ORANGE COUNTY COURT GRAND JURY SPECIAL TERM 1 Report # 2014-001 April 25, 2013

In re: ORANGE COUNTY ETHICS LAW GRAND JURY REPORT CPL 190.85 (1) (C)

David R. Fritz Foreperson Gregory Phillips Secretary David M. Hoovler Orange County District Attorney

ORANGE COUNTY COURT GRAND JURY APRIL 25, 2014 GRAND JURY REPORT, CPL 190.85 (1) (C)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Orange County Grand Jury Special Term # 1 was empanelled on February 28, 2014, by Order of the Honorable Jeffrey G. Berry, County Court Judge.1 The Special Grand Jury was empanelled upon the request District Attorney David M. Hoovler, who had appeared before the Orange County Legislature on February 20, 2014, following public concern over an Orange County legislator having been involved in possible conflicts pertaining to renovations of the Orange County Government Center; and whether questions over such conflicts of interest invalidated plans to renovate the Government Center which had previously been approved.2 On April 4, 2014, by Order of the Honorable Jeffrey G. Berry the Grand Jurys term was extended to allow it to complete the investigation which is the subject of this report.3 The Grand Jury heard testimony from 20 witnesses covering nearly 935 pages of testimony and considered 117 exhibits which collectively totaled over 5,000 pages. With the exception of the Orange County legislator who was the subject of this Grand Jury investigation, all those who testified before this Grand Jury received immunity from any criminal prosecution that may have resulted from testimony elicited before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jurys

investigation focused on whether an Orange County legislator violated the criminal conflict of interest provisions of the New York State General Municipal Law as well as Orange Countys Ethics Law (which provides for civil penalties)4; and whether Orange Countys Ethics Law is 2

sufficient to disclose and avoid conflicts of interests by Orange County officials, and how that law is implemented. As a result of this investigation, the following report has been adopted by the Grand Jury pursuant to New York State Criminal Procedure Law 190.85 (1) (c), and is respectfully submitted to the court. This report attempts to succinctly review violations of the Orange County Ethics Law which arose from conflicts of interest that occurred when an Orange County legislator accepted part-time employment with a county vendor and failed to make mandated disclosures regarding that employment. The Grand Jurys investigation included an examination of the Orange County Ethics Law itself, how that law was implemented and enforced by the Orange County Ethics Board, and the manner in which Orange Countys elected and appointed officials comply with and are trained with respect to recognizing and reporting conflicts of interests. Additionally, the report outlines deficiencies found in Orange Countys ethics training program. The Grand Jury found, based on the evidence before it, that the county legislator [hereinafter Legislator A] violated Orange Countys Ethics Law when he failed to make mandated public disclosures regarding his employment with an architectural firm [hereinafter Vendor X], which had entered into a $4.7 million dollar contract with the County to plan and design renovations for the Orange County Government Center, and six other County buildings. At that time, Legislator A was chairman of a legislative statutory committee working on the Government Center project and also was a member of an Ad Hoc Building Committee exclusively devoted to that project. Those public disclosures were required to be made to both the Orange County Legislature and the Orange County Ethics Board. Moreover, Legislator A

failed to recuse himself from two votes pertaining to these projects even after he had been offered and intended on accepting employment with Vendor X. However, the Grand Jury also found that Legislator As actions fell within a statutory exception to the New York State General Municipal Law which attaches criminal sanctions to those willfully engaging in certain conflicts of interests.5 The Grand Jury also determined that the legislators actions were not willful as the term is used the General Municipal Law, in that it appears that Legislator A was not aware of his duties under the law, as was evidenced by his attempting to seek guidance from the attorney working for the legislature, as well as the Orange County Ethics Board. Although these inquiries did not rise to the level of the public notice which the legislator is required to give under the Orange County Ethics Law, these communications, and others that he made orally to a number of Orange County officials, contained substantially all of the information that should have been publically disclosed and demonstrate that Legislator A was not attempting to conceal his employment from those bodies. As such, the Grand Jury found that Legislator As actions were not knowing and

willful as those terms pertain to crimes under the relevant General Municipal Law and that Legislator A therefore did not commit any crime in violation of the General Municipal Law. For the same reason Orange Countys contract with the vendor is not void as there has been no willful violation of the law, as it pertains to Vendor Xs contract with Orange County.6 Additionally, the Grand Jury determined that the Orange County Board of Ethics failed to make a timely response to the legislators request for an advisory opinion due to a lack of available resources. The Grand Jury believes that it is imperative that the facts and recommendations of this report be made public. The Grand Jurys investigation revealed deficiencies in the Orange 4

County Ethics Law itself and in the way it is implemented. Elected County officials and County employees have practically no training with respect to their duties under the law. County vendors do not fall under the laws mandates. Perhaps more distressingly in this case, when Legislator A attempted to get advice with respect to the law he did not receive timely advice from either the Legislatures counsel, or the County Ethics Board, nor was information received by those entities made available to other government officials affected by the conflict of interest. The Grand Jury has reviewed other jurisdictions conflict of interest legislation and

recommends certain changes to Orange Countys Ethics Law and how it is implemented. I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW Orange Countys Government in its present form came into being in 1970 and consists only of the Executive and Legislative branches.7 (The Judicial branch of government that

functions at the County level is a creation of New York State statutes and is administered by the Office of Court Administration.)8 The Orange County Charter and Administrative Code is the authoritative procedural manual for Orange County government. The Charter delineates the powers and duties of: the County Executive, the District Attorney, the County Clerk, and the Legislature. It also dictates the powers and duties of each county department. (The

Legislatures Attorney described the Charter and Code as the Bible of Orange County Government.)
9

Orange County has twenty-one legislative districts, with one legislator representing each district. With the exception of the Chairperson of the Legislature, being an Orange County legislator is a part-time position and many of the legislators have other employment. Many of the legislators do this work as a public service. The Chairman of the Legislature is elected by the members of the legislature. One of the main duties of the Chairman is to appoint from 5

among the members of the legislature the chairpersons and members of the eight statutory committees. Upon authorization of a majority of the legislature, the Chairman of the

Legislature may appoint Special Committees to aid the legislature in its work. Within the legislature, there are three parties, Republican, Democratic, and Independence. The

Republican Party is the majority party and has eleven legislators. The Democratic Party has nine members and there is one Independence Party Legislator. Each of the parties selects a leader. At all times relevant to this report the Republican leader was designated the Majority Leader and Democratic Party Leader was designated a Minority Leader. In 2012 and 2013 the Majority Party leader was the Honorable Melissa Bonacic. In 2012 and 2013 the Minority Party leader was the Honorable Jeffrey Berkman. In 2012 and 2013 the Independent Party leader

was the Honorable Michael Amo.10 The Majority Leader represents the party that has the most members. The members of each political party pick their leader by a majority vote of their members. The role of these party leaders is, in part, to assist their members in carrying out their duties as legislators. The Chairman of the Legislature is responsible for overseeing the daily operations of the legislature. He meets with party leaders and chair-people for the committee. The Chairman of the Legislature works with the County Executive to move legislation and policy forward. In 2013 the Chairman of the Legislature was the Honorable Michael R. Pillmeier from the Village of Florida. The current Chairman of the Legislature, is the Honorable L. Stephen Brescia, of Montgomery, who took that position in 2014. The Orange County Charter prescribes that that the County Legislature shall appoint a clerk. The Clerk of the legislature for 2013 and 2014 is Jean Ramppen. Her duties involve: preparing an agenda for all meetings of the legislature; attending all meetings of the 6

legislature; making a record of all proceedings; and maintaining all official records and files of the legislature. The legislature employs one attorney as Legislative Counsel. At all times relevant to this report the same attorney served as Legislative Counsel and is hereinafter referred to as Attorney A. That attorney has multiple responsibilities and is the sole legal advisor to the legislature with respect to County civil matters. Attorney A prepares all local laws, ordinances, and resolutions upon request of the legislature, and performs such other related duties as the legislature requests.11 Attorney A also provides guidance with respect to adopting and passing the Orange County budget and provides guidance to legislative committees. The eight statutory committees within the legislature are: Personnel and

Compensation; Physical Services; Health and Mental Health; Public Safety and Emergency Services; Ways and Means; Human Services; Rules Enactments; and, Intergovernmental Relations, Education and Economic Development. Each committee oversees numerous designated county departments. There are seven to eight legislators on each committee. The Legislatures Chairperson appoints one legislator to act as Chairperson for each committee. The Committee Chairperson has significant discretion over what matters appear before their committee, how those matters are handled, and hence which matters that committee forwards to the full legislature for further action. The Orange County Charter delineates the powers and duties of the County Executive who is the chief executive of the county and is responsible for: appointing department heads subject to approval of the legislature; presenting a budget to the legislature annually; supervising and directing the executive branch; approving or disapproving every proposed local law; approving a system for the procurement of goods and services by the county; making, 7

signing, and implementing all contracts on behalf of the county; and making recommendations to the County Legislature with respect to the affairs of the County. In 2011, as a result of damage caused by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, the Orange County Government Center was vacated. Subsequently, the County Executive and

Legislature began making decisions as to how to repair, renovate or rebuild that facility and six other County owned buildings. One of the two legislative statutory committees which had the most significant involvement in evaluating and choosing among the proposals for funding and conceptual design of the Orange County Government Center and other County buildings was the statutory committee of which Legislator A was Chairperson. As is more fully set forth below, on July 1, 2013, a team of architectural firms, including Vendor X, were notified that they had been selected by Orange County as the team that would design and plan repairs, renovations and construction for the Orange County Government Center and six other county owned buildings, and that Orange County intended on entering into a contract with them for that purpose.12 On September 24, 2013, a contract was signed by

Orange County with Vendor X engaging them to perform this work.13 In November 2013 the Principal of Vendor X offered Legislator A part-time employment. On or about December 5, 2013, Legislator A informed Attorney A that Legislator A was going to accept employment with Vendor X.14 Attorney A recommended that the legislator send a letter to the Orange County Ethics Board seeking an Advisory Opinion as to how that would affect the legislators duties in the legislature. By letter dated December 23, 2013, Legislator A requested a confidential advisory opinion from the Orange County Ethics Board. In that letter Legislator A set forth a chronology of events which included that the Principal of Vendor X had first approached Legislator A about 8

potential employment in November 2013, (over one month after Vendor X had signed the contract with Orange County and approximately four months after Vendor X had been notified that their team had been selected as architects for the project.) For reasons discussed more fully below, to date the County Ethics Board has never issued an advisory opinion on this matter. Notwithstanding pending employment with Vendor X, Legislator A continued to work as a legislator on the Orange County Government Center project including: actively participating on an Ad Hoc Building Committee which was devoted exclusively to the project that was comprised of officials from both the legislative and executive branches. He also presided as Chairperson of one of the main statutory committees overseeing the project, and casting a vote in that committee pertaining to that project on December 9, 2013. Further, he cast a vote pertaining to that project at a meeting of the full legislature on December 12, 2013. In early January 2014, the newly appointed Chairman of the Legislature, the Honorable L. Stephen Brescia, removed Legislator A from the Ad Hoc Building Committee because he felt it would be a conflict of interest.15 Legislator A remained on the statutory committee for which he had been Chairperson, but was removed as Chairperson. Mr. Brescia testified that, I just didnt think it would be a good perception out there if he were chairman and working for [Vendor X]. I felt that he could still serve on the committee and recuse himself from any votes that would pertain to work done by [Vendor X].16 Legislator A began his employment with Vendor X on January 20, 2014.17 On January 22, 2014, Legislator A filed the Annual Financial Disclosure Form mandated by Orange Countys Ethics law and on it disclosed his employment with Vendor X.18 The Annual Disclosure Forms are available for public inspection and are frequently examined by the public.19 On February 1, 9

2014, a local newspaper published a front page article regarding Legislator As employment with Vendor X. Legislator A resigned from Vendor X on February 5, 2014.20 The Grand Jury had to

make a threshold inquiry whether Legislator As actions violated criminal provisions of New York State conflict of interests laws. Below that inquiry is explained. II. STATE AND LOCAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS General Municipal Law Article 18 Article 18 of the New York State General Municipal Law is the New York State statute governing prohibited conflicts of interests for municipal officers and employees. The definition of a municipality under the law includes a county, such as Orange County.21 General

