Where the buck stops
April 9th, 2008 by admin—Op-Ed by Calvin Luther Martin
©Press Republican
Last week, Burke’s prayers were answered.
Last week, District Attorney Derek Champagne forcefully stepped into the vacuum of government control over conflicts of interest between municipal officers and the wind developers. Up till then, every single NYS agency had been passing the buck about enforcing NYS General Municipal Law (GML) against (obvious) conflicts of interest.
As I say, all that abruptly ended the afternoon of April 2nd, several hours before the Burke town board meeting, when Mr. Champagne issued a stunning two-page press release notifying all municipal and county officers that, henceforth, the General Municipal Law “Code of Ethics” will be rigorously enforced. He singled out §805-a-1-c&d as The Golden Rule (my term, not his):
“No municipal officer … shall … receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any municipal agency of which he is an officer” §805-a-1-c.
“No municipal officer … shall … receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any agency of his municipality, whereby his compensation is to be dependent or contingent upon any action by such agency with respect to such matter” §805-a-1-d.
He reminded everyone that the State Attorney General advises against “even the appearance of impropriety” (my emphasis).
Between them, GML §805-a-1-c&d and the AG’s stern warning against even appearances of impropriety pack a powerful message. Mr. Champagne has called for a uniform, county-wide Code of Ethics, drafted by the County Legislature. Mindful that public ethics require constant vigilance, he has further called upon the County Legislature to establish a County Board of Ethics to advise town boards, town employees, and the legislature itself.
Let us savor this moment. This is America at its finest. When I read Mr. Champagne’s press release I imagined church bells pealing, car horns sounding and confetti. I imagined a parade of war veterans. For this is exactly what democracy is about. On 4/2/08 Mr. Champagne served notice that one of the central tenets of democracy, The Golden Rule (GML §805-a-1-c&d), from now on rules in Franklin County.
Consider the following:
(A) Town of Burke
The DA has now effectively notified the town and zoning boards that, despite Mr. Stewart’s curious refusal to incorporate The Golden Rule, verbatim, into the Code of Ethics (adopted at the town meeting 4/2/08), the District Attorney’s office will nevertheless see to it that GML §805-a-1-c&d is enforced in Burke.
I add my voice to that of many people in Burke asking Mr. Champagne to flag Burke’s Code of Ethics when it shows up on the desk of the State Comptroller sometime in the next 30 days, with the recommendation that Comptroller DiNapoli bounce it back to Burke with the pointed request that GML §805-a-1-c&d be included verbatim.
Note to Burke residents: The Town Law Manual requires the Supervisor to give a copy of the Code of Ethics to every town officer and employee, and to post a copy in every public building under the town’s jurisdiction. This would include the town office and fire hall. Stop by either the town office or fire hall and read the Code of Ethics for yourself, and decide if this is a lawyer’s word-game or a straightforward, intelligible Code of Ethics. Whereas Mr. Stewart lifted most of his Code of Ethics directly from GML, it’s disturbing that he decided not to include the two cardinal clauses, GML §805-a-1-c&d, quoted above.
(Note to Josh Jock at the Telegram: This is Burke’s first Code of Ethics; there was none before this. Ever.)
Mr. Champagne’s insistence on GML §805-a-1-c&d hopefully will prevent this kind of disappointing performance (click here) in future.
(B) Town of Brandon
Brandon is perhaps the most troubling of all. Something weird happened here in July 2006. Something that prompted Town Councilman Jay Ulrich to stand up at a town meeting two months later (9/20/06) and unburden himself of something dark. Reading from a prepared text, this is what he revealed. “Members of the Town Board of Brandon and the Brandon Community, I would like to have entered into the Town record a private conversation that took place between [Supervisor] Mike Lawrence, and myself, Jay Ulrich at his home on September 2nd, 2006 at approximately 10:45 am.”
Sounds ominous. In fact it was bad. “On his porch Michael accused me of taking a bribe from Noble Environmental.
Michael insisted that he knew the specific details of how the (alleged) transaction occurred. When questioned Michael refused to describe the details of the alleged crime but rather insisted that I already knew what happened so he did not have to tell me. He continued by saying that Noble Environmental had offered him the same thing (a bribe) but that he refused to take it and made the right choice. Michael accused me of making the wrong choice and repeatedly thanked me for allowing him to learn from my mistake. He claimed to know that I am personally having money problems and could understand why I chose to take a bribe.
