Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEB Minutes 2000is ETHICS BOARD MEETING MARCH 14�, 21'00,10 10 AM The Ethics, Board Meeting was called to order* 10:110 a.m. in the Town Board Room at '126; East Senleica SItreet Ithaca New York,, 14850/ !111 1 111 1 FW I III Jill I SUPPORT STAFF: John, Barney, Attorney forthe'Towni Deborah Kelley, Deputy'Town Cleirk. Jill WIN, As NIS The Ethlics, Board disculsseld general languagie to be useid to convey the message of understanding the section of Conflict of Interest. Chairperson Gregg pointed out that some people may make the suggestion that anything that affects Cornell will alter the situation in the future. The two words "potentially" and "interpreting" can be read many ways. Board Member, David Tones, stated that the word "potentially" gave the board a problem the last time. if the board could delete the word and/or replace it with the work "directly", that the word "directly" wouldn't reflect spouses or other family members. . Chairperson Gregg asked if there has to be a certain number of people on these boards. Attorney Barney stated that each board has a certain number of members. Board Member, MaxP n k , pointed out the relationship between Section 6, Paragraph e and Section 7 Paragraph A. Paragraph A is more specific whereas Section c is hopelessly broad. Mr. Penky asked if the board could delete Paragraph C. The section under discussion are in Local Law #4 as revised in 1993. The Ethics Board discussed the wording of Section 6, Paragraph e and Section 7 Paragraph A. Attorney Barney stated that the Ethics Board should modify Section 7. Contract does not refer to only a written contract, but refers to other actions taken by the Town. Attorney Barney would like to see the word "direct" out of there. Mr. Pensky moved that the words "or indirect" from line one, Section 7, Subsection a, Paragraph 2, be deleted and Attorney Barney alter Section O, Paragraph C, to leave only line one. The motion was seconded by David Tones. The motion was carried unanimously by the Ethics Board. Attorney Barney stated that one of the duties of this board in May is to go through the disclosure sheets Provided by Town Officials. The Ethics Board agreed to set the net meeting for Thursday, May 4,2000, at 10:00 a.m. in the Torn Board Room. The Ethics Board would consider the minutes of the February- 8, 2000 meeting for approval at the May meeting. The Ethics Board meeting was adjourned at 11: 10 a.rn. TOWN OF ITHACA �vjl A L EE ETHICS COMMITT FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The Town of Ithacia Effilicsi Commi"Itee met m special sessibin on Tuesday, February 8,,200,0', in Town INPUNISER Chairperson Gregg called the meeting to oirdielir at 1, 1 O p.m." - - - - - - - - - - - 'Mll ETHICS 'COMMITTEE PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 8,2000 APPROVED - APPRDE' - APPROVED endorses this proposal. Board Member Mitrano stated that she feels the Moore House would be out of place in its current location." At the bottom of page 15, the last paragraph states, "Board Member Mitrano stated that this project will cause traffic problems. She is prepared to 6ccept that cause as part of the advantage of the initiative." With that statement, it sounds as if she is representing Cornell University and not necessarily the citizens of Turn of Ithaca. Councilman Mein stated that he understands that Ms. Mitrano does -not have a tenure position at Cornell. It is conceivable that being very actively in favor of this project might be interpreted that there is material benefit to be gained. For those reasons, he asks the Ethics Committee for their advisory opinion of whether or not there should have been a recusal. Ills. Live ay stated that this committee functions under local, State, and Torn laws. Is a decision expected from this meeting or can questions be made and information provided? Attorney Barney responded that it is up the beard on hoer they would like to proceed. It would be helpful to have a decision. It is difficult to get everyone together and it could cause it to be prolonged. The Planning Board also has another decision dealing with the project. It would be helpful for the board members to have the decision of the Ethics Committee before they were to vote on the project. Mr. Pensky stated that he does not feel a sense of discomfort, but he feels a certain degree of bafflement. His understanding is that they geed to decide whether or -not and in what sense they should apply relevant laver. He does not know the relevant laver. Mr. Pensky stated that he was expecting to be provided with the information prior to the meeting. He does understand that the relevant ethics codes are complicated and obscure, but he has never seen them. In terms of rendering a judgement as to whether or net a code has or has not been violated he would find it difficult. Attorney Barney stated that they could get them a copy of the Ethics Lair. The portion being dealt with is discrete and a small portion. Ibis. Livesay stated that she could net recall ever seeing the Ethics Laver. She called Mrs. Noteboorn and asked to have one sent to her. It was in that laver having to do with the Ethics Committee where she read that part of they function under is the State Lair. Attorney Barney stated that the State Laver deals with disclosure statements. It has many pages of ghat the disclosure statement is supposed to be. Attorney Barney stated that there are two sections. Local Lair Number 4 for the year 1992, Section 6, Subdivision c, is the prohibition against involving one's self in a conflict of interest situation, "A Town official shalt exercise due diligence in avoiding conflict of interest when voting on matters brought before the Torn by- entities with whom the official is employed as a non -officer. Any ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 APPRO VED - APPRO VED - APPRD