Municipal Law 800 (5) defines a Municipal officer or employee as an officer of employee of a municipality, whether paid or unpaid, including members of any administrative board, commission or other agency thereof and in the case of a county, shall be deemed to also include any officer of employee paid from county funds22 Thus, Orange County legislators as well as other elected and appointed Orange County Government employees are within the definition of municipal employees and are bound by the strictures of General Municipal Law Article 18. General Municipal Law 801 (a) states that [n]o municipal officer or employee shall have an interest in any contract with the municipality of which he is an officer or employee, when such officer or employee, individually or as a member of a board, has the power or duty to negotiate, prepare, authorize or approve the contract or authorize or approve payment thereunder... Clearly, as Chairperson of one of the main statutory committees working on the Orange County Government Center Project, and as a member of the Ad Hoc Building Committee 10

tasked with choosing an architectural firm, deciding what the firms compensation should be, and approving the scope of work that they would perform, Legislator A had powers pertaining to Vendor Xs contract with Orange County, which according to General Municipal Law 801 (a) precludes him from having an interest in the contract. An interest means a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a municipal officer or employee as the result of a contract with a municipality which such officer or employee serves.23 General Municipal Law 800 (3) (b) states that, For the purposes of this article a municipal officer or employee shall be deemed to have an interest in the contract of firm, partnership or association of which such officer or employee us a member or employee. Based on the above, it is clear that absent an exception, when Legislator became an employee of Vendor X, he is deemed to have an interest in Vendor Xs contract with Orange County. The existence of Legislator As interest in the contract with Orange County triggers disclosure requirements both under General Municipal Law Article 18, and as is more fully discussed below, under Orange Countys Ethics Law. General Municipal Law 803 provides that, Any municipal officer or employee who has, will have, or later acquires an interest in any actual or proposed contract including oral agreements, with the municipality of which he or she is an officer or employee, shall publically disclose the nature and extent of such interest in writing to his or her immediate supervisor and to the governing body thereof as soon as he or she has knowledge of such actual or prospective interest. Such written disclosure shall be made part of and set forth in the official record of the proceedings of such body. (Emphasis added.) Willful violations of the conflict of interest prohibitions of General Municipal Law can result in both criminal sanctions and voiding of the contract. Pursuant to General Municipal Law 805, Any municipal officer or employee who willfully and knowingly violates the [conflict of 11

interest prohibitions set forth in General Municipal Law 801] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, Any contract willfully entered into by or with a municipality in which there is an interest prohibited by [General Municipal Law Article 18] shall be null, void and wholly unenforceable.24 The Grand Jury has determined, based on the evidence before it, that the actions of the legislator in question, while violating Orange Countys Ethics Law, as a matter of law fall within one of the exceptions to the conflict of interests provisions of

General Municipal Law Article 18. The evidence before the Grand Jury establishes that the critical actions Legislator A took with respect to the contract and the project occurred well prior to his discussing and accepting employment with the architectural firm. Nothing Legislator A did in his capacity as a legislator affected his compensation from the firm, or how much money the firm would receive from Orange County. Indeed, Vendor X was selected by Orange County on July 1, 2013, and entered into a contract with Orange County on September 24, 2014. The first substantive employment discussions Legislator A had with Vendor X were in November 2013.25 General Business Law 802 (1) (b) states that the conflict of interest law provisions do not apply to, A contract with a firm in which a municipal officer or employee has an interest which is prohibited solely by reason of employment as an officer or employee thereof, if the remuneration of such employment will not be directly affected as a result of such contract and the duties of such employment do not directly involve the procurement, preparation, or performance of any part of the contract. section.
26

The actions of Legislator A fall squarely within this

12

Legislator As conflict of interest arose solely by reason of his employment by Vendor X. All of the evidence in the Grand Jury, including Legislator As statements to the Legislatures attorney, his letter seeking an opinion form the Orange County Ethics Board, as well as the testimony of the principal owner of Vendor X indicate that Legislator As duties with Vendor X were to seek business opportunities for Vendor X in the Hudson Valley region, including within the geographical confines of Orange County, but explicitly not with Orange County itself as a governmental entity, thus, the duties of his employment do not involve the performance of any part of the firms contract with Orange County. Nor could Legislator As duties with the firm be proved to have had anything to do with the procurement or preparation of the contract with Vendor X. In fact an examination of

the timeline in the case indicates otherwise. The uncontroverted evidence27 in the Grand Jury was that on July 1, 2013, Orange County indicated to Vendor X that the County intended to contract with them and on September 24, 2013, the contract was signed. The principal of Vendor X, Legislator A, and Attorney A all indicated that the first communications between the Legislator A and Vendor X regarding potential employment occurred in November 2013 and Legislator A did not begin employment until January 20, 2014, well after the contract was prepared and procured. Since the legislators conduct falls within the statutory exception set

forth in General Municipal Law 802 (1) (b) he is, as a matter of law, not guilty of a crime under the General Municipal Law.
Orange Countys Contract with the Architectural Firm Is Not Void Under General Municipal Law Based on the above, Vendor X could not have been willfully entered into the contract with Orange County when there was a conflict of interest prohibited by General Municipal Law 13

Article 18, since any such conflict interest arose long after the contract was executed. As such the contract is not null, void and wholly unenforceable as those terms are used in General Municipal Law 804. Moreover, Legislator As disclosures of his employment with Vendor X on his publically filed 2013 Annual Financial Disclosure Form, his written request for a confidential opinion to the Ethics Board, as well as his oral disclosures to Attorney A, various legislators, and three executive branch officials, negate a finding a willfulness under the General Municipal Law as it applies to contracts with municipalities. Orange Countys Current Ethics Law

You have to have trust in government that your fellow elected officials are there trying to do the right thing for the people. And thats why you put laws, Ethics Laws in place to say if you are too dumb to understand you shouldnt be doing something wrong, we have a law to tell you you shouldnt do it. Grand Jury
Testimony of Orange County Legislator28 On February 15, 1994, Orange County passed Local Law 2 of 1994 [hereinafter the Orange County Ethics Law].29 Both this law, and its predecessor, provided for the filing of annual financial disclosure statements by all elected and certain designated management level appointed county officials and authorized a County Ethics Board to oversee implementation and compliance with the law. The County Ethics Board main function is the collecting, retaining and examining the mandated Annual Financial Disclosure Forms. As is described more fully below, the County Ethics Board has also been invested with enforcement powers, including subpoena power and the power to levy civil fines in an amount up to $10,000, although, as is more fully discussed below, those powers have rarely been invoked. The Orange County Ethics law has been amended several times. 14

The first amendment to the current Orange County Ethics Law was passed on May 13, 1994, to make it specific and clear that the adoption of said Local Law was pursuant to the authority contained in General Municipal Law 821, Subdivision 3, and for the purpose of exercising the option of removing Orange County from the ambit of said section.30 General Municipal Law 812 (3) authorizes counties and other political subdivision to opt out of the New York State Financial Disclosure system by passing their own local ethics law, which Orange county opted to do. General Municipal Law 812 provides that all political subdivisions in New York State, including counties, who do not pass their own local laws are bound by the financial disclosure regulations binding New York State Government officials, including filing the New York State Annual Financial Disclosure Form with the Temporary State Commission on local government ethics31 (now the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics). Had Orange County not enacted an ethics law Orange County elected officials, and management level employees, would be required to file the New York State form proscribed by General Municipal Law 813 (5) which, requires significantly more financial disclosure of the filer and the filers immediate family. Other changes to Orange Countys local laws to law included: making it unlawful for any person employed by the County of Orange to use of allow the use of his or her position or title with the County for any private or non-county purpose or in connection with any private or non-county function, organization, entity, group, activity or event;32 not indemnifying county officials who misuse the official name, seal and authority of the county;33 prohibiting certain county officials from acquiring properties at county taxation auctions;34 and, including siblings of mandated filers in the definition of interest which already included the filers spouse and children.

15

Orange County Ethics Law currently reaches only elected officials and County employees, but not vendors who provide goods and services to the County. The Grand Jury heard testimony that certain departments require department heads with specialized knowledge. In the absence or unavailability of such individual, the county may hire a private

entity to handle the day to day management of that department. That manager would have all the powers and responsibilities of a department head, but would not be required to provide financial disclosure. On two occasions the county hired private companies to manage two The Grand Jury highly recommends

county departments: the nursing home and the airport.35

that any private company managing a county department be required to comply with the Orange County Ethics Law and make full financial disclosure. Problems with Orange Countys Previous Ethics Law

Two individuals who happened to have been members of the Orange County Legislature ... took specific umbrage at having to reveal particulars of their spouses financial information. Former attorney for the Board of Ethics
The stated purpose of the 1994 Ethics law was to replace the earlier version, Local Law No 1. of 1991,36 since, Three years of experience with and under said law [Local Law No. 1 of 1991], and knowledge of the experience with and under said law, and knowledge of the experience of other municipalities across the State, including the institution of litigation attacking the terms and methods of the law, now indicate that the adoption of a new law to replace the original, clarifying and simplifying certain of its aspects, is appropriate and necessary to preserve and protect the essential purposes for which the State and local legislation was enacted. (Emphasis added.)37 financial reporting requirements less onerous. 16 Simply put, the law was changed to make the

Throughout the Grand Jury presentation the Annual Financial Disclosure Forms required to be filed by New York State officials were compared by various witnesses to the annual financial disclosure form currently required to be filed by Orange County officials.38 Michael H.

Donnelly, Esq., the first the attorney for the Orange County Ethics Board, who held that position at the time the previous statute was in place, stated that there was frankly very little

difference between the filing requirements under Orange Countys previous Ethics Law and what is currently required of New York State employees.39 The previous Orange County

Financial Form and the current New York State Financial Disclosure Form required mandated filers to state, within certain ranges, their income, assets and employment and those of their immediate family members. The current Orange County Ethics Law was passed to eliminate those reporting requirements. In discussing the previous local ethics law Mr. Donnelly noted that, [T]here was a great deal of tension created when Orange County enacted its Ethics Law. There were a number of individuals that were covered by the law that served on volunteer advisory boards. A number of those individuals felt, I dont know if the word is insulted, but certainly took umbrage at the fact that here they were volunteering to assist the County by providing some level of expertise and yet were required to open their personal finances to public examination40 Some of

those who took umbrage resigned their positions on volunteer boards because they were unwilling to file the form.
41

Nor was the negative reaction to the demands for financial

information on the Financial Disclosure Forms limited to volunteers. According to Mr. Donnelly, Certainly a number of other individuals who were covered because of their status as policy makers, were covered employees, also felt that the form was onerous, difficult and frankly insulting to them.
42

Mr. Donnelly also testified that, [T]wo individuals who happened to have

17

been members of the Orange County Legislature ... took specific umbrage at having to reveal particulars of their spouses financial information.43 After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain an exemption from providing information mandated to be disclosed on the form one legislator challenged the law in New York State Court and a portion of the law declared void for vagueness in that because it did not state the standards by which exemption requests could be evaluated.44 The law was also challenged by

a second lawsuit in Federal Court.45 As a reaction to these problems the County adopted its current Ethics Law, which mandates very little by way of disclosure compared to the old law, what is required of New York State Officials, and what is required by other counties. Annual Financial Disclosures under the Orange County Ethics Law

Its a short form. If you have no conflicts you just sign and notarize it on the first page, you dont have to deal with your spouse or children or siblings. Probably 80 percent [of filers fill out] just the first page. - Chairwoman of the
Orange County Board of Ethics.46 The Annual Financial Disclosure Forms filed by Orange County officials are public documents.47 The filing deadline for Orange Countys current Annual Financial Disclosure Form is January 31, although the form allows filers to obtain an automatic extension to March 15.48 The form calls for information which occurred the previous year. For example the form that was required to be filed by January 31, 2014, calls only for information about events which occurred in 2013. The first page of the form asks if you, your spouse your children or

dependents, members of your household (whether or not related by blood or marriage) or siblings Do business with Orange County or receive any benefit, payment or gift from any 18

person, firm company or organization doing business with Orange County [or is] licensed or regulated by Orange County. If the answers to these questions is no, the mandated filer signs the form, has it notarized, and returns it to the Orange County Ethics Board. According to Gail Sicina, the current Chairperson of the Orange County Ethics Board, approximately 80% of the mandated filers only fill out the first page of the form.49 Thus, for those 80% of mandated filers an answer of no to those questions constitutes the totality of their annual financial disclosure. If the answer to the questions on page 1 of the form is yes the filer is required to answer four more questions. The first of these is, Identify the following for all boxes checked in Question 2: a. the name of the Immediate Family member; b. The Relationship with Orange County; c. the monetary value in dollars attributable to the Relationship; and, d. The dates the Relationship began and ended (or will end).50 The next question asks, For every member of your Immediate Family identified in Question 3, including yourself, identify any payments (including transfers of anything of a cumulative value in excess of $75.00) directly from or to: a. The County of Orange.; b. any person or entity doing business with Orange County; and, c. any person or entity regulated or licensed by Orange County. Question 5 asks, For every member of your Immediate Family identified in Question 3, including yourself, identify any agreements or promise of future employment or payment (including transfers of anything of a cumulative value in excess of $75.00) from: a. The County of Orange.; b. any person or entity doing business with Orange County; and, c. any person or entity regulated or licensed by Orange County. The final questions ask, For every member of your Immediate Family identified in Question 3, including yourself, identify any real property in or immediately adjacent to Orange County. The identification should include at a minimum the street address, municipality,

