MONTICELLO –– During a special meeting on Thursday, tensions once again flared between Legislative Chairman Rob Doherty and Minority Leader Ira Steingart.

A few weeks earlier the two exchanged words over whether or not Steingart or Majority Leader Alan Sorensen should recuse themselves from the yet-to-meet Bed Tax Committee. 

Sorensen, of his own volition, chose to recuse himself, while Doherty challenged Steingart’s involvement since, as Planning Committee chair, he sits on the Sullivan Catskills Visitors Association (SCVA) Board as an ex-officio, non-voting member. 

Arguing that’s a conflict of interest, Doherty felt Steingart should recuse himself from the Bed Tax Committee and mentioned possibly taking the matter to the County’s Board of Ethics. During the tense discussion, Doherty also alluded to Steingart having previously been found guilty on ethics charges.

The latest debate occurred as legislators were considering whether or not to appoint Rock Hill resident Len Bernardo and Assistant County Attorney Robert Freehill to the Board of Ethics, which currently has at least two vacancies. At that time, Steingart sought to tell his side of the ethics charges.

Steingart’s side

Steingart called the events of a few weeks prior “upsetting” and a “dog and pony show.” He said eight charges were previously brought against him for making decisions relating to the SCVA and his sister’s company, in which he has no ownership. He said it was determined that he had no financial interest or gains from the relationship and that charge was dismissed. 

Steingart added that he was found guilty of two ethics violations - the first for not listing his sister’s company on the financial disclosure form all legislators submit to the Legislative Clerk, and the second for not disclosing his position during a related vote.

Steingart said the County’s disclosure form does not list siblings and that it was “clear” it didn’t have to be included. As for failing to disclose his position, Steingart felt it was “in a grey area” since it was determined he’d see no financial gains from it. But Steingart said in retrospect, he would have disclosed those details on the vote because it is a better practice and that he’d rather be safe than sorry.

“My attorney advised me that if I would appeal [in a higher court], it certainly would be thrown out,” said Steingart. “He also told me if I did that, it would cost me $100,000.”

He then turned his attention to Doherty, believing as Chairman that he’s “creating a hostile environment.”

“I think some of my peers would agree that I’ve been the voice of reason on this Legislature and tried to work [with] both sides,” said Steingart. “It’s a shame that Rob feels that he has to attack all of us to keep us quiet when we dare bring up something that he may not agree with. I think it’s a shame … and when I see it happen, I’m gonna bring it up every single time, because it’s ridiculous how he strives to push all of us down so he gets his way.” 

Doherty responds

Doherty said he didn’t say he was going to bring ethics charges against Steingart, only that he had done so before and could do it again. 

“Let’s look at actions,” said Doherty. “I did send something to the ethics board and it was an opinion. So you are absolutely incorrect and trying to paint me as the bad guy when you did something wrong … [The County of Sullivan Industrial Development Agency spent] $27,000 defending you, and you were found guilty.” 

“Why don’t we know how much the County is spending on your case?” asked Steingart, referring to a defamation lawsuit filed by District 6 Legislator Luis Alvarez against Doherty.

“$25,000 is the answer,” Doherty retorted, amidst angry shouting by Steingart and Legislator Joe Perrello. 

The resolution

Legislators eventually returned to the resolution relating to the two ethics board appointments. Up until recently, Bernardo and Freehill’s letters of interest were the only ones received by Legislative Clerk AnnMarie Martin since June 2021.

The ethics board, which consists of five members, has two vacancies. However, it will have another once new members are appointed, as Chairman John Konefal’s term has expired. Doherty explained that he has been kept on until a replacement is found.

Steingart said it would be “inappropriate” for Doherty to vote on the resolution after alluding to bringing the new ethics charges against him. Deputy County Attorney Tom Cawley, who serves as Parliamentarian, was asked by Steingart if Doherty should abstain. 

Cawley said it wasn’t his decision to make. Furthermore, he said the only reason for an abstention is if there is a conflict of interest as defined in the ethics law, and that the decision is in the sole discretion of each legislator.

Sorensen suggested that they table the resolution until this Thursday’s full board meeting.

However, after more discussion, Doherty said he’d like to look into abolishing the ethics board, a position Perrello said he agreed with. 

Cawley said he’s researched the matter in the past, and that while the State requires the County to have an ethics law, they’re not required to have a board. 

Doherty asked who then would be the determinant of the law, to which Cawley said there wouldn’t be one and that some counties do it administratively, although most have a board. Cawley offered to put together a legal opinion so the legislators could evaluate their options.

 “So let’s table this,” said Doherty, “[and] then Tom will come back, because I’d rather just get rid of the whole thing.”