Goldstein v. Mamaroneck Decided

by Kathy Savolt -

Almost six years to the day, the Appellate Division Second Judicial Department (the Court) handed down a decision affirming the determination of the Ethics Board (EB) in the matter of Cindy Goldstein.  See HERE.

In November 2019 the EB decided that Goldstein, a Planning Board (PB) member at the time, violated the Village’s Code of Ethics by not recusing herself on two applications (the Hampshire Development and 203 Hommocks Road).  They found that this lead to “an appearance of impropriety”.  Prior to the decision there had been hearings held over 4 days where Goldstein and others gave sworn testimony in the matters. 

The EB also recommended that Goldstein be removed from the Planning Board.  After a public hearing, former Mayor Tom Murphy decided to keep Goldstein on the PB and she served the remainder of her term.  See Mayor’s Letter HERE.

From the start Goldstein refuted the findings of the EB.  A primary reason was that the Village ethics code was unclear regarding recusals simply based on where a volunteer resided.  New York State law does not require recusal based on mere proximity to a site.

Goldstein did recuse from the 203 Hommocks Road matter after the applicant’s initial appearance before the PB.  Regarding the Hampshire application, Goldstein claims the project under review would not impact her.  She lives over one mile from the proposed construction entrance even though her home is in proximity to another portion of the 100-acre Hampshire site that was to remain a golf course.

Goldstein respects the decision by the Appellate Court but disagrees with it.  She also finds it odd that she was singled out by the EB and questions whether hers was a situation of selective prosecution.

“During my more than a decade on land use boards, the prior EB never provided any training for themselves or board members and seemed to ignore obvious violations of the Code by some individuals.”  Two applications in particular stand out to her – a former PB Chair did not disclose where he lived nor that he shared lot lines with each property on either side of his home and he did not recuse.  He fully participated in both applications and never received any inquiry from the EB.  Goldstein said, “I think you need consistency in your procedures and not decide whom to charge on an ad hoc basis.”

Goldstein added that she was glad the matter was over.  She had another matter in Court that was recently settled regarding FOIL requests.  See TMO Article HERE. Goldstein donated half of the settlement to the Village for professional services to rewrite the Stormwater Management section of the Village Code.

It should be noted that the Board of Trustees, working with the Ethics Board, recently updated the ethics code.

Editor’s Note: The author was Chair of the Planning Board during the Goldstein matter with the EB and provided sworn testimony at the hearings.  Goldstein currently serves as a founder and editor of The Mamaroneck Observer.