19

property size, property use, and acquisition date. Include all property, whether the interest is vested or contingent, where fifty present (50%) or more of the equitable interest is in the properties held by Immediate Family members, including yourself. Do not include any primary

personal residence (including up to one acre of property) of an Immediate Family member including yourself.
These six questions constitute the totality of the financial disclosure

required of Orange County officials by the Annual Financial Disclosure Form. In contrast to the current Orange County Annual Financial Disclosure From, the Annual Statement of Financial Disclosure which is filed by New York State officials with the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics requires detailed financial information about the official and their spouse from all mandated filers.51 This includes: listing any office or position of any nature, whether compensated or not, with any organization other than the State of New York; listing all employment for the filer and their spouse; all interests in excess of $1,000 that the filer, their spouse or unemancipated child has in any contract with a state or local agency; any position the reporting person has with a political party; if the filer practices law or another licensed profession, a general description of the filers practice, including for recent clients who paid over $10,000 in the reporting period, the clients name and what services were rendered; gifts in excess of $1,000 received by the filer, a spouse, or unemancipated child; all reimbursements provided by non-governmental sources for activities related to the filers official duties, such as speaking engagements; the value of all trust and deferred compensation plans; contracts and promises between the file and any entity with respect to employment after the filer leaves public office; the nature an amount of any income in excess of $1,000 of the filer and their spouse, and the value of any securities held by the filer of their spouse; the value of real property and accounts receivable of the filer and their spouse; and, all liabilities of the filer

20

and their spouse.52

The dollar amounts reported need not be exact but rather are within

certain categories. e.g. $50,000 to $75,000. As stated above, this is the information which all Orange County elected and appointed mandated filers would have to provide to the NYS Joint Commission of Ethics had Orange County not passed its own local Ethics Law. Other Provisions of the Orange County Ethics Law Relevant to Legislator A

[H]ad I known what the truth was, had the law been followed and I had known that he has a conflicting interest and has a job, I would be pressing the issue and the other legislators would, and we wouldnt be following this.53

In addition to the Annual Financial Disclosure Forms, the current Orange County Ethics law also mandates public disclosure of conflicts of interest as they occur. For reasons more fully stated below, the Grand Jury has determined, based on the evidence before it that Legislator A failed to comply with that section of the law. Section 5, Subdivision 6, of the Orange County Ethics Law states, Any officer or employee who has, will have or intends to acquire a direct or indirect interest in any matter being considered by the Legislature of the county of orange or by any other official, board, agency, officer or employee of the county of Orange, and who participates in the discussion before, or who gives an opinion or gives advice to, any board, agency or individual considering the same, shall publicly disclose on the official record the nature and the extent of such interest. Said officer or employee shall also file a written summary of said public disclosure with the Board of Ethics within 10 days after said public disclosure. (Emphasis added.)54

21

The definition of an interest under the Orange County Ethics Law tracks in large part the definition of an interest in General Municipal Law 800 (3) (b). Orange County Ethics Law Section 3 (e), in so far as it is applicable to this report, states, Interest means a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a county officer, employee or appointed official, his or her souse, child sibling whether as a result of contract with the county or otherwise For the purpose of this chapter, a county officer, employee, or appointed official shall be deemed to have an interest in the contract of a firm, partnership or association of which such officer, employee or appointed official or his/her spouse, child or sibling is a member or employee. Thus, once Legislator A became an employee of Vendor X, which he knew had a contract with Orange County, Legislator A was deemed under the Orange County Ethics Law to have an interest in Vendor As contract with Orange County. This triggered Legislator As obligation to make public disclosure of that interest. The Grand Jury found, and Legislator A admitted in his testimony before the Grand Jury, that Legislator A failed to comply with that law. In order to comply with Orange County Ethics Law 5 (6) of the, Legislator A was required to make written public disclosure of his interest in the contract on the official record, which in Legislator As case means on the record to the legislature while the legislature was in session. Notably the statute required Legislator A to do this when he intends to acquire that interest, which in Legislature As case would be when he had the job offer and he intended on accepting that offer.55 When Legislator A testified before the Grand Jury he was asked the following questions and gave the following answers: Q: Did you ever make public disclosure to the Orange County Legislature of your employment with [Vendor X]? Legislator A: Not in those terms, no. I didnt know I had to. 22

Q: But is it correct to say that you never made public disclosure to the Legislature on the record of the Legislature? Legislator A: Yes.
56

Significantly, Legislator A continued to advocate that his fellow legislators select a particular building option on the Orange County Government Center Building project for which Vendor X already had a contract with by the County, without informing the legislators evaluating Legislator As arguments that Legislator A was intending to take a job with Vendor X. Moreover, Legislator A voted twice on that option after discussing his possible employment with Vendor X, once in the statutory committee of which Legislator was Chairperson, and once before the full legislature. In both instances the Principal of Vendor X, who had offered Legislator A the job, was physically present when both Legislator As votes were cast. On December 9, 2013, Legislator A presided as chairperson of one of the main statutory committees involved with the capital improvement project for the Orange County Government Center. At that meeting two possible options for the Orange County Government Center were being considered, both of which would have been performed by Vendor X. One of the options, which Legislator A had actively advocated for both before the Ad Hoc Building Committee and before the statutory committee of which Legislator A was chairperson, had been given a nickname which referred to the last name Legislator A, and the last name of a legislator of another political party who was also advocating for that option.57 Legislator A testified that he advocated for that option at the meeting without informing his fellow legislators that he had been discussing possible employment with Vendor X, and that the principal of Vendor X with whom he had been discussing employment, was also physically present at that meeting.58 The option Legislator A was advocating for was the option selected by his statutory committee and 23

was the only building project option considered by the whole legislature when they met on December 12, 2013. According to Charles Lee, Commissioner of the Orange County

Department of Public Works, the option selected by the legislature was not the option which would have been the most profitable to Vendor X.59 Legislator A admitted to the Grand Jury that the principal of Vendor X with whom he had been discussing employment handed him a formal written job offer on December 12, 2013, at the Orange County 911 Center where the legislature was meeting, prior to the vote on which building option the legislature would choose.60 Legislator A still did not inform the other legislators of the job offer. After receiving the job offer Legislator A continued to advocate for the building option that was ultimately accepted by the legislator. The Grand Jury finds that Legislator A had an obligation under the County Ethic Law to have publically disclosed the interest in the contract he intended to acquire by virtue of his intent to accept employment with Vendor X, at the very latest before the full legislature voted on the building option he was advocating on December 12, 2013. Legislator As actions in not doing so were improper in that they violated the County Ethics Law, but were not criminal in that the Orange County Ethics Law does not provide for criminal sanctions. The Grand Jury also determined that some of Legislator As actions as an employee of Vendor X created an appearance of impropriety, and may have violated Orange County Ethics Law. A County official testified that on January 21, 2014, he was chairing a meeting of the Orange County Transportation Counsel Technical Committee.61 Until January 21, 2014, that County official had never seen a County Legislator attend a Technical Committee Meeting.62 Legislator A attended the meeting, signing the sign-in sheet as O.C. Legislator.63 After the meeting Legislator A began handing out Vendor X business cards bearing his name.64 Legislator 24

A unequivocally testified that his purpose in going to that meeting was not to transact Orange County Legislature business, but rather to conduct business for Vendor X, notwithstanding how he signed the sign-in sheet.65 In Legislator As letter to the Board or Ethics seeking an advisory opinion he stated that, his position with Vendor X, will not require or include any duties or responsibilities pertaining to any current or future projects for the County of Orange and there will be internal procedures established to separate myself, appearance of any conflicts.66 While it is true that Legislator As participation at the Technical Committee Meeting was to reach out to State and Local Municipalities, his signing in as an Orange County Legislator, at a meeting being run under the auspices of an Orange County official raised at the very least the appearance of a conflict. The County official accurately summed up the appearance of impropriety when he testified, I dont know, theres a certain distaste when, you know, that kind of thing, you know. I dont know, I mean here the Legislator here I see this Legislator at a meeting thinking, oh, its good he wants to learn about the transportation planning or hes got a constituent, but hes really just there hawking business. And hes kind of clueless you know67 The Orange County Ethics Law specifically prohibits certain conduct. Orange County Ethics Law Section 4 A. (1) states, No officer or employee shall take action or participate in any manner whatsoever in his or her official capacity in the discussion, negotiation or awarding of any contract or in any business or professional dealings with the County of Orange or any agency thereof in which the official or employee, their spouse, child or sibling has or will have an interest, direct or indirect, in such contract or professional dealings. Legislator As signing into the meeting as an Orange County Legislator indicated that he was at the January 21, 2014 meeting in his official capacity, when his true purpose was to develop business for Vendor X. 25

The blurring of the line between Legislator As official function and private employment was sufficient to surprise the County official who was not aware of Legislator As reason for being at the meeting until the meeting ended. Orange County Ethics Law Section 4 A. (2) states, No officer or employee shall engage in, solicit, negotiate for or promise to accept private employment or render services for his personal benefit when such employment or services create a conflict or impairs the proper discharge or his or her official duties. Orange County Ethics Law Section 4 A. (2) states, No officer or employee shall take action on a matter before the county or any division thereof when, to his or her knowledge, the performance of that action would provide a pecuniary or material benefit to himself or herself. The Grand Jury, based on the evidence before it,

recommends that the Orange County Board of Ethics, commence an inquiry into Legislator As actions in appearing as Legislator at January 21, 2014 meeting in order to hawk business for Vendor X, and if appropriate sanction Legislator A for violating these provisions of the Orange County Ethics Law. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS

I think last year we probably met six or seven times. This year weve already met almost four times.68 - Attorney for the Board of Ethics

General Municipal Law Article 18 prohibits certain conflicts of interests by designated elected and appointed government officials. The agency charged with investigating and

regulating conflicts of interests for New York State officials is the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics. Public officers law Section 73-a requires elected officials holding statewide office, and New York State employees to file an Annual Financial Disclosure Form with this Ethics Commission. General Municipal Law Article 18 authorizes counties to create their 26

own Ethics Boards and Ethics Disclosure Statements. In the absence of such a local law, county governmental officials, including elected and appointed officials such as those in Orange County, would also have to fill out the New York State Annual Financial Form which they would submit to the New York State Ethics Commission. By a local law passed in 1992 Orange County created the Orange County Board of Ethics in part to collect and review Orange Countys mandated Annual Financial Disclosure Forms. The Board of Ethics is comprised of up to seven volunteer board members (there are currently only six members sitting). Three of the Boards members are appointed by the County Executive and three are appointed by the Chairman of the Orange County Legislature. Each Board member serves a three year term and can serve a maximum of two complete terms. It is required that roughly half of the members be from different political parties. Currently three Board members are registered in the Republican Party and three are registered in the Democratic Party. The Orange County legislature approves the Annual Financial Disclosure

form which is filled out by those holding countywide elected office in Orange County, as well as those appointed county officials having decision making authority. The Orange County Board of Ethics provides no ethics training to either elected or appointed officials. Board of Ethics duties include collecting the approximately 364 Financial Disclosure Forms which are received each year from County officials,69 and examining them for potential conflicts rendering confidential advisory opinions on potential conflicts of interest to County officials who request them. The Board is also entrusted with subpoena power,70 and has the authority to conduct hearings and render civil fines of up to $10,000,71 as well as make referrals to prosecutors offices of criminal violations of the Orange County Ethics Law.72 Since at least 1995 the Orange County Ethics Board has never issued a subpoena, conducted a 27

hearing, nor assessed a penalty.73 The current attorney for the Board testified that, [W]ere loathed to hand out penalties as it would act contrary to our duty to render confidential opinions.74 The Orange County Board of Ethics maintains a small office at 15 Matthews Street, Goshen, New York. The office is only open on Thursday afternoons between 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm. The Board has one employee who works for the Board during those hours. (That

employee is a full-time Orange County employee who works the rest of her 40 hour work week as an employee for Orange County General Services.)75 The attorney works out of a private law office which has other Orange County contracts. The attorney bills Orange County at a rate of $135/hour, which is significantly less than the $325/hour rate the firm bills for the same attorneys work with private clients.76 The Orange County Ethics Board has an annual budget of only $10,766.77 The majority of that budget is spent on the part-time clerical employee and

the attorney. The attorney for the Board of Ethics, who has held that position since 1995, testified that at times he has worked more hours than he has been compensated for especially, if we have a busy season for the Board of Ethics. For instance, this year were probably going to be over budget within the first three months.78 The Orange County Board of Ethics meets roughly once a month, but not in the summer or during holidays. The Chairperson of the Board of Ethics testified, I think last year we probably met six or seven times. This year weve already met almost four times.79 During the monthly meetings the Board discusses Financial Disclosure Forms that have been received, how to obtain compliance from officials who have not filed the required forms, and what confidential advisory opinions they will be issuing. The Board has historically rendered about two opinions a year at the request of appointed and elected officials.80 Since the matter involving Legislator A 28

and Vendor X became public the amount of requests for confidential opinions has increased dramatically, with at least eight requests for opinions being received in 2014.81 This represents an increase of 400% in the number of request for opinions. The Board of Ethics Actions Regarding Legislator A