And so on. (Read the full text here.) Jay went to great lengths to exonerate himself. There was much sputtering and posturing, to the point where one is reminded of the famous line, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2). (“The lady doth protest too much” being a shorthand way of saying that someone’s denial of something is so overdone that one begins to doubt the truthfulness of the denial.)
In this case, “the lady” being a man. A town councilman describing a conversation with the town supervisor, quarreling over which one of them got bought off by the wind developer? Say again?
Who knows what in fact transpired in Brandon that summer to bring two former friends to one another’s throat? It might be worth a few questions before a Grand Jury, especially when reminded that charges of corruption vis-à-vis the wind developers are not limited to Brandon. Maybe there’s a bigger picture, bigger story going on here. Could (former) Councilman Ulrich join some of the dots in that big picture, one wonders?
(C) Town of Bellmont
(Why do all these problematic towns begin with the letter B? Well, let it go.) It is widely reported that Mr. Kip Cassavaw, while Town Supervisor, was employed as surveyor for Noble Environmental. (Whether he confined his surveying exclusively to Clinton County or surveyed, as well, properties in Bellmont & Chateaugay may be immaterial as far as GML §805-a-1-c&d and the AG’s opinion on GML “Code of Ethics” are concerned.)
It is my understanding that Mr. Cassavaw’s employment by Noble overlapped with the time Bellmont was drafting its wind law. Mr. Cassavaw took a highly visible and active role in promoting that wind law (which, not surprisingly, permits industrial turbines in Bellmont).
I am told Mr. Cassavaw refrained from voting on that (pro)wind law on the day it was adopted by the town board, and I have no doubt this is so. However, as I read GML §805-a-1-c&d this does not let him off the ethical hook.
“No municipal officer … shall … receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered [as Noble's surveyor] in relation to any matter [adoption of a wind law] before any municipal agency of which he is an officer [the Bellmont town board]” §805-a-1-c.
“No municipal officer … shall … receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered [as Noble's surveyor] in relation to any matter before any agency of his municipality, whereby his compensation is to be dependent or contingent upon any action by such agency [adoption of a wind law favorable to Noble] with respect to such matter” §805-a-1-d.
Insofar as Mr. Cassavaw participated in any manner in the drafting and adoption of Bellmont’s (pro)wind law he stood, I believe, in violation of these two clauses and, without a doubt, in violation of the AG’s opinion on GML “Code of Ethics.”
If Mr. Cassavaw had consulted the Bellmont Code of Ethics he would have discovered his behavior was not prohibited. Why? Because Bellmont’s Code of Ethics conveniently leaves out GML §805-a-1-c&d (as does, of course, Burke’s Code of Ethics). However, the absence of GML §805-a-1-c&d from Bellmont’s Code does not mean The Golden Rule did not apply—again, as I read the law and as a number of Bellmont residents tell me they do, too.
I join these Bellmont people in calling on Mr. Champagne to investigate whether Mr. Cassavaw’s employment with Noble violated GML §805-a-1-c&d and the AG’s opinion on GML “Code of Ethics,” and, if he was in violation, to nullify Bellmont’s wind law and direct the town board to start over. (Before it does, Bellmont needs to create a reputable and, of course, legal Code of Ethics.)
(D) Town of Chateaugay
Here, too, there are reports of conflicts of interest by town board members. Cleverly disguised and rationalized, to be sure, but improprieties nevertheless. I join Chateaugay residents in calling upon the DA to take a hard look at the relationship between individual board members and the wind developers during the period Chateaugay was drafting its (pro)wind law.
It’s Tuesday, April 8th. I have just come from the courtroom of Judge David Demarest, presiding (in the Franklin County Courthouse) over a suit by David Vincent (Burke Councilman) against District Attorney Champagne. Evidently Mr. Champagne subpoened Mr. Vincent to appear before a Grand Jury investigating Mr. Vincent’s relationships with the wind developers. Evidently in his subpoena the DA had the nerve to ask Mr. Vincent for lots of documents. (I mean lots and lots: emails, memoranda, correspondence, receipts, phone calls, other evidence of conversations, slips of paper, leases, easements—anything and everything bearing on his relationship with Noble and Horizon.)
Evidently Mr. Vincent is uncomfortable about turning over lots of documents.
To be hauling the DA before a judge and asking this judge, “Please, your Honor, edit the DA’s shopping list” before Mr. Champagne pops even his first Grand Jury question—is there not something pitiful about this?
