Who Watches New Rochelle’s Ethics Watchdog?

DUBLIN, IRELAND (October 16, 2026) — An inquiry about an ethics complaint against a City Council member led me to examine why the municipal body responsible for enforcing ethical standards operates with so little transparency, and what the city should do about it.

In June, Michael Cammer, a recently appointed member of the New Rochelle Civilian Complaint Review Board, contacted me with a question. He wanted to know whether someone had actually filed an ethics complaint against City Council Member Albert Tarantino and, if so, what the complaint concerned. I thought those were perfectly reasonable questions. I still do. When allegations of misconduct are made against an elected official, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing how those allegations are handled and, ultimately, what the responsible government body determines. That doesn’t mean every accusation should immediately become public or that an elected official should be presumed to have done something wrong simply because someone filed a complaint. There are legitimate reasons to protect the confidentiality of investigations, particularly when allegations have not been substantiated. But there ought to be some meaningful way for the public to understand what happens when a complaint is filed against someone entrusted with public office.

I offered to see what I could find out. On June 23, I contacted City Clerk Kim Jones, who also serves as clerk of the Board of Ethics, asking her to confirm whether a complaint had been filed and, if so, to provide a copy. I subsequently received a denial of access under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), with the city citing the statutory exemption protecting against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. On July 29, I forwarded the denial to Cammer and explained that, based on my previous dealings with the Board of Ethics, his best option was probably to contact the person who had filed the complaint. The complainant would have a copy of the complaint and, in my experience, would eventually receive the board’s determination. I warned Cammer that this could take weeks or months.

At the time, I also told Cammer that New Rochelle’s ethics code exempted the Board of Ethics from FOIL, although the board could choose to release records. That was my understanding of the city’s own ordinance, based on my experience trying to obtain ethics records. I had previously encountered similar difficulties seeking information about a complaint involving former City Council Member Sara Kaye. In cases where I had filed complaints myself, I received copies of the eventual determinations, but those decisions were not routinely made available to the public. The system seemed to be designed primarily to communicate with the parties directly involved, leaving everyone else dependent on whatever information those parties were willing or able to share.

I have since learned that my understanding of the board’s exemption from FOIL, based on the language of New Rochelle’s ordinance, was incorrect. On October 16, the New York State Committee on Open Government confirmed that municipal ethics boards are subject to both FOIL and the Open Meetings Law, and that municipalities cannot exempt themselves from those state laws through local ordinances. That doesn’t necessarily mean the city’s denial of the particular records Cammer sought was improper. FOIL contains legitimate privacy exemptions that may apply to individual complaints. But it does mean that New Rochelle cannot simply declare its entire ethics process beyond the reach of state transparency laws, which is precisely what its ordinance appears to attempt.

Cammer’s inquiry stayed with me, partly because I agreed with his underlying concern about the public’s ability to learn how allegations against elected officials are handled, but also because I had questions arising from my own experiences with the Board of Ethics. Over the years, I have filed a number of ethics complaints involving New Rochelle officials. More recently, I submitted sworn complaints concerning Council Member Shane Osinloye and Mayor Yadira Ramos-Herbert. I understand how to prepare a complaint, what documentation to include and where to submit it. What I have never found particularly clear is what happens after the city acknowledges receiving it.

When does the Board of Ethics meet to consider a complaint? Who attends those meetings, and how does the board determine whether it has a quorum? Does every complaint receive preliminary consideration? What standards are used to decide whether an investigation is warranted, and what distinguishes a complaint that is dismissed without investigation from one that is investigated but ultimately not sustained? How are decisions made and recorded, and what information is provided to the complainant or the official who is the subject of the complaint? These are not questions about the confidential substance of an investigation. They concern the basic procedures through which a municipal body exercises governmental authority.

My recent experience illustrates the problem. On September 3, Jones confirmed receiving my sworn complaint concerning Osinloye and advised that she had forwarded it to the Board of Ethics. When I followed up later that month, she told me the board had scheduled another meeting to discuss complaints. That was useful information, but it also raised questions. When was the meeting scheduled? Who would attend? Would the board consider my complaint? Would it decide whether to investigate, or was it already conducting an investigation? As someone who has filed several ethics complaints, I have learned that the process can take considerable time, but I have found no publicly accessible system for determining when the board meets, what general business it conducts or what decisions it makes.

