Pointing Fingers

(This is an editorial from Scarsdale10583 site founder Joanne Wallenstein) In charging Trustee Carl Finger with an "appearance of a conflict of interest," Robert Berg continues a pattern of charging local officials with whom he disagrees on policy issues with unethical behavior, possibly in order to embarrass them.

Berg waged a long battle to undermine Scarsdale Schools Superintendent Michael McGill when Berg believed that school budgets were unnecessarily high. At school board meetings he took McGill on, in a way that made many uncomfortable, while his colleagues from the Scarsdale Forum charged the district with misleading and misrepresenting the public about a health insurance reserve fund, saying this "may constitute securities fraud," and called for McGill's resignation. Citing "the organized effort to displace him from his position," Dr. McGill decided to retire a year early.

Now Berg is not pleased with the decision by the Village Board of Trustees to follow its own precedent in 2014 and again turn down the Homestead Act, which would have doubled real estate taxes for Christie Place condo owners – and reduced the tax bill for Scarsdale's single-family homeowners by about $99 per household. As President of the Scarsdale Forum, Berg authored a report recommending the adoption of Homestead in 2014, and also signed the report in 2016.

Though the intent of the Homestead Act was to balance the tax burden between commercial and residential properties following a revaluation, advocates for the adoption in Scarsdale were using it to shift the tax burden from single-family home owners to condo owners – which was not the intent of the law. Based on their understanding of such intent, two separate groups of Trustees have rejected the Homestead Act.

However, rather than accept defeat, Berg again had decided to play the ethics card and charge one of the trustees with unethical behavior. Since Trustee Carl Finger is a real estate attorney who represents, among other clients, other condominiums around the county, Berg decided that Finger needed to recuse himself from the vote on Homestead. Before the vote, Trustee Finger consulted with Village Attorney Wayne Essanason who gave Trustee Finger the choice of whether or not to vote. In an Essanason's view there was no conflict of interest since Finger did not represent condos in Scarsdale.

After Finger joined six other members of the Board of Trustees and voted "no" to Homestead, Berg claimed that the decision would set a precedent for other municipalities and that Finger might represent condos in Scarsdale in the future. He said there was an "appearance of a conflict of interest" and requested that "the Village Board of Trustees direct the Village Board of Ethics to convene and review Trustee Finger's decision not to recuse himself." Berg said, "A determination from the Board of Ethics will be helpful to guide trustees' conduct in the future."

I'm no lawyer but I never heard of anyone being charged with impropriety on behalf of a client they might represent in the future. Furthermore, as the vote against Homestead was unanimous, Finger's vote did not even make a difference. You can read Robert Berg's email and the response from the Village Attorney here: 

Anyone who knows Carl Finger or who has attended a Village Board meeting in the past two years can see that these charges have been trumped up to embarrass him. Finger is thoughtful, ethical, intelligent and just the kind of person we need running our Village. He is energetic, responsible and it's terrific that he takes this volunteer position so seriously. Despite Berg's complaint to the contrary, Finger's vote did not create an "appearance of impropriety," and in truth there was no impropriety at all.

Here is a copy of the email that Berg sent to Wayne Essanason on February 26:

Hi Wayne. Thanks for responding to me so quickly. I respectfully disagree with your conflict of interest analysis with respect to Trustee Finger. At a minimum, as I told the Board of Trustees and Trustee Finger, his firm's representation of many condominium clients in Westchester County raises an appearance of impropriety. Given that all other Trustees and the Mayor were present and able to participate in the deliberations and the vote, Trustee Finger's participation was not needed, and he should have recused himself, even if he was not required to do so (which I do not necessarily concede). In Scarsdale, we pride ourselves on running a good, clean government. That's why I believe the Village Board should refer this matter to the Village Board of Ethics. While Trustee Finger may not be on the Village Board at the time of the next revaluation, the issue of the circumstances under which a sitting Trustee should recuse himself/herself will undoubtedly arise again, and guidance from the Village Board of Ethics may be helpful. I appreciate the fact that Mayor Mark will present my request at the next agenda meeting. Best regards, Bob Berg.

Letters:

The following email was sent to Mayor Jon Mark from Jeffrey Johnson on Tuesday March 1:

Dr. Mayor Mark,

In reading the front page article and ensuing editorial in the February 26 issue of the Inquirer, I was very surprised to see the ethics of Carl Finger called into question by newspaper. It is one thing - and of course the paper's prerogative - to voice the views of a citizen who has seen a vote on the Homestead Tax result in a unanimous decision against his viewpoint twice in a row. It is quite another to challenge without merit the ethics of a reputable trustee and attorney on his decision not to recuse himself after seeking unbiased advice from the Village Attorney.

I have only lived in Scarsdale for two and a half years; however, in my personal dealings with Carl (mainly in coaching girls' rec basketball and softball) and knowing his ethical approach to his work, I am confident he would have recused himself if there was truly a conflict of interest. Carl's firm does not represent any condominium clients in Scarsdale, and I do not believe it is the place for the Inquirer to create an issue where there simply is not one. The only reason there is an "appearance of impropriety" is because the Inquirer chose to publish that line in their questionable editorial. As a fairly new citizen to the community, I wanted to show my support for Carl because I know how much he is putting into his position as trustee.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Johnson
Fox Meadow

This letter was also sent in for publication:

To the editor:

At a time in our political history when many federal lawmakers view obstruction as a primary strategy for governance, our local political process has prided itself on its nonpartisan and thoughtful approach. The Inquirer's February 26th editorial, "Recusal refusal," wrongly criticizes Carl Finger for choosing to fully engage in his responsibilities as Trustee.

The issue centered on a vote on a proposed Homestead Tax Option, which would likely result in higher tax rates for commercial properties. Among many various types of clients, Finger's law firm represents condominiums in other towns and cities. Make no mistake: as the Inquirer stated, Finger's firm does not currently represent any condominiums in Scarsdale. After consulting the Village Attorney on the issue, Finger chose to fully participate in the proceedings.

The editorial acknowledges that it does not think Finger voted in the interest of his clients, which is right as he has no clients in Scarsdale who would benefit from the decision. Instead, the Inquirer's argument is predicated on the idea that he should have abstained because he might, in the future, get such a client. This is an unreasonable standard that would subject Trustees to a potentially limitless barrage of "what if" challenges under the theory that this creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.

It would have been easier for Finger to disengage from the process of governance as the Inquirer would have him do. For a Trustee they describe as someone who "asks salient questions," "contributes ideas" and is "thoughtful and considered," one would think they would be advocating the exact opposite. We want our Trustees engaged in the process of governing, not shirking from their responsibilities. This editorial only served to discourage thoughtful people from serving in this critical role in the future.

William and Barbara Langford
Boulevard

This letter was submitted by Sanford Greenberg

To: Editor and Mayor:

Recent criticism of Trustee Carl Finger's participation in the Homestead Tax vote is based on a twisted application of ethics principles. Local government involves innumerable personal and business connections between elected officials and the community they govern. We want our Village Trustees to be members of our Village, active and involved participants in our community and deeply interested in our issues. An unavoidable consequence of local government is that our Trustees are often impacted by their governing decisions. By way of example, each Trustee who owns a single family house in Scarsdale had a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the Homestead Tax vote. The application of conflict principles to local government requires reason and balance. We elected the Trustees because we have faith in their judgment and their skill, knowing full well that each Trustee's interests are intertwined with our Village. In the matter of Trustee Finger, the "interest" identified by one disgruntled resident (and propped up by the Scarsdale Inquirer Editorial) is hypothetical and remote - and does not constitute a conflict. Trustee Finger's law firm does not represent a condominium in Scarsdale. The assertion that Trustee Finger was impermissibly conflicted because his vote may at some future point in time have an unidentified impact on an unidentified condominium client of Trustee Finger's firm located in another unidentified town is reckless and without merit.

 

Sanford Greenberg
Fox Meadow