Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Syracuse housing committee weighs fate of Resident Advisory Committee after counsel says ethics rules bar members from applying for funds
Summary
Michelle, a Neighborhood & Business Development staffer, said corporation counsel advised that ethics rules would bar Resident Advisory Committee members from applying for Housing Strategies Corporation funds while serving and for two years afterward.
Michelle, a Neighborhood & Business Development staffer for the Syracuse Housing Strategies Corporation, told the Governance Committee that corporation counsel (city and outside counsel) has given a firm, unanimous opinion that the ethics provisions that apply to board members and staff also apply to members of the Resident Advisory Committee. "Residents would not be able to apply for funds through the organization if they were on that committee for the duration of their term on the committee and then for a period of two years after their term concludes," Michelle said.
The committee heard two staff‑recommended paths. Option A would remove or dissolve the committee language in the enabling ordinance and continue community engagement through the city’s Neighborhood & Business Development (NBD) operations and neighborhood associations. Option B would keep the Resident Advisory Committee but explicitly disclose and enforce the ethics restrictions so that appointees understand they could not apply for program funds while serving and for two years after their term.
Several councilors and committee members debated the tradeoffs. Councilor Cowles and others said a citywide advisory body with housing expertise might add value, while other members emphasized the importance of neighborhood voices and suggested informal "voice" teams convened through partners such as Home Headquarters or existing neighborhood associations. Michelle said an informal, partner‑convened approach would be permissible only if it is not formalized in bylaws or the enabling ordinance.
The committee agreed staff should follow up quickly with Corporation Counsel to determine whether the ordinance’s wording can be revised to preserve the committee’s intent or whether the only compliant path is to remove the committee entirely. The mayor said staff would loop in Corporation Counsel and report back within about a week. No formal change to the ordinance was made at the meeting.
The session ended with the chair calling for a motion to adjourn; after a second and a voice vote in favor, the committee adjourned.
