ORANGE COUNTY COURT GRAND JURY

SPECIAL TERM 1

Report # 2014-001

April 25, 2013

In re: ORANGE COUNTY ETHICS LAW

GRAND JURY REPORT CPL 190.85 (1) (C)

David R. Fritz

Foreperson

Gregory Phillips

Secretary

David M. Hoovler Orange County District Attorney

2

ORANGE COUNTY COURT GRAND JURY

APRIL 25, 2014

GRAND JURY REPORT, CPL §190.85 (1) (C)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Orange County Grand Jury Special Term # 1 was empanelled on February 28, 2014,

by Order of the Honorable Jeffrey G. Berry, County Court Judge.1 The Special Grand Jury was

empanelled upon the request District Attorney David M. Hoovler, who had appeared before the

Orange County Legislature on February 20, 2014, following public concern over an Orange

County legislator having been involved in possible conflicts pertaining to renovations of the

Orange County Government Center; and whether questions over such conflicts of interest

invalidated plans to renovate the Government Center which had previously been approved.2

On April 4, 2014, by Order of the Honorable Jeffrey G. Berry the Grand Jury’s term was

extended to allow it to complete the investigation which is the subject of this report.3

The Grand Jury heard testimony from 20 witnesses covering nearly 935 pages of

testimony and considered 117 exhibits which collectively totaled over 5,000 pages. With the

exception of the Orange County legislator who was the subject of this Grand Jury investigation,

all those who testified before this Grand Jury received immunity from any criminal prosecution

that may have resulted from testimony elicited before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury’s

investigation focused on whether an Orange County legislator violated the criminal conflict of

interest provisions of the New York State General Municipal Law as well as Orange County’s

Ethics Law (which provides for civil penalties)4; and whether Orange County’s Ethics Law is

3

sufficient to disclose and avoid conflicts of interests by Orange County officials, and how that

law is implemented.

As a result of this investigation, the following report has been adopted by the Grand

Jury pursuant to New York State Criminal Procedure Law § 190.85 (1) (c), and is respectfully

submitted to the court.

This report attempts to succinctly review violations of the Orange County Ethics Law

which arose from conflicts of interest that occurred when an Orange County legislator accepted

part-time employment with a county vendor and failed to make mandated disclosures regarding

that employment. The Grand Jury’s investigation included an examination of the Orange County

Ethics Law itself, how that law was implemented and enforced by the Orange County Ethics

Board, and the manner in which Orange County’s elected and appointed officials comply with

and are trained with respect to recognizing and reporting conflicts of interests. Additionally, the

report outlines deficiencies found in Orange County’s ethics training program.

The Grand Jury found, based on the evidence before it, that the county legislator

[hereinafter “Legislator A”] violated Orange County’s Ethics Law when he failed to make

mandated public disclosures regarding his employment with an architectural firm [hereinafter

“Vendor X”], which had entered into a $4.7 million dollar contract with the County to plan and

design renovations for the Orange County Government Center, and six other County buildings.

At that time, Legislator A was chairman of a legislative statutory committee working on the

Government Center project and also was a member of an “Ad Hoc Building Committee”

exclusively devoted to that project. Those public disclosures were required to be made to both

the Orange County Legislature and the Orange County Ethics Board. Moreover, Legislator A

4

failed to recuse himself from two votes pertaining to these projects even after he had been

offered and intended on accepting employment with Vendor X.

However, the Grand Jury also found that Legislator A’s actions fell within a statutory

exception to the New York State General Municipal Law which attaches criminal sanctions to

those willfully engaging in certain conflicts of interests.5 The Grand Jury also determined that

the legislator’s actions were not “willful” as the term is used the General Municipal Law, in that

it appears that Legislator A was not aware of his duties under the law, as was evidenced by his

attempting to seek guidance from the attorney working for the legislature, as well as the

Orange County Ethics Board. Although these inquiries did not rise to the level of the public

notice which the legislator is required to give under the Orange County Ethics Law, these

communications, and others that he made orally to a number of Orange County officials,

contained substantially all of the information that should have been publically disclosed and

demonstrate that Legislator A was not attempting to conceal his employment from those

bodies. As such, the Grand Jury found that Legislator A’s actions were not “knowing and

willful” as those terms pertain to crimes under the relevant General Municipal Law and that

Legislator A therefore did not commit any crime in violation of the General Municipal Law. For

the same reason Orange County’s contract with the vendor is not void as there has been no

“willful” violation of the law, as it pertains to Vendor X’s contract with Orange County.6

Additionally, the Grand Jury determined that the Orange County Board of Ethics failed to make

a timely response to the legislator’s request for an advisory opinion due to a lack of available

resources.

The Grand Jury believes that it is imperative that the facts and recommendations of this

report be made public. The Grand Jury’s investigation revealed deficiencies in the Orange

5

County Ethics Law itself and in the way it is implemented. Elected County officials and County

employees have practically no training with respect to their duties under the law. County

vendors do not fall under the laws mandates. Perhaps more distressingly in this case, when

Legislator A attempted to get advice with respect to the law he did not receive timely advice

from either the Legislature’s counsel, or the County Ethics Board, nor was information received

by those entities made available to other government officials affected by the conflict of

interest. The Grand Jury has reviewed other jurisdictions conflict of interest legislation and

recommends certain changes to Orange County’s Ethics Law and how it is implemented.

I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

Orange County’s Government in its present form came into being in 1970 and consists

only of the Executive and Legislative branches.7 (The Judicial branch of government that

functions at the County level is a creation of New York State statutes and is administered by the

Office of Court Administration.)8 The Orange County Charter and Administrative Code is the

authoritative procedural manual for Orange County government. The Charter delineates the

powers and duties of: the County Executive, the District Attorney, the County Clerk, and the

Legislature. It also dictates the powers and duties of each county department. (The

Legislature’s Attorney described the Charter and Code as the “Bible” of Orange County

Government.) 9

Orange County has twenty-one legislative districts, with one legislator representing

each district. With the exception of the Chairperson of the Legislature, being an Orange County

legislator is a “part-time” position and many of the legislators have other employment. Many of

the legislators do this work as a public service. The Chairman of the Legislature is elected by

the members of the legislature. One of the main duties of the Chairman is to appoint from

6

among the members of the legislature the chairpersons and members of the eight statutory

committees. Upon authorization of a majority of the legislature, the Chairman of the

Legislature may appoint Special Committees to aid the legislature in its work. Within the

legislature, there are three parties, Republican, Democratic, and Independence. The

Republican Party is the majority party and has eleven legislators. The Democratic Party has

nine members and there is one Independence Party Legislator. Each of the parties selects a

leader. At all times relevant to this report the Republican leader was designated the Majority

Leader and Democratic Party Leader was designated a Minority Leader. In 2012 and 2013 the

Majority Party leader was the Honorable Melissa Bonacic. In 2012 and 2013 the Minority Party

leader was the Honorable Jeffrey Berkman. In 2012 and 2013 the Independent Party leader

was the Honorable Michael Amo.10 The Majority Leader represents the party that has the most

members. The members of each political party pick their leader by a majority vote of their

members. The role of these party leaders is, in part, to assist their members in carrying out

their duties as legislators.

The Chairman of the Legislature is responsible for overseeing the daily operations of the

legislature. He meets with party leaders and chair-people for the committee. The Chairman of

the Legislature works with the County Executive to move legislation and policy forward. In

2013 the Chairman of the Legislature was the Honorable Michael R. Pillmeier from the Village of

Florida. The current Chairman of the Legislature, is the Honorable L. Stephen Brescia, of

Montgomery, who took that position in 2014.

The Orange County Charter prescribes that that the County Legislature shall appoint a

clerk. The Clerk of the legislature for 2013 and 2014 is Jean Ramppen. Her duties involve:

preparing an agenda for all meetings of the legislature; attending all meetings of the

7

legislature; making a record of all proceedings; and maintaining all official records and files of

the legislature.

The legislature employs one attorney as Legislative Counsel. At all times relevant to this

report the same attorney served as Legislative Counsel and is hereinafter referred to as

“Attorney A.” That attorney has multiple responsibilities and is the sole legal advisor to the

legislature with respect to County civil matters. Attorney A prepares all local laws, ordinances,

and resolutions upon request of the legislature, and performs such other related duties as the

legislature requests.11 Attorney A also provides guidance with respect to adopting and passing

the Orange County budget and provides guidance to legislative committees.

The eight “statutory committees” within the legislature are: Personnel and

Compensation; Physical Services; Health and Mental Health; Public Safety and Emergency

Services; Ways and Means; Human Services; Rules Enactments; and, Intergovernmental

Relations, Education and Economic Development. Each committee oversees numerous

designated county departments. There are seven to eight legislators on each committee. The

Legislature’s Chairperson appoints one legislator to act as Chairperson for each committee. The

Committee Chairperson has significant discretion over what matters appear before their

committee, how those matters are handled, and hence which matters that committee forwards

to the full legislature for further action.

The Orange County Charter delineates the powers and duties of the County Executive

who is the chief executive of the county and is responsible for: appointing department heads

subject to approval of the legislature; presenting a budget to the legislature annually;

supervising and directing the executive branch; approving or disapproving every proposed local

law; approving a system for the procurement of goods and services by the county; making,

8

signing, and implementing all contracts on behalf of the county; and making recommendations

to the County Legislature with respect to the affairs of the County.

In 2011, as a result of damage caused by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, the

Orange County Government Center was vacated. Subsequently, the County Executive and

Legislature began making decisions as to how to repair, renovate or rebuild that facility and six

other County owned buildings. One of the two legislative statutory committees which had the

most significant involvement in evaluating and choosing among the proposals for funding and

conceptual design of the Orange County Government Center and other County buildings was

the statutory committee of which Legislator A was Chairperson.

As is more fully set forth below, on July 1, 2013, a team of architectural firms, including

Vendor X, were notified that they had been selected by Orange County as the team that would

design and plan repairs, renovations and construction for the Orange County Government

Center and six other county owned buildings, and that Orange County intended on entering into

a contract with them for that purpose.12 On September 24, 2013, a contract was signed by

Orange County with Vendor X engaging them to perform this work.13 In November 2013 the

Principal of Vendor X offered Legislator A part-time employment. On or about December 5,

2013, Legislator A informed Attorney A that Legislator A was going to accept employment with

Vendor X.14 Attorney A recommended that the legislator send a letter to the Orange County

Ethics Board seeking an Advisory Opinion as to how that would affect the legislator’s duties in

the legislature.

By letter dated December 23, 2013, Legislator A requested a confidential advisory

opinion from the Orange County Ethics Board. In that letter Legislator A set forth a chronology

of events which included that the Principal of Vendor X had first approached Legislator A about

9

potential employment in November 2013, (over one month after Vendor X had signed the

contract with Orange County and approximately four months after Vendor X had been notified

that their team had been selected as architects for the project.) For reasons discussed more

fully below, to date the County Ethics Board has never issued an advisory opinion on this

matter.

Notwithstanding pending employment with Vendor X, Legislator A continued to work as

a legislator on the Orange County Government Center project including: actively participating

on an “Ad Hoc Building Committee” which was devoted exclusively to the project that was

comprised of officials from both the legislative and executive branches. He also presided as

Chairperson of one of the main statutory committees overseeing the project, and casting a vote

in that committee pertaining to that project on December 9, 2013. Further, he cast a vote

pertaining to that project at a meeting of the full legislature on December 12, 2013.

In early January 2014, the newly appointed Chairman of the Legislature, the Honorable

L. Stephen Brescia, removed Legislator A from the Ad Hoc Building Committee because he “felt

it would be a conflict of interest.”15 Legislator A remained on the statutory committee for which

he had been Chairperson, but was removed as Chairperson. Mr. Brescia testified that, “I just

didn’t think it would be a good perception out there if he were chairman and working for

[Vendor X]. I felt that he could still serve on the committee and recuse himself from any votes

that would pertain to work done by [Vendor X].”16

Legislator A began his employment with Vendor X on January 20, 2014.17 On January

22, 2014, Legislator A filed the Annual Financial Disclosure Form mandated by Orange County’s

Ethics law and on it disclosed his employment with Vendor X.18 The Annual Disclosure Forms

are available for public inspection and are frequently examined by the public.19 On February 1,

10

2014, a local newspaper published a front page article regarding Legislator A’s employment with

Vendor X. Legislator A resigned from Vendor X on February 5, 2014.20 The Grand Jury had to

make a threshold inquiry whether Legislator A’s actions violated criminal provisions of New York

State conflict of interests laws. Below that inquiry is explained.

II. STATE AND LOCAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS

General Municipal Law Article 18

Article 18 of the New York State General Municipal Law is the New York State statute

governing prohibited conflicts of interests for “municipal officers and employees.” The definition

of a “municipality” under the law includes a county, such as Orange County.21 General

Municipal Law § 800 (5) defines a “’Municipal officer or employee” as “an officer of employee

of a municipality, whether paid or unpaid, including members of any administrative board,

commission or other agency thereof and in the case of a county, shall be deemed to also

include any officer of employee paid from county funds…”22 Thus, Orange County legislators as

well as other elected and appointed Orange County Government employees are within the

definition of “municipal employees” and are bound by the strictures of General Municipal Law

Article 18.

