Disagreements Raised on Changes to North Castle’s Code of Ethics at Hearing

By Martin Wilbur

North Castle Town Board members and the former chair of the town’s Board of Ethics battled last week over key differences of opinion on aspects of proposed updates to the municipality’s ethics code.

During an April 9 public hearing on possible changes to the code, Board of Ethics member Brett Summers advocated for why a Town Board member, department head or a town consultant, including the town attorney, should not hold a leadership position or be a voting member of a town political committee. 

Accompanied by current Board of Ethics Chair Susan Shimer, he also stated that their board reached consensus that an elected or appointed board member or candidate who serves on a land use board must recuse themselves from voting on a matter where an applicant donated more than $500 to a sitting board member’s campaign.

Another key provision would require an applicant who is before the Town Board or a land use board to disclose if he or she contributed more than $500 in the aggregate to a campaign of a sitting board member.

Summers called it a system of checks and balances that looks to limit the influence of potentially significant infusions of cash into local elections, particularly by developers.

“The purpose for our recommendation here is to try and get away from what is perceived in our town as the domination in the election process of developers who make the big campaign contribution, and if somebody can’t vote when that developer comes to that application before that vote, then that developer isn’t really going to be incentivized to that big campaign contribution,” Summers said.

While there was general agreement on the Town Board’s part that much of what the Board of Ethics was proposing would be beneficial, there was pushback. Supervisor Joseph Rende said that disclosure should continue to be required, but recusal shouldn’t be necessary in all cases.

Rende argued that whether it’s a Town Board member of someone serving on the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals who ran for elected office, it’s someone’s First Amendment right to contribute to political campaigns, and as long as that is disclosed to the public, residents can reach their own conclusions.

“I think that opens up some serious conversation as to whether or not it’s a violation of someone’s rights,” Rende said. 

Last year, it was brought to light that during the 2023 campaign for supervisor, Rende had received contributions from the White Plains law firm of Abrams Fensterman, the same firm that would represent him after the election, which landed in court over the contested absentee ballots. Rende won the election by four votes. 

The Town Board last summer then voted on assigning the retainer agreement to Abrams Fensterman when longtime Town Attorney Roland Baroni announced that his law firm would be absorbed by the new firm because he is nearing retirement. Rende eventually disclosed the contributions but participated in the vote. 

Councilwoman Barbara DiGiacinto took issue with some of the changes, arguing that Summer’s comments and proposed revisions to the code suggests that North Castle politics is riddled with corruption.

“If I were a total stranger, tonight I must be thinking there must be a lot of money that people take on this board as developers that this has to be stressed,” DiGiacinto said. “That’s not accurate. It’s not fair, and you’re sending out a message, in my opinion, and it’s doing a real disservice to this Town Board.”

Another board member, Matt Milim, said the $500 stipulation that’s been proposed is not perfect but an improvement over the current requirement to only disclose the contribution. However, he said he was hesitant to support the prohibition of serving on a political committee for sitting board members.

Milim also wondered whether the stricter ethics code would result in discouraging residents to run for public office and serve their town.

Councilman Saleem Hussain offered that he hoped that that wasn’t the case, but was concerned it could complicate matters in other ways.

“One thing that’s a little hard for me is just the complexity of the rules,” Hussain said. “I think I disagree with this point (that) ethics comes from within. I feel like we all have moral compasses for sure. But I do think it’s hard. You actually have to read what the rules are and you like constantly have to be self-evaluating and be paying attention to what you do in ways that are beyond organic.”

Last week, Rende also took issue with how the Town Board’s liaison to the Board of Ethics, Councilman Jose Berra, was involved in discussions of the proposed revisions at recent meetings that he watched. 

“The reason why I find that troubling is because the liaison is a member of the board that is ultimately going to be deciding on what rules become adopted or entered as law,” Rende said.

Summers responded that the five-member Board of Ethics reached consensus on its own and is in agreement with the proposed changes.

The Town Board adjourned the hearing but will have its attorneys review the proposed changes to make sure they cannot be legally challenged, particularly the provision that would prevent political donors of over $500 to serve on political committees. Officials hope to have the legal opinion returned by next month and resume the hearing sometime after that.