VED action that could reasonably be interpreted as potentially benefiting the official's career advancement, salary, or standing within an organization e.g., a vote on a matter that falls Within the official's direct purview as an employee of the entity appearing before the Town) shall be deemed a conflict of interest and subject to provisions of Section 7 of this law'. Section 7 was amended in 1993. This section deals with the circumstances when one i supposed to recuse there from voting or -any other discretionary act. Section 7 as originally written was found to be unreally in the Town. Basically because of the situation- that all board members are affiliated with other entities. The broad way that Section 7 was written got the Town ' into a circumstance of where there was a real question if people could vote. Section 7 was deliberately narrowed from a fairy broad application to deal specifically with contracts. Contracts are defined a to include any type of relationship where you are going to have a pecuniary gain. It also includes the granting or denial of special approval for variances. It is required that board members recuse themselves from voting when a person has a pecuniary gain from the vote. A typical example would be that if were on the Town Board and his law firm carve to the Town Board and said that they wanted to work for the Town and he voted on the issue. It is a direct pecuniary gain. Over the years they have never interpreted it until the question was raised recently as to disqualify somebody whose employer was there unless the role of the person was an officer or controlling individual of that employer. The Town litigated with Lake Source Cooling on behalf of the Town and there were questions raised in respect to four Town Board members. One Town Board member had a husband that was a tenure professor of Cornell University. Cornell University directly employed another' Town Board member. They voted on Lake Source Cooling. The courts looked at It and rejected any conflict of interest. Councilman Klein asked if the courts were looking at our Town Ethics Law. Attorney Barney stated that he does not know°if they were looking at the Town Ethics Law. They were looking at conflicts of interest. The Town Ethics Laver is narrower than what the law generally provides. Councilman Klein stated that he does recall John Whitcomb, previous Town Supervisor, did recuse himself on at least one occasion because he was a Cornell University employee. Attorney Barney stated that he did on Precinct 7 because he was in charge of the development of the farm aspects of that Precinct. It was a close situation. He did choose to recuse himself. Over the years there have been years where people choose to recuse themselves. The employment relationship alone has not been the -basis for choosing to recuse themselves. There is a lot more in the Local Laws dealing with what is to be disclosed. The real issue is if Ms. Mitrano and Mr. Howe were in a role of such they should have recuse themselves from voting. Mr. Pensky asked Ms. ll itrano to clarify what her employment is at Cornell University. ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 A PPRO VED - APPRO VED - APPRO VED Ms. Mitrano stated that her employment is as a part-time lecturer. She is ineligible for benefits. She receives a salary based on the one course per semester that she teaches in the Human Development Department. Mr. Pensky asked if this was a possible tenure position. Ibis. Mitrano responded no. Mr. Penky asked if there was a possibility of a tenure position. M. Mitrano responded no. Attorney Barney asked hoer long has she worked for Cornell University. Ms. Murano stated that she worked for one year full-time at Cornell University In 1991 to 1992. In the summer of 1993 she worked as a law clerk. It was the summer of her second year of law school at the Counsel's office, She returned to teach at Cornell University in the fall of 1996. Since the fall of 1996 she has taught one course every semester in the same department. Attorney Barney asked if she is employed eIewhere. Ms. Mitrano stated that Syracuse University employs her. She holds the same position. Attorney Barney asked if she is also a lawyer. M. Murano stated that she has not practiced lave since May of 1999. From August of 199 until May of 19 she practiced as an attorney. Eighteen months of that she practiced as an Associated at the lair firm of True, Walsh and Miller. Prior and subsequent to that association she corked in the equivalent to the Public Defenders Office in the area of custody, abuse. Mr. Penky asked that during her time at the lave office did she work with Cornell University. Ms. Mitrano responded no. It is a firm downtown, that largely deals health care lair. It has no association with Cornell University. r Mr. Pensky asked if she ever did legal work for Cornell University. Ms. Murano stated that she couldn't recall one case when she was an attorney for Cornell. Attorney Barney stated that Cornell University has an extensive Counsel's office. Mr. Pensky asked that prior to her vote n- the North Campus residential Initiative did she speak', consult, or report to any officials at Cornell University regarding this position of the negotiations; ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 8,2000 APPRO VED - A PPRO VED - APPROVED Ms. Mitrano responded absolutely. Nis. Livesay asked if there is an understanding that her teaching is to continue every semester. Ms. Mitrano stated that in 1996 and 1997 she taught on a semester by semester basis. She is currently in the middle of a 3-year contract. She has one year left on the contract. Ms. Livesay asked if it was a renewable contract. Ms. Mitrano responded that there are several circumstances surrounding whether she would want to continue. She is teaching for someone who has received such a large influx of grant money that they