Leadership committee dismisses ethics complaint after complainant does not appear; remote commenter criticizes board conduct

Bronx Community Board 11’s leadership committee voted to dismiss an ethics complaint referred from the board’s ethics committee after the person who filed the complaint did not appear at the meeting.

The complaint — filed by AJ Ramos and described in the meeting materials as a “complaint and letter of no confidence” naming the district manager and multiple ethics-committee members — was discussed briefly and then put to a vote after committee members debated whether the case should be assigned a case number and moved forward. The committee chair said the ethics committee had referred the matter to leadership because the complaint named the entire ethics committee and therefore could not be heard by that committee.

Committee members debated next steps and whether to contact the complainant before proceeding. Ryan Barthel, chair of the bylaws and ethics committee, said he could not find in the submitted paperwork “an actual complaint, an actual assignment of wrongdoing” and urged the group to identify a discrete allegation if they were to pursue an ethics case. Jeremy Huynarke, the board’s district manager, explained that referral to leadership is the standard step when the ethics committee cannot hear a matter itself because the committee or its chair are named.

AJ Ramos joined remotely to address the committee near the end of the discussion. Ramos, who identified himself as “a credentialed member of the New York City press,” criticized the committee’s handling of records and public access, saying, “The optics coming out of this board are trash. You guys really need to get your act together,” and alleging delays in FOIL responses and withheld documents. After he spoke, meeting hosts warned him about conduct and later removed him from the virtual meeting for continued inappropriate language in the chat. Meeting staff saved the chat as a record, the chair said.

The committee then took a motion to dismiss the complaint. The committee chair announced the motion passed and declared the complaint dismissed. Committee members noted that some aspects of the underlying concerns previously had been considered in other cases and that the ethics committee’s recent personnel changes had addressed some procedural issues raised by the complainant. The leadership committee did not open a hearing or assign a case number at this meeting.

The leadership committee’s dismissal resolves the referral for now; the committee did not record further formal follow-up requirements at the meeting.

The leadership committee meets again as scheduled; any complainant who wishes to renew or supplement a complaint will need to ensure the committee receives a clear, specific allegation for any new referral or formal case.