Following AG’s opinion, semantics ensue

RENSSELAERVILLE — Rensselaerville residents and officials disagreed this month over an opinion handed down by the state’s Attorney General’s office.

Earlier this year, the town board directed Joseph Catalano, the town’s attorney, to obtain an opinion on whether Democratic Councilman Gary Chase can vote for the appointment and salary of his mother as clerk to the highway superintendent.  The highway superintendent is Gary Chase’s father, G. Jon Chase. 

On New Year’s Day, as the Democrats gained control of the town board, they created the position of clerk to the highway superintendent and appointed Joyce Chase to the position, a post she had held before the recent Republican administration saw it as a conflict of interest.  Councilman Chase did not recuse himself from the vote, which was carried 3-2, with the Republicans opposed.  At a later meeting, the board voted on Joyce Chase’s salary; Councilman Chase also did not recuse himself from that vote, which, according to Rensselaerville’s town clerk, was 4-1.

The April 11 opinion, which is non-binding, says, “We have opined in the past that two members of the same family generally may serve one municipality, but to the extent that one family member is involved in establishing the terms and conditions of employment or salary of second family member, he or she should recuse him- or herself from the deliberations and voting on those matters.”

The opinion says conflict-of-interest questions are more appropriately answered by local authorities who are in positions to be aware of relevant facts and local conditions that may bear on the issue.

The opinion recommends that, if the town does not have a board of ethics, it consider convening one to consider such questions. 

“We have previously explained that such a board can be convened on short notice,” the opinion says. 

Catalano, who was appointed by the Democrats and replaced a lawyer the Republicans in the former administration had chosen, called the attorney general’s opinion “non-committal at best.”  He and the town’s supervisor, Republican Jost Nickelsberg, quarreled at the May 8 board meeting over their interpretations of the opinion.  Nickelsberg said “should” means “ought to.”  Catalano said the opinion says “should,” not “must,” and asked Nickelsberg whether “should” is a mandatory term. 

Resident Noreen Gangi and Nickelsberg claimed that the vote on the clerk’s appointment, given the opinion, is 2-2.  In a 2-2 vote, no action is taken.

“Our votes are based on trusting that you [the town board] would ethically represent the best interests of our townspeople,” said Gangi.  She asked that the town board remove the clerk immediately and “act openly and fairly in advertising any and all other positions that become available” and that all money paid to the clerk be immediately be returned to the town.

The attorney general’s office did not respond before press time. 

In recent months, Rensselaerville’s town board and residents have clashed over the issue of nepotism.  Since Catalano was reinstated on Jan. 1, when power shifted to the Democrats, Nickelsberg, has disagreed with Catalano over a number of issues.  Throughout the two-and-a-half years in which he has served as Rensselaerville’s supervisor, Nickelsberg has fought measures where he has seen conflicts of interest. 

Residents demand ethics and civility

On May 8, at the town board’s meeting, Rensselaerville residents questioned the trust they place in their elected officials and the functionality of the board.  At the meeting, officials discussed many issues, including the attorney general’s opinion, paying vendors on time, hiring a mechanic for the highway department, and changing the amount of time allowed for residents on the town board’s agenda.  Throughout, board members and the highway superintendent made sarcastic and cynical remarks and made personal attacks on one another.  

Resident Francis Coward broke the audience’s silence.  His comments were met with thunderous applause from the large crowd. 

“I’m a taxpayer,” he said, “and I’m so embarrassed with this political nit-picking.  Can we get on with the business and the wider interests of the taxpayers, please?” 

Coward later questioned the board about the town’s code of ethics and whether members of the board are ethical and honest.  His comments followed reports of town officials spending taxpayer money on alcoholic drinks and nightclubs while attending a conference in New York City. 

Coward referred to “an amendment to the town charter” the board discussed and tabled in January. 

“It had to do with honesty and ethics and the conduct of the business of the town to protect the wider interests of the taxpayers,” he said.  “Has that discussion been terminated?  Was it discussed?”

Democratic Councilwoman Marie Dermody said, “We are in the process of putting together a code of ethics.”

She said she had spoken to someone that day at the Albany Law School, and, as soon as a document is put together, she will show it to Catalano.

“We’re going to do what we need to do with it and present it to the town board.  It is in process,” said Dermody. 

“I’m absolutely delighted to think that there could be a discussion on honesty and ethics.  I suppose you either are or you are not.  You can’t be honest Monday, Wednesday, Friday, ethical on Tuesday and Thursday,” said Coward. 

He said he doesn’t know why, after three months, it cannot be brought up again. 

“It’s an amendment to the town charter to protect the wider interests from exactly the sort of sitcom we sat here and listened to tonight,” Coward said.  “Honesty is honesty.  Ethical behavior is ethical behavior.”