Discussions of two ethics complaints now before the town board heated up a recent meeting of the Malta Town Board.
Proposed changes in Malta town ethics laws and in the Malta employee manual stoked the already flaring tempers among town board members and Supervisor Paul Sausville Monday night, Feb. 4.
Amicable start
The board meeting, with its signature lengthy agenda packed with presentations and public hearings, began amicably with a pre-meeting workshop that brought board members to one common table to review proposed changes to the town’s ethics law. With two current ethics complaints now before the board, both lodged against Sausville, discussions focused on who should comprise the ethics review committee, and how to keep partisan issues out of the mix.
The draft calls for changes including disallowing town elected officials, employees, or officers in any political party to serve on the five-member ethics review committee. Clarifying the committee’s authority was also key to the discussion.
Right now, the ethics board is an advisory board giving an opinion back to the town board, which has the authority to act, said Council Member Peter Klotz.
Other specific questions raised included if the ethics committee has the power to subpoena witnesses for a case they’re investigating, and what the punishment would be for someone refusing to testify. The board did not get through the entire draft Monday night. Town Attorney Tom Peterson said he would review legal terms for the board to continue its review this month.
Town’s employee manual becomes key to complaints
The first complaint against Sausville, lodged Oct. 1, by eight town residents and given confidentially to the town board by Ann Klotz, spouse of council member Peter Klotz, asked the board to review Sausville’s public support of Republican candidate Tara Thomas for town council. In a Sept. 6 letter to the editor of The Ballston Journal, Sausville wrote his support of Thomas. The complaint alleges Sausville strategized the endorsement on town time, and used his position as supervisor to ask residents to join him in voting for Thomas.
In January 2008, when no response came from the town board, Ann Klotz read the complaint at a public meeting. The complaint specifically addressed town policy banning political activity in the workplace.
`Given that there has been no response from my Oct. 1 submission, I am now publicly requesting that the town board review of the actions of Supervisor Paul Sausville relating to political activity in violation of the Malta town employee manual,` read Ann Klotz. `If it is determined that he violated the town policy manual, I ask that appropriate sanctions be imposed.`
In fact, Sausville had reminded town employees about the policy just before elections in November 2007. In a memo dated Sept. 5, from Sausville to town department heads, obtained by Spotlight Newspapers this week, Sausville wrote, `The town board wishes to re-emphasize our policy against political activity in the workplace in direct and indirect ways, including the use of copy machines, requests for signatures, petitions and votes, e-mails, political meetings, hallway conferences, as well as working on town time.`
Sausville’s memo also states: `This applies not only to staff but to elected officials. It is town policy and in the public interest that all political activity in the workplace be avoided.`
The employee manual further states, `No employee of the town of Malta may authorize any person to use his or her affiliation with the town of Malta in an attempt to suggest the employee’s support or opposition to a nomination or an election for office or a ballot measure is of an ‘official,’ as distinguished from private, character.`
Sausville questions employee manual
Monday night, in a surprise move, an item of new business not included on the draft agenda, Sausville asked the board to vote to release town officials from adhering to the employee manual. Sausville used several benign examples to explain his motion.
`There are provisions in the employee manual that don’t apply to elected officials, such as keeping timesheets and attendance reports, reporting to supervisors if they are absent, and getting approval to work from home,` said Sausville.
`We are employees of the town, and we should be held accountable the same as every other employee,` said Board Member Sue Nolen.
Sausville and Thomas voted to revoke obligations of officials to comply with the manual; Nolen, Klotz and Winters voted to keep officials in compliance with the manual, including disallowing political activity.
Ethics attorney responds to complaint
In October 2007, rather than turning the complaint about Sausville’s political activity over to the then-established ethics board, town attorney Thomas Peterson was directed to send the complaint to Richard Kupferman of Ballston Spa, attorney for the ethics board, for his interpretation.
In another surprise move, in January the existing ethics board was not reappointed, and the town board instead set up another committee to review the ethics law and make suggestions for new members. Interviews for new ethics panel members are taking place this month. At this time, there is no standing ethics board of review.
Delays ensued. Peterson reported at several board meetings he had not heard back from Kupferman, due in part to Kupferman being ill during the month of December. Finally, a reply from Kupferman dated Jan. 28, read by Deputy Town Supervisor Glenn Rockwood Monday night, showed his interpretation that the complaint was a challenge to town policy, rather than an act of ethical misconduct.
The letter put the complaint squarely back in the hands of the town board to send the alleged violation of town policy to the ethics committee for its advisory opinion. Board members Gerry Winters, Nolen and Klotz voted to send it on to the ethics committee, while Thomas voted not to.
Peter Klotz explained his position on not excusing himself from the vote.
`Although I am married to one of the eight residents who signed this complaint, the matter could have come forward without (Ann’s) signature,` said Peter Klotz. `The letter of interpretation from Kupferman is not a final resolution.`
Nolen asked if Sausville’s computer hard drive could be copied at this time to determine if it was used to create his letter endorsing Thomas.
`I don’t think this is enforceable by this board, but the ethics committee will do what’s appropriate in their investigation,` said Peterson.
Sausville fires back
In yet another surprise move, Sausville late Monday night, when many audience members had gone home, read a prepared statement alleging misconduct by other town board members in their alleged endorsements for Peter Klotz in his campaign for a council seat.
`I have the right to bring this up,` said Sausville. `There were endorsements made by Cliff Lange, Sue Nolen and Gerry Winters for Donna Gizzi and Pastor Klotz. I wonder why I was singled out on this matter, when in fact the entire town board did this. This is a violation of the employee’s manual that wasn’t even expected to apply to elected officials.`
Cliff Lange and Donna Gizzi are no longer members of the town board.
Thomas made a motion to send Sausville’s complaint to the ethics committee, a motion she later rescinded when shouting broke out and audience members began to yell from their seats.
There was no resolution of Sausville’s complaint Monday night, with Thomas’ motion rescinded and other board members refusing to acknowledge the matter.
The town board is due to meet again Thursday, Feb. 7, at 6:00 p.m. for a workshop review on proposed changes to the ethics law.“