Normally it would have happened, you know, quicker. It was just what I call a cascade of circumstances because typically when it would come in we would schedule him for a meeting. - Attorney for Board of Ethics82
By letter dated December 23, 2013, Legislator A requested a confidential advisory opinion from the Orange County Board of Ethics.83 Legislator A had previously requested and received a confidential advisory opinion from the Orange County Board of Ethics on an unrelated matter in the past so Legislator A was familiar with the procedures. Rather than mailing the letter seeking the opinion to the Orange County Board of Ethics official offices, Legislator A mailed it to the private law firm where the attorney for the Ethics Board worked. The request was received in the law firm on December 27, 2013.84 The attorney for the Board

of Ethics attempted to forward Legislator As request to the Chairperson of the Board by emailing it to her home computer and had a copy of the request mailed to the Ethics Board offices.85 On February 1, 2014, a local newspaper ran a front page article concerning Legislator As employment with Vendor X.86 In the newspaper article Legislator A was quoted as stating that he had not received a response from the Orange County Ethics Board to his request for an advisory opinion. The first time the Chairperson of the Board of Ethics learned that Legislator A had made a request for an advisory opinion was when she read the newspaper article on 29

February 1, 2014.87 The Chairperson became upset that she had not been aware of the request and immediately tried to reach out to Legislator A and contacted the one part-time secretary for the Ethics Board who stated that a letter was filed, but she was not sure who it was from.88 Legislator A returned the Ethics Board Chairpersons call around 11:00 PM on February 1, 2014, and at the Chairpersons request e-mailed another copy of the December 23, 2013 request to her home.89 During the telephone call the Chairperson informed Legislator A that

the Ethics Boards next meeting was scheduled for February 27, 2014, and that he should plan to attend to explain everything that was in the letter.90 An attorney retained by Legislator A faxed a letter, dated February 26, 2014, to the attorney for the Ethics Board which stated, In light of the Special Orange County Grand Jury investigation that is currently underway by the Orange County District Attorney, David Hoovler, [Legislator A] will not be appearing at tomorrows Board of Ethics meeting, and will not be seeking an opinion at this time.91 In light of Legislator As attorneys request and pending the outcome of this Grand Jury investigation, the Orange County Board of Ethics has never rendered the advisory opinion which Legislator A request in his December 23, 2014 letter. Orange County Legislator Michael Anagnostakis sent a letter to the Orange County Board of Ethics, which was ccd to District Attorney Hoovler, the Orange County Legislature, County Executive Neuhaus, Sheriff Dubois, County Attorney Chapman, Attorney A, and County Republican Chairwoman Courtney Greene, citing his belief that Legislator A had violated the above-described provisions of the Orange County Ethics Law and pointing out that The Board of Ethics may recommend removal for cause, or an Elected Official, or a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 may be imposed.92 A response to Legislator Anagnostakis

letter was sent to him and all the recipients of his letter, by the attorney for Board of Ethics on 30

March 3, 2014. The response stated, [T]he Board [of Ethics] has determined to defer any exercise of its jurisdiction in this matter pending the outcome of the investigation of the Special Orange County Grand Jury empaneled by District Attorney Hoovler. The Boards determination is based on considerations including, among other things, the District Attorneys primary jurisdiction, the Boards ordinary role as an advisory agency, and the risk of interfering with either the investigation or [Legislator As] due process rights. The Board of Ethics reserved its rights to exercise its jurisdiction pending the outcome of the Grand Jury investigation.93 Although it is understandable that the Board of Ethics would defer any action of Legislator As request for an advisory opinion after receiving the letter from Legislator As attorney, that does not explain the Board of Ethics failure to provide an opinion between December 27, 2014, the day the Board of Ethics attorney received Legislator As request for an opinion, and February 26, 2014, the date of Legislator As attorneys letter withdrawing that request. The Chairperson of the Board of Ethics was asked the following question and gave the following answer: Q: How long does it normally take for the Ethics Board to render an answer to a request for an advisory opinion? A: It can take a few months by the time we get it and we contact the person and have them come in. sometimes well review it first and then have them in after. We have questions ready for them. And then after they leave we make an opinion and send something out. We dont tell them at that point what were going to say.94

The Grand Jury believes that those seeking opinions should be able to receive answers within ten business days, even if it requires the Board of Ethics receiving more resources so that they can have more frequent meetings. The Grand Jury has also found, based on the 31

evidence before it, that the delay of rendering a timely opinion for Legislator A was also affected by other factors, most notably a gross lack of resources or procedure for expedited review by the Board of Ethics. In describing the circumstances surrounding her not knowing about Legislator As request for an advisory opinion, the Chairperson testified, Well, I didnt go in all of January because I am the Deputy Tax Collector [for her local municipality not Orange County] and the secretary was going in when she could despite sickness. We both got sick. She also, I think it was snowing, stuff like that, so she didnt go in every Thursday during that time. But she did go in, obviously got the letter and put it in a file that I would be eventually reviewing. Unfortunately, I didnt go in January.95 Moreover, the secretary was relatively new to her

position and the Chairperson did not receive the e-mail of Legislator As request from the Board of Ethics attorney because she was having computer problems at home.96 The Grand Jury finds no problems or flaws with the Chairpersons explanation given the volunteer nature of the Board of Ethics and the weather conditions noted in January 2014. The Board of Ethics attorney also attributed some of the delay to the request coming in the middle of the holidays.97 When asked by a Grand Juror about the Board of Ethics delay in addressing Legislator As request for an advisory opinion, the Board of Ethics attorney stated, Normally it would have happened, you know, quicker. It was just what I call a cascade of circumstances because typically when it would come in we would schedule him for a meeting. We could have held a meeting in January and properly asked him to attend. You know it was just this set of circumstances.98

32

III. THE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER CAPITAL PROJECT

Intended as a unique county center by the commissioning agency at the time, it has been a divisive piece of the county landscape since its inception. - Report
of Vendor X 99 In 2011 Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee caused extensive damage to the Orange County Government Center and a number of other county owned buildings. The

flooding and damage caused by these storms resulted in the Government Center being completely vacated by all Orange County governmental agencies and it remains vacated as of the date of this report. All Orange County governmental entities that had been resided in the County Government Center are currently carrying out their functions in various privately owned rental properties which the county is now leasing. The Orange County Government Center building complex is comprised of three main buildings which are designated as Divisions I, II and III respectively, and does not include the Orange County Courthouse which is physically attached to the Government Center Building Complex. Since the time the Government Center was vacated, various Orange County governmental actors have had trouble coming to a consensus as to what to do with the Government Center. Both the executive branch, led by the County Executive, and the Orange County Legislature have been involved in the decision making process as to what repairs or renovations should be made to the government center and other county owned buildings, although under the Orange County Charter only the County Executive can enter into contracts.100

33

The Orange County Legislature acting as a whole, through various statutory committees, and through an Ad Hoc Building Committee which contained both legislators and specially selected appointed officials from the executive branch, took the actions outlined below with respect to the Government Center and six other county owned buildings. A summary of these actions is contained in the timeline which attached to this report as Exhibit 1. On August 2, 2012, the legislature passed a resolution, co-sponsored by Legislator A, which allocated $75,000 for an architectural/engineering report containing cost estimates for reconstruction, repair or replacement of the Orange County Government Center.101 On December 20, 2012, a team of architectural and engineering firms, including Vendor X, were selected to prepare that report.102 On February 7, 2013, the legislature approved a ten million ($10,000,000) dollar bond resolution establishing a new capital project of the Department of Public Works for planning reconstruction, renovation and improvements to the Government Center Building Complex (Divisions I, II and III).103 In May 2013, the team which included Vendor X submitted the Forensic Report which noted that, The Government Center at Orange County was completed in October of 1970, and designed by American architect Paul Rudolph from 1963-1967. Intended as a unique county center by the commissioning agency at the time, it has been a divisive piece of the county landscape since its inception. The building is comprised of three sections referred to as Divisions I, II, and III, and are 58,000 [square feet], 33,200 [square feet] and 68,000 [square feet] respectively for a total of 159,200 [square feet] in total.104 The forensic study estimated the total cost to repair the government center, absent architect/engineering and construction management fees, to be fifty million ($50,000,000) dollars.105

34

In February 2013, a request for proposal [hereinafter RFP] was sent out by the County soliciting proposals for complete renovations of all three divisions of the Government Center as well as six other county owned buildings.106 Any potential vendors wishing to respond to the RFP had to submit their proposals by March 19, 2013. The RFP stated that all of the buildings had been in service for over twenty years and required modernization and that the Government Center, the 1841 Courthouse and Annex and the 1887 Building incurred damage as a result of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.107 Two addendums to the RFP were put out on February 22, 2013, and March 12, 2013, respectively. A copy of the February 22, 2013,

addendum, which rescheduled a site walk and walk through, was signed as having been received by an employee of Vendor X.108 The March 12, 2013, Addendum answered question raised about the RFP by Vendor X, and was signed as having been received by the same employee of Vendor X as the February 22, 2013 Addendum.109 On March 19, 2013, various responses to the RFP were received by the Orange County Department of Public works, including a proposal from a team of architectural and engineering firms which included Vendor X, which was signed by the principal of Vendor X.110 An Ad Hoc Building Committee had been created which consisted of then County Executive Edward Diana (often represented by his Deputy County Executive James ODonnell), five appointed officials of the executive branch and seven legislators, including Legislator A, the Legislative Chairman, and the legislative leaders of each of the political parties represented in the legislature.111 The Ad Hoc Building Committee narrowed the proposals that were to be considered to six, a process termed short-listing. On April 22 and April 29, 2013, representatives of the companies putting forth those six proposals were interviewed by the Ad Hoc Building Committee and a numerical score was given to each proposal.112 Overall the proposal put forth by the team which included

35

Vendor X received a higher numerical score than the five proposals on the short list. Notably, Legislator A assessed a proposal from an architectural firm other than Vendor X higher than what Legislator A scored Vendor Xs proposal.113 On June 3, 2013, the Orange County