have been relieved of their under graduate classes. It is unknown if the grant money would continue for this professor. Ms. Livesay asked if any of her Planning Board decisions ever discussed within the department. Ibis. Mitrano stated that the Chairman of her department and his wife were actively involved in opposing Burger King. It was never discussed. At one point when she voted against Burger ling she received are e-mail that they were surprised that she voted against the project. When it came time to Grote for the Final Site Plan, she voted according to the procedure as she sought fit. With regard to the time she spent at the Counsel's office in 1993, she would like to clarify her position. In the summer of 1993 the President of the University was still Mr. Rhodes. She was asked to write a memo commenting on potential challenges from the Human lights Commission in regards to issues of racial segregation on the Cornell campus. As a law student, she wrote a memo in which she made a suggestion that turned out to look like the North Campus Initiative when President Rawlings came into office. Obviously this memo had been sitting in a drawer. No one has paid any attention to it. It was interesting to her that in 1993 she suggested that one area be built for freshmen so that they would all have an experience together. Ms. Gregg asked when President Rawlings ling ame into office. Councilman Klein stated that he is in his fifth year of office. Ms. Mitrano stated that it was two years became into office. She Mated that she applied a few years ago for a position under President Rawlings. She was a runner-up and he turned her down. if she wanted to she could vote against the project because she was made. That is not how she votes. Mr. Pensky asked what the purpose was of the report that she Wrote. Nis. Mitrano stated that she thinks it was to see if she knew how to write. She was a law clerk. Often the exercise was to write a memo. r. Pensky asked who wrote her to write the memo. ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 8,2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED M. Mitrano stated that it was probably the head of litigation. Mr. Pensky asked if it was more an educational eerie. . Mitrano stated that there were issues. She does not want to speak for President Rawlings, but part of the reason that he has taken the initiative is to avoid the reoccurring problem that Cornell University has had. There has been allegations and segregation. He is trying to move 41 the University out of any speculation that Correll is engineering segregation on campus. Mr. Pensky asked to what use was the memo put. Ms. Mitrano stated that she does not believe it -was put to any use. She was a second year laver student. Mr. Pensky stated that the comments were made to demonstrate that she had already had some convictions on this matter and she was pleased that the convictions were now being realized. Attorney Barney stated that Councilman Klein mentioned the comments that Ms. Mitrano made on traffic. .Ms. Murano stated that she is enthusiasticabout this project because she saw it before a fever years before anyone else did. It gives her a feeling of pride that as a law student she saw something that a President of a major University is enacted. There will be traffic problems. It is kind of thing happens everyday in order to achieve ends that are beneficial. Ms. . Live ay stated that sections of the lair have been pointed out. Section 1 includes items that need to be taken seriously. The first paragraph_ says that public officials rust eerie their official duties solely in the public interest and must avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. The standards and guidelines set :forth in this laver are intended to minimize unwarranted suspicion and to avoid potential conflicts of interest before they arise. As a Torn, it is not being done. Lake Source Cooling was mentioned. There appeared to be conflicts of interest. Similar issues carve up with Burger King and who was gaining and who was losing. She is not raising it so much with this situation, but they were asked to look at the lave. The reason the law was amended because it looked like no one would be able to vote. Then there is a situation where it cannot be applied. Something better reeds to be done to give guidance to the board members and to the public. People feel that actions are being taken in some narrower interest. Attorney Barney stated that there is a fine line. Where is a large institution that represents a large percentage of employment. one line would be to exclude anybody that has any affiliation with that institution from a role in any board that way there could be a majority to vote. He does not think that the Tern has chosen to drag the line that far over. Section 1 does express a purpose, but the purpose needs to be read in the ,context that about 50% of the population have an affiliation Frith the large institution. The institution is before the Town constantly. ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 7 FEB UARY 8, 2000 APPRO VED - APPEND - A PPRO VD 1. Liveay stated that they need to make it so that not only does one not have a cause, but that there is not even the appearance. -People believe that decisions rude by their governmental bodies are being made in the best interest of the citizens of the Town.. Everyone recognizes that their interest is different is from the broader town interests. It is the appearance that is important. Attorney Barney stated that if Ms. Mitrano were to be employed by the North Campus facility as a result of the passing the project, it would be a direct benefit. It would clearly be a situation covered by law. II. Liveay stated- that in the case of the Lake Source Cooling, a spouse of a tenure professor was on the Town Board. Tenure professors are sort of protected even against their own