That prompted me to revisit the Board of Ethics webpage on the city’s website. Under the heading “Meetings,” it states that public meetings of the board will be noted on the main City Calendar. Yet I have been unable to identify notices of such meetings, much less accompanying agendas or minutes. The website also contained outdated membership information when I reviewed it. None of this inspires confidence in a municipal body whose responsibilities include promoting ethical conduct and accountability within city government.

The more I thought about it, the more remarkable the situation seemed. New Rochelle has numerous boards, commissions and committees whose meetings are publicly announced, whose members are identified and whose activities can be followed through agendas, minutes and other records. Yet its Board of Ethics, the institution specifically responsible for overseeing ethical conduct in municipal government, appears to operate with less public visibility than almost any other municipal body. It is difficult to reconcile that arrangement with the principles of transparency and accountability the board is supposed to uphold.

I want to be clear about the distinction I’m making. Ethics investigations can involve allegations that are entirely unfounded, confidential financial information, sensitive personnel matters and the identities of complainants or witnesses who may have legitimate reasons to expect privacy. Public officials accused of misconduct also deserve due process and protection from the reputational damage that can result from the indiscriminate publication of unsubstantiated accusations. I am not proposing that the Board of Ethics conduct every investigation in public or publish every complaint upon receipt. Indeed, such a requirement could undermine the fairness and integrity of the ethics process.

What I am questioning is why those legitimate confidentiality concerns should prevent the public from knowing how the Board of Ethics operates as an institution. There is no obvious reason why the board cannot disclose when it meets, identify its members, explain its procedures, report how many complaints it receives and investigates, or provide an annual accounting of its work without revealing confidential allegations. Those forms of institutional transparency are entirely compatible with protecting the privacy of individuals involved in particular proceedings.

There is also a legitimate question about what should happen when an ethics matter reaches its conclusion. According to sources familiar with the matter, as of October 16, the Board of Ethics had not pursued an investigation into the complaint concerning Tarantino that originally prompted Cammer’s inquiry. I have not independently established whether the board formally declined to investigate or simply had not initiated an investigation by that date. The distinction matters, as does the larger question of whether the public should be informed of the disposition of complaints involving elected officials.

I believe ethics investigations should generally remain confidential while pending. Officials who are the subjects of complaints should have the right to request public release of final determinations, particularly when allegations have not been sustained. Substantiated violations involving elected officials should ordinarily be disclosed regardless of the official’s consent. Any such system would require carefully constructed legal safeguards to protect due process, personal privacy, complainants, witnesses and other confidential information. Exactly where those boundaries should be drawn is a legitimate subject for public discussion. My purpose is not to prescribe every detail of a new disclosure system, but to establish the principle that protecting individuals from unfounded allegations and holding public officials accountable for established misconduct are not mutually exclusive objectives.

The problem, as I see it, is that New Rochelle has treated the confidentiality of individual ethics matters as justification for an extraordinary degree of institutional secrecy. Whether that approach was ever legally justified is now very much in question. And even if particular practices were permissible under existing law, that would not make them desirable public policy. A government body charged with enforcing ethical standards should be able to demonstrate that it is operating fairly, consistently and effectively, without compromising the legitimate confidentiality of individual cases.

That realization led me to examine the city’s ethics code more closely, consult the New York State Committee on Open Government and consider what changes the City Council could make to establish meaningful public accountability for the Board of Ethics. What I found in the existing ordinance was troubling. What I found in New Rochelle’s much newer Civilian Complaint Review Board was equally revealing, but for a different reason: the city has already adopted a framework for combining confidential oversight responsibilities with public meetings, reporting requirements and mandatory training.

The City Council therefore has both a problem to correct and a model for correcting it.

A 1992 Ordinance That Purports to Override State Law

New Rochelle’s Board of Ethics operates under provisions adopted by the City Council on December 8, 1992, as Ordinance 302-1992. The ordinance is incorporated into Chapter 33 of the City Code, which establishes the city’s ethics requirements, financial disclosure system and the powers and duties of the Board of Ethics.

Section 33-18, titled “Public information,” contains two provisions that deserve particular scrutiny. Subsection A begins with the phrase “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6 of the Public Officers Law,” then identifies a limited number of categories of records available for public inspection. Article 6 is the Freedom of Information Law. The ordinance purports to restrict public access to specified financial disclosures and enforcement notices rather than making records generally available subject to the exemptions established by FOIL.

