Share this:

I recently came across a very interesting enforcement report from the NYC Conflicts of Interest Board which summarizes enforcement cases through February 10, 2009.  While these matters are of course unique to application of the NYC Conflict of Interest Law contained in Chapter 68 of the City Charter, the scenarios serve as good reminders concerning ethical conduct in land use matters.

 

The Board issued a public warning letter to a New York City Council Member who used her City Council letterhead, on which her City Council position is identified, and a City Council envelope for the non-City purpose of challenging a notice of violation that had been issued to her personal residence. While not pursuing further enforcement action, the Board took the opportunity of this public warning letter to remind public servants that the City‘s conflicts of interest law prohibits public servants from using City resources, such as letterhead, for any non-City purpose and from using their City positions to obtain any personal advantage for themselves or for any person or firm with which they are associated. COIB v. Gonzalez, COIB Case No. 2008-501 (2008).

 

The Board fined a Commissioner for the City Planning Commission (CPC) $4,000 for voting in favor of a development plan which would benefit another project in which the Commissioner was an investor. The CPC Commissioner acknowledged that she voted in favor of the Downtown Brooklyn Plan, which development plan included a proposal to modify the definition of “commercial” for certain areas in Brooklyn covered by the plan. One of the areas subject to this modification was located at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, also known as Site 6A, an area that was also part of the private development plan for the building of a stadium for the Nets basketball team and related real estate development, in which plan the Commissioner was an investor. By voting in favor of the Downtown Brooklyn Plan, the Commissioner conferred a benefit on this private development plan, known as the Atlantic Yards Project, by providing it with the potential ability to use Site 6A for residential as well as commercial use under the modified definition of ―commercial. The CPC Commissioner acknowledged that by voting in favor of the Downtown Brooklyn Plan, she violated the City‘s conflicts of interest law, which prohibits a public servant from using or attempting to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant. COIB v. Williams, COIB Case No. 2004-517 (2007).

 

 

The Board fined a member of Community Board 2 in Manhattan (CB 2) $1,000 for voting in favor of a proposal submitted by a developer with which he was associated. The CB 2 Member acknowledged that he was a member of CB 2‘s Waterfront Committee and in that capacity evaluated proposals for the development of Pier 40 in Manhattan. The CB 2 Member voted on a development proposal submitted by a developer that paid monies to the non-profit organization of which he served as the paid president, which monies constituted 25% of the non-profit organization‘s annual budget. The CB 2 Member acknowledged that he was “associated” with the developer within the meaning of the City‘s conflicts of interest law and that, by voting in favor of the developer‘s proposal, he violated the City‘s conflict of interest law, which prohibits a public servant from using or attempting to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant. COIB v. Bergman, COIB Case No. 2003-153a (2007).

 

The Board fined a former Plans examiner for the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) $750 for, within one year after leaving DOB, sending an e-mail on behalf of his new employer to the Executive Director of Operations Redesign at DOB, seeking his guidance with a problem his new employer was having with the DOB website. The former Plans Examiner admitted that his conduct violated the City of New York‘s conflicts of interest law, which prohibits a former public servant from appearing before that public servant‘s former agency within one year of terminating employment with the agency. COIB v. Tsarsis, COIB Case No. 2008-624 (2008).

 

To review the full report visit: http://www.nyc.gov/html/conflicts/downloads/pdf2/Enforcement_Case_Summaries.pdf