To the Editor:
Not long ago, an issue addressed by the City of Rye Board of Ethics caused conflict and lingering bitterness in our community. The purpose of this letter is not to revisit the issue in detail or reopen wounds, but to suggest a way to avoid such friction in the future. My purpose is not to question the integrity of our board of ethics but rather to call into question the code by which it is bound.
As a three-decade resident of the city of Rye, where my wife and I raised our family, I am fully invested in our community. And, as an attorney, I am interested in ensuring open and fair government.
The purpose of Rye’s code of ethics should be to encourage accountability, integrity, and transparency in a just way. Only then can it remain relevant and merit the public trust. Even our Constitution has been amended 27 times over 200 years. Such flexibility in keeping with core values is essential in any body of law, or code.
For starters, our code must allow prior notice and open hearings. It is essential to ensure that government power is not exercised arbitrarily or unfairly. This basic pillar of our democratic society is as American as apple pie. We call this “due process.”
This principle was disregarded in the 2023 controversial “tree-clearing moratorium” decision by the board of ethics involving former Mayor Josh Cohn and Council members Julie Souza, Ben Stacks, and Carolina Johnson. A decision in that matter was rendered without allowing testimony from those who were accused. That is both appalling and unacceptable in any democratic society.
Whether the board has investigative powers needs to be clarified. Its current jurisdiction is essentially limited to matters where officials themselves request opinions about the propriety of their own conduct. The current ethics code does not allow the board to initiate investigations itself, even though that is what in fact happened with the 2023 decision, apparently rendering it null and void. The board essentially acted as both judge and jury in the 2023 decision — without prior notice and without a hearing. It conducted an investigation, not allowed under the current ethics code, and improperly issued findings against people who didn’t ask for an opinion.
Much like our city’s 40-year-old and outdated comprehensive plan, the city’s ethics code needs a long overdue review which can be accomplished at minimal cost. Given, however, the current position of our new mayor, council, and board of ethics that the current ethics code does not need to be evaluated, despite its inherent flaws made apparent by the 2023 decision, a fair review must wait for a future administration.
That said, it is time to put animus and politics aside, to stop referring to the former mayor and three council members as the “Gang of Four.” Ad hominem attacks only distract from the need for review of an ethics code that in the end affects us all.
–Tony Castro
Letter: Review City’s Ethics Code
To the Editor:
Not long ago, an issue addressed by the City of Rye Board of Ethics caused conflict and lingering bitterness in our community. The purpose of this letter is not to revisit the issue in detail or reopen wounds, but to suggest a way to avoid such friction in the future. My purpose is not to question the integrity of our board of ethics but rather to call into question the code by which it is bound.
As a three-decade resident of the city of Rye, where my wife and I raised our family, I am fully invested in our community. And, as an attorney, I am interested in ensuring open and fair government.
The purpose of Rye’s code of ethics should be to encourage accountability, integrity, and transparency in a just way. Only then can it remain relevant and merit the public trust. Even our Constitution has been amended 27 times over 200 years. Such flexibility in keeping with core values is essential in any body of law, or code.
For starters, our code must allow prior notice and open hearings. It is essential to ensure that government power is not exercised arbitrarily or unfairly. This basic pillar of our democratic society is as American as apple pie. We call this “due process.”
This principle was disregarded in the 2023 controversial “tree-clearing moratorium” decision by the board of ethics involving former Mayor Josh Cohn and Council members Julie Souza, Ben Stacks, and Carolina Johnson. A decision in that matter was rendered without allowing testimony from those who were accused. That is both appalling and unacceptable in any democratic society.
Whether the board has investigative powers needs to be clarified. Its current jurisdiction is essentially limited to matters where officials themselves request opinions about the propriety of their own conduct. The current ethics code does not allow the board to initiate investigations itself, even though that is what in fact happened with the 2023 decision, apparently rendering it null and void. The board essentially acted as both judge and jury in the 2023 decision — without prior notice and without a hearing. It conducted an investigation, not allowed under the current ethics code, and improperly issued findings against people who didn’t ask for an opinion.
Much like our city’s 40-year-old and outdated comprehensive plan, the city’s ethics code needs a long overdue review which can be accomplished at minimal cost. Given, however, the current position of our new mayor, council, and board of ethics that the current ethics code does not need to be evaluated, despite its inherent flaws made apparent by the 2023 decision, a fair review must wait for a future administration.
That said, it is time to put animus and politics aside, to stop referring to the former mayor and three council members as the “Gang of Four.” Ad hominem attacks only distract from the need for review of an ethics code that in the end affects us all.
–Tony Castro
FILED UNDER:
Related Articles
Letter: I Agree – Too Many Cars
Letter: Woeful Parking Lots
Letter: People Make Parks