General Municipal Law § 801 (a) states that “[n]o municipal officer or employee shall

have an interest in any contract with the municipality of which he is an officer or employee,

when such officer or employee, individually or as a member of a board, has the power or duty

to negotiate, prepare, authorize or approve the contract or authorize or approve payment

thereunder...” Clearly, as Chairperson of one of the main statutory committees working on the

Orange County Government Center Project, and as a member of the Ad Hoc Building Committee

11

tasked with choosing an architectural firm, deciding what the firm’s compensation should be,

and approving the scope of work that they would perform, Legislator A had powers pertaining

to Vendor X’s contract with Orange County, which according to General Municipal Law § 801 (a)

precludes him from having an “interest” in the contract.

An “interest” means a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a

municipal officer or employee as the result of a contract with a municipality which such officer

or employee serves.23 General Municipal Law § 800 (3) (b) states that, “For the purposes of this

article a municipal officer or employee shall be deemed to have an interest in the contract of

firm, partnership or association of which such officer or employee us a member or employee.”

Based on the above, it is clear that absent an exception, when Legislator became an employee

of Vendor X, he is deemed to have an interest in Vendor X’s contract with Orange County.

The existence of Legislator A’s interest in the contract with Orange County triggers

disclosure requirements both under General Municipal Law Article 18, and as is more fully

discussed below, under Orange County’s Ethics Law. General Municipal Law § 803 provides

that, “Any municipal officer or employee who has, will have, or later acquires an interest in any

actual or proposed contract … including oral agreements, with the municipality of which he or

she is an officer or employee, shall publically disclose the nature and extent of such interest in

writing to his or her immediate supervisor and to the governing body thereof as soon as he or

she has knowledge of such actual or prospective interest. Such written disclosure shall be made

part of and set forth in the official record of the proceedings of such body.” (Emphasis added.)

Willful violations of the conflict of interest prohibitions of General Municipal Law can

result in both criminal sanctions and voiding of the contract. Pursuant to General Municipal Law

§ 805, “Any municipal officer or employee who willfully and knowingly violates the [conflict of

12

interest prohibitions set forth in General Municipal Law § 801] shall be guilty of a

misdemeanor.” Additionally, “Any contract willfully entered into by or with a municipality in

which there is an interest prohibited by [General Municipal Law Article 18] shall be null, void

and wholly unenforceable.”24

The Grand Jury has determined, based on the evidence before it, that the actions of the

legislator in question, while violating Orange County’s Ethics Law, as a matter of law fall within

one of the exceptions to the conflict of interests provisions of

General Municipal Law Article 18. The evidence before the Grand Jury establishes that the

critical actions Legislator A took with respect to the contract and the project occurred well prior

to his discussing and accepting employment with the architectural firm. Nothing Legislator A

did in his capacity as a legislator affected his compensation from the firm, or how much money

the firm would receive from Orange County. Indeed, Vendor X was selected by Orange County

on July 1, 2013, and entered into a contract with Orange County on September 24, 2014. The

first substantive employment discussions Legislator A had with Vendor X were in November

2013.25

General Business Law § 802 (1) (b) states that the conflict of interest law provisions do

not apply to, “A contract with a … firm… in which a municipal officer or employee has an

interest which is prohibited solely by reason of employment as an officer or employee thereof, if

the remuneration of such employment will not be directly affected as a result of such contract

and the duties of such employment do not directly involve the procurement, preparation, or

performance of any part of the contract.” 26 The actions of Legislator A fall squarely within this

section.

13

Legislator A’s conflict of interest arose solely by reason of his employment by Vendor X.

All of the evidence in the Grand Jury, including Legislator A’s statements to the Legislature’s

attorney, his letter seeking an opinion form the Orange County Ethics Board, as well as the

testimony of the principal owner of Vendor X indicate that Legislator A’s duties with Vendor X

were to seek business opportunities for Vendor X in the Hudson Valley region, including within

the geographical confines of Orange County, but explicitly not with Orange County itself as a

governmental entity, thus, the duties of his employment do not involve the “performance” of

any part of the firm’s contract with Orange County.

Nor could Legislator A’s duties with the firm be proved to have had anything to do with

the “procurement” or “preparation” of the contract with Vendor X. In fact an examination of

the timeline in the case indicates otherwise. The uncontroverted evidence27 in the Grand Jury

was that on July 1, 2013, Orange County indicated to Vendor X that the County intended to

contract with them and on September 24, 2013, the contract was signed. The principal of

Vendor X, Legislator A, and Attorney A all indicated that the first communications between the

Legislator A and Vendor X regarding potential employment occurred in November 2013 and

Legislator A did not begin employment until January 20, 2014, well after the contract was

prepared and procured. Since the legislator’s conduct falls within the statutory exception set

forth in General Municipal Law § 802 (1) (b) he is, as a matter of law, not guilty of a crime

under the General Municipal Law.

Orange County’s Contract with the Architectural Firm Is Not Void Under General Municipal Law

Based on the above, Vendor X could not have been willfully entered into the contract

with Orange County when there was a conflict of interest prohibited by General Municipal Law

14

Article 18, since any such conflict interest arose long after the contract was executed. As such

the contract is not “null, void and wholly unenforceable” as those terms are used in General

Municipal Law § 804. Moreover, Legislator A’s disclosures of his employment with Vendor X on

his publically filed 2013 Annual Financial Disclosure Form, his written request for a confidential

opinion to the Ethic’s Board, as well as his oral disclosures to Attorney A, various legislators,

and three executive branch officials, negate a finding a willfulness under the General Municipal

Law as it applies to contracts with municipalities.

Orange County’s Current Ethics Law

“You have to have trust in government that your fellow elected officials are there

trying to do the right thing for the people. And that’s why you put laws, Ethics

Laws in place to say if you are too dumb to understand you shouldn’t be doing

something wrong, we have a law to tell you you shouldn’t do it.” Grand Jury

Testimony of Orange County Legislator28

On February 15, 1994, Orange County passed Local Law 2 of 1994 [hereinafter “the

Orange County Ethics Law”].29 Both this law, and its predecessor, provided for the filing of

annual financial disclosure statements by all elected and certain designated management level

appointed county officials and authorized a County Ethics Board to oversee implementation and

compliance with the law. The County Ethics Board main function is the collecting, retaining and

examining the mandated Annual Financial Disclosure Forms. As is described more fully below,

the County Ethics Board has also been invested with enforcement powers, including subpoena

power and the power to levy civil fines in an amount up to $10,000, although, as is more fully

discussed below, those powers have rarely been invoked. The Orange County Ethics law has

been amended several times.

15

The first amendment to the current Orange County Ethics Law was passed on May 13,

1994, to “make it specific and clear that the adoption of said Local Law was pursuant to the

authority contained in General Municipal Law § 821, Subdivision 3, and for the purpose of

exercising the option of removing Orange County from the ambit of said section.”30 General

Municipal Law § 812 (3) authorizes counties and other political subdivision to opt out of the

New York State Financial Disclosure system by passing their own local ethics law, which Orange

county opted to do. General Municipal Law § 812 provides that all political subdivisions in New

York State, including counties, who do not pass their own local laws are bound by the financial

disclosure regulations binding New York State Government officials, including filing the New

York State Annual Financial Disclosure Form with the Temporary State Commission on local

government ethics31 (now the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics). Had Orange

County not enacted an ethics law Orange County elected officials, and management level

employees, would be required to file the New York State form proscribed by General Municipal

Law § 813 (5) which, requires significantly more financial disclosure of the filer and the filer’s

immediate family.

Other changes to Orange County’s local laws to law included: making it unlawful “for

any person employed by the County of Orange to use of allow the use of his or her position or

title with the County for any private or non-county purpose or in connection with any private or

non-county function, organization, entity, group, activity or event;32 not indemnifying county

officials who misuse the official name, seal and authority of the county;33 prohibiting certain

county officials from acquiring properties at county taxation auctions;34 and, including “siblings”

of mandated filers in the definition of interest which already included the filer’s spouse and

children.

16

Orange County Ethics Law currently reaches only elected officials and County

employees, but not vendors who provide goods and services to the County. The Grand Jury

heard testimony that certain departments require department heads with specialized

knowledge. In the absence or unavailability of such individual, the county may hire a private

entity to handle the day to day management of that department. That manager would have all

the powers and responsibilities of a department head, but would not be required to provide

financial disclosure. On two occasions the county hired private companies to manage two

county departments: the nursing home and the airport.35 The Grand Jury highly recommends

that any private company managing a county department be required to comply with the

Orange County Ethics Law and make full financial disclosure.

Problems with Orange County’s Previous Ethics Law

“Two individuals who happened to have been members of the Orange County

Legislature ... took specific umbrage at having to reveal particulars of their

spouse’s financial information.” Former attorney for the Board of Ethics

The stated purpose of the 1994 Ethics law was to replace the earlier version, Local Law

No 1. of 1991,36 since, “Three years of experience with and under said law [Local Law No. 1 of

1991], and knowledge of the experience with and under said law, and knowledge of the

experience of other municipalities across the State, including the institution of litigation

attacking the terms and methods of the law, now indicate that the adoption of a new law to

replace the original, clarifying and simplifying certain of its aspects, is appropriate and

necessary to preserve and protect the essential purposes for which the State and local

legislation was enacted.” (Emphasis added.)37 Simply put, the law was changed to make the

financial reporting requirements less onerous.

17

Throughout the Grand Jury presentation the Annual Financial Disclosure Forms required

to be filed by New York State officials were compared by various witnesses to the annual

financial disclosure form currently required to be filed by Orange County officials.38 Michael H.

Donnelly, Esq., the first the attorney for the Orange County Ethics Board, who held that position

at the time the previous statute was in place, stated that “there was frankly very little

difference” between the filing requirements under Orange County’s previous Ethics Law and

what is currently required of New York State employees.39 The previous Orange County

Financial Form and the current New York State Financial Disclosure Form required mandated

filers to state, within certain ranges, their income, assets and employment and those of their

immediate family members. The current Orange County Ethics Law was passed to eliminate

those reporting requirements.

In discussing the previous local ethics law Mr. Donnelly noted that,” [T]here was a great

deal of tension created when Orange County enacted its Ethics Law. There were a number of

individuals that were covered by the law that served on volunteer advisory boards. A number

of those individuals felt, I don’t know if the word is ‘insulted’, but certainly took umbrage at the

fact that here they were volunteering to assist the County by providing some level of expertise

and yet were required to open their personal finances to public examination…”40 Some of

those who “took umbrage” resigned their positions on volunteer boards “because they were

unwilling to file the form.” 41 Nor was the negative reaction to the demands for financial

information on the Financial Disclosure Forms limited to volunteers. According to Mr. Donnelly,

“Certainly a number of other individuals who were covered because of their status as policy

makers, were covered employees, also felt that the form was onerous, difficult and frankly

insulting to them.” 42 Mr. Donnelly also testified that, “[T]wo individuals who happened to have

18

been members of the Orange County Legislature ... took specific umbrage at having to reveal

particulars of their spouse’s financial information.”43

After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain an exemption from providing information

mandated to be disclosed on the form one legislator challenged the law in New York State Court

and a portion of the law declared void for vagueness in that because it did not state the

standards by which exemption requests could be evaluated.44 The law was also challenged by

a second lawsuit in Federal Court.45 As a reaction to these problems the County adopted its

current Ethics Law, which mandates very little by way of disclosure compared to the old law,

what is required of New York State Officials, and what is required by other counties.

Annual Financial Disclosures under the Orange County Ethics Law

“It’s a short form. If you have no conflicts you just sign and notarize it on the

first page, you don’t have to deal with your spouse or children or siblings.”

“Probably 80 percent [of filers fill out] just the first page.” - Chairwoman of the

Orange County Board of Ethics.46

The Annual Financial Disclosure Forms filed by Orange County officials are public

documents.47 The filing deadline for Orange County’s current Annual Financial Disclosure Form

is January 31, although the form allows filers to obtain an automatic extension to March 15.48

The form calls for information which occurred the previous year. For example the form that

was required to be filed by January 31, 2014, calls only for information about events which

occurred in 2013. The first page of the form asks if you, your spouse your children or

dependents, members of your household (whether or not related by blood or marriage) or

siblings “Do business with Orange County” or “receive any benefit, payment or gift from any

19

person, firm company or organization doing business with Orange County [or is] licensed or

regulated by Orange County.” If the answers to these questions is “no”, the mandated filer

signs the form, has it notarized, and returns it to the Orange County Ethics Board. According to

Gail Sicina, the current Chairperson of the Orange County Ethics Board, approximately 80% of

the mandated filers only fill out the first page of the form.49 Thus, for those 80% of mandated

filers an answer of “no” to those questions constitutes the totality of their annual financial

disclosure.

If the answer to the questions on page 1 of the form is “yes” the filer is required to

answer four more questions. The first of these is, “Identify the following for all boxes checked

in Question 2: a. the name of the Immediate Family member; b. The Relationship with Orange

County; c. the monetary value in dollars attributable to the Relationship; and, d. The dates the

Relationship began and ended (or will end).”50 The next question asks, “For every member of

your Immediate Family identified in Question 3, including yourself, identify any payments

(including transfers of anything of a cumulative value in excess of $75.00) directly from or to: a.

