No comment... or not

Posted by Philip Anselmo on August 15, 2008 - 1:23pm
Tagged in
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

Color me surprised when I read the headline at the top of the local section in today's Daily News: Lawyer: Ethics issue will be addressed. Now that can't be right. That can't be the very same lawyer I telephoned yesterday and asked if he could please comment on that issue, only to be told that no, he could not and would not comment. But lo and behold, there was that very lawyer's name in today's article: George Van Nest, and a quote from him that's almost an inch thick.

I called Van Nest yesterday to ask him a simple question: Why did he request the county board of ethics to look into a potential conflict of interest if it's stated in the policy for that county board that it will not act on an issue for a municipality that already has its own board of ethics? Van Nest said quite flatly that he would not comment on anything related to the county or city ethics boards.

Nevertheless, in today's article by Joanne Beck, he had this to say of the future ruling on City Councilman Bob Bialkowski's potential conflict of interest:

"It will be addressed in due course," Van Nest said Thursday. "I was aware of the process in Article 18, and discussed it with representatives of the county board before (submitting a request for the board to review the issue). The county board may review it but does not have to."

That's a pretty long no comment. When I called Van Nest again today to ask him why he said he would not comment on this issue and then was quoted in the newspaper doing just that, I was transferred to his voice mail. I left a message.

Also, the question still remains: Will the county board of ethics meet to discuss the conflict deemed unethical by the city attorney?

Van Nest was not certain whether the county board would take his request or not. He had not heard anything official as of Thursday, he said. Carolyn Pratt, clerk of the Legislature, said the request could not be discussed in public, per board rules.

What we can tell you is that the City Council released its agenda for its meeting Monday, and included in it is the appointment of five individuals to the city's board of ethics, which, if approved by a majority of council, would constitute a quorum. That would make the request for the county board to meet a moot point.

Posted by Howard Owens on August 15, 2008 - 1:46pm
I'm still not clear why Van Nest referred this matter to the county. He admits to knowing about the county rules. No reasonable person would expect officials who can avoid it to touch such a hot issue voluntarily.

And Van Nest had to know the city was going to take steps to resurrect its ethics committee.

So, again, why?

And remember, Van Nest sought an ethics hearing weeks ago when they had to know that the never-have-met committee no longer had a quorum.

This chain of events gives the appearance of Van Nest and Molino* engaging in political posturing. They're trying to keep a negative political spotlight on Bob Bialkowski.

Since when do appointed staffers sling political mud?

In the absence of Van Nest having the courage to talk with a reporter who will ask straight forward questions and expect straight forward answers, we can only assume this is all a political game.

*Maybe I’m making too big of a assumption here, but I can’t believe Van Nest is taking these actions independent of consultation and agreement with Jason Molino. If he is playing politics independent of Molino, then hopefully Jason will take appropriate supervisory action.

Two closing points: We still believe Bialkowski should recuse himself from any mall decisions; but, this is also such a minor tangent compared to the much larger issue of fixing the major problem of the mall’s existence itself.
Posted by Chuck Lowder on August 15, 2008 - 2:03pm
Very Interesting...

Mr. George Van Nest comment to The Batavian, "... could not and would not comment.". Is Mr. George Van Nest selective on what news media he releases public information to? I would like to hear an explanation from Mr. George Van Nest why he stated what he told The Batavian but in turn disclosed the information to The Daily...
This brings up a question mark in my mind. How trustworthy is Mr. George Van Nest when he states "... could not and would not comment." but in turn he DOES comment to another media? Sounds to me that Mr. George Van Nest can be a liar. How can one trust a liar? I surely can't...

That’s just my thoughts…
Posted by Timothy Paine on August 15, 2008 - 3:11pm
Howard and Phil, I understand why you feel the way you do towards Mr. Van Nest. I can imagine you feel that you've been shown disrespect. You are not alone there. As far as them keeping Bob in the spot light I think that still lies with Bob. He has had plenty of time to change his mind and recuse himself, yet he still thinks he has no connection. He said to Council that his wifes income has no bearing on him. His wife is the bread winner but that doesn't affect him? He has directly received income from the MMA since he took office, but still no connection? Come on! He has kept himself under the microscope. I would think a public lie means we wouldn't even need an ethics board. Why is Ed Dejaniero willing to do the right thing and it still doesn't register with Bob? Back to the point. I have needed answers from both George and Jason regarding either the MMA or BRRC and have been forced to be patient. I know those same questions were answered for others and that's how I found out what I needed. In my case the answers I required weren't time sensitive like yours were. Building a repore takes time. I hope you have better results in the future. Respect and answers come hard from City Hall.