actions. There would need to be sound reasons. That is an individual that would be protected from concern of conflict of interest. The other board member was employed directly by the University. There are ways to write this when this is a company town. It could be written to give more Delp and guidance. Attorney Barney stated that it is important to loop at subdivision c. It does give an example of a vote on a matter that falls within the official's direct purview as an employee of the entity appearing before the Town. It is an example that says if you are. the one that is sponsoring or promoting the project then they should recuse themselves from voting. He does not disagree with it. It is the closest in the law in what is being dealt with. Ms. Mitrano stated that she is legally separated from Her husband. She does not receive any alimony. She does not receive any of his income. Mr. Pensky stated that Mr. Howe its not a tenure employee. Being a tenure employee of another University and having being involved with various community involvements there, he does not regard tenure as protection in that way. He regards it as protection of one's academic freedom. It should have no bearing on how one conducts themselves with the larger public. if a tenure or tenure track employee felt that his or her employment conditions would be adversely affected by a negative vote against the University would be a terrible breach. It would be an actionable breach. It is not o. . as tenure employee to think to themselves that they better vote for the University because if they do not it could be bad for them. if such a thing could be proven it would be grounds for litigation against the University. The Uhiver ity clearly specified the kinds of things that count for professional advancement in their contracts with employees. It is rather different to say that an employee might feel compelled to vote in favor of the University's position because they might feel that their professional position would be benefitted. He cannot say that in these two cases he: can find it to be possible. Ms. Live ay stated that her memory goes back to before tenure and why it was being fought. She is glad that it is seen as academic freedom. one if that people lost teaching position for a lot of frivolous reasons. It is also possible for people to have their positions threatened in ways that they could not prove them against the University. It might happen. People's perceptions are different. ETHICS COMMITTEE PAG E 8 FE BR UARY 8,2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The University is very diverse in employment and where the employment decisions are made. The professor that employs Ms. Mitrano is probably not at all influenced in a lot of these decisions. Mr. Pensky stated that either the law needs to be rewritten or that board members should take it to heart more that they should reue themselves even where there is the potential for an appearance of conflict. Is there something bad about this particular case or is it a general point that people should be more careful about perceptions? Ms.' Live ay stated that she is making a more general point. People need to be more careful about the perceptions and it could be done in a number of ways. One could be to adjust the law, which Attorney Barney also suggested. Another is in board members taking it more seriously and understanding the various impacts. There is a step between reual and non-reual. That is laying out the public case in advance. Attorney Barney stated that they do encourage board members to disclose their relationships with the applicant. Ms. Mitrano was up front with her relationship with Cornell University. Mr. Pensky asked if Mr. Howe and Ms. Mitrano should be required to re u e themselves with any other decision dealing with Cornell University. Attorney Barney stated that the question is that because they are affiliated with Correll should they decline to vote. Illy. Livesay stated that it could be a promotion or it could be losing a job. It could potentially work both ways. This is something that the Ethics Board needs to think about. The action that one might be required to take in relation to the position that one has needs to be defined. Mr. Penky stated that the boards need to discuss whether these two individuals would have anything to gain or lose. Councilman Klein stated that it is difficult when you have a company town and that company i before the board many times. Sometimes s it is hard to think about if the large employer were treated differently if they were any other employers in the town. certain actions are far more administrative and easier to deal with because they are not as important. Some of them are straightforward and others involve rezoning and major changes. For almost 20 years, he has been on the Planning Board and Town Board, he never remembers receiving correspondence from the President of the University concerning any action. It seems that there is more weight involved in this. He does not know if the Ethics Law could define a situation where disclosure might be enough or that a recusal is required. Then there might be the situation that so many people recu a themselves that the board cannot act. Attorney Barney stated at the beginning of one of the North Campus Residential Initiative meetings ask the Planning Board members to disclose their affiliation with Cornell University. Of the seven members, five had some affiliation with Cornell University. ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 9 FEBRU RY 8, 2000 Ms. Liveay stated that rather worrying about whore the employer i. It does apply to the other employers in Town. It is the type of decision and the vulnerability of their position. Boards frequently like to have buinepeople, architects, bankers and :people in various positions where in a small torn there is going to be conflict between activity of a local government. The important thing is not to make an exception for the large employer, but to try to -find the way through. Attorney Barney stated that the tried to do that by saying if someone had a direct involvement with the project either monetary or decision making, then they should be recused. if the board member is just an employee, it is a different ethic. Is it reasonable to accept that they voted independent of their affiliation or did they because of their affiliation? The question was asked to all Planning Board members. . They all indicated that their affiliation would not be influenced by their vote. Mr. Pensky stated that the bright lire is that in, order for there to be a recusal would there would need to be a direct or indirect interest. The idea is that one can talk about professional standing as opposed to professional materiel gain. That seems to be a broad net. It seems that if one were to expand grounds for recusal much farther, then they would be close to saying that people should recuse themselves if they are employed by Correll University on a Cornell University project. The law says that someone needs to be faced with a situation of direct or in -direct interest, which i career advancement, salary or standing within an organization. He is comfortable with that. He does not understand is the case that Councilman Klein has brought before the Ethics Committee that any of that happened or potentially happened. Councilman Klein stated that in drawing the line in this particular vote of the North campus project two of the board members' whose connection to Cornell are tenured. Mr. Con nernan Is a tenured professor. He was very outspoken against the project and voted against it. Ms. Hoffmann was also very outspoken against the project. The tenured people are very secure in their job. There has been tenured faculty at Correll University who has sued Cornell over various actions. They obviously felt very protected in their positions. In the case of Ms. Mitrano, in reading the minutes and talking with people who have been at those meetings, she sounds as if she made her decision from the heart. Certainly somebody that is on contract, not a full-time employee, could put themselves in great jeopardy. He has never been an academic, but he is sure that there are internal politics. Certainly, being very candid in speaking against your employer is a very dangerous think. Sometimes someone might have to recuse themselves because of the appearance of conflict. Ruth Ilhr, 103 Mudd Falls Road, stated she is interested In the general questions that the board is dealing with. She does not think that it is a simple matter. She does think that there is a conflict in the Iaw between the spirit and the particulars in which it is written. The spirit of the law is clear. Restricting the law to matters of contract gets to be very particular and she does think that the line could be drawn somewhere else. It might not be for the board to decide. There is a situation of a part-time, temporary employee at a major employer in a company torn. She was in that situation for many years. She can assure the board that it is an extremely ETH1CS COMMITTEE MITTEE PAGE 10 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 A PPRO VED - APPRO VED - APPRO VED insecure position. if the law is construed to say potential for material gain she would have to say that there is a potential for a loss if a person does not adhere to ghat is obviously company policy. This right not be the case with the particulars position that the person is in at the moment. it might not b the issue here. If for example ll,l'ls. Mitrano did have an ambition to work in the University's Counsel's office or to work in the :future in some aspect of the North Campus project, them she would know that she better not go against an employer with whom she may want to change positions. It becomes very shadowy. leis. Mahr stated that she couldn't make any inferences about ghat Ms. Murano' ambitions are. Attorney Barney asked that if he were a tenured professor and he aspirations to become Dean, would the influence on him be any different` Ibis. Ilahr responded that she couldn't put herself in his shoes. Attorney Barney stated that if they are going to deal with aspirations then someone does not even need to be employed by the University if the aspiration is to become employed by the University. Ms. Liveay stated that it is an important consideration. Someone could have approached any member of the board saying that they need their vote on the issue and tell them what is in their future. Elected officials have to allow a certain amount of time to pass before they can take employment. It is not true with the other boards. The conversations would not be known. Hunter Rawlings would have very little influence over the chair of the department or the professor that leis. Il,llitrano works for because of the tenure aspects. Certainly in terms of choosing who is going to be Dean are decisions that are made to a great extent by other faulty members. Anything that gets involved in academic areas is a little less dear cut. Attorney Barney Mated that if Hunter Rawlings Mated that he did not want someone lean of any school that he is President of, it would probably carry a lot of weight. He is not sure that he could promote someone without going through the process. The President of the University does have some clout. It brings it back to ghat is fair to both sides of the issue. Ms. M hr stated that she wanted to introduce a point of view from someone who has been a situation of being a part-time temporary employee. It is materially different. She thinks that the job of this committee is to try to figure out rather to move out of the realm of speculation. The board can look at the record and determine whether the person in question actually ever grappled with the questions