The County of Orange.; b. any person or entity doing business with Orange County; and, c. any

person or entity regulated or licensed by Orange County.” Question 5 asks, “For every member

of your Immediate Family identified in Question 3, including yourself, identify any agreements

or promise of future employment or payment (including transfers of anything of a cumulative

value in excess of $75.00) from: a. The County of Orange.; b. any person or entity doing

business with Orange County; and, c. any person or entity regulated or licensed by Orange

County.” The final questions ask, “For every member of your Immediate Family identified in

Question 3, including yourself, identify any real property in or immediately adjacent to Orange

County. The identification should include at a minimum the street address, municipality,

20

property size, property use, and acquisition date. Include all property, whether the interest is

vested or contingent, where fifty present (50%) or more of the equitable interest is in the

properties held by Immediate Family members, including yourself. Do not include any primary

personal residence (including up to one acre of property) of an Immediate Family member

including yourself.” These six questions constitute the totality of the financial disclosure

required of Orange County officials by the Annual Financial Disclosure Form.

In contrast to the current Orange County Annual Financial Disclosure From, the Annual

Statement of Financial Disclosure which is filed by New York State officials with the New York

State Joint Commission on Public Ethics requires detailed financial information about the official

and their spouse from all mandated filers.51 This includes: listing any office or position of any

nature, whether compensated or not, with any organization other than the State of New York;

listing all employment for the filer and their spouse; all interests in excess of $1,000 that the

filer, their spouse or unemancipated child has in any contract with a state or local agency; any

position the reporting person has with a political party; if the filer practices law or another

licensed profession, a general description of the filer’s practice, including for recent clients who

paid over $10,000 in the reporting period, the client’s name and what services were rendered;

gifts in excess of $1,000 received by the filer, a spouse, or unemancipated child; all

reimbursements provided by non-governmental sources for activities related to the filer’s official

duties, such as speaking engagements; the value of all trust and deferred compensation plans;

contracts and promises between the file and any entity with respect to employment after the

filer leaves public office; the nature an amount of any income in excess of $1,000 of the filer

and their spouse, and the value of any securities held by the filer of their spouse; the value of

real property and accounts receivable of the filer and their spouse; and, all liabilities of the filer

21

and their spouse.52 The dollar amounts reported need not be exact but rather are within

certain categories. e.g. $50,000 to $75,000. As stated above, this is the information which all

Orange County elected and appointed mandated filers would have to provide to the NYS Joint

Commission of Ethics had Orange County not passed its own local Ethics Law.

Other Provisions of the Orange County Ethics Law Relevant to Legislator A

“[H]ad I known what the truth was, had the law been followed and I had known

that he has a conflicting interest and has a job, I would be pressing the issue

and … the other legislators would, and we wouldn’t be following this.”53

In addition to the Annual Financial Disclosure Forms, the current Orange County Ethics

law also mandates public disclosure of conflicts of interest as they occur. For reasons more

fully stated below, the Grand Jury has determined, based on the evidence before it that

Legislator A failed to comply with that section of the law.

Section 5, Subdivision 6, of the Orange County Ethics Law states, “Any officer or

employee who has, will have or intends to acquire a direct or indirect interest in any matter

being considered by the Legislature of the county of orange or by any other official, board,

agency, officer or employee of the county of Orange, and who participates in the discussion

before, or who gives an opinion or gives advice to, any board, agency or individual considering

the same, shall publicly disclose on the official record the nature and the extent of such

interest. Said officer or employee shall also file a written summary of said public disclosure with

the Board of Ethics within 10 days after said public disclosure.” (Emphasis added.)54

22

The definition of an “interest” under the Orange County Ethics Law tracks in large part

the definition of an “interest” in General Municipal Law § 800 (3) (b). Orange County Ethics

Law Section 3 (e), in so far as it is applicable to this report, states, “‘Interest’ means a direct or

indirect pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a county officer, employee or appointed

official, his or her souse, child sibling whether as a result of contract with the county or

otherwise… For the purpose of this chapter, a county officer, employee, or appointed official

shall be deemed to have an interest in the contract of a firm, partnership or association of

which such officer, employee or appointed official or his/her spouse, child or sibling is a

member or employee.” Thus, once Legislator A became an employee of Vendor X, which he

knew had a contract with Orange County, Legislator A was deemed under the Orange County

Ethics Law to have an interest in Vendor A’s contract with Orange County. This triggered

Legislator A’s obligation to make public disclosure of that interest. The Grand Jury found, and

Legislator A admitted in his testimony before the Grand Jury, that Legislator A failed to comply

with that law.

In order to comply with Orange County Ethics Law § 5 (6) of the, Legislator A was

required to make written public disclosure of his interest in the contract “on the official record”,

which in Legislator A’s case means on the record to the legislature while the legislature was in

session. Notably the statute required Legislator A to do this when he “intends to acquire” that

interest, which in Legislature A’s case would be when he had the job offer and he intended on

accepting that offer.55 When Legislator A testified before the Grand Jury he was asked the

following questions and gave the following answers:

Q: Did you ever make public disclosure to the Orange County Legislature of your employment with [Vendor X]?

Legislator A: Not in those terms, no. I didn’t know I had to.

23

Q: But is it correct to say that you never made public disclosure to the Legislature on the record of the Legislature?

Legislator A: Yes. 56

Significantly, Legislator A continued to advocate that his fellow legislators select a

particular building option on the Orange County Government Center Building project for which

Vendor X already had a contract with by the County, without informing the legislators

evaluating Legislator A’s arguments that Legislator A was intending to take a job with Vendor X.

Moreover, Legislator A voted twice on that option after discussing his possible employment with

Vendor X, once in the statutory committee of which Legislator was Chairperson, and once

before the full legislature. In both instances the Principal of Vendor X, who had offered

Legislator A the job, was physically present when both Legislator A’s votes were cast.

On December 9, 2013, Legislator A presided as chairperson of one of the main statutory

committees involved with the capital improvement project for the Orange County Government

Center. At that meeting two possible options for the Orange County Government Center were

being considered, both of which would have been performed by Vendor X. One of the options,

which Legislator A had actively advocated for both before the Ad Hoc Building Committee and

before the statutory committee of which Legislator A was chairperson, had been given a

nickname which referred to the last name Legislator A, and the last name of a legislator of

another political party who was also advocating for that option.57 Legislator A testified that he

advocated for that option at the meeting without informing his fellow legislators that he had

been discussing possible employment with Vendor X, and that the principal of Vendor X with

whom he had been discussing employment, was also physically present at that meeting.58 The

option Legislator A was advocating for was the option selected by his statutory committee and

24

was the only building project option considered by the whole legislature when they met on

December 12, 2013. According to Charles Lee, Commissioner of the Orange County

Department of Public Works, the option selected by the legislature was not the option which

would have been the most profitable to Vendor X.59

Legislator A admitted to the Grand Jury that the principal of Vendor X with whom he had

been discussing employment handed him a formal written job offer on December 12, 2013, at

the Orange County 911 Center where the legislature was meeting, prior to the vote on which

building option the legislature would choose.60 Legislator A still did not inform the other

legislators of the job offer. After receiving the job offer Legislator A continued to advocate for

the building option that was ultimately accepted by the legislator. The Grand Jury finds that

Legislator A had an obligation under the County Ethic Law to have publically disclosed the

“interest” in the contract he “intended to acquire” by virtue of his intent to accept employment

with Vendor X, at the very latest before the full legislature voted on the building option he was

advocating on December 12, 2013. Legislator A’s actions in not doing so were improper in that

they violated the County Ethics Law, but were not criminal in that the Orange County Ethics

Law does not provide for criminal sanctions.

The Grand Jury also determined that some of Legislator A’s actions as an employee of

Vendor X created an appearance of impropriety, and may have violated Orange County Ethics

Law. A County official testified that on January 21, 2014, he was chairing a meeting of the

Orange County Transportation Counsel Technical Committee.61 Until January 21, 2014, that

County official had never seen a County Legislator attend a Technical Committee Meeting.62

Legislator A attended the meeting, signing the sign-in sheet as “O.C. Legislator”.63 After the

meeting Legislator A began handing out Vendor X business cards bearing his name.64 Legislator

25

A unequivocally testified that his purpose in going to that meeting was not to transact Orange

County Legislature business, but rather to conduct business for Vendor X, notwithstanding how

he signed the sign-in sheet.65

In Legislator A’s letter to the Board or Ethics seeking an advisory opinion he stated that,

his position with Vendor X, ”will not require or include any duties or responsibilities pertaining to

any current or future projects for the County of Orange and there will be internal procedures

established to separate myself, appearance of any conflicts.”66 While it is true that Legislator A’s

participation at the Technical Committee Meeting was to reach out to State and Local

Municipalities, his signing in as an Orange County Legislator, at a meeting being run under the

auspices of an Orange County official raised at the very least the appearance of a conflict.

The County official accurately summed up the appearance of impropriety when he

testified, “I don’t know, there’s a certain distaste when, you know, that kind of thing, you know.

I don’t know, I mean here the Legislator here I see this Legislator at a meeting thinking, oh, its

good he wants to learn about the transportation planning or he’s got a constituent, but he’s

really just there hawking business. And he’s kind of clueless you know…”67

The Orange County Ethics Law specifically prohibits certain conduct. Orange County

Ethics Law Section 4 A. (1) states, “No officer or employee shall take action or participate in any

manner whatsoever in his or her official capacity in the discussion, negotiation or awarding of

any contract or in any business or professional dealings with the County of Orange or any

agency thereof in which the official or employee, their spouse, child or sibling has or will have

an interest, direct or indirect, in such contract or professional dealings.” Legislator A’s signing

into the meeting as an Orange County Legislator indicated that he was at the January 21, 2014

meeting in his official capacity, when his true purpose was to develop business for Vendor X.

26

The blurring of the line between Legislator A’s official function and private employment was

sufficient to surprise the County official who was not aware of Legislator A’s reason for being at

the meeting until the meeting ended.

Orange County Ethics Law Section 4 A. (2) states, “No officer or employee shall engage

in, solicit, negotiate for or promise to accept private employment or render services for his

personal benefit when such employment or services create a conflict or impairs the proper

discharge or his or her official duties.” Orange County Ethics Law Section 4 A. (2) states, “No

officer or employee shall take action on a matter before the county or any division thereof

when, to his or her knowledge, the performance of that action would provide a pecuniary or

material benefit to himself or herself.” The Grand Jury, based on the evidence before it,

recommends that the Orange County Board of Ethics, commence an inquiry into Legislator A’s

actions in appearing as Legislator at January 21, 2014 meeting in order to “hawk business” for

Vendor X, and if appropriate sanction Legislator A for violating these provisions of the Orange

County Ethics Law.

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS

“I think last year we probably met six or seven times. This year we’ve already

met almost four times.”68 - Attorney for the Board of Ethics

General Municipal Law Article 18 prohibits certain conflicts of interests by designated

elected and appointed government officials. The agency charged with investigating and

regulating conflicts of interests for New York State officials is the New York State Joint

Commission on Public Ethics. Public officers law Section 73-a requires elected officials holding

statewide office, and New York State employees to file an Annual Financial Disclosure Form with

this Ethics Commission. General Municipal Law Article 18 authorizes counties to create their

27

own Ethics Boards and Ethics Disclosure Statements. In the absence of such a local law, county

governmental officials, including elected and appointed officials such as those in Orange

County, would also have to fill out the New York State Annual Financial Form which they would

submit to the New York State Ethics Commission.

By a local law passed in 1992 Orange County created the Orange County Board of

Ethics in part to collect and review Orange County’s mandated Annual Financial Disclosure

Forms. The Board of Ethics is comprised of up to seven volunteer board members (there are

currently only six members sitting). Three of the Board’s members are appointed by the County

Executive and three are appointed by the Chairman of the Orange County Legislature. Each

Board member serves a three year term and can serve a maximum of two complete terms. It is

required that roughly half of the members be from different political parties. Currently three

Board members are registered in the Republican Party and three are registered in the

Democratic Party. The Orange County legislature approves the Annual Financial Disclosure

form which is filled out by those holding countywide elected office in Orange County, as well as

those appointed county officials having decision making authority.

The Orange County Board of Ethics provides no ethics training to either elected or

appointed officials. Board of Ethics’ duties include collecting the approximately 364 Financial

Disclosure Forms which are received each year from County officials,69 and examining them for

potential conflicts rendering confidential advisory opinions on potential conflicts of interest to

County officials who request them. The Board is also entrusted with subpoena power,70 and has

the authority to conduct hearings and render civil fines of up to $10,000,71 as well as make

referrals to prosecutor’s offices of criminal violations of the Orange County Ethics Law.72 Since

at least 1995 the Orange County Ethics Board has never issued a subpoena, conducted a

28

hearing, nor assessed a penalty.73 The current attorney for the Board testified that, “[W]e’re

loathed to hand out penalties as it would act contrary to our duty to render confidential

opinions.”74

The Orange County Board of Ethics maintains a small office at 15 Matthews Street,

Goshen, New York. The office is only open on Thursday afternoons between 1:00 pm and 5:00

pm. The Board has one employee who works for the Board during those hours. (That

employee is a full-time Orange County employee who works the rest of her 40 hour work week

as an employee for Orange County General Services.)75 The attorney works out of a private law

office which has other Orange County contracts. The attorney bills Orange County at a rate of

$135/hour, which is significantly less than the $325/hour rate the firm bills for the same

attorney’s work with private clients.76 The Orange County Ethics Board has an annual budget of

only $10,766.77 The majority of that budget is spent on the part-time clerical employee and

the attorney. The attorney for the Board of Ethics, who has held that position since 1995,

testified that at times he has worked more hours than he has been compensated for especially,

“if we have a busy season for the Board of Ethics. For instance, this year we’re probably going

to be over budget within the first three months.”78

The Orange County Board of Ethics meets roughly once a month, but not in the summer

or during holidays. The Chairperson of the Board of Ethics testified, “I think last year we

probably met six or seven times. This year we’ve already met almost four times.”79 During the

monthly meetings the Board discusses Financial Disclosure Forms that have been received, how

to obtain compliance from officials who have not filed the required forms, and what confidential

advisory opinions they will be issuing. The Board has historically rendered about two opinions a

year at the request of appointed and elected officials.80 Since the matter involving Legislator A

29

and Vendor X became public the amount of requests for confidential opinions has increased

dramatically, with at least eight requests for opinions being received in 2014.81 This represents

an increase of 400% in the number of request for opinions.

The Board of Ethics’ Actions Regarding Legislator A

“Normally it would have happened, you know, quicker. It was just what I call a

cascade of circumstances because typically when it would come in we would

schedule him for a meeting.” - Attorney for Board of Ethics82

By letter dated December 23, 2013, Legislator A requested a confidential advisory

opinion from the Orange County Board of Ethics.83 Legislator A had previously requested and

received a confidential advisory opinion from the Orange County Board of Ethics on an

unrelated matter in the past so Legislator A was familiar with the procedures. Rather than

mailing the letter seeking the opinion to the Orange County Board of Ethics official offices,

Legislator A mailed it to the private law firm where the attorney for the Ethics Board worked.

The request was received in the law firm on December 27, 2013.84 The attorney for the Board

of Ethics attempted to forward Legislator A’s request to the Chairperson of the Board by e-

mailing it to her home computer and had a copy of the request mailed to the Ethics Board

offices.85

On February 1, 2014, a local newspaper ran a front page article concerning Legislator

A’s employment with Vendor X.86 In the newspaper article Legislator A was quoted as stating

that he had not received a response from the Orange County Ethics Board to his request for an

advisory opinion. The first time the Chairperson of the Board of Ethics learned that Legislator A

had made a request for an advisory opinion was when she read the newspaper article on

30

February 1, 2014.87 The Chairperson became upset that she had not been aware of the request

and immediately tried to reach out to Legislator A and contacted the one part-time secretary for

the Ethics Board who stated that a letter was filed, but she was not sure who it was from.88

Legislator A returned the Ethics Board Chairperson’s call around 11:00 PM on February

1, 2014, and at the Chairperson’s request e-mailed another copy of the December 23, 2013

request to her home.89 During the telephone call the Chairperson informed Legislator A that

the Ethics Board’s next meeting was scheduled for February 27, 2014, and that he should plan

to attend to “explain everything that was in the letter.”90 An attorney retained by Legislator A

faxed a letter, dated February 26, 2014, to the attorney for the Ethics Board which stated, “In

light of the Special Orange County Grand Jury investigation that is currently underway by the

Orange County District Attorney, David Hoovler, [Legislator A] will not be appearing at

tomorrow’s Board of Ethics meeting, and will not be seeking an opinion at this time.”91 In light

of Legislator A’s attorney’s request and pending the outcome of this Grand Jury investigation,

the Orange County Board of Ethics has never rendered the advisory opinion which Legislator A

request in his December 23, 2014 letter.

Orange County Legislator Michael Anagnostakis sent a letter to the Orange County

Board of Ethics, which was “cc’d” to District Attorney Hoovler, the Orange County Legislature,

County Executive Neuhaus, Sheriff Dubois, County Attorney Chapman, Attorney A, and County

Republican Chairwoman Courtney Greene, citing his belief that Legislator A had violated the

above-described provisions of the Orange County Ethics Law and pointing out that “The Board

of Ethics may recommend removal for cause, or an Elected Official, or a civil penalty in an

amount not to exceed $10,000 may be imposed.”92 A response to Legislator Anagnostakis’

letter was sent to him and all the recipients of his letter, by the attorney for Board of Ethics on

31

March 3, 2014. The response stated, “[T]he Board [of Ethics] has determined to defer any

exercise of its jurisdiction in this matter pending the outcome of the investigation of the Special

Orange County Grand Jury empaneled by District Attorney Hoovler. The Board’s determination

is based on considerations including, among other things, the District Attorney’s primary

jurisdiction, the Board’s ordinary role as an advisory agency, and the risk of interfering with

either the investigation or [Legislator A’s] due process rights. The Board of Ethics reserved its

rights to exercise its jurisdiction pending the outcome of the Grand Jury investigation.”93

Although it is understandable that the Board of Ethics would defer any action of

Legislator A’s request for an advisory opinion after receiving the letter from Legislator A’s

attorney, that does not explain the Board of Ethics failure to provide an opinion between

December 27, 2014, the day the Board of Ethics’ attorney received Legislator A’s request for an

opinion, and February 26, 2014, the date of Legislator A’s attorney’s letter withdrawing that

request.

The Chairperson of the Board of Ethics was asked the following question and gave the

following answer:

Q: How long does it normally take for the Ethics Board to render an answer to a request for an advisory opinion?

A: It can take a few months by the time we get it and we contact the person and have them come in. sometimes we’ll review it first and then have them in after. We have questions ready for them. And then after they leave we make an opinion and send something out. We don’t tell them at that point what we’re going to say.”94

The Grand Jury believes that those seeking opinions should be able to receive answers

within ten business days, even if it requires the Board of Ethics receiving more resources so

that they can have more frequent meetings. The Grand Jury has also found, based on the

32

evidence before it, that the delay of rendering a timely opinion for Legislator A was also

affected by other factors, most notably a gross lack of resources or procedure for expedited

review by the Board of Ethics.

In describing the circumstances surrounding her not knowing about Legislator A’s

request for an advisory opinion, the Chairperson testified, “Well, I didn’t go in all of January

because I am the Deputy Tax Collector [for her local municipality not Orange County] and the

secretary was going in when she could despite sickness. We both got sick. She also, I think it

was snowing, stuff like that, so she didn’t go in every Thursday during that time. But she did

go in, obviously got the letter and put it in a file that I would be eventually reviewing.

Unfortunately, I didn’t go in January.”95 Moreover, the secretary was relatively new to her

position and the Chairperson did not receive the e-mail of Legislator A’s request from the Board

of Ethics attorney because she was having computer problems at home.96 The Grand Jury finds

no problems or flaws with the Chairperson’s explanation given the volunteer nature of the

Board of Ethics and the weather conditions noted in January 2014.

The Board of Ethics’ attorney also attributed some of the delay to the request coming “in

the middle of the holidays”.97 When asked by a Grand Juror about the Board of Ethics delay in

addressing Legislator A’s request for an advisory opinion, the Board of Ethics attorney stated,

“Normally it would have happened, you know, quicker. It was just what I call a cascade of

circumstances because typically when it would come in we would schedule him for a meeting.

We could have held a meeting in January and properly asked him to attend. You know it was

just this set of circumstances.”98

33

III. THE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER CAPITAL PROJECT

“Intended as a “unique” county center by the commissioning agency at the time,

it has been a divisive piece of the county landscape since its inception.” - Report

of Vendor X 99

In 2011 Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee caused extensive damage to the

Orange County Government Center and a number of other county owned buildings. The

flooding and damage caused by these storms resulted in the Government Center being

completely vacated by all Orange County governmental agencies and it remains vacated as of

the date of this report. All Orange County governmental entities that had been resided in the

County Government Center are currently carrying out their functions in various privately owned

rental properties which the county is now leasing. The Orange County Government Center

building complex is comprised of three main buildings which are designated as Divisions I, II

and III respectively, and does not include the Orange County Courthouse which is physically

attached to the Government Center Building Complex.

Since the time the Government Center was vacated, various Orange County

governmental actors have had trouble coming to a consensus as to what to do with the

Government Center. Both the executive branch, led by the County Executive, and the Orange

County Legislature have been involved in the decision making process as to what repairs or

renovations should be made to the government center and other county owned buildings,

although under the Orange County Charter only the County Executive can enter into

contracts.100

34

The Orange County Legislature acting as a whole, through various statutory

committees, and through an “Ad Hoc Building Committee’ which contained both legislators and

specially selected appointed officials from the executive branch, took the actions outlined below

with respect to the Government Center and six other county owned buildings. A summary of

these actions is contained in the timeline which attached to this report as Exhibit 1.

On August 2, 2012, the legislature passed a resolution, co-sponsored by Legislator A,

which allocated $75,000 for an architectural/engineering report containing cost estimates for

“reconstruction, repair or replacement” of the Orange County Government Center.101 On

December 20, 2012, a team of architectural and engineering firms, including Vendor X, were

selected to prepare that report.102 On February 7, 2013, the legislature approved a ten million

($10,000,000) dollar bond resolution establishing a “new capital project of the Department of

Public Works … for planning reconstruction, renovation and improvements to the Government

Center Building Complex (Divisions I, II and III)”.103 In May 2013, the team which included

Vendor X submitted the Forensic Report which noted that, “The Government Center at Orange

County was completed in October of 1970, and designed by American architect Paul Rudolph

from 1963-1967. Intended as a “unique” county center by the commissioning agency at the

time, it has been a divisive piece of the county landscape since its inception. The building is

comprised of three sections referred to as “Divisions I, II, and III,” and are 58,000 [square

feet], 33,200 [square feet] and 68,000 [square feet] respectively for a total of 159,200 [square

feet] in total.”104 The forensic study estimated the total cost to repair the government center,

absent architect/engineering and construction management fees, to be fifty million

($50,000,000) dollars.105

35

In February 2013, a request for proposal [hereinafter “RFP”] was sent out by the County

soliciting proposals for complete renovations of all three divisions of the Government Center as

well as six other county owned buildings.106 Any potential vendors wishing to respond to the

RFP had to submit their proposals by March 19, 2013. The RFP stated that all of the buildings

had been in service for over twenty years and required modernization and that the Government

Center, the 1841 Courthouse and Annex and the 1887 Building incurred damage as a result of

Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.107 Two addendums to the RFP were put out on

February 22, 2013, and March 12, 2013, respectively. A copy of the February 22, 2013,

addendum, which rescheduled a site walk and walk through, was signed as having been

received by an employee of Vendor X.108 The March 12, 2013, Addendum answered question

raised about the RFP by Vendor X, and was signed as having been received by the same

employee of Vendor X as the February 22, 2013 Addendum.109

On March 19, 2013, various responses to the RFP were received by the Orange County

Department of Public works, including a proposal from a team of architectural and engineering

firms which included Vendor X, which was signed by the principal of Vendor X.110 An “Ad Hoc

Building Committee” had been created which consisted of then County Executive Edward Diana

(often represented by his Deputy County Executive James O’Donnell), five appointed officials of

the executive branch and seven legislators, including Legislator A, the Legislative Chairman, and

the legislative leaders of each of the political parties represented in the legislature.111 The Ad

Hoc Building Committee narrowed the proposals that were to be considered to six, a process

termed “short-listing”. On April 22 and April 29, 2013, representatives of the companies putting

forth those six proposals were interviewed by the Ad Hoc Building Committee and a numerical

score was given to each proposal.112 Overall the proposal put forth by the team which included

36

Vendor X received a higher numerical score than the five proposals on the “short list”. Notably,

Legislator A assessed a proposal from an architectural firm other than Vendor X higher than

what Legislator A scored Vendor X’s proposal.113 On June 3, 2013, the Orange County

Department of Public Works sent a Request for Additional Information [hereinafter “RFAI”] to

all firms which had responded to original RFP. The RFAI asked for proposals to add 20,000

square feet to the Orange County Government Center.114 On June 12, 2013, the team which

included Vendor X sent in a Proposal Supplement in response to the RFAI.115

By letter dated July 1, 2013, the team which included Vendor X was informed that their

proposal had been chosen and that Orange County intended to enter into a contract with them

to provide the architectural and engineering services for this capital project.116 The Ad Hoc

Building Committee, whose members included Legislator A, met with the Vendor X and the

other team members to discuss how the Capital Project should proceed on the following dates:

July 15, 2013; August 19, 2013; September 9, 2013; September 30, 2013; October 23, 2013;

November 13, 2013; and, November 20, 2013.117 The meetings minutes reflect that Legislator A

attended all of these meetings and when Legislator A testified before the Grand Jury he testified

that he ran several of the meetings.118

Legislator A was also the chairperson of one of the statutory committees involved with

this Capital Project. On November 25, 2013, that committee discussed three options for

renovations to the Government Center which had been proposed by Vendor X, which had been

designated as options “AB, BB and C”.119 Legislator A began discussing potential employment

with Vendor X in November 2013,120 and on December 5, 2013 sought the advice of Attorney A

on potential conflicts of interests caused by Legislator A’s impending employment121.

Notwithstanding his likely pending employment with Vendor X, Legislator A presided over the

37

statutory committee that he was chairperson of on December 9, 2013, and voted on one of the

options proposed by Vendor X.122 The minutes of the December 9, 2013 meeting reflect that

the principal of Vendor X was in the legislative chamber at the time of the vote, and of the

debate preceding the vote. Notwithstanding the above, the Grand Jury did not hear evidence

establishing that Vendor X offered Legislator A anything of value in exchange for his votes, nor

did Legislator A solicit anything from Vendor X in exchange for his vote. Although one legislator

testified that had he known about Legislator A’s employment with Vendor X, he would have

voted against the option Legislator A was advocating, the Grand Jury has determined that

would not have changed the final outcome of the legislature’s vote.

On December 12, 2013, the full legislature met and voted to accept the option which

had been selected by the statutory committee of which Legislator A was chairperson.123 The

only option voted upon was the one that had been selected by Legislator A’s statutory

committee.124 The plans to rebuild and rehabilitate the Orange County are currently proceeding

pursuant to that plan.

IV. LEGISLATOR A’S EMPLOYMENT WITH VENDOR X

“[I]t would not be smart to say I’m hiring you to get work with the County. I’m

not doing that. That is explicitly not what I was doing and I told him.” -Principal

of Vendor X 125

The Principal of Vendor X testified that sometime in late October 2013 Vendor X first

spoke Legislator A about possible part-time employment with Vendor X.126 The Principal of

Vendor X stated that when he was talking casually with Legislator A in the parking lot outside

the 911 Center before an Ad Hoc Building Committee meeting. The Principal of Vendor X

38

testified, “I became aware that he [Legislator A] was leaving a job he didn’t like, going to

another position in the first of January and it was going to be in a sales marketing capacity. I

had been looking for somebody. It occurred to me and I thought about it and maybe [Legislator

A] could be a business development person for us on a part-time basis.”127

On November 4, 2013, the Principal of Vendor X had dinner with Legislator A at Cena

2000, a waterfront restaurant in Newburgh.128 At the dinner there no explicit talk of Legislator

A possibly being hired by Vendor X, although the principal of Vendor X did mention that his firm

was interested in obtaining a contract on an Orange County sewage treatment project in

Harriman.129 The Principal of Vendor X stated that he paid for all of the dinners he had with

Legislator A and most all of the dinners he had with other elected officials. Vendor X testified

that:

Q. The dinners you attended or meals you attended, did [Legislator A] pay for them?

A. No.

Q. Sorry?

A. No. did I pay for them or did he pay for them?

Q. Who paid for them?

A. I paid for them.

Q. The dinners or meals you attended with [legislator of a political party other than that of Legislator A], who paid for them?

A. I believe I paid for them all. The one at The Bagel Shop he may have. He may have left a tip. But unless somebody makes an issue I usually pay for them.130

In addition to the dinners, the Principal of Vendor X paid for Legislator A, the Principal of

39

Vendor X also responded to Legislator A’s solicitations for campaign contributions by providing

Legislator A with a $330 check for his election committee on August 7, 2013, and $250 dollar

check for his election committee on October 21, 2013.131

On November 13, 2013, the Principal of Vendor X again had dinner with Legislator A at

Cena 2000. At this dinner there was explicit conversation about Vendor X hiring Legislator A

including negotiations over Legislator A’s salary. The Principal of Vendor X testified that at the

dinner on November 13, 2014, Legislator A asked for a salary in the high $50,000 range. The

Principal of Vendor X testified that his reaction to Legislator A’s salary request was as follows:

“And I recall whenever the conversation saying well I was thinking more something low 50s.

and he said okay. You know, later in that conversation he said, you know, I need a car. I said

we don’t provide cars, we pay mileage. So it ended up being an offer, ultimately the offer I

made him for $60,000”.132 At the same dinner the Principal of Vendor X spoke of the Harriman

Project which Legislator A knew to be a “project being done by Orange County Government.”133

Legislator A received a draft contract offer from the Principal of Vendor X prior to

meeting the Principal of Vendor X at Vendor X’s Newburgh offices on December 4, 2013.134

Legislator A was asked the status of the job offer as of the time he left the December 4, 2013

meeting. Legislator A responded, “When I left that office I was assuming that [the Principal of

Vendor X] was going to be discussing with his staff what they thought of me and if he should

move forward with a formal offer.”135

On December 12, 2014, the Principal of Vendor X presented Legislator A with a formal

job offer for him to sign and return. The offer was handed to Legislator A at the 911 Center

before the meeting where one of the building options for the Government Center was being

40

voted on. Legislator A advocated for and voted for the selection of that option without

disclosing the formal job offer to other legislators. 136

Legislator A signed the formal job offer as accepted on December 16, 2013.137 The offer

letter indicated that Legislator A was being offered a “position as a salaried part-time Client

Development and Relationship Manager beginning on or about January 20, 2014 with an annual

base compensation of $52,000 (without benefits) plus a supplemental prepaid bonus of $8,000

(related to successful client development and maintenance) for a total annual first year

compensation of $60,000. After the anniversary of your first year, you will be an at-will

employee.”138

Neither the draft offer letter, nor the formal offer letter, bear any indication that Legislator

A’s duties do not include trying to procure Orange County projects. Legislator A was asked the

following question and gave the following answer:

Q. Did you ever have any conversations, prior to February 1, 2014, with [the principal of Vendor X] where it was explicitly discussed that you would not be trying to solicit for [Vendor X] Orange County Government projects?

A. I’m not sure if it was specific but I do remember somewhere in the timeline speaking to [the principal of Vendor X] about his employee in, in hiring an employee in South Carolina or Georgia where the other offices are who had a municipal, some sort of municipal title so he knew that you have the conflict of interest precautions you need.139

The Principal of Vendor X testified that he had explicit discussion with Legislator A not to

solicit Orange County Government business adding, “Even if I wanted him [Legislator A] to

solicit County business, to do County business, he’s a bit naive and maybe not in a genuine

positive way. Also I’m not, it would not be smart to say I’m hiring you to get work with the

County. I’m not doing that. That is explicitly not what I was doing and I told him.”140

41

Vendor X was previously referred to in a report by the New York State Comptroller

which had conducted an audit of the Monroe County Water Authority which concerned a retiring

executive director who accepted employment with Vendor X. The Principal of Vendor X

complained that “We were tarred by that investigation”.141 Regardless of the merits of that

audit, Vendor X’s negative experience with the audit should have sensitized them to conflict of

interest issues.

On February 5, 2013, four days after the newspaper article, Legislator A e-mailed his

resignation to the Principal of Vendor X.142 Legislator A received various checks which are set

forth in the following chart from the account of Vendor X and testified as to the purpose for

each check. 143

Date of Check from Vendor X to Legislator A

Amount of check

Legislator A’s explanation of Purpose of Check

February 4, 2014 $29.97 Mileage reimbursement

February 4, 2014 $8,259.83 Weekly paycheck as well as severance pay

February 7, 2014 $957.86 Regular weekly paycheck

February 7, 2014 $1,090.24 Regular pay or possibly a “correction”

February 18, 2014 $638.58 Reimbursement for lunches and mileage

Legislator A received a total of $10,976.48 in checks from Vendor X.

42

V. ACTUAL NOTICES LEGISLATOR A PROVIDED

Although Legislator A never gave written public notice of employment with Vendor X, he

did discuss it with numerous legislators, other County officials, and gave actual notice to the

Board of Ethics in the request for an advisory opinion and in an Annual Financial Disclosure

Form dated January 22, 2014. As stated above, Legislator A was first approached by Principal

Vendor X, in November 2013.144 That same month he dined with Vendor X on two occasions

and an informal offer of employment was made that same month.145 Legislator A met with

Attorney A on December 5, 2013, the day after Legislator A had met with the Principal of

Vendor X at Vendor X’s offices in Newburgh in preparation of Legislator A’s employment.

Legislator A requested to meet with Attorney A in private.146 Legislator A advised

Attorney A that he had meet with Vendor X at a fundraiser. Vendor X had approached Legislator

A, and stated that he wanted to take him out for dinner. They had dinner together, in late

November and Vendor X asked Legislator A if he would like to join his firm. He said the

economy was picking up in the Hudson Valley region and they were looking to hire a sales

development person to represent the firm in the Hudson Valley region. He asked the legislator

if he was interested in doing that. Vendor X said the position would not involve Orange

County. He didn’t specify if he meant geographically or the county government. 147

Conversations with Attorney A

“I don’t know whether it’s legal or not legal, I don’t know whether it’s ethical or

not ethical”148 - Attorney A

At their December 5, 2013, meeting Legislator A advised Attorney A that he was

considering the job offer. Further, he asked the attorney if there was a conflict and was it legal.

43

Attorney A didn’t know whether it was legal or illegal, ethical or unethical but, “Even if it’s

ethical there’s the appearance of impropriety, and that if… someone from the newspaper finds

out about this and it hits the press you now have to explain yourself to the public why you took

this job and why it’s not a conflict”.149 Legislator A said he understood. Attorney A advised

Legislator A to seek an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics. Legislator A said he would

do that. He mentioned that they had already voted on the bond issue and the contract with

Vendor X had already been signed. Legislator A said he would seek an opinion from the Board

of Ethics. 150

Thereafter, Legislator A prepared a draft letter to the Board of Ethics and mailed or

delivered it to Attorney A’s office requesting that Attorney A review it. In a telephone

conversation Attorney A suggested that Legislator A add a timeline, clarify some of the facts,

and clearly request what opinion he was requesting. The letter was placed into evidence before

the Grand Jury.151 Attorney A did not advise the legislature of the letter or their conversation

with the legislator, and did not consider the information received to be the requisite notice to

the legislature.152

On December 12, 2013, when a vote taken on the architectural options, Attorney A was

aware that Legislator A was considering taking a job with the firm who had prepared and

presented the options.153

Legislator A testified that when he first notified Attorney A, the attorney stated, “Wow

that’s fantastic….”154

The Grand Jury believes that extensive confusion exists over the role of the Counsel for

the Legislature. Although the Attorney A was aware of Legislator A’s job offer, Attorney A did

44

not believe notice to Attorney A was notice to the legislature. 155 Yet the Orange County Charter

Section 2.07 (a) (1) states the Counsel to the Legislature “shall with respect to County civil

matters: (1) be the sole legal advisor and representative of the County Legislature.”156 Six

witnesses testified that they believed the Attorney A did not represent individual legislators, and

believed conversations with Attorney A were confidential.157 Although one legislator believed

that Attorney A did not represent individual legislators, that legislator believed it was ambiguous

who Attorney A represented.158 When asked about this issue, the County Attorney testified that

in his opinion, Attorney A represents the legislature, but if a question from a legislator is “not

something that offends the whole body they are entitled to that privilege” of confidentiality.159

Where a conflict of interest exists, “Well then your responsibility shifts, it shifts to the whole

body at that point because your job is to protect the body as a whole, not enable that council

member to do something they shouldn’t be doing.”160

Notice to Specific Legislators

“Wow, congratulations on your new position.”161 - County Legislator

Legislator A testified before the Grand Jury that he notified the prior chairman of the

legislature of the job offer on December 16, 2014, or December 18, 2014.162 Between

December 16, 2013, and December 20, 2013, Legislator A advises four legislators of his new

position with Vendor X,163 and attempts to inform a fifth legislator, who was informed on a later

date.164 165 When another legislator learned of Legislator A’s new position, that legislator texted

Legislator A, “Wow, congratulations on your new position.”166

On December 23, 2013, Legislator A wrote a letter to the Board of Ethics 167requesting

on opinion “regarding the potential for conflicts of interest applicable to future votes and

45

procedures that will involve myself, and be before the Orange County Legislature in 2014.”168

Legislator A did not mention that he had been in discussions with Vendor X regarding his

employment since the middle to late November 2013, which was followed up by a draft contract

on December 4, 2013, and a formal offer being presented to him on December 12, 2013, which

he accepted on December 16, 2013. He also failed to mention that he voted in the statutory

committee of which he was chairman on December 9, 2013 for the option he was advocating,

and voted again in the full legislature for that option on December 12, 2013.169

Although six legislators and Attorney A were aware that Legislator A had a job offer, or

had accepted a position with Vendor X, none of them, according to testimony before the Grand

Jury, took any steps to make sure that their fellow legislators were aware of this. Significant

votes occurred on both December 9, 2013 and December 12, 2013, yet a majority of the

legislators were unaware of the conflict of interest. The Grand Jury learned that under the

current Orange County Ethics Law, county legislators are not under a duty to inform: the

Chairman of the legislature, fellow legislators, the Board of Ethics, or the public. Attorney A

believed that Attorney A represented the legislature as an entity and not individual legislators.