Department of Public Works sent a Request for Additional Information [hereinafter RFAI] to all firms which had responded to original RFP. The RFAI asked for proposals to add 20,000 square feet to the Orange County Government Center.114 On June 12, 2013, the team which

included Vendor X sent in a Proposal Supplement in response to the RFAI.115 By letter dated July 1, 2013, the team which included Vendor X was informed that their proposal had been chosen and that Orange County intended to enter into a contract with them to provide the architectural and engineering services for this capital project.116 The Ad Hoc Building Committee, whose members included Legislator A, met with the Vendor X and the other team members to discuss how the Capital Project should proceed on the following dates: July 15, 2013; August 19, 2013; September 9, 2013; September 30, 2013; October 23, 2013; November 13, 2013; and, November 20, 2013.117 The meetings minutes reflect that Legislator A attended all of these meetings and when Legislator A testified before the Grand Jury he testified that he ran several of the meetings.118 Legislator A was also the chairperson of one of the statutory committees involved with this Capital Project. On November 25, 2013, that committee discussed three options for

renovations to the Government Center which had been proposed by Vendor X, which had been designated as options AB, BB and C.119 Legislator A began discussing potential employment with Vendor X in November 2013,120 and on December 5, 2013 sought the advice of Attorney A on potential conflicts of interests caused by Legislator As impending employment121. Notwithstanding his likely pending employment with Vendor X, Legislator A presided over the 36

statutory committee that he was chairperson of on December 9, 2013, and voted on one of the options proposed by Vendor X.122 The minutes of the December 9, 2013 meeting reflect that the principal of Vendor X was in the legislative chamber at the time of the vote, and of the debate preceding the vote. Notwithstanding the above, the Grand Jury did not hear evidence establishing that Vendor X offered Legislator A anything of value in exchange for his votes, nor did Legislator A solicit anything from Vendor X in exchange for his vote. Although one legislator testified that had he known about Legislator As employment with Vendor X, he would have voted against the option Legislator A was advocating, the Grand Jury has determined that would not have changed the final outcome of the legislatures vote. On December 12, 2013, the full legislature met and voted to accept the option which had been selected by the statutory committee of which Legislator A was chairperson.123 The only option voted upon was the one that had been selected by Legislator As statutory committee.124 The plans to rebuild and rehabilitate the Orange County are currently proceeding pursuant to that plan. IV. LEGISLATOR AS EMPLOYMENT WITH VENDOR X

[I]t would not be smart to say Im hiring you to get work with the County. Im not doing that. That is explicitly not what I was doing and I told him. -Principal
of Vendor X 125 The Principal of Vendor X testified that sometime in late October 2013 Vendor X first spoke Legislator A about possible part-time employment with Vendor X.126 The Principal of Vendor X stated that when he was talking casually with Legislator A in the parking lot outside the 911 Center before an Ad Hoc Building Committee meeting. The Principal of Vendor X 37

testified, I became aware that he [Legislator A] was leaving a job he didnt like, going to another position in the first of January and it was going to be in a sales marketing capacity. I had been looking for somebody. It occurred to me and I thought about it and maybe [Legislator A] could be a business development person for us on a part-time basis.127 On November 4, 2013, the Principal of Vendor X had dinner with Legislator A at Cena 2000, a waterfront restaurant in Newburgh.128 At the dinner there no explicit talk of Legislator A possibly being hired by Vendor X, although the principal of Vendor X did mention that his firm was interested in obtaining a contract on an Orange County sewage treatment project in Harriman.129 The Principal of Vendor X stated that he paid for all of the dinners he had with Legislator A and most all of the dinners he had with other elected officials. Vendor X testified that: Q. The dinners you attended or meals you attended, did [Legislator A] pay for them? A. No. Q. Sorry? A. No. did I pay for them or did he pay for them? Q. Who paid for them? A. I paid for them. Q. The dinners or meals you attended with [legislator of a political party other than that of Legislator A], who paid for them? A. I believe I paid for them all. The one at The Bagel Shop he may have. He may have left a tip. But unless somebody makes an issue I usually pay for them.130

In addition to the dinners, the Principal of Vendor X paid for Legislator A, the Principal of

38

Vendor X also responded to Legislator As solicitations for campaign contributions by providing Legislator A with a $330 check for his election committee on August 7, 2013, and $250 dollar check for his election committee on October 21, 2013.131 On November 13, 2013, the Principal of Vendor X again had dinner with Legislator A at Cena 2000. At this dinner there was explicit conversation about Vendor X hiring Legislator A including negotiations over Legislator As salary. The Principal of Vendor X testified that at the dinner on November 13, 2014, Legislator A asked for a salary in the high $50,000 range. The Principal of Vendor X testified that his reaction to Legislator As salary request was as follows: And I recall whenever the conversation saying well I was thinking more something low 50s. and he said okay. You know, later in that conversation he said, you know, I need a car. I said we dont provide cars, we pay mileage. So it ended up being an offer, ultimately the offer I made him for $60,000.132 At the same dinner the Principal of Vendor X spoke of the Harriman Project which Legislator A knew to be a project being done by Orange County Government.133 Legislator A received a draft contract offer from the Principal of Vendor X prior to meeting the Principal of Vendor X at Vendor Xs Newburgh offices on December 4, 2013.134 Legislator A was asked the status of the job offer as of the time he left the December 4, 2013 meeting. Legislator A responded, When I left that office I was assuming that [the Principal of Vendor X] was going to be discussing with his staff what they thought of me and if he should move forward with a formal offer.135 On December 12, 2014, the Principal of Vendor X presented Legislator A with a formal job offer for him to sign and return. The offer was handed to Legislator A at the 911 Center before the meeting where one of the building options for the Government Center was being

39

voted on.

Legislator A advocated for and voted for the selection of that option without
136

disclosing the formal job offer to other legislators.

Legislator A signed the formal job offer as accepted on December 16, 2013.137 The offer letter indicated that Legislator A was being offered a position as a salaried part -time Client Development and Relationship Manager beginning on or about January 20, 2014 with an annual base compensation of $52,000 (without benefits) plus a supplemental prepaid bonus of $8,000 (related to successful client development and maintenance) for a total annual first year compensation of $60,000. After the anniversary of your first year, you will be an at-will employee.138 Neither the draft offer letter, nor the formal offer letter, bear any indication that Legislator As duties do not include trying to procure Orange County projects. Legislator A was asked the following question and gave the following answer: Q. Did you ever have any conversations, prior to February 1, 2014, with [the principal of Vendor X] where it was explicitly discussed that you would not be trying to solicit for [Vendor X] Orange County Government projects? A. Im not sure if it was specific but I do remember somewhere in the timeline speaking to [the principal of Vendor X] about his employee in, in hiring an employee in South Carolina or Georgia where the other offices are who had a municipal, some sort of municipal title so he knew that you have the conflict of interest precautions you need.139

The Principal of Vendor X testified that he had explicit discussion with Legislator A not to solicit Orange County Government business adding, Even if I wanted him [Legislator A] to solicit County business, to do County business, hes a bit naive and maybe not in a genuine positive way. Also Im not, it would not be smart to say Im hiring you to get work with the County. Im not doing that. That is explicitly not what I was doing and I told him.140

40

Vendor X was previously referred to in a report by the New York State Comptroller which had conducted an audit of the Monroe County Water Authority which concerned a retiring executive director who accepted employment with Vendor X. The Principal of Vendor X complained that We were tarred by that investigation.141 Regardless of the merits of that

audit, Vendor Xs negative experience with the audit should have sensitized them to conflict of interest issues. On February 5, 2013, four days after the newspaper article, Legislator A e-mailed his resignation to the Principal of Vendor X.142 Legislator A received various checks which are set forth in the following chart from the account of Vendor X and testified as to the purpose for each check.
143

Date of Check from Vendor X to Legislator A February 4, 2014 February 4, 2014 February 7, 2014 February 7, 2014 February 18, 2014

Amount of check $29.97 $8,259.83 $957.86 $1,090.24 $638.58

Legislator As explanation of Purpose of Check Mileage reimbursement Weekly paycheck as well as severance pay Regular weekly paycheck Regular pay or possibly a correction Reimbursement for lunches and mileage

Legislator A received a total of $10,976.48 in checks from Vendor X.

41

V. ACTUAL NOTICES LEGISLATOR A PROVIDED Although Legislator A never gave written public notice of employment with Vendor X, he did discuss it with numerous legislators, other County officials, and gave actual notice to the Board of Ethics in the request for an advisory opinion and in an Annual Financial Disclosure Form dated January 22, 2014. As stated above, Legislator A was first approached by Principal Vendor X, in November 2013.144 That same month he dined with Vendor X on two occasions and an informal offer of employment was made that same month.145 Legislator A met with Attorney A on December 5, 2013, the day after Legislator A had met with the Principal of Vendor X at Vendor Xs offices in Newburgh in preparation of Legislator As employment. Legislator A requested to meet with Attorney A in private.146 Legislator A advised

Attorney A that he had meet with Vendor X at a fundraiser. Vendor X had approached Legislator A, and stated that he wanted to take him out for dinner. They had dinner together, in late November and Vendor X asked Legislator A if he would like to join his firm. He said the

economy was picking up in the Hudson Valley region and they were looking to hire a sales development person to represent the firm in the Hudson Valley region. He asked the legislator if he was interested in doing that. Vendor X said the position would not involve Orange
147

County. He didnt specify if he meant geographically or the county government. Conversations with Attorney A

I dont know whether its legal or not legal, I dont know whether its ethical or not ethical148 - Attorney A
At their December 5, 2013, meeting Legislator A advised Attorney A that he was considering the job offer. Further, he asked the attorney if there was a conflict and was it legal. 42

Attorney A didnt know whether it was legal or illegal, ethical or unethical but, Even if its ethical theres the appearance of impropriety, and that if someone from the newspaper finds out about this and it hits the press you now have to explain yourself to the public why you took this job and why its not a conflict.149 Legislator A said he understood. Attorney A advised

Legislator A to seek an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics. Legislator A said he would do that. He mentioned that they had already voted on the bond issue and the contract with Vendor X had already been signed. Legislator A said he would seek an opinion from the Board of Ethics. 150 Thereafter, Legislator A prepared a draft letter to the Board of Ethics and mailed or delivered it to Attorney As office requesting that Attorney A review it. In a telephone

conversation Attorney A suggested that Legislator A add a timeline, clarify some of the facts, and clearly request what opinion he was requesting. The letter was placed into evidence before the Grand Jury.151 Attorney A did not advise the legislature of the letter or their conversation

with the legislator, and did not consider the information received to be the requisite notice to the legislature.152 On December 12, 2013, when a vote taken on the architectural options, Attorney A was aware that Legislator A was considering taking a job with the firm who had prepared and presented the options.153 Legislator A testified that when he first notified Attorney A, the attorney stated, Wow thats fantastic.154 The Grand Jury believes that extensive confusion exists over the role of the Counsel for the Legislature. Although the Attorney A was aware of Legislator As job offer, Attorney A did 43

not believe notice to Attorney A was notice to the legislature.

155

Yet the Orange County Charter

Section 2.07 (a) (1) states the Counsel to the Legislature shall with respect to County civil matters: (1) be the sole legal advisor and representative of the County Legislature.156 Six witnesses testified that they believed the Attorney A did not represent individual legislators, and believed conversations with Attorney A were confidential.157 Although one legislator believed that Attorney A did not represent individual legislators, that legislator believed it was ambiguous who Attorney A represented.158 When asked about this issue, the County Attorney testified that in his opinion, Attorney A represents the legislature, but if a question from a legislator is not something that offends the whole body they are entitled to that privilege of confidentiality.159 Where a conflict of interest exists, Well then your responsibility shifts, it shifts to the whole body at that point because your job is to protect the body as a whole, not enable that council member to do something they shouldnt be doing.160 Notice to Specific Legislators Wow, congratulations on your new position.161 - County Legislator Legislator A testified before the Grand Jury that he notified the prior chairman of the legislature of the job offer on December 16, 2014, or December 18, 2014.162 Between

December 16, 2013, and December 20, 2013, Legislator A advises four legislators of his new position with Vendor X,163 and attempts to inform a fifth legislator, who was informed on a later date.164 165 When another legislator learned of Legislator As new position, that legislator texted Legislator A, Wow, congratulations on your new position.166 On December 23, 2013, Legislator A wrote a letter to the Board of Ethics
167

requesting

on opinion regarding the potential for conflicts of interest applicable to future votes and 44

procedures that will involve myself, and be before the Orange County Legislature in 2014.168 Legislator A did not mention that he had been in discussions with Vendor X regarding his employment since the middle to late November 2013, which was followed up by a draft contract on December 4, 2013, and a formal offer being presented to him on December 12, 2013, which he accepted on December 16, 2013. He also failed to mention that he voted in the statutory committee of which he was chairman on December 9, 2013 for the option he was advocating, and voted again in the full legislature for that option on December 12, 2013.169 Although six legislators and Attorney A were aware that Legislator A had a job offer, or had accepted a position with Vendor X, none of them, according to testimony before the Grand Jury, took any steps to make sure that their fellow legislators were aware of this. Significant votes occurred on both December 9, 2013 and December 12, 2013, yet a majority of the legislators were unaware of the conflict of interest. The Grand Jury learned that under the current Orange County Ethics Law, county legislators are not under a duty to inform: the Chairman of the legislature, fellow legislators, the Board of Ethics, or the public. Attorney A believed that Attorney A represented the legislature as an entity and not individual legislators. Attorney A testified that, Legislators may have their own agendas and so I have to represent what the totality of the legislators want for me to do.170 Attorney A took limited steps to ensure that the legislature was aware of the conflict. 171 A governmental attorney with extensive

experience representing State, county and local municipalities, testified as an expert in the field of municipal law and ethics. It was his opinion that Attorney A would have a duty to advise the legislators of the conflict and would not have to keep the information confidential.172

45

Part Time Legislators The Grand Jury has become acutely aware of the problem of part time legislators. In that the position is part time, many legislators need other positions as their main source of income. The problem is exemplified by the difficulties one legislator had attending meetings. That legislator has a leadership position and is also a member of the Ad Hoc Building Committee responsible for picking the architectural plan for the Orange County Government Center. That legislator testified that I did not make a lot of those committee meetings because [my full-time employment] often times those meetings were during a time of day that I couldnt get there.173 The need for additional employment also prompted Legislator A to accept employment with Principal Vendor X. Although the Grand Jury realizes that issues exist when legislators are part-time, the Grand Jury makes no recommendation on this issue. The Grand Jury believes that this is an issue for the citizens of Orange County to decide. Notice to Ethics Board

Apparently the Board had misplaced my letter. Legislator A174

On January 22, 2014, Legislator A filed a Financial Disclosure Form
175

with the Board of

Ethics stating in part that he had accepted a position with Vendor X in December 2013. On February 1, 2014, Legislator A spoke with the Chairperson of the Board of Ethics and advised her of his position and the next day emailed her a copy of his letter to the Board of Ethics.176 Conversations with Executive Branch Members

I didnt think it was a wise thing to do.It could be perceived as a conflict. County
Official to Legislator A.177

46

A County official testified before the Grand Jury that January 21, 2014, Legislator A appeared at a Technical Committee meeting, open to the public, which the County official chaired.178 The County official distinctly recalled the incident because he had never seen a legislator attend one of his meetings.179 At that meeting Legislator A signed in as an Orange

County legislator,180 but handed out business cards, reflecting his employment with Vendor X.181 The County official reflecting upon the incident stated, theres a certain distaste when, you know that kind of thing, I mean here the Legislator, here, I see this Legislator at a meeting thinking oh, its good he wants to learn,but hes really just there hawking business. And hes kind of clueless.182 The Grand Jury also heard from Charles Lee, the Orange County Commission of Public Works, who testified that he spoke with Legislator A on December 16, 2013.183 Legislator A told Mr. Lee that he wanted to work for Vendor X and wanted Mr. Lees opinion of the firm.184 Charles Lee told him, I didnt think it was a wise thing to do.he wouldnt be able to represent his point of view in any of the committees from that date forwardit could be perceived as a conflicthe wouldnt be able to represent himself, his constituency185 Legislator A did not think there was any issue of conflict.
186

Coincidentally, the next day, Mr. Lee spoke with the

Principal for Vendor X. Mr. Lee again mentioned his concerns and the Principal for Vendor X replied there was no ethics problem.187 VI. CONCLUSIONS:

Its Improper. Its Not Criminal

In conclusion, the Grand Jury after hearing testimony from twenty witnesses and examining 117 exhibits, totaling over 5,000 pages, finds that Legislator A did not , as a matter 47

of law, violate the General Municipal Law, but did violate the Orange County Ethics Law, which is a civil violation. The Grand Jury recommends changes on the executive, legislative, and administrative level to insure that conflicts of interest in Orange County Government are prevented. Hopefully, as a result of the Grand Jurys investigation and report, no one will say I dont believe anybody really knows what theyre supposed to be doing.188 The Grand Jury finds that Orange Countys current ethics program is inadequate, outdated, underfunded and largely disregarded. In closing, although the Grand Jury finds fault on the part of the County government it hopes that the public considers this report as an educational and informational tool towards better government. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Orange County Board of Ethics should pursue their investigation into Legislator As actions. The Grand Jury recommends that the County Ethics Board consider sanctions against Legislator A and notes that the maximum allowable fine is $10,000. Ironically, Legislator A, while working for the Principal of Vendor X received salary, lunch and mileage reimbursement, and severance payments in the amount of $10,976.48.189 2. Replace Orange Countys Financial Disclosure Form with a form similar to New York State or Ulster County Disclosure Forms.

The New York State Form causes you to think about where a potential conflict could come up.
190

48

The Grand Jury has examined the Orange County Ethics Law, the Ulster County Ethics Law, and the New York State ethics laws as well as their required disclosure forms. The Grand Jury finds that current Orange County Financial Disclosure Form is ambiguous and requires limited information. Most people who fill out the form are able to complete it in three minutes or less. The County should adopt the New York State/Ulster County form which mandates that significantly more information be disclosed. The Orange County Attorney in describing the Orange County Financial Disclosure Form noted that once you essentially assert that you have no relationship with Orange County other than your job: your spouse or your children, it really, game over, you dont have to do anything more than that. If a filer does not have any of the delineated relationships with Orange County, the form can be filled out in one page. The New York State Annual Financial Disclosure Form asks you to describe a whole series of relationships. And it causes you to think more about where a potential conflict could come up.191 The New York State and Ulster County forms require significantly more detailed information. 3. Prohibit Gifts of an Aggregate Amount of $75 dollars or more in any twelve month consecutive period.

Unless somebody makes an issue I usually pay for them. - Vendor X 192 Im a County employee, Im the County Attorney, people want to buy me lunch, they could buy me lunch for $74.99 a day without violating the gift clause. County Attorney193
Orange County should continue to prohibit all gifts of $75 dollars or more in any twelve month consecutive period. Further the amount of gifts from any one individual, group, or 49

entity, should be considered in an aggregated amount to avoid the scenario wherein one person repeatedly gives gifts or benefits in an amount less than $75. Under the present Orange County Ethics Law, a vendor could buy dinner for an employee in the amount of $74.99 every day and not violate the ethics law.194 The definition of the terms gift and benefit need to more clearly defined. A political contribution is not a gift or benefit.

4. Post the Orange County Disclosure Form on the Orange County Website The Grand Jury has reviewed the posting of the Orange County Ethics Board on the County Website. Initially, they noted that Board defines it mission by stating, The mission of the Orange County Board of Ethics is to follow Local Law No. 1 of 1994. This law established a code of ethics and independent Board of Ethics as well as various regulations providing for disclosure requirements for specific Orange County employees and officials. Unfortunately this information is incorrect and the Boards purpose is mandated by Local Law No. 2 of 1994.195 Although the County ethics law is online, the Annual Financial Disclosure Form is not. This needs to be corrected. It would be beneficial if the Annual Financial Disclosure Form could be filled out online and emailed to the Board of Ethics. This would prevent the controversy that occurred when Legislator A tried to submit his ethics form and it lay dormant for over one month. 5. Provide Advisory Opinions on the Board of Ethics Website.

[I]t helps gives guidance and helps set a standard

196

The Grand Jury believes that the county website should also include publically available advisory opinions on ethics, similar to the opinions of the New York State Attorney General or 50

the Controller. This would provide a county wide reference for employees, vendors with the county, attorneys, and the public, and should include examples of prohibited behavior. 6. Require Prompt Reporting of Ethics Board Opinions. It can take a few months by the time we get it and contact the person and have

them come in. Chairman of Board of Ethics 197

The Grand Jury heard testimony that Legislator A requested an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics on December 23, 2013. To date, there has been no response to Legislator As request for an opinion. It is very important that the Board of Ethics promptly reply to requests for opinions. The Chairperson of the Board of Ethics testified that it can frequently take a few months to issue an opinion. This is due partially to the circumstance that the Board was meeting only once per month. There is also an inherent difficulty since Board members are serving without compensation and have other responsibilities. Since the incident before the Grand Jury occurred, the Board has been meeting twice a month. The Grand Jury believes that an opinion should be issued within ten business days of receiving the request. 7. Increase the Resources of the Board of Ethics.

[T]his year were probably going to be over budget within the first three months. Attorney for Board of Ethics198
Although many legislators and Board of Ethics members believe that the Board has adequate resources, it is apparent to the Grand Jury that the resources of the Board are insufficient. The lack of resources budgeted by the County cripple and render largely ineffective the duties and responsibilities of the volunteer Board of Ethics. The Chairperson testified that during the eight years she has been on the board, they have never issued a subpoena, held a 51

hearing, assessed a fine for failing to disclose a conflict, or referred a case to the District Attorney.199 The Chairperson indicated that after the Board reviews a matter they provide the opinion to the individual and often suggest a course of action. They take no steps to follow up to determine if their advice has been followed.200 The Grand Jury recommends that the Ethics Board strictly enforce the County Ethics Code. The current budget of the board is $10,766 which goes to fees for: an attorney, secretary, office supplies, postage, telephone, copying, and printing. If the County adopts the New York State ethics form, significantly more time would be required by the Board in reviewing them. Another method of providing additional resources to the Ethics Board would be to allow the County Attorneys Office to provide assistance to the Board of Ethics attorney, when so requested. The Grand Jury believes that there should be a mailbox at the Board of Ethics, and the office should be staffed with an individual, on a daily basis, who can answer the phone and accept requests for opinions. Staffing could be accomplished by having a secretary, from the County Attorneys office, available to provide information to the public.201 When appropriate the Board of Ethics should have the ability to consult with the Orange County Human Resources Department. The Grand Jury also recommends that the Board of Ethics be given sufficient resources to have an Hotline and drop-box where members of the public, or County employees can report suspected violations of the ethics law.

52

8. Change the Composition of the Ethics Board.

The whole premise of American Government is to have checks and balances202 Here you got the ethics board dominated by legislative appointments.203
The Grand Jury heard that the Board of Ethics is composed of seven members. That structure is mandated by Local Law No. 2 of 1994. Three members are nominated by the County Executive. No more than two of those can be of the same party. Four members are nominated by the legislature, and no more than three of those can be of the same party. The law would allow five members to be of the same political party. The Grand Jury believes that one branch of government, or one political party, should not be able to determine decisions of the Board. Members of the legislative and executive branch should sit in equal numbers on the Board. Mr. Chapman explained in his experience that tie votes seldom occur. 9. Require Annual Mandatory Ethics Training.

because I dont believe anybody really knows what theyre supposed to be doing.204 County Legislator
Numerous witnesses testified that annual ethics training should be required for all County employees. New employees should be given more than a cursory introduction to ethical issues. One legislator testified that legislators and Orange County employees need ethical

training because I dont believe anybody really knows what theyre supposed to be doing. One appointed official stated that he knew there was an ethics law but I dont believe I have actually read the law.

53

Legislator A, after receiving a formal offer of employment from Vendor X on December 12, 2013, voted on the architectural option before the full legislature. He testified that the reason he did not advise the legislature of the conflict was I didnt know I should. Legislator A testified that he had never heard of Section 800 of the General Municipal Law or the Orange County Ethics Law. I Havent read the law, had no training.205 Ethical issues and the need for training are also relevant to the executive branch. One official testified that his only familiarity

with the Orange County Ethics Law is signing the Annual Financial Disclosure Form each year.206 The Grand Jury heard testimony from Steve Gross, the Commissioner of Human Services. He advised the Grand Jury that one of the duties of his department is to provide training to county employees. The Grand Jury believes that ethics training is important and necessary. If the County enacts an ethics law similar to New York State and significantly

amends the ethics form, as the Grand Jury recommends, more time will be required to fulfill the training function. Further, if online training is pursued, the Department of Human Resources will require additional financial resources to acquire and implement necessary software.207 Tailoring ethics training specific to positions will likely require additional personnel. The mandated training could be performed by the Orange County Department of Human Resources; although they would need additional resources to implement it. The Department of Human Resources should keep records documenting the employees or officials completion of that annual training. Langdon Chapman advised the Grand Jury that this could be

accomplished on-line.208 Ethics training should be specific to the position and responsibilities of the individual employee.209

54

10. Institute Standards for Employees leaving County Employment. The Grand Jury believes that the Orange County Ethics Law must mandate strict standards for employees leaving County employment. First, there should be a prohibition

against elected officials, department heads, higher level and managerial staff from working on projects for which they signed contracts for, developed bid or specs for, or appropriated funds for while in public service, regardless of whether or not employment was discussed with the contractor while in public service. This would permanently ban someone for working on a

project, while representing the County and then shifting to employment with a vendor on a particular project. Further, the Grand Jury finds that County contractors should be prohibited from hiring elected officials and higher level staff for a minimum of two years, from the end of the individuals public service, regardless of the duties of the elected official, department head, higher level, and managerial staff. Further, the Grand Jury believes that the ethics law should be amended to allow the Board of Ethics to hold employees accountable even after they leave public service.210 11. Prohibit Soliciting Employment From County Contractors. The Grand Jury believes that County elected officials, or high level County officials should be prohibited from soliciting employment from County contractors if they have appropriated money for the contractor or are involved in the award of the contract. 12. Require Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest. didnt know that I had to.
211

- Legislator A

The Grand Jury has heard testimony from numerous witnesses, including Attorney A, and both democratic and republican legislators. These individuals stated that they were aware 55

that Legislator A was planning to, or had accepted a job with a County contractor. None of these individuals made a public disclosure, or advised their caucus. Under the current County ethics law they were not required to. The Grand Jury believes that the Ethics Law should

mandate that Legislators and high level officials must publicly report conflicts of interest that they are personally aware of to the Board of Ethics.

