Monday, February 16, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Happy Birthday YonkersTV. Two Years old and Going Strong
Happy Birthday YonkersTV. Two Years old and Going Strong
YonkersTV celebrates it's second birthday. YonkersTV will continue to bring City of Yonkers Government business held in camera, to light, via the lens of YonkersTV. You will find many meetings not televised by City Government, only on YonkersTV. With thousands of Viewers, YonkersTV would like to thank the Google Corporation and Youtube for making this possible. Thank You.
Please Pass this link onto your friends and neighbors.
http://yonkerstv.blogspot.com/
YonkersTV celebrates it's second birthday. YonkersTV will continue to bring City of Yonkers Government business held in camera, to light, via the lens of YonkersTV. You will find many meetings not televised by City Government, only on YonkersTV. With thousands of Viewers, YonkersTV would like to thank the Google Corporation and Youtube for making this possible. Thank You.
Please Pass this link onto your friends and neighbors.
http://yonkerstv.blogspot.com/
Thursday, February 5, 2009
YonkersTerm Limits Watch:Council Members McDow, Annabi, and Robertson: Sought Ethics OIpinion on Term Limits Vote in 2005
PHILIP A. AMICONE MAYOR
CITY HALL
YONKERS, NEW YORK 10701-3883
PHILIP A. ZISMAN INSPECTOR GENERAL
Ph: 914-377-7000
Fax: 914-377-6990
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
CITY OF YONKERS
TO: City Council President Richard Martinelli
Majority Leader Liam McLaughlin
Minority Leader Sandy Annabi
All Council Members
FROM: Inspector General, Philip A. Zisman
DATE: April 25, 2005
SUBJECT: Term Extension Vote
In a memorandum dated April 20, 2005 (attached), Yonkers City Council Minority Leader Annabi and Council Members McDow and Robertson requested an ethics opinion on whether Council President Martinelli, Minority Leader McLaughlin and Council Member Barbato must recuse themselves from voting on pending legislation which would amend the term limit provisions of the Yonkers City Charter. For the reasons set forth in this memorandum, I find that there is no disqualifying conflict of interest; and therefore, recusal is not required.
Background
Section C2-2 of the Yonkers City Charter restricts elected officials of the City of Yonkers to serving eight consecutive years in office. Four members of the Council have proposed an amendment to §C2-2, which would modify the term limit law and allow Council Members McLaughlin and Barbato, if re-elected for a four-year term, to serve ten consecutive years in office, and potentially allow Council President Martinelli to serve ten years in office.1
The proposed amendment addresses the fact that under the current term limit provisions Council President Martinelli and Council Members McLaughlin and Barbato are limited to serving six consecutive years in office, and not the maximum of eight years because of the adoption of a Charter amendment in 2002, approved by a voter referendum, which created staggered terms of office among the seven members of the City Council.
Under the 2002 Charter amendment, in the 2003 election, the City Council President and the Council Members from the Second, Fourth and Sixth Districts were elected to two-year terms, while Council Members from the First, Third and Fifth Districts were elected to four-year terms. In all elections thereafter, all Council Members will be elected to four-year terms. As a result, under the current term limit law,2 because they have already served six years in office, Council Members Barbato from the Sixth District and McLaughlin from the Fourth District cannot run for re-election in 2005 because if re-elected, their new four-year terms would cause them to exceed the eight year term limitation.
The proposed amendment that is to be considered at the April 26, 2005 City Council meeting will affect only Council Members McLaughlin and Barbato, and potentially, Council President Martinelli, and will confer no other rights on any future members of the City Council.
In requesting this ethics opinion, Majority Leader Annabi and Council Members McDow and Robertson question whether the three Councilors who would potentially benefit from the legislation must recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest. They also question whether this amendment creates a conflict because it changes the term limit provisions that were originally approved by the voters in a 1994 referendum.
Discussion
As a general rule, legislators should not have to recuse themselves from deliberating and voting on a matter before their legislative body unless there is a clear conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict. When legislators recuse themselves, their constituents are deprived of a voice and, in essence, are disenfranchised from those matters on which their legislators did not participate. See, Peterson v. Corbin, 275 A. D. 2d 35 (2d Dept. 2000).
