.
Do you support Dickson meddling with the Ethic Board?????
No, you are ignoring a basic point. Advisory committees are not subject to the Open Meetings Law. Also, Nothing in the Town Ethics Code or the act creating the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee makes it subject to the Open Meetings Law. Therefore there was no violation.
And how did Dickson meddle with the Ethics board?
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Dan, you've always been a good-government type who even points to minor flaws in how local governments operate. That's a good thing!
Sadly, in this case, you must be affected by the Town GOP, and are not being as forthright as usual.
Like I said: What about the spirit of the law with regard to the Open Meetings Law and this "appointed" local government Budget Advisory Board?
What about avoiding the appearance of impropriety?
Did you not read what candidate Lawson wrote and I reposted above???
What is Gary Dickson doing with a secret Facebook group of Budget Committee members - with some Board Members not allowed in the group's Facebook page?
The basic point, counselor, is the spirit of the law!
Is it not?????
Last edited by Breezy; November 3rd, 2019 at 12:39 PM. Reason: mentioned incorrect board title, and corrected titel
First, if Lawson said Ethics Board, he is wrong. The allegation was with regard to the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee. The spirit of the law is that advisory committees are exempt from the Open Meetings Law. Further caucuses of a public body are permitted and also not subject to the Open Meeting Law.Dan, you've always been a good-government type who even points to minor flaws in how local governments operate. That's a good thing!
Sadly, in this case, you must be affected by the Town GOP, and are not being as forthright as usual.
Like I said: What about the spirit of the law with regard to the Open Meetings Law and this "appointed" local government Ethics Board?
What about avoiding the appearance of impropriety?
Did you not read with candidate Lawson wrote and I reported above???
What is Gary Dickson doing with a secret Facebook group of Ethics Board members - with some Board Members not allowed in the group's Facebook page?
The basic point, counselor, is the spirit of the law!
Is it not?????
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Yup, Budget Committee, my bad! I updated my post to reflect the correct title above.
Either way, your talking point does not live up to your past good-government advocacy.
What is Dickson doing in a closed Facebook group with board members where other board members were not allowed?
I just read what you posted (the Town of West Seneca Ethics Board recommendation) for crying out loud.
Sounds corrupt for a candidate for supervisor.
You know better, Dan! Esp about the spirit of the law!
Probably best if you read the short post by Lawson - it's not that much reading, Dan.
And to boot, Lawson wasn't even the choice of the Town Dems, Hart was. Therefore, seems to me the only "clean" candidate here is Lawson.
Would you agree?
As I said caucuses and advisory committees are exempt from the Open Meetings Law:
Public Officers Law § 108. Exemptions. Nothing contained in this article shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to:
2. a. deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses.Please cite the law that you believe its spirit was violated? #factsmatterJudicial decisions indicate generally that advisory bodies having no power to take final action, other than committees consisting solely of members of public bodies, fall outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law. As stated in those decisions: "it has long been held that the mere giving of advice, even about governmental matters is not itself a governmental function" [Goodson-Todman Enterprises, Ltd. v. Town Board of Milan, 542 NYS 2d 373, 374, 151 AD 2d 642 (1989); Poughkeepsie Newspapers v. Mayor's Intergovernmental Task Force, 145 AD 2d 65, 67 (1989); see also New York Public Interest Research Group v. Governor's Advisory Commission, 507 NYS 2d 798, aff'd with no opinion, 135 AD 2d 1149, motion for leave to appeal denied, 71 NY 2d 964 (1988)].
No, I do not believe Lawson is a good candidate for supervisor: https://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sh...nce-run-for-TB
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
People grow in ten years' time. So the ten-year-old thread linked here by Dan is ridiculous in 2019.
Not to mention that Dickson and Hart are highlighted right now in 2019 in Dan's own post right here. Dan shows the unethical actions of some in the Democratic Party (the Gene Hart crowd - remember Gene was the endorsed Democratic candidate who was trounced by Jim Lawson in the June primary), together with what turns out to be unethical actions by the Republican candidate Gary Dickson.
Yeah, readers, people do grow in ten years' time.
And some lawyers turn jaded as we also see in this thread when apparent self-serving politics enters.
Dan, you know there is no law, that's why it's called "spirit" of the law - which of course you did not address in any of your replies. Or that Dickson did not avoid the appearance of impropriety.
LOL
Breezy,
Please, what unethical action did Dickson commit? As I explained above there was no violation of any law nor was it in violation of the spirit of any law.
While people do change, particularly in 10 years, Lawson has to deal with it and explain to the voters how he did. And I simply do not see him doing so. Also I reviewed his platform, when it was posted on his website and many of his points cannot be lawfully pursued at the Town level of government. He has since taken them down and now no one really knows what he is running on.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Sorry, Dan, at this point I just can't take your "review" of Lawson's platform seriously. Esp after this thread sinks into my mind.
I'm simply addressing Post #1.
I have no horse in this race.
When you are caught in a private Facebook group with the membership of a government-appointed committee, barring other duly-appointed members, and include a candidate for Town supervisor in the private setting about government matters, that is the definition of unethical behavior - and behavior that does not pass the smell test, that does not avoid the appearance of impropriety, and behavior that does not show respect for the spirit of the law.
And you know it too!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote