Jan 25, 2012 10:22 AM
Southampton Town Trustee Bill Pell will turn to the town’s Ethics Committee for guidance on whether he should recuse himself from reviewing an application now before the Trustees, one that he was highly critical of prior to being elected to the board.
Attorney John Bennett insisted last week that Mr. Pell recuse himself from reviewing and voting on an application submitted by his client, Dockers Waterside Restaurant and Marina owner Larry Hoffman, because Mr. Pell had publicly opposed the application—and needled Mr. Hoffman personally—while running for office several years ago. The restaurant and marina is located on Dune Road in East Quogue.
At a Trustees meeting last Wednesday, January 18, Assistant Town Attorney Kara Bak advised Mr. Pell that, in light of Mr. Bennett’s request, he should remove himself from the application... more
Attorney John Bennett insisted last week that Mr. Pell recuse himself from reviewing and voting on an application submitted by his client, Dockers Waterside Restaurant and Marina owner Larry Hoffman, because Mr. Pell had publicly opposed the application—and needled Mr. Hoffman personally—while running for office several years ago. The restaurant and marina is located on Dune Road in East Quogue.
At a Trustees meeting last Wednesday, January 18, Assistant Town Attorney Kara Bak advised Mr. Pell that, in light of Mr. Bennett’s request, he should remove himself from the application... more
I did find the following:
"Disclosure and recusal. A Town officer or employee shall promptly disclose and recuse himself or herself from acting on a matter before the Town when acting on the matter, or failing to act on the matter, may benefit any of the persons listed in § ...more 23-4B(1) above. However, recusal is not required by an elected Town official so long as any relationship described in § 23-4B(1) above is disclosed as part of the public record, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The listing required to be filed by applicable Town officers and employees pursuant to Article 14 of the New York State Election Law shall be sufficient for disclosure as part of the public record on the part of a Town officer or employee with respect to § 23-4B(1)(f). It is the responsibility of the applicant, not the Town officer or employee, to comply with supplemental requirements for applicant disclosure on certain land use applications, licenses, permits, and other forms of relief by a Town agency, pursuant to § 23-12."
Since Mr. Bennett's request for Mr. Pell's recusal contained no allegations that Mr, Pell's public opposition was derived from violating any of the included criteria for recusal, it would appear that the Ethics Board would have no jurisdiction over a matter between Mr. Pell and his conscience.
It would certainly not be the first time a candidate for public office expressed her/his vehement disapproval of an action or proposed action by the Board for which she/he sought election and upon election was called upon to cast a vote on that very issue.
The current ethics code is on its face silent on the issue of recusal for the expressed reason. What Mr. Pell had to say in 2005 regarding his concerns for the welfare of the Town may have altered considerably in the intervening years. His current (and presumably more complete knowledge of the application) may have changed his perspective, or fortified his reasons to disapprove the application. He deserves the opportunity as an elected Trustee to clearly and rationally explain his current position on this project. Just as Mr. Bennett is to be expected to lay out the reasons for its approval.
Perhaps John, you are simply building a record for appeal in an Article 78 proceeding. Miles Smiles.
This is a ridiculous arguement that Mr. Bennet is making. So under his belief, anyone who ever has a spoken opinion about anything can never vote on a related item should they be elected? That would be like saying the President shouldn't vote on an anti-abortion bill because prior to being elected he said he was pro-choice.
As long as Mr. Pell makes an informed ...more decision based on facts (and not based on a pre-determined decision) it's perfectly acceptable for him to vote on the application.
Mr. Bennet's anectdote about how a judge once recused himself because they frequented cocktail parties together is at the exact opposite of the spectrum. Yes, if Mr. Pell recuses himself it reduces the likilhood there will be a lawsuit, but if Mr. Pell can backup whatever decision he makes with facts, then he's doing his job.
Also, the whole "we don't do SEQRA because the King said we don't have to" is absurd. It's just the Trustees being lazy and cheap and afraid of what SEQRA might bear. Get with the Times Trustees - hire a staff person to do the work if you think it's too hard.
Also, my point is that (if the reader actually KNOWS both of these people) they both are not the warmest people and both are known to have ulterior motives and don't like playing within the confines of the rules. It's my belief from personal experience that Mr. Bennet pushes the boundaries way further than Mr. Pell and for all the wrong reasons (whereas at least with Mr. Pell ...more you know he isn't be a hypocrite)
Mr. Pell is in bed with the Baykeeper? How can he be impartial to the application on that alone - honestly? I think that the SEQRA has been completed on this and that is what the Trustees are waiting to review. Mr. Pell didn't want the SEQRA report presentation to be submitted as evidence and objected to the Trustees hiring the firm to do the SEQRA for the project. What does that say about Mr. Pell's objectivity?
I commend Pell for attempting to stand up for what he believes is right, but he might be opening up some expensive personal litigation if he is wrong by not recusing himself. Going against the advice of council exposes him to personal liability. The Trustees will review the application again, review the SEQRA and then make a determination based on those factors - with or without Mr. Pell.
How much money did the Baykeeper contribute to Mr. Pell's campaign?
Why did Mr. Pell use Dockers (and photo's of Dockers) as a campaign platform when there were so many other issues to speak about?
Whose pocket is Mr. Pell in here?
This whole thing sounds fishy to me - It will be interesting to see what unfolds now that this can of worms has been opened.
This whole things seems really weird and when the Town Attorney makes a suggestion like that it is usually for more than we're privy to.
We all know that Billy will still ...more be vocal and negative about it and his recusal won't stop him from running his mouth but he really needs to be fair and it seems like he can't - not the Bill that I know.
He can recuse himself and put on the record that he objects to the application on its face at the same time. Baykeeper is challenge the Trustees again and sue them, if approved,then will use Bill as a witness. It's like a dysfunctional family!
"Anything" - seem like front line bias to me.
Sticking to your guns might be a nice sound bite, but could land him in a heap of trouble. If the applicant presses the issue in court, Bill can be held personally liable and not protected under Town Law.
Just saying...
And don't think for a minute that the other trusttess don't
t ...more play favorite with their friends, "you go along with me on this, and I will approve that" but even more, if they had any balls, they would not be accepting state rules by the DEC and on the other hand professing soverign control by the order of the Dongan Patent when they find it the easy way out.
Once the leaders of the protection of the town hundres of years ago, now in need of a toal flush.
Mr. Pell, stand for what you belive in.
Perhaps Mr. Bennett (who used to 'play for the home team' and now is returning as a paid representative for the applicant) should focus on preparing a solid application, with serious data and unbiased research which supports current proposal, rather than bullying Mr. Pell.
Bill Pell ...more has put in a lot of work learning about the process, asking for clarification when needed, and approaching applications with a great fresh perspective. Given the other trustees may have already publicly voted in support of project, prior to judges determination, in theory, perhaps they should also recuse themselves, as they too have already publicly voiced opinion on the application....
Explain why then Mr. Pell voted "NO" to the Trustees hiring a firm to complete the required SEQR report that Baykeeper and Group for the East End demanded and the Supreme Court ruled must be completed.
So here are some of my questions:
Why would he vote not to have that done?
There is 7 years of testimony and hearings, has Bill looked at the record in the 2-years he's been on the board?
What ...more is his alliance with the Baykeeper?
If that is not prejudging something what is?
There have been docks at that location for forty years and there was also an active launching ramp and a gas pump until ...more Dockers discontinued their use. Hoffman is not looking to replace all that, just some dockage - sounds reasonable to me.