of public interest and showed an engagement in the question. It is circumstantial. It does not necessarily prove anything. The Town Comprehensive Plan is dear on some of the issues that were raved in the North Campus Feidential Initiative project. The public interest was fairly dear and there were a number of outspoken members of the public. One of the approaches might be to look at the record. Attorney Barney Mated that for many months the Planning board was a six -member board. It had a vacancy for many :months and there were not an overwhelming number of candidates for the ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 11 FEBRUA Y 8, 2000 A PPRD DIED - APPRO VED - APPRD VED job. An appointment was made. Mr. Howe was appointed just prior to the meeting where this issue care up. He wrestled with it because after a fairly lengthy public hearing and long discussion, the board took a vote. It was a 3 to 3 vote. Mr. Howe at that point abstained. He wanted another chance to do some more investigation on his own. The matter was adjourned for a day to enable hire look at everything again. He was put in a very difficult -position. The procedure right be to entertain a motion to reflect that under these circumstances it would have been under the Ethics Law for one or two of these individuals to abstain from voting. It could also reflect the opposite that under the circurnta'nces presented the failure to reue then from was not a violation of the Ethics Law. Ms. Livesay stated that she would like to take Mr.- Klein's letter (See Attachment #3) and go through it as he has Iaid out his case on particular .sections of the Ethics Law, carve to a consensus section by section. Then have the motion. Councilman Klein asked if they were operating- under Ethics Mules. Attorney Barney stated that the board could adopt their own procedures. Ms. Livesay stated that she would like to go through the letter, then make a motion one way or another. Mr. Pensky stated that the board could take a vote to see if more discussion is necessary. He feels that he is ready to reader a decision. ,Ms. Livesay stated that she feels it needs more discussion. The board discussed Section paragraph c more broadly. They need to ask themselves in case of either of these individuals did they have any reason to believe that if they voted against the University on this matter their employment would be in- jeopardy. Mr. Pensky stated that the board is not being asked to decide whether the board thinks that they could have reasonably believed or n-ot believed something regarding their terms of employment. The board needs to determine if their actions could be reasonably interpreted as on evidence of potentially benefiting their positions. The board is not to decide if they may or may not have thought about it. It is argumentative to interpret the law that it is possible that something good or bad could have happened to there. Are there reasonable grounds: for interpreting their actions? Their grounds of their standing on the board such that it would substantially benefit their position. He cannot see doing it. It could be done in principle that one must never vote for or against their employer or one must do it based on ethics. He has not heard any evidence. M. Livesay stated that he is taking a different point than she is discussing. Yet the way that she is lookingat it would brie it to the same conclusion that he has come to. She does not believe g that either of these individuals was in any imminent danger because of their positions, either to b regarded or to be injured. ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 12 FEB RUAI , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Pensky stated that there is no evidence. It is the most reasonable interpretation of what happened. Ms. Livesay stated that the way that he is talking about it in terms of evidence and proof casts it to a different tier. Mr. Pensky stated that he has been very gently suggesting that the board distinguish between the spirit of the lay and what the board is to be deciding. Mr. Jones stated that there is no gain or loss for these individuals. What muddies the waters a little hit is that this was an idea that Ms. Mitrano had a long time ago. It is a very interesting connection, but he does not see that as a benefit or loss. Nis. Livesay stated that there are many different gays that they all can get to the salve conclusion. She does not feel that what Ms. Mitrano thought a while ago has any bearing on it at all. She only recognized her own idea. If there were going to be any benefit to her, Cornell would have seen it before now. Ms. Livesay stated that she thinks that they can find and spell it out more clearly whether people are potentially in position where they can have their chains jerked. This is different from proving that chains will or will net be jerked. Mr. Pensky stated that there would need to be some sort of evidentiary ground for believing it is a reasonable interpretation. This is ghat the beard is being asked to do. The board is not being asked to prove it. If the general situation of an employee is considered, then by definition it is always reasonable to intrpret that there is a possibility. Then there is a problem with the spirit of the laver, which is to say should any Cornell University employee ever vote for anything to do with Cornell University. It is an interesting question for the Torn. It should be discussed at some point. Ms. Livesay stated if the individual could reasonably be expected to believe that their employment could be in jeopardy is a different way of stating what Mr. Pensky is saying. Ms. Gregg stated that the board would at a future date have to discuss their purpose at future date. The board may need to rove the line a little wider. They will always find someone potentially in the future going to have something to do with the large