State and local ethics laws regulate conflicts of interest between a public official's private financial interests and his or her public responsibilities. A legislator is deemed to have a prohibited conflict of interest, if he or she receives a direct or indirect monetary benefit from legislation. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §801; Yonkers City Code § 7-5.
Courts and the New York State Attorney General's Office, which issues informal opinions on questions of conflicts of interest, require recusal in any matter in which a legislator has a pecuniary interest that is separate and distinct from other legislators and would receive or has the potential to receive a direct or indirect monetary benefit. See e.g., Op.Atty.Gen(Inf.) 92-31 (Town board member is prohibited from deliberating and voting on legislation benefiting his employer); Op.Atty.Gen(inf.) 90-57 (Village trustee is prohibited from deliberating and voting on zoning change benefiting the industry for which he is employed.);Op.Atty.Gen(inf.) 88-63(County legislator should recuse himself from taking any actions with respect to the salary and the terms and conditions of employment of his spouse with county government.) However, recusal is not required when the interests in question are not deemed to be personal or private. See, Town of North Hempstead v. village of North Hills, 38 N.Y.2d 334 (1975) (recusal not required in connection with zoning reclassification); Segalla v. Planning Board, 204 A. D. 2d 332 (2d Dept. 1992) (recusal not required in zoning matter).
The alleged "interest" of Council President Martinelli and Council Members Barbato and McLaughlin in the proposed term limit legislation is not the type of private interest that creates a conflict requiring recusal. In our representative form of government, elected officials are sometimes required to make decisions that may affect themselves personally. For instance in Yonkers, the City Council determines the annual tax levy, establishes the boundaries of council districts, establishes council members' salaries, and makes budget appropriations for their own council offices. All of these decisions have the potential to affect individual council members personally, but none of these decisions create disqualifying conflicts of interest. Votes on these issues – issues that are often political in nature – are specifically part of a council member's duties. If recusal were to be required, then it would be impossible for these kinds of decisions to ever be made. See, Op.Atty.Gen.(inf) 86-8 (By necessity members of the city council must approve their own salaries.) 3
A vote on a proposed amendment to term limit provisions is a political decision that legislators are entitled to make. In neighboring New York City, the City Council recently faced this very same issue. In 2002, the New York City Council voted on and adopted a similar local law which effectively allowed certain city councilors who faced retirement based on term limits to run for an additional term. See Golden v. New York City Council, 305 A.D. 2d 598 (2d Dept. 2003). Although the conflict issue was not addressed in the written opinion, I contacted New York City officials who informed me that there was no recusal requirement, and that under the New York City Code of Ethics a vote on the amendment did not create a conflict of interest.
In the April 20th memorandum requesting this opinion, it is also asserted that the proposed amendment will undermine the will of the citizens of Yonkers who have voted to require term limits for elected officials in a 1994 referendum. This, however, is a political argument, unrelated to the question of whether certain current Council Members have a disqualifying conflict of interest. If the proposed term-limit amendment is adopted and the affected Council Members choose to run for re-election, it will be up to the voters to determine whether to return them to office. Those who believe that the amendment violated the people's desire for strictly imposed term limits can make that argument during the campaign, and the voters will decide.
Finally, it should be noted that this opinion only addresses the conflict of interest issue, and does not address the legality of the proposed term-limit amendment if it were to be duly adopted.
Bcc: Mayor Amicone ,Frank Rubino
1 Mr. Martinelli was first elected City Council President to a two-year term in 2003. If the proposed amendment were to be adopted, he would be allowed to serve two additional four-terms.
2 It is my understanding that the term limit law has been interpreted to prevent council members who have served six consecutive years in office from running for an additional four-year term.
3 That the amendment only affects three Council Members and not the entire Council does not create a conflict of interest that requires recusal. Only three Council Members are affected by the proposed amendment because of the vagaries of the 2002 amendment that created staggered, four-year Council terms. If the offices of the Council President and Council Districts Four and Six had been selected for four-year terms in 2003, instead of only two-year terms, then Council President Martinelli, Majority Leader McLaughlin and Council Member Barbato would not have been limited to serving only six consecutive years in office.
