Board of Ethics

The Board of Ethics of the City of Mount Vernon Minutes of the meeting of June 1, 2022 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. via Zoom, and ve members were present: Curtis Brewington, John McGlynn, Blair Hoplight, Ed Byrnes, and Lorna Kirwan (sworn in as a Board member today). Khendra David was also present (Ms. David was recently appointed as a Board member, but is not of cially a member until tomorrow when she is expected to be sworn in). A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed minutes for 3/31/22. Approved 4-0 [Curtis, John, Blair, and Ed]. Lorna, although a new member, did abstain from the voting since she was not familiar with the 3/31/22 meeting. Dean Bailey, a new Board member, who was sworn in today, joined the meeting later at 7:40 p.m. During the meeting each person made a statement about their personal history and background. Progress being made on Board goals Ed reported that he and Curtis will conduct a review of Financial Disclosure Statements (FDSs) for calendar years 2020 and 2021 at City Hall next Monday night, 6/6/22. Discussion on the future of Board meetings being conducted remotely by videoconferency Ed summarized what he had stated in email messages to all members during the past few weeks regarding steps that had to be taken in order for the Board to continue its practice of conducting meetings via Zoom. Ed reported that the Open Meetings Law (OML) has been allowing videoconferency of the Board’s meetings, but on June 8, 2022 that permission will expire, unless the Board conducts a “hearing” and nds “extraordinary circumstances” such that the Board would be permitted to participate remotely for its meetings. According to a recent amendment to the OML, a signi cant factor precluding a member from physical attendance at a meeting would suf ce as an “extraordinary circumstance”. A necessary step should be made before the “hearing” begins and that is that the Board should approve a resolution in order to establish a procedural guideline for what constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance.” Ed noted that he had emailed a proposed resolution to all members, and that he would be making a motion that it be approved by the Board. fi fi fi fi fi  Actions taken by the Board at this meeting Item A A motion was made and seconded that the Board should vote in favor of the following proposed resolution: Resolution An “extraordinary circumstance” is noted in the Open Meetings Law, such as to permit the Board to conduct meetings remotely by videoconferency. A determination as to whether an “extraordinary circumstance” has been established can be made by the Board if it nds that any Board member presents a situation where he or she cannot physically attend meetings based on a continuing serious factor, other than an occasional unavailability. A discussion was held among the members, and then a vote was taken. The proposed resolution was approved by a vote of 5-0 [Curtis, John, Blair, Ed, and Lorna]. Item B A hearing A hearing was then held by the members on the topic of whether the Board’s meetings could continue to be conducted remotely. The hearing consisted of each member having the opportunity to make a statement about his or her situation regarding their physical attendance at future Board meetings. The members who made statements claimed that their situation made out an “extraordinary circumstance” within the meaning of the Resolution, which had been approved earlier in this meeting. Such statements were made by Ed, John, and Blair, as follows: Ed stated that he was concerned about Covid-19 and its variants. He was concerned about a physical Board meeting held in a room at City Hall with 7 members and possibly with 4 or 5 members of the public who could attend such a meeting. He expressed that his wife was even more concerned than he was about this situation with its risks to him and her, and that she would be very upset with him if he attended such a meeting. Ed claimed that this was an “extraordinary circumstance”. John stated that he agreed that the Covid issue was a real concern. He added that with the property that he owns in Florida, he has to frequently go back and forth, and he would therefore not be able to physically attend all Board meetings. John stated that this situation does present an “extraordinary circumstance” for him. Blair stated that in addition to agreeing about the Covid situation, he speci cally mentioned his concern that as a professor at Dominican University, at a location west of the Hudson River, he will have classes in the fall that will require him to be teaching until 6:00 p.m. He is concerned that with the time needed for traveling, fi fi he might not be able to make a 7:00 p.m. Board meeting at City Hall on time. Also, he mentioned that some close relatives have major health issues; he envisions various trips to both Bu alo and Texas in order to deal with these sensitive matters. Blair stated that all of these matters amount to “extraordinary circumstances” for him. Curtis and Lorna made brief statements, but neither claimed an “extraordinary circumstance” for themselves. The members considered the statements made by Ed, John, and Blair, and a vote was taken by the members on the question of whether “extraordinary circumstances”, consistent with the resolution from Item A above, were established in order to permit meetings to be held remotely by videoconferencing. The vote was 5-0 [Curtis, John, Blair, Ed, and Lorna] that this was established. Dean had not yet arrived at the meeting, but he joined shortly thereafter at 7:40 p.m. Item C The next matter that was considered was a proposed draft of an email message that would be sent to any remaining non- lers of Financial Disclosure Statements (FDSs) for calendar year 2020, if it turns out that there are still such non- lers after a review of FDSs is conducted on June 6 (the proposed draft had been circulated to the members during the past week). The members discussed the proposed draft. A vote was taken and the draft was approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0 [Curtis, John, Blair, Ed, Lorna, and Dean]. The email message to the non- lers, if any, will be as follows: The Board of Ethics of The City of Mount Vernon Date:_____________________________ To: _______________________________ _______________________________ As required by the General Municipal Law, a financial disclosure statement (FDS) should have been filed by you for the calendar year 2020, but you didn’t file such a statement. The Board of Ethics was inactive for 10 months because we didn’t have the required number of members to conduct business and we were therefore delayed in reviewing the FDSs. The City Council did appoint some new members and within the past several months the Board has been reviewing the FDSs. You must correct this deficiency by filing a FDS within fifteen days of the receipt of this message. The City Clerk has advised the Board that you were notified about your deficiency a few months ago and that you were given the opportunity to correct this problem by fi fi ff fi filing a FDS no later than May 23, 2022, which would simultaneously cover two calendar years (2020 and 2021), however, again you didn’t file any statement. When you fill out the FDS, you should know that no questions can be left completely blank. If you have no information to provide for a particular question, you should write “not applicable”, or more simply “N/A”. The FDS has to be signed by you and notarized. Please deliver your FDS for calendar years 2020 and 2021 to the Board of Ethics c/o the City Clerk. If it is not received within the 15 day period, the Board will be required by the City Code §24-7(H) to send you a formal notice (called a “Notice of Delinquency”) of your failure to file the FDS for calendar year 2020, and we will then be obligated, pursuant to the City Code §24-7(H), to simultaneously notify the appointing authority for your position in the government that you have failed to file that FDS. The City Code §24-7(H) requires us to further advise you that a monetary penalty could eventually be assessed by the Board with an amount as noted in that Code section. It is likely that the Board would assess a much lower penalty than that high maximum amount, but still there could be some monetary penalty. We would only assess a penalty if we eventually make a finding that you have knowingly and willfully failed to file a completed FDS for calendar year 2020 in accordance with the language of City Code §24-7(J). We are not anxious to make such a finding and we hope that it can be avoided in the interests of both you and us, by the prompt filing of that FDS. Sincerely, _____________________________ Ed Byrnes Secretary of the Board of Ethics, on behalf of the Board The members made no decision concerning the date of the next Board meeting, and all agreed to end the meeting at 8:12 p.m.