Subsection B goes further. It states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 7 of the Public Officers Law, no meeting or proceeding of the Board of Ethics shall be open to the public, except if expressly provided otherwise by the Board of Ethics.”

Article 7 is New York’s Open Meetings Law. New Rochelle’s ordinance therefore purports to establish a blanket prohibition on public attendance at Board of Ethics meetings, while giving the board discretion to open its proceedings if it chooses.

That language has been part of the city’s ethics code for nearly 34 years. Anyone reading the ordinance could reasonably conclude, as I once did, that the Board of Ethics operates under special exemptions from the state’s transparency laws. Indeed, the text goes beyond merely describing certain records or proceedings as confidential. It expressly invokes the state laws by name and purports to override them.

But municipal governments do not ordinarily have the authority to exempt themselves from state laws simply by declaring that those laws do not apply. The Open Meetings Law specifically addresses this problem in Public Officers Law § 110(1), which provides that local laws, ordinances and other municipal provisions more restrictive of public access than the state law are superseded to the extent of the conflict.

FOIL operates under a related principle. Government records are presumptively accessible unless an applicable statutory basis permits withholding them, in whole or in part. A municipality cannot create an entirely new category of confidential records merely because it prefers to keep them private.

This does not establish that every Board of Ethics record must be released or that every discussion must take place in public. It does establish that the legal authority for withholding records or excluding the public must come from applicable law, not merely from a local declaration of confidentiality.

Those questions prompted my October 16 inquiry to the New York State Committee on Open Government.

Albany’s Answer

I sent my questions to the Committee on Open Government, copying City Clerk Kim Jones in her capacity as clerk to New Rochelle’s Board of Ethics. I asked whether the city’s ordinance could lawfully override FOIL and the Open Meetings Law, whether the board was required to provide public notice of meetings, whether it had to convene publicly before entering executive session, and whether records such as agendas, minutes, attendance information and administrative documents were subject to public access.

I also asked about the possibility of annual public meetings and statistical reports that would allow residents to evaluate the board’s operations without disclosing confidential information.

Kristin Bergin, Acting Executive Director and Counsel of the Committee on Open Government, responded the same day. Her answer to the central legal question was direct:

“Municipal Ethics Boards are public bodies subject to all aspects of the Open Meetings Law and records maintained by the Board are records of the municipality subject to rights of access under FOIL. A municipality has no authority to enforce a local law that ‘not withstands’ a state or federal statute.”

Bergin also supplied five advisory opinions addressing the application of FOIL and the Open Meetings Law to ethics bodies. Some of those opinions date back more than three decades, illustrating that the underlying legal principles are hardly new.

The earliest, issued October 14, 1993, concerned a proposed ethics code in the Village of Dobbs Ferry. Robert J. Freeman, then executive director of the Committee on Open Government, examined proposed provisions requiring confidentiality of ethics complaints and directing the ethics board to meet in executive session. He concluded that the language was unnecessary and potentially inconsistent with state law.

Freeman explained that a local enactment cannot independently establish confidentiality where state or federal law does not authorize it. He also discussed the distinction between protecting particular investigative records under FOIL and declaring all such records categorically unavailable. The opinion recognized that unsubstantiated allegations and information identifying complainants or witnesses may qualify for privacy protections, while records concerning the official duties of public employees can carry a stronger public interest in disclosure.

A 1997 opinion concerning the Town of Clarence addressed similar questions about a proposed municipal ethics code, along with issues concerning quorum requirements. In 2003, Freeman examined the Town of Southold’s ethics board, including its obligation to comply with the Open Meetings Law and the treatment of its records under FOIL. His analysis distinguished between preliminary recommendations, final determinations, confidential allegations and records that may be disclosable because of their relationship to official conduct.

Another 2003 opinion concerned the former New York State Ethics Commission. That commission operated under specific exemptions established by the State Legislature in the Executive Law. The distinction matters because the Legislature can enact statutory exemptions that a municipality cannot simply create for itself. Interestingly, the state statute discussed in that opinion contained language resembling the language New Rochelle adopted in 1992. Whether New Rochelle modeled its ordinance on the state law is an unanswered historical question, but any similarity in wording would not give the City Council equivalent authority to override state law.

The fifth opinion, issued February 21, 2007, again involved Southold and addressed when a municipal ethics board could enter executive session to discuss allegations involving an identifiable public official or employee. Freeman explained that the Open Meetings Law permits executive sessions for specified purposes, including certain matters involving an individual’s financial history or potential disciplinary action.

