Letter to the Editor: Buckley waiting to hear on conflict regarding Chappaqua Crossing
Monday, September 27, 2010
Dear Editor,
On September 20, 2010, I filed a Freedom of Information request (“FOIL”) with the Town of New Castle asking for all documents related to any inquiry into whether John Buckley, a member of the town board and a real estate broker at Houlihan Lawrence, should recuse himself from participating in the discussions about and voting on the zoning change requested for Chappaqua Crossing.
On Friday, September 24, 2010, I received the following three documents in response to my request:
(1) A letter, dated July 7, 2008, addressed to John Buckley from Ellen Hexter, Chairperson, New Castle Board of Ethics;
(2) An email, dated September 16, 2010, from John Buckley to Jill Shapiro (Town Clerk, Receiver of Taxes and member of Board of Ethics); and
(3) An email, dated September 23, 2010, from John Buckley to Jill Shapiro.
There were no additional documents that addressed this issue in the FOIL response, so it can only be concluded that this is still an open issue. Indeed, in Mr. Buckley’s email, dated September 16, 2010, to Jill Shapiro he writes:
Dear Ms. Shapiro:
Noting my position as an elected official (member of the Town Board of New Castle) and my other two jobs: 1) an associate broker with Houlihan Lawrence and 2) a sales representative of Thoroughbred Title Company (wholly owned by Houlihan Lawrence), I kindly ask the Board of Ethics to review my position as an elected official to determine if I have a conflict in participating in the hearings, contributing to the EIS and making a determination on Summit-Greenfield’s petition before the Town. I would request that any decision regarding this question have adequate supporting documentation.
Thank you, and the Board of Ethics, for your fair and honest review of my question.
Sincerely,
John Buckley
Member of the Town Board of New Castle
I find it very curious that Mr. Buckley is now asking whether he has a conflict participating in the hearings and contributing to the Environmental Impact Study (“EIS’) since he has been involved in hearings and review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) for three years. During this time he has been making suggestions and contributions from his perspective as a real estate broker at one of the foremost real estate brokerages in New Castle and Westchester.
I also find it curious that we have not received a response from the Board of Ethics yet. This is obviously a time sensitive subject since the public hearing is Tuesday, and a decision from the Board could be imminent.
To his credit, Mr. Buckley certainly appreciates the urgency as he sent Jill Shapiro a follow up email on September 23, 2010, which stated “I am hoping to have a decision by Tuesday. Thank you for your help in this matter. It is a sensitive subject that is best answered promptly.”
New Castle Code of Ethics indicates that Buckley should recuse himself
In my letter to the editor titled “Town Board member Buckley should recuse himself from Chap. Crossing issue,” which appeared in last Friday’s edition of NewCastleNow.org, I reviewed the Town of New Castle’s Code of Ethics, and reviewed relevant case law, and determined there was indeed a conflict.
Accordingly to the Town of New Castle’s Code of Ethics Section 9-3 (A) “No town official or employee shall act in an official capacity in connection with any “transaction” or contract in which he has an “interest.” An “interest” is defined as “a participation, connection or involvement of any sort which may result in a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit.” (Emphasis added.) A “transaction” is defined as “any activity, application (emphasis added) or proceeding which requires or may require an official act or action of a town official or employee or a town body.”
Estimates are that Chappaqua Crossing will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in sales from the 199 units to be offered. Houlihan Lawrence is a major market share leader and will undoubtedly reap a major market share of commissions from this project. Not only does this have the appearance of impropriety, but Mr. Buckley’s action on the developer’s application could very well result in a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit to him.
As one court noted, of the utmost importance is that “the public be assured that their officials are free to exercise their best judgment without any hint of self-interest or partiality, especially if a matter under consideration is particularly controversial.”
Byer v. Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, 852-853 (3rd Dept. 1996).
No doubt, this matter under consideration is particularly controversial. This is the most important issue facing our town in decades.