13. Contractors Should be subject to the Orange County Ethics Law. Repeatedly witnesses advised the Grand Jury that County contractors should be subject to the same ethics disclosure requirements and filing deadlines as County officials. In the

instant matter, if Vendor X had filed a disclosure form, then legislators would have been made aware of the conflict even in the absence of Legislator As disclosure. Second, certain County Departments are required to have department heads with a certain expertise: the nursing home and the airport. In the absence of a County department head, the position can be filed with a private entity with all the powers of the department head. In the past this has happened both with the County nursing home and the airport. Without a requirement that these individuals be required to file Financial Disclosure Forms and be subject to the Orange County Ethics Law, these vendors could contract with family for supplies, and no one would be aware of it. 14. Clarify who the Counsel for the Legislature Represents.

Where a conflict of interest exists, Well then your responsibility shifts, it shifts to the whole body at that point because your job is to protect the body as a whole, not enable that council member to do something they shouldnt be doing.212
56

After listening to the testimony of: numerous legislators, Attorney A and the Orange County Attorney, the Grand Jury understands that there is confusion over the scope of representation Counsel for the Legislature. Some legislators believed that Attorney A

represents the legislature as an entity. Other legislators believed that Attorney A represents individual legislators as well. The County Attorney believed that the issue is unclear, and the

attorney could represent both parties, although there would be limitations regarding the representation of individual legislators. The County Charter and/or the Administrative Code need to clarify this situation. Counsel for the Legislature, and the legislators themselves, need to know if their conversations with the Counsel for Legislature are not confidential. Additionally, the Grand Jury believes the Legislature should consider having a Majority Counsel and a Minority Counsel available to the respective members. 15. Legislators should not sit on committees that have oversight over departments where their wives or children are employed.

Just on its face, it doesnt sound good.213

Mr. Chapman testified that a current legislator is the chairman of a statutory committee which has oversight over county departments in which his spouse and child are employed. This presents the appearance of a conflict of interest.
214

Legislators should not sit on committees

that have oversight over departments where their wives or children are employed. 16. The Legislature should clarify its own rules as to whether or not it may censure members for misconduct. Grand Jury has heard conflicting testimony about whether the Orange County Legislature has the authority to sanction its own members for misconduct. 57 Some of the

legislators testified that their ability to do so is inherent because what they consider to be similar legislative bodies have done so. Other believe that in the absence of express authority that they have that ability they may not do so. (These legislators quoted Attorney A as having the same opinion.) The Grand Jury believes that the legislature should have the ability to

censure its members for misconduct and believe that this issue should be clarified. The Grand Jury recommends that a copy of this report be made public and copies forwarded to Executive and Legislative branches of Orange County Government.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

58

By letter dated February 7, 2014, Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler requested that the Honorable Alan D. Schienkman, Administrative Judge of the Ninth Judicial District, have a Special Grand Jury empanelled to investigate the subject matter of this Grand Jury report. Subsequently, an Order dated February 24, 2014, which was signed by the Honorable Randall T. Eng, Presiding Justice of the Second Department, and, the Honorable Michael V. Coccoma, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the Courts outside of New York City, authorized the County Court of Orange County to empanel this Grand Jury.
2

The Grand Jury thanks District Attorney Hoovler for addressing the issues pertaining to Orange Countys Ethics Law, and also thanks the Grand Jurys primary legal advisors, Senior Assistant District Attorney Allan Y. Drian and Chief Assistant District Attorney Christopher P. Borek, who conservatively worked at least 300 hours on this investigation. The Grand Jury also thanks Orange County Court Judge Jeffrey G. Berry who empanelled and extended the Grand Jurys term in order to allow it to complete this investigation.
3

The Grand Jurys original term was set to expire on April 11, 2014. Judge Berrys Order of April 4 , 2014 extended the Grand Jurys term to May 16, 2014.
4

Orange Countys Ethics Law generally provides for only civil penalties. The Orange County Ethics Law (Local Law No. 2 of 1994 As Amended) was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 15. Section 7 of that law entitled Penalties states Any officer or employee who knowingly and willfully conducts himself or herself in such a manner that he or she violates the Code of Ethics as described in Section III herein is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars . Section 7 also authorizes the Orange County Board of Ethics, in lieu of a civil penalty to refer violations to an appropriate prosecutor, and upon a conviction but only after such referral the violation of the County Ethics Law is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. In the instant matter there was no such referral and therefore the law does not allow for criminal sanctions. A referral from the Ethics Board is a necessary element of the crime. In the Grand Jurys opinion this is fortunate since the referral would have taken away the Boards power to assess a civil penalty, and for all the reasons stated herein there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Legislator As knowing and willful conduct in a criminal forum, particularly when his conduct falls within statutory exceptions in the General Municipal Law. Moreover, the section of the Ethics Law allowing for referrals to a prosecutor as currently drafted is ambiguous as to whether it is referring to all violations of the code of Ethics or only to A reporting individual who knowingly and willfully fails to file an annual statement of financial disclosure or who knowingly and willfully with intent to deceive makes a false statement or gives information which such individual knows to be false on such statement of financial disclosure filed pursuant to this section That language precedes the section on referrals to prosecutors. Those separately stated violations are similar to crimes under the General Municipal Law and are generally considered more serious than other violations such as misusing the Orange County Seal. There is no allegation that the Legislator that is the subject of this report failed to file, or falsely filed a Financial Disclosure Form. Rather the issue is the legislators failure to report a conflict of interest. The law is also flawed in that, as stated above, Section 7 which delineates Penalties refers to the Code or Ethics as described in Section III. Section 3 of the law provides only definitions, and does not include a definition of the Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics is contained in Section 4.
5

The current County Attorney, Langdon Chapman, testified as an expert in the field of Municipal Law and Ethics. It was his opinion that Legislator A could not have violated General Municipal Law Section 801 which requires that the municipal official, either by himself or as a member of a board, have the ability to negotiate, prepare ,

59

authorize or approve the contract or authorize or approve payment there under , since in Orange County the ability to enter into contracts is reserved to the County Executive. Since an Ad Hoc Building Committee consisting of legislators, including Legislator A, and County appointed officials, was instrumental in selecting vendors for the project and delineating the scope of their work as well as their payment, the Grand Jury believes that Legislator A was at least as a member of a board and therefore did possess enough authority to fall within the strictures of this statute, notwithstanding that his actions, as a matter of law, fall within the exception to the statute found in General Municipal Law 802 (1) (b).
6

The Grand Jurys determination that Legislator As action did not constitute a knowing and willful violation of the General Municipal Law does not preclude a finding that the legislators conduct was knowing and willful under the Orange County Ethics Law. Orange Countys Ethics Law pro hibits more and different conduct than the General Municipal Law does. For instance, not withstanding that Legislator As conduct in not disclosing his employment may, as a matter of law, not be knowing and willful under the General Municipal Law , because he made substantial disclosures to County officials and on his publically filed Annual Financial Disclosure Form, the Board of Ethics may decide that the legislators actions in voting on the project, and in signing into a County run meeting as an Orange County legislator only to hand out Vendor Xs business cards, were knowing and willful, especially in light of evidence that the legislator knew he might have ethical issues as evidence by his request for an opinion from the Board of Ethics as to how his employment with Vendor X would have to curtail future actions as a legislator. Moreover, the standard of proof for a criminal conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt . The Orange County Board of Ethics standard of proof in assessing sanctions is the lesser standard of clear and convincing evidence.
7

The Orange County Charter, which was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 1, was enacted pursuant to Local Law No. 8 of 1968 and approved by the electors of Orange County at the general election held Nov. 5, 1968, to be effective January 1, 1970. The local law was adopted in accordance with Article 4 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of New York State. Thereafter, Local Law No. 10 of 1969 was enacted to include an Administrative Code for Orange County. At the time of its adoption, Orange County had a Board of Supervisors, from all the towns. Thereafter, the County had a charter form of government.
8

The Judicial branch of government consists at the County level of various courts including County Courts, Supreme Courts, Surrogate Courts, Courts of Claim and Family Courts. Orange County is required by statute to provide acceptable facilities to the New York State Office of Court Administration to house these Courts. (In addition, local governments in Orange County provide facilities for City, Town and Village Courts.)
9

The legislatures attorney describes the Legislative Manual, which was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 2, as the bible for the Orange County Legislature. It sets for th the responsibilities and functions of the legislature and provides rules of order for its meetings. It also sets forth the powers and duties of: the Clerk of the Legislature, the chairman, the Majority and Minority Leaders. It also describes the statutory committees and their functions, and describes how committee members are appointed.
10

Mr. Amo is currently the only member of the Independence Party serving in the Legislature.

11

The Counsel for the Legislatures duties are set forth in Orange County Charter Section 2.07 (a) (1) (2) (3).

12

Grand Jury Exhibit 102 is a letter from Orange County Commissioner of Public Works, Charles W. Lee dated July 1, 2013, informing Vendor X that the County intends to enter into a contract with [Vendor X], for

60

Architectural/Engineering Services in connection with the Capital Improvements to Seven (7) County Owned Buildings.
13

The contract between Orange County and Vendor X was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 64.

14

Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, pages 26 through 67. Legislator A testified that he believed this meeting with Attorney A occurred on December 12, 2013. (Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 183). Both witnesses testimony were consistent as to the subject of their conversati on. The Grand Jury credits Attorney As testimony that the conversation took place on December 5, 2013, as that was the day after Legislator A met the Principal of Vendor X at Vendor Xs offices in Newburgh to discuss his employment.
15

Testimony of L. Stephen Brescia, March 28, 2014, page 109. Testimony of L. Stephen Brescia, March 28, 2014, page 110. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 163.

16

17

18

Legislator As 2013 Annual Financial Disclosure Form, which is dated January 22, 2014, was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 35. On that form Legislator A indicated that Legislator A had employment that ended on December 31, 2013, after he accepted a position with Vendor X for 2014. Legislator A also disclosed on the form that, In Decembe r of 2013 I accepted a position as Client Relationship & Development Manager with [Vendor X] with an office in Newburgh, NY. Salary @ $60,000. The company [Vendor X] was the design firm contracted for the Government Center Project in the Spring of 2013, and their contract for this project was authorized at that time in Spring of 13.
19

Although the Orange County Ethics Board is only open four hours a week, Donald Nichol, Esq. the attorney for the Ethics Board noted in his testimony that, Weve had times where people have complained to us cause they wanted to get the ethics forms. As I said, theres usually a rush on ethics form before theduring the election season, let me put it that way, cause people want to see if theres anything they could use on the other candidate. Testimony of Donald G. Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 173.
20

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 164. General Municipal Law Section 800 (4)

21

22

General Municipal Law Section 800 (5) also provides that No person shall be deemed to be an municipal officer or employee solely by reason of being a volunteer fireman or civil defense volunteer, except a fire chief or assistant fire chief.
23

General Municipal Law Section 800 (3)

24

General Municipal Law Section 804 states Any contract willfully entered into by or with a municipality in which there is an interest prohibited by this article shall be null, void and wholly unenforceable.
25

The Principal of Vendor X testified that he first considered soliciting Legislator A for employment in October 2013, but did not mention his intentions to Legislator A at that time. (Testimony of Principal Vendor X, April 11, 2013, page 22). As is more fully discussed below, on November 4 and November 13, 2013, the Principal of Vendor X took Legislator A out to dinner at a waterfront restaurant in Newburgh and discussed his business. Overt

61

discussions of employment, and negotiations of Legislator As salary did not occur until the November 13, 2013, meeting.
26

General Municipal Law Section 802 (1) (b) states, The provisions of section eight hundred one of this chapter shall not apply to [a] contract with a person, firm, corporation or association in which a municipal officer or employee has an interest which is prohibited solely by reason of employment as an officer or employee thereof, if the remuneration of such employment will not be directly affected as a result of such contract and the duties of such employment do not directly involve the procurement, preparation, or performance of any part of the contract.
27

The Grand Jurys attempt to obtain all relevant information on this matter included having the District Attorneys office send two letters to every Orange County legislator, except Legislator A, requesting any information that they had with respect to this matter. Three Republican and three Democratic Party legislators testified before the Grand Jury, including the Chairman of the Legislature, the Republican Majority Leader and the Democratic Minority Leader. No responses to the letters, or testimony before the Grand Jury, controverted the testimony and documentary evidence that showed that Legislator A negotiated and commenced his employment with Vendor X months after the contract with Orange County was executed by all of the parties to the contract.
28

Transcript of March 28, 2014, page 68. Grand Jury Exhibit 21, page 1. Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section B, Local Law No. 4 of 1994. General Municipal Law Section 813 1 (ii) and Section 813 (5).

