Complaint Summaries
The Ethics Board is required to maintain the confidentiality of complaint information, including the identity of complainants and the subjects of complaints. See City Code, Article 8, § 5-9. Accordingly, the complaint summaries below do not contain any information that might reasonably identify the parties involved or the specific facts underlying the complaint. The Board is making these summaries available solely for the purpose of educating public servants and members of the public about the operation and application of the Ethics Law.
Employment After Leaving City Service
- Public Summary 001
The complaint alleged that a former public servant violated the Ethics Law’s restriction on employment after leaving City service by contracting with their former agency to do the same work they had done as a City employee. The investigation revealed that the public servant had formed a private consulting business shortly after leaving City service and, through that business, entered into an agreement with their former agency to undertake the same work they had done as a City employee.
The Ethics Board made a preliminary determination that this scenario constituted a prima facie violation of the Ethics Law’s restriction on employment after City service, which prohibits a former public servant from assisting a party, other than the City, in any City-related matter in which they had significantly participated while a public servant. Here, although the former public servant may have been able to assist the City directly on such matters, e.g., through a personal services contract or the like, they were not permitted to do so through a private consulting business or any other third party.
Because the former public servant had already completed all of the work required under the contract, the Ethics Board required any renewal of the contract or similar future work for the City to be undertaken by the former public servant in their personal capacity and not through a third party.
Gifts
- Public Summary 002
The complaint alleged that two public servants violated the Ethics Law’s gift provisions when one of the public servants accepted a piece of electronic equipment that the other public servant had obtained for free from a vendor. The investigation revealed that the vendor’s agreement with the City did not include this particular piece of equipment.
The Ethics Board made a preliminary determination that this scenario constituted a prima facie violation of the Ethics Law’s gift provisions because the vendor did business with both public servants’ agencies and the particular equipment model was not included in the City’s agreement with the vendor. The fact that the equipment would be used for official City business was immaterial; under the Ethics Law, the intended purpose of a gift is immaterial.
The Ethics Board provided the public servants with an opportunity to cure the violation by returning the equipment to the vendor. The public servants complied and the Ethics Board dismissed the complaint without further proceedings.
- Public Summary 003
The complaint alleged that a public servant improperly solicited a private gift on behalf of a colleague from an individual who does business with the City. Ordinarily, a public servant may not solicit or accept a gift from a “controlled donor,” i.e., a person or entity who does business with or is regulated by the public servant’s agency, or who otherwise could be materially affected by the public servant’s duties.
The investigation revealed that the solicited individual likely did not count as a “controlled donor” relative to the public servant. However, the public servant did use their City email address and title in furtherance of the solicitation. The Board made a preliminary determination that this improper use of official position and resources constituted a prima facie prestige of office violation. Because the public servant had already separated from City service, there was no further action to take and the Board dismissed the complaint.
Prestige of Office
- Public Summary 003
The complaint alleged that a public servant improperly solicited a private gift on behalf of a colleague from an individual who does business with the City. Ordinarily, a public servant may not solicit or accept a gift from a “controlled donor,” i.e., a person or entity who does business with or is regulated by the public servant’s agency, or who otherwise could be materially affected by the public servant’s duties.
The investigation revealed that the solicited individual likely did not count as a “controlled donor” relative to the public servant. However, the public servant did use their City email address and title in furtherance of the solicitation. The Board made a preliminary determination that this improper use of official position and resources constituted a prima facie prestige of office violation. Because the public servant had already separated from City service, there was no further action to take and the Board dismissed the complaint.
- Public Summary 004
The complaint alleged that a public servant improperly used their City position to assist a relative in obtaining a benefit to which they were not entitled. The investigation disclosed that the public servant had indeed used their position to obtain the benefit both for themselves and their family member.
The Ethics Board made a preliminary determination that the public servant’s actions constituted a prima facie violation of the Ethics Law’s prestige of office provision, which prohibits a public servant from using their position for their own private gain or that of another. However, because the public servant had already separated from City service, the Board determined there was no further action it could take and dismissed the complaint.
Conflicts of Interest
- Public Summary 005
The complaint alleged that a public servant had a conflict of interest related to their support for a City matter that benefitted a private entity because the public servant was on the governing board of that entity. The investigation revealed that the public servant was not a member of the relevant entity’s governing board, but was on the board of a separate entity that shared some of the same organizational details and officers.
The Ethics Board made a preliminary determination that there were insufficient grounds to find a prima facie violation of the he Ethics Law’s relevant conflict of interest provision, which prohibits a public servant from participating in a City matter if they sit on the governing board of an entity that is a party to the matter.
However, given the circumstances, the Ethics Board cautioned the public servant about the potential for an appearance of a conflict of interest. Accordingly, the Ethics Board encouraged the public servant to either refrain from participating in any matters involving the entity while sitting on the related entity’s governing board, or to resign from the related entity’s governing board. The public servant took the advice of the Ethics Board and resigned from the related entity’s governing board. The Ethics Board subsequently dismissed the complaint.
- Public Summary 006
The complaint alleged an improper conflict of interest between a public servant’s City job and their membership on the board of an outside entity. The investigation revealed that the entity had an agreement with the public servant’s agency, though the public servant’s City duties did not have anything to do with that agreement.
The Ethics Board made a preliminary determination that the public servant’s membership on the entity’s board was a prima facie violation of the Ethics Law’s relevant conflict of interest provision, which prohibits a public servant from being employed by—including serving on the board of—an entity that has a contract with their agency. The Board determined that, under the circumstances, the agreement between the entity and the public servant’s agency counted as a contract.
Because the public servant was no longer on the entity’s board at the time of the Ethics Board’s decision, the Board determined there was no further action to take a dismissed the complaint after providing the public servant with guidance.
Lobbying
- Public Summary 008
The complaint alleged that a lobbyist who was required to register with the Ethics Board had not timely registered after engaging in legislative lobbying activity. Among other criteria, an individual must register as a legislative lobbyist if they communicate with a public servant for the purpose of influencing any legislative action and earn at least $2,500 in compensation related to that communication.
The Board made a preliminary determination that the lobbyist had failed to register for 14 days after being required to do so, thus constituting a prima facie violation of the Ethics Law’s lobbying registration requirements. The Board explained that it takes the timely registration of lobbyists seriously because it is only through timely registration that the public is adequately informed of lobbying activity in the City.
The Board provided the lobbyist with the opportunity to resolve the violation by paying a late fee of $50 per day, for a total of $750. The lobbyist paid the late fee and the Board dismissed the complaint without further proceedings.
- Public Summary 009
The complaint alleged that an individual was involved in improper lobbying activity. Upon review, the complaint did not raise any new issues beyond those that the Board had already addressed in a previous matter. Namely, the Board had previously charged the individual a $50 per day late fee for failure to timely register as a lobbyist, for a total of $1,750. Because the complaint was moot, there was no further action to take and the Board dismissed the complaint.