Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Definition Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warren County board discusses widening "relative" definition, possible changes to financial disclosure form
Summary
Board members reviewed differences between narrow "interest in contract" language and a broader "relative" definition in General Municipal Law Article 18 and asked staff to research legislative intent and provide disclosure forms for review; timeline toward a local law referral was discussed.
Warren County board members discussed potential amendments to the county code of ethics — Local Law 2 of 2022 — focusing on whether the definition of “relative” used on financial disclosure forms should be broadened to match state law.
A staff member explained that Article 18 of the General Municipal Law contains two different definitions: a narrower definition tied to “interest in a contract” and a broader definition in section 810 for the term “relative.” As the staff member summarized, the narrower conflict-of-interest definition “says that for the purposes of this article ... a municipal officer or employee shall be deemed to have an interest in a contract of his spouse, minor children, and dependents,” while section 810’s definition of relative “is a broader definition ... an individual's spouse, child, stepchild, step parent, or any person who is a direct descendant of the grandparents of the reporting individual or of the reporting individual's spouse.”
Board members debated whether the county’s annual financial disclosure should use the broader state definition (from grandparents down) or retain a narrower definition for contract-interest purposes. One member said the broader definition could produce extensive disclosures in a small community and asked whether the expanded list (which can include cousins) would be “too arduous.” Another member suggested the first step is to determine whether the broader definition is mandatory under state law for disclosure purposes or permissive; staff agreed to research legislative intent and guidance from the state comptroller’s office.
Process and next steps were discussed: the staff member said the recommended financial-disclosure form in General Municipal Law section 812 is not mandatory and that the county currently uses its own form. If the board completes review and forwards recommendations by August, the staff member said, the county’s committee system could move a local law through the required public hearing process to the Board of Supervisors. The clerk of the board was asked to confirm that timetable; the clerk said it sounded reasonable.
Board members also requested that staff circulate a blank copy of the county disclosure form; staff said they would send the county’s current form and a recommended form provided in the statute to aid the review.
No formal amendment or referral was approved at the meeting; the discussion concluded with staff assigned to collect statutory materials and sample forms for the board’s next review.
