Rende, DiGiacinto Renew Barbs in North Castle Over Transparency

North Castle’s escalating political feud flared up again last week with Councilwoman Barbara DiGiacinto accusing Supervisor Joseph Rende of potentially committing an ethics violation while Rende slammed DiGiacinto for continuing to play politics.

The battle, which started during the Town Board’s July 10 meeting where the board voted to retain the White Plains law firm of Abrams Fensterman for the last four months of 2024 because longtime Town Attorney Roland Baroni’s firm is merging with it, resumed at last Wednesday’s meeting. On July 10, DiGiacinto had questioned Rende’s relationship with Abrams Fensterman where one of its partners, Robert Spolzino, had represented him after the election.

It also turned out that Abrams Fensterman, Spolzino and another associate, Albert Pirro Jr., each made $1,000 contributions to Rende’s campaign last year.

DiGiacinto and Rende engaged in a bitter post-election tussle for supervisor that landed in court as Rende questioned a handful of unopened absentee ballots from family members of DiGiacinto supporters that he deemed suspicious. The ballots were eventually withdrawn and he won the supervisor’s seat by four votes.

Rende started the work session that immediately preceded last Wednesday’s regular meeting by reading a statement he sent to the four council members and Board of Ethics Chair Brett Summers on July 12. He explained that when he was asked about whether anyone connected with Abrams Fensterman had made campaign contributions, he couldn’t recall. Rende contacted his campaign treasurer the day after the meeting, who informed him of the $3,000 in contributions.

The next afternoon, July 12, Rende sent an e-mail to the board, which he read in public last week.

He criticized DiGiacinto for failing to raise her concerns beforehand where the issue could have been resolved without drama rather than having it play out in public.

“For the record, this item, this agenda item was also discussed in length during the executive session of the board meeting prior to the public portion of that same meeting that night, and at no time did Councilwoman DiGiacinto raise any of these concerns of transparency or asked any of those questions of me,” Rende said.

He also said that if anyone had concerns, the Abrams Fensterman vote could have been postponed.

“I would also like to (say) that during the executive session, I stated very clearly that if any board member had any questions or additional information regarding this matter, that it could be tabled at this time and placed on a future meeting agenda,” Rende said. “No board member, including Barbara, made that request.”

When DiGiacinto sought to respond to his statement, Rende (who as supervisor runs the Town Board meetings) did not recognize her and blocked her from speaking.

“I’m sorry, but what you are doing is out of order,” DiGiacinto protested.

Toward the end of the regular board meeting more than three hours later, DiGiancto read a portion of the town’s Code of Ethics that stated that no municipal officer shall vote on a matter without prior disclosure that involves someone who may directly benefit and who provided at least $500 in donations or services.

She said that Rende didn’t disclose his connection until two days after the vote.

“So in my opinion, this is probably an ethics violation on your part,” DiGiacinto told Rende.

When contacted late last week, Rende said DiGiacinto omitted that under the town’s Code of Ethics if a board member learns of a contribution after a vote where the party could stand to benefit, that member is obligated to disclose the connection as soon as possible, and if they do, it is not an ethics violation.

He said the July 10 meeting was on a Wednesday evening, and he learned of the contributions on Thursday and sent the e-mail on Friday.

“It’s almost like she was trying to intimate that I waited till the last minute or there was some time factor,” Rende said. “I have so many important things that I’m working on on behalf of the town or the board as a whole to hopefully focus in on, I can’t waste time thinking about what Barbara DiGiacinto has in her mind in terms of me.”

During the contentious back-and-forth discussion, the two often talked over each other. The argument then veered to another vote that took place earlier this year, on a special permit for the 34-unit residential project The Gateway at 45 Bedford Rd., the former Mariani Gardens property.

At one point, DiGiacinto accused Rende of lying for suggesting that he had first raised the issue of the owners of the land owing more than $1 million in property taxes.

She again questioned Rende’s lack of transparency for voting on the permit even though its ownership made contributions to his campaign.

“I think it’s really important that you go through all of your donations and make sure that you don’t have to maybe backtrack and make some disclosures,” DiGiacinto said.

Rende said that at the time of the vote he had disclosed that the owners of 45 Bedford Rd. had supported his candidacy. He then chided DiGiacinto for expending time and energy studying his filings.

“You see, Barbara, the difference between you and I, I’ve never examined your campaign filings,” Rende said. “I don’t care to. You, apparently, spent a lot of time reviewing mine.”

Two of the other board members took DiGiacinto to task for bringing up the matter for the second consecutive meeting. Councilman Matt Milim, a Rende supporter last year, accused DiGiacinto of “playing politics” and trying to embarrass Rende.

“You are still in election mode and we’re in governing mode,” Milim said. “Governing mode means we are doing the right thing for the town, not going on camera and trying to make each other look bad.”

Councilman Jose Berra questioned whether DiGiacinto previously skirted the requirements for disclosure herself. Berra said in the prior election family members and limited liability companies contributed $400 each to her campaign so she would not have to disclose any connections.

“It’s hard to not see this as being disingenuous,” Berra said.

DiGiacinto said every time one of her family’s properties has appeared on an agenda, she has recused herself.

“To expect a member of the Town Board to adhere to our Code of Ethics, and in this instance disclose receiving campaign donations from an applicant before voting on an application, is nothing more than disclosure and transparency,” DiGiacinto said when contacted last weekend. “Claiming political motivation is just, in my opinion, a cheap shot and is an attempt to deflect the facts.”

It is unclear whether the Board of Ethics will review the matter at one of their upcoming meetings.