Ethics Issue Rages

This article appeared in the Townsman, March 19 edition

The controversy surrounding ethics continued to swirl in Woodstock with the attorney for the Town, Rod Futerfas, rebutting the contention in a letter dated March 5 from Michael Moriello, attorney for RUPCO, that Councilman Chris Collins should recuse himself from any discussion at the Town Board concerning RUPCO’s application to construct 53 units of affordable housing in Woodstock. Moriello had claimed that Collins’ prejudicial statements had disqualified him from such talks at the Town Board level.

But a statement from the Supervisor issued several days ago said; “It is the opinion of our Town Attorney that the views or philosophies expressed by a member of a Board, Commission, or Committee do not constitute a basis for a recusal. The reason for a recusal would be the fact, or appearance of, possible financial impact (loss or gain) from a decision in which said member would be involved in voting. As Councilman Collins has no financial interest in the proposed Woodstock Commons development, nor is a contiguous property owner, nor has any other fiduciary dealings with the property owner or the applicant, there is no basis for recusal. This, of course, would apply to any member of a town board, committee, or commission.”

The interpretation would seem to rebut an opinion of the Ethics Board, which in a letter earlier this month to Planning Board members Paul Shultis Jr. and David Corbett advised they should recuse themselves from Planning Board deliberations concerning the same RUPCO application. Although the Ethics Board did not explain their reasons, there has been no one who has publicly claimed Shultis or Corbett has a financial interest in the proposed RUPCO project.

More recently, Moriello, in a March 10 letter to Futerfas, offered a scathing review of the Ethics Board’s action with regard to Shultis and Corbett, accusing it of “operating in a clandestine and star chamber like proceeding.”

Earlier this year the Town Board appointed three new members to the Ethics Board, after unceremoniously dumping Alison West, Terri Reynolds and Fran Breitkoph last December with three votes provided by Councilpersons Liz Simonson, Jay Wenk and Chis Collins. That earlier Ethics Board had determined last fall that Shultis and Corbett had no need to recuse themselves. There is no available record of who brought the fresh complaint to the newly constituted Ethics Board. Neither Shultis nor Corbett was asked to testify, as they had before the previous board.

“It is my suspicion,” writes Moriello, “that certain members of the Ethics Board, the Planning Board Chairman [Mark Peritz] and at least one member of SAGE [the group opposing RUPCO] have been complicit in conspiring to eliminate Planning Board members from continuing the Woodstock Commons [RUPCO project] review in an attempt to occasion delay, substitute new members and cripple the project.” Moriello is using Freedom of Information Law to pursue his investigation into the matter. He concludes his letter by saying, “It is clear to me that the Town of Woodstock Ethics Board has operated heretofore without your [Futerfas’] good counsel. Please impress upon them their responsibility to protect an impartial ethics review process, as well as the importance of observing all procedural and substantive safeguards which protect all Planning Board members going forward.”

The Town Board began its March 17 meeting with an executive session, including Futerfas, to discuss ethics issues. There was no comment made to the public concerning the meeting. Town Board members Jay Wenk and Liz Simonson sent e-mails to this reporter denying his request to interview Futerfas on the matter.