Source: City of Yonkers website.
CITY HALL
YONKERS, NEW YORK 10701-3883
PHILIP A. ZISMAN INSPECTOR GENERAL
Ph: 914-377-7000
Fax: 914-377-6990
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
CITY OF YONKERS
TO: City Council President Richard Martinelli
Majority Leader Liam McLaughlin
Minority Leader Sandy Annabi
All Council Members
FROM: Inspector General, Philip A. Zisman
DATE: April 25, 2005
SUBJECT: Term Extension Vote
In a memorandum dated April 20, 2005 (attached), Yonkers City Council Minority Leader Annabi and Council Members McDow and Robertson requested an ethics opinion on whether Council President Martinelli, Minority Leader McLaughlin and Council Member Barbato must recuse themselves from voting on pending legislation which would amend the term limit provisions of the Yonkers City Charter. For the reasons set forth in this memorandum, I find that there is no disqualifying conflict of interest; and therefore, recusal is not required.
Background
Section C2-2 of the Yonkers City Charter restricts elected officials of the City of Yonkers to serving eight consecutive years in office. Four members of the Council have proposed an amendment to §C2-2, which would modify the term limit law and allow Council Members McLaughlin and Barbato, if re-elected for a four-year term, to serve ten consecutive years in office, and potentially allow Council President Martinelli to serve ten years in office.1
The proposed amendment addresses the fact that under the current term limit provisions Council President Martinelli and Council Members McLaughlin and Barbato are limited to serving six consecutive years in office, and not the maximum of eight years because of the adoption of a Charter amendment in 2002, approved by a voter referendum, which created staggered terms of office among the seven members of the City Council.
Under the 2002 Charter amendment, in the 2003 election, the City Council President and the Council Members from the Second, Fourth and Sixth Districts were elected to two-year terms, while Council Members from the First, Third and Fifth Districts were elected to four-year terms. In all elections thereafter, all Council Members will be elected to four-year terms. As a result, under the current term limit law,2 because they have already served six years in office, Council Members Barbato from the Sixth District and McLaughlin from the Fourth District cannot run for re-election in 2005 because if re-elected, their new four-year terms would cause them to exceed the eight year term limitation.
The proposed amendment that is to be considered at the April 26, 2005 City Council meeting will affect only Council Members McLaughlin and Barbato, and potentially, Council President Martinelli, and will confer no other rights on any future members of the City Council.
In requesting this ethics opinion, Majority Leader Annabi and Council Members McDow and Robertson question whether the three Councilors who would potentially benefit from the legislation must recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest. They also question whether this amendment creates a conflict because it changes the term limit provisions that were originally approved by the voters in a 1994 referendum.
Discussion
As a general rule, legislators should not have to recuse themselves from deliberating and voting on a matter before their legislative body unless there is a clear conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict. When legislators recuse themselves, their constituents are deprived of a voice and, in essence, are disenfranchised from those matters on which their legislators did not participate. See, Peterson v. Corbin, 275 A. D. 2d 35 (2d Dept. 2000).
State and local ethics laws regulate conflicts of interest between a public official's private financial interests and his or her public responsibilities. A legislator is deemed to have a prohibited conflict of interest, if he or she receives a direct or indirect monetary benefit from legislation. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §801; Yonkers City Code § 7-5.
Courts and the New York State Attorney General's Office, which issues informal opinions on questions of conflicts of interest, require recusal in any matter in which a legislator has a pecuniary interest that is separate and distinct from other legislators and would receive or has the potential to receive a direct or indirect monetary benefit. See e.g., Op.Atty.Gen(Inf.) 92-31 (Town board member is prohibited from deliberating and voting on legislation benefiting his employer); Op.Atty.Gen(inf.) 90-57 (Village trustee is prohibited from deliberating and voting on zoning change benefiting the industry for which he is employed.);Op.Atty.Gen(inf.) 88-63(County legislator should recuse himself from taking any actions with respect to the salary and the terms and conditions of employment of his spouse with county government.) However, recusal is not required when the interests in question are not deemed to be personal or private. See, Town of North Hempstead v. village of North Hills, 38 N.Y.2d 334 (1975) (recusal not required in connection with zoning reclassification); Segalla v. Planning Board, 204 A. D. 2d 332 (2d Dept. 1992) (recusal not required in zoning matter).
