MONTICELLO –– An Executive Committee discussion became heated on Thursday, when Majority Leader Alan Sorensen and Minority Leader Ira Steingart’s participation as members of the yet-to-meet Bed Tax Committee was challenged by some of their peers.

Legislators questioned Sorensen for being the Orange County Planning Commissioner and Steingart for his connection to the Sullivan Catskills Visitors Association (SCVA). The end result was Sorensen chose to recuse himself from the committee, while Steingart refused to step down.

The Bed Tax Committee, which consists of members of the Legislature’s Steering Committee (Chairman Rob Doherty, Vice Chair Michael Brooks, Sorensen and Steingart as majority and minority leaders) and District 2 Legislator Nadia Rajsz (because of her familiarity with the communities along the Delaware River), is in charge of determining the next steps for the County’s new Tourism Sector Enhancement Grant Program. 

The Bed Tax Committee is so named because the grant program’s funds come from lodging room tax revenues, which have significantly increased in recent years.

Doherty said Steingart had approached him about Sorensen being disqualified from the Committee because of a conflict of interest.

“Being the commissioner of planning in Orange County, and we’re deciding where money is going before it’s public, there is a possible conflict between his [Orange County] position and being on the committee determining where the funding is going,” said Steingart. 

“Do you have an exact conflict, or as an employee there is a conflict?” asked Doherty. 

“As a commissioner and his duties there, I believe there is a conflict,” Steingart clarified. 

Rajsz, who was complimentary of Sorensen and said it was not personal, noted that she agreed with Steingart’s assessment.

Sorensen debated

Sorensen, in response, described his duties as Orange County Planning Commissioner, including handling project reviews, sitting on the Orange County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board, serving as the Metropolitan Planning Organization Director for the Orange County Transportation Council (the funding for which Sullivan County is not eligible), and managing Orange County’s environmental, long-range planning, grants and transit units.

“I put all this out there because I will defer to counsel if they see a potential conflict,” said Sorensen, “and I will take their advice.” 

Doherty said he couldn’t see where there was a conflict according to the County’s ethics code.

“If we want to change the rules, that is something totally different,” Doherty added. “But [under] the current rule there is no benefit to Alan or a member of his family from recommendations made to the Committee to distribute bed tax [money].”

Steingart said he wasn’t going to debate it, but if Sorensen stayed on, he was going to reach out to the State for their opinion.

Deputy County Attorney Tom Cawley, who serves as the Legislature’s Parliamentarian, stated that since the Ethics Law is a County local law, he highly doubted any state agency would “put their two cents in” on interpreting the County’s own local law. Cawley reminded legislators that there is a County Ethics Board and if Steingart believes there to be a conflict, the proper mechanism is to present the matter to them, in accordance with the County’s Code of ethics.

Sorensen said he didn’t see a conflict, but he wanted to avoid even the appearance of one. 

“So with that, I choose not to serve on this Bed Tax Committee,” Sorensen said. “The reason I advocated for the Bed Tax to be set aside so that we can do tourism infrastructure improvements throughout the County is to enhance the attractiveness and viability of eco-tourism in Sullivan County. I think that is still a very good use of the funding and will serve this County in the years ahead.”

Sorensen mentioned the rail trails as an example and said he felt sure the Committee will make wise decisions regarding where the funds would be used. He added that he didn’t want his possible involvement in the Bed Tax Committee to “create a stain” on the use of the funds.

Tables turned

The discussion, however, remained on the topic of “even an appearance of conflict.” Doherty shifted the focus to Steingart, who as chair of the Legislature’s Planning, Community Development, Real Property, Capital Planning & Budgeting Committee, sits on the SCVA board. In this capacity, Steingart is an ex-officio, non-voting member.

“As a legislator you sat here, as a member of the SCVA board, and said that they deserve more money,” said Doherty. “Is that correct? You sit on two boards and you want one board to give more money to another board. Is that correct?

“That is correct,” answered Steingart to both questions.

“You have disclosed in the past that your sister’s company does or has done business with the SCVA,” continued Doherty. “Is that correct?” 

“Yes,” said Steingart. “I have no ownership there.”

“Is your sister’s company the same address as Steingart Printing?” asked Doherty. “Does she have an interest in Steingart Printing? Do you use the same workers?”

Steingart once again answered ‘yes’ to those three questions.

“You’re letting one of your partners compete against your company?” Doherty asked.

“You know something … keep on going, I’m not answering your questions,” said Steingart.

“I already know the answer because I got the July 2020 SCVA report,” said Doherty.

“When you brought ethics charges against me, where you stacked people and gave one of those people a job for $60,000?” Steingart retorted. “You want to go there?”

“I did not have a vote on that,” said Doherty. 

“You mean to say you had no influence on that?” said Steingart.

“I had no influence,” said Doherty. “Were you found guilty of ethics charges?

“I know who I am and I know who you are,” said Steingart, “and I’ll leave it at that.” 

“I personally think you should recuse yourself from the [Bed Tax] committee,” concluded Doherty. “Are you going to?”

“No,” replied Steingart, who added that he’d instead step down from the SCVA board, if in fact he is a voting member. (He is not.)

Doherty said if Steingart were to step down from the SCVA board, then he’d have to resign as Planning Committee chair as well.

The two continued to go back and forth, until their peers encouraged them to move on.

Doherty felt the Legislature should take a vote on the matter.

County Attorney Michael McGuire said the arbiter of whether or not there is a conflict is the Ethics Board.

“The individual who is confronted with the potential conflict has the autonomy, as Mr. Sorensen exercised, to recognize the conflict and ask to be recused or recuse themselves from whatever that conduct is,” said McGuire, who added that any of the nine legislators, if they believe someone has not acted appropriately in recusing themselves, could ask for an opinion from the Ethics Board. “And then that opinion is binding on the nine [legislators].”

Vice Chair Brooks said he believed the best place for the debate is the Ethics Board.

Steingart then pointed out that Doherty, as legislative chairman, appointed him to chair the Planning Committee. 

“You knew what my business relationships were,” said Steingart, “so you put me there. Let’s be public about it.” 

“You can resign from that position any day that you want,” said Doherty.

“I’m not resigning,” said Steingart.

Doherty responded that they would then take the matter to the Ethics Board.

“Oh yeah, well who’s going to do it?” asked District 7 Legislator Joe Perrello.

“I’ll do it,” said Doherty. “I did it before and I’ll do it again.”