Attorney A testified that, “Legislators may have their own agendas and so I have to represent

what the totality of the legislators want for me to do.”170 Attorney A took limited steps to ensure

that the legislature was aware of the conflict.171 A governmental attorney with extensive

experience representing State, county and local municipalities, testified as an expert in the field

of municipal law and ethics. It was his opinion that Attorney A would have a duty to advise the

legislators of the conflict and would not have to keep the information confidential.172

46

Part Time Legislators

The Grand Jury has become acutely aware of the problem of part time legislators. In

that the position is part time, many legislators need other positions as their main source of

income. The problem is exemplified by the difficulties one legislator had attending meetings.

That legislator has a leadership position and is also a member of the Ad Hoc Building

Committee responsible for picking the architectural plan for the Orange County Government

Center. That legislator testified “that I did not make a lot of those committee meetings because

[my full-time employment] often times those meetings were during a time of day that I couldn’t

get there.”173 The need for additional employment also prompted Legislator A to accept

employment with Principal Vendor X. Although the Grand Jury realizes that issues exist when

legislators are part-time, the Grand Jury makes no recommendation on this issue. The Grand

Jury believes that this is an issue for the citizens of Orange County to decide.

Notice to Ethics Board

“Apparently the Board had misplaced my letter.” – Legislator A174

On January 22, 2014, Legislator A filed a Financial Disclosure Form 175with the Board of

Ethics stating in part that he had accepted a position with Vendor X in December 2013. On

February 1, 2014, Legislator A spoke with the Chairperson of the Board of Ethics and advised

her of his position and the next day emailed her a copy of his letter to the Board of Ethics.176

Conversations with Executive Branch Members

“I didn’t think it was a wise thing to do….It could be perceived as a conflict.” – County

Official to Legislator A.177

47

A County official testified before the Grand Jury that January 21, 2014, Legislator A

appeared at a Technical Committee meeting, open to the public, which the County official

chaired.178 The County official distinctly recalled the incident because he had never seen a

legislator attend one of his meetings.179 At that meeting Legislator A signed in as an Orange

County legislator,180 but handed out business cards, reflecting his employment with Vendor X.181

The County official reflecting upon the incident stated, “…there’s a certain distaste when, you

know that kind of thing, …I mean here the Legislator, here, I see this Legislator at a meeting

thinking oh, it’s good he wants to learn,…but he’s really just there hawking business. And he’s

kind of clueless.182

The Grand Jury also heard from Charles Lee, the Orange County Commission of Public

Works, who testified that he spoke with Legislator A on December 16, 2013.183 Legislator A told

Mr. Lee that he wanted to work for Vendor X and wanted Mr. Lee’s opinion of the firm.184

Charles Lee told him, “I didn’t think it was a wise thing to do….he wouldn’t be able to represent

his point of view in any of the committees from that date forward…it could be perceived as a

conflict…he wouldn’t be able to represent himself, his constituency…”185 Legislator A did not

think there was any issue of conflict. 186Coincidentally, the next day, Mr. Lee spoke with the

Principal for Vendor X. Mr. Lee again mentioned his concerns and the Principal for Vendor X

replied there was no ethics problem.187

VI. CONCLUSIONS:

It’s Improper. It’s Not Criminal

In conclusion, the Grand Jury after hearing testimony from twenty witnesses and

examining 117 exhibits, totaling over 5,000 pages, finds that Legislator A did not , as a matter

48

of law, violate the General Municipal Law, but did violate the Orange County Ethics Law, which

is a civil violation.

The Grand Jury recommends changes on the executive, legislative, and administrative

level to insure that conflicts of interest in Orange County Government are prevented. Hopefully,

as a result of the Grand Jury’s investigation and report, no one will say – “I don’t believe

anybody really knows what they’re supposed to be doing.”188 The Grand Jury finds that Orange

County’s current ethics program is inadequate, outdated, underfunded and largely disregarded.

In closing, although the Grand Jury finds fault on the part of the County government it hopes

that the public considers this report as an educational and informational tool towards better

government.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Orange County Board of Ethics should pursue their investigation into

Legislator A’s actions.

The Grand Jury recommends that the County Ethics Board consider sanctions against

Legislator A and notes that the maximum allowable fine is $10,000. Ironically, Legislator A,

while working for the Principal of Vendor X received salary, lunch and mileage reimbursement,

and severance payments in the amount of $10,976.48.189

2. Replace Orange County’s Financial Disclosure Form with a form similar to

New York State or Ulster County Disclosure Forms.

“The New York State Form causes you to think about where a potential conflict

could come up.” 190

49

The Grand Jury has examined the Orange County Ethics Law, the Ulster County Ethics

Law, and the New York State ethics laws as well as their required disclosure forms. The Grand

Jury finds that current Orange County Financial Disclosure Form is ambiguous and requires

limited information. Most people who fill out the form are able to complete it in three minutes

or less. The County should adopt the New York State/Ulster County form which mandates that

significantly more information be disclosed.

The Orange County Attorney in describing the Orange County Financial Disclosure Form

noted that “once you essentially assert that you have no relationship with Orange County other

than your job: your spouse or your children…, it really, game over, you don’t have to do

anything more than that.” If a filer does not have any of the delineated relationships with

Orange County, the form can be filled out in one page. “The New York State Annual Financial

Disclosure Form asks you to describe a whole series of relationships. And it causes you to think

more about where a potential conflict could come up.”191 The New York State and Ulster County

forms require significantly more detailed information.

3. Prohibit Gifts of an Aggregate Amount of $75 dollars or more in any twelve

month consecutive period.

“Unless somebody makes an issue I usually pay for them. ”- Vendor X 192

“I’m a County employee, I’m the County Attorney, people want to buy

me lunch, they could buy me lunch for $74.99 a day without violating the

gift clause.” – County Attorney193

Orange County should continue to prohibit all gifts of $75 dollars or more in any twelve

month consecutive period. Further the amount of gifts from any one individual, group, or

50

entity, should be considered in an aggregated amount to avoid the scenario wherein one person

repeatedly gives gifts or benefits in an amount less than $75. Under the present Orange County

Ethics Law, a vendor could buy dinner for an employee in the amount of $74.99 every day and

not violate the ethics law.194 The definition of the terms “gift and benefit” need to more clearly

defined. A political contribution is not a gift or benefit.

4. Post the Orange County Disclosure Form on the Orange County Website

The Grand Jury has reviewed the posting of the Orange County Ethics Board on the

County Website. Initially, they noted that Board defines it mission by stating, “The mission of

the Orange County Board of Ethics is to follow Local Law No. 1 of 1994. This law established a

code of ethics and independent Board of Ethics as well as various regulations providing for

disclosure requirements for specific Orange County employees and officials”. Unfortunately this

information is incorrect and the Board’s purpose is mandated by Local Law No. 2 of 1994.195

Although the County ethics law is online, the Annual Financial Disclosure Form is not. This

needs to be corrected. It would be beneficial if the Annual Financial Disclosure Form could be

filled out online and emailed to the Board of Ethics. This would prevent the controversy that

occurred when Legislator A tried to submit his ethics form and it lay dormant for over one

month.

5. Provide Advisory Opinions on the Board of Ethics’ Website.

“[I]t helps gives guidance and helps set a standard” 196

The Grand Jury believes that the county website should also include publically available

advisory opinions on ethics, similar to the opinions of the New York State Attorney General or

51

the Controller. This would provide a county wide reference for employees, vendors with the

county, attorneys, and the public, and should include examples of prohibited behavior.

6. Require Prompt Reporting of Ethics Board Opinions.

“It can take a few months by the time we get it and contact the person and have

them come in.” – Chairman of Board of Ethics 197

The Grand Jury heard testimony that Legislator A requested an advisory opinion from

the Board of Ethics on December 23, 2013. To date, there has been no response to Legislator

A’s request for an opinion. It is very important that the Board of Ethics promptly reply to

requests for opinions. The Chairperson of the Board of Ethics testified that it can frequently

take a few months to issue an opinion. This is due partially to the circumstance that the Board

was meeting only once per month. There is also an inherent difficulty since Board members are

serving without compensation and have other responsibilities. Since the incident before the

Grand Jury occurred, the Board has been meeting twice a month. The Grand Jury believes that

an opinion should be issued within ten business days of receiving the request.

7. Increase the Resources of the Board of Ethics. “

“[T]his year we’re probably going to be over budget within the first three

months.” – Attorney for Board of Ethics198

Although many legislators and Board of Ethics members believe that the Board has

adequate resources, it is apparent to the Grand Jury that the resources of the Board are

insufficient. The lack of resources budgeted by the County cripple and render largely ineffective

the duties and responsibilities of the volunteer Board of Ethics. The Chairperson testified that

during the eight years she has been on the board, they have never issued a subpoena, held a

52

hearing, assessed a fine for failing to disclose a conflict, or referred a case to the District

Attorney.199 The Chairperson indicated that after the Board reviews a matter they provide the

opinion to the individual and often suggest a course of action. They take no steps to follow up

to determine if their advice has been followed.200 The Grand Jury recommends that the Ethics

Board strictly enforce the County Ethics Code. The current budget of the board is $10,766

which goes to fees for: an attorney, secretary, office supplies, postage, telephone, copying, and

printing. If the County adopts the New York State ethics form, significantly more time would be

required by the Board in reviewing them.

Another method of providing additional resources to the Ethics Board would be to allow

the County Attorney’s Office to provide assistance to the Board of Ethic’s attorney, when so

requested.

The Grand Jury believes that there should be a mailbox at the Board of Ethics, and the

office should be staffed with an individual, on a daily basis, who can answer the phone and

accept requests for opinions. Staffing could be accomplished by having a secretary, from the

County Attorney’s office, available to provide information to the public.201

When appropriate the Board of Ethics should have the ability to consult with the Orange

County Human Resources Department. The Grand Jury also recommends that the Board of

Ethics be given sufficient resources to have an “Hotline” and “drop-box” where members of the

public, or County employees can report suspected violations of the ethics law.

53

8. Change the Composition of the Ethics Board.

“The whole premise of American Government is to have checks and

balances202 Here you got the ethics board dominated by legislative

appointments.”203

The Grand Jury heard that the Board of Ethics is composed of seven members. That

structure is mandated by Local Law No. 2 of 1994. Three members are nominated by the

County Executive. No more than two of those can be of the same party. Four members are

nominated by the legislature, and no more than three of those can be of the same party. The

law would allow five members to be of the same political party. The Grand Jury believes that

one branch of government, or one political party, should not be able to determine decisions of

the Board. Members of the legislative and executive branch should sit in equal numbers on the

Board. Mr. Chapman explained in his experience that tie votes seldom occur.

9. Require Annual Mandatory Ethics Training.

“because I don’t believe anybody really knows what they’re supposed to

be doing.”204 – County Legislator

Numerous witnesses testified that annual ethics training should be required for all

County employees. New employees should be given more than a cursory introduction to ethical

issues. One legislator testified that legislators and Orange County employees need ethical

training “because I don’t believe anybody really knows what they’re supposed to be doing.”

One appointed official stated that he knew there was an ethics law but “I don‘t believe I have

actually read the law.”

54

Legislator A, after receiving a formal offer of employment from Vendor X on December

12, 2013, voted on the architectural option before the full legislature. He testified that the

reason he did not advise the legislature of the conflict was “I didn’t know I should.” Legislator

A testified that he had “never heard of Section 800 of the General Municipal Law” or the Orange

County Ethics Law. I “Haven’t read the law, had no training.”205 Ethical issues and the need for

training are also relevant to the executive branch. One official testified that his only familiarity

with the Orange County Ethics Law is signing the Annual Financial Disclosure Form each year.206

The Grand Jury heard testimony from Steve Gross, the Commissioner of Human

Services. He advised the Grand Jury that one of the duties of his department is to provide

training to county employees. The Grand Jury believes that ethics training is important and

necessary. If the County enacts an ethics law similar to New York State and significantly

amends the ethics form, as the Grand Jury recommends, more time will be required to fulfill the

training function. Further, if online training is pursued, the Department of Human Resources

will require additional financial resources to acquire and implement necessary software.207

Tailoring ethics training specific to positions will likely require additional personnel.

The mandated training could be performed by the Orange County Department of Human

Resources; although they would need additional resources to implement it. The Department of

Human Resources should keep records documenting the employees’ or officials’ completion of

that annual training. Langdon Chapman advised the Grand Jury that this could be

accomplished on-line.208 Ethics training should be specific to the position and responsibilities of

the individual employee.209

55

10. Institute Standards for Employees leaving County Employment.

The Grand Jury believes that the Orange County Ethics Law must mandate strict

standards for employees leaving County employment. First, there should be a prohibition

against elected officials, department heads, higher level and managerial staff from working on

projects for which they signed contracts for, developed bid or specs for, or appropriated funds

for while in public service, regardless of whether or not employment was discussed with the

contractor while in public service. This would permanently ban someone for working on a

project, while representing the County and then shifting to employment with a vendor on a

particular project. Further, the Grand Jury finds that County contractors should be prohibited

from hiring elected officials and higher level staff for a minimum of two years, from the end of

the individual’s public service, regardless of the duties of the elected official, department head,

higher level, and managerial staff. Further, the Grand Jury believes that the ethics law should

be amended to allow the Board of Ethics to hold employees accountable even after they leave

public service.210

11. Prohibit Soliciting Employment From County Contractors.

The Grand Jury believes that County elected officials, or high level County officials

should be prohibited from soliciting employment from County contractors if they have

appropriated money for the contractor or are involved in the award of the contract.