The alleged "interest" of Council President Martinelli and Council Members Barbato and McLaughlin in the proposed term limit legislation is not the type of private interest that creates a conflict requiring recusal. In our representative form of government, elected officials are sometimes required to make decisions that may affect themselves personally. For instance in Yonkers, the City Council determines the annual tax levy, establishes the boundaries of council districts, establishes council members' salaries, and makes budget appropriations for their own council offices. All of these decisions have the potential to affect individual council members personally, but none of these decisions create disqualifying conflicts of interest. Votes on these issues – issues that are often political in nature – are specifically part of a council member's duties. If recusal were to be required, then it would be impossible for these kinds of decisions to ever be made. See, Op.Atty.Gen.(inf) 86-8 (By necessity members of the city council must approve their own salaries.) 3
A vote on a proposed amendment to term limit provisions is a political decision that legislators are entitled to make. In neighboring New York City, the City Council recently faced this very same issue. In 2002, the New York City Council voted on and adopted a similar local law which effectively allowed certain city councilors who faced retirement based on term limits to run for an additional term. See Golden v. New York City Council, 305 A.D. 2d 598 (2d Dept. 2003). Although the conflict issue was not addressed in the written opinion, I contacted New York City officials who informed me that there was no recusal requirement, and that under the New York City Code of Ethics a vote on the amendment did not create a conflict of interest.
In the April 20th memorandum requesting this opinion, it is also asserted that the proposed amendment will undermine the will of the citizens of Yonkers who have voted to require term limits for elected officials in a 1994 referendum. This, however, is a political argument, unrelated to the question of whether certain current Council Members have a disqualifying conflict of interest. If the proposed term-limit amendment is adopted and the affected Council Members choose to run for re-election, it will be up to the voters to determine whether to return them to office. Those who believe that the amendment violated the people's desire for strictly imposed term limits can make that argument during the campaign, and the voters will decide.
Finally, it should be noted that this opinion only addresses the conflict of interest issue, and does not address the legality of the proposed term-limit amendment if it were to be duly adopted.
Bcc: Mayor Amicone ,Frank Rubino
1 Mr. Martinelli was first elected City Council President to a two-year term in 2003. If the proposed amendment were to be adopted, he would be allowed to serve two additional four-terms.
2 It is my understanding that the term limit law has been interpreted to prevent council members who have served six consecutive years in office from running for an additional four-year term.
3 That the amendment only affects three Council Members and not the entire Council does not create a conflict of interest that requires recusal. Only three Council Members are affected by the proposed amendment because of the vagaries of the 2002 amendment that created staggered, four-year Council terms. If the offices of the Council President and Council Districts Four and Six had been selected for four-year terms in 2003, instead of only two-year terms, then Council President Martinelli, Majority Leader McLaughlin and Council Member Barbato would not have been limited to serving only six consecutive years in office.
Source: City of Yonkers website.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Yonkers Term Limits Watch: Where They Stand
Chuck Lesnick: ON THE FENCE ON CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Patricia McDow: AGAINST CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Sandy Annabi: FOR CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Joan Gronowski: AGAINST CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Liam McLaughlin: FOR CHANGING TERM LIMITS
John Murtagh: AGAINST CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Dee Barbato: FOR CHANGING TERM LIMITS
*According to today's Journal News
So it's 3-3 With Chuck Lesnick playing the role of deal maker or breaker, a role which he revels in .
Patricia McDow: AGAINST CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Sandy Annabi: FOR CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Joan Gronowski: AGAINST CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Liam McLaughlin: FOR CHANGING TERM LIMITS
John Murtagh: AGAINST CHANGING TERM LIMITS
Dee Barbato: FOR CHANGING TERM LIMITS
*According to today's Journal News
So it's 3-3 With Chuck Lesnick playing the role of deal maker or breaker, a role which he revels in .
Yonkers Term Limits Watch
Yonkers Term Limits Watch site set up to monitor Term Limits. Yonkers Term Limits Watch asks you to send all information about these proposed changes to yonkerstv@verizon.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)