What does Mr. Vincent have to hide? (Alternatively, whose hide is he perhaps nobly protecting?) He’s a public officer, after all, and all public officers should be completely transparent, ethical, legal, and impartial in the performance of duty. I am the first to declare Mr. Vincent should not be judged either by the media (including RiverCityMalone) or by popular opinion. I’m an ardent believer in due process before the law. Nevertheless it’s discouraging to see Mr. Vincent stonewalling the DA and Grand Jury even as due process takes its course.
At the end of the day, as Chuck Hinckley likes to say, someone like David Vincent is a minor player in this whole narrative. (Charles Hinckley being, of course, CEO of Noble Environmental Power.)
I can imagine the DA persuading someone like Dave Vincent to talk to him, and then talk to him some more. Say, over coffee and donuts. At some point in the conversation the DA might decide it’s worth offering Mr. Vincent (or some other board member) immunity from prosecution if it turns out Dave knows a great deal, after all. (Does not Dave Vincent’s curious performance this morning in State Supreme Court suggest he may?)
Indeed someone like Mr. Vincent might reveal more about the wind developers than we all thought we knew. At some point in this scenario the DA might find himself offering immunity to a well-placed employee of one of the wind developers, in return for information about how, exactly, these companies conduct their business. (Just as was done some years ago when Enron Corp. came under investigation. What happened to Enron? It’s interesting you should ask. It broke up into a myriad little wind energy companies with warm & fuzzy, even noble-sounding names. Yes, Virginia, Enron was the Mother of All Wind Energy Companies.)
Sitting behind Dave Vincent in court this morning (he looked like he hadn’t slept in a week), my heart went out to him. (No, I am not being facetious.) I felt I was sitting behind a decent and honorable North Country farmer who may have got caught in a snare he didn’t foresee, and that he may be taking the hit for the wind companies.
(Tell you what I would do were I in Dave’s shoes right now. I’d call up the DA and suggest we meet for coffee and donuts. In fact, were I any number of town officers right now I’d be making the same “coffee & donut” call to Derek Champagne. My personal opinion, Dave? I don’t think Derek’s interested in nailing your hide to the barn door. That would be a cheap, even ignoble, victory. And real easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel, right? No, I think Derek has broader horizons and more noble objectives in mind.)
Meanwhile, while this story plays out, mark this date on your calendar, April 2, 2008. The day the buck stopped with District Attorney Derek Champagne. The day “clean, green, renewable” wind energy moved from town hall to county courthouse—where, tragically, it belongs.
It is said History repeats itself. Enron’s hubris drove it into corruption, then court, then jail.
April 2, 2008. Somewhere in the history books, church bells will be pealing, car horns sounding and confetti.
Email This Post
Print This Post
April 9th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
All public officials should abide by a standard code of ethics. In these cases, the officials mentioned should have not participated in any votes that involved wind companies that they had a contract or any other financial relationship with. All of these votes must be re-voted on, those with conflicts of interest must abstain from the vote.
Unfortunately, especially in small towns, elected officials often vote in matters involving companies that they have personal business with. They should keep the code of ethic close by and ponder it in any matter they consider in their positions as public officials.
The fact that they did, however, does not mean that they voted in favor of these projects simply for selfish reasons. They are decent men who chose to serve in communities that they love and have deep roots in. It is sad to see the trouble they are in, my thoughts are with them.
It does not mean that the wind companies are corrupt, evil or that the energy they seek to produce is any less valuable than if this situation had not occurred.
I support commercial wind energy projects but the local approval process must be fair and transparent. Let’s strike the previous votes and vote again with those who have a conflict abtaining.
Audubon’s Position on Wind Power:
Audubon strongly supports properly-sited wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming.
http://www.audubon.org/campaign/windPowerQA.html
Greenpeace:
Over the last 20 years, wind energy has become the world’s fastest growing energy source.Today’s wind turbines are produced by a sophisticated mass production industry employing a technology that is efficient, cost effective and quick to install.Turbine sizes range from a few kW to over 5,000 kW, with the largest turbines reaching more than 100m in height. One large wind turbine can produce enough electricity for about 5,000 households. State-of-the-art wind farms today can be as small as a few turbines and as large as several hundred MW.
http://www.energyblueprint.info/85.0.html
April 10th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Dear Hugh (if I may),
Your thoughts are well put and appreciated by many, including me.
Notice what General Municipal Law (GML) says and does not say. It forbids conflicts of interest, taking pains to explain what constitutes a conflict of interest by a municipal officer. It says nothing about whether the town officer (with a conflict of interest) is required merely to abstain from voting or actually abstain from any and all participation in formulating the ordinance in question.