12. Require Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest.

“didn’t know that I had to.” 211 - Legislator A

The Grand Jury has heard testimony from numerous witnesses, including Attorney A,

and both democratic and republican legislators. These individuals stated that they were aware

56

that Legislator A was planning to, or had accepted a job with a County contractor. None of

these individuals made a public disclosure, or advised their caucus. Under the current County

ethics law they were not required to. The Grand Jury believes that the Ethics Law should

mandate that Legislators and high level officials must publicly report conflicts of interest that

they are personally aware of to the Board of Ethics.

13. Contractors Should be subject to the Orange County Ethics Law.

Repeatedly witnesses advised the Grand Jury that County contractors should be subject

to the same ethics disclosure requirements and filing deadlines as County officials. In the

instant matter, if Vendor X had filed a disclosure form, then legislators would have been made

aware of the conflict even in the absence of Legislator A’s disclosure. Second, certain County

Departments are required to have department heads with a certain expertise: the nursing home

and the airport. In the absence of a County department head, the position can be filed with a

private entity with all the powers of the department head. In the past this has happened both

with the County nursing home and the airport. Without a requirement that these individuals be

required to file Financial Disclosure Forms and be subject to the Orange County Ethics Law,

these vendors could contract with family for supplies, and no one would be aware of it.

14. Clarify who the Counsel for the Legislature Represents.

“Where a conflict of interest exists, Well then your responsibility shifts, it

shifts to the whole body at that point because your job is to protect the

body as a whole, not enable that council member to do something they

shouldn’t be doing.”212

57

After listening to the testimony of: numerous legislators, Attorney A and the Orange

County Attorney, the Grand Jury understands that there is confusion over the scope of

representation Counsel for the Legislature. Some legislators believed that Attorney A

represents the legislature as an entity. Other legislators believed that Attorney A represents

individual legislators as well. The County Attorney believed that the issue is unclear, and the

attorney could represent both parties, although there would be limitations regarding the

representation of individual legislators. The County Charter and/or the Administrative Code

need to clarify this situation. Counsel for the Legislature, and the legislators themselves, need

to know if their conversations with the Counsel for Legislature are not confidential. Additionally,

the Grand Jury believes the Legislature should consider having a Majority Counsel and a

Minority Counsel available to the respective members.

15. Legislators should not sit on committees that have oversight over

departments where their wives or children are employed.

“Just on its face, it doesn’t sound good.”213

Mr. Chapman testified that a current legislator is the chairman of a statutory committee

which has oversight over county departments in which his spouse and child are employed. This

presents the appearance of a conflict of interest. 214 Legislators should not sit on committees

that have oversight over departments where their wives or children are employed.

16. The Legislature should clarify its own rules as to whether or not it may

censure members for misconduct.

Grand Jury has heard conflicting testimony about whether the Orange County

Legislature has the authority to sanction its own members for misconduct. Some of the

58

legislators testified that their ability to do so is inherent because what they consider to be

similar legislative bodies have done so. Other believe that in the absence of express authority

that they have that ability they may not do so. (These legislators quoted Attorney A as having

the same opinion.) The Grand Jury believes that the legislature should have the ability to

censure its members for misconduct and believe that this issue should be clarified.

The Grand Jury recommends that a copy of this report be made public and copies

forwarded to Executive and Legislative branches of Orange County Government.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

59

1 By letter dated February 7, 2014, Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler requested that the Honorable

Alan D. Schienkman, Administrative Judge of the Ninth Judicial District, have a Special Grand Jury empanelled to

investigate the subject matter of this Grand Jury report. Subsequently, an Order dated February 24, 2014, which

was signed by the Honorable Randall T. Eng, Presiding Justice of the Second Department, and, the Honorable

Michael V. Coccoma, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the Courts outside of New York City, authorized the

County Court of Orange County to empanel this Grand Jury.

2 The Grand Jury thanks District Attorney Hoovler for addressing the issues pertaining to Orange County’s Ethics

Law, and also thanks the Grand Jury’s primary legal advisors, Senior Assistant District Attorney Allan Y. Drian and

Chief Assistant District Attorney Christopher P. Borek, who conservatively worked at least 300 hours on this

investigation. The Grand Jury also thanks Orange County Court Judge Jeffrey G. Berry who empanelled and

extended the Grand Jury’s term in order to allow it to complete this investigation.

3 The Grand Jury’s original term was set to expire on April 11, 2014. Judge Berry’s Order of April 4, 2014 extended

the Grand Jury’s term to May 16, 2014.

4 Orange County’s Ethics Law generally provides for only civil penalties. The Orange County Ethics Law (Local Law

No. 2 of 1994 As Amended) was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 15. Section 7 of that law entitled

“Penalties” states “Any officer or employee who knowingly and willfully conducts himself or herself in such a

manner that he or she violates the Code of Ethics as described in Section III herein is subject to a civil penalty in

an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars.” Section 7 also authorizes the Orange County Board of Ethics, “in

lieu of a civil penalty” to refer violations to an appropriate prosecutor, and upon a conviction “but only after such

referral” the violation of the County Ethics Law is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. In the instant matter there

was no such referral and therefore the law does not allow for criminal sanctions. A referral from the Ethics Board is

a necessary element of the crime.

In the Grand Jury’s opinion this is fortunate since the referral would have taken away the Board’s power to assess

a civil penalty, and for all the reasons stated herein there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt Legislator A’s knowing and willful conduct in a criminal forum, particularly when his conduct falls within

statutory exceptions in the General Municipal Law. Moreover, the section of the Ethics Law allowing for referrals

to a prosecutor as currently drafted is ambiguous as to whether it is referring to all violations of the code of Ethics

or only to “A reporting individual who knowingly and willfully fails to file an annual statement of financial

disclosure or who knowingly and willfully with intent to deceive makes a false statement or gives information

which such individual knows to be false on such statement of financial disclosure filed pursuant to this section…”

That language precedes the section on referrals to prosecutors. Those separately stated violations are similar to

crimes under the General Municipal Law and are generally considered more serious than other violations such as

misusing the Orange County Seal. There is no allegation that the Legislator that is the subject of this report failed

to file, or falsely filed a Financial Disclosure Form. Rather the issue is the legislator’s failure to report a conflict of

interest. The law is also flawed in that, as stated above, Section 7 which delineates Penalties refers to the “Code or

Ethics as described in Section III”. Section “3” of the law provides only definitions, and does not include a

definition of the “Code of Ethics”. The “Code of Ethics” is contained in Section “4”.

5 The current County Attorney, Langdon Chapman, testified as an expert in the field of Municipal Law and Ethics. It

was his opinion that Legislator A could not have violated General Municipal Law Section 801 which requires that

the municipal official, either by himself or as a member of a board, have the ability to “negotiate, prepare ,

60

authorize or approve the contract or authorize or approve payment there under “, since in Orange County the

ability to enter into contracts is reserved to the County Executive. Since an “Ad Hoc Building Committee”

consisting of legislators, including Legislator A, and County appointed officials, was instrumental in selecting

vendors for the project and delineating the scope of their work as well as their payment, the Grand Jury believes

that Legislator A was at least as a “member of a board” and therefore did possess enough authority to fall within

the strictures of this statute, notwithstanding that his actions, as a matter of law, fall within the exception to the

statute found in General Municipal Law § 802 (1) (b).

6 The Grand Jury’s determination that Legislator A’s action did not constitute a ”knowing and willful” violation of

the General Municipal Law does not preclude a finding that the legislator’s conduct was “knowing and willful”

under the Orange County Ethics Law. Orange County’s Ethics Law prohibits more and different conduct than the

General Municipal Law does. For instance, not withstanding that Legislator A’s conduct in not disclosing his

employment may, as a matter of law, not be “knowing and willful” under the General Municipal Law, because he

made substantial disclosures to County officials and on his publically filed Annual Financial Disclosure Form, the

Board of Ethics may decide that the legislator’s actions in voting on the project, and in signing into a County run

meeting as an Orange County legislator only to hand out Vendor X’s business cards, were knowing and willful,

especially in light of evidence that the legislator knew he might have ethical issues as evidence by his request for

an opinion from the Board of Ethics as to how his employment with Vendor X would have to curtail future actions

as a legislator. Moreover, the standard of proof for a criminal conviction is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” .

The Orange County Board of Ethics’ standard of proof in assessing sanctions is the lesser standard of “clear and

convincing evidence”.

7 The Orange County Charter, which was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 1, was enacted pursuant to

Local Law No. 8 of 1968 and approved by the electors of Orange County at the general election held Nov. 5, 1968,

to be effective January 1, 1970. The local law was adopted in accordance with Article 4 of the Municipal Home

Rule Law of New York State. Thereafter, Local Law No. 10 of 1969 was enacted to include an Administrative Code

for Orange County. At the time of its adoption, Orange County had a Board of Supervisors, from all the towns.

Thereafter, the County had a charter form of government.

8The Judicial branch of government consists at the County level of various courts including County Courts, Supreme

Courts, Surrogate Courts, Courts of Claim and Family Courts. Orange County is required by statute to provide

acceptable facilities to the New York State Office of Court Administration to house these Courts. (In addition, local

governments in Orange County provide facilities for City, Town and Village Courts.)

9The legislature’s attorney describes the Legislative Manual, which was received into evidence as Grand Jury

Exhibit 2, as the “bible for the Orange County Legislature”. It sets forth the responsibilities and functions of the

legislature and provides rules of order for its meetings. It also sets forth the powers and duties of: the Clerk of the

Legislature, the chairman, the Majority and Minority Leaders. It also describes the statutory committees and their

functions, and describes how committee members are appointed.

10 Mr. Amo is currently the only member of the Independence Party serving in the Legislature.

11The Counsel for the Legislature’s duties are set forth in Orange County Charter Section 2.07 (a) (1) (2) (3).

12 Grand Jury Exhibit 102 is a letter from Orange County Commissioner of Public Works, Charles W. Lee dated July

1, 2013, informing Vendor X that “the County intends to enter into a contract with [Vendor X], for

61

Architectural/Engineering Services in connection with the Capital Improvements to Seven (7) County Owned

Buildings.”

13 The contract between Orange County and Vendor X was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 64.

14 Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, pages 26 through 67. Legislator A testified that he believed this

meeting with Attorney A occurred on December 12, 2013. (Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 183).

Both witnesses’ testimony were consistent as to the subject of their conversation. The Grand Jury credits Attorney

A’s testimony that the conversation took place on December 5, 2013, as that was the day after Legislator A met

the Principal of Vendor X at Vendor X’s offices in Newburgh to discuss his employment.

15 Testimony of L. Stephen Brescia, March 28, 2014, page 109.

16 Testimony of L. Stephen Brescia, March 28, 2014, page 110.

17 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 163.

18 Legislator A’s 2013 Annual Financial Disclosure Form, which is dated January 22, 2014, was received into

evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 35. On that form Legislator A indicated that Legislator A had employment that

ended on December 31, 2013, after he accepted a position with Vendor X for 2014. Legislator A also disclosed on

the form that, “In December of 2013 I accepted a position as Client Relationship & Development Manager with

[Vendor X] with an office in Newburgh, NY. Salary @ $60,000. The company [Vendor X] was the design firm

contracted for the Government Center Project in the Spring of 2013, and their contract for this project was

authorized at that time in Spring of ’13.”

19 Although the Orange County Ethics Board is only open four hours a week, Donald Nichol, Esq. the attorney for

the Ethics Board noted in his testimony that, “We’ve had times where people have complained to us ‘cause they

wanted to get the ethics forms. As I said, there’s usually a rush on ethics form before the—during the election

season, let me put it that way, ‘cause people want to see if there’s anything they could use on the other

candidate.” Testimony of Donald G. Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 173.

20 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 164.

21 General Municipal Law Section 800 (4)

22 General Municipal Law Section 800 (5) also provides that “No person shall be deemed to be an municipal officer

or employee solely by reason of being a volunteer fireman or civil defense volunteer, except a fire chief or

assistant fire chief.”

23 General Municipal Law Section 800 (3)

24 General Municipal Law Section 804 states “Any contract willfully entered into by or with a municipality in which

there is an interest prohibited by this article shall be null, void and wholly unenforceable.”

25 The Principal of Vendor X testified that he first considered soliciting Legislator A for employment in October

2013, but did not mention his intentions to Legislator A at that time. (Testimony of Principal Vendor X, April 11,

2013, page 22). As is more fully discussed below, on November 4 and November 13, 2013, the Principal of Vendor

X took Legislator A out to dinner at a waterfront restaurant in Newburgh and discussed his business. Overt

62

discussions of employment, and negotiations of Legislator A’s salary did not occur until the November 13, 2013,

meeting.

26General Municipal Law Section 802 (1) (b) states, “The provisions of section eight hundred one of this chapter

shall not apply to [a] contract with a person, firm, corporation or association in which a municipal officer or

employee has an interest which is prohibited solely by reason of employment as an officer or employee thereof, if

the remuneration of such employment will not be directly affected as a result of such contract and the duties of

such employment do not directly involve the procurement, preparation, or performance of any part of the

contract.”