Even the town of New Castle recognized a potential conflict in 2008 when the Chairperson of the Board of Ethics wrote a letter to Mr. Buckley on July 7, 2008, which stated “we suggest that you be particularly attuned to the risk of a conflict because of your status as a broker.”
John Buckley should immediately recuse himself from any and all decisions regarding Chappaqua Crossing. If he fails to recuse himself, any action approved by the Town Board will and should be subject to judicial review in an Article 78 proceeding, which is the mechanism to challenge the determination of a Town Board in a New York State court. For the sake of our town, I certainly hope he does the right thing.
It is critically important for everyone to attend the information session on Tuesday, September 28 at 7:30 p.m. at Town Hall. And if you haven’t already, please take a moment to sign my petition below and help defeat the proposed rezoning and residential construction at Chappaqua Crossing. Here’s the link for the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fighttostop
Rob Greenstein
If I am reading this correctly, the first communication on the record from the Board of Ethics was sent on July 7, 2008. This was more than a year after the Town Board of which Mr. Buckley was a member had designated itself as Lead Agency for the purpose of reviewing the Summit Greenfield application(s) in July 2007.
There is no written record of Mr. Buckley questioning the ethical implication of his official participation before September 16, 2010. That is less than two weeks ago.
If other documents exist I certainly hope that they are made public. It would be very disturbing to learn that the Board of Ethics, Mr. Buckley OR the Town Board did not see a potential conflict of interest before the dates of these three documents.
I find it odd that an intelligent attorney who is also an elected official needs to finally ask the board of ethics to excuse himself from being involved in any shape or form with the Chappaqua Crossing development. If the conflict is potential it is a definitely a conflict. Therefore, John Buckley should definitely and professionally excuse himself. What happened to common sense and intelligence?
Given the number of serious problems with the town board and the SG application for rezoning, it would seem that this is one of the problems that is simple to resolve.
The board and Mr. Buckley should show their good faith to the community, and responsiveness to community concerns, by announcing the recusal of Mr. Buckley at Tuesday’s meeting.
Mr Greenstein has made the case for the recusal of Mr. Buckley.
Why the Supervisor has consistently tried to sweep legitimate concerns and significant issues under the rug, in the case of the SG application, is baffling to the community.
I would like to see the response of the Board of Ethics to Mr. Buckley’s letter before forming a point of view on this issue, and hope that NewCastleNOW will obtain and publish the letter.
SHAMEFULL! - Buckley works for the largest real estate agency in Westchester. He is a real estate broker for crying out load and he works for one of the most active firms in New Castle and surrounding areas. If Chapp Crossing should go residential he and his employer will most certainly benefit. How could this be anything but a conflict of interest? Does anybody following this think that there is any chance that Buckley will vote against the developer? Residential development at Reader’s Digest will put money in his pocket - if he doesn’t recuse himself then some ethics review must oust him. This is plain common sense people. Our community is at stake.
If Buckley fails to recuse himself, a boycott of Houlihan Lawrence is in order. Every member of this community should see to it that the profit that Houlihan Lawrence reaps from this development is the last profit they ever earn from the Town of New Castle.
The work that can be derived from Chappaqua Crossing is worth an enormous amount of money to Houlihan Lawrence. Even if he wanted to recuse himself, I’m sure his colleagues and especially his boss would be VERY displeased with him. If the Board of Ethics has any sense at all, it’s time for them to step up and act ethically themselves!
Buckley must recuse himself. Impossible for him not to be partial to the developer, unless he got into the real estate business for the long weekend hours and not the money. We need something at Readers, I just don’t trust this board.
@hit em where i thurts, I will Boycott HL for sure. All about it.
finally, Has anyone tried the new brick oven place and do they have beer?
Thank you NewCastleNOW.org! Without your coverage I suspect Mr. Buckley would not have changed his mind and recused himself.
Special kudos to fellow reader Rob Greenstein whose FOIL request, legal research and letter created the environment for this important development.
Also a shout out and thank you to all those who voiced an opinion in this space.
