Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenburgh board debates TB1 resolution that would bar planning and zoning members from leading housing advocacy groups
Summary
Town Board members clashed over TB1, a proposed resolution that would prohibit town board and planning/zoning committee members from serving as officers, directors or key persons of nonprofits whose primary function is land-use advocacy; the ethics board asked for a hold until July 15 and the town attorney said the rule aims to prevent conflicts of interest.
The Town Board debated TB1 on July 9, a proposed resolution that would prevent members of town boards and committees who decide land-use matters from serving as officers, directors or “key persons” of organizations whose primary function is land-use advocacy.
Supervisor (speaker 2) said the ethics board has asked the board to hold the resolution until its meeting on July 15 and asked that the town council defer action while that body issues guidance. “If we got a letter from the ethics board basically saying, please hold off until after we could discuss this till July 15,” the Supervisor said, urging a chance for the ethics board to review and advise.
Town attorney (speaker 3) told the board the resolution’s stated goal is to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest among members who serve on planning or zoning panels. “This resolution would not stop, that feeling and not stop that determination that that affordable housing is an essential part of any municipality,” he said, adding the restriction targets simultaneous service that could create conflicts: it would bar a board member from being a director, officer or key person of an organization primarily focused on land-use initiatives.
Several board members questioned process and transparency. One board member (speaker 4) said they had expected an opportunity to present to the ethics board and criticized the way the resolution and related emails portrayed the board’s position, calling the outreach “disrespectful.” Another member (speaker 2) said they had emailed the town attorney requesting a written legal opinion; the board attorney said he could provide written guidance and that legal review had occurred in executive sessions.
Members also debated whether TB1 should be a local law subject to public hearings rather than a resolution. The Supervisor suggested that a local law—rather than a nonbinding resolution—would be the appropriate vehicle if the board wanted enforceable provisions, noting resolutions do not carry enforcement mechanisms.
The board did not take a final vote on TB1 at the work session and discussion was left pending the ethics board’s review and a written legal opinion. Several members said they would prefer the ethics board’s recommendation and additional staff clarification before considering formal action.
The item remains under review; the ethics board is scheduled to meet July 15 and the town attorney said he could provide written counsel to the board.