27 The Grand Jury’s attempt to obtain all relevant information on this matter included having the District Attorney’s

office send two letters to every Orange County legislator, except Legislator A, requesting any information that they

had with respect to this matter. Three Republican and three Democratic Party legislators testified before the

Grand Jury, including the Chairman of the Legislature, the Republican Majority Leader and the Democratic Minority

Leader. No responses to the letters, or testimony before the Grand Jury, controverted the testimony and

documentary evidence that showed that Legislator A negotiated and commenced his employment with Vendor X

months after the contract with Orange County was executed by all of the parties to the contract.

28 Transcript of March 28, 2014, page 68.

29 Grand Jury Exhibit 21, page 1.

30 Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section B, Local Law No. 4 of 1994.

31 General Municipal Law Section 813 1 (ii) and Section 813 (5).

32 Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section C, Local Law 11 of 1999, § 2. Prohibitions Subdivision a (This was not an

amendment to the Ethics Law.)

33Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section D, Local Law 12 of 1999, and Section E, Local Law No. 13 of 1999. (This was not an

amendment to the Ethics Law.)

34 Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section F, Local Law No. 7 of 2000. (This was an amendment to the Ethics Law.)

35 Testimony Steve Gross, April 4, 2014, pages 112-113.

36 A copy of Local Law 1 of 1991 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 17.

37 Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section A Local Law No. 2 of 1994, page 1.

38 A copy of the New York State Financial Disclosure Form was received in evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 42. The

most recent version of the Orange County Financial Disclosure From was received into evidence as Grand jury

Exhibit 16.

39 Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 24.

40 Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 25.

63

41

Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 24.

42 Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 26.

43 Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 27.

44 The law suit was brought by CPLR Article 78 Proceeding

45 Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 28.

46 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 45.

47 Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, Page 121. Mr. Nichol also stated that, “The Board keeps [the

Annual Financial Disclosure Forms] on file. The documents are available to any member of the public who would

like to review them. But we do not permit them to be photocopied of otherwise copied… [W]e don’t want them to

be in essence, you know like campaign literature or those types of things. People are providing, you know,

disclosing some personal information among other things. I could tell you that in every fall as election season

approached there’s a request to review the forms of candidates and indeed candidates are also required to file

disclosures.”

48 Grand Jury Exhibit 16 is the most recently released Orange county Annual Financial Disclosure Form and the

accompanying instructions. That form was due by January 31, 2014 and called for information about events which

occurred in 2013.

49 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 45.

50 Exhibit 16, page 3.

51 A copy of the New York State Annual Statement of Financial Disclosure was entered into evidence as Grand Jury

Exhibit 42.

52 Grand Jury Exhibit 42.

53 Testimony of Orange County Legislator, March 28, 2014, page 59.

54 Local Law No. 2 of 1994 As Amended, the Current Orange County Local Ethics Law containing all the relevant

amendments to the law was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 15. The quoted passage was from Section

5, subdivision 6.

55 The Grand Jury finds, based on the evidence before it, that the formal job offer was handed by the Principal of

Vendor X to Legislator A immediately prior to the meeting of the full legislature on December 12, 2013, which was

a Friday, and that at that time Legislator A intended on accepting the offer. That finding is based upon the fact that

the draft job offer which had been given to Legislator A, and which was the subject of the meeting between

Vendor X and Legislator A at a meeting they had in Vendor X’s offices in Newburgh on December 4, 2013,

contained essentially the same provisions as the formal offer, and Legislator A signed the offer on December 16,

2013. Therefore Legislator A’s duty to disclose the offer to the full legislature was triggered prior to vote of the full

legislature on the option selected for the Orange County Government Center.

64

56

Testimony of Legislature A, April 11, 2014, pages 193-194.

57 All six legislators who testified before the Grand Jury stated that they knew this building option to have been

referred to by the nickname which included Legislator A’s last name.

58 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 179.

59 Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 140.

60 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 181.

61 Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 86.

62 Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 85.

63 The original sign-in sheet was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 100.

64 Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 92. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 202-203.

65 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 200-201

66 Grand Jury Exhibit 3.

67 Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 95.

68 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 40.

69 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 66.

70 Orange County Ethics Law Section 6 (4) (f).

71 Orange County Ethics Law Section 7 provides that, “Any officer who knowingly and willfully conducts himself or

herself in such a manner that he or she violates the Code of Ethics as described in Section III [Prohibited Conduct]

herein is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars.”

72 Orange County Ethic Law Section 7 authorizes the Orange County Board of Ethics, “in lieu of a civil penalty” to

refer violations to an appropriate prosecutor, and upon a conviction “but only after such referral” the violation of

the County Ethics Law is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. In the instant matter there was no such referral and

therefore the County Law does not allow for criminal sanctions. In the Grand Jury’s opinion this is fortunate since

the referral would have taken away the Board’s power to assess the civil penalty, and for all the reasons stated

herein there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Legislator A’s knowing and willful conduct

in a criminal forum, particularly when his conduct falls within statutory exceptions in the General Municipal Law.

However, the standard of proof for the Orange County Board of Ethics is only “clear and convincing evidence” and

not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. While Legislator A’s conduct does not constitute a crime under the

General Municipal Law, his requests and statements to Attorney A as well as his request for an advisory opinion

show that he was aware that his conduct might constitute a conflict of interest and yet he proceeded to act on the

contract with Vendor X even in the absence of an opinion from the Board of Ethics. This culminated in his vote in

the full legislature on December 12, 2014. In the Grand Jury’s opinion the Orange County Board of Ethics should

conduct an inquiry and, if appropriate, fine Legislator A.

65

73

Donald Nichols, Esq. who is the current attorney for the Orange County Ethics board testified that he has been

working for the board since 1995 and is unaware of any instances where the Board exercised its subpoena power

or assessed a penalty. (Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 113.)

74 Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 126.

75 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 41.

76 Testimony of Donald Nichols, March 14, 2014, page 110. Mr. Nichols testified that he also charges

approximately $200/hour for similar work for villages.

77 The Orange County Board Ethics Budget was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 94.

78 Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 126.

79 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 40.

80 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 55.

81 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 56.

82 Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 168.

83 A copy of that letter was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 3.

84 Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 130.

85 Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, pages 130 and 131.

86 The newspaper article was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 76.

87 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 57.

88 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, pages 57-58.

89 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 60. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11,2014, page 164.

90 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, pages 63-64.

91 A copy of Legislator A’s letter to the attorney for the Board of Ethics dated February 26, 2014 was received into

evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 41.

92 A copy of Legislator Anagnostakis’s letter to the Orange County Board of Ethics was received into evidence as

Exhibit 38.

93 A copy of the Board of Ethics letter to the Orange County Board of Ethics was received into evidence as Exhibit

39.

94 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 60.

66

95

Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, pages 61-62.

96Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 62.

97 Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 138.

98Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 168.

99 Forensic Study, Grand Jury Exhibit 58, page 3.

100 Orange County Charter Article III Section 3.02 (m) gives the County Executive the power to “make sign and

implement all other contracts of the County within authorized appropriations, except as may otherwise be

provided in this Charter or the Administrative Code.” Subdivision (l), which immediately precedes subdivision (m),

pertains to the county Executive’s powers to approve a system for the procurement of goods and services and

contracts for the rental and servicing of equipment for the County. Thus, the contract the County signed with

Vendor A is one of the “all other contracts” referred to in Subdivision (m).

101 Resolution 188 of 2012 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 8.

102 Resolution 343 of 2012 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 10.

103 Resolution 8 of 2013 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 11.

104 Forensic Study, Grand Jury Exhibit 58, page 24.

105 Forensic Study, Grand Jury Exhibit 58, page 3.

106 “Request for Proposals for Architectural/Engineering Services for Capital Improvement to Seven (7) County-

Owned Buildings” was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 47. The other buildings listed in the proposal

were: the 1887 Building; the 1841 Courthouse and Annex; the Information and Technology building located at 75

Webster Avenue, Goshen, NY; the Surrogate Court Building; the Department of Social Services Quarry Road

Building; and the Board of Elections Building.

107 RFP, Exhibit 47, page 7.

108 RFP Addendum 1 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 48.

109 RFP Addendum 2 was received into evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 51.

110 Vendor X’s Proposal in Response to the RFP was received into evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 53.

111 In 2013 there were more Republican Party members in the legislature than any other party and the Legislative

Chairman was of that Party. The Democrat Party had a number of members in the Legislature. The Independence

Party had one legislator who was also on the “Ad Hoc Building Committee”.

112 A Copy of the Rating Sheet reflecting the names and scores given by each member of the Ad Hoc Building

Committee during the April 22, 2013 and April 29, 2013 interviews was received into evidence as Grand Jury

Exhibit 56.

67

113

Grand Jury Exhibit 56.

114 The RFAI was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 59.

115 Vendor X’s Proposal Supplement was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 60.

116 Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 65. A copy of the Notice of Award was received into evidence

as Grand Jury Exhibit 102.

117 A copy of the minutes of these Ad Hoc Building Committees meetings of: July 15, 2013; August 19, 2013;

September 9, 2013; September 30, 2013; October 23, 2013; and, November 13, 2013 was received into evidence

as Grand Jury Exhibit 62. Certified records of the legislature, which were admitted into evidence as Grand Jury

Exhibits 67 and 96, reflect an additional meeting of the Ad Hoc Building Committee on November 20, 2013.

118 Exhibit 62 and Grand Jury Transcript of April 11, 2014, page 166.

119 The minutes of this meeting were contained within the certified records which had been received into evidence

as Grand Jury Exhibit 34.

120 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 168-172.

121 Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, pages 62-67.

122 Minutes of the statutory committee meeting of December 9, 2013, which were contained within Grand Jury 34.

123 Resolution 326 of 2013 which selected the option was received into evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 12.

124 Various legislators including: Honorable Brescia; Honorable Sullivan; Honorable Bonacic; Honorable Berkman;

Honorable Turnbull; and Honorable Anagnostakis.

125 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 50.

126 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 22.

127 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 30.

128 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 41; and Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page

168.

129 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 40 -45.

130 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 56.

131Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 19 -21. The August 7, 2013 and October 21, 2013

checks were received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibits 103 and 104 respectively.

132Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 47.

133 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 173.

68

134

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 177. A copy of the draft offer was received into evidence as

Grand Jury Exhibit 105.

135 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 177.

136 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 180-182. A copy of the formal job offer was received into

evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 106.

137 Grand Jury Exhibit 106. Below the signature of the Principal of Vendor X are the words “Accepted By:” and a

line for Legislator A’s signature and the date. It appears Legislator A signed the document and dated it December

16, 2013.

138 Grand Jury Exhibit 106

139 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 189.

140 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 50.

141 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 63.

142 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 204. A copy of Legislator A’s resignation letter was received into

evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 110.

143 A copy of the checks and a copy of Legislator A’s deposit slips were received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit

107. Legislator A’s explanation of each check is contained in Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014 pages 205 -

208.

144 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11,2014, page 161.

145 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11,2014, pages 161-162, 167, 171-172.

146 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 62-63.

147 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 64-65.

148 Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, page 66.

149 Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, page 66.

150 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 67.

151 Grand Jury Exhibit 3.

152 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 68-72.

153 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 78.

154 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 183.

155 Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, page 67.

69

156

Orange County Charter – Section 2.07(a)(1)

157 Testimony of Matthew Turnbull, April 11, 2014, page 139.

158 Testimony of Melissa Bonicic, April 4, 2014 page 30.

159 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 227.

160 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 228.

161 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 188, (quoting another legislator).

162 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 187.

163 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 187.

164 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 187.

165 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 188.

166 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 188.

167 Grand Jury Exhibit 3.

168 Grand Jury Exhibit 3.

169 Grand Jury Exhibit 3.

170 Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, page 56.

171 Legislator Brescia testified that he was notified by Attorney A that Legislator A had been offered a job with

Vendor X. (Testimony of Stephen Brescia, March 28, 2013, page 91).

172 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 236.

173 Testimony of Orange County Legislator, April 4, 2014, page 17.

174 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 164.

175 Grand Jury Exhibit 35.

176 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 191-192.

177 Testimony Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 136.

178 Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 89.

179 Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, pages 85 and 90.

180 Testimony of County official, April 4, 2013, page 89.

70

181

Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 92.

182 Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 95.

183 Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 134.

184 Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 135.

185 Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 136.

186 Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 136.

187 Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 138.

188 Testimony of Roseanne Sullivan, April 4, 2014, page 143.

189 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 206-207.

190 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 221.

191 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 221.

192 Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 56.

193 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 241.

194 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 241.

195 Local Law No 1 Of 1994 pertains to increasing the compensation for County Coroners.

196 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 240.

197 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 60.

198 Testimony of Donald Nichols, March 14, 2014, page 111.

199 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, pages 50-51.

200 Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 52.

201 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 244.

202 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 238.

203 Testimony Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 238.

204 Testimony of Roseanne Sullivan, April 4, 2014, page 143.

205 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 164.

206 Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014 page 140.

71

207

Testimony of County Official, April 4, 2014, page 107.

208 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 249.

209 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, pages 250-251.

210 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 240.

211 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 180.

212 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 228.

213 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 245.

214 Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 245.

72