Reading the law (attached, below), one surmises that a “conflicted” town officer cannot participate in any manner in the creation of that ordinance.
You see the point, I’m sure.
I agree with you that those towns where there was a conflict of interest in adopting a wind law, should do the wind law over. However, I think GML is clear that “conflicted” town board members must, this time around, recuse themselves from anything having to do with the discussion, formulation or adoption of a wind law.
I also agree with you that these board members are all good and honorable people in a difficult and, at times, treacherous job. (You couldn’t pay me enough to be a town board member!) My dismay is directed not against the town board members; it’s against the wind developers who should not have led these good and decent board members down this dangerous path.
My dismay is likewise directed against the town attorneys, including the attorneys who drafted the wind laws on behalf of these towns, who should have warned board members they were likely violating NYS law. (It may be they did warn board members, and it went unheeded. That, alas, I don’t know.)
Were I a town board member, especially a supervisor, I would be calling up these attorneys and asking some pointed questions. And, perhaps after that phone conversation, placing a call to what I assume are various NYS legal ethics agencies, inquiring if these attorneys violated legal ethics.
Calvin
View PDF File
April 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.”
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 – 1919)
Thank You Mr. Champagne
April 11th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
A bright light in an otherwise dull sky!
It’s so good that people like District Attorney Derek Champagne are around to uphold the integrity of public office and giving the public some hope.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Calvin,
First, I would like to thank you for many words of encouragement on behalf of the Keep Burke Beautiful clan. You have been a tremendous help to us, and you were right, the word of the people is what counts. We are continuing to fight these large wind corporations and their corruption. It will be a long battle, but one we are committed to.
I would also like to thank the Tacys and my parents for their tremendous effort and countless hours of planning and research, and all of the other residents of Burke who have stood up for their rights against these domineering wind companies.
Another thanks to Derek Champagne for doing his duty as a public official.
We must support our neighboring towns and their struggles with these monsters.
Another statement I would like to make about our town board and its members: I do not blame them for what has occurred in our town. I blame Noble Wind Energy for all of the difficulty that we are going through. These men have been trained to be incredible, topnotch salesmen. They have preyed on the innocent people of these towns, knowing very well that these are simple country folks trying to make a living. With them being exceptional salesmen they could sell sand to the desert.
I know all along what they have been telling these people, “everything is alright, don’t worry about it, we’ll take care of it,” and these farmers have been listening to them, trusting them. Also, once you have a contract with Noble you are bound to promote and expand wind and all the good it will do. Ha Ha, what a farce.
I’m willing to bet that there is not one member on that board that doesn’t regret coming in contact with these people. Our town will never be the same.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Let’s remember that we voted these board members into office after doing our research. Wind turbine companies have been poking around this area for quite some time and of course they will target the people with the majority of the land—farmers. It is hard to keep the small American farm going, so anything to help these guys and the environment is an asset to the community. (I’m wondering how many of you have tried to live off the income of a dairy farm in northern NY. It’s not easy for most of us.)
The issue of whether or not to bring windmills into Burke is tearing our town apart. Neighbors are no longer talking and all trust has been lost, even amongst friends. The matter boils down to a simple question, What is best for the town? Although there are accounts of health issues caused by these giant turbines, they are few and far between. We have control over where these windmills are placed because this is our town. Negotiation will be our strongest tool.
Alternative energy sources are inevitable. We have depleted the earth’s resources to the point of no return. Now it is up to us to salvage what we have left. This will take wind, water, and solar power, as well as any other technology that has been developed to use our natural surroundings in order to produce power. The future of this world depends on our decisions now.
This town needs these windmills. Already I have seen local children graduate from high school and head toward an environmental degree with scholarship money from these companies. I have seen people with little to no education get hired and trained to work for these companies. If it were not the windmills, there would be something else coming into this town, and, believe me, windmills are our best bet.
Instead of focusing on the negatives of windmills, let’s look at the bigger picture: global warming. Look at the research that is available on this topic; it will scare you. No longer will coastal towns exist. With the melting of the ice caps and the rising sea level, these towns will be under water. Forget vacationing in Florida; it will be gone too. These are not myths. Education is key in this situation.
We must try seeing each other’s side in this conflict. As the old Chinese proverb says, “If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will escape a hundred days of sorrow.” We cannot tear the town apart over this issue; we must work together and negotiate to get what we want in a manner that pleases everyone.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:08 am
This is in regards to Tricia Decosse’s letter:
We need more people thinking like Tricia, so as to save our planet for our future generations!
Great job Tricia!