companies in Ithaca. Mr. Pensky asked if the board has been asked to prove an advisory opinion. MOTION made by MaxPensky, seconded by David Jones. RESOL 1 D, that it is the advisory opinion of this board that they do not find any ground for Tracy Murano and Rod Hoge to have recused themselves from voting in the north campus Residential ial Initiative Preliminary Site Plan Approval are January 5, 2000 under the Town of Ithaca Ethics Larry and under the circumstances presented. ETHICS COMMITTEE PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 APPRO VED - APPRO VED - APPROVED Vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: A YES: Gregg, Jones, Live ay, Pensky. NA YS: Alone. Attorney Barney stated that there have been interesting questions raised. Would it be the desire of this beard to meet at another time to discuss what might be an appropriate lire to try to incorporate in the Ethics Law Councilman Klein stated that he does hope that the beard reconvenes several times to try t organize the law. Ms. Gregg stated that she does thinly that the board should get together again. When would be a good time to meet? Ms. Live ay stated that they did net meet last year. It was difficult to coordinate a time. It i easier to plan a time when everyone is present. Attorney Barney stated that they do reed to have one meeting to go over Ethics Disclosures. The beard decided to hold a meeting on !March 9 th or 14 tat h 10:00 a.m., depending upon the board members checking on their availability. Ms. Gregg determined the meeting adjourned. P.0 February 4, 2GOO To- Tom oIthaa Ethics Comniittee K,0 'From: Rod Howe Re: North CaWus Resideatial Initiative I am root available to anend the February 8 meeting. This m=o serves to clarify my position at Comcli University. was hired by the Gamed Cooperative act msion Cayuga County s o%c adon in Im. In the Fan of 1997 I moved to a posiEon on the Connell campug with Cornell Cooperative Extension. My title is Community and Economic Vitality Program Leader. I am located on the third floor of Roberts 1 2U. The Director of the Extension sy tcm is Dr. 1 ll Hwert. I act as a liaison betwcen the 57 c-pro my associations =d the NYC Extension office and CumeU University. I did not f o$ that I had to abstain myself from : oting on the {M as I did not believe a vote either way would impsimpaci my present or any futuro positions at Co=efl University. If you have -any ugh r questions please do not hesitate to. Wat ct Me. TOTAL P.02 a ra CORNELL ii I V E R S I T a w • 4 r 7 Office of the President 3M Darr Hall Telephone: 607 255-5 01 Ithaca, NY 14853- 801 September 23, 1999 Hon. Catherine Valentino, supervisor Town of Ithaca Town Hall 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Hon. Fred T. Wilcox 111, Chair `"own of Ithaca Planning Board Town Hall 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Cathy and Fred: .. P In my Inaugural Address, four years- ago--[ called upon all Cornellians to explore..., + and measure, with honesty 'and courage, _the gulfs that separate students from each _ : other and from the full intellectual and cultural richness of the university. Cornell is a' residential university, and residence on campus, although nearer required for everyone, has always been an important component of undergraduate life. However, over the past several decades, Cornell has suffered from a division of its undergraduate student body between north Campus and west Campus, with yet a third, smaller component adjacent to campus in Collegetown. It vial o vtou-s to me soon after m'y arrival that Cornell's gorges ire not silrinp%l geographical features; they have come to divide the student body socially, culturally, and, to some degree, even racially. This makes it difficult for Cornell to offer a unified program to freshmen in their crucial first year and leads to wide differences in the cultural, social, and even academic environments for new students. Further, because many students move off campus after that first year, their exposure to the very diversity that Cornell has worked to develop remains limited for their entire undergraduate career. The North Campus Residential Initiative plan of action that I introduced in 1997 addresses these divisions directly. At the same time, it respects the university's long- standing tradition of freedom with responsibility and ensures that students, from their Cathy Valentino and Fred Wilcox -2- September 23, 1999 very first year on campus, are exposed to the full range of intellectual and cultural opportunities inherent in the university. I firmly believe that the freshman residential experience is critical to new students' introduction to Comell's academic community, and to their learning to live independently and with other students from different background. In formulating a plan of action to improve and increase ors -campus residential housing, a cornerstone of which is the North Campus Residential Initiative project currently under review by the Town of Ithaca, I committed to moving decisively to provide a unifying educational experience that will introduce new students to the breadth of the intellectual environment at Cornell and that will enable students to experience the full diversity of the freshman class. To meet these goals, it is imperative that we construct new residential space on North Campus, which at -3200 beds currently requires Soo more beds to accommodate to all freshmen. But housing alone is an insufficient solution. It is essential that educational programming, dining, and recreational facilities be an int gral part of the project to . support and enhance the residential component. Athletics are especially important -to freshmen. The current generation of students — both men andvomen..— is more health- . 4 . and .e er lse-� r� 'i u , in olved in more -organizad intrar ural`-sports ; land -participates-z., 5 ; in more individual -and group physical recreation than -pre ious.:gen,erations. In' my experience, students who have the opportunity engage readily in` y�-physical-activity may adjust, thins, study, even sleep, better than students who do not. An essential component of the Residential Initiative has been the provision of sufficient athletic facilities and programming close to Helen Newman }--fall, the long-time nerve center for all intramural athletics and physical recreation. These are our gear: to improve the effectiveness of programming for the entire fr.. s him.,+ n Lac.,; t ... pi-o v....i... -a n o p p o f 1LAnit i 1 tsea , r htlMican (..lass to dtavelop Otis ovvn sense of identity: and to enable the class to take full advantage of its diversity, which i religious, cultural, geographic, socioeconomic, academic, and extracurricular, as well a racial and ethnic. i have not lost sight of these goals. But it has become clear to me in the recent weeps and months that the full intent of the forth Campus Residential Initiative may not be understood by others in the greater Ithaca community, and I regret to say that I believe some community members may have clouded the issue. While the North Carpus initiative is paramount to the academic success of first - year students, it has been developed within the guidelines of local ,municipal planning processes and with input from the off -campus community. Cornell University ity Cathy Valentino and Fred Wilco -3- September 23, 1999 recognized early that there would be many competing interests, and we accepted the fact that not everyone would agree with our original proposal. That is why — from day one ---- we have tallied publicly, on and off campus, about this freshman housing initiative, including reaching out to our neighbors in the community in a cooperative, collaborative manner regarding our goals and objectives. Among the modifications that grew out of discussions with the neighbors were ones dealing with building height, traffic, and parking. The university agreed that it would not increase the height of Helen Newman Hall, and we responded to neighbormood concerns by reconfiguring parking adjacent to Helen Jqewman Hall. We also included in the plan a new, two-way campus roadway that connects Pleasant Grove Road to Balch Drive and Thurston Avenue and that should reduce traffic in surrounding neighborhoods and on local streets. In the case of the Moore House, the university has explored many options for its reuse as a university facility, but none of them are programmatically feasible. We have not been able to identify an educational use for the building in its present location that is more essential than the vital recreational component provided to our students by the.in- kiind replacement of the three existing athletic fields on -North Campus. Indeed, were ire- - {o identify s uch-,:a use, substantial interior-and.6 xteri o r,.modiifications to the. historic fabric:---" of- the Moore House wouId be req uired to :a comrhodate institutional use , ,Y,;�}.,• :--,.: �•.- . ,.1,-modificatio.ns that would substantially alter the, character of the building. While I share the commitment of many members of the community to historic preservation, a suitable alternative to the retention of the building on its current site is clearly preferable in this particular case. As you know, in the summer of 1998, the university offered to donate the Moore House to Historic Ithaca, or to a private individual, along with up to $40,000 to cover the cost of relocating the house to a more appropriate residential neighborhood setting. This is described in the draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted in Mr^9. In,ditfi,e !.� on, t�ve'it s o hae;�ed iarwd o h n*ri ;i c h to rexoe"e building. I firmly believe the university's proposal is in the long-term best interest of the house. A relocated Moore House in a residential setting as a single-family residence is fair preferable to leaving the house where it is, surrounded by more than 4,,000 students (graduate and undergraduate) and institutional uses that include existing two -and -one-half to ten -story residence halls, dining and athletic facilities, and paring lots. Just as we have given ourselves a goal to meet in creating a better freshman experience, we have been challenged to create a better North Campus plan that responds to neighborhood concerns. I believe we have met that challenge in C 0 Cathy Valentino and Fred Wilco - - September 23, 1999 responsible manner. I write to you at this time to ask for your hel p as we seek the final local approvals needed so that we can begin construction of the new residential complex on North Campus in time to reach completion for the freshman class that enters the university in August 2001. Your careful consideration of our proposal is eery much appreciated. Sincerely, V4 Hunter R. Rawlings III cc: Ithaca Torn Board Members Ithaca Town Board of Planning Members + t r � r •s � � � F J 1 rt }� �• 4 � J � i 1 F I ........... T�OiWN 0 1 A iA F. TREET,, ITHACA, N.Y. 14,850 126 EAST SENECA S TOWN C LE R K 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-16516, PARKS 273--80135 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Davild L., Klein Councilman Ms. Joan, Lent Noteboorn,, Town, Clerk Town of Ithaca st, 126'Eja'i Seneca, Stireet haca, NY 14850 y1pi Ismilipili 111 1 10 All AI 'AM AIII lot A* I nning eting 0 t e Pla Board, since a vote on Rnal Thisissue wl arise at a, future me Site Plan approval w, �,l ur. 04W Ms. Joan Lent Noteboom January 17, 2000 Page 2 It is my understanding that the Ethics Board ill render are advisory opinion within thirty days. S' cerely, j /Y /,( /,-I/ I/ David L. Klein Councilman Copy: Supervisor Valentino TOWN OF ITHACA ETHICS COMM SPECIAL MEETING Date.-j February 8, 20010 PLEASE PR Apr NAME PLEASE P , D R SA L (Plelase PRINT to ensure, Accuracy iin officiall Minutes) ■