No comment... or not
Color me surprised when I read the headline at the top of the local section in today's Daily News: Lawyer: Ethics issue will be addressed. Now that can't be right. That can't be the very same lawyer I telephoned yesterday and asked if he could please comment on that issue, only to be told that no, he could not and would not comment. But lo and behold, there was that very lawyer's name in today's article: George Van Nest, and a quote from him that's almost an inch thick.
I called Van Nest yesterday to ask him a simple question: Why did he request the county board of ethics to look into a potential conflict of interest if it's stated in the policy for that county board that it will not act on an issue for a municipality that already has its own board of ethics? Van Nest said quite flatly that he would not comment on anything related to the county or city ethics boards.
Nevertheless, in today's article by Joanne Beck, he had this to say of the future ruling on City Councilman Bob Bialkowski's potential conflict of interest:
"It will be addressed in due course," Van Nest said Thursday. "I was aware of the process in Article 18, and discussed it with representatives of the county board before (submitting a request for the board to review the issue). The county board may review it but does not have to."
That's a pretty long no comment. When I called Van Nest again today to ask him why he said he would not comment on this issue and then was quoted in the newspaper doing just that, I was transferred to his voice mail. I left a message.
Also, the question still remains: Will the county board of ethics meet to discuss the conflict deemed unethical by the city attorney?
Van Nest was not certain whether the county board would take his request or not. He had not heard anything official as of Thursday, he said. Carolyn Pratt, clerk of the Legislature, said the request could not be discussed in public, per board rules.
What we can tell you is that the City Council released its agenda for its meeting Monday, and included in it is the appointment of five individuals to the city's board of ethics, which, if approved by a majority of council, would constitute a quorum. That would make the request for the county board to meet a moot point.