At a meeting of the Poughkeepsie Local Planning Committee, several members disclosed potential conflicts of interest tied to applications under review and the committee discussed how recusals would be handled during project evaluations. The committee heard an overview of the code of conduct and accepted multiple recusal forms before introducing the projects.

The code of conduct was read aloud by a staff member, who reminded members that “If you have a potential conflict of interest regarding a project you believe will be discussed during the meeting, please disclose it and recuse yourself from any discussion or vote on that project.” That guidance framed the early part of the meeting as members identified personal or organizational ties to project sponsors.

Committee members disclosed recusals on specific applications. Javier said, “I’ve submitted a recusal form in reference to … construct a new mixed income housing and laundromat at 488 Main Street. I’m one of the contacts here, part of the project team for that project, so I won’t participate in that discussion.” A staff member named Amanda likewise said she would recuse herself from the same project because “Javier is on my board of directors for the nonprofit I run.” Other members named projects and organizations for which they would not participate, and some were asked to follow up in writing so legal staff could confirm whether a recusal was required.

Committee co-chairs and staff agreed that the room should be left for members who had confirmed recusals when the committee discussed those specific projects. Staff told the group the process for the meeting would remain informational until discussions moved into substantive detail, at which point recused members should leave the room.

The committee also agreed to collect written disclosures and to submit any ambiguous situations to the county/state legal office for review. Staff said they would circulate full applications and follow up with members if outstanding ownership or beneficial‑owner information changed a member’s need to recuse.

Members stressed that disclosures did not necessarily imply financial gain; several speakers described relationships such as shared nonprofit boards, letters of support previously written, or past consulting relationships and clarified they sought legal guidance on whether those ties required recusal. The committee asked staff to circulate full applications promptly so members could check for other potential conflicts before the next meeting.

The procedural clarity established at this meeting will govern how the committee handles discussion and voting on specific DRI applications in coming sessions; staff said they will log recusal forms and notify members and project sponsors when recusals are necessary.