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.

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.

Calvin Luther Martin

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.

Thank You

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.

How many times do they have to be told of the harmful effects of wind turbines? Talk about selling your soul to the devil!

Love it!

Amazing how the same story repeats itself everywhere….

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.

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.