29

30

31

32

Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section C, Local Law 11 of 1999, 2. Prohibitions Subdivision a (This was not an amendment to the Ethics Law.)
33

Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section D, Local Law 12 of 1999, and Section E, Local Law No. 13 of 1999. (This was not an amendment to the Ethics Law.)
34

Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section F, Local Law No. 7 of 2000. (This was an amendment to the Ethics Law.) Testimony Steve Gross, April 4, 2014, pages 112-113. A copy of Local Law 1 of 1991 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 17. Grand Jury Exhibit 21, Section A Local Law No. 2 of 1994, page 1.

35

36

37

38

A copy of the New York State Financial Disclosure Form was received in evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 42. The most recent version of the Orange County Financial Disclosure From was received into evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 16.
39

Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 24. Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 25.

40

62

41

Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 24. Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 26. Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 27. The law suit was brought by CPLR Article 78 Proceeding Testimony of Michael Donnelly, Esq., March 21, 2014, page 28. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 45.

42

43

44

45

46

47

Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, Page 121. Mr. Nichol also stated that, The Board keeps [the Annual Financial Disclosure Forms] on file. The documents are available to any member of the public who would like to review them. But we do no t permit them to be photocopied of otherwise copied [W]e dont want them to be in essence, you know like campaign literature or those types of things. People are providing, you know, disclosing some personal information among other things. I could tell you that in every fall as election season approached theres a request to review the forms of candidates and indeed candidates are also required to file disclosures.
48

Grand Jury Exhibit 16 is the most recently released Orange county Annual Financial Disclosure Form and the accompanying instructions. That form was due by January 31, 2014 and called for information about events which occurred in 2013.
49

Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 45. Exhibit 16, page 3.

50

51

A copy of the New York State Annual Statement of Financial Disclosure was entered into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 42.
52

Grand Jury Exhibit 42. Testimony of Orange County Legislator, March 28, 2014, page 59.

53

54

Local Law No. 2 of 1994 As Amended, the Current Orange County Local Ethics Law containing all the relevant amendments to the law was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 15. The quoted passage was from Section 5, subdivision 6.
55

The Grand Jury finds, based on the evidence before it, that the formal job offer was handed by the Principal of Vendor X to Legislator A immediately prior to the meeting of the full legislature on December 12, 2013, which was a Friday, and that at that time Legislator A intended on accepting the offer. That finding is based upon the fact that the draft job offer which had been given to Legislator A, and which was the subject of the meeting between Vendor X and Legislator A at a meeting they had in Vendor Xs offices in Newburgh on December 4, 2013, contained essentially the same provisions as the formal offer, and Legislator A signed the offer on December 16, 2013. Therefore Legislator As duty to disclose the offer to the full legislature was triggered prior to vote of the full legislature on the option selected for the Orange County Government Center.

63

56

Testimony of Legislature A, April 11, 2014, pages 193-194.

57

All six legislators who testified before the Grand Jury stated that they knew this building option to have been referred to by the nickname which included Legislator As last nam e.
58 59

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 179. Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 140. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 181. Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 86. Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 85. The original sign-in sheet was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 100. Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 92. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 202-203. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 200-201 Grand Jury Exhibit 3. Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 95. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 40. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 66. Orange County Ethics Law Section 6 (4) (f).

60 61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

Orange County Ethics Law Section 7 provides that, Any officer who knowingly and willfully conducts himself or herself in such a manner that he or she violates the Code of Ethics as described in Section III [Prohibited Conduct] herein is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars.
72

Orange County Ethic Law Section 7 authorizes the Orange County Board of Ethics, in lieu of a civil penalty to refer violations to an appropriate prosecutor, and upon a conviction but only after such referral the violation of the County Ethics Law is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. In the instant matter there was no such referral and therefore the County Law does not allow for criminal sanctions. In the Grand Jurys opinion this is fortun ate since the referral would have taken away the Boards power to assess the civil penalty, and for all the reasons stated herein there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Legislator As knowing and willful conduct in a criminal forum, particularly when his conduct falls within statutory exceptions in the General Municipal Law. However, the standard of proof for the Orange County Board of Ethics is only clear and convincing evidence and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While Legislator As conduct does not constitute a crime under the General Municipal Law, his requests and statements to Attorney A as well as his request for an advisory opinion show that he was aware that his conduct might constitute a conflict of interest and yet he proceeded to act on the contract with Vendor X even in the absence of an opinion from the Board of Ethics. This culminated in his vote in the full legislature on December 12, 2014. In the Grand Jurys opinion the Orange County Board of Ethics sh ould conduct an inquiry and, if appropriate, fine Legislator A.

64

73

Donald Nichols, Esq. who is the current attorney for the Orange County Ethics board testified that he has been working for the board since 1995 and is unaware of any instances where the Board exercised its subpoena power or assessed a penalty. (Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 113.)
74

Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 126. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 41. Mr. Nichols testified that he also charges

75

76

Testimony of Donald Nichols, March 14, 2014, page 110. approximately $200/hour for similar work for villages.
77

The Orange County Board Ethics Budget was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 94. Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 126. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 40. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 55. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 56. Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 168. A copy of that letter was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 3. Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 130. Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, pages 130 and 131. The newspaper article was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 76. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 57. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, pages 57-58. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 60. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11,2014, page 164. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, pages 63-64.

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

A copy of Legislator As letter to the attorney for the Board of Ethics dated February 26, 2014 was received into evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 41.
92

A copy of Legislator Anagnostakiss letter to the Orange County Board of Ethics was received into eviden ce as Exhibit 38.
93

A copy of the Board of Ethics letter to the Orange County Board of Ethics was received into evidence as Exhibit 39.
94

Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 60.

65

95

Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, pages 61-62.

96

Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 62. Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 138.

97

98

Testimony of Donald Nichol, March 14, 2014, page 168. Forensic Study, Grand Jury Exhibit 58, page 3.

99

100

Orange County Charter Article III Section 3.02 (m) gives the County Executive the power to make sign and implement all other contracts of the County within authorized appropriations, except as may otherwise be provided in this Charter or the Administrative Code. Subdivision (l), which immediately pre cedes subdivision (m), pertains to the county Executives powers to approve a system for the procurement of goods and services and contracts for the rental and servicing of equipment for the County. Thus, the contract the County signed with Vendor A is one of the all other contracts referred to in Subdivision (m).
101

Resolution 188 of 2012 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 8. Resolution 343 of 2012 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 10. Resolution 8 of 2013 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 11. Forensic Study, Grand Jury Exhibit 58, page 24. Forensic Study, Grand Jury Exhibit 58, page 3.

102

103

104

105

106

Request for Proposals for Architectural/Engineering Services for Capital Improvement to Seven (7) CountyOwned Buildings was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 47. The other buildings listed in the proposal were: the 1887 Building; the 1841 Courthouse and Annex; the Information and Technology building located at 75 Webster Avenue, Goshen, NY; the Surrogate Court Building; the Department of Social Services Quarry Road Building; and the Board of Elections Building.
107

RFP, Exhibit 47, page 7. RFP Addendum 1 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 48. RFP Addendum 2 was received into evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 51. Vendor Xs Proposal in Response to the RFP was received into evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 53.

108

109

110

111

In 2013 there were more Republican Party members in the legislature than any other party and the Legislative Chairman was of that Party. The Democrat Party had a number of members in the Legislature. The Independence Party had one legislator who was also on the Ad Hoc Building Committee.
112

A Copy of the Rating Sheet reflecting the names and scores given by each member of the Ad Hoc Building Committee during the April 22, 2013 and April 29, 2013 interviews was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 56.

66

113

Grand Jury Exhibit 56. The RFAI was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 59. Vendor Xs Proposal Supplement was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 60.

114

115

116

Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 65. A copy of the Notice of Award was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 102.
117

A copy of the minutes of these Ad Hoc Building Committees meetings of: July 15, 2013; August 19, 2013; September 9, 2013; September 30, 2013; October 23, 2013; and, November 13, 2013 was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 62. Certified records of the legislature, which were admitted into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibits 67 and 96, reflect an additional meeting of the Ad Hoc Building Committee on November 20, 2013.
118

Exhibit 62 and Grand Jury Transcript of April 11, 2014, page 166.

119

The minutes of this meeting were contained within the certified records which had been received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 34.
120

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 168-172. Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, pages 62-67. Minutes of the statutory committee meeting of December 9, 2013, which were contained within Grand Jury 34. Resolution 326 of 2013 which selected the option was received into evidence as Grand jury Exhibit 12.

121

122

123

124

Various legislators including: Honorable Brescia; Honorable Sullivan; Honorable Bonacic; Honorable Berkman; Honorable Turnbull; and Honorable Anagnostakis.
125

Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 50. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 22. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 30.

126

127

128

Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 41; and Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 168.
129

Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 40 -45. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 56.

130

131

Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 19 -21. The August 7, 2013 and October 21, 2013 checks were received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibits 103 and 104 respectively.
132

Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 47. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 173.

133

67

134

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 177. A copy of the draft offer was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 105.
135

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 177.

136

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 180-182. A copy of the formal job offer was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 106.
137

Grand Jury Exhibit 106. Below the signature of the Principal of Vendor X are the words Accepted By: and a line for Legislator As signature and the da te. It appears Legislator A signed the document and dated it December 16, 2013.
138

Grand Jury Exhibit 106 Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 189. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 50. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 63.

139

140

141

142

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 204. A copy of Legislator As resignation letter was received into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 110.
143

A copy of the checks and a copy of Legislator As deposit slips were re ceived into evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 107. Legislator As explanation of each check is contained in Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014 pages 205 208.
144

Testimony of Legislator A, April 11,2014, page 161. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11,2014, pages 161-162, 167, 171-172. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 62-63. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 64-65. Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, page 66. Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, page 66. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 67. Grand Jury Exhibit 3. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, pages 68-72. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 78. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 183. Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, page 67.

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

68

156

Orange County Charter Section 2.07(a)(1) Testimony of Matthew Turnbull, April 11, 2014, page 139. Testimony of Melissa Bonicic, April 4, 2014 page 30. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 227. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 228. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 188, (quoting another legislator). Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 187. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 187. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 187. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 188. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 188. Grand Jury Exhibit 3. Grand Jury Exhibit 3. Grand Jury Exhibit 3. Testimony of Attorney A, March 14, 2014, page 56.

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

Legislator Brescia testified that he was notified by Attorney A that Legislator A had been offered a job with Vendor X. (Testimony of Stephen Brescia, March 28, 2013, page 91).
172

Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 236. Testimony of Orange County Legislator, April 4, 2014, page 17. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 164. Grand Jury Exhibit 35. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 191-192. Testimony Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 136. Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 89. Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, pages 85 and 90. Testimony of County official, April 4, 2013, page 89.

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

69

181

Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 92. Testimony of County official, April 4, 2014, page 95. Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 134. Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 135. Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 136. Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 136. Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014, page 138. Testimony of Roseanne Sullivan, April 4, 2014, page 143. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, pages 206-207. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 221. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 221. Testimony of Principal of Vendor X, April 11, 2014, page 56. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 241. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 241. Local Law No 1 Of 1994 pertains to increasing the compensation for County Coroners. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 240. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 60. Testimony of Donald Nichols, March 14, 2014, page 111. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, pages 50-51. Testimony of Gail Sicina, April 4, 2014, page 52. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 244. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 238. Testimony Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 238. Testimony of Roseanne Sullivan, April 4, 2014, page 143. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 164. Testimony of Charles Lee, March 21, 2014 page 140.

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

70

207

Testimony of County Official, April 4, 2014, page 107. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 249. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, pages 250-251. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 240. Testimony of Legislator A, April 11, 2014, page 180. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 228. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 245. Testimony of Langdon Chapman, April 11, 2014, page 245.

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

71

72