That opinion is important because it supports the distinction I have been making throughout this discussion. The law recognizes legitimate reasons for confidential ethics proceedings. It does not follow that the institution conducting those proceedings is exempt from the Open Meetings Law altogether.

In other words, the Committee on Open Government’s guidance supports both transparency and appropriate confidentiality. It does not require municipalities to choose one at the expense of the other.

There are qualifications. An advisory opinion is not a court judgment, and Bergin’s response was not a finding that every past New Rochelle Board of Ethics meeting violated the law. Whether a particular meeting or record was improperly closed or withheld depends on the circumstances and applicable statutory provisions. It is also possible for certain matters to be exempt from the Open Meetings Law altogether under Public Officers Law § 108, which differs from entering executive session under § 105.

Nevertheless, the central conclusion is difficult to avoid: New Rochelle should not continue maintaining a municipal ordinance that purports to give its Board of Ethics blanket exemptions from state public-access requirements.

The City Council should repeal or substantially revise Section 33-18 and replace it with language accurately reflecting the board’s legal obligations, including appropriate provisions protecting genuinely confidential information.

But correcting the ordinance would address only part of the problem.

The City’s Newer Oversight Board Offers a Better Model

There is a certain irony in the fact that Michael Cammer, whose inquiry helped set this examination in motion, had recently been appointed to the New Rochelle Civilian Complaint Review Board.

The CCRB is a much newer institution than the Board of Ethics. Established by the City Council in October 2024, it was designed to provide civilian oversight through the review of completed police Internal Affairs investigations and recommendations concerning allegations of police misconduct.

I have reported extensively on the creation of the CCRB, the selection of its members, its authority, its training requirements and the delays involved in making it operational. That reporting has not always been favorable to the city’s handling of the process. But the legal structure the City Council established for the CCRB contains several features that offer a useful model for reforming the Board of Ethics.

Under City Code § 9-118, the CCRB is required to hold public meetings at least quarterly at City Hall, subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Law governing executive sessions. It must also conduct an annual meeting intended to educate residents about the board’s role and enable its members and the City Council to hear differing perspectives concerning police-civilian interactions.

The CCRB’s governing legislation also requires public reporting. Section 9-123 establishes reporting requirements covering individual case reviews and semiannual reports, with appropriate protections for confidential information. Section 9-119 imposes strict confidentiality obligations on members, including requirements concerning the handling of police records, the protection of investigative information and communications about pending complaints.

The city therefore established a framework that recognizes two responsibilities at once: protecting confidential investigative information and ensuring that the oversight body remains publicly accountable.

That distinction is precisely what is missing from New Rochelle’s Board of Ethics framework.

The CCRB’s monthly meetings involving the review of individual complaints are designated as closed to protect complainants and police personnel. At the same time, the CCRB must hold public meetings, provide annual public education and report on its work. Its members are subject to attendance and training requirements, and the ordinance establishes procedures for their removal under specified circumstances.

Those provisions do not guarantee that the CCRB will operate effectively. The effectiveness of the board depends on whether the city actually implements and enforces the requirements it has adopted. But the legal framework establishes clear expectations that can be measured against the board’s performance.

By comparison, New Rochelle’s much older Board of Ethics has no comparable requirement in its governing ordinance to conduct a dedicated annual public meeting, provide public education about its responsibilities or publish a comprehensive annual accounting of its activities.

Why should two municipal oversight bodies responsible for reviewing allegations of wrongdoing operate under such different standards of institutional accountability?

The Training Disparity

The contrast becomes even more pronounced when examining the requirements imposed on members before they may review confidential investigative materials.

New Rochelle City Code § 9-117 expressly makes training mandatory for membership on the CCRB. Members must receive a comprehensive curriculum before reviewing cases, covering such subjects as the criminal justice process, police procedures, constitutional rights, confidentiality, the evaluation of misconduct allegations and the investigation of complaints.

The ordinance also provides for additional training involving public records and public meetings, privacy protections, police practices and other subjects relevant to the board’s responsibilities. Failure to complete training is among the grounds for removal established by the city’s CCRB legislation.

As I have reported previously, the implementation of those requirements has itself presented difficulties, including delays in getting the board functioning. But that is an argument for establishing clear training deadlines and ensuring the city fulfills its responsibilities, not for eliminating training requirements.

Now consider the Board of Ethics.

Under § 33-17, the Board of Ethics has authority to administer and enforce the city’s ethics provisions, conduct investigations, administer oaths, subpoena witnesses, compel attendance and require production of relevant books and records. Its responsibilities also include administering the city’s financial disclosure system, considering allegations of ethical misconduct and issuing advisory opinions.

Those are substantial governmental powers involving complicated questions of law, fairness, evidence, financial interests, conflicts of interest and individual privacy.

Yet I have found no comparable mandatory training requirement in New Rochelle’s ethics ordinance. That does not establish that members receive no training, but it means the city’s published legal framework does not impose the same affirmative obligation it places on CCRB members.

I believe members of the Board of Ethics should be required to complete initial training before participating in substantive investigations or determinations, followed by periodic continuing education. The curriculum should cover Article 18 of the General Municipal Law, New Rochelle’s ethics code, conflicts of interest, financial disclosure requirements, investigative procedures, due process, confidentiality, FOIL and the Open Meetings Law.

The city should also establish reasonable deadlines for completing training and maintain records documenting compliance. It would make little sense to enact a training requirement that could then be used to leave the board unable to function indefinitely.

If New Rochelle believes training is essential before civilian board members review confidential police investigations, it should explain why comparable preparation is not required of the people entrusted with the city’s ethics enforcement system.

Start With One Entirely Public Meeting Each Year

The most significant reform I would propose is also one of the simplest: require the Board of Ethics to hold at least one entirely public meeting annually, dedicated to public education, institutional accountability and discussion of the board’s operations.

I am not proposing that this meeting be used to consider pending complaints or deliberate about confidential allegations. Those subjects would remain outside the meeting’s agenda. The purpose would be to give residents an opportunity to learn who is responsible for enforcing the ethics code, what authority those individuals possess, how the system operates and what the board accomplished during the preceding year.

All board members should be expected to attend and introduce themselves. The public should also be introduced to the board’s clerk, legal counsel and any other officials with substantial responsibilities for administering its work. Residents should be told how members are appointed, how long their terms last, what qualifications are required and how the board is organized.

The meeting should include an explanation of Article 18 of the General Municipal Law and New Rochelle’s own ethics code. It should explain what constitutes a potential ethics violation, what kinds of matters fall within the board’s jurisdiction, how financial disclosure requirements operate and what authority the board possesses to investigate alleged misconduct.

Perhaps most importantly, it should explain how members of the public can use the ethics process. Residents should be told who may submit an ethics complaint, whether it must be sworn, what information should accompany it, where it should be sent and what happens after the city receives it. The board should explain the distinction between filing a complaint and requesting an advisory opinion, including who is eligible to request each and the circumstances under which those procedures are available.

There should also be a public participation period. New York’s Open Meetings Law generally guarantees the right to observe covered meetings, not an automatic right to address the public body. I would go further by requiring an opportunity for residents to comment on the board’s administration and procedures.

Ideally, the meeting would include questions and answers. There would need to be reasonable restrictions against discussing particular complaints, identifying confidential witnesses or disclosing protected information, but those considerations should not prevent residents from asking questions about the institution itself.

One annual meeting is hardly an unreasonable burden. The CCRB is already required to conduct an annual public education meeting, along with quarterly public meetings. An ethics board whose responsibilities include promoting public confidence in government should be capable of spending a few hours each year explaining its work to the public.

Publish an Annual Report That Tells Residents Something

The second major reform would require the Board of Ethics to prepare and publish an annual statistical report documenting its activities during the preceding calendar year.

This would not be a report disclosing confidential complaints or identifying people whose conduct was never found to violate the ethics code. It would be an institutional accounting, using standardized categories that allow residents to understand what the board actually does and how effectively it performs its responsibilities.

Such a report should include the number and dates of meetings held, attendance by board members, and the number of annual financial disclosure statements required and received. It should distinguish filings submitted on time from those submitted late, those never received and those requiring amendment or correction.

The report should also account for requests for advisory opinions, including how many were received, issued, declined or remained pending. Complaints should be reported by general disposition, distinguishing matters dismissed without investigation from those referred for investigation, resolved after investigation or still pending. The board should provide aggregate information about investigations initiated and completed, final determinations, enforcement actions and the time required to process matters.

These examples should not be treated as an exhaustive list. Additional information about vacancies, training compliance, administrative changes, procedures and other matters affecting the board’s work could also be included.

A useful report would allow the public to distinguish a board that receives few complaints from one that receives many but rarely acts, and a board that resolves matters promptly from one with an accumulating backlog. It would also reveal whether financial disclosure requirements are being administered consistently and whether board members are regularly attending meetings.

None of this inherently requires disclosure of confidential allegations.

There would need to be safeguards, particularly where very small numbers might permit the indirect identification of individuals. Certain categories could be combined or suppressed when necessary to protect legally confidential information. But those exceptions should be carefully defined rather than used as a blanket justification for refusing to publish meaningful statistics.

FOIL already provides rights of access to existing factual and statistical records, subject to applicable exemptions. What I am proposing goes further by creating an affirmative duty to compile and publish a standardized annual accounting.

The city should not wait for a journalist or resident to file a records request before providing basic information about whether its ethics enforcement system is functioning.

Give the Public a Way to Use the System

The Board of Ethics website also needs a substantial overhaul.

A municipal ethics board should have a dedicated, regularly maintained webpage identifying its current members, their terms of office, the clerk, legal counsel and contact information. It should provide access to the applicable ethics code, procedural rules, publicly available advisory opinions and other guidance explaining the board’s responsibilities.

There should be straightforward instructions for submitting ethics complaints, including who may file them, what information is required, whether a sworn statement is necessary and how supporting materials should be submitted. A sample complaint form or template would make the process more accessible, particularly to residents unfamiliar with municipal legal procedures.

The webpage should explain how advisory opinion requests differ from complaints and who is authorized to seek such opinions. It should also identify the appropriate mailing and email addresses, the procedures for requesting records and the general process by which matters are considered and resolved.

Annual public meeting notices, agendas, reports and other nonconfidential materials should be published there. Membership information should be reviewed whenever appointments or vacancies occur, rather than allowing outdated information to remain online indefinitely.

The basic principle is that residents should not have to investigate the Board of Ethics simply to figure out how to communicate with it.

What Should Become Public When a Complaint Is Resolved?

There is one additional reform that deserves discussion, although its legal details require considerably more careful consideration.

Michael Cammer’s original question concerned whether an ethics complaint against an elected official existed and what it alleged. My experience attempting to answer that question demonstrated the difficulties members of the public face in obtaining such information. But the more I considered the issue, the more I came to believe that the strongest public interest may arise not when a complaint is first filed, but when the ethics process reaches a conclusion.

An allegation is not a finding. A complaint may be frivolous, mistaken, politically motivated or simply outside the board’s jurisdiction. Requiring immediate public disclosure of every complaint could expose officials and employees to reputational harm before anyone has determined whether the allegations warrant investigation.

On the other hand, an ethics system in which serious findings of misconduct can remain permanently hidden raises its own accountability concerns. Residents have a legitimate interest in knowing when an elected official has been found to violate the rules governing public office.

I believe ethics investigations should generally remain confidential while pending. Officials who are the subjects of complaints should have the right to request public release of final determinations, particularly when allegations have not been sustained. Substantiated violations involving elected officials should ordinarily be disclosed regardless of the official’s consent.

There should also be careful distinctions among complaints dismissed without investigation, allegations found to be unfounded, allegations not sustained because of insufficient evidence, and allegations sustained after investigation. Those outcomes mean different things and should not be casually described as exonerations or convictions.

Any disclosure system would require carefully constructed safeguards protecting due process, privacy, complainants, witnesses and other confidential information. It would also need to account for existing FOIL rights, statutory exemptions, the legal authority of the ethics board and whether a particular determination is final or subject to further review.

These questions deserve discussion with Corporation Counsel, the Board of Ethics, elected officials and the public. I do not pretend that every aspect of the appropriate disclosure framework can be resolved in a newspaper article.

But protecting individuals from unfounded allegations and ensuring public accountability for established misconduct are not mutually exclusive objectives. New Rochelle should develop a policy that recognizes both.

The City Council Has the Authority to Act

None of these proposals requires New Rochelle to wait for new legislation in Albany.

The City Council can begin by directing Corporation Counsel to review Chapter 33 of the City Code and prepare amendments eliminating language that purports to exempt the Board of Ethics from FOIL and the Open Meetings Law. The revised provisions should accurately reflect the rights of public access established by state law while preserving confidentiality where legally justified.

The council can then consider additional local requirements covering an annual public meeting, an annual statistical report, mandatory training, accessible complaint procedures, website maintenance and appropriate disclosure of final ethics determinations.

Some of these requirements could be adapted from provisions the City Council has already adopted for the CCRB. Others would require new language tailored to the Board of Ethics and the specific legal protections applicable to its work.

The council should also examine whether the board has adopted written procedural rules, how it documents meetings and decisions, whether minutes and attendance records are maintained, and whether complainants and subjects receive clear notice of the status and disposition of matters.

I would like the City Council to undertake that review publicly, with input from the Board of Ethics, Corporation Counsel and interested residents. The objective should not merely be to correct a potentially unlawful confidentiality provision, but to produce a modern ethics framework that residents can understand and trust.

There may be disagreements about individual proposals, particularly the disclosure of final determinations. Those disagreements should be debated openly. The annual meeting, training, reporting and website requirements, however, should not present the same level of legal complexity. They concern the basic functioning of an institution that exercises governmental authority in the public interest.

If the council believes these reforms are unnecessary, its members should explain why. If they believe the existing system already provides sufficient accountability, they should identify the records, reports, public meetings and procedures through which residents can evaluate its performance.

The city cannot credibly maintain that transparency and accountability are central principles of municipal government while leaving its ethics watchdog subject to an ordinance that purports to close every meeting unless the board decides otherwise.

Back to Michael Cammer’s Question

What began in June as a straightforward inquiry from Michael Cammer about a possible ethics complaint against Council Member Tarantino has developed into a much larger examination of how New Rochelle handles ethical oversight.

Cammer wanted to know whether a complaint had actually been filed and what it concerned. I agreed that the public had a legitimate interest in the matter, and I tried to obtain the information. The city’s refusal to release the requested records, my own experiences filing ethics complaints and the unusual confidentiality provisions in the city’s code eventually prompted me to seek guidance from the Committee on Open Government.

That guidance revealed a fundamental problem with the premise underlying New Rochelle’s ordinance. Municipal ethics boards are subject to state transparency laws, even when particular matters may legitimately be confidential.

It also prompted a different question, one that cannot be answered simply by determining what the law currently requires: What should a properly functioning municipal Board of Ethics look like, and what should the public reasonably expect from it?

My answer is that an ethics board should be visible, accessible, properly trained and accountable for its institutional performance. It should protect confidential investigations without using confidentiality as a justification for operating almost entirely outside public view. Residents should know who serves on the board, how complaints are handled, how financial disclosure requirements are administered and what the board accomplishes each year.

The City Council has already demonstrated, through its creation of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, that it understands how to impose public education, reporting, training and accountability requirements on a municipal oversight body while preserving legitimate confidentiality protections.

There is no apparent reason why comparable standards cannot be established for the Board of Ethics.

I intend to bring these proposals to the City Council and encourage its members to undertake a comprehensive review of the ethics code. I would welcome a public discussion involving the board, Corporation Counsel, elected officials and residents about the appropriate reforms and how best to implement them.

The city does not have to wait for a court to determine whether particular provisions of its 1992 ordinance are unenforceable. It does not have to wait for a disputed records request or a lawsuit before acknowledging that the present system leaves too much of the board’s institutional activity beyond meaningful public scrutiny.

It can act now, using the framework it has already adopted for another oversight body as a starting point.

For years, New Rochelle officials have spoken about the importance of openness, transparency and accountability in municipal government. Here is an opportunity to demonstrate those principles through specific, enforceable changes to the law.

The Board of Ethics should be setting an example for the rest of city government, not operating under less demanding standards of public accountability.

Nearly four months after Cammer asked me his original question, I still think he was right to ask it. The public ought to be able to understand how its government handles allegations involving elected officials, what its ethics watchdog does with those allegations and what conclusions it ultimately reaches, consistent with legitimate legal protections.

That is not an unreasonable expectation. It is an essential part of meaningful government accountability.

If New Rochelle wants residents to have confidence in its Board of Ethics, the City Council should give them a system whose operations can be examined, whose performance can be evaluated and whose members are accountable to the public they serve.

Primary sources for the article:

* New Rochelle City Code, Article III — Board of Ethics⁠, particularly § 33-18.

* New Rochelle City Code, Article XXXI — CCRB⁠, particularly §§ 9-117, 9-118, 9-119 and 9-123.

* COOG advisory opinions: 1993 Dobbs Ferry⁠ 1997 Clarence⁠, 2003 State Ethics Commission⁠, 2003 